• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Hungry Venezuelans Flee in Boats to Escape Economic Collapse

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silent Chief

Member
Oct 17, 2014
3,363
16
330
Yes, you can think i'm exaggerating. But try to go outside and do your daily things, and then come back to your home expecting to eat something and don't have anything, and find your mother crying because she use her money to buy something for the dogs. After you have live something like that, you can talk about people of this country are exaggerating or not.

Sorry to hear that.

I'm not sentimental enough to keep pets if I can't afford them. I understand it's just one more dilemma, but I would never starve myself to feed the dogs.

Is it better in the country side where people can produce their own food?

Do people try to keep gardens in their backyard or is that too impractical?
 

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
May 27, 2013
7,810
0
0
ITT: Having to explain that Medicare is a socialist policy, and the likes.

A dear friend of mine immigrated a few years ago from Venezuela to here (Italy), and refuses to call Maduro anything but "The fucking busdriver"
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
660
ITT: Having to explain that Medicare is a socialist policy, and the likes.

A dear friend of mine immigrated a few years ago from Venezuela to here (Italy), and refuses to call Maduro anything but "The fucking busdriver"
Those are re-distributive welfare policies. Capitalism w/ a strong welfare state is the optimal endgame, but some countries have done a much better job of implementing the latter than others.

Merely having welfare benefits isn't enough to call it socialism.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
Very easy: Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, as for example the factories (socialism still has classes). It also is a path towards communism (which is beyond an economic transition also a mental and social one and is without classes). Venezuela is still as much a capitalist country as Sweden is.

Net positive socialist countries: The Soviet Union.

20th century Marxism-Leninism had a lot more ambitions and promises than just being a 'net-positive' though and many of those that branch of Communism simply failed to achieve and adhere to.

I see you're banned, so I feel bad you wont be able to respond, but I feel like I have to. Props for naming a socialist country you see as a net positive. Funny you chose the Soviet Union though, who many a socialist has adamantly denied being "truly" socialist. It's not hard to see why. True, compared to the Tszarist policies of white Russia, the USSR was a plus, but that's hardly a large bar. The fact is socialist Russia was so full of corruption and poverty it collapsed under its own weight. I would hardly call that a net positive, especially considering the huge amount of their own citizens they killed, and being the perpetrators of the largest (or second largest, depending on who you ask) genocide in history.
 

Metroxed

Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,089
0
475
Basque Country
For being a thread born as a response to people talking about Cuba and Castro without knowing their reality... this is a thread full of people talking about socialism without even really knowing what socialism is (and what it is NOT), other than yout typical American "socialism = bogeyman".

Point in case:

Funny how those two often go hand in hand.

So socialism...

One. Corruption is not inherent to socialism, corruption is inherent to human nature. And this is a fact, unless you're willing to argue that non-socialist governments do not suffer from corruption. Political corruption is rampant in governments of less developed countries, whether they are socialist or capitalist does not matter. Take a look at Mexico or the Central American countries, or many African countries.

The problem with socialism and communism is that all attempts so far have relied too heavily on charismatic leaders that once in power were not willing to advance socialism, because that meant for them to lose their positions of power. But that has nothing to do with socialism, but with human greed.

This is also why I believe that revolutionary socialism is the worst form of achieving socialism, because it relies on the revolutionary leaders (those who lead the revolutionary vanguard) who later on cannot be willingly removed from power, devolving the whole thing into a totalitarian dictatorship. Democratic socialism (different from social democracy!), where societies reach a level of social and economical advancement that they naturally, slowly and willingly evolve into socialism is, in my opinion, the way to go.

Socialism creates another paradise on Earth!

Unbridled socialist economic policies. Venezuela went from the wealthiest South American countries to an absolute shit hole. It's sad.

Two. We only need to read the theory of political socialism (Marxism) to know that Venezuela is not and has never been a socialist country. The single, more important aspect that is defining for a socialist society is for the means of production to go to the hands of the workers (not the state). As long as they're not owned by the workers, it is not socialism.

Who is to blame then for Venezuela's pitiful situation? Well, obviously Chávez and the political system that he left behind, what he himself called Bolivarianism (others call it Chavism). Chávez was a megalomaniac and he led a highly populist and corrupt government who was good at talking and appeasing the ignorant masses but terribly bad at managing the country. And their style of management was not socialism. Chavez-style Bolivarianism is, at best, a poorly implemented version of social democracy, but it would be more accurate to say that it was an also poorly implemented version of state capitalism. He nationalised several key (and non-key) industries so they would become run by the state and then mismanaged them in the worst possible way. And if Chávez was bad at managing things, Maduro was infinitely worse. Also, the fall in the prices of oil has burst their very fragile bubble.

B..b..but his party is called the Socialist Party of Venezuela!1!one. It is just a name. There are plenty of parties in Europe called "Socialist Workers' Party of..." and none of them is truly a socialist, at least not in the Marxist sense. North Korea's name is People's Democratic Republic, but it isn't a democratic republic, nor do they care about the people, so whatever Chavez's party name was or whatever he said he was, it makes no matter, because the reality is different.

And of course, apart from horribily mismanaging Venezuela's economy the Chavez government also went backwards in what refers to freedom of speech and organisation, freedom of press, oppression of dissidents, etc, but that has nothing to do with socialism, at least not from a theoretical perspective.
 

Mugy

Member
Sep 9, 2012
928
0
0
Sorry to hear that.

I'm not sentimental enough to keep pets if I can't afford them. I understand it's just one more dilemma, but I would never starve myself to feed the dogs.

Is it better in the country side where people can produce their own food?

Do people try to keep gardens in their backyard or is that too impractical?
Yeah well, maybe its because i have a big heart, but i just cannot kick my dogs out, they don't do anything wrong...And people its doing exactly that, kicking them out so often that is heartbreaking.

I wich part of the country people produce their own food? In venezuela? That doesn't happen here.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
Nothing is ever socialism, condom. Every time a socialist experiment fails, people cry out it wasn't "true" socialism, and keep hoping for a good socialist country to magically appear, even though that's never happened. Strange there's never been a sucessfull socialist country, wonder why...

And Libertarians like to claim Pinochet wasnt true Libertarianism. Kansas is an outlier to Supply Side Economics turned to full volume.

But if you take a bigger picture, well regulated capitalism with strong socialism programs implemented(what one may call Democratic Socialism) has had the most utilitarian success for its citizenry and been more stable then extremes on either side. As technological advances and automation continue, this is only going to create more need to incorporate socialist/regulatory answers as capitalism drives down the upward pressures as the labor market continues to lose ground within most countries.

Capitalism is not a panacea. It is poor in many areas of major concern. The externality problem is extremely real and is why things like Climate Change can get so out of hand or how America is able to leave major portions of their population without or with inadequate comprehensive health insurance and the market cannibalizes itself because the inherent profit seeking of for-profit institutions leave those out of the system that then indirectly raise costs when they are forced into the system and can't pay.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
And Libertarians like to claim Pinochet wasnt true Libertarianism. Kansas is an outlier to Supply Side Economics turned to full volume.

But if you take a bigger picture, well regulated capitalism with strong socialism programs implemented has had the most utilitarian success and been more stable then extremes on either side. As technological advances and automation continue, this is only going to create more need to incorporate socialist answers.

I absolutely agree. Libertarians are just as bad as socialists are at this kind of stuff. A well regulated free market capitalist economy which taxes the populous, especially the upper classes to provide for social programs has been the most successful economic system we have yet devised, so you'll have no argument on that front from me.
 

pompidu

Member
Feb 2, 2011
6,027
0
0
I absolutely agree. Libertarians are just as bad as socialists are at this kind of stuff. A well regulated free market capitalist economy which taxes the populous, especially the upper classes to provide for social programs has been the most successful economic system we have yet devised, so you'll have no argument on that front from me.

Just curious what the barometer for most "successful" economic system? Not disagreeing or agreeing, but particular economic systems have been around for 1000 fold longer than capitalism.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
Just curious what the barometer for most "successful" economic system? Not disagreeing or agreeing, but particular economic systems have been around for 1000 fold longer than capitalism.

Successful in the terms of most stable (and growing) economy with the least people suffering. To give an example the Nordic countries. Not every country can or should be an exact copy of that economic system, and the ways of achieving minimal poverty and universal healthcare will vary from place to place, but the system of norther European countries are a good place to start.
 

Syriel

Member
Sep 21, 2009
9,607
1
905
If only there was a way to leverage oil wealth to the benefit of all citizens in a social democratic manner. But alas, it has been impossible, nor can anyone figure out a way to succeed.

Alaska sends everyone a check for their share of the oil wealth.

One. Corruption is not inherent to socialism, corruption is inherent to human nature.

Which means that for socialism to succeed, it has to have sufficient checks and balances to protect against total corruption. To date, no attempt at socialism has done so.

To claim that those failed attempts "weren't real socialism" is a copout. They may not have been ideal attempts, but they were attempts. Learning from their mistakes is the only way to not repeat them.

Two. We only need to read the theory of political socialism (Marxism) to know that Venezuela is not and has never been a socialist country. The single, more important aspect that is defining for a socialist society is for the means of production to go to the hands of the workers (not the state). As long as they're not owned by the workers, it is not socialism.

Capitalism has examples of the means of production being owned by the workers. Co-ops are an example. If it's more a focus on profits (rather than name on title), there are many companies across America who have profit-sharing.

Oddly enough, true ownership (stock) is usually something that is decried as a capitalistic excess. "Oh, those gentrifiers got rich off their stock!"

Venezuela had a government installed by the workers in order to run the country for the workers. Unfortunately, you cannot mandate prices when there is more demand than supply, nor can you mandate factories to produce when there are no raw materials.

Yeah well, maybe its because i have a big heart, but i just cannot kick my dogs out, they don't do anything wrong...And people its doing exactly that, kicking them out so often that is heartbreaking.

I wich part of the country people produce their own food? In venezuela? That doesn't happen here.

I could never kick out a beloved pet either. They are family. As for the food question, he was asking if anyone kept their own gardens for their own benefit. Not commercial growing to sell to others.
 

Shadynasty

Member
Aug 28, 2016
566
0
0
Corruption is not inherent to socialism, corruption is inherent to human nature.

The problem with socialism and communism is that all attempts so far have relied too heavily on charismatic leaders that once in power were not willing to advance socialism, because that meant for them to lose their positions of power. But that has nothing to do with socialism, but with human greed.

Democratic socialism (different from social democracy!), where societies reach a level of social and economical advancement that they naturally, slowly and willingly evolve into socialism is, in my opinion, the way to go.

We only need to read the theory of political socialism (Marxism) to know that Venezuela is not and has never been a socialist country. The single, more important aspect that is defining for a socialist society is for the means of production to go to the hands of the workers (not the state). As long as they're not owned by the workers, it is not socialism.

B..b..but his party is called the Socialist Party of Venezuela!1!one. It is just a name. There are plenty of parties in Europe called "Socialist Workers' Party of..." and none of them is truly a socialist, at least not in the Marxist sense. North Korea's name is People's Democratic Republic, but it isn't a democratic republic, nor do they care about the people, so whatever Chavez's party name was or whatever he said he was, it makes no matter, because the reality is different.

And of course, apart from horribily mismanaging Venezuela's economy the Chavez government also went backwards in what refers to freedom of speech and organisation, freedom of press, oppression of dissidents, etc, but that has nothing to do with socialism, at least not from a theoretical perspective.

So essentially what I've gained from this is that everyone who's allegedly socialist/communist are doing it wrong. So since humans are inherently corrupt/greedy how can one ever expect socialism/communism to work? Even with "democratic socialism" where this imagined level of social and economical advancement that they naturally, slowly and willingly evolve into socialism. There's something missing in the middle of all of that. Such as what level of social and economic advancement is considered nominal for this slow, willing change or evolution to socialism? You will always have human corruption/greed as it's in our nature. Therefore would it not be safe to assume that socialism/communism is not achievable due to the human condition. As you've said all attempts of it have been where charismatic leaders essentially betray their revolution and become some form of despot. When I try to think about conditions where this is achievable all I can think of is Star Trek which is pure fantasy where resources are so abundant and most labor automated. And even then I see human corruption screw that up.
 

Mugy

Member
Sep 9, 2012
928
0
0
I could never kick out a beloved pet either. They are family. As for the food question, he was asking if anyone kept their own gardens for their own benefit. Not commercial growing to sell to others.

Ah, then the answer is yes. I've seen people doing that, but only with a few vegetables.

And for the pets, really its heartbreaking, you people had no idea how hard it is.
 

mavo

Banned
Feb 22, 2016
782
0
0
And Libertarians like to claim Pinochet wasnt true Libertarianism.Kansas is an outlier to Supply Side Economics turned to full volume.

I don't think i have heard of anyone calling Chile a libertarian state and i don't think i have ever heard of someone calling Chile a failed state, quite the contrary actually (they have problems of course), Chile is the best state of latam and they actually have the higher rate of immigrant population in latin america, that doesn't change the fact that Pinochet was a piece of shit but i was surprised by your observation.

The situation in Venezuela is terrible and i just hope Maduro can see the light and let a democratic change happens.
 

jamesmccloud

Member
May 1, 2014
184
0
310
If only there was a way to leverage oil wealth to the benefit of all citizens in a social democratic manner. But alas, it has been impossible, nor can anyone figure out a way to succeed.

I see what you did there. Go home to Norway and make sense there, we are too busy proving that capitalism is just. The. Best.

By the way, those who say that Venezuela fell not because of bad governance but because of socialism!!!11!! (okay, okay, mixed economy social democracy): are you defending Chavez regime? Because it sure sounds like trying to shift focus from obviously flawed governance to some vague definition of economic model applied by a country.
 
Oct 19, 2007
11,854
1
0
Aw snap
NPR's Planet Money had a episode looking at why Venezuela imploded

As long as the price of oil was high, there weren't serious problems. Then oil prices came down.

Today on the show, we have an economic horror story about a country that made all the wrong decisions with its oil money. It's a window into the fundamental way that money works and how when you try to control it, you can lose everything.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Jul 4, 2013
3,361
0
0
I see what you did there. Go home to Norway and make sense there, we are too busy proving that capitalism is just. The. Best.

By the way, those who say that Venezuela fell not because of bad governance but because of socialism!!!11!! (okay, okay, mixed economy social democracy): are you defending Chavez regime? Because it sure sounds like trying to shift focus from obviously flawed governance to some vague definition of economic model applied by a country.

What? The argument is that too much socialism IS bad governance.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Feb 13, 2005
15,791
0
0
I don't think i have heard of anyone calling Chile a libertarian state and i don't think i have ever heard of someone calling Chile a failed state, quite the contrary actually (they have problems of course), Chile is the best state of latam and they actually have the higher rate of immigrant population in latin america, that doesn't change the fact that Pinochet was a piece of shit but i was surprised by your observation.

The situation in Venezuela is terrible and i just hope Maduro can see the light and let a democratic change happens.

Today, no, they threw that shit out haha.

Pinochet's rule though was very much lauded as a great libertarian experiment at the time(you still will come across some odd Reason or other libertarian leaning outlets trying to re-write history or rationalize it away). You had libertarians creaming over what Milton Friedman and the Chicago economists did to the regulatory and legal structure. Pinochet had issues outside those polices that made him a shitheel(like torture, murder, jailing dissidents) but the economic side of things just led to what a lot of modern critiques of capitalism would tell you would happen. I was just using it to show that socialism is not unique in having major issues when implemented to their extremes.
 

Eylos

Banned
May 6, 2015
3,867
0
0
Socialism=/= social democracy

Ok, if you guys think theres no democracy call it a capitalist dictatorship, because that's what it is. If it was socialism All the means of production would be in the hands of the state.
You guys are confunsing with China, but China Is no longer a socialist state, its capitalist today.

And socialism = the state, planification of economy etc. urss etc that we all know

Communism = stateless society objective of the socialism, never existed
 

Linkura

Member
Aug 16, 2016
5,462
0
0
Regardless of the socialism argument, the government is absolute shit for refusing international aid. People are fucking starving and these morons are trying to save face.
 

Dinokill

Member
Nov 9, 2010
2,194
10
775
Venezuelan here. I'm going to blow your minds.

If in 1999 you had 1.000.000 bolívares(Venezuelan currency) in your account you were rich.

Now If you have 1.000.000.000 bolivares in your account you can't even buy a one dollar
 

Foffy

Banned
May 14, 2009
22,560
2
0
People aren't praising anything, but rather pointing out yet another of the long list of examples of the failure of socialism/communism.

The corruption of Capitalist neoliberal values has made America one of the most unequal societies on the fuckin' planet. Is that not a failure, too? You don't think that corrupts? It's as bad in some respects.

All models of human thought come with failings, so it'd be best to acknowledge all of them are hot garbage if taken to extremes. The passivity given to Capitalism as it is appals me. It's why the rise of neonationalism exists in today's climate, but we'll just call all of them alt-right KKK neo-Nazi dudes. They didn't come from the sky, but from the ground falling for many, many people.

I do truly wonder why people are quick to bury any failings from Communism and Socialism, but are deadly quick to handwave and "justify" all of the failings of Capitalism held by the same hands and egos that can corrupt the previous models.

Never hold a turd with praise while you call out shit on the floor. I worry this is exactly what you've done.
 

entremet

Member
Dec 6, 2008
85,705
383
1,455
Socialism=/= social democracy

Ok, if you guys think theres no democracy call it a capitalist dictatorship, because that's what it is. If it was socialism All the means of production would be in the hands of the state.
You guys are confunsing with China, but China Is no longer a socialist state, its capitalist today.

And socialism = the state, planification of economy etc. urss etc that we all know

Communism = stateless society objective of the socialism, never existed

That's the issue with idealists,, there's is no pure system either.

Even the US is not pure capitalism. There's a lot crony capitalism here and we have various welfare programs too, although those have been weakened by nearly two decades of Republican Congressional control.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
660
The corruption of Capitalist neoliberal values has made America one of the most unequal societies on the fuckin' planet. Is that not a failure, too? You don't think that corrupts? It's as bad in some respects.

All models of human thought come with failings, so it'd be best to acknowledge all of them are hot garbage if taken to extremes. The passivity given to Capitalism as it is appals me. It's why the rise of neonationalism exists in today's climate, but we'll just call all of them alt-right KKK neo-Nazi dudes. They didn't come from the sky, but from the ground falling for many, many people.

I do truly wonder why people are quick to bury any failings from Communism and Socialism, but are deadly quick to handwave and "justify" all of the failings of Capitalism held by the same hands and egos that can corrupt the previous models.

Never hold a turd with praise while you call out shit on the floor. I worry this is exactly what you've done.
Because Capitalism, even in a "bad" state, still has a billion times more upside than the altenatives.

It's not handwaving, it's comparing apples to rotted oranges that no one wants. Inequality is a bad side effect that we need to do more to address, but it's a far better to have than than a situation in which almost everyone's equal because almost everyone's in poverty.

The idea that anyone praising capitalism is some sort of rightwing libertarian zealot is insane. There are tons and TONS of liberal economists out there who will gladly point out the problems and failings and need for corrective action. They are not ideologues.

The problem is that when ideologues of any political stripe get into power, they run things into the ground. Venezuela, Kansas- two different philosophies, the same problem.
 

michaelius

Member
Jan 5, 2012
16,114
1,989
935
I think it's valid to discuss why Venezuela has failed, as making changes to counter what caused so much destruction in the first place is key to fixing this beautiful country. Then again, far left anti-capitalists don't want to hear this stuff as it ruins the illusion that socialism/communism works, it just hasn't beeen implemented correctly yet.

I wonder how many more examples that it never works will we need ?
 

Disxo

Member
Jul 2, 2015
3,618
1
0
Uruguay
Venezuelan here. I'm going to blow your minds.

If in 1999 you had 1.000.000 bolívares(Venezuelan currency) in your account you were rich.

Now If you have 1.000.000.000 bolivares in your account you can't even buy a one dollar
Inflation is mind blowing sometimes.
 

dr3upmushroom

Banned
Jun 18, 2006
11,235
0
0
Nothing is ever socialism, condom. Every time a socialist experiment fails, people cry out it wasn't "true" socialism, and keep hoping for a good socialist country to magically appear, even though that's never happened. Strange there's never been a sucessfull socialist country, wonder why...
Are we just gonna ignore Sweden...
 

orthodoxy1095

Banned
Dec 15, 2013
25,270
0
0
twitter.com
Socialism=/= social democracy

Ok, if you guys think theres no democracy call it a capitalist dictatorship, because that's what it is. If it was socialism All the means of production would be in the hands of the state.
You guys are confunsing with China, but China Is no longer a socialist state, its capitalist today.

And socialism = the state, planification of economy etc. urss etc that we all know

Communism = stateless society objective of the socialism, never existed
Are we just gonna ignore Sweden...

This seems misleading. Venezuela may not be fully socialist, but it is far more socialist than Sweden. Sweden functions as a capitalist country with a diversified economy, high taxes, lots of welfare programs and not that much in the way of state-run industries. Venezuela has much more of its (undiversified) industry under government control. It's a different situation.
 

ibyea

Banned
Jul 18, 2014
5,606
0
0
This seems misleading. Venezuela may not be fully socialist, but it is far more socialist than Sweden. Sweden functions as a capitalist country with a diversified economy, high taxes, lots of welfare programs and not that much in the way of state-run industries. Venezuela has much more of its (undiversified) industry under government control. It's a different situation.

I don't think socialism needs to necessarily have a command economy, even if the tie between them came out of the Leninist branch of socialism.
 

Boney

Banned
Jan 6, 2010
33,742
1
0
Cross posting but Venezuela is a dictatorship and before when it has money due to oil it was just despotic populism.
 
Nov 18, 2014
1,772
0
0
This is tragic and terrible, OP.

I'm sorry this thread turned into a US-centric socialism dictionary circle jerk. People are starving.
 

tuxfool

Banned
Oct 21, 2014
16,148
1
0
I don't think socialism needs to necessarily have a command economy, even if the tie between them came out of the Leninist branch of socialism.

In a practical sense I don't see how you would do it otherwise. How would wealth move around the economy, without implicit acceptance of everyone involved. This is why it works in small communes and not in larger scale economies.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
660
I don't think socialism needs to necessarily have a command economy, even if the tie between them came out of the Leninist branch of socialism.
...that's kind of the basic tenet of it.

Without it, you should not be calling it socialism.
 

Metroxed

Member
Sep 1, 2012
1,089
0
475
Basque Country
Which means that for socialism to succeed, it has to have sufficient checks and balances to protect against total corruption. To date, no attempt at socialism has done so.

Agreed. The problem is with revolutionary socialism, I think. It is a system meant to completely and totally replac the burgeois establishment by imposing the famous dictatorship of the proletariat, led by the revolutionary vanguard, who keeps the whole thing at check. The problem is that no one keeps the revolutionary vanguard at check.

To claim that those failed attempts "weren't real socialism" is a copout. They may not have been ideal attempts, but they were attempts. Learning from their mistakes is the only way to not repeat them.

It depends. The Soviet Union and Maoist China do certainly classify as attempts at communism. They had these huge flaws that made the whole thing crumble and devolve into something else, but they were honest attempts, at least in the beginning. Others like Venezuela not really, because nationalising industries does not necessarily make a country socialist, as I mentioned earlier at most we could consider it to be an attempt at social democracy, but in reality it was much closer to a form of non-free, quasi-authoritarian state capitalism.

People like to mention North Korea but that country is certainly not socialist or communist.

Capitalism has examples of the means of production being owned by the workers. Co-ops are an example. If it's more a focus on profits (rather than name on title), there are many companies across America who have profit-sharing. Oddly enough, true ownership (stock) is usually something that is decried as a capitalistic excess. "Oh, those gentrifiers got rich off their stock!"

Yes, co-operativism is a great example of worker-owned enterprises and I think it is something we should build upon. It does not go as far as the forcefully-collectivised industries of the Soviet Union but still has some level of collectivisation and true worker control while being compatible with the market society.

So essentially what I've gained from this is that everyone who's allegedly socialist/communist are doing it wrong. So since humans are inherently corrupt/greedy how can one ever expect socialism/communism to work? Even with "democratic socialism" where this imagined level of social and economical advancement that they naturally, slowly and willingly evolve into socialism. There's something missing in the middle of all of that. Such as what level of social and economic advancement is considered nominal for this slow, willing change or evolution to socialism? You will always have human corruption/greed as it's in our nature. Therefore would it not be safe to assume that socialism/communism is not achievable due to the human condition. As you've said all attempts of it have been where charismatic leaders essentially betray their revolution and become some form of despot. When I try to think about conditions where this is achievable all I can think of is Star Trek which is pure fantasy where resources are so abundant and most labor automated. And even then I see human corruption screw that up.

Well, if you analyse theoretical socialism and compare it what has happened in practice, yes, they have done it wrong. Some have been closer than others but in the end all have devolved into something else. In the end what happens is that it isn't easy and the context of each country really plays a role (pre-industrial Russia, agrarian China, etc.).

You ask So since humans are inherently corrupt/greedy how can one ever expect socialism/communism to work? Pure socialism (Utopian socialism) cannot work, but neither can pure capitalism, because our imperfect human nature gets in the way. Both systems are perfect when applied to a perfect society, but we are not perfect. So we have to find ways around it; social capitalism and social democracy have become a recent alternative, although some believe that democratic, non-revolutionary socialism is possible, and that it is the natural evolution of the human society.

Corruption cannot be erradicated, it can be prevented though, and once it happens it has to be dealt with. But the problem is not exclusive to socialism and it exists within capitalsm as well.

This seems misleading. Venezuela may not be fully socialist, but it is far more socialist than Sweden. Sweden functions as a capitalist country with a diversified economy, high taxes, lots of welfare programs and not that much in the way of state-run industries. Venezuela has much more of its (undiversified) industry under government control. It's a different situation.

I think we could argue whether or not having your industry under government control makes a country socialist, and how in that regard that fact makes Venezuela "more socialist" than any other given country. Given that the profit made out of the government-owned enterprises is not distributed among the population/workers, we could argue that Venezuela practices in fact state capitalism, rather than socialism.
 

ibyea

Banned
Jul 18, 2014
5,606
0
0
...that's kind of the basic tenet of it.

Without it, you should not be calling it socialism.

No, command economy is not the basic tenet of socialism. That misconception is pretty much where a lot of criticisms of socialism goes wrong.
 

Man God

Non-Canon Member
Nov 2, 2007
70,821
1
1,260
Communism/Revolutionary Socalism would probably only worked if administered by an incorruptible force...which doesn't exist. Some sort of infallible uncaring AI, which would just be another form of authoritarianism.
 

Shadynasty

Member
Aug 28, 2016
566
0
0
Well, if you analyse theoretical socialism and compare it what has happened in practice, yes, they have done it wrong. Some have been closer than others but in the end all have devolved into something else. In the end what happens is that it isn't easy and the context of each country really plays a role (pre-industrial Russia, agrarian China, etc.).

You ask So since humans are inherently corrupt/greedy how can one ever expect socialism/communism to work? Pure socialism (Utopian socialism) cannot work, but neither can pure capitalism, because our imperfect human nature gets in the way. Both systems are perfect when applied to a perfect society, but we are not perfect. So we have to find ways around it; social capitalism and social democracy have become a recent alternative, although some believe that democratic, non-revolutionary socialism is possible, and that it is the natural evolution of the human society.

Corruption cannot be erradicated, it can be prevented though, and once it happens it has to be dealt with. But the problem is not exclusive to socialism and it exists within capitalsm as well.

Would you consider the US to be social capitalism? There's social security, social welfare/housing, medicare, medicaid, public schools, the VA etc. These are all pretty much staple social systems within an overwhelmingly capitalist system.
 

clemenx

Banned
Dec 5, 2008
15,357
0
0
31
I guess, I'm gonna use this thread to vent/inform shitty news :') The internet is the only silver lining I have left about life in this country and who knows until when. I'm gonna be honest, I haven't read most posts. I don't have the energy to discuss the shit going on here after living it day to day. But I'm happy to inform.

On a personal note, I spent the whole weekend looking for baby formula for my 2 month old son. I went to like 25 Pharmacies in 3 different cities/towns with no luck. That's the kind of scarcity we're subjected through in here. I was all but ready to go to Colombia today and buy some. But my wife found someone selling it, hugely overpriced tho but who cares about prices at this point? I'm also lucky enough that I live in a border city so things in my City aren't as bad thanks to people importing Colombian goods because I don't know how people elsewhere are doing.


Anyways. In today's news!

The Hyperinflationary Endgame: Venezuela Currency Crashes 15% In One Day

 

dramatis

Member
May 28, 2008
9,580
0
0
I guess, I'm gonna use this thread to vent/inform shitty news :') The internet is the only silver lining I have left about life in this country and who knows until when. I'm gonna be honest, I haven't read most posts. I don't have the energy to discuss the shit going on here after living it day to day. But I'm happy to inform.

On a personal note, I spent the whole weekend looking for baby formula for my 2 month old son. I went to like 25 Pharmacies in 3 different cities/towns with no luck. That's the kind of scarcity we're subjected through in here. I was all but ready to go to Colombia today and buy some. But my wife found someone selling it, hugely overpriced tho but who cares about prices at this point? I'm also lucky enough that I live in a border city so things in my City aren't as bad thanks to people importing Colombian goods because I don't know how people elsewhere are doing.

Anyways. In today's news!
Have you considered other options? There was another GAF member, Machado, who made a thread about needing to line up for food. You might need to skip a thousand or so posts in, but there were GAF people who made a lot of suggestions up until a bunch of people helped him get a position to immigrate to Canada (I think?).

Moving to Chile was one of the ideas Machado had before the Canada thing worked out.
 

clemenx

Banned
Dec 5, 2008
15,357
0
0
31
Have you considered other options? There was another GAF member, Machado, who made a thread about needing to line up for food. You might need to skip a thousand or so posts in, but there were GAF people who made a lot of suggestions up until a bunch of people helped him get a position to immigrate to Canada (I think?).

Moving to Chile was one of the ideas Machado had before the Canada thing worked out.

Yeah, My wife and I were looking into it. But as the pregnancy was due to the pill not working it came out of nowhere so we've had to halt basically everything, heh. Once we're on even ground again we're definitely going to look into that again.

My wife has some family in the States, My sister is going to Colombia in December, (That's another tragedy btw, very much like Cuba. So many friends and families completely separated) we're hoping we can get some help from family if possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.