Venezuela: how the socialist paradise turned into debt and hyperinflation hell

[Endus]

Monopolies solidified by the government aren't a free market.

I was talking about governments breaking up monopolies, and yet, here you are, deliberately misconstruing what I said.

Let me put it this way: what if a significant majority of people never want a socialist government?

Are you going to respect their wishes?

Depends on whether or not that's an informed position, or not. Socialism sees a lot of support, here in Canada.

One key compromise of the ideology being ascribing the economy to some form of politics and governance.
Much as I despise the inept argument that puts socialism to blame for what really is circumstantial implementations, at some point we need to acknowledge that the XIX and XX centuries happened.

I don't think anyone's denying that. We're pointing out that variations of Stalinist theory are not the sole form that socialist principles can take.

Those are social democracies cemented on private ownership of the means of production. Mixed economies; not socialism by any of the defining characteristics you're providing.

Trying to argue that they're capitalist is just as incorrect. And yet, you're only here attacking me, rather than all those lauding capitalism as the "great savior".

[Vyxn]

And Hugo Chavez used the same class warfare rhetoric to gain and stay in power as Sanders is using today

blaming everything that was wrong on the rich, the banks, and the stock brokers so if you elect me I will take from them and give it to you

which shows Sanders is a hell of allot more dangerous if he ever became president then Trump ever could be Sanders would have put us on the same road as Venezuela

[Thepersona]

And Hugo Chavez used the same class warfare rhetoric to gain and stay in power as Sanders is using today

blaming everything that was wrong on the rich, the banks, and the stock brokers so if you elect me I will take from them and give it to you

which shows Sanders is a hell of allot more dangerous if he ever became president then Trump ever could be Sanders would have put us on the same road as Venezuela

as said above, dont base your economy on only 1 asset. bernie sanders is by no means near the rhetoric of hugo chavez and he wouldn't put the US on the road of venezuela, because first: the us has much more goods than oil

[Endus]

And Hugo Chavez used the same class warfare rhetoric to gain and stay in power as Sanders is using today

blaming everything that was wrong on the rich, the banks, and the stock brokers so if you elect me I will take from them and give it to you

which shows Sanders is a hell of allot more dangerous if he ever became president then Trump ever could be Sanders would have put us on the same road as Venezuela

I like quotes.

"Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, "We the people," this breed called Americans.""

There's another appeal to class warfare, to uplift the working class.

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy.

There's another, fully supporting the idea that the wealthy aren't taxed nearly enough.

Now, who said these things? Some "crazy socialist" like Bernie Sanders? Nope.

Ronald Reagan.

By your own argument, Reagan's as "dangerous" and "socialist" as Chavez. Or maybe you're being completely ridiculous.

[Vyxn]

I like quotes.

"Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, "We the people," this breed called Americans.""

There's another appeal to class warfare, to uplift the working class.

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy.

There's another, fully supporting the idea that the wealthy aren't taxed nearly enough.

Now, who said these things? Some "crazy socialist" like Bernie Sanders? Nope.

Ronald Reagan.

By your own argument, Reagan's as "dangerous" and "socialist" as Chavez. Or maybe you're being completely ridiculous.

Among other things, during the 1970s and ’80s, Sanders regularly called for public takeovers of various businesses, including utilities and the oil industry. Sanders advocated seizing money from corporations and from one of America’s richest families. And, as a mayor, Sanders made forays into foreign policy that included meetings with representatives of hostile nations, rebel groups and Canadian separatists.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sa...230255076.html

the same dam thing Hugo Chavez did the nationalization of businesses, utilities and the oil industry and the seizure of wealth from corporations

[araine]

And Hugo Chavez used the same class warfare rhetoric to gain and stay in power as Sanders is using today

blaming everything that was wrong on the rich, the banks, and the stock brokers so if you elect me I will take from them and give it to you

which shows Sanders is a hell of allot more dangerous if he ever became president then Trump ever could be Sanders would have put us on the same road as Venezuela

Not true, chavez have never been a democratic socialist

[TrumpIsPresident]

Depends on whether or not that's an informed position, or not. Socialism sees a lot of support, here in Canada.

Ironic the people who call themselves "informed" support a thing they identify as socialism when in truth they know nothing of what socialism actually is.

These so called "informed" people are just confusing socialism with having a nanny-state.

[Elegiac]

Among other things, during the 1970s and ’80s, Sanders regularly called for public takeovers of various businesses, including utilities and the oil industry. Sanders advocated seizing money from corporations and from one of America’s richest families. And, as a mayor, Sanders made forays into foreign policy that included meetings with representatives of hostile nations, rebel groups and Canadian separatists.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sa...230255076.html

the same dam thing Hugo Chavez did the nationalization of businesses, utilities and the oil industry and the seizure of wealth from corporations

What's your point?

Utilities don't do any better in private hands - point in fact, they gravitate towards lower quality and higher cost for the consumer.

[Bollocks]

Ironic the people who call themselves "informed" support a thing they identify as socialism when in truth they know nothing of what socialism actually is.

These so called "informed" people are just confusing socialism with having a nanny-state.

Then what is socialism?

[wowaccounttom]

if you are poor, you shouldnt live in that country...

doesnt seem very friendly

[Saucexorzski]

Then what is socialism?

A form of control derived by claiming to help the common man while in fact enslaving him to the needs of everyone else.

[May90]

Venezuelan problems are not due to it being a socialist country, but due to it being a dictatorship country. Now, whether "hardcore" socialism tends naturally to lead to a dictatorship or not is another question. Based on historical evidence, I'm inclined to say "yes", but then, not all models of socialism have been tried in practice, so who knows, maybe some of them work well...

The thing is, capitalism has been proven to be able to work well under some circumstances, while socialism so far has only worked within the capitalist framework. So I don't see the reason to experiment with a system that is likely to result in failure, when we already know something that works well.

[Elegiac]

A form of control derived by claiming to help the common man while in fact enslaving him to the needs of everyone else.

Just like 'capitalism' is a system of distribution designed to fuck over the vast majority of the population while enriching a few privileged individuals.

I can make loaded definitions too.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

People would take you seriosly and answer to your arguments if did not took definitions from dictionaries. yeah state ownership is part of socialism. But nevertheless lets use that technique and take definitions of socialism and how its applied in society from the dictionary:
1


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

However I would like you to read books that provide you with a more in-depth look of what socialism actually is . I'll suggest you to read The case for socialism by Alan Mass its the basic book to understand it.

Lol the reason we have dictionaries is so that we can accept a standard meaning for a certain combination of letters. I'm sorry but I'll take the definition of a word to tell me its meaning before I waste my life reading what some obscure academic contrived to justify his tenure. Socialism is what the dictionary says it is. It's unfortunate for you that it does not fit your personal narrative, but that's your problem not mine.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods are held in public (yes that means government) hands. Capitalism is the economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods are held in private hands. Now we can have intelligent discussions about how much we should embrace one or the other over this or that, but the defining characteristics of the two systems remain distinct. You cannot narrow the definition of socialism to a particular application in one circumstance that fits your personal narrative. Despite what Endus would have you believe, state control of the means of production is a defining characteristic of socialism, and it is therefore authoritarian in its very nature.

Now you might find a functioning socialist society where the state uses its control over the means of production and distribution of goods for the benefit of the majority of its people, but that only succeeds so long as the individuals within that power structure decide to do so out of the goodness of their hearts. Capitalism on the other hand does not assume anyone will do anything out of the goodness of their heart. It assumes individuals will always work towards their maximum personal benefit. Capitalism does not guarantee equal outcome, or opportunity. It just supposes that outcomes aught to be decided on the personal merits of the individual instead of the merits of the collective. Like I said earlier, I'm not a purist. I believe a certain amount of government regulation is required to maintain a competitive environment. The means of production however, aught to remain solidly in private hands.

Lastly, just because you say you have an ideology or support an idea, does not mean you know jack shit about it. Please stop touting your personal belief in socialism as definitive proof that you are the resident expert on it. There is no reason on Earth we should just take your word for it. We don't know you. You might be a moron. Support your positions with logic and evidence, not hyperbole and self-aggrandizement.

[Endus]

Among other things, during the 1970s and ’80s, Sanders regularly called for public takeovers of various businesses, including utilities and the oil industry. Sanders advocated seizing money from corporations and from one of America’s richest families. And, as a mayor, Sanders made forays into foreign policy that included meetings with representatives of hostile nations, rebel groups and Canadian separatists.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sa...230255076.html

the same dam thing Hugo Chavez did the nationalization of businesses, utilities and the oil industry and the seizure of wealth from corporations

The only way to claim it's "the same thing Chavez did" is through gross oversimplification.

Public takeovers of utilities and such has worked just fine in plenty of sectors. Even in the USA. You're fearmongering about a practice that is tried and tested. Pretty much any public-sector service is something that was "seized" to be run by the government.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Just like 'capitalism' is a system of distribution designed to fuck over the vast majority of the population while enriching a few privileged individuals.

I can make loaded definitions too.

Or we could all just stick with the real definitions for both. Neither are very complicated or difficult to understand.

[Captain N]

Or we could all just stick with the real definitions for both. Neither are very complicated or difficult to understand.

Except Endus linked your own definition and you willfully ignored the word OR and continued to bang on with your own definition.

[Saucexorzski]

Just like 'capitalism' is a system of distribution designed to fuck over the vast majority of the population while enriching a few privileged individuals.

I can make loaded definitions too.

Not good ones.

[Endus]

A form of control derived by claiming to help the common man while in fact enslaving him to the needs of everyone else.

This is 100% false.

Lol the reason we have dictionaries is so that we can accept a standard meaning for a certain combination of letters. I'm sorry but I'll take the definition of a word to tell me its meaning before I waste my life reading what some obscure academic contrived to justify his tenure. Socialism is what the dictionary says it is. It's unfortunate for you that it does not fit your personal narrative, but that's your problem not mine.

Your issue is that you don't go by the dictionary definition; you cited one earlier and deliberately and dishonestly ignored half the definition in question, because it directly and explicitly contradicted the position you then advocated.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods are held in public (yes that means government) hands. Capitalism is the economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods are held in private hands.

Neither of these is correct. As you should know, since you cited a definition for "socialism" earlier which directly contradicted this. This is why we can't take you seriously; you don't even abide by your own cited sources. You literally make things up, and then act aghast when we point out that they're made-up and incorrect.

[Saucexorzski]

This is 100% false.

In your opinion oh mighty overlord of GenOT.