Another Socialist Tragedy

The New York Times has published a heart-wrenching and shocking look inside a hospital in Venezuela, a country whose embracing of Socialism was hailed as a model by the Western Left, and which is now facing devastating social and economic collapse. It seems glib, given the scope of human suffering, to qualify that observation with “predictable”, but honestly, how many times does this have to happen before these grand social experiments are written off for the predictable failures they are? At this very minute there are still many thousands of Socialist activists in the UK, undeterred by these catastrophic failures, campaigning against our liberal democracy and capitalist-based economy.
The Western system – despite its many flaws which make easy rhetorical targets – has delivered unprecedented liberty, prosperity and stability for the vast majority of people. Nevertheless, many of our left-leaning figures are not satisfied with the compromise of a semi-welfare state combined with a regulated, but largely free, market economy. No, they always seem to find greener socialist pastures elsewhere, and these – invariably – are led by a man in combat fatigues chewing on a cigar. That is the archetype that seems irresistible to the Socialist Left.
Here’s Ken Livingstone writing in The Guardian in 2008:

There are some countries whose reality is distorted by sections of the media. And some about which straightforward lies are written. My first trip to Caracas revealed Venezuela to be firmly in the second category…
A trip to one of many new community facilities showed how millions of people have been given access to a new free healthcare system, including dentistry. Illiteracy has been eliminated to Unesco standards. Further education is being rapidly expanded. A top priority now is to transform the basic infrastructure throughout the city. So that, as mayoral candidates put it to me, people feel like citizens with a stake in their neighbourhoods. The keys are reducing crime and transforming the city’s economic efficiency and quality of life. A remarkable programme of expansion of tube and rail lines in poor areas has begun. Alongside this it is necessary to tackle congestion, improve bus services, develop community policing, tackle waste and environmental protection. Venezuela always had the resources, and now has the political will, to begin to raise its cities to world-class standards.

Here’s George Galloway in The Independent eulogising Hugo Chavez in 2013:

The most elected leader in the modern era, Chavez transformed Venezuela by the force of his will and a popular revolution which encompassed the marginal, the ethnic minorities, the workers, and key sections of the progressive intelligencia who saw in him a veritable Spartacus.
He rallied an army of not slaves, but those despised by the oligarchy as hewers of wood and drawers of the oil which previously made only the rich richer. Under Chavez’ revolution the oil wealth was distributed in ever rising wages and above all in ambitious social engineering. He built the fifth largest student body in the world, creating scores of new universities. More than 90 per cent of Venezuelans ate three meals a day for the first time in the country’s history. Quality social housing for the masses became the norm with the pledge that by the end of the presidential term, now cut short, all Venezuelans would live in a dignified house.

Ten years ago, the top two names on the Hands Off Venezuela steering committee (2006) were Jeremy Corbyn MP and John McDonnell MP, who now lead the Labour Party. When Chavez died, Corbyn tweeted:

Thanks Hugo Chavez for showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared. He made massive contributions to Venezuela & a very wide world

Of course, when Corbyn’s ally and friend – and fellow Labour Socialist – Tony Benn died, Venezuela returned the courtesy.

In this moving video, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro talks with British MP Jeremy Corbyn about Tony Benn & his life’s struggle for peace & socialism. In particular Nicolas Maduro asked Jeremy to pass on “from the revolutionary Government of Venezuela.. Our permanent recognition of this great fighter & warrior for the ideas of socialism,” asking him to “please pass on to the entire trade union & labour movement [in Britain] that another world is possible, if we are capable of defending the ideas of peace & life, just as Tony Benn & Hugo Chavez did.”

Benn, of course, was one of the most vocal Left voices in support of Venezuelan Socialism. In 2009, he stated:

“Venezuela is pursuing a course that puts people first, giving hope not only to the people of that country, but also to millions around the world, combining the principles of democracy and social progress in order to tackle poverty and inequality.Showing our solidarity is therefore more important than ever”

This was, of course, nothing more than a wishful thinking stumbling around in a fog of idealism.
Now, of course, some will respond by saying “Socialism means social democracy to me and not this sort of “Dirigiste Kleptocracy” and that these people are non-Marxist socialists, who are essentially social democrats, but use the term “socialism”… but I shan’t belabour the point since we are by now all familiar with the usual reflexive apologetics.

It simply doesn’t fly. Over the past decade or more, figures on the British Left – most in the Labour Party – Livingstone, Galloway, Benn, Corbyn, McDonnell – have all being saying that Venezuela is a model for socialism and one, at that, from which the UK could learn! And although many in the Labour party and the broader left in general do not share this view, not only did they not vocally say so, they allowed this gang to take control of the party. Indeed, another Labour figure now in leadership, Dianne Abbott remarked that the country had a “more robust system than in the UK or USA”.
But Venezuelan is not a Utopia. It is a hell. Will any of these figures on the British Left – including the present leader of the opposition Labour Party – even consider changing tack, or admitting they got it wrong – repeatedly? Don’t hold your breath. Will they continue to champion and pursue proven-to-be failed policies leading to devastation of economies, societies and lives? It’s a safe bet, but your winnings will be worthless.


http://hurryupharry.org/2016/05/18/another-socialist-tragedy/


Again another fine example which is littered through history of leftist failure

So, I come upon this thread that alleges a link between 'socialism' and 'tragedy'.  It shows the consequences of the tragedy, but nowhere does it provide a link to socialism.

All it gives me is: "but I shan’t belabour the point since we are by now all familiar with the usual reflexive apologetics."

Hmmm...could the need for my whole PhD dissertation have been obviated had I merely submitted in that sentence instead?  

In Support of Student seeking PhD degree wrote:'Dear Professors, I decided not to submit a dissertation, knowing that you will understand...um, from the "usual reflexive apologetics" (isn't that a neat phrase?).  Yes, it's all been said before.  BORING, boring, boring.

Ah...but I want the degree...and the paycheck that goes with it.   After all, "the Western system – despite its many flaws which make easy rhetorical targets – has delivered unprecedented liberty, prosperity and stability for the vast majority of people," and I am merely asking for mine, you understand.    

I intend to write articles that start with the assumption that something is wrong with [fill in the blank] and, like my dissertation, I'll not bother you with the details, but bitch, bitch, bitch...about [socialism, labour, democracy, communism...whatever] with flowery language and colorful metaphors.

After that, I'll retire as professor emeritus of [I shan’t belabour the point since we are by now all familiar with the usual reflexive apologetics.]  I will consider my life fulfilled, and I will willingly accept speaking engagements--for a fee [or, some 'delivered prosperity'] of course--and, oh yes, please send my retirement check to 888 Reflexive Lane, Apologia, Texas.'

God Bless the free market economy for opportunities like this!  

venzuela is
a)socialist

and

b)a basket case


90% of eastern europe was
a)socialist

and

b) a basket case

Saddam hussein and his baath party were socialists too...

The US military is socialist too...bought and paid for by the government, owned by the government, all employees working for the government...turning profits for the government, sure enough.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Saddam hussein and his baath party were socialists too...

MORE outright bullshit from the stupidest Troll and fascist apologist on the Internet...

PROVE THAT Saddam was a "socialist" ?

Indeed, display for us your arrogant and proud ignorance once again, by :
(1.) Telling us exactly what you believe a "socialist" is;
(2.) Explaining exactly how you could re-classify a totalitarian fascist despot as a "socialist" ?

WE COULD ALL do with a good laugh on here today !
YOU REALLY are fucked in the head, you miserable excuse for a slimy little maggot..

Original Quill wrote:
The US military is socialist too...bought and paid for by the government, owned by the government, all employees working for the government...turning profits for the government, sure enough.

TOO True there, Quill  !!!

The US guvm'nt is by far the largest "socialist" organisation in the world..

BRITAIN's government would probably be around #8.          

Tommy Monk wrote:Saddam hussein and his baath party were socialists too...

no he was techincally a facist, authoritarian right wing. and was highly progressive

dodderyDidge wrote:
....................................................
(blah, blah, blah; whinge, moan, groan..).
......................................................................................

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/05/18/another-socialist-tragedy/

Again another fine example which is littered through history of leftist failure

THAT O/P is nothing more than yet another weak and transparent effort by some overpaid uber-Conservative/corporatist apologist blogger to tell all and sundry just how great the US style private health sytem, with its' 40-50% profit margins and 30% of people unable to gain decent health services, is -- and how much superior it is over any and all of those 'communistic' and 'devil spawned' satanical "socialised health services" --  by picking out one corrupted and failing health service experiment from a struggling semi-socialist regime that made the classical mistake of "putting all of their (economic) eggs in the one basket..".

NEVER MIND that several Western countries that have "socialised" national health care services -- the likes of France, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden and Norway --  are one and all providing better and genuinely "universal" national health cover, than the USA has ever managed under it's privately controlled systems..

AND WHY the corporate lobbyists and bloggers are so busily threatening foreign governments with hellfire and damnation, scaremongering people into believing that a nationalised health cover is a one-way path to satanical and communistic destruction, and lobbying those nations who already have some universal health cover in place, to dismantle such -- and allow their corporate masters to take control.

ALL in the name of more and more profits for the corporate funds and private hospitals..      

You could have laid odds how the lefties would react.
Fail to actually speak about this utterly failing and then look to blame captalism or right wing.#
When are the lefties going to understand that socialism just does not work in principle.
Its flawed before its even practiced

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Saddam hussein and his baath party were socialists too...

MORE outright bullshit from the stupidest Troll and fascist apologist on the Internet...

PROVE THAT Saddam was a "socialist" ?

Indeed, display for us your arrogant and proud ignorance once again, by :
(1.) Telling us exactly what you believe a "socialist" is;
(2.)  Explaining exactly how you could re-classify a totalitarian fascist despot as a "socialist" ?

WE COULD ALL do with a good laugh on here today !
YOU REALLY are fucked in the head, you miserable excuse for a slimy little maggot..      

You are such an idiot...


Anyone can check what I said is true!!!

Can anyone tell us what the full name of the baath party is...?

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bath-Party

Paul Ettinger wrote:
You could have laid odds how the lefties would react.
Fail to actually speak about this utterly failing and then look to blame captalism or right wing.#
When are the lefties going to understand that socialism just does not work in principle.
Its flawed before its even practiced

UTTER BULLSHIT, Dodge !!!

ONCE again all that you are doing is claiming  your unsupported opinion as somehow being factual...


FOR every example of a failed socialist country that you put forward,  the rest of us could put up a successful one..
WHILE at the same time, showing a few failures from within the heavy "Capitalist" models, such as the USA, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Singapore..


IF YOU honestly prefer a more Capitalism-oriented system, then why aren't you living in one of them ?
RATHER than in Britain with it's highly 'socialised'  health, education, welfare and national defense networks ?

COME ON, Didge -- enough of your mealy-mouthed abuse and constant side-stepping..
Just tell us why  !?!          


DO YOU even reailise the actual differences between capitalism, socialism and communism anymore;  AND  do you still recognise the difference between democratic, autocratic and totalitarian governments,  these days  ???

OR HAVE you regressed to a position where you only recognise "Capitalist greed = 'good',  and anything else is automatically 'bad' by comparison...          

The lefties don't like the truth...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Saddam hussein and his baath party were socialists too...

MORE outright bullshit from the stupidest Troll and fascist apologist on the Internet...

PROVE THAT Saddam was a "socialist" ?

Indeed, display for us your arrogant and proud ignorance once again, by :
(1.) Telling us exactly what you believe a "socialist" is;
(2.)  Explaining exactly how you could re-classify a totalitarian fascist despot as a "socialist" ?

WE COULD ALL do with a good laugh on here today !
YOU REALLY are fucked in the head, you miserable excuse for a slimy little maggot..      

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bath-Party

The silence is deafening...!!!

Baʿth Party
Arab political party
Alternative titles: Arab Socialist Baʿath Party; Arab Socialist Baʿth Party; Arab Socialist Renaissance Party; Baʿath Party; Ḥizb al-Baʿath al-ʿArabī al-Ishtirākī; Ḥizb al-Baʿth al-ʿArabī al-Ishtirākī
Written by The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
Last Updated9-2-2015
Baʿth Party, in full Arab Socialist Baʿth Party, or Arab Socialist Renaissance Party, Arabic Ḥizb al-Baʿth al-ʿArabī al-Ishtirākī, Baʿth also spelled Baʿath, Arab political party advocating the formation of a single Arab socialist nation. It has branches in many Middle Eastern countries and was the ruling party in Syria from 1963 and in Iraq from 1968 to 2003.

The Baʿth Party was founded in 1943 in Damascus, Syria, by Michel ʿAflaq and Ṣalaḥ al-Dīn al-Bīṭār, adopted its constitution in 1947, and in 1953 merged with the Syrian Socialist Party to form the Arab Socialist Baʿth (Renaissance) Party. The Baʿth Party espoused nonalignment and opposition to imperialism and colonialism, took inspiration from what it considered the positive values of Islam, and attempted to ignore or transcend class divisions. Its structure was highly centralized and authoritarian.

The Syrian Baʿthists took power in 1963, but factionalism between “progressives” and “nationalists” was severe until 1970, when Ḥafiz al-Assad of the “nationalists” secured control. In Iraq the Baʿthists took power briefly in 1963 and regained it in 1968, after which the party’s power became concentrated under Iraqi leader Ṣaddām Ḥussein. Differences between the Iraqi and Syrian wings of the Baʿth Party precluded unification of the two countries. Within both countries the Baʿthists formed fronts with smaller parties, including at times the communists. In Syria the main internal threat to Baʿth hegemony stemmed from the Muslim Brotherhood, while in Iraq Kurdish and Shīʿite opposition was endemic. The Iraqi branch of the party was toppled in 2003 as a result of the Iraq War.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Saddam hussein and his baath party were socialists too...

MORE outright bullshit from the stupidest Troll and fascist apologist on the Internet...

PROVE THAT Saddam was a "socialist" ?

Indeed, display for us your arrogant and proud ignorance once again, by :
(1.) Telling us exactly what you believe a "socialist" is;
(2.)  Explaining exactly how you could re-classify a totalitarian fascist despot as a "socialist" ?

WE COULD ALL do with a good laugh on here today !
YOU REALLY are fucked in the head, you miserable excuse for a slimy little maggot..      

Wolfie, you have appealing manners, will you please calm down, these personal insults need to cease.

Tommy Monk wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Saddam hussein and his baath party were socialists too...

MORE outright bullshit from the stupidest Troll and fascist apologist on the Internet...

PROVE THAT Saddam was a "socialist" ?

Indeed, display for us your arrogant and proud ignorance once again, by :
(1.) Telling us exactly what you believe a "socialist" is;
(2.)  Explaining exactly how you could re-classify a totalitarian fascist despot as a "socialist" ?

WE COULD ALL do with a good laugh on here today !
YOU REALLY are fucked in the head, you miserable excuse for a slimy little maggot..      

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bath-Party

Much like the Nazis, they advertised themselves as socialist in order to get into power, but they pulled a bait-and-switch once they took charge.

Look its been proven to Tommy that the Nazis used the socialists to gain power and then murdered or imprisoned those socialists within their party on the Night of the Long Knives.
Tommy know doubt thinks the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is democratic.
In other words clueless and thinks its all a joke, thatg he is that stupid
There is no point trying to teach a child how to ride a bike, when he cannot even fathom out what they seat is for

"... the [Baʿth] party also introduced its version of socialism: They took more land from large landowners and gave it to more peasants than did their predecessors; they created many agricultural cooperatives in the countryside; they nationalized more institutions; and they increased substantially government spending on social projects and development. In the mid- to late 1970s, the country experienced a thrust in the development of infrastructure, industry, social security, and health and education services, and Iraqis saw a general rise in their standard of living. In that respect, Hussein’s June 1972 decision to nationalize the property of the Iraq Petroleum (Oil) Company proved a brilliant gamble: When oil prices went up in 1973 as a result of the Arab oil embargo against the West, Iraq did not participate in the embargo and its revenues quadrupled by 1975. This enabled the regime to spend huge resources on its social and economic programs.




At the same time, the regime also allowed the creation of a large stratum of new millionaires, consisting of regime luminaries and private entrepreneurs who thrived as a result of patron-client relations with the ruling elite. This situation bred widespread corruption. Another part of the regime’s understanding of socialism was the creation of a huge body of state officialdom. This new middle class, which was dependent on state salaries and thus very docile politically, gradually replaced the original Iraqi middle class of economic entrepreneurs..."

Tommy, sounds like the only real problem there was widespread corruption. I defy you to name a single socioeconomic system that works well when there's widespread corruption.

Like I said, a bait and switch.

So you now admit that they were socialists...!?






Your question on corruption is irrelevant...

Like I said, Tommy does not even know what the seatis for on a bike

He knows very little about politics

The worst his claim on Nazism

Tommy Monk wrote:

So you now admit that they were socialists...!?






Your question on corruption is irrelevant...

They had socialist aspects to their governance, yes. But they were also undemocratic, authoritarian and as mentioned, corrupt, and those latter three aspects seem to have played a much larger role in their downfall than, for instance, the nationalization of their oil reserves.

In fact, your own source said that nationalization raised the standard of living for Iraqis.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

So you now admit that they were socialists...!?






Your question on corruption is irrelevant...

They had socialist aspects to their governance, yes. But they were also undemocratic, authoritarian and as mentioned, corrupt, and those latter three aspects seem to have played a much larger role in their downfall than, for instance, the nationalization of their oil reserves.

In fact, your own source said that nationalization raised the standard of living for Iraqis.

Sounds also exactly like most socialist communist countries also does it not?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

So you now admit that they were socialists...!?






Your question on corruption is irrelevant...

They had socialist aspects to their governance, yes. But they were also undemocratic, authoritarian and as mentioned, corrupt, and those latter three aspects seem to have played a much larger role in their downfall than, for instance, the nationalization of their oil reserves.

In fact, your own source said that nationalization raised the standard of living for Iraqis.

Their downfall was the result of the illegal war/invasion against them in 2003...


Nationalisation is in itself a key leftie intention once in power... to achieve this they must be authoritarian... and with authoritarianism comes increasing undemocratic behaviour...


And corruption is never far away from those who gain such power...


In fact... corruption is evident in every country in varying degrees...

Gone quiet now here...

No apology from flea keeper yet...