theisthanger556
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2017
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 20
- Location
- Finland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Every county is a mixture to one degree or another of capitalism and socialist or statism. What caused the current collapse in Venezuela is NOT capitalism, but Chavez's foray into socialism. There is really no one who disputes that. Except maybe you.
You take Merriam-Webster over Wikipedia? Why? And please do not say something like "Anyone can edit Wikipedia".
Do you even know anything about Socialism? The whole purpose of socialism is that "capitalist is exploitative as the workers do not get the fruits of their labour, and instead their productions go to the capitalists, the bourgeois, who extract surplus value from the workers". If socialism really would be "government control over the MOP", that wouldn't be any better, as the workers still wouldn't own the MOP.
LOL!!
Sorry...but "anyone can edit Wiki". Not so with Merriam-Webster.
In any case, remember what I said about varying degrees. You may want to stay in the world of "classic socialism", but the world won't stay with you.
We have all seen examples of both capitalism and socialism which are for the most part, successful.
I'll wait till someone smarter than myself (and there are many I am sure) can point to a moderately successful fascist nation.
My point is, you can't blame either capitalism or socialism as the sole/exclusive cause of Venezuela's problems.
It's a gross oversimplification, just for starters.
For the record, socialism has only ever failed when it has not been socialist enough. All attempts at the dictatorship of the proletariat or "socialism in one country" have failed because capitalist relations of production have been maintained. People like Chavez, Castro and Ziyang didn't go far enough, that's why Venezuela, Cuba and China now have state capitalist systems. The Chinese called it the "socialist market economy" but really all that is code for is state controlled capitalism. You can't have socialism and market forces. That's a contradiction in terms.
But it seems audacious to me that people can mock socialism like this while also defending a system of economics as dysfunctional and inefficient as capitalism.
1) Do you understand that you confirmed what you quoted?
2) By posting it, I didn't "defend" anything.
3) I'm guessing you're not particularly serious anyway.
Sure, but I was under the impression you were making fun of that position.
It says you lean to the libertarian right, so unless that means something else other than a defence of capitalism I'm fairly sure that's the reason you posted the picture.
Why would I not be serious?
I don't know why you would think that.
What matters is what I actually say, not your assumptions based on your perception of my "lean."
Why, indeed.
Because you consider yourself on the libertarian right, which is traditionally antithetical to socialism...
Well presumably you wouldn't have put your leaning as such if you didn't lean that way. My apologies if I'm wrong, but I have the terrible habit of believing what people say when they say it.
...You're being weird.
If I was mocking anything, it was the "argument" depicted in the cartoon, an "argument" you expressed yourself.
I "said" nothing about capitalism. Deal with my posts, not your "presumptions."
No, I just suspect you may not be serious.
Yeah, as I suspected. But why are you mocking this argument? The assumption is that if something is socialist enough then it would have succeeded, but since it wasn't socialist enough it didn't. So I don't really understand what the point of what you're saying is.
I'm not really sure you're in a position to tell me how to engage with people on the forum.
If you describe yourself as leaning towards the libertarian right then I am going to presume that is where you lean.
The reason I mock it is self-evident.
But, going under the (somewhat dubious) assumption that your own information is true, and you really have only been here since last week, I do think I have a much, much, much better handle on how to read things like leans here at this forum. Given the chasm between us in relative experience here, how could I not?
Which doesn't mean I said anything about "capitalism," defending it or otherwise, as you claimed I did.
No. Sorry, you don't get out of this by telling me I should immediately understand you, especially since you're whole thing is about me not making assumptions about what you mean.
You're mocking socialism for the argument that socialism failed because it wasn't real socialism, but that's true. You accepted it's true by affirming that what I said was in line with your mocking. So, either you accept that socialism's failures have been because they have not been socialist enough, in which case the picture is just affirming a fact, or you claim that socialism has failed for another reason, which aren't at all obvious. What is it?
If you want to discuss why you think socialism has failed, then let's talk about it.
You're right, you do have a better handle on this forum if on this forum how people describe their political leanings is not in fact how they lean politically. But even if you're trying to say that the way you've described your political leanings are not really the sum of your entire political perspective, I struggle to see how someone who leans towards the libertarian right could also lean towards a set of political beliefs that did not come to capitalism's defence simultaneously.
Anyway, I'm not going to get bogged down in this nonsense. You should just address the political substance of this conversation.
Namely that socialism has failed only because it was not socialist enough.
You're right, you didn't say it, but to try and pretend that's not what you're doing is just dishonest.
No, I'm mocking the very real practice of those who claim it wasn't "real socialism" whenever socialism collapses.
Then that is a serious gap in your reasoning skills that you ought to address. :shrug:
No, that's your claim. Don't mistake that for the "political substance of this conversation."
No, what's dishonest is assigning statements to me that I did not make. If you infer that mocking the like-clockwork practice of claiming that failed socialism wasn't "real socialism" automatically means some kind of "defense of capitalism," however you might come to that conclusion, well, see above about your lapses in critical thinking. That is your error, not mine.
But actually if you look at the swathes of work written on these subjects by socialists you'll see that people say that it isn't "real socialism" long before they collapse.
I don't think my reasoning skills are the problem here. Either you don't know what the libertarian right advocates or you're lying.
Of course it's my claim! I'm asking you to explain to me why it's not true. It either is or it isn't true. Which is it?
The idea that you posted the picture without coming from a position of pro-capitalism is just ridiculous. It doesn't add up that you can lean to the libertarian right and not be criticising socialism from the position of being pro-capitalist. This isn't an error in my critical thinking, I'm just not buying into your equivocation, masquerading as some kind of undoing of a logical fallacy on my part. You are either lying about not coming from a position of pro-capitalism, you are confused about what the libertarian right is or you're pretending you lean towards the libertarian-right. I'm afraid you can't lean to the libertarian right and also not be pro-capitalist.
Never while they appear to be doing well.
If you can't figure out what your logical error is after having it explained to you numerous times, there's no point in repeating it. Whether your cognitive errors are fixable is something only you can reveal.
All that demonstrates is that you don't know what you're talking about.
There was a huge amount of critiques written about Soviet Russia from as soon as the Petrograd coup happened, right up until Stalin's seizure of power and beyond. The same for China and for the state capitalist countries in South East Asia and Latin America. A cursory google search would demonstrate this.
And to be honest, what period of the existence of a "socialist" nation was ever doing well?
All you've said is that I shouldn't presume that someone thinks something just because it says so in their profile. That's it. Well, sorry mate, but no. I am going to presume that. So like say, either you're lying, confused or you're pretending. Not that I expect you to admit to it. So, whatever.
Every communist country...
...which has ever existed has contributed nothing but mass slaughter buddy.
Every single time communists have taken power there have been the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
And there have always been plenty of people supporting such brutal regimes and doing everything up to and including genocide denial.
Venzuela is what happens when you allow the Government to take your guns and freedoms away and become the Democratic Party. They choose what the people can and cannot do.
As a matter of fact when Venuezuelans were protesting the Government said stop or we wont give you any food! Thats not Capitalism
All that demonstrates is that you don't know what you're talking about.
There was a huge amount of critiques written about Soviet Russia from as soon as the Petrograd coup happened, right up until Stalin's seizure of power and beyond. The same for China and for the state capitalist countries in South East Asia and Latin America. A cursory google search would demonstrate this.
And to be honest, what period of the existence of a "socialist" nation was ever doing well?
All you've said is that I shouldn't presume that someone thinks something just because it says so in their profile. That's it.
Well, sorry mate, but no. I am going to presume that. So like say, either you're lying, confused or you're pretending. Not that I expect you to admit to it. So, whatever.
It is difficult to ascertain your actual argument. Were they socialist nations or not? If not, then why are you invoking them? I didn't mention them. Also, do you argue that none of these nations ever did well?
No, that, in fact, is not "all" I said. Your reading skills appear to be on par with your critical thinking. Which, I'm sure, goes hand-in-hand.
Utter piffle.
Communism isn't a political system, nor is it a state in which a country exists. It's a social relationship.
If you want to go tit-for-tat on body count, let's talk about capitalism's atrocities because I guarantee it's going to be more.
In any case, communism has never existed anywhere.
Thousands of innocent people die on a daily basis because of capitalism's barbarity, so what is this conversation about? If it's about them morality of political systems, then capitalism has way more to answer for. The UN estimates 1 in 9 people in the world are undernourished, many of whom die as a result of starvation, in world over-abundant with food.
But yes, I agree, the manner in which communists have seized state power has often been brutal. My personal position on that would be dependent on the actual facts presented.
I don't know what genocides you're referring to, but the mass executions of workers has been something inherent in authoritarian political systems throughout history, including those done in the name of so-called communism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?