La Crisis Venezolana: The Crisis in Venezuela

[Athonuna]

I am completely against socialism. I'm sick of hearing people saying 'That's not real socialism!' and 'Venezuela's economy is fine', because it's not, and people are starving and dying over there. The richest country in South America suddenly turns into one of the worst third world countries out there? That doesn't just happen. This is entirely the fault of socialism and the Maduro regime, and I look forward to the potential Guaido holds.

[Shofercia]

Maduro needs to be overthrown this pig is supported by China and Iran, he hosts Party of Satan militants and he backs Assad who is a Safavid client I hope Trump invades Venezuela to sever a funding post for the Party of Satan, the Mosque shooting coward is on the same side as the Chinese and they back the Safavids and their detestable activities in the Middle East and they back Venezuela and Venezuela backs them this circle of Satan needs to be wiped out.

Trump should invade Venezuela because Maduro said some nice things about Assad? Sure, let's just cite that as yet another reason for invasion. Maduro was probably mean to someone's hamster too, let's throw that in there as well.

[US-SSR]

I am completely against socialism. I'm sick of hearing people saying 'That's not real socialism!' and 'Venezuela's economy is fine', because it's not, and people are starving and dying over there. The richest country in South America suddenly turns into one of the worst third world countries out there? That doesn't just happen. This is entirely the fault of socialism and the Maduro regime, and I look forward to the potential Guaido holds.

It is entirely possible that Venezuela is not and never has been socialist and its economy is not fine. In fact that seems to be the case.

[Leuthukuv]

Someone was talking earlier about how maduros opposition was unpopular and didn't try, and well, now the Guido is in.

[Leuthukuv]

I am completely against socialism. I'm sick of hearing people saying 'That's not real socialism!' and 'Venezuela's economy is fine', because it's not, and people are starving and dying over there. The richest country in South America suddenly turns into one of the worst third world countries out there? That doesn't just happen. This is entirely the fault of socialism and the Maduro regime, and I look forward to the potential Guaido holds.

It is entirely possible that Venezuela is not and never has been socialist and its economy is not fine. In fact that seems to be the case.

Index of Economic Freedom would say otherwise, (the IEF literally defines capitalism (high placed) and socialism (low placed).
Switzerland 4th most capitalist 8.44
Venezuela ranked 159th 2.92
In case you need proof that capitalist nations place higher, category 4Dii states that low national control and regulation will award more points in final ranking.

[Leuthukuv]

Someone was talking earlier about how maduros opposition was unpopular and didn't try, and well, now the Guido is in.
(Image)

Maduros party is in red, in the national assembly, the constituent assembly is the one where Maduros party is "dominant".

[Proctopeo]

Roberto Marrero, Juan Guaidó's Chief of Staff has been arrested by Venezuelan authorities.
His neighbor, also a member of the opposition, claims that Marrero said that he had two rifles and a grenade planted on him to justify an arrest, which is something done by the Venezuelan government to opposition figures in the past, even if it's not strictly verified in this case.

[US-SSR]

It is entirely possible that Venezuela is not and never has been socialist and its economy is not fine. In fact that seems to be the case.

Index of Economic Freedom would say otherwise, (the IEF literally defines capitalism (high placed) and socialism (low placed).
Switzerland 4th most capitalist 8.44
Venezuela ranked 159th 2.92
In case you need proof that capitalist nations place higher, category 4Dii states that low national control and regulation will award more points in final ranking.

Low "economic freedom," however the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal define that, again does not necessarily equal socialism.

Oh and here's how they define "labor 'freedom'":

Quantifies the intrusivness of labor rights such as minimum wage, laws inhibiting layoffs, severance requirements, and measurable regulatory restraints on hiring and hours worked, etc.

So countries where workers have fewer rights are somewhat paradoxically more "free." No thanks. I'm sure the families of the victims of the Boeing crashes take some solace from the knowledge that the airplane manufacturer was free from all that pesky regulation, don't you?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I heard there was a blackout, really worrying to see.

[US-SSR]

I heard there was a blackout, really worrying to see.

Another one?

AP reports Venezuelan farmers are having a hard time finding seeds and fertilizer as planting season begins. Some experts predict famine. Will the backers of the Guaido faction fight the Maduro regime to the last Venezuelan? Do any of them have a Plan B yet?

[Inkopolitia]

Index of Economic Freedom would say otherwise, (the IEF literally defines capitalism (high placed) and socialism (low placed).
Switzerland 4th most capitalist 8.44
Venezuela ranked 159th 2.92
In case you need proof that capitalist nations place higher, category 4Dii states that low national control and regulation will award more points in final ranking.

Low "economic freedom," however the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal define that, again does not necessarily equal socialism.

Oh and here's how they define "labor 'freedom'":

Quantifies the intrusivness of labor rights such as minimum wage, laws inhibiting layoffs, severance requirements, and measurable regulatory restraints on hiring and hours worked, etc.

So countries where workers have fewer rights are somewhat paradoxically more "free." No thanks. I'm sure the families of the victims of the Boeing crashes take some solace from the knowledge that the airplane manufacturer was free from all that pesky regulation, don't you?

What does this have to do with labor freedom? Was he talking about labor freedom? No. He was talking about Socialism in Venezuela which is very much a thing.

[US-SSR]

Low "economic freedom," however the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal define that, again does not necessarily equal socialism.

Oh and here's how they define "labor 'freedom'":



So countries where workers have fewer rights are somewhat paradoxically more "free." No thanks. I'm sure the families of the victims of the Boeing crashes take some solace from the knowledge that the airplane manufacturer was free from all that pesky regulation, don't you?

What does this have to do with labor freedom? Was he talking about labor freedom? No. He was talking about Socialism in Venezuela which is very much a thing.

His claim was that the fact that a couple of extremist capitalist outfits rated Venezuela low in "economic freedom" meant it was socialist. Socialism being workers' control of the means of production, Venezuela is objectively not socialist. It is in fact a military-backed kleptocracy. In addition, it's more than ironic that countries rated higher in "economic freedom" are countries where workers are closer to slaves. If socialism means a higher minimum wage (false: it means the end of wage labor altogether), no layoffs, mandatory severance pay and better conditions of work (all concepts that would be incoherent under socialism), then I say the more socialism, the better.

[Inkopolitia]

What does this have to do with labor freedom? Was he talking about labor freedom? No. He was talking about Socialism in Venezuela which is very much a thing.

His claim was that the fact that a couple of extremist capitalist outfits rated Venezuela low in "economic freedom" meant it was socialist. Socialism being workers' control of the means of production, Venezuela is objectively not socialist. It is in fact a military-backed kleptocracy. In addition, it's more than ironic that countries rated higher in "economic freedom" are countries where workers are closer to slaves. If socialism means a higher minimum wage (false: it means the end of wage labor altogether), no layoffs, mandatory severance pay and better conditions of work (all concepts that would be incoherent under socialism), then I say the more socialism, the better.

That argument could be used for yours, as well. Why trust the WSJ when it's painfully obvious that is aligned with the Left?

[The New United States]

In addition, it's more than ironic that countries rated higher in "economic freedom" are countries where workers are closer to slaves. If socialism means a higher minimum wage (false: it means the end of wage labor altogether), no layoffs, mandatory severance pay and better conditions of work (all concepts that would be incoherent under socialism), then I say the more socialism, the better.

Wait, so you're saying that workers in New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, and Ireland (#3-6 on the index) are practically slaves? While workers in North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Eritrea are presumably better off?

Socialism being workers' control of the means of production, Venezuela is objectively not socialist. It is in fact a military-backed kleptocracy.

What does a socialist nation look like, then?

Far-left ideologues will never be satisfied by any of their experiments, because they are all doomed to fail. Socialism has been disproved both empirically and theoretically. How many times will you socialists drag us to hell with your dreams of heaven on earth?

[Phoenicaea]

^ you could define Cuba as socialist, i suppose. because, apart the debate about the true monk definition, you could add 'historical socialism', or 'degenerate socialism' either.

then, while you could say it without embarass for Cuba adding your adjectives, even if you add shade depending on the eterodoxhy, with difficoulty you could say it for Venezuela.

despite formal claimed way of the State, Venezuela nowadays has few to do whit 'socialism', compared to standard as Cuba. because list of reasons, 'state capitalism' would fit better.

if you insist in the definiton of Venezuela as 'socialist', either for praise or to make theosophy against, it substantially means you don t live there and you don t know any people there.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

In addition, it's more than ironic that countries rated higher in "economic freedom" are countries where workers are closer to slaves. If socialism means a higher minimum wage (false: it means the end of wage labor altogether), no layoffs, mandatory severance pay and better conditions of work (all concepts that would be incoherent under socialism), then I say the more socialism, the better.

Wait, so you're saying that workers in New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, and Ireland (#3-6 on the index) are practically slaves? While workers in North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Eritrea are presumably better off?

Socialism being workers' control of the means of production, Venezuela is objectively not socialist. It is in fact a military-backed kleptocracy.

What does a socialist nation look like, then?

Far-left ideologues will never be satisfied by any of their experiments, because they are all doomed to fail. Socialism has been disproved both empirically and theoretically. How many times will you socialists drag us to hell with your dreams of heaven on earth?

A slave doesn't have to be whipped or abused to be a slave. Slavery isn't about conditions or anything like that: it is about control. Also, did you look for "the Democratic Republic of the Congo", "Bangladesh" or "Mexico"? Because, surprise, the GDP per capita defines economic conditions.
See which is higher:
Eritrea or Somalia/the DRC
North Korea or Bangladesh
Cuba or Mexico

Go ahead. Come on.

HDI wise,
DRC > Eritrea (by about 2 places and 0.017 points) > Somalia (by about 10 places and 0.8 points)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by about 25 places and 0.125 points)
Cuba > Mexico (by one place and 0.003 points) (also, Mexico is about 25% richer than Cuba per capita, whoops)
And that's without inequality. (I couldn't find stats for the 'socialist' countries in inequality, and since they're socialist according to you, it should be 0)
Assuming 0 for the socialist countries:
Cuba > Mexico (by 0.168 and 41 places)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by 0.271 and 63 places. Also NK is about 0.004 higher than SK in the index.)
Eritrea > DRC (by 0.121 and 23 places, no data for Somalia)

Want to know an economic fun fact? Mexico's GDP was double that of Venezuela when Chavez came to power. Now Venezuela's is double that of Mexico.

Sources:
HDIs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
IHDIs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... justed_HDI
GDP per capitas: All on Google.

[Novus America]

Wait, so you're saying that workers in New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, and Ireland (#3-6 on the index) are practically slaves? While workers in North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and Eritrea are presumably better off?


What does a socialist nation look like, then?

Far-left ideologues will never be satisfied by any of their experiments, because they are all doomed to fail. Socialism has been disproved both empirically and theoretically. How many times will you socialists drag us to hell with your dreams of heaven on earth?

A slave doesn't have to be whipped or abused to be a slave. Slavery isn't about conditions or anything like that: it is about control. Also, did you look for "the Democratic Republic of the Congo", "Bangladesh" or "Mexico"? Because, surprise, the GDP per capita defines economic conditions.
See which is higher:
Eritrea or Somalia/the DRC
North Korea or Bangladesh
Cuba or Mexico

Go ahead. Come on.

HDI wise,
DRC > Eritrea (by about 2 places and 0.017 points) > Somalia (by about 10 places and 0.8 points)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by about 25 places and 0.125 points)
Cuba > Mexico (by one place and 0.003 points) (also, Mexico is about 25% richer than Cuba per capita, whoops)
And that's without inequality. (I couldn't find stats for the 'socialist' countries in inequality, and since they're socialist according to you, it should be 0)
Assuming 0 for the socialist countries:
Cuba > Mexico (by 0.168 and 41 places)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by 0.271 and 63 places. Also NK is about 0.004 higher than SK in the index.)
Eritrea > DRC (by 0.121 and 23 places, no data for Somalia)

Want to know an economic fun fact? Mexico's GDP was double that of Venezuela when Chavez came to power. Now Venezuela's is double that of Mexico.

Socialism does not necessarily mean zero inequality.
If zero inequality is your measure of socialism it has never existed and will never exist.

Umm Mexico has a GDP of 1,199,264 million.
Venezuela 96,328.
Puerto Rico (104,557) has a bigger GDP than Venezuela!

You mean per Capita?
Mexico 9,318
Venezuela 6,890
Puerto Rico 31,581

You mean PPP adjusted per capita?
Mexico 19,480
Venezuela 12,388
Puerto Rico 37,895

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

A slave doesn't have to be whipped or abused to be a slave. Slavery isn't about conditions or anything like that: it is about control. Also, did you look for "the Democratic Republic of the Congo", "Bangladesh" or "Mexico"? Because, surprise, the GDP per capita defines economic conditions.
See which is higher:
Eritrea or Somalia/the DRC
North Korea or Bangladesh
Cuba or Mexico

Go ahead. Come on.

HDI wise,
DRC > Eritrea (by about 2 places and 0.017 points) > Somalia (by about 10 places and 0.8 points)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by about 25 places and 0.125 points)
Cuba > Mexico (by one place and 0.003 points) (also, Mexico is about 25% richer than Cuba per capita, whoops)
And that's without inequality. (I couldn't find stats for the 'socialist' countries in inequality, and since they're socialist according to you, it should be 0)
Assuming 0 for the socialist countries:
Cuba > Mexico (by 0.168 and 41 places)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by 0.271 and 63 places. Also NK is about 0.004 higher than SK in the index.)
Eritrea > DRC (by 0.121 and 23 places, no data for Somalia)

Want to know an economic fun fact? Mexico's GDP was double that of Venezuela when Chavez came to power. Now Venezuela's is double that of Mexico.

Socialism does not necessarily mean zero inequality.
If zero inequality is your measure of socialism it has never existed and will never exist.

Umm Mexico has a GDP of 1,199,264 million.
Venezuela 96,328.
Puerto Rico (104,557) has a bigger GDP than Venezuela!

You mean per Capita?
Mexico 9,318
Venezuela 6,890
Puerto Rico 31,581

You mean PPP adjusted per capita?
Mexico 19,480
Venezuela 12,388
Puerto Rico 37,895

[Citation Needed]

[LiberNovusAmericae]

[Citation Needed]

You should cite your sources on your other post, before complaining about your opponent not citing theirs.

[The South Falls]

[Citation Needed]

You should cite your sources on your other post, before complaining about your opponent not citing theirs.

Especially with the curious claims drawn.

[Novus America]

Socialism does not necessarily mean zero inequality.
If zero inequality is your measure of socialism it has never existed and will never exist.

Umm Mexico has a GDP of 1,199,264 million.
Venezuela 96,328.
Puerto Rico (104,557) has a bigger GDP than Venezuela!

You mean per Capita?
Mexico 9,318
Venezuela 6,890
Puerto Rico 31,581

You mean PPP adjusted per capita?
Mexico 19,480
Venezuela 12,388
Puerto Rico 37,895

[Citation Needed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

[Citation Needed]

You should cite your sources on your other post, before complaining about your opponent not citing theirs.

And one.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

[Citation Needed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

I see. My stats were from 2014, therefore yours are most likely more reliable.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

A slave doesn't have to be whipped or abused to be a slave. Slavery isn't about conditions or anything like that: it is about control. Also, did you look for "the Democratic Republic of the Congo", "Bangladesh" or "Mexico"? Because, surprise, the GDP per capita defines economic conditions.
See which is higher:
Eritrea or Somalia/the DRC
North Korea or Bangladesh
Cuba or Mexico

Go ahead. Come on.

HDI wise,
DRC > Eritrea (by about 2 places and 0.017 points) > Somalia (by about 10 places and 0.8 points)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by about 25 places and 0.125 points)
Cuba > Mexico (by one place and 0.003 points) (also, Mexico is about 25% richer than Cuba per capita, whoops)
And that's without inequality. (I couldn't find stats for the 'socialist' countries in inequality, and since they're socialist according to you, it should be 0)
Assuming 0 for the socialist countries:
Cuba > Mexico (by 0.168 and 41 places)
North Korea > Bangladesh (by 0.271 and 63 places. Also NK is about 0.004 higher than SK in the index.)
Eritrea > DRC (by 0.121 and 23 places, no data for Somalia)

Want to know an economic fun fact? Mexico's GDP was double that of Venezuela when Chavez came to power. Now Venezuela's is double that of Mexico.

Socialism does not necessarily mean zero inequality.
If zero inequality is your measure of socialism it has never existed and will never exist.

Umm Mexico has a GDP of 1,199,264 million.
Venezuela 96,328.
Puerto Rico (104,557) has a bigger GDP than Venezuela!

You mean per Capita?
Mexico 9,318
Venezuela 6,890
Puerto Rico 31,581

You mean PPP adjusted per capita?
Mexico 19,480
Venezuela 12,388
Puerto Rico 37,895

In the most literal and blunt definition of socialism, there must functionally be zero inequality, because systems of socialism do not produce inequality, especially ones in which there is no money and/or distribution is more community-based.

[Novus America]

Socialism does not necessarily mean zero inequality.
If zero inequality is your measure of socialism it has never existed and will never exist.

Umm Mexico has a GDP of 1,199,264 million.
Venezuela 96,328.
Puerto Rico (104,557) has a bigger GDP than Venezuela!

You mean per Capita?
Mexico 9,318
Venezuela 6,890
Puerto Rico 31,581

You mean PPP adjusted per capita?
Mexico 19,480
Venezuela 12,388
Puerto Rico 37,895

In the most literal and blunt definition of socialism, there must functionally be zero inequality, because systems of socialism do not produce inequality, especially ones in which there is no money and/or distribution is more community-based.

Then by a that definition socialism has never and will never exist on any sort of scale.