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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 9 of 11 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

serial thriller The Promised Land 03 Jun 15 10.56pm
Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.48pm Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.39pm Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.31pm Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.05pm Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am Certainly Capitalism is characterised by boom and bust, it is a sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest. The profit motive makes for efficiency and is geared to supplying people with what they want, not what a government says they should want. Socialism is characterised by bust and bust, telling people what they want and restricting personal freedom. I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'. Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population. Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy. Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back. Socialism tends to be one step forward and two back. Apologies I've been out of the conversation for a while, but I couldn't miss out on putting a few of these things right Capitalism as 'survival of the fittest': Darwin himself was keen to stress that his theory of natural biology shouldn't be adapted for more generalised political point-scoring. It's similar to the 'Capitalism is human nature' argument, a sign of such total indoctrination in a belief system that you begin to suppose there can be no other way, just as Romans believed the Roman Empire to be divinely supported and sent to free the world. Capitalism is only about 300 years old though, whereas humans are millions of years old. Why didn't cavemen start seizing the means of production from workers if Capitalism is so innate? And who exactly are the 'fittest' in Capitalist society? A Russian oligarch who bribes, money launders and murders his way to billions? A CEO of an oil company who massacres tribes in the rainforest, pollutes the environment and silences criticism to make sure he keeps hold of his fortune? Or maybe a banker who rigs financial rates, speculates away billions of public money and spends their squillions on coke and whores? If that's the cream of the crop, I don't really wanna be in the crop! It confuses me as well why you so willingly disregard the positive social benefits which socialism can bring. Look at the rates of absolute poverty in Venezuela before and after Chavez, look at literacy rates in Cuba in contrast to its neighbours, look at how Nicaragua promoted women's rights (before the Americans got involved). As I have said, these places aren't perfect, but your rose-tinted view on these societies is as bad as someone on the left unanimously defending them, and fails to comprehend that many in Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay etc. support the socialist governments. Wealth has never been more concentrated, nor society so economically unequal, as it is today. We continue to rely on slavery to drive our cheap-commodity economy, we have resource wars developing across the globe and environmental exploitation is perpetuating all of this, while killing millions in the poorest countries on earth. Don't kid yourself that Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees. Your rose-tinted view of Cuba makes me laugh, as I said before, a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. Have a referendum there asking them if they would like a Capitalist economy and democracy. Uruguay and Venezuela are democratic and of course not fully Socialist, they would of course go downhill and cease to be democracies if they were. Capitalism "killing millions in the poorest countries on earth", "Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees". I think Pol Pot had a good go at the latter. China and the USSR managed to kill millions upon millions of their own people. Why don't you tell us how much the North Koreans love their leader? I have said it a couple of times already but I guess I'll have to say it again. I DON'T SUPPORT CUBA. They have a woeful policy on the lgbt community, are brutal to dissidents and their politics, from the little I know of it, is riddled with corruption. BUT there are dozens of capitalist countries in every single continent on the globe where the same can be said, and what I'm trying to make you do is to view all states, regimes and governments as having both positive and negative traits, rather than all Socialist societies being bad, and all capitalist ones being good. And why is Cuba 'fully socialist' but Venezuela and Uruguay aren't? I sadly don't have the necessary money or willpower to carry out these referendums you ask of me, but I do want to ask you one question: what would your criticism be of a non-authoritarian socialist society, like the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia or the Kurds in Syria? And I haven't said all Capitalist countries are great or successful or democratic; although the more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be. The Paris Commune lasted a couple of months didn't it - and that was spent fighting, how can anyone judge its worth? Revolutionary Catalonia the same, in a chaotic war (with the left inflicting as much damage on each other as the Fascists did - read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Kurds in Syria - again in a chaotic war. Cuba is more Socialist than Uruguay and Venezuela because Cuba has practically everything under state control, with the inevitable inefficiencies, empty shelves etc, Uruguay and Venezeula still have lots of private (Capitalist) businesses, the fruits of which pay for their Socialist policies. 'The more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be'. That just couldn't be further from the truth. China is the most successful Capitalist country on the planet and it has next to no democratic apparatus. America's highest growth rates were when it could deploy slavery in the 19th century, even aside from global powerhouses, Italy's fastest growing spell under Capitalism was in the 70s, when it was totally riddled with corruption, same with Greece. In contrast, attempts at truly configuring democracy have often been repressed and destroyed. The Nicuraguan revolution attempted to enact radical democracy but faced massive dissent from American-funded contras. Similar story in the examples I listed. Even going back to Athens, the most famous example of democracy, their democratic system lasted about 150 years before Alexander the Great came along. Democracy has never been able to withstand imperialism, as we are seeing in Venezuela. Your final point is almost as ridiculous. Nowhere in all of Marx's writings will you find any connection between Socialism and authoritarianism. Communism itself is a word suggestive of localised government, and as I have pointed out there are many examples of Socialism in practice being far more libertarian than any Capitalist society on the planet. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 03 Jun 15 10.56pm

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.48pm

Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.31pm

Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.05pm

Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am

Certainly Capitalism is characterised by boom and bust, it is a sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest. The profit motive makes for efficiency and is geared to supplying people with what they want, not what a government says they should want. Socialism is characterised by bust and bust, telling people what they want and restricting personal freedom.

I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'.

Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector.

In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population.

Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy.

Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back.
Socialism tends to be one step forward and two back.

Apologies I've been out of the conversation for a while, but I couldn't miss out on putting a few of these things right

Capitalism as 'survival of the fittest': Darwin himself was keen to stress that his theory of natural biology shouldn't be adapted for more generalised political point-scoring. It's similar to the 'Capitalism is human nature' argument, a sign of such total indoctrination in a belief system that you begin to suppose there can be no other way, just as Romans believed the Roman Empire to be divinely supported and sent to free the world. Capitalism is only about 300 years old though, whereas humans are millions of years old. Why didn't cavemen start seizing the means of production from workers if Capitalism is so innate?

And who exactly are the 'fittest' in Capitalist society? A Russian oligarch who bribes, money launders and murders his way to billions? A CEO of an oil company who massacres tribes in the rainforest, pollutes the environment and silences criticism to make sure he keeps hold of his fortune? Or maybe a banker who rigs financial rates, speculates away billions of public money and spends their squillions on coke and whores? If that's the cream of the crop, I don't really wanna be in the crop!

It confuses me as well why you so willingly disregard the positive social benefits which socialism can bring. Look at the rates of absolute poverty in Venezuela before and after Chavez, look at literacy rates in Cuba in contrast to its neighbours, look at how Nicaragua promoted women's rights (before the Americans got involved). As I have said, these places aren't perfect, but your rose-tinted view on these societies is as bad as someone on the left unanimously defending them, and fails to comprehend that many in Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay etc. support the socialist governments.

Wealth has never been more concentrated, nor society so economically unequal, as it is today. We continue to rely on slavery to drive our cheap-commodity economy, we have resource wars developing across the globe and environmental exploitation is perpetuating all of this, while killing millions in the poorest countries on earth. Don't kid yourself that Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees.

Your rose-tinted view of Cuba makes me laugh, as I said before, a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. Have a referendum there asking them if they would like a Capitalist economy and democracy. Uruguay and Venezuela are democratic and of course not fully Socialist, they would of course go downhill and cease to be democracies if they were.

Capitalism "killing millions in the poorest countries on earth", "Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees". I think Pol Pot had a good go at the latter. China and the USSR managed to kill millions upon millions of their own people.

Why don't you tell us how much the North Koreans love their leader?

I have said it a couple of times already but I guess I'll have to say it again. I DON'T SUPPORT CUBA. They have a woeful policy on the lgbt community, are brutal to dissidents and their politics, from the little I know of it, is riddled with corruption. BUT there are dozens of capitalist countries in every single continent on the globe where the same can be said, and what I'm trying to make you do is to view all states, regimes and governments as having both positive and negative traits, rather than all Socialist societies being bad, and all capitalist ones being good.

And why is Cuba 'fully socialist' but Venezuela and Uruguay aren't?

I sadly don't have the necessary money or willpower to carry out these referendums you ask of me, but I do want to ask you one question: what would your criticism be of a non-authoritarian socialist society, like the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia or the Kurds in Syria?

And I haven't said all Capitalist countries are great or successful or democratic; although the more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be. The Paris Commune lasted a couple of months didn't it - and that was spent fighting, how can anyone judge its worth? Revolutionary Catalonia the same, in a chaotic war (with the left inflicting as much damage on each other as the Fascists did - read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Kurds in Syria - again in a chaotic war.

Cuba is more Socialist than Uruguay and Venezuela because Cuba has practically everything under state control, with the inevitable inefficiencies, empty shelves etc, Uruguay and Venezeula still have lots of private (Capitalist) businesses, the fruits of which pay for their Socialist policies.

'The more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be'. That just couldn't be further from the truth. China is the most successful Capitalist country on the planet and it has next to no democratic apparatus. America's highest growth rates were when it could deploy slavery in the 19th century, even aside from global powerhouses, Italy's fastest growing spell under Capitalism was in the 70s, when it was totally riddled with corruption, same with Greece. In contrast, attempts at truly configuring democracy have often been repressed and destroyed. The Nicuraguan revolution attempted to enact radical democracy but faced massive dissent from American-funded contras. Similar story in the examples I listed. Even going back to Athens, the most famous example of democracy, their democratic system lasted about 150 years before Alexander the Great came along. Democracy has never been able to withstand imperialism, as we are seeing in Venezuela.

Your final point is almost as ridiculous. Nowhere in all of Marx's writings will you find any connection between Socialism and authoritarianism. Communism itself is a word suggestive of localised government, and as I have pointed out there are many examples of Socialism in practice being far more libertarian than any Capitalist society on the planet.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 03 Jun 15 11.17pm
Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 10.56pm 'The more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be'. That just couldn't be further from the truth. China is the most successful Capitalist country on the planet and it has next to no democratic apparatus. America's highest growth rates were when it could deploy slavery in the 19th century, even aside from global powerhouses, Italy's fastest growing spell under Capitalism was in the 70s, when it was totally riddled with corruption, same with Greece. In contrast, attempts at truly configuring democracy have often been repressed and destroyed. The Nicuraguan revolution attempted to enact radical democracy but faced massive dissent from American-funded contras. Similar story in the examples I listed. Even going back to Athens, the most famous example of democracy, their democratic system lasted about 150 years before Alexander the Great came along. Democracy has never been able to withstand imperialism, as we are seeing in Venezuela. Your final point is almost as ridiculous. Nowhere in all of Marx's writings will you find any connection between Socialism and authoritarianism. Communism itself is a word suggestive of localised government, and as I have pointed out there are many examples of Socialism in practice being far more libertarian than any Capitalist society on the planet. Not to mention our own "top" economic" period in the 18th/19th centuries,with little democracy at home and somewhat less in the "Empire" enabling us to flourish from utilisation on very favourable terms of their raw materials and selling them back our manufactured goods on our terms. Edited by legaleagle (03 Jun 2015 11.18pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

03 Jun 15 11.17pm

Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 10.56pm

Not to mention our own "top" economic" period in the 18th/19th centuries,with little democracy at home and somewhat less in the "Empire" enabling us to flourish from utilisation on very favourable terms of their raw materials and selling them back our manufactured goods on our terms.

Edited by legaleagle (03 Jun 2015 11.18pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

THEMAN_THELEGEND 04 Jun 15 6.15am
I am always bemused when people post articles like this as though Venezuela (or Cuba or any other similar state with a different point of view to "The West" ) is a bad place or a failing/failed state or in some way deserves our pity/help/interference. Venezuela has very low levels of illiteracy, free healthcare (something which we seem to be struggling with currently and something which the USA have never got to grips with!) and a generally happy populace. The Chavez government's achievements in cutting poverty and extreme poverty are achievements that should be commended worldwide, instead of somehow shunned or criticised! Perhaps we need to re-think what our ideas of good and bad / success and failure / moral and immoral are? The great tragedy for Venezuela is not that there are currently shortages of certain items/foods, mass corruption, or crime. The real tragedy is that the murder of Hugo Chavez robbed Venezuela and indeed the World of the opportunity to see the Bolivarian Revolutionary project come to its conclusion. Now, we can only imagine how he might have succeded (or not). Perhaps that is the very reason why he was murdered. To ensure that his project was not allowed to continue, never mind be successfully completed. No Gran Colombia, no reverse-migration which would have seen many of the poverty striken beggars and street hawkers in the cities given the oppotunities to rebuild their lives in the countryside where their grandparents were born. This would have increased agricultural production, which in turn would have decreased the food shortages journalists of a certain biased disposition gleefully report. Unfortunately when you have a country which relies on a personality cult to drive it forward, it is too easy for the enemies of that country to remove the personality and then plunge it into problems. Funding and encouraging the opposition also helps! Ultimately, the saddest thing when people start talking about Venezuela, Chavez, Bolivarianism etc. is that they often don't really know what they are talking about. As a world we are incredibly ignorant and myopic about what has gone on in Venezuela over the past 20 years. That is a real shame. If anyone wants to know more about the "other" point of view of Venezuela, try these books and documentaries: The War On Democracy (stream it for free online by John Pilger) The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (damning! Utterly damning!!) Hugo Chavez by Richard Gott (good book albeit a few years out of date now) Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.16am) Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.19am)
Alert a moderator to this post

THEMAN_THELEGEND

04 Jun 15 6.15am

Send a Private Message to THEMAN_THELEGEND

I am always bemused when people post articles like this as though Venezuela (or Cuba or any other similar state with a different point of view to "The West" ) is a bad place or a failing/failed state or in some way deserves our pity/help/interference.

Venezuela has very low levels of illiteracy, free healthcare (something which we seem to be struggling with currently and something which the USA have never got to grips with!) and a generally happy populace. The Chavez government's achievements in cutting poverty and extreme poverty are achievements that should be commended worldwide, instead of somehow shunned or criticised!

Perhaps we need to re-think what our ideas of good and bad / success and failure / moral and immoral are?

The great tragedy for Venezuela is not that there are currently shortages of certain items/foods, mass corruption, or crime.

The real tragedy is that the murder of Hugo Chavez robbed Venezuela and indeed the World of the opportunity to see the Bolivarian Revolutionary project come to its conclusion. Now, we can only imagine how he might have succeded (or not).

Perhaps that is the very reason why he was murdered. To ensure that his project was not allowed to continue, never mind be successfully completed.

No Gran Colombia, no reverse-migration which would have seen many of the poverty striken beggars and street hawkers in the cities given the oppotunities to rebuild their lives in the countryside where their grandparents were born. This would have increased agricultural production, which in turn would have decreased the food shortages journalists of a certain biased disposition gleefully report.

Unfortunately when you have a country which relies on a personality cult to drive it forward, it is too easy for the enemies of that country to remove the personality and then plunge it into problems. Funding and encouraging the opposition also helps!

Ultimately, the saddest thing when people start talking about Venezuela, Chavez, Bolivarianism etc. is that they often don't really know what they are talking about. As a world we are incredibly ignorant and myopic about what has gone on in Venezuela over the past 20 years. That is a real shame.

If anyone wants to know more about the "other" point of view of Venezuela, try these books and documentaries:

The War On Democracy (stream it for free online by John Pilger)
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (damning! Utterly damning!!)
Hugo Chavez by Richard Gott (good book albeit a few years out of date now)

Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.16am)

Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.19am)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 04 Jun 15 7.36am
Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 10.56pm Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.48pm Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.39pm Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.31pm Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.05pm Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am Certainly Capitalism is characterised by boom and bust, it is a sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest. The profit motive makes for efficiency and is geared to supplying people with what they want, not what a government says they should want. Socialism is characterised by bust and bust, telling people what they want and restricting personal freedom. I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'. Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population. Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy. Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back. Socialism tends to be one step forward and two back. Apologies I've been out of the conversation for a while, but I couldn't miss out on putting a few of these things right Capitalism as 'survival of the fittest': Darwin himself was keen to stress that his theory of natural biology shouldn't be adapted for more generalised political point-scoring. It's similar to the 'Capitalism is human nature' argument, a sign of such total indoctrination in a belief system that you begin to suppose there can be no other way, just as Romans believed the Roman Empire to be divinely supported and sent to free the world. Capitalism is only about 300 years old though, whereas humans are millions of years old. Why didn't cavemen start seizing the means of production from workers if Capitalism is so innate? And who exactly are the 'fittest' in Capitalist society? A Russian oligarch who bribes, money launders and murders his way to billions? A CEO of an oil company who massacres tribes in the rainforest, pollutes the environment and silences criticism to make sure he keeps hold of his fortune? Or maybe a banker who rigs financial rates, speculates away billions of public money and spends their squillions on coke and whores? If that's the cream of the crop, I don't really wanna be in the crop! It confuses me as well why you so willingly disregard the positive social benefits which socialism can bring. Look at the rates of absolute poverty in Venezuela before and after Chavez, look at literacy rates in Cuba in contrast to its neighbours, look at how Nicaragua promoted women's rights (before the Americans got involved). As I have said, these places aren't perfect, but your rose-tinted view on these societies is as bad as someone on the left unanimously defending them, and fails to comprehend that many in Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay etc. support the socialist governments. Wealth has never been more concentrated, nor society so economically unequal, as it is today. We continue to rely on slavery to drive our cheap-commodity economy, we have resource wars developing across the globe and environmental exploitation is perpetuating all of this, while killing millions in the poorest countries on earth. Don't kid yourself that Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees. Your rose-tinted view of Cuba makes me laugh, as I said before, a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. Have a referendum there asking them if they would like a Capitalist economy and democracy. Uruguay and Venezuela are democratic and of course not fully Socialist, they would of course go downhill and cease to be democracies if they were. Capitalism "killing millions in the poorest countries on earth", "Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees". I think Pol Pot had a good go at the latter. China and the USSR managed to kill millions upon millions of their own people. Why don't you tell us how much the North Koreans love their leader? I have said it a couple of times already but I guess I'll have to say it again. I DON'T SUPPORT CUBA. They have a woeful policy on the lgbt community, are brutal to dissidents and their politics, from the little I know of it, is riddled with corruption. BUT there are dozens of capitalist countries in every single continent on the globe where the same can be said, and what I'm trying to make you do is to view all states, regimes and governments as having both positive and negative traits, rather than all Socialist societies being bad, and all capitalist ones being good. And why is Cuba 'fully socialist' but Venezuela and Uruguay aren't? I sadly don't have the necessary money or willpower to carry out these referendums you ask of me, but I do want to ask you one question: what would your criticism be of a non-authoritarian socialist society, like the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia or the Kurds in Syria? And I haven't said all Capitalist countries are great or successful or democratic; although the more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be. The Paris Commune lasted a couple of months didn't it - and that was spent fighting, how can anyone judge its worth? Revolutionary Catalonia the same, in a chaotic war (with the left inflicting as much damage on each other as the Fascists did - read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Kurds in Syria - again in a chaotic war. Cuba is more Socialist than Uruguay and Venezuela because Cuba has practically everything under state control, with the inevitable inefficiencies, empty shelves etc, Uruguay and Venezeula still have lots of private (Capitalist) businesses, the fruits of which pay for their Socialist policies. 'The more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be'. That just couldn't be further from the truth. China is the most successful Capitalist country on the planet and it has next to no democratic apparatus. America's highest growth rates were when it could deploy slavery in the 19th century, even aside from global powerhouses, Italy's fastest growing spell under Capitalism was in the 70s, when it was totally riddled with corruption, same with Greece. In contrast, attempts at truly configuring democracy have often been repressed and destroyed. The Nicuraguan revolution attempted to enact radical democracy but faced massive dissent from American-funded contras. Similar story in the examples I listed. Even going back to Athens, the most famous example of democracy, their democratic system lasted about 150 years before Alexander the Great came along. Democracy has never been able to withstand imperialism, as we are seeing in Venezuela. Your final point is almost as ridiculous. Nowhere in all of Marx's writings will you find any connection between Socialism and authoritarianism. Communism itself is a word suggestive of localised government, and as I have pointed out there are many examples of Socialism in practice being far more libertarian than any Capitalist society on the planet. Err.... 'dictatorship of the proletariat' LOL - you actually believe that!? Democracy has never been able to withstand socialism either - particularly USSR imperialism in eastern Europe. Edited by derben (04 Jun 2015 7.57am)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

04 Jun 15 7.36am

Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 10.56pm

Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.48pm

Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.39pm

Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.31pm

Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.05pm

Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am

Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy.

Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back.
Socialism tends to be one step forward and two back.

Apologies I've been out of the conversation for a while, but I couldn't miss out on putting a few of these things right

Why don't you tell us how much the North Koreans love their leader?

And why is Cuba 'fully socialist' but Venezuela and Uruguay aren't?

Your final point is almost as ridiculous. Nowhere in all of Marx's writings will you find any connection between Socialism and authoritarianism. Communism itself is a word suggestive of localised government, and as I have pointed out there are many examples of Socialism in practice being far more libertarian than any Capitalist society on the planet.

Err.... 'dictatorship of the proletariat'

LOL - you actually believe that!?

Democracy has never been able to withstand socialism either - particularly USSR imperialism in eastern Europe.

Edited by derben (04 Jun 2015 7.57am)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 04 Jun 15 7.42am
Quote THEMAN_THELEGEND at 04 Jun 2015 6.15am I am always bemused when people post articles like this as though Venezuela (or Cuba or any other similar state with a different point of view to "The West" ) is a bad place or a failing/failed state or in some way deserves our pity/help/interference. Venezuela has very low levels of illiteracy, free healthcare (something which we seem to be struggling with currently and something which the USA have never got to grips with!) and a generally happy populace. The Chavez government's achievements in cutting poverty and extreme poverty are achievements that should be commended worldwide, instead of somehow shunned or criticised! *Perhaps we need to re-think what our ideas of good and bad / success and failure / moral and immoral are?* The great tragedy for Venezuela is not that there are currently shortages of certain items/foods, mass corruption, or crime. The real tragedy is that the murder of Hugo Chavez robbed Venezuela and indeed the World of the opportunity to see the Bolivarian Revolutionary project come to its conclusion. Now, we can only imagine how he might have succeded (or not). Perhaps that is the very reason why he was murdered. To ensure that his project was not allowed to continue, never mind be successfully completed. No Gran Colombia, no reverse-migration which would have seen many of the poverty striken beggars and street hawkers in the cities given the oppotunities to rebuild their lives in the countryside where their grandparents were born. This would have increased agricultural production, which in turn would have decreased the food shortages journalists of a certain biased disposition gleefully report. Unfortunately when you have a country which relies on a personality cult to drive it forward, it is too easy for the enemies of that country to remove the personality and then plunge it into problems. Funding and encouraging the opposition also helps! Ultimately, the saddest thing when people start talking about Venezuela, Chavez, Bolivarianism etc. is that they often don't really know what they are talking about. As a world we are incredibly ignorant and myopic about what has gone on in Venezuela over the past 20 years. That is a real shame. If anyone wants to know more about the "other" point of view of Venezuela, try these books and documentaries: The War On Democracy (stream it for free online by John Pilger) The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (damning! Utterly damning!!) Hugo Chavez by Richard Gott (good book albeit a few years out of date now) Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.16am) Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.19am) Ah yes, the conspiracy theory that that the CIA planted cancer in him - you guys are beyond rational argument really. Socialists/Communists have been doing that for years to justify their excesses and delusions. Edited by derben (04 Jun 2015 8.10am)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

04 Jun 15 7.42am

Quote THEMAN_THELEGEND at 04 Jun 2015 6.15am

Perhaps we need to re-think what our ideas of good and bad / success and failure / moral and immoral are?

The great tragedy for Venezuela is not that there are currently shortages of certain items/foods, mass corruption, or crime.

Perhaps that is the very reason why he was murdered. To ensure that his project was not allowed to continue, never mind be successfully completed.

No Gran Colombia, no reverse-migration which would have seen many of the poverty striken beggars and street hawkers in the cities given the oppotunities to rebuild their lives in the countryside where their grandparents were born. This would have increased agricultural production, which in turn would have decreased the food shortages journalists of a certain biased disposition gleefully report.

If anyone wants to know more about the "other" point of view of Venezuela, try these books and documentaries:

Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.16am)

Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.19am)

Ah yes, the conspiracy theory that that the CIA planted cancer in him - you guys are beyond rational argument really.

Socialists/Communists have been doing that for years to justify their excesses and delusions.

Edited by derben (04 Jun 2015 8.10am)

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 04 Jun 15 7.42am
Quote THEMAN_THELEGEND at 04 Jun 2015 6.15am I am always bemused when people post articles like this as though Venezuela (or Cuba or any other similar state with a different point of view to "The West" ) is a bad place or a failing/failed state or in some way deserves our pity/help/interference. Venezuela has very low levels of illiteracy, free healthcare (something which we seem to be struggling with currently and something which the USA have never got to grips with!) and a generally happy populace. The Chavez government's achievements in cutting poverty and extreme poverty are achievements that should be commended worldwide, instead of somehow shunned or criticised! Perhaps we need to re-think what our ideas of good and bad / success and failure / moral and immoral are? The great tragedy for Venezuela is not that there are currently shortages of certain items/foods, mass corruption, or crime. The real tragedy is that the murder of Hugo Chavez robbed Venezuela and indeed the World of the opportunity to see the Bolivarian Revolutionary project come to its conclusion. Now, we can only imagine how he might have succeded (or not). Perhaps that is the very reason why he was murdered. To ensure that his project was not allowed to continue, never mind be successfully completed. No Gran Colombia, no reverse-migration which would have seen many of the poverty striken beggars and street hawkers in the cities given the oppotunities to rebuild their lives in the countryside where their grandparents were born. This would have increased agricultural production, which in turn would have decreased the food shortages journalists of a certain biased disposition gleefully report. Unfortunately when you have a country which relies on a personality cult to drive it forward, it is too easy for the enemies of that country to remove the personality and then plunge it into problems. Funding and encouraging the opposition also helps! Ultimately, the saddest thing when people start talking about Venezuela, Chavez, Bolivarianism etc. is that they often don't really know what they are talking about. As a world we are incredibly ignorant and myopic about what has gone on in Venezuela over the past 20 years. That is a real shame. If anyone wants to know more about the "other" point of view of Venezuela, try these books and documentaries: The War On Democracy (stream it for free online by John Pilger) The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (damning! Utterly damning!!) Hugo Chavez by Richard Gott (good book albeit a few years out of date now) Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.16am) Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.19am) Got anything to back that up? I'm not saying I'd put it past the US or anyone else to do so, just that I've never seen any sort of evidence at all, and to eliminate someone using an illness lasting years seems inefficient in the extreme.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 04 Jun 15 7.42am

Quote THEMAN_THELEGEND at 04 Jun 2015 6.15am

Perhaps we need to re-think what our ideas of good and bad / success and failure / moral and immoral are?

The great tragedy for Venezuela is not that there are currently shortages of certain items/foods, mass corruption, or crime.

The real tragedy is that the murder of Hugo Chavez robbed Venezuela and indeed the World of the opportunity to see the Bolivarian Revolutionary project come to its conclusion. Now, we can only imagine how he might have succeded (or not).

Perhaps that is the very reason why he was murdered. To ensure that his project was not allowed to continue, never mind be successfully completed.

If anyone wants to know more about the "other" point of view of Venezuela, try these books and documentaries:

Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.16am)

Edited by THEMAN_THELEGEND (04 Jun 2015 6.19am)

Got anything to back that up? I'm not saying I'd put it past the US or anyone else to do so, just that I've never seen any sort of evidence at all, and to eliminate someone using an illness lasting years seems inefficient in the extreme.

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 04 Jun 15 9.03am
And not to mention that it is completely made up Bullsh1t "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....... 04 Jun 15 9.03am

And not to mention that it is completely made up Bullsh1t

"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

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jun 15 9.21am
Quote npn at 04 Jun 2015 7.42am Got anything to back that up? I'm not saying I'd put it past the US or anyone else to do so, just that I've never seen any sort of evidence at all, and to eliminate someone using an illness lasting years seems inefficient in the extreme. Indeed, plus if the US was going to assassinate someone they probably aren't going to wait that long, and use cancer (even if they could). Venezuela has its problems, violence and crime, like most of the countries around it; it is an oil producer which allowed it to undertake large scale socialist reforms - but its current problems are linked very much to those reforms being propped up by a single asset resource (oil). On the whole I think Chavez represented a force that improved the lives of a lot of his citizens, at the cost of the wealthy and western interests. But its hard to avoid the reality that was entirely dependent on oil, and that the fall in value of that resource has resulted in a crippling blow to their economy and consequently its capacity to control prices of other goods. Of course it would have suffered the same fate under free market capitalism, except there would be more goods on the shelf, but at higher prices. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Jun 15 9.21am

Quote npn at 04 Jun 2015 7.42am

Indeed, plus if the US was going to assassinate someone they probably aren't going to wait that long, and use cancer (even if they could). Venezuela has its problems, violence and crime, like most of the countries around it; it is an oil producer which allowed it to undertake large scale socialist reforms - but its current problems are linked very much to those reforms being propped up by a single asset resource (oil).

On the whole I think Chavez represented a force that improved the lives of a lot of his citizens, at the cost of the wealthy and western interests. But its hard to avoid the reality that was entirely dependent on oil, and that the fall in value of that resource has resulted in a crippling blow to their economy and consequently its capacity to control prices of other goods.

Of course it would have suffered the same fate under free market capitalism, except there would be more goods on the shelf, but at higher prices.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jun 15 9.26am
Quote derben at 04 Jun 2015 7.36am Err.... 'dictatorship of the proletariat' LOL - you actually believe that!? Democracy has never been able to withstand socialism either - particularly USSR imperialism in eastern Europe. Edited by derben (04 Jun 2015 7.57am) Quite correct, the dictatorship of the proletariat is something Marx regarded as necessary for the transitional period from Capitalism to Communism (although he differs from Vanguard Communist movements, such as the Russia and Chinese, in that he saw Communism replacing Capitalism through historical progress, rather than being provoked early as proposed by Mao and Lennin. Of course ultimately democracy isn't exclusively oppositional to Socialism (certainly even most dictatorships have within them democratic electorial processes for internal state positions). Edited by jamiemartin721 (04 Jun 2015 9.37am) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Jun 15 9.26am

Quote derben at 04 Jun 2015 7.36am

Err.... 'dictatorship of the proletariat'

LOL - you actually believe that!?

Democracy has never been able to withstand socialism either - particularly USSR imperialism in eastern Europe.

Edited by derben (04 Jun 2015 7.57am)

Quite correct, the dictatorship of the proletariat is something Marx regarded as necessary for the transitional period from Capitalism to Communism (although he differs from Vanguard Communist movements, such as the Russia and Chinese, in that he saw Communism replacing Capitalism through historical progress, rather than being provoked early as proposed by Mao and Lennin.

Of course ultimately democracy isn't exclusively oppositional to Socialism (certainly even most dictatorships have within them democratic electorial processes for internal state positions).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (04 Jun 2015 9.37am)

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jun 15 9.36am
Quote dannyh at 04 Jun 2015 9.03am And not to mention that it is completely made up Bullsh1t Almost certainly, the CIA isn't particularly keen on assassination except in relation to the war on terror. The reason it abandoned assassination isn't because it was forced to, but because its problematic, high risk, low success and generally results in the creation of a iconic martyr (The CIA generally regarded the murder of Che Guevera as a mistake, and the resultant rise in Urban Leftist Guerillas in Germany, Japan, the US, Italy, France and Belgium had more to do with the murder of Che Guevera than any Marxist movements). The CIA generally prefer a Coup. Its controllable, directable and results in a predictable outcome. They're not above taking out targets in the War on Terror (that's more of a functional reality of an asymmetrical conflict). The CIA has used assassination, and will likely continue to do so, it just doesn't use it against political targets and high profile targets unless it has no real choice or it can be passed off as 'justified by the conflict'. Generally they'll prefer to arrest a target, flip them and put them back in play as a double agent. Its all about information. Murder is very inefficient means of conducting espionage and politics, and intelligence agencys prefer to subvert and stay in the shadows. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 04 Jun 15 9.36am

Quote dannyh at 04 Jun 2015 9.03am

And not to mention that it is completely made up Bullsh1t

Almost certainly, the CIA isn't particularly keen on assassination except in relation to the war on terror. The reason it abandoned assassination isn't because it was forced to, but because its problematic, high risk, low success and generally results in the creation of a iconic martyr (The CIA generally regarded the murder of Che Guevera as a mistake, and the resultant rise in Urban Leftist Guerillas in Germany, Japan, the US, Italy, France and Belgium had more to do with the murder of Che Guevera than any Marxist movements).

The CIA generally prefer a Coup. Its controllable, directable and results in a predictable outcome. They're not above taking out targets in the War on Terror (that's more of a functional reality of an asymmetrical conflict).

The CIA has used assassination, and will likely continue to do so, it just doesn't use it against political targets and high profile targets unless it has no real choice or it can be passed off as 'justified by the conflict'. Generally they'll prefer to arrest a target, flip them and put them back in play as a double agent. Its all about information.

Murder is very inefficient means of conducting espionage and politics, and intelligence agencys prefer to subvert and stay in the shadows.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

THEMAN_THELEGEND 07 Jun 15 7.10am
Regarding Chavez's murder, if I had hard evidence to prove it I probably would be busying myself with press conferences and global politics rather than speaking to the other plebs on here. That several people on here have scoffed at the idea really demonstrates how little idea you have about the world you live in, and the lengths that people in power will go to in order to maintain that power. And yes, there are centuries of hard evidence to back that up!!! Interesting that the only thing people chose to pick up on was that I said Chavez was murdered. Presumably because its impossible to argue with his achievements. Which are, again, backed up by hard facts! I live in Latin America and the vast majority of people here state with utter conviction that Chavez was bumped off. No, it doesn't make it true. But yes, we do have a far better idea of whats been going on than you do! Finally, specifically for the 3 or 4 people who scoffed at the idea, don't you think its a strange coincidence that 4 progressive, left-leaning South American leaders all got diagnosed with cancer within an 18 month period?... Its time to grow up children. The real world is not the fantasy you believe it to be.
Alert a moderator to this post

THEMAN_THELEGEND

07 Jun 15 7.10am

Regarding Chavez's murder, if I had hard evidence to prove it I probably would be busying myself with press conferences and global politics rather than speaking to the other plebs on here.

That several people on here have scoffed at the idea really demonstrates how little idea you have about the world you live in, and the lengths that people in power will go to in order to maintain that power. And yes, there are centuries of hard evidence to back that up!!!

Interesting that the only thing people chose to pick up on was that I said Chavez was murdered. Presumably because its impossible to argue with his achievements. Which are, again, backed up by hard facts!

I live in Latin America and the vast majority of people here state with utter conviction that Chavez was bumped off. No, it doesn't make it true. But yes, we do have a far better idea of whats been going on than you do!

Finally, specifically for the 3 or 4 people who scoffed at the idea, don't you think its a strange coincidence that 4 progressive, left-leaning South American leaders all got diagnosed with cancer within an 18 month period?...

Its time to grow up children. The real world is not the fantasy you believe it to be.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Jun 15 4.24pm
Quote THEMAN_THELEGEND at 07 Jun 2015 7.10am Regarding Chavez's murder, if I had hard evidence to prove it I probably would be busying myself with press conferences and global politics rather than speaking to the other plebs on here. That several people on here have scoffed at the idea really demonstrates how little idea you have about the world you live in, and the lengths that people in power will go to in order to maintain that power. And yes, there are centuries of hard evidence to back that up!!! Interesting that the only thing people chose to pick up on was that I said Chavez was murdered. Presumably because its impossible to argue with his achievements. Which are, again, backed up by hard facts! I live in Latin America and the vast majority of people here state with utter conviction that Chavez was bumped off. No, it doesn't make it true. But yes, we do have a far better idea of whats been going on than you do! Finally, specifically for the 3 or 4 people who scoffed at the idea, don't you think its a strange coincidence that 4 progressive, left-leaning South American leaders all got diagnosed with cancer within an 18 month period?... Its time to grow up children. The real world is not the fantasy you believe it to be. Of course, it could be coincidence, so there for its murder? And how did the US agents infect them with cancer in that 18 month period? "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Jun 15 4.24pm

Quote THEMAN_THELEGEND at 07 Jun 2015 7.10am

Regarding Chavez's murder, if I had hard evidence to prove it I probably would be busying myself with press conferences and global politics rather than speaking to the other plebs on here.

Its time to grow up children. The real world is not the fantasy you believe it to be.

Of course, it could be coincidence, so there for its murder? And how did the US agents infect them with cancer in that 18 month period?

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 9 of 11 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Socialist paradise in Venezuela

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors