Venezuela Reaches the Final Stage of Socialism: No Toilet Paper

[88m3]

Fascism can occur under both socialism, non "socialist socialism" and capitalism

I don't think anybody denies that corporatism is a problem and danger of capitalism

Capitalism isn't a system of government, friend.

 

[CHL]

Fascism can occur under both socialism, non "socialist socialism" and capitalism

I don't think anybody denies that corporatism is a problem and danger of capitalism

lol wut?

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

Explain to us what they have?

You tell me... I don't care about Venezuelan politics. You tell us what's up with Venezuela since you seem to be the most educated lad on the subject....

 

[CHL]

You tell me... I don't care about Venezuelan politics. You tell us what's up with Venezuela since you seem to be the most educated lad on the subject....

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

What is up with up with VZ?

 

[theworldismine13]

lol wut?

If anybody denies the danger of corporatism or crony capitalism that can occur under capitalism they are wrong

But the bottom line is that dealing with excess money>>>dealing with no toilet paper

 

[Tate]

And so are lies, what's your point?

Objectively, socialism as described by Karl Marx hasn't occurred on a large scale. Now if you want you can argue that socialism is an impossibility, but it's pretty anti-intellectual to say everyone is just lying about countries not being socialist when it's objectively true.

I'll restate this because it seems to have been skipped over earlier in this thread; the private sector controls a larger percentage of the Venezuelan economy now than when Chavez came to power.

Fascism can occur under both socialism, non "socialist socialism" and capitalism

I don't think anybody denies that corporatism is a problem and danger of capitalism

This is a misconception. Fascism isn't corporatism, that's a false quote attributed to Mussolini. Corporatism is kind of a nonsense word really.

Fascism is basically a war time capitalist economy; where the state is an important economic player but the means of production are still owned and operated by a private, capitalist class. And frankly talking about economics when we are talking about fascism is missing the forest for the trees. Fascism is about taking the insecurities of a middle class and focusing that into hatred for an "other."

It's not an easily placed ideology on a spectrum because while the state is a crucial economic player, it doesn't involve itself in the economy for equality's sake. Equality(of opportunity/results/resources,etc) is an underlying goal of all the classical and modern left; from classical liberals to communists and anarchists. So while fascism can be mechanically a moderate or even left Keynesian economy, it's a mistake to place them amongst basically anyone in mainstream political life.

 

[theworldismine13]

Objectively, socialism as described by Karl Marx hasn't occurred on a large scale. Now if you want you can argue that socialism is an impossibility, but it's pretty anti-intellectual to say everyone is just lying about countries not being socialist when it's objectively true.

then it seems your problem isnt with me, i think your problem is with the dozens and dozens of political leaders from lenin to mao to chavez who have described themselves as socialist and marxist

of course there isnt any country that is purely socialist just like there isnt any country that is purely capitalist....i thought that was understood

i was presuming that when we describe countries as socialist or capitalist we referring to the general trends and direction of the country

but if you want to discuss pure socialism vs pure capitalism, what is the point of discussion since neither exist?

in other words, lets say we all agree that there has never been a socialist country......what is your point beyond that?

I'll restate this because it seems to have been skipped over earlier in this thread; the private sector controls a larger percentage of the Venezuelan economy now than when Chavez came to power.

stop it slime

price controls, currency controls and government appropriation of business have increased under chavez and it was all done in the name of socialism

so again your beef is with people like chavez supposedly misusing the world socialism

This is a misconception. Fascism isn't corporatism, that's a false quote attributed to Mussolini. Corporatism is kind of a nonsense word really.

i didnt say corporatism was fascism, and corporatism isnt a silly word, its just another way of saying crony capitalism

and crony capitalism is a one of the flaws of capitalism

Fascism is basically a war time capitalist economy; where the state is an important economic player but the means of production are still owned and operated by a private, capitalist class. And frankly talking about economics when we are talking about fascism is missing the forest for the trees. Fascism is about taking the insecurities of a middle class and focusing that into hatred for an "other."

It's not an easily placed ideology on a spectrum because while the state is a crucial economic player, it doesn't involve itself in the economy for equality's sake. Equality(of opportunity/results/resources,etc) is an underlying goal of all the classical and modern left; from classical liberals to communists and anarchists. So while fascism can be mechanically a moderate or even left Keynesian economy, it's a mistake to place them amongst basically anyone in mainstream political life.

i didnt bring up the word fascism, it was darth, so you can refer your lecture to him

you can define fascism anyway you want, im defining fascism as extreme government control and extreme nationalism and that can happen under any economic system

the only thing that prevents fascism is a deep societal commitment to individual freedom and economic freedom

 

[Tate]

then it seems your problem isnt with me, i think your problem is with the dozens and dozens of political leaders from lenin to mao to chavez who have described themselves as socialist and marxist

of course there isnt any country that is purely socialist just like there isnt any country that is purely capitalist....i thought that was understood

i was presuming that when we describe countries as socialist or capitalist we referring to the general trends and direction of the country

but if you want to discuss pure socialism vs pure capitalism, what is the point of discussion since neither exist?

in other words, lets say we all agree that there has never been a socialist country......what is your point beyond that?


stop it slime

price controls, currency controls and government appropriation of business have increased under chavez and it was all done in the name of socialism

so again your beef is with people like chavez supposedly misusing the world socialism



i didnt say corporatism was fascism, and corporatism isnt a silly word, its just another way of saying crony capitalism

and crony capitalism is a one of the flaws of capitalism



i didnt bring up the word fascism, it was darth, so you can refer your lecture to him

you can define fascism anyway you want, im defining fascism as extreme government control and extreme nationalism and that can happen under any economic system

the only thing that prevents fascism is a deep societal commitment to individual freedom and economic freedom

Tony Blair also called himself a socialist. As do the leaders of China. Calling yourself a Marxist or a communist or a socialist doesn't make it so.

And yes, Chavez did institute socialistic systems. But he did so while maintaining a private market with no stated plan to socialize that market. That's called being a social democrat, admittedly a left social democrat.

Crony capitalism is a silly word as well; that's capitalism's logical conclusion. Markets shape government, markets like governments. A true free market would be hell on earth. Most business leaders know this, it's why libertarianism isn't a bigger strain in US politics.

 

[theworldismine13]

Tony Blair also called himself a socialist.

this is the tony blair quote

So here is Tony Blair the socialist, as he prepared to rewrite Clause Four of the Labour Party in 1994:


The socialism of Marx, of centralised state control of industry and production, is dead. It misunderstood the nature and development of a modern market economy; it failed to recognise that state and public sector can become a vested interest capable of oppression as much as the vested interests of wealth and capital; and it was based on a false view of class that became too rigid to explain or illuminate the nature of class division today.

By contrast, socialism as defined by certain key values and beliefs is not merely alive, it has a historic opportunity now to give leadership. The basis of such socialism lies in its view that individuals are socially interdependent human beings - that individuals cannot be divorced from the society to which they belong. It is, if you will, social-ism.

he called himself a social-list ie some gibberish that nobody can disagree with

As do the leaders of China.

no they dont, mao called himself a marxist and communist and he implemented his version of a marxist economy

the leaders that came after him deliberately turned away from a marxist economy

Calling yourself a Marxist or a communist or a socialist doesn't make it so.

so in other words there doesn't exist a marxist, communist or socialist leader in the planet, if there is can you tell me who is?

And yes, Chavez did institute socialistic systems. But he did so while maintaining a private market with no stated plan to socialize that market. That's called being a social democrat, admittedly a left social democrat.

ok, sure, so whats your point? that "social democratism" is bad?

Crony capitalism is a silly word as well; that's capitalism's logical conclusion. Markets shape government, markets like governments. A true free market would be hell on earth. Most business leaders know this, it's why libertarianism isn't a bigger strain in US politics.

i actually agree, capitalism without regulation leads to hell on earth, that is the weakness of capitalism, but socialism isnt the answer to the negative side of capitalism, a societal commitment to individual freedom is what balances capitalism

 

[Tate]

this is the tony blair quote



he called himself a social-list ie some gibberish that nobody can disagree with




no they dont, mao called himself a marxist and communist and he implemented his version of a marxist economy

the leaders that came after him deliberately turned away from a marxist economy



so in other words there doesn't exist a marxist, communist or socialist leader in the planet, if there is can you tell me who is?


ok, sure, so whats your point? that "social democratism" is bad?



i actually agree, capitalism without regulation leads to hell on earth, that is the weakness of capitalism, but socialism isnt the answer to the negative side of capitalism, a societal commitment to individual freedom is what balances capitalism

Socialist is a nebulous term in most places. That's my point. You can get liberals like Blair who claim to favor some form of socialism and borderline psychopaths like Mao and Pol Pot who do the same with Marxism. Just like you can get people who advocate for small government and want to restrict abortions and weed and invade foreign countries.

Idk if there are any large scale socialist leaders in the world. There are a few very impressive anarchist movements and several presumably earnest leaders of communist and socialist parties. Ideally socialist movements don't need real leadership, the ultimate popular movement.

No, Chavez did some great things for poor people all over the continent, even in America. However he failed to diversify the Venezuelan economy or do away with the endemic corruption traditionally within Venezuelan politics. If he hadn't had foreign governments subverting him every step of the way he could have done much more.

Good to find common ground, I suspect we differ on the definition of freedom though

 

[theworldismine13]

Socialist is a nebulous term in most places. That's my point. You can get liberals like Blair who claim to favor some form of socialism and borderline psychopaths like Mao and Pol Pot who do the same with Marxism. Just like you can get people who advocate for small government and want to restrict abortions and weed and invade foreign countries.


No, Chavez did some great things for poor people all over the continent, even in America. However he failed to diversify the Venezuelan economy or do away with the endemic corruption traditionally within Venezuelan politics. If he hadn't had foreign governments subverting him every step of the way he could have done much more.

Good to find common ground, I suspect we differ on the definition of freedom though

i posted the tony blair quote and its very obvious he was just playing word games by calling himself socialist

socialist is not that nebolous, socialism means government controlling companies and controlling the economy and government programs

its not nebulous what socialism is, the issue is that there are no purely socialist countries just like there are no purely capitalist countries, but like i said, most intelligent people understand that calling a country or government socialist just refers to the general trend or direction

mao, pol pot, lenin and staling were marxist, there is no real dispute about that except a couple corny posters on the coli such as yourself and other marxist intellectuals that want to pontificate on exact definitions and don't want to be associated mao, pol pot and lenin and like to wallow in no true scotsman fallacies

if mao pol pot and lenin are not true marxists then that means that the us is not really capitalist.....and therefore all the things you guys are pointing out about capitalism are null since the us isnt really capitalist

do you get the absurdity of your position? the logical conclusion to your position is that there are no socialist countries and there are no capitalist countries and any time somebody wants to defend their ideas all they have to say is that.....oh oh bu bu bu but its not real capitalism...bu bu but its not real socialism

i find your position to be fallacious

Idk if there are any large scale socialist leaders in the world. There are a few very impressive anarchist movements and several presumably earnest leaders of communist and socialist parties. Ideally socialist movements don't need real leadership, the ultimate popular movement.

so in other words, you are full of shyt

No, Chavez did some great things for poor people all over the continent, even in America.

whats your point?

you need to stay focused, remember that your point was that chavez was not a true socialist

However he failed to diversify the Venezuelan economy or do away with the endemic corruption traditionally within Venezuelan politics.

so let me get this straight, you cant make the connection between a politician promoting government appropriation of companies to lack of diversification of the economy, you are telling me that you lack the intellect to see those things areconnected?

If he hadn't had foreign governments subverting him every step of the way he could have done much more.

or maybe solutions like price controls, currency controls and government appropriation dont work in the long term even though they provide some benefits in the short term

thats the proper logical conclusion imo

 

[Tate]

i posted the tony blair quote and its very obvious he was just playing word games by calling himself socialist

socialist is not that nebolous, socialism means government controlling companies and controlling the economy and government programs

its not nebulous what socialism is, the issue is that there are no purely socialist countries just like there are no purely capitalist countries, but like i said, most intelligent people understand that calling a country or government socialist just refers to the general trend or direction

mao, pol pot, lenin and staling were marxist, there is no real dispute about that except a couple corny posters on the coli such as yourself and other marxist intellectuals that want to pontificate on exact definitions and don't want to be associated mao, pol pot and lenin and like to wallow in no true scotsman fallacies

if mao pol pot and lenin are not true marxists then that means that the us is not really capitalist.....and therefore all the things you guys are pointing out about capitalism are null since the us isnt really capitalist

do you get the absurdity of your position? the logical conclusion to your position is that there are no socialist countries and there are no capitalist countries and any time somebody wants to defend their ideas all they have to say is that.....oh oh bu bu bu but its not real capitalism...bu bu but its not real socialism

i find your position to be fallacious




so in other words, you are full of shyt



whats your point?

you need to stay focused, remember that your point was that chavez was not a true socialist




so let me get this straight, you cant make the connection between a politician promoting government appropriation of companies to lack of diversification of the economy, you are telling me that you lack the intellect to see those things areconnected?





or maybe solutions like price controls, currency controls and government appropriation dont work in the long term even though they provide some benefits in the short term

thats the proper logical conclusion imo

Socialism means public ownership, or atleast group ownership. Calling all state control socialist is very simplistic. Think public parks vs military bases.

They considered themselves Marxists, but they all developed their own theories on top of Marxian principles(Lenin's vanguard party, Mao/Pol Pot's agrarian focus, Stalin's totalitarianism). There are millions of pages devoted to why most leftists hate Stalin and Mao, literally thousands of books. It's not a fringe idea.

The key difference here being I'm not trying to pin every flaw of capitalism everywhere onto you, this whole line of argument is an attempt to pin Stalin and Mao's personal failings onto an ideology. And the thing about this is, you and most people who argue this way know absolutely nothing about Marxian theory or the inner workings of the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Or even Chavez's Venezuela. You're relying on a caricature to make your argument. There's a reason these places developed the way they did, and it's not a simple answer. Again, if you want to argue socialism is impossible to ever create, then ok. That's not unreasonable. But frankly just repeating that Stalin and Mao were Marxist so there failings are Marxism's failing is childish.

You asked me if Chavez's social democracy was bad, I answered. If you don't want to discuss this don't ask the question.

Why haven't the coal based economies of Appalachia been able to adapt to the downfall of the industry? Why has Russia's economy been hit so hard by oil price declines? Extraction economies struggle to adapt universally.

 

[theworldismine13]

Socialism means public ownership, or atleast group ownership. Calling all state control socialist is very simplistic. Think public parks vs military bases.

They considered themselves Marxists, but they all developed their own theories on top of Marxian principles(Lenin's vanguard party, Mao/Pol Pot's agrarian focus, Stalin's totalitarianism). There are millions of pages devoted to why most leftists hate Stalin and Mao, literally thousands of books. It's not a fringe idea.

The key difference here being I'm not trying to pin every flaw of capitalism everywhere onto you, this whole line of argument is an attempt to pin Stalin and Mao's personal failings onto an ideology. And the thing about this is, you and most people who argue this way know absolutely nothing about Marxian theory or the inner workings of the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Or even Chavez's Venezuela. You're relying on a caricature to make your argument. There's a reason these places developed the way they did, and it's not a simple answer. Again, if you want to argue socialism is impossible to ever create, then ok. That's not unreasonable. But frankly just repeating that Stalin and Mao were Marxist so there failings are Marxism's failing is childish.

You asked me if Chavez's social democracy was bad, I answered. If you don't want to discuss this don't ask the question.

Why haven't the coal based economies of Appalachia been able to adapt to the downfall of the industry? Why has Russia's economy been hit so hard by oil price declines? Extraction economies struggle to adapt universally.

ok, so lets try your logical theory

lets consider the following statement:

the fact that the united states government owns lands and has welfare programs means the us is not a true capitalistic country so therefore the united states cannot be used as an example for the ills of capitalism and we should also ignore the fact that every american leader has described the american economy as a capitalistic economy

is this ^^^^ statement true or false?

 

[88m3]

U.S. Arrests Two Relatives of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Drug-Trafficking Charges