Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While Chavismo its policies have made Venezuela's problems worse, to pin them purely on political dogma and an unbalanced economy are simplistic:
All of which points to a simple and unexciting reality: neither is oil a curse in itself, nor is socialism a recipe for disaster. Instead, the combination of an incoherent socialist program made classic petro-state problems all the more severe, drawing from the worst features of each. Yet there is comfort in blaming either oil or socialism exclusively for Venezuela’s crisis. Both have elements of truth. They are also incomplete, mainly because neither seeks to explain so much as to blame or absolve, for reasons of political gamesmanship.
Those who offer up the petro-state do so to shift attention away from Chávez, aiming to burnish his image – and political appeal – for posterity by shielding gains made during his tenure from the crisis that his policies have left after his death. Meanwhile, those who blame socialism willfully downplay how policies familiar to previous boom eras, policies undertaken by governments of very different stripes before, drive the current crisis. Instead, they seek to keep alive the claim many have tried and failed before, that Venezuela’s chief barrier to lasting prosperity is its leaders and their management of oil dependency, not dependency itself.
Ultimately, what the battle over incomplete explanations highlights is a more fundamental and troubling feature of Venezuela’s political culture, one that helps answer why despite such clear lessons Venezuela again and again finds itself in familiar predicaments: the seeds of the country’s next crisis are found in the throes of the previous one, when rather than explanations, Venezuelans seek to blame. And again and again, blame has meant dismissing all that has come before for reasons of political survival, in the process discarding even the ability to learn from the past.
If you have a dictator, you do not have socialism. You have dictatorship. That sort of runs counter to the very essence of Socialism where the people own the means (implying controlling the means) of production.
snip
socialism is where the government owns everything and all means of production...and anytime you have an allpowerful government it can and will lead to a authoritarian/dictator
where people (the community or commune) own the means.... that is Marxism aka communism
Marxism (communism) there is no money, you work for the commune who dictates what you do, when you do, how much you do, for no pay other than your NEEDS
Quote:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs...Karl Marx
at a young age you will be dictated of what your job will be (with todays tech, most likely based on genetics)..... even if its NOT WHAT YOU WANT to do
Marxism is slavery
the needs of the commune...not the needs of the individual , not the wants/desires of the individual, not the success of the individual...ie slavery to the commune and its 'leadership'.. yes leadership... there will ALWAYS be some sort of leadership, always be the one charismatic or voicetress person to lead the MOB
no longer will individuals be able to do their desires of painting or whatnot, nope, you are enslaved to the needs of the masses
under Marxism(communism) there is no longer the thing called money, your needs are based on the communes needs, your labor is based on the communes needs, you are GRANTED your basic needs and nothing else..... yep a good thing of, no more failures...but on the same hand no more successes, no more doing your desired profession/work, now your labor all for the needs of the commune and its leadership, who do thrive much more than the common man/woman......
to say that Marxism wont have an authoritarian or singular leaders...is a lie of a wackjobs (marx) failed theories
Try to stick to the argument and topic at hand, and not digress.
You've failed to address why there's a difference between a so-called socialistic country and a capitalistic country in terms of failure to diversity economically. Nor have you addressed why Venezuela didn't diversify away from oil when it wasn't "socialistic".
Your second paragraph is just a diarrhea of pithy sloganeering that is heavy on rhetoric but light on specific reasons that is a digression from the first paragraph. But I guess it's a pipe dream to expect anything else from you.
Why the need to be insulting? That's not an argument, it's garbage conversationalism and belittling. Telling the person with an opposing view that they're stupid as a lead-up to every rebuttal does not make you right and it does not make you sound smart.
A significant Socialist by the name of Jeremy Corbin had the following to say:
So when Socialist Venezuela was doing great, Socialists were proud as could be to point to them and declare from the rooftops, "See! Socialism works! It's awesome! It's the way of the future! Just look at how amazing things are in Venezuela!" And when Venezuela collapses into hell on earth, suddenly "Venezuela was never a Socialist country! Nobody ever claimed that it was!" Chavez and Moduro both worked towards Socialism. They both seized the means of production and claimed it for the state/people. They certainly didn't complete the process, but they were actively and enthusiastically moving the needling in the direction of Socialism. One does not collectivize an entire economy overnight after all. And Venezuela turned into a hell-hole. Please note that Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and other oil-dependent economies did not collapse into hell-holes. They didn't change much at all really. So what did Venezuela do differently? Well, a huge part of it was making a massive push towards Socialism. But please grace me with your great wisdom. Why were outcomes in Venezuela so radically different than all those other oil-dependent economies?
The system that usually is taken over by a dictator. Socialist system.
If Trump were actually the "stable genius" he claims to be, our government would currently be under the thumb of a dictator. So it can happen to any form of government, not just socialism. There have been plenty of right wing dictators throughout history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
