Venezuela has a bread shortage. government decided bakers are problem. Arrests Bakers

[NED funded]

If the government exists as a competitor in the market or a purveyor of goods or services, then that's socialism. Public services are socialism because hypothetically, they could be provided by a private entity, but are instead paid for with your taxes then allocated by individuals elected by the populace to represent them. So yeah...municipal bus routes are socialist too.

- - - Updated - - -



You have not seen the last of me! Me...me...

That just seems quite like a stretch of the definition of socialism. At this point you might as well say having a goverment is socialist.

[Deletedaccount1]

That just seems quite like a stretch of the definition of socialism. At this point you might as well say having a goverment is socialist.

Yeah that's what I said to him.

[PosPosPos]

That just seems quite like a stretch of the definition of socialism. At this point you might as well say having a goverment is socialist.

No, it just means you don't know what you are talking about, but feel compelled to comment on the subject because it makes you feel hip or something.

Much like the other Trumpets in this thread and every other thread bashing socialism blindly.

[Deletedaccount1]

Except the context involves multiple nations considering following in the footsteps of Scandinavia, and anti-socialism alarmists are using Venezuela as the "shining example" of how Scandinavia's system could possibly go wrong.

It's not inaccurate like you put it to say that Venezuela and Scandinavia each represent a certain and very different branch of Socialism in this particular context.

No one here is drawing a comparison between Scandanavia and Venezuela except you. The Nordic model isn't even socialist according to most people, it is just a highly regulated economy with a large welfare state.

I wouldn't expect that logic to not get lost on a demagogue who goes into every thread calling everyone who disagrees with them the alt-right though.

[NED funded]

I would venture that most of those anti-capitalist regimes you mention, by dint of being anti-capitalist, are relatively totalitarian. And I'd suggest that the fault likely lies with that political theory, rather than the underlying economic theory of socialism.

Because totalitarianism is going to produce similar horrible things if it's a capitalist totalitarian state. Or any other state, really. I really don't see why people feel a need to ignore the evils of totalitarianism to focus on socialist economics instead.

Uhh? Peru, Chile, Bolivia failed pretty hard when they tried socialism democratically. On the other side Banzer saved Bolivia from a deep economic crisis, despite being one of the most brutal dictators, same with Fujimori.

[Endus]

That just seems quite like a stretch of the definition of socialism. At this point you might as well say having a goverment is socialist.

It's completely correct, though. This is the problem; you folks don't understand what socialism means. I even linked you the Wikipedia for it. If the government is an actor in the market, then there's a component of socialism in that economy. Yes, that's a hugely broad term. Because socialism is that broad a term. You're acting all aghast that you can't narrow down socialism to the one specific kind of "bad" economic model you want to bash, and you're acting like that means we're using the definition too broadly, but the issue is that you are using it too narrowly.

"Socialism" encompasses a hugely broad spectrum of economic systems, including every single developed nation's economy, in the modern world. You cannot accurately describe them without acknowledging the socialist components.

[Xarkan]

Except the context involves multiple nations considering following in the footsteps of Scandinavia, and anti-socialism alarmists are using Venezuela as the "shining example" of how Scandinavia's system could possibly go wrong.

Scandinavia as socialists? Do people even bother looking at Scandinavia?

[GodlyBob]

That just seems quite like a stretch of the definition of socialism. At this point you might as well say having a goverment is socialist.

Any democratic government is usually going to be inherently socialist. The difference is the degree.

[Gref]

No, but Gref did ^.^

I didnt mean it actually and was also shocked at the fact that they are considered as specialty.

it reminded me of a saying; If they dont have breads, let them eat cake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

[Nadiru]

I would venture that most of those anti-capitalist regimes you mention, by dint of being anti-capitalist, are relatively totalitarian. And I'd suggest that the fault likely lies with that political theory, rather than the underlying economic theory of socialism.

Because totalitarianism is going to produce similar horrible things if it's a capitalist totalitarian state. Or any other state, really. I really don't see why people feel a need to ignore the evils of totalitarianism to focus on socialist economics instead.

Sure, and in fact I spend significant amounts of time explaining just how fucked the supposedly successful models of totalitarian capitalism really are. China's going to have a very rough time with it, for example.

[GodlyBob]

Socialism is an ingredient of the meal that is your government but not the main course itself. You can think of it as salt. You put it on pretty much everything but personal preference and the other things you're adding to your dish are going to dictate just how much salt you want or is a good idea.

[Xarkan]

You can think of it as salt.

Typical anti socialist propaganda right there

Implying socialism will ruin your health or just outright kill you

[Edit:] meant as a poor joke obviously.

[Nadiru]

Typical anti socialist propaganda right there

Implying socialism will ruin your health or just outright kill you

Salt is a vital nutrient.

[Xarkan]

Salt is a vital nutrient.

But often not a valid additive. Too many people get way too much salt. Anyhow was meant as a poor joke

[PosPosPos]

Scandinavia as socialists? Do people even bother looking at Scandinavia?

Scandinavia is socialist, but a very different branch from the socialism run in Venezuela.

Just like North Korea's democracy is very different from the one run in the west and developed nations.

[Noblia]

Don't worry if you vote Democratic... these hungry, overbreeding, disgusting people will be on a corner near you, stealing your job, using your hospitals and schools for free.

GUARANTEED! GLOBALIZATION = FUCK the countries that try to do it right.

Infracted

[Xarkan]

Scandinavia is socialist, but a very different branch from the socialism run in Scandinavia.

Just like North Korea's democracy is very different from the one run in the west and developed nations.

When you wander between social democrat and liberal governments what you get is socioliberalism which is not actually socialist. It is not a good example of it anyhow, it is not a branch of socialism, it is a third way

[PosPosPos]

When you wander between social democrat and liberal governments what you get is socioliberalism which is not actually socialist. It is not a good example of it anyhow, it is not a branch of socialism, it is a third way

Then you are using the alternative Trumpet definition of socialism.

Fortunately for the rest of us living in non-alternative reality, what Scandinavia runs is socialism.

[Sama-81]

See, this is an inaccurate way to treat socialist theory. Venezuela isn't "the socialist example", any more than Sweden is, for similar reasons. Market socialism, for instance, is just as purely socialist as Venezuela's system, but also completely unlike it in most ways. If you're acting like a single nation's example defines an entire broad suite of economic theory, you're just wrong, because it's a ridiculous argument. It's like pointing at Dylan Roof and claiming he represents the views of all white people. That's obviously a ridiculous argument, right? Same deal.

I'm not saying there's one singular socialist system, without any variations. What I'm saying is that Venezuela is a good example overall of what happens when you incorporate too much socialist principles into the economy. Which it indeed is, looking at what other examples there are - if you want to talk about different variations, then of course Yugoslavia would be the go-to example of market socialism (and certainly a somewhat less depressing example, emphasis on less). But if we follow the logic that we have to take every variation and theoretical distinction into account to make a some sort of evaluation, we might as well simply forego making any form of analysis at all, since it's obviously not feasible (nor would it be for any other system, pretty much).

Looking mainly at theory obviously isn't the way to go either way, since the main issues with these systems tends to be the extreme propensity to totalitarianism and similar outcomes when they are actually applied in practice. In that sense enlightened dictatorships are in a similar place - arguably quite a good model in theory, most wanting to actually try it out would likely be deemed at least semi-insane. Using Sweden as an example for a social democrat country might be a tad much, but there is also no need to. If we look at Europe and social democrat countries as a group, well, what else needs to be said? Only a madman would choose a more socialist approach, looking at overall track records. Not that anyone would consider choosing between the two, seeing the hatred between the two sides. It's a sad state of affairs, that people in general seem to believe that social democracy and socialism are even remotely alike.

[Xarkan]

Then you are using the alternative Trumpet definition of socialism.

Fortunately for the rest of us living in non-alternative reality, what Scandinavia runs is socialism.

LoL

Alternative fact?

Have you ever actually been to a scandinavian country? Have you actually ever looked at the policies that actually get implemented in the countries and the overall impact of changing between shifting systems with capitalism as the only common guidance? No? Perhaps my facts are not alternative?