Venezuela off the rails

[Gorgon]

There is no difference between what you term social democracies and other democracies other than the level of redistribution of wealth that has been agreed upon. The important distinction is democracy versus totalitarianism.

 

Removing the term limit on the presidency and nationalizing key industries without proper compensation are not something generally observed in democracies. It constitutes a worrying trend. Hitler was voted into power remember. Power once gained is not so easily relinquished.

 

Although in an unstable state, perhaps these movements away from democracy are inevitable.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset.

 

 

I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism).

 

Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. To put it shortly socialism is an economic system and communism is a political system. S

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset.

 

 

I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism).

 

Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. To put it shortly socialism is an economic system and communism is a political system. S

Edited May 26, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Monte Carlo]

Seriously, it would be like Grenada. Take out the TV station, airport and presidential palace simultaneously at Zero Hour and the locals will be throwing bouquets at the LAVs.

[Rostere]

Well, Sweden is the perfect example of an independent country that's been shaped through socialism (social democracy) continuing even to this date. We're often labeled the most democratic and least corrupted nation in the world. Socialism need not be a bad idea, you just have to keep watch for socialism when it's a counter-movement to a extreme-right government (Imperial Russia, Cuba, et.c.). Extremism breeds extremism.

 

Personally, I guess other people would call me an adherent to socialism. I hold the redistribution of wealth to be the most important concept of socialism and I do support a free market, which I do believe can be accomplished perfectly well in a socialist economy. To argue that socialism inherently advocates shutting down TV channels is just plain silly.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Rostere

[Walsingham]

Seriously, it would be like Grenada. Take out the TV station, airport and presidential palace simultaneously at Zero Hour and the locals will be throwing bouquets at the LAVs.

 

I seem to dimly recall Grenada being a blow against the marines. Weren't their deliberate reforms after Grenada? I'm sure something went wrong, I jus can't remember WHAT.

 

BTW, I apologise for assuming you were a jackass, lordo. If it makes you feel any better I now feel like one. You make an interesting point I have to agree with. You get natural fluctuations in any complex system. I hope for your sake you are correct, but am deeply concerned that he appears so strangely paranoid. Also, he is a paratrooper, and all paras are nutters.

[lord of flies]

Seriously, it would be like Grenada. Take out the TV station, airport and presidential palace simultaneously at Zero Hour and the locals will be throwing bouquets at the LAVs.

No, it wouldn't, because Chavez was democratically elected and is popular.

I seem to dimly recall Grenada being a blow against the marines. Weren't their deliberate reforms after Grenada? I'm sure something went wrong, I jus can't remember WHAT.

 

BTW, I apologise for assuming you were a jackass, lordo. If it makes you feel any better I now feel like one. You make an interesting point I have to agree with. You get natural fluctuations in any complex system. I hope for your sake you are correct, but am deeply concerned that he appears so strangely paranoid. Also, he is a paratrooper, and all paras are nutters.

Hmm, a Latin American President is afraid of being overthrown in a coup? This is very "strange".

 

Come on man, he was nearly overthrown in a US-backed coup already. It's understandable that he would be a little paranoid.

It constitutes a worrying trend. Hitler was voted into power remember.

No it doesn't, and no he wasn't. Hitler was appointed to Chancellor, and after being appointed used the political gamesmanship that served him so well during WW2 to manipulate the democratic system to his advantage.

[Gorgon]

What, Chancellor of Germany is not a position of power...

[Walsingham]

Being elected doesn't make you spiffy. I think we all get that. But there are degrees of un-spiffitude. Closing all media that disagrees with you, nationalist tub-thumping, these are worrying signs. And before anyone points it out, I am also worried about Berlusconi. And he's just next-door.

[Meshugger]

Berlusconi is populism personified.

[samm]

If it were only populism... :/

[Monte Carlo]

Hitler and Mussolini won 'elections.' So did Hugo Chavez.

 

I love lefties - Right Wing dictators are beyond the pale, Left-Wing ones are 'popular' (like, er, Hitler in 1933). Chavez is muzzling the free press and abrogating property rights. It'll be the secret police next, and 'The disappeared.'

 

Ask me? A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. Left, Right, whatever.

 

Cheers

MC

[lord of flies]

What, Chancellor of Germany is not a position of power...

It is a position of power... that Hitler was appointed to.

Hitler and Mussolini won 'elections.' So did Hugo Chavez.

He won free, public elections with universal suffrage. Mussolini was appointed to his position after leading an armed insurrection, and Hitler was appointed the head of a coalition government which he rapidly disbanded.

I love lefties - Right Wing dictators are beyond the pale, Left-Wing ones are 'popular' (like, er, Hitler in 1933). Chavez is muzzling the free press and abrogating property rights.

I love this. "Property rights," as though it was a "right" on the same level as freedom of speech or religion for multinational corporations to take economic and political control of second-world countries via their metallic grasp on employment. And how exactly is Chavez "muzzling the free press" any more than other countries do?

It'll be the secret police next, and 'The disappeared.'

Slippery slope fallacy.

Ask me? A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. Left, Right, whatever.

Weird how your rhetoric just so happens to fit into that sort of neocolonialist, us-versus-them, mindless-middle mentality which lead to Operation Ajax, right?

[Gorgon]

Because of his election results.

[lord of flies]

Because of his election results.

No.

[Gorgon]

You win, apparently.

 

Regardless, he got his appointment through the usual political infighting and maneuvering taking place everywhere.

[Walsingham]

With oil prices plunging from the record highs seen in 2008, Venezuela is facing a dire financial situation. The next quarter will be critical for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to further consolidate control over the country

[lord of flies]

With oil prices plunging from the record highs seen in 2008, Venezuela is facing a dire financial situation. The next quarter will be critical for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to further consolidate control over the country

[Hurlshort]

FDR had plenty of detractors during his time. History has looked back on him favorably, but he was almost as controversial as Lincoln.

[Meshugger]

As i said, leave Venezuela be. If she wants to trade, then trade. If Venezuela nationalizes all banks and coorperations, then most likely, the trade will be hindered or halted completely. Subsequently, Venezuela will collapse under its own system, but the world will continue its support by open trade.

 

After all, no pure socialist country (a social democracy is a whole different matter) will prevail in the long run, because Chavez has forgotten a simple truth: People like to own things.

[Humodour]

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset.

 

 

I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism).

 

Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. To put it shortly socialism is an economic system and communism is a political system. S

[lord of flies]

As i said, leave Venezuela be. If she wants to trade, then trade. If Venezuela nationalizes all banks and coorperations, then most likely, the trade will be hindered or halted completely. Subsequently, Venezuela will collapse under its own system, but the world will continue its support by open trade.

 

After all, no pure socialist country (a social democracy is a whole different matter) will prevail in the long run, because Chavez has forgotten a simple truth: People like to own things.

Wrong. People like luxury. While traditionally, luxury is associated with ownership and economic freedom, it doesn't have to be. For example, the Roman gladiators often had wonderful lives, got to have lots of sex, et cetera, but it was basically a gilded cage. And yet, the system functioned and survived for quite some time. If people like to own things, how come they don't like to own Enron stocks, eh? Puzzle that one out.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset.

 

 

I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism).

 

Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. To put it shortly socialism is an economic system and communism is a political system. S

[Gorgon]

No it has democracy as its foundation. The socialist elements are mutually agreed upon and can vary according to governments as well as how well the economy is doing, and can be rejected by the people entirely.

 

They won't because those expectations are heavily ingrained in our culture, but the point is they could.

 

Democracy is in the constitution, socialism in culture.

[Killian Kalthorne]

The way I see it is that it is none of our business of what goes on inside another country. Unless they are seeking to threaten the United States, and the lives of our citizenry on our soil, we should just leave them alone and let them live as they want. If the people don't want Chaves in power they can take him out if they really try. Their country, their responsibility. Not our problem.