Venezuela is capitalist

[lefty louie]

I just don't get it when capitalists point to Venezuela as an example of "socialism not working".

Venezuela's economy is over 2/3rds private, the workers don't own the means of production, the oil prices are plumetting (thus Venezuela makes less money), etc.

Venezuela is far from socialism, it is much closer to capitalism, than to any form of socialism.

When the govt. takes over the farms, industry and oil production/distribution, I'd say that's far from capitalism.

 

[Dirt Sands]

Who, Venezuela? I think their oil business IS nationalized and has been for quite some time.
Lemme look it up, I think I am correct on this...

Yes....

The country officially nationalized its oil industry on 1 January 1976 at the site of Zumaque oilwell 1 (Mene Grande), and along with it came the birth of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) which is the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company. ... PDVSA controls activity involving oil and natural gas in Venezuela.

And yes, that IS indeed a socialist concept, at least in MOST cases. I have never argued that VZ isn't socialist, I agree that it is a socialist country, and it definitely ranks as one of the WORST RUN socialist countries at that, because there are plenty of socialist or quasi-socialist countries, and even countries with a hybrid mix of capitalism and socialism which all have very healthy economies.
So that supports one of my original points, namely that it is just as easy to screw up socialism as it is to screw up capitalism, so ANYBODY, liberal or otherwise, who thinks socialism is a magic formula guaranteed to solve problems, is NUTS.
And, reiterating my other big point, I do not think socialism would be a success here in the USA because we've never had any experience with it, so what WE NEED TO DO is FIZ our CAPITALIST system.

We COULD throw in a couple or three MINOR quasi-socialist TWEAKS like we did in the Roosevelt era, but that's about the limit to it.
This country is used to being capitalist, and it's likely going to stay that way, even if socialists magically WON all the future elections for the next forty years.
And that's okay, because what we NEED is competence, not a sudden change to a brand new untested and untried economic system.
That would only send massive shock waves throughout the global economy, and our own here at home, too.

Good analysis. Do you know if Exxon has a stake in there? When I googled it, it gave me information that wasn't specific enough. You said it right. Venezuela is definitely a socialist state.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Good analysis. Do you know if Exxon has a stake in there? When I googled it, it gave me information that wasn't specific enough. You said it right. Venezuela is definitely a socialist state.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

I thought it was CITGO that used to have a deal with them that involved stock.
Been too long, don't remember the details anymore.

 

[maxparrish]

Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand

I suspect you didn't give it much thought to the definition of "a socialist economy" when constructing this list. While a few governments do spend more than than 50 percent of the economic output of production, most do not.

All on the list depend on the private, capitalist market to produce the economic surplus that the governments expand, in most cases with little or no contribution by nationally owned enterprises (except Norway and is oil industry).

A few are even notable for the fact that either their governments spend much LESS than the US as a percentage of GDP (e.g. Ireland) or are regarded as models of capitalist friendly "neo-liberal" economies (e.g. New Zealand).

And none on your list identify themselves as "socialist".

Communism, Marxist Leninism, and various self-described prior and currently active socialist state ideologies (Soviet Union, Red China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc. ) have all shared the radicalized ideologies that have failed.

And Democratic Socialism remains a utopian ideal that has never succeeded without degeneration into ordinary socialist totalitarianism (e.g. Venezuela).

So yes, all "socialist" economies are failures.

However, what has been functional has been the various forms of capitalist economies and private property based systems. Be they called 'social democracies', welfare-states, mixed economies, or welfare capitalism they are ALL rooted in a capitalist economy framework that is drained for the buying pubic goods and providing welfare-state subsidies to individual households - the difference between the US and the Countries on your list are differences in degrees, not of kind.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I suspect you didn't give it much thought to the definition of "a socialist economy" when constructing this list. While a few governments do spend more than than 50 percent of the economic output of production, most do not.

All on the list depend on the private, capitalist market to produce the economic surplus that the governments expand, in most cases with little or no contribution by nationally owned enterprises (except Norway and is oil industry).

A few are even notable for the fact that either their governments spend much LESS than the US as a percentage of GDP (e.g. Ireland) or are regarded as models of capitalist friendly "neo-liberal" economies (e.g. New Zealand).

And none on your list identify themselves as "socialist".

Communism, Marxist Leninism, and various self-described prior and currently active socialist state ideologies (Soviet Union, Red China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, etc. ) have all shared the radicalized ideologies that have failed.

And Democratic Socialism remains a utopian ideal that has never succeeded without degeneration into ordinary socialist totalitarianism (e.g. Venezuela).

So yes, all "socialist" economies are failures.

However, what has been functional has been the various forms of capitalist economies and private property based systems. Be they called 'social democracies', welfare-states, mixed economies, or welfare capitalism they are ALL rooted in a capitalist economy framework that is drained for the buying pubic goods and providing welfare-state subsidies to individual households - the difference between the US and the Countries on your list are differences in degrees, not of kind.

And I suspect you skipped over most of the prior discussion and you're focused on forcing a battle of semantics.
See my thoughts on "purity", then scroll down and follow the discussion, before you accuse me of not giving the matter much thought.
Also, I've been to almost every one of the countries on that list, have you?

 

[maxparrish]

And I suspect you skipped over most of the prior discussion and you're focused on forcing a battle of semantics.
See my thoughts on "purity", then scroll down and follow the discussion, before you accuse me of not giving the matter much thought.
Also, I've been to almost every one of the countries on that list, have you?

I am focused on your specific assertion that the list of nation's you provided are examples of successful "socialist economies". Hence, it necessary for you to provide a commonly understood definition of socialist economic systems AND to demonstrate how all their systems share this characteristic.

You still have not done so, nor did you object to any point or counter-factual that I raised. I am not interested how much (or little) you thought about your pseudo-profundities over avoiding puriety - I am interested in what compels you to think that the countries you are list as socialist economies.

Unless you see "socialism" as just another word for any system dominated by American liberalism and European Social Democrats, then you "meaning" remains opaque.

PS - Of what relevance is a visit to any country on your list? Economic system knowledge is obtained by reading informed literature, not a tour of the Eiffel Tower. However, I confess that I have intensively studied New Zealand's economic and tax system, but is have also spent a few months there confirming what I already knew - there is no doubt that it is pretty well-run capitalist system.

 

[Tigerace117]

And that probably has a lot more to do with the way American foreign policy toward Venezuela affected their country.
If you have studied the history of US relations with Latin American countries, you may notice a few disturbing trends.

And Venezuela having good relations with Cuba STILL doesn't change the fact that they are socialist, not communist.
The two systems are different.
You don't call a tractor a car, even though both have four wheels, a steering wheel, throttle and brakes.

WE have good relations with China, which is also a communist state, even though it runs a command state controlled market economy in mercantilist fashion.
It's still a communist country.

Yes, we all get that people like to use America as an excuse to excuse the support of totalitarian regimes across the planet.

Yes, some think it’s quite disturbing how the US hasn’t just allows Cuban backed terrorist groups to take over various countries.

Venezuelan support for communism—-socialist support for communism—-is a valid factor which must be discussed, whether you like it or not.

China and the US’ relationship is deeply complex, and “good” isn’t really the right word considering how heavily the Chinese launch actions detrimental to the US via cyber warfare and the like.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am focused on your specific assertion that the list of nation's you provided are examples of successful "socialist economies". Hence, it necessary for you to provide a commonly understood definition of socialist economic systems AND to demonstrate how all their systems share this characteristic.

You still have not done so, nor did you object to any point or counter-factual that I raised. I am not interested how much (or little) you thought about your pseudo-profundities over avoiding puriety - I am interested in what compels you to think that the countries you are list as socialist economies.

Unless you see "socialism" as just another word for any system dominated by American liberalism and European Social Democrats, then you "meaning" remains opaque.

PS - Of what relevance is a visit to any country on your list? Economic system knowledge is obtained by reading informed literature, not a tour of the Eiffel Tower. However, I confess that I have intensively studied New Zealand's economic and tax system, but is have also spent a few months there confirming what I already knew - there is no doubt that it is pretty well-run capitalist system.

If you do not understand how obsession with purity in an economic system is detrimental to the health of that system then we have nothing more to talk about because the reason a socialist economy succeeds has a lot to do with avoiding obsession with purity. The reason a capitalist economy succeeds also has a lot to do with avoiding obsession over purity. Alloys make for strong metal blends.

Our own Right wing is so obsessed over removing regulations from our economy because THEY are obsessed with some imaginary danger of OUR economy "becoming socialist" due to a few minor tweaks.

I observed Venezuela's failure, and Cuba's failure as both being partly due to the obsession with ridding both economies of any vestige of Western style capitalism, particularly in the case of Cuba. Again, it is purity that kills. Purity is unsustainable. If you do not understand that, that's not my problem.

The healthy socialist economies are all hybrids. I never once said that they weren't. They do however, carry many of the characteristics of a socialist hybrid economy in that they provide a social contract, they regulate top tier incomes, they regulate profit and they all provide services, to varying extents depending on which country we are discussing, and the US Right wing takes particular delight in deriding all of the above as "socialism", or even "Scandanavian Socialism" or "European Socialism".
Deny all you want, just don't turn on the news or you might hear it a half dozen times in an afternoon.

Our OWN capitalist system was much more successful when he applied our own regulatory and quasi-socialist tweaks. It remained a predominantly capitalist system but the overall health and robustness of the system was due in part to those tweaks. The middle class benefited from them.

You may continue your hair-splitting if you wish.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yes, we all get that people like to use America as an excuse to excuse the support of totalitarian regimes across the planet.

Yes, some think it’s quite disturbing how the US hasn’t just allows Cuban backed terrorist groups to take over various countries.

Venezuelan support for communism—-socialist support for communism—-is a valid factor which must be discussed, whether you like it or not.

China and the US’ relationship is deeply complex, and “good” isn’t really the right word considering how heavily the Chinese launch actions detrimental to the US via cyber warfare and the like.

I agree that Venezuelan socialist support for communism deserves to be discussed but socialism and communism still are not quite the same thing.
Yes, our relationship with China is indeed quite complex, but let's all admit that we do not apply the same hysterics over Chinese communism that we apply to other communist nations which we have on our s*** list.

In other words, their communism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Tigerace117]

I agree that Venezuelan socialist support for communism deserves to be discussed but socialism and communism still are not quite the same thing.
Yes, our relationship with China is indeed quite complex, but let's all admit that we do not apply the same hysterics over Chinese communism that we apply to other communist nations which we have on our s*** list.

In other words, their communism has nothing to do with it.

I never said it was; however, supporting a regime which commits numerous atrocities says a lot about an ideology. That socialists are willing to ignore the crimes various communist regimes have committed does not say good things about the ideology.

As I recall, we were very upset the last time the Chinese had a big crackdown on their own people. Their communism was the driving factor behind said crackdown.

 

[Fenton]

I just don't get it when capitalists point to Venezuela as an example of "socialism not working".

Venezuela's economy is over 2/3rds private, the workers don't own the means of production, the oil prices are plumetting (thus Venezuela makes less money), etc.

Venezuela is far from socialism, it is much closer to capitalism, than to any form of socialism.

Absolute nonsense, and someone even " liked " your post ? Lol ! Jesus H man, do a bit of research, I promise it wont kill you

Venezuella used to be the shining example of a working Socialist society, worshipped by dumbass Hollywood celebrities like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone.

After being elected Chavez almost immediately started Nationalizing major Venezuelan industries including Oil and Gas, Agriculture, Steel, Textiles, Financial services and banks, and petro chem....to name a few.

He also passed laws that redistrubited land and wealth, implemented price controls on private bussinesses, and mandated pay increases for private workers.

Massive Govt corruption and mismanagment led to industries being run into the ground by Venezuella's Socialist and incompetent central planners.

This included manufacturing, which is why Venezuella became do dependent on imports for even basic goods.

When Oil prices dopped, Venezuellan central planners started printing money to offset the loss in revenue.

Its called " Siegnoriage ", if a Govt can print money for less than what the face value of that currency is worth, they earn a profit off the difference.

Problem is NO GOVT IS STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY THIS....exept for Venezualla's Socialist Central planners that is.

That led to runaway inflation, and a worthless bolivar, but wait. Venezuella is still highly dependent on imports

Exporters dont want to be payed with worthless Bolivars, so the Veneuzeulan people suffer and go without basic goods.
Since Socialism is inherently authortarian, theyre stuck with a leader who refuses to step down, refuses to give up power and who blames his Nations woes on the US.

 

[theisthanger556]

Absolute nonsense, and someone even " liked " your post ? Lol ! Jesus H man, do a bit of research, I promise it wont kill you

Venezuella used to be the shining example of a working Socialist society, worshipped by dumbass Hollywood celebrities like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone.

After being elected Chavez almost immediately started Nationalizing major Venezuelan industries including Oil and Gas, Agriculture, Steel, Textiles, Financial services and banks, and petro chem....to name a few.

He also passed laws that redistrubited land and wealth, implemented price controls on private bussinesses, and mandated pay increases for private workers.

Massive Govt corruption and mismanagment led to industries being run into the ground by Venezuella's Socialist and incompetent central planners.

This included manufacturing, which is why Venezuella became do dependent on imports for even basic goods.

When Oil prices dopped, Venezuellan central planners started printing money to offset the loss in revenue.

Its called " Siegnoriage ", if a Govt can print money for less than what the face value of that currency is worth, they earn a profit off the difference.

Problem is NO GOVT IS STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY THIS....exept for Venezualla's Socialist Central planners that is.

That led to runaway inflation, and a worthless bolivar, but wait. Venezuella is still highly dependent on imports

Exporters dont want to be payed with worthless Bolivars, so the Veneuzeulan people suffer and go without basic goods.
Since Socialism is inherently authortarian, theyre stuck with a leader who refuses to step down, refuses to give up power and who blames his Nations woes on the US.

Hah, you, telling me to do some research? Okay, let's get some things straight.

Chavez almost immediately started Nationalizing major Venezuelan industries including Oil and Gas, Agriculture, Steel, Textiles, Financial services and banks, and petro chem....

Under Chavez, the unemployment went from 14.5% to 7.6% (1999-2009), money gained from oil exports increased a huge amount and extreme poverty went from 23.4% to 8.5% (1999-2011).

He also passed laws that redistrubited land and wealth, implemented price controls on private bussinesses, and mandated pay increases for private workers.

You don't support mandated pay increases for private workers? You don't think that Adidas or Apple should pay more to their sweatshop workers?

Massive Govt corruption and mismanagment led to industries being run into the ground by Venezuella's Socialist and incompetent central planners.

This is not an inherent fault of socialism.

Its called " Siegnoriage ", if a Govt can print money for less than what the face value of that currency is worth, they earn a profit off the difference.

I put emphasis on that word "they earn a profit off the difference". Nothing to do with socialism, in fact, that's the polar opposite. People before profits, as they say.

Since Socialism is inherently authortarian

Yeah, no. There is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but both of us know you weren't talking about that. "Seize the means of production" doesn't mean that the government seizes them. It means that the people, the workers seize them.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I never said it was; however, supporting a regime which commits numerous atrocities says a lot about an ideology. That socialists are willing to ignore the crimes various communist regimes have committed does not say good things about the ideology.

As I recall, we were very upset the last time the Chinese had a big crackdown on their own people. Their communism was the driving factor behind said crackdown.

I wouldn't hold that candle too close to the egg on that one if I were you! :fart2:surrender:2rofll:

 

[Tigerace117]

I wouldn't hold that candle too close to the egg on that one if I were you! :fart2:surrender:2rofll:

Yes, I can see why socialists excusing mass atrocities would be very amusing to you.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yes, I can see why socialists excusing mass atrocities would be very amusing to you.

I think you missed what I was pointing at.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

But since this thread has suddenly started pointing at ME, instead of the subject, allow me to clear something up, or at least make one more attempt to clarify what MY views are.
I am not a cheerleader for socialism.
Let me repeat that one more time, so that people will stop making this into an attempt at accusing me of supporting socialism.
I am NOT A CHEERLEADER FOR SOCIALISM.

I thought perhaps my other posts where I mentioned that socialism can fail as easily as capitalism would have done the trick, but I guess some don't read carefully.

I think that Nature gives us all a clue as to how systems can maintain their integrity and stability. Nature mixes disparate sources of genetic information into the gene pool, and more often than not, the resulting hybrid gets a lot of the best from all sources and is healthier, smarter and more resilient as a result.
When the components of the gene pool start to become too much alike, you get birth defects.

I feel that the same is true of economic systems, and also true of a lot of other things, like art, music, literature, cuisine.

I encountered an article which sheds light on something that some of you might find interesting.
I found a lot to like and hopefully some of you will, too.

Systems that Suck Less - Resilience

Here again, there’s good reason for that. In a modern industrial society, after all, the people who control most of the wealth are also the people who exercise disproportionate influence over the political system. The choice between capitalism and socialism thus amounts to asking whether you want the means of production in the hands of corporate bureaucracies owned by the elite class, or political bureaucracies controlled by the elite class. “Meet the new boss,” sang the Who, “same as the old boss.” There are other options, and they begin with getting the means of production into many more hands.

 

[Tigerace117]

I think you missed what I was pointing at.

I think you are ignoring historical fact.

 

[maxparrish]

Hah, you, telling me to do some research? Okay, let's get some things straight.
Under Chavez, the unemployment went from 14.5% to 7.6% (1999-2009), money gained from oil exports increased a huge amount and extreme poverty went from 23.4% to 8.5% (1999-2011). ...

Alas, you did not offer much in the way of "get(ting) some things straight", other than offering us a litany of unsupported denial. Some illumination:

Chavez took power upon the advent of the most recent oil boom, one that was larger than any previous period. Prices sky-rocketed from 40 to 100 dollars a barrel. Naturally the economy improved dramatically. On the other hand, by 2008:

- Official statistics showed no signs of a substantial improvement in the well-being of ordinary Venezuelans.
- The rate of poverty decline was EXACTLY what would have been expected from the oil boom (and in spite of Chavez mismanagement).
- The percentage of underweight babies, increased from 8.4 percent to 9.1 percent.
- The percentage of households without access to running water rose from 7.2 percent to 9.4 percent.
- The percentage of families living in dwellings with earthen floors multiplied almost threefold, from 2.5 percent to 6.8 percent.
- The rate of the decline of infant mortality did not change, nor was it different than that of other Latin American countries.
- By 2007 the frequent scarcities in basic foodstuffs such as milk, beans, and sardines became chronic.
- Annualized inflation rates had risen to 67.7 percent.

It was Chavez and his Bolivarian ideologists that created the foundation for Venezuela's economic disaster. Pursuing wildly expansionary fiscal and economic policies, splurging oil money outstripped the increases oil revenues, managing to run deficits in the midst of an oil boom. By 2008 their government needed to subsidize two-thirds of the cost of imports.


All this can be laid at the door of Chaveznomics - the belief that economic laws do not apply to their populist left delusions. Thousands of businesses shut down or nationalized, the PDVSA oil company taken over by Chavez patonage (and oil production continually falling), and spiraling debt all started under Chavez (and by 2010, with the collapse of oil prices, grew exponentially worse).

So yes, let us "straighten some things out".

 

[Fenton]

Hah, you, telling me to do some research? Okay, let's get some things straight.

Absolutely ! Your'e trying to attribute Venezuela's profound and substantial economic and domestic issues to Capitalism. Its absurd. Im guessing your fairly young, maybe a Bernie Sanders supporter and naive

Under Chavez, the unemployment went from 14.5% to 7.6% (1999-2009), money gained from oil exports increased a huge amount and extreme poverty went from 23.4% to 8.5% (1999-2011).

There was nothing Capitalistic or free market about the implementation Chavez's Socialist and authoritarian agenda. It was the beginning of years of economic mismanagement and corruption that led to the basket case that is Venezuela today. This included the Nationalization of major industries, price controls, wide-ranging subsidies, and general opposition to the market economy. Idiot Socialist central planners decided to base their economy on a volatile commodity, and it had predictable results. They used oil revenues to spend heavily on social programs and instituted price controls on private sector companies and businesses. Venezuela's economic sectors and industries not tied to oil and gas were mismanaged and neglected by the Venezuelan central planners, which left the Govt entirely dependent on Oil revenues so when oil revenues fell, the Govt was left with no other option but to try and print the revenue they needed to fund their expensive social programs.

Chavez's Socialist agenda and the disastrous consequences that followed represents one of the most prominent examples of the failure of Socialist / Left wing policies in History. ( And yet Bernie Sanders has millions of supporters ) Attributing any of it to " Capitalism " is not only dishonest its laughable on its face . When Oil prices were up, the Nation was awash with money, and there's nothing inherently wrong with a economy thats oil driven. Saudi Arabia's economy is built on Oil, but the Saudi Government was smart enough to build up massive cash reserves to make up for the lack of revenues that accompanies a eventual drop in oil prices.
But the Venezuelan Socialist central planners didn't. They kept spending on social programs, and practically gave the oil away to their people, which meant not earning a profit

You don't support mandated pay increases for private workers? You don't think that Adidas or Apple should pay more to their sweatshop workers?

Newp, I support Capitalism, free markets and loathe the Left wing agenda in general. What good is a Govt mandated pay increase when the currency is worthless ?

Venezuela jacks up minimum wage for third time this year
Venezuela jacks up minimum wage for third time this year - Jul. 2, 2017

This is not an inherent fault of socialism.

Socialism inherent fault lies in its authoritarian underpinnings. Oddly its being pushed in the US as " progress ", as revolutionary and oddly enough people are naive enough to buy into these talking points. Its actually regressive, and archaic compared to a truly revolutionary system based off of a Constitution that limits Govt power and authority that emphasis the rights of the individual over the needs of the collective

I put emphasis on that word "they earn a profit off the difference". Nothing to do with socialism, in fact, that's the polar opposite. People before profits, as they say.

Huh ? Venezuela's decision to start printing money to offset the falling oil revenues has EVERYTHING to do with a Govt run economy driven into the ground by idiot Socialist central planners

Yeah, no. There is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but both of us know you weren't talking about that. "Seize the means of production" doesn't mean that the government seizes them. It means that the people, the workers seize them.

Nonsense. Socialist Countries aren't run by the workers, by the people. They're run and typically mismanaged by bloated and inherently authoritarian Govt's, like Venezuela's Govt and President who refuses to step down and continues to blame the US for Venezuela's problems.

 

[theisthanger556]

Absolutely ! Your'e trying to attribute Venezuela's profound and substantial economic and domestic issues to Capitalism. Its absurd. Im guessing your fairly young, maybe a Bernie Sanders supporter and naive




There was nothing Capitalistic or free market about the implementation Chavez's Socialist and authoritarian agenda. It was the beginning of years of economic mismanagement and corruption that led to the basket case that is Venezuela today. This included the Nationalization of major industries, price controls, wide-ranging subsidies, and general opposition to the market economy. Idiot Socialist central planners decided to base their economy on a volatile commodity, and it had predictable results. They used oil revenues to spend heavily on social programs and instituted price controls on private sector companies and businesses. Venezuela's economic sectors and industries not tied to oil and gas were mismanaged and neglected by the Venezuelan central planners, which left the Govt entirely dependent on Oil revenues so when oil revenues fell, the Govt was left with no other option but to try and print the revenue they needed to fund their expensive social programs.

Chavez's Socialist agenda and the disastrous consequences that followed represents one of the most prominent examples of the failure of Socialist / Left wing policies in History. ( And yet Bernie Sanders has millions of supporters ) Attributing any of it to " Capitalism " is not only dishonest its laughable on its face . When Oil prices were up, the Nation was awash with money, and there's nothing inherently wrong with a economy thats oil driven. Saudi Arabia's economy is built on Oil, but the Saudi Government was smart enough to build up massive cash reserves to make up for the lack of revenues that accompanies a eventual drop in oil prices.
But the Venezuelan Socialist central planners didn't. They kept spending on social programs, and practically gave the oil away to their people, which meant not earning a profit



Newp, I support Capitalism, free markets and loathe the Left wing agenda in general. What good is a Govt mandated pay increase when the currency is worthless ?

Venezuela jacks up minimum wage for third time this year
Venezuela jacks up minimum wage for third time this year - Jul. 2, 2017




Socialism inherent fault lies in its authoritarian underpinnings. Oddly its being pushed in the US as " progress ", as revolutionary and oddly enough people are naive enough to buy into these talking points. Its actually regressive, and archaic compared to a truly revolutionary system based off of a Constitution that limits Govt power and authority that emphasis the rights of the individual over the needs of the collective



Huh ? Venezuela's decision to start printing money to offset the falling oil revenues has EVERYTHING to do with a Govt run economy driven into the ground by idiot Socialist central planners




Nonsense. Socialist Countries aren't run by the workers, by the people. They're run and typically mismanaged by bloated and inherently authoritarian Govt's, like Venezuela's Govt and President who refuses to step down and continues to blame the US for Venezuela's problems.

Absolutely ! Your'e trying to attribute Venezuela's profound and substantial economic and domestic issues to Capitalism. Its absurd. Im guessing your fairly young, maybe a Bernie Sanders supporter and naive

No, no, no, no, I did not. I said that Venezuela is capitalist, not socialist, I didn't blame Venezuela's situation on capitalism. And your guesses aren't accurate.

Nonsense. Socialist Countries aren't run by the workers, by the people. They're run and typically mismanaged by bloated and inherently authoritarian Govt's, like Venezuela's Govt and President who refuses to step down and continues to blame the US for Venezuela's problems.

Cool. A nation that's run by the people? Not socialist. The "socialist countries" you talk about, aren't socialist. Yes, socialism has government. But the core of that ideology is that the means of production belong to the workers. Not to capitalists, not to the govt.


Venezuela was partly ruined by it's pro-socialist government, yes. But just because the government wants to impliment a this kind of system, they don't necessarily succeed. The government doesn't care about the people, they will only say "capitalism is bad. I will fix this. Elect me." Their primary intrest is still their own power.

 

[ksu_aviator]

This picture has no relevance.

Socialism has never been implimented. It may have been tried, but never implimented (in modern history, on a larger scale).

That picture's capitalist variant would be a lot more accurate.

Capitalism happens -> People suffer -> "But that was crony capitalism/corporatism" -> Repeat.

USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba...the list goes on. Socialism has never succeeded in anything other than death. More people have died as attributable to Socialism/communism than the holocaust.