(04-25-2017 08:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 07:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  To be clear, I've never supported Chavez or his economic program. It wasn't really socialist or communist, but really more of a kleptocracy.

I've heard only two takes on this lately
1) Chavez wasn't REALLY a socialist, he was more of a just a dictator
2) It's a "post-Chavez" problem. Things were great under Chavez but then got screwed up.
Truth....Chavez was a socialist....and he is responsible for the mess.

Chavez was not a socialist in the same manner as Sweden is socialist. Chavez just took. Just a petty dictator who used massive extractive wealth to prop up a system unsustainable otherwise.
Things sucked under Chavez even when oil prices were high.

Sweden is probably more fascist than socialist, as are most European "socialist" countries. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production; fascism is private ownership with heavy state control.

Things sucked under Chavez, even when oil prices were high, because under socialism things suck. It's an inherent characteristic.

Whenever socialism doesn't work its because X leader was a dictator/facist whatever. That seems to happen a lot which leads me to believe that maybe just maybe socialism breeds these bad hombres

(04-25-2017 10:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 08:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 07:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  To be clear, I've never supported Chavez or his economic program. It wasn't really socialist or communist, but really more of a kleptocracy.

I've heard only two takes on this lately
1) Chavez wasn't REALLY a socialist, he was more of a just a dictator
2) It's a "post-Chavez" problem. Things were great under Chavez but then got screwed up.
Truth....Chavez was a socialist....and he is responsible for the mess.

Chavez was not a socialist in the same manner as Sweden is socialist. Chavez just took. Just a petty dictator who used massive extractive wealth to prop up a system unsustainable otherwise.
Things sucked under Chavez even when oil prices were high.

Sweden is probably more fascist than socialist, as are most European "socialist" countries. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production; fascism is private ownership with heavy state control.
Things sucked under Chavez, even when oil prices were high, because under socialism things suck. It's an inherent characteristic.

The ideal of socialism benefits by the fact that the practice of socialism guarantees that there is never an actual example of socialism that one can point to. They are inherently imperfect examples of the ideal because the ideal requires things that in practice are incompatible with the ideal. They require a strong state, and strong states are inherently antithetical to the ideal of socialism. The logical conclusion is that to promote socialism is to promote inequity. Except, Sweden.

(04-25-2017 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Socialism cannot work if there's not enough to go around.

Let socialism work for a while and there will cease to be enough to go around.

Socialism is not wrong because it can't work in the real world.... Social is wrong because it's an evil philosophy based on the belief that the "people" have a right to the product of my labor on their terms and their terms only.

There is a word for that... Slavery.

(04-26-2017 12:12 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Socialism cannot work if there's not enough to go around.

Let socialism work for a while and there will cease to be enough to go around.

Socialism is not wrong because it can't work in the real world.... Social is wrong because it's an evil philosophy based on the belief that the "people" have a right to the product of my labor on their terms and their terms only.

There is a word for that... Slavery.

There's another word for it... Stupidity. We did not become the technologically dominate species that we are through trying to achieve some false notion of 'equality' (financial and/or social). We have achieved what we have through the blood, sweat, and tears of those that strived to become better.

It's that ever present struggle and drive to overcome that's brought us to where we are today. For the religion hating atheists on the far left, this should make sense. Per their own beliefs, the Darwinian Survival of the Fittest -- the struggle to survive over millions of years of evolution, has resulted in us. Instead of embracing that... they want to remove any struggle and strive from life... and actively work against what has us to where we are today.

(04-25-2017 01:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  more spam. How many limited comment threads are started daily?

The Fu?

you don't think this is a relevant topic considering the proximity?

I do, and appreciate it's being posted.

On a clear day we can see Venezuela from our place in Aruba...

(04-25-2017 10:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Whenever socialism doesn't work its because X leader was a dictator/facist whatever. That seems to happen a lot which leads me to believe that maybe just maybe socialism breeds these bad hombres

No matter how bad the outcome of these Socialist experiments are...There will always be those that say..."They just did it wrong." Fact is...It can't be done right.

(04-25-2017 10:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Whenever socialism doesn't work its because X leader was a dictator/facist whatever. That seems to happen a lot which leads me to believe that maybe just maybe socialism breeds these bad hombres

Socialism may or may not breed them, but clearly it requires them. Think about it. The fundamental principle of socialism is that we're going to take the fruits of your labor and redistribute them to others for the benefit of society as a whole. Well guess what, there are a lot of people who don't want the fruits of their labor redistributed. So at some point force or the threat of force must be applied. It takes a strong man in charge to make that all happen. As I45 suggests, the socialist ideal that could happen if we ever did socialism right can exist because as a practical matter we can never do socialism right.

Sweden and other European "socialist" countries can exist because they aren't really socialist. What they really are is a mix of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and fascism (private ownership with government control). They lack the militarism and nationalism that we associate with fascism, but that's probably because their psyches are pretty much worn out by a century of devastating widespread warfare. Although Sweden itself is pretty stout militarily. They recognize that neutrality comes at a cost, and they are willing to pay that cost.

The European "welfare states" are designed to provide a safety net (consistent with fascist, capitalist, and even some libertarian thought) rather than to be a massive redistribution scheme (a socialist concept). How is this evidenced? Because their social programs are financed with generally regressive consumption taxes and payroll taxes, instead of highly "progressive" income taxes (in many cases their top individual, and in every case their top corporate, income tax rates are lower than ours). IMO when you start to talk about redistribution on a massive scale is when you cross over from not socialism (Sweden) to socialism (Bernie Sanders).

(04-25-2017 02:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 01:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  more spam. How many limited comment threads are started daily?

relevant comment.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-25-2017 11:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 10:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 08:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 07:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 06:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  To be clear, I've never supported Chavez or his economic program. It wasn't really socialist or communist, but really more of a kleptocracy.

I've heard only two takes on this lately
1) Chavez wasn't REALLY a socialist, he was more of a just a dictator
2) It's a "post-Chavez" problem. Things were great under Chavez but then got screwed up.
Truth....Chavez was a socialist....and he is responsible for the mess.

Chavez was not a socialist in the same manner as Sweden is socialist. Chavez just took. Just a petty dictator who used massive extractive wealth to prop up a system unsustainable otherwise.
Things sucked under Chavez even when oil prices were high.

Sweden is probably more fascist than socialist, as are most European "socialist" countries. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production; fascism is private ownership with heavy state control.
Things sucked under Chavez, even when oil prices were high, because under socialism things suck. It's an inherent characteristic.

The ideal of socialism benefits by the fact that the practice of socialism guarantees that there is never an actual example of socialism that one can point to. They are inherently imperfect examples of the ideal because the ideal requires things that in practice are incompatible with the ideal. They require a strong state, and strong states are inherently antithetical to the ideal of socialism. The logical conclusion is that to promote socialism is to promote inequity. Except, Sweden.

idealism is idiocy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-25-2017 11:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  The ideal of socialism benefits by the fact that the practice of socialism guarantees that there is never an actual example of socialism that one can point to. They are inherently imperfect examples of the ideal because the ideal requires things that in practice are incompatible with the ideal. They require a strong state, and strong states are inherently antithetical to the ideal of socialism.

In theory, theory works well in practice. In practice, it doesn't.

(04-26-2017 07:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 11:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  The ideal of socialism benefits by the fact that the practice of socialism guarantees that there is never an actual example of socialism that one can point to. They are inherently imperfect examples of the ideal because the ideal requires things that in practice are incompatible with the ideal. They require a strong state, and strong states are inherently antithetical to the ideal of socialism.

In theory, theory works well in practice. In practice, it doesn't.

In theory every system works. But an inherently evil working system is not good.

Socialism and communism should not be attacked as "good in theory". Because they are not good in theory.

(04-26-2017 09:51 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Socialism and communism should not be attacked as "good in theory". Because they are not good in theory.

I know it is early, but QOTD.

The interesting thing about the left is that when they say that Venezuela, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, the USSR, etc. aren't true examples of socialism or communism, they're implicitly admitting that the pursuit of true socialism or communism is a horrible fate to deal with. Very few people would have the balls (or lack of brains) to say that it was yet openly promote those views, because other than favoring those systems on anything but principle would be a baffling notion.