>>16
My definition of socialism doesn't serve to even slightly demonise it, it is the belief system of half the people in the country. I actually use a definition of socialism that was told to me by a socialist and no socialist I've spoken to has ever disagreed with it, clearly you are not one. You also clearly have no idea what my definition means if you try to say that Hong Kong was socialist, perhaps before you get into arguments about economic systems you should gain the ability to apply concepts to understanding. Obviously every country needs a government in order to stop crime and economic fraud but only a socialist government takes part in the micro-management of the economy, and no the paying of government workers is not a socialist measure nor is it a form of control over the economy, I don't even get where your logic comes from. A government needs basic provisions in order to protect the general peace, but when a government begins redistributing the wealth and offering a number of services on the budget of the people, then these are socialist measures. Not all socialist measures are bad, a capitalist system requires certain measures of socialism in order to preserve the integrity of the Capitalist ideal, a decent capitalist economy will need roads, education, and provisions that are necessary for the people to have equal capacity to the rights of the free market where the market provides no motivation for their creation. However, should a government begin to become involved in affairs that the free market already provides for and naturally does so in a much better fashion, then a government forgets its purpose and uses these socialist measures to become oppressive, at least in my opinion.
Hong Kong was under control of the British until the late 90s, but they didn't take any measures of micro-managing the economy, in fact I'm not sure they even provided them with schools, so, no, Hong Kong was not a socialist country. You stupid fuck.