Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.

[Caracus2k]

That is a completely warped interpretation.

Not least we never allied with Communism. Did the Americans actively support Communism?

Of course the Americans actively supported the USSR. Perhaps you should do some more reading on the subject?

Lend-Lease: How American supplies aided the USSR in its darkest hour

It is of course also worth rembering that pretty much up to the start of Operation Barbarossa that the USSR was in a pact with the Nazi's and they were trading with one another.

 

[Werewolf]

As with anything, extreme socialism is bad, and extreme capitalism is bad.

It's about finding a well-tuned balance of the 2, which only a few countries seem to be even vaguely close to.

This to be honest.

Extreme capitalism would basically be only do stuff that makes money and forget about helping anyone else unless it profits you/the company.

There have been a number of examples of that and how badly it went for the average person, even just looking at the US's history.
There are some very recent examples of it as well, including companies buying up vital drug patents and raising the prices manyfold knowing people have no choice but to buy, or deciding that making the product safe and reliable was less important than making an extra couple of percent in profit, and going back just ~100 years the mine owners etc were killing people who were striking/protesting working conditions and wages.

 

[Minusorange]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russi...old-flies-to-unknown-location-lawmaker-claims

Protection payments ?

 

[DisrupTor75]

They don't even try to hide their true intentions anymore.

Always the oil.

*edit* forgot to add this gem.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Extreme capitalism would basically be only do stuff that makes money and forget about helping anyone else unless it profits you/the company.

I reject that. Nothing in capitalism requires one to not care about others or prevents you from giving to help those. Even Ayn Rand, Arch-Capitalist and hate-figure for the Left, spoke favourably on charity. Her objection (and that of even "extreme" capitalists) is when you give OTHER PEOPLE's money away, not your own. Nor do we say "only do stuff that makes money". Which capitalists do you have in mind that said this? I'd be fascinated to know. I mean, Ebeneezer Scrooge, yes - but do you have any non-fictional ones? Because I AM an extreme capitalist and what you've said certainly doesn't sound familiar to me.

 

[h4rm0ny]

They don't even try to hide their true intentions anymore.

Always the oil.

*edit* forgot to add this gem.

They don't need to. Everyone knows that the Americans are the Goodies and the Venezuelan government are the Baddies. So anything America does must be good, no?

EDIT: That first video is excellent.

 

[Pudney]

Well except that a (THE even) key part of that was an agreement for a combined and cooperative assault on Poland. (CW mass slaughter of Polish POW's by the Soviets, Not even the Germans were into that at the start!)

As I have said elsewhere, Actions speak louder than words!

Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland within days (Hours??). Why not the USSR, at all, ever?

Really, I would love to see the historical documents that might explain this bizarre difference in treatment.

Yes, I said about the "Secret Protocol". But this doesn't make the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact an alliance. Importantly in the event of a conflict Germany and the USSR committed to neutrality and not assistance.

Also a big difference between the two invasions was that the Polish-British defence pact specifically committed Britain to defending Poland in the event of a European invasion, with a secret protocol (they must have been popular at that time) that the defence pact specifically related to a German invasion.

 

[ubersonic]

As with anything, extreme socialism is bad, and extreme capitalism is bad.

It's about finding a well-tuned balance of the 2, which only a few countries seem to be even vaguely close to.

Problem is, it's hard to do that when the United States is actively trying to destroy socialism wherever it encounters it.

Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland within days (Hours??). Why not the USSR, at all, ever?

Really, I would love to see the historical documents that might explain this bizarre difference in treatment.

It's actually a very simple explanation: When the USSR invaded Poland, Britain and France had already been "at war" with Germany for over a fortnight. This meant that their chance of winning a war against the USSR was approximately 0.0%. Now granted it wouldn't have been much better even without Germany in the picture, but our politicians weren't stupid and so declaring war on the USSR, when we were already at war with a more than formidable opponent, was suicide.

 

[ubersonic]

Had Hitler stayed in art collage, the world today is likley to have been a far darker placed!

Not really.

If it hadn't been for WW2 galvanising the population into action "for the motherland" then the USSR would never have survived as long as it did, the people would have grown fed up (sooner), politicians would have lost control (sooner) and capitalism would have taken over (sooner). Also without the west bankrolling/supplying it the USSR would have lost a massive amount of their population to famine/etc (and I say massive compared to the amount they did lose to famine/etc).

The only major difference really would be that the EU would be the #1 superpower and USA #2.

 

[Caracus2k]

I reject that. Nothing in capitalism requires one to not care about others or prevents you from giving to help those.

Well stated nothing that is inherent in capitalism is evil.

Capitalism is nothing more and nothing less then the private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

At a simple level this can mean that an individual is free to retain the product of their own labour and to sell, gift of dispose of it as they choose.

Conversely socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. Therefore the more a country veers towards socialism the more it must incorporate industry into 'collective' ownership.

This means that the logical conclusion is that the fruits of an indivuals labour are not their own but rather the 'collectives' to distribute and use.

And inevitably the 'collective' means a corrupt totalitarian state as it is not possible for humans to eschew larger hierachal power structures to form local colectives whilst managing to maintain complex interconnected modern economies (or even anything more complex then a simple small commune)

Socialism demands that industry be taken into state control and also, taken to its conclusion, must logically prohibit the inception of any new privately held enterprise.

Hence the Russian peasant farmer is forced, at gunpoint, to hand over his or hers grain production to the agents of the state for collective distribution as the state sees fit and cannot make any provision for his or her own family and the benefit of any innovation or hard work above their peers are lost to the peasants family who may well starve as the goverment priorities lie elsewhere.

Socialism and be extension socialists are inherently evil (even if only unwittingly)

Ultimately political power is the application of violence and socialism demands that such power be wielded to take industry into state ownership and prevent the establishment of any alternative private enterprise.

 

[krooton]

Well stated nothing that is inherent in capitalism is evil.

Capitalism is nothing more and nothing less then the private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

At a simple level this can mean that an individual is free to retain the product of their own labour and to sell, gift of dispose of it as they choose.

Conversely socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. Therefore the more a country veers towards socialism the more it must incorporate industry into 'collective' ownership.

This means that the logical conclusion is that the fruits of an indivuals labour are not their own but rather the 'collectives' to distribute and use.

And inevitably the 'collective' means a corrupt totalitarian state as it is not possible for humans to eschew larger hierachal power structures to form local colectives whilst managing to maintain complex interconnected modern economies (or even anything more complex then a simple small commune)

Socialism demands that industry be taken into state control and also, taken to its conclusion, must logically prohibit the inception of any new privately held enterprise.

Hence the Russian peasant farmer is forced, at gunpoint, to hand over his or hers grain production to the agents of the state for collective distribution as the state sees fit and cannot make any provision for his or her own family and the benefit of any innovation or hard work above their peers are lost to the peasants family who may well starve as the goverment priorities lie elsewhere.

Socialism and be extension socialists are inherently evil (even if only unwittingly)

Ultimately political power is the application of violence and socialism demands that such power be wielded to take industry into state ownership and prevent the establishment of any alternative private enterprise.

Indeed, but at the same time, there are only a handful of multi-national super-companies who pretty much own everything. If they were given free reign to chase profits as they see fit, it would not be of benefit to the general population.

The smaller 'socialist' ideas that I am fully for, like the NHS, are struggling due to poor management and the constant swing of governments with no long term strategic plan to make it work.

I think basic human rights should be available without the intention of profit, I would love to have public transport nationalised, but still having private transport companies who want to offer above for a price, like Uber or what have you. So the government provides an affordable baseline transport network for everyone to use, and if Joe Bloggs wants to hire a private Merc they can do so.

A baseline affordable internet government run, again with options for faster more premium services in the private sector.

Hell, and I will probably get shot down for this, but baseline government funded food could even work, like a 'basics' brand that covers all the main nutritional bases, so people can eat heathily at a low price, but can still throw money away of lattes or avocado toast if they want.

I would like similar for Electricity, Gas and Water, but with no for-profit options as these are things everyone requires.

Benefits is obviously way too complicated, but I would rather it be a safety net rather than a way of life.

Oh, and my little bit of dictator would be to make spitting in public a £50 fineable offence.

 

[Caracus2k]

Indeed, but at the same time, there are only a handful of multi-national super-companies who pretty much own everything. If they were given free reign to chase profits as they see fit, it would not be of benefit to the general population.

Such mega corporations often rely on a complicit state to cement their positions of power in a corrupt relationship whereby political donations are used for political favour. Nothing in a capitalist system prevents the regulations of the means of production and distribution to prevent monopoly abuse.

The smaller 'socialist' ideas that I am fully for, like the NHS, are struggling due to poor management and the constant swing of governments with no long term strategic plan to make it work.

The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world! So much for 'smaller' ideals. Plenty of countries manage to have universal health care provisions without having a monolithic state run provider.

I think basic human rights should be available without the intention of profit, I would love to have public transport nationalised, but still having private transport companies who want to offer above for a price, like Uber or what have you. So the government provides an affordable baseline transport network for everyone to use, and if Joe Bloggs wants to hire a private Merc they can do so.

'Basic' human rights? I assume you mean things like housing (shelter), food, etc? And not more intangible things like freedom from persecution, freedom of speech and association? (that don't often imply a positive obligation on another to provide something)

Problem is when you make things like housing and food 'basis human rights' you are imposing on others an obligation to provide them potentially for no rewards or compensation in return. One person's such 'rights' means the state, by force if necessary, taking the fruits or another person's labour. You are back therefore to the totalitarian state problem.

A baseline affordable internet government run, again with options for faster more premium services in the private sector.

Hell, and I will probably get shot down for this, but baseline government funded food could even work, like a 'basics' brand that covers all the main nutritional bases, so people can eat heathily at a low price, but can still throw money away of lattes or avocado toast if they want.

I would like similar for Electricity, Gas and Water, but with no for-profit options as these are things everyone requires.

Benefits is obviously way too complicated, but I would rather it be a safety net rather than a way of life.

Oh, and my little bit of dictator would be to make spitting in public a £50 fineable offence.

The state has been shown repeatedly to be a woefully inefficient provider of goods and services. Far better to have a better regulated private market providing the goods and services.

 

[D.P.]

Of course the Americans actively supported the USSR. Perhaps you should do some more reading on the subject?

Lend-Lease: How American supplies aided the USSR in its darkest hour

It is of course also worth rembering that pretty much up to the start of Operation Barbarossa that the USSR was in a pact with the Nazi's and they were trading with one another.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with support communism, more utter gumpf from you.

 

[Caracus2k]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with support communism, more utter gumpf from you.

You can ally with somone without adopting their ideology. It's a historical fact that principally the US from the allied provided assistance to the USSR to fight the axis powers. No gumpf required.

 

[Eurofighter]

Socialism isn't all bad, our trains don't run on time if they turn up at all. Our private prisons are dangerous. Why mention Venezuela when you think about socialism but not Sweden.

 

[Caracus2k]

Socialism isn't all bad, our trains don't run on time if they turn up at all. Our private prisons are dangerous. Why mention Venezuela when you think about socialism but not Sweden.

Because Sweden isn't in the main socialist!

Its one of the more economically Liberal countries in the world.

Sweden’s economic freedom score is 75.2, making its economy the 19th freest in the 2019 Index.

The index covers 12 freedoms – from property rights to financial freedom – in 186 countries

Frequently Asked Questions
Q.1. What is economic freedom?
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

Source

Economic freedom is the antithesis of socialism. Its either ignorant or disengenuous to suggest Sweden is an example of a country following Socialism.

Here is Venezuela .

Venezuela’s economic freedom score is 25.9, making its economy the 179th freest in the 2019 Index.

 

[stockhausen]

Q.1. What is economic freedom?
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

How does this Capitalist freedom to "work, produce, consume, and invest in any way you please" sit with "illegal substances", prostitution, building on your own property in the Green Belt, etc.? Do we have here the first of a number of restrictions"

 

[krooton]

Such mega corporations often rely on a complicit state to cement their positions of power in a corrupt relationship whereby political donations are used for political favour. Nothing in a capitalist system prevents the regulations of the means of production and distribution to prevent monopoly abuse.

And this is why I said a balance of the 2, as you can also limit the totalitarianism of socialism.

The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world! So much for 'smaller' ideals. Plenty of countries manage to have universal health care provisions without having a monolithic state run provider.

So you are agreeing with me that universal, state-funded (eg tax) healthcare can work, we just do it poorly in this country.

'Basic' human rights? I assume you mean things like housing (shelter), food, etc? And not more intangible things like freedom from persecution, freedom of speech and association? (that don't often imply a positive obligation on another to provide something)

Well obviously.

Problem is when you make things like housing and food 'basis human rights' you are imposing on others an obligation to provide them potentially for no rewards or compensation in return. One person's such 'rights' means the state, by force if necessary, taking the fruits or another person's labour. You are back therefore to the totalitarian state problem.

Pretty sure I already have money taken by force to pay for things. Pro tip: it is called tax.

The state has been shown repeatedly to be a woefully inefficient provider of goods and services. Far better to have a better regulated private market providing the goods and services.

Did you completely miss that I said in my ideal world, and that governments have generally been crap at carrying such things out?

Deciding not to aim for a better life for society, because we haven't been successful at it yet, seems horribly defeatist to me.

 

[Caracus2k]

So you are agreeing with me that universal, state-funded (eg tax) healthcare can work, we just do it poorly in this country.

Yes I would agree that you can have a given degree of universal health care without a monolithic state provider.

Pretty sure I already have money taken by force to pay for things. Pro tip: it is called tax.

And I'm pretty sure that uk tax doesn't ensure a basic human right to the things mentioned.

There are means tested benefits and some limited age based benefits (for children and pensioners) but you can't currently just sit on your backside and demand a 'right' that you are accomadated, clothed and fed at public expense with no conditions attached.

Did you completely miss that I said in my ideal world, and that governments have generally been crap at carrying such things out?

We can all sit around imagining what would be the situation in an ideal/perfect world but such wish thinking doesn't help improve things in reality

Deciding not to aim for a better life for society, because we haven't been successful at it yet, seems horribly defeatist to me.

I'll quote you the Einsteinian defintion of madness (probably mis atributed... which would be apt as the man himself held socialist leanings)

"The defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result"

 

[h4rm0ny]

Socialism isn't all bad, our trains don't run on time if they turn up at all. Our private prisons are dangerous. Why mention Venezuela when you think about socialism but not Sweden.

Sweden is a Social Democracy. In the modern sense, that's a Capitalist system with high taxes to pay for social programs. It's basically a principle of: "Be capitalist, and we'll take profits from you". Socialism itself is state ownership of industry. The two can look similar and the lines can blur in places - e.g. a nationalised health service. But they're essentially different things. So for example in Venezuela, the state owns something like 40% of its main oil industry. Whilst in Sweden the oil industry would be privately owned by taxed a lot. It's a subtle but important difference.