Venezuela's Crash: There's No Toilet Paper In Caracas

[Sargerasraider]

I should also make a thread about Somalia and talk about how any capitalist candidate is wrong because, look, Somalia has been doing terrible with free market and almost no state intervention.

Somewhere, you missed that there is a difference between anarchy and capitalism.

[Deleted]

Capitalistic societies do indeed have ups and downs, difference is, when capitalistic societies have a down turn we don't go genocidal and murder millions of our own citizens.

How about the Rwandan genocide?
https://libcom.org/blog/capitalism-v...art-1-12062014
So, your argument is wrong. Here we go, capitalist country going on a genocide. Guess genocides can happen in all kinds of countries and political systems, who would have thought?

By the way, to add something, I know you're pro-Israel. Did you know that Israel was founded as a partially socialist country?
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/capit...raeli-economy/
And they even had tests to see if it could work under full communism (tests didn't go as planned, but still, the socialist part did).

[Forogil]

I should also make a thread about Somalia and talk about how any capitalist candidate is wrong because, look, Somalia has been doing terrible with free market and almost no state intervention. Of course, that would be a dumb argument, since, you know, Somalia is doing shit due to other reasons as well and there's actual successful capitalist countries... like there's successful partially socialist countries, as, even you gave example, the countries of Scandinavia, Canada.

No, they are social democratic countries - not (partially) socialist ones. The difference is between redistribution within a primarily capitalist system, and replacing the capitalistic control of the production by "public control".

And regarding Somalia:
The Somali Democratic Republic reigned until 1991 - and was a communist one-party state (Marxist-Leninist - so communist); since then it has been civil war. I don't understand how you get to Somalia being a capitalist country.

Venezuela is doing shit because:
-they are a dictatorship with a man who has no clue how to lead a country leading them (and since it's a dictatorship they can't replace him)
-they kept cutting relations left and right until they've become somewhat isolated
-their main product is oil, and we're in an oil crysis.
They could have been capitalist, socialist or fascist. They'd still have failed under these aspects.

Fascism or socialism wouldn't have made any major difference.
A mercantile system would have failed as badly as well, and many would mistake it for capitalistic - but that is wrong.
A capitalistic system would unlikely have failed as badly.

[Deleted]

Somewhere, you missed that there is a difference between anarchy and capitalism.

You mean, like there is a difference between dictatorship (Venezuela) and democracy (USA, since we talked about Bernie's ideas)? Oh well, then my comparison stands, since, just like the one in the OP, it makes no sense.

[lockedout]

No chickens no toilet paper.

[Queen of Hamsters]

As if no capitalist societies ever failed... I guess nobody remembers our recent crisis, and before that another crisis. Hell, do you evne remember the Great Depression?

And in what way has Sweden and Denmark moved away from socialism? You wanna know how that's been going for us in Sweden? Badly. Our golden age was under the Social Democratic Party, a heavily socialistic party, when they took power after decades conservatives completely fucking our country over. But what would a fucking American know about that... You think profit is the highest thing, the most important goal, whilst having less freedom than western and Northern Europe, less equality, worse health, less happy citizens.
But keep telling yourself you don't have a crippling debt, taht your government isn't owned by companies and doesn't give a shit about you.

Do you know how Rome fell? To greed, corruption, arrogance and complacency. You're right on the same path and you refuse to change. You just put your hands on your ears and close your eyes, acting like nothing needs to change.

Meanwhile, you BARELY have half your population evne participating in your faux democracy and you still have the balls to act like you've got the moral high ground.

Preach! Couldn't be more correct. The OP reminds me of the people using China as an example for why "Atheism doesn't work!"...LOL!

[Sargerasraider]

You mean, like there is a difference between dictatorship (Venezuela) and democracy (USA, since we talked about Bernie's ideas)? Oh well, then my comparison stands, since, just like the one in the OP, it makes no sense.

A need for protection of private property is essential to a capitalist society, and as a result, it is a ludicrous comparison to equate Somalia, which is in anarchy, to a capitalist system. (I've seen this stupid example so many times, I had to say something).

I do think that it is interesting that societies who call themselves socialist tend to progress towards dictatorship, shortages, and increasing control of the population. (Please remember that market economies with regulations and a safety net are not socialist).

[Forogil]

How about the Rwandan genocide?
https://libcom.org/blog/capitalism-v...art-1-12062014
So, your argument is wrong. Here we go, capitalist country going on a genocide. Guess genocides can happen in all kinds of countries and political systems, who would have thought?

How does that link show that Rwanda was capitalist? Did you read it?
Remember this is primarily an agrarian society; and thus pre-capitalist at best. The article also claims that the ethnic cleansings were done to reduce competition for land.

By the way, to add something, I know you're pro-Israel. Did you know that Israel was founded as a partially socialist country?

The Kibbutz part sort of gave that away for most of us.

[Fugus]

I do think that it is interesting that societies who call themselves socialist tend to progress towards dictatorship, shortages, and increasing control of the population. (Please remember that market economies with regulations and a safety net are not socialist).

I have noticed that is typically what I see linked when people shit talk socialism and tends that way overall.

But instead of bashing authoritarian governments failing when they are trying to rule over them, they instead go onto them for socialism like the authoritarian government itself trying to rule poorly or with an iron fist had little to do with it.

Also gets annoying watching people trying to claim that socialism ruins innovation or entrepreneurialism or any of that crap. Watching them explain it reminds me of "Married With Children" when Al Bundy was trying to throw his midnight madness sale at the shoe stop and trying to explain what Werewolves had to do with women's shoes.



Something gets lost in the middle trying to figure out how those to topics are related. Socialism ruins innovation because..... Socialism.....

[Forogil]

And in what way has Sweden and Denmark moved away from socialism? You wanna know how that's been going for us in Sweden? Badly. Our golden age was under the Social Democratic Party, a heavily socialistic party, when they took power after decades conservatives completely fucking our country over.

The Social Democratic parties in Sweden and Denmark have moved away from socialism as in controlling the means of production; and are "social democrats" not socialists - examples including no longer supporting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds in Sweden, and instead supporting flexicurity in Denmark- and de-nationalization of most companies in both countries.

[Sargerasraider]

I have noticed that is typically what I see linked when people shit talk socialism and tends that way overall.

But instead of bashing authoritarian governments failing when they are trying to rule over them, they instead go onto them for socialism like the authoritarian government itself trying to rule poorly or with an iron fist had little to do with it.

Also gets annoying watching people trying to claim that socialism ruins innovation or entrepreneurialism or any of that crap. Watching them explain it reminds me of "Married With Children" when Al Bundy was trying to throw his midnight madness sale at the shoe stop and trying to explain what Werewolves had to do with women's shoes.



Something gets lost in the middle trying to figure out how those to topics are related. Socialism ruins innovation because..... Socialism.....

Please explain how you go from private to common ownership of capital without authoritarian force. Real world successful examples would be nice.

The problem is that you can only point to examples of social democracy which are not by definition socialist. There is still private control of business. What you are left with is a smattering of authoritarian nations which have attempted to usurp private property rights and generally have failed. Then, you hear again and again the same "no true Scotsman" arguments. It gets very tiresome.

[Forogil]

Something gets lost in the middle trying to figure out how those to topics are related. Socialism ruins innovation because..... Socialism.....

Is it so hard to keep yourself focused for 30 seconds? Socialism means taking over the control of the means of production, and removing competition (since the ones that control the production knows best, so why should they have two competing variants?) Without competition there is less innovation - since no-one has to innovate to stay ahead of the game.

Now add in cronyism and corruption and you have Venezuela.

[Deleted]

Wait, people believe wage-slavery is actual slavery?
I guess alternative medicine is also medicine.

Do you have any idea how money is created nowadays?

[Fugus]

Please explain how you go from private to common ownership of capital without authoritarian force. Real world successful examples would be nice.

The problem is that you can only point to examples of social democracy which are not by definition socialist. There is still private control of business. What you are left with is a smattering of authoritarian nations which have attempted to usurp private property rights and generally have failed. Then, you hear again and again the same "no true Scotsman" arguments. It gets very tiresome.

My apologize if I came off supporting pure socialism, I am not. I am not advocating either pure socialism or pure capitalism as both of them are horrible in their pure states.

But from my knowledge of it, you seem like you are talking more about communism where the government owns near everything.

I personally advocate for socialistic policies for critical stuff where no free market can function and capitalistic approaches for luxury stuff where a free market can actually function with protections in place where a company can't corner the market and I also advocate for allowing private companies to compete against the socialistic programs if they wish to do so as that actually gives them something they must compete against and sets a baseline in quality.


I was talking about how people keep thinking that Socialism will ruin everything it touches like it is some toxic force when so is capitalism in its pure state.

[Deleted]

This "amurican" fear of socialism is so hilarious to watch.

[Adam Jensen]

We're not pajeets my aussie friend, we do poo in loo and wash our hands.



This must be some bait but whatever.

>Hugo Chavez declares himself socialist
>Starts the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (United Socialist party of Venezuela)
>The word socialist/socialism is slapped in every single fucking thing his Government does or says, even after his death.
>PSUV takes pride in their 18 years of Socialist Goverment.

its..its not socialism guys!!!

And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic nor for the people, nor a Republic.

[nextormento]

Do you have any idea how money is created nowadays?

Yes, printing currency, or through debt -bank loans and deposits being the bulk of it-.
Care to elaborate?.

[callipygoustp]

I have never seen a socialist/communist experience...

Me either! What I have seen is several failed authoritarian governments that were referred to as being socialist : authoritarian != socialist (well, except in Murica!).

[Forogil]

My apologize if I came off supporting pure socialism, I am not. I am not advocating either pure socialism or pure capitalism as both of them are horrible in their pure states.

But from my knowledge of it, you seem like you are talking more about communism where the government owns near everything.

That is a misunderstanding of socialism and communism.

Communism isn't just aiming for government (or public) ownership of almost everything - but for more (even if ownership is important "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.")

Just to clarify:
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.
Communism is an ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. (Spoiler: It never reaches that.)

[Halicia]

Is Bernie Sanders running for office in Venezuela or something ? cuz I'm honestly confused how *any* of Venezuela's problems are because of Bernie Sanders.