The end of Venezuela's "socialist paradise"

[West Leas Oros 2]

Venezuela's socialism is a failure. Whatever Trotsky has said rings true that if you have a system an agarian system that needs to progress fully to capitalism and then to socialism. Venezuela is a failure and has failed to promote a mixed economy like that of social democratism or mid socialism. The idea that dictators can clamp down on their economy, promote military propaganda and paranoia, while enforcing nonsense ideas such as protectionism, rent control, price controls on wages and goods and services and centralized state planning goes against the free flow of capitalism which will promote the welfare of people. Capitlaism has serious flaws and that's where government intervention and serious tinkering comes in like progressive taxation and not full fronted government takeover of critical public goods and services.

Didn't Trotsky believe that a nation could go from Feudalism to Socialism without first being capitalist?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, we get it, capitalism is the only true economic system.

Not the only one that's true; but the only one proven to work. That makes it's shortcomings unfortunately acceptable.

"Proven to work"

Like, it works until it fails. Like capitalism does. Periodically and near-regularly.

To argue for or against the merits of "socialism" (all major examples are at best - per socialist theory - still 'capitalist' institutions) is fine - to argue whether socialism or capitalism best serves societies is fine.

But the argument that "capitalism works" and "socialism doesn't" is just flat bizarre.
Capitalism certainly doesn't "work", not for the vast majority of those who live under it. It's just ever-present because unsurprisingly, those who benefit the most from it spend vast resources to influencing and supporting its continued existence.

If you pump enough money into something, someone will be convinced enough that it's worth continuing.

[Novus America]

Not the only one that's true; but the only one proven to work. That makes it's shortcomings unfortunately acceptable.

"Proven to work"

Like, it works until it fails. Like capitalism does. Periodically and near-regularly.

To argue for or against the merits of "socialism" (all major examples are at best - per socialist theory - still 'capitalist' institutions) is fine - to argue whether socialism or capitalism best serves societies is fine.

But the argument that "capitalism works" and "socialism doesn't" is just flat bizarre.
Capitalism certainly doesn't "work", not for the vast majority of those who live under it. It's just ever-present because unsurprisingly, those who benefit the most from it spend vast resources to influencing and supporting its continued existence.

If you pump enough money into something, someone will be convinced enough that it's worth continuing.

Purely unrestricted capitalism does not work, but properly regulated capitalism has certainly in many cases benefited the vast majority who live under it.

There have been many successful countries implementeing regulated capitalism.
But no country has successfully implemented socialism.

[Imperializt Russia]

Again, your criterion for success is entirely arbitrary, and subjective.

"Their GDP is going up"
umm and?

To whom is the benefit going? In the "successful" capitalism of the west, the vast majority receive either no direct benefit from capitalism and the rising value of the economy, or have in fact negatively been impacted by it.

Capitalism is not "successful" in a way that 'socialism' is somehow "not", it is simply so pervasive that it is able to continue and "survive" the times when it does fail.

The literal majority of the planet is disadvantaged by capitalists. Just like "the GDP is going up" is arbitrary and a highly subjective measure of "benefit" that capitalism provides, so is "their wages are worth more than they used to be". Per the popular virginity meme, 2x zero is still zero.

If a third of Asia was on a poverty wage of less than one dollar per day in the 1980s, and today they have moved up to a poverty wage of $2-3 per day, that progress is kind of meaningless because they're still poor as shit, even relative to their nations' own, relative standard of living and have a poor quality of life.

Those who work in the Foxxcon or Apple factory dormitories, assaulted by supervisors and guards for falling asleep on their 18/6 weekly work pattern are not benefited by capitalism. They are directly exploited.

You can still argue in favour of capitalism, and of "western capitalism" and the benefits it has brought us (so long as you are honest enough to at least acknowledge the vast, soul-destroying poverty that exists here in the west), but then how are you any different to the perceived "socialism defender" who justifies certain nations' implementation of systems and 'discounts' others?

Maybe socialism doesn't work.
But at least concede that capitalism doesn't either.

[Novus America]

Again, your criterion for success is entirely arbitrary, and subjective.

"Their GDP is going up"
umm and?

To whom is the benefit going? In the "successful" capitalism of the west, the vast majority receive either no direct benefit from capitalism and the rising value of the economy, or have in fact negatively been impacted by it.

Capitalism is not "successful" in a way that 'socialism' is somehow "not", it is simply so pervasive that it is able to continue and "survive" the times when it does fail.

The literal majority of the planet is disadvantaged by capitalists. Just like "the GDP is going up" is arbitrary and a highly subjective measure of "benefit" that capitalism provides, so is "their wages are worth more than they used to be". Per the popular virginity meme, 2x zero is still zero.

If a third of Asia was on a poverty wage of less than one dollar per day in the 1980s, and today they have moved up to a poverty wage of $2-3 per day, that progress is kind of meaningless because they're still poor as shit, even relative to their nations' own, relative standard of living and have a poor quality of life.

Those who work in the Foxxcon or Apple factory dormitories, assaulted by supervisors and guards for falling asleep on their 18/6 weekly work pattern are not benefited by capitalism. They are directly exploited.

You can still argue in favour of capitalism, and of "western capitalism" and the benefits it has brought us (so long as you are honest enough to at least acknowledge the vast, soul-destroying poverty that exists here in the west), but then how are you any different to the perceived "socialism defender" who justifies certain nations' implementation of systems and 'discounts' others?

Maybe socialism doesn't work.
But at least concede that capitalism doesn't either.

While global poverty remains a problem, it has drastically DECREASED.
https://www.economist.com/international ... me-poverty
https://fee.org/articles/were-seeing-ma ... l-poverty/

China still sucks for many people, but it is vastly better today for the vast majority of people than it was in th 70s.

Capitalism might not “work” in that it will not, and cannot produce a perfect utopian society.
But perfection should not be a criteria for working.

Fact is capitalism has drastically reduced global poverty.
Fact is that capitalism can survive (ability to survive is a key criterion for whether or not something is working).

Fact is that regulated capitalist, social democratic countries have the best living standards.

Now I will admit that capitalism is not a magical silver bullet, and our current method of regulating it could (and should) be greatly improved.

But it certainly still has benefited people.

So it absolutely does work to make lives better.

Now sure, making sure the benefits of growth benefits the majority is something that is need.
Which is why social democracy exists.
But without growth there is nothing to distribute in the first place.

[Duvniask]

You act as if all socialists, collectively, agreed on this, which was never the case. The reality is that Venezuela was never really socialist, but more of a social democratic country, with the state playing a stronger role in the economy, while still retaining central capitalist features such as generalized commodity production, capital accumulation and so on.



I'm not quite sure you understand how the "No True Scotsman" fallacy works. The fallacy involves changing the definition to exclude a universal generalization from any counterexamples. Let me illustrate with an example:

Person A: No Scotsman pours sugar on his porridge
Person B: I know person X who is a Scotsman and they pour sugar on their porridge.
Person A: No true Scotsman would do that.

Here the definition of a Scotsman (someone from Scotland) is arbitrarily being changed to avoid engaging the counterexample that person B provides against the universal generalization ("no Scotsman pours sugar on his porridge"). In other words, since there's nothing about being a Scotsman that says you have to pour sugar on your porridge, this is not logically sound.

When it comes to Venezuela and socialism, we are not changing any definitions by saying that Venezuela is not socialist; we are, in fact, abiding correctly by the definition. Capitalism, or the capitalist mode of production, is generalized commodity production, capital accumulation (i.e. what drives the pursuit of profit - "making money"), the primacy of wage labor (a class of non-owners, proletarians, who must sell their labor power and labor under the capitalist class) and the means of production being held in private hands, or at least, administered by a class separate from the workers, who extracts surplus value from their work.

Socialism as the negation of capitalism, is the socialization of production (i.e. the means of production being held and administered in common) and production for use, as the end goal, rather than for profit.


Easy excuse. The difference between these two being?

Venezuela was widely praised as an example of successful socialism by many socialists.

I really don't care. They were wrong, I hope they realized it one way or another. Better late than never.

And Venezuela was never social democratic. Sure it had welfare, but there is more to social democracy than welfare. Again social democracy combines welfare with pro private business policies and a cooperative model of labor relations.

Social democratic countries have a high degree of economic freedom.
They do not have the government seizing private businesses and imposing price and currency controls that make it impossible for most private businesses to properly function.

Now, this right here is a real example of a No True Scotsman fallacy at work. There's nothing about social democracy, definitionally speaking, that says "promotes economic freedom", which in itself is an incredibly vague term, and I most certainly would disagree with your notion of economic "freedom". This is merely the case in such places as the Nordic countries, where I happen to live, but it is not a staple of social democracy as a whole.

[Novus America]

Venezuela was widely praised as an example of successful socialism by many socialists.

I really don't care. They were wrong, I hope they realized it one way or another. Better late than never.

And Venezuela was never social democratic. Sure it had welfare, but there is more to social democracy than welfare. Again social democracy combines welfare with pro private business policies and a cooperative model of labor relations.

Social democratic countries have a high degree of economic freedom.
They do not have the government seizing private businesses and imposing price and currency controls that make it impossible for most private businesses to properly function.

Now, this right here is a real example of a No True Scotsman fallacy at work. There's nothing about social democracy, definitionally speaking, that says "promotes economic freedom", which in itself is an incredibly vague term, and I most certainly would disagree with your notion of economic "freedom". This is merely the case in such places as the Nordic countries, where I happen to live, but it is not a staple of social democracy as a whole.

Well I guess you can say the Nordic model to be more specific but Germany and others use a similar system as well.

Certainly the key concept of modern social democracy is the combination of liberal capitalism with a welfare state.

And how would you define social democracy then?
I provided a clear criteria, and showed countries meeting that criteria being successful.
That is not “no true Scotsman”. That is a clearly defined, empirically proven model.
You are just playing semantics.

The current government of Venezuela explicitly rejected capitalism, and actively worked to undermine it, as well as democracy. It thus cannot be considered social democracy.

Claiming Venezuela is a social democracy is like claiming Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were social democracies because they also had welfare.

[Duvniask]

I really don't care. They were wrong, I hope they realized it one way or another. Better late than never.


Now, this right here is a real example of a No True Scotsman fallacy at work. There's nothing about social democracy, definitionally speaking, that says "promotes economic freedom", which in itself is an incredibly vague term, and I most certainly would disagree with your notion of economic "freedom". This is merely the case in such places as the Nordic countries, where I happen to live, but it is not a staple of social democracy as a whole.

Well I guess you can say the Nordic model to be more specific but Germany and others use a similar system as well.

Certainly the key concept of modern social democracy is the combination of liberal capitalism with a welfare state.

And how would you define social democracy then?

You're on the right track, but social democracy is, rather, the combination of liberal democracy with a welfare state; in other words, the retention of capitalism and the use of reforms within the system to mitigate its worst side-effects, chiefly via a welfare state.

To say that social democracy is "pro-business" ignores how social democracy, historically speaking, was a reform-minded offshoot of socialism that sought to abolish the capitalist system gradually by parliamentarian means, that is, by participation in a representative democratic political system. Back in the day it was more or less synonymous with "democratic socialism". As an example, just take the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which from 1912-1918 was named the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, itself a successor to the other Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which had split in 1912.

Social democracy has since come to mean the retention of the capitalist system, but that didn't happen overnight, and the legacy of its essentially socialist character is still to be felt. Even after the establishment of communism and social democracy as two clearly distinct political ideologies, social democratic parties stressed the nationalization of the "commanding heights of the economy" , especially around the end of World War 2, where the state, due to the war effort, already played a large role in the economy. Furthermore, the liberalization of the Nordic countries, for example, didn't happen until later in the 20th century, which arguably has led to the dismantling of some of its social democratic character. Simultaneously, social democratic parties have declined in power and no longer hold as much sway as they once did.

I provided a clear criteria, and showed countries meeting that criteria being successful.
That is not “no true Scotsman”. That is a clearly defined, empirically proven model.
You are just playing semantics.

Honestly, the appropriate response here is simply: no u.
Right back at you.

The current government of Venezuela explicitly rejected capitalism, and actively worked to undermine it, as well as democracy.

It doesn't really matter if they "rejected" it. It's like going out into the rain and rejecting the notion that you're going to get wet. I will of course also point out the good old example of North Korea calling itself a "Democratic People's Republic". It means little.

It thus cannot be considered social democracy.

You should perhaps note, that I said Venezuela was "more of a social democracy" (i.e. more like) -after all, the "democracy" part is debatable. The reason I say this is because it resembles the social democratic way of using extensive state intervention to promote social justice, equality and so on within a capitalistic system, i.e. a welfare state.

Claiming Venezuela is a social democracy is like claiming Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were social democracies because they also had welfare.

I didn't say Venezuela was one, but I certainly said it had characteristics of one, and the same arguably goes for the Soviet Union, with its much more hardcore state involvement in the economy and extensive social policies. Nazi Germany, while having welfare, wasn't as concerned with promoting egalitarianism or social justice, so I wouldn't say that it is necessarily the same.

[Novus America]

Well I guess you can say the Nordic model to be more specific but Germany and others use a similar system as well.

Certainly the key concept of modern social democracy is the combination of liberal capitalism with a welfare state.

And how would you define social democracy then?

You're on the right track, but social democracy is, rather, the combination of liberal democracy with a welfare state; in other words, the retention of capitalism and the use of reforms within the system to mitigate its worst side-effects, chiefly via a welfare state.

To say that social democracy is "pro-business" ignores how social democracy, historically speaking, was a reform-minded offshoot of socialism that sought to abolish the capitalist system gradually by parliamentarian means, that is, by participation in a representative democratic political system. Back in the day it was more or less synonymous with "democratic socialism". As an example, just take the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which from 1912-1918 was named the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, itself a successor to the other Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which had split in 1912.

Social democracy has since come to mean the retention of the capitalist system, but that didn't happen overnight, and the legacy of its essentially socialist character is still to be felt. Even after the establishment of communism and social democracy as two clearly distinct political ideologies, social democratic parties stressed the nationalization of the "commanding heights of the economy" , especially around the end of World War 2, where the state, due to the war effort, already played a large role in the economy. Furthermore, the liberalization of the Nordic countries, for example, didn't happen until later in the 20th century, which arguably has led to the dismantling of some of its social democratic character. Simultaneously, social democratic parties have declined in power and no longer hold as much sway as they once did.

I provided a clear criteria, and showed countries meeting that criteria being successful.
That is not “no true Scotsman”. That is a clearly defined, empirically proven model.
You are just playing semantics.

Honestly, the appropriate response here is simply: no u.
Right back at you.

The current government of Venezuela explicitly rejected capitalism, and actively worked to undermine it, as well as democracy.

It doesn't really matter if they "rejected" it. It's like going out into the rain and rejecting the notion that you're going to get wet. I will of course also point out the good old example of North Korea calling itself a "Democratic People's Republic". It means little.

It thus cannot be considered social democracy.

You should perhaps note, that I said Venezuela was "more of a social democracy" (i.e. more like) -after all, the "democracy" part is debatable. The reason I say this is because it resembles the social democratic way of using extensive state intervention to promote social justice, equality and so on within a capitalistic system, i.e. a welfare state.

Claiming Venezuela is a social democracy is like claiming Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were social democracies because they also had welfare.

I didn't say Venezuela was one, but I certainly said it had characteristics of one, and the same arguably goes for the Soviet Union, with its much more hardcore state involvement in the economy and extensive social policies. Nazi Germany, while having welfare, wasn't as concerned with promoting egalitarianism or social justice, so I wouldn't say that it is necessarily the same.

I am fully aware of the history of social democracy and you are fully aware of what I mean when I say social democracy (as in the current model practiced in Northern Europe).

Which is extremely different than what is practiced in Venezuela. Which has engaged in violent seizures of private businesses and the military seizing control of much of the economy.

But as you acknowledge Venezuela is not Social Democratic we can move on.

[Duvniask]

You're on the right track, but social democracy is, rather, the combination of liberal democracy with a welfare state; in other words, the retention of capitalism and the use of reforms within the system to mitigate its worst side-effects, chiefly via a welfare state.

To say that social democracy is "pro-business" ignores how social democracy, historically speaking, was a reform-minded offshoot of socialism that sought to abolish the capitalist system gradually by parliamentarian means, that is, by participation in a representative democratic political system. Back in the day it was more or less synonymous with "democratic socialism". As an example, just take the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which from 1912-1918 was named the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, itself a successor to the other Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which had split in 1912.

Social democracy has since come to mean the retention of the capitalist system, but that didn't happen overnight, and the legacy of its essentially socialist character is still to be felt. Even after the establishment of communism and social democracy as two clearly distinct political ideologies, social democratic parties stressed the nationalization of the "commanding heights of the economy" , especially around the end of World War 2, where the state, due to the war effort, already played a large role in the economy. Furthermore, the liberalization of the Nordic countries, for example, didn't happen until later in the 20th century, which arguably has led to the dismantling of some of its social democratic character. Simultaneously, social democratic parties have declined in power and no longer hold as much sway as they once did.


Honestly, the appropriate response here is simply: no u.
Right back at you.


It doesn't really matter if they "rejected" it. It's like going out into the rain and rejecting the notion that you're going to get wet. I will of course also point out the good old example of North Korea calling itself a "Democratic People's Republic". It means little.


You should perhaps note, that I said Venezuela was "more of a social democracy" (i.e. more like) -after all, the "democracy" part is debatable. The reason I say this is because it resembles the social democratic way of using extensive state intervention to promote social justice, equality and so on within a capitalistic system, i.e. a welfare state.


I didn't say Venezuela was one, but I certainly said it had characteristics of one, and the same arguably goes for the Soviet Union, with its much more hardcore state involvement in the economy and extensive social policies. Nazi Germany, while having welfare, wasn't as concerned with promoting egalitarianism or social justice, so I wouldn't say that it is necessarily the same.

I am fully aware of the history of social democracy and you are fully aware of what I mean when I say social democracy (as in the current model practiced in Northern Europe).

I'm not fully aware of why you think this is the only way social democracy could take form, when in these very countries it existed differently not too long ago, as I have pointed out. Today's social democrats are more business-friendly, but that is more a legacy of neoliberal victories and intensification of global capitalism than anything to do with social democracy, as an ideology. They are still in large part opposed, on the political spectrum, to liberals and other right-wingers who wish for further liberalization of the economy (pro-business policies).

Which is extremely different than what is practiced in Venezuela. Which has engaged in violent seizures of private businesses and the military seizing control of much of the economy.

But as you acknowledge Venezuela is not Social Democratic we can move on.

I acknowledge it for different reasons than you do, however.

[Novus America]

I am fully aware of the history of social democracy and you are fully aware of what I mean when I say social democracy (as in the current model practiced in Northern Europe).

I'm not fully aware of why you think this is the only way social democracy could take form, when in these very countries it existed differently not too long ago, as I have pointed out. Today's social democrats are more business-friendly, but that is more a legacy of neoliberal victories and intensification of global capitalism than anything to do with social democracy, as an ideology. They are still in large part opposed, on the political spectrum, to liberals and other right-wingers who wish for further liberalization of the economy (pro-business policies).

Which is extremely different than what is practiced in Venezuela. Which has engaged in violent seizures of private businesses and the military seizing control of much of the economy.

But as you acknowledge Venezuela is not Social Democratic we can move on.

I acknowledge it for different reasons than you do, however.

Well I made it quite clear I am referring to the current, Northern European variant being successful. I said it can be successful.

Obviously I cannot say all variants are automatically successful.

But regardless Venezuela is not social democratic.
And they certainly have engaged in Marxist Leninist style violent seizures of private property.

They certainly are not libertarian socialists in practice (although Chavez did give lip service to some aspects of libertarian socialism) but certainly do claim to practice a variant of socialism and are certainly about removing the means of production from private control.
They do practice a type of state socialism.

[Grenartia]

Anyone ever notice how the only people who talk about how Venezuela is "socialist" are antisocialists and people who know nothing about socialism whatsoever?

And yeah, I know I just repeated myself.

[Duvniask]

I'm not fully aware of why you think this is the only way social democracy could take form, when in these very countries it existed differently not too long ago, as I have pointed out. Today's social democrats are more business-friendly, but that is more a legacy of neoliberal victories and intensification of global capitalism than anything to do with social democracy, as an ideology. They are still in large part opposed, on the political spectrum, to liberals and other right-wingers who wish for further liberalization of the economy (pro-business policies).


I acknowledge it for different reasons than you do, however.

Well I made it quite clear I am referring to the current, Northern European variant being successful. I said it can be successful.

Obviously I cannot say all variants are automatically successful.

I don't think I ever stated anything about its "success". I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

But regardless Venezuela is not social democratic.
And they certainly have engaged in Marxist Leninist style violent seizures of private property.

They certainly are not libertarian socialists in practice (although Chavez did give lip service to some aspects of libertarian socialism) but certainly do claim to practice a variant of socialism and are certainly about removing the means of production from private control.
They do practice a type of state socialism.

I'm tired, so I'll just give you this quote:

"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head."

— F. Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

---

Anyone ever notice how the only people who talk about how Venezuela is "socialist" are antisocialists and people who know nothing about socialism whatsoever?

And yeah, I know I just repeated myself.

VUVUZELA, CHECKMATE COMMIES.

[Costa Fierro]

You act as if all socialists, collectively, agreed on this, which was never the case. The reality is that Venezuela was never really socialist, but more of a social democratic country, with the state playing a stronger role in the economy, while still retaining central capitalist features such as generalized commodity production, capital accumulation and so on.

I wouldn't even say Venezuela is social democratic, but more left-wing populism that relies on authoritarianism and criminal gangs to maintain control.

[Aclion]

For the past decade socialists held Venezuela up as an example of socialism's success, proof that it can work. You don't get to it cast it away the moment things fall apart. That's nothing but fair weather socialism.

You act as if all socialists, collectively, agreed on this, which was never the case.

Of course not. It's hard enough to get two socialists to agree on what socialism is, but the fact remains that the country was held up as an example, right up until the moment things went sour.

[Novus America]

Well I made it quite clear I am referring to the current, Northern European variant being successful. I said it can be successful.

Obviously I cannot say all variants are automatically successful.

I don't think I ever stated anything about its "success". I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

But regardless Venezuela is not social democratic.
And they certainly have engaged in Marxist Leninist style violent seizures of private property.

They certainly are not libertarian socialists in practice (although Chavez did give lip service to some aspects of libertarian socialism) but certainly do claim to practice a variant of socialism and are certainly about removing the means of production from private control.
They do practice a type of state socialism.

I'm tired, so I'll just give you this quote:

"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head."

— F. Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

---

Anyone ever notice how the only people who talk about how Venezuela is "socialist" are antisocialists and people who know nothing about socialism whatsoever?

And yeah, I know I just repeated myself.

VUVUZELA, CHECKMATE COMMIES.

Well of course some socialists claim state socialism is not a thing, but the issue with discussing what is and is not socialism is there is no consensus even among socialists.
Socialists no true socialist other socialists all the time.

There are plenty of socialists advocating state socialism though.

Venezuela is not state capitalist either.
State capitalism treats government owned businesses like businesses and still has a capitalist pricing system.

By completely destroying the means of exchange via price and currency control, capitalism (outside the black market) is no longer functional.

So it cannot be called capitalist when there is not a proper system of prices and measuring wealth. And after seizing businesses Venezuela has not run them like businesses, but primarily used them for patronage, or just left them not working at all.

I will admit that Venezuela is not representative of most Socialist governments (or those claiming to be depending on the definition of socialism.
Literally no other government in recent history has had worse economic performance outside a devastating war, and has even done worse than Japan in WWII.
Which is really an achievement. Chavismo is more destructive than limited nuclear war.

[The of Japan]

Maduros regime’s time is limited

[Imperializt Russia]

You act as if all socialists, collectively, agreed on this, which was never the case.

Of course not. It's hard enough to get two socialists to agree on what socialism is, but the fact remains that the country was held up as an example, right up until the moment things went sour.

By who, exactly? Jeremy Corbyn in the UK has often been pally and supportive of Venezuela, but he's never exactly said "the UK should model itself on Venezuela". After all, Venezuela was oil-rich.

We socialists don't get many breaks so we have to be happy for any slight break from the capitalist norm we can get. That they can, even for a short time, is an accomplishment, frankly.

[Imperializt Russia]

Again, your criterion for success is entirely arbitrary, and subjective.

"Their GDP is going up"
umm and?

To whom is the benefit going? In the "successful" capitalism of the west, the vast majority receive either no direct benefit from capitalism and the rising value of the economy, or have in fact negatively been impacted by it.

Capitalism is not "successful" in a way that 'socialism' is somehow "not", it is simply so pervasive that it is able to continue and "survive" the times when it does fail.

The literal majority of the planet is disadvantaged by capitalists. Just like "the GDP is going up" is arbitrary and a highly subjective measure of "benefit" that capitalism provides, so is "their wages are worth more than they used to be". Per the popular virginity meme, 2x zero is still zero.

If a third of Asia was on a poverty wage of less than one dollar per day in the 1980s, and today they have moved up to a poverty wage of $2-3 per day, that progress is kind of meaningless because they're still poor as shit, even relative to their nations' own, relative standard of living and have a poor quality of life.

Those who work in the Foxxcon or Apple factory dormitories, assaulted by supervisors and guards for falling asleep on their 18/6 weekly work pattern are not benefited by capitalism. They are directly exploited.

You can still argue in favour of capitalism, and of "western capitalism" and the benefits it has brought us (so long as you are honest enough to at least acknowledge the vast, soul-destroying poverty that exists here in the west), but then how are you any different to the perceived "socialism defender" who justifies certain nations' implementation of systems and 'discounts' others?

Maybe socialism doesn't work.
But at least concede that capitalism doesn't either.

While global poverty remains a problem, it has drastically DECREASED.
https://www.economist.com/international ... me-poverty
https://fee.org/articles/were-seeing-ma ... l-poverty/

China still sucks for many people, but it is vastly better today for the vast majority of people than it was in th 70s.

This does not invalidate my point, and arguably reinforces it.

Yes, many people in the world are objectively "less destitute" than they were a couple decades ago, but objectively, they are still destitute. That economist article is almost repulsive in a way. It honestly calls people "arbitrarily deemed to be not poor enough to literally starve" (ie, on more than $1.90 per day), "non-poor people".

I find that framing of the issue disgusting.

[Special Aromas]

While global poverty remains a problem, it has drastically DECREASED.
https://www.economist.com/international ... me-poverty
https://fee.org/articles/were-seeing-ma ... l-poverty/

China still sucks for many people, but it is vastly better today for the vast majority of people than it was in th 70s.

This does not invalidate my point, and arguably reinforces it.

Yes, many people in the world are objectively "less destitute" than they were a couple decades ago, but objectively, they are still destitute. That economist article is almost repulsive in a way. It honestly calls people "arbitrarily deemed to be not poor enough to literally starve" (ie, on more than $1.90 per day), "non-poor people".

I find that framing of the issue disgusting.

Less people are below the poverty line than a couple of decades ago, but that doesn't invalidate your point that:

the vast majority receive either no direct benefit from capitalism and the rising value of the economy, or have in fact negatively been impacted by it.

?

[Imperializt Russia]

The global level for poverty is £889 per year.

My comment you have quoted (which clearly isn't the one I was referring to) is relating to the experience of the UK since the recovery after the 2008 financial crash. The majority of households are less well-off than before the crash, despite significant economic growth - and the wealthiest have doubled their wealth.

Literal negative benefit from the increasing value of the British economy.

[Special Aromas]

The global level for poverty is £889 per year.

My comment you have quoted (which clearly isn't the one I was referring to) is relating to the experience of the UK since the recovery after the 2008 financial crash. The majority of households are less well-off than before the crash, despite significant economic growth - and the wealthiest have doubled their wealth.

Literal negative benefit from the increasing value of the British economy.

Yeah, you're gonna have to forgive me on that one because it's not clear. We've gone from talking about the bottom of the barrel on $1.90 per day to now talking about the experience of the UK since the recovery after the 2008 financial crash.

But hey, I'll play. Things don't look that bad to me.



Bit of a dip around the crash but the graph is trending up, is it not? Income inequality looks relatively stable? And what's probably the most telling of whether the average Brit is better or worse off that before can probably be found in the amount of disposable income a household has; an easy way to compare incomes against cost of living.

Median household disposable income £1,000 higher than pre-downturn level
The median equivalised household disposable income in the UK was £26,300 in the financial year ending 2016 (2015/16). After taking account of inflation and changes in household structures over time, the median disposable income has increased by £600 (or 2.2%) since 2014/15 and is £1,000 higher than the pre-economic downturn level observed in 2007/08. The year-on-year growth rate is broadly in line with the average growth rate per year for the past 40 years with median household income growing from £12,300 at an average rate of 2.1% per year between 1977 and 2015/16 (Figure 1).

Looks okay to me. You might want to be more specific about how households are worse off.

[Imperializt Russia]

All I'll say is, my parents' household income is in the 75th percentile (ie top 25%) and they are the only people I can think of with £25k+ in "disposable income".
I barely earn that figure in total income. In fact, the "median disposable income" is apparently the same figure as the average full time wage in the UK circa 2015, according to the Equality Trust (£27,195 - I started my job this year on £26k rising to £29k).

Remember that averages inherently hide those at the very bottom. The poorest households in the UK are not improving, and the wealthiest are. They are not being benefited by the uptick in the economy - that has all been deliberately siphoned away from them.

I was discussing both the global poverty (which is disgusting) and the experience in the west, because you can do both of those things at the same time. Especially if you're trying to compare and contrast them.

[Phoenicaea]

All I'll say is, my parents' household income is in the 75th percentile (ie top 25%) and they are the only people I can think of with £25k+ in "disposable income"..

I don t know about Uk, your sencence reminds me whatsoever about the old 'Paretian law' of income spread, may not be properly about whay you say, it is an old thing (age '30).

Pareto noticed the income of 4/5 the people to be (the sum), 'quite' invariably, equivalent at the sum income of the 1/5 higher. for each given treshold, you ll have it.

so, inside that 1/5, the fifth part retains again the 80% of this higher tier. it was i suppose, with records of Prussia and Uk from 1800 to 1920, the disposable records.

Pareto supposed that this proportion may even reflect 'innate abilities at seeking richness', because you have two different countries through different ages (before and after industry)

the main liberal critic, after, supposed this wall of distribution due to lackness of corrective institution, namely 'antitrust', that at this age was not applied concept.

Pareto didn t say there is this religious law of 4/5 in life, he noticed, said there is that same tendency somewhat in feudal, commercial, early industrial, heavy industrial ages.

[Bulgar Rouge]

Socialists try create Socialist state; Socialist state fails; Socialists claim it wasn't Socialist; repeat.

Like a broken record, it repeats again and again. Just turn the damn thing off already and be done with it.

The same could equally be applied for capitalism and parliamentary systems, which are prevalent in a number of totally failed, non-socialist states in Africa for example. People should finally realise that it's not up to ideology, but up to competent leadership. Good leaders can make the best out of an irrational system, whereas poor leaders can lead even the best of societies to ruin.