Venezuela is capitalist

[theisthanger556]

Every county is a mixture to one degree or another of capitalism and socialist or statism. What caused the current collapse in Venezuela is NOT capitalism, but Chavez's foray into socialism. There is really no one who disputes that. Except maybe you.

Strawman. I didn't claim that capitalism caused Venezuela's current collapse. I said that the neo-liberal policies in the 80s and 90s were terrible. And neither did Chavez's "socialism" cause the Venezuelan collapse. The neo-liberalism from the 80s and 90s certainly didn't help, but the plummeting oil prices as well as a corruption. In my original post, I simply stated that Venezuela is capitalist, not socialist. I didn't claim that Venezuela's problems are due to capitalism (althrough capitalism made everything worse).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

We have all seen examples of both capitalism and socialism which are for the most part, successful.
I'll wait till someone smarter than myself (and there are many I am sure) can point to a moderately successful fascist nation.

My point is, you can't blame either capitalism or socialism as the sole/exclusive cause of Venezuela's problems.
It's a gross oversimplification, just for starters.

 

[Mycroft]

You take Merriam-Webster over Wikipedia? Why? And please do not say something like "Anyone can edit Wikipedia".

Do you even know anything about Socialism? The whole purpose of socialism is that "capitalist is exploitative as the workers do not get the fruits of their labour, and instead their productions go to the capitalists, the bourgeois, who extract surplus value from the workers". If socialism really would be "government control over the MOP", that wouldn't be any better, as the workers still wouldn't own the MOP.

LOL!!


Sorry...but "anyone can edit Wiki". Not so with Merriam-Webster.

In any case, remember what I said about varying degrees. You may want to stay in the world of "classic socialism", but the world won't stay with you.

 

[theisthanger556]

LOL!!


Sorry...but "anyone can edit Wiki". Not so with Merriam-Webster.

In any case, remember what I said about varying degrees. You may want to stay in the world of "classic socialism", but the world won't stay with you.

If you would have done any actual research, you would know that most "important" (such as political pages, pages about celebrities, etc) Wiki pages are protected, so not every 9-year edit can go there... Are you seriously saying that everything in hereis unaccurate due to "anyone can edit Wiki" (btw, false changes get reverted in like 5 minutes at most)?

Even so, Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com states clearly that it is about communal ownership over the MOP, not governmental.

 

[theisthanger556]

We have all seen examples of both capitalism and socialism which are for the most part, successful.
I'll wait till someone smarter than myself (and there are many I am sure) can point to a moderately successful fascist nation.

My point is, you can't blame either capitalism or socialism as the sole/exclusive cause of Venezuela's problems.
It's a gross oversimplification, just for starters.

I didn't, I just pointed out that it's actually a capitalist nation, not a socialist, althrough capitalists like to use it as an example of "socialism failing".

 

[Apostle of Marx]

View attachment 67226708

For the record, socialism has only ever failed when it has not been socialist enough. All attempts at the dictatorship of the proletariat or "socialism in one country" have failed because capitalist relations of production have been maintained. People like Chavez, Castro and Ziyang didn't go far enough, that's why Venezuela, Cuba and China now have state capitalist systems. The Chinese called it the "socialist market economy" but really all that is code for is state controlled capitalism. You can't have socialism and market forces. That's a contradiction in terms.

But it seems audacious to me that people can mock socialism like this while also defending a system of economics as dysfunctional and inefficient as capitalism.

 

[Harshaw]

For the record, socialism has only ever failed when it has not been socialist enough. All attempts at the dictatorship of the proletariat or "socialism in one country" have failed because capitalist relations of production have been maintained. People like Chavez, Castro and Ziyang didn't go far enough, that's why Venezuela, Cuba and China now have state capitalist systems. The Chinese called it the "socialist market economy" but really all that is code for is state controlled capitalism. You can't have socialism and market forces. That's a contradiction in terms.

But it seems audacious to me that people can mock socialism like this while also defending a system of economics as dysfunctional and inefficient as capitalism.

1) Do you understand that you confirmed what you quoted?

2) By posting it, I didn't "defend" anything.

3) I'm guessing you're not particularly serious anyway.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

1) Do you understand that you confirmed what you quoted?

Sure, but I was under the impression you were making fun of that position.

2) By posting it, I didn't "defend" anything.

It says you lean to the libertarian right, so unless that means something else other than a defence of capitalism I'm fairly sure that's the reason you posted the picture.

3) I'm guessing you're not particularly serious anyway.

Why would I not be serious?

 

[Harshaw]

Sure, but I was under the impression you were making fun of that position.

I don't know why you would think that.

It says you lean to the libertarian right, so unless that means something else other than a defence of capitalism I'm fairly sure that's the reason you posted the picture.

What matters is what I actually say, not your assumptions based on your perception of my "lean."

Why would I not be serious?

Why, indeed.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

I don't know why you would think that.

Because you consider yourself on the libertarian right, which is traditionally antithetical to socialism...

What matters is what I actually say, not your assumptions based on your perception of my "lean."

Well presumably you wouldn't have put your leaning as such if you didn't lean that way. My apologies if I'm wrong, but I have the terrible habit of believing what people say when they say it.

Why, indeed.

...You're being weird.

 

[Harshaw]

Because you consider yourself on the libertarian right, which is traditionally antithetical to socialism...

I endorse the cartoon I posted. I think it's possible you either misunderstood the cartoon or my purpose for posting it.

If I was mocking anything, it was the "argument" depicted in the cartoon, an "argument" you expressed yourself.

Well presumably you wouldn't have put your leaning as such if you didn't lean that way. My apologies if I'm wrong, but I have the terrible habit of believing what people say when they say it.

I "said" nothing about capitalism. Deal with my posts, not your "presumptions."

...You're being weird.

No, I just suspect you may not be serious.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

If I was mocking anything, it was the "argument" depicted in the cartoon, an "argument" you expressed yourself.

Yeah, as I suspected. But why are you mocking this argument? The assumption is that if something is socialist enough then it would have succeeded, but since it wasn't socialist enough it didn't. So I don't really understand what the point of what you're saying is.

I "said" nothing about capitalism. Deal with my posts, not your "presumptions."

I'm not really sure you're in a position to tell me how to engage with people on the forum. If you describe yourself as leaning towards the libertarian right then I am going to presume that is where you lean.

No, I just suspect you may not be serious.

Well, I can't really do anything about that.

 

[Harshaw]

Yeah, as I suspected. But why are you mocking this argument? The assumption is that if something is socialist enough then it would have succeeded, but since it wasn't socialist enough it didn't. So I don't really understand what the point of what you're saying is.

The reason I mock it is self-evident.

I'm not really sure you're in a position to tell me how to engage with people on the forum.

I didn't tell you how to engage with people on the forum. I told you what you need to do if you want to make more logically-valid statements.

But, going under the (somewhat dubious) assumption that your own information is true, and you really have only been here since last week, I do think I have a much, much, much better handle on how to read things like leans here at this forum. Given the chasm between us in relative experience here, how could I not?

If you describe yourself as leaning towards the libertarian right then I am going to presume that is where you lean.

Which doesn't mean I said anything about "capitalism," defending it or otherwise, as you claimed I did.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

The reason I mock it is self-evident.

No. Sorry, you don't get out of this by telling me I should immediately understand you, especially since you're whole thing is about me not making assumptions about what you mean.

You're mocking socialism for the argument that socialism failed because it wasn't real socialism, but that's true. You accepted it's true by affirming that what I said was in line with your mocking. So, either you accept that socialism's failures have been because they have not been socialist enough, in which case the picture is just affirming a fact, or you claim that socialism has failed for another reason, which aren't at all obvious. What is it?

If you want to discuss why you think socialism has failed, then let's talk about it.

But, going under the (somewhat dubious) assumption that your own information is true, and you really have only been here since last week, I do think I have a much, much, much better handle on how to read things like leans here at this forum. Given the chasm between us in relative experience here, how could I not?

You're right, you do have a better handle on this forum if on this forum how people describe their political leanings is not in fact how they lean politically. But even if you're trying to say that the way you've described your political leanings are not really the sum of your entire political perspective, I struggle to see how someone who leans towards the libertarian right could also lean towards a set of political beliefs that did not come to capitalism's defence simultaneously.

Anyway, I'm not going to get bogged down in this nonsense. You should just address the political substance of this conversation. Namely that socialism has failed only because it was not socialist enough.

Which doesn't mean I said anything about "capitalism," defending it or otherwise, as you claimed I did.

You're right, you didn't say it, but to try and pretend that's not what you're doing is just dishonest.

 

[Harshaw]

No. Sorry, you don't get out of this by telling me I should immediately understand you, especially since you're whole thing is about me not making assumptions about what you mean.

You're mocking socialism for the argument that socialism failed because it wasn't real socialism, but that's true. You accepted it's true by affirming that what I said was in line with your mocking. So, either you accept that socialism's failures have been because they have not been socialist enough, in which case the picture is just affirming a fact, or you claim that socialism has failed for another reason, which aren't at all obvious. What is it?

If you want to discuss why you think socialism has failed, then let's talk about it.

No, I'm mocking the very real practice of those who claim it wasn't "real socialism" whenever socialism collapses.

You're right, you do have a better handle on this forum if on this forum how people describe their political leanings is not in fact how they lean politically. But even if you're trying to say that the way you've described your political leanings are not really the sum of your entire political perspective, I struggle to see how someone who leans towards the libertarian right could also lean towards a set of political beliefs that did not come to capitalism's defence simultaneously.

Then that is a serious gap in your reasoning skills that you ought to address. :shrug:

Anyway, I'm not going to get bogged down in this nonsense. You should just address the political substance of this conversation.

I did. :shrug:

Namely that socialism has failed only because it was not socialist enough.

No, that's your claim. Don't mistake that for the "political substance of this conversation."

You're right, you didn't say it, but to try and pretend that's not what you're doing is just dishonest.

No, what's dishonest is assigning statements to me that I did not make. If you infer that mocking the like-clockwork practice of claiming that failed socialism wasn't "real socialism" automatically means some kind of "defense of capitalism," however you might come to that conclusion, well, see above about your lapses in critical thinking. That is your error, not mine.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

No, I'm mocking the very real practice of those who claim it wasn't "real socialism" whenever socialism collapses.

But actually if you look at the swathes of work written on these subjects by socialists you'll see that people say that it isn't "real socialism" long before they collapse.

Then that is a serious gap in your reasoning skills that you ought to address. :shrug:

I don't think my reasoning skills are the problem here. Either you don't know what the libertarian right advocates or you're lying.

No, that's your claim. Don't mistake that for the "political substance of this conversation."

Of course it's my claim! I'm asking you to explain to me why it's not true. It either is or it isn't true. Which is it?

No, what's dishonest is assigning statements to me that I did not make. If you infer that mocking the like-clockwork practice of claiming that failed socialism wasn't "real socialism" automatically means some kind of "defense of capitalism," however you might come to that conclusion, well, see above about your lapses in critical thinking. That is your error, not mine.

The idea that you posted the picture without coming from a position of pro-capitalism is just ridiculous. It doesn't add up that you can lean to the libertarian right and not be criticising socialism from the position of being pro-capitalist. This isn't an error in my critical thinking, I'm just not buying into your equivocation, masquerading as some kind of undoing of a logical fallacy on my part. You are either lying about not coming from a position of pro-capitalism, you are confused about what the libertarian right is or you're pretending you lean towards the libertarian-right. I'm afraid you can't lean to the libertarian right and also not be pro-capitalist.

 

[Harshaw]

But actually if you look at the swathes of work written on these subjects by socialists you'll see that people say that it isn't "real socialism" long before they collapse.

Never while they appear to be doing well.

I don't think my reasoning skills are the problem here. Either you don't know what the libertarian right advocates or you're lying.



Of course it's my claim! I'm asking you to explain to me why it's not true. It either is or it isn't true. Which is it?



The idea that you posted the picture without coming from a position of pro-capitalism is just ridiculous. It doesn't add up that you can lean to the libertarian right and not be criticising socialism from the position of being pro-capitalist. This isn't an error in my critical thinking, I'm just not buying into your equivocation, masquerading as some kind of undoing of a logical fallacy on my part. You are either lying about not coming from a position of pro-capitalism, you are confused about what the libertarian right is or you're pretending you lean towards the libertarian-right. I'm afraid you can't lean to the libertarian right and also not be pro-capitalist.

If you can't figure out what your logical error is after having it explained to you numerous times, there's no point in repeating it. Whether your cognitive errors are fixable is something only you can reveal.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

Never while they appear to be doing well.

All that demonstrates is that you don't know what you're talking about.

There was a huge amount of critiques written about Soviet Russia from as soon as the Petrograd coup happened, right up until Stalin's seizure of power and beyond. The same for China and for the state capitalist countries in South East Asia and Latin America. A cursory google search would demonstrate this.

And to be honest, what period of the existence of a "socialist" nation was ever doing well?

If you can't figure out what your logical error is after having it explained to you numerous times, there's no point in repeating it. Whether your cognitive errors are fixable is something only you can reveal.

All you've said is that I shouldn't presume that someone thinks something just because it says so in their profile. That's it. Well, sorry mate, but no. I am going to presume that. So like say, either you're lying, confused or you're pretending. Not that I expect you to admit to it. So, whatever.

 

[Marco Montana]

Venzuela is what happens when you allow the Government to take your guns and freedoms away and become the Democratic Party. They choose what the people can and cannot do.

As a matter of fact when Venuezuelans were protesting the Government said stop or we wont give you any food! Thats not Capitalism

 

[Tigerace117]

All that demonstrates is that you don't know what you're talking about.

There was a huge amount of critiques written about Soviet Russia from as soon as the Petrograd coup happened, right up until Stalin's seizure of power and beyond. The same for China and for the state capitalist countries in South East Asia and Latin America. A cursory google search would demonstrate this.

And to be honest, what period of the existence of a "socialist" nation was ever doing well?



All you've said is that I shouldn't presume that someone thinks something just because it says so in their profile. That's it. Well, sorry mate, but no. I am going to presume that. So like say, either you're lying, confused or you're pretending. Not that I expect you to admit to it. So, whatever.

Every communist country which has ever existed has contributed nothing but mass slaughter buddy. Every single time communists have taken power there have been the deaths of thousands of innocent people. And there have always been plenty of people supporting such brutal regimes and doing everything up to and including genocide denial.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

Every communist country...

Communism isn't a political system, nor is it a state in which a country exists. It's a social relationship.

...which has ever existed has contributed nothing but mass slaughter buddy.

If you want to go tit-for-tat on body count, let's talk about capitalism's atrocities because I guarantee it's going to be more.

In any case, communism has never existed anywhere.

Every single time communists have taken power there have been the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Thousands of innocent people die on a daily basis because of capitalism's barbarity, so what is this conversation about? If it's about them morality of political systems, then capitalism has way more to answer for. The UN estimates 1 in 9 people in the world are undernourished, many of whom die as a result of starvation, in world over-abundant with food.

But yes, I agree, the manner in which communists have seized state power has often been brutal. My personal position on that would be dependent on the actual facts presented.

And there have always been plenty of people supporting such brutal regimes and doing everything up to and including genocide denial.

I don't know what genocides you're referring to, but the mass executions of workers has been something inherent in authoritarian political systems throughout history, including those done in the name of so-called communism.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

Venzuela is what happens when you allow the Government to take your guns and freedoms away and become the Democratic Party. They choose what the people can and cannot do.

As a matter of fact when Venuezuelans were protesting the Government said stop or we wont give you any food! Thats not Capitalism

So your definition of capitalism is whether or not the government gives you food? That's bizarre.

 

[Harshaw]

All that demonstrates is that you don't know what you're talking about.

There was a huge amount of critiques written about Soviet Russia from as soon as the Petrograd coup happened, right up until Stalin's seizure of power and beyond. The same for China and for the state capitalist countries in South East Asia and Latin America. A cursory google search would demonstrate this.

And to be honest, what period of the existence of a "socialist" nation was ever doing well?

It is difficult to ascertain your actual argument. Were they socialist nations or not? If not, then why are you invoking them? I didn't mention them. Also, do you argue that none of these nations ever did well?

(Never mind that my actual words were "appear to be doing well.")

All you've said is that I shouldn't presume that someone thinks something just because it says so in their profile. That's it.

No, that, in fact, is not "all" I said. Your reading skills appear to be on par with your critical thinking. Which, I'm sure, goes hand-in-hand.

Which makes your conclusion:

Well, sorry mate, but no. I am going to presume that. So like say, either you're lying, confused or you're pretending. Not that I expect you to admit to it. So, whatever.

Utter piffle.

In any case, thank you for illustrating the little cartoon with a stereotypical perfection that, really, you'd only expect a Poe to reach.

 

[Apostle of Marx]

It is difficult to ascertain your actual argument. Were they socialist nations or not? If not, then why are you invoking them? I didn't mention them. Also, do you argue that none of these nations ever did well?

No, you didn't mention them, but since they're the prime examples of so-called socialist nations, what else would you have been referring to? Part of being an adult is being able to infer things from what people say based on your knowledge and experience. You are an adult, right?

My argument is that they attempted socialism, but did not go far enough, which resulted in their eventual failure. Failure is characterised as their return to capitalist relations of production. Your picture makes fun of that argument, so I am asking you (for like the fourth time) to explain to me why it's not true? If it's true, then why are you mocking socialists for making an argument that's true and if you think it's not true, then explain to me why.

No, that, in fact, is not "all" I said. Your reading skills appear to be on par with your critical thinking. Which, I'm sure, goes hand-in-hand.

Are you on the spectrum? I'm not saying that as a slight, but you're just taking this whole literal thing to some kind of obsessive compulsive level. Obviously it's not all you said. In regards to trying to school me in what debatepolitics foum rules are around political leanings, it's pretty much all you said.

Utter piffle.

Piffle? Are you an actual a real person? Who speaks like this...This is 2018 in case you hadn't realised

 

[Tigerace117]

Communism isn't a political system, nor is it a state in which a country exists. It's a social relationship.



If you want to go tit-for-tat on body count, let's talk about capitalism's atrocities because I guarantee it's going to be more.

In any case, communism has never existed anywhere.



Thousands of innocent people die on a daily basis because of capitalism's barbarity, so what is this conversation about? If it's about them morality of political systems, then capitalism has way more to answer for. The UN estimates 1 in 9 people in the world are undernourished, many of whom die as a result of starvation, in world over-abundant with food.

But yes, I agree, the manner in which communists have seized state power has often been brutal. My personal position on that would be dependent on the actual facts presented.



I don't know what genocides you're referring to, but the mass executions of workers has been something inherent in authoritarian political systems throughout history, including those done in the name of so-called communism.

Actually, as history shows us, communism is a totalitarian system of government which revolves around the murder or imprisonment of anyone thought to oppose the government whether they actually do or not. Babbling about “social relationships” is meaningless when it comes up against reality.

Buddy, the two greatest mass murderers in the history of the world were both communists. The war crimes committed by the USSR alone could fill a damn phone book. Even the minor communist states like Romania had committed atrocities far worse than anything capitalism has done.

In any case, that little fantasy of yours is dead wrong. There have been plenty of communist countries. All have been among the worst in human history in terms of atrocities committed.

Total bull****, but hey, way to desperately try to handwave away millions of deliberate murders and multiple genocides.

Gee buddy, considering there was about a famine every five years or so in the USSR, you have no room to talk when it comes to “malnourishment”.

Always, buddy. There has never once been a communist country which didn’t murder thousands of innocent people.

The Holodomor and the Vietnamese attempts to wipe out the Montagnards/Degar, for starters.