Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "How's Socialism Doing in Venezuela? | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. Capitalism is doing just fine in those countries. They're not socialist. They have capitalism-funded social services. There's a difference.
    53
  2. Capitalism makes them work. Every time someone here mentions a successful Socialist country, they use Capitalist countries as examples. Those. Countries. Are. Not. Socialist. They are Capitalist countries that invest in Social Services. This is very different. Not all things that include "Social" in the name are Socialist.
    45
  3. If you're trying to claim Socialism works in countries, it's better to avoid using countries that aren't Socialist to make your point. Those are Capitalist countries that invest in Social services. It is very telling, however, that whenever people try to claim Socialism works, they use Capitalist countries as their examples. It's happened time and time again here. It's like the people who argue in favour of Socialism don't actually know what it is, or think that everything prefixed by "Social" is socialism. And Venezuela doesn't need someone who knows how to use force, it needs someone who knows how to run an economy.
    39
  4. They're basically scripted it. If [[ ${SOCIALISTSTATE} == "Failed" ]] then echo "It wasn't real Socialism" echo "It'll work next time" fi
    25
  5. More importantly, each of those countries is very firmly capitalist. They're capitalist economies that use high production this allows for to pay for nice things. Social services aren't socialism, and tendencies aren't acts.
    24
  6. It's cute when people blame sanctions or the drop in oil price for what's happening. Venezuela's problems far exceed and long predate those.
    23
  7. Not a socialist country. A capitalist country that invests heavily in social services. Very different.
    23
  8. >>this video is a lie<< How so? Specifically.
    21
  9. We have free healthcare. It works well (not perfect, but it works well) Well, ok, "free" healthcare. But it works because it's funded by a healthy capitalist economy. Capitalism is what pays for all the nice things that Socialism promises. Without the money (resources the money represents, whatever) there's nothing.
    20
  10. That has some truth to it. All I'd say there is: 1. That doesn't change that those countries you listed are Capitalist. 2. It's weird how Socialist countries always seem to have these problems, while Capitalist countries have plenty of exceptions. 3. It's also weird how countries that drive those 'power hungry brain dead monsters' away seem to end up with ruined economies. It's almost like those 'power hungry brain dead monsters' actually did something really useful (Created jobs, which led to increased productivity for example. You need people who can get people to produce.)
    19
  11. >>Venezuela crashed and burned because the oil prices dropped since their economy was mainly focused around that<< Oil prices fell in 2015. Venezuela went into recession in 2014. The drop in oil was basically a solid kick to the crotch while they were already going down.
    18
  12. And treating the people the economy needs like an enemy really doesn't help. I can't speak for there, but I've had a fair amount of far left people think I'm a bad person for earning a good income. (I've also had one say it's unfair and unreasonable that the world doesn't value his liberal arts degree as much as my computer science one)
    17
  13. It tells you that generic three word slogans that would be used by literally any opposition that's looking to become a government don't have much effect on outcomes. If you don't want change, you're really saying 'stick with the last guy'
    13
  14. max_agr if you redefine socialism to mean capitalist, there are lots of success stories. But only if you do that.
    13
  15. This is a sort of logic I've always loved. A single failure in a Capitalist country = Capitalism is a failure. A single success in a Communist country = Communism works!* *We're still waiting for one.
    11
  16. Dylan: I feel sure that at this point, you're going to put something forward to substantiate this claim. Maybe an example of this would be how before Chavez, all the oil fields were state owned, but the disaster only came up after his government appropriated them.
    11
  17. It's the US sanctions - Ignoring that they're recent It's the drop in oil prices - Ignoring that the problems were well underway six months before the oil price crash I saw one person saying that the fact that the economy relied on skilled people gave them the ability to blackmail the country, as they'd leave (taking their skills with them) if they didn't like the economy they were in. That... I wish I could say that was a whole new level of entitled, but sadly, it isn't. Apparently it's unfair for skilled people to have more leverage in life than unskilled people, though. A twisted view of fairness is more important than an economy that functions well enough that children aren't frequently starving.
    11
  18. Norway would need to be socialist before socialism could work there.
    10
  19. Try not to confuse democratic socialism with social democracy. Those countries are social democracies. Very, very different. For a start, social democracy relies on Capitalism.
    10
  20. >>but but that's not trrrrue capitalism said the capitalist<< No, Capitalism is more of a tool than an ideology with goals such as Socialism is. Yeah, it has failures, it's not a silver bullet. But it also has successes. Quite a lot of them. Whereas Socialism has a combination of excuses for failure and trying to claim that capitalist social democracies are proof that socialism works. Capitalism is like water. Sure, water doesn't guarantee you'll live, but GL living without it. Sure, Capitalism doesn't guarantee an economy will succeed, but a lack of it pretty much guarantees that an economy will fail.
    10
  21. >>Kibbuttz was one of the most succesfull (research it); but it was tribes/groups,not an entire country. Socialism doesnt work in very big groups.<< And dissolved when the non-founding generations (Probably summed up as the ones that weren't literally comparing it with Auschwitz) simply lost interest and walked away from it.
    10
  22. Their governments are largely headed by Communist parties. Obviously you could make the oft-repeated (and factual) claim that a Communist government is an oxymoron. Which is the end goal, socialism being viewed as a step towards that. We can't say that experience shows us actual Communist governments are bad, because all we have is consistent catastrophic failures in the attempt to reach Communism.
    9
  23. >> Robert Bray thats all good the problem is the wealth is not reinvested back and in most cases permanently removed from its origin just like Africa<< I think you'll find that very few of the ultra rich fail to reinvest their money. They didn't get rich by doing that. Even if they kept it in a bank account, the bank would be reinvesting their money. And none will be putting the money under their mattresses. This should sum that misconception up nicely: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110989/quotes/qt0328991 As for them leaving every year, I don't doubt it. However, if you want to see real capital flight in action, take a look at China. And they are paying taxes. Whether they're paying 'enough' taxes is a different discussion. However, personally I'm convinced that people who use that rhetoric will never think they're paying 'their share' (whatever that is) >> yet nobody seems to care 47 + millions living with government assistance and going up << Where do you think the money to pay for that government assistance is coming from? So they're getting government assistance. Yet they still have a quality of life that far exceeds the rest of the world. The US's poor would be the middle class in the vast majority of the non-Western world. >> capitalism not working very well<< As opposed to what? >> you cant run a country stuffing your pockets with borrowed money the usa cant pay the interest charge on the money it borrowed without borrowing money to do so<< Yep. At some point, the US govt will need to pay back what it owes. This being said: The interest rates it's effectively paying are very low. Basically because it's believed that the US will pay up when payment becomes due. So it's a risk free investment (even if there's not a huge return on it) - The question then becomes whether the ROI is greater than the interest paid. >> china and Japan are buying land , homes and big companies like crazy in the usa this can't be good not for the average american anyway.<< Why not? It's investment coming in. Chinese and Japanese aren't buying it because they're bored, they're buying it because they're got faith that their investment in the American economy will be worth it. As far as the 'average American' goes. The major problem isn't China or Japan. It's automation and the declining place for people with less than a university level education (in something useful. Gender studies doesn't count) THe world is becoming high tech. You could say that's a problem with Capitalism's focus on increasing productivity while reducing expenditure, however if you want things to really get bad for the 'average American' (Who earns about 3x the world average) try fighting that and being outcompeted by every country that didn't. Really though, with a few exceptions, the state of the world has never been better. Poverty is down dramatically. Life expectancy is up. Incomes are up. Education is up. Quality of life is up. Healthy years of life are up. And the thing that made this possible was Capitalism, for all of its flaws.
    8
  24. No Nordic countries are Socialist. They are all very firmly Capitalist with a healthy respect for private property and industry. Something you can't have in Socialism by definition. Particularly the latter. If you want to say it's being (presumably unfairly) given a bad name, you'll need to explain why the success stories are always Capitalist nations which use the high level of productivity that Capitalism allows to pay for Social Services.
    8
  25. Satti S policies like... Implementing socialism. Notice how states that put serious effort into becoming socialist consistently become dictatorships. It's almost as if the system is the reason there is a dictator. But please, avoid basic pattern recognition and try to find something besides socialism to blame. The children of the next country that screws up its economy so badly they're forced into prostitution will thank you.
    8
  26. And if they ever get homesick, all their employer needs to do is restrict access to food and refuse to pay them.
    8
  27. Baby Kay because... They're capitalist. ... Socialism and social services are not the same thing.
    8
  28. By.... Embracing Capitalism? Social Services aren't Socialism.
    7
  29. >> Public education, universal healthcare, national pension system, injury and disablement benefits, maternity leave - all of this is strictly socialist<< None of that is socialist at all. They're social services. Very different. Socialism is about ownership of the means of production. Those are just examples of useful places the excess production that Capitalism allows for are being spent.
    7
  30. ​ @thechicagorailfan9234  Well that's not fair. What about his friends and people to whom he owes a favour? >>Since when will we be all miserable, when in fact the USSR had a low unemployment rate and everyone had a house.<< And walls designed to keep people in. Armed guards ready to shoot to kill, etc. The USSR was a literal prison. >>You judging Socialism on the Social Democratic (Capitalism with a few Socialist Ideas) place of Venezuela is me judging all about Capitalism on the U.S<< Venezuela wasn't trying to become a social democracy, it was trying to become socialist. Social democracy uses capitalism. Venezuela was against it. >>How about Yugoslavia, talk about them and their lives. You won’t have much to say against it. << Where's Yugoslavia today? Particularly after the economic collapse that came to ahead when Tito's lot were at the point they were borrowing simply to pay their interest?
    7
  31. Yep. Ideology of hate. You want to help the poor? Support capitalism. It works. It's ugly, but it works.
    7
  32. Socialism isn't happening in Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Those are Social Democracies, which is based on using the proceeds of Capitalism to fight inequality. What's happening in Venezuela is Socialism, which has a strong tendency to lead to dictatorship. As it has over and over and over again.
    6
  33. Funny how it's a consistent outcome...
    6
  34. Denmark isn't socialist. It's a social democracy. Denmark is very capitalist
    6
  35. >>China is socialist. They only have capitalist elements included. Which is exactly my point<< Yeah, it's the most capitalist country I've ever been to. Think they've got free healthcare? Well, they might, but whenever I accompanied someone to a hospital, they were paying money over every five minutes. Think they've got free education? lol. No. What's common is for the teacher to ignore the lesson plan, then charge massive amounts (my niece is paying enough to send her to university here) for extra tuition. Don't pay for the tuition? Good luck in having your education go any further than some high school. Corrupt as hell, with a shitload of problems, the foundation for which was generally set before Deng Xiaoping said to get rich is glorious coupled with problems that come from dictatorships. But seriously, "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a synonym for capitalist. It's nothing more or less than the CCP's attempt to be less than a complete failure at all of its goals (Unifying China is the last one they've got a shot at... After HK, there's no way in hell that Taiwan is going to rejoin the fold. They're also ignoring large swathes of Jilin and Heilonjiang that the Russians simply aren't going to give back) >>And China's nominal GDP is still $11 trillion, which is a lot.<< 1.4 billion people. It should be bigger. Much bigger. There's also both a huge amount of debt building up (their banking systems are really bad. The regulated ones are basically unusable, so many go to shifty lenders) and a demographic timebomb coming in the next decade, courtesy of the one child policy, courtesy of Mao encouraging poor people to breed like rabbits. (Similar to what happened in Romania) Edit: "The People's Republic of China (PRC) government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism but has developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system." Or to put it another way: Which is exactly what they'd say if they had abandoned Marxism, but didn't want to admit it.
    6
  36. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-nationalizations/venezuela-to-nationalize-u-s-firms-oil-rigs-idUSTRE65N0UM20100624 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=9937606 I guess they messed up the dates on this. As the result of a few minutes search. Step 2 is demonstrating how they're being privatised. Being given to a general to get the army's loyalty doesn't qutie count.
    6
  37. >>Did they? What did you say? 80% of VEN' are employed in the private sector and 70% of the GDP comes from the Private Sector so how DO you define VEN' as a Socialist economy?<< It's an economy with a government that's trying to become socialist. The mere quest is enough to ruin everything. Successful professionals, businesspeople, etc aren't idiots. There's been enough examples of what'll happen to them if they stick around that they're likely to be the first to leave, That end result is basically them being blamed for sabotaging the economy, blamed for everything the leaders cocked up, and frequently being lucky to escape with their lives, let alone their property.
    6
  38. If you're trying to argue that only a minority of socialist states fail, I'm going to need examples of successful ones. If you name capitalist Social Democracies and try to pass them off as Socialist successes, you automatically fail. Same as if you offer excuses for failure. Individual companies aren't national economies. Yep, eight out of ten fail. Two out of ten don't. The two are the ones that make the eight worthwhile. And yes... Capitalism is a religion... With its prophecies of a golden outcome that never come to fruition... Oh wait, that's been Socialism. And those cults of personality based around socialist leaders... Totally not a religion.
    6
  39. Communist K9 a coop isn't a state.
    6
  40. Communist K9 yeah, I'm looking for states. Entire economies. Not cherry picked individual instances doing well inside a capitalist economy, but examples of the full package working.
    6
  41. >> We can expect Hugo to go down<< He died like four years ago... I'm assuming you mean Hugo Chavez.
    6
  42. Obrero Rojo: Is there some upper limit to the number of times that it has to be pointed out that Venezuela was having massive problems before the oil price drop? As the most obvious obvious thing to point out in what you said. Yeah, the drop in the price of oil hurt Venezuela. But it was a swift kick in the crotch to a person who was already going down hard.
    6
  43. It's funny how common it is for people to say this, then avoid giving any info on what's missing or wrong.
    5
  44. Yep. A spot on the news? Sure. What a country's leader does is likely to be news. His own show? WTF?
    5
  45. Venezuela has all the money it can print. Which, without productivity to back it up, basically turns into cheap wallpaper. Which is why Venezuela has about 4000% inflation (Just checked the estimates)
    5
  46. HydroKinesis probably because in the real world, totalitarianism and socialism tend to go hand in hand.
    4
  47. Sure, if you don't care about what you write actually being able to be read, fine. Can't really imagine why you'd bother in that case. I don't have much issue with your first paragraph. I'd simply add one more bit. If something doesn't work, you've got two options. The first is to abandon the thing that doesn't work. The second is to double down, try to find other causes for why it doesn't work. If you look hard enough for something, you'll find it, whether it exists or not. (I've had to explain the same thing to my wife on a few subjects. If she thinks something is going badly and looks for evidence of that, she WILL find evidence. Major case in point is my daughter's starting school, she didn't think she was ready, so she looked for evidence it was a disaster.) In this case, that something was uncooperative people, saboteurs and foreign agents. If you want to crack down on them, you're heading down the path to dictatorship. If Socialism actually worked, there'd have been no reason for the descent into dictatorship. As far as I've seen, Social Democracy works well, as long as where the money comes from is treated with respect.(The moment it stops being treated with respect, where the money comes from has the ability and probably the inclination to emigrate. Changing country really isn't as difficult as you'd think. I've done it twice. I'm looking to do it again) >>I don't really want to advocate anything here. I just want clarity.<< I wish more people did. It's why I'm fairly obsessed with definitions. If you're not even agreeing on what a word means, how can you have a discussion about it? I've noticed that the vast majority of people who claim to support Socialism don't actually have a clue of what it means. Or they're clueless on what actually happens in Socialist countries. I married a Chinese Communist Party member. Step 1 was actual history lessons (The single most important thing to cause a crack in her worldview was the battle of LuDing bridge. With Deng Xiaoping explaining that this mostly-destroyed chain bridge wasn't defended by a machine gun post, but by some people with muskets who fired a volley, then ran away) Step 2 was disassociating the party from the country from the people. (An attack on the CCP is an attack on China, and therefore the Chinese people) It's difficult to properly combat brainwashing without learning about the thing you're discussing. >>PragerU is heavily biased and it makes me frustrated, as do all biased media sources<< I would never use them as a source, but that's very different to them being wrong. There are some things that are just so bad that it's impossible to be unbiased without appearing biased as hell. As a case in point: Hitler was estimated to killed (including wars he sparked) about 50 million. The official estimate on the Great Leap Forward is 18 million during peacetime. That's the official estimate, which is doubtless an extreme best-case number. Reasonable estimates hover around the 50-60 million mark. This isn't including the huge amounts of damage wrought during the Cultural Revolution. And it's not even touching the rest of the Socialist world. The math says the worst thing Hitler did was set the stage for the various Communist parties to gain international clout. You can argue intentions all you like, but in the end, dead is dead. >>The truth in such a bland state ensites little in an audience however to torque truth in any manner towards an end far from objective is wrong.<< It really shouldn't. Particularly with how colourful 20th (and 21st) century Socialism has been. But again. You can't be objective and factual about this without appearing biased as hell. It's just not possible. >>I've seen PragerU make purely educational, hardly slanted videos, and I would love to see more of that.<< Same again here. How can you make a purely objective video on this that isn't slanted as hell? (Or at least doesn't appear to be) Ultimately, reality is biased for or against ideologies and viewpoints. Don't believe me? Just ask those who the bias is against.
    4
  48. Those are social services. Not socialism. They're very different things. Capitalism does need to be regulated, but until we're talking about the means of production being jointly owned by the people, we're not talking about Socialism.
    4
  49. Insert yet another (and to be ignored) explanation of the difference between a socialist state, and a capitalist state that provides social services here.
    4
  50. Because China is a socialist failure and a capitalist success. China ditched the attempt at socialism and embraced capitalism when Deng Xiaoping was in charge. The Chinese economic miracle was a direct result of that. Socialism bought them tens of millions of deaths through starvation. Edit: if you're wondering about socialism with Chinese characteristics. The Chinese characteristics are it's really capitalism. If I was in charge of a party that had killed tens of millions, then openly abandoned the sole mission I claimed the party was there for, the one job my party had, well... Why would I stay in power? Why wouldn't I be first up against the wall when the revolution came?
    4
  51. It's only 'real socialism' when it's successful. Which is why Capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden are proudly touted as Socialist, while countries that are actually working towards Socialism (and have become a basket case in the process) are 'not real' ones. You'd think that people who'd spent their time touting Capitalist countries as successes while backing away from countries actually trying to become Socialist would put two and two together, but... No...
    4
  52. Social democracy isn't socialism minus dictatorship. It's socialism minus socialism. Similar goals, but done using the proceeds of capitalism. When did they say venezuela was a social democracy?
    4
  53. If you're accepting that there's a difference between social services and socialism, what part of what I say is incorrect?
    4
  54. No. You're also not socialist.
    4
  55. Blurined your first sentence is true. Your second is weird.
    4
  56. Person on an old forum I used to visit. Started reasonably if a bit leftist, but basically couldn't cope with the fact that nice didn't equal true. And couldn't accept that someone as evil as me (I delighted in destroying jobs) was deemed by society to be more valuable than him. His degree was in communications. He couldn't communicate for shit.
    4
  57. Andrew Stupak need to be clear here: healthcare is a social service. Not socialism. If you think you'd get decent healthcare under a socialist economy, generally you would be very mistaken. The resources just aren't there.
    4
  58. It isn't. Those are Social Democracies. Very capitalist.
    4
  59. Excuses carry more weight when there are success stories. Can you name any successful socialist states?
    4
  60. Just... No. It was a state attempting to become Socialist. Communism has never been attained. Don't let the various names of ruling parties fool you. Socialism doesn't accept Capitalism. By definition, it's against private ownership. It's about common ownership of the means of production. And.... So on. If you see money, centralisation of power... A state... It isn't Communist. The idea was that they'd achieve Socialism, then move onto Communism. But they've spent too much time failing at Socialism to make the next step.
    4
  61. eurosensazion Just.... No.... There have been no communist states. Only states that have called themselves that. When you from of communism, you are thinking of socialism.
    4
  62. To roughly sum up: You're an idiot who thinks that all things that contain social in the name are the same. I realise this is impolite, but it's a well deserved summary.
    4
  63. Paragraphs are useful. Anyway. It looks like what you're advocating there is social democracy. Which isn't Socialism. Democratic or otherwise. What do you think Socialism is?
    3
  64. I'll put it this way: If it's a publicly-owned (IE: Government) revenue-producing asset then that's Socialism. Norway's oil is a good example of this. The difference lies in that that's about as far as the Norwegian government's going to go. If it's more of a liability. Something that's not there to produce an income, but simply there because society needs it to function, that's a social service. Your police force is a social service. If your police force was used to produce revenue (In the form of hiring them out as mercenaries. Not in the form of charging fines), then you could make an argument for it being Socialism.
    3
  65. Proboarder27121 of the means of production. Yes. If there's no profit, whatever you want to call the same thing, then you're not getting more out than you put in, which isn't sustainable. Whoever the benefits go to, if there's no profit, there's no sustainability. Profit is nothing more or less than the difference between what you put in and what you get out of something. So thank you for showing a complete ignorance of the realities faced by any system while doing nothing to contradict what I said. This is why socialists are terrible at running economies. You're on the same level as Mao, who didn't care about the cost of steel production as long as it was produced.
    3
  66. Not as much as it does now. It was about.. I think 70 or 75% when he came to power. Rather than, well... Everything. And Chavez wasn't doing great work, he was borrowing money and withholding money from the maintenance his oil infrastructure needed. That's doing great in the same way as mortgaging your house to throw a party is going great. But please, try to find other excuses. A bunch of children prostituting themselves for food thank you.
    3
  67. Oh, sorry, mine was to Helen Whose MO seems to be to go round claiming that Norway is Socialist, therefore socialism works and should be emulated, then go silent every time it's pointed out that Norway isn't Socialist. It's Capitalist with high taxes which are then redirected to social welfare programs. First and foremost, though, it's Capitalist. Which is why it's able to fund its social welfare programs. Apologies for the confusion.
    3
  68. Pretty damn well.
    3
  69. Venezuela had serious problems when oil was at 100 a barrel. Look up news articles dated January 2014. Oil price didn't crash for another six months or so. The crash hurt, but it wasn't the root cause. Just an extra kick on the way down. No European country is socialist. What do you think socialism is? What socialist attempt has succeeded? Try not to include more capitalist countries or excuses when you answer this.
    3
  70. Riga Fraction Canada is not socialist. It never has been. Also (I found the blog you are taking as your source) China abandoned socialism in all but name decades ago. What do you think socialism is?
    3
  71. Riga Fraction you know how asked what you think socialism is? And you went on a long rant without answering? Yeah. Excessive verbiage doesn't make up for an evaded question.
    3
  72. If I have a monopoly, I'm able to charge through the roof for something, and whenever competition comes along, I'm able to either buy them out, or I'm able to drop my prices to the point that competitor is going to go broke trying to compete (before raising them again) while surviving off my cash reserves. After it happens a few times, I'm going to make it clear to any future would-be entrant that I'll do exactly the same thing if they try. That's the barrier to entry in a market dominated in this way.
    3
  73. If it happens, it'll happen at the end.
    3
  74. >> yes, and then keep the lion's share of the value of their employee's production to themselves. << See, this is what I've never understood about Socialists. They're far more concerned with ensuring no-one does better than someone else than on improving everyone's situation. My employer profits from me. Otherwise he wouldn't employ me. I profit from my employer. Otherwise I wouldn't bother going in to work. It's a symbiotic relationship, we both profit from each other. I don't keep 100% of what I make, but 50% of something is better for me than 100% of nothing. That self destructive envy is almost a mental problem. Who cares if someone else profits from your work, as long as you are in a better situation with them than without? >> if you're an employer. If you're an employee, like the majority of citizens, it's essentially slavery. And don't tell me "slaves aren't paid." Slaves were fed and clothed and housed<< Slaves didn't have a choice but to work for a particular employer. That was the difference. Like, they were physically prevented from doing it. Now, sure, you might not like the system. What happens in alternative systems? Can you show examples of anything (real life examples, for recent economies, and something that's larger than a small community. Remember this stuff needs to be able to apply to countries of tens or hundreds of millions of people) that offers a better deal? >> Many who work today - sometimes in multiple jobs - can barely afford to cover those basic needs<< Those people aren't capable of producing much of value. It sucks to be them. Stay in school. Study something useful. People who can do something valuable can demand high wages because they can pick and choose their employer (I'm on job number 11... I'm 34) People who can't... Well, it sucks. They're just not that valuable. Anyway, how are the people of Venezuela going when it comes to covering their basic needs? >> The almighty "job creators" always cry poverty when anyone suggests they should pay higher wages - when the truth is that they can afford<< They can afford it, but if they can get a better ROI in another way, they'll do that. Today, that includes automating jobs. If a machine gives them a better ROI, they'll do that. Those are the facts. That is the reality you don't seem to want to consider. Then that either gives them a higher reward or more money to invest in their company. It's good to reward people for higher productivity, BTW. In the end, the economy boils down to things that are created. People who can make more of those for less are a huge asset. >> In the 1950s, being a working-class American was a pretty good deal, but corporate greed has ruined that nowadays.<< Compared with whom? Have you been outside the US and Europe? They've got a pretty bloody fantastic deal in those places. Anyway, technology has screwed those people, not capitalism. That sucks, but it was coming anyway. You think technology destroying jobs is bad? Try fighting it and being in an economy that's outcompeted by every other country that didn't make such a retarded decision.
    3
  75. Yeah. Hitler was basically the result of a failed economy. The economy had failed in part because, frankly, Germany's enemies wanted revenge and wanted to keep a foot on Germany's neck. (Remember that was the second war France had had with Germany in about a generation) Which wouldn't have been so bad if they'd kept the boot there. But they didn't, and got the worst of both worlds. Economies that are doing well don't tend to have those problems. The need for an enemy or for revenge doesn't burn nearly as bright when you're the winner. This all being said, though. If we're looking at results, the worst thing Hitler did was setting the scene for a powerful USSR. He did a lot of absolutely terrible things, but over all, his most damaging accomplishment was setting the groundwork for a world in which the USSR had a huge amount of influence. I'm not saying it would have been better if he'd won. Far from it. Just that on a body count or economic damage count, nothing he'd intended to do was as damaging as that one thing he didn't intend. Without Hitler (or his equivalent), there'd have been no PRC. The USSR wouldn't have expanded West, because it would have then found a Europe that was united against it from Poland onwards. There'd have been no Pol Pot. No North Korea. You get the idea. There's nothing that I can think of that was as damaging as all that.
    3
  76.  DADODAMIR  what do you think socialism is? None of those states you just listed are socialist. They're capitalist social democracies with a healthy respect for private business.
    3
  77.  DADODAMIR  where are you getting your definitions from?
    3
  78. As is reality.
    3
  79. Ready? They've been coming here since day one. Hilarious how few of them actually know what socialism is, though.
    3
  80.  @dellowyog  or it's just shit communication from someone who doesn't have the wit to understand what a paragraph is and why he should use it.
    3
  81. Hm. You're the second idiot in half an hour to have no better reply than 'But Trump!!!!!' Is there a point you're trying to make? Or are you just practicing for when alzheimers takes hold and that's all you can say?
    3
  82. The countries you gave are not socialist. They are capitalist using tax funds to pay for social services. Social services are not socialism.
    3
  83. Andrew Stupak you're going to need to quote where I said communion and socialism are the same thing. Otherwise it looks like you're using an argument from(claimed) authority. One logical fallacy, and a straw man. Another logical fallacy. Edit: Forgot about the ad hom.
    3
  84. A Socialist can be in favour of something. That doesn't make it Socialism. All you need to be to be a Socialist is to support common ownership of the means of production and distribution. Once someone supports that, that person is a socialist, whatever other things that person might support. And if you're not in favour of that, whatever title you give yourself or receive from others, you're not a Socialist. It's like Atheism. All you need to be an Atheist is to have a lack of belief in any gods. No more is required, no less is enough to qualify. I've seen religious people try to tack a whole host of other beliefs onto it. I've seen people try to co-opt it for their own agendas, but that's our single unifying point. There is nothing else.
    3
  85. The 20th century has shown us that socialism has a very strong tendency to lead to corrupt governments. Also, they were corrupt before. Eating zoo animals and rotten meat is new.
    3
  86. Ayrton Bondzanga far cry 3 was profitable. 😛️
    3
  87. Universal healthcare isn't a Socialist or Capitalist goal. It's just a nice thing to have when you've got an economy that can afford it. The major goal of Socialism is the removal of the means of production from private ownership. That's where the damage comes in. Don't confuse social services with socialism. They're quite different.
    3
  88. It would be better if there were a million homeless with no empty homes? Read up on how the Soviets dealt with this. It wasn't overly pleasant.
    3
  89. Compared with Venezuela? Fantastic in every category (probably except imprisonment rate. Although how much of that is because they can't afford it? And at least American prisoners get fed). There's room for improvement, but this isn't just a different playing field, it's a different game. Even if it was worse in every category. What does that change? Whataboutism is a tactic for those with no good arguments.
    3
  90. Ragna8859 it's cute that you think you're helping your argument. Instead you just demonstrated that even the attempt to become socialist has been littered with expensive failures with nothing to show for it. We haven't even managed to get far enough to deal with the full implementation of the idea itself. So... Successes? States, obviously. I can't imagine why someone would be desperate enough for a win to think I was talking about individual companies. Edit: noticed you were the one who made this thread and read it in sarcastic way. The sad thing is their arguments are so bad it's impossible to tell the difference between sincerity and parody
    3
  91. >>They did before they saw the results<< Yep, while it was going well (IE: Before the bills needed to be paid) so many were so loud about Venezuela being a success of Socialism. There was no doubt that it was the real thing.
    3
  92. If they were just against the rich, I'd have less of a problem. When you can say a white homeless person is privileged, you've lost the plot.
    3
  93. eurosensazion you're mistaking self labelled for actually being. No European countries are socialist. Social democracies, yes, but not socialist (or even democratic socialist)
    3
  94. @Seth Dugan the Pakman one I linked? Well let's test it. List some successful socialist states from the video.
    3
  95. Hunter Muehlbauer generally speaking, those people are not liberal. Someone who will try to silence someone they disagree with is not liberal. It's sad that Liberalism has become associated with these monsters.
    3
  96. And yet... every attempt at socialism fails. It's almost as if it's the common factor.
    2
  97. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d85DsKjvU8
    2
  98. Proboarder27121 no they're not. It's really that simple. Your whole post is a misunderstanding of what socialism is. As Chomsky apparently said. People think that socialism is the government doing stuff. It's not. And what do I think Medicare, etc are? I think they're social services.which aren't socialism.
    2
  99. China abandoned the attempt at socialism when Deng Xiaoping took over. It is a capitalist success story, following an epic socialist failure. Tens of millions of people who have died for nothing.
    2
  100. chase socialism is about who owns what in an economy. Those programs aren't socialist. They're simply the nice things socialism was meant to pay for... And failed at. Capitalism is the only system that seems to be capable of delivering the majority of the promises of socialism.
    2
  101. totoroben those things aren't socialism. They're social services. Socialism is about who owns what produces the stuff that makes an economy. Unless you've got a paying international market for those things (enough to more than cover the cost) they're just not it. The two are conflated because people who don't like them want to tie them to socialism, which is an epic failure. People who want socialism want to tie them to social services because they are, over all, a stunning success.
    2
  102. totoroben then fight the conflation. At every opportunity. They're very different things, and the people who lie to claim they're the same are all our enemy.
    2
  103. Not only are those terms not mutually exclusive, the 20th century has shown us that when you introduce the former, the latter is almost inevitable.
    2
  104.  @Skryabin204  motivations don't matter nearly as much as facts. If you think you can argue the facts I've given, feel free. Speculation about motives is a poor substitute.
    2
  105. 1. It was heavily reliant, but not as heavily. 2. Chavez and Maduro have had two decades to change this. 3. They went in knowing that their economy relied on one thing and still killed that thing.
    2
  106. You don't make these corrections to educate her. She's downright retarded. However, simple points, repeated, might drive the lesson home to lurkers. :-) They're always the target audience. Particularly considering they have votes.
    2
  107. ​ @mistergeopolitics4456  >>WOW someone is triggered huh<< How do you figure I am? >>Funny how you've been so brainwashed by fox news & Zionist controlled media that you can't open your eyes & think for yourself and as soon as you hear an opposing perspective your brain goes haywire<< Based on....? >>You can't consider for a second that perhaps the other side may be right & perhaps you are the one who has been fed lies & propaganda. Remember before the war on Iraq in 2003 how the US media was feeding everyone the BS about Saddam's WMD ? What happened ? Or what about Assad & the gas attacks ? A BBC journalist recently came out & admitted that the video which Trump used as justification to bomb Syria last year WAS FAKE. << That's a very longwinded way of saying "Look! Distraction!" And I can, but I've seen no evidence that I have been. >>Venezuela has problems, lots of countries do, however the US is amplifying the issues by preventing Venezuela from accessing foreign currency reserves. Right now they can't even access their own savings in foreign accounts. You may somehow manipulate that number to equate it to a nintendo switch & casually try to dismiss it, but in a poor country that is struggling where food is relatively cheap even 1 billion dollars is the difference between millions of people eating or not, receiving vital medicine / supplies or not. It can mean farms not receiving pesticides & fertilizers which leads to a domino effect.<< It's a country of 30 million people. The only thing this affects is the timeline. Barely. The problems are simply bigger than the figures you're talking about. This is ignoring how much the govt members are taking for themselves. >>According to Venezuela's foreign minister<< Awesome source there. I'm sure he's completely unbiased. How about I source someone in the Trump administration? Will you take the word from someone like that as uncritically? >>The truth is that if the US really cared about Venezuela's people, they would lift the sanctions instead of trying to smuggle weapons in with supposed aid. << Oh, now we're adding weapons smuggling in. Right. Or the Venezuelan govt could search what's there and let it in. But that would necessitate admitting that there's a problem. >>The US is after Venezuela's oil & that's it. Even Bolton has admitted this in an interview. If Venezuela had no oil or natural resources, like many poor African countries who are ruled by dictators, then the US wouldn't care and that's just the truth. << >>Even Bolton has admitted this in an interview. If Venezuela had no oil or natural resources, like many poor African countries who are ruled by dictators, then the US wouldn't care and that's just the truth. << Caring != Being actively involved in what's going on.
    2
  108. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FbWsINjpRY
    2
  109. Sweden isn't socialist. It's, as you say, social democratic. Social democracy isn't socialism. Democratic or otherwise.
    2
  110. Dictatorship happened in the name of socialism. Again. Almost like there's a link. It happens so frequently.
    2
  111. >>Robert Bray this was obviously to mock social democrats(which i know isnt real socialism) in america<< The way to fight that is to stop calling everything taxpayer funded Socialism. And to correct those who do. >>Everybody knows venezeula is a failed state. I also pointed out northern europe because they run a social democratic system(or nordic model), which works better than americas, and us what JD want in america. Knowing prageru it was to mock social democrats<< You need to talk to Bernie. Tell him to stop abusing the term. You also need to stop tying the terms together. If someone mocks Socialism, that should be no skin off your nose. You're a social democrat. Join in. Put as much distance between yourself (I'm assuming you're a social democrat) and Socialists as possible.
    2
  112. Ro Bastard: Thanks for the quote. I'm wishing I'd seen that Noam Chomsky line years ago. It sums it up so very well.
    2
  113. Riga Fraction another post. Another evasion. You'd think someone as knowledgeable as you claim to be would have no problem with supplying a simple definition. Which really just shows your last post was a big wad of projection. Speaking of the ark, creationists refuse to define a kind. See the similarity between them and you? It would be for the same reason.
    2
  114. Always fun to watch a triggered moron realise he's wrong without the grace to deal with it. This isn't why Socialism fails, but it is why people keep on wanting to try it again. And why Venezuelan children are having sex in exchange for snacks.
    2
  115. When people are asked for examples of socialist successes, I've noticed two normal responses: 1. Capitalist countries with something like universal healthcare 2. Excuses.
    2
  116. If they ever become socialist, you'll need to let us know.
    2
  117. Miss T: Unless you've in Australia, probably not. >>Robert Bray I live in the uk where healthcare is free. it was doing ok until mass immigration of low skilled people occurred and now it's on the verge of collapse as more people use it than pay into it, and parts of it are being privatised to be able to cope. as with everything in socialism, they work for a while then eventually supply can't match demand.<< Now this is a problem. One of the major problems with the European Union in my eyes. If you're going to allow freedom of movement, with everyone having the same access to local resources as a citizen, you need to do stuff like healthcare in a different way. If they want freedom of movement, they need an EU-funded healthcare provider. Or each country gets rid of public healthcare altogether.
    2
  118. Nicolaus: Adding onto this is the rise in child prostitution seen when factories are shut down in India. And the simple fact that the world isn't an ideal place. You've simply got a lot of options that have varying levels of success. Frankly, the sweatshop isn't such a bad thing. The way I normally put it (and keeping in mind this is very rough. Lots of exceptions) White collar job is better than a Blue collar. Blue collar is better than a job in a sweatshop. A job in a sweatshop is better than subsistence farming. Being a subsistence farmer is better than being a prostitute (or selling your children as prostitutes) Being a prostitute is better than starvation. That's the reality of it. If you remove one of these options, people will go down (if up was an option, they'd have likely taken it. Again, with lots of exceptions) Those shitty jobs put there for first world profit do literally improve lives. They allow parents to educate their children. They provide jobs that are actually in demand. (You'd have heard about the Foxconn suicides. Do the math on that sometime. Foxconn is a big company and its employees have a tendency to live in their complexes. It's at worst similar to the suicide rate in China as a whole, although from memory it's much, much better)They bring money into communities that would have none and so on. Sure, we can talk about how profiting from the poor is bad. But that is a major incentive to do something that actually does help them (I'm not going to count corruption in this. Nor will I count slave labour. Actual slave labour. Like... Involuntary. And I don't mean involuntary when the alternative is starvation, I mean sold/kidnapped and forced to work involuntary) remove profit and you remove the incentive. Remove the incentive and things get much, much worse. People who are against sweatshops aren't helping these people, they're hurting them. Encourage companies to pay more by all means (Although remember that the question of replacing these people with robots comes down to simple math in the end. If they're paid more, replacing them with machines is more economically feasible. Having a workforce made up of robots is going to be seen as a lot more ethical than giving (what, to a Westerner, looks like) bad jobs to people who could otherwise only get worse) but actions that lead to them being shut down literally lead to children being sold for sex. Or simply dying of starvation. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/22/opinion/reckonings-hearts-and-heads.html "The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets -- and that a significant number were forced into prostitution."
    2
  119. >>It's not a true monopoly if you simply have the lowest prices. The very MOMENT your prices go back up, other competitors jump right back in the market place. << That depends on the product, including things such as the infrastructure required to produce that product. Also, people will only jump into an area they think they'll profit from. If the message being sent out is "I will do whatever it takes you destroy your investment" they'll simply not bother. >>There's no magically driving people out short term<< If an investment fails, then yes, that does drive them out. >>and long term, people get used to low prices.<< That's nice for them. >>When they jump back up, demand takes a dive as other competitors try to figure out how to make their product cheaper too so they can compete. << Again, depends on the product. Anything that requires a significant initial investment is highly vulnerable to this. >>What your talking about is not realistic<< You can claim that, fine. But if you claim it, try to take other costs into account. This isn't a game where the only cost you have is the product itself. >>If you spend capital to lower your prices to the point where i compete, that means it's cheaper for me to buy your product than sell mine. << In the meantime, you've got staff who need to be paid, or they'll go elsewhere. You've got repayments, including interest, to pay on whatever loan you might have taken to start your business (This sort of thing would also prevent banks from lending, BTW. They tend to like getting their money back) you've got rent on whatever premises you're using, you've got your own equipment ageing and declining in value. What you say there is only true if we live in a computer-game style vacuum where you have no costs associated with buying and keeping X product. >>If i know that you're trying to push me out of a market, I'll just buy up your products and when you think I'm out,<< Sure. If you manage to keep your staff (skills are painful to replace) stave off your creditors, pay for storage, pay the cost of actually buying that product, don't get screwed by any changes in product requirements, don't deal with something that has any form of expiration date, and so on and so forth, are confident that the price will go up before you go broke, etc. The cost of doing this is something like CostOfProduct + (StaffCosts x time) + (storagecosts x time) + (loanrepayments x time) And if CostOfDoingThat ever becomes > YourAvailableCapital you're going to fail. Your staff will walk because they haven't been paid, your landlord will kick you out because you haven't paid, your bank will start repossessing assets to try and get whatever it can back out of this bad investment. >>I'll come back I reselling your product when you've run out of capital trying to do it. << Again, as always, it depends on the product. Depends on the extra costs associated with your idea and depends on the depth of my pockets vs the depth of yours. I watched this happen in Australia for years in the telecommunications sector. Investment in cable basically stopped because the dominant telco made it clear that they'd make any investment unprofitable. After that, the only thing that anyone bothered investing in was the odd wireless network here or there. Nothing major. (Not counting dark fibre for connecting business sites. That's a different ballgame and, in a city, easier than you'd think) >>The purpose of an economy is not jobs (they are a nice by product) . The purpose is to produce products and services as efficiently as possible.<< I'd agree, but that's irrelevant to what we're discussing. Edit: I should probably be clear here. I'm not a socialist or anything approaching that. I'm simply someone who's been working in an industry full of this shit since I turned 18. I cut my teeth in ISPs when this behaviour was at its height. I watched our main Telco cut all rivals out of the market, only allowing them in when forced to by law. I watched them this every step of the way, only losing because laws and massive fines were threatened. Taking your example: How does it apply to a telecommunications network?
    2
  120. Well... Norway isn't socialist. It's capitalist that spends a lot on social services. The oil revenue doesn't hurt, but the Norwegian govt has been intelligent about how it's using it. Including saving a very large amount of it for the future. To be very clear: If Norway didn't have a capitalist economy, it's a safe bet the things you've listed would have been unaffordable long ago. Capitalism is where the money comes from. Once you have the money, you can have nice things. Without it, you can barely afford a wishlist. And it's done well. We had the same up until we elected a government that panicked when the GFC hit. No debt, well regulated banking, plenty of cash in the treasury. Then we elected someone who thought "Lets send out $900 to everyone" was a good idea and things went downhill from there. Then as times changed and sources of revenue changed with them, people started complaining about any cut in spending. Any attempts to balance the budget were blocked. "Money" became a dirty word. Less should be taken (except from those who are already paying the bills) more should be spent, especially in things that would benefit unions. Long story short: Norway's in a brilliant position and it's done very well. It takes one bad event and one incompetent government to throw all that it's achieved away. One leader of government that prefers short term popularity (Kevin Rudd is a narcissist. We found that out fairly soon after he became PM) to long term sustainability or one leader of government that needs to publicly fund unsustainable industries to support his/her (her, in this case) support base.
    2
  121. Paul: What's funny? He made a reasonably testable claim. (What I put there seems to be a reasonable test of his assertion) So either those countries are the best/worst or he's wrong. And how could he be wrong with God on his side?
    2
  122. He said prevented corruption, not simply suppressed one corrupt organisation (While replacing it with another... Themselves) If I stop a thief simply so that I can start stealing myself, I haven't prevented theft. I've simply change who's doing it.
    2
  123.  Vance Wesley  or, if you look at the definition, really at all.
    2
  124.  @drevil6362  Eastern Europe wasn't white?
    2
  125. sylviur capitalism, I think. Which is meant to collapse due to the inherent contradictions within it, leading to a class war between the oppressed workers and the capitalist class. If that doesn't have any significant similarities to what happened, you need to remember that Marx was a lazy freeloader. He wasn't a worker. Not really the best source of information going.
    2
  126. Stephen Nesmith North Korea... Cuba... I can't think of others. I can think of lots of attempts. They all ended badly. Which isn't to say NK and Cuba aren't bad. They just haven't ended. Exception isn't a state, but the Israeli Kibbutzi. They just ended as people lost interest and walked away. I wouldn't call that a bad ending. Not by the standards of every other attempt. And yeah, I'd never use PU as a source. It's why I like that last video. The guy doesn't seem to have any agenda except for correct definitions of the terms. I'm of the school of thought that says you can't properly discuss something unless the words you're using are the actual correct words. Otherwise a discussion on a constant failure like socialism risks involving highly successful social services, like education. I also married a Chinese communist party member. As a result, I've had plenty of opportunity to look at the long term effects of the experiment. It's not pretty, made worse by the sheer pointlessness of the whole exercise. All those people dead. For what?
    2
  127. I think it means you're a pawn who's voting against your own interests. Because who wouldn't want to be driven to searching polluted riverbeds for scrap metal? Personally, I could do to lose a few kilos, so I guess supporting Capitalism IS against my best interests. However, I also like well-stocked medical systems, so....... It's a tough one.
    2
  128. >>Almighty42 Socialism has taken over 100 Million lives under the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong.<< This is the ironic thing with Hitler. He was a truly terrible person. No two ways about it. But the worst thing he did wasn't intentional. It was set the world up for one in which the USSR had genuine power and influence. I'm not saying it would have been better if he'd won - It wouldn't. The USSR was categorically the lesser of two evils. But the USSR in its victory was far more damaging than Hitler in his defeat. If the Nazis hadn't risen, there'd have been likely a fairly united anti-Soviet alliance stretching from the Russian borders to the UK. If Stalin had started anything, that could have been squashed. More likely he wouldn't have started anything (He only did as an ally of Hitler's) and the damage would have been contained within Russia.
    2
  129. TheDude850 it's why it's always entertaining to ask for examples of successful socialist countries. You get excuses or capitalist countries. That's about it. Or from once halfwit recently (could be trolling. Impossible to tell the difference) coop companies.
    2
  130. ​ @mikhailvoropaev3357  They didn't come to Socialism at all. They're not Socialist states. Democratic or otherwise. They're Social Democracies. What do you think Socialism is? I found this video gave a very good explanation of the differences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs&t=8s >>And contrary to your next statement, there is no tendency towards totalitarian regime in these countries<< Under your redefinition of Socialism, no there isn't. However, they're not Socialist states. Under actual Socialist states... Over and over and over again. >>Socialism is about economics, democracy/totalitarism is about government structure. One does not necessarily come with or exclude the other.<< Yep. They're two different things, and one doesn't need to include the other. It's just.... That it does. Over and over again.
    2
  131.  @dill-pickle7130  excuses carry more weight when there are success stories. This opening post is evidence of how badly socialism fails time and time again. When they're forced to point to capitalist states and try to claim they're socialist, rather than giving examples on actual socialist states. Imagine if your employer asked you for some examples of positive things you did, and all you could do was point to the work of a coworker you were normally happy to slag off as useless and try to claim it was yours.
    2
  132. Nunya Bidnes so in this video, where are they wrong? What do you think socialism is?
    2
  133. The big problem has been individual property rights have been ignored whenever convenient. Those who are left could have the same thing happen to them tomorrow. When that happens, those with property leave ASAP. The more they have, the sooner they leave. Those who have property are normally those who have the skills needed to make an economy actually run. Chasing them off is a really, really bad idea.
    2
  134. Venezuela is what happens when you try to pretend that the reason something doesn't work is due to factors other than that thing is the problem. Socialism simply doesn't work. The more effort you put into making something unworkable work, the more damage you'll do. The more you double down on a bad idea, the worse that idea gets. This is really applicable to a host of things. The long story short is: Denying reality and insisting on making fantasy work is an incredibly bad idea. Particularly when you've got true believers in charge who genuinely believe the end will justify the means.
    2
  135. I really would be surprised if Sanders was an actual Socialist. Social Democrat, sure, but Socialist would amaze me. Anyway: I agree with them, but possibly for different reasons to you. I agree it's a mistake because I'm an IT worker. I manage large computer networks. As a result of this, I'm surrounded by automation. My whole job is automation. At some point, a huge amount of those minimum wage jobs are going to become automated. It's only a question of "when?" "When" is defined by when the ROI from humans is less than the ROI from machines. Humans becoming more expensive per unit of production or machines becoming cheaper per unit of production both make this come sooner. This being said, even the cheapest human is pretty bloody expensive. So it probably doesn't make that big a difference. A year or two in a very large amount of cases. As far as this goes: "They say we should focus on making basic nessesaty as cheep as possible." Yep. Capitalism is all about making more for less. (It doesn't mean they need to sell for less. That's dictated by supply and demand. However, Capitalism will always be about getting the most output from the least input)
    2
  136. Plenty of idiots, apparently
    2
  137. You might enjoy China Uncensored
    2
  138. Capitalism has successes. Big ones.
    2
  139. The really damaging part isn't where it was, it's where it was going. This isn't the first time a country has attempted to go Socialist. There's plenty of examples of what happens to a country goes down that path. So the country's best and brightest leave. Investments dry up (because investors expect a profit. No profit, no motive) and the country's economy relies more and more on people who have no skills that are valued by the world at large. If you knew you weren't going to be able to make a profit, would you invest there? If not, why would you expect others to? And if you would... What's your motive and how sustainable do you think your actions are?
    2
  140.  @mutualistaid4332  well then you've got the effects of a complete collapse in investment with nothing to make up for it. Really, with no more resources than what you can personally muster.
    2
  141.  @mutualistaid4332  reread what I said about having access to no greater resources than what you can personally muster. Even then, you're still investing. It's just that no one else is supporting you.
    2
  142. Venezuela is a country that tried to cure its ills by attempting to implement Socialism and utterly failed. So many countries you can replace Venezuela with there....
    2
  143. Venezuela was falling apart long before this As for health and education improving.... I think you're living about ten years in the past. Any improvements in those systems has long since disappeared.
    2
  144. Aidan Christy which makes it worthwhile. My normal metric though is if a degree isn't worth doing at full fees, it's not worth doing. The average extra income over a lifetime is a million.If your degree is so far below average that it won't return 50 to 100k, do something else
    2
  145. Normally when people say X country is heading that way, it's partisan hyperbole. But yeah.... For SA. I'm just completely amazed that any country bordering Zimbabwe would touch anything remotely similar to what Mugabe did. I can't comprehend the logic that says "This was an epic, undeniable failure on our doorstep, so let's try it ourselves!"
    2
  146. Luchas: How about you give a sourced timeline of when these sanctions you're blaming were imposed, and what was sanctioned? (No point just blaming sanctions, if it's for stuff that's not going to affect the economy as a whole) Then we'll compare reports of Venezuelan problems with the dates and what was actually sanctioned. Maybe we can start with an explanation of how Obama's sanctions caused this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/14/venezuela.international Over a year before he became President.
    2
  147. The problem here is the actions the govt has taken in trying to move to socialism. Which has resulted in many issues, ranging from businesses being forced to be unprofitable (then they shut down) to people having a tendency to get out of the way when a bus is coming towards them. This isn't the first time this has happened, and the people with the brains to run a decent size company are generally intelligent enough to make predictions in other areas as well.
    2
  148. pollotuerto social disease?
    2
  149. China had tens of millions starve to death during peacetime while it was socialist. It's a capitalist success story. It abandoned trying to be socialist in the 70's when Deng Xiaoping took over. Then really ditched the whole thing after the Tian'anmen square massacre.
    2
  150.  @Leaner-b9c  because they're capitalist states delivering the things that socialism was meant to do, but epically failed to.
    2
  151. Today, we have the Internet. Which includes search engines, such as Google. Which include the ability to restrict searches to certain timeframes. Which include times that are from before August 2014 (About when the price of oil dropped below $100 per barrel) Which is a feature you've obviously never used. Because if you had, you'd have seen this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 At which point, oil was at above $100 per barrel But anyway, excuses are more meaningful if you've got examples of Socialist successes. Can you list any? I mean Socialist countries. Not Capitalist social democracies (Scandinavian countries, Canada, etc)
    2
  152. The Average Waffle No. Not unless you want to change the basic definition of what it is while really implementing capitalism. Like the Chinese communist party did. In other news, my tea pot is a dog.
    2
  153. The Average Waffle not at all. But I think you are.
    2
  154. And? Long story short from reading this: You seem to think Social Services are Socialism. And you seem to think Socialism is Communism. Our difference probably isn't ideals, but definitions of words. Not really uncommon in a world where those definitions have been abused by people on both side. (The Socialist conflates Socialism with Social Services to make it seem as if Socialism works by equating it with something that's a fantastic idea. The anti-social services person conflates Socialism with Social Services to make it seem as if Social Services are a horrible idea by equating it with one of the 20th century's great failures)
    2
  155. Marx didn't, to him they were fairly interchangeable. After him, it was expanded upon. Now there are a few giveaways for a non-communist society. Governments. Money. Social classes. Borders. The whole concept of a nation state. Probably a few other things, but that's a good beginning. The idea was go to Socialism, then once we've got that, go to Communism. All of the failures have been at step one. They need to find a way to avoid failing at Socialism before they can even seriously attempt to fail at Communism.
    2
  156. That's the normal plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_xI_83_Qs4 If you've made six impossible economic ideas work, why not round it off with Communism?
    2
  157. More seriously, IIRC the normal plan is that once the state becomes properly socialist and mature, the government will dissolve itself and introduce a Communist utopia. Because people like Stalin totally seemed to be the sort of people who'd voluntarily give up their power.
    2
  158. Well, watch this space for South Africa. And their recent taking a huge dump on the sacrosanctity of private property. The worst of shit like this is it's so pointless. People who should know better just keep on doing the same thing over and over and over again. Zimbabwe is right to the North. You can skip across the border. It's the next country. And these retards look at what Zimbabwe did. Look at how it turned out and think 'That looks good. I think we should try that' We'll see the same thing in South America sooner rather than later. Long before the lesson should have faded (remember they started within a decade of the USSR falling) </beginning of rant>
    2
  159. Agreed, but also worth pointing out that social services aren't socialism. The fallacious link people on either side insist on making doesn't help us.
    2
  160. Soo Hong that and they're not socialist. Just an example socialists are forced to give because actual socialist states are epic failures. Much like that crounty I've got no doubt you would prefer to see sink beneath the waves than foot the bill for reunification with.
    2
  161. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 This is from January 2014. Almost a year before the oil price dropped. When oil was near its peak. The drop in the oil price hurt, but this was already happening. They couldn't run the economy during the best times they would ever get. The main thing it affected was the timeline.
    2
  162. Speaking of the success of Cuba: "Either we change course or we sink." — President Raúl Castro, December 2010[45] So successful. So wow. Because that's exactly what a country's leader says when everything was working well beforehand.
    2
  163. I'm not sure I approve of the order that's been put in. If parents don't say the first to their children, then yeah, they're bad parents. The kids won't like them. Might even have a few emotional issues. If they don't say the second, their children have a much higher chance of prostituting themselves for a sandwich, if they can find someone with food to spare. The sad part is: Venezuela shows that isn't hyperbole. It's literal truth.
    2
  164. Where are the successes?
    2
  165. random student so bottom line, you think socialism is simply the government providing taxpayer funded stuff. Might like to open a dictionary.
    2
  166. I'd have thought that universal healthcare was more of a hedgehog. I mean, if we're redefining words, then why can't it be one? If we're not redefining words, then we need to remember it's not. It doesn't produce, it's a place the money is spent. (The exception being the pharmaceutical industry) It's also interesting that you felt the need to limit it to laissez-faire capitalism. No, we don't have that. contract laws alone prevent it from being that. Still capitalism, though. Also, particularly interested: >> injury and disablement benefits, maternity leave<< What do these produce, exactly? Safety nets, sure. But socialism is about ownership of the means of production
    2
  167. What do the police produce? The fact that they provide a service you could, if you chose, pray someone for doesn't make them a producer. It's about public ownership of the means of production. What do police produce? Not provide. Produce. If you want to talk about Norway's state-owned oil industry, I'll agree on production. I realise you think it's a century old definition so it can now be redefined to mean whatever you like, but that's simple bollocks.
    2
  168. I love how people don't know the difference between social democracy and socialism. Instead, they seem to think that anything that starts with the word "social" falls under the same umbrella.
    2
  169. Тодор Стефанов which of these didn't the Soviet Union do until the end? I mean... The country was turned into a literal prison.
    2
  170. >>Yes... *of course*, they killed like 250 million of their own citizens!!1<< I like how you use sarcasm in response to a basic fact. The USSR was one big prison. Walls and all. If sarcasm is your only response, that's your problem. And then the entire rest of your post was a rant that I guess tries to suggest the Iron Curtain didn't exist, and that its defences weren't pointed inwards, rather than outwards, along with a bunch of other bollocks irrelevant to that statement.
    2
  171. So. You agree that the iron curtain existed. You don't dispute that its defences were pointed inwards. The only reason for this would be to stop your own citizens from leaving. And from that, that's the basic definition of a prison. ("any place of confinement or involuntary restraint.") Yet you say I'm wrong. Where am I wrong, exactly? And how? You say I'm ignorant, but you haven't demonstrated it.
    2
  172. You're probably getting social democracy and democratic socialism mixed up. One is capitalist and works well. The other is socialist and has such a lack of success people are forced to claim that social democracy is the same thing.
    2
  173. You should stop calling them your peers. That suggests severe self-esteem issues :P
    2
  174.  @willog3378  I mean your peers are your equals. From the sounds of things, they're clearly not that.
    2
  175.  @rhett8702  progressive people should stop trying to redefine one of the 20th century's great failures in an effort to lump it in with what they do want. All they're doing is playing into the hands of their enemies. From both sides. People who actually want socialism are doing the same thing. Social services aren't socialism. It's an economic model about who owns the things that create wealth. You can't base an economy off free stuff, there needs to be something profitable. I'm saying this as someone who likes social healthcare, education, etc. They're wonderful ideas that have improved our countries immeasurably. Venezuela is trying to I'm implement socialism. It's not a poor form they're trying to do, it's an accurate form. It doesn't work.
    2
  176. It isn't. No European country is socialist.
    2
  177. Yeah. However good you might think the McCarthy era was, the methods used were a blight. What is done to your enemy can be done to you. Something SJWs seem incapable of understanding.
    2
  178. @Joe Black you have to wonder what China would be like today if the nationalists won. Sure, they were corrupt capitalist authoritarians, but.... Well, they were at that stage a full generation before the communists were... Using an economic system that actually works. A safe bet the cultural revolution and the great leap backwards would have been avoided.
    2
  179. Deep Thoughts and a line of credit that hasn't yet been exhausted.
    2
  180. Plenty of successful ones as well. Which is where the difference lies.
    2
  181. China is an epic socialist failure story and a monumental success of capitalism. Under socialism, tens of millions dead from starvation. Since Deng Xiaoping made China embrace capitalism, there's been massive growth and the biggest reduction in poverty in history. I'd ask if you could name any successful socialist states, but if you're referencing China like this, the answer is a pretty clear no.
    2
  182. And while they might get stale and overused, they never get old.
    2
  183. So what are the best examples of it? When has it worked? Please save time by only listing countries that have been socialist. It's a specific term. Capitalist with social services doesn't qualify.
    2
  184. >>If we look at the economy part of both USSR and North Korea, they both have a model that are in relation to planned economy which is communism<< No it's not. >>The ideology that the Soviet Union followed was Marxism-Leninism, which was the development towards a communist society.<< It was. If you're moving towards something, it's implied that you're not there. Because if you're at your destination, why would you go towards that? >>It sounds like you ask me what the difference between socialism and communism<< I asked what you think they are. >> and that's not possible since socialism is a wide term for a wide range of ideologies.<< It's an umbrella term for a range (not particularly wide) that has common ownership of the means of production at its core. There's a lot of variations of that, but that's the basic defining feature. >>That would be the same to ask what the difference between liberalism and facism is since both are operated on liberalism.<< They're pretty different. Liberalism is about the freedom of the individual to the extent the freedoms don't harm others (IE: Your freedom to swing your fist ends with my face) Fascism is an authoritarian system based on making the society work as one thing. >>Just to give two different ideas of socialism; The Marxism-Leninism (USSR) ideology wants to have a common ownership of the means of production while social democracy (Nordic Model; Denmark, Sweden and Norway) wants to limit the capitalism to bring social justice. Both of those ideologies are socialists.<< No they're not. Social democracy (it's not called socialist democracy for a reason) has common roots with socialism, but it's not socialism. I don't like to be rude, but it really sounds like you don't know what words mean. You've heard people who are also clueless going on about them, and have taken your meanings from those vague ramblings. Which is really how most people seem to get their ideas of these words. Really, there's no magic to these words. Nothing that makes them unusual. But lots and lots and lots of people who want to change the meanings based on their own ideology. In the case of socialism, people have tried to change it because it was such a monumental fuckup it had to be redefined to be rehabilitated by its proponents, and had to be redefined to be used against other things by people who dislike those other things.
    2
  185. >>Yes it is. USSR used a planned command economic model. << The USSR wasn't Communist. Don't mistake the stated goal for the reality. It was a Socialist state. At some point, they were meant to get round to dismantling the state, getting rid of money, classes, government, etc to bring about Communism. >>It was meant to say that they were building towards the “ideal” communist society, which should be the ideology “Left communism” (a less authoritarian ideology). << They weren't at any Communist type. >>Fascism is a more authoritarian ideology of classical liberalism with roots of liberalism. Therefor by blaming socialism because Venezuela has roots of socialism would be the same as blaming liberalism because Italian Fascism has roots of liberalism.<< You make the statement with absolutely nothing to support it. It's an empty claim. Crack open a dictionary at some point. Liberalism and authoritarianism are opposites. Details already given in the last post, so not seeing any reason to re-type them. >>I can agree to go with that saying social democracy is not socialism but has common roots within.<< Cool. Progress. Social democracy is not Socialism. >>Therefor by saying Venezuela is socialist is wrong since they are not a socialist country but a country with roots of socialism.<< How does this follow from the last? However, it's not a country with socialist roots. It's a country that's moving towards Socialism (or trying to. The attempt is going about as well as it normally does) What do you think it means when something has its roots in something else?
    2
  186. Dalton Chew yeah, I know. But it's easier to deny them food and pay than it is to arrange the election of a completely economically incompetent dictator who's going to drive everyone out and destroy the economy. However bad Trudeau is, I doubt he's Chavez /Maduro bad.
    2
  187. I used to work for IBM. When something serious went wrong, we needed to follow the five whys (asking why five times. Like a toddler does) to find the root cause. The thing that started it all. In this case, the root cause is socialism. The descent into dictatorship was merely a symptom that led to further complications.
    2
  188. Helen's a bit of a moron. I could try being more polite about this, but why try to hide what you'll rapidly figure out for yourself?
    2
  189. No European country is socialist. Those ones are social democracies, which have broadly overlapping goals, but aren't socialist.
    2
  190. China was Socialist until they ditched it and embraced Capitalism. Which was the time their economy started to recover. (Now obviously a host of other problems have emerged, but what else did anyone expect in a place where the government's legitimacy stopped resting on the will of the people and started resting on GDP increase?) Now it's a lovely combination of unregulated capitalism marred by corruption and enterprises that aren't there to keep the state wealthy so much as senior government officials, generals, etc happy,
    2
  191.  @arijanskreblin4105  so it looks like it was a bit of a failure as a state. It relied on one man who had the good fortune to die before everything really fell apart.
    2
  192. Excuses carry more weight when there are success stories.
    2
  193. Sweden isn't socialist. It's a social democracy that has a healthy respect for private property, including privately owned industry. Social democracy isn't socialism. Democratic or otherwise.
    2
  194. People were eating zoo animals and rotten meat before 1999? Source?
    2
  195. Be fair, at 14, you haven't had time to put the effort and study required to plumb the depths of stupidity that people like Chavez, Maduro and their supporters have. Work at it, and you can be like them!
    2
  196. Kind of like people who were blaming the fall in the price of oil. Ignoring that they were in a fairly terrible situation even before that (Although it didn't help)
    2
  197.  @jlatture1  You mean by denying them somewhere else to go? No. It would be slower, but all that would happen is fewer new ones would arise (why take the risk if you're not going to reap the reward?) and people would shift investment to other countries that hadn't done it. Remember: At one point in time, a third of the world was Socialist. It still failed. Even when the largest of these blocks turned itself into a literal prison to stop people from leaving.
    2
  198. >>China: Biggest socialist country on earth, described by its leaders as "socialism with Chinese characteristics" = $16.6k GDP per Capita.<< China's capitalist as hell, while dealing with a one party state and the consequences of Maoism and those far-off days when the CCP actually tried to be Communist. Also, China's GDP per capita is $8k. You're thinking of PPP which is irrelevant as soon as a country has to deal internationally. And, well, a complete shitload of other problems. Although I'll give you that the one party state is a massive source of them. A one party state also seems to be a general consequences of a country attempting to go hardcore Socialist/Communist. When it goes under a democratic framework, the hardcore stuff just doesn't happen (look at Kerala. Run by a democratic Communist party. The state's capitalist)
    2
  199. >>or Russia<< Massive reserves that are being burnt through. It wasn't just that Venezuela relied on oil, it was that Venezuela borrowed massive amounts of cash. Russia at least saved for a rainy day. Edit: Of course, the big question then becomes whether Russia saved enough to allow it to completely restructure its economy for a post-expensive-oil world. And, well..... It looks like Putin did, but I doubt if that's going to benefit Russia.
    2
  200. Probably because you're not socialist.
    2
  201. Ideally, yeah. Propaganda doesn't mean something's incorrect (although it can be) or misleading (although that's a normal post-WW2 connotation). It's a message designed to give a political message. The (correct and not at all misleading) message being "Attempting to implement socialism fails"
    2
  202. I'm guessing you've never been to an actual dictatorship.
    2
  203. So your criteria for failure is the complete and utter destruction of the state? Russia is neither of those things now. As far as I can see, either your criteria is the above, or you're unaware that Russia ditched trying for Socialism/Communism decades ago. Also: Saying it doesn't fail, while providing one maybe example of it not failing (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't fail. Capitalism fails. But it also succeeds. Socialism has not had successes. It just means it hasn't failed 100% of the time yet. (Although it sure as shit has succeeded 0% of the time)
    2
  204. I think it's amazing that it's considered to be acceptable for a presidential candidate (or presidential candidate candidate) to go up on stage and say (however erroneously) that he's a socialist. It's like someone reasonably conservative going up on stage and declaring that he's a fascist. (Except that the fascists didn't kill nearly as many people during war that the socialists did during peace. Not for lack of trying, but still. Dead is dead) It's amazing that it's a respectable title to give to yourself.
    2
  205.  @klytaemnistras  I guess the main question I can ask there is whether you can give any Socialist states that have had corruption levels that would be considered acceptable in the Western world. In theory, it can be corruption free. In practice is more important. There's been a century of attempts, so there's no reason we can't look at the data. And the movie's name was Threads. It's about the breakup of civilisation after a nuclear war. I was seeing it every time I closed my eyes for months.
    2
  206. lol. Delusion is fun. It's not Socialism, which has a 100% failure rate (name a successful Socialist state. Not a capitalist one with social services, and successes don't need excuses) that's the problem, it's something else Every. Single. Time.
    2
  207. >>there are plenty of socialist governments in the world<< There really aren't. If I ask you for examples, it's a safe bet you'll mention Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Places like that. Not a single one of which is Socialist. >>and there are two types of socialism, democratic & communism<< For Socialism, you're probably thinking of Social Democracy (which isn't socialism) and for Communism, you're probably thinking of Socialism. Which is frequently attempted by parties that call themselves Communist, but has never been attempted on anything more than a tiny scale. >>America even has a bit of socialism if you look at it from the public services of police & firemen as well as the roads constructed. << Sure. If you redefine the word, it has it. Socialism isn't the govt doing taxpayer-funded stuff. It's about public ownership of the means of production. It's about the economy, not what the money is spent on. >>Socialism has its flaws the same way capitalism has its flaws.<< If you completely and utterly ignore the scale of those flaws, yeah. But this being said, you really do seem to be someone who simply doesn't know what Socialism is. Very few Socialists seem to have the slightest clue of what they're advocating.
    2
  208. You checked wrong. They're not socialist. They're social democracies with welfare programs funded by capitalism.
    2
  209. Frank D. I said they were social democracies. Very different. But if you need to redefine socialism to that extent...
    2
  210. >>bigivel nope, social programs is socialism mate, it just sounds nicer. most social programs would do better without the government.<< Maybe. Up for debate. Whether it could be done more efficiently isn't (or at least isn't up for as much debate) I'll definitely give you that. For, but example, essentials that can easily become monopolies are a classic example of where government intervention/control is a good thing (for the consumer, at least) Cases in point: Water and electricity. You aren't going to have multiple water or electrical networks and you aren't going to be able to do without them. I'll also add internet (at least at the infrastructure level to this) Roads, police, health (I've really never met someone from a country with socialised healthcare who wants to get rid of it. Improve, by all means, but never get rid of) defence, blah blah blah. Probably be better if there's some specific examples you're thinking of.
    2
  211.  @bt-5sovietlighttank416  https://youtu.be/k79wCaFgU40 It's fun for the amount of time he spends trying to redefine socialism in order to make the argument.
    2
  212. It's weird that you can never find a leader good enough to make Socialism work. Whereas Capitalist nations can (relatively speaking) find someone adequately competent under any random rock. If a system requires leaders who simply don't exist (OR are so rare that if you do find someone, you'd better hope he's immortal) it's a crap system.
    2
  213. steve clapper exactly like that. For the same reasons. And deserves the same reaction. But my apologies for being pedantic. I married a Chinese communist party member. What I'd learnt since then makes it clear that the worst thing Hitler did was set the stage for the USSR to be taken seriously. Not intentional and him winning would have been worse, but the math backs it up nicely.
    2
  214. Venezuela's been an economic disaster for years. Dating back to the Bush years.
    2
  215. Hunter Muehlbauer an extremist liberal is someone who will die for your right to have and express your own views. Kind of like a fundamentalist Jainist. These people are liberal in the same way as Sweden, etc are socialist. They're not, but people insist on applying the label.
    2
  216. Hunter Muehlbauer basically. Unwarped definition. The sort of thing that would get Voltaire called a Nazi Edit: not quite, on looking again. I don't really care about govt size. I'll need to consider more after sleep. Either way, I'm not seeing how your standard revolutionary socialist (in particular) comes under any form of liberal. I don't really see how any collectivist mindset could qualify.
    2
  217. Hunter Muehlbauer yeah, it's fine. We're largely on the same page. No apology necessary ☺️ I did edit my last after considering this a bit more. Over all, though, it seems wrong to ever use liberal as a pejorative. Better to call out illiberal people who claim to be that. Although the hardcore Socialists I've come across tend to be very openly against liberals. We're first up against the wall when the revolution comes. I suspect that conservatives would be safer. Largely because once the revolution has happened, you want people who are opposed to change. I normally define a left winger as someone who hasn't got what he wants. As soon as he gets it, he'll be opposed to further change and right wing. (although probably not reactionary) Hitler was left wing until he gained power and everything was going well. Then he was right wing conservative. At the end, he was a right wing reactionary.
    2
  218. >>Robert Bray You are right, The GLP was a poor idea, an there were many other better alternatives<< Like... Simply not doing it. Need to remember that the economy was coming along quite nicely before it. In many ways, a certain level of economic development is inevitable if the technology exists. Letting people start businesses, work the jobs we don't want (Sweatshops are wonderful things over all. Seriously. They're wonderful at bringing countries out of poverty and providing new opportunities to impoverished people. Sure, the work is horrible, but these are people whose only marketable asset is that their labour is cheap. The income and economic development from sweatshops allows them to go beyond that) produces real results. >>but when it comes to an experimental government like Communism, and I believe it still is an experiment<< At what point has the experiment failed? How many more dead? >> I think that breeds radical ideas and government programs that are poorly thought out, because there is no template to work off<< The problem is that your standard Socialist is a pretty bad economist. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be a Socialist. In the same way as a good medical doctor doesn't try to balance your humours using leaches. If you purge people who aren't also Socialists, you're also purging people who can run an economy. (Deng Xiaoping did well, but he didn't exactly need to do much to be an improvement. His big idea was basically summed up as "We should stop actively preventing people from trying to improve their lives and build our economy") In many ways, Mao was a cargo cultist. If you haven't heard of them, they're worth reading up on. But long story short, he saw that the strongest economies produced the most steel, so he decided that producing steel created a strong economy. So steel he would create. Whatever the cost. Not even usable steel. Just.... Crap that technically qualified. He also thought gross output was more important than efficiency. >>But overall I can agree with what you said in your previous comments, China is a difficult country to coin, ideologically, due to its odd composure of policy, but overall it is socialist<< Was Socialist. Then let Capitalism spread. Now looks like it's going back in the other direction a bit. That's a recent thing, though. Generally speaking, the major use of those huge state-owned firms was political stability (I need this general to support me. This general might like to run - and profit from - a state-owned factory. That sort of thing) and ignoring the cost to the state. They're generally fantastically inefficient. >>Also thank you for maintaining civility in debate as it seems in today's age both on left and right, that is not something that is assumed.<< And same to you. Yesterday in half an hour was two people who seemed to be incapable of thinking further than 'TrumpTrumpTrump!'
    2
  219. Compared with whom? Countries that are actually socialist? (Or seriously attempting to me) No. It's doing pretty well by the standards of those countries. Norway isn't Socialist, BTW. It's Capitalist.
    2
  220. >>I'm not talking about income, but about denying a part of the population health care. Only poor counties have an excuse...<< Budget priorities. Also population sizes. Average education, etc. The US should have public healthcare, no two ways about it. However, it's a different scenario to what Norway has. Smaller population with higher income per capita and much, much more oil per person (As of 2007, there's about 20x as much oil being extracted per person as in the US) to help balance the books. In addition to a populace that's OK with far higher taxes. You're not exactly comparing apples with apples here.
    2
  221. Posverdad Divide how does it being a work in progress not answer your question? What do you expect a work in progress to be like?
    2
  222. Leave him. The failure needs to be seen to be Maduro's. Otherwise people will just claim it was the US and try the same retarded idea again.
    2
  223. There was a move towards socialism. Towards != arriving. They didn't move towards social democracy, they moved toward socialism. And personal property in this case includes businesses, which were being taken. The things people had built up themselves. As far as the rich people and money leaving. Yes. These were the competent people. Competent people have more bargaining power than incompetent people. They have bargaining power because they have something to offer. People who are competent and in demand don't specifically need you. You do need them. Yep, it's unfair. Sucks for those who are useless. >> I think the Valenzuela tried to do something noble but their efforts were destroyed by ego centric capitalists who were losing their control over the commanding heights of the economy<< They tried to do something that appears noble which has cocked up time and time again. As far as 'ego centric capitalists' goes - They made the best decision for them and voted with their feet. The alternative? Turn your country into a prison like the USSR did. >>They wanted a more 'social' economy like many European countries, but they did go near to socialism. So you're right somewhat, the transition from capitalism to 'social democracy' did mess some things up<< What do you thikn a social democracy is? >>But I see that as a negative of capitalism, that these extremely wealthy and powerful individuals can just blackmail the state to focus on their interests instead of the interests of the collective.<< See previous comments about people who have something to offer having more bargaining power than those who don't. I can speak from personal experience on how easy it is to change country if you've got something to offer, BTW. Other countries bend over backwards to have you. >>Still, if oil prices were higher, they may have made it through, but now oil prices are low, they have no other way to make money back, so I feel sorry for them<< Oh please. Face reality. Their problems were well underway when oil was at its peak. Just check historical news reports from January 2014, when oil was at $100 per barrel. They had massive debt then. They had massive problems then. Their problem wasn't the decline in the price of oil (That did hurt, but it was more of an extra kick on their way down) it was their incompetent leadership not having sufficient braincells to rub together to realise that if they don't protect the thing that literally financed their economy, they won't have an economy anymore. They stripped away funding that should have been reinvested to fund social programs and they put incompetents in charge for political reasons. To say nothing of the sheer incompetence that made them decide to build up massive amounts of debt instead of saving for a rainy day. I mean, it's not like oil has never dropped in price before. And why do they have no other way to make money back? Well. Because they chased away the people who they needed to run an economy. But it's OK, right? Because those people had unfair amounts of bargaining power. So who cares is chasing them off screwed the economy up and has literally led to mass starvation? At least they won't be able to 'blackmail' (You have no idea of what blackmail is. Blackmail isn't refusing to perform a service, it's demanding something of value in exchange for not releasing compromising information.) the country anymore. Because they've already done the most damaging thing they could. And left. Because Chavez and Maduro were economic incompetents. But please, continue to twist and find excuses for yet another failure triggered by trying to implement Socialism. At least you've had massive dollops of practice. Edit: If I seem annoyed here, it's because people like you, who are more concerned with theory than results, and so will bend over backwards to excuse failures like this are the reason it keeps happening. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/venezuelas-economy-is-so-bad-parents-are-leaving-their-children-at-orphanages/2018/02/12/8021d180-0545-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.2e4da00b767c This is because of people like you. People who managed to blindly refuse to learn from the consistent run of failure that's been run into every single time. The experiment has failed. Face the facts. Move on. Stop ruining people's lives to try and make an unworkable idea a reality. So there's some unfairness in the world. There are worse things and people like you are responsible for them.
    2
  224. >> France has a higher percentage of public sector workers than Venezuela. How can you call that anything like socialism<< I'm not calling it socialism. If you're talking about calling it anything but socialism. It depends on what they're doing. >> around 70% of Venezuela's employment is for the private sector, so either you don't know about Venzuela, or you have a twisted view on socialism<< You don't know what a "move to" something is, do you? I didn't say they'd achieved it. I explicitly said they hadn't. I said they were attempting to. >>I called their system 'social democratic' because much like social democracy, the current Venezuelan system seeks to reform the capitalist system to become more social instead of actually implementing socialism.<< No, they were very much trying to implement socialism. Social democracy is using a capitalist economy to improve equality. That's not what they were doing. Except for the improving equality bit... I guess everyone's equally screwed now. I like how you ignored things like price controls, though. Which basically had the effect of destroying investment in those areas. If I'm forced to sell something at less than it costs to produce, why would I sell it? Why would I bother getting into that market? >> Mostly the commanding heights of the economy such as oil, transport, energy etc. While they did some strange things like seizing the GM factory, mostly they have nationalized things that should be nationalized and are often nationalized in many European countries. << Heh, lol. They only nationalised things they should have, except for the other times. Where it was just a strange thing. >>Why should the nation's oil that is part of the land belong to a few people who have probably inherited their ownership, considering that a lot of oil was discovered a while ago in Valenzuela. Should that not belong to the people of the country, considering it's their land.<< That had absolutely no relevance to what you quoted. At no point did I focus on the oil in that statement. This being said: Yeah, the oil belongs to them. Here, the state govt is paid a royalty on what's taken out of the ground. But without the investment put in by those companies to remove it from the ground, in the ground it shall say. An environmentally good decision, but it removes any advantage to having that oil. >>They were losing their power. As they put their masses of wealth before the nation and the people there, they left. I call that ego centric. If they supported a more fair ownership of major money making natural resources at their own loss, I'd call that considerate and collectivist and I would say that would be the 'christian' thing to do.<< I like how this paragraph also had no real relationship to what I'd said. You can call it what you like, my question stands. Why should they stay when they can get a better deal somewhere else? Comment on their morality all you like, the question stands. >> I said they may have made it though, not definite<< They weren't making it when oil prices were at their peak. Go to Google news, set the date for the start of 2014 and search for Venezuela. >>. I know incompetent leadership existed there too, but I think the idea was noble.<< The idea is noble in the same way as heaven is a noble idea. It's not much good being noble if it's simply wrong. >>even if it's done by idiots and hindered by resistant from wealthy people. Venezuela should have tried to make a system more like the Nordic countries.<< I like how you blame the wealthy people for their resistance here, while not seeming to understand why an economy needs those who are capable of becoming wealthy. And yeah, it should have tried for social democracy backed up a stable capitalist economy. But it didn't. >>Venezuela is not starving<< As long as you ignore the starving people. Have a look for examples of people putting their children into orphanages because they can't feed them. That's a new thing. Also as long as you ignore the Maduro diet. >>food still exists in shops. << It did in China during the Great Leap Forward as well... Some shops, at least. Mao didn't look skinny, but then, neither does Maduro. So yeah, there's food there, but you don't need a total absence of food to have starvation. >>but not holodmor levels<< That's your criteria for failure? >>Also there have been examples of private shops stockpiling food instead of selling << Of course there have been. The food has more value than the money. If they sell the food today, they won't be able to buy the same amount of food tomorrow. That's what happens when you screw your economy. >>Anyway, my main point, was that any arguments against socialism, with Valenzuela as the real life example, is mostly wrong<< I know you'd like to believe this. I mean, it's not like it's part of a pattern that came close to defining the last century. Maybe next time it'll work! >>Like I said Venezuelan is not socialism and just seized some parts of the economy that mostly should belong to the collective<< Plus the other "strange things" >>Why should Valenzuela stick to the outdated American free market system instead of going for a system more like Finland or Norway<< It did neither. Finland and Norway have free market economies. They're both Capitalist countries. >>Because some capitalists will get angry that they lose their means of gaining huge amounts of wealth and power? << And then... Leave. Demonstrating how much a country needs people like them... >>Also, I don't believe in full socialism, I believe that the regulated free market does a great job of running small - medium business, but large business should be run by the state or at least 51% ownership by the state. << Congratulations on ensuring anyone capable of founding and running a large business will stay away from any country you're in charge of. I'm sure that'll work out great, just like Venezuel.... Oh... Yeah, ok. Those things that you said shoudl be done weren't exactly stunning successes there, were they? Better find another example..... Edit: I was thinking about this a bit more and realised that you've got this idea it's only the rich and powerful who are likely to leave or who will damage (blackmail was your word) by not participating in an economy. No. It's the teachers. It's the skilled tradesmen. It's the engineers. It's the scientists. It's literally anyone who has skills that another country might find useful. They will leave if they think they can get a better deal elsewhere and other countries will be glad to have them. A country that can't keep them cannot have a functioning economy. They're not interested in what you call fairness, they're interested in getting the best deal for themselves and their family, so they will leave and everyone who remains will be screwed. Those are the facts. And you seem to think that skilled people in general who are leaving are able to 'blackmail' the country, and... Should be stopped, I guess... By, like, an anti-fascist protective barrier that's directed inwards?
    2
  225. That Capitalism isn't a surefire silver bullet that'll always bring success, but it is the economic system found in all successful countries. Whereas Socialism fails over and over and over again. It's amazing that people who imply that Capitalism isn't perfect therefore it's a failure never seem to apply the same logic to Socialism. No. It's not perfect. But the choice between Capitalism and Socialism is the choice between something that might work and something that won't work. And before you do what everyone else is doing and bring up Scandinavian countries. They're Capitalist countries that use Capitalism to fund social services.
    2
  226. They use Capitalism to provide the funding for social services. It's not unregulated Capitalism, but they do very much have Capitalist economies. They're Capitalist economies with relatively high tax rates that focus on providing Social Services. With the odd exception of things like Norway's oil industry, those are not Socialist countries. And I'm still not sure why you bought up Social Democracies.
    2
  227. ionezgb abandoned socialism in the 70's
    2
  228. ionezgb and most of china's economy isn't state owned. Plus. China's economy was bought as low as an economy could be when it tried to be socialist. Venezuelan problems are nothing compared with life under Mao. The improvements have been purely since embracing capitalism
    2
  229. It's genuinely funny when people go on about how great Socialism is, but the only thing they can give when asked for a list of real world examples of successes are outright Capitalist states (Canada, Northern Europe) excuses and places that have abandoned Socialism years ago. (And which in this case caused tens of millions to starve to death during peacetime while it was still trying to be Socialist) Oh, and for direct comparisons of countries? East/West Europe. North/South Korea.
    2
  230. China ditched Socialism and largely embraced capitalism. 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics' is 'Capitalism with Chinese characteristics' where the 'Chinese characteristics' are the CCP's leadership profiting as much as possible. Coincidentally, this was at the same time as China's economy started doing well.
    2
  231. But inequality! Because it's better to be equal on a few dollars a month than it is to be poor on ten dollars an hour. Apparently...
    1
  232. It sounds like you've got explicit examples of things that are incorrect in this video, as well as sources to confirm you're not simply making shit up.
    1
  233. Because people desperate for a success have redefined the word. There haven't been any socialist states in Europe since the 90's
    1
  234. It's a country that's trying to be socialist. That's damaging enough. It has a government that has decided capitalists are the enemy. Assume an economy relies on capitalists. When you decide those people are the enemy, what do you think will happen next? Edit: also, time lines. The economy has been doing badly for a long time and was a catastrophe before Trump was elected.
    1
  235.  @Banor  for which bit?
    1
  236.  @Banor  your objections seem to rely on the idea that just because A is true, B is not. Or that something can only have one true fact at a time. Like if capitalists are needed, workers aren't Or Maduro and Chavez before him being anti imperialism means they're not also anti capitalist.
    1
  237.  @Banor  capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production. The state is the country as a whole. The things public. State capitalism is therefore the public ownership of the privately owned means of production. Does that make sense?
    1
  238.  @Banor  see the first sentence in my first reply.
    1
  239.  @Banor  I see excuses, conspiracy theories and sophistry. Any examples of a socialist state that worked well?
    1
  240.  @Banor  Venezuela was built on epic levels of debt incurred while its main export was at the highest price they could ever reasonably hope for. Cuba is said to be good in specific things. Even those specific things, though, are pretty crappy by the standards of a Western country. Cuba's big success is it hasn't collapsed yet.
    1
  241. No, they are capitalist countries invest heavily in Social Services. Which is very different. Lots of people think that anything that starts with "Social" is Socialism. It isn't.
    1
  242. You mean the sort of Socialism you get when you actually try to implement Socialism, instead of just using capitalism-funded programs to provide social services? Because #notrealsocialism generally IS Socialism. Venezuela was held up as a paragon of Socialism right up until the bills came due and everything fell apart. That's why.
    1
  243. Norway isn't a Socialist democratic country, it's a Social Democracy. Very, very different.
    1
  244. Allard8 Venezuela is part of a pattern of failure. Currently on about 100 percent. And the Netherlands aren't socialist. The only reason they and their surrounding countries are bought up as examples of socialism succeeding is because there's no examples of actual socialist states succeeding. Only capitalist states with welfare programs and excuses.
    1
  245. Allard8 if you use the term dog broadly enough, this bed I'm lying on can be called one. It's got four legs and is soft, after all. But yeah. I'll agree that plenty try to misuse the term to discredit positive things like education and public health. By conflating the two, you're doing their job for them. The only people who benefit from that conflation are people who are against social services a try to use the massive fail that is socialism to discredit it, or those who are in favour of socialism and try to use the huge success of publicly funded services to make it look good. Neither is your friend. It's a specific term. If we want a situation where we can have a meaningful discussion about these similarly named but very different things, the definitions matter. Please don't be help dishonest people extend it to the point it covers literally anything vaguely positive a government might do. It's tiring.
    1
  246. Allard8 like David Pakman, a very large amount of western politicians are simply wrong on what it is. Social Democracy isn't democratic socialism. One is about using the proceeds of capitalism to fight inequality, the other is about doing away with capitalism in a democratic manner. In David's case, he basically tries to redefine the term to mean nice things the government can do. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism. It's the very basic definition of the word. Everything else is just the nice things it's meant to achieve. (and has failed at. Time and time again)
    1
  247. Allard8 it doesn't adhere to the part that's the basic definition of the word. Socialism isn't defined by the goals (not counting public ownership of the means of production) it's defined by.... Well... Public ownership of the means of production. If you don't want people to draw those conclusions, don't contribute to the conflation of the terms. And if the accurate use of definitions cause the western socialist parties to look bad, well... They can abandon the tag whenever they like. If they do that, it would make ditching imbeciles like this that much easier. https://youtu.be/2FbWsINjpRY
    1
  248. Allard8 it's a safe bet democratic socialism won't stay democratic socialism. When something doesn't work (I mean it's a real disaster), you've got two basic choices in a democracy. 1. Walk away from what doesn't work. This is basically what happened with the Israeli kibbutz. People just lost interest. 2. Double down and make it work whether it's still wanted or not. That's where dictatorship comes in. People are right when they say dictatorship isn't technically a part of socialism. It's just a normal result of trying really hard to implement something that doesn't work. Which is about the only advantage capitalism has. It's a cold, heartless system that allows for failure and inequality while relying on selfishness. There's no morality in it, no attempt to fix the wrongs and injustices of the world. The only advantage it has is that it works.
    1
  249. Given that trying to implement socialism is a pretty retarded idea, you could blame any failure on a retarded leader. Eventually though, you have to deal with there have only been the barest successes, successful when compared with shitholes like Mexico and Syria, and plenty of epic failures.
    1
  250. Why?
    1
  251. So it's better for everyone to be poor (look at the state of Venezuela's healthcare) than it is to fund the military? Why?
    1
  252. Christian Reisch your statement was literally that you would choose to be poor and equal. (meaning everyone was poor) that's the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. That's very different what you're saying now. Which is basically the money could be spent elsewhere.
    1
  253. Christian Reisch you don't think poverty - even poverty endured in perfect health - is suffering?
    1
  254. Christian Reisch which shows your motivation isn't to help people, but it's envy directed at those who are doing well. Capitalism has done more to draw people out of poverty than anything else has. There has never been so little suffering as there is now (obviously not counting when there were simply fewer people than our abject poor) If you were truly interested in helping the suffering, your goal wouldn't be to give them company.
    1
  255. Christian Reisch if you were made dictator of the us, how would you go about putting everyone on the same income and what do you think the effect of that would be?
    1
  256. Christian Reisch you'd give up on your idea of everyone having the same income so easily? Well. If you do this by taxing everyone to the same level, what do you think the wealthy would do? I don't just mean the super rich, I mean the noticeably above average.
    1
  257. Christian Reisch your words were 'I just want every hard working person to have the same amount of money' How is that not having the same income? You've measured this by how hard they work, not how valuable their skills are. Why the change? And is that fraction of their wealth a one off thing? Or annual? If it's one off, how would you convince it would never happen again? If it was annual, why would they stay? Why wouldn't they get what they could out as soon as they could? Remember the wealthy are wanted everywhere.
    1
  258. On top of this, I'm also wondering how you would attract other entrepreneurs. You'd already made it clear you were willing to milk them if they struck it rich.
    1
  259. Christian Reisch you're avoiding a lot of questions. I'm particularly interested in the details of taxing the wealth rather than the income of the wealthy. Although it's nice to see you've completely backed away from having the same amount of money. Now you're just talking about progressive tax rates, which are very common. Including in the US. And Scotland and Ireland don't have many people in general. Which means they don't have the skill base. All things being equal, entrepreneurs will go to where they can get the skilled workers to carry out their vision. Normally that's the places with a large population. Ultimately, though, they'll go where they can earn (and keep) the most money. As for learning another language. Educated people the world over speak English.
    1
  260. Christian Reisch bloody lack of undo on the phone. Anyway, first you'd need to convince me that this would be the only time you'd dip your hands into my wealth. For how much ditching the military would save you... The us military budget is 600 billion. That's about 800 billion aud. My state's healthcare budget is 18 billion, or 2.25 percent of that. My state has 4.5 million people, or 1.3 percent of the us population. To put it another way, ditching the military completely would give you 50 percent of a healthcare budget. Let alone what else you wanted. Ditching the military entirely would be an amazingly bad idea. You've got a very bad neighbour to your West. You'd basically be turning the pacific into their back yard. The us military budget is huge, but it's only 1.8k per us citizen per year. The UK, which is quite cheap, spends 2.8k per person per year on the NHS. Really, the NHS is underfunded. So yeah. I'd take the loss, knowing that if the 20th century had taught me anything, you'd be back for more. What you can do once, you can do twice. The sooner I get out, the more I get out with. On top of this, skilled migrants and entrepreneurs would stay far away from you. They want to know that if they do well, they won't be your piggy bank. And then the skilled jobs would go overseas as well. The best of your skilled workers would follow the money, which will always be with the entrepreneurs you've gifted to another country. The main people who could never leave are those you're trying to help. They'd be the ones to up the mess, and frankly, if they had the skills needed to do this, they wouldn't need help. If you think it's difficult to change country, take it from someone who's done it multiple times. It's better described as an inconvenience than a real hardship. After this, the economy would largely collapse. The people who drive an economy aren't the poor. It isn't the people who need free stuff. It's the people who view a pay rise as keeping score rather than as something they need. The poor are a liability. If they weren't, they wouldn't be poor. As for getting rid of poor people in general. Poor is a relative term. Without complete equality, there will always be 'poor' for reference, someone on welfare in the US is in the top 20 percent of global incomes.
    1
  261. On further thought, you've completely neglected the mechanics of how this would be done. Their wealth isn't in simple cash, it's tied up in things like property and shares. You want cash? Somewhere there's a massive fire sale going on where everyone tries to get the cash needed to avoid punishment for non payment. Value of everything involved would drop. Leading to more required to get your money. Supply and demand and all that. Buyers would be reluctant to buy. Because what if it's simply taken off them when you need to balance your budget? You did it before, after all. And if you simply expropriated property, shares, etc, you'd do an even better job of undermining people's confidence that what was theirs would stay theirs. That's not even counting the economic damage of those who are afraid they'll be targeted next selling up and leaving. The people you want to fleece aren't idiots. They're normally highly intelligent, very well educated people who have a good understanding of what happens next when people like you take power based on historical precedent.
    1
  262. Get the human development index. Let me know the ranking and name of the first non capitalist country.
    1
  263.  @stavig4  why? And if it's a tool that works (you've made no attempt to dispute that), what's the problem?
    1
  264. Those are social services. If it's not producing something tangible, it's really not socialism. Very different things. This distinction is important, largely because both sides make use of conflating these things to make bad arguments. Those who are anti social-services conflate them with the failure that is Socialism to make them look bad. Those who are pro-Socialism conflate the huge benefits of Social services to claim that Socialism is good. Both of these arguments have terrible outcomes.
    1
  265.  @johnhasse3995  Going by pretty much every other attempt. Pretty damn badly.
    1
  266. It was real socialism up until 2010. No two ways about that. It only became fake when the money ran out and it started to fall apart.
    1
  267. At its peak, a third of the world was socialist. It's not that people didn't join in, but that everyone who joined in found it was a really retarded idea. So they quit.
    1
  268. They had real problems before the price tanked. They also killed the goose by not reinvesting in their oil (too much of the money went to social programs), and giving their oil industry management chosen for political, rather than economic reasons. That and firing 40 percent of their experienced workers.
    1
  269. You could trust the outcomes of similar attempts over the last century.
    1
  270. Anything in particular?
    1
  271.  @miguelcontrerasjr.2785  I mean what, specifically, is incorrect?
    1
  272.  @miguelcontrerasjr.2785  Well, you're right in one respect, it's man made by Chavez's policies. But how about you give a timeline of things that could be bad enough to cause a disaster and we can compare them with historical articles showing issues?
    1
  273.  @miguelcontrerasjr.2785  The fact is you've offered no evidence. The further fact is you've demonstrated an unwillingness to compare provable dated events with historical reports on the state of the venezuelan economy.
    1
  274.  @miguelcontrerasjr.2785  Alternatively, I could point out that excuses have much more weight when there are examples of successes. How many successful socialist states can you name?
    1
  275.  @miguelcontrerasjr.2785  So you also don't know where the burden of proof lies. You also think people should care about your feels. Interesting pattern......
    1
  276. Those are Social Democracies. Capitalism has had successes. Which Socialism hasn't. If it had, people wouldn't bring up Capitalist Social Democracies whenever they're asked for success stories.
    1
  277. Jack Carroll yeah. The big thing is where the money comes from, not where it goes. It's about ownership of the means of production. Not the means of consumption. Your Swedish friend is simply wrong on the basic definition of the word.
    1
  278. Jack Carroll socialist aspects is quite different. Although in this case, it's defined as things socialists would like (almost everyone wants nice things and for people to be happy) The goals of a movement are very different to the means of achieving those goals. Socialism has some wonderful goals, but chained to an economic system that's utterly incapable of achieving those goals. Which is why we have social democracy. Largely the same goals (the major goals it doesn't have are the abolition of private property and industry, which are largely what defines socialism), but using capitalism to achieve them. Sweden isn't a democratic socialist state, it's a social democracy. Capitalism is far more capable of delivering the (good) promises of socialism than socialism is.
    1
  279. >>Robert Bray economically they are socialist, but politically they aren’t.<< Economically, they are not Socialist. Economically, they are Capitalist. There is a strong emphasis on the sanctity of private property. Here's a list of the largest Nordic companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Nordic_companies Besides StatOil (Norway's state-owned oil company. I'd argue that's Socialism) how many of those are state owned. I don't mean publicly owned. Publicly owned in this context just means that you or I can buy a part of the company for ourselves. That's still private ownership. Just private ownership anyone with cash can get in on. I mean state owned.
    1
  280. As far as aspects go. I've got many aspects of a Christian. (At least what a Christian is meant to be in a modern context. I'd have less in common with a Spanish Inquisitor) But I'm an Atheist. However much else I might share in common with Christians, I'm not one of them, because I lack the basic defining criteria. I could do every single thing they do, right up to and including going to Church. I could hold every single value, and so on. But if I'm not a believer in God, Jesus, etc, I'm not a Christian. By definition.
    1
  281. Jack Carroll yeah, I've enjoyed that video. Mislabelling a bunch of stuff doesn't mean socialism works. That's what he and you are doing. Nothing more, nothing less. And the only reason you're doing this is because the actual attempts at socialism have been one catastrophic failure after another. What you think is socialism simply isn't. It's that simple. As for your Swedish friend, he's simply another person who doesn't know the basic definitions of what talking about. His geographic location doesn't change this. He lives in a social democracy.
    1
  282. Jack Carroll the Pakman video is simply full of shit. That's the long and short. It doesn't work, but it sounds nice. Believers who really want it to work go through a mental gymnastics to try and redefine it as something that's not a horrible failure. Basically, from what I've seen, there are two types of people who try to redefine it. Those who are against social services, who try to link them within the massive failure that is socialism, and those who are in favour of socialism, who try to link out with the success that was social services. Both are wrong and neither is doing social services a... Service. And a welfare state is not a 'type' if socialism. It's a goal that socialist states have, but have been consistently unable to sustainably support. If we're not talking about common ownership of the means of production (and Sweden doesn't do that) we're not talking about socialism. Means of production doesn't include education, fire, police, military, etc. You can't base an economy on those. Norway's statoil does, but as you can see from the list of Nordic companies I sent, that's the only major thing that does in that region. When Chavez and Maduro went around expropriating privately owned industries, they were moving the country towards real socialism. If someone tries to dazzle you with welfare, etc, and say that it shows socialism works, that person is simply lying to you. Those places that were catastrophic failures were real socialism in action. Just... The real world result of attempting to implement that system rather than what they wanted the result to be.
    1
  283. The saying is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    1
  284. Because inequality is unfair and people don't like unfairness. Edit: unless they're the ones benefiting from it.
    1
  285. And if a particular idea consistently leads to the same outcome... Why shouldn't it be blamed? Results matter more than intentions.
    1
  286. Adan Warren no, it's an attempt at socialism. Communism is the next step that involves getting rid of cash, government, borders, etc. Socialism is about the people (represented by the state) owning the means of production. This is yet another failed attempt at that.
    1
  287. Anything specifically incorrect? Or do you mean to use the word propaganda before the Germans sullied it? As in it's a positive political message.
    1
  288. Yet another experiment. That failed. Maybe it'll work next time.
    1
  289. Social democracy isn't socialism. It's about using the proceeds of capitalism to reduce inequalities. Socialism is about the common ownership of the means of production. Not simple wealth redistribution by whatever means.
    1
  290. Why?
    1
  291.  @НиколаЗељковић  that's not an explanation of why capitalism isn't good. Unless you're trying to say that while it's good, she shouldn't say factual things because something something America something something.
    1
  292. So from the looks of things, you don't have a coherent point, just some barely articulate screeching of slogans. Please continue. I love it when people I disagree with publicly make themselves look like children. (Outright lunatics is better, though. People still sympathise with children, whatever their age)
    1
  293.  @НиколаЗељковић  you're still not saying why it's bad. Just that you don't like some things associated with it in some barely defined way. Like... I'm not a fan of socialism. But that's not because some rant about half-witted celebrities who have no idea what they're supporting
    1
  294.  @НиколаЗељковић  when has socialism helped the poor? When it ruins a country, the wealthy can leave. The poor are left to pick up the pieces. Maybe you can drop the angry virtue signalling and try giving some facts and logic. At least some specifics.
    1
  295. Have to ask. Are you a capitalist trying to make socialists look bad? Or are you simply so far gone you've turned into a caricature of your side? Ordinarily by this point I'd think the former, but it's so difficult to tell the difference between someone trying to look like an incoherent slogan screaming lunatic, and an actual incoherent slogan screaming lunatic.
    1
  296. https://youtu.be/mUdeEq9bHU0 It's funny because it's true.
    1
  297. And yet, strangely compatible.
    1
  298. The problem was the goals and actions of the government. This isn't the first time Socialism has been attempted. The outcome is pretty predictable. Why run a business when the government won't allow you to profit? What's the point?
    1
  299. Helen: As has been repeated many times: Norway is not Socialist. It has Social Services. It's Capitalist. The only difference between Norway and the US is where the money earnt by Capitalism goes and how much is taxed. Beyond that, there's no 'different type' of Capitalism.
    1
  300. Helen: With an H and one L. The person you're responding to. AKA the person who thinks that Socialism is a good idea because it 'Works extremely well here. (Norway)'. You're Ellen With too many L's and too few H's. :P
    1
  301. Yep :) And my apologies for the spam you'd received :) Also, for the record on: "Plus honestly I have no idea what kind of system Norway has." It's Capitalist. Helen is using a Capitalist economy as an example of a Socialist economy working. The irony would be staggering if it were still an unexpected event
    1
  302. Excuses carry more weight when there are decent successes.
    1
  303. Jason Smith when those people no longer want to go to your country, you're in trouble
    1
  304. They might just hate the rich and not give a damn about what happens to the poor.
    1
  305. Yeah. Corbyn makes me glad I left. That is one very dangerous man.
    1
  306. CV M This would be a better argument if you could name a successful attempt at socialism. But it seems a safe bet that the countries that sprang to mind when I said that were all capitalist states. (Sweden, Norway, maybe Canada, etc)
    1
  307. So... Stop the sanctions targeted at individuals, and do the equivalent of even worse sanctions targeted at their one remaining income source?
    1
  308. Is not socialism.
    1
  309. Notice how corruption always happens in Socialist states? And it's an entirely oil driven economy because the government did its damndest to drive out other industries. It enacted policies that resulted in it nearly 100% relying on oil and enacted them so badly that even when conditions were as good as you could ever hope for for an economy based on oil, it still failed.
    1
  310. What does that make incorrect in this video?
    1
  311. And then that crashed and burned, as it was revealed that anything good that happened in Venezuela was at the expense of the future that is now the present.
    1
  312. Karl and which one manages to harness selfishness and turn it into a force for good? It's one of the things I like about capitalism. You can be the most sociopathic asshole to ever walk, and you still help people simply by buying things.
    1
  313. That's more because the leadership valued power over ideology. It could keep the ideology going, and basically lose power. Or it could give up the ideology in all but name, take credit for the improvements from abandoning what it put so much effort into implementing, and maintain power a bit longer. Unfortunately though, the CCP is at a stage where it should, for the sake of China, be looking at what happens when it's out of power. And how best to manage that transition. It won't, though.
    1
  314. The countries you list aren't democratic socialist, they're social democracies. Very different. And socialism has a strong tendency to result in a dictatorship.
    1
  315. Socialism is an economic model. It's about how the wealth is meant to be created (and who owns what creates the wealth) , rather than how it's spent. You can't base on economy on free stuff. There needs to be profit. Otherwise it's not sustainable.
    1
  316.  @daybrink1267  the involving free stuff isn't socialism. It's just the nice things that socialism was expected to be able to pay for, but completely failed at.
    1
  317.  @daybrink1267  which is fine. But isn't socialism. And the conflation of the terms doesn't help anyone who both wants properly funded social services and doesn't want to be put into the middle of a dystopian nightmare thanks to an unworkable economic system. The people voting for socialist candidates might not have a clue what they're voting for, but the socialist candidates do. Chavez knew exactly what the Venezuelan people were voting for. He was just damn fool enough to think he could make it work.
    1
  318. Weekly update needed?
    1
  319. Based on what?
    1
  320. Capitalism doesn't have a 100% success run, that's true. But it has successes. Lots of them. Which is more than you can say for Socialism.
    1
  321. And that's relevant to the failure that Chavez presided over because....?
    1
  322. I see the same thing on China Uncensored. Sure, the guy hosting it is massively against the CCP. But it's rare to have someone point out where he's actually wrong.
    1
  323. Excuses carry far more weight when there's successes to show it's not a consistent thing. So far about he closest to that is Rojava , which needs to be better than a warzone, and chiapa, which needs to be better than a particularly corrupt part of Mexico. And more traditionally, Scandinavian countries, which aren't Socialist.
    1
  324. The difference is that Capitalism has produced successes. Sure, it's not a 100% silver bullet, but every successful country is Capitalist, Socialism hasn't. It's expensive failure after expensive failure.
    1
  325. TheLocalZero Nepal's economy is fairly terrible. While it's not difficult to get large percentage advances out of terrible economies, it's apparently growing at a little over 5 percent. That's a long way from being the leader. For comparison, after China abandoned socialism (in all but name) it averaged about 10 percent per year. From what I can see, it's also not a socialist economy. There's more to that than being run by a socialist party. For Venezuela VS China. China is moving away. Its economy since then has been healing. Venezuela is moving towards. That is the big difference. In China, investment has a good chance of being rewarded. In Venezuela, you might as well save time and set fire to your pile of money. As for China being close to crisis.... They've got lots of timebombs set up as a result of how they've obsessed over gdp figures. The demographic timebomb is only the most obvious. And socialist economies are normally run by selfish idiots. There's a good reason for it: it doesn't work. People who are geniuses in a particular field normally don't support doing retarded things in that field. (unless it's a means to an end and they don't really care about consequences)
    1
  326. luca micele silva name a socialist success. Not a state that has healthcare or welfare, but a successful state in which the people own the means of production.
    1
  327. If you do that, and the country next to you doesn't, why would anyone invest in your country? Will you also limit losses?
    1
  328. They didn't really intend to exclusively rely on oil. It's just that they ruined every other industry while trying to be socialist, and tried to use oil money to make up for it. Then they borrowed everything they could and pissed it against the wall. Then the economy started to collapse. Then oil dropped (the drop wasn't the spark for the collapse. Just an extra kick on the way down) Then shit really hit the fan.
    1
  329.  @TheBFLrules  from the looks of it, free market capitalism wasn't an enemy to be stamped out. If someone wants to set up a small store or a business, the govt doesn't try to step in. I gather there's also a bit more distance between the govt and the oil companies.
    1
  330. Yeah... When you look at the groups that want Socialism.... it's difficult to see how they're threatening. Loud, violent, but thoroughly incompetent. Influential, due to being noisy, but that seems to be well on the wane, due to people being bored. And when you look at Ocasio-Cortez.... Your first impulse is to invest in popcorn.
    1
  331. None of those are socialist nations. At best they're social democracies. Not the same thing. Not even close.
    1
  332. Rounak Samanta capitalism has failures, it's true. It's not a silver bullet. But it also has successes. Which is more than you can say for socialism. 100 million dead with nothing to show for it.
    1
  333. Many arguments have been given. Anyway: How about you present something? Your own comments are devoid of information. Just opinion and unsupported assertion.
    1
  334. Rodrigo Parra Palma have to be honest. As an Australian with a crappy anthem, I am envious of their music. If only you could eat a catchy tune....
    1
  335. What about it?
    1
  336. Helen E because the democratic society that is the United States has decided, better for worse, that they don't want to do this.
    1
  337. >>CAPITALISM IS SO GREAT!!! Is that why in the USA there are 40+ million people without healthcare & on food stamps ? << Granted, there are only about 30 million Venezuelans living in poverty. In a country with a destroyed health service. But there are only about 30 million Venezuelans. So.... >>Is that why cities like Chicago are rotting away while some areas have no running water ?<< Source for numbers on this? >>Right now the USA is sinking deeper & deeper into a crippling debt crisis<< That you say this on a video about Venezuela is pretty funny. >>What are you going to say when the next recession or who knows, perhaps depression, takes place after the capitalist bubble burst & the American empire crumbles ?<< So.... This is better.... Somehow? >>Unbridled capitalist has led to 8 people owning as much as half of the worlds population<< Largely because half of the world's population owns nearly nothing. Because if you're poor, you're not accumulating assets. >>however the brainwashed zombies & sheeple will keep repeating the same rubbish & nonsense again & again.<< Funny how you keep on repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Ignoring it when it's responded to, only to bring it up again
    1
  338.  @mistergeopolitics4456  basically, after two months, you came back to tell me you couldn't respond to the fairly short post, (when your own crap I'd pasted is taken into account) I'd written, so you were going to beat the retreat. I already knew this. The silence made it clear. All this did was highlight your inability to respond.
    1
  339. The morons who can't tell the difference normally seem to be going in the other direction.
    1
  340. No it's not. Plenty of countries don't have that right and have done rather well economically. I'm in one now (Australia) Also, Chavez died in 2013.
    1
  341. We had a small one, but we lost. Fortunately the victors were kind to us. Check out the Emu wars, But seriously, that's a difference, but probably a fairly irrelevant one. Plenty of countries have gun control without collapsing entirely. Not really sure what the point is with civil wars in general though.
    1
  342. It's what we call a root cause analysis. Find the most basic cause. In this case, it was attempting to implement an unworkable economic system. Although in fairness, it might be workable, we just haven't found someone with the genius to do it. Although we might have found someone who's genius enough, but using that massive intellect, that person has simply seen no reason to bother trying, when Capitalism produces better results in mediocre hands (Geniuses do die, after all)
    1
  343. Is anything incorrect?
    1
  344.  @cmk4118  anything in particular? I normally see that response from people who just don't like the message without being able to say anything of meaning.
    1
  345.  @cmk4118  so, firstly, this is a well trod path for socialist states. Economic collapse is the norm. Secondly, the serious sanctions were in 2017. The problems long predate them.
    1
  346.  @cmk4118  China abandoned the attempt at socialism under Deng Xiaoping. Vietnam has also embraced capitalism. Cuba does well in very specific things, and by well, I mean it does it to the level of some of the crappier western nations. Can't speak much for Bolivia. Although it doesn't appear to have gone balls deep. For the USSR. The liberalisation was a symptom of failure, not a cause. Also, if the system was working, it wouldn't have caused a problem.
    1
  347.  @cmk4118  I'm seeing you've attempted to avoid giving any evidence that it's responsible in this case. What's far more consistent is the failure of socialism. China is a classic example of this. Tens of millions dead for nothing.
    1
  348.  @cmk4118  ok. For your China post. What do you think socialism is? That post makes it quite obvious you've got no idea. It also makes it obvious you're easily fooled by labels. "communist" in communist party is an official aspiration. It's not what they actually are. And the functioning bits of their economy are capitalist as hell. Look up zombie companies to see how the Socialist remnants are going.
    1
  349.  @cmk4118  I do enjoy the made up number that includes masses of stuff socialist states also did. As well as counting inaction where action was possible as a death. Anyway, there's one other thing you haven't taken into account. Capitalism has successes. Lots of them. Socialism doesn't. Every socialist death was for nothing. The capitalist deaths were for something that had a decent chance of working.
    1
  350.  @cmk4118  sounds like you wasted a lot of time. China was terrible until it abandoned socialism. As for the USSR... Where is it now? Really, you've spent more time listing excuses than long term successes.
    1
  351.  @cmk4118  I'm actually fairly liberal. I'm just not a socialist. Marrying a communist party member cured me of that. I'm currently living in Hong Kong. It's no accident that the best part of China was never socialist. And you've still spent more time on excuses and things that weren't sustained successes than you have on successes. The USSR failed. Socialist China failed. And what you've wasted on a bad idea is nothing to what hundreds of millions have wasted on that bad idea. Come back when you've got successes.
    1
  352.  @cmk4118  you call that arguing? Heh. That's pretty funny.
    1
  353. It isn't. Those are Social Democracies.
    1
  354. The weight loss must be because they've got some great gymnasiums and voluntary diet programs. For the rest... Excuses get tiresome after a while. Eventually you need to just look at the system and wonder if there's some other reason it failed 100% of the time. (Including massive countries like China and the USSR)
    1
  355. Communism is an entirely different kettle of crazy. It's a country run by a government that's trying to be socialist. With the predictable result.
    1
  356. So you should intentionally mispronounce your own language's words when speaking another language?
    1
  357.  @davebarrowcliffe1289  if it's a loan word, sure. If it's not a loan word, it's no more or less than a widely accepted mispronunciation, whether through ignorance or inability.
    1
  358.  @davebarrowcliffe1289  If a French speaker pronounced it Paree, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. I also don't expect my Chinese wife to pronounce Zhuhai zoohi. Or for friends and coworkers to mispronounce their own names when speaking English.
    1
  359.  @davebarrowcliffe1289  if she was a native Spanish speaker, I wouldn't see the issue. Let me how when you find a Chinese speaker who pronounces any Chinese place containing with Zh as a Z, like an English speaker would.
    1
  360. gerard doorty the power to govern by decree given to Chavez on a regular basis made him a dictator. Also, things were crumbling under him, he simply had the good fortune to die before he saw the ultimate consequences of his policies.
    1
  361. chary361 a Republic fundamentally means your head of state isn't a monarch. That's about it. You're a representative democracy.
    1
  362. It wasn't good. But was still a massive improvement on post Chaves.
    1
  363. No, they're fairly specific terms on that describe how that end is achieved. What you just described is the basic rationale for having an organised society.
    1
  364. Or North Korea Or Vietnam Or.. Well, pick a country that put serious effort into Socialism. They're all cockups.
    1
  365. They've failed as well. Which is why when asked for examples of where it's been successful, people give capitalist social democracies.
    1
  366. Jahan Khalili  see? The examples you gave of successes weren't socialist states. They were capitalist social democracies. Plus excuses for the failure of actual socialist states.
    1
  367.  @JahanFarhadKhalili  Sweden's economy isn't based off publicly (realistically as in state owned, in the people's name) industry. It has a large welfare state, it has heavy unionisation, it has high taxes, it has public healthcare but none of these are socialism. Largely because unions aren't the means of production, taxes aren't the means of production and you can't run an economy off free stuff. People have this idea that that's socialism because actual socialism has been such a failure, there's been a need to try to redefine the word. Basically for PR purposes (otherwise you're just supporting a system that's led to twice as many largely deaths as Hitler was responsible for during war) So yeah. Familiar enough. Your mention of Sweden is looking more like a copy and paste based on a lack of understanding than mine was.
    1
  368.  @JahanFarhadKhalili  I'm not seeing the point, unless you believe that basic definitions change based on geography. But anyway... https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
    1
  369. >>socialism didn't fail. ppl failed socialism<< A line of thought that leads to mass murders. If something fails, you ditch the thing that's failing. If it's the people............
    1
  370.  @saibendumaiti2967  you might like to read what I said again. Think darker. Much darker. "fixing" people you decide are wrong is also pretty horrific.
    1
  371.  @saibendumaiti2967  funny how pretty much (with minor exceptions that really tend to be excuses) all of the leaders fail socialism. Whereas capitalist states seem to find it (relatively) easy to find competent leadership. If a system requires a person that effectively doesn't exist to work, there's a problem with that system.
    1
  372. ​ @mistergeopolitics4456  >>In Sweden the Sweden Social Democratic Party is currently in charge<< Said right on the tail of pointing out that Social Democracy isn't Democratic Socialism. And no, it's not a form of Socialism. It fails on the most basic definition. People just attempt to say it is, because attempts at Socialism have a very solid track record of extremely costly failure. >>If you're talking about pure Socialism, no country is purely Socialist<< There's a reason for this. That reason is: It doesn't work. Lots have tried. More people have died in the attempt than Hitler ever managed to wipe out. During Peacetime, over a similar time period, Mao alone killed more than the Soviet deaths alone during wartime. Mao killed more Chinese than the Japanese did. In three years. >>Venezuela also has a capitalist market<< I like how you're ignoring that the Venezuelan government has decided Capitalism is the enemy, and is putting serious effort into moving away from it. No. Venezuela isn't Socialist (and is obviously another failed attempt) but the attempt is incredibly damaging. >>Venezuela has a capitalist market along with Socialist aspects & policies, just like Sweden, so what's your point ?<< The point is Sweden is a Capitalist country with a healthy respect for private property, including privately owned business.
    1
  373. ​ @mistergeopolitics4456  >>The party currently in charge in Sweden, they proudly label themselves SOCIALIST. Who are you to say that they're not when they say that they are ? What about the "Nordic model" ? That's not Socialism either ? despite the fact that academics say IT IS ?<< I'm someone who can read a dictionary. I also recognise the difference between something being something, and something being descended from something. Anyway, I'm not a fan of the argument from authority fallacy, but given you seem to put weight on it... https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist The PM of Denmark is saying that the Nordic model is not Socialist. >>What about the "Nordic model" ? That's not Socialism either ? despite the fact that academics say IT IS ?<< Well, the PM of Denmark says it isn't. And given you seem to like to use that fallacy, I'm assuming the topic is closed now. Or is this the point where you decide that logical fallacies are called fallacies for a reason? >>Socialism works when people are willing. It won't work when people are forced. It's very rare that the vast majority of people in a country are willing to undertake a Socialist project for a long period of time, which is why you often times see Capitalist systems besides Socialist policies. << Socialism works when people are fundamentally different to the people we've got. That's pretty clearly a requirement that leads to failure. And know those Socialist policies working with Capitalist systems? They're pretty epic evidence that Capitalism is better at delivering the promises of Socialism than Socialism is. >>Hitler was a proud Socialist & under his leadership Germany went from being bankrupt to becoming one of the most powerful & most advanced nations on earth. Hitler credited this rapid turnaround to Socialism << Wasn't exactly a lasting solution, though. His idea for funding his works was to conquer other countries and take their resources/use their slave labour. But hey, if you think that's a good thing, then at least you're honest about it. >>If Socialism is so backwards then how did the Soviet Union compete with the USA for decades ? Russia went from a feudal system where the majority were illiterate and starving to a developed country with universal healthcare, education, one of the most advanced nations in human history. The Soviet Union was the first nation to put a man in space. That's right, a Socialist nation was the first to put a man in space. << If Socialism works so well, where is the USSR now? You've just made an argument that says it was too powerful for external sabotage to bring it down. Anyway, the USSR was good at very specific things, but could never deliver the whole package. That's why instead of continuing to be a world power, it died after less than a human lifetime. It's also why it was a literal prison. How many successful countries needed to be turned into literal prisons? >>Don't even get me started on the evils of capitalism & colonialism. The Atlantic Slave Trade without which the USA never could have caught up to Europe ? The man made famines in India which claimed the lives of tens of millions some say hundreds of millions, caused by the greed of the British ? << Yep. Bad things were done. But there's something to show for it. You've got excuses, and a desperation to claim the success of Capitalist nations, because Socialist nations are so lacking. And a huge body count... All for nothing. >>You think Capitalism is a perfect system ? Right now 8 people own as much as half of the worlds population. If you think that's right & just then you're either delusional or mentally deranged. << Nope. I just think it's far, far, FAR better than Socialism. Capitalism doesn't need to be right and just, it just needs to be a system that works. Which it is. Which Socialism isn't. As evidenced by the Capitalist nations you've listed that have been far more able to deliver the promises of Socialism than Socialism ever was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg This is Capitalism working. See how it plummets when the USSR collapses? That's Socialism holding people back in poverty. >>Under Mao China's population doubled & China went from a medieval feudal system to becoming an industrialized nation. Tens of millions were introduced to healthcare, education & sanitation. << 1. That large population was long term one of the worst things that could have happened to China. A large population is not a good thing. Hell, African nations manage to be overpopulated. Poor people breed. Now there's a huge amount of people about to entire retirement, without nearly enough to support them. To say nothing of the epic environmental issues. 2. More of that introduction was done after Deng Xiaoping allowed Capitalism. Before that, what they had was pretty shit. 3. China's education system isn't what people think it is. 4. All of this was pretty ordinary throughout the world. Except for the introduction of massive overpopulation. >>Venezuela was suffering & poor under capitalism for decades. Chavez brought tens of millions out of poverty. You could argue that he was too ambitious & went too far with borrowing money for his programs, however Venezuela is where it is today because the USA has declared economic warfare on Venezuela for more than a decade. Now you're seeing the results of that sabotage. << I like how you acknowledge he went too far, borrowing money for unsustainable programs, yet still think it was the US's fault. While ignoring that with that oil wealth, borrowing money shouldn't have been a necessity. Remember that the country was failing while oil was at its peak. >>Also the oil prices, the Americans made the Saudi's bring down the oil prices not to benefit the Saudi's themselves, but to hurt nations like Russia, Venezuela & Iran. It's economic sabotage. It's a crime against humanity. << Unless you're going to claim time machines are a thing, causality gets in the way of this argument. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 This was from about a year BEFORE the oil price dropped. >>"The aim of the latest US action is to choke off funding to Venezuela by blocking access to foreign currency." That's just the beginning of the article. The proof in indisputable. << And read the start of that that I'd already quoted in another thread. It made it go faster. It was still happening. It's like that $200 per capita you think would have made the difference. It wouldn't. It only made it go a little bit faster.
    1
  374.  @mistergeopolitics4456  >>According to academics, professors & scholars, yes it's a form of Socialism. Look up the "Nordic Model" << Just going to highlight this again: The PM of Denmark disagrees. I think the argument from authority that you're relying on is crap. But if you think it's legitimate, you should be ready to accept that you're wrong there. Or at least need to bring more to the table than "group A that I disagrees with says X, I'm going to ignore the equally qualified group B that says Y" Again, though, I'm expecting you to decide it's not a valid form of argument now. It's interesting that you continued to use that type of argument after it had been pointed out what it was.
    1
  375.  @mistergeopolitics4456  you're calling the PM of Denmark a liar? You expect me to go along with randoms cherry picked by some random who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy against the leader of one of these countries and the basic definition of the word? Interesting that you decided to simply ignore it when I made your argument. It doesn't speak well to your intellectual honesty.
    1
  376. Jg3000 might like to check your dates. Venezuela was falling apart in January 2014. The crash in oil price was around September 2014.
    1
  377. The secret to making socialism work was to abandon it.
    1
  378. In order to test that, you'd need a socialist government that's been honest. Any examples? Scandinavian countries, Canada, etc are not Socialist.
    1
  379. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/venezuelan-hyperinflation-explodes-soaring-over-440-000-percent "Venezuelan Hyperinflation Explodes, Soaring Over 440,000 Percent"
    1
  380. History has shown that socialist states have a tendency to become dictatorships. And Venezuela is in a shambles because by the time its government had been in power for over a decade, oil was all it had left. That and debt. It had largely driven out private industry. Not by accident either. Even with oil at a peak, the government couldn't keep the economy going.
    1
  381. Blake the Viewer  sorry I'm on a phone and it's difficult to give that the detail it deserves. But. Oil was an enabler. It allowed them to think they could experiment. That they could afford to try to implement socialism by dismissing private industry. But it's not the cause of the crash. It was simply the thing that allowed the govt to think it could get away with socialism. Chavez and Maduro put a lot of effort into destroying the non oil parts of the Venezuelan economy. They even underfunded their own oil infrastructure. In addition to borrowing money while the price of oil was at its peak. They spent everything, mortgaged the country to the hilt and neglected to maintain the one source of income the country had during the best years they could ever hope for. And the economy was still collapsing even before the price of oil did. As for socialism working in Europe for 60 years... No. If you're referring to Western Europe, it wasn't socialist. Eastern Europe was. It's not about handing out free stuff, it's an economic model. It was meant to be about everyone owning the means of production so the profits could be spread more evenly. There were no profits and the people who were meant to benefit simply didn't. The people who weren't meant to benefit (the government) did, but that's about it. Socialism isn't called bad because of Venezuela, it's called bad because it failed to the extent that the only successes people can make are capitalist free market economies with a strong regard for private industry. If you're not talking about common (or at least govt) ownership of the infrastructure that generates wealth, you're not talking about socialism. By definition.
    1
  382. Roger Vincoletto helped by people commonly seen in places like this, who care more about trying to force their ideology to work than about the suffering of tens or hundreds of millions. Who think that a romanticization of an idea is more important than the reality
    1
  383. Bryce Palmer for food, a lot of it was because it wasn't profitable to produce food. If something isn't profitable to do something, the best intentions in the world won't keep it going.
    1
  384. Bryce Palmer because it removed incentive. It made profiting impossible. And the people who tried to stop it were made into enemies using feel good anti exploitation rhetoric or left. Capitalism works because it harnesses self interest. It turns selfishness into a virtue. When one people try to improve themselves for their own benefit, everyone benefits. (over all) on paper it's a terrible ideology, but it works.
    1
  385. England refuses to give Maduro billions of dollars that belongs to Venezuela. Very different. If it's handed over, the only Venezuelans who will see a gram of it are the security forces keeping Maduro in power... And Maduro and friends, obviously.
    1
  386. You should be nice to the children of parents like that. ... Nice enough that they don't feel compelled to get a drug or alcohol addiction... With parents like that, there's a good chance their biggest contribution to society is going to be organ donors.
    1
  387. Tim H one of the Germanies was.
    1
  388. And that's why she chose to become an English teacher. Not making the best decisions.
    1
  389. He pissed away money and borrowed during the best times he could ever hope for. Basically: Venezuela has problems today because Chavez couldn't even managed the economy when times were ideal. How useful are those roads and hospitals now that there's nothing of value to go on them and an inability to supply the hospitals with the resources they need to operate?
    1
  390. You're an idiot who can't use the Internet and that particular straw man has already been replied to.
    1
  391. Yes. The oil price crash in September 2014 caused havoc in January 2014.
    1
  392. Taking a look. I'm guessing we disagree on whether Socialism is a good thing or not, but facts are facts. What people on both sides say is socialism just.... Normally isn't. Which on the one hand means that useful programs such as healthcare are opposed because they're socialist, and on the other hand, means that people try to say socialism works because countries that have healthcare can also run well.
    1
  393. Ro Bastard that's fair, however the impression I get is the opposite. It can't work (with the current technology. Get me a star trek style post scarcity economy and I'd reconsider) and the dictatorships are the inevitable result of trying to make something unworkable work. As long as a government of true believers can think it would work if the people were a little more cooperative, I can't see an alternative. If X fails when it should have worked, they just double down. It's like the communist party in China. If they thought they were doing a good enough job that people would reelect them, they'd become a democracy. However, like any socialist government (yeah, I know that the CCP has abandoned socialism in all but name, but that's result of epic failure) they didn't, so needed to force the people to let them try, try again. We've got examples of democratic places that have tried in the form of Kerala and the kibbutz. In the former, there were no hardcore changes. People simply weren't interested. In the latter, it was fine with people who were literally comparing it with life as Hitler's number one target, but subsequent generations simply walked away.
    1
  394. >>I agree with you. I am not wedded to socialism or capitalism.<< On this side, I'm fairly wedded to Capitalism, but for the same reason I'm wedded to Science. It works, bitches. >>Also, I'll add to your argument that the Kibbutzes of Israel received lots of funding from the very un-communist-y Israeli government which in turn receives billions and billions and billions of American tax payer money itself.<< So. Should have been a failure from the start, but were funded because, well.... After what they'd been through, personally I'd say the people who started those needed a break. >>My friend couldn't help but admit that this is the case. << That's what I see when I look at the behaviour of so many hard left parties. They really seem to be happy as long as they've got a victim to claim to support. And they'll fight to make sure that victim remains a victim. (Of course, if the victim ever stops being a victim, they've lost their moral high ground in the future) A case in point is Aboriginal communities here. We're trialling welfare cards that are largely quarantined for food and essentials (Alcoholism is a massive problem.) - The trials seem to be working, child abuse is down, etc, but the parties claiming to care about them are fighting hard to stop it from spreading. This is ignoring the Union officials that have been caught with their hands in the till (One prime example was using union funds to hire prostitutes) and the left parties have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent union funds from being audited. This is also ignoring union leaders making separate deals with the companies they're supposed to be representing that their members don't know about or benefit from. (Our next PM sold out his workers in just this way while he was getting into parliament. Google Bill Shorten Unibilt) And for your last paragraph, entirely agree. What they say and what they do as soon as they have the opportunity are so massively different.
    1
  395. This is where I point out that Capitalism is an economic system. If we've got money (that has actual value) in our pockets. If we're able to get food, shelter, conveniences, etc in decent quantities without regular shortages (The last time I had to queue for more than ten minutes for basic essentials was when a flood that would cut us off from the major supply points was coming in the next few hours) it's working. The only reason you could blame Capitalism for those things is that it's the foundation of societies people actually want to live in. So... Damn you, Capitalism, for allowing us to build societies that aren't terrible enough to remove any incentive for immigrants to come to our countries...... I guess.... I'll agree on one implied point, though. If we abandoned Capitalism, it's a safe bet that our countries would stop getting anywhere near the number of immigrants we're getting now. Why move to a country that's worse than your own? Edit: Seriously, though, if you can show me your source for the (or even a) purpose of capitalism being to maintain racial purity, I'd be very interested. It seems an odd goal for an economic system to have.
    1
  396. You do get Socialist parties running Democratic countries, however I'm not aware of any of those countries that have gone Socialist. It seems that people have a tendency to not want to voluntarily go all-in. So they'll get a bit of land reform, some social welfare programs, and that's about it. Which is why Socialist states have normally had a tendency to ignore democracy, jail opposition candidates, create new levels of government senior to others when results go against them, you get the idea
    1
  397. No, Communism is stateless. It hasn't even really been attempted, the first step (that everyone also failed at... Or worse, succeeded at, before failing) was achieving Socialism. After that's achieved, it's something like dismantling the state and becoming Communist. Socialism is effectively the government acting on behalf of the people to run things. For the rest, don't confuse social with socialism. Social Security doesn't produce.
    1
  398. Ben Lyman examples?
    1
  399. Riga Fraction this sentence should be pinned to the top of this video... It needs to be said so frequently. Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are not examples of socialism working. They are social democracies. They are capitalist. The only reason people use them as examples of socialism working is because there are no examples of successful socialist states. There are capitalist countries and there are excuses. If my response seems annoyed, it's because having to make the same correction over and over again is irritating.
    1
  400. Riga Fraction of the list includes any Western country, it's a list compiled by someone who either doesn't know what socialism is, or is intentionally conflating social services with socialism to make the latter more appealing.
    1
  401. Riga Fraction you must belong to the school of thought that says nothing conveys the appearance of knowledge like bluster and evading simple questions. Which actually works far better than Socialism does.
    1
  402. Riga Fraction you've proven you're a credulous moron who thinks random results, including a blog, on a highly misrepresented and politicised term are going to give correct examples. Which is why I asked for what you believed was the definition of a Socialist state was. A question you've evaded three times. So put up or shut up.
    1
  403. Labour Chan their problems predate the drop in oil prices. And things did improve. Temporarily. Making positive changes in the short term is easy. Irrelevant if they don't last the long term though
    1
  404. Why is it that whenever people talk about Socialism working in other countries, they invariably bring up Capitalist countries that invest in Social services? Is it too much to ask that people look past the word "Social"? Are social diseases socialism? By the logic expressed in posts like this... Yes. Yes they are. Because they've got Social in their name.
    1
  405. That it sends people to teach you what Socialism actually is, vs what's in your head.
    1
  406. In fairness, very few pro socialists seem to have a clue of what it means beyond a vague things about nice stuff being taxpayer funded. The majority don't seem to have even opened a dictionary. Which I guess is less retarded than knowing what it is, but still being in favour of it.
    1
  407. @abdel - As another native English speaker, I can confirm that what you said made no sense. Maybe in future, you could save time by skipping the display of outrage and explaining what, exactly, you meant. Although if outrage is all you've got, well... That could explain whatever other problems you've got. @Hobbit - Basically agree. Also centre left. What we've got works fairly well. There's always room for improvement, but it should be done carefully. Rather than a whole 'burn it all' far left style of change. About the only thing I'd have an issue with is saying socialism when I'm guessing you mean social services. Overall, though: Give me a choice between extreme left and extreme right (keeping in mind that the left is defined by a desire for change, while right is defined by a desire to resist change. Any additions to that is so much bollocks) I'll take right. Extreme left will catch fire immediately. Extreme right will merely stagnate.
    1
  408. fred fredson we're all on the winning side of exploitation. Although some have won more than others.
    1
  409. Someone who's on welfare in the United States is in the global top 20 percent. So how is it working out for them VS how is it working out for the poor in any non capitalist country? Pretty bloody fantastically.
    1
  410. Rick Treat I used to live in Fiji. My neighbours lived in a shack with a pit toilet. There were people there who kept open wounds because they were easier to beg with. This is in a country with regular cyclones. One of my closest friends (we were seven) spent his free time trying to get people to buy peanuts. His family needed him to do this. He didn't go to school. My wife is Chinese. Her boss spent years sharing a bed with six others in the countryside as a result of the cultural revolution. They couldn't afford heating. This is in a place that's fairly close to Siberia. She had an uncle with life long health problems caused by malnutrition during the great leap forward. Years spent hungry. My in laws are surviving off their children because their pensions come to a few dollars a day. I've been through India. Had hordes of children who should have been in school following me for a few rupees. Had anorexic mothers with babies begging. I've been to places where dirt floors are the norm. Where clean, safe water is a luxury. Where reliable electricity doesn't happen. Where they don't even have the option of an over priced health system. Where even the basic medicines in the pharmacy are likely to be fake. I'd ask how much of this you've seen, but if you're going on about what America calls poor as if it means something, I can safely assume you've seen nothing. And no, I'm not poor. I'm a bloody long way from it. Unlike you, however, I've seen poverty. Unlike you, I understand the significance of people risking their lives to be on the bottom rung of our society. And unlike you, I can do basic math and research.
    1
  411. Rick Treat you asked a question. You got an answer. You evaded that answer with an attack on me. You had an appropriate response. Want to avoid an 'insult' like that again? Play the ball instead of the man and do the math. Because no, I don't know anything about you. Nothing except that you play the man instead of the ball and get upset when things your posts reveal about you get highlighted. What other conclusion should I have drawn from your last post and what better response did it deserve?
    1
  412. That none of the countries you've listed are socialist speaks volumes.
    1
  413. For people who are about to say "What about Scandinavian countries?" (Or insert any other country with a welfare system, public health/education or whatever) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs "The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist" This answers that question.
    1
  414. Excuses carry more weight if you've got some examples of Socialism working. Otherwise, it just looks like the consistent outcome of a bad ideology. If you give examples, please try to actually provide Socialist countries. People have an alarming tendency to mention Social democracies, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. All that really says is they've got no idea of what they're supporting.
    1
  415. The Venezuelan economy was crashing while oil was at its peak. Being reliant on one resource isn't really a problem as long as that resource stays high. The drop in oil was just the extra kick on their way down. Their reliance on it wasn't the root cause. (Although their systematic killing off of every other industry the country might have had was definitely a major part of the pain that followed) It was basically their pissing away whatever money they did get from their oil, plus borrowing from anyone and everyone. They didn't save any. They didn't invest any. They just pissed away every cent. They had an economy they were unable to sustain when oil was bloody expensive. When it became bloody cheap, it all fell apart completely.
    1
  416. ricknelms except for statoil, it isn't.
    1
  417. Bruno Vic  I'm assuming your meant so say that wanted the support of. Thank you, phone autocorrect. I've got no doubt they wanted the support of social democracies. But that doesn't change the distinction I made.
    1
  418. Excuses carry more weight when there are success stories.
    1
  419. It's a country attempting to be socialist. As for corrupt dictatorships.... Attempts at socialism and corrupt dictatorships tend to go hand in hand.
    1
  420. Venezuela isn't communist. No country has been. It's socialist. And if people who don't support actually socialism want to tie the social programs they support to that name, they're idiots. As someone who also supports those things, it would be lovely if they could learn the difference and stop helping those who are actually against social programs
    1
  421. Floymin  except for Liberalism is about openness to others being different and conservatives being opposed to change, your first one seems correct. Pro socialist and anti social services people do conflate the two terms to further their own agenda. For your second one. It was socialist run by a party that officially wanted to achieve communism. Communism sounds great until you realise it's nothing more than a fantasy. So far removed from reality as to be worthless as a goal.
    1
  422.  @Floymin  basically. And you've nailed why capitalism works. It harnesses greed and allows it to be put towards a good use. I can be the most sociopathic asshole ever to walk the earth, and I'll help others simply by working and buying stuff. I don't need to be a good person or care about you for you to benefit from me. I basically just need to obey the law.
    1
  423. Hopefully they're not. Venezuela needs to be seen to fail on its own. Lest some other future leader (probably in another country) says it would have worked if the West hadn't invaded. For the sake of whatever country would have been next (after south Africa) Venezuela needs to see this to the bitter end.
    1
  424. Xin Zhang you say this as if socialism and dictatorships are two mutually exclusive things. They're not. One is an economic system, one merely refers to how much power an individual has. Although states that attempt socialism do have a tendency to become dictatorships. That or give up the attempt.
    1
  425. Xin Zhang they're not mutually exclusive. Just like there are capitalist states that fail. However, point to a democracy that isn't capitalist. Also: that's not the reason it failed. Socialist attempts don't fail because they lead to dictatorships. They lead to dictatorships because they're failing. You think if Venezuela was a stunning success, Chavez and Maduro would have needed to become authoritarian?
    1
  426. Xin Zhang Sweden isn't socialist. And 'isn't true socialism' is a phrase I've heard so often it's lost all meaning.
    1
  427. Xin Zhang what do you think socialism is? I get the feeling you think it's social democracy. They're not the same thing. They have broadly the same goals, but go about them in very different ways. There's more to socialism than high taxes and social services.
    1
  428. lol. No, Chavez just died before he could see the results of his abilities. If all it takes for an economy to collapse is a new face on the same policies, then that economy was already dead.
    1
  429. I had a look through historical news archives and I couldn't find any examples of Venezuelans raiding zoos for protein.
    1
  430. Things weren't good. Particularly not by our standards. But at no point until recently were they raiding-zoos-for-protein bad. They had high inflation. But at no point until recently did inflation get to the point it required a logarithmic scale to show any detail. https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi You get the idea. Things were a long way from ideal before.... But never this bad.
    1
  431. By the standards of the surrounding areas, it wouldn't surprise me if it was right. Latin America doesn't have a history of setting the bar high. Anyway: If you want to claim it's a promising future compared with Western nations. Yeah, that's unreasonable. It wasn't. If you want to claim it had a promising future compared with what it has now. Absolutely, 100% it did. Even if they were going nowhere, nowhere was a massive improvement on where they did go. And the final result is there is no middle class. Just expats and poor people. And they're still being shit on, but by far less than 1% of the population. Socialism is what people turn to when they decide life is unfair, that's true. Doesn't make it a good idea. Can you name any gains the Venezuelan people have made out of this? Not counting the oil workers who moved to Canada. They've made some pretty impressive gains.
    1
  432. Mitchel Evans Denmark is a social democracy. Very different.
    1
  433. >> because Cuba has a higher life expectancy than america<< I like the logic that says that Capitalism has to beat Socialism in every category and country to be better. Anyway, life expectancy healthy years is higher in the US than in Cuba. http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2016/Annex_B/en/ Cuba's ranked #32 globally on that. Behind a long list of Capitalist countries. >>And they would never make a "hows capitalism going in Africa, Asia or South America?"<< Capitalism has some failures, it's true. It also has successes. Whenever I ask for Socialist successes, I get a list of capitalist countries or I get excuses. >> South Korea is dependent on the USA the same way NK was with the Soviet Union.<< No. It's not. >> NK had a better economy than South Korea until the late 80's early 90's when the USSR fell.<< Notice how other countries didn't turn into dystopian shitholes? Probably because NK didn't have a healthier economy. It was just being supplied with what it needed. >> If the US would fall South Korea, Japan and many other US puppets would fall just as they did in the great depression<< It would. Along with the rest of the world. A change of that magnitude would ruin everything for a long time to come. >> except for the USSR as their were growing because they were not depending on any other country.<< They were isolated from the world economy and that helped. Y'know how the USA is still there, while the USSR isn't? Yeah... >> Socialism in Venezuela brought only good for the people, its not perfect but its better.<< Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! LOL Hilarious. When was the last time an American zoo was mobbed for the protein its animals contained?
    1
  434. Social services != Socialism. There's more to Socialism than 'The government doing stuff' All of those countries are Capitalist countries that have invested heavily in social services. And yeah, Capitalism has had its failures. It's also had its successes. The most successful countries (including the European ones you mentioned) are all Capitalist. Capitalism isn't a magic bullet so much as a necessary prerequisite to success. With Capitalism, you can still fail. Without Capitalism, you will definitely fail. You can point to "Would have been successful, except excuse1, excuse2, excuse3" for Socialism, but that's about it.
    1
  435. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  436. Minarchist Capatalist it feels like that sentence is used enough it needs a single word that sums it up. For efficiency.
    1
  437. >>Robert, I think the confusion comes from the fact that the word socialism is used differently in other countries. In the US it sounds like it's used as socialism = communism, which is not the case in Scandinavia at least (:<< Not quite. Socialism is the final major stop before Communism. But a large part is people see "Social" and can't differentiate between social democracy, social services, and socialism (Where the state tries to rely on the income from state-owned industries to pay for the nice things)
    1
  438. That's something that's going to get worse in the future. Largely because the days of unskilled or semi skilled labour are fading fast. The young will be unemployed simply because there's not much they're capable of doing. Stay in school, study something useful
    1
  439. Socialism is never socialism. Only capitalism is socialism. At least, as far as I can tell, that's the logic used. Give a socialist state and #notrealsocialism ask for an example of socialism working, and prepare for the list of capitalist states with welfare programs.
    1
  440. It isn't. None of those are socialist states.
    1
  441.  @Blittsplitt5  don't blame me, blame reality. Homeopathy also doesn't treat cancer.
    1
  442. umbra 1600 read through the comments. Hordes if these morons don't even know what they're supporting, let alone anything else. Their knowledge doesn't extend to the level you'd expect from reading a single paragraph in a dictionary.
    1
  443. Excuses mean more when you've got some examples of successes. So far, all we've got is Social Democracies (which aren't Socialist) and excuses. So far, 100% of attempts at Socialism have ended in pretty epic (and expensive) failure.
    1
  444. Ignoring that socialist economies normally go down this path. Maybe not as far before it's given up, but it's a well trod path nonetheless
    1
  445. He's got a brain of steel as well. I (think I) see and understand exactly why Trump won. Frankly, Clinton deserved to lose that election. But that doesn't make him a good thing. There were plenty of ballsy leaders during WW1.
    1
  446. Yeah, that's not socialism. The money is still coming from capitalism. It's about where the money comes from, not where it goes.
    1
  447. >> Robert Bray the money is coming from the taxpayers duhh<< It's a slice of what the taxpayers make via capitalism. >> Socialism is not an economic system like capitalism can't compare them<< Wow... You say this right after telling me to learns my economics? Socialism is an economic system. An economic system is exactly what socialism is. Capitalism is focused on private ownership of the means of production, socialism is focused on public ownership. You'd be one of those people who thinks that things that start with "Social" are all the same, then.
    1
  448. I won't argue with either of the two countries in that list.
    1
  449. No they're not. They're social democracies (Not democratic socialist states - entirely different), which is using capitalism to promote equality. And the problem with Socialism is it's never 'done right' - If the last century is anything to go by, it can't be. Expensive failure after expensive failure after expensive failure. How many hundreds of millions need to be sentenced to a life of poverty and early death before people accept it's just not going to happen?
    1
  450. The country that had tens of millions of its citizens starve to death during peacetime before abandoning the quest for Socialism in all but name, becoming Capitalist, and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty? Which part of that do you want to talk about?
    1
  451. Socialism has a strong tendency to lead to dictatorship. And socialism isn't just a few social programs. It's an economic model based on the elimination of private ownership of the means of production. And it doesn't work. Which is why it leads to dictatorships.
    1
  452. And?
    1
  453. Nothing remotely like this.
    1
  454. That didn't happen until 2012. It had been a dictatorship for a while by this point. To be honest, it genuinely does look like they did it in response to the crime rate their incompetence unleashed, rather than an attempt to stay in power.
    1
  455. No, it's just a pretty common result when you attempt to implement. And before you go for the standard 'but Sweden/Canada/Whatever' - They're Capitalist and very intent on staying that way. The Venezuelan govt is very openly intent on becoming Socialist.
    1
  456. No. Their borders aren't guarded yet.
    1
  457. Well... Not perfect and it needs to be regulated to prevent monopolies and fraudulent behaviour, but name a better system. Hint: It's not Socialism.
    1
  458. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 This was from January 2014. The best part of a year before the oil price dropped. China largely abandoned the attempt at socialism under Deng Xiaoping. What it is today is a capitalist success story, and conversely, given that tens of millions died for nothing. An epic socialist failure.
    1
  459. >>The NHS is a massive failure to Americand who want their own NHS. Just a few points. You have to wait around 4hours just to be seen in aande some people have waited around 12hours, you can not ever get a bed I have spend times sleeping in the waiting room because they couldn't put me any where. They decide who lives and who dies. You have to go private if you want anything done any way. Its got that bad that people are going off their sports insurance just to be seen. Its costs massive amounts of money so don't fall for this 'free' shit.<< I never had that problem while I was there. We had a newborn, and everything related to pregnancy plus post-natal support was absolutely brilliant. Obviously at one family, my sample size is a little small, but I could never see the problem.
    1
  460. Helen E many people try to redefine terms in an attempt to prove they're not wrong on a really bad idea.
    1
  461.  @Stromsii  what about them?
    1
  462.  @Stromsii  if you've got a socialist economy, you don't need taxes because all profits are going into the common area (as represented by the state)
    1
  463. Excuses carry more weight when there are success stories. So far, the only success stories socialism has are capitalist social democracies (which aren't socialist) and places who literally are competing against a literal civil war, and one of the crappier parts of Mexico.
    1
  464. What do you think Socialism is? Also, Vietnam is pretty damn poor. That it's improved since it embraced capitalism doesn't change this. It's a recovering economy.
    1
  465.  @namkhanhng1802    GDP per capita is 2.3k USD. Which is close to a quarter of China's. Which is full of people who are dirt poor. And you don't have a socialist state with a capitalist economy. That's a contradiction in terms. Which is why I asked what you thought Socialism is.
    1
  466.  @namkhanhng1802  probably because capitalism works. Socialism is a failed system. Capitalism gives hope of improvement. Socialism hits a block fairly early on. And your PPP income is about half China's PPP. My point there stands Stuff is improving. Rapidly. But that doesn't change that this isn't because of Socialism. I think we're discussing different things. It wouldn't surprise me if your govt did what the Chinese govt did and redefined the term, because if you're not trying to make Socialism work, why have a communist party in charge? Making Socialism work is literally step 1 of the only reason you would have a communist party.
    1
  467. Thomas Glodem this indignant rant might have more weight if the system he was trying to implement had some successes to its name. The only examples people seem to be able to come up with are Scandinavian countries that aren't Socialist.
    1
  468. And this is socialism. Or the attempt at it. Communism is a different beast again.
    1
  469. It drives away investment, prevents companies from being profitable and allocates resources inefficiently.
    1
  470. Why are you talking about social democracy? I thought the subject was socialism.
    1
  471. Unless you're going to try and claim that foreign sanctions are the cause of this (Like so many try to claim that the drop in the price of oil is) I'd have to wonder what your point is. The root cause of this is the Venezuelan government's actions since it took power. Not least the excessive borrowing and stripping away capital from the government's one source of income.
    1
  472. The normal list of countries where Socialism has worked has been Northern European countries, which are Social Democracies with a very healthy respect for private property and industry, not Socialist, China, which abandoned Socialism and Cuba, which has a better than expected medical system, but sod all else. And a bunch of excuses for failures.
    1
  473. auril k where are these successful examples?
    1
  474. Theo Humbug who do you think are the net taxpayers? The ones who pay in more than the take out.
    1
  475. Theo Humbug Those are are paying the bills aren't being extra support. A tax cut isn't money being 'given away', it's less money being taken.
    1
  476. If you're forced to sell for less than it costs to produce, why produce?
    1
  477. Where is she incorrect?
    1
  478. Simple answer? It's not. Those countries aren't socialist.
    1
  479. Christopher Flux none of those, including Bernie, are socialist. They're social democracies. Very different. Common root, but very different method. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  480. Because China abandoned the quest for Socialism like... Thirty years ago. The Chinese characteristic in 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' is Capitalism. And before that, things had gotten to be about as bad as things could get... Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution being two prime examples.
    1
  481. That's not democratic Socialism, it's Social Democracy. Which is entirely not Socialist. Socialism is about the means of production. Social Democracy is about spending the money you earn on helping your citizens. You're confusing where the money comes from with how the money is spent.
    1
  482. Growth based on unsustainable borrowing isn't something to be admired. He mortgaged everything to the hilt, then had the good luck to die before the bills came due.
    1
  483.  @cheybat5390  Australia. Which doesn't change the point. It's just empty whataboutism from someone who obviously has no counterargument.
    1
  484. And another person who thinks that there's a Socialist Scandinavian country. There isn't. Socialism != Social Democracy.
    1
  485. Shows how damaging the quest for socialism and the disrepect for private property that it beings is. The harder a country tries to implement it, the more damage is done.
    1
  486. It's the damage from attempting socialism. Dictators are also simply another symptom of attempting to implement a bad idea.
    1
  487. >>The key is God -- if peeps don't put God first, their person, family, society will eventually go down the crapper.<< Which is why the more religious a nation is, the more developed it is. Or why religious belief has a correlation with education and success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country If you sort it by most religious, you can clearly see that the countries at the top are the most successful. Like Sri Lanka, Malawi and Indonesia. Whereas the countries at the bottom aren't doing so well, like Estonia, Sweden and Denmark.
    1
  488. So this is going to become another failure caused by America and not, in any way, shape or form because private property wasn't respected. Definitely going to be America's fault. You heard it first here, folks! http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/the-time-for-reconciliation-is-over-south-africa-votes-to-confiscate-whiteowned-without-compensation/news-story/a8a81155995b1adc1c399d3576c4c0bc
    1
  489. In this particular case, it's better if they don't get it done. Incidentally, if I didn't make myself as clear as I should, my post was completely sarcastic, while highlighting who will be blamed for the failure.
    1
  490. Lack of refined petrol for the helicopter. Consequence of giving it away for almost nothing.
    1
  491. The key part is the economy. You can't have socialism with a capitalist economy. In a socialist state, it's the economy that's socialist. Which means publicly owned industry (industries that can actually make an economy happen. A country full of healthy people doesn't make an economy. It merely helps it). By definition.
    1
  492. Rainer Winkler jr. It was when it looked like things were going well. Just ask Corbyn. #notrealsocialism only started in this case when the cracks turned into flood gates.
    1
  493. In other words: Socialism works well in countries that aren't Socialist. I only say this because the countries you list aren't Socialist. They're Capitalist Social Democracies.
    1
  494. o Ðjeezus it's funny how you asked this, while showing you yourself don't know what socialism is. The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They're social democracies.
    1
  495. o Ðjeezus unable to find any evidence that a social representative democracy is even a thing. And if it were a thing, anything approaching an economic model. Representative, sure.
    1
  496. Excuses are more convincing when there at some successes to show.
    1
  497.  @antoniofernandes9663  so not only are you ignorant, but you choose to remain ignorant. Healthy.
    1
  498. >>The fact that Venezuela went to shit had nothing to do with socialism. Corruption, bad managment, a lot of dictatorships<< All pretty standard things in Socialist economies. It's like there's some cause and effect going on here. >>Plus being an economy almost entirely focused on oil, the nation's wealth will rise or fall depending on how much oil the rest of the world is buying, and, you now the story, it wen't tits up<< Venezuela's economy was tanking long before the price of oil dropped. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 Price of oil didn't tank for the best part of another year. At this point it was over $100 a barrel. >>State run economy is actually not that big in Venezuela. The main part of Venezuela economy, even during Chavez, is market economy. It follows the same capitalist rules as everyone else.<< It was attempting to become Socialist. The 20th century has given us enough examples that the very idea is a bad one. People learned, y'know. >>So I guess the video title should be "Is Venezuela even Socialist?"<< The attempt at Socialism is a killer. >>But it wouldn't be, because this is PragerU and it's subtext is telling you that if you vote Bernie or AOC, the US will turn into Venezuela. Thats why its Venezuela and not any european country that problably has more social programs than Venezuela did.<< Ah. I see the problem. You don't know what Socialism is. You just think it's a bunch of social programs, a welfare state, etc. There are no socialist states (democratic or otherwise) in Europe. There are social democracies aplenty, but no democratic socialist states. Socialism is the public (normally as represented by the state) ownership of the means of production with the idea that the rewards of this were spread more evenly. Social Democracy is using taxes from a Capitalist economy to fight inequality. Common root (Social democracy was an offshoot from the socialist movement). Broadly overlapping goals. A completely different way of attaining those goals. It's a common misunderstanding. Most 'socialists' have no idea of what it is they're actually supporting. Probably because if they did know what they were supporting, yet still supported it, after the last century they'd be monsters. 100 million dead and nothing to show for it. If supporting a system that bought that doesn't make you a monster, I have absolutely no idea what would. 200 million with nothing to show for it?
    1
  499. >>I think most socialists understand what they want.<< Conversations with them suggest otherwise. Or they might know what they want, but they don't know what it's called. >>And "social democracy" just became too much neoliberal.<< And yet, those are the states they keep on referencing. >>That is the reason they are dissolving in the EU.<< Possibly. I've been out of European stuff for a while. That being said, the British have always been separate from the continent and a lot of actions taken were the actions I'd have taken if I was trying to drive them out. >>I'm not socialist nor marxist but I feel closer to them than to any kind of utopian capitalism of Ayn Rand and the American conservatives. I feel closer to anarchists who keep on methodologically keep asking is "this" power legitimate?<< Ok.. >>That is the key to progress. To keep knocking off the barriers.<< There we'd agree. Socialism has a pretty shitty track record of this. Edit: Looking back, I'm not sure what your last post had to do with anything we'd been discussing previously. It basically went from a discussion of facts (and their validity) to a post full of opinion and feelings. Except for the bit where the USSR didn't work. However, again, there we'd agree.
    1
  500. Why?
    1
  501.  @sylthane6554  those countries aren't socialist. They're capitalist social democracies with a healthy respect for private property, including privately owned industry. Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same things.
    1
  502. My daughter used to have this problem. She thought things could only be one thing, instead of a thing falling under multiple categories. I'm seeing the same here, where you don't seem to realise that a place can both attempt to implement a particular economic system, and have a very large amount of power invested in an individual. However, my daughter turned five recently, and started understanding that she could both be a girl AND a princess (and whatever other label came up. It's a list now) Either you're a four year old with fantastically good spelling and grammar, in which case, my congratulations to your teachers. Or you need a different excuse.
    1
  503. tdreamgmail your original post suggested you objected it to being called socialism because it was a dictatorship. Lots of people share similar beliefs. And there's a good reason socialism is associated with dictatorships. It has a strong tendency to go that way. Not because it's technically a part of socialism, but because it's a normal symptom of attempting to implement, then doubling down on, a bad idea. The same story plays out over and over and over again.
    1
  504. Those aren't liberals. Liberalism is tolerant of people who disagree with you. You might not like that they do, but you accept it. I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. That kind of thing. Antifa, etc, are also not liberals.
    1
  505. Adrian Lopez lots of people speak about socialism in northern European countries. The same people don't know what socialism is. It's not simply doing taxpayer funded stuff.
    1
  506. If the 20th century taught us anything, it's that it's a matter of time before everything goes to shit. Whatever other factors there are.
    1
  507.  @drevil6362  so you don't think Poles, Lithuanian, Russians, etc are white?
    1
  508.  @drevil6362  I have no idea what your point is, or how it relates to anything you've said earlier.
    1
  509. So any successes to show the excuses have merit? Any examples of successful socialist states? So far all I've seen are excuses and capitalist social democracies.
    1
  510. Conrad Remington  they really haven't. You're confusing what socialism is meant to provide with socialism. It's not simply high taxes plus public services. It's an entire economic system based on public ownership of the means of production. You can't base an economy on free stuff. It's about the profit generating parts of the economy.
    1
  511. >>There's a reason Venezuela is a shithole right now (I apologize for my use of the language) because of the oil price dropped and numerous US & UN (which is controlled by the US) sanctions<< https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 This is the best part of a year before the oil price dropped.
    1
  512. Just on the "Venezuela hit by oil prices" thing. Check news articles about Venezuela from January 2014. The oil price crash was I think August 2014. The oil price crash was a kick on the way down, but all it affected was how fast. It was well on its way down while oil was at its peak. Case in point: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 At this point in time, oil was around $100 per barrel.
    1
  513. sylviur the definition of the word is the public ownership of the means of production. None of what you mentioned is that. Socialism isn't just the govt using taxpayer funds to do nice stuff. Even if too many think that's all it is.
    1
  514. sylviur it isn't. Communism is the theoretical step after socialism is working. Socialism hasn't worked yet, so no attempt. It involves the abolition of class, money, government, borders. I've probably missed a few things, but you get the idea. The confusion comes from the parties that call themselves communist. The biggest of which is now firmly capitalist and has been for decades.
    1
  515. Because they get first dibs. And there's money to be made out of a failing state.
    1
  516. Yeah, we (at least, you and I) can agree that Trump is an imbecile. This is why it's really good that the American system of government is designed to make change difficult. Sure, it can react frustratingly slowly to some stuff, but at the same time, it prevents imbeciles like Chavez, Maduro and your average Socialist from making too many damaging changes.
    1
  517. Those aren't good things (Current gun laws, anyway, I don't know about FATCA) But the fact is that while at least the gun laws are bad, they're not going to literally destroy the country. They're very bad, but.... Not nearly as bad as what countries that allow some moron to change whatever he likes can go.
    1
  518. This basically sums up the advantage conservatism has. A lack of change can destroy the country, but what's there has been tested and hasn't destroyed it yet. Putting in new stuff can prevent the destruction of the country, but what's in hasn't been tested and, if extreme enough or badly thought-through, can destroy it pretty rapidly. So the compromise you've got is: You can make changes, but you need to really want them. It's the same reason our method for changing our constitution is designed to fail. If something does pass, it's because we're really sure we wanted it (It needs a majority of voters in a majority of states plus an overall majority. For stuff that really affects one state, it also requires a majority in that state)
    1
  519. Ah, yeah, well taken at face value, that's stupid. As is the whole tax citizens who aren't in the country thing. For difficult to change, I was largely referring to the Australian system, but yes, it does need an additional amendment. Particularly given that the small arms people have today are going to be fairly useless against the weaponry that's accessible to a modern state. If the US military ever decides to go balls deep in supporting X president in becoming dictator, whatever the cost, a dictator that president will be. Amongst other reasons, because causing a massive city to starve by putting it under siege is just too easy. Even if that siege is nothing more than the airforce destroying anything that might convey food to, say, New York. BUT. That doesn't change the fact that the second amendment isn't particularly damaging to America as a whole. People do get killed. Lots of people. But it's not going to be the reason the US falls apart, which is the scale we're looking at here.
    1
  520. jose gonzales it isn't thriving anywhere. You've probably confused socialism with social democracy.
    1
  521. At which point it stops being socialism.
    1
  522. Your pizza cost at least a month's minimum wage.
    1
  523. What about it?
    1
  524. Worse, Venezuelised.
    1
  525. Unless we're talking economically, I really don't think Maduro is. The people who still support him, on the other hand....
    1
  526. >>Last year the US sanctions cost Venezuela at least $6 billion dollars<< As has been pointed out to you multiple times, that comes to $200 per Venezuelan. The problems are a shitload higher than $200 per person. >>Right now the US is not allowing Venezuela to access its own funds from global banks abroad<< You said tens of billions earlier. Which comes to at most about $3k per Venezuelan spread out over 17 years. Or >>The USA is behind Venezuela's plight, not Socialism or Maduro. << Because of the price of most of a Nintendo Switch per person per year? Yeah, no, their problems are much, much bigger. Do the math before opening your mouth. Or if you're going to run away, have the integrity to stay run away. >>however the brainwashed zombies & sheeple will keep repeating the same rubbish & nonsense again & again.<< I'm just repeating this here because of your projection.
    1
  527.  @mistergeopolitics4456  >>You're so delusional. You're just manipulating numbers<< I'm doing basic math and inviting you to do the same. >>Yes Venezuela has problems, but the US has been trying to wreck Venezuela economically & destroy the country ever since the US backed coup against Chavez failed<< Weird how for so long (while people were still lending them money... Back in the days they thought they might actually get it back) the economy seemed to do well. After 15 years of Chavez, things were going well enough for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FbWsINjpRY >>That was really humiliating for the US & now they're seeking revenge.<< The worst revenge the US could possibly take is to just let things run their course naturally. >>It's funny how the US is trying to supposedly send aid to Venezuela while at the same time imposing crippling sanctions to destroy the country. Here read this https://www.mintpressnews.com/internal-us-govt-document-outlines-program-of-economic-warfare-on-venezuela/254506/ << So.... It's talking about sanctions imposed by Trump. Trump hasn't been president for all that long. This crisis easily predates him. You're going to need another scapegoat.
    1
  528.  @mistergeopolitics4456  >>STOP trying to manipulate the numbers. << Basic math isn't manipulation. >>NOT all Venezuelans are in dire straights<< 80% of them are living in poverty. Although that information is out of date. I'm seeing 90% Would adding an extra 10-20% to those numbers count as 'manipulating the numbers'? >>For those that are, $6 billion would make a difference & that's just the tip of the iceberg<< It would change the timing. Slightly. >>This year the US has already cost Venezuela 10 times that amount, not letting them access their own foreign funds from global banks<< How about you give me some sources and numbers, then we can do some 'manipulation' (Basic math) and see how it looks? >>not letting them repatriate their profits from PVD<< A company that's defaulting on debts. Creditors must be paid. >>This is economic warfare. There's no doubt about it.<< It's what's expected with shitty economic policies, and it's a consistent theme amongst countries that attempt socialism. >>The US wants Venezuela's oil.<< The US has plenty of oil. Better quality, too. >> Why is the US not complaining about the protests in Haiti ? The starvation in Haiti ? Could it be because the man who won the election with a 20% turnout is PRO US ?<< Or as soon as the US gets involved in a black majority place, people start screaming racism.
    1
  529. A Republic is a country that's not a Monarchy. That's it. That's everything. And the alternative to Democracy is Totalitarianism.... So.... In your view, The alternative to totalitarianism leads to totalitarianism..... Hey, at least it buys some time!
    1
  530. Bob Freiday the bit you quoted makes him ignorant. The bit about democracy being the path to dictatorship is what makes him a nut. That and the general ranting.
    1
  531. Selling socialism as good will drive out the rich and make the poor impoverished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg That's capitalism at work.
    1
  532.  @johnthomas1839  in what way wasn't it socialism? Because it didn't have the results you expected? can give an example of a socialist state that worked as advertised? Looking for actual socialist states. Not capitalist countries with social programs.
    1
  533. Sidcada shortages there date back to 2007. It was going badly, debt was being racked up. The only reason there's any dispute over whether it's the fault of Chavez is that he died before the bills came due. And none of the European nations you mentioned are socialist. It's a specific term that's not simply the government doing stuff.
    1
  534. When has Socialism succeeded? Hint: In order for it to have succeeded, a place needs to have been Socialist. Scandinavian countries are Social Democracies. Which is very Capitalist.
    1
  535. Robert Covarrubias a more efficient way for you to write that long screed would have been "I think social services and socialism are the same thing" Because that's really all you said. Also, social democracy and democratic socialism sounds similar, they have broadly similar aims, a more or less common root, but they're not the same.
    1
  536. Robert Covarrubias yeah, there's not much point when you lack the basics. Anyway, as for asking them: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
    1
  537. Sean Quinn China abandoned socialism shortly after Mao died. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is really capitalism.
    1
  538. It's not.
    1
  539. Darkyspark when it's a consistent result, why shouldn't you? If the ideology worked, this wouldn't happen so frequently. These actions are what happens when people keep trying to force something false to work. Blame the ideology and blame the morons who keep thinking the ideology has merit.
    1
  540. Vince Marianbores there's a strong correlation between those who are morons and those who support socialism. Enough to suggest a casual link.
    1
  541. We've got the lovely theoretical way it's all meant to have happened, then we've got the ugly real-world way it happens every time it's tried. Which is more important?
    1
  542. Ignoring fascist, which is an overused term It's funny how frequently socialist states become totalitarian. It's almost like it's an inevitable consequence of attempting to implement a bad idea.
    1
  543. >>Why are so many comments saying "this video is biased" or "it not tell all the truth" but always without arguments?<< And nothing has changed.
    1
  544. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  545. Stephen Nesmith that isn't socialism. Socialism is about the common ownership of the means of production. What you're talking about is how funds and resources generated by capitalism are consumed. It covers social democracy nicely, though. Broadly similar goals, more or less. Very different ways of achieving those goals.
    1
  546. Stephen Nesmith more likely to be outright ownership. Co ownership suggests they're also privately owned. Although 51 percent ownership gives complete control. If it mentioned statoil as an example of a socialist industry, I wouldn't argue except to point out that one company doesn't make an economy. I'd even agree with people who say that Venezuela isn't socialist yet. It's just a country whose government has been trying to make socialist. But the definition you'd put there is basically making socialism synonymous with government. Which it isn't. Even if people with agendas (being against social services and using the failure of socialism to discredit it is one. Being in favour of socialism, but being unable to point to a single actual success is another)
    1
  547. https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs This is a video basically focused on definitions. It looks good. I've noticed most people who come on here claiming it works generally have no idea what the term actually means.
    1
  548. Stephen Nesmith oh christ, Pakman. Yeah. IIRC He's one of the 'the state doing things people like is socialism' school. Anyway, enjoy that video. Just remember the basic definitions of the words he's using and ask yourself if his usage matches those. Also pay attention to any attempt to redefine the words. There's also a big difference between a goal (socialistic, which he defines as anything nice and charitable) and the economic system itself. And bugger on two jobs. Hope that changes soon... In a good way, obviously.
    1
  549. Olivia George yes and no. Yes, a large part of the problem was it put all eggs into the oil basket. But the problems they have massively predate the oil crash. Shortages have been going on for over a decade.
    1
  550. Sounds to me like you're about to specifically point out some substantial area where she's actually wrong.
    1
  551. I guess not...
    1
  552. No you don't. You have never had Socialism. You have Social Services. You live in a Social Democracy. Those are very different.
    1
  553. Because they've got a large population that they're not investing huge amounts in, and a population that is poor enough to make it a cheap source of labour. The Chinese economy is just leaving easy mode. Incidentally: The US, despite having about 1/4 of China's population, has an economy that is 66% larger. Really, don't confuse "Big and pissing cash up against a wall" with "Rich" - It is not a rich country.
    1
  554. EVEPRAY another day, another pro socialist who doesn't have a clue of what he's in favour of. Those countries are not socialist. They're social democracies. Similar ideological roots, similar goals, vastly different ways of trying to achieve those goals. Also, Chavez and Maduro made it impossible to make a profit. If you can't do that, why would you start a business? How would you sustain that business.
    1
  555. Roberto Rodríguez this might have more weight if you could name successful attempts at socialism. When I ask this all I ever get are capitalist states such as Sweden excuses, or very, very specific parts of Cuba which are kinda sorta on par with a reasonably ok capitalist country.
    1
  556. It didn't. Witness the country's debt problems. It borrowed and borrowed and borrowed.
    1
  557. Someone who believes in a bad idea is probably going to be bad at whatever that idea relates to. Like... Imagine if your oncologist was hardcore into homoeopathy. Is it homoeopathy that's useless? Or is it that any oncologist who thinks distilled water with memory of random substances can cure cancer is going to be bad at his job?
    1
  558. Ashley Thomas I was only describing Venezuela.
    1
  559. Unify: Whereas, if you look at the economies of countries to the East and West of a wall that no longer exists, you can clearly see where there once were a large amount of heavily socialist countries, and where there weren't It's like... Capitalism, then bang, former Socialist (and still recovering, largely depending on how far they've moved from Russian influence)
    1
  560. Riga Fraction I love how you made that claim without any detail to support it. That makes it doubly convincing.
    1
  561. It would need to exist in those countries for it to be doing just fine. Each of those economies is very firmly Capitalist with a healthy respect for private ownership, including private ownership of the means of production. Which is antithetical to Socialism. Socialism is NOT simply social services and welfare. It's an economic model. Social services and welfare are simply what the money gets spent on.
    1
  562. For Germany, it sucked when it was socialist. There's a reason East Germany has gone. The others aren't socialist. It's just that you, like many others, have no idea what it is.
    1
  563. It's more that I'm unaware of what you were saying in that incoherent ramble. I mean not counting "It wasn't Maduro and Chavez's fault" - That bit came through loud and clear.
    1
  564. >>Well, what percentage of the Venezuelan(VZ) economy is socialist?<< You don't think stated goals, actions, and the ability of people to recognise patterns might have had their part to play? Well, 30% with the writing on the wall for the remaining 70% (in addition to a large number of controls, including price controls) and the resultant brain drain (that even the USSR felt was bad enough to turn the country into a literal prison) And yes, the US has some things that some might call socialist. The fact that you ask this question shows you don't understand where the real damage lies. Respect for private property is paramount. By definition, Socialism doesn't respect it. Someone who might lose everything that person has built will either leave, or not bother to build anything. This is also why Chinese buyers invest so heavily in Western property. Buy a house and land in a Western country and that house is yours. Buy it in China, and it's yours until some official decides it wants it. >>For successful socialist economies - should I exclude ones which have been subject to debilitating US (and therefore world) sanctions for decades?<< "and not excuses for failure" If you've got excuses, you don't have successes. Success doesn't need excuses. Think we'd have heard of Napoleon's hemorrhoids if he'd won the battle of Waterloo? Anyway, that you felt the need to ask these questions instead of spitting out a list speaks volumes.
    1
  565. yawn Another post, another list of excuses. Just a convenient ignoring of the USSR. And China, for that matter (Keep in mind it abandoned Socialism in all but name... Then went through several decades of massive growth) Dude. If you don't have that list, I don't really give a damn about what else you've got to say, because all it means is that there are no successful socialist states. The reasons are up for debates about reasons that can be as delusional as you like, but the facts remain. Number of successful socialist states: 0 Number dead attempting to build a socialist state? About 100 million, but at this level, who's really counting? Number of lives wasted: See above.
    1
  566. >>Do you mean the VZ government declared itself socialist? And the US declares itself capitalist? I would still like to know what proportion of each economy is socialist?<< For VZ, I just told you. The declaration coupled with the lack of respect for private property. If you want more, you've got Google right in front of you. >>yes, the VZ governments attempts to control a sliding economy is an issue, but what caused that slide? Hyperinflation? Oil prices set in London and New York? Currency exchange values set by other countries?<< Given that the slide happened while oil prices were at their peak, and the currency only devalued because there wasn't enough backing it up... None of the above. Seriously. You did know that they were having serious problems in January 2014, right? (Long before even that, really. Toilet paper shortages were an issue in... What? 2007? Yep. https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-venezuela-referendum-toilet/venezuela-makes-stink-over-toilet-paper-hoarding-idUKN3030073520071130 ) >>It's a bit of a big issue if you can't trade with other nations and you are prevented from importing goods. It's more than a little dishonest to claim you can still succeed despite these obstacles.<< I might buy that for small countries. Not for massive, powerful ones like the USSR. Which still failed. Which means the common root cause wasn't mere powerlessness. Anyway: Excuses aren't successes. So far, all your focus on excuses has done is confirmed that the quest for Socialism has led to nothing but failure. But hey, maybe it'll work next time. Amirite?
    1
  567. stsr11 in my experience, no. Not at all. Have you ever met a child? And, yeah. List of successful socialist states please. Not capitalist states (including ones that abandoned the attempt in all but name) and not excuses for failure. Surely they weren't all weak pushovers.
    1
  568. stsr11 you obviously expect a more detailed response to incoherence. Probably because you don't understand the difference between an argument that's met with silence because it has unassailable logic and an argument that's met with silence because it's a rambling mess. Learn to communicate. Also, maybe you can list a few successful socialist states. You seem to think that it fails due to the poor little country being bullied by outsiders. So surely there must be some successes.
    1
  569. That was a near completely incoherent ramble. Also.... Which major country (and its neighbouring allies) was turned into a literal prison in the second half of the last century? With guns pointed at those who might try to leave? Y'know, speaking of doing things at gunpoint.
    1
  570. The Kibbutz? Abandoned long ago.
    1
  571. Are you Peter Rosenthal? https://youtu.be/OfFYn7QFqhQ
    1
  572. If things were different, they would indeed be different. As for other countries doing socialism 'just fine' - It seems a safe bet that if I were to ask you to give examples of those countries, you'd give me Capitalist ones. (Normally Scandinavia. Maybe Canada. Maybe even my own country, Australia. Either way, if you gave me Socialist states in response to this question, you'd be the first) Edit: You might also give me China. Which effectively abandoned the quest for Socialism when Deng Xiaoping took over in the late 70's Which was, coincidentally, about the same time the Chinese economy really started to take off.
    1
  573. More excuses for failure of Socialist states. No success stories (not counting Capitalist social democracies) just excuses.
    1
  574. The worse for how predictable it all was.
    1
  575. TheBronzegreekgod it isn't. You just get confused by things that have 'social' in the name.
    1
  576. sapira77 it's an attempt at socialism that led to dictatorship. Again.
    1
  577. Thank you for four examples of countries that aren't Socialist. Was there a point you were trying to make? Or did you simply feel it was time to publicly announce you don't know what you're talking about?
    1
  578. Capitalism enables the high productivity that pays for my public healthcare. It's far better suited for delivering the promises of socialism than socialism is. If I ask you to list socialist successes, will you be able to list any actual socialist states? Or will you just claim capitalist states like Norway, Sweden or Canada are?
    1
  579. Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is about private ownership. Under any system, you'll need to give something in order to get something. Otherwise any economic system will simply collapse due to a lack of produce to spread round.
    1
  580. What people think is communism is socialism. Communism is its own package of weirdness.
    1
  581. Because that has such a history of success.
    1
  582. Yes, one's a style of government, one is an economic system that keeps on leading to that particular style of government. They're different things, but the latter does tend to cause the former.
    1
  583. So from your own education in that video, where can you say this video is incorrect?
    1
  584. Isis Potatos  Venezuela is a country attempting to be socialist. The attempt is damaging enough. Can you give any examples of countries where it has worked?
    1
  585.  @isispotatos2783  and how's that going? Is it a mighty country that stood the test of time? Edit: No, I just looked it up. Serious surprise. It looks like the whole empire broke up in the 90's and its main successor state now has a GDP of only a little more than my own country (Australia's) despite having 144 million citizens to Australia's 25 million. And Australia has been a Capitalist country (after being a Capitalist colony) for about 50 years more than the USSR existed, with no upcoming sign of collapse and one of the highest standards of living in the world? Are you sure that's the example you want to use? Do you have a better one? Or are you OK with using an example that would, by Western standards, be an abject failure for your best example of a successful Socialist state?
    1
  586. ​ @isispotatos2783  >>Yes it is, socialism boosted Russia economy by so much that now it's one of the wealthiest countries<< LOL No it's not. Per capita, it's behind every Western Capitalist nation. Overall. Seriously, it's just above a country with a tiny population. Globally, it's number 12 for nominal GDP. If Russia's GDP per capita was in line with the US's it would be #3 with an economy twice the size of Japan's. But it's 12. And has an economy 1/3rd the size of Japan's. If it hadn't collapsed and split up, and had kept up with (not exceeded. Kept up with) Capitalist America's nominal GDP per capita, it would easily be #2. Edging out failed Socialist state's China's 1.4 billion citizens. >> So how's capitalism doing in those African countries so tied down by capitalist debt they can't do anything to get out?<< Badly. African countries with Socialist leaders have also done badly. Capitalism isn't a magical silver bullet. It's just something that has worked. Which is more than you can say about Socialism (Unless you dramatically lower your standards for success, as you've just done) Whereas your best example of a successful Socialist state collapsed after 70 years and now has an economy smaller than that of a single state in its main rival. If we look at PPP GDP per Capita, it's behind Malaysia. If we look at nominal GDP per Capita, it's behind Lebanon.
    1
  587. ​ @isispotatos2783  So it looks like you've completely given up on any attempt to claim that the USSR was a success, and have instead gone into an anti-Capitalist rant. With the implication that something that failed every time it was tried might work where Capitalism has failed, because reasons. Also: >>and you end up living on the streets because all your jobs are now automated<< My job is automating jobs :-) And I'm good at it. Anyway: Capitalism might end badly. (Actually, give it long enough and it will. Everything fails sooner or later. Everything dies. Socialism's really only remarkable for how quickly it fails) Socialism did end badly. Every time. I'll take a maybe failure over a certain failure every time.
    1
  588. Anyway: Goodbye. You can tell yourself Capitalism is bad if you like (in many ways, I'd agree. Although I'll always ask for an alternative that's better), but your retreat after a very short exchange should tell you that telling yourself Socialism works is just lying to yourself. Don't lie to yourself. Ignoring reality is bad. Facts matter more than feels.
    1
  589. David Norris pretty much. The people who can keep an economy running are welcome everywhere. They're also the ones who are turned into an enemy. Leaving the people who socialism is meant to help behind to clean up the mess. If they were capable of running an economy, they wouldn't be the ones who need help. It's the same anywhere. The highest earners are taxed most and are generally ok with it. The moment x government starts to take the piss and view them as a cash cow to pay off whatever debt, they're gone. If anyone owns the debt of any country, it's those who can't emigrate.
    1
  590. SwordMasterTala why do you bother to mention those social democracies in a video about socialism? Not a single country there is socialist. Although it speaks volumes that those non socialist countries are the only successful socialist states anyone seem to name.
    1
  591. That isn't socialism. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism. That stuff you list is the nice things you can have when you have excess wealth. Socialism and capitalism are about who owns the stuff that creates wealth.
    1
  592. ​ @Flynn01979  No, what you think is Communism is Socialism. What you think is Socialism is just the govt doing stuff. Social democracy at best (which isn't democratic socialism) Communism is its own kettle of weirdness. There has never been a Communist state (which is a contradiction in terms) just a bunch of Socialist states run by "Communist" parties (Where the title is the official goal, rather than a descriptor of the economic system they've implemented) Socialism/Capitalism aren't referring to how the excess wealth is spent, but to who owns the things that create them. Under Socialism, the things that create wealth are publicly owned. Under Capitalism, they're privately owned. (Even in the case of publicly traded shares, that share you have is privately owned by you)
    1
  593.  @Blittsplitt5  because they're against more than just socialism....? They're also politicians and not above being misleading? Did this really need to be explained?
    1
  594. MS hasn't murdered its rivals. So in this case.... I dunno. Many (too many) companies are run by sociopathic assholes. But are they worse than Maduro?
    1
  595. Can you put dates on each thing?
    1
  596. Not too well. Plenty of countries where it's fantastic, though. Where are Socialism's success stories?
    1
  597. Jared Reid none of those are socialist states.
    1
  598. Jared Reid unless your point is a burning desire to show the world you don't know the basic definition of what you're talking about, there's no point to miss. Socialism isn't doing anything in those states because they're not socialist.
    1
  599. Jared Reid the point is either you're intentionally trying to create a straw man, or you don't know basic definitions. Or you're attempting to mock every other person who's said this by repeating them verbatim with absolutely no differentiation. If it's not one of those, how about you explain the underlying point? History of people saying almost these exact words suggests ignorance.
    1
  600. Jared Reid yeah, that really just comes across as mic drop rather than any indicator of mockery. But hey, that could be the insomnia talking.
    1
  601. Falco van der Plas Norway isn't Socialist and full on communism is an entirely different beast that has never been tried on anything more than a tiny scale.
    1
  602. Falco van der Plas socialism is an economic model. It's not simply about handing shit out or doing shit. That's to make the term indistinguishable from government in general. I'm making the correction because when people say 'socialism works, look at Norway' we make it seem like it's not a failed system, then people think it's a good idea to try it again.
    1
  603. Falco van der Plas well, if it helps, you're on the same level as far too many supporters. And most of them are at least twice your age.
    1
  604. And yet people hold China and India up as examples of socialism working.
    1
  605.  @pashupatijoshi155  and while both still have issues, they're nothing (at least in China. Can't comment on India) to what was before. Tens of millions died for nothing. Yet they hold it up as a triumph because it stopped when they turned capitalist.
    1
  606.  @pashupatijoshi155  oh I'm talking about starvation.
    1
  607. ruth bashford socialism helps get rid of the rich. The next time it helps the poor will be the first. Capitalism, on the other hand, is wonderful for reducing poverty.
    1
  608. Dan: I like how you leave out the fact that Venezuela was having massive problems when oil prices were high. From 2010 to 2014 oil prices were largely > $100 per barrel. This is from January 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 At that time, oil was $102 per barrel. http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart Unless there's a time machine involved somewhere, their economy was tanking long before oil was (Although oil didn't help. Oddly enough, someone who was so economically retarded he thought the high price of oil would last forever and acted accordingly was also someone who was so economically retarded he couldn't run an economy during the best conditions he was ever likely to get for the setup he'd created) Edit: And from 2013 http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/ways-chavez-destroyed-venezuelan-economy/story?id=18239956
    1
  609.  @microchip9982  what about it?
    1
  610. This is about socialism. Not social programs. One is an economic model, the other is what you spend money on.
    1
  611. Maybe, but the big reason for that I could see is being landed with the bill for repairing 70 years of North Korean mismanagement. That's going to be brutal as hell to deal with. It'll make West Germany absorbing East Germany seem like a walk in the park.
    1
  612. Excuses and a list of capitalist countries (China abandoned socialism shortly after Mao died. The economic miracle was all capitalism) That's all we ever see in defence of socialism. Excuses and countries that simply aren't socialist. And yes. The USSR did have accomplishments. What it didn't have was a sustainable economic system.
    1
  613.  @AmonRaSphinx  no country has ever been communist. Many have tried. All have failed to even make socialism work. China abandoned the attempt in all but name when Deng Xiaoping took over. It couldn't abandon attempt in name. If it did, what was the point of all those dead? And you can start looking for excuses when you have successes. If China is a success of anything, it's capitalism.
    1
  614.  @AmonRaSphinx  why would they mention capitalist countries in a video about socialism? What do you think socialism is? And you're going back to excuses. There are no socialist success stories. Just expensive failure after expensive failure. When something fails 100 percent of the time, the common theme is that thing.
    1
  615. Stubbornness of its leader in implementing a financial system that removes any incentive to produce and drives the people who can actually organise people into producing things out of the country (as well as destroys incentive to invest)
    1
  616. It. Was. Trying. To. Be. And that was bad enough.
    1
  617.  @dill-pickle7130  Yeah, for the US side.... Quite honestly, pretty much the entire non-Western world is shit. There are a few minor exceptions (Such as Singapore. Japan, although modern Japan was created by the US) but in that case, it doesn't seem like they're shit places so much as they're not up to the high standards we in the Western world have come to expect. Except for Venezuela. Raiding zoos and eating rotten meat is shit by most standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2012%E2%80%932018 For South America, remember their primary cultural influences would have been Spain and Portugal. Both countries that were fascist dictatorships up until a few decades ago. (And both countries that are pretty shit by Western standards)
    1
  618. Poverty rate up to 87% apparently. So to be 13% there is to simply be on the verge of poverty. In the US, the top 13% minimum is a household income of $150k.
    1
  619. The problems came long before anything like this. It's like blaming the drop in oil prices. Their problems long predate anything external. Face it: The Venezuelan govt cocked up. Alone. By its own choice. During the best times it could possibly hope for.
    1
  620. The dictatorship is basically a fairly consistent by-product of a bad idea. Correct, authoritarian societies can be economically successful. And that was probably more tongue in cheek, but basically when the higher-profile members left starts adulating your leader, there's a problem. The sheer fact that people who are concerned with image and feels vs reality is a danger signal. Personally, I wouldn't say the right (Particularly the religious right) are thinking with their heads all that much either. The best I could say about them is that they are fixated on preserving something that was part of something that worked (otherwise it would have been a collapse) the left want change. Change is fine, but too many simply want to dive in for anything that feels right. As far as Trump and Kanye goes... Well.... I'm very thankful that Trump is restrained by a very mature system of government that resists change and will ensure that he is gone in 3 or 7 years. The man's a fruitcake. If Trump had the amount of power that Chavez and Maduro had accumulated, however.... (Which brings us to the big problem with dictatorship. There's nothing stopping them from going too far. Basically, at some point, a dictatorship will crumble. The only question is how and what the aftermath is. It might be a managed transition to democracy with a graceful acceptance of defeat. That's fine. It might be fighting it tooth and nail. That's going to be painful)
    1
  621. Robert Lewis what do you think socialism is?
    1
  622. Also an economic failure.
    1
  623. Transylvanian Mapper before it collapsed, it was reduced to borrowing purely to service its debt. A collapse was coming. The economy was a mess.
    1
  624. Yuriy Soltys no there aren't. There are people who don't know what socialism is, but that's about it.
    1
  625. Andrew Stupak it's the public ownership of the means of production, tools, factories, land, etc with profits shared by the public as a whole. Vs making sure the basic essentials of life are commonly available. Sanitation, healthcare, education, etc. What part am I missing?
    1
  626. Andrew Stupak and we go back to: Social services aren't socialism How are the police a means of production?
    1
  627. Logical fallacies are always relevant, when they're all you've given. Anyway, I emphasise the difference between socialism and social services, because the former is a regularly failed economic system, while the latter is something that adds value to society. The right uses the former to attack the latter, while the left uses the latter to support the former. Attempting to create a false situation in which you must either support both or oppose both. Education is good. Universal healthcare is good. Roads are good. Getting the government to own/run the companies that actually produce the income that pays for these other things is generally bad. (Very little is universal, obviously. A prime case where it's good is where it would otherwise allow a private company a monopoly on something that's essential and not really replicable. Internet wholesalers are a more recent example. Food is essential, but distribution networks are easily replicable. Water networks aren't.) The only reason to link these two things that closely is to make either of those false arguments. Stack Overflow did put it well, that's true. But nothing you've said in there actually demonstrates this distinction to be incorrect. Roads facilitate income, but they don't produce. Universal healthcare facilitates income (By keeping workers healthy) but they don't produce (Not counting the pharmaceutical industry, obviously) Police do the same by keeping the public safe, but again, they don't produce.
    1
  628. Ashley Thomas that's nice. But we're talking about socialism. Not social democracies
    1
  629. Features of, I'll accept. For education and healthcare. Pensions are a gray area at best. (No production) This being said, we're getting to the point where anything that a government must do to be an actual government becomes a feature of socialism. I mean, a government itself is a publicly funded thing that (hopefully) aids production. Take it that far and the term "Socialist government" starts to become redundant. Edit: if you said they were policies that were compatible with socialism, I'd agree.
    1
  630. And increasing. Tell me... If it's obvious to you that your property might stop being yours at a moment's notice... What would you do? And what countries have given Socialism a good name?
    1
  631. Here = Earth? And isn't the ideology not working a perfectly valid reason to condemn it?
    1
  632. Then every second day... Which also helps save on toilet paper.
    1
  633. Without just compensation, yes. I know you're about to point out that the US has those. However, that doesn't change that the rampant use and abuse of it is an entirely different scale in Venezuela.
    1
  634. They thought the good times would last forever and borrowed accordingly, while driving the things that initially bought the good times on away. The country was run by people who simply had no basic understanding of real world economics (I've got no idea they had an in-depth understanding of fantasy economics. Being an expert on things that are simply wrong isn't enough) And yeah, they had the oil sickness on top of all that. Drought isn't an issue for a country with a reasonably healthy economy though. They've got one of the world's great food baskets just to their north. The simple fact is that like it or not, the economy is the single most important part of any country. With a healthy economy, you can have all the nice things you like. With a bad one, you can't have squat.
    1
  635. That's where the oil sickness comes in. Price fixing is normally also a massive mistake, outside of very specific circumstances. They put price fixing on food, then wonder why there are shortages. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/21/news/economy/venezuela-food-prices-skyrocketing/index.html Yeah, the price is skyrocketing now. It's a choice between getting nothing cheaply and something for a high price. If they hadn't had the price fixing before, food would have had the investment capital it deserved and would - even if it had been generally more expensive - cheaper now. And it wasn't that they didn't have a plan. If they didn't have a plan, things would probably be better than they are. They had a bad plan. It's like me ignoring my health vs me thinking that eating massive amounts of chocolate is good for me. This is why I'd put the North Koreans on a worse level than Hitler. Hitler didn't really care all that much about the economy. The North Koreans did, but were simply totally wrong. For everything else, they're more or less on a par (taking NK's limited opportunities for screwing up into account) but their plan was worse than Hitler's lack of a plan.
    1
  636. That seems to happen a lot. Social Democrats want interventions to help achieve equality within a capitalist society. Not too bad, depending on how far they take it.
    1
  637. David: Whenever someone says that, I feel sure that they're about to actually give some specific information and evidence to support their vague claims. By now, it's gone from a stab of disappointment at being wrong to a mere pinprick....
    1
  638. So what you're saying is is you don't like eating rotten zoo animals.
    1
  639. In 2016, Venezuelans lost an AVERAGE of 8KG In 2017, they lost a further AVERAGE of 11kg So, that's 19kg on average over two years. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/venezuelans-report-big-weight-losses-in-2017-as-hunger-hits.html Which is roughly a fully grown border collie. Or a five year old boy. On average.
    1
  640. The economy went bad before the oil price decrease. It has a shortage of supplies because it can't afford to buy them and was unable to produce them. Because they've ruined their economy. Even during the best times they could have ever reasonably hoped for, they had insufficient money. Of course anything like this is a shortage of supplies. I can't say I've ever heard of a country with a universal excess of supplies having problems. The whole point of an economy is to produce sufficient supplies and things of value. It's like saying a person on the street isn't poor because he has no marketable skills, he's poor because he has insufficient income to support his needs. Colombia and Argentina don't have perfect economies, but I really don't think they're in the same ballpark. They're in the kindergarten of how to screw yourself. Venezuela is a PhD student about to finish the peer review on its thesis.
    1
  641. Look at the hordes of people on here giving excuses for why it failed. There's no shortage of apologists to muddy the waters.
    1
  642. Which in this case was done by destroying private investment. Also started to have severe problems while oil was at its peak.
    1
  643. I've noticed the vast majority of people who have complained about this video don't know the basic definition of socialism. They have no idea of what they're actually defending. They just think it's something to do with services and welfare funded by taxes on a capitalist economy. It's probably worth starting each video on this with a basic definition of what the word means.
    1
  644. Long story short, Bolivia didn't go balls deep. Actions matter more than words. And capitalism doesn't just encourage greed, it harnesses it. Socialism requires a country full of saints. Under capitalism, I can be the most sociopathic asshole ever to walk the earth, and I help others simply by buying something from them.
    1
  645. This has been a common request. And the common answer is: Socialism isn't doing anything in the Scandinavian countries. Those aren't Socialist states. They're Social Democracies, and they're capitalist.
    1
  646. Shaikh Mobin check out the top entries in the human development index. Sure, none is perfect, but capitalist countries have done far more for the people at the bottom than countries that have gone all in attempting Socialism have. Basically, if you want to help the poor, embrace capitalism. Socialism is only useful if you want to attack the rich while claiming to care about the poor.
    1
  647. waits to be shown a bunch of Capitalist social democracies plus a few excuses for why actual socialist attempts failed
    1
  648. If I had tinnitus, I'd hate it when people asked for successful examples of Socialist states (Not Social Democracies, Socialist) I'd need to at least get up and turn a fan on. Anything to counteract the silence.
    1
  649.  @Blittsplitt5  top tenth of the global one percent isn't doing badly. Although I think I'm exceeding that now...
    1
  650. It needs to exist there before it can work there. No European state is socialist.
    1
  651. The govt has a plan for this. Get rid of more whites. It's a very versatile plan. They can use it in every situation.
    1
  652. Reality has a similar theme. Sometimes, an idea that sounds good just isn't.
    1
  653. Excuses are more believable when you've got successes to show. What countries have successfully implemented socialism?
    1
  654.  @OrgonVpH7  you seem to have answered my question by accident, as except for one line confirming that it has never been successfully implemented, your entire response was irrelevant to what was asked. But thank you for confirming. A century of attempts. 100 million dead. No successes.
    1
  655.  @OrgonVpH7  considering that the majority of your post was not an answer to my question, I had to assume that you were stroking out and replying to a figment of your own imagination. Which does make the most likely explanation for an answer to what I actually asked an accident. Or coincidence.
    1
  656. Maybe next time try being less angry and spend more time actually replying to what was said. And seriously. Choose. Either it was real socialism, in which case the sabotage argument is your best bet. Or it wasn't. In which case, why try to make excuses? Just throw it on the #notrealsocialism pile. Like every other attempt has been.
    1
  657. Almighty42  if I mortgage my house to the hilt, I can raise my living standards. But I'll be screwed by the debt when the money runs out. That was Yugoslavia. To say nothing of the breakup and civil war 40 years of socialism set the scene for. And East of the wall. West of the wall. Compare. You say they were in favour. Notice how every single country abandoned it? Notice how not a single country has gone back to it? Notice how quickly it all fell apart when Russia stopped sending in its military to back up the governments of its satellite states? I wonder why.
    1
  658.  @lukadinicc2229  what do you think capitalism and socialism are?
    1
  659.  @mutualistaid4332  that's true. Which has the same end result. Unless the govt has the ability to step in on a truly massive way. Which it didn't.
    1
  660. And pay for it with what?
    1
  661. The attempt at Socialism is damaging enough. Anyway: >>Venezuela is in this mess for two reasons, overdependence on oil<< https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 That's from the best part of a year before the drop in oil prices. >>and failure to challenge capitalism enough<< Uh huh. Yes. They became overly reliant on oil by killing off their other industries, but their problem was they failed to act enough against the privately owned industries the country had to reduce reliance on oil. Right. >>Venezuela has been overly dependent on oil since it was first discovered there in the 1920s, including through right wing neoliberal governments of the 1980s and 1990s, so Chavez's failure to diversify the economy is nothing unique to socialism, but is actually something Venezuelan governments have failed at for 80 years.<< If he'd maintained the status quo, that would have been a fair enough comment. If he'd used the record oil prices to diversify the economy, that would have been brilliant. That he made the problem worse, means the comment is bollocks. Oil now accounts for 96% of Venezuelan exports. And again: They had serious problems when oil prices were at their peak. >>Chavez failure to challenge the flow of capital in Venezuela has allowed companies who don't like him to hoard goods and ruin the economy that way, hence the shortages in Venezuela<< He challenged too much and made production unprofitable. If you're making a loss on everything you do, you stop doing stuff. What do you expect to happen? Doing nothing is cheaper than doing something. >>The crisis in Venezuela is not the fault of socialism, but is the fault of factors that are unique to Venezuela and the fault of governments prior to Chavez as well as Chavez himself, meaning socialism is not responsible for Venezuela's current issues << Sure, a ruined economy isn't the fault of socialism. It's just coincidence that shortages, corruption and economic collapse are things that happen over and over again. To the extent that when people are asked for examples of socialist successes, they almost invariably point to Capitalist states like Sweden and Norway.
    1
  662. >>Also, your beloved ideology of "Free-market Capitalism" is not responsible for major growth in most parts of the world. The basis of South Korea's economic boom we see today was laid down by the military dictatorships of the 1950s, 60s,70s and 80s when a series of 5 year plans told businessman where to build factories and what they had to be. If they refused, their properties were nationalized<< Authoritarianism works pretty well when things are really bad. They're generally incapable of going the final mile when things are getting good, though. >>In China, the wealthiest company owners have close links with the communist party<< Yes. It's how they keep their wealth safe. If the Communist party decides you're an enemy, you're dead. The solution? Be friendly. >>Some of the largest growth rates in history have come about thanks to state intervention in the economy and not the lack of it. << Actually true. And I did pick on up 'growth rates' But: 1. See what I say earlier about when things are bad. 2. If you're starting from a really low basis (as China was when it ditched the attempt at Socialism) percentages are easy. >>The current system of capitalism is doomed to keep repeating economic crash after economic crash until there is no more money for the rich to take from the poor and demand ceases.<< So.... In this scenario, you'd expect the portion of those living on a dollar a day and below to increase, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg >>The main reason Chavez won the 1999 election was the wealth inequality in Venezuela<< Yep. People thought he could fix the problem. Turns out they were right and wrong, in the worst possible way. >>Also under Chavez, the economy grew until the oil price crash of 2014<< The crisis started in 2013. Oil price crash of 2014 was late 2014. Here's an article from January 2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 But what's really funny is that I pointed this out in the last post, and you simply ignored that and continued to state the same shit. Do you think of yourself as an honest person? >>after which it collapsed<< Before which it was collapsing. >>Feel free to criticise Chavez for not diversifying the economy, but trying to make out that socialism is at fault is rather stupid<< Because of things that happened after the collapse started? Causality doesn't work that way. >>Secondly, Venezuela was not a rich country when Chavez came to power and never has been a rich country<< Compared with whom? Compared with post-Chavez Venezuela, it was absolutely loaded. >>If you know anything about how economics and production of goods works, you will know that primary resources (oil, coal, fish etc.) sell for alot less than secondary goods that are produced using primary resources (steel etc). No government in Venezuela had even bothered to do that and with the focus of manufacturing now in China and other East Asian states, this would be an expensive process and with his promises of wealth redistribution, this would simply not work. If he fails with his election promises, he gets voted out, quite simple really. << 'member the National Assembly? 'member when it had power? 'member when the people voted for 2/3 opposition members? I 'member. I also 'member the rise of the National Constituent Assembly, which shits all over your implication that the elections there are free and fair. >>"If you reduce demand, you take a loss on everything you do" How you ever heard of Keynesian economic<< I've searched for that text, and can't see where I said it. The closest I can see is: "If you're making a loss on everything you do, you stop doing stuff. What do you expect to happen? Doing nothing is cheaper than doing something." Now if search has chosen this time to fail, or if I said it elsewhere, I apologise (and would suggest keeping comments on what's said in a particular thread, or sourcing the origin) But otherwise, it looks like you've intentionally made a straw man. In that case, why the dishonesty? Considering you're ignoring things you dislike to repeat discredited statements, I'm finding it difficult to believe you're speaking in good faith. >>Well Norway has a larger state sector than Venezuela, so why is Venezuela socialist and Norway capitalist<< Literally answered in the first line of the post you're responding to. "The attempt at Socialism is damaging enough." You can argue all day whether they're socialist (I'd say they're not. Although at some point, you have to wonder how much of an economy they stuill have) but that they're attempting to be socialist is indisputable. If I invest in Norway, I know the Norwegian government will respect the private property I've bought a share of, and my investment will be safe from them. If I invest my money in Venezuela, I have no such guarantee. >>Your assertion that I'm using "coincidences" is also rather stupid. Any crisis like this is caused by multiple factors (in this case its a mixture of the Oil Price crash of 2014, << I'm loving the repeated lie that problems that started in 2013 and were well underway by January 2014 were caused by an event that happened July/August 2014. https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart You can see the prices here. >>Venezuelan dependency on oil and not the greatest fiscal policies by the Venezuelan state << 'not the greatest fiscal policies' THat we can agree on. Socialist policies are almost never 'the greatest fiscal policies' It wasn't dependency on oil, though, as it was collapsing while oil was near its peak. I know I've said this many times, but you ignored it before, so seem to need to have it repeated. >>as well as US sanctions in place since 2003 when the CIA launched a military coup that overthrew Chavez but then his supporters ran the military from town).<< How about you give the details of those sanctions, as well as the dates? Who/what they targeted is a good one. >>What Im saying is it is factors unique to Venezuela and not just SOCIALISM as your asserting.<< Factors unique to the USSR Factors unique to North Korea Factors unique to East Germany Factors unique to Yugoslavia (Touted as a success. It really isn't) Factors unique to pre-Deng Xiaoping China. Yes. All unique factors. Nothing in common. >>Your thinking is way too simplistic for a highly complex world and economic system where different factors and unobservable structures are working together to cause events<< And you're completely refusing to look at what the failures have in common. Seriously, when there's a large amount of failures, you look at what they have in common. You can find any number of things that set them apart. It's the things in common that are important. If I've got a hundred people who smoke a pack a day and have lung cancer, I don't look at what sports they play, what car they drive, what kind of job they have. I look for the thing they've got in common. Which is exactly what you wouldn't do. >>And if you want a definition of socialism: Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are collectively owned. With the private sector dominating the Venezuelan economy, I would not call them socialist (the party in charge ideologically is, but the economy isn't and still is in transition, just a very slow one<< And that transition is amazingly damaging, because the people who make an economy tick are no longer ignorant on what's coming. If you've never seen a bus before and it's coming right for you, you'll probably stand and get hit. If you know what'll happen when the bus hits you, you'll get out of the way.
    1
  663. High Glider the attempt is damaging enough.
    1
  664. hongpingmike socialism would work if it didn't have the effect on private industry that socialism is explicitly intended to have. The whole point of socialism is the removal of private ownership of the means of production. Which then leads to a killing of private investment because why would you? In addition to this. Excuses for failure are more convincing when there are successes. So far, all people ever provide are excuses or capitalist social democracies.
    1
  665. Such as?
    1
  666. +Cameron Armstrong so before we go further, I've got to ask. What do you think socialism is? I'm only asking because when you say things like: "she points out how Chavez oversaw the government take over of many private industry's. The type and amount of companies that we're seized we're overbearing for the government to handle and had a terrible effect on business interest in the country" You're basically saying the problem isn't socialism, it's socialism. Because that's what Socialism is all about. The removal of private ownership of the means of production. Not the essentials (that can't actually run an economy. They can be essential services for an economy, but at some point you need to be making a profit) but the actual profit-generating bits of the economy.
    1
  667.  @GeneralEwan66  what do you think of as regulation?
    1
  668.  @GeneralEwan66  it does matter what something actually means. And you've expanded 'socialism works' to include speed limits on high ways being a good idea. (it's a regulation on the means of distribution after all) Which I don't think is what your average socialist politician has in mind.
    1
  669. Cameron Armstrong  you came to me with an attempt at a technicality by focusing on 'or regulation'. I pointed out how ridiculous using that was. Deal with it. As for 'the right people'.... The genius needed to make a socialist economy work apparently doesn't exist (or have the brains to run fast and far from a socialist govt). Which is why it's never the right people in charge.
    1
  670. The same point has been answered multiple times. Check the comment history here.
    1
  671. Long story short: This has happened many times before, it's always ended badly, particularly for the people who can run an economy. So the people an economy needs are the first to leave as soon as a party with socialist goals in mind comes in. Exacerbated by Chavez and Maduro's lack of respect for private property (which includes businesses) The stated goal is as damaging as the goal itself is, because history. As far as the accuracy of these predictions goes.... The latest (that I saw) was Maduro threatening to expropriate bakeries with an average of ten employees each. So... Those who predicted that things would get worse and left early are vindicated in a pretty amazing manner. Next time it happens, it'll be even worse because Venezuela will be added to the list of catastrophic fuckups this attempt has produced. Combine this with price controls and you're removing any ability to profit from other areas. You remove the ability to profit, and you remove incentive to take any sort of risk. There's a lot more, but that's the nutshell. Socialism is pretty terrible at helping the poor, but it's wonderful at getting rid of the rich. Incidentally, now that South Africa is in the process of making it legal to expropriate white-owned farms without compensation, watch how quickly they Zimbabwe up.
    1
  672. rlphoenix might be a more impressive rant if socialism had any successes.
    1
  673. Salmon Nona it's the latter leading to the former. Again.
    1
  674. Switzerland isn't socialist. You don't understand why people think it's bad because you don't know what it is. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism.
    1
  675. provides a list of capitalist social democracies There's the standard answer, anyway. Very few socialists have the slightest clue of what they're supporting.
    1
  676.  @cameraman1319  socialists on here think socialism is taxpayer funded free shit. They've got no idea what they're actually supporting. You might be young, but when you understand that much, you're far ahead of them.
    1
  677. sd chic those aren't socialist states. They're social democracies. Similar goals, but definitely capitalist.
    1
  678. We assume it'll be a worse step. Although as the last century has taught us.... The differences are likely to be fairly minor.
    1
  679. lcb -1992 that's basically saying when socialism becomes socialism it's bad. The state owned industries are what it's all about (representing the people, obviously) If you don't have public ownership of the means of production, you don't have socialism. By definition.
    1
  680. lcb -1992 basically. You can have all the nice things you want, as long as you can pay for them. And as for tax rates. Yeah, you can easily get to a point where too many of the people you need simply pack up and leave. I'm a case in point at the moment. Just waiting on whether a Singaporean company decides to accept my price. If they do... That's a 20 percent gross pay increase which, after taxes, is a fifty percent increase. If they decide to cough up, then Australia's tax take from me immediately goes to 0. All the money I would have spent stops going to Australian companies and starts going to Singaporean and so on. And I'm not remotely alone. The top earners are the top earners because they have valuable skills that are in demand all over the world. It's the people that these higher taxes are meant to help that are left holding the bag when things get bad. At some point, we're going to need to pay back the national debt. If they try making the people who are already paying the bills do it, while wasting money in other areas, they'll simply start to leave. People have questioned my morality because of this and said I'm self serving (I've emigrated for a better deal before) .... All I can usually say in response is that I am, and so what?
    1
  681. The fact that you need to mention the Nordic countries as evidence that it's not a failed system shows it is. Because no Nordic country is Socialist. They are all firmly Capitalist with a healthy respect for private property. Also, don't confuse social services or social democracy with Socialism (democratic or otherwise) they're very different things. Social Democracy might have had its roots in Socialism, but that was a long time ago and now it firmly relies on a Capitalist economy.
    1
  682. The economy was sinking while oil was at its peak. Search for news articles on Venezuela from January 2014. Oil didn't drop until about August.
    1
  683. TwRaGs yeah, it was tanking long before the oil prices tanked. The oil price tanking definitely hurt, but it was on its way down at this point. The only thing the oil drop affected was the speed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 Nothing compared with the problems experienced today, obviously, but that happened when oil was at about 100 per barrel. The price didn't go down for another seven months or so.
    1
  684. TwRaGs he borrowed. That was how he 'improved' it. He borrowed. Maduro didn't walk into a new situation, he walked into a continuation of the country that Chavez set up. The only reason you say this is he kicked the bucket before the debts came due.
    1
  685. Jaksa Popovic what do you think socialism is?
    1
  686. Jaksa Popovic what?
    1
  687. Sounds like a pretty standard thing for a socialist state. Corruption goes hand in hand with the ideology. And it was failing when oil was at its peak.
    1
  688.  @richardwheeler4959  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 That was from January 2014. The oil price didn't drop until almost a year later. I'm also fairly certain that in the 80's, their zoo animals remained uneaten. I could be wrong though. For the second. It looks like you think socialism is taxpayer funded social services (health, education, etc) it isn't. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism. If I'm wrong, though, can you please give examples?
    1
  689. ​ @richardwheeler4959  >>Yes I know the definition of "true" socialism you mentioned.<< So what do you call it when you knowingly make a false statement? >>But that doesn't change that many systems and policies throughout the world (like those in Scandanavia) are still referred to, perhaps as a bit of a misnomer, as "democratic socialism." << Which is on the same level as saying Creationists are right to dismiss Evolution because it's "Just a theory" I don' know about you, but I'm not in the habit of letting ignorant people define words. >> If not called that, what is an acceptable alternative title for you? << It's not what's an acceptable alternative title, it's what it actually is. Social Democracy. Which is using the proceeds of Capitalism to fight inequality. VS Democratic Socialism, which involves doing away with Capitalism to fight inequality. (Normally doing a pretty terrible job of it, because Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism is far better at fulfilling the promises of Socialism than Socialism ever was) >>I don't know what you mean about eating zoo animals? I'm guessing that Venezuelans ate zoo animals at one point? Yes I know the economy down there is horrid. << Food shortages were at the point (well over a year ago) that people were raiding zoos for the protein. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-crisis-zoo-animals-stolen-eaten-food-shortages-nicolas-maduro-a7898006.html Was the first result on Google. Maduro still says there's no problem and refuses offers of aid.
    1
  690. It's a nation with a government that's attempting to turn it into a socialist state. The attempt is pretty amazingly damaging.
    1
  691.  @theholydm2040  no he isn't. Very explicitly no he isn't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it's bollocks. Social Democracy is capitalist. No appropriaten of private business for a start.
    1
  692. I'd call this a Root Cause Analysis of its huge problems.
    1
  693. SuperSqueakyboy give them enough Eric Clanton slaps on the wrist and they'll learn.
    1
  694. Shreyas Waghe1 why would you consider Indian socialism a success? And if it was successful, why the move away?
    1
  695. Price controls. Amongst other things. Most notably a lack of respect for private property. And a series of previously repeated events that clearly shows any investor what chance of profits that person has. As well as any skilled worker, including those with the skills to start and manage a business.
    1
  696. Or socialism leads to horrible governments. Socialist states seem to find it impossible to find adequately competent and virtuous leaders. Relatively speaking, they're ten a penny in capitalist states.
    1
  697. Norway and Sweden have nothing to do with Socialism. They're social democracies. Which is very different. Venezuela... Has lots to do with Socialism.
    1
  698. superprontocritico  no it's not and no he didn't. It's an offshoot, but it fails the basic definition of the word. What do you think these words mean? And you don't think capitalism is good? Do you have any examples of countries attempting to abandon it that resulted in improvements? Judge it by its works. It's not perfect, but it's done more than anything else to bring people out of poverty.
    1
  699.  @demonedellafossa  communism is something else again. Not what's being discussed here. There have been no communist countries.
    1
  700. >>Social democracy does stem from socialism, believe it or not. But pardon my mistake, i inverted two words. Chavez was a democratic socialist (even if his political thought evolved during his life)<< Yep. Seems similar, but very, very different. >>The point is that this is not a matter of socialism or capitalism, it's a matter of authoritarianism<< Socialism tends to lead to authoritarianism. Over and over and over again. >>A country needs a mix of capitalism and socialism, and the transition from capitalism to socialism should be a slow evolutionary process. This is the essence of the social democracy<< So my takeaway from that is you still think socialism is the providing of taxpayer funded social services and general usage of taxes to redistribute wealth. It isn't. For the rest of it, I really have to wonder what you think capitalism and socialism are. From a definitional point of view. I asked previously, but you didn't actually put in an answer. Your hint is: It's about who owns the means of production. (Production. The things that make an economy an economy. So generally, actually making stuff) As for this: >>You say capitalism brings people out of poverty? It does not. But it produces wealth, which should be partially redistributed to the population in the form of education, health care and social assistance.<< How do you bring people out of poverty if not by producing wealth?
    1
  701. sigh Yeah. It might have been abandoned by modern socialist parties. But that doesn't change what the word actually means. It's not that I'm black and white. It's that the actual meanings of words are important. Not the meanings people came up with because they wanted to keep the label while excusing the atrocities. Socialism IS - BY DEFINITION - the public (as opposed to private) ownership of the means of production. If you're not talking about that, you're not talking about socialism. You might be talking about similar goals, but you're not talking about socialism. I don't really care what parties that call themselves socialist are proposing (Although watch what they do when they don't need to be centrist for the votes) - that doesn't change what the word means. Why is this an important distinction? Because there are two people who actually have a reason to shift the definition. 1. People who are against social services, and want to use the epic failure of socialism to attack them. 2. People who are in favour of socialism (despite its massive death count) but want to use the epic success of social services to trick people (such as yourself) into supporting it. Neither is your friend. Edit: Also, end of the 19th century? You might have missed a bit of history. In Western countries, it kind of was (and also, kind of not. It was considered legitimate until people realised just how bad the USSR actually was) in the East, it was accepted up until the end of the 20th century.
    1
  702. I gave the definition multiple times. You seem to think it's defined by what people deem to be convenient. Otherwise, you seem to get fooled by things that have common words in the same. In this case, social. I know why it's called socialism. Why do you think they didn't call social democracy socialism? If it's the same, why the distinct name? I'm sorry if you're a touch gullible, but the definition is what I gave. It hasn't changed.
    1
  703. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs&t=2s
    1
  704. Or you could try opening a dictionary. The video I sent gives the information in a fairly detailed way. Done by someone who at least claims to be a Marxist. Lots of diagrams to help. As it is... OMG. Political people try to twist things to make themselves look better or their opposition worse. That's weird and unrealistic!
    1
  705. If you had a few Socialist success stories, the whole "Not Socialism's fault" might hold a bit of water. But you don't. There's only excuses.
    1
  706. That's more of an effect than a definition. The USSR was a prison. The Venezuelan govt couldn't get walls up in time.
    1
  707. It isn't. You're just yet another (probable) supporter of socialism who doesn't know what he's supporting.
    1
  708.  @jedimind5337  yes it means that.
    1
  709.  @jedimind5337  no. It just means you have no idea what you're supporting. Most 'socialists' are morons who don't know what they're supporting. You're not alone. On the bright side, it's better to support it and not know what it is than to support it with your eyes wide open. After the last century's laundry list of expensive failures, you can't seriously expect to help people with it. Which means your only sane goal is to screw the rich, whatever the cost. And with the hundred million dead over the last century of failed attempts not to mention the abysmal human rights records, I can't honestly see the difference between neo Nazis and socialists. Just like there's no practical difference between antifa and those they claim to be against.
    1
  710.  @jedimind5337  yes you have. It's apparently all you've got. Which is the intellectual level you expect from a modern socialist. At least the 1918 ones didn't know just how badly they'd fail. What's your excuse?
    1
  711. Oh I see your reading comprehension problem. Socialism isn't doing anything in those countries. Because they're not socialist states. They just have welfare systems.
    1
  712.  @jedimind5337  yeah. Quora hasn't come into this. You're just one of the people who's been suckered by people trying to redefine one of the 20th century's great failures to make it not a failure. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  713.  @jedimind5337  wow, my first reply upset you that much? Genuine snowflake. Anyway, thank you for confirming my politer than you deserve first response was accurate. You do simply have no idea of what you're talking about. There's nothing of value in that empty head of yours, so I'll switch off the notifications. Thank you kindly for contributing to the general theme of people who claim to support socialism not even knowing as much about it as they'd get from opening a dictionary.
    1
  714. Yeah, Greek's financial problems predate the EU. The Greek government lied to get into the EU and the EU governments pretended to believe those lies. That was where the EU failed. The root problem was and is still Greek, though. Greece's financial problems are more because the governments simply ignored the economy and were the equivalent of a person who refused to look at his bank statements.
    1
  715. What does any of this have to do with the economic collapse? If you could put dates on the relevant things, that would be lovely.
    1
  716. Venezuela's oil reserves have been known about for a pretty long time...
    1
  717.  @alperensagr5330  ​ >>But these big ones are fresh news<< That Venezuela has a shitload of oil isn't. That Venezuela's oil is pretty shit quality is also not news. >>besides it still has little impact against my argument since they have petrol and USA thinks that only countries with petrol needs freedom.<< There aren't many countries outside of Africa that are really this much of an ongoing catastrophe. As far as Africa goes, the US has pretty historical reasons for not wanting to go balls deep in getting involved. Oil also tends to turn shitty governments worse. Largely because they can afford to be shitty governments.... For a while. >>Noome needs USA dont worry wherever they go they bring death and their vultures but they call them corporations<< No, the corporations aren't responsible for this. They've been largely driven out. If anything's caused this, it's the absence of corporations. But they're vultures, right? It's better that they're not there. Right? Anyway, for these countries the US is disinterested in, how about you name a few so we can take a look? For instance, if they're African, well.... The US has pretty good reasons for being really reluctant to put boots on the ground there. So does every Western country. I'm sure China will treat Africa well, though ;-)
    1
  718. None of those countries are Socialist. Each one of them is Capitalist. And China's not successful. Firstly, it abandoned socialism when Deng Xiaoping took over. Secondly, it's a recovering economy (that has plenty of its own problems) - Don't mistake recovering from a monumental mistake with being successful. China does continue to have many state-owned enterprises, though (Remember socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the people. Normally).... By and large, those are liabilities and weighing the country down. They're basically there to make the govt members who run them rich.
    1
  719. Those things tend to go hand in hand with actual (not redefined to mean capitalist with social services. That's not socialism. Before the normal response, no European country is socialist. Canada isn't socialist. Australia and new Zealand aren't socialist.) socialism. It happens over and over again.
    1
  720. I mentioned those because those are the examples people bring up over and over again. But... From here. You say that Venezuela's failure isn't due to Socialism. But the route it's gone down is a very common one for Socialist states. It's gone further than most, but it's still part of the same path. So if something bad happens pretty much every time a particular thing is tried, is it really unfair to suggest that the cause is that particular thing? Socialism breeds corruption. It frequently (even normally) results in Totalitarianism. A leader who thinks Socialism will work is almost guaranteed to be a poor leader. Lack of education is more of a cause than an effect, I'll grant you. It caused people to think that Socialism was a good idea. Political instability is pretty expected in a failing state.
    1
  721. >>+Robert Bray I'm curious. What exactly do you think socialism is?<< An economy system in which the means of production (as in: The wealth generating bits. You can't run an economy on free healthcare, after all) is publicly (realistically state. I can't think of another way in which that would be expected to work) owned. >> If you think it's when the government has total control of the means of production, that's not it.<< It was it before it was found to be a really, really bad idea. If the USSR had lived up to its promises, I can guarantee it still would be it. >> It just bothers me when people say that "socialism is the worst thing in the world" and act as if all socialism is one in the same. I've literally heard people claiming that Britain or France are communist states because they dare offer more affordable college. << They're idiots and wrong on the definition. Actually even more wrong, considering how far Communism is from anything we've even had a shot at attempting. >>For example, China is a one party state<< Yep. >>with an economy owned and operated by the state<< Not really. China's economy is mostly privately owned now. About 70% However, if the state steps in, GL/HF stopping it. >>Aside from China's five economic zones, the society operates as what we would call a socialist economy<< This was true in the 70's. Now Capitalism is everywhere. >>Now, I would never say to adopt the way that China operates as a viable solution to economic issues. The government may be effective at getting things done due to being one party, but stiffling opposition is not the American way. But credit where it is due. The country has seen unimaginable growth, and is the second largest economy in the world. << After embracing Capitalism. And... Lots of cracks showing. It's not a healthy economy. >>Another example. We have an issue with student loan debt. If studies showed that a way to ease this debt was to make college more affordable so young people could put that money into the economy, then I would agree. Because the system we have now is obviously flawed.<< The average degree adds something like a million to lifetime earnings. That's average of all degrees, good and bad. If your degree is so far below average that it won't pay for itself at full prices, it's probably a really bad idea to do that degree. I mean, even if it was completely free, it's probably a waste of 3-5 years of your life. I'm Australian, it's subsidised, but that's still the math I'll do and I'll tell anyone else to use. At international rates, my degree was about $80k USD (from 2010) in Computer Science. The jobs it lead me to pay for it free and clear about every six months. With pay increases in IT becoming a bit crazy, I wouldn't be surprised if that's every three or four months soon. (It seems like a shitload of cash, but I wouldn't have imagined being what I'm on now two years ago, so.... Anything's possible) Seriously, have a look at what the people who complain about the cost of education actually study. With the exception of doctors (A couple of hundred K in debt sounds like a lot until you see what they earn, then it seems like a fantastic investment) it's fairly easy to predict. Basically, it's an investment, but the people complaining about it don't see it as an investment. They see it as something else, then whine about the cost of that something else. >>Yes, I know this doesn't exactly correlate to a socialist society. And I'm sorry if I strayed from the topic. What I am trying to say is that the reason for a countries success is not always gauranteed by it's economic systems. A complete free market society without government control leads to monopolies, and a truly socialist economy can lead to political instability.<< Yes and no... Breathing oxygen doesn't guarantee I'll be a success. Attempting to abandon it guarantees I'll fail. Capitalism doesn't guarantee success, but ditching it is a pretty efficient recipe for disaster.
    1
  722. I should mention, I'm fairly completely in favour of publicly funded health and education. (I'll stand by the math on choosing a major, though. It doesn't matter what you would have paid for it, if it won't pay for itself unsubsidised, don't do it) Which is a major reason I think that people actually know the distinction is important. People who are anti-social services use the epic failure of Socialism to say they're a bad idea. People who are pro-Socialism use the massive good done by social services to say it's a good idea. Those are the people who have an interest in conflating the terms. Neither are our friends.
    1
  723. >>Yes and no. That's it if you boil it down to its basic and essential components. While that definition is technically( The people own the means if production. Not the state. If the state-owned production, it would be a small group owning the means of production. Exactly what they fight<< You'll notice I said public, realistically the state. That's about the most feasible way I can think of. >>Exactly what they fight. The government handles distribution, not owning production<< Which, taking yours further, still puts a small group of people owning a crucial piece. Ask any of the 19th century railway tycoons just how powerful owning the means of distribution is. As well as what has been reported from Venezuela. Supplies withheld from opponents and given to supporters. >>, what I was attempting to get at was that there are many different types of socialist philosophies. Many of which argue for various things. They can be market economies or non-market economies, utopian, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism<< And any attempts end up the same way. Over and over again. >>Governments today can still affect the prices of goods and services through taxes. Just because the government doesn't technically own it doesn't mean it has absolutely no say in what private businesses can and can't do. The government watches private businesses to make sure that all companies have a chance at success. Companies can affect how closely the government watches through lobbying but that's neither here nor there.<< You're getting into the realm of Socialism being a synonym for government here. >>You got me there. I will retract that statement. But it is safe to say that China has stricter regulations on goods and services. Not necessarily to favor the worker, but the government.<< On paper, they have very strict and normally very good regulations. However, they're not applied remotely evenly. Assume that murder is illegal. Now assume that I won't be prosecuted for it, but you will. That puts you at a bit of a disadvantage against me. >>Healthy no. Effective, yes. While the growth of China has slowed down, it is expected to be the largest economy in the world by the 2030's. While I am not a fan of the way China conducts, anything really, I still must give them credit. << It also has the largest population. If it had the population of my country (Australia) you'd be hard pressed to think of a single reason to give a damn about its economic performance. On top of this, what it also has (Thanks in part to the one child policy) is a complete shitload of generally poorly educated people (If you were educated during the cultural revolution, your education probably has serious problems) hitting retirement age, with no-one to replace them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/File:Population_pyramid_of_China_2016.png Retirement age is 60, BTW. With the type of jobs so many of those work, I doubt they'll be able to extend it. >>What I was arguing here was that obviously, something has helped economies like China boom. Embracing Capitalism and using their large societies to build the economy obviously were contributing factors, but the government helping to regulate these businesses contributed too<< When I go to China, I generally see little evidence of widespread regulation. Which is why we're careful about where we eat. Is it a lamb kebab? Or is it a rat kebab? Was the oil at some point taken from a drain? Or if I'm a mother. Is it all milk powder? Or is it half milk powder with Melanine used to make it appear to be all milk powder? (Walk into your local chemist at some point and count the Chinese buying stuff. They're doing it because what we sell is real. You can trust it. That's not the case there) China's economic miracle isn't due to their regulation (again, you're getting dangerously into 'socialism is a synonym for government' territory here) but due to that they stopped actively trying to screw things up. >> I am not arguing that we should adopt a Chinese economy, I am saying that lumping all socialism into a category of evil and totalitarianism, and pretending that it has no merit to modern society is an ignorant way of looking at it.<< From this post, I'm getting the impression that enacting laws for things like truth in advertising or taxing goods are classed as Socialism in your book. Which in turn means you've made it into an effectively meaningless concept. So to put what you seem to be saying another way: Yeah, government is frequently good. We agree. ... >>There are reasons why companies adopt more socialist principles, and there are reasons why the United States adopts its own social services. Rather than pretending that we don't and ignoring all arguments the system has to offer, we need to look at all viable options in order to help boost our economy.<< Social services aren't Socialism. They're things that are compatible with Socialism. They're also things that are compatible with Capitalism. >>Kinda. First off its around $500,000 rather than a million, and secondly while that may be true, in America it is not at all guaranteed that you will find a job in your field after earning your degree.<< Nothing is guaranteed, but that doesn't change what I'd said. Not all degrees are equal. It's as simple as that. The people who complain tend to simply be people who made blatantly bad choices. >>I never asked to ditch it. I just want us as a society to stop seeing socialism as a dirty word, or a failed economic system with nothing to offer. Every idea has reasons for why they become popular, and reasons for why they work or fail. I do not want to ditch capitalism. Venezuela never even did that. I want to see what works in this economic system and see if integrating it could help the economy.<< And again here, we're getting back to that you seem to view socialism as a synonym for government. If a government isn't socialist under the wide net you've cast here, it almost certainly isn't even a government.
    1
  724. It would need to be implemented in those places before it ran just fine in them.
    1
  725. Common in Socialist states.
    1
  726. If your university degree won't pay for any loans you too out to get it, it's probably a useless degree. Do a different one.
    1
  727. When has socialism been good?
    1
  728. Local Vault Comrade what socialist state has ever helped the bottom rung? I mean sustainably. Compared with capitalist neighbours. Also doesn't count if it country abandoned socialism in all but name.
    1
  729. Ah, it's a good idea. So... There must be examples of it working (that aren't Capitalist states like the oft-quoted Scandinavian states) right? Not excuses, successes.
    1
  730. There was once a Socialist Germany. It hasn't existed in almost thirty years.
    1
  731. Social services aren't socialism. Sweden is capitalist and uses the high productivity Capitalism allows to pay for social services.
    1
  732. Flann Games no, it just isn't.
    1
  733. Is a common result of attempting socialism.
    1
  734. No. They're not socialist.
    1
  735. Same old tired excuses. If there were socialist successes, it might be possible to give genuine credence to the idea that the core problem isn't with Socialism. But there aren't. Which is why person after person after person goes straight to Capitalist Social Democracies when asked for examples of successful Socialist states.
    1
  736. The Nordic states aren't Socialist. They're social democracies. That's very different. Common roots. Broadly overlapping goals. But completely different method of achieving those goals.
    1
  737. >>That is true in the same way that the US is not a capitalistic country it is a capitalism with some clear socialistic inroads such as wellfare etc<< The way you say 'socialistic' instead of 'socialist' is significant. What product does welfare produce? It's meant to be one of the nice things that's funded by socialism, but it's not socialism. >>One can quibble about the details but if you do that you need to understand that nothing really fits the description of socialism or capitalism<< No, but you do get going towards and going away. And then you get your use of the word to describe Norway, etc, which is what I'd call a 5 (From Holy Grail. "Count not four, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out!") >> know my history quite well and I know that the social democratic party of sweden was at its root a workers party and that really has shaped the country I live in as of now even if that party itself has moved more towards the center as time has moved on.<< "Common roots. Broadly overlapping goals. But completely different method of achieving those goals" So you know it, but you still call those places Socialist. >>Social democracies are socialistic in nature and they pull from that model just like America is capitalistic in nature and pull more heavily from that model.<< Again that word 'socialistic' meaning in this case they have the same overall goals. But the problem isn't in the goals, it's the method of execution. If you're going to call them socialist, socialistic is a word you'll need to drop. It comes across as a bit of a bait and switch.
    1
  738. >>I think we can meet eachother halfway there, the place to be is somewhere in the middle of those two economic systems<< Here we're getting definitional. We probably agree on the real-world result, but the views on the meanings of words are quite different. I view Socialism as the economic system. You view it as the goals of that economic system. Those are very different things. >>some need to go in a direction towards the left and some to the right<< And here I've got an issue because those things are nothing more or less than descriptors of how someone reacts to change. As a geek who loves change, I'm quite left myself, but I won't touch Socialism. Just because I like change doesn't mean I support bad ideas. >>The video we're commenting on, however, is very much intent on painting the whole spectrum to the left with a very hard brush<< What I watched (but it's been a while) was painting Socialism with a very hard brush. Socialism != the left. >>The intention no doubt is when people talk about socialism (and when they mean what we've been talking about) it imediately puts the worst example front and center to an extent where people write off any necessary movement towards the center as a move towards that worst example which it definitely isn't.<< Again, this is a problem caused by abuses of the definition of the word, which is something you've been participating in. Socialism is an amazingly bad idea. That doesn't mean that ideas people associate with socialism are bad ideas, but those things, such as welfare, are not socialism. By definition. They're not even economic systems. They're simply nice things we spend our excess production on. So if you don't like that, I'd only ask that you stop using words like 'socialistic' as if it's a synonym for Socialism. You're a gift to people who are against things like social services. >>The question is in that Norway example, would that country do well to be more capitalistic or has it found a good place to be as a mix?<< It is very capitalist. It supports and encourages private industry. The only exception is the state-owned oil operations. Something which generally isn't an option for most countries. >>An interesting fact about the nordic countries is that we have all been run by right wing government in the near past and the experience wasn't all good. What was done was that it chipped away at our social security systems and it didn't have the intended effect those governments proclaimed it would have. At the same time a lot of the state run enterprices were privatized and that too wasn't all that great. We were in a good spot you could say, somewhere in the goldylocks zone where I'd argue is the place to be.<< See, I can't even see a point in replying to that while you're attempting to claim that social security is socialism. It isn't. Go back to my repeated highlighting of the difference between socialist and socialistic. >>There are two extremes after all and the one is no better than the other.<< If I had to go balls deep in an extreme, I'd choose Capitalism every time. If for no better reason than it works. It works for no better reason than it harnesses human selfishness, rather than attempts to deny it. It rewards success and punishes failure. Under Capitalism, I can be the most sociopathic asshole ever to walk the earth, and I help people simply by working and buying things. Intentions don't matter when compared with results. >>I had a feeling this comment section would be very hard line and I'm glad to have found someone that actually takes the time to look at the whole picture. I hope I haven't come off as a complete dunce either :p<< Except for this definition thing (which, again, I think is extremely important for reasons previously given) we're probably largely on the same page. Actually.... That's quite common. The majority of 'Socialists' I've come across aren't Socialists. They just don't understand the term. An actual Socialist, though, to me is on about the same level as a Neo Nazi. Because after looking at the last century, I can't see a single reason why they shouldn't be classed in that way. An actual Socialist can't want to help the poor, because it never helps the poor (Again: Welfare != Socialism) all it does is punishes the successful, and in the meantime, really screws over the poor. Just ask the tens of millions of Chinese who died of starvation under Mao's lunacy. (I get that Socialism shouldn't lead to dictatorship... But it does. Over and over again. Again, reality > intentions) I married a Chinese Communist Party member. What I've seen and learnt over the years makes the eventual reality that accompanies an (ultimately failed) attempt at Socialism completely terrifying. 100 million dead, largely during peacetime with nothing to show for it... Nazism only managed something like a third of that number during war.
    1
  739. It's not. You just don't know what socialism is.
    1
  740. Alfred Pardoe the truth is sometimes funny. But anyway. Those are capitalist countries with a strong respect for private property, including privately owned industry. The countries you listed are social democracies, which is roughly summed up as using the proceeds of capitalism to promote equality. Socialism (whether it's democratic or not) is about public (realistically state) ownership of the means of production. Statoil is about the only major Scandinavian example of a qualifying industry. I realise there are people who think there are lots of other definitions of socialism. Not really. They're there because people have ideological reasons to link social services with socialism. Your small govt conservative wants to link public services to it to tar it with the brush of the epic failure of every socialist attempt. Your socialist wants to use the massive overall success of social programs, particularly health and education, to make it seem like socialism isn't the amazingly bad idea the 20th (and thanks to Venezuela, the 21st) century has shown it to be. For people who both like public education and healthcare, as well as not needing to beat zoo animals to death for their protein, the attempt to warp definitions is not helpful.
    1
  741. >>This is conservative propaganda. Venezuela isn't failing due to it's forum of government. It's failing due to having a extremely corrupt leadership. It's ruled by a dictator stealing the wealth of the nation. This could end up easily happening in a capitalist society as well<< Except it happens over and over and over again. So consistently that it's fairly obviously a feature of the system. >>Some may argue it already is<< Some argue that lizard people have taken over. >>As we have our own corrupt leader along with his allies robbing the country.<< You've got someone whose family appears to be using it for advertising. He'll be voted out, and if he's broken the law, he'll be done for it. Now compare that with Maduro. >>There are many examples of socialism being a success story<< Patterns say you're about to list a bunch of capitalist states (normally social democracies plus China, which abandoned Socialism decades ago) when asked for these examples. >>Many of are current allies have socialist democracies, and they're some of the most wealthy nations on Earth.<< My last prediction is coming true already. Anyway, you mean social democracies. Which aren't Socialist (even if there's a similar ideological root) The ones that are normally referred to in this context firmly Capitalist with a strong respect for private property and industry. >>But, of course Prager U isn't going to tell you that. Because the wealthy who likely fund these videos would rather you not know that. Socialism is a threat to their rule. That's why the propagate the myth that socialism is a evil, and a failed philosophy. When the honest truth is it works well in many other counties all over the world.<< No, something else that starts with 'social' works, and you've mixed up the two concepts. Don't worry, it's not just you. Read through the comments here, it happens over and over and over and over and over and over again. But that basic misconception is why people think Socialism works. It doesn't, but Social Democracy is a pretty decent system as long as the Capitalist underpinnings are healthy.
    1
  742. It is a bad system and Europe has social services, which are both a wonderful idea and completely different to Socialism.
    1
  743. Duncan Jansen unless you're talking about the workers owning the means of production, no they're not. You, anti social services conservatives. What's the difference?
    1
  744. Duncan Jansen well, for a start, it's a world leader in technology.
    1
  745. Duncan Jansen they're also all capitalist. And the US is the centre of the technological world.
    1
  746. Duncan Jansen you're probably a social Democrat. Which isn't a socialist. Or even democratic socialism.
    1
  747. >> It is a mixed form. Never said I was a socialist. But somehow in the US it gets confused with Communism and evil. "How Socialism ruined my Country" another video on Prager U. This is a purely biased and misleading title.<< It's biased, but that doesn't mean it's misleading or wrong. >> Noticed the video's on Prager U is strongly leaning towards one view without fairly balancing the advantages and disadvantages of both system<< Lets assume this is true, and there are worthwhile advantages to the Socialist system (WHile we do that, we'll just ignore the huge amounts of incredibly costly failure) - How does that make it wrong? >>Lived in Brazil and it is a little more complicated than that. Just express my concerns regarding the biaseness of its videos<< Bias doesn't equal incorrect. >>By the way, in what way does the average working class American benefit from this?<< Benefit from what? Being the centre of the IT world? It means they're in an economy that has a decent income. It means jobs, and not just in the IT sector. It means higher productivity. This being said, it's weird that someone is asking this question while probably using a device that'll fit in his pocket, yet is capable of connecting him to the accumulated knowledge of mankind.
    1
  748. Use both.
    1
  749. When you get a job. Or when you leech off welfare. Either or.
    1
  750. It sounds like you've got examples of when it's been a good thing. When was this?
    1
  751. They want to destroy something, anyway. They're sure as hell not interested in helping the poor or disadvantaged, whatever they say. I mean... The poor and disadvantaged aren't exactly doing super well in Venezuela. The only thing is they're not as lonely as they were.
    1
  752. andrew ahern yes, they definitely don't want to profit from selling stuff. Why would a company want that?
    1
  753. andrew ahern they are. No profit in Venezuela. No sales in Venezuela. It's simple. That you didn't mention profit is nothing more or less than you forgetting why companies exist. They're not there to be political, they're there to profit.
    1
  754. andrew ahern I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is you obviously don't know why people set up companies in the first place. Why do you think people start them?
    1
  755. >>Capitalist-minded companies set up companies to profit and exploit. << Not quite. They're there to profit. Anything else is fairly incidental. But, I'm curious. They make money by selling stuff at a higher cost than it cost them to make. Part of this equation is very much selling stuff. How does not selling stuff generate profit? Keep in mind that being able to blame someone, or make someone suffer isn't the same as profiting.
    1
  756. andrew ahern so.. Companies the world over exist to make money, except Venezuela, where their number one motivation is to hurt people and discredit the government? What makes Venezuela so special that all companies are willing to work together to lose any profits from the place for political reasons for over a decade? Why don't they want Venezuelan money? Where's the magic? And if you're really going to claim that they're profiting by not selling stuff.... How are they doing that?
    1
  757. andrew ahern you're still not saying how they actually profit by refusing to sell things. You've claimed they have, but have never actually given the mechanism. I'm also really curious about how blaming someone else for your failure is better than not intentionally failing. Do you realise you're claiming that they are choosing to fail so they can blame the govt for their failure?
    1
  758. andrew ahern yeah. Might have a bit more of an argument if it wasn't for the fact that this required collusion amongst all companies to forgo any near to medium term Venezuelan income. It also required that no other companies step in to take advantage of the potential for profit that the other company's refusal to sell there created. This applies to big and small companies. Instead, it's something we see in every sector of the economy. Either every company worked together to destroy the economy in the hope that destroying the economy might lead to a populace that can pay more for stuff... Somehow. Or you're looking for another common cause. Like... A government that makes it impossible for any company to profit. Which will lead to everyone leaving because even with good intentions, no profit means your company will fail. The only question is when.
    1
  759. andrew ahern so... Another toilet paper manufacturer wouldn't see the demand and step in to fill the void? If the reason there isn't any is purely the choice of companies not to sell, that's something you'd expect. A more likely explanation is no one could profit there. No profits equals no reason to sell. They're not charities and supplying stuff to tens of millions at a loss is a pretty efficient way of becoming bankrupt. If they're not going to profit, why would they sell there? Also: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HR20X https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-latin-america-36771022
    1
  760.  @Sheerspeechcraft  or to put it another way: the real Winnie the Pooh has a better chance of running China well than the fake Pooh bear. If he genuinely thinks this will end well for China, he is a dictator of very little brain. But to be honest, I doubt he gives a shit as long it helps him retain power. I think he's a disaster for China, but I don't think he's an idiot. I just think he views himself as more important than China.
    1
  761. Steven Gomez the us can afford to service its debt. That's the difference.
    1
  762. Steven Gomez you don't know what servicing debt means and the us inflation rate is low. Normally about 3 percent is targeted. Low inflation is good. No inflation or deflation is bad. Deflation kills spending because your money increases in value. About 3 percent gives the economy flexibility. You know how you said decades? In the plural? To drop 50 percent? For context, Venezuela drops about 90 percent in a few months. Also, the US debt is about 20 trillion. Not one trillion as you said. I'm highlighting this to point out how ignorant you are.
    1
  763. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_bol%C3%ADvar#/media/File:Venezuela_inflation_on_the_black_market_(DolarToday)_on_a_logarithmic_scale.png From the timeframes there, it's probably dropped far more than another 90% since To drop 90% has taken the US dollar 67 years. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ Understand the difference?
    1
  764. I'd like to assume the silence means all this is understood, but all too frequently it's just the first step in denying inconvenient facts before repeating the same bollocks all over again.
    1
  765. mijachin interesting that you've felt the need to redefine socialism as the government doing stuff that's funded by a capitalist economy. If a few taxpayer funded things are all it takes to qualify, you have to wonder what all the fuss was about. At this point, all governments are socialist.
    1
  766. As much as I don't think he'll be able to fundamentally change the country, because he won't have enough power to be radical, Corbyn is a very scary man.
    1
  767. Finland isn't a socialist state. There are no European socialist states. It's a social democracy.
    1
  768. and every couple of days in here by someone making the same original point.
    1
  769. The ideology has a strong tendency to lead to this situation. The harder it's tried, the more likely the result. And yeah. Trump is a lesson for democracy. However, while he's terrible by democratic standards, he's fairly average by dictatorship standards. And he'll be gone in either 2 or 6 years. Maybe sooner.
    1
  770. >>This video completes ignores the economic warfare waged against Venezuela by the US and others. Billions of dollars that are in offshore accounts are still being held from Venezuela, if it had that money it could pay for a lot of food, medicine, and other things that they are in lack of,<< If it had that money, it could have paid a fraction of the cash it owed the world, and still been completely up shit creek. >>also due to corporations in Venezuela selling their products to the black market instead of feeding the general population << Companies exist to be profitable. If they're not profitable, they will cease to exist. The government had made the normal market unprofitable. So they go to the black market. Personally, I don't think I've ever had to use a black market for anything like food, medicine, etc. Why? Because the normal market is profitable. Shut down the black market, and all that happens is the company itself shuts down. So it goes from some food being sold at profit to no food being sold. But hey, at least the no food is fairly priced.
    1
  771.  @Sheerspeechcraft  if a company isn't profitable, the two choices are to shut down or to keep on costing the owners. If what the company is doing actively costs the owners, why are they obliged to keep the company open?
    1
  772.  @Sheerspeechcraft  yes. I am. Not necessarily keeping, but not producing in the first place. Why? If you've got a thing that costs you 100 to make and you're only allowed to sell it for 99,what would you do?
    1
  773.  @Sheerspeechcraft  you're not answering a simple question. Probably because any believable answer makes you as "horrible" as I am. Edit: really, though, the horrible person is the one who prevents people from being able to sustainably (if it's done at a loss, it's not sustainable) produce needed items. A close second is the assholes who support people like that.
    1
  774.  @Sheerspeechcraft  you think producing stuff, then just keeping it in your warehouse is profitable?
    1
  775.  @Sheerspeechcraft  I'm guessing the sudden silence means you've realised just how ridiculous what you're suggesting is. Particularly when we're talking about perishable things like food. This is what happens when you do this... Take note of who did it. https://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-food-idAFN1617403620100618
    1
  776. https://www.news.com.au/world/south-america/as-venezuelas-deadly-crisis-sinks-to-new-lows-the-us-has-warned-nicolas-maduro-his-days-are-numbered/news-story/55aed4bfcbd1615c4f024c5ca940589d These are the people you're excusing. Sure, might be filled with weapons.... What kind of moron sets fire to something they believe to be filled with weapons?
    1
  777. pukalo [CDN] you forgot the hash tag.
    1
  778. To show the success of capitalism at delivering on the promises that socialism is meant to deliver, but epically fails to?
    1
  779.  @Leaner-b9c  for a start, they're all being capitalist. The difference is how they spend the money. Socialist states can't afford what you want. The US has lower taxes and puts more money into different things. Such at the military. If you think that's bad, look at the characters in your name and think of who else is in that region who might make a strong American military an incredibly good investment.
    1
  780.  @Leaner-b9c  you can, if people are willing to pay for it. If your fellow voters aren't.... You can get the rich to pay for it. The rich can leave. I live in Australia. I'm in the 50 percent tax bracket. I'm waiting for a Hong Kong work visa, where I'll enjoy 15 percent. Australia will then get nothing from me. Also, what's your view on immigration? Particularly the wall. Also. What's your view on the military. Keeping in mind that until the demographic bomb explodes, China is a serious threat.
    1
  781.  @Leaner-b9c  I'm a big Tim Poole fan, but he's a recent thing. I married a (now former) Chinese communist party member and I've got a thing about words being used correctly. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing up immigration is because you can have free services, or you can have open borders. You can't have both. Well... You can, if you're willing to be hardcore about restricting them to only certain people, but most countries aren't. Particularly when those people might effectively stay permanently. We lived in the UK (I've got a few citizenships). The NHS very rarely bothered to ask us for proof we were eligible. So the solution is closed borders. This being said, the US is also very keen on importing skilled migrants. Cheap in some areas is good. In other areas, particularly tech ones, they just need anyone who can do it and are willing to pay top dollar. When I was interviewing with Facebook, the only comment on moving costs was I didn't need to worry. And the military is one of those things you don't need until you do. When you do, it pays for itself in spades. Although for the US military, I could argue that ARPANET means it's paid for itself until the end of time. Anything else it does... Anything at all... Is just gravy.
    1
  782.  @Leaner-b9c  You're probably a left-leaning Liberal. (A liberal is basically someone who's willing to accept that others are different, that others have the right to free speech, even when he disagrees with them, and so on) who's been so turned off by the crazies on the extreme left that he identifies as conservative... Because compared with them, you are. I'm in the same boat. The Socialist left are not liberals. As they say, liberals get the bullet, too. In Australia, we have compulsory voting. Which means you make a choice. Not voting is nothing more or less than a vote for the person you want least. I'd vote Republican until the Democrats divorce themselves from the crazies. I don't like the Republicans (although they've improved a lot since they started to move away from the religious crazies a bit) but at a minimum, they're definitely the lesser of two evils. I don't like Trump either, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat when I look at the opposition. Ignoring the crazy, first because he's normalised pushing back on China (The CCP terrifies me) and secondly because I see him as a symptom of what his opposition is doing. Not a cause. They need to learn. If he gets kicked out, that'll do a lot to convince people that the crazies are correct. And yeah, a lot of what PragerU says is true. In this video, I've found very few people who know WTF they're talking about that are able to actually articulate their problem. The majority simply have no idea of what socialism actually is. But I'd never use them as a source. Too obviously biased. Which is part of why I enjoy Tim Poole. He's someone who's doing his best to be impartial and centrist, but being unable to do it because of the crazy. In my teens, I would have been far further left, but that was killed when I was in my 20's and started to actually see the world. The more I've travelled, the less tolerant and understanding of the shit these people are pushing I've become. I still support their right to say it, but I no longer see any difference between a socialist (who knows what the word actually means) and a neo nazi.
    1
  783.  @Leaner-b9c  more is good. A dictionary is almost always valuable as well. Particularly when people attempt to redefine words. As for combining them... Remember it's about the means of production. Not nice things that our wealth is spent on. It's difficult to think of where it's beneficial in that case. Health care, education, etc aren't things you can run an economy on (not counting foreigners coming in and paying top dollar) Governments tend to run things for political reasons, rather than for profit. Profit is what makes a company sustainable. Long story short, you tend to get what you aim for. Venezuela is a case in point. They aimed for equality. They got it.
    1
  784.  @Leaner-b9c  >>That would be the case of Communism and Socialism, but not for a social democracy.<< First off, I've got no problem with social democracy. The only caveat I'll put on that is that any country needs to recognise that the money comes before niceness. No money = no capacity to make things nice. You've already seen my views on milking the high earners. The nice things provided by social democracies aren't independently sustainable. They're sustained by external things that are more than capable of sustaining themselves. Kind of like how we're sustained by the sun's excess productivity. The difference between us and the solar example, though, is that every cent taken from a business to put into something nice does hurt that business. It provides benefits, but also costs. If the costs are too high, no business. >>But aiming for profit is not always really healthy.<< No, it's not. If you're providing easily monopolised essentials such as water and electricity, it can easily be very unhealthy. >>Charter schools for example get a fixed amount of money per student, the rest is their profit. You can see the problem there: they can decide on their own how much to invest and how much to profit. Public school students do overall better that charter school students, but that's put really bluntly.<< We don't really do charter schools here, so I'll have to ask your forgiveness if I get anything wrong. Anyway: From my understanding, anyone can go to any charter school. It's purely choice. In this case, they're competing with each other to provide what's apparently (I come from a family of teachers. So I'm painfully aware of what happens when a school focuses on its image. I've just taken my daughter out of the top public school in the state, because things were getting a bit crazy with their obsession with their position) the best service. So they need to profit, but they also need to be good. Otherwise, no students, no money, no school. Here, we do give taxpayer funding to private schools (money would have been spent on the kid's education anyway. If a parent wants to contribute a bit more, why not?) but that's really a bit different. They also need to be better than the local public schools. (I live near some very good public schools. However, I'm looking at the private girl's school's IT/STEM programs. Amongst other reasons, because I really want to avoid having her get turned off geek subjects by her peers.) >>I get the idea, that competition or profit leads to more productivity etc., but there are problems as well.<< Nothing's perfect. All you can do is select the best/least bad package.
    1
  785. It's a country run by a government that's attempting to be socialist. That's damaging enough.
    1
  786. Yes, it is, but.... It's very simple: Don't vote for these people. Don't give them a foothold. This outcome has been predicted almost since day one. They are a disaster waiting to happen. It's not even like this was the first time putting people who are openly Socialist into power has gone badly. It happens over and over again. That's my major limitation on my sympathy. They made a stupid decision with a highly predictable outcome.
    1
  787. This is true, it's easy to forget that it started 20 years ago. Even in developed countries, the Internet was in its infancy. So yeah, more sympathy can be given. Zero sympathy for whatever happens next in South Africa, though. There's absolutely no excuse for a lack of knowledge about what happened when their neighbour started taking white land without compensation.
    1
  788. At which point it isn't even socialism, because these ideas are about who owns what produces wealth, not how the wealth is spent.
    1
  789. But... But... But... If we try just ONE MORE TIME, maybe this time it won't be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions!!!111!!1!
    1
  790. The Nordic countries aren't socialist.
    1
  791.  @arjunbemarkar7414  they're social democracies. Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same thing.
    1
  792. If you ignore the other issues they had while Chavez was alive. The Venezuela of Maduro (Chavez's picked successor) is the Venezuela setup by Chavez. Debt and all. And Chavez might have been democratically elected (particularly in the first election) however, how a dictator gets into power isn't part of the definition. 'nor is what the dictator does once in power. The only thing that counts is how much the dictator can do should it choose. (Remember the whole point of being a dictator is you get to choose what you do. No predefined rules on how you must act)
    1
  793. Principles aren't actions. They're beliefs. You can believe they have those beliefs, but their actions disagree with you/ Anyway, if principles are all you're talking about, you can deny they're "firmly" capitalist all you like. But they are. Again, Scandinavian countries have a very strong respect for private property and industry. That is incompatible with Socialism.
    1
  794. The Average Waffle NP. Now if we can spread the word, maybe a few children can be saved from prostitution next time an apologist comes up and attempts to paint a rosey image.
    1
  795. And driving out free enterprise (and the people capable of making economies run)
    1
  796. I've got to object to claiming those who want this are liberals. A liberal supports the right of those they disagree with to speak and accepts people hold different opinions. The socialists I've come across sure as hell don't qualify.
    1
  797. But is it wrong? If so: Where? If not: What's your point?
    1
  798. Réfrigérateur Dyson you say the wealth creation but is wrong. Where is the wealth he created? As far as press freedom goes.. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2017/venezuela
    1
  799. Réfrigérateur Dyson over all though... What accomplishments make the current situation remotely we worthwhile?
    1
  800. >>I don't really understand what you say : wealth != press freedom, and china is a good example.<< I never said it did. I asked where the wealth he created went. But if you think China is wealthy, you need to travel beyond the major cities. It's got a lot of people, but that's different. It also has an epic amount of liability. >> Today, a censorship exist in veenezuela, yes, but when Chavez lived, the medias could call to murder him... If that's not a free press...<< In 2012, it ranked 117 out of 180 countries, according to the press freedom index. >>A example of what Chavez accomplished would be the gini coefficient, 0.498 in 1999 and 0.39 in 2011, the poverty rate who was 46% in 1999 and 28% in 2012 and the alphabetisation from 91,1% in 1995 to 95,5% in 2009<< And in the five years since the last number they published, how have things gone? How sustainable were his improvements? If I mortgage my house to the hilt, I can live the high life for a few years. As soon as the money runs out, though, it would be pretty clear it wasn't worth it. He mortgaged his house to the hilt (and then some) Also, the gini coefficient can also be 'improved' by making everyone dirt poor. As far as literacy goes... There were slight increases, in line with other countries in the area. One major possible contributing factor (the increases were slight) was the elderly (and less literate) population simply dying over two decades. Literacy has improved all over the world in that time. Obviously you haven't seen the same improvements in Western countries, but a large part of that reason is we're already sitting on 99%
    1
  801. >>I don't know all the details of Venezuela, why ?<< Well, the wealth is gone. So what's more important is where it's gone and why. Any good he'd done is gone. >>China has the second GDP of the world...<< And the largest population. By a very wide margin. >>You should read why it was classified so, it was not a reduction of press freedom, but of lobbyism in medias.<< So, what... You're waiting on official declarations from national governments on how free their press are? Otherwise, that's right from the horse's mouth. >>It's very amusing to see this kind of argumentation, saying "there are no improvements" (or something similar) and then "this imrovements are not sustainable".<< You're going to need to quote me rather than paraphrase me. I can't see where I'm saying that, although I might have missed it. What's even more amusing, though, is people who think that clearly unsustainable improvements that were followed by disaster are praiseworthy things. >>Not really. That would increase it. If one persone had all the wealth of a country and the other personns nothing, the gini coefficient would be at 1.<< And? I said if everyone. Everyone. Was dirt poor, it would be equality. I didn't say if everyone bar one person was dirt poor. >>Besides on that, the poverty rate decrased.<< LOL Sure it has. I mean, according to official government statistics, I'm sure it has. But for outsiders? Apparently 76-87% poverty rate. Don't believe me? Well, look at the average weight loss. Unless there's a shitload of gym memberships involved, that's not related to a reduction in poverty. >>Colombia had almost the same alphabetisation as the Venezuela in 1995 (91,3%) and was away from the Venezuela 15 years after (93,6% in 2011, when Venezuela had 95,5% in 2009), and the gap became bigger.<< https://www.statista.com/statistics/796285/literacy-rates-latin-america-age/ You can cherry pick one country. Region-wide, however... Combine that with: https://www.economist.com/node/10766504 And again, we get back to my request for what accomplishment of Chavez/Maduro's makes the current state of the nation worthwhile. A question that has yet to be answered.
    1
  802. >>That's not very mysterious. Because Maduro taked the power and ceased to act for the people interests.<< You think Chavez did? Maduro doesn't exist in a vacuum. He is useless, but he stepped into the situation that Chavez created. >>Yes... And? I said China is wealthy, not China's inhabitants...<< Same thing in the end. China's poor citizens are a liability. It's not wealthy, it has a lot of cash. That's very different. >>I'm reffering to the reglementations that were do, reglementations that can be found on your own sources. You should really read what was do before say "the press is not free".<< Can you please say that differently? The mixture of French and English made no sense. >>Maybe the improvements in Venezuela were unsustainable. Maybe, maybe not. It's your duty to proof it, not mine.<< They... You've seen the reports out of Venezuela, right? Is that how you'd expect a country that had had sustainable improvements made to look? >>I'm refering myself to the ONU statistics (lel).<< Feel like the source for that? Amongst other things, I'd like to see the year. >>You're arguing with statistics from 2018...<< 2016 You expect a massive change in five years? >>A question that already is answered.<< Really? Feel like quoting it? I said what makes it worthwhile. You listed some (debatable) improvements, but a lack of complete failure in every aspect does not make a worthwhile improvement.
    1
  803. >> Sure<< Based on the wonderful state the country was in when he died? >>Chavez don't ruled against the people.<< As evidenced by the wonderful state the country was in when he died? >>If you think so...<< Yep. Even the CCP thinks so. Although now it's dealing with a rapidly ageing population as a result of its being a bit enthusiastic about this. >>Do you speak another language than English ? I speak german too.<< Do you have a problem with making your point in English? >>Chavez and Maduro had not the same politic, so it's not comparable.<< I'm sure that Chavez went out of his way to appoint his diametric opposite his successor. Although it was said that Tiberius appointed Caligula his successor so he'd be relatively loved. The story might be bollocks, but the point could have some truth. >>Sure. Amazing things can happen in five years.<< Any recent stats on Venezuela's literacy? Y'know. Since the economy collapsed. >>The Cepal report for 2011.<< You realise the economy has collapsed since 2011, right? I mean, it was declining then, but the decline has accelerated to a remarkable degree. >>"the gini coefficient, 0.498 in 1999 and 0.39 in 2011, the poverty rate who was 46% in 1999 and 28% in 2012 and the alphabetisation from 91,1% in 1995 to 95,5% in 2009"<< And now that we're in 2018, when the country's economy has collapsed. What made it worthwhile? >>... I don't even know what can be answered here. Inequalities and and poverty is very bad...<< Yes they are. Which is why the current situation is very bad. Chavez's spending spree backed by excessive borrowing did bring improvements. But look at the cost today (Not seven years ago. Today) and tell me what improvement was worth the 2018 Venezuelan situation. A slight increase in literacy really doesn't cut it vs widespread malnutrition. Poverty rates of 28% in 2011 really don't cut it vs poverty rates of around 80% in 2018.
    1
  804. Réfrigérateur Dyson run away. Any excuse will do. It's unfortunate you can't have a conversation with someone who's presenting recent facts though. And a better state? Maybe. Until you looked below the surface and saw it wasn't sustainable. There were serious problems while he was alive, and Maduro didn't step into a well run state that prevented kleptocratic autocrats. If he did, he wouldn't have immediately had the amount of power he had available.
    1
  805. Yet another Englishman makes yet another Frenchman retreat.
    1
  806. Réfrigérateur Dyson then answering should be easy. And yet. Here we are. Unable to explain what made the Venezuela of 2018 worthwhile. Amongst other things.
    1
  807. Réfrigérateur Dyson anyway, froggy. You can send back a few badly aimed shots as you go, but a retreat is a retreat. And that's what you're doing.
    1
  808. Réfrigérateur Dyson 2012 Venezuela is a long way in the past. 2018 Venezuela is a direct consequence of it. Unless you have a time machine, that's the Venezuela you need to justify. Consider yourself lucky. 2019 Venezuela looks set to be worse.
    1
  809. It's a country that's attempting to be socialist. That's bad enough. This isn't the first time it's been attempted. By now, the people who keep an economy running knows what's coming. They get out.
    1
  810. Which is why it wasn't abandoned several decades ago. Oh wait... It was. China is Capitalist as hell. (Although being a dictatorship, there isn't a huge amount of respect for personal property. Why do you think they're buying so many houses in the US, Canada, etc?)
    1
  811. Tommy Chen socialism with Chinese characteristics is capitalism. The Chinese characteristic is that they couldn't abandon the one thing the CCP was meant to be doing. It is a face saving bit of rhetoric. An attempt to avoid saying they had failed miserably
    1
  812. H. Pablo Tovar Herrera I wouldn't if I were them. The people who left first have largely moved on. They're in a better place. As for those who remain.... They elected Chavez. I'm heavily in favour of letting idiots idiot. Why should those who had the brains to leave first put their heads back in the noose?
    1
  813. Alexey Halangot the Chinese side is nothing more or less than a label. They abandoned the attempt decades ago with nothing to show for it besides a few tens of millions dead. The CCP presided over one of history's great failures. The only reason they even pay lip service to the label is why have a communist party of you're not trying to be communist? What was the point of tens of millions of people dead if just abandon the attempt? I'd hate to be answering that question. Much better if I can avoid it with a label and force.
    1
  814. Alexey Halangot also, no European country is socialist.
    1
  815. Thot eater what about them?
    1
  816. Speaking of not knowing much, none of the European countries you listed are socialist, democratic or otherwise. They're social democracies, which isn't Socialism. And Socialism and authoritarianism aren't mutually exclusive. When you've got a bad idea, your two choices are to abandon it, or double down and force people to do it. Which is where the authoritariainism tends to come fro.
    1
  817. It'll work next time!
    1
  818. Interesting. The only fact there was that you believe there's no difference between you and any other totalitarian dictator.
    1
  819.  @kinunomichijp  probably the bit where you listed who you would execute. Even if only based on a suspicion of association. The only difference I'm seeing between you and any of the 20th century's totalitarian dictators is opportunity.
    1
  820. Vasile Andreescu  if you're executing based on suspicion, you're not doing it after due trial. A part of that includes presumption of innocence. They need to be proven. Really, you're just coming across as an angry dictator wannabe. Who in their right mind would ever want someone like you in power?
    1
  821.  @kinunomichijp  I'm enjoying the whataboutism, as well as the comprehensive list of sane people who would want you in charge.
    1
  822.  @kinunomichijp  I read and understood that you would execute people based on a suspicion of you ever had power. You. Hitler. The only substantive difference I'm seeing is he was given the chance.
    1
  823.  @kinunomichijp  I bothered reading what was relevant. Whataboutism is what people who don't have an argument retreat to. About the only relevant thing you've said here is you'd be a mass murderer. I'd suggest you try supporting yourself instead of pointing to others in a fairly hysterical way, but by the time you've got to murdering the opposition (your first stop) it's pretty obvious you can't do that.
    1
  824.  @kinunomichijp  can you quote the supporting evidence for the things you've said about me? With explanation of why it tells you what you say it does. You've extrapolated a lot from my pointing out you're a murderous dictator wannabe.
    1
  825.  @kinunomichijp .... It's 8:23pm You need to stop making assumptions. Although I don't mind. They're only making an ass out of you.
    1
  826.  @kinunomichijp  I'm in Australia. And I wasn't sleeping from 3pm to 8pm. And you haven't pointed out a single thing that forms the basis for your assumptions about me.
    1
  827. Need to remember with people like that that their goal isn't to help the poor. It's to attack the rich. Anyone who thinks that Socialism is about helping the poor has completely ignored the last century of attempts. Completely first class tool for killing off the rich, though. As long as you don't mind a bit of collateral damage.
    1
  828. If you're talking about hundreds of thousands, you're talking about less than a million. Or at most, a third of a percent of the us population. If you're talking about tens of thousands, then you're likely to be 3 percent of one percent. I haven't heard of that third of a percent raiding zoos, though.
    1
  829. Happened in 2012. About 14 years after Chavez came to power. After he'd been made dictator on many occasions.
    1
  830.  @mistergeopolitics4456  >>Scholars, academics & experts agree that it was the US sanctions & repeated attempts at sabotaging Venezuela's economy that pushed Venezuela over the edge<< Some do. Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>Argentina is bankrupt but they're okay because the US isn't preventing them from accessing badly needed foreign currency reserves. Go read a book mate. << What foreign currency reserves? List them, then lets do the math, compared with Venezuela's debt. Keeping in mind that considering a huge portion of its oil exports are devoted towards paying off debt, borrowing more isn't exactly the answer. No-one is happy about continuing to lend money. Eventually, lenders want their money (or something of equal or greater value) back.
    1
  831.  @mistergeopolitics4456  6 billion divided by 30 million is $200 per person. If that figure is even worth mentioning in the context of economic collapse, you've got bigger problems. This is why I asked for the numbers 😉️ I know that when you look at the population, they will be small. Of use only by desperate people looking for an excuse. And the first line in your own article really helps me. "US sanctions against Venezuela have accelerated the already catastrophic decline of the oil-rich nation’s economy, and are pushing it to a debt default that economists say could happen as early as this week" They didn't change anything except the timeline.
    1
  832. Capitalism has some failures, it's true. No two ways about it, it's not a magic wand. The difference between it and hardcore socialism/attempted communism is that while it does have failures, it also has lots of successes. It's not a magic wand for success, but a lack of it is a magic wand for failure.
    1
  833. lagg3 sbd3 read my prior post, I acknowledged that there are multiple failures. I was pointing out the logic used by your lot. Then please give me a successful attempt at reaching communism. When I say successful, I mean successful. If you need to put in an excuse, what you've got is a failure. Cuba is a very shitty country by western standards. Also, the Japanese were not the worst thing to happen to China. They didn't even have the highest kill count. They didn't even have the highest annual kill count.
    1
  834. >>I think somebody needs to read the bold sentence. According to wikipedia, Cuban healthcare is better than New Zealand, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, South Korea and just below US.<< How is your argument here anything other than "One specific thing that Cuba has done is done better than in some Western countries, but worse than the main one, therefore it works"?
    1
  835. >>Also It worked in Cuba so that's not 100%<< No it didn't. It just hasn't collapsed in Cuba yet. Your pro-Cuba arguments are focusing on two very specific things (healthcare and education) while ignoring everything else. On the Human Development Index, Cuba ranks far below Greece. Not a little below, but a dozen places below what is, by Western standards, a complete basket case.
    1
  836. >>They have cars from the 50s how do you expect they to have good heath care and hospitals ? Don't need to be a genius to know that is not true<< As far as I can tell, the results are roughly comparable (though a touch worse) than the NHS. So.... What does it really say when the thing your country is REALLY famous for is pretty mediocre by Western standards? It's like every single thing needs to be terrible before it's regarded as a failure. (As opposed to one thing needing to be less than ideal in order for capitalism to be a failure)
    1
  837. >>Capitalism will never work just like it didn't work in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo, Haiti, and a shit ton of other countries.<< To disprove "X will never work" you need one working example of it. It doesn't matter how many failures you have, you only need one success. Capitalism has had many success stories. Communism has never been reached (Outside of village-sized communities, anyway. Nothing remotely the size of a normal country). Each attempt to reach it has completely failed.
    1
  838. For curing the flu, I could be pedantic on that and point out that neither do we. :P But yeah, I've seen hospitals in Communist nations before. You've said nothing there I have problems believing. In China, the stench was horrendous. This was in a hospital frequented by local CCP officials. I don't want to think about what the peasants had to put up with. (Judging from Traditional Chinese Medicine, it would be undesirable. TCM is a fraud. Seriously, my wife was prescribed saffron for alleged fertility problems. I hit the roof when she came home with a bunch of it. That basically marked the point where I stopped being tolerant of cultural differences) As far as I could tell from reading up on it, Cuba relied on incredibly dedicated doctors, and that was all. Unfortunately the capability of even the best humans are fairly limited without the right tools.
    1
  839. Arturo Cervantes it isn't.
    1
  840.  @David-pf2fz  it's a literal question. Were they eating zoo animals before 1999? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-crisis-zoo-animals-stolen-eaten-food-shortages-nicolas-maduro-a7898006.html
    1
  841. You're right. It was the drop in the price of oil and time travel to make the August 2014 drop cause problems in January 2014.
    1
  842. In case you're talking to me... Large problems in 2013. Brain drain going on for many years before 2013. But shit really hit started to hit the fan in early 2014. An event commonly attributed to the drop in oil prices that occurred in late 2014.
    1
  843. How could things be reasonably made worse for the majority of Venezuelans?
    1
  844. Haven't come across those news sources before, but.... Taking a look: "The Vice President of Venezuela's National Constitutional Assembly, Aristobulo Isturiz, revealed that the US imposed economic blockade on Venezuela has prevented 18 million boxes of food from reaching the country that is suffering from food shortages. " 1. That's half a box per person. 2. The National Constitutional Assembly was the assembly created after the voters gave the wrong decision on the National Assembly vote. Mintpress News links to six billion dollars. That's $200 per Venezuelan. It doesn't help, but if your country is screwed that badly by losing that much, you've got much bigger problems. Also, Alfred de Zayas is basically the Socialist government's pet UN representative. That he's the only one who's been there in decades isn't an accident. Like with the National Constitutional Assembly, he's the one who can be relied upon to give the 'correct' answer. And the Intercept article seems to be relying on Eva Golinger, who's one of the Chavez officials. So in other words, I'd take the sources of any of those with grains of salt large enough to cause hypertension. I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'm saying their sources are partisan garbage and the concrete numbers a cursory glance shows me are nothing numbers in the context of what's happened there.
    1
  845. random student a social service. Socialism is about the means of production. The stuff that makes an economy run. You can't run an economy off free healthcare or education.
    1
  846. random student yes. By taxing a slice of the produce created. Can you run an economy off taxpayer funded healthcare? Where do the funds come from?
    1
  847. random student you seem to have a disconnect between how much it'll cost and where the money comes from. Socialism isn't the government doing taxpayer funded stuff, it's about who owns where the money comes from? Who owns what makes the stuff that makes our economy viable. Unless you're charging international customers and they're allowing the state run health or education industries to run at a profit, they don't cut it.
    1
  848. random student they're a social service.
    1
  849. random student I can't say. All I can say is that people in countries that have taxpayer funded healthcare are only rarely in favour of abolishing it. I'm Australian and I've lived in the UK. In neither country is getting rid of it ever a political platform. I can't even think of a minor party that's gone against it. There's always people who want to improve it, or shift some of the burden to private by encouraging health insurance, but never to get rid of it. The worst thing about public is normally the wait. My father was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago. He paid to have it checked asap. My mother took out health insurance then and there, a couple of months before she was diagnosed with bowel cancer. At the same time, if something is imminent, you get bumped to the top of the list. My father cracked his head on a sand bank about ten years ago while swimming. Detached his retina. He was having surgery an hour or so later. But that doesn't make it socialism and doesn't have any relevance to your initial post. Social services, properly done, are wonderful. There might be a way to to do socialism properly, but it hasn't been found. A lot of people have died in the failed attempts, though. Edit: adding on to this, this conflation you're doing between socialism and social services doesn't help any of us. Anti social services advocates will try to link them to the failure of socialism. Pro socialists will try to hide the failure of socialism by linking it to the success of social services. Neither is your friend.
    1
  850. random student communism is the utopia that's meant to be the end goal. Once socialism has been properly implemented, the idea is that the government dissolves itself, allowing for a world in which there is no class, no money, no government and no state. Where each gives what that person is capable of giving and receives what it needs. For an over simplified version, turn on the Smurfs. Socialism is about the common (realistically, state. I can't think of any other practical way in which that's meant to with) ownership of the means of production. Basically, the things that produce the stuff that makes an economy. (in the end, it all comes down to tangible stuff. If you don't have stuff, you're probably really poor) Healthcare and education are better thought of as force multipliers. They don't produce, but they allow for higher productivity.
    1
  851. >> It seems socialism in your mind is reduced to resource extraction and manufacturing which I guess made sense in 18th century<< You mean the time when the term was defined? Really though, I'd do it as more where the money/resources the money represents comes from. >> The real distinction between socialism and capitalism is free market and privatization<< That's a fair part. If we're talking about definitions, though, leaving it at that brings us to the point that it's a meaningless term. >> Public education is neither privatized nor a free market, public healthcare is neither privatized nor a free market. Neither of them is a capitalist construct by any means.<< It's where the money/resources required to pay for these that makes the difference. These are huge money sinks that produce a net benefit for society. The police force also comes under that definition of socialist in the same way. Would you regard them in that manner? Or to put it another way: Would you regard any country with a police force to be socialist? So, no, they're not capitalist, but unless they're actually producing something, they're not socialist either. They're services.
    1
  852. They don't fit into either. They're a service. They don't produce. Which I explicitly said earlier with "So, no, they're not capitalist, but unless they're actually producing something, they're not socialist either. They're services." Social services, obviously. Collective ownership of the means of production. Means of production. Going to need to repeat that a few times. Means of production. Means something needs to be produced. Roads don't produce, they enable. Electricity grid doesn't produce, it enables (Although power stations do produce) I'll give you water, I won't give you sewage. Potable water is a product. Disposal of sewage is a service. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/so-all-government-example-socialism Socialism isn't just 'the government doing stuff'
    1
  853. Stubby lets take your argument at face value. Do you think, as I look out at the city full of privately owned industry, privately owned business, people working for personal reward and so on and so forth, that it is remotely like what any major socialist over the past century has had in mind? You've accused me of being too narrow. That's possible. In your case, your definition is so broad it's become meaningless. Although it could be a good thing. Maybe if people and leaders around the world are going to be happy with a tick box that covers.... Basically every country that's not anarchist (as soon as the government does something, that seems to be socialist in your book) we can about disasters from a future Chavez egged on by true believer morons. Because if the world is already socialist(and has been since the first government had someone to enforce its will) then not only is the revolution won,but it was never needed in the first place. According to your own definition.
    1
  854. I'll mostly agree with you. The bits I'd disagree are where nothing's being produced. Ok, roads are part of production. By the same logic, so is an empty field people walk across while taking something from point A to point B, but whatever. Police really aren't. High schools... They provide a service, but the idea of production really was physical things (In the end, that hasn't changed. Without physical things to show/use, nothing else really matters. Those things allow us to better use the physical things produced, but in the end, are secondary to them) Capitalism doesn't preclude jointly paying for things. Not like Socialism precludes private ownership. One major difference though is that capitalism is a tool that can be used or not used as the need suits. Socialism, particularly historically, has been like that, but tainted with more aims than the purely economic. Taking this as an example: "What is socialist in my book is when citizens pay collectively and government provides a solution that is not privately owned, not for-profit and does not participate in free market - say Police Force, Energy Grid, Roads, High Schools etc. " Yes... Ok, kind of... In the end, a socialist economy must be making a profit (As in: You must be getting more out of it than you put into it.) Otherwise it will collapse. Which is the issue I've really got with not-for-profit. Socialism was intended to be the basis of an economy. For that, profits are required. No two ways about it. Police don't make profits. They prevent losses, but that's not really the same thing. Schools don't make profits, but they do increase the potential for making profits. Neither of these are possible without enough excess productivity to support them. Whereas your factory is producing. It supports itself. If you have masses of factories all producing, for example, you'll probably have a sustainable environment. Adding more factories doing things will only improve matters. If you go all out on schools and police... You'll collapse because they're simply not profitable. Same with welfare, maternity leave, etc. They don't produce. They rely on other things to sustain themselves.
    1
  855. ixiox p you can try thinking of something else, but if the 20th century has taught us anything, it ends badly.
    1
  856. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  857.  @vargata  it does, but it doesn't make me psychic. Which is why I asked you what you think it is.
    1
  858.  @vargata  so in other words, you don't know what it is. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism. What you're talking about is social services. They're good, but they're not what an economy runs on. I'm not confusing communism with socialism BTW. But it's a safe bet you are. Just because a country is run by a communist party doesn't make it communist. That's the (unrealised in every case) goal of the party. What you think of socialism is probably social democracy, which is using the proceeds of capitalism to promote equality.
    1
  859. @Tuareg Akavir  so you're including laws that impact the economy. Name a system of government that's not socialist by that definition. Keeping in mind that the simple enforcement of contracts qualifies under your definition.
    1
  860.  @vargata  you're saying the UK economy was completely unregulated, to the extent of not having contract laws? By your definition, either you're saying that, or it was socialist. Edit: also, your last definition was complete bollocks. It might save us all time if you open a dictionary.
    1
  861.  @vargata  >>contracts are even now mostly unregulated in the uk I can contract in words and the only way to enforce it is the court, the state dont care<< Where should it be enforced if not by the legal system? Why should the state (except in the form of the courts) get involved in a contract dispute, which is a legal matter? >>and no, a songle thing doesnt make it socialist<< Can you please point where in your definition it says five things or more? It looks like you're making stuff up as you go along. >>its just you trying to hang into the last straw...<< Not at all. I'm looking at your definition. A definition which you, apparently, no longer agree with. >>Btw, based on your terminology there have never EVER been a socialist system as the people have NEVER owned the production...<< Of course they have. As represented by the state and their government. What else is a country but the people? >> I came from a communist country, communist on the level venezuela will hopefully never learn, and even there the community had no ownership over anything...<< And yet, you still support a system that leads to authoritarian failures like that. Why?
    1
  862. Who's saying Venezuela is a Social Democracy? I must have missed that bit. Is it in the video? To be clear, largely because the video ad to my right shows what you might be thinking of. Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism don't have that much in common. The latter is about moving away from Capitalism in a democratic way, the former is about using the proceeds from Capitalism to improve equality in society.
    1
  863. >>It failed because of Chavez's stupidity in relying strictly on oil and banning private ownership and discouraging any other industries.<< He didn't fail because of Socialism, he failed because he tried to implement the sort of economy Socialism calls for. Right down to fighting private property. I didn't murder that man. I simply intentionally stabbed him until he stopped being alive.
    1
  864. What do you think Socialism is?
    1
  865.  @fpetes  you obviously know the difference, and you obviously seem annoyed that people don't know the difference, so why try to conflate socialism with something it's literally not?
    1
  866. Thank God for an legal system that prevent Trump from doing all he wants. Trump isn't helping shit. Inertia is. If Maduro had become President of the US, he wouldn't have been able to do nearly as much damage as he has. The system of government there would prevent it. He's able to be as damaging as he has been (and Chavez before him) because the legal system made it too easy to appoint a dictator.
    1
  867. Because it's a government attempting to implement socialism. Which is bad enough.
    1
  868.  @namename8207  does it look like a success story? They tried to make the economy socialist, and in the process ruined it.
    1
  869.  @namename8207  it doesn't need to have been complete or successful for socialism to be the cause.
    1
  870.  @namename8207  If the attempt to make the economy Socialist killed the economy, then Socialism was the cause. Also: Norway is nothing like that. About the only major state owned industry is Statoil. Of which the govt is merely the majority shareholder (I think it owns about 60% - something like that). What you spend the money on isn't what makes it Socialist. It's all about where the money comes from. Edit: Looked it up. 67% govt ownership, 3% pension, the rest random people. Also called Equinor now. And it was privatised almost two decades ago.
    1
  871. The service providing type is social democracy. Which is capitalist and bears very few similarities to democratic socialism. Or just plain old government.
    1
  872. You mean the coin that interprets "Socialist" to mean "Social Service"? Long story short: The author of that is either clueless on what he's talking about, or is wilfully misrepresenting what Socialism is. It's not Social Services. It's not a Welfare state. If you're not talking about common (IE: State run by the government that represents the people) ownership of the means of production you're not talking about Socialism. The Scandinavian states aren't Socialist Canada isn't Socialist Australia isn't Socialist. But they all have Social Services.
    1
  873. None of those are socialist states. They're capitalist states and spend money on social services. Which is very different. The Seychelles comes closest, but at 2/3 being government run, it's not a "complete socialist system" Free healthcare, free education, free transport, don't make a place socialist. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state,
    1
  874. Brian Nelson were the people raiding zoos for protein? Everywhere has some level of corruption. The question is why it became this much worse. Corruption is a pretty common thing in socialist states, for a start. So are shortages and general economic failures.
    1
  875. 1. The enter key on your keyboard is useful. 2. Sweden isn't Socialist. It's very definitely Capitalist.
    1
  876. By removing the reward for success. Under Capitalism, success is rewarded by a lifestyle commensurate with your success. Given the envy Socialists have against people who are more successful than people who didn't do anything useful, it's a safe bet that the same incentives wouldn't exist (Because if they did, where's the argument for abandoning Capitalism?) All Socialism could offer was good feels. Give me a choice between an inner glow of virtue and the money, and I'll take the money.
    1
  877. For the other things where I asked you waht the USSR hadn't done... You didn't list anything that they hadn't done. Any... Examples of things they hadn't done?....
    1
  878. >> The Iron Curtain is not a physical barrier. << The bits I saw looked pretty physical. >> And defences were pointed inward as much as they were pointed outward.<< No. The bits I saw were very much pointed inwards. Granted, the bit I saw was the Berlin wall. >> Much like the USA today, and its intelligence agencies targeting their own citizens. (but in a less obviously violent way, of course)<< Machine guns and landmines aren't obviously violent? >> Well, right off the bat, you cannot cheat the system if you are the system. << You can cheat what you were meant to be doing. >> A person/corporation can cheat the system, and I am not denying it hasn't been done in the USSR. It has been done in every single country<< Thank you for accepting that isn't a specific criticism of Capitalism. >> The point I was making with this statement is that in a capitalist system, corporations have incentive to cheat the system and try and evade taxes, or bribe politicians so they vote laws favourable to them, rendering democracy useless and people having a voice a lie.<< The object in both cases is to stay in power. Whether it's via campaign funding or force. What democracy did the USSR have? It seemed pretty limited. >> The problem here is not the politician taking the bribe, he would do so in any system if he would do it under capitalism. The problem is corporations having purely egoistically based influences upon the government.<< As opposed to governments accountable to no-one (short of violent revolution) and simply doing whatever - without real limitations - it took to stay in power? >> Ah, destroying countries. Actually, any country is keen on destroying other countries for their personal benefit, be it communist or capitalist. However, communism brings the incentive to destroy the notion of countries, praising the ideal of worldwide unification of the working people. << looks at Afghanistan and Eastern Europe Yeah. If it was just destroying the concept of a country, fine... But the USSR did have a tendency to do a large amount of physical work. >> As to enslave the worker, well, that's a capitalist thing. In a communist society, the worker is working for the good of the society, and, ultimately, his own good, while in a capitalist country, the worker is working for the profits of someone else, who is not necessarily working for the good of society, but rather for his own personal interests. Personal interest does breed the incentive for success, but at what cost? At the cost of the workers' freedom.<< Workers in the USSR weren't exactly famed for their freedoms. And being slaves for the government, slaves for a company. What's the difference? (Except the company pays better and if you leave the company, it can't put you into the camps... Or shoot you as you head for the exit. A common occurrence for people trying to leave the USSR)
    1
  879. >>For the last thing you said, I already explained the difference between working for society and the interests of another individual. One is actually productive, while the other isn't. << Both are productive. >>Also, working for, and being a slave of are not the same thing. Working for society does not imply being society's slave. << Working for a company doesn't. Working for a dictatorship that's put you in a prison? Yeah. That's getting a bit closer. >>Also, companies do not pay better than governments. I do not know where the hell you got this from. << My professional life. >> Leaving a workplace is different from leaving a country, and doing so illegally.<< Yes. If I leave a workplace, I don't get a bullet in my back. As far as doing so illegally goes... Now tell me... Why was it illegal to leave the USSR? It's not illegal for me to leave Australia. I've done it many times. It wasn't illegal for my father to leave the UK. Or my mother to leave New Zealand. You get the idea. >> You could also leave workplaces in the USSR, you weren't obligated by the government to become something. The government didn't simply put a stamp on your head when you were born stating the profession you will occupy in the future. I have the impression you believe this is how things were.<< Here's the problem with totalitarian governments. What you say might be true... Right up until the govt decides it isn't. If the govt decided you should do something... What recourse did you have? Leave? Well that's one way to get shot. >>The iron curtain is not a wall, like the Berlin wall. It is an ideological barrier.<< Made of literal steel and cement. It was ALSO an ideological barrier. But it was most certainly a physical one. >>Alright, I'm done here, at this point I need sleep. Goodbye, fellow stranger from the internet.<< Have a good one. Enjoy defending turning entire countries into prisons.
    1
  880. PressurebussPipes & makesDiamonds you absolutely should judge organisations and ideas by their results. You should judge Christianity for the crusades. You should judge the catholic Church (in particular) for fostering paedophile, you should judge Islam for producing extremists.
    1
  881. PressurebussPipes & makesDiamonds if something shows a tendency to produce a particular negative result, then that thing is flawed and absolutely should be blamed. Results are far more important than intentions. This is why the road to hell isn't paved with good results.
    1
  882. Basically, it would work on a species that was very different to humans. We're all the descendants of people (and animals) that did whatever it took to maximise their chances for survival. What you'd almost need for this is a species shaped in a lab specifically for this purpose, and not a species shaped by billions of years of survival in what were frequently incredibly harsh environments. For it to work, everyone needs to just take their 'fair' share. As soon as someone takes more, someone else is going to take more, and others are going to do whatever it takes to ensure that they, at least, have enough. And boom. You'll be right back at Capitalism (and probably massively increased production)
    1
  883. Don't worry. Plenty more will make the same mistake as time goes on. Just watch South Africa.
    1
  884. Another empty comment.
    1
  885. Apparently a lot of people enjoy rotten meat and eating zoo animals.
    1
  886. Sondre Sandal those are capitalist social democracies. The only reason you see them listed among socialist successes is because there are no a Socialist successes. It would be like me saying homoeopathy is great, just look at how good the polio vaccine (also a liquid) is.
    1
  887. At one point, the world was one third socialist. Plenty of trading partners, if what you said was true. And yet, here we are. Plenty of excuses, but none but the barest of successes.
    1
  888. samy santarella  1. Evidence to support your idea that socialism isn't an inefficient model? Excuses aren't evidence. I can give plenty of side by side examples. I can also give the difference embracing capitalism made to one major country. 2. Evidence? Also, that's why we have anti monopoly legislation in Western countries. It works well. And for your last. That looks like a bunch of straw men. When have I claimed any of that?
    1
  889.  @samysantarella8287  I'm looking at results. Results demonstrated by your lack of examples. I don't care about the theory, I care about the real world. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it works. There are some individual things that can be better done publicly. Roads and water being two major ones. But those are enablers of an economy. They're not the means of production in themselves. Capitalism isn't fair, but what's more important? Fairness or overall results?
    1
  890.  @samysantarella8287  please enjoy your continued excuses for a system that's killed over 100 million and produced failure. Maybe the next hundred million will be enough. I'm sure one day, I'll understand why socialism is viewed as a legitimate ideology while Nazism is reviled. They should both be reviled at least equally.
    1
  891.  @samysantarella8287  you don't think a bad economic system can lead to mass deaths? Whether it's by gun, camp or starvation, dead is dead. And people have died because of capitalism, but there have been successes. Lots of them. All you have is excuses.
    1
  892.  @samysantarella8287  >>An economic system in and of itself is only abstract theory without the people who carry out its operations. An abstract economic theory in and of itself cannot kill a physical person unless a person does so by carrying out the operations in the system that correspond with that economic theory. That is undeniable unless you have excuses. << I don't need excuses. If people just ignored Socialism as a kooky idea, there'd be no problem. But they take it seriously, act as the idea says you should, and ends in mass deaths. >>billions. enjoy.<< So feel like laying out how you came to this billions number? While you do it, still waiting for those successes. I've got no problems giving Capitalist success stories. You've got excuses and conspiracy theories. And mountains of dead with nothing to show for it
    1
  893.  @samysantarella8287  nothing new, then. Well. If you've got nothing to say, that's all there is to it. Bad ideas are harmful when people act on them. This is true for all bad ideas, from socialism to homoeopathy to fanatical religion. But... Yeah. It's people who make things harmful. Although I'm not sure I agree with your implied suggestion that you need to wipe out the people who follow these beliefs to make them safe. That being said, if you wiped out all of today's socialists, you'd probably kill a smaller number than their forebears killed over he last century. Definitely far fewer than they killed and impoverished. And you've only made the statement of billions of deaths, with nothing to support it.
    1
  894.  @willnitschke  you could theoretically have democratic socialism. It's just that you inevitably get to a point the people don't want to continue with it and it's either give it up or become authoritarian.
    1
  895.  @willnitschke  by definition you can't have a round square. You could have democratic socialism. But the reality is you won't. You'll just have yet another dictatorship that's murdered X amount of its population, ruined its economy and achieved nothing. Maybe it'll work next time. My money is on a few million more corpses though.
    1
  896.  @will823  when has it done this in a sustainable way? (when I say sustainable, I'm not talking environmentally so much as don't be Venezuela or the USSR.) Keeping in mind that socialism is an economic system based on the removal of private ownership of the means of production. It's not taxpayer funded healthcare or education. Those are just the things a socialist economy was meant to pay for.
    1
  897. Capitalism has had failures, that's true. But it's also had successes. The road to Socialism has always ended in disaster. So. If you're playing Russian Roulette and given a choice between a six-shot gun with two bullets, and one with six, what do you choose? From the results/failures history, Socialism is the one with a fully loaded gun.
    1
  898. Bill Cipher long story short? No. No European state is socialist.
    1
  899. Yes. Redefine Socialism to mean Social Democracy and it comes out smelling like roses. #notrealsocialism
    1
  900. Excuses carry more weight when there are success stories. What socialist states have been successful?
    1
  901. Probably because she was a good student, but didn't see a reason to go out of her way to mangle words in her own language. When my Chinese wife speaks English, she doesn't say Chinese words with an Australian accent. It switches right back.
    1
  902. You know how you said socialist aspects instead of socialism? That's because they're not socialist. They simply use capitalism to pay for the nice things they socialists promised but failed to provide.
    1
  903.  @charlie1562  So why bother to mention non socialist countries. And given the number attempts, examples of successes are pretty thin on the ground. You go on about corruption, but it seems to be pretty part and parcel of the attempt. Venezuela isn't constitutionally bound, but it is making the attempt, which as we can see is hugely damaging. And it's not about being anti equality, it's about avoiding a failed economic theory that people who are obsessed with equality to the exclusion of all else, including raising overall living standards keep on wanting to try, despite the epic and continuing failures.
    1
  904. The attempt at Socialism was bad enough. It was made clear that investors in Venezuelan industry would be prevented from ever having a profit. You need to remember that this has happened before. Educated people (The people an economy needs) will realise this and get out. Which is what happened. And as time goes on, what's happening becomes increasingly clear to the less educated So basically it ends up driving people away in order of necessity. Next time some moron attempts this (I'm looking at South Africa) Venezuela will be on the list of reasons why the skilled workers, those who can run a business, etc, will leave ASAP. And they can leave. If you have a skill that's useful for a modern economy, or if you can successfully run a business, almost any country in the world will want you. It's the poor people Socialism is supposed to help who get hurt most by this. They can't leave, because no-one wants the,. So they're forced to deal with the mess (the creation of which they probably wholeheartedly supported)
    1
  905. No. It's an economic system that doesn't work. What do you think happens when a government doubles down on a really bad idea?
    1
  906. So it's not. Corruption is just the standard next step from attempting to implement it. Socialism hasn't been crushed, it's just worked as it always does. If there are exceptions (Nordic countries are Capitalist) please list them.
    1
  907. Social Security isn't Socialism. Socialism's about where the money comes from, not where the money goes. Social Security, public healthcare, etc, are simply the nice things that you can have when you can afford them. Capitalism is far more able to deliver the promises of Socialism than Socialism is. This being said, yeah, I'll agree that completely unrestricted, lawless Capitalism will end badly. Fortunately regulations on things such as truth in advertising (including product ingredients) health and safety, etc aren't incompatible with Capitalism. The only defining feature is private ownership of industry.
    1
  908. Cuba isn't Communist. It has a Communist party. That's very different. The label slapped on doesn't make the system. Cuba's Socialist. By definition. (Public. IE: State ownership of the means of production) Communism's a whole different kettle of fish that necessitates the abolition of money, class, government and so on. Cuba most certainly has these. Taxes from private industry aren't Socialism. Although the state-owned industry certainly qualified. Venezuela, as people correctly point out, was only 30% Socialist. However, the road to Socialism is damaging enough. Because people have seen how it pans out too many times. Those with skills, and education, and the means to leave get out of dodge. Those who remain (normally the ones the whole thing was meant to help) are left to try and keep the economy running. And frankly, if they were capable of keeping an economy running, they wouldn't have needed the help int he first place.
    1
  909. >>I particularly not against socialism, if it is done right, like in Europa. Or even better a democratic-socialism, like we are moving into in USA.<< These two lines show the basic reason so many people still support it. It's a problem with definitions. Europe does NOT have any Socialist states. Not since the Iron Curtain fell. (Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if Belarus counts as an exception. However, I'm not sure many would want to use Belarus to support them anyway) It has plenty of Social Democracies, but Social Democracy is very different to Democratic Socialism. A Social Democracy is about using the proceeds of Capitalism to increase equality. Socialism (Democratic or otherwise) is about public ownership of the means of production. There's a common ideological root with broadly overlapping goals (do nice things) but they're very different systems. Also: You can't implement Communism in a failing state. It's a system that basically requires unattainably high levels of perfection to implement on anything more than the smallest of scales.
    1
  910. What was an error, specifically?
    1
  911. Denmark isn't Socialist. Socialism is an economic model. Not just handing out free stuff.
    1
  912. Vaughn Bellwood  the only reason you say strictly speaking is because the last century has shown us it doesn't work. So the definition has expanded. Otherwise you've got 100 million dead with nothing to show for it. It's the same reason we've got socialism with Chinese characteristics. Because how could the party survive after openly admitting total failure in its main reason for being? The problem isn't with the nice things like free healthcare. Taxpayer funded healthcare is awesome. It's with the model what's expected to pay for it. Which is socialism. Which social services aren't. Venezuela didn't just try to introduce more social services, it tried to introduce socialism. Which Denmark isn't attempting.
    1
  913. Excuses mean more when there are success stories. As for the poor. You know how you're now talking about less than 10 a day? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File%3AWorld-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg That's because things have never been as good for so many as the are today. And those declines? Well. The first started around when Mao died. The bump and sudden rapid decline is around the fall of the USSR. The only things socialism is good for is keeping everyone equally poor and an excuse to attack the more successful. Also : https://www.businessinsider.com.au/global-daily-income-levels-2001-and-2011-2015-7 This is looking pretty good.
    1
  914. A socialist (who actually understands what he's supporting. Most don't) a neo Nazi. I know society thinks the former is better than the latter. Even noble. I can't think of a good reason why. The math says the socialist is worse.
    1
  915. Socialism is good for authoritarians. Now shut up and stop criticising from the cheap seats. She's in charge now.
    1
  916. Excuses carry more weight when there are success stories.
    1
  917. lol @ the person who says this who starts to cry and bluster when asked to define what he thinks Socialism is.
    1
  918. Maybe South Africa can be the one to make taking a giant shit on private property rights lead to a healthy economy.
    1
  919.  @willog3378  honestly? You sound young. Cut them loose. The last thing you need is people like that holding you back. It seems harsh, but they made their choice. You've got your own life to live.
    1
  920.  @willog3378  that takes balls. You'll do well. Just don't throw it away by studying the liberal arts. ☺️
    1
  921. At least as well as it did in Zimbabwe. I really have to wonder at the utter lunacy of anyone in any country neighbouring Zimbabwe who'd touch anything remotely similar to what they'd done.
    1
  922. Because it's always been #notrealsocialism And in the future, every time it fails, we'll look closely and see it was #notrealsocialism So it'll never fail.
    1
  923.  Adidas Nike  because of the if statement, that's actually true. But you might like to re read what I wrote. In a more cynical way.
    1
  924. It's simply the outcome that happens over, and over and over again. But hey, maybe the next attempt won't go down like this. Keep trying long enough and you'll have an omelette!
    1
  925. Ethan Paczkowski I read it. What we see is the real world result of trying to implement those ideas Good intentions don't always lead to good reality. We know that a lot of effort has been put into actually trying it. A lot of eggs have been broken. Where's the omelette?
    1
  926. Ethan Paczkowski firstly, the eggs are dead people. For the rest. I've got no doubt that people had your idea at some point. Yet... Dictatorship, dictatorship, dictatorship. You hang an ideal in your head that seems to be impossible to attain. Attempts to reach it only get to the same failure. Also: how do you have common ownership of the means of production without it being state managed? Particularly at first when the redistribution happens. Do people just walk in and take dibs?
    1
  927. Ethan Paczkowski you're talking a lot about a nice, fluffy, theoretical view that completely ignores every serious attempt made over the last century. In an alternate reality, maybe it could turn out as you say. In this reality... Where's the positive outcome when it's been attempted? At some point, you need to accept that the real world results matter more than what you think should have happened. Particularly when what you think should have happened never happens.
    1
  928. Why are you bringing up social democracies when talking about a state that's attempted socialism?
    1
  929. >>I agree that social services do not constitute socialism by themselves, although in American discourse they seem to be treated as such.<< My issue with that is a combination of 1984 and having a problem with letting idiots redefine words to suit their own agendas. I see the same thing with Creationists and what actually is Evolution. >>I think we're on the same page that a more classical definition of socialism would be a society where the means of production are owned by the workers<< Yep. Only thing I'll add is as represented by the govt. I don't say this as a criticism, I can't see another way it could work. Although it's worth pointing out the reason you're saying 'a more classic definition' is because people have put a lot of effort into redefining it. Basically because the more classical attempts have been epic failures. >>Personally, I see this as a much more equitable, just, and ultimately more sustainable system<< The 20th century suggests otherwise. The 21st century is doing a pretty good job of suggesting otherwise as well, but the night is young. Not holding my breath though. >>But this isn't really what most progressives in the US are fighting for<< Then you need to be part of the movement that gets progressives to learn the correct meanings of words. Because while they might be clueless on what the words they're supporting mean, you'll get some bastard like Chavez who knows exactly what they mean, and is happy to use the gullibility of people who don't seem to even be capable of cracking open a dictionary to their advantage. Might like to slap Bernie for the same. >>Taxes would, of course, pay for increases in welfare programs, and a reallocation of government budgets would also play a role (decreasing the bloated military budget, getting rid of senseless programs). Instituting universal healthcare and making college tuition-free doesn't get rid of markets and industry; a well-oiled and healthy economy would still be possible (and I would argue more sustainable).<< The 20th century has shown us two things: 1. Under Socialism, you're not going to decrease the military budget (except for when it's unaffordable due to economic collapse). 2. Under Socialism, you won't be able to afford the other nice things you mentioned. The USSR (Which was Socialist) spent 25% of its GDP on its military. Why? Because that's what you need to do when the system you're implementing isn't working. Look at how quickly the Eastern bloc collapsed when it became clear that Gorbachev wasn't going to send in the Soviet military to prop up the satellite states. >>Lastly, I know very little about Venezuela specifically, but I've read that private industry has played a huge role there.<< It did. In the past. Chavez and Maduro seemed to be of the opinion that you shouldn't profit. If you're not going to be able to profit, why would you setup a business? They also seemed to be of the opinion (This isn't just in line with Socialist principles, this is the basic definition of Socialism) that private ownership of industry was bad. Which meant that they were happy to take over a privately owned company. If what you've built up is just going to be taken away from you, why would you setup a business? Why take the risk? Capitalism works because it rewards risk. >>It seems to me that poor trade and economic policies, made possible by increasing authoritarianism and corruption, explains Venezuela's downfall more than it's attempt at socialism<< The attempt at Socialism was the direct cause of these things. Poor trade and economic policies - Socialism is an economic system. The policies they put in place were Socialist. Increasing authoritarianism - When something you're doing isn't working, you have two choices. Decide that the problem is with what you're doing, in which case, you give up. The second is decide it's the fault of everyone else... Which in this case, is uncooperative people. That's where dictatorship comes in. >>I really do think a form of socialism can work<< Maybe the next hundred million dead will reveal it. So... Four Hitlers worth of evidence instead of the two we've got today. Then maybe the next 200 million dead will reveal it. >>There may not be very many good examples (especially of non-authoritarian style movements), but the Catalonia region of Spain from 1936 to 1939 was very successful until Franco conquered them.<< So you've got a three year timespan that failed due to other reasons. The last century of attempts shows if Franco hadn't conquered them, they'd have gone the same way. From 1998 to 2001, Chavez wasn't doing too badly either. North Korea was doing better than South Korea up until about the 70's. >>I would suggest researching them if you haven't already.<< I have. In return, I'd suggest looking for something that's stood the test of time. Three years is how long it takes to do a Bachelors degree. Three years will take you from finding out about pregnancy to a being that's only just learnt to walk. It's nothing. 30 years isn't long enough. You need something that lasts generation after generation. Not just that, but actually shows demonstrable improvements. Not just over what it was, but over the alternatives. If the USSR hadn't collapsed, you'd have still been able to see the huge wealth disparity caused by a few meters of wall. (It's why the wall was needed, after all)
    1
  930. 'They found oil in the middle east so oil prices dropped' I'm just going to let that sit there for a bit......
    1
  931. Don't get me wrong, that wasn't the only thing wrong with your post. But it was so original everything else paled by comparison.
    1
  932. SWSimpson why don't you mention some? Just... Try not to confuse it with social democracy. Two very different things. Examples of social democracies include the Scandinavian countries you were about to mention.
    1
  933. Because Capitalism has successes. Lots of them. Every successful country is Capitalist. Socialism doesn't. Just a long list of expensive failures. 100 million dead and.... What is there to show for it? If I'm wrong, please list the countries that prove me wrong. Just make sure you don't whack in capitalist countries with welfare programs and attempt to pass them off as Socialist. That's bee done far too many times.
    1
  934. Victor The Hatchet to work, it needs to exist. No European state is socialist.
    1
  935. What's another twenty million dead? 😋️
    1
  936. It's still socialism. You're probably confusing democratic socialism with social democracy.
    1
  937.  @geobeach9129  the most important difference is missing though. It's still a bad economic system. The major upside is being a bit easier to walk away from when that becomes obvious. At some point, either the socialism bit will be dropped, or the democratic one will. It all depends on the reaction to the first people who decide they're building what they build for themselves.
    1
  938. Sweden isn't Socialist. It's a Capitalist country that invests heavily in Social Services. That's very different.
    1
  939. Thank you for confirming you don't know the difference between social democracy and socialism.
    1
  940. Socialism isn't technically incompatible with democracy. It's just that the choice tends to come down to people just voting to abandon it or the leaders doubling down and killing off democracy. (Remember how the Constituent Assembly was created?) Also, North Korea has elections. They don't mean much if they're not free and fair.
    1
  941. I'm sorry, what's this got to do with the US? Or Saudi Arabia, for that matter... Who's taking Venezuela ou... Ohh, I get it. No, Venezuela's problems have Venezuelan causes. Chavez, Maduro and the United Socialist party of Venezuela. That's it. As far as... What I can only assume set a price on their oil means.. Goes, no, they're not selling it for the price the US wants to pay, they're selling it at the price the market sets. Price was high. More investment came in. Price crashed (After Venezuela was having real problems, BTW)
    1
  942. Learn the difference between democratic socialist and social democracy.
    1
  943. be kimbal sorry, I was talking to David. Although if you still want it, sure.
    1
  944. lol, no it's not. It was failing while oil prices were at its peak. Search for articles from the beginning of 2014, which is while prices were near their peak. Stop trying to find excuses. The Venezuelan govt cocked up royally during as ideal conditions as it could have ever hoped for. It is incompetent. The drop in oil prices was simply the extra kick on the way down.
    1
  945. I wouldn't use them as a source, as they are biased. But even biased people can be correct when the facts are on their side. Where are they wrong?
    1
  946.  @crackerman0798  what if I told you the Venezuelan economy was falling apart while oil was over 100 a barrel?
    1
  947.  @crackerman0798  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 I wasn't talking about just inflation. That article is from the best part of a year before the price of oil dropped. And their socialist policies drove away investment. People invest to profit. They put effort into making profit impossible. As for what they want I suspect now the majority of them want fresh food, reliable water, electricity and healthcare. Edit: there's also the debts they ran up while underinvesting in the maintenance of their one source of income. I could get the same results as they did by mortgaging my house five times over and cutting off my left hand for money. Sure, I'd be living high for a while, then the debts come due.
    1
  948. The Venezuelan economic crisis started in 2013. The price of oil didn't crash until late 2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 At the time of this article, oil was over 100 a barrel. And you say it wasn't socialism, but you've shown you think a capitalist social democracy is socialist. Which shows you don't know what the word means. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism Oh, and when China was attempting socialism, the economy did collapse. Tens of millions starved to death.
    1
  949. ​ @benjaminsiddique2501  >>Robert Bray and as for China, like Steve Juhn mentioned, they have a good mix of socialism and capitalism<< The improvements were bought in by Capitalism. As for Socialism, the State Owned Enterprises are widely considered to be a massive drain on the economy that do nothing more than feather the nests of various politicians. >>which has given them one of the best economied in the world. << Scenario: I get cancer. It almost kills me. I'm weak as a kitten. I get a treatment that works very well. I recover. As a percentage, I'm going to increase in strength very quickly. Compare that with a champion athlete. I can do a 10% increase in strength in a week without effort. It takes the athlete massive amounts of effort to do this. China's economy isn't 'one of the best' it's recovering (and has massive problems to deal with, ranging from unregulated lending (those SOE's get preferential treatment from the banks, because they're run by other party members. Everyone else can go hang. so they need to use a shadow system) And yeah, they've got a trillion in bonds. Because of the massive problems they've got coming, that trillion will fade away pretty quickly. That's ignoring the huge environmental problems, and the fact that in the next decade or so, masses of people are hitting retirement age (largely working physical jobs. Education ground to a halt during the cultural revolution. Delaying retirement isn't an option) with not enough people to replace them. China is a Capitalist success story, but it's still a shit place. There's a reason they only focus on places like Shanghai and Beijing. (I've never been to Shanghai, so wouldn't mind going there. I won't touch Beijing anymore. My wife is from Shenyang, another place I won't voluntarily touch)
    1
  950.  @benjaminsiddique2501  >>Robert Bray actually the crisis didnt officially begin until 2016. Yes there were problems before, and thats because of bad leadership, not because of socialism. << Problems that would be considered massive in any other country, yet were utterly put in the shade by the clusterfuck that was to follow. >>Socialism is a very wide term so it depends on how you interpret it. Even PragerU says that democratic socialism is socialism. << Democratic Socialism is absolutely a form of Socialism. But you think that Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are the same thing. They're not. Social Democracy is descended from Socialism, and has the same broad goals (help poor people) but does it in a completely different way. It uses the proceeds of Capitalism to fight inequality. Social Democracy doesn't qualify as socialism under Socialism's fundamental definition.
    1
  951. Eccentric M.D. She's competing against the track record of socialist states over the past century. That's pretty difficult to beat. If those don't convince people it's a bad idea, I'm really not sure what else would.
    1
  952. Venezuela's problems were well and truly there while oil was at its peak. Try again.
    1
  953.  @hacked6613  it is unreasonable to cut your nose off to spite your face.
    1
  954. In fairness, that's just throwing the bad image on the pile. Which is why people almost always claim that capitalist social democracies are ex examples of socialism working. A severe shortage of the real thing. That shortage and the need for substitutes should show them what life in an actual socialist state is like.
    1
  955. Yeah. You wouldn't use this channel as a source in an argument. But they're not wrong in this case.
    1
  956. If you define socialism to mean capitalism paying for social services.... Sure... I mean, it isn't, but if you change words like that, then the dodo isn't extinct. There's heaps of them. Crawling all over the place with their scaly tails and sharp teeth...
    1
  957. Yes. If Socialism was never attempted, it wouldn't be a problem.
    1
  958.  @ralphbernhard1757  I know the blog entry you're talking about. I also know that if you believe that random blogger, you have no idea what you're talking about. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  959.  @ralphbernhard1757  you say you know your definitions, yet you start talking about social democracy as if it's the same thing as democratic socialism. They're not, which means you're either lying or you don't know your definitions. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  960.  @ralphbernhard1757  your history is bollocks and there are no European socialist states. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  961.  @ralphbernhard1757  you said there are many democratic socialist states in Europe. There are no socialist states of any kind in Europe. Democratic or otherwise. And your definition was cut off half way.
    1
  962.  @ralphbernhard1757  it's still half a definition. And I'm looking for the definition for socialism. I've seen the social democracy definition... It's weird. You can use it, but all it would mean is there are no social democracies in Europe. Not that there are European socialist states.
    1
  963.  @ralphbernhard1757  it's an economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned or managed. That is: no private ownership. China is capitalist as hell. The govt could theoretically intervene, but the reality is as long as the money comes in (and it doesn't challenge their power. Or compete with a friend) they'll turn a blind eye to almost anything. One of China's biggest problems is they don't enforce their positive regulations. Go and have a look at the daigou raiding the baby formula to see an effect of this.
    1
  964.  @ralphbernhard1757  communism is an entirely different kettle of insanity. And I think you're confusing potential with actions here. They can control, but over all, they don't Otherwise, all that means is that all dictatorships or authoritarian governments are socialist. Or all democratic ones, for that matter. Our own governments can quite easily step in and take control. They just don't. Which makes it a meaningless synonym for government.
    1
  965.  @ralphbernhard1757  If you want to abandon that line, you may feel free. As far as Venezuela goes: 1. Excuses carry more weight when there are successes. Socialism has a well established history of being a costly failure. China is a brilliant example of this. 3. China's economic success is despite Socialism, not because of it. 4. Yes, the US did do bad things in South America. But that doesn't change that this is a well travelled route for Socialist states, wherever it's been tried. Which is why the best successes that people can come up with are China, where tens of millions starved while they attempted to make it work (and which started a rapid recovery under Capitalism. The scars remain though) Cuba, which has some specific things that are comparable to the crappier Western countries, but fails to deliver the whole package, and most damningly, Capitalist social democracies, which have demonstrated time and time again that Capitalism is better at delivering on the promises of Socialism than Socialism ever has been.
    1
  966. >>But China abandoned communism and changed to socialism. China abandoned communism (in other words the COMPLETE exclusion of private property and production) and changed to socialism (note, that socialism does not EXCLUDE private property or enterprise. It just controls it). If you wish, call socialism "communism light". China is a "socialist state".<< No, China abandoned Socialism and changed to Capitalist. What they've got now is 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' The 'Chinese characteristics' are that it's really capitalism. The Communist party had caused tens of millions of dead amd had impoverished hundreds of millions more in its attempt to make Socialism work. Do you think that if they openly said they had abandoned Socialism, there'd still be a Communist party? You've essentially been fooled by their marketing. Which was the intent. Otherwise, they'd have been murdered by now. >>Capitalism is something completely different. In the US, government does not "control" the "means of production". China DOES.<< China has far fewer restraints on what the govt CAN do. CAN != Does. >>How much do you actually know about China? << I've been going over regularly since 2004, I speak a bit of the language, my wife is a former party member (She was kicked out when she married me) my parents spent a decade working there. I'm waiting on a visa for Hong Kong. What's your experience? >>In China, you cannot do anything without the omnipotent "party". It's like an octopus, and it's EVERYWHERE.<< They're not gods. They're not omnipotent. It's trying to be everywhere, but that's a touch difficult >>Have you looked into the Chinese internet by any chance? LOL, no of course not. << An assumption that helps keep your level of correctness fairly consistent. >>You can't, because the Party CONTROLS that. Everything.<< Tries to. Does a good job of it. However, the main thing is to keep an impression of being watched and monitored. Self censorship is better than external censorship. >>China IS a socialist state.<< More no than yes. Far more no. You seem to have this cartoonish view of them. Again: They're not gods. They're mortals. They do a lot, but they're a long, long way from infallible. >>It has simply cherry-picked a "best of capitalism" list (for example "internet companies"), and then FIERCELY controls it. << Yep. They had to cherry pick because they're simply not powerful enough to control everything. You think they WANT to allow people to dig grease out of gutters to sell to customers? Even dictators needs to keep the needs of their power base in mind. I'm not skipping a bunch of stuff because it seems to be based more off your own mental stereotype than off reality. Your view of dictators is cartoonish. >>What happened to google in China?<< It was redirected to Google Hong Kong via a placeholder image. http://www.google.cn/ It's still usable. Although they do frequently mess with it. One of the ways is by making an annoyingly large proportion of connections reset. That makes the service unreliable and moves them towards others. They also do deep packet inspection for certain keywords, and kill connections that contain them. Which is one of the reasons we're starting to see SSL encryption everywhere. >>Look at a definition of capitalism. Government sets some rules and regulation (aka red tape), but basically it's up to private organisations and businesses (also individuals) to go out there and start their ideas.<< China is chock full of small privately owned businesses. Started by people who've done just that. Have you ever been? >>Do you have a large business? Who controls this business on a daily basis? You or Washington?<< Except for State Owned Enterprises, the party does not control businesses on a daily basis. They do have party officers in large businesses, but that's something that steps in when stuff gets political, rather than the party managing the business.
    1
  967.  @pania3952  It's a country that's trying to be socialist, which is damaging enough.
    1
  968. Because we live in democracies that contain people who both have the right to vote and think this is a good idea.
    1
  969. Dictatorships aren't incompatible with socialism. One is how much power an individual has, the other is an economic model.
    1
  970. Vince Marianbores attempts at socialism have a tendency to devolve into dictatorships. You're probably confusing social democracy with socialism.
    1
  971. Vince Marianbores they're also not socialist. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  972. Vince Marianbores that's an evasion. Want to try again? And chances are I've seen the blog that's the first result on a Google search for that list. If you compare it with what socialism is, you quickly realise it's a crap list.
    1
  973. I've noticed that's fairly common. Like, my wife is Chinese. When it comes to a Chinese place name, she doesn't pronounce it like an English speaker. Because why would she?
    1
  974. Because it's working out so well for the workers?
    1
  975. Chiquilin Marx well you don't need to work about the bourgeoisie any more. They're broke. Anyway, what do you think does benefit the workers? And how do you define the workers?
    1
  976. China is Capitalist. Now. Where do you think it got the money to buy up Venezuela?
    1
  977. I'm guessing you're American. As an Australian, I've got more of a reason to dislike it than you do. Historically, in the USA, the states were far more sovereign than they are now. The same was kind of true in Australia before federation, but not nearly as true. It could be argued that state is a more appropriate term to use for sovereign nations than how it is used in either of our countries.
    1
  978. None of those countries you listed are socialist.
    1
  979. >>Those are the primary examples where it has worked<< So... The primary examples of where Socialism has worked is countries where Socialism isn't implemented? >>Hybrid governments with large scale social services operating alongside a market-driven economy result in highest quality of life for the most amount of people<< That's not Socialism. Socialism isn't about handing out free stuff. It's about an economy based on public ownership of the means of production. It's about who owns where wealth comes from. Not who owns where wealth goes >>The only examples of PURE capitalist economies, e.g. UK during the onset of the industrial revolution, pre-Depression USA, also failed.<< Yep. Laissez faire isn't a good idea. However, socialism isn't simply everything that's not lawless capitalism. >>So there isn't any historical example of either form of government succeeding in its purest, distilled form, but most modernized nations in the EU which provide social services as extreme as universal healthcare and publicly funded higher education blow the US out of the water in almost every category except military might.<< They're not Socialist, though. Social Democracy isn't Socialism. The difference is the basis of the economy. >>Don't misunderstand my defense of Democratic Socialism as complete rejection of capitalism<< You're not defending Democratic Socialism. You're defending Social Democracy. Which uses Capitalism to pay for nice stuff. >>The only way to pave the way for a true Marxist society is through heavy use of capitalism driving technology to a point where it can sustain that.<< Yeah. Maybe Star Trek is correct. But the same wonderings have killed twice as many as Hitler so far. >>Given the increasing extent to which BIG (basic income guaranteed) is being discussed (even in the US) and the fact that jobs are being lost to automation by the thousands each year, it's only a matter of time before one of two things occurs: Mass extermination of unskilled laborers who can no longer provide for themselves because any job functions they could perform are gone to robots.<< So, fun fact. People in Welfare in the US are in the top 20% of earners, and would have been considered very prosperous when Marx was using his time being unemployed to write his books. >>Mass extermination of unskilled laborers who can no longer provide for themselves because any job functions they could perform are gone to robots. OR Socialist policies increasing at a rapid pace to sustain this population.<< We're coming back to the difference between socialism and social democracy here. Keep the industry Capitalist. Use the wealth it provides for nice stuff. Simple. And not Socialist. >>We will see one of these in the next century, guaranteed.<< Just like we saw it during the Industrial revolution. Educations improved. Jobs changed. One big one that's coming is the rapid increase in the age of our populations. What we'll also see in the next couple of decades is an unprecedented proportion of our populations being needed to take care of the elderly. At that point, we'll be thankful for every increase in productivity automation allows that we've got.
    1
  980. In general, if you're wishing for a utopian future of govt run technology companies providing all the things people need to survive, you need to temper your expectations. Largely because: Governments suck at technology. They're truly awful. I manage computer networks. The worst networks I've ever worked on were for government organisations. It wasn't just that the setup was bad... In many ways, it wasn't. But the culture surrounding the technology is just completely toxic. That they're risk averse to the point of insanity is just the start. I don't mean 'things work well, so don't change them' risk averse. I mean, on a highly flawed, unreliable systems, whose failure would have reached international news, they refused to allow us to apply recommended updates (to fix the issues) because they could introduce NEW problems. Inaction was blameless. It took everyone's cooperation to do nothing. Action carried risk. It could end in blame being attached to a specific person. So nothing was done. I found out earlier in the year that the cost of this crashing at the wrong time (it crashed many times. We got lucky) was estimated at about 100 million a day. There'd have been no way we'd have been able to do any sort of recovery within two hours, and they knew it.
    1
  981. I hadn't considered it much, but from looking into it, they hadn't gone balls deep like Venezuela had. There's enough capitalism to keep things running. Plus I'm not seeing any evidence of price controls. Which were a major killer in Venezuela. If you're forced to sell below cost, why sell anything at all?
    1
  982. https://fee.org/articles/why-bolivia-is-not-a-socialist-success-story/ This is probably a biased source, but what it says looks reasonable. If anything is incorrect, I'd be interested to take a look at it.
    1
  983.  @krazykris9396  so basically. Venezuela has tried to be socialist. It failed. Bolivia, etc didn't try to be socialist. They did ok.
    1
  984.  @krazykris9396  most aren't from what I've seen here. They just have this idea that it's something generally nice that involves taxing the rich.
    1
  985. Socialism works if the government isn't corrupt? Do you have some examples? Do you have examples of Democratic Socialism working? Keep in mind that any mentions of Capitalist countries will be jumped on. And Capitalism without a Socialist base works wonderfully. Private ownership and industry is generally an awesome thing to encourage (The exception being natural monopolies such as water, telecommunications infrastructure and electricity)
    1
  986. And Capitalism. With the (normally) attached respect for personal property. Norway isn't a Socialist country.
    1
  987. Riga Fraction lol. Going to give us your definition of socialism? Or just continue to bluster and pretend your fake list is accurate? Not even China is still socialist (socialism with Chinese characteristics is capitalism) . Let alone the others.
    1
  988. >>Hugo Chavez halved poverty in Venezuela<< If I mortgage my house to the hilt and quit my job, I'll have a pretty good life. It wouldn't be an act of genius, though, it would be an act of lunacy. That's what Chavez did. He killed off his country's industry and borrowed to the hilt to give some temporary improvement. Now the people he did this to are left with a collapsed economy, >> and by the way, your facts about the press are extremely false. You claim you know everything, but you present false facts. << Anything specific? >>And also Venezuela could become a great socialist nation, but it still has Capitalist economy as it is dominated by the private sector.<< The move towards Socialism is damaging enough. >>You are obviously damaged in some way, i'm sorry for saying that, but it's true<< Do you have any examples of Socialist states actually working successfully?
    1
  989. Yeah, I mean, it's not perfect, there are still problems, but over all, at least in reasonably competent hands, it works. If someone asks me for a list of Capitalist successes, I can easily point them to lots of them. None of them perfect, but still pretty damn good. Whereas attempting Socialism is just failure after failure after failure.
    1
  990. People have tried to make it a wide term by conflating it with taxpayer-funded social services in a capitalist economy. But while it is an umbrella, the reality is far more limited. Case in point, there are no socialist countries in Europe.
    1
  991. Fluff  well I had. And the USSR and North Korea weren't communist. You can tell because they had money, government, classes, etc Communism is an ideal system that was meant to come after socialism. They were/are socialist. What do you think socialism and communism are?
    1
  992. Mike Andrews sounds like the basis for a reality TV show. What happens when you put a bunch of economic retards into a country run by more economic retards? Shit is about to get real!
    1
  993. Norway's GDP per capita is $70k USD US's is $57k And: Again, if for no other reason than it makes you go quiet when it's pointed out: Norway isn't socialist. Read up on what socialism is. Hint: It's not free healthcare.
    1
  994. It is easy to define. The countries you just mentioned are social democracies. Not democratic socialist states. Completely different. It's just that it's such a failure, people have spent decades trying to redefine it. To make it more appealing than the unmitigated failure it turned out to be.
    1
  995. It'll work next time. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs... One day there might even be an omelette to show for it. Maybe. It's not impossible.
    1
  996. No, it's made the attempt. Which is damaging enough.
    1
  997. loslobos no, communism is the next step that involves getting rid of government, the nation, money, class, etc. This is socialism.
    1
  998. bovnyccc operalover he's saying national socialism worked... Possibly because it was destroyed by invading armies after starting a massive war and being invaded. This being said, Hitler didn't care about economics all that much. Which did put him ahead of people who were obsessed with economic ideas that simply didn't work. Kind of like how I don't care about my diet, which puts me streets ahead of someone who thinks coke is a health drink that should be consumed in vast quantities.
    1
  999. ludvig2733 it isn't.
    1
  1000. The country was having severe problems while oil was at its peak in January 2014. Oil didn't crash until mid 2014. The only reason you could blame it for that is they figured that oil would always be enough and didn't care about anything else... While they were stripping investment away from the oil industry. It failed because Chavez, Maduro and their party are economic retards.
    1
  1001. UltimateSocialist Correct. Not doing Socialism at all is doing Socialism right. That's the only interpretation I can put on that, as those countries aren't socialist.
    1
  1002. UltimateSocialist they also have lots of kryptonite. If we're redefining words, they've got lots of things they wouldn't have otherwise. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  1003. UltimateSocialist and I'm asking what you think socialism is.
    1
  1004. Ëë Mage none of the western countries you mentioned are socialist. Chavez working to bring private industry under state control was very much socialism. As for the corruption... A common feature of countries that attempt this.
    1
  1005. Ëë Mage you're right, I misread. I apologise. At least for the western countries bit. The rest... Corruption does go hand in hand. It happened over and over again. Sure, no country is corruption free. But there's very definitely different levels. And you seem to be mixing democratic socialism with social democracy. Similar aims. Very different means. You also speak as if dictator and socialism are mutually exclusive. They're not. One is an economic system, the other is the measure of power a single individual has. Whatever the theory, attempts at socialism have led to dictatorships over and over and over again.
    1
  1006. Poland. At least Venezuela went into this voluntarily. Poland had bad neighbours.
    1
  1007. Socialism is an economic model. It's about how wealth is created. You can't run an economy on free stuff. It's not just handing out stuff that's taxpayer funded. It's about who owns the tools are meant to create wealth. Venezuela's economy didn't collapse because they have free healthcare, it collapsed because Chavez and Maduro decided private ownership of wealth creating industry was the enemy. Abolishing that is the basic goal of any socialist because public ownership of the means of production is the basic definition of the word. Social Democracy isn't democratic socialism. It's capitalist. Broadly similar goals, but very different means of achieving those goals.
    1
  1008. Joaquin Lopez excuses work better if you can point to successes. At the moment, the only things people have in defence of socialism are excuses and capitalist social democracies.
    1
  1009. Joaquin Lopez you can look away from eastern Europe.
    1
  1010. I moved to Hong Kong. In Australia I was in the 47 percent bracket. In Hong Kong I'm playing 15 percent. Australia is getting 47 percent of nothing now. What do you think happens to a country when the net taxpayers start to leave? Also, what do you think Socialism is? It's not just taxpayer funded stuff.
    1
  1011. In fairness, I don't think Venezuela is in a condition to take on the rest of Latin America, let alone the world. Germany had lost a war and wanted revenge. What happened to Venezuela was caused by Venezuela.
    1
  1012. Luis Calderari what about it? Capitalism isn't a magic bullet that will always work. It's a tool that has a lot that can be said against it. It's unfair, it allows failure, I can't be bothered doing the rest of the litany from a phone. Its single redeeming feature is that it works. There are plenty of successes. Can you name a socialist state that works? If you do, you'll be the first I've come across. People normally name capitalist countries like Sweden, Norway, Canada, etc because they don't know the basic definition of the word, leading them to think that social democracy is the same as democratic socialism.
    1
  1013. Luis Calderari poverty in Western countries is very different to poverty in others. Someone who is on welfare in the US is in the global top 20 percent. And it was working well compared with what? Is needing to turn itself into a literal prison to stop people leaving a sign it was working well?
    1
  1014. Luis Calderari yeah. The entire western world improved since 1918. Dramatically. It wasn't something unique to the USSR. Simple technological advancement. And.... Where to go... Hmm... There's West Germany, giving unfettered access to western Europe for a start. If there was no reason to leave, why build the wall in the first place? And why such elaborate inward - pointing defences?
    1
  1015. Luis Calderari you know how I pointed out the direction the wall's defences pointed in? That was in anticipation of this sort of response. The wall was intended to keep people in. Not keep them out. Also: the Soviets very much wanted Berlin in its entirety. And the Berlin wall wasn't the entire wall. Just the most famous part. Edit: as for trying to keep westerners out, I'm subscribed to a mid century advertising group in FB. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4utjx9b0qfct73m/.facebook_1532237579410.jpg?dl=0 Today, you can holiday in North Korea easily enough. You only have problems getting in or out of you're north Korean. Just don't steal a poster.
    1
  1016. Luis Calderari and why didn't they want their people to visit capitalist countries? (so badly that they invested in a wall) As for being there for a military threat.... Remember how I mentioned the direction they were pointed in? (twice) Those weren't defences against the west. I'm also interested in further exploring your remarks about Berlin. What did you mean there exactly?
    1
  1017. Luis Calderari I've re read that a few times, and can't see an answer to anything I'd actually asked.
    1
  1018. Isac Jonsson it's not.
    1
  1019. What do you think socialism is? I mean, the definition.
    1
  1020. I'm going to take reality over the theory. The reality is that socialism and corruption to hand in hand.
    1
  1021. Have numbers and sources?
    1
  1022. And then it went into economic collapse and the country split apart. With borrowing being done to pay the interest on the massive loans. To be successful, it needs to last longer than that.
    1
  1023.  @arijanskreblin4105  and then collapsed. It lasted 50 years. Where is it now? For something like this to be successful, it needs to stand the test of time.
    1
  1024. What successful socialist states are there?
    1
  1025.  @benjaminsiddique2501  why would you want me to limit his responses?
    1
  1026. >>Its funny because venezuela is 2/3rd of the private sector which is MORE then most counties in Western Europe<< Most countries in Western Europe have a healthy respect for private industry, which encourages investment, which allows them to pay for a large array of public services. The Venezuelan govt decided that private industry and profit was the enemy. >>Chavez helped increase literacy rates reduce poverty and starvation and doubled the GDP<< How sustainable was all this? >>The reason whyVenezuela is the way it is is because since Venezuela heavily relied on oil industry, when oil prices crashed the country’s economy could not diversify enough so the economy suffered<< The Venezuelan economy was crashing when oil was at its peak. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 This article is from the best part of a year before the drop in prices. >>Manipulation and corruption of prices led corporations without enough profits so they either left<< Socialism will do this. >>or restricted the supply<< If you're forced to operate at a loss, everything you do is costing you money. What would you do in that case? >>and shockingly, purposely withheld bountiful amount so food from the public<< So... 1. Create food (which costs money) 2. Store food (which costs money. Also, food has a tendency to rot) 3. ??? 4. Profit. >>So while you may criticize Chavez for not being able to diversify the economy due to spending oil revenues on social programs. hats not an inherit problem of socialism because Venezuela isn’t socialist<< IT's a country attempting to be socialist. Which is damaging enough. As we can see. >>Prices are nationalized profits are privatized thats why there “no food” even though there’s plenty thats being withheld by corporations so stop believing false narratives << How do corporations profit from not selling stuff? They can reduce losses by not producing stuff (the answer? Make it possible to profit) but why create it and not sell it? Can you name any successful Socialist states?
    1
  1027. You say that like it would be worse than the current situation....
    1
  1028. Jeff Zebert I can't see the difference.
    1
  1029. Andrew Trejo as much as I agree on the first point, the second point is nothing compared with the loyalty of your own militarily to the people rather than the individuals in power.
    1
  1030. Pizza de Veterano when has it been done well?
    1
  1031. >>Haliax ever heard of Martin shkrelli or epipen? Prices increased more than tenfold for drugs that people depend on to not die. Such prices do not exist in first world countries that have socialized healthcare<< They do, they're just not obvious to the end user. (As long as they're covered) "As of September 2016, two EpiPens cost around $100 in France and around $200 in Germany.[40]" Not as bad, but still a huge increase. Epipen was a disgrace, BTW. This all being said: What's worse? The drug being expensive? Or the drug not being available at all? Expensive medicine = more investment in medicine (because it's profitable.) = more things that can be treated. The only difference between a person dying of lack of a drug that could have existed but doesn't and a person dying because that person couldn't afford medication is the latter makes a better news story.
    1
  1032. Yes. And if there was no monopoly for X duration, why do you think the company would have bothered to make them? A major part of the expenses a medical research company has are the failures. If other companies were able to simply wait and immediately capitalise on any success, while avoiding the risk of failure, there'd be no incentive to try to develop them. The company that developed Y drug or device would simply be immediately undercut. You might not like it, but the choices are: A. The company that researches medicines gets a good ROI (enough to make it an attractive area, fund future R&D and cover the cost of failures) B. No medicine R&D. In the case of B: Sure, there'd be no-one dying because they couldn't afford a particular medicine. But there'd be plenty dying because a particular medicine didn't exist. But hey, at least it would be equal opportunity death.
    1
  1033. >>Robert Bray your assumption that capitalism is the only driver of technological development is pretty laughable...<< Laugh all you like. It's easier than actually trying to demonstrate how I'm wrong. No, Capitalism isn't the only driver of technological development. But can you name a better? With real world examples. Before you say the Internet. Yes, that was a government one. However, what made the Internet big was the money it represented once everyone got on board. The other example I normally see is the moon landing, which was great and all, but.... It's difficult to say that in itself has really benefited people. It was very much a propaganda victory (that did have some nice side effects. Like Velcro and memory foam) The fact is that money is a wonderful incentive to do things. The more money involved, the bigger the incentive.
    1
  1034. >>Dr Boggle other countries have the same patents and the prices are far less expensive. Just stop talking about things you have not studied in depth.<< Publicly funded subsidies doesn't mean it's less expensive, so much as the individual person using them sees a cheaper receipt. Although this being said: Yes, it is less expensive in some of these countries. But it's still way above what it cost to produce.
    1
  1035. >>Robert Bray and the countries with lower prices for drugs have socialized healthcare systems. Do you believe that the American model of healthcare is the correct one?<< Generally nope. I'm a big fan of public healthcare. I won't give a blanket response, as the "correct" model depends very much on specific circumstances. But that doesn't change what I'd said. Also: Socialised healthcare, pay as you go healthcare, it's still being paid for. The only difference is you don't see it on the receipt, but as higher taxes. Also, I can't help but notice you've made no attempt to demonstrate how I'm wrong. Thanks to the potential for profits (sometimes obscene profits) we have many drugs we otherwise wouldn't have had. Sure, people are dying because they can't afford some medicines. More people would die if the medicine didn't exist at all.
    1
  1036. >>Robert Bray - The point is you tried blaming 'high prices' on capitalism, but it is really a result of government protectionism<< Your example of government protectionism was patents, which are there to ensure that a company that researches a product has time to profit from that product. I pointed out why the patents are there, and asked questions you refused to answer. Maybe you could answer the question asked. Why would companies bother to research products if other companies were simply free to profit from the risk they took as soon as something successful was produced? >> Socialist countries could not get Epipens for less than the company was willing to sell them for, and they don't have the market incentive to develop them themselves, so why do you claim they are unaffected by the prices US companies charge?<< You're going to need to quote me on this one. >>They pay for them, that's why their tax rates are so high - to cover all that expensive US medicine they import.<< I won't disagree with that. You seem to be arguing something I never said. Please re-read what I said, and actually quote what you're replying to. As it stands now, it looks like you're simply strawmanning (I could be wrong, but I can't see where I've said any of the stuff you've mentioned)
    1
  1037. That is something that makes text annoying.
    1
  1038. Jacktuckcan PranksterGangster no. By definition. There's no government in a communist society. Don't let the titles of various socialist parties fool you.
    1
  1039. >>Paris Commune<< From looking at how unchecked drives to Socialism go.... It's more likely that the Paris Commune's two months of life wasn't enough time for it to implode. Even the USSR took 70 years. Venezuela has taken the best part of two decades.
    1
  1040. Ok, you whine about neutrality. But is anything in the video incorrect? Whataboutism is meaningless. The US being imperfect has no impact on the dystopian shithole that those morons have turned the country into.
    1
  1041. Not A Mexican I used to think that this sort of vague comment would be followed by examples of where they are incorrect. Now I know better.
    1
  1042. Nope. It appears that this comment will not be the exception to an otherwise pretty solid rule.
    1
  1043. Self inflicted. There's been no lack of examples over the last century why this is an incredibly bad idea, but people keep doing it. Latest case in point being south Africa. A country that borders Zimbabwe going down the exact path that ruined Zimbabwe.
    1
  1044. STEM subjects are fine. Don't have any choice BUT to deal with facts in those. Which is why they're where the money is.
    1
  1045. Miguel Plata firstly, the two things consistently go hand in hand. Over and over again. Secondly, part of this was caused by driving out private investment. This is very much a requirement for socialism.
    1
  1046.  @robbedeboer2728  what's wrong with this video? It seems more like the cure to AOC. Say what you like about Trump. The economy is doing well. Something your standard Socialist will go out if its way to screw up.
    1
  1047.  @robbedeboer2728  before Chavez came to power, there were also zoos that hadn't been raided for protein. What lasting improvements (health and medical don't count when they're without resources) had Chavez made that justifies the current clusterfuck? Also, that freely elected thing went out the door when the constituent assembly was made irrelevant after the people gave the wrong answer. And what hope do the Venezuelan people have now?
    1
  1048.  @robbedeboer2728  so... The people voted for a very, very near 2/3 opposition parliament. (sorry, mixed the national assembly and the constituent assembly earlier) Then the very next political day, supported making that invalid and filled it with 100 percent Maduro supporters. Who do you expect to believe that? As for the oil, the were having major problems while oil was at its peak. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 The price of oil didn't drop until almost a year later. Anyway. I like how you evaded my question about what improvements have made our worthwhile and offered an excuse instead. Very telling.
    1
  1049. You've done a pretty good job of highlighting that you don't know what Socialism is. Also, he didn't mention Communism. So.... If you want to see what ignorance looks like, a mirror would be handy in your case.
    1
  1050. Marc Harwell where are they wrong?
    1
  1051. I'd rather have breakfast at Milliways. Because that's what you do after you've done six impossible things.
    1
  1052. Fascists, Socialists. I've really stopped seeing the effective difference. When either gets into power, things go downhill.
    1
  1053. It's all relative. Were people raiding zoos for protein?
    1
  1054. Game and Watch if you see a bus coming at you, you step out of the way. Because you know what will happen next. Well. Similar here. The skilled workers, business owners, investors, the people an economy needs could see what was coming. They left before things got really bad. That's not the entire story, but it's an example of the damage done by the simple intention to become socialist. If something has a 100 percent failure rate (don't believe me? Look at the examples of successes people give better. Capitalist countries all the way) then an intelligent person assumes it's a good idea to get out while he still can. Next time this happens, Venezuela will be added to that long list of reasons.
    1
  1055. Game and Watch they're suffering because the government kept trying to make the country socialist, and the people who produce things were unable to make a profit, leading them to stopping (either by choice (cutting their losses) or because they couldn't afford to continue) Plus the skilled workers, business owners, etc are welcome anywhere. So they did what was best for them and left. Economies rely on people who can make money. Edit :seriously though, with quotes, how did you get they conclusion out of what I said?
    1
  1056. Game and Watch I'm really going to need you to quote me here. What you're replying to seems to have very little relation to what I'm saying
    1
  1057. Game and Watch because it was best for them..... I literally answered the question in the part you quoted... Surely you make your own decisions in the same way. Not just big ones, but little ones, like leaving through the front door instead of jumping out the second floor window. Right?
    1
  1058. Game and Watch that is part of the reason it had problems, yes. Part of the reason. I'd given a major other part of the reason in the post I mentioned this, but you seem to have passed over that. I'm guessing you haven't heard of a brain drain before. Also, I said skilled workers. They're more likely to be intelligent than unskilled, but the distinction is important for accuracy.
    1
  1059. Game and Watch how do you figure?
    1
  1060. Game and Watch what does that have to do with your last post? Or my response? I'm ok to go the full circle again, but this time please try responding to what's actually said. You got a bit weird there. First two questions in this post first, though.
    1
  1061. Game and Watch that's nonsense that does nothing more than shows the bus metaphor in my first response was too complex for you.
    1
  1062. Yes. If only they hadn't sabotaged the private sector and driven out the people who actually knew how to run a business.
    1
  1063. Probably Would it help the rest of the surrounding states that suddenly had to pay for Venezuela's mistakes? Not at all. This is why South Korea really doesn't want NK back. Getting that country back to normalcy is going to be incredibly expensive.
    1
  1064. None of those are socialist countries. Some used to be. They're recovering from it.
    1
  1065. These problems long predate the crash in oil prices. The price crash was the extra kick on the way down. Search for news articles about Venezuela from January 2014. The price crash didn't occur until about August.
    1
  1066. Excuses carry more weight if you've got some examples of Socialism working. Otherwise, it just looks like the consistent outcome of a bad ideology. If you give examples, please try to actually provide Socialist countries. People have an alarming tendency to mention Social democracies, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. All that really says is they've got no idea of what they're supporting.
    1
  1067. >>+Robert Bray true libertarian socialism has only existed in small quantities in small areas and for small amounts of time before being crushed by more powerful forces who were against their existence (usually either the United States or the Soviet Union)<< So this would be an excuse. Not a success. >>Here are some examples though: the nation of Rojava today<< Even Venezuela lasted longer than it's been around. When the war in Syria ends, you'll see it go the way of the Israeli Kibbutz. At best, people will simply lose interest and walk away. >>Hungary in the 1950s<< Until.. Excuse. >>Nicaragua during the time of the Sandinista government<< Until... Excuse >>and several powerful anarchist communes during the Spanish civil war.<< Until... Excuse. >>But you are right, it has been an uphill battle for the cause to liberate the workers<< Something that, so far, has only happened sustainably in Capitalist countries. If you disagree, I'm going to need more info on what you mean by 'liberate the workers' >>so it isn't always easy to tell if socialism works or what kind works better.<< Well.... So far, you've listed a state that's been around for about six years and is better than a war zone. Six years into Chavez, things were looking peachy as well. >>But it is extremely apparent that if capitalism does work, it works only for negative outcomes<< Really? You've got shelter, electricity, food (famine is largely a thing of the past.) >>since over 20 million people a year die from causes that capitalism could prevent but won't<< Here's one key thing you said here: Could prevent. Whereas Socialism has shown itself to be incapable of preventing them. That being said, for preventing premature deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy You're going a long way down before you hit the first non-Capitalist country. It's also worth noting that you're not saying "caused" you're saying "could prevent, but won't" There's doubtless lots of deaths that occur each year that you, personally, could prevent, but won't. There's probably also lots of things that could alleviate poverty that you're personally against. If Nike sets up a sweatshop and pays voluntary workers what you consider to be a pittance (but is still better than anything else they can get), it seems likely that you'd be up in arms about it and be campaigning to get them to shut it down. If not you, then someone like you. Lots of children have been driven into prostitution because of people like that. The sweatshop has bought far more people out of poverty than good intentions has over the last century. >>and capitalism causes economic turmoil, extreme inequality, a lack of liberty, and large scale environmental destruction<< You're projecting a bit. Socialist attempts have an extremely strong tendency to produce all of those things. If you're going to say X is worse than Y, you can't just produce a list of bad things that happen under X that also happen under Y over and over again. And there are worse things than inequality. Namely everyone being equally poor. Now, this all being said. Yes, bad things happen under Capitalism. But Capitalism has success stories. Lots of them. >>So it may be time for something different.<< The last hundred million dead wasn't enough. Maybe the next hundred million will be. Or the hundred million after that.
    1
  1068. @River Cheney >>Not sure about eating zoo animals<< From the lack of people who've been able to answer that question, it's a safe bet they weren't. >>but a lot of the hyperinflation has been caused by reliance on oil by the government<< Hyperinflation (which it wasn't until recently) isn't caused by relying on oil. It's caused by printing more money than the real things your economy is doing can support. It's possible for the Venezuelan govt to stop inflation (almost) tomorrow. Stop printing money. >>and US sanctions making the whole situation worse.<< Doubtful. At the moment, they're prioritising repaying debt (of which there is shitloads. Despite a decade of the best oil prices they could ever hope for) over everything else. Sanctions would affect the debt and the swiss bank accounts. >>Chavez cut the amount of poverty by a third,<< Poverty is at 90% So... Not that much in the way of longevity. If I mortgage my house to the hilt to five independent people, and sell one of my hands to science (he didn't reinvest in his one source of income. Oil infrastructure is costly to maintain) I could have a pretty damn impressive life... Until the bills came due. >>and a lot of the oil money went towards social programs; things that actually lift people out of poverty,<< But not things that keep people out of poverty. >>not "but muh capitalism".<< Which is a system that keeps people out of poverty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg That right there is Capitalism being successful. You can see when the USSR fell and China abandoned the attempt at Socialism. >>The country was most certainly not a democracy before Chavez, more of a "polygarchy"of sorts, with two main groups in power making sure that those two groups stayed in power.<< Not really worth responding to, as it's not a way in which he'd improved things. As I like to say to people who complain about a two party state... They should see a one party state. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo happened, with 97% of the people dying being shot to death in their own houses. Not a good place do be, dontcha think?<< Not at all. Currently thousands at risk of death because dialysis machines don't work in a power cut. We won't have any idea of how many have been killed until after Maduro is gone. The method doesn't matter. Dead is dead. This being said: What they're describing is a slow day in Socialist China. (As in China when it was attempting to make Socialism work) >>that's a valid viewpoint. I would say that the 2008 economic downturn, coupled with a very high reliance on oil, led to them not being able to sustain the programs<< 1. They had a good decade to put away a rainy day find Norway-style. They pissed the money away and kept on borrowing. 2. The economy was collapsing BEFORE the price of oil dropped. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 This article is from the best part of a year before the price crash. Things were already falling apart. Largely because when someone's an economic imbecile (such as your average Socialist) it doesn't matter how much money you give them, they'll piss it away. >>But blame should also be put on the government for mismanaging the economy,<< Mismanagement by attempting to make Socialism work. The same thing that killed tens of millions in China through starvation during peacetime. >>but with current US sanctions still taking center stage for the current situation<< Not even close. >>and the lack of a resolution to the problem.<< The resolution to the problem is Maduro being toppled from power and having someone who's not a moron in charge. Until that happens (and I'm not advocating an invasion. Venezuela needs to be seen to fail on its own) the problems will only get worse.
    1
  1069. No. It's a socialism issue. They only reason Chavez isn't in charge of an identical system is he had the luck to die early. The good times you're praising Chavez for were done by borrowing huge amounts of cash and screwing the government's one source of income. Maduro basically came in when the debts started to come due.
    1
  1070. It'll work next time.
    1
  1071. There's always a next time. Just look at South Africa, when bordering Zimbabwe is a classic, living example of why you just don't do what they did (taking land without compensation) And if it doesn't work, then it'll work the time after. Or the time after. Or the time after.
    1
  1072. 4711 A because Cuba supplies soldiers and secret police.
    1
  1073. Neither of those cases were anywhere near as bad.
    1
  1074.  @johnmartin4119  no, but... Think of Russian roulette. One gun has one bullet and the other has every chamber loaded. You pick the latter. Capitalism frequently works. It's the dominant system in every prosperous country without exception. It's not perfect, but it works. Socialism only works when being compared with places like Mexico or Syria.
    1
  1075.  @johnmartin4119  I think here is where I ask what you think socialism and communism are. Because I'm suspecting this is one of those times where we broadly agree, but the words are used differently. Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg This is capitalism working
    1
  1076.  @johnmartin4119  in many ways, the poorest places is where it works best. It's the difference between food and clean water and, well... Not having that. It's the difference between a dirt floor and a concrete or even tile one. It's the difference between illiteracy and an education. It's the difference between a dead child and a living one. Look at China since it became capitalist. Ok, now there's a host of other problems, but those problems are nothing compared with the pre capitalist years. Look at the previous link. That's a massive change to billions of people. Which is why I'm amazingly unsympathetic to most people who complain about poverty in Western countries. I've seen poverty. My neighbours in Fiji were poor farmers. My wife's has family that was starving during the great leap forward. We've got friends who slept seven to a bed in unheated cottages in northern China. People who think the west have a poverty problem are lucky to be so ignorant. Edit: Again, I'm really wondering what you think capitalism, socialism and communism mean. I've got a feeling you're mixing socialism up with social democracy and communism up with socialism.
    1
  1077. John Martin  oh don't worry about that oh my end. My wife's side and completely self inflicted in the following of that moron. Which is one of the problems the Chinese have in dealing with that time. They're victims and perpetrators at the same time. And seriously, even if I did get offended, offence is no reason to back down from the truth😋️ if I get offended by someone speaking honestly, that says more about me. I view capitalism as one of three things needed. The other two being an independent judiciary and a democratic state. Take away one and things generally go very bad... The sole exception I can think of is Singapore. Capitalist as hell but basically a one party state. Extremely well run though.
    1
  1078.  @johnmartin4119  Social programs aren't Socialism. People on both sides (pro socialism/anti social programs) work very hard to conflate them, (Pro-Socialists trying to link Socialism to the undeniable success of things like public education, anti social programs trying to link them to the unmitigated disaster that was Socialism) but they're not. Anti trust shit also doesn't qualify. It's all about who owns the means of production. Under Capitalism, it's private, under Socialism it's public. Normally as personified by the govt. Anti trust laws are very pro-capitalism. It helps ensure that the private individuals who want to get in on the game are able to do so. Nothing in our economic or legal systems say you can't stop private individuals screwing over other people. Quite the opposite, it's almost the entire goal of our legal systems. This is what I meant earlier when I was guessing you'd gone along the lines of confusing social democracy with democratic socialism and communism with socialism. Except for basic definitions of words, we're basically on the same page. I'll fixate on those, because definitions are important. Otherwise you find yourself thinking you're voting for public healthcare, but in reality are voting for someone who wants to nationalise industry.
    1
  1079. Because it's doing an impressive job of destroying itself. Edit: Seriously, look at the reports coming from the place. What could the US reasonably do to Venezuela that's worse than what it's done to itself? And the US tends to feel a moral obligation to attempt to rebuild places it's invaded. Japan's obviously the primest example we'll ever be able to have. If a place lets itself to go shit, well... That's a bit different.
    1
  1080. I don't understand the belief that dictatorship is incompatible with Socialism. One is basically based on how much power does one person have. The other is an economic system. Why the confusion?
    1
  1081. Mmm.. Or it might just be bad for different reasons. It might be that it's more that there's a negative correlation between just how enthusiastically they go out of their way to support someone and that person's performance, but no such correlation between how much they're agains someone and how good that person is. Remember these people are against bad people in their own industry (after those people are publicly exposed, after spending many years or decades in close friendships with those people. Decades during which they've frequently turned a blind eye to, or even actively protected those people... Kind of like how the Catholic Church is now against any priest that gets caught)
    1
  1082. N+1
    1
  1083. vmk14296 Maduro inherited the country Chavez created.
    1
  1084. vmk14296 he set the scene. He put the country into that position. The only reason he's not blamed is he kicked the bucket when things were starting to fall apart. You think the country could fall apart that quickly based on one person at the top? How did Maduro even get that power that quickly without the work of Chavez?
    1
  1085. Yes. Communism hadn't been tried. It's a utopian system so far removed from reality as to be worthless as a goal. This is the attempt at socialism. Which is meant to be the step before communism.
    1
  1086. If they gained power, they'd listen. How else do you know who should go into the camps first?
    1
  1087. That's one way of summing up the whole point of democracy, freedom of the press, transparency, etc. It removes trust from the equation. You can't trust any government. Or at best, you trust but verify.
    1
  1088. You forgot the hashtag. The only 'true socialism' these days seems to be capitalism.
    1
  1089.  @HeppyHatter727  your average socialist on here seems to think that capitalist states are socialist. So. Real socialism isn't real socialism, but capitalism is.
    1
  1090. #NotRealSocialism
    1
  1091. Silvia Summers there aren't any European socialist countries. Sweden, Norway, etc are firmly capitalist, with respect for private property, including privately owned industry.
    1
  1092. Silvia Summers but yes. It is run by incompetent morons. Just like competent doctors aren't homoeopaths, competent economic leaders aren't socialist.
    1
  1093. Silvia Summers 1. Paragraphs. 2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism It's not just sharing stuff. It's an economic model that concerns itself with who owns the tools that make stuff. (and therefore, who profits from them) No European country qualifies.
    1
  1094. Silvia Summers 1. Again, paragraphs. The enter key doesn't cost you. It's free. 2. The definition I refer to is the definition. The only reason people like you feel the need to expand it is because the attempts at implementing it have resulted in nothing but costly failures. However, people keep excusing it and continue to try again. 3. In amongst that paragraph free wall of text was something about whether my life has improved since Trump got in... Well... First, I'm earning twice what I was then. Second. Since when is Trump powerful enough to change the basic definitions of words? That post could have been about a quarter of its length if you'd stayed on topic.
    1
  1095. Helen: Claiming that Norway is socialist and then ignoring explanations on the difference between Socialist countries, and Capitalist countries that invest in social services doesn't make Norway Socialist. Sorry, but you're not important enough to change facts by ignoring them. Anyway: Remember the USSR? The Socialist states DID collapse. In the early 90's. From Ireland to Vladivostok is now Capitalist.
    1
  1096. God help the 'working class' on that day.
    1
  1097. Not anymore, anyway. Always need to remember that Corbyn used to think it was real socialism. Right up until the debts came due.
    1
  1098. Pyramid of Control yeah.... The economy was falling apart while oil was at its peak. Do a Google news search for Venezuela in January 2014. The price of oil didn't crash until over six months later. This is a government that couldn't manage its economy during near ideal circumstances. The oil price drop was merely an extra kick on the way down.
    1
  1099. Pyramid of Control this is true, but peak oil revenue decline was due to the govt not investing in its one cash cow. And had nothing to do with external factors such as oil price.
    1
  1100. >> However, the big drop in oil prices especially after peak profit was the nail in the coffin<< One of many. It made the coffin tighter, but in the end, because they stopped investing in their oil infrastructure, it was just one of many nails. The only thing that the drop affected was the timeline. >> I’m excoriating +PragerU for using the collapse as another red herring to demonize all “socialist” concepts<< But it was due to this. The reliance on oil was a factor, but Venezuela was far more reliant on oil after Chavez than before him. Their lack of respect for private property and imposition of price controls was also a major contributor (Why invest if you won't get a reward?) Remember that they've been having shortages of stuff like toilet paper for over a decade now. That being said, don't read what I'm saying as me being against social programs. I'm hugely in favour of them, as long as the money is there and they provide a worthwhile return on investment. However, socialism is something quite separate (although frequently conflated) and provides consistently bad results. >> Rather than being intellectually responsible and discussing the real economic timeline/conditions we get typical close minded ideological slander. << I'm interested in what they left out here that's relevant (It's been a while since I watched this video, so my apologies if I'd forgotten something from it) Anyway, my additional apologies if my response is a bit disjointed, I'm not entirely sure we're quite discussing the same thing. My main point of contention in your original post was tying the drop in the economy to the drop in oil prices. (At least, that was my reading of what you said. It's the thing most people refer to when they say that)
    1
  1101. Excuses carry more weight if you have some successful socialist states. So far, we have capitalist social democracies and a couple of places that have only needed to be better than corrupt shit holes or surrounding civil wars. Also: you're ignoring the years oil spent at impressive highs.
    1
  1102.  @brianmcglade7209  communism is the next step. The idea is to get all the means of production under the control of the people (as opposed to private control, which is the core definition of capitalism) , which should then allow for vast improvements in productivity. At which point the state will be dissolved, class and money will disappear and everyone will do what they can and receive what they need. Venezuela wasn't trying to be communist, it was trying to be socialist. There has never been a communist state (a contradiction in terms, but you know what I mean). Just lots of communist parties. Also: be borrowed heavily as well. And there will always be a left and a right. All they are is your receptiveness to change status quo or reactionary is right. Wanting change is left.
    1
  1103. No, but misery would have a lot more company.
    1
  1104. Sean Ockleston if you're a socialist, you're probably not capable of running an economy. Proponents of bad ideas in any field are likely to be useless in that field.
    1
  1105. Well, they've got the latter. The former will happen sooner or later.
    1
  1106. camuyana two things that are repeated ad nauseum here. 1. Hope and change 2. What about X Scandinavian country? Some originality would be lovely.
    1
  1107. Excuses carry more weight when there are success stories. Although how about you list the sanctions severe enough to cause this, and the dates and we can compare with what the Venezuelan economy was like then?
    1
  1108. The best propaganda is completely factual.
    1
  1109. France isn't socialist.
    1
  1110.  @tricioo8512  open a dictionary.
    1
  1111. Vlad Box this question has been asked and answered many times. Anyway, those countries are capitalist. Not socialist. They're social democracies. Not examples of democratic socialism. So in answer to your question, they don't report on how Socialism is doing in those countries because it isn't. If it's just Venezuelan ineptitude, then you should be able to provide examples of successful Socialist states (It's been attempted enough times over the past century) Just... Try to avoid listing capitalist states like... Well, anything European for a start. Canada is also capitalist, as are Australia and New Zealand.
    1
  1112. I see many people saying that, but very few saying what's incorrect.
    1
  1113. God can't even (or simply doesn't want to) prevent his employees from raping children. God's representatives on earth fought tooth and nail to allow them to continue to do this. It seems unlikely he's going to do much there.
    1
  1114. You were tricked. The us is a hell-hole. You're simply the victim of almost 40 years is painfully elaborate and convincing theatre targeted just at you at an unimaginable cost. I guess. I swear that's what some of the retards on here must think.
    1
  1115.  @monixochi7160  China ditched the attempt at socialism when Deng Xiaoping took over from Mao. Coincidentally that's when the economy started healing. The Chinese economy isn't good, it's just much, much better than it was when they were attempting Socialism. And I've been there many times. Normally Shenyang, where my wife is from. Also Beijing, Chengdu and a good chunk of western China. And unless it's a family matter that involves a death, I'm hoping I don't go back. I've had enough of the place. Not counting Hong Kong. Which is lovely. But it's been firmly capitalist since day one. You can tell a good country by its migration levels. The good ones have net immigration. China has net emigration. Its best and brightest have been leaving for decades. Also, lol. Look at China's trade. Some embargo....
    1
  1116. Luis: It always makes me laugh when people claim China is a success story of Socialism. In reality, it's one of Socialism's greatest failures. up to 60 million dead from starvation, devastated economy, and it became a success story only AFTER ditching the attempt in all but name. The only variable that changed between China's failure and China's success (not complete success, but massive vs what it was) was embracing Capitalism. And then for people who go on about going there to see it for themselves... Well. I have. The cities and the countryside. Not quite as a local, but considering I'm with family, I'm not just a tourist either. With the exception of Shanghai, Hong Kong and Macao, the cities are pretty shit by Western standards (Even for Shanghai, you don't want to be a migrant worker... Except that huge amounts of people DO want to be migrant workers, because the countryside alternative is so bad). That's to say nothing of the pollution problems that affect everywhere. And the countryside.... It's bad. It's improving, because it's really easy to improve on huge wads of people dropping dead from starvation, but it's still bad. As for people who go on about capitalist countries that are doing badly, well. Yeah. There are failures. It's like oxygen. Having oxygen in your air doesn't guarantee you'll survive. Not having it guarantees you'll die. It's not everything, but it is a vital prerequisite to not being an economic disaster. As far as I've seen, the three things needed are capitalism, a stable political system (Doesn't mean it doesn't change. Just that changes are orderly and predictable... Like through elections) and an as impartial rule of law as possible (Applied evenly. Not winked at for friends, and no corruption) Get rid of one of those things and it goes to hell (Probably taking at least one of the other things with it. History has shown us that getting rid of Capitalism takes the other two things with it)
    1
  1117. Brent Trent reality is a pretty powerful enemy. It took 20 years to collapse. The only thing they're noteworthy is how complete the collapse was once it really picked up steam. As soon as other countries refused to lend it yet more money it couldn't pay back. If you think that is unfair, I have to ask why anyone would lend if they would never see their money again.
    1
  1118. The people who want to milk the high income earners seem to forget one thing: If you're on a high income, you can leave. The reason you're on a high income is the reason you're welcome in any decent country. It's only the poor who can't leave. In Australia, I'm in the 50 percent tax bracket. I'm moving to Hong Kong soon to enjoy their 15 percent tax rate. Australia gets 50 percent of nothing now. This ignores the money I spend on normal consumption.
    1
  1119. So... What's your alternative? I mean to current governments. Not socialism in particular.
    1
  1120. To put this into perspective: The minimum wage (After being raised) is about $4 USD per month. My child has an inflatable swimming pool we use during Summer (I'm in Australia) I don't want to waste the water (It just seems wrong) and bucketing it out sucks, so I spent $47 USD on a cheap water pump to let me hose it over my garden. So put this into perspective: I spent a year of the Venezuelan minimum wage to avoid having to empty my daughter's paddling pool by hand. Going by the Australian minimum wage for full time work ($672.70 per week, or $537.47 USD) that would be the equivalent of one of my countrymen spending $28k USD to avoid that fairly easy task. For comparison, a new Tesla Model 3 costs $35k USD. So... If I'd gone the next model of pump up.... That would have been an equivalent purchase. I recently saw some twit make a grandiose statement about how no matter what's happening, the Venezuelan People won't give up the gains made during the revolution. So, my (unanswered, unless I missed something) and more politely-phrased question in response to that still stands: WHAT GAINS? THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE CLUSTERFUCK. My numbers could be off by an order of magnitude and this would still be a clusterfuck of monumental proportions.
    1
  1121. The best argument for socialism = bad is the long list of failures. Which includes China. China improved after it abandoned trying to become Socialist and embraced Capitalism ('Socialism with Chinese characteristics is basically capitalism). Now there's a whole other set of problems, but that doesn't change this. You can discuss the theory all you like, but when applied to reality, it's done badly. Every time.
    1
  1122. I see so many comments like this, and they never seem to have anything specific to say. It's always vague generalities.
    1
  1123. Marie Rose are any as bad as venezuela?
    1
  1124. angryjenkins this would a better argument if socialism had some successes, rather than a long list of excuses for failure
    1
  1125. The us (and Norwegian) is running an economic system based on the public (as opposed to private) ownership of industry? I didn't realise MS was owned by the US govt.
    1
  1126. See, on this stuff, if someone has someone else put that person in a bad situation, I have full sympathy. If it had been to prepare the USSR for a German invasion (because food wasn't important or something) and they'd had to, gun literally to their heads, forcing them to choose, I'd have felt a lot of sympathy. But it was in 1932. Before Hitler had even gained power. When any Western countries (that really had no appetite for war) would have had to have crossed Germany and Eastern Europe to get to him. However, iit's normally a bad set of choices they create for themselves with easily foreseeable outcomes (I'm currently having this discussion with someone else who can't understand why the move to socialism alone is damaging. Apparently intelligent people can't be expected to see things are going to get worse and leave) so for that, I have no sympathy, and give no praise for fixing it. Case in point: So many of the CCP's major achievements. Bringing people out of poverty, for a start... After they put them there in the first place. In the future, I've got no doubt they'll be trumpeting how they helped with North Korea... After being responsible for its creation in the first place. You get the idea.
    1
  1127. Gabriel Fernandez remember the USSR? When that became Russia, it had failed. And how is Cuba a success?
    1
  1128. Fredrik .M because you're not socialist. With the exception of Statoil.
    1
  1129. Propaganda is information designed to promote a political cause or point of view. The best propaganda is completely factual.
    1
  1130. Where has it worked? Before you give the usual answer, there are no socialist countries in Europe. Social democracies, sure. However, social democracy isn't socialism. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  1131. Mr. MaskedMan015 I could name the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Maoist China. And you'll come back with not real socialism. Although they all qualify. Which is why I asked for examples of where it had worked. He said there were lots. The only examples I ever see given are capitalist social democracies or Cuba because it doesn't completely suck at everything.
    1
  1132. Mr. MaskedMan015 and I would say it's interesting that you're easily fooled by titles. There haven't been any communist states. There have been parties that have called themselves communist, but no communist states.
    1
  1133. Mr. MaskedMan015 so they're entities without borders, government, money, classes, etc? Where people contribute what they can and are given what they need?
    1
  1134. Because it abandoned Socialism before India did. If you think China is Socialist, you've ignored the last four decades. And really? What countries have the same per capita wealth that Venezuela does? Or to put it another way (Can't exactly trust the Venezuelan official figures) What other South American countries are raiding zoos for protein? (I assume Venezuela has stopped that now. Due to the animals being eaten)
    1
  1135. No Democratic European country is Socialist. They're Social Democracies. The problem is very much Socialism. Given how much it's been attempted over the last century, if the problem wasn't Socialism, you wouldn't need to keep pointing to Capitalist Social Democracies as examples of Socialist success stories.
    1
  1136. Communism's never been achieved. It's simply had a series of disasters resulting from consistently unsuccessful attempts to get there.
    1
  1137. Every country that seriously attempts Socialism seems to either abandon it (No major examples come to mind. Not counting the Israeli Kibbutz) or become totalitarian. At some point, you've got to wonder if the root cause might indeed be Socialism, with attempts to double down on a bad idea leading to authoritarianism.
    1
  1138. I lived in the UK until fairly recently. And I'm still in regular touch with friends, family and coworkers. And what you call Capitalism's failure is basically a level of success never achieved by a Socialist state.
    1
  1139. What would you say if I said that the Venezuelan economy was falling apart while oil prices were over 100 a barrel?
    1
  1140. Well, if it's a lot, it's because they can afford to. Because Capitalism works.
    1
  1141. fred fredson would it change my answer? Only tommy Douglas I can find is a dead socialist politician.
    1
  1142. Sort comments by date.
    1
  1143. It's attempting to be socialist. That's damaging enough.
    1
  1144. Some systems are easier to abuse than others.
    1
  1145.  @klytaemnistras  yes. However, socialism seems to go in one of two directions. It fails and people give up, or it fails and those in power stamp down. Authoritarianism is a natural consequence of trying to force a bad idea to work. At least capitalism is a system that does work, allowing for nicer governments and minimal corruption.
    1
  1146.  @klytaemnistras  The countries you've listed as ones that are doing OK are Capitalist countries. Here's the corruption perceptions index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2012%E2%80%932018 Unless I missed something, the best Socialist state is Cuba, ranked 61. The US is ranked 22. Capitalist from day 1 Hong Kong is ranked 14. The PRC (It's moved to Capitalism, which has produced huge improvements, but the legacy of its disastrous socialist attempt remains) is 87. Capitalist Taiwan is 31. Heavily Chinese Singapore is #3 I'm pointing these ones out because they're all peopled by people from the same culture. To try and avoid any suggestion of comparing apples and oranges. Actually, Singapore is impressive. It is essentially a one party state. Its govt has a light hand, democratic forms are respected, but it is at least reasonably authoritarian.
    1
  1147.  @klytaemnistras  and if socialism almost always leads up to corruption, what would you say the root cause is?
    1
  1148.  @klytaemnistras  anything involving power leads to corruption. The antidote is a working system that allows us the luxury of cleaning up. Which socialism isn't. In theory it can be done under a totalitarian govt, but as Xi showed us, it's only the corrupt people that the ones in power don't like who get swept up. The root root cause is obviously human, though, but there's not much we can do about that. Although if you watch threads (and don't mind a few months of nightmares) there's a solution that only takes a few minutes.
    1
  1149.  @klytaemnistras  For your first: The Chinese govt stagnated. China also broke up many times and was under foreign rule many times. The Manchu govt that was in power in the 19th century was not Chinese, as an example. But its biggest crime is that it stagnated. Turned completely inward. And for the corruption in your own country, Capitalism isn't a magic wand. It can only build on what's there before. Corruption will improve, but your economy and governmental culture have a lot of healing to do first. Step 1 is using a system that actually works. This is one of the things the EU was doing very well. If a country wanted to join, its govt needed to actually do something meaningful about corruption. Which is part of the reason Russia was so against it. Corrupt nations are far easier to deal with than countries with very little corruption. And it's a documentary-style movie from the 80's. For your last... But what else can you do when it's a pattern? Look at the map on the corruption perceptions index. You can see the Iron Curtain. It's not quite as obvious, but you can also see the EU (although Romania, Bulgaria and Greece simply have that come up as pink rather than red. And yes, I know Greece was never part of the Communist bloc. That right there is its own set of problems.) To blindly blame everything on X ism is bad, yes. But to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the link between X ism and Y result is easily as bad. There's one very useful thing from pointing at Socialism and saying it's a bad idea. If the message gets through, it might possibly stop people from going down a path that leads to failure pretty much every time it's tried. Imagine if the Venezuelan people had decided to not try Socialism. Sure, it would still be a corrupt shithole. However, it's a safe bet they wouldn't be eating rotten meat, zoo animals, and would probably have electricity.
    1
  1150. Kwike 721 you can call it a failed attempt at becoming socialist.
    1
  1151. Ishan Bansal Sweden and Canada aren't socialist. You only think they are because you have no idea what it actually is. You've got no idea if what it actually is because bullshitters lie about what it is, as a result of socialism being a painfully consistent path to failure.
    1
  1152. It's not a silver bullet. However, it's got successes. It's a system that works. Which is more than you can say about Socialism. Its constant failures are why, when asked, people keep on giving the capitalist Scandinavian states as examples of successes. Also: built from the crappier part of a socialist state. There's a lot of damage from decades of mismanagement to fix.
    1
  1153. toresanderify might be relevant if there were any socialist Scandinavian countries.
    1
  1154. Yes. It would mean the zombie apocalypse had started.
    1
  1155. 100 percent guaranteed to be unstaged. I'm guessing there's been no week long power outage either
    1
  1156. You're a social democracy. Which isn't democratic socialism. You're not socialist. What you think of as communism is socialism.
    1
  1157.  @karolinska1601  you're not socialist. You don't fulfil the basic definition of the word. The fact that people point to your country as a success of socialism demonstrates it is bad in all its forms, because you are not socialist. If it wasn't, there would be actual socialist success stories. The only ones people come up with only qualify as being better than a civil war and poorer parts of Mexico. All you are is something with the word social in the name, following an idea that's an offshoot of socialism, that has kept broadly the same goals(helping the disadvantaged), but abandoned socialism.
    1
  1158. That's a lie. She doesn't want it. It's just... What will happen if she gets her way. Kind of like how a smoker doesn't want cancer, but cancer is coming.
    1
  1159.  @orange42  and they think communism is the path to it. And that socialism is the path to communism. And she's damn fool enough to think that going down the same tired path won't produce the same results. Anyone who can say that capitalism has failed new Zealand is either a moron or taking the piss.
    1
  1160. You start with talking about the global economy, but move to what's an issue for a particular country. Globally, overall never better. Never have there been more resources available to everyone. In particular places. Yeah, don't be an unskilled worker. Unless you're third-world cheap it's a really bad idea. Stay in school, study something useful and never stop studying.
    1
  1161.  @ewaldradavich7307  that doesn't contradict what I said.
    1
  1162. Attempting to implement Socialism has a strong tendency to come to similar results. Including being corrupt as hell and having incompetent leaderships (Assume the economic system doesn't work. Being useless at running an economy is pretty much a litmus test for being put in charge) Maybe those things aren't the cause of the collapse, but simply symptoms.
    1
  1163. Well, let's see what you've learnt from it. What arguments from it can you bring to the table?
    1
  1164. ... As a result of driving the Capitalists out, they're sitting on 80 and rising. Dreaming of a time when the poverty rate was merely 40-50% Others say 40% https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1763 but either way. Both numbers are much lower than 80% And as for the ideology.... Capitalism has successes. Lots of them. The only successes people seem to be able to think of for Socialism are Capitalist states such as the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia, etc. Or China, which is still recovering from a disastrous attempt at implementing Socialism, abandoned in the late 70's.
    1
  1165. If we're talking about countries that drove away private enterprise by appropriating whatever and pissed whatever money they had up against the wall, then no, there's no real difference.
    1
  1166. This is true. Labels are fairly meaningless. Actions count. If Chavez had merely talked about moving to Socialism while respecting property rights, encouraging private business and so on, things would have probably turned out much better. Case in point is the Chinese govt. They claim to be Socialist, but they abandoned Socialism years ago in all but name. Unfortunately a bunch of other problems stemming from being a dictatorship, but... It could be worse.
    1
  1167. Yep. And the saddest part? It's an improvement over when they were going all out attempting to become Communist.
    1
  1168. Why?
    1
  1169. toresanderify what do you think communism is?
    1
  1170. Mr. MaskedMan015 and even that failed every time it was tried.
    1
  1171. p a r a d i s e no western European is or has been socialist. Anyone who wants to see European socialism needs to look east.
    1
  1172. Wesley W socialism isn't about providing social services. It's about public ownership of the means of production. It's about where the money comes from. Not the nice things you spend it on.
    1
  1173. Wesley W no it's not. It's about who owns the means of production. You're talking about how what the means of production produce is used. Very different.
    1
  1174. Wesley W I've read the dictionary. It's about who owns it. Redistribution is a feature, but it's not the defining feature. What dictionary are you looking at? Social Democracy is what you're talking about. (something on which the dictionary entries are weirdly horrible. Wikipedia article is much more informative)
    1
  1175. Wesley W one of. In each of the dictionaries you listed, that's not the entire thing. Unless you doing the specifically UK definition above the US definition in the Cambridge dictionary, which is a weird outlier.
    1
  1176. Wesley W it's the bit that makes it socialism. Rather than just the government doing what governments were doing during the Roman Republic. Kind of like how I can't be a Christian without believing in jesus. I can do all the nice things Christians are meant to do you like, but I'm not Christian. Anyway, if you're not one of the Hordes that think Sweden, etc are socialist, that's fine. Too many think it is.
    1
  1177. Wesley W well, you've currently expanded socialism to mean anything taxpayer funded which is nice. Which can easily be expanded to include the military,police, etc. The only question is scale. Which has really made features of socialism indistinguishable from features of government.
    1
  1178. TheVikas many answers to that, depending on how you elaborate.
    1
  1179. Can you point out where it's incorrect?
    1
  1180.  @brandontheisen6568  it took me a while to find what you were responding to. Yeah. That mistake has long gone over the past year 😋️
    1
  1181. This is a lie. Venezuela shows that Socialism is a massive threat to Weight Watchers. If I were WW, I'd be donating to PragerU to try and discourage more changes of government that might render my business pointless.
    1
  1182. Not a single one of those countries is socialist. They're capitalist countries using the proceeds of capitalism to pay for social services. Look up the basic definition of the word.
    1
  1183. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M
    1
  1184. People who support socialism normally need things to be dumbed down.
    1
  1185. Liberalism is an enemy to anyone who would want to silence someone else. Left or right.
    1
  1186. The majority of people who defend socialism don't have a clue of what it is. If this video has taught me nothing else, it's taught me that.
    1
  1187. Lunar Prism what do you think socialism is?
    1
  1188. Excuses work far better when there are success stories. As it is, people can only seem to provide capitalist social democracies and excuses. Or China that embraced capitalism in the 70's
    1
  1189.  @davidevans6528  so you think that socialism is basically a synonym for government. That's what your mention of public roads says. Every government that's ever done anything is socialist.
    1
  1190.  @davidevans6528  yeah. That video is fun. Notice how little time he spends addressing the question, and how much time he spends trying to tie general niceness to the term?
    1
  1191. How many people who support socialism think it's just about handing out taxpayer funded stuff?
    1
  1192. jony prepper israel so.. Over the past decade, the average American has gained roughly 50kgs?
    1
  1193. jony prepper israel which part of the video are you referring to? Have the time? Edit: A recent survey found that 75 percent of Venezuelan adults lost weight in 2016 – an average of 19 pounds. This national weight-loss program is known cynically as “the Maduro diet.” No. She isn't saying they lost that each year for 10 years. She said they lost 19 pounds on average in one specific year. On the other hand, you said every year about 10 pounds.
    1
  1194. jony prepper israel from looking at your posts, you didn't make a mistake, you just have difficulties with literacy and critical thinking. The math you put suggests you genuinely thought that was what she said and you didn't stop to think that was crazy. Also, the weight gain is roughly half that. Venezuelans lost 40 years of American weight gain in a year. I'm guessing by now it's close to a century of weight gain over two or three years. I know where I'd rather be.
    1
  1195. Jason Murdock pissed away the Venezuelan people's money on showmanship. And is now refusing aid that desperately need.
    1
  1196. How do you make that connection?
    1
  1197. Firstly: If you're an undergrad in anything relevant to this, I'm genuinely curious about what career you're thinking of. After that... Communism's never been implemented. There have only been disastrous attempts at making Socialism work. Failure after failure after failure. Every single time Capitalism is done away with (Or serious attempts are made) For the rest. You say all of Latin America is riddled with corruption. It is. Which country is failing like Venezuela is? What do you think the difference is? As for Africa. True, not much has worked well for Africa. However, the biggest recent economic failure was most definitely Zimbabwe. For the simple reason they stopped respecting private property and drove away the people with the skills their economy needed. Watch South Africa to see how it goes. And finally, for America's meddling. Yeah. That might be an argument if it wasn't for the simple fact that Venezuela is a long way from being alone in its failure. A long, long way. Sure, you might bring up Scandinavian countries, but those are most definitely Capitalist with a strong respect for personal property and private industry. This non-Socialist behaviour of theirs is what allows them to pay for the nice things they have.
    1
  1198. That's fine. This was the only post that came up. I hadn't received any notification for anything else. I'm getting the feeling your browser didn't post it. That's obviously annoying as hell, so I'm sorry for that.
    1
  1199. fakeItRight you don't think driving out private investment was a factor?
    1
  1200. ruth bashford ignoring other benefits, someone on welfare in the US has an income of 4k per year. A good Cuban income is about 30 a month. This isn't exactly an organised source. Just people answering questions who travelled there. https://www.quora.com/If-communism-is-so-evil-then-why-is-Cuba-such-a-nice-country-to-travel-and-live But it's better to be poor in a rich country than poor in a poor one. It's why so many risk their lives to become the bottom runh of society in Western countries. At a minimum, someone in the US has an income greater than 80 percent of the world.
    1
  1201. Al Hummingbird you really do. That's an unreadable block of text. Paragraphs exist for a reason.
    1
  1202. >> It is not socialism Venezuela, It is state capitalism<< A marxist term that's an oxymoron (capitalism is about private ownership. State is public), relies on the difference between the citizens of a state and the government that represents them (I have no idea how else it could be done on a larger scale) and does nothing to address that the root cause of this problem is an issue common to both systems (if the latter could even be distinguished from socialism in any practical way) The root cause is the lack of respect for private property and forcing those private businesses that remained to operate in a way that would cause losses (price fixing being a prime example) Anyway, I'm sure the 12 year old girl who's having sex for a sandwich will thank you. As will her mother who's been forced to emigrate to do the same thing. #NotRealSocialism #ItMightWorkNextTime
    1
  1203. >>+Robert Bray I understand the difference between what is called private and public ownership. However, I am a libertarian socialist. We do not consider the government to be the public. The government is a separate institution from the public and does not accurately represent the people. << Public property is a subject of state property. By definition. Anyway. "We do not consider..." - Personal opinion. The government's not a perfect representation, it's a compromise implemented by humans (hopefully) balanced against frequently unpalatable realities. But do you have an alternative method? >> Even if it did, it is still not the people. The general population is the people, not the government.<< No, but here we get a conflict between idealist theory and workable reality. >> Even though government property is called "public" property, this is not an accurate description.<< By definition it is. >> Governments have monopolies on violence<< This is true. Realistically speaking, this is what makes a government a government. Whatever has a monopoly on violence is the government. Don't believe it? Just ask it. If nothing has a monopoly on violence... Well, there's a few places you can check out. None of the pleasant. Normally places in the middle of some civil war or other. >> and they are allies of capital<< looks at places that have rejected or attempted to reject Capitalism I should hope so. >> Governments protect non-personal private property, making them allies of capital<< Good job they do, too. I'm going to skip the stuff in between this as there's not much to respond to, but your conclusions are interesting. >> Non-personal private property is property that a person does not personally use with his or her own two hands. Instead, they just own and control this property by using violence or the threat of violence with the goal of owning it solely to produce capital<< Ok, as far as personal vs non-personal property requiring violence to defend... You mentioned my toothbrush. Now if you decide that for whatever strange reason, you want to use my toothbrush. Ultimately, what non-violent method do I have of stopping you? All property is protected by the threat of violence. Ultimately, there is no other protection beyond making something so undesirable that nothing wants it. As far as producing capital goes... It's interesting that you say it like a bad thing. It's the motivator behind building the device you're using at the moment, for a start. >>This type of property is the fundamental basis for the capitalist economic system. It is a power that prevents the economic freedom of the vast majority of society<< Prevents? It enables it. If nothing is safe, nothing will be built. Why would anyone bother doing any of the things that have benefited us without the personal profit motive? The violence and threat of violence that makes your property, be it your person, your toothbrush, your house or your business yours is what allows you to live a civilised life. >>If a person does not use property personally they must use force to keep ownership of it. In the capitalist system, a landowner in New York can own 10,000 acres of land in Pennsylvania without ever stepping foot in Pennsylvania. << That's right. He can. And if that property isn't doing anything useful, the person isn't profiting from it, and is likely to sell it to someone who will use it for something useful. Which can end up being the food on your table, it can end up being a housing estate and so on. Or, if there's no profit motive the person might simply let the ground lie fallow and effectively be parkland. Not a bad thing either. >>Capitalists like this fund the campaigns of politicians, or pay them outright in order to get them elected and bought.<< An unfortunate truth, ameliorated by the fact that in the end, they do need votes. That's not a perfect deterrent, but look at the scale of governmental excess in China and you'll see the difference it makes. >>The capitalist now has a tool of power to protect his private property and also has an agent of violence to suppress anyone ho tries to violate this power<< As true for him as it is for you. Without that, all I need to be is more violent than you, personally, are to basically do whatever I like to you. >>All the means of production (land, resources, and raw materials) are owned in the form of this kind of property, by a very small group of people (capitalists). << Someone doesn't have a pension plan... Or make investments. >>This forces everyone else to sell their labor in order to survive. << Ah, now we get to the real crux of it. But: You don't need to sell your labour in order to survive. You can move into the wilderness, away from the benefits of capitalist civilisation and support yourself. What you're really complaining about is being required to sell your labour to survive in comfort. Well. What's your alternative? Anything that involves me working more to support your potentially lazy arse should not be considered an alternative. Personally, I have no problem with those who simply choose not to work starving. (Those who want to work but are unable to, for reasons other than lack of desire are a different question. No problem with supporting them) >>Selling your labor to survive is wage slavery because selling your labor means that you are selling yourself.<< You're selling your time and ability. But the selling bit means you get something of value back. If you're not willing to give something of value, why should you be given anything of value? What do you think your own responsibility to society should be? >> worker is always paid less than the value of the work he or she does because the difference is collected by the capitalist as profit. This is how capitalists make money.<< This is true. >>If they did not exploit the working class they would not make money because the working class produces all of the wealth<< And the working class wouldn't be a working class, because no jobs would be created, because... Why would you? Why would you take the risk? Why would you put in the effort? No. What's happening is that each side is trading something of value for something of value. If I'm an employer, I'm paying you more than your free time is worth to you. If I wasn't, you wouldn't bother coming in to work. If you're an employee, you're giving me something that makes you more valuable than what I spend on you. If you weren't, why would I hire you? You can call it exploitation if you like, but in the end, we both benefit. >>Both capitalism and governments are groups that hold power and exploit the general population. They must both be eliminated in order for democracy and freedom to flourish.<< So. You've got nothing being produced, because there is no incentive for anyone to setup something where things can be created. You've got no property safety (that delineation between personal and non-personal property is crap in this case. Violence protects both) so someone who's bigger and stronger than you (or is better at hiding and delivering a sucker punch, whatever) can just take whatever he likes. Because of this inability of anyone else to use violence on your behalf (you spoke of the government having a monopoly on the use of violence as a bad thing) that property safety extends to personal safety. How is any of this expected to turn out well? What's your alternatives here and what do you imagine the repercussions of those alternatives to be? Life isn't fair, that's true. But I really can't see the improvement in what you've given. It seems to be a wad of fanciful rhetoric and baseless claims with no thought given to how the society you envision is expected to survive. Sounds nice on paper, if not looked into too deeply, but then... So did lots of ideas over the last century. Also: It's common for points to be connected over several paragraphs. Think of it as one paragraph for one thought. Also, illiterate. If I were alliterate, I'd stop stooping to say such sense, I'd sooner sleep as soundly as a siren struck sailor. stops supporting sound sensor
    1
  1204. I'm not saying cut things out or make things shorter. I'm just saying break it into paragraphs.
    1
  1205. Any chance of editing that and just... Going to town on the enter key? Seriously, feel free to abuse the enter key like it's a red headed stepchild. :P
    1
  1206. In many ways, the silence makes this a bit scarier. The major objections (It won't work because why would someone employ someone else? Violence protects all your property, not just what you've arbitrarily defined to be protected by it, people need to actually produce the things we need, etc) are so basic you must have been asked them before. This obviously isn't your first time spouting that. Yet... You've still got no answer. You've got no way of explaining how this would be a workable setup. So your response is obviously not to think about it, and realise that it doesn't work, but to continue to support the same old unworkable fantasy that would do wonders for bringing down the rich, but 3/5 of nothing for helping anyone else. That's a scary mentality. It's not enough to stop the 'exploiters' you need to actually be able to explain how it would help the 'exploited' (Who have voluntarily decided to enter into this arrangement) Without a way of actually making it work, you don't have some utopian vision, you've got a recipe for disaster. You're not going to help the 'exploited' you're going to make their lives immeasurably harder (the wealthy are normally wealthy because they have skills that are in demand anywhere in the world... They can leave) But instead, it's obvious that your only real ideas revolve around who to attack. Who to blame. Who to turn into an enemy. The rest is just justification that you obviously hope won't be examined in depth. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, because I'd love to see how this incentive-free economic setup is supposed to produce any producing entity greater than a single person at a time. Seriously. Why would I ever hire another person in your setup? I can't profit from them, so all they are is a liability.
    1
  1207. Well, there was the Germans weaponising it in WW1.
    1
  1208. gerard doorty a dictator implementing socialist policies did.
    1
  1209. He was also (as far as I'd heard and can see on a brief search) never in charge of an economy.
    1
  1210. China didn't really mix capitalism and socialism as ditch socialism in favour of it (Except for where state-owned factories could profit senior military and political figures) Socialism in China was more damaging than the Japanese ever were. The Great Leap Forward alone was enough for that. Seriously. Mao did more damage than the Japanese. (Except that the Japanese could be blamed for setting the stage for Mao to come to power)
    1
  1211. You need to check timelines. They were having massive problems when oil prices were at their peak. With anyone to do with causes of Venezuela's problems, you always need to check timelines. I've seen Obama's sanctions (No clear explanation of what they were) being blamed for stuff that a search shows happened in 2007.
    1
  1212. It was fun seeing someone do this on the Pakman video you probably see in your suggestions. When you say it. It's easy to see why. When he said it, he obviously had no idea of why he was saying it, he just thought it was an argument because others had said it. The NPC meme is funny because it's true.
    1
  1213.  @mistergeopolitics4456  why?
    1
  1214.  @mistergeopolitics4456  ah, a copy and paste full of points that have already been refuted. If you were honest, you might start to wonder if you were wrong. Unfortunately, I see no sign that you are.
    1
  1215. HTHAMMACK1 Europe doesn't have socialist states. It hasn't in over twenty years.
    1
  1216. 2010 https://www.reuters.com/article/venezuela-food-idAFN1617403620100618 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 January 2014. Oil didn't drop until it was almost 2015.
    1
  1217. Thank you for those three examples of states that aren't Socialist. Less thanks for a comment that's made in some form every half dozen or so posts.
    1
  1218. They are not. They're Social Democracies, which have an origin based on Socialism, but basically moved towards using the proceeds from Capitalism to help everyone. SocialISM is about the common (As administered by the govt) ownership of the means of production. It's against private ownership of the means of production. Those three countries have a very deep respect for private property, including the private ownership of industry. The thing that normally comes up here is "But what you're describing is Communism" - It isn't. Communism involves the dismantling of the state, removal of money, classes, etc. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need. It was generally thought to be the next thing to be tried after Socialism. Basically, Social Democracy is about how the money should be spent. Socialism is about how economy should be structured. Very different areas.
    1
  1219. I wouldn't be. Idiots who don't know what Socialism is probably would be. That doesn't make it Socialism. From what I've seen, there are two types of people who misuse the term. 1. People who are against Social Services, who want to use the epic failure of Socialism as a way to tar them with the same brush. 2. People who are in favour of Socialism, who want to use the general monumental success of Social programs (Such as education and healthcare) to argue in favour of Socialism. If you're someone who values Social Services such as health, education, a welfare safety net and so on, neither of these types are your friend. Edit: This obviously doesn't include people who have simply been confused by those two groups. Which is exactly what those two types of people are trying to do.
    1
  1220. Thanks. I've been tempted, but there's already plenty of far better presenters than I could ever be doing the same thing. My thing is correcting mistakes. :-) It's not like the people who keep making these same mistakes would listen to anything that wasn't directly presented to them anyway. If they would, they wouldn't be making the same mistakes.
    1
  1221. It might, but it isn't. It's a social safety net. Those entitlements don't produce things. The core definition of Socialism is about who owns the means of production.
    1
  1222. Tony Kondaks correct. It isn't understood by them. And social democracy works. Or welfare state.
    1
  1223. >>I think welfare state is then a more appropriate term because the definition of socialism you reproduce, above, is certainly correct. In the future I will try and make that distinction. Thanks for the correction.<< Ta. I emphasise it, because both sides attempt to conflate the terms to push their own agendas. The Socialist says "Socialism works, just look at Norway, etc" The Conservative says "Social services don't work, just look at Venezuela, etc" >>I don't know if I agree with you that "social democracy works." Yes, I agree that the safety nets put in place in the U.S. do help those without: 69% of all spending by the federal government is for some sort of social benefit (i.e., Social Security benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.). But on the other side of the coin is the $20 trillion national debt which -- when it becomes a problem when interest rates go up -- will disproportionately hurt the poor and less well off amongst us.<< Yes.. I do see your point. On the other hand, the US has a strong economy that's able to service the debt. Its reliability in repayments also means that the interest it pays on this debt is weirdly low. However, if you want to look at a less humanitarian and more utilitarian outcome. It means you (probably) won't get mugged in the street by someone that can't find any other way to support itself. It also means that risk taking is acceptable. Risks are fantastic. Every successful company you see today was started by someone who took a risk. If you're in a society where a failed risk will destroy you, you won't go for it. This is really one of the cores of what make Western countries more competitive than Eastern. In too many countries (China is a classic example) if you fail in school, you fail in life. In my case, I failed school, I failed TAFE (What you'd think of as a tech college) and based on my work experience and an exam, I managed to get into university and do a degree in Computer Science. A degree which does (To varying levels. I work for a company that does gambling) allow me to contribute to society around me. As far as hurting the poor, etc... Yes, it'll hurt. That being said, the really poor don't have debt. They just don't have any money. No-one will lend to them. >>I'm from Canada which has often been labelled as more socialistic (or, perhaps more appropriately, more welfare statist) than the U.S. However, this is no longer true; the main indicator of a nation's welfare statism is government spending as a percentage of GDP. Well, historically it was always about 15-20 percentage points higher in Canada than the U.S. But in the last 20 years that percentage has been declining in Canada and rising in the U.S. This year or next the U.S. will bypass Canada for probably the first time.<< And one of the reasons it's able to do this is because of the strong Capitalist foundations of the American economy. As far as the interest goes... The interest the US govt is paying is roughly equal to inflation. Or in other words, it's very close to being an interest-free loan in real terms. (2.6% this year) If the US ever defaults, though, watch how dramatically this changes. Again, it gets that low rate because entities that buy US bonds know it will be paid at the agreed amount when the time comes.
    1
  1224. >>We seem to agree on much, once terms are defined.<< It's amazing how once you can agree on what you're talking about, you can have a decent discussion about it :P >>Here's what I mean by "when interest rates go up" it will hurt the poor (and pretty much everybody): yes, as you state we are easily servicing the debt now...interest payments on the $20 trillion plus debt are about 8% of the current approximately $4 trillion annual federal budget. AND AS LONG AS INTEREST RATES REMAIN LOW, WE CAN SERVICE THE DEBT UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME! Indeed, we can easily service a $40 trillion debt at low rates.<< This is true. A bigger question, though, is whether the money is put into areas that provide a ROI that's greater than the interest paid. I mean... If you're paying a trillion per year interest, but it provides 1.1 trillion per year of value, that's a pretty good deal. (I'm not going to make any attempt to say whether or not this is actually the case. From looking at the interest vs US annual growth.. At least they're largely similar. For bad, check out China's lending practices) Debt is only bad if it doesn't give you a positive ROI. If it doesn't, well... Any spending that doesn't give a positive ROI is bad. >>Entitlement programs are, for the most part, for essential needs: medical care, basic incomes, etc. This is where the "hurt" will be experienced. Yes, as you state, a thriving economy is there to help...but it simply isn't enough -- no matter how great the growth -- to provide enough income to provide for the extra taxation that will be needed. Certainly, people like Paul Krugman thinks we can grow the economy enough to pay the debt...but I've never seen his figures to back it up.<< I'd agree on this. The main bright side is our increases in productivity are fairly unprecedented. The main problem that seems to come up is that while economic growth can be used to pay for the current debt, more growth tends to result in more spending. Unfortunately (This is what we've seen in Australia in particular) schemes that might reduce debt are wildly unpopular. People keep going on about unfairness. I mean, I see where they're coming from, but you've got two options. Increase taxes (on people who are paying all the bills anyway) or decrease spending (which does affect the poor disproportionately, because the wealthy aren't entitled to the programs where the money is going) Hopefully we can get over the current "equality at all costs" phase and get back to business. Populist twits like Trump getting in aren't helping this either (I think Clinton was absolutely the wrong candidate, and the Democrats deserved to lose, but Dear Christ that's a high price to pay) >>The chickens will come home to roost...especially if rates go up MORE than 5%...say, to 10%, which would mean that nearly half of the federal budget will be devoted to servicing the debt.<< If it goes up like that, it would be because the US economy is taking off in a massive and potentially dangerous way. It would also be, as you say, to counteract inflation, which would mean the rate at which the value of the money was decreasing was also high. >>Since raising interest rates is the traditional tool used to curb inflation, a far more likely scenario will be that once the attempts to raise interest rates fails (because to do so makes it prohibitively expensive to service the debt), the powers that be will decide that the lesser evil will be to purposely inflate our way out of the problem.<< That's why the Federal Reserve isn't controlled by elected politicians.
    1
  1225. You mean the Capitalism that involved a complete lack of respect for private property? Yeah. If you take away the core part of Capitalism, it's not going to work. Respect for private property is mandatory for a working economic system. Why would someone invest or try to do something when all that'll happen is they'll be declared an enemy and have the proceeds of their labour taken away from them? I get what you're getting at. The logic you're using is "Capitalism has had a failure, so it's bad" While happily ignoring the extremely consistent run of expensive failures that Socialism has produced. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it can and very frequently does work. The harder people have tried to implement Socialism, the bigger a disaster it has been. 100 million deaths over the last century with nothing to show for it. The worst thing that Hitler did was set the stage for the USSR to be a major world power. It wasn't intentional, and it wouldn't have been better if he'd won, but the fact remains that nothing else he did was nearly as damaging as that.
    1
  1226. Excuses carry more weight if there's a noteworthy success. As it is, the closest I've seen is maybe more successful than a corrupt part of Mexico and better than a literal civil war in Syria.
    1
  1227. Unfortunately needs to be allowed to completely collapse on its own. Otherwise you'll have morons saying #notsocialismsfault and blaming whoever went in and dealt with the problem for the collapse that made that intervention vital.
    1
  1228. Because idiots on both sides don't (Or pretend not to) understand the difference between socialism and social services.
    1
  1229. Yet... It's the same story that plays out every time it's attempted. Maybe.. Just maybe... It isn't a problem with our current society, as a diverse range of societies have attempted to implement it... Maybe the main thing common to all these failures is it's just a shit idea. Or, maybe try again. I mean, what's the cost? Just a few children becoming prostitutes for food. Nothing major.
    1
  1230. Oscar martinez social services aren't socialism. (And social services are a great idea.) Europe is capitalist. It's how it can pay for these social services.
    1
  1231. These would be people who, intentionally or unintentionally, don't acknowledge the huge difference between democratic (or undemocratic) socialism and social democracies.
    1
  1232. Your military is your protector here. If it ever decides to go balls deep serving a dictator, you're in real trouble.
    1
  1233. Goj Moik capitalism has successes. Can you make a successful socialist state? When answering this, try not to mention capitalist states. That's the mistake everyone seems to make.
    1
  1234. Goj Moik based on which successful socialist states?
    1
  1235. Goj Moik and socialism isn't defined as handing out free stuff. Capitalism isn't about saying people who don't have money can't have stuff. All either comment on is who owns the means of production. If you want those, stop conflating them with a failed system. The only thing they have in common is they're a nice thing. Socialism isn't about giving nice things. It's an economic system that's proven itself to be utterly incapable of providing what people need. Which is where social democracy comes in. It's solidly capitalist, which is why it can afford those nice things.
    1
  1236. Goj Moik what do either of those posts have to do with anything discussed here?
    1
  1237. Probably because people in Socialist countries have an understanding of what it is. Most supporters outside seem to think that anything that starts with the word "Social" is socialism.
    1
  1238. Remember: real socialism is never real socialism.
    1
  1239. It's just... The harder a government tries to implement it, the worse it fails. But yeah, should just keep trying. One of these days we'll get it! Just keep pushing through the economic disasters, the mass starvations, the ruined countries. Just. Keep. Trying!!!
    1
  1240. If one were to ignore timelines of sanctions and the problems experienced, one could indeed argue this. Just like one could blame the drop in oil prices, as long as one ignored the problems that were there while oil was at its peak.
    1
  1241. Capitalism does have failures, that's true. It's a useful tool, not a silver bullet. It also has successes. What successes does Socialism have? Before you say them, because the same answers come back time and time again: Nordic countries aren't Socialist and Cuba isn't a success, it's an excuse with some specific things it does well (While failing hardcore at everything else)
    1
  1242. Nordic countries have social programs. (Norway's oil is an example of Socialism. A welfare state isn't) Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production. What those countries have are programs that are compatible with Socialism (and also compatible with Capitalism) which is very different. And Cuba is Socialist. Communism is the goal, but hasn't been reached. Anywhere. If you see government, hierarchies, etc, it's not Communism,.
    1
  1243. >>You're incorrect about what communism is. Communism is a system of government, where as socialism is purely an economic system, like capitalism. Cuba's government is communist, not socialist. << No. I'm simply not. If you see a dictator, it's not Communist. Decentralisation of power is a major aspect of that sort of society. They call themselves Communist. North Korea calls itself Democratic. >>I don't think the U.S. should be completely socialist; it should take the best of what works from it (like in Norway) and implement it. We can combine the best of both worlds, while getting rid of the worst them.<< You mean if you take good things that aren't Socialism, label them socialist and start using them, we can have good things from both sides? Yeah, no. I'll happily use the things you're referring to, but they're by and large not Socialist. If we're not talking about common (read state, from a practical POV) ownership of the means of production, we're not talking about Socialism
    1
  1244. >>"If you see a dictator, it's not Communist". Really? So you've never heard of Joseph Stalin? Explains a lot.<< By this logic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic. What something calls itself is meaningless. In the DPRK's case, it's not even an aspiration. He was in charge of the Communist party. Building a Communist state was yet another entry in Stalin's long list of failures. >>You said state ownership isn't socialist if it's "practical". That's false. Whether it's "practical" or not, it's still socialism if it's common ownership. << I actually didn't. I said that from a practical point of view, common ownership meant the government that's (theoretically) representing the people. >>Socialism, like capitalism can be mishandled; look at Venezuela and Greece. The Nordic countries show that socialist policies can lead to a success. You don't have to be afraid of it; just use what works, and discard the rest.<< The Nordic countries aren't Socialist, they're Social Democracies. I'm not being afraid of anything, I'm applying correct labels. Something you seem to have problems with. You're confusing policies that are compatible with Socialism with Socialism. If we're not talking about common ownership (even if administered by the govt in the people's name) of the means of production, we're not talking about Socialism. We're not even talking about Socialistic. Generally speaking, we're talking about basic functions of government that predate Socialism by a very long time. Pensions or unemployment benefits, as an example, are a prime example of things that are compatible with Socialism (except that Socialist states quickly lose the ability to fund them) but as they're not producing anything (except maybe a lower crime rate) they're not socialistic. The sheer fact that you're required to stretch the definition of Socialism to this degree, however, shows what a stunning failure it is as an ideology. Otherwise we'd be talking about the success of a country that had actually gotten rid of its private property, successfully had everything run by the state (or even worker's cooperatives) and so on. But no. Instead, we're in a debate about semantics where you and people like you try to find something useful that's vaguely associated with it and attempt to shoehorn it in. While ignoring the ammunition that this gives people who are doing the same conflation but for opposite reasons. (You use the success of social services to argue that Socialism can work. They use the failure of Socialism to argue that social services are a bad idea)
    1
  1245. >>You think Stalin "failed" to build a communist state, even though Russia continues to be communist to this day? you are severely misinformed. << Yes, he did fail at that. And Russia ditched the attempt at Communism decades ago. Now it's just another Capitalist dictatorship with incompetent economic management. >>As far as "semantics", let me be clear: the Nordic countries ARE (successful) socialist countries. You're just incorrect, just like you are about Russia.<< Yes, I'm incorrect about them not being Communist in the same way as I'm incorrect about Russia not being Communist. Nice to see we can agree.
    1
  1246. >>Russia still has a communist party. Communism hasn't been "ditched" in Russia.<< Unless the party is in power, it's pretty clear that the attempt (which failed previously) has been ditched. >>The Nordic countries are indeed socialist. You're just wrong on that just like when you claimed Russia "ditched" communism. << Correct, I'm equally wrong on both counts. >>You and PragerU have facts as an enemy.<< From the person who thinks that the fact that a Communist party exists in a country means the country is Communist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA
    1
  1247. >>The communist party is a major political party in Russia, that is currently offering a challenger to Putin. Saying that party "failed" because it's not power would be like saying the Republican party failed when Obama was in power. << Oh, I see, we've moved from arguing whether Russia is a Communist state to arguing whether the Communist party failed because (even after 70 years of total control) it wasn't completely wiped out, and might succeed at its original goal in the future. Also: I said that Stalin failed to achieve it. So... Nice little straw man there. Unless Zombie Stalin is going to take over, he definitely did fail. Although he managed to get the name, though, so from your posts, that's enough. I'm an attack helicopter. >>Regarding Russia and communism, I meant to say communism continues to exist in Russia today, as the communist party proves, especially if they win the next election. So clearly, it hasn't been "ditched".<< You're mistaking "Might potentially rise again in the future maybe" for "Is an active goal of the Russian government" >>We can go back and forth, but you can't argue that socialist programs in Nordic countries haven't been successful. Using them as a model, socialist principles can work.<< I'm not arguing that what you call (You haven't actually stated the ones you're referring to, but I can take a guess) Socialist have failed. I'm arguing they're not Socialist programs. And in particular, I'm arguing that they're not Socialist states. They're very clearly Capitalist funding social (note the last of ist) programs.
    1
  1248. For foreign currency? If that was an option, probably plenty. If there's nothing left to hunt and they're not quite at the point of cannibalism, it could get a fair few meals.
    1
  1249. Because there aren't any. Those are capitalist market economies that use the profits from this economic system that actually works to fund a wide range of social services.
    1
  1250. No they don't. It's that simple. Finland is capitalist. Its economy is based on the free market with private enterprise. You're (probably intentionally) confusing Socialism with Social Services. I'd guess because at least that's something successful with the word "social" in it, that might gull some morons.
    1
  1251. https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
    1
  1252. Yeah. If you'll notice, the only definition he gives for the Nordic countries is that they're Social Democracies (Which isn't nearly the same as democratic Socialism) And explicitly points out they're within a capitalist framework. I'm not sure what argument you're wanting to make, but whatever it is, I don't think this is the source you want. All of what it's mentioned in Venezuela is an effect, not a cause. The cause is an attempt to introduce an unworkable system. Which is why Socialism (Actual Socialism. Not something apologists want to pretend is socialism in order to still be able to make an argument) has led to the same result over and over again.
    1
  1253. From what I've seen of your understanding of what it is.... How would you know? I'd agree, BTW. As long as state-run components were kept to the essentials (Naturally monopolistic areas such as electricity, water, telecommunications infrastructure and things that provide a good ROI for the taxpayer such as health and education.)
    1
  1254. If you want those, stop trying to falsely equate them with Socialism. They're social services paid for by a Capitalist economy. Two sorts of people benefit from what you're doing there: 1. People who are against Social Services, who want to use the constant failure of Socialism to smear Social Services 2. People who are in favour of Socialism, who want to piggy back off the success of Social Services to support them. Neither of these people will ever provide what you're after. The former because they're actively against it. The second because countries run by them run out of cash and are unable to do squat.
    1
  1255. Bernie Sanders as opposed to what? Real world examples of improvements that aren't based on capitalism are needed here.
    1
  1256. Thank you for the comprehensive list of better alternatives backed by real-world examples. If you ever do have a working alternative, let me know. In the meantime, Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've found so far.
    1
  1257. Thomas Branz it's the attempt to become socialist. Because this is a road with a well known end point. Failure after failure after failure. 100 million dead, nothing to show for it.
    1
  1258. Thomas Branz great leap forward, that type of thing. The GLF alone is between 18 (lowest official estimate) and 55 million. In peace time. That's the normal number for deaths due to the experiment.
    1
  1259. That seems pretty par for the course for a real world socialist government. I get that it's not supposed to happen in theory, but reality is more important.
    1
  1260. In fairness, he's not the first socialist dictator to starve his people.
    1
  1261. That and the small fact that every attempt at socialism fails. Excuses are more believable when there are successes. When it's the rule, excuses are worthless.
    1
  1262. Yep. You can have all the nice things you want, as long as you can pay for them. If you can't pay for them, well.... GL with that.
    1
  1263. Shame on the people who vote for those leaders. Shame on people who keep coming up with excuses. Shame on people who try to change the definitions. TL;DR - Shame on people who completely lack any pattern recognition abilities. (And shame on people who pretend to want to help the poor as a way of allowing them to look moral while attacking the wealthy)
    1
  1264. This is why people normally give Capitalist countries as examples of Socialist successes. Or, at best, points out what improves in these countries once they've abandoned the quest for Socialism without ever actually acknowledging that fact (at least until called on it)
    1
  1265. rok šuster that's a strange definition of working. Considering it became yet another socialist state that was unable to service its debt.
    1
  1266. rok šuster immediately after he makes changes that reduce his power, things start to fall apart, and you don't think that he set any of the scene for that? By what magic did things go from being good to being unsustainably horrible in that time period? By 1970 debt was not anymore contracted to finance investment, but to cover current expenses. The country ran into a deep economic crisis, marked by significant unemployment and inflation. The sign that the robustness of the Yugoslav economy was an illusion appeared immediately after Tito’s death, when the country could not repay the massive debt accumulated between 1961 and 1980. Between 1961 and 1980, external debt of Yugoslavia increased exponentially at the unsustainable pace of over 17% per year. The structure of the economy had formed in such a way that the future survival of the economy relied on the exclusive condition of future enlargement of the debt.
    1
  1267. Adrià what do you think it is?
    1
  1268. Where are they doing that?
    1
  1269. Excuses are much more effective when there are some successes to go along with it. When a particular idea is associated with nothing but failure, it really looks like the problem is with that idea.
    1
  1270. Soo Hong regressives call themselves liberals. There's a difference.
    1
  1271. The big problem I've seen on here is that people think "The government doing stuff" (Education, healthcare, etc) is Socialism. Social Services funded by Capitalist economies are fantastic. Socialism is a recipe for disaster.
    1
  1272. No. Only after they've failed to reach Socialism can they fail to reach Communism. There have been no successes. Just expensive failure after expensive failure trying to achieve an unattainable goal that would probably fail if it were achieved anyway.
    1
  1273. Realistically, they need food, electricity and medicine first. Chavez and Maduro failed so badly that they put the entire country down to the bottom level of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
    1
  1274.  @Fantom6400  what a weird response. When did I say Venezuela was your fault? What point were you trying to make?
    1
  1275. MaryMag & Martha have to be honest. It's fun to watch Cortez. "200 million Americans are on below 20k a year. That's 40 percent of the population."
    1
  1276. MaryMag & Martha it's a pity her and Corbyn aren't on opposing sides (and be running in the same political race, obviously). I'd love to see them go toe to toe.
    1
  1277. I also missed ghadaffi and will miss North Korea for similar reasons. Expensive jokes. Damaging jokes. Dangerous jokes. But jokes nonetheless.
    1
  1278. Maybe if you put them together, they'd simply self destruct. Did you ever see Corbyn talking about the letter of last resort he'd leave for the nuclear sub captains in case the UK was nuked?
    1
  1279. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FbWsINjpRY https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/17/jeremy-corbyn-trident-compromise-no-nuclear-warheads There's another where he's asked about the letters of last resort. Can't find it. Anyway, he goes into a ramble about how great it would be to never have nuclear war. Absolutely no response to the fact that the letters are there in the event that nuclear weapons have already been used and the British government has been wiped out. If he'd even said "I'm not telling anyone what I'll write" I'd have respected that.
    1
  1280. Kiwi712 _ it's not using capitalist ideas so much as capitalism. And yeah. The CCP is doing to voluntarily give up power when the time is ripe. President for life Xi is totally on board with stepping down. Being serious... What is it about China that makes any of this seem likely? The simpler truth is they've given up. 60 million dead with nothing to show for it.
    1
  1281.  @aradicalkiwi806  it..... Really didn't. Deng Xiaoping embracing capitalism did that. Th GLF was simply a colossal waste of time, effort and lives.
    1
  1282. >>Robert Bray The steep rise in industrial production started with the Great Leap Forward<< I'm interested in your reasoning for that. It certainly wasn't an economic benefit in its own right. GDP shrunk by 16 billion (beforehand it had been rising quite nicely) including the final year in which it shrunk by about 3 billion (50.4 to 47.2) This includes a 12 billion from a mid-GLF (before things went too crazy) height to when it was all called off. >>but I do agree that Deng Xiaoping helped it along by instituting Capitalism, but I still don't think it is near enough to call it a capitalist country, it would be closer to a market socialist country, Business is allowed, but heavily regulated by an all powerful government<< It's very Capitalist now. The regulations are there, but one of the big problems the country has is that regulations are ignored (unless someone powerful doesn't like competition) Privately owned industry all over the place. You should check it out sometime. >>Communism needs capitalism to grow out of<< Evidence for this would include any Capitalist country that's successfully made the transition. >>And even so I think Deng Xiopings institution of capitalism proves my previous point, because if china wanted to further regulate business, they could<< So... Because more regulation is possible, it's Socialist? >>This would cause little to no economic backlash as there economy is already self sufficient to an extend<< I was about to say it isn't, but then I saw you said 'to an extend' Which makes the statement fairly meaningless. However. Yes it would. The country is massively dependent on exports. >>Which matches with Lenin's ideas of capitalist ideas to create a base to embrace total Marxism later<< Because... It's possible to regulate more? I'm really interested in your logic here. >>Although major political change does cause destabilization, that isn't exactly a problem for an all powerful government.<< That's obviously why the USSR still exists. Because political change isn't a problem for an all powerful government. I'm Australian. We'll have a revolution and a change of government in about the next year. The biggest source of fatalities will probably be car accidents on the way to the polling booths. When we decide we don't like Labor, we'll do the same thing again. new people, new ideas, new lessons. What option do the Chinese people have for replacing the Communist party without a literal civil war (and a resulting breakup of the country)?
    1
  1283. Also worth mentioning here that there's no end of countries that managed to find a way to become industrialised without starving tens of millions to death.
    1
  1284. Are you talking about Venezuela? Or some other random country? If we're talking about Venezuela, lots ARE asking for full-on Socialism. If we're talking about other random countries... Plenty are, even if a large number of those have no idea what they're really asking for, the people trying to make use of them are perfectly aware of the difference.
    1
  1285. Comment that vaguely implies it's incorrect without giving details hmm....
    1
  1286. Reality is anti-socialist propaganda. Witness the track record of socialist states over the last century.
    1
  1287. Helen: lyow and Chris being morons doesn't change that you're on their level.
    1
  1288. Communism is stateless, classless, moneyless, everyone contributes how they can and receives what they need. It's the nirvana socialism was meant to lead to. What you think of as communism is almost certainly socialism. Ignore the name of the communist parties. That was the official goal. Not the sort of state they controlled.
    1
  1289. Denmark, Sweden and Finland are borrowing money. (Well... Over the past two years, Sweden and Denmark are paying it back.) which is normally one of the main reasons conservative governments sell stuff off. Another reason is that the money can be taken from something that's not overly profitable and (theoretically) be put into something that's more profitable. They're generally not doing it for a laugh, but because there's better things they think the money can be spent on. We had a conservative govt. It's one of the reasons we were barely hit by the GFC. Then we had a fairly left-wing govt come in. If another GFC happens, we've got serious problems. Our reserves are gone in a very short period of time. Those countries also have very high tax rates. As far as big exploiters go.... Well... They're being paid because they produce something. The US is easily, by an absurdly wide margin, the global leader in medical research. So... What do you prefer? Something expensive that exists? Or something that would be cheap if it existed, but it doesn't, so you can't have it at any price. If something I need is expensive, at least I've got a chance of being able to have it. The only thing I get from it not existing is the moral satisfaction that Bill Gates would also have been killed by it. To put it another way: There's a reasonable chance that your life, or at least the life of someone you know and love, will be saved by the medical research that's funded by Americans paying buckets of cash for their healthcare. If you remove the profit incentive, you remove the research. Not all of it, but it'll definitely have a big impact that could cost hundreds of millions to billions of lives in the long term.
    1
  1290. I was under the impression that Social Democrats fought for equality under a Capitalist system. Which is just fine... The problem with Socialism is it destroys where the money comes from. It's also supported by people who just don't seem to understand that you can have all the nice things you want... As long as you can pay for it. This being said: It wouldn't surprise me if they were. I've got no doubt that at least some were. Others... I would say that others are true believers who simply can't accept that their idea isn't working (Or would work with one more push. Always one more good, hard push) To be honest, if I were given a choice, I'd prefer the cynical bastard who was pretending to believe it for his own benefit. I don't think that sort of person would be half as destructive. (You can't loot from a ruined economy, now can you?)
    1
  1291. The attempt at Socialism is damaging enough. Just because Socialism hasn't been fully implemented doesn't mean it wasn't the attempt at Socialism that destroyed the place
    1
  1292.  @PivotAnimator999  do you have any examples of successful socialist states to support this idea?
    1
  1293. ​ @PivotAnimator999  >>Cuba nowadays<< A Socialist state whose claim to fame is being able to do very specific things on a level approaching some of the crappier Western nations >>The Soviet Union before Gorbachev<< A country so 'successful' it needed to be turned into a literal prison. If you think that's unfair, please tell me what aspect of a prison the USSR was missing. Walls. Guards. Traps. Escape without permission was illegal. All designed to keep people in. >>The Soviet Union did not work not because of Socialism but because of the Capitalist infiltration<< Which is obviously why the wall's defences were aimed inwards. To keep out the Capitalists. >>All Capitalist nations would collapse if Socialist reforms were implemented.<< Probably. Implementing crap ideas does tend to lead to severe damage. >>Having elements of opposing Economies would inevitably led to the collapse of that particular system. Doesn't it? << In the case of Capitalism, because Socialist reforms are crappy ideas. In the case of Socialism, because the people who an economy needs will abandon Socialism in a heartbeat for the rewards that Capitalism can offer. Which is why the USSR was a literal prison.
    1
  1294.  @PivotAnimator999  Cuba has an excuse, and you haven't told me what aspect of a prison the USSR was missing. Soviet citizens and citizens of the Eastern bloc couldn't freely go in and out. If you're referring only to pre WW2, that's disingenuous. If you're referring to the majority of post WW2 time, that's a lie. Want to try again?
    1
  1295.  @PivotAnimator999  Prisons are designed to keep people in, rather than out. The fact is the USSR (not the West) found it necessary to build a wall to keep people in*. Not *out People in the Eastern bloc could move freely in the Eastern bloc, but they couldn't get *out*. The fact that both groups couldn't move freely on either side was due to the actions of the USSR. Do you understand the difference?
    1
  1296. ​ @PivotAnimator999  You've spent the last few posts telling me how easy it was for them to do that. Demonstrating it wasn't the West that was stopping anyone.
    1
  1297.  @PivotAnimator999  If the cold war was the issue, they'd be concerned about an invasion. So why point the defences against their own citizens? Why was it only possible to have people from the West go into the East? Shouldn't it have been the other way around?
    1
  1298.  @PivotAnimator999  And who was it that decided that only special people could travel? Which govt was it? Is there a chance it was the same govt that built and manned the wall? The same govt that had a habit of shooting people who tried to go in the wrong direction? For how special you had to be, here's a few English language USSR tourism ads. https://www.quora.com/Was-there-tourism-in-the-USSR-if-so-were-the-tourists-allowed-to-roam-and-travel-freely Including was does not appear to be a pre-war airline. Edit: Anyway, I'm loving how you phrased that. 'permission from both govts' Which appears to give the govt that says "Yeah, sure, do what you like, I don't care" the same responsibility for the lack of travel as the one that's forbidding everything. Forbidding everything and shooting those who leave without permission.
    1
  1299.  @PivotAnimator999  1 is exactly what I would expect if it was only the eastern bloc that was restricting emigration. For 2, i like your attempt to conflate trade with freedom of movement. Different things. I'm also enjoying how you insist on ignoring that the wall was built by the soviets, that the west was against it, and that the defences pointed east. Do you think you can point to examples of western governments shooting ordinary people who were trying to go east?
    1
  1300.  @PivotAnimator999  So. In order to stop people who were going West, working, then bringing the money back to buy things in the East... OR TO prevent spies, etc coming in from the West... the USSR felt it necessary to build a wall whose defences were pointed at their own citizenry, instead of towards the West? Is this really what you're claiming? I've got NFI of what missiles have to do with the wall. The wall wasn't designed to stop missiles. They were capable of simply flying over it. And which part of what I'm saying are you disputing? The core bit at this point really is the direction the defences were pointed in. Are you claiming they were pointed West?
    1
  1301. Socialism isn't taxpayer funded stuff.
    1
  1302. While California is ground zero for some of the biggest and most successful companies the world has ever seen. Silicon Valley in particular should be seen as a mecca for the positive benefits of Capitalism.
    1
  1303. Simple: It's Capitalism funding Social Services. If you've got the income, you can have all the nice things you want. The problem with Socialism is it destroys where the money comes from.
    1
  1304. However, they've held the balance of power before. All we need is another Gillard.
    1
  1305. darkhawk1979 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' Yeah. All we need is another Gillard to be given an ultimatum. Shorten has a history of being eminently corruptible. I've no doubt he'd do whatever it took if it was green votes keeping him in the lodge. He was willing enough to sell out his union members for a shot at getting a seat. I don't imagine for a moment he'd happily do the same again.
    1
  1306. Kimberly Scholl contains no socialist countries.
    1
  1307. Bad idea. This needs to come to an ultimate failure on its own. To make it more difficult for future leaders of other countries to blame it on the US. It's harsh, but it's better than having another country go through the same thing. Although watch south Africa.
    1
  1308.  @KillSwitchI  things are bad enough there it's easy to take anything like that seriously 😋️ Anyway. For education, if the people don't recognise there's a massive problem with the current setup, I don't think there's anything else that could work.
    1
  1309. Bardenateur that would be a very short video. It isn't.
    1
  1310. Bardenateur what do you think the word means? And why promote the incorrect use of the term?
    1
  1311. Also, go and have a look at the number of people who say 'socialism works. Look at Scandinavia' They're probably not conservatives...
    1
  1312. Bardenateur in which Scandinavian country are the means of production commonly owned?
    1
  1313. Bardenateur as does the left. Both sides misuse the term for their own agenda. While you're on Wikipedia, crack open social democracy (which is an offshoot but isn't socialism) and see which applies to Scandinavian countries.
    1
  1314. Ok. Let's find some common ground. Can we agree that social services, such as education, healthcare and a social safety net are a pretty damn good idea that has caused massive improvements over all?
    1
  1315. Yep.
    1
  1316. It sounds like social democrats like Bernie Sanders should divorce themselves from socialism and stop calling themselves socialist. Also: nationalising industry is very much a socialist policy, and a major reason the Venezuelan economy tanked.
    1
  1317.  @Krosskaos  I'd agree it doesn't suit him. He's a fool for choosing that title. And for nationalised industries. It's about the means of production. Things that make an economy an economy. You can't run an economy on free education and healthcare. They're better described as the means of consumption. (with overall positive benefits. But they're not socialism. Simply the nice stuff that socialism was meant to pay for, but generally fails to do.) There are two types of people who benefit from conflating social services such as education with Socialism. 1. People who are against taxpayer funded Social Services, who want to perceptually tie them to the epic failure that was Socialism. (Democratic or otherwise. Also: You can't have a system that doesn't work and democracy. People tend to walk away from things that don't work. Ultimately, you can have Socialism, or you can have Democracy) 2. People who are in favour of Socialism and want to tie them to the fantastic success of Social Services in order to fool people into supporting it. Neither is our friend. And anyone who's neither of those yet is conflating it anyway should do themselves a favour, pick up a dictionary and stop conflating the terms Sanders-style.
    1
  1318. Venezuela was having massive economic problems while oil was at its peak. Here's a BBC article written January 2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25745959 The price didn't drop until the best part of a year later.
    1
  1319. I'd agree. Only reasons I'd comment are to point out that, despite what an unholy mass of people believe, social benefits aren't Socialism, and that Socialism always seems to lead down this same road.
    1
  1320. If you could work 50 hours a day, you'd obviously invented time travel, and so would be able to sell the patent on your invention for countless billions. (Only to have the first person you sold the patent to go back to a month before you filed your own patent and file his own :P) But assuming you meant week ;) At first, I'd read that as "I would rather work 50 hours a day to barely get by than to have someone do better than me" (I'd only had a preview up to 'to') Which I'd swear is an attitude I've seen from many Socialists. It's not good enough that over all people are doing better, the real villain is inequality, and if that means making everyone's life worse, then so be it.
    1
  1321. Helen E yes, some capitalist countries are better in many metrics than other capitalist countries. Is there a point you're trying to make?
    1
  1322. Andrew: It's nice to see less money being wasted. Particularly not wasted on organisations that claim to be the basis of human morality, but (from top to bottom) shield and assist their employees in having sex with children. (I'm in Australia. We'd just had a vote on homosexual marriage at the same time as a royal commission into child abuse was wrapping up. It was interesting to see the churches rant on about the dangers to children while news on what they had been hiding was coming out) Also, in the days where the church, etc helped these people, things weren't exactly better. People have a rosy view of the past, but that view is basically wrong. As far as Africa goes: If various churches would stop saying condoms are a bad idea in a place where AIDS is rampant, that would be awesome.
    1
  1323. Andrew: Re-read what I said. Specifically "But assuming you meant week ;)", "At first, I'd read that as" and "Which I'd swear is an attitude I've seen from many Socialists" On economic things, we'd agree. Although personally, it's not a pride thing, so much as a thing where I want the best deal for myself and my family possible. Welfare is the worst-case scenario. Anything else must be better than that by definition (or else GL with finding someone who'll do it)
    1
  1324. Because if you'd read it, particularly the parts I quoted, you'd have seen I was acknowledging that you'd just made a typo, and I was acknowledging that I'd misread what you'd said at first glance (When I just had the introduction to go off) Then I was explaining the thoughts that went through my head as I saw it. I wasn't calling you a Socialist. I was saying that Socialists seem to hold a similar position to my initial misreading.
    1
  1325. sigh Ok. I need to be very clear here. I have not, am not, and will (Unless you change a bit in the future) not, call you a Socialist. I'm sorry I was (apparently) unclear when I was saying this, but the closest I've come to saying you are is pointing out how I misread what you said at first and pointing out that I've seen many Socialists who seem to act in accordance with how I initially misread your statement. They'd rather cut off their noses to spite their faces (Or they'd rather screw themselves if it meant the wealthy were screwed)
    1
  1326. Microsoft starting to embrace open source and work with Linux means that hell froze over a few years ago. Another event is needed :P
    1
  1327. Sanctions came in after it had fallen apart. Populism isn't good or bad. It's doing what the people want. Saying capitalism was the enemy was the bad bit.
    1
  1328. Their economy was collapsing in January 2014, when oil was at over $100 a barrel.
    1
  1329. Socialism has a strong tendency to result in dictatorships. The two things aren't incompatible.
    1
  1330. Ignoring that the crash in oil prices happened six months after the Venezuelan economy started falling apart. The reason Venezuela failed is because its government drove away private investment and skilled workers. Combined with failing to reinvest money in its one source of income. The crash also predates sanctions.
    1
  1331. brent fisher too late. Really, pack your bags and leave. I couldn't believe SA made the same land ownership mistake Zimbabwe did.
    1
  1332. Because it was a work in progress. With people capable of running an economy also capable of seeing what happened to people like them in other places this had been tried. The Berlin Wall wasn't an accident. It was a necessity for making productive people stay in places like this.
    1
  1333. If you think of the government as representing the people and working on their behalf, then that argument becomes a bit more difficult. Also... No, it's not inherently authoritarian, but... Every time it's been tried it's failed, which indicates it's just an unworkable idea. Now, when you've got an unworkable idea in a democratic state, one of two things will happen. The first is that people will walk away, because first and foremost, they want something that'll improve their lives (Something that hardcore attempts to implement Socialism have uniformly failed to do. If you want to bring people out of poverty, Capitalism is the tool to go for) The second is that in an attempt to stop the people walking away, the government will crack down and become authoritarian (because if the ideology is correct, then it's the people who are the problem. They need to be bought into line) So the reason it goes into dictatorship isn't because it's Socialism, but simply because bad ideas lead to bad outcomes if they're not abandoned.
    1
  1334. Why are you talking about countries that aren't Socialist? And the collapse in the Venezuelan economy started long before the collapse in oil prices.
    1
  1335.  @bullmancake  ok. Why are you talking about countries that haven't implemented socialism? In this context: socialism = noun Socialist = adjective describing a state that's implemented socialism.
    1
  1336. "A true friend" in this case would be getting the American taxpayer to bail out a government that's made the same old tired mistakes, propping it up to let it keep doing the same thing, and pushing it further and further into a cycle of dependency? No. If it did that, Venezuela would never recover. If they sent cash, that would simply mean the country's leadership had nicer overseas bank accounts or embark on even dumber ventures, confident that the US taxpayer would foot the bill. If they sent free food, etc, then that would simply destroy the local farming industry (amongst others) In cases like this, all you can do is let the root cause die off. Sustaining it only delays the evil day. On and the Chinese and Russians were already there. They're there because Chavez borrowed excessive amounts of cash from them to prop up his own unworkable ideas. If US banks wouldn't lend to him, it's because they didn't see any chance of actually making a profit (IE: Being repaid plus interest. And before you whine about interest, without a profit motive, why would the banks take risk)? Why did China lend to them? Well.... Ask Sri Lanka.
    1
  1337. Marc Bell I doubt the imf trusts the maduro govt now. Not many do trust defaulters. And what Venezuela needs is calories first and foremost. Looks like Maduro still thinks price controls will save the day though. You can buy nothing at half price! Anyway, maybe the US should help. It probably will once a government that won't definitely squander whatever it's given is in. Kind of like why you don't give a gambling addict money. Someone who's legitimately quit gambling and is trying to get his life back together? Sure. Someone who's still a addict? Give as much as you like. The casino thanks you.
    1
  1338. You should have Googled that guy before you used him. Also: Either Venezuela is having real problems, is letting China and Russia in and needs help (from the US, which apparently owes it after the $30 million gift Chavez gave while trying to look like a big man), or it isn't. With this guy, you're arguing both. On the flipside, I'm guessing now is when you claim the Guardian is a right-wing rag. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/26/nicolas-maduro-donald-trump-venezuela-hunger and: >>Venezuela hasn't taken loans from the IMF since they paid off what they owed in 2017. IMF is too tied to Washington dirty tricks and all the nations in S America try to avoid it now..<< I didn't say he'd borrowed from the IMF. I said not many trust defaulters. Y'see, when someone defaults, that information isn't kept private. It's spread around. If he can default to one organisation, he can default to another.
    1
  1339. >>So Chavez giving free heating oil for years to poor Americans (that Washington wasn't helping) was just Chavez trying to be a big man? << Yep. He was using his people's money (that they now desperately need) to look like a big man on the world stage. If he was like Bill Gates and using his own money, sure. Not a problem. But it wasn't his money. It belonged to the people of Venezuela. The way to thank the Venezuelan people is NOT to help prop up the government that failed them. >> So really there's nothing Chavez could have done to make you like him.<< Improving Venezuela's situation and not setting the stage for its economic collapse would have been a good start. >> If he answers the demands of his people that elected him he's just being a populist and doing it for votes<< A politician doing something for votes? Colour me surprised. Anyway: It's nice to see your attempt to divert blame there to the people who voted for him. Anyway, If something's unfeasible, it shouldn't be promised. If a politician goes out arguing for something that doesn't work, and convinces the people, I don't care how many voted for that politician, I'm going to hold that person accountable. If it won't work, don't promise it. Anything else is irresponsible. >>You're an ideologue and there's no way to win with people like you because you aren't rational and fair minded.<< What were you saying about projecting earlier?
    1
  1340. I've read that three times and I've got absolutely no idea what your point is, or how you arrived at the idea that my world view says "it doesn't matter" Feel like quoting the bits that gave you this idea? >>Re your hero of capitalism, Bill Gates. Bill Gates and other CEOs have been firing American engineers and techs, then importing engineers and techs from India. This is partly how American CEOs made an increase in their bottom line. How patriotic. That brand of capitalism is a moral failure.<< 1. What does that have to do with the morality of using your own money to do things, vs using other people's money? 2. Why is patriotism moral? Why shouldn't non-Americans have a chance to better themselves?
    1
  1341. >>Chavez shared the wealth of his nation with American poor. That was a good will gesture and nothing was stolen from the people of Venezuela.<< Nice straw man. I didn't say stolen. I did say it was their oil. Yes, he could legally do that, which means stolen is disqualified, but it was still him giving his people's money to a much richer nation. And if you're going to try to suggest that a politician doesn't focus on its image, I'm just going to laugh and keep on laughing. The sad fact is that politicians who ignore their image don't remain politicians very long. >>My point is it doesn't matter what Chavez or Maduro do - you turn a blind eye to good things like giving American poor free oil for the winter<< Was it his oil? Or the Venezuelan people's? Hint: It wasn't his. >>Chavez spending 6% on education and affordable medical clinics<< And? Whenever you say this, you make it seem like it was his money. It wasn't. At best, he's giving the Venezuelan people their money back. >>You don't trust any observers saying elections were fair<< Is there a reason I should trust the observers that the government decided to allow in? >>and you don't trust telesur<< Is there a reason I should? >>What you trust is the news from the colonial powers that have been trying to (illegally) topple the Chavez government all along<< Whereas you only trust groups that are dedicated to upholding your ideological viewpoint. Venezuela doesn't want to be subjugated to the IMF/ world bank or USA. BTW. Are you suggesting the Guardian is right-wing? >>Get one thing thru your thick aussie head if nothing else:<< Temper, temper. Or I might remind you that you've gone silent on attempts to claim Chavez wasn't a dictator. >>Venezuela doesn't want to be subjugated to the IMF/ world bank or USA. << With a strong economy, it doesn't need to be. >>They are willing to sacrifice a lot for the right to be self determined<< Maduro is willing to sacrifice a lot to stay in power. Maduro is willing to fight to the last Venezuelan. >>Venezuela will do fine with Russia and China as customers.<< Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Oh, that's hilarious. You should do standup with lines like that! Dearie me. What's happening qualifies as 'just fine' Just... Lol. chuckle BTW. Still waiting to hear how patriotism is moral and why Indians and Chinese shouldn't have the chance to improve their lives. Really interested in that. I noticed you failed to elaborate.
    1
  1342. 1. Those jobs don't belong to anyone. No-one is entitled to them. If they belong to anyone, they belong to the employer that created them. The Oil belongs to the Venezuelan people. 2. Yes, your constant assertion and explicit refusal to look at the definition of what a dictator is have been very convincing arguments. Anyway, in the classic sense of the definition... Yes. Very explicitly. If you want to deny it, you're going to have to start addressing definitions. As it is, your attempts to skirt around this are just a wonderfully funny confirmation that I'm correct, but you lack the personal integrity to accept this. BTW, it's pretty funny how you've retreated from that particular thread, tail between your legs. You're a laugh a minute. 3. >> No leader had ever addressed the education problem as Chavez did<< Improvements in educational standards have been pretty solid all over the world. Even if Venezuela went from 10% literacy to 99%, that's something that's happened time and time again. >> Yes a nations wealth belongs to the people (glad you get that) - it's a main tenant of socialism. You might be a socialist and don't know it.<< The natural resources of a nation? Things that were there regardless of the efforts of the inhabitants of that nation? The tax dollars collected by a nation? Yes. They do. The wealth of the nation encompasses much more than that, though. Things that a person creates, minus taxes to pay for the infrastructure, etc required to keep things going, belong to that person. 4. It's hilarious that you say this while suggesting that China and Russia are all they need. Ask Sri Lanka. And Venezuela needs competent economic leadership. It needs someone who's not retarded enough to double down on things like price controls when disasters are already underway. For a start. 5. This is about where we start looking at timelines. How about you give me the action and the date, and we look at when their problems started?
    1
  1343. >> How about YOU go study a timeline (I already have) if you have any doubt that these underlying problems started long before Chavez got there. 73' oil and population boom and no leaders did much diversification of exports<< So, the fact that others didn't diversify when diversification was needed makes it OK that Chavez didn't? Anyway, we know that in the 2000's, Chavez felt he had enough income to strip money away from the Oil industry and throw his (The Venezuelan people's, but whatever) largesse around the world. If he didn't have sufficient free resources to do this (Ok, he didn't, but whatever. If this lack long predated it) then that makes his waste even worse. Not better. >> China and Russia are certainly big enough clients so Venezuela doesn't need USA. Are you kidding?<< If you think the USA is bad to the trading partners that rely on it, you should see China and Russia. This is why I keep on mentioning Sri Lanka. >> Get some morals<< See, I'm being told to get morals by someone who thinks that patriotism is moral. How am I expected to take that seriously?
    1
  1344. 1. https://www.ft.com/content/e150ef0c-de37-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c 2A. Custodian doesn't mean it was his. 2B: Really? Smart? How is this helping them now? 2C: If keeping the work at home means that they're not able to compete with international companies, that's much more destructive. and 2D: When convenient, you seem to think that things belong to all the people around the world. Then you start to say it's immoral to perform actions that give people in less developed countries a chance to improve themselves. Why do I get the feeling you've lost your job to Chinese/Indians before? 3. Why does it take a huge amount of foresight to at least understand that if your economy relies on one thing, to keep that one thing alive at all costs? Why does it take a huge amount of foresight to understand that oil prices rise and fall and from that, maybe not bet the bank on oil prices staying high forever? This last is while gutting your oil industry. Venezuela is doing nicely in helping OPEC maintain its cuts.... That's not a good thing in this case. 4. Is an empty statement that has nothing to do with the question I asked.
    1
  1345. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  1346. Except that those who are after it don't want to basically have a small number of taxpayer-funded social services. If they were just after that, what's the point in the revolution? Capitalist countries are normally very happy to have those (And those three things do, by and large, pay for themselves. Education ensures a useful workforce - Good for business. Healthcare helps ensure a healthy workforce - also good for business. Welfare helps ensure that those who aren't part of the workforce aren't going to need to mug you to get their next meal. What they want is to control the entire economy in this way... Ignoring that it fails every time.
    1
  1347. Nothing I'd disagree with there. But not sure what that has to do with Socialism :P
    1
  1348. >>You can completely socialize education to speed up R&D to all.<< Or have public and private schools, as we do anyway. >>Let me put it this way... without limitations the Nazi party was able to out compete every democratic nation in R&D... somehow... shouldn't we learn from at least this?<< Mmm.... No. In R&D, they really weren't. They were prepared when they started WW2, the Western countries had completely dropped the ball, but their R&D was not faster. In many ways, it was a shambles. There are lots of things to learn from WW2, and not everything Hitler did was bad (No-one is purely bad) but how they handle their R&D is not something to emulate. If you want something to emulate, you look at the US system. There's a reason it's the IT centre of the world.
    1
  1349. Don't confuse "many" with overall. That's basically the definition of cherry picking. There's a very good discussion of it here. https://www.quora.com/How-was-Nazi-Germany-able-to-technologically-surpass-the-Allies-in-so-many-ways And... No. The UK, I'd give you as a possibility, but the US? No. They just had too many advantages there. It was never going to happen.
    1
  1350. Huge ones. And... That same problem works in reverse. Between the US and Germany, the best the Germans could hope for was a draw. Besides that, massive industrial base, massive population, massive amounts of natural resources. Local populaces that didn't actively hate them. Germany never quite got mass production. The US made an art form out of it. A prime example of this is that the Germany army was still a horse army. The US army wasn't. Germany's problem was it needed a quick win. As soon as it became a slogging match, it wasn't going to happen. Operation Sealion also wasn't going to happen. The quality landing craft just weren't there. Anyway, very good series on the economic side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYv-GC8DgMk
    1
  1351. Don't confuse "Making it easier" with "Making it possible" And again we go back to: At best, Germany could have kept Europe and England. Defeating the US is a very, very different question.
    1
  1352. >> Many historians believe that at crucial points... << Many people believe many things. >>Hitlers armies ran out of oil which is not indigenous to Germany.<< Europe did have it. Doesn't really help your argument that they could have defeated the US though. >> they were not a horse army<< http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-wwii-german-army-was-80-horse-drawn-business-lessons-from-history/ >> they had tanks and vehicles... many of them. They needed gasoline XD<< They did. But they still relied on horses. But you're really killing off any potential argument that they could have possibly won against the US.
    1
  1353. >>If it took us that long to defeat horse backs in WW2... the allies suck! XD Even Japan and Italy was ahead of them!<< So you don't quite understand that the presence of things that aren't horses doesn't mean it didn't rely on them. Interesting. War needs supplies. Lots of them. If you can't move them where they're needed in sufficient quantities, things will go badly. >>The Cubans could have mounted 50 caliber machine guns to their 50s cars and played Elvis to attract kills at that rate :P We'd all be Cuban XD<< What? >>Sorry I get my facts from books, the history channel, and other trustful sources... not random sites.<< With the amount of sources you've given, how would we know? >>What is zdnet? sounds fishy to me :P<< That's nice. Technology and business news site. Been around for quite a while.
    1
  1354. So basically, you'd like me to do what you do, and just spout a combination of unsourced bollocks and goalpost shifting? You seem to have abandoned your idea that defeating the US would have been an option if they'd stayed away from Russia, as an example. Went very quiet after you'd been given a list of America's assets (I mean quiet on that subject. There was still much noise in the form of unsourced vagaries and bollocks) For your points in general, though. If things were different, they'd have been different. If Hitler had had resources, a large population base, better supply lines, hadn't driven out or murdered massive amounts of his intelligentsia, didn't waste time on cool shit like the V2 and so on and so forth, things might have been different. But still interested to see the scenario in which an invasion of the US (You did say taking the US. That's not having a draw with them, but actually defeating them) would have been feasible. There was no England equivalent they could use, and I can't see German troops fighting up through Mexico, somehow.
    1
  1355. As for this: >>So you think an 80% horse drawn army in WW2 was enough to make both England and America frightened enough to join an adversary like Stalin? Think about that?<< Why not? Better for Stalin's troops to die than their own. And... Stalin was in the war anyway. Enemy of my enemy and all that.
    1
  1356. Yeah, but if you went in properly, there's a chance you might need to actually stick to the same arguments, rather than hopping all over the place (Such as your abandoned belief that Germany had a chance of winning against the US) , and provide sources, rather than assertions. I can't see that happening.
    1
  1357. You probably can't. I dunno, have you ever read a book? The impression you're giving is no. Anyway: Sources. Checkable sources. Or don't bother. As it is, you're fairly blatantly pulling stuff out of your arse and suggesting I watch unspecified stuff from a source that's gone from history to aliens and general conspiracy theories. This question really says more about the depth of your knowledge than anything else ever could: "I don't abandon the belief that Germany had a chance of winning against the US. It did. If you want my sources... It's mainly the history channel in this instance. What they say is plausible given certain conditions. To say it could never be done rules out any reason of Germany ever going to war in the first place? Why would a country start a war it knew it never had a chance in winning?" The US wasn't in the war at the beginning. They were openly against joining the war. Why would a country that blatantly didn't want to join any European wars be a factor in Hitler starting the war in the first place? Why would you believe that it was unless you believe that WW2 started with Pearl Harbour? You can ask why Hitler went out of his way to declare war on the US instead of dropping the Japanese as allies like hot coals, and the answer there is probably along the lines that Hitler managed to get a pretty overinflated idea of his abilities as a leader. (Hitler wasn't really famous for tolerating people who disagreed with him) Anyway, find a real source. That you can present. Not one that leads you to ask ridiculous questions like that.
    1
  1358. >>This is because Hitler was in the "first" world war and knew that the war was a stalemate until the US entered the war. Knowing this he knew in the future (he learned?) he would need a speedy victory in Europe before the US felt the pressure of getting evolved in another European war. Thus he speed up military funding and recruitment to make a decisive win in Europe before the US would have time to react (all in secret mind you). Using schools, commercial businesses, and non military buildings. << "I can win before the US gets involved" is very different to thinking "I can defeat the US" But thank you for conceding that point. Also.... Yeah.... The US involvement in WW1 was welcome, but didn't make a huge amount of difference. You need to read a book rather than gaze at the History channel. >>To answer your second question: Why would you believe that it was unless you believe that WW2 started with Pearl Harbor? I believe this because we were already sending volunteers and military hardware to England prior to Pearl Harbor. War was inevitable... but was sped up by the attack. << Yeah, that's individual Americans being involved, and Americans selling war supplies. That's very different to America being involved. You might as well talk about the Irish volunteers. Also: It's interesting you say this, when your first answer really was the correct one. He planned to get it over and done with quickly. >>For Christ sake! This is WW2... 101... really? Gosh damn! You read a freaking book bro! << Ah, recycling the opposition's claims when you've already made your own point meaningless. Very good. >>PS... he never went against Japan or Italy! Only Russia! Jesus! Your killing me!<< You'll need to quote where I said he did. Otherwise, that sounds like strawmanning right there. If you've got literacy problems, that's fair enough then. It explains your fixation on the idiot box. Edit: Funny story. He DID go against Italy. Those friendly German troops became occupiers in a puppet state. Mussolini's role there was to basically sign shit over to Germany. >>I disproved your 80% horse drawn theory... you haven't disproved any of mine... mind you...?<< Quote and source? You've made claims based on things you watched on the Aliens channel, but that's about it. You've got a very rambling posting style though, so it's possible I missed something worth reading. >>If you can debunk anything I have said like your 80% horse drawn theory... I'll take you somewhat serious... otherwise... stop wasting my time.<< You did it yourself on your claim that Hitler believed he could beat the US. He didn't. He wanted to get the war over and done with quickly. Almost managed it, too.
    1
  1359.  @JdDiehl  yeah. Harsh, but what else can you do? South Africa will be the next example. Hopefully they'll be the last.
    1
  1360. Problems long predate sanctions. You might as well blame the drop in the oil price (which the problems also long predate)
    1
  1361. Ed Childs not all things with social in the name are socialism. Actually, very few are. If it doesn't have the ism at the end, it probably doesn't qualify. This includes social democracy.
    1
  1362. They're enacting the goals. Nice goals are easy. Feed the hungry. Clothe the poor. Give everyone a good start in life. It took me less than a minute to come out with those goals. Roman politicians knew about those goals. The problem is how they attempt to do it. The problem with Socialism is the economy model doesn't work. It can't deliver what it promises. Capitalism is much better at delivering the good things that Socialism is meant to than Socialism will ever be,
    1
  1363. China's capitalist as hell.
    1
  1364. monberg1000 how about pixies at the bottom of your garden? While we're talking about things that don't exist. No European country is socialist.
    1
  1365. Alexander the problem was the move to socialism and the fact that personal property would not be respected. That led everyone who had something to see it was a good time to leave. You need those people.
    1
  1366. That was a very short response :) >> I'm did not want end up protecting Maduro in any way.<< And yet, here we are. Blaming those who are capable of running an economy for choosing to move away from an unwelcome environment, instead of Chavez and Maduro for creating that environment is protection. >> When Chávez died, the country started to really fall apart.<< I like it here how you attempt to suggest that the country starting to fall apart wasn't Chavez's fault. Open up Google News, do a search for Venezuela when Chavez was alive. A classic longrunning one is the toilet paper shortage. Venezuela today is a product of the state Chavez left it in. It didn't magically fall apart because he was no longer there. He simply died before he was forced to deal with the consequences of his actions. Here's an article from 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042805712.html >>Even if they're moving to full socialism as you say, they are no where near it yet<< If I swing a wrecking ball towards you, are you going to stand there? Or are you going to step out of the way? They were moving towards it, and Chavez had spent a long time showing he didn't respect property rights. In a case like that, if you're smart, you get out sooner, because there's plenty of precedent for what happens next. The 20th century is littered with examples Here, you would be saying "The wrecking ball was coming, but it hadn't hit" - The sheer knowledge that the wrecking ball is coming is damaging. >> How is Venezuela an example of socialism failing when they have more private employees than France<< Because Venezuela was increasing govt ownership of property by any means, while France is privatising and respects private property. >> It's the failure of incompetent leadership not socialism<< Tell that to the next child prostituting herself for a sandwich. Seriously. How many examples do you need? >> France would be suffering similar problems<< Why do you think France is moving away from Socialism? >> Norway would be in disaster<< Norway is a social democracy and it respects private property. >> So Venezuela is not an argument against socialism, but instead an argument against having incompetent leadership.<< It's an argument for both. Socialist leaders tend to be incompetent.
    1
  1367. >> Maybe I don't know enough about Venuzueala. But 70% private sector employees does not reflect socialism<< Is there a reason you continue to ignore "moving towards" and similar words? >> What exactly do you mean by lack of respect of private property. Are they nationalizing small business such as cafes and restaurants? << Only small businesses count as private property? Anyway: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008 Also worth noting the large amounts of farmland (How's the food supply situation going) the shops (Nationalised, price controls implemented, then bare shelves) a wide range of industries. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/ways-chavez-destroyed-venezuelan-economy/story?id=18239956 "The number of private companies in industry has dropped from 14,000 in 1998 to only 9,000 in 2011, according to Torres" >> Are they seizing peoples houses and cars?<< http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097735,00.html You can argue the houses shouldn't have been there. However, the problem with a country that doesn't have an independent judiciary. Sure, the first might be completely OK, but what guarantee do you have that it won't stretch things? Because there's always another excuse. The only question is whether you leave before that excuse is found. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-11756492 Now, not on cars. This being said: The car isn't an asset whose value you rely on. Your home? Your business? Yes. Losing those is damaging. For your car, you can spend a few hundred on something that does an identical job, just with different levels of comfort and safety. >> Aside from nationalizing major sectors of the economy, that are already nationalized in many European countries<< And coffee plants... Because they're not selling at artificially low set prices. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32302761/ns/world_news-venezuela/t/chavez-coffee-plants-be-expropriated/ Are coffee plants vital to the national economy? (Actually, as an IT worker, in many ways I'd argue that it is, but that would be tongue in cheek referencing my caffeine addiction) >> and aiming to provide more free healthcare/education, what else has happened under the 17+ years of 'Chavizmo' that I don't know about in terms of private property? The only thing I can think of is the seizing of a GM factory.<< Apparently a lot. Have you tried using Google? Venezuela expropriations is a useful term. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/03/15/venezuela-threatens-to-expropriate-bakers-that-dont-obey-new-bread-regulations.html They average 10 employees a piece. Are those large? Granted, that's recent, but you know what I was saying previously about people who can make predictions based on previous times this stuff has happened leaving early? Well. This is why. The big things are gone after first, and then the smaller and smaller bits get picked up later. As true today as it was during the Sullan conscriptions. This is the first result on Chavez Expropriation https://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/10/expropriations_venezuela Bottle making? Anyway, what people could physically move from point A to point B seemed to be respected. That's about it. And if you feel the need to object to people moving based on predictions of what was going to happen next.... Well.... Those who got out first weren't exactly wrong, now were they?
    1
  1368. >> The reason is, that I don't see how that's relevant right now.<< So.... You honestly don't understand, even after multiple explanations (of something that really shouldn't need to be explained) how the start of something that has historically gone very badly for professionals, business owners, skilled workers, etc might influence their actions even before it's gone as badly as it possibly could? Is this seriously what you're telling me? That you don't understand the role confidence in the future has in people's decisions? >> Are you telling me, that if the move to socialism stopped and Maduro kept the current status quo of government intervention in the economy (which I've pointed out is less socialistic than alot of western Europe), everything would suddenly become better, because the movement to socialism is the sole cause of all the problems?<< If they could convince potential investors that it had stopped? (Again, and I need to stress this because you don't seem to understand things like memories and pattern recognition, they'd need to be convinced it wouldn't start up again as soon as things were going well) That what belonged to them would stay theirs? That they wouldn't be the scapegoat next time the government was incompetent? Yes it would. Not perfect, but the downward spiral would begin to reverse. At the moment, Venezuela has a well educated populace that will work for almost nothing and be damned grateful for the opportunity. That's an investor's dream. As long as the govt can be trusted to not turn the whole exercise into a waste of their time and money. Because the real killer in investment (which includes such mundane things as bothering to grow next year's crops) is a lack of confidence that you'll profit from your investment. Kill that, and everything else dies. Force someone to sell at a loss and they won't bother producing again. Make it clear that if someone's company turns a profit they might lose it, they won't bother starting a company. Why does this need to be explained? And you've pointed out many things. Including that you've got no idea why a lack of confidence in an economy might be incredibly harmful to that economy on its own. By this point, the problem with going socialist isn't just that it's a bad idea that won't work, but people (at least those with a decent knowledge of finance... Y'know... The people an economy needs to survive) KNOW it's a bad idea that won't work. And do you know what will happen next time this is tried? The failure that is Venezuela will be added to the data used to make predictions. At this point, you will still be standing there, utterly mystified as to why everyone with the ability to make two dollars is rampaging towards the exists. >> I don't think you mean that exactly, you must understand that the problems have much more complex causes. The act of nationalizing sectors of an economy is not by itself destructive, like many liberals like to believe.<< If fair compensation is given, people know they can expect fair compensation if it happens to them, and the nationalised sector is run well (So that it's not just money pissed up against the wall), no, it's not necessarily destructive. But, that wasn't happening. Even when it happens at the start, anyone with the ability to use the internet knows that it doesn't remain that way. Just look at Zimbabwe. Fair compensation is given out at first (Mugabe purchased white farms at first) then when the money runs out.... Well, it stops being so fair. >> Many European countries nationalized some natural monopolies after WW2 in order to reconstruct their economy.<< Like... Coffee factories.... And bakeries. After a massively destructive war (Which war was Venezuela involved in recently?) I'm not going to deny that there are some industries that are better off nationalised. As you say, naturally monopolistic necessities, such as water, electricity, telecommunications, great. Difficult things that the populace needs in order to produce productive citizens such as education and healthcare, fantastic. Car factories? Coffee plantations? quote unquote unproductive farmland? (How did that work out for them?) Not so much. >> Of course, as with all policies, it won't work out if poorly executed<< Sometimes a good policy is poorly executed. Sometimes it's just a bad policy. To anyone with any predictive power, this is quite clearly the latter. >> Also, the fact that under 18 years of 'Chavizmo' the economy is nowhere near socialism, makes it hard for me to understand how this movement to socialism is happening<< I don't like to be insulting, but there's a lot of simple things that are difficult for you to understand. I've explained them ad nauseum previously. But to avoid avoiding answering the statement: It hasn't gone all the way because it's a bloody big job, being done on increasingly scarce resources. However, it's gone far enough to destroy investor confidence, and with that, the whole economy. >> If 'Chavizmo' was genunly focused on moving to socialism, why don't they have their soviet style economy yet? Cuba did it, eastern europe did it after WW2.<< I'm going to add ignorance of the current state of the world to the things you lack knowledge on. Cuba was supported by this country that has since collapsed called the USSR. Eastern Europe did it supported by this conquering army that was quite happy to do whatever the hell it liked and didn't give a damn about appearing democratic. It was also in the aftermath of a war where, even if not by much, the USSR was not the worst country to control Eastern Europe. Do you see the difference? Even dictators don't have magic wands that allow them to just do whatever they like. >> Like I said before 'Chavismo' aims to reform the capitalist system more than implementing socialism, or complete nationalization (soviet economy). << It's interesting that you believe this. Not nearly as interesting as your inability to understand why something that has turned out very badly in previous attempts affects people's actions, but still interesting. >> Essentially, Venezuela did a bad job of implementing Soc. Dem., though that's a very simple explanation to a very complex problem.<< Lol. Venezuela did a bad job of implementing something it wasn't targeting. Funny, that. >>"Broadly, Chavismo policies include nationalization, social welfare programs and opposition to neoliberalism (particularly the policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank). According to Chávez, Venezuelan socialism accepts private property, but this socialism seeks to promote social property too." - from Wikipedia. Similar in many ways to Soc. Dem. imo.<< Sure. If you ignore his actions. Not exactly protecting private property, was he? Which... Considering I'd given many examples of these actions, which you had ignored, looks like it's exactly what you're doing. From his actions, his concept of private property appeared to be anything you could move. Edit: Thinking a bit further, on your attempt to blame simple economic incompetence on the cause of the problem. Well... I'll put it this way: Given that Socialism simply doesn't work, an economic leader who tries to implement it is going to be incompetent. You will not have a competent economic manager who believes that Socialism works, any more than you'll have a competent engineer who thinks that gravity can be ignored when designing a structure. I know that you believe Socialism can work, but all that really tells me is you wouldn't be a competent economic manager. Edit2: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/in-chavez-era-throwback-venezuela-seizes-part-of-a-golf-course Totally a core industry. I wonder how they'll pay for the school... Probably the same way they paid for the other projects they took over and abandoned. What's funny is until recently, they were trying to encourage tourism. If they're going after golf courses, it's pretty obvious that failed.
    1
  1369. >>socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. That can't work now for many reasons<< We agree on something. But this makes me wonder what you've actually been arguing in favour of it for. Anyway, progress :) Well, I thought it was progress, until I continued to read. It's genuinely interesting to see how many arguments you've dropped, though. >>But many liberals tend to refer to socialized capitalist economies as 'socialist', this PragerU channel does it alot<< Don't care if people I'm not talking with are using words incorrectly. >>I can't disagree with your points on the failure of the Venezuelan economy. But Venezuela is not a valid argument against socializing an economy,<< No, it's not part of a pattern at all, is it? It's not merely the latest failure that was predicted a long time ago in a long run of failures, is it? I'm really curious here. How many failures do you need before you understand that it's just a bad idea, with very specific exceptions (I'll agree on the natural monopolies bit. Remember when you tried to claim that Venezuela hadn't done any more of those than your average European nation? You seem to have forgotten, but I haven't) How many ruined countries? If I were to ask you for a list of successful Socialist countries, what would you provide me with? Just keep in mind, I'm going to jump on capitalist countries and excuses. (Any Western European country is a Capitalist country. Cuba is a country people have excuses for) >>which in my eyes means nationalizing the commanding heights of the economy/natural monopolies as well as ensuring a decent minimum wage for full time workers<< I really don't care what it means in your eyes. If you're saying that, you're probably using your own personal definition. The only reason I could give a damn about your own personal one is that others simply see the words you use, and think that it's an argument in favour of something you're not arguing (Although it's difficult to be sure, you're all over the place) From looking at their actions, despite your beliefs to the contrary, we can sure as hell add Chavez and Maduro to the list of people who don't share your definition. Unless you're going to try to add small bakeries, hotels, golf courses and coffee to the list of things that fall under it. (And that's probably just a small portion of the list. Venezuela went from 14k companies to 9k - That last number is outdated. I doubt it's increased) >>It may stand as an argument against nationalizing certain sectors of the economy, but not socialization as a whole.<< So.... Nationalising certain sectors = bad. Socializing (nationalising? Unless there's a reason you switched terms) the whole economy (I can only assume that's what you meant) which includes these bits = just fine. Hmm.... You also seem to have switched from "Venezuela has only nationalised bits that most European countries did" to... I guess it's "Venezuela has only nationalised the parts of the economy it shouldn't have" or something like that. Your contradictions are making following what you're saying a bit difficult. BTW. In 2016, the Venezuelan people lost an average of 8KG. In 2017, they lost a further 11kg. That's about as much as a medium sized dog weighs. And it's an average.
    1
  1370. Alexander that's fair. Doing this from a phone, so can't give too much detail, but those countries that haven't collapsed yet are capitalist economies. Including China (Since Denmark Xiaoping abandoned socialism) don't let the name fool you. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is capitalism (remember that we're talking about the CCP's sole claim to legitimacy. The goal for which the ruined the country and starved tens of millions to death. They needed to still have the goal, even if in name only) and they still have a seriously unhealthy economy. They did well because the economy was recovering. Which is very different. Go outside the major famous cities there, and you'll see what I mean. Nazi Germany wasn't socialist. Really, Hitler wasn't interested in economics. Which I guess makes him better than the Kims. Beyond that, I can't say he was worse, just that he had opportunity to do more damage to more people . This isn't a defence of him, but showing just how terrible the Kims are. For the others.... They did all fail. The USSR included. They didn't all fail as dramatically as Venezuela, but they did fail. If the reason for failure wasn't explicitly socialism, the pattern says it was only because something else killed them first. Smoking a pack a day won't kill you if you get hit by a bus. It will kill you, though. And the USSR was a literal prison, which did a lot to stop the brain drain. It wasn't a figurative prison, it was a literal one, with walls and guards. If you want to see the legacy of the USSR today, check out the economies to the east and west of the wall.
    1
  1371. Alexander when I do think about this more I realised the criteria you seem to be aiming for with the USSR was. "didn't come crashing down in the worst way possible" (it did come crashing down, remember) No. The criteria needs to be "produces better results than capitalism based economies" If you're going to replace something with something else. That something else can't just be not a disaster, but it needs to be an improvement. Else why bother? The world is littered with examples of one side capitalist one side socialist in otherwise very similar places (forget east VS west Europe. Try East VS West Germany) that show it just doesn't.
    1
  1372. Common misunderstanding. What you probably think of as communism is socialism. And what you probably think of as socialism is the provision of taxpayer funded services in a capitalist economy. There haven't been any communist states (at least none that aren't tiny) so people tend to mistake the label of the ruling party for the system. The Communist Party is a statement of their goals. The USSR was socialist. China was Socialist until Deng Xiaoping. When socialism has prepared a society, the next step is communism.
    1
  1373. The economy was collapsing when oil was over 100 a barrel.
    1
  1374. The Venezuelan govt is refusing aid. Short of an invasion, (Bad idea, however appealing it is in the short term) what else are they expected to do? Besides fund the Venezuelan govt, obviously. However, this also seems to be a bad idea for the long term.
    1
  1375. sigh Another day, another person who can't read a comment history. None of those countries you mentioned are Socialist. Not one. They're firmly Capitalist countries with a healthy respect for private property, including privately owned industry. You're thinking of Social Democracy, which isn't Socialism. But thank you for being yet another person who can only produce Capitalist states as examples of Socialism being successful. It speaks volumes that people almost never produce a socialist state as an example. (Even then, it's Cuba. Which isn't a success)
    1
  1376. Mackenzie Cribe because it isn't. There are no socialist countries in Europe.
    1
  1377. Mackenzie Cribe the concept isn't broad, just people seem to be unwilling to open a dictionary. So they believe whatever random definition another clueless person gives them.
    1
  1378. Mackenzie Cribe funny. I looked in the thesaurus and I couldn't see where dissect was a synonym for redefine. That's exactly how you're using the word.
    1
  1379. His version, and every other version which has been tried. Which is why people now list capitalist social democracies as if it's the same as democratic socialism when asked to show nations that have implemented it successfully.
    1
  1380. lightning six T five this argument might have more weight if there were any socialist success stories. Instead, the only ones people seem to be able to suggest are Scandinavian countries, none of which are socialist. So we've got excuses and countries which aren't examples of socialism. Highly convincing.
    1
  1381. 0 years. Roughly.
    1
  1382. Yes. That would be another example of a thing that has "Social" in it, but isn't Socialism. In that list, you also have Social Diseases, Social Studies and Social Clubs, to name a few. I'm not entirely sure why you bought it up, though. But while we're discussing things with "Social" in their names as if they're relevant, we may as well explore what I've just listed as well.
    1
  1383. On the one hand, he isn't socialist. On the other, he's daft enough to claim he is. It's kind of like a conservative candidate declaring himself a national socialist or a fascist. (although they didn't kill as many... Not for lack of trying though)
    1
  1384. Is it wrong?
    1
  1385. There's two realities: One where it is, one where it isn't. Except for this, there are no differences between the two realities. In both cases the video is identical. Does the accuracy of the content change based on which reality it's in?
    1
  1386. What's not true?
    1
  1387.  @barneybruns887  those are social democratic states. Not democratic socialist. They're capitalist states that use capitalism to fight inequality. Don't worry, most people who support socialism have no idea what they're actually supporting. You're not alone. They just think it's taxpayer funded nice stuff.
    1
  1388.  @barneybruns887  none of those are socialist states. You just get confused by similar sounding words. And socialism is an economic model. Dictatorship is a type of government. They're not incompatible.
    1
  1389. I do like how you ignore the simple fact that people have memories and can do basic research to see what happened in other socialist states over the last century. We're fairly good at pattern recognition. Which is why the people Venezuela needed most were the first to leave. You're also ignoring the price controls, lack of respect for private property, etc that made investment pointless.
    1
  1390. ionezgb before I waste time on the video, can you list the real world examples of successes of socialism? I'm obviously looking for successes, but excuses, and socialism, not capitalism funded social programs.
    1
  1391. ionezgb sorry, there was a typo before. I was looking for successes NOT excuses. Please list them.
    1
  1392. ionezgb the difference is the goal. China abandoned the goal. Whatever their words. Vengeance was trying to get it.
    1
  1393. Angel Egel problem is the two go hand in hand every time it's tried.
    1
  1394. 40 cents for a beer does sound cheap.... The minimum wage is worth about $2 a month I think. If it's not, it's either already passed that, or will soon be there. So.... Sure. If you think that spending almost a week's pay on a beer is a good deal, go right ahead. (Or a year's pay on a night on the town) Unless you think things are OK because it's a cheap place to be a tourist. Which... Ok... But that's not the criteria normal people are using though.
    1
  1395. Yeah :P I'm borderline needing glasses. Your avatar is a blur and I wouldn't know an AR15 from a Kalishnakov anyway. And Poe's law is a bitch. Sure, it does sound satirical to the newbie, but when you've come across people making equally or more retarded arguments in all seriousness.... (I literally have met people who view their experience as a tourist in X place as incontrovertible evidence that it's a good place to live.) The world becomes a very confusing place.
    1
  1396. I'm pedantic enough to jump on the communism and socialism being the same bit :P Countries around the world have consistently failed to achieve Socialism. You need to finish failing to achieve Socialism before you can attempt to fail to achieve Communism. All those states that claim to be Communist are simply failing to achieve and implement Socialism. They haven't succeeded enough to fail at Communism yet :P And seriously, on that, that people have actually said with (presumably) straight faces that Socialism has never failed because it's never been achieved and think that supports them somehow is concerning. It's not as if a lot of countries haven't put a lot of effort into it over the last century. Anyway, you're drunk, I'm sleep deprived, so my apologies if I rambled a bit. Fun fact to end this on: I married a member of the Chinese Communist Party. Watching the deprogramming after she moved here (Australia) was nothing if not fascinating. I've also been able to see the place from the inside in a way that most Westerners just won't. Long story short: The more I see, the more I learn, the less I like. When I first met her, I loved going there. Now I won't voluntarily go near the place.
    1
  1397. The damage is in trying to become socialist. Also, they were having real problems when oil was at its peak. That collapse didn't happen until about the end of 2014.
    1
  1398. Worse when you think how out of date this is. The Venezuelan people of today probably dream of the Venezuela of 14 months ago.
    1