Venezula Seeks Election Observers As Maduro Bans Opposition From Running

“Venezuela is open to every necessary guarantee and welcomes every international observer willing to come. More than to inspect, they will be able to learn from the flawless electoral system we’ve built.”

Maddog wrote:No doubt there are some socialists around here that should volunteer.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:No doubt there are some socialists around here that should volunteer.

More likely, Republican capitalists.  There's money to be made in graft...easy monopoly.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

More likely, Republican capitalists.  There's money to be made in graft...easy monopoly.

Money to be made from whom?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Money to be made from whom?

The people, generally.  Capitalists don't cut costs to produce more efficiently, as Smithsonian theory holds .  They knock each other off, until they, alone, can control the monopoly.  A corrupt government like Venezuela employs corrupt power, not to create a just system, but to help the capitalists create the monopolies.

Take a look at Russia.  It's the perfect modern model.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The people, generally.  Capitalists don't cut costs to produce more efficiently, as Smithsonian theory holds .  They knock each other off, until they, alone, can control the monopoly.  A corrupt government like Venezuela employs corrupt power, not to create a just system, but to help the capitalists create the monopolies.

Take a look at Russia.  It's the perfect modern model.

The people are broke.  No one to make money off of.  Socialism has destroyed that place.  

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The people are broke.  No one to make money off of.  Socialism has destroyed that place.  

Venezula is the Socialist "utopia" which our would-be "Prime Minister" Jeremy Corbyn so admires and is so keen  for us to emulate.

Do you guys "over the pond" wonder why some of us here are so fucking worried about the future?

Maddog wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Venezula is the Socialist "utopia" which our would-be "Prime Minister" Jeremy Corbyn so admires and is so keen  for us to emulate.

Do you guys "over the pond" wonder why some of us here are so fucking worried about the future?

We have our own problems.  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We have our own problems.  

You two pathetic troglodyte wankers wouldn't recognise genuine "socialism" if you tripped over it...

It was Freddie's greedy mob of Thatcherites that put Britain in the mess it's in today..

If you really want to know how Venezuela's Marxist-inspired capitalist-backed authoritarian dictatorship put their country into the mess it's in, then simply "follow the money trail  !".

Unfortunately, you conservative reactionary fuckups don't want to learn the truth..  Much easier to keep your collective heads in the sand, and blame the rest of the world for the ongoing failures of your disproven free market/laissez faire/"trickle down" and "libertarian" theories...

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The people, generally.  Capitalists don't cut costs to produce more efficiently, as Smithsonian theory holds .  They knock each other off, until they, alone, can control the monopoly.  A corrupt government like Venezuela employs corrupt power, not to create a just system, but to help the capitalists create the monopolies.

Take a look at Russia.  It's the perfect modern model.

The people are broke.  No one to make money off of.  Socialism has destroyed that place.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The people are broke.  No one to make money off of.  Socialism has destroyed that place.  

Corruption has destroyed it.  I can wear a blue suit and say it's brown...that doesn't make it so.  They use the term 'socialism' for sympathy and as a cover for their graft.  Don't waste your time on semantic arguments.

If the people don't have wealth, the country doesn't have wealth.  Most of South America is third world nations.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Corruption has destroyed it.  I can wear a blue suit and say it's brown...that doesn't make it so.  They use the term 'socialism' for sympathy and as a cover for their graft.  Don't waste your time on semantic arguments.

If the people don't have wealth, the country doesn't have wealth.  Most of South America is third world nations.

When things were going better there, socialists bragged about the place. Now that it has suffered the same fate as all socialist economies, they pretend like it wasn't really socialist.  

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Corruption has destroyed it.  I can wear a blue suit and say it's brown...that doesn't make it so.  They use the term 'socialism' for sympathy and as a cover for their graft.  Don't waste your time on semantic arguments.

If the people don't have wealth, the country doesn't have wealth.  Most of South America is third world nations.

When things were going better there, socialists bragged about the place. Now that it has suffered the same fate as all socialist economies, they pretend like it wasn't really socialist.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

When things were going better there, socialists bragged about the place. Now that it has suffered the same fate as all socialist economies, they pretend like it wasn't really socialist.  

There is no socialist economy in South America, nor has there ever been one.  There are various principles that are experimented with, and some that are adopted, but there has never been a fully socialist system since the Paris Commune in 1871.

There's a lot of talk, though.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is no socialist economy in South America, nor has there ever been one.  There are various principles that are experimented with, and some that are adopted, but there has never been a fully socialist system since the Paris Commune in 1871.

There's a lot of talk, though.

That's not what the socialists were saying a few years ago.  Funny how they changed their mind.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We have our own problems.  

You two pathetic troglodyte wankers wouldn't recognise genuine "socialism" if you tripped over it...

It was Freddie's greedy mob of Thatcherites that put Britain in the mess it's in today..

If you really want to know how Venezuela's Marxist-inspired capitalist-backed authoritarian dictatorship put their country into the mess it's in, then simply "follow the money trail  !".

Unfortunately, you conservative reactionary fuckups don't want to learn the truth..  Much easier to keep your collective heads in the sand, and blame the rest of the world for the ongoing failures of your disproven free market/laissez faire/"trickle down" and "libertarian" theories...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's not what the socialists were saying a few years ago.  Funny how they changed their mind.

There is so much nonsense surrounding the term 'socialism' that it ceases to have any meaning at all.  Socialism is a term that arose around the mid-18-century and beyond.  'Social' means group, or collectively, and refers to a new way of doing production.

Originally, production was by hand, by solo craftsmen.  Socialism was a response to the industrial revolution, and the fact that tooling became too big and expensive for a single producer to bear.  People needed to join together--become social--and pool resources to carry on.

Socialism is not a government, although one of the choices is for government to buy tooling for the producers...so is corporate capitalism, for that matter.  Socialism is the idea is that producers have to pool resources to afford modern tooling.  You can do that with government, but there are alternatives.  For example, Czechoslovakia experimented with workers councils -- https://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/cz6/
-- until the Soviet Union shut them down in 1968.

Socialism only became political with Marxism, but from the other way around.  Marx was farthest from the kind of totalitarian state that the Soviet Union offered.  Marx felt that economics would overtake politics, and eventually lives would revolve around productive communes, led by Cominterns.  Politics would disappear altogether.  It was a 'snowflake' theory and the Bolsheviks took advantage to bully Russia into a dictatorship.  It was never socialism.

So Marx was a snowflake.  Still, the economic issue exists: how to afford tools of production.  Corporate capitalism was one answer: pool capital into corporations, and collect resources that way.  Only, just like the Bolsheviks, the corporate leaders turn into bullies, and knock each other off until the market is destroyed, resulting in monopoly.  Capitalism becomes a totalitarian entity.  Socialism at least brings order to the system, and rules (laws) can be put into place to mitigate the brutality, and keep equality going.

But socialism has never been a full-blown government.  When something is social--like socialized medicine--it merely means collecting resources (social) to have the tools to provide the product.  Generally, government can do that so we think of 'socialist' government, but it's not a necessity.  Organizations like Kaiser Permanente are nearing socialized proportions even in a capitalist society like ours.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is so much nonsense surrounding the term 'socialism' that it ceases to have any meaning at all.  Socialism is a term that arose around the mid-18-century and beyond.  'Social' means group, or collectively, and refers to a new way of doing production.

Originally, production was by hand, by solo craftsmen.  Socialism was a response to the industrial revolution, and the fact that tooling became too big and expensive for a single producer to bear.  People needed to join together--become social--and pool resources to carry on.

Socialism is not a government, although one of the choices is for government to buy tooling for the producers...so is corporate capitalism, for that matter.  Socialism is the idea is that producers have to pool resources to afford modern tooling.  You can do that with government, but there are alternatives.  For example, Czechoslovakia experimented with workers councils -- https://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/cz6/
-- until the Soviet Union shut them down in 1968.

Socialism only became political with Marxism, but from the other way around.  Marx was farthest from the kind of totalitarian state that the Soviet Union offered.  Marx felt that economics would overtake politics, and eventually lives would revolve around productive communes, led by Cominterns.  Politics would disappear altogether.  It was a 'snowflake' theory and the Bolsheviks took advantage to bully Russia into a dictatorship.  It was never socialism.

So Marx was a snowflake.  Still, the economic issue exists: how to afford tools of production.  Corporate capitalism was one answer: pool capital into corporations, and collect resources that way.  Only, just like the Bolsheviks, the corporate leaders turn into bullies, and knock each other off until the market is destroyed, resulting in monopoly.  Capitalism becomes a totalitarian entity.  Socialism at least brings order to the system, and rules (laws) can be put into place to mitigate the brutality, and keep equality going.

But socialism has never been a full-blown government.  When something is social--like socialized medicine--it merely means collecting resources (social) to have the tools to provide the product.  Generally, government can do that so we think of 'socialist' government, but it's not a necessity.  Organizations like Kaiser Permanente are nearing socialized proportions even in a capitalist society like ours.

Did you tell the socialist calling Venezuela a socialist utopia a few years that they were wrong?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Did you tell the socialist calling Venezuela a socialist utopia a few years that they were wrong?

We don't even talk.  They are hiding behind a lie...trying to take PR advantage of a good cause, that they aren't achieving.

Take a look at the Russian Federation now.  It is what Russia has always been.  I resist when people call the Soviet Union a communist nation.  The Russians were--and are--organized thugs...a mafia.  As much as I hate to admit it, the Czar realized that, which is why, some argue, his regime was so repressive.

Wolf is absolutely correct when he gets on this subject.  When you hear people talk about communism and socialism today, you are hearing what they were taught in pre-
and elementary school, by parents and siblings operating within propaganda bubble wrought by McCarthy and the knuckledraggers of the 50's.

I'm really surprised.  Some, who should know better, still spout this stuff.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We don't even talk.  They are hiding behind a lie...trying to take PR advantage of a good cause, that they aren't achieving.

Take a look at the Russian Federation now.  It is what Russia has always been.  I resist when people call the Soviet Union a communist nation.  The Russians were--and are--organized thugs...a mafia.  As much as I hate to admit it, the Czar realized that, which is why, some argue, his regime was so repressive.

Wolf is absolutely correct when he gets on this subject.  When you hear people talk about communism and socialism today, you are hearing what they were taught in pre-
and elementary school, by parents and siblings operating within propaganda bubble wrought by McCarthy and the knuckledraggers of the 50's.

I'm really surprised.  Some, who should know better, still spout this stuff.

Is that a yes or no?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The answer is obvious...in the first sentence.

The truth is, all this talk in America about the evils of socialism boils down to the fact that America fears socialism.  It's really a red herring.  Since a socialist government has never actually existed, the people make up a pseudo-monster.  Otherwise, they'd never have anything to throw sticks and stones at.

Venezuela is one such imaginary monster-under-the-bed.  It's an easy mark, because it actually is a corrupt system.  It's a twofur...you get to knock Venezuela and smear socialism.

Didge wrote:I suppose all the socialist policies they introduced do not exist then?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Is that a yes or no?

The answer is obvious...in the first sentence.

The truth is, all this talk in America about the evils of socialism boils down to the fact that America fears socialism.  It's really a red herring.  Since a socialist government has never actually existed, the people make up a pseudo-monster.  Otherwise, they'd never have anything to throw sticks and stones at.

Venezuela is one such imaginary monster-under-the-bed.  It's an easy mark, because it actually is a corrupt system.  It's a twofur...you get to knock Venezuela and smear socialism.

PMSL

Never laughed at so much babble in all my life

I suppose all the socialist policies they introduced do not exist then?

This is what is so pathetic about socialist apologists

Anytime socialism, has been an utter failure, which is everytime in the form of Governements, we here the same claptrap proposed by the left

You may want to deny this, but people are not stupid and are never going to buy the crap you and wolf keep peddling.

A few years ago, many were raving about Venezuela being a socialist success story. Now that its shown to be a disaster, those saying this backtrack and now deny its socialism. Even the Corbynites were praising this socialism and wanted to adpat similar socialist failed ideals.

So clearly they mever got your apologist memo

Its the most funniest and or backtracking I have ever seen

Now facts are facts, they certainly did introduce many socialist polices and the country is a disaster.

You want to delusional about this, be my guest, but your denial is never going to change these facts

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

PMSL

Never laughed at so much babble in all my life

I suppose all the socialist policies they introduced do not exist then?

This is what is so pathetic about socialist apologists

Anytime socialism, has been an utter failure, which is everytime in the form of Governements, we here the same claptrap proposed by the left

You may want to deny this, but people are not stupid and are never going to buy the crap you and wolf keep peddling.

A few years ago, many were raving about Venezuela being a socialist success story. Now that its shown to be a disaster, those saying this backtrack and now deny its socialism. Even the Corbynites were praising this socialism and wanted to adpat similar socialist failed ideals.

So clearly they mever got your apologist memo

Its the most funniest and or backtracking I have ever seen

Now facts are facts, they certainly did introduce many socialist polices and the country is a disaster.

You want to delusional about this, be my guest, but your denial is never going to change these facts

Do you realize that from America, England looks pretty damn socialist? https://www.quora.com/Why-is-England-considered-a-socialist-country

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I suppose all the socialist policies they introduced do not exist then?

They never introduced anything but propaganda.  Can you name one socialist measure?  They announce We're Socialsit!, and you fall for it.  Tell me again about babble?

It's a red herring, Didge.  A ruse.  It detracts from the corruption and graft...including that claim that it's "a socialist success story."

Haven't you watched Trump?  Didn't he claim that he drew the largest crowd of any Inauguration event?  All you have to do is tell a lie, and repeat it often enough, for the lie to be believed.

Venezuela's socialist.    Pshaw..

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They never introduced anything but propaganda.  Can you name one socialist measure?  They announce We're Socialsit!, and you fall for it.  Tell me again about babble?

It's a red herring, Didge.  A ruse.  It detracts from the corruption and graft...including that claim that it's "a socialist success story."

Haven't you watched Trump?  Didn't he claim that he drew the largest crowd of any Inauguration event?  All you have to do is tell a lie, and repeat it often enough, for the lie to be believed.

Venezuela's socialist.    Pshaw..

Well why is it that about everyone rational disagrees with you?

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ivonaiacob/2016/07/24/venezuelas-failed-socialist-experiment/&refURL=https://www.google.co.uk/&referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well why is it that about everyone rational disagrees with you?

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ivonaiacob/2016/07/24/venezuelas-failed-socialist-experiment/&refURL=https://www.google.co.uk/&referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/

Because they are intellectually lazy.  I am the only one (or, with Wolf) who has studied the original texts of those who established the economic theories of socialism.  And, because the doctrine of socialism has been washed through so much maligning as a result of the propaganda bubble of the Cold War, resulting in the Comic book depiction of socialism.

Original Quill wrote:You have never submitted any quotes from any original source, nor even paraphrased as I have done.  That is intellectually dishonest.

Didge wrote:Oh and one further point, why do you think socialists were praising this country before it turned to shit Quill?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh and one further point, why do you think socialists were praising this country before it turned to shit Quill?

Because they are not socialists.  They are persons, with today's ideologies, who have twisted the meaning of socialsim.

You are just as bad.  How important is it to beat a false drum?  It misses the point, and is thus irrelevant.

It makes contemporary corporate capitalists feel good.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You have never submitted any quotes from any original source, nor even paraphrased as I have done.  That is intellectually dishonest.

Original?

How fucking desperate are you

How about their nationalization policies?

Didge wrote:If you think nationalization is corruption, then you have shot yourself in the foot

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because they are not socialists.  They are persons, with today's ideologies, who have twisted the meaning of socialsim.

You are just as bad.  How important is it to beat a false drum?  It misses the point, and is thus irrelevant.

It makes contemporary corporate capitalists feel good.

You sould like an idiot now

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Original?

How fucking desperate are you

How about their nationalization policies?

Oligarchical corruption...as I've been teaching you.  Socialism is common ownership of the tools of production, not government takeover.

Didge wrote:If you think nationalization is corruption, then you have shot yourself in the foot

You don't think, Didge.  You memorize.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


You sould like an idiot now

You have changed the subject from socialism to me.  I'll take that as a concession, and that you can no longer continue.

I'm not interested in your new subject, so I'll go now.  Gd. luck.