Why isn't Socialism/Communism as frowned upon as Fascism?

[Dejanic]

Capitalism is simply the private ownership of Capital by an individual who uses said Capital to create profit. The state develops after the economic mode of production. This is Marxism 101

Yes yes, and Venezuela is state capitalist because there's some privatization. I'm well-aware of Marxism's many attempts to redefine everything imaginable so as to suit its own ends.

For people who actually care about real, generalized definitions though, Capitalism is a system wherein the majority of the economy is privatized, and is market-driven.

The commonly accepted definition according to Political Scientists is "Private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" your definition only accepts the first parable, production. And ignores distribution and exchange. So according to your definition, Britain's war economy under Winston Churchill was Socialist, not Capitalist, because the state held the means of production. Even though distribution and exchange were still private and Britain utilised the market.

Venezuela has markets, a majority of its economy under private control, private distribution, private exchange, profit motive, wage labour and extraction.

[Sanctissima]

Yes yes, and Venezuela is state capitalist because there's some privatization. I'm well-aware of Marxism's many attempts to redefine everything imaginable so as to suit its own ends.

For people who actually care about real, generalized definitions though, Capitalism is a system wherein the majority of the economy is privatized, and is market-driven.

The commonly accepted definition according to Political Scientists is "Private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" your definition only accepts the first parable, production. And ignores distribution and exchange. So according to your definition, Britain's war economy under Winston Churchill was Socialist, not Capitalist, because the state held the means of production. Even though distribution and exchange were still private and Britain utilised the market.

Venezuela has markets, a majority of its economy under private control, private distribution, private exchange, profit motive, wage labour and extraction.

You'll notice I said "market-driven".

That inherently covers distribution and exchange.

Regardless, a majority of Venezuela's economy is most certainly not under private control, since the oil sector alone is state-owned and accounts for 50% of their GDP.

[The Persian Socialist Federation]

You'll notice I said "market-driven".

That inherently covers distribution and exchange.

Regardless, a majority of Venezuela's economy is most certainly not under private control, since the oil sector alone is state-owned and accounts for 50% of their GDP.

And yet funnily enough their problems stem from an oil collapse caused by global capitalism

[Sanctissima]

Yes yes, and Venezuela is state capitalist because there's some privatization. I'm well-aware of Marxism's many attempts to redefine everything imaginable so as to suit its own ends.

For people who actually care about real, generalized definitions though, Capitalism is a system wherein the majority of the economy is privatized, and is market-driven.

What redefinition? It's literally always been the same. It's the refusal of others to accept that definition that causes confusion. Venezuela was called capitalist by US media when it was wealthy and prosperous, but it is socialist now that it is experiencing upheaval. Don't pretend like that's solely the fault of socialists yelling "not real socialism."

No, it most certainly has not. Ricardo used the term long before Marx, as did several other classical economists.

I have no idea where you're getting the notion that Venezuela has been considered Capitalist by the US since before it began to fail. It has been considered an extremely undesirable system since Chavez et al. gained power.

[Ceannairceach]

What redefinition? It's literally always been the same. It's the refusal of others to accept that definition that causes confusion. Venezuela was called capitalist by US media when it was wealthy and prosperous, but it is socialist now that it is experiencing upheaval. Don't pretend like that's solely the fault of socialists yelling "not real socialism."

No, it most certainly has not. Ricardo used the term long before Marx, as did several other classical economists.

I have no idea where you're getting the notion that Venezuela has been considered Capitalist by the US since before it began to fail. It has been considered an extremely undesirable system since Chavez et al. gained power.

My point was that Marxists and post-Marxist socialists have never redefined the term. Which they haven't.

As for VZ, Fox New ran several pieces about VZ being capitalistic years ago. I leave it to your google-fu to find them.

[Sanctissima]

And yet funnily enough their problems stem from an oil collapse caused by global capitalism

Caused by OPEC, funnily enough, which is lorded over by Islamic theocratic states. I don't see how on earth that can be blamed on capitalism.

Especially considering how the massive and rapid nationalization of major Venezuelan industries by the Chavez regime, along with the firing of mostly everyone who knew how to administer the oil industry and their replacement with Bolivarian lackeys, is what rendered the Venezuelan economy weak and subject to the whims of OPEC.

[Sanctissima]

No, it most certainly has not. Ricardo used the term long before Marx, as did several other classical economists.

I have no idea where you're getting the notion that Venezuela has been considered Capitalist by the US since before it began to fail. It has been considered an extremely undesirable system since Chavez et al. gained power.

My point was that Marxists and post-Marxist socialists have never redefined the term. Which they haven't.

As for VZ, Fox New ran several pieces about VZ being capitalistic years ago. I leave it to your google-fu to find them.

You're right.

They categorically rejected the established and accepted one, and substituted it with one of their own liking. One which, to this day I might add, nobody other than Marxist and other Far-Left ideologues accept as being legitimate.

In terms of the article, really, the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Find your own article.

[Ceannairceach]

My point was that Marxists and post-Marxist socialists have never redefined the term. Which they haven't.

As for VZ, Fox New ran several pieces about VZ being capitalistic years ago. I leave it to your google-fu to find them.

You're right.

They categorically rejected the established and accepted one, and substituted it with one of their own liking. One which, to this day I might add, nobody other than Marxist and other Far-Left ideologues accept as being legitimate.

In terms of the article, really, the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Find your own article.

Far left idealogues? You mean "most socialists?"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/18 ... usade.html

[The Persian Socialist Federation]

Caused by OPEC, funnily enough, which is lorded over by Islamic theocratic states. I don't see how on earth that can be blamed on capitalism.

Especially considering how the massive and rapid nationalization of major Venezuelan industries by the Chavez regime, along with the firing of mostly everyone who knew how to administer the oil industry and their replacement with Bolivarian lackeys, is what rendered the Venezuelan economy weak and subject to the whims of OPEC.

OPEC was only able to do this in the first place due to the global capitalist marketplace. It should also be mentioned that Venezuela was doing worse before Chavez and his policies in areas of Poverty, Education, and Homelessness. There is also evidence of opposition members hoarding goods http://bit.ly/2zuHslo http://bit.ly/2D8Luyx

[Sanctissima]

You're right.

They categorically rejected the established and accepted one, and substituted it with one of their own liking. One which, to this day I might add, nobody other than Marxist and other Far-Left ideologues accept as being legitimate.

In terms of the article, really, the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Find your own article.

Far left idealogues? You mean "most socialists?"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/18 ... usade.html

No, I mean most Far-left idealogues. As in, Anarchists, Communists, Socialists et al.

In regards to the Fox article, I genuinely don't know what they're talking about, since the Venezuelan economy (especially its massive oil industry) has been primarily state-owned since roughly the mid-2000's. They're categorically wrong in saying it's mostly private-sector.

[Ceannairceach]

Far left idealogues? You mean "most socialists?"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/18 ... usade.html

No, I mean most Far-left idealogues. As in, Anarchists, Communists, Socialists et al.

In regards to the Fox article, I genuinely don't know what they're talking about, since the Venezuelan economy (especially its massive oil industry) has been primarily state-owned since roughly the mid-2000's. They're categorically wrong in saying it's mostly private-sector.

Who the hell do you consider the "left," then? You just listed nearly every leftist ideology.

That's also false. More than 70% of VZ's economy is privately owned. That's a fact that is easily discernible.

[The Persian Socialist Federation]

In regards to the Fox article, I genuinely don't know what they're talking about, since the Venezuelan economy (especially its massive oil industry) has been primarily state-owned since roughly the mid-2000's. They're categorically wrong in saying it's mostly private-sector.

State ownership does not mean Socialism, otherwise the US military would be the largest Socialist organization in the world. Socialism, as I have said before, is commonly agreed upon to be Worker Ownership of the means of production, or in broader terms, the abolition of the present state of things.

[Sanctissima]

Caused by OPEC, funnily enough, which is lorded over by Islamic theocratic states. I don't see how on earth that can be blamed on capitalism.

Especially considering how the massive and rapid nationalization of major Venezuelan industries by the Chavez regime, along with the firing of mostly everyone who knew how to administer the oil industry and their replacement with Bolivarian lackeys, is what rendered the Venezuelan economy weak and subject to the whims of OPEC.

OPEC was only able to do this in the first place due to the global capitalist marketplace. It should also be mentioned that Venezuela was doing worse before Chavez and his policies in areas of Poverty, Education, and Homelessness. There is also evidence of opposition members hoarding goods http://bit.ly/2zuHslo http://bit.ly/2D8Luyx

Most of the major OPEC countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, are massive welfare states that practice indicative economy planning. Sure, that's technically capitalist in a broad sense, but it really doesn't make the point you probably think it does.

Especially since the notion itself, a large international organization that restricts and monopolizes trade, is anathema to notions of free trade and competitiveness, which are pretty standard tenets of modern capitalism and the market economy.

Regardless, making things more equal really isn't a point in Chavez' favour given how the type of equality he brought about was making the system equally shitty and miserable for all parties involved.

[Sanctissima]

No, I mean most Far-left idealogues. As in, Anarchists, Communists, Socialists et al.

In regards to the Fox article, I genuinely don't know what they're talking about, since the Venezuelan economy (especially its massive oil industry) has been primarily state-owned since roughly the mid-2000's. They're categorically wrong in saying it's mostly private-sector.

Who the hell do you consider the "left," then? You just listed nearly every leftist ideology.

That's also false. More than 70% of VZ's economy is privately owned. That's a fact that is easily discernible.

Liberalism and the Center-Left are a thing, y'know. Quite the massive thing, I might add.

Most of Venezuela's GDP comes from its oil industry, which is state-owned. Nevermind the many other state-owned sectors.

Where are you getting the notion that it's largely privatized?

[Sanctissima]

In regards to the Fox article, I genuinely don't know what they're talking about, since the Venezuelan economy (especially its massive oil industry) has been primarily state-owned since roughly the mid-2000's. They're categorically wrong in saying it's mostly private-sector.

State ownership does not mean Socialism, otherwise the US military would be the largest Socialist organization in the world. Socialism, as I have said before, is commonly agreed upon to be Worker Ownership of the means of production, or in broader terms, the abolition of the present state of things.

Yes, and I agree. I never said otherwise.

My problem is your insistence that this is somehow an unmalleable definition, and that anything which does not fit its criteria to the letter is inherently not true Socialism.

[The Persian Socialist Federation]

Most of the major OPEC countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, are massive welfare states that practice indicative economy planning. Sure, that's technically capitalist in a broad sense, but it really doesn't make the point you probably think it does.

Citation Needed. Also I don't support welfare states, they're nice but socialism is my goal.

Especially since the notion itself, a large international organization that restricts and monopolizes trade, is anathema to notions of free trade and competitiveness, which are pretty standard tenets of modern capitalism and the market economy.

No, Capital being used to create profit is all that Capitalism has ever been. Creating monopolies is inherent to the system of capitalism and removing them only incentiveses them to rise again. We have never seen a Capitalism in which Monopolies do not form.

Regardless, making things more equal really isn't a point in Chavez' favour given how the type of equality he brought about was making the system equally shitty and miserable for all parties

I want to make it very very clear that I don't support Venezuela. The problems Venezuela has are that it isn't self sufficient and still allows bourgeois monopolies. The problems with Venezuela are due to it not being socialist enough.

[The Persian Socialist Federation]

Yes, and I agree. I never said otherwise.

My problem is your insistence that this is somehow an unmalleable definition, and that anything which does not fit its criteria to the letter is inherently not true Socialism.

A Scotsman cannot be a Scotsman if they're not from Scotland, no matter how Scottish they act. If it doesn't follow the principle of Worker ownership of the means of production, it is not socialist, end of discussion.

[Ceannairceach]

Who the hell do you consider the "left," then? You just listed nearly every leftist ideology.

That's also false. More than 70% of VZ's economy is privately owned. That's a fact that is easily discernible.

Liberalism and the Center-Left are a thing, y'know. Quite the massive thing, I might add.

Most of Venezuela's GDP comes from its oil industry, which is state-owned. Nevermind the many other state-owned sectors.

Where are you getting the notion that it's largely privatized?

Liberalism isn't leftist.

It's largest and most productive industries may be state-owned, but as said in the article I linked you previously:

Last year [2009] the private sector accounted for 70 percent of gross domestic product, including 11 percent in taxes paid on products, according to Central Bank estimates. The public sector was 30 percent, a slightly smaller share than when Chavez was elected in 2008.

So unless you've got evidence contrary to this...?

[Sanctissima]

Most of the major OPEC countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, are massive welfare states that practice indicative economy planning. Sure, that's technically capitalist in a broad sense, but it really doesn't make the point you probably think it does.

Citation Needed. Also I don't support welfare states, they're nice but socialism is my goal.

Especially since the notion itself, a large international organization that restricts and monopolizes trade, is anathema to notions of free trade and competitiveness, which are pretty standard tenets of modern capitalism and the market economy.

No, Capital being used to create profit is all that Capitalism has ever been. Creating monopolies is inherent to the system of capitalism and removing them only incentiveses them to rise again. We have never seen a Capitalism in which Monopolies do not form.

Regardless, making things more equal really isn't a point in Chavez' favour given how the type of equality he brought about was making the system equally shitty and miserable for all parties

I want to make it very very clear that I don't support Venezuela. The problems Venezuela has are that it isn't self sufficient and still allows bourgeois monopolies. The problems with Venezuela are due to it not being socialist enough.

In regards to OPEC countries being massive welfare states, the matter is fairly well-known.

Here's a chart of Saudi Arabia's recent annual budget expenditures, as an example:



Other Gulf nations follow a very similar model.

In regards to Capitalism inherently resulting in monopolies, I invite you to look up Rhine Capitalism as one of many examples. The German economic model quite explicitly prevents monopolies from forming.

As for Venezuela's problems being due to it not being Socialist enough, I think countries like the USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Cuba and others have shown rather clearly how more concerted Socialist endeavours inevitably turn out.

[Sanctissima]

Yes, and I agree. I never said otherwise.

My problem is your insistence that this is somehow an unmalleable definition, and that anything which does not fit its criteria to the letter is inherently not true Socialism.

A Scotsman cannot be a Scotsman if they're not from Scotland, no matter how Scottish they act. If it doesn't follow the principle of Worker ownership of the means of production, it is not socialist, end of discussion.

Then as I said, by that logic, no system is true to its designs unless it fits its definition to the letter.

Which is pretty much every political and economic system ever, including Capitalism.

[Sanctissima]

Liberalism and the Center-Left are a thing, y'know. Quite the massive thing, I might add.

Most of Venezuela's GDP comes from its oil industry, which is state-owned. Nevermind the many other state-owned sectors.

Where are you getting the notion that it's largely privatized?

Liberalism isn't leftist.

It's largest and most productive industries may be state-owned, but as said in the article I linked you previously:

Last year [2009] the private sector accounted for 70 percent of gross domestic product, including 11 percent in taxes paid on products, according to Central Bank estimates. The public sector was 30 percent, a slightly smaller share than when Chavez was elected in 2008.

So unless you've got evidence contrary to this...?

"Liberalism isn't leftist".

No... just... no.

As for your article, Fox News really isn't a reliable source for much of anything.

[Constantinopolis]

A Scotsman cannot be a Scotsman if they're not from Scotland, no matter how Scottish they act. If it doesn't follow the principle of Worker ownership of the means of production, it is not socialist, end of discussion.

Then as I said, by that logic, no system is true to its designs unless it fits its definition to the letter.

Which is pretty much every political and economic system ever, including Capitalism.

That's not what he said. He said that socialism is defined by worker ownership of the means of production, not that it must be perfect - i.e. 100% of the means of production must be owned by the workers - in order for a system to be considered socialist.

Presumably, it would still be socialism even if only 90%, or 80%, or 70% of the means of production were owned by the workers.

But it would not be socialism if a majority of the means of production were owned by, say... a state composed of the Saudi royal family.

[Ceannairceach]

Liberalism isn't leftist.

It's largest and most productive industries may be state-owned, but as said in the article I linked you previously:



So unless you've got evidence contrary to this...?

"Liberalism isn't leftist".

No... just... no.

As for your article, Fox News really isn't a reliable source for much of anything.

Liberalism isn't leftist. It's a fact. Don't mistake the norms of US politics for the norms of the world. It's the only country in which a liberal would be called a leftist.

And no, don't you hind behind that trope. Either provide an alternative source regarding the percentage of the economy that is privatized in VZ or admit you're wrong.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

"Liberalism isn't leftist".

No... just... no.

As for your article, Fox News really isn't a reliable source for much of anything.

Liberalism isn't leftist. It's a fact. Don't mistake the norms of US politics for the norms of the world. It's the only country in which a liberal would be called a leftist.

And no, don't you hind behind that trope. Either provide an alternative source regarding the percentage of the economy that is privatized in VZ or admit you're wrong.

No, he/she's right. Fox is not a realiable source for much of anything.

[Claorica]

Liberalism isn't leftist. It's a fact. Don't mistake the norms of US politics for the norms of the world. It's the only country in which a liberal would be called a leftist.

And no, don't you hind behind that trope. Either provide an alternative source regarding the percentage of the economy that is privatized in VZ or admit you're wrong.

No, he/she's right. Fox is not a realiable source for much of anything.

As reliable as CNN or MSNBC, honesty, though that's not saying much.

Hardly any television news network in the US is that reliable these days (the alphabet three are better than the broadcast networks, but again that's not saying much. Reuters and AP are probably the best.)