That is arguable, technically he is the default president under the constitution as a result of that role and Maduro is illegally holding onto the Presidency and illegally tried to sidestep congress.
Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.
That is arguable, technically he is the default president under the constitution as a result of that role and Maduro is illegally holding onto the Presidency and illegally tried to sidestep congress.
Caporegime
Maduro wasn't legally elected president in May 2018; the election was illegally conducted. Although, to be honest, in a system that has been grotesquely twisted by a dictator such as Maduro legality is a rather questionable concept anyway. What is legal? Is it what the dictator has illegally made de facto legal or what should have been legal under the less perverted constitution? It's hard to say.
Associate
Socialism itself isn't to blame, terrible economic planning is to blame.
Venezuela is probably one of the saddest stories of modern state failures, as unlike the others, it was rich!
Venezuela is probably one of the saddest stories of modern state failures, as unlike the others, it was rich!
Caporegime
Juan Guaidó is not a socialist, he's democratic centre-left.
Caporegime
He's a socialist. His party is a member of Socialist International. This includes some of the democratic centre left so there is no contradiction here.
Soldato
He's a US-backed stooge. And yes, he is trying to stage a coup.
I think socialism and terrible economic planning go hand in hand. But that said, if Americans are so convinced socialism always fails you'd think they wouldn't feel the need for massive sanctions, backing rebels, asset freezing and seizure, political isolation and (almost certain) covert destabilisation efforts trying to make it fail. As an actual capitalist, I believe trade is one of the most effective tools we have for bringing about political freedom and development. Yet the Ben Shapiro type talking heads and current US administration just love to sanction a country and do everything they can to make it fail.
Another factor that has hurt Venezuela is the US shale oil and fracking industry. Secure in its oil wealth, Venezuela thought they had some defense against US aggression. But now that the US is actually a net exporter of natural gas and soon to be a net exporter of oil, it's happy to throw its weight around in the Middle East and South America knowing that other countries can't bring American motorists to a standstill by raising prices.
Caporegime
I think the two go hand in hand....
Caporegime
Yes, he's US-backed and also Peruvian-backed, Columbian-backed, Swedish-backed, and Japanese--backed (among others). So why single out the US? As for "stooge", there is simply no reason to believe this to be true.
His claim to the presidency may have problems but it's undoubtedly more legitimate than Maduro's. It's no wonder the democratic world near universally supports him.
Soldato
Because the US is his political sponsor asking other countries to recognize him. The US is the one making explicit overtures to the venezuelan military to stage a coup. The US is the one that calls for and arranges sanctions on Venezuela. The US is the one that has a long tradition of attempting to overthrow or subvert South American countries unlike, say, Sweden and Japan. I specifically single out the USA because the USA is by far the most active in pushing for a revolution there both visibly and behind the scenes. And if you even try to pretend that Sweden or Japan are in any way comparable then you're not being honest with any of us.
Associate
I think economic planning tends is often be better under socialism, but overall has worse results as the government has a greater responsibility for failings (it's more obvious).
Take our current economic climate in the UK, is it a strong, stable, well planned economy? - I'd say it is not; rather I couldn't have imagined a realistic method for the Tories to drop the ball more than they have done. It just so happens that so much has been privatised that there is limited impact.
In my opinion the current system vaguely works as follows:
-> Tax collected from Financial services
-> Government makes dumb decision
-> Markets React
-> Foreign giants come in
-> Mix of public and private investment
-> Passes though the city paying for some bankers along the way
-> Project gets funded and the rest goes back into the indirection machine
-> Debt rises but is largely privately owned
-> Life goes on
If you don't believe me, look into what owns Heathrow, it's run by a Quasi-Spanish based conglomerate and the China Investment Corporation. Britain has just been going along for the ride in a globalist system, as such the government has lost all ability to make rational economic plans, but also doesn't even need to any-more.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I thinking that’s a flawed argument tbh, we currently (despite the farce that is Westminster at the moment) have an unemployment rate of 3.9% in the three months to February 2019, its lowest level since November 1974-January 1975, and what will happen to the economy once Mr Corbyn starts renationalising privatised industry’s? - at our expense - we are barely - if at all - out of austerity yet Corbyn thinks he can find £100Bn +(and the rest in legal costs) to buy these industry’s back?
It’s laughable, he’s hell bent on a course that will bring this country back to the status of the “Sick man of Europe” - at best, more likely his ideas of a failed ideology long forgotten by most will bring this country to its knees.
If he gets in and follows through with his ideals, God help us!
Associate
Agreed, my point is just that the government itself didn't achieve that, the market did. When the market decides to take that away we'll have nothing left.
I wouldn't trust Corbyn either, but that's a different argument.
At least in my opinion Socialism at work is a system where the market has great amounts of power, but is limited in areas where the price of the commodity can directly destroy peoples lives, such as housing, transport or defence. It should be a system which facilitates there being a fair baseline for people and corporations to compete atop of.
Admittedly this is also easier said than done, but preferable when done right.
Soldato
This is a very mild definition of socialism. Though I think you recognize that.
Associate
If you want to call it Capitalism-lite then I guess I'm fine with that. I've seen some examples of households on a 6 figure gross income not being able to start family, or sleeping in the office to avoid having to commute half way across the country.
From where I'm standing I can see the working and middle class getting brutally sodomised worse than any history in which the term "middle class" was a meaningful utterance. Yet our overlords are no-longer some guy twirling his moustache, but an unknowable Gordian knot of untaxable corporate entities and conglomerates. Let me have a house, a job and a hot meal; then lets talk market forces.
Last edited:
Soldato
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have gone quiet on the whole Venezuela situation recently.......
All the thing's you're complaining about make sense when you understand basic economics, every post of yours I've read just demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of it.
For example if a house hold is on 100k but they can't afford to start a family, I'd guess they're living in central London. The reason property is expensive is because there is a high demand to live there, lots of people want to live there because wages are high, so wages being high pushes up demand for housing close to work, which pushes up property prices. That's nothing the government have done, it's simply supply and demand. If you want to earn London wages then you pay London prices. Alternatively you can earn less but live in a more affordable area. This is a freedom you are granted in a free market capitalistic economy, you can move where you want and choose where you work.
How does allocation work then? Like say I want an apartment or house in one of the Nash terraces in Regent's park, currently it is seven figures for an apartment and some of the houses can go for 8 figures... you're going to control property prices somehow - so who gets to live there and how do you allocate those properties?
Soldato
I believe Cooler Running knows that, and what they're advocating is for selectively applied socialism. I.e. the government doesn't try to nationalise our industries (like Venezuela did), but does somehow nationalise the housing market. Though I suspect what they mean is intervene rather than nationalise. E.g. pay for more social housing, perhaps? If they actually mean housing in this country should be run under socialist principles, I'd be interested to see how they thought that would work.
Soldato
The existing owner gets to carry on living there. They just find themselves with a few extra "guests" when they come home.
