Venezuela

[Mook]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but none of the main political ideologies really work in practice because people are a shower of cunts.

 

There's always a load of people getting fucked over wherever you go.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

No you're not

I don’t have the first idea what you’re talking about. I said the transfer of funds (from the taxpayer to the banks) was huge. I have absolutely no idea who you think I’m digging at but it wasn’t anything to do with you or Venezuela. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

.

[Jairzinho]

5 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You did suggest that Venezuelas location precludes them from socialist success.

 

Either that or you trashed the folks themselves.

So I have blind faith in what?

[TheHowieLama]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

.

Not suggesting that it has to do with me - hehhe

 

If it doesnt have to do with Venezuela - or the larger discussion on the ideology of socialism that is my bad and I apologize - but as you have been involved, I certainly thought you would be making that connection.

 

Anyway -- caudillo -- good gig right? 

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

So I have blind faith in what?

What??

 

You said that socialism cannot succeed in South America -- then further suggested it was because of the location.

 

I dont know what you have blind faith in pal.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Not suggesting that it has to do with me - hehhe

 

If it doesnt have to do with Venezuela - or the larger discussion on the ideology of socialism that is my bad and I apologize - but as you have been involved, I certainly thought you would be making that connection.

Yeah, genuinely just answering the fella’s post. 

 

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Anyway -- caudillo -- good gig right? 

I guess it would have its upsides, yes. 

[SasaS]

22 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Well, you've mentioned who, but what?

 

I ask because there are a mixture of views included within that "yoom".

 

There is a pretty obvious position in the, lets call it the left camp in this discussion that everything that can be squeezed under the umbrella of socialist economy or policies and publicly owned and run must necessarily, by definition, prove to be better for the general public.

[Jairzinho]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

What??

 

You said that socialism cannot succeed in South America -- then further suggested it was because of the location.

 

I dont know what you have blind faith in pal.

Failing to understand the relevance of what you are posting in response to what I said, sorry.

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

There is a pretty obvious position in the, lets call it the left camp in this discussion that everything that can be squeezed under the umbrella of socialist economy or policies and publicly owned and run must necessarily, by definition, prove to be better for the general public.

 

That's because it's been such a rip-roaring success the last 30 or 40 times it's been attempted.

[Jairzinho]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

There is a pretty obvious position in the, lets call it the left camp in this discussion that everything that can be squeezed under the umbrella of socialist economy or policies and publicly owned and run must necessarily, by definition, prove to be better for the general public.

For what? Just the railways? Energy? Everything?

 

I just find that grouping ridiculous. There are social democrats, democratic socialists, one or two communists, one or two anarchists, and they all get lumped into the "left camp". I genuinely can't even remember my own posts on more than one or two industries, so find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone bar Woolster has much of a clue about the views of every single person in the "left camp" regarding the multitude of industries/sectors that could be privately or publicly owned.

 

What is "socialist economy"? What is capitalist economy? We don't fucking have one. Adam Smith would be scratching his head at the fucking state of the UK's economy.

 

I would be extremely surprised if many people in the "left camp" on here have much time for Maduro, or his policies. Just a few people pointing out the absurdity of the sort of shite Stronts is posting.

[Section_31]

The probloem with socialism/communism is that by and large it's only taken hold in countries that aren't particularly advanced, there's no protections in place that you'd find with a more sophisticated democracy, often they were feudal societies that put a strongman in place. 

 

Marx thought true socialism would only come about after capitalism's inevitable collapse. On one level, you could argue that's what happened in Britain after the Second World War. The means had been there all along but not the will, and it was coming face to face with our own mortality en mass that made us want the simple things in life, such as indoor plumbing and not dying of TB. 

 

In an ideal world the same should have happened after the credit crunch, I suppose it did in a way, the state did intervene - in trasnferring all our wealth to the private sector and making us thank them for it in the process. 

[TheHowieLama]

49 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I'd say it was not capitalism that seems to be the object of bind faith here.

 

46 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Then what and by whom?

My guess is by "not capitalism" in a thread that has focused on the ideology of socialism, he meant.......the ideology of socialism

29 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

By yoom...

That means you

28 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Well, you've mentioned who, but what?

 

I ask because there are a mixture of views included within that "yoom".

We already know it is the ideology of socialism -- see above

20 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

You did suggest that Venezuelas location precludes them from socialist success.

 

Either that or you trashed the folks themselves.

These are comments on your posts on the ideology of socialism - my assumption was that you meant the proximity to the US precludes success

[AngryOfTuebrook]

UN Special Rapporteur says that illegal sanctions are killing people. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-us-sanctions-united-nations-oil-pdvsa-a8748201.html?fbclid=IwAR2DSi38YlOdrtkxRHlKiXOpLLLM5NHePGJjaBnAfLxOH5DuQ0GE17zFRsU

[Jairzinho]

22 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

These are comments on your posts on the ideology of socialism - my assumption was that you meant the proximity to the US precludes success

Yes. Which isn't the same as saying that I have blind faith in socialism. It isn't the same as saying that I think it would definitely work without US interference. Only that it would have a chance.

 

As for the other part, I was simply hoping that Sasas wasn't saying something so simplistic, and giving him the chance show as much.

[SasaS]

33 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

For what? Just the railways? Energy? Everything?

 

I just find that grouping ridiculous. There are social democrats, democratic socialists, one or two communists, one or two anarchists, and they all get lumped into the "left camp". I genuinely can't even remember my own posts on more than one or two industries, so find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone bar Woolster has much of a clue about the views of every single person in the "left camp" regarding the multitude of industries/sectors that could be privately or publicly owned.

 

What is "socialist economy"? What is capitalist economy? We don't fucking have one. Adam Smith would be scratching his head at the fucking state of the UK's economy.

 

I would be extremely surprised if many people in the "left camp" on here have much time for Maduro, or his policies. Just a few people pointing out the absurdity of the sort of shite Stronts is posting. 

 

You are aware you pulled me up on a post in which I was merely reacting to the assertion about "blind faith in capitalism", not initiating the ideological classification of all the views broadly "on the left", hence my term "left camp"? There is clearly a camp which is more inclined to be apologetic and a camp which leans toward criticism of Venezuelan regime / government.

 

Socialist economy is an economy in which the means of production are publicly owned. Capitalist economy would be economy in which means of production represent capital privately owned by one or more people, without restrictions in that ownership typical of socialist economies.  

What would Adam Smith make of UK's economy, I don't know. Stronts and his "absurdities", that would be between you and him.

 

[Pureblood]

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

I just find that grouping ridiculous. There are social democrats, democratic socialists, one or two communists, one or two anarchists, and they all get lumped into the "left camp". I genuinely can't even remember my own posts on more than one or two industries, so find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone bar Woolster has much of a clue about the views of every single person in the "left camp" regarding the multitude of industries/sectors that could be privately or publicly owned.

Spoken like a true commie.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

Worse than the Borg. 

[Section_31]

9 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Worse than the Borg. 

It worries me a bit that you've seen Voyager's Borg before TNG's Borg. Completely different animal. 

[Captain Howdy]

2 hours ago, Mook said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but none of the main political ideologies really work in practice because people are a shower of cunts.

 

There's always a load of people getting fucked over wherever you go.

That’s about the size of it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

20 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It worries me a bit that you've seen Voyager's Borg before TNG's Borg. Completely different animal. 

Yeah, although I think I saw Sir Patrick’s assimilation in... erm... Nemesis (?) before I was really into it. I’ll be moving onto TNG after Voyager, then rounding it off with DS9. 

 

Chavez. Yadda. Maduro. Yadda. Corbyn commie. Yadda.

[Numero Veinticinco]

22 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It worries me a bit that you've seen Voyager's Borg before TNG's Borg. Completely different animal. 

Keep it on topic, FFS.

[Rico1304]

34 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Spoken like a true commie.  

Yes, fancy lumping everyone with a different view into one camp. 

[Red Phoenix]

9 hours ago, Boss said:

I've named two policies right there if you want to give a rebuttal as to why they'll cause the economy to grow.

 

Maybe the focus needs to be on something other than a growing economy? After all, if our economies carry on growing as things stand, most of the resources of the planet will be gone and loads of the population will end up dead. If we could sustain more without needing so many natural resources things could be different of course, but we'd have to make huge shifts over to more renewables.

 

So maybe the best way forward with the way we currently do things is to fuck the idea of economies growing all the time off and instead focus on living beings and the environment instead, the most important things. A smaller but more stable economy from a country that's polluting less, using a lot more renewables, has more of a focus on the wellbeing of the population and is engaged in less corruption could be a good start.

[Pureblood]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

It worries me a bit that you've seen Voyager's Borg before TNG's Borg. Completely different animal. 

He lost me at "Borg".