Socialist paradise in Venezuela

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Socialist paradise in Venezuela

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

derben 28 May 15 1.53pm
Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.29pm Quote derben at 28 May 2015 1.10pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.40pm Quote derben at 28 May 2015 12.32pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.09pm Quote derben at 28 May 2015 11.48am So if was not for the evil USA, all these attempts to build Socialism would succeed? It is not that is just doesn't work then? Are the 'Kurds in Northern Syria' a Socialist country then? Are immigrants flooding in to share in the largese of the Kurdish region and the Spanish communes and South American Socialist states? Or are their populations in fact clamouring to get out. Successful Capitalist countries, the majority of them - top ten most prosperous countries are thought to be: Norway, Denmark, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands, USA. That first point suggests you haven't read my original post. I am sceptical of many Socialist projects, many are very discriminatory and corrupt and thus regardless of American interference I wouldn't personally deem them as successful - if Cuba is locking up homosexuals then they are not worth any egalitarian status. BUT to ignore the role that American covert intervention has played, particularly in South America is to be blinded by your Capitalist ideology. Point 2. Of course people aren't flooding in to Rojava and neighbouring areas, they're being bombed the fck out of by people who want to butcher them! They are an autonomous region based on the principles of Anarchist-Communism, which is really fcking incredible given the situation they are in, but they are fighting a war, and while many Kurds from surrounding areas are supporting them, being in a war zone is not conducive to welcoming in many refugees! As far as I'm aware though, migration from South American nations and Spanish towns like Marinaleda are as you would expect. These are incredibly impoverished areas, not really capable of housing migrants on a mass scale, although the proliferation of their ideology in local areas is encouraging. This really brings me on to your last point. If you're going to judge a nation's success on their financial prosperity then you not only exclude most Socialist nations whose focus on egalitarianism supersedes economic growth, but you are also ignoring the systematic vices of nations like Australia and America. Until the 1970s, Australians classified Aboriginies among plants and animals, thus condoning the woeful murder of much of the native population. Even now, one only has to look at their record on taking in migrants from the pacific to see how racist a nation it is. America has similar records on both counts, committing genocide on the Native Americans, having a quarter of the world's prison population which is 80% black doing unpaid labour (which, let's make no bones about it, is slavery) while having the most hideous and contemptible foreign policies since the British empire. Can I also say how ironic it is that of the successful countries you chose, you point to so many social democracies despite having said previously that you'd vote for UKIP! Don't know what gay rights has to with Socialism - did Marx cover it? lol I bet the workers appreciate that. The core of Socialism is state control of all means of production, distribution and exchange. When attempts to run an economy on this basis inevitably start to fail, the state becomes increasing oppressive in order to control the elements (ie: the majority of ordinary people) that is sees as the causes of their failure (and the wicked USA too of course). In some cases they then abandon their failed Socialist 'economics' and revert to Capitalism (as in the Peoples Republic of China, often while retaining their non-democratic, one-party, oppression of the people they supposedly want to help. Of course the numbers involved in the likes of the Australian aboriginie atrocities are a drop in the ocean of blood and mountains of corpses generated by the likes of Socialists, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot. I wish the Kurds luck with their Anarchist-Communism set-up (I expect frying pans and fires must be in the thoughts of ordinary working Kurds). Inaccurate understanding of what Socialism is, confusing it with authoritarianism - check. A general defence of Capitalist atrocity by playing the 'how many people did each ideology kill?' game - check. And as a surprise bonus point, a suggestion that any form of anti-Capitalist society is worse than ISIS - check. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 12.41pm) Most Socialist states have been authoritarian and non-democratic, oppressing the very people they say they are 'liberating'. Defending Capitalist atrocities am I? Lol, I called the Aborigine genocide an atrocity. Certainly it is reasonable to compare body counts. Worse than ISIS? lol, just as well that I did not say that. What I am suggesting is that the ordinary Kurd in the street is probably just longing for a normal life free from Islamic extremists, totalitarian dictators, foreign armies and far-left experimentalists - I expect he would prefer a form of Western-style Capitalist democracy. 'Most socialist states'. Have you actually got anything to back that up? Look up the Paris commune or the many different examples of socialism and anarchism in Spain in the 30s. Socialism doesn't just start and end with the Soviet Union... Even the Socialist states of South America are democratically elected. That means, and I know this will be tough to take, that the 'average working man' is the person instigating socialist ideology. Going back to Venezuela, it's actually the middle- and upper-classes who have been far more prevalent critics of the Maduro government. The Kurds are very anti-authoritarian, which is unsurprising considering they have one of the most didactic ideologies in the world on their doorstep. All decisions are made in regional assemblies, meaning that again the 'average working Kurd' is an active member of their political community. They actually have greater democratic rights than we do in this country! China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Albania, Cambodia, USSR, East Germany, Hungrary, Bulgaria, Angola, Congo, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, North Korea, Yugoslavia are a few that immediately spring to mind, no doubt there are others people might like to add. Wow, if this Kurdish commune is as you say Anarchist-Communist, I would think they risk being thrown out of the 'Association of Anarchist-Communist Communes' for embracing bourgeois democratic practices. Mind you, being Anarchists, I imagine their committee and procedures are pretty chaotic?
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

28 May 15 1.53pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.29pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 1.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.40pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 12.32pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.09pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 11.48am

So if was not for the evil USA, all these attempts to build Socialism would succeed? It is not that is just doesn't work then?

Are the 'Kurds in Northern Syria' a Socialist country then? Are immigrants flooding in to share in the largese of the Kurdish region and the Spanish communes and South American Socialist states? Or are their populations in fact clamouring to get out.

Successful Capitalist countries, the majority of them - top ten most prosperous countries are thought to be: Norway, Denmark, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands, USA.

That first point suggests you haven't read my original post. I am sceptical of many Socialist projects, many are very discriminatory and corrupt and thus regardless of American interference I wouldn't personally deem them as successful - if Cuba is locking up homosexuals then they are not worth any egalitarian status. BUT to ignore the role that American covert intervention has played, particularly in South America is to be blinded by your Capitalist ideology.

Point 2. Of course people aren't flooding in to Rojava and neighbouring areas, they're being bombed the f*ck out of by people who want to butcher them! They are an autonomous region based on the principles of Anarchist-Communism, which is really f*cking incredible given the situation they are in, but they are fighting a war, and while many Kurds from surrounding areas are supporting them, being in a war zone is not conducive to welcoming in many refugees! As far as I'm aware though, migration from South American nations and Spanish towns like Marinaleda are as you would expect. These are incredibly impoverished areas, not really capable of housing migrants on a mass scale, although the proliferation of their ideology in local areas is encouraging.

This really brings me on to your last point. If you're going to judge a nation's success on their financial prosperity then you not only exclude most Socialist nations whose focus on egalitarianism supersedes economic growth, but you are also ignoring the systematic vices of nations like Australia and America. Until the 1970s, Australians classified Aboriginies among plants and animals, thus condoning the woeful murder of much of the native population. Even now, one only has to look at their record on taking in migrants from the pacific to see how racist a nation it is. America has similar records on both counts, committing genocide on the Native Americans, having a quarter of the world's prison population which is 80% black doing unpaid labour (which, let's make no bones about it, is slavery) while having the most hideous and contemptible foreign policies since the British empire.

Can I also say how ironic it is that of the successful countries you chose, you point to so many social democracies despite having said previously that you'd vote for UKIP!

Don't know what gay rights has to with Socialism - did Marx cover it?

lol I bet the workers appreciate that.

The core of Socialism is state control of all means of production, distribution and exchange. When attempts to run an economy on this basis inevitably start to fail, the state becomes increasing oppressive in order to control the elements (ie: the majority of ordinary people) that is sees as the causes of their failure (and the wicked USA too of course). In some cases they then abandon their failed Socialist 'economics' and revert to Capitalism (as in the Peoples Republic of China, often while retaining their non-democratic, one-party, oppression of the people they supposedly want to help.

Of course the numbers involved in the likes of the Australian aboriginie atrocities are a drop in the ocean of blood and mountains of corpses generated by the likes of Socialists, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot.

I wish the Kurds luck with their Anarchist-Communism set-up (I expect frying pans and fires must be in the thoughts of ordinary working Kurds).

Inaccurate understanding of what Socialism is, confusing it with authoritarianism - check.

A general defence of Capitalist atrocity by playing the 'how many people did each ideology kill?' game - check.

And as a surprise bonus point, a suggestion that any form of anti-Capitalist society is worse than ISIS - check.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 12.41pm)

Most Socialist states have been authoritarian and non-democratic, oppressing the very people they say they are 'liberating'.

Defending Capitalist atrocities am I? Lol, I called the Aborigine genocide an atrocity.

Certainly it is reasonable to compare body counts.

Worse than ISIS? lol, just as well that I did not say that. What I am suggesting is that the ordinary Kurd in the street is probably just longing for a normal life free from Islamic extremists, totalitarian dictators, foreign armies and far-left experimentalists - I expect he would prefer a form of Western-style Capitalist democracy.

'Most socialist states'. Have you actually got anything to back that up? Look up the Paris commune or the many different examples of socialism and anarchism in Spain in the 30s. Socialism doesn't just start and end with the Soviet Union...

Even the Socialist states of South America are democratically elected. That means, and I know this will be tough to take, that the 'average working man' is the person instigating socialist ideology. Going back to Venezuela, it's actually the middle- and upper-classes who have been far more prevalent critics of the Maduro government.

The Kurds are very anti-authoritarian, which is unsurprising considering they have one of the most didactic ideologies in the world on their doorstep. All decisions are made in regional assemblies, meaning that again the 'average working Kurd' is an active member of their political community. They actually have greater democratic rights than we do in this country!

China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Albania, Cambodia, USSR, East Germany, Hungrary, Bulgaria, Angola, Congo, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, North Korea, Yugoslavia are a few that immediately spring to mind, no doubt there are others people might like to add.

Wow, if this Kurdish commune is as you say Anarchist-Communist, I would think they risk being thrown out of the 'Association of Anarchist-Communist Communes' for embracing bourgeois democratic practices. Mind you, being Anarchists, I imagine their committee and procedures are pretty chaotic?

Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 28 May 15 1.56pm
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 1.53pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.29pm Quote derben at 28 May 2015 1.10pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.40pm Quote derben at 28 May 2015 12.32pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.09pm Quote derben at 28 May 2015 11.48am So if was not for the evil USA, all these attempts to build Socialism would succeed? It is not that is just doesn't work then? Are the 'Kurds in Northern Syria' a Socialist country then? Are immigrants flooding in to share in the largese of the Kurdish region and the Spanish communes and South American Socialist states? Or are their populations in fact clamouring to get out. Successful Capitalist countries, the majority of them - top ten most prosperous countries are thought to be: Norway, Denmark, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands, USA. That first point suggests you haven't read my original post. I am sceptical of many Socialist projects, many are very discriminatory and corrupt and thus regardless of American interference I wouldn't personally deem them as successful - if Cuba is locking up homosexuals then they are not worth any egalitarian status. BUT to ignore the role that American covert intervention has played, particularly in South America is to be blinded by your Capitalist ideology. Point 2. Of course people aren't flooding in to Rojava and neighbouring areas, they're being bombed the fck out of by people who want to butcher them! They are an autonomous region based on the principles of Anarchist-Communism, which is really fcking incredible given the situation they are in, but they are fighting a war, and while many Kurds from surrounding areas are supporting them, being in a war zone is not conducive to welcoming in many refugees! As far as I'm aware though, migration from South American nations and Spanish towns like Marinaleda are as you would expect. These are incredibly impoverished areas, not really capable of housing migrants on a mass scale, although the proliferation of their ideology in local areas is encouraging. This really brings me on to your last point. If you're going to judge a nation's success on their financial prosperity then you not only exclude most Socialist nations whose focus on egalitarianism supersedes economic growth, but you are also ignoring the systematic vices of nations like Australia and America. Until the 1970s, Australians classified Aboriginies among plants and animals, thus condoning the woeful murder of much of the native population. Even now, one only has to look at their record on taking in migrants from the pacific to see how racist a nation it is. America has similar records on both counts, committing genocide on the Native Americans, having a quarter of the world's prison population which is 80% black doing unpaid labour (which, let's make no bones about it, is slavery) while having the most hideous and contemptible foreign policies since the British empire. Can I also say how ironic it is that of the successful countries you chose, you point to so many social democracies despite having said previously that you'd vote for UKIP! Don't know what gay rights has to with Socialism - did Marx cover it? lol I bet the workers appreciate that. The core of Socialism is state control of all means of production, distribution and exchange. When attempts to run an economy on this basis inevitably start to fail, the state becomes increasing oppressive in order to control the elements (ie: the majority of ordinary people) that is sees as the causes of their failure (and the wicked USA too of course). In some cases they then abandon their failed Socialist 'economics' and revert to Capitalism (as in the Peoples Republic of China, often while retaining their non-democratic, one-party, oppression of the people they supposedly want to help. Of course the numbers involved in the likes of the Australian aboriginie atrocities are a drop in the ocean of blood and mountains of corpses generated by the likes of Socialists, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot. I wish the Kurds luck with their Anarchist-Communism set-up (I expect frying pans and fires must be in the thoughts of ordinary working Kurds). Inaccurate understanding of what Socialism is, confusing it with authoritarianism - check. A general defence of Capitalist atrocity by playing the 'how many people did each ideology kill?' game - check. And as a surprise bonus point, a suggestion that any form of anti-Capitalist society is worse than ISIS - check. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 12.41pm) Most Socialist states have been authoritarian and non-democratic, oppressing the very people they say they are 'liberating'. Defending Capitalist atrocities am I? Lol, I called the Aborigine genocide an atrocity. Certainly it is reasonable to compare body counts. Worse than ISIS? lol, just as well that I did not say that. What I am suggesting is that the ordinary Kurd in the street is probably just longing for a normal life free from Islamic extremists, totalitarian dictators, foreign armies and far-left experimentalists - I expect he would prefer a form of Western-style Capitalist democracy. 'Most socialist states'. Have you actually got anything to back that up? Look up the Paris commune or the many different examples of socialism and anarchism in Spain in the 30s. Socialism doesn't just start and end with the Soviet Union... Even the Socialist states of South America are democratically elected. That means, and I know this will be tough to take, that the 'average working man' is the person instigating socialist ideology. Going back to Venezuela, it's actually the middle- and upper-classes who have been far more prevalent critics of the Maduro government. The Kurds are very anti-authoritarian, which is unsurprising considering they have one of the most didactic ideologies in the world on their doorstep. All decisions are made in regional assemblies, meaning that again the 'average working Kurd' is an active member of their political community. They actually have greater democratic rights than we do in this country! China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Albania, Cambodia, USSR, East Germany, Hungrary, Bulgaria, Angola, Congo, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, North Korea, Yugoslavia are a few that immediately spring to mind, no doubt there are others people might like to add. Wow, if this Kurdish commune is as you say Anarchist-Communist, I would think they risk being thrown out of the 'Association of Anarchist-Communist Communes' for embracing bourgeois democratic practices. Mind you, being Anarchists, I imagine their committee and procedures are pretty chaotic? The fundamentals of Anarchy are actually society without rulers rather than rules Danno...problem being humans by nature are c***s which is why no political system will every be truly fair, truly democratic truly honest or truly moral As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 28 May 15 1.56pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 1.53pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.29pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 1.10pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.40pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 12.32pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 12.09pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 11.48am

So if was not for the evil USA, all these attempts to build Socialism would succeed? It is not that is just doesn't work then?

Can I also say how ironic it is that of the successful countries you chose, you point to so many social democracies despite having said previously that you'd vote for UKIP!

Don't know what gay rights has to with Socialism - did Marx cover it?

lol I bet the workers appreciate that.

I wish the Kurds luck with their Anarchist-Communism set-up (I expect frying pans and fires must be in the thoughts of ordinary working Kurds).

Inaccurate understanding of what Socialism is, confusing it with authoritarianism - check.

A general defence of Capitalist atrocity by playing the 'how many people did each ideology kill?' game - check.

And as a surprise bonus point, a suggestion that any form of anti-Capitalist society is worse than ISIS - check.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 12.41pm)

Most Socialist states have been authoritarian and non-democratic, oppressing the very people they say they are 'liberating'.

Defending Capitalist atrocities am I? Lol, I called the Aborigine genocide an atrocity.

Certainly it is reasonable to compare body counts.

Wow, if this Kurdish commune is as you say Anarchist-Communist, I would think they risk being thrown out of the 'Association of Anarchist-Communist Communes' for embracing bourgeois democratic practices. Mind you, being Anarchists, I imagine their committee and procedures are pretty chaotic?

The fundamentals of Anarchy are actually society without rulers rather than rules Danno...problem being humans by nature are c***s which is why no political system will every be truly fair, truly democratic truly honest or truly moral

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 28 May 15 4.59pm
Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their. Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 28 May 15 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades).

Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's.

Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ?

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 28 May 15 5.25pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 12.52pm Making a post look a bit camp Check. I hate it when you make me laugh Daniel.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 28 May 15 5.25pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 12.52pm

Making a post look a bit camp Check.

I hate it when you make me laugh Daniel.

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 28 May 15 5.25pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing fck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.* Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) And I hate it even more when I agree with you.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 28 May 15 5.25pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

And I hate it even more when I agree with you.

Alert a moderator to this post

bright&wright 28 May 15 5.52pm
Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 11.36am Quote derben at 28 May 2015 11.26am Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 11.23am Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.40am Quote SamCPFC17 at 28 May 2015 9.36am I think you'll find the failures in Venezuela had a great deal more to do with government incompetence (a problem in practically all 3rd world countries) than socialist policies. Across the vast majority of the rest of Latin America, left-wing governments during the 2000s and 2010s have made many incredible achievements - [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] Why do you think that throughout history people have tried to flee from extreme left wing states and sought refuge in democratic Capitalist states. What a stupid thing to say. The two major nations from which people are fleeing at the moment are Russia and Syria, one of which is ostensibly a Capitalist democracy, the other of which Western forces tried to bomb in order to create it, only for it to massively backfire (quelle surprise). To claim all attempts at Socialism have failed is as ludicrous as saying that all attempts at Capitalism have failed - it's a simplistic analysis which no historian worth their salt could get away with. The major difference between the two ideology's retrospective successes is that throughout the 20th century, every single attempt at Socialist economic or social change has been challenged, and often actively stamped out by the dominant imperial power of the century, America. That's what we are seeing currently taking hold in Venezuela - covert operations by the American secret service to overthrow a nation who won't dance to their tune. I could write a long analysis of what's going on in Venezuela, but it's probably better to leave it to a Venezuelan to do so: [Link] That's not to say that Socialist states would be flourishing without American interference. Cuba is incredibly homophobic, Uruguay is a very racist country, Russia's centralised authoritarianism was brutal. But then have a look at some of the wonderful examples of Capitalism in action: American incarceration of blacks, Russian homophobia, Pinochet in Chile. lol. Can you give us a list of successful Socialist countries then? Again, looking at nations as 'successful' or not is a really stupid game to play. All I was pointing out in that point is that the attempts at Socialism, praiseworthy or not, have been severely hindered by American foreign operations. Although given that I can tell you won't be satisfied until I provide examples of 'successful' Socialism, how about the Kurds in northern Syria fighting IS with half of their front line being female? Spanish communes are flourishing, and even in South America Socialist states have dealt comparatively well with poverty, malnutrition and disease. Now in response, can you give me a list of successful Capitalist countries? A fantastic example of how to avoid answering a direct question. Which is basically the definition of Socialism. 'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl.
Alert a moderator to this post

bright&wright

28 May 15 5.52pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 11.36am

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 11.26am

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 11.23am

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.40am

Quote SamCPFC17 at 28 May 2015 9.36am

I think you'll find the failures in Venezuela had a great deal more to do with government incompetence (a problem in practically all 3rd world countries) than socialist policies. Across the vast majority of the rest of Latin America, left-wing governments during the 2000s and 2010s have made many incredible achievements -
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]

Why do you think that throughout history people have tried to flee from extreme left wing states and sought refuge in democratic Capitalist states.

What a stupid thing to say. The two major nations from which people are fleeing at the moment are Russia and Syria, one of which is ostensibly a Capitalist democracy, the other of which Western forces tried to bomb in order to create it, only for it to massively backfire (quelle surprise).

To claim all attempts at Socialism have failed is as ludicrous as saying that all attempts at Capitalism have failed - it's a simplistic analysis which no historian worth their salt could get away with. The major difference between the two ideology's retrospective successes is that throughout the 20th century, every single attempt at Socialist economic or social change has been challenged, and often actively stamped out by the dominant imperial power of the century, America. That's what we are seeing currently taking hold in Venezuela - covert operations by the American secret service to overthrow a nation who won't dance to their tune. I could write a long analysis of what's going on in Venezuela, but it's probably better to leave it to a Venezuelan to do so: [Link]

That's not to say that Socialist states would be flourishing without American interference. Cuba is incredibly homophobic, Uruguay is a very racist country, Russia's centralised authoritarianism was brutal. But then have a look at some of the wonderful examples of Capitalism in action: American incarceration of blacks, Russian homophobia, Pinochet in Chile.

lol.

Can you give us a list of successful Socialist countries then?

Again, looking at nations as 'successful' or not is a really stupid game to play. All I was pointing out in that point is that the attempts at Socialism, praiseworthy or not, have been severely hindered by American foreign operations.

Although given that I can tell you won't be satisfied until I provide examples of 'successful' Socialism, how about the Kurds in northern Syria fighting IS with half of their front line being female? Spanish communes are flourishing, and even in South America Socialist states have dealt comparatively well with poverty, malnutrition and disease. Now in response, can you give me a list of successful Capitalist countries?

A fantastic example of how to avoid answering a direct question.

Which is basically the definition of Socialism.

'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 29 May 15 2.30pm
Quote DanH at 28 May 2015 5.25pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing fck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.* Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) And I hate it even more when I agree with you. Dont lie, you love it. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 29 May 15 2.30pm

Quote DanH at 28 May 2015 5.25pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

And I hate it even more when I agree with you.

Dont lie, you love it.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

JL85 London,SE9 29 May 15 2.46pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their. Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) Not strictly true. Branson came from wealth. The only socialist elements i'd like to see in society is in our education system. It's currently like running a 100m sprint, with he top 1% in society getting to start at the 90m mark.
Alert a moderator to this post

JL85

London,SE9 29 May 15 2.46pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

Not strictly true. Branson came from wealth.

The only socialist elements i'd like to see in society is in our education system.

It's currently like running a 100m sprint, with he top 1% in society getting to start at the 90m mark.

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 29 May 15 2.50pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing fck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.* Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

29 May 15 2.50pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 29 May 15 3.50pm
Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 2.50pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing fck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.* Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. How nice for you, must be difficult to have a cheeky one off the wrist in the bathroom if the Mrs is in, ..anyway I digress. Please enlighten me with stories of socialist utopias the world over.....wait a minute, you can’t , there aren't any. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 29 May 15 3.50pm

Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 2.50pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

How nice for you, must be difficult to have a cheeky one off the wrist in the bathroom if the Mrs is in, ..anyway I digress.

Please enlighten me with stories of socialist utopias the world over.....wait a minute, you can’t , there aren't any.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 29 May 15 3.59pm
Quote dannyh at 29 May 2015 3.50pm Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 2.50pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing fck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.* Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. How nice for you, must be difficult to have a cheeky one off the wrist in the bathroom if the Mrs is in, ..anyway I digress. Please enlighten me with stories of socialist utopias the world over.....wait a minute, you can’t , there aren't any. Enlighten you? I'm afraid i don't have a spare year on my calander but i'm sure if you phone the council they can give you the number of an excellent nursery
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

29 May 15 3.59pm

Quote dannyh at 29 May 2015 3.50pm

Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 2.50pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

How nice for you, must be difficult to have a cheeky one off the wrist in the bathroom if the Mrs is in, ..anyway I digress.

Please enlighten me with stories of socialist utopias the world over.....wait a minute, you can’t , there aren't any.

Enlighten you? I'm afraid i don't have a spare year on my calander but i'm sure if you phone the council they can give you the number of an excellent nursery

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 May 15 4.07pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer. Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined. Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their. Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm) I think the problem is that people tend to think in a either / or situation in regards to socialism or capitalism, and disregard the fact that what currently works for us is a balance of the two. Socialism functions better as a critical assessment of the fundamental flaws and inequalities within capitalism, and has served as the process by which systems of capital have been tempered and restrained within history. I doubt few of us would regard American Capitalism as being a particularly successful model for the provision of its general population, any more than we'd regard Soviet planned economies as serving the general population particularly well; both being extremes which serve a minority. Capitalism as we experience it, as a western liberal, European democracy, owes a lot of its survival to its capacity to absorb social movements, most notably those of the left. For the record, Richard Branson's background is quite privileged - He'd have been out of business in 1972 if his mother hadn't bailed him out. His initial brand succeed on the back of a tax fraud involving selling records branded for export, internally (a scam he'd picked up from his mail order company). Whilst he repaid the tax and fine (or rather his mother did) it allowed him to establish the brand and chain of record stores. As for Wal-Mart, well that was founded on 5k saved during the army (he was an officer stationed stateside) and 20k lent to him by his father in law. His father previously worked through the great depression repossessing farms for his brothers company. His education came via ROTC, but he only joined the military as a result of WWII, on graduation he went to work for JC Penny. Ironically the success of Wal-Mart ultimately lies with the Landlord of his first Store being greedy and forcing him to sell up, as this pushed Sam into expansion to a new store that really took off. Probably a bit more self made than Branson, but neither really are quite the myth of the self made man pulling himself up from the gutter that people like to imagine. Both deserve some admiration, they took what they had and made a lot more from it, but its not like they didn't actually get a lot of help from privillage and family that most people wouldn't have. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 May 15 4.07pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm

Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm

let me see if I've got this socialism right?

Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper.

I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.

Whereas in Capitalism, being born in to the Walmart family and doing f*ck all work makes you richer than almost all of your employees who work their arse in to the ground combined.

Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm)

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.

Edited by dannyh (28 May 2015 5.02pm)

I think the problem is that people tend to think in a either / or situation in regards to socialism or capitalism, and disregard the fact that what currently works for us is a balance of the two.

Socialism functions better as a critical assessment of the fundamental flaws and inequalities within capitalism, and has served as the process by which systems of capital have been tempered and restrained within history.

I doubt few of us would regard American Capitalism as being a particularly successful model for the provision of its general population, any more than we'd regard Soviet planned economies as serving the general population particularly well; both being extremes which serve a minority.

Capitalism as we experience it, as a western liberal, European democracy, owes a lot of its survival to its capacity to absorb social movements, most notably those of the left.

For the record, Richard Branson's background is quite privileged - He'd have been out of business in 1972 if his mother hadn't bailed him out. His initial brand succeed on the back of a tax fraud involving selling records branded for export, internally (a scam he'd picked up from his mail order company). Whilst he repaid the tax and fine (or rather his mother did) it allowed him to establish the brand and chain of record stores.

As for Wal-Mart, well that was founded on 5k saved during the army (he was an officer stationed stateside) and 20k lent to him by his father in law.

His father previously worked through the great depression repossessing farms for his brothers company. His education came via ROTC, but he only joined the military as a result of WWII, on graduation he went to work for JC Penny.

Ironically the success of Wal-Mart ultimately lies with the Landlord of his first Store being greedy and forcing him to sell up, as this pushed Sam into expansion to a new store that really took off.

Probably a bit more self made than Branson, but neither really are quite the myth of the self made man pulling himself up from the gutter that people like to imagine.

Both deserve some admiration, they took what they had and made a lot more from it, but its not like they didn't actually get a lot of help from privillage and family that most people wouldn't have.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Socialist paradise in Venezuela

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors