Socialism worked out real well for Venezuala

[JohnBrown1917]

It addresses the why. One rose to power in times of crisis like strongmen dictarships do and the other rose to power due to the corruption innate to socialist governments.

A government does not need to be socialist to corrupt, just look at the US or Italy.

[Coolthulhu]

Social democracy is not socialism, try checking wiki, Im not even surprised you did not look further into than the parties name. You also the France socialist party is socialist?

Americans really have a warped view of what socialism is. Its not the government doing stuff.

Laughably simplistic, as always. They are self-styled socialists, members of self-styled socialist internationals, with a history that is indeed socialist (you'd know that if you didn't have to google) and gradually evolved to incorporate democratic values - like it happened everywhere in the West, even to communist parties. In other words, my point still stands, and I'm not surprised you had to play the "dictionary" card whilst ignoring the party's (and Spain's) history, heterogeneous composition and last but not least self-stylization, which contrary to what you might think courtesy of your granitic dogmatism, matters.
Your assumption of me being American is also very telling - and like everything else, very, very wrong.

[Danner]

Do people advocating socialism really want the US to end up like this? I'm fairly certain that right now wow gold is worth more than Venezuelan money

https://www.thenewstribune.com/opini...216267250.html

If your best victory online is against a strawman, maybe you should reconsider your actions in life. Just saying.
Because you may not know it, but you are pro-socialism.

You are most likely in favor of
- a national military force
- public schooling and public libraries,
- a functional police force.
- a court system with the right to lawyer if you cannot afford one
- public waste management and water supply,
- a functional fire brigade.
- a tax office ensuring taxes are collected correctly
- a disaster response agency
- someone handling regulations and bureaucracy.

I could also list pensions and welfare here, but last time I did the person I was discussing with cheerfully announced that he'd love to see his grandmother die painfully on the street. So I'll leave any sense of altruism out of it. The remaining topics are all services that directly benefit you. Now, if you were a stupidly rich man, you could definitively pay for all of those things personally. But not everyone can. And as a society we are better off pooling in on these things. Which means you have to pay for that court house even if you aren't on trial. But it also means you get fire brigade assistance if your house catches fire - even if you didn't pay the monthly fire brigade protection fee.

Unless you can state that you oppose all of those things, you're in favor of taking money from the general population and paying for those things. Which means you support socialism. Because that's all it is. Taking stuff from the ones that have it, to help the ones that do not have it. If everyone can afford their own private tutor, why would the government need a public schooling system? But since we don't live in that world, a public school means every employer gets employees that actually know how to read. And that's a public benefit well worth the cost!

There are tons of way to do socialism. Nobody except the specially challenged thinks communism is the way to go. I count amongst those the ones seeking to implement full communism, as well as the ones arguing that socialism equals full communism. Don't be one of either.

[Crispin]

OP's argument is as retarded as seriously saying Trump = Hitler

[JohnBrown1917]

Laughably simplistic, as always. They are self-styled socialists, members of self-styled socialist internationals, with a history that is indeed socialist (you'd know that if you didn't have to google) and gradually evolved to incorporate democratic values - like it happened everywhere in the West, even to communist parties. In other words, my point still stands, and I'm not surprised you had to play the "dictionary" card whilst ignoring the party's (and Spain's) history, heterogeneous composition and last but not least self-stylization, which contrary to what you might think courtesy of your granitic dogmatism, matters.
Your assumption of me being American is also very telling - and like everything else, very, very wrong.

Actually try looking up with the modern parties stand for, and you really need a new dictionary. Neither Spain or Italy had socialist governments in recent history, what those parties represented in the past is irrelevant.


Social democracy has nothing to with socialism, and while you might not be American, you sure seem to love using the sort of shit you only hear from Americans.

[Coolthulhu]

Actually try looking up with the modern parties stand for, and you really need a new dictionary. Neither Spain or Italy had socialist governments in recent history, what those parties represented in the past is irrelevant.


Social democracy has nothing to with socialism, and while you might not be American, you sure seem to love using the sort of shit you only hear from Americans.

I needn't look up anything, I already know they were (and in significant parts still are, though they factionized post cold-war, and they did because of a shift towards social democracy) socialist parties. You can keep stomping feet and repeating to yourself they are not, reality most certainly won't change because of it.

[JohnBrown1917]

I needn't look up anything, I already know they were (and in significant parts still are, though they factionized post cold-war, and they did because of a shift towards social democracy) socialist parties. You can keep stomping feet and repeating to yourself they are not, reality most certainly won't change because of it.

Well, maybe one day you will admit you're wrong. Calling social democracy, socialism is a joke. Is everything left of centre 'socialism' to you? Universal healthcare too?


Ive never seen anybody this stubborn on this forum, this is impressive. The same French party that made Macron minister of finances is socialist? What a bloody joke.

[Forogil]

If your best victory online is against a strawman, maybe you should reconsider your actions in life. Just saying.
Because you may not know it, but you are pro-socialism.

You are most likely in favor of
- a national military force
- public schooling and public libraries,
- a functional police force.
- a court system with the right to lawyer if you cannot afford one
- public waste management and water supply,
- a functional fire brigade.
- a tax office ensuring taxes are collected correctly
- a disaster response agency
- someone handling regulations and bureaucracy.

Wrong. That isn't socialism - it is a welfare state, because socialism is about taking control of the "means of production" and these services are not what was considered originally for socialism.

And additionally for some of these the thing people want is that it is publicly funded or that it is universally available, not that it is collectively owned/controlled. A private water supplier, even if it charges per litre isn't odd. A charter school is ok for many, similarly as a private company building roads for tax-payer money.

All of this shows that the owner of means of production is irrelevant for most people, except for socialists.

[Danner]

Wrong. That isn't socialism - it is a welfare state, because socialism is about taking control of the "means of production" and these services are not what was considered originally for socialism.

And additionally for some of these the thing people want is that it is publicly funded or that it is universally available, not that it is collectively owned/controlled. A private water supplier, even if it charges per litre isn't odd. A charter school is ok for many, similarly as a private company building roads for tax-payer money.

All of this shows that the owner of means of production is irrelevant for most people, except for socialists.

Disagree. But we can fight dictionary terms as much as we want.

I know that in the US, socialism specifically means seizing control of production.
But by that definition, democratic socialism does not exist, because there is nothing in that term related to seizing control of production.

Which is clearly not an accurate conclusion, because democratic socialism does exist, and is working well.

In Europe, socialism is the ideology that society should care for its weakest. As opposed to every man for himself. The ideals is the important thing here, not the specific implementation. Democratic socialism seeks to promote the ideals of socialism. That does NOT imply seizing anyone's production, unless you are one of those subscribing to communism. It does imply making society a better place for the weakest. Welfare state, if you insist on using those terms. But you have to convince just about everyone not living in the US.

In this thread, we're literally arguing over whether to use the US or european definition. And there will be a thousand more threads like this due to this nonsense.

[Forogil]

Disagree. But we can fight dictionary terms as much as we want.

I know that in the US, socialism specifically means seizing control of production.
But by that definition, democratic socialism does not exist, because there is nothing in that term related to seizing control of production.

Which is clearly not an accurate conclusion, because democratic socialism does exist, and is working well.

Wrong on several counts -it's not in the US, but in the English (and other) languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Venezuela have socialist in power, and they were praised by socialist by taking controls of the means of production of oil. Chavez was democratically elected and was fairly popular (since he had a functioning brain, Maduro on the other hand...)

They democratically decided to begin introducing socialism (they are primarily "socialists in the 21st century" not "democratic socialists" - although "Republican Bicentennial Vanguard" in the governing coalition in Venezuela are allegedly "democratic socialists").

There are also a number of other states that have democratic socialists in power, none shining examples. There are also democratic socialistic parties on the fringes in many more successful European countries.

But doing well would be a stretch.

Added: 2.3 million have now fled Venezuela to avoid starvation and 1.3 million of the ones that haven't left are undernourished - out of population of about 31 million.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/w...article/529520

[bamf775]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Yea... thats freaking scary if thats true. No thanks, not interested democrats.

[JohnBrown1917]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Yea... thats freaking scary if thats true. No thanks, not interested democrats.

Dems are not anywhere close to dem socialism.

[zealo]

Dems are not anywhere close to dem socialism.

It doesn't help with that confusion that Democratic politicians like Bernie Sanders actually calls himself a democratic socialist, even when the nordic countries he draws comparisons to are social democratic in nature.

[Coolthulhu]

Well, maybe one day you will admit you're wrong. Calling social democracy, socialism is a joke. Is everything left of centre 'socialism' to you? Universal healthcare too?


Ive never seen anybody this stubborn on this forum, this is impressive. The same French party that made Macron minister of finances is socialist? What a bloody joke.

I said nothing about Macron, or even France. But thanks for demonstrating that the only arrows in your quiver are deflection and deception.