Things Not Going Well in Venezuela, 2.0

[PittsburghTiger 6195]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article210363554.html

 

May 03, 2018 11:24 AM

Updated May 03, 2018 04:31 PM

BOGOTA, COLOMBIA 

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is warning that he’ll take up arms and lead a revolution if a government comes into power that wants to hand the country’s "riches" to “imperialist” forces.

In a campaign speech Wednesday, Maduro — who is hoping to win a new six-year term in a highly questioned May 20 election — accused his nearest opposition rival, Henri Falcón, of wanting to sell the country out to “the gringos.”

“If someday a government was in power that intended to hand over [our] riches, I would be the first one to raise the alarm, grab a gun and start an armed revolution with the people, if necessary,” he told a crowd of supporters in Vargas. “I would be the first one to do it, and call the people to arms.”

His opponent, Falcón, a one-time government supporter turned dissident, is struggling to attract voters who are wary that going to the polls will legitimize a deeply flawed electoral process. And most of the major opposition groups are calling for an outright boycott of the election.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article210363554.html#storylink=cpy

[PittsburghTiger 6195]

Military officers are joining the exodus of Venezuelans to Colombia and Brazil, fleeing barracks and forcing President Nicolas Maduro’s government to call upon retirees and militia to fill the void.

High desertion rates at bases in Caracas and the countryside are complicating security plans for the presidential election in 13 days, which by law require military custody of electoral materials and machinery at voting centers.

“The number is unknown because it used to be published in the Official Gazette. Now, it is not,” said Rocio San Miguel, director of Control Ciudadano, a military watchdog group in Caracas. She said soldiers are fleeing for the same reason citizens are: “Wages are low, the quality of food and clothing isn’t good.”

Last week, officers who rank as high as general were called in and quartered for several days at their units. Retired officials and militia members were also contacted by their superiors, according to one retired officer who asked not to be named for fear of angering the regime. Government officials are training these fill-in personnel for the election, said a second retired officer.

The shortage of troops comes as hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans fleea societal collapse, crowding cities and makeshift camps throughout the region in the largest mass emigration in modern Latin American history. Hyperinflation has made the currency virtually worthless, and malnutrition is endemic. Almost 2 million Venezuelans are living outside the country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-07/venezuelan-soldiers-said-to-desert-in-droves-with-vote-ahead

[Parliament 14288]

Quoting my dad here:
"No matter how bad it is, it can always get WORSE."

[Viper 12112]

you bet it can

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/world/americas/aids-venezuela-indigenous-people-threatened.html

Quote

AIDS Runs Rampant in Venezuela, Putting an Ancient Culture at Risk

The disease threatens an entire indigenous population, the Warao people of the Orinoco Delta, as government programs collapse.

 

[Viper 12112]

Is it just me or is it odd that you can have any story about Venezuela's collapse and get this result?

 

Honest question, that's 3 stories in this thread and all came up blank for 'socialist' and 'socialism', does that say something about the press, or am I just looking into it too much?

[Amobie 58]

9 minutes ago, Viper said:

Is it just me or is it odd that you can have any story about Venezuela's collapse and get this result?

Honest question, that's 3 stories in this thread and all came up blank for 'socialist' and 'socialism', does that say something about the press, or am I just looking into it too much?

Oh come on.. Just give socialism a mulligan.  I'm sure centralized power of the economy will work the next time.

[936horn 919]

13 minutes ago, Viper said:

Is it just me or is it odd that you can have any story about Venezuela's collapse and get this result?

 

Honest question, that's 3 stories in this thread and all came up blank for 'socialist' and 'socialism', does that say something about the press, or am I just looking into it too much?

While I haven't specifically searched like you are, I have noticed the same thing. You have millions of "Bernie Bros" who will tell you, "it's different!!!" but just like communism before it, it might sound good on paper but there are multiple REAL WORLD examples of why socialism is not a viable solution.

[hpslugga 4062]

Quote

does that say something about the press

The mainstream press? Yes. Whenever it, as an ad hoc entity, ever tries to spell out/define socialism, it looks like a person that is unsure if he should scratch his watch or wind his ass. That's been the biggest achievement of US state propaganda: dictate the definition of a term that it hates to the media. That climate makes it impossible for any meaningful debates over it to take place on US airwaves, and it has a ripple effect of infecting the population with this fraudulent conception of socialism. Seriously, if I were to ask this entire board "what is socialism?" about 10% would either know it or come very close to knowing it. The other 90% just spew boilerplate nonsense that they heard someone else tell them a long time ago and never bothered to research it on their own.

Edited May 8, 2018 by hpslugga

[Viper 12112]

17 minutes ago, 936horn said:

While I haven't specifically searched like you are, I have noticed the same thing. You have millions of "Bernie Bros" who will tell you, "it's different!!!" but just like communism before it, it might sound good on paper but there are multiple REAL WORLD examples of why socialism is not a viable solution.

Bernie isn't socialist, despite what he says. He's a social democrat. Venezuela is actual socialist. 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

It's not real socialism!

I recommend this detailed book for anyone looking deeper into how and why socialism JUST WORKS when it's tried.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, Viper said:

Bernie isn't socialist, despite what he says. He's a social democrat. Venezuela is actual socialist. 

Even those on the left admit he's a socialist. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-socialist_n_7182752.html

He wants 90% tax rate, and a huge government system to "create jobs". He wants a bunch of brainwashed idiots to vote for his new brand of socialism. It's admitted.

Quote

But that’s not the agenda Sanders has actually been promoting. Sanders doesn’t shrink from the label socialist, Andrew Prokop pointed out in a profile for Vox last year, but he generally identifies himself as a democratic socialist. The distinction matters.

Democratic socialism, as generally conceived in the U.S., is a milder, more aspirational form of the ideology. Democratic socialists might not recoil at the thought of government running large industries, but they don’t actively pursue that goal. Instead, they focus on decidedly less radical objectives — like making the welfare state more generous, giving workers more power, limiting the influence of money on politics and policing the practices of business more closely.

 

[Viper 12112]

You've kind of just illustrated the differences I was outlining with your quote, but I get the feeling you're actually trying to disagree with me for some reason.

[hpslugga 4062]

Quote

He's a social democrat.

I'd say "New Deal Democrat," especially when you consider how in-line he is on a host of domestic issues with people like, for example, Dwight Eisenhower. Ike actually once opined something to the effect of "anyone who doesn't accept the programs of the New Deal do not belong in the mainstream of American political culture." That's basically Bernie's entire platform, not any real form of socialism as it was understood at its birth (in fact, not even in its most perverse conception under Bolshevism).

He's seen as a "socialist" in America for 2 reasons:

1) Our culture is very ignorant of the meaning of that term

2) Our political culture has moved significantly to the right over the last 40 years. When you have a magnifying glass on a map and when you move it east, what used to be "in the middle" suddenly looks very far west. That's not to say that Bernie would be seen as a "centrist" in the 1950's per se, but definitely more centrist than he's seen today.

Edited May 8, 2018 by hpslugga

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 hour ago, Viper said:

You've kind of just illustrated the differences I was outlining with your quote, but I get the feeling you're actually trying to disagree with me for some reason.

You are arguing that he isn't a socialist, because he claims to be a democratic socialist? 

 

[hpslugga 4062]

It doesn't matter what he calls himself. Again, North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic when it's one of the most fundamentalist theocracies of all time.

Edited May 8, 2018 by hpslugga

[Viper 12112]

33 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

You are arguing that he isn't a socialist, because he claims to be a democratic socialist? 

 

I'm arguing there's a difference between socialist and democratic socialist/social democrat. This is obvious when you look at capitalist countries with social democrat ruling parties and policies (Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,etc.) in Europe versus actual socialist countries (Venezuela, N.Korea, Zimbabwe, etc). They are both certainly on the farther left side of the spectrum, but it doesn't really help us convey and discuss ideas when we use one word to label such a disparate group of countries and persons.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Viper

[hayden_horn 11365]

venezuela and north korea are not socialist. i'm kind of cross posting from the other political compass thread.

venezuela and north korea are dictatorships with central economies. calling them socialist is like allowing north korea to self-style as a democratic republic. just because they wrap themselves in socialist ideology does not mean that they are socialist. 

i know it's an annoying distinction for those of you with domestic political axes to grind, but i think it is important to note.

[hpslugga 4062]

Seriously, they call themselves "socialist" as easily as I can call myself "the 18-year old, 7'2" African American NBA prospect that's so talented that I can erase Shaq from your memories in just 5 years." That doesn't make it fucking so.

[JBJ 3664]

43 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

venezuela and north korea are not socialist. i'm kind of cross posting from the other political compass thread.

venezuela and north korea are dictatorships with central economies. calling them socialist is like allowing north korea to self-style as a democratic republic. just because they wrap themselves in socialist ideology does not mean that they are socialist. 

i know it's an annoying distinction for those of you with domestic political axes to grind, but i think it is important to note.

We should probably define socialist.

In my eyes, it's where the government owns (not regulates or oversees, but owns) a large portion of industrial and infrastructural industries.

If you don't have ownership, you don't have socialism.  If you have ownership, then you have socialism.

That said, it is hard to brand Venezuela, Norway, NK, or Bolivia as "this is what socialism looks like" because they all go about it differently and are socialist to different degrees.  Venezuela is largely failing now due to fiscal liberalism, although the socialization of the OG industry was a key early driver of it's collapse.  Bolivia, on the other hand, has a mixed socialization of the OG industry, but has remained fiscally conservative and I believe is in a healthy economic state. I'm comfortable with labelling both nations as primarily socialist.

North Korea is just corrupt and whether it were socialist or not wouldn't matter.  It is certainly socialist, but it is primarily label should be something else. It isn't defined by it's socialism as much as it's oppressive dictatorship.

Edited May 8, 2018 by JBJ

[hpslugga 4062]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

We should probably define socialist.

In my eyes, it's where the government owns (not regulates or oversees, but owns) a large portion of industrial and infrastructural industries.

That's not socialism.

[JBJ 3664]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's not socialism.

It's not your definition, which is why I defined it at the start of my post.  It's a purely economic term to me.

I can tell that you define it differently by your posts, so just tell us how you define it.  It's impossible to discuss the merits of something without know what is being discussed.  If my definition isn't worth discussion, proffer your own.

Edited May 8, 2018 by JBJ

[hayden_horn 11365]

Quote

so·cial·ism

ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun

 

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

we could, you know, start with the ACTUAL definition. 

[Incredulity 11683]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

we could, you know, start with the ACTUAL definition. 

Which is pretty much

Quote

In my eyes, it's where the government owns (not regulates or oversees, but owns) a large portion of industrial and infrastructural industries.

 

but

 

10 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's not socialism.

so

 

[hayden_horn 11365]

yeah i can see that you aren't interested in actually having a discussion on the topic. 

look, socialism is a pipe dream. there's virtually no way it can actually happen because human greed will get in the way. venezuela is not a socialist state. it's a dictatorship, where the government controls the economy. the people don't. that's why pure socialism always fails. because people. the community of venezuela are not engaged in the system, because when chavez started nationalizing shit and muting the press, shit went to hell. but he did that, with the help of the support of probably a little less than half the population's support. the chauvistas believed his bullshit about socialism. that's still doesn't make it socialism, in the true sense of the word.

i'll grant that you have your own definition of the ideology. 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 hour ago, Viper said:

I'm arguing there's a difference between socialist and democratic socialist/social democrat. This is obvious when you look at capitalist countries with social democrat ruling parties and policies (Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,etc.) in Europe versus actual socialist countries (Venezuela, N.Korea, Zimbabwe, etc). They are both certainly on the farther left side of the spectrum, but it doesn't really help us convey and discuss ideas when we use one word to label such a disparate group of countries and persons.

It's so funny how you point out that socialist type of government control works in limited amounts in countries that have excess wealth from capitalism. 

Also, I'm seeing a bit of difference between German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegians people vs. Venezuelans, North Koreans, and Zimbabweans. Surly that doesn't have anything to do with their ability to have a functioning modern civilization? 

 

[JBJ 3664]

19 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

we could, you know, start with the ACTUAL definition. 

So what's that mean to you?  I gave a decently precise definition that by-in-large matches the dictionary you posted.  If you think there's a nuance that I'm missing, have it out.  I'm not trying to argue semantics, I'm interested in what you guys think makes Venezuela distinct or nuanced

......

Just read your last post.  If the ownership must serve the people to be socialist, then Venezuela has failed in that regard.  But they were trying or pretending to try.  I don't know how much is corruption (like NK) and how much is bad fiscal policy (like Greece).

Edited May 8, 2018 by JBJ

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah i can see that you aren't interested in actually having a discussion on the topic. 

look, socialism is a pipe dream. there's virtually no way it can actually happen because human greed will get in the way. venezuela is not a socialist state. it's a dictatorship, where the government controls the economy. the people don't. that's why pure socialism always fails. because people. the community of venezuela are not engaged in the system, because when chavez started nationalizing shit and muting the press, shit went to hell. but he did that, with the help of the support of probably a little less than half the population's support. the chauvistas believed his bullshit about socialism. that's still doesn't make it socialism, in the true sense of the word.

i'll grant that you have your own definition of the ideology. 

Socialism is unattainable WITHOUT an authoritarian state. 

Even if you have a democracy of people dumb enough to vote a socialist regime into power, they will then have to use force to steal the wealth from those who earn more. Then when the government controls the economy instead of the market, well then shit really hits the fan, every time. It adds insult to injury taking away motivation for people to improve or provide useful labor. Then the shit that was just hitting the fan also catches on fire. 

[hayden_horn 11365]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

So what's that mean to you?  I gave a decently precise definition that by-in-large matches the dictionary you posted.  If you think there's a nuance that I'm missing, have it out.  I'm not trying to argue semantics, I'm interested in what you guys think makes Venezuela distinct or nuanced

......

Just read your last post.  If the ownership must serve the people to be socialist, then Venezuela has failed in that regard.  But they were trying or pretending to try.  I don't know how much is corruption (like NK) and how much is idiocy (like Greece).

venezuela's dip into pretend socialism was chavez consolidating power for himself. he fooled the people into thinking it was for them. it was ALL corruption. he took control of all the branches of the government, put his people in charge, and started looting private businesses. he then did not redistribute that wealth to the people, which would be socialist in nature, but instead used it to reward a select few. it's almost exactly what happened in the soviet union. it's not actual socialism, but a dictator taking control of the government and establishing a central command economy. 

[hpslugga 4062]

11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's not your definition, which is why I defined it at the start of my post.  It's a purely economic term to me.

I can tell that you define it differently by your posts, so just tell us how you define it.  It's impossible to discuss the merits of something without know what is being discussed.  If my definition isn't worth discussion, proffer your own.

It's not up to me to define it. I didn't coin the term. That was done almost 400 years ago.

The definition hayden posted is correct, and what's not understood very well by people like incredulty, yourself, and the other 90 or so percent of you who haven't the foggiest idea of what it means is that there's a huge difference between the word that's in the definition that hayden posted (community) and the word you used (the government). The government isn't the community. The government, as we know the concept today, is a very concentrated mechanism of power that tends to the interests of a very select few. That's the exact opposite of socialism, which is an anarchicistic and participatory concept that states, as he said, the means of production, distribution, etc lies in the hands of the community (as in the entire community and not some illegitimate power structure). 

[Incredulity 11683]

10 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's the exact opposite of socialism, which is an anarchicistic and participatory concept that states, as he said, the means of production, distribution, etc lies in the hands of the community (as in the entire community and not some illegitimate power structure). 

and then the human condition happens, power consolidates, animal farm.

That's why it doesn't work.

[deadshank 24653]

12 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

the means of production, distribution, etc lies in the hands of the community (as in the entire community and not some illegitimate power structure). 

Yep, that will work.  

[JBJ 3664]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

It's not up to me to define it. I didn't coin the term. That was done almost 400 years ago.

The definition hayden posted is correct, and what's not understood very well by people like incredulty, yourself, and the other 90 or so percent of you who haven't the foggiest idea of what it means is that there's a huge difference between the word that's in the definition that hayden posted (community) and the word you used (the government). The government isn't the community. The government, as we know the concept today, is a very concentrated mechanism of power that tends to the interests of a very select few. That's the exact opposite of socialism, which is an anarchicistic and participatory concept that states, as he said, the means of production, distribution, etc lies in the hands of the community (as in the entire community and not some illegitimate power structure). 

FWIW, I'm not unfamiliar with how Locke or Ricardo would describe socialism.  But now I at least understand what you mean.

I mistook y'all to mean that a socialist government (by my definition) was only really socialist if it wasn't corrupt.

In that regard my definition and your definition are pretty polar opposite.  Government-ownership only further distorts what Locke's version of a pure free-market is.

Edited May 8, 2018 by JBJ

[hpslugga 4062]

1 hour ago, deadshank said:

Yep, that will work.  

Do you CNT-FAI, bro?

Look, the reason that even small-scale examples fail is because they get crushed from the outside because, whether it's stalinism, fascism, the American system, etc, they all have an interest in ensuring that those movements never survive. They refer to it as "the threat of a good example." Franco was a case study. He crushed his own country with an outside army. Why did he need an outside army? Because his actual countrymen hated his filthy, stinking fucking guts and everything that bastard stood for.

What we also know, in contrast, is that societies that are based on the assumption that private vices yield public benefit will be destroyed from the inside in due time. They always have.

Quote

animal farm.

You're using a book title from an author who was one of the foremost proponents of such a societal order. It's no surprise that you entirely missed the message and/or interpretation of that novel.

Edited May 8, 2018 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4062]

23 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I mistook y'all to mean that a socialist government (by my definition) was only really socialist if it wasn't corrupt.

Oh no. I say that they aren't socialist because they're central power systems to begin with. Scandinavia is basically what some of those leaders were promising in rhetoric (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc), and they weren't socialist for the exact same reason Scandinavia isn't: if you get a central power system involved, the S-word cannot apply by its very definition. It's kind of like if I threw ice cubes at you and you ran around to everyone accusing me of throwing boiling water at you.

[deadshank 24653]

10 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Look, the reason that even small-scale examples fail is because they get crushed from the outside because, whether it's stalinism, fascism, the American system, etc, they all have an interest in ensuring that those movements never survive. 

 

So it's always someone else's fault socialism fails?  "Crushed from the outside?"  If socialists would just be left alone to their own devices then all would be good?  Hmm....where have we heard about groups just wanting to be left alone with no outside intrusion? 

[Incredulity 11683]

5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Do you CNT-FAI, bro?

Look, the reason that even small-scale examples fail is because they get crushed from the outside because whether its stalinism, fascism, the American system, etc, they all have an interest in ensuring that those movements never survive. They refer to it as "the threat of a good example." Franco was a case study He crushed his own country with an outside army. Why did he need an outside army? Because his actual countrymen hated his filthy, stinking fucking guts and everything that fuckin' bastard stood for, but he had ample support from various forces throughout the world and there was very little that could have been done to prevent him from ruling that country with an iron fist for over 3 decades. 

What we also know, in contrast, is that societies that are based on the assumption that private vices yield public benefit will be destroyed from the inside in due time. They always have.

You're using a book title from an author who was one of the foremost proponents of such a societal order. It's no surprise that you entirely missed the message and/or interpretation of that novel.

TIL; Socialism works in a vacuum.  Maybe colonize Mars?

[closetojumping 62791]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

It's not up to me to define it. I didn't coin the term. That was done almost 400 years ago.

The definition hayden posted is correct, and what's not understood very well by people like incredulty, yourself, and the other 90 or so percent of you who haven't the foggiest idea of what it means is that there's a huge difference between the word that's in the definition that hayden posted (community) and the word you used (the government). The government isn't the community. The government, as we know the concept today, is a very concentrated mechanism of power that tends to the interests of a very select few. That's the exact opposite of socialism, which is an anarchicistic and participatory concept that states, as he said, the means of production, distribution, etc lies in the hands of the community (as in the entire community and not some illegitimate power structure). 

I fucking hate myself for entering the cloak room and participating on ANYTHING, but I can't help it here. The premise that you have a working understanding of the concept of socialism because you inherently understand the meaning of community better than anyone else reading is, in fact, not a fact. You type as though it is, but it isn't.

Plenty of us went to college, took the courses, read the works, and have continued to carry on in their thinking well forward into their lives. Because some folks are overlaying real world experiences and observations to the definition, you think you're typing with better clarity. You're not. What you're doing is attempting to set the terms of the discussion as you deem appropriate and then calling everyone else who doesn't want to have the philosophical dialogue with you on your position effectively a mouthbreather. 

You're a didactic pedant with a penchant toward behaving as an automaton, so I'm pretty indifferent to your response. I did, however, feel like there's a silly construct you're derailing the thread into and wanted to call it out.

[deadshank 24653]

HPS is really talking up the glossy Socialism brochure; complete with all of the highlights and benefits while holding his crib sheet that Mitch and Murray from downtown provided to him to use when people have objections.

[hayden_horn 11365]

11 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

TIL; Socialism works in a vacuum.  Maybe colonize Mars?

actually, socialism can't and won't ever work as defined as a system of government, imo. that doesn't mean that the definition still doesn't have meaning. 

when discussing policies, some socialist policies work, and some won't.

but to pretend that venezuela is anything other than a despotic country, which it has been since chavez consolidated his power - that's the argument.

[Fozzz 152]

24 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Oh no. I say that they aren't socialist because they're central power systems to begin with. Scandinavia is basically what some of those leaders were promising in rhetoric (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc), and they weren't socialist for the exact same reason Scandinavia isn't: if you get a central power system involved, the S-word cannot apply by its very definition. It's kind of like if I threw ice cubes at you and you ran around to everyone accusing me of throwing boiling water at you.

Look at this damn Poumista over here. 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

6 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I fucking hate myself for entering the cloak room and participating on ANYTHING, but I can't help it here. The premise that you have a working understanding of the concept of socialism because you inherently understand the meaning of community better than anyone else reading is, in fact, not a fact. You type as though it is, but it isn't.

Plenty of us went to college, took the courses, read the works, and have continued to carry on in their thinking well forward into their lives. Because some folks are overlaying real world experiences and observations to the definition, you think you're typing with better clarity. You're not. What you're doing is attempting to set the terms of the discussion as you deem appropriate and then calling everyone else who doesn't want to have the philosophical dialogue with you on your position effectively a mouthbreather. 

You're a didactic pedant with a penchant toward behaving as an automaton, so I'm pretty indifferent to your response. I did, however, feel like there's a silly construct you're derailing the thread into and wanted to call it out.

You know who else is a socialist? Oscar Giles. Believes in spreading all of the Texas defensive line talent to other schools.  

[hpslugga 4062]

9 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I fucking hate myself for entering the cloak room and participating on ANYTHING, but I can't help it here. The premise that you have a working understanding of the concept of socialism because you inherently understand the meaning of community better than anyone else reading is, in fact, not a fact. You type as though it is, but it isn't.

Plenty of us went to college, took the courses, read the works, and have continued to carry on in their thinking well forward into their lives. Because some folks are overlaying real world experiences and observations to the definition, you think you're typing with better clarity. You're not. What you're doing is attempting to set the terms of the discussion as you deem appropriate and then calling everyone else who doesn't want to have the philosophical dialogue with you on your position effectively a mouthbreather. 

You're a didactic pedant with a penchant toward behaving as an automaton, so I'm pretty indifferent to your response. I did, however, feel like there's a silly construct you're derailing the thread into and wanted to call it out.

I attach as much value to every word of this as I do to the dust on this floor.

[JBJ 3664]

They don't understand your use of socialism because it was never stated.

I can give Locke's version, which he would have called free-market liberalism (liberalism in the classic sense) but others have called it socialism in the past because it contrasts with capitalism.  His version differs from yours in that it is individualistic, whereas yours appears to be more communal.

In his free-market, the value of commodities is most purely derived directly from labor inputs.  Even raw material costs and overhead can be traced back to labor (mining, farming, maintentance, cleaning).  From this perspective, the costs of capital (interest payments, profits, rentals) are free-market distortions.  Capital costs scrape from the revenue generated by labor, so that the individual performing the labor gets less than what his labor actually generates.

[Amobie 58]

50 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Oh no. I say that they aren't socialist because they're central power systems to begin with. Scandinavia is basically what some of those leaders were promising in rhetoric (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc), and they weren't socialist for the exact same reason Scandinavia isn't: if you get a central power system involved, the S-word cannot apply by its very definition. It's kind of like if I threw ice cubes at you and you ran around to everyone accusing me of throwing boiling water at you.

 

[Incredulity 11683]

42 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I attach as much value to every word of this as I do to the dust on this floor.

Exactly, as predicted cunty to extremely cunty.

[hpslugga 4062]

20 hours ago, JBJ said:

They don't understand your use of socialism because it was never stated.

Granted, though just for the record I've stated in on shaggy/HF, so I assumed it had been seen. My bad.

Anyways, my perception of it is faithful to the historic record. The first use of the concept in human literary canon was no later than 1649 when it appeared in a pamphlet. 

The pamphlet, entitled The New Law of Righteousness, was written during the time of the English Civil Wars by a Christian anarchist named Gerrard Winstanley. I might take a moment to pause here and explain that I don't agree with everything in the pamphlet. I'm an atheist, so I have no use for when Winstanley quoted chapter 2 verses 44 and 45 of the Book of Acts to explain the foundation of his position. Nonetheless, he spells out exactly what "socialism" is: "there shall be no buying or selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man...there shall be none Lord over others, but every one shall be a Lord of himself."

The latter quote instantaneously refutes anyone's conception of socialism as "the government owns everything," whether they favor that or oppose it.

"There shall be none Lord over others" isn't an ambiguous quotation. It literally denounces any societal order that calls for a person or even a group to assume authority, power, control, domination, etc over the rest of his/her countrymen. That's not even debatable, and I'd think that a reasonable person such as yourself would agree. The second time it came up was about a century and a half later when a French philosopher named Sylvain Maréchal, who had virtually identical views to Winstanley's, articulated his perspective(s). He longed for an existence where everyone experienced "communal enjoyment of the fruits of the earth" and for an ending to "the revolting distinction of rich and poor, of great and small, of masters and valets, of governors and governed." Again, the last 3 words are not at all ambiguous. He wrote that in the 1796.

I mention the years in reference to the fact that I said 90% of Americans would answer "what is socialism" incorrectly. As Americans, we're taught (even in universities) that the whole concept was conceived by Karl Marx and/or Friedrich Engels. Those guys weren't even born when Winstanley or Marechal were writing about it, so attributing the origins of socialism to them is like saying Al Pacino was the original Scarface.

As to its workability in today's world, and/or on a large scale, that's irrelevant. The point is to, as hayden actually did before me, discard any illusions people have about a place like Venezuela being (at any time over the last 25 or so years) a "socialist government."

 

[Incredulity 11683]

Have we defined "is" though?

[PittsburghTiger 6195]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:01 AM, PittsburghTiger said:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article210363554.html

 

May 03, 2018 11:24 AM

Updated May 03, 2018 04:31 PM

BOGOTA, COLOMBIA 

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is warning that he’ll take up arms and lead a revolution if a government comes into power that wants to hand the country’s "riches" to “imperialist” forces.

In a campaign speech Wednesday, Maduro — who is hoping to win a new six-year term in a highly questioned May 20 election — accused his nearest opposition rival, Henri Falcón, of wanting to sell the country out to “the gringos.”

“If someday a government was in power that intended to hand over [our] riches, I would be the first one to raise the alarm, grab a gun and start an armed revolution with the people, if necessary,” he told a crowd of supporters in Vargas. “I would be the first one to do it, and call the people to arms.”

His opponent, Falcón, a one-time government supporter turned dissident, is struggling to attract voters who are wary that going to the polls will legitimize a deeply flawed electoral process. And most of the major opposition groups are calling for an outright boycott of the election.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article210363554.html#storylink=cpy

In the picture that goes with this story in the link it's cool to see that neither Maduro nor his son appear to be starving. I'm glad they don't have to go through the garbage to find food, like so many of their countrymen do. The son looks kind of fat. As for Maduro, the boss, I'm so glad - He was named as one of TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2014. His net worth is listed at $2,000,000. I wonder how much he has parked off shore? Maybe he has some parked over in Cuba, where that other famous Commie Fidel Castro built a nice $900,000,000 nest egg.

[Washpark 176]

We called it the Bloomberg Cafe Con Leche Index, and as the name would suggest, it tracks just one item: a cup of coffee served piping hot at a bakery in eastern Caracas. Its price has jumped to 380,000 bolivars* from 1,800 bolivars over the past 12 months, an increase of 21,011 percent.

While the gauge isn’t nearly as sophisticated as a conventional consumer price index, it has merits too: it’s tangible; tracked regularly; and, given that it monitors a product consumed by Venezuelans everyday, provides a unique up-close look at inflation in the country. Stay tuned for further updates.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-venezuela-cafe-con-leche-index/

[Hornius Emeritus 12486]

Venezuel appears to have figured out a solution to the problems facing them:


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-economy/venezuelas-maduro-says-he-will-launch-economic-recovery-program-idUSKBN1KF36V