Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[LordKiran]

Just saying, this isn't a "One or the other" scenario, socialism is like anything else, too much is poisonous. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't been beneficial where applied.

But it still doesn't mean that having government do some things means that it is "socialism". That is a misuse of the term.

No, it's not.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism?s=t

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

 

[Derec]

But it still doesn't mean that having government do some things means that it is "socialism". That is a misuse of the term.

No, it's not.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism?s=t

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

Yes, it is, according to this very definition. Note the bolded part.

 

[LordKiran]

BTW, latest from Venezuela:
Venezuela prosecutor Luisa Ortega condemns office 'siege'

You know if I was Donald, this is a country I'd consider intervening in. The goals are immediate and tangible (Depose the President.) All you'd really need is just a little more public justification to get everyone on your side like a public massacre (Did that happen yet?) and you'd score all of the Brownie points if you could pull it off successfully and not have us permanently stuck there.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's not.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism?s=t

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

Yes, it is, according to this very definition. Note the bolded part.

The second one Derec, the second one! What do you think a public school system is?

 

[Derec]

You know if I was Donald, this is a country I'd consider intervening in. The goals are immediate and tangible (Depose the President.) All you'd really need is just a little more public justification to get everyone on your side like a public massacre (Did that happen yet?) and you'd score all of the Brownie points if you could pull it off successfully and not have us permanently stuck there.

Venezuela is a big country, unlike Grenada or Panama. It would certainly not be easy to depose Maduro other than just plainly assasinating him.

The second one Derec, the second one! What do you think a public school system is?

Second line says "according to this theory". And a public school system is not "community as a whole". Having some socialized systems does not socialism make. You have socialism when that is the dominant way society is organized.

Going by the way you define "socialism", everything other than Ayn Rand's fictional societies would be "socialist". That is certainly not useful.

 

[LordKiran]

The second one Derec, the second one! What do you think a public school system is?

It is not "community as a whole". Having some socialized systems does not socialism make. You have socialism when that is the dominant way society is organized.

Going by the way you define "socialism", everything other than Ayn Rand's fictional societies would be "socialist". That is certainly not useful.

Public education is a socialist policy. It is a procedure and practice in accordance with socialist theory. You can pick nits with the precise wording of one definition if you want, but I think you and I both agree on the general idea of what socialism is and how it can be used to define certain policies.

And for why? So you don't have to agree with me that our socialist policies have generally worked pretty well for the past 100+ years? That statement is perfectly reasonable, Derec.

 

[Derec]

Public education is a socialist policy. It is a procedure and practice in accordance with socialist theory. You can pick nits with the precise wording of one definition if you want, but I think you and I both agree on the general idea of what socialism is and how it can be used to define certain policies.

No it is not a "socialist policy". It is not according to socialist theory, which seeks to socialize things like factories and other businesses. Things like public education, public roads etc. are not socialism.

 

[LordKiran]

Public education is a socialist policy. It is a procedure and practice in accordance with socialist theory. You can pick nits with the precise wording of one definition if you want, but I think you and I both agree on the general idea of what socialism is and how it can be used to define certain policies.

No it is not a "socialist policy". It is not according to socialist theory, which seeks to socialize things like factories and other businesses. Things like public education, public roads etc. are not socialism.

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


Do you know what "ect." means? It means "Among other things" (Not literally but figuratively)

There is no requirement that things like roads or schools be the realm of public domain, but the fact that they are IS socialistic.

 

[Derec]

There is no requirement that things like roads or schools be the realm of public domain, but the fact that they are IS socialistic.

Sigh. Believe what you want. If you must believe that every single country is "socialist" just because there are some things that are in the public domain, you can continue to be wrong.

 

[LordKiran]

There is no requirement that things like roads or schools be the realm of public domain, but the fact that they are IS socialistic.

Sigh. Believe what you want. If you must believe that every single country is "socialist" just because there are some things that are in the public domain, you can continue to be wrong.

Hey it's not my fault you wanted to quibble over words and then lost because nobody out-quibbles me.

 

[Derec]

Hey it's not my fault you wanted to quibble over words and then lost because nobody out-quibbles me.

Uhm, I didn't lose. You are still wrong.

 

[LordKiran]

Hey it's not my fault you wanted to quibble over words and then lost because nobody out-quibbles me.

Uhm, I didn't lose. You are still wrong.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, m8.

 

[Derec]

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, m8.

Ditto. Can we now end this digression and go back to talking about actually existing socialism in Venezuela?

 

[LordKiran]

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, m8.

Ditto. Can we now end this digression and go back to talking about actually existing socialism in Venezuela?

Sure, we can end the quibble digression you started.

Here, I'll even give you a helping hand in that.

You know if I was Donald, this is a country I'd consider intervening in. The goals are immediate and tangible (Depose the President.) All you'd really need is just a little more public justification to get everyone on your side like a public massacre (Did that happen yet?) and you'd score all of the Brownie points if you could pull it off successfully and not have us permanently stuck there.

 

[SimpleDon]

Ignoring the endless arguments over the definition of labels to apply to Venezuela, it does serve as an example of many things not to do, especially for a developing country,

1. That both Utopian extreme forms of an economic system are bad and are to be avoided.
2. The state is not any more capable of dictating the micro day to day decisions of what to produce, of how much to produce, what price to set and what to invest in that is necessary to run an economy in a developing country than it is in a developed country.
3. That likewise, to base your economy on the fantasy of free markets that developed countries can only point to as desirable in their dreams and that haven't worked in any place or at any time is bad.
4. That having an economy dependent on a single commodity is bad.
5. That allowing developed countries unlimited access to the country's consumer market is bad; aka, free trade.
6. That allowing the flight of domestic capital from the domestic economy is bad.
7. That allowing the concentration of ownership in the domestic economy is bad.
8. That the government's concentration has to be on developing a broad based domestic industrial base to supply as much of the needs of the country as possible.
9. That these industries are protected from competition from other countries in the world's markets.
10. That the domestic industries have to be independent of foreign ownership and from a concentration of domestic ownership.
11. That trade should be with other developing countries as much as possible.
12. That external debt in hard foreign currency is to be avoided.

All of this points to the need for a third way developing country economic system that emphasizes independence, self-reliance, protectionism, government interventions concentrated on providing education, infrastructure and investment, almost inhuman patience and tolerance of many small failures, lifting the country by lifting the lower class to build a middle class and not by catering to the wealthy.

I am absolutely sure of two things, one, no one has every done this and that two, it has never been tried. The closest that I am aware of are Ecuador, Bolivia and in most regards Brazil, while counter examples abound, the rest of South America and in other regards, Brazil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because Venezuela was so great under Chavez and these current problems are absolutely and in no way a direct follow up to the non-issues he definitely did not create in that country.

Exactly.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Chavez, who was under constant attack from the rich former ruling class of Venezuela and the US.

This is about the people who took over after Chavez who were not Chavez.

Just a reversion to typical corrupt government.

The kind of government we have seen in many capitalist nations.

Mexico is an example.

You didn't realize it was satire??

What we are seeing in Venezuela is exactly what we expected to see based on the path Chavez took. Some of us have made predictions on here about this--and been on target. If there was really no connection how did we hit the bullseye?

 

[Axulus]

Because Venezuela was so great under Chavez and these current problems are absolutely and in no way a direct follow up to the non-issues he definitely did not create in that country.

Exactly.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Chavez, who was under constant attack from the rich former ruling class of Venezuela and the US.

This is about the people who took over after Chavez who were not Chavez.

Just a reversion to typical corrupt government.

The kind of government we have seen in many capitalist nations.

Mexico is an example.

That's right folks. Chavez did absolutely nothing to consolidate power in the executive and always cracked down on corruption within his own government. His economic policies also have zero to do with the supply shortages and hyperinflation. Nothing to see here, move along. And also, don't forget to drink your cup of Kool-Aid on your way out.

 

[untermensche]

Exactly.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Chavez, who was under constant attack from the rich former ruling class of Venezuela and the US.

This is about the people who took over after Chavez who were not Chavez.

Just a reversion to typical corrupt government.

The kind of government we have seen in many capitalist nations.

Mexico is an example.

That's right folks. Chavez did absolutely nothing to consolidate power in the executive and always cracked down on corruption within his own government. His economic policies also have zero to do with the supply shortages and hyperinflation. Nothing to see here, move along. And also, don't forget to drink your cup of Kool-Aid on your way out.

This has nothing to do with Chavez or any of his policies.

This is run-of-the-mill corruption. Human greed and theft.

We see it in capitalist nation after capitalist nation in the Western hemisphere.

Chavez tried to break the cycle in Venezuela.

But one man was not enough.

 

[Axulus]

That's right folks. Chavez did absolutely nothing to consolidate power in the executive and always cracked down on corruption within his own government. His economic policies also have zero to do with the supply shortages and hyperinflation. Nothing to see here, move along. And also, don't forget to drink your cup of Kool-Aid on your way out.

This has nothing to do with Chavez or any of his policies.

This is run-of-the-mill corruption. Human greed and theft.

We see it in capitalist nation after capitalist nation in the Western hemisphere.

Chavez tried to break the cycle in Venezuela.

But one man was not enough.

Pull that wool off of your eyes! How can you possibly believe such myths in this day and age when information is so widespread?

http://images.eluniversal.com/2008/02/26/rodriguezdocumento.pdf

 

[untermensche]

This has nothing to do with Chavez or any of his policies.

This is run-of-the-mill corruption. Human greed and theft.

We see it in capitalist nation after capitalist nation in the Western hemisphere.

Chavez tried to break the cycle in Venezuela.

But one man was not enough.

Pull that wool off of your eyes! How can you possibly believe such myths in this day and age when information is so widespread?

http://images.eluniversal.com/2008/02/26/rodriguezdocumento.pdf

Chavez was attacked with absurd rubbish like this everyday he was in power.

The US orchestrated a coup that murdered protesters in the streets that was overturned by the people of Venezuela.

When Chavez died his revolution died with him unfortunately.

That has happened time and time again in human history.

 

[Jayjay]

Maduro is Chavez's hand-picked successor. He contined Chavez's policies, and those policies would have failed just as well had Chavez lived a few years longer. Only thing Chavez would have going for him is being slightly more charismatic than Maduro, but in terms of policies there is no difference whatsoever.