The Lunacy of How the Far Left Support the Nightmare of Socialism In Venezula

Andy wrote:This I review of Livingstone has all theal marks of yet other Andrew Neil stitch up of a left winger. He has lots of history. Gina  Miller, Owen Jones, Carole Cadwalladr.
Why invite in a retired 70+ pensioner who is out of the polital loop?
Because he cannot argue against those who will beat him

Andy wrote:I am asking why Neil.doesn't challenge more robust and redoubtable adversaries?
Because he is tainted, a coward and a biased Rw Brexiteer.

Thor wrote:Ken Livingstone made the brave choice of going on This Week to make a film explaining why “my friend Hugo Chavez” wasn’t responsible for the economic misery that has been wrought upon Venezuela and it’s all America’s fault instead. It’s almost worth watching just for Ken’s opening line of “Remember me? I used to be Mayor of London”…

Predictably, Ken’s bogus arguments were completely torn apart by Andrew Neil afterwards, with a hapless Livingstone reduced to saying: “I don’t know, I’m a retired pensioner, I don’t have staff providing the information”. His only defence after that was that the Venezuelan ambassador had told him it was true. At least he wasn’t quoting the anti-Semitic historical revisionist ‘UN rapporteur’ that Chris Williamson is so keen on…

Brillo then did the public service of explaining to Ken some of the real reasons why Venezuela is a basket case, including decades of self-enriching dictatorship, random confiscation of private property, price controls, and putting a loyalist army General in charge of the national oil company. Ken’s probably wishing he’d stayed in retirement…

https://order-order.com/2019/02/01/brillo-tears-apart-ken-livingstone-venezuela/

Video's on link

Original Quill wrote:I lov to watch knuckledraggers shiver at the mere mention of 'socialism'.  They look like...um, what's the word?  Snowflakes.

Socialism is not a culture.  It's not even a form of government.  It is a group of economic theories aimed at dealing the the reality of industrialism and tooling.  As tools became more elaborate (from hammers to huge foundries and presses), they became more expensive and unattainable.  Socialism defines a way to solve this problem...namely, to band together socially so as to afford the tooling.  George Lichtheim, The Origins of Socialism (1969).

If you think about it, capitalism is simply a form of socialism: people banding together in "shares", to purchase tools (factories, etc.).  Other forms have appeared...councils, guilds, trade-unionism even governments.

It's a practical economic theory...an advancement on capitalism because it eliminates the need for profit.  As such, there is more wealth—or, as I like to say, fewer mouths to feed.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:Ken Livingstone made the brave choice of going on This Week to make a film explaining why “my friend Hugo Chavez” wasn’t responsible for the economic misery that has been wrought upon Venezuela and it’s all America’s fault instead. It’s almost worth watching just for Ken’s opening line of “Remember me? I used to be Mayor of London”…

Predictably, Ken’s bogus arguments were completely torn apart by Andrew Neil afterwards, with a hapless Livingstone reduced to saying: “I don’t know, I’m a retired pensioner, I don’t have staff providing the information”. His only defence after that was that the Venezuelan ambassador had told him it was true. At least he wasn’t quoting the anti-Semitic historical revisionist ‘UN rapporteur’ that Chris Williamson is so keen on…

Brillo then did the public service of explaining to Ken some of the real reasons why Venezuela is a basket case, including decades of self-enriching dictatorship, random confiscation of private property, price controls, and putting a loyalist army General in charge of the national oil company. Ken’s probably wishing he’d stayed in retirement…

https://order-order.com/2019/02/01/brillo-tears-apart-ken-livingstone-venezuela/

Video's on link

I watched this last night on tv... and Ken Livingstone made a complete twat of himself...!


He was spewing out absolute lies about the cause of the problems in Venezuela... he claimed that it was sanctions imposed by America what done it... which is completely untrue!!!


And when it was explained to him that the only sanctions imposed by America on Venezuela were decided only this week to be imposed, and as a result of the political situation, so in no way being a cause of anything... Livingstone kept on going on talking bullshit and trying to repeat his completely ficticious claim!!!


He was then going on about being against the proposed interim leader taking over... only to be reminded that the guy is part of Venezuelas socialist democrats party and they are a sister party of the Labour party... and that it was actually the Venezuela political senate who had ruled that he take over as interim leader, as the Venezuela constitution allows this to happen!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Wasn't Jeremy Corbyn previously praising Maduro too...!?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I find  it hard  to believe that too many serious left-wingers take any of the corrupt socialist/communist regimes of Latin America as a role model for any kind of ideal society.

Give me Sweden, Denmark, Norway ...

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I find  it hard  to believe that too many serious left-wingers take any of the corrupt socialist/communist regimes of Latin America as a role model for any kind of ideal society.

Give me Sweden, Denmark, Norway ...

But they are a a hybred socialism, which has forms of capitalism Ben

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Thor wrote:

But they are a a hybred socialism, which has forms of capitalism Ben

Absolutely, and it works, which is why I like it. It's a society that has room for the go-getting ambitious people who have brilliant ideas, and yet doesn't leave the little guy in the cold.

By the way, I don't think many British people realize how closer to the Scandinavian model their country is when compared to America.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I lov to watch knuckledraggers shiver at the mere mention of 'socialism'.  They look like...um, what's the word?  Snowflakes.

Socialism is not a culture.  It's not even a form of government.  It is a group of economic theories aimed at dealing the the reality of industrialism and tooling.  As tools became more elaborate (from hammers to huge foundries and presses), they became more expensive and unattainable.  Socialism defines a way to solve this problem...namely, to band together socially so as to afford the tooling.  George Lichtheim, The Origins of Socialism (1969).

If you think about it, capitalism is simply a form of socialism: people banding together in "shares", to purchase tools (factories, etc.).  Other forms have appeared...councils, guilds, trade-unionism even governments.

It's a practical economic theory...an advancement on capitalism because it eliminates the need for profit.  As such, there is more wealth—or, as I like to say, fewer mouths to feed.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

You know, like Venezuela.

Thor wrote:Capitalism is a form of socialism?

Even though it formed before Socialism



OMG

Thanks for the laugh Quill

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:Capitalism is a form of socialism?

Even though it formed before Socialism



OMG

Thanks for the laugh Quill

It didn't form before socialism.  That's the point.  Capitalism formed as a result of the same forces, in the same direction, at the same time.

Any "social"ism is simply a collectivity amassing resources together for a larger enterprise.  Social = being such in plural situations.  That defines wealthy people amassing money to purchase advanced tooling for enterprise (capitalism), or workers joining together to to purchase advanced tooling for themselves (guilds).  Capitalism was simply an early form of plural answers to industrialism.

**shakes head at the deterioration of cognitive strength of this website**

nicko wrote:Lawyer speak from Quill ?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

You know, like Venezuela.

No,  Maddog,  not like Venezuela at all...

They had Marxists preaching "socialism" before they took power..

When they actually gained government, through military force and corruption, however,  like many authoritarian dictatorships before them, any guiding "socialist" policies from their opposition days were tossed aside.

Seeing right-wing propagandists continually labelling the Venezuelan dictatorships' disaster as a "failed socialist experiment" only goes to show how many people are completely ignorant of various economic systems --  or deliberately muddying the waters, to favour their corporatist/'free market' overlords..

Lord Foul wrote:I would have thought that both capitalism and socialism evolved side by side, in practice if not as a written theory...
in almost any society there will be those who work collectively and those who work for their olwn gains

lets take a stone age society

all results of the hunt go collectively to the tribe, though likely the chief has the first pick

however the best flint knapper probably doesnt join the hunt but stays behind and makes the best wepons for the chief and his family.....and can "charge" almost what he wants in terms of goods in exchange and even possibly power

look at the bronze age

the same applies except that added to the hunt is the results of "collective" agriculture, however the bronzesmith is not hunting or in the field, indeed he is regarded as a magician and likely both revered and feared, anmd reaps rich rewards in terms of produce wives power etc.../

so both the bronze smith and the flint knapper are capitalists and the rest are socialists.

also of course to be included are the archetypal capitalists, the priests, who have found a way to do absolutely nothing for a lot of "income". (which goes a long way to explaining why the world is so fucked today)

Andy wrote:This interview of Livingstone has all the hallmarks of yet other Andrew Neil stitch up of a left winger. He has lots of history. Gina  Miller, Owen Jones, Carole Cadwalladr.
Why invite in a retired 70+ pensioner who is out of the political loop?
Because he cannot argue against those who will beat him.

Maddog wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I would have thought that both capitalism and socialism evolved side by side, in practice if not as a written theory...
in almost any society there will be those who work collectively and those who work for their olwn gains

lets take a stone age society

all results of the hunt go collectively to the tribe, though likely the chief has the first pick

however the best flint knapper probably doesnt join the hunt but stays behind and makes the best wepons for the chief and his family.....and can "charge" almost what he wants in terms of goods in exchange and even possibly power

look at the bronze age

the same applies except that added to the hunt is the results of "collective" agriculture, however the bronzesmith is not hunting or in the field, indeed he is regarded as a magician and likely both revered and feared, anmd reaps rich rewards in terms of produce wives power etc.../

so both the bronze smith and the flint knapper are capitalists and the rest are socialists.

also of course to be included are the archetypal capitalists, the priests, who have found a way to do absolutely nothing for a lot of "income". (which goes a long way to explaining why the world is so fucked today)

You're missing one of the key distinctions. 

Voluntary vs non voluntary.  

Socialism won't work without force.

Maddog wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I would have thought that both capitalism and socialism evolved side by side, in practice if not as a written theory...
in almost any society there will be those who work collectively and those who work for their olwn gains

lets take a stone age society

all results of the hunt go collectively to the tribe, though likely the chief has the first pick

however the best flint knapper probably doesnt join the hunt but stays behind and makes the best wepons for the chief and his family.....and can "charge" almost what he wants in terms of goods in exchange and even possibly power

look at the bronze age

the same applies except that added to the hunt is the results of "collective" agriculture, however the bronzesmith is not hunting or in the field, indeed he is regarded as a magician and likely both revered and feared, anmd reaps rich rewards in terms of produce wives power etc.../

so both the bronze smith and the flint knapper are capitalists and the rest are socialists.

also of course to be included are the archetypal capitalists, the priests, who have found a way to do absolutely nothing for a lot of "income". (which goes a long way to explaining why the world is so fucked today)

You're missing one of the key distinctions. 

Voluntary vs non voluntary.  

Socialism won't work without force.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


You're missing one of the key distinctions. 

Voluntary vs non voluntary.  

Socialism won't work without force.

Pure bullshit, Maddog...

Any authoritarian system won't work without force --  whether that be communist, fascist, pure capitalist/corporatist, theocracy or monarchy..

Then again, you obviously don't even recognise the difference between a communist dictatorship/"socialist 'democracy' " on one hand,  and genuine democratic 'mixed economy' socialist societies.    Which is what Quill, veya, Ben, eilzel and i often talk about --  against your patent economic illiteracy..

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


You're missing one of the key distinctions. 

Voluntary vs non voluntary.  

Socialism won't work without force.

All cartels require adherence, including capitalism.  Look at OPEC, and what happens when they don’t stick together.  It's economics 101.

But before that they all require collectivism.  Capitalism included...joining together capital.  The only problem is that capitalists take, being separate from the workers and artisans who need the tooling, a new share...thus comprising another mouth to feed.  The problem is compounded when capitalist insist on ownership.  This can be eliminated by councils or socialist governments, which offer the capital and receive the ownership..

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All cartels require adherence, including capitalism.  Look at OPEC, and what happens when they don’t stick together.  It's economics 101.

But before that they all require collectivism.  Capitalism included...joining together capital.  The only problem is that capitalists take, being separate from the workers and artisans who need the tooling, a new share...thus comprising another mouth to feed.  The problem is compounded when capitalist insist on ownership.  This can be eliminated by councils or socialist governments, which offer the capital and receive the ownership..

If a capitalist wants ownership, why not just let him?

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Pure bullshit, Maddog...

Any authoritarian system won't work without force --  whether that be communist, fascist, pure capitalist/corporatist, theocracy or monarchy..

Then again, you obviously don't even recognise the difference between a communist dictatorship/"socialist 'democracy' " on one hand,  and genuine democratic 'mixed economy' socialist societies.    Which is what Quill, veya, Ben, eilzel and i often talk about --  against your patent economic illiteracy..

Socialism requires central planning.  That planning has fo be enforced.  

No doubt many other systems use force too.

Tommy Monk wrote:Fascism is socialism with a thin veneer of capitalism... some companies are lrft in private ownership but they are all in reality, heavily controlled by the state, who dictate what is produced, how much is produced, and prices, and control all the supply lines and the means of production.

The owners are effectively relegated to being state controlled managers of the companies they 'own'...

Tommy Monk wrote:Fascism is socialism with a thin veneer of capitalism... some companies are lrft in private ownership but they are all in reality, heavily controlled by the state, who dictate what is produced, how much is produced, and prices, and control all the supply lines and the means of production.

The owners are effectively relegated to being state controlled managers of the companies they 'own'...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Socialism requires central planning.  That planning has fo be enforced.  

No doubt many other systems use force too.

Every economic system needs some degree of "central" planning...

The USA has it's central planning in Washington; Britain in Westminster;  Oz in Canberra..

Without any federal governance and some degree of 'overwatch', a purely "laissez faire" free market/'supply side' economy will not survive and prosper,  as cartels and corporatist wolves form their own armies and simply take what they want.

Once again, you continually refuse to recognise the essential differences between autocratic communist, fascist and monarchist dictatorships on one side, and the genuinely democratic socialist and "mixed" economies that do exist..

Ask yourself, also, why no "Libertarian" -focused government has ever survived once it has feached a certain 'critical mass' in size  --  eventually either reverting to a more mainstream system, or falling into some money-focused autocracy or oligarchy...

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Every economic system needs some degree of "central" planning...

The USA has it's central planning in Washington; Britain in Westminster;  Oz in Canberra..

Without any federal governance and some degree of 'overwatch', a purely "laissez faire" free market/'supply side' economy will not survive and prosper,  as cartels and corporatist wolves form their own armies and simply take what they want.

Once again, you continually refuse to recognise the essential differences between autocratic communist, fascist and monarchist dictatorships on one side, and the genuinely democratic socialist and "mixed" economies that do exist..

Ask yourself, also, why no "Libertarian" -focused government has ever survived once it has feached a certain 'critical mass' in size  --  eventually either reverting to a more mainstream system, or falling into some money-focused autocracy or oligarchy...

Capitalist systems have very little central planning.

Washington does not tell oil companies how many wells to drill, or how much oil to produce.

It doesn't tell Detroit, what kind of car or how many to produce.

Socialist economies do. Central planning is a key component.  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Capitalist systems have very little central planning.

Washington does not tell oil companies how many wells to drill, or how much oil to produce.

It doesn't tell Detroit, what kind of car or how many to produce.

Socialist economies do. Central planning is a key component.  

Genuinely 'democratic' socialist-style mixed economies don't go that far either, (just look at some of the previous governments in "mixed" economies such as Denmark, Sweden, France, Canada, Australia, NZ, where they put in place public health and education systems superior to anything ever seen in the USA..).

Autocratic Communist and Fascist states both do --  that means both far left-wing and right-wing systems will be heavy on "central planning".


Just because various tyrannies call themselves "socialist democratic republics" or a "peoples' republic" doesn't necessarily make them any of those things --  as clearly seen with North Korea, Maoist China, East Germany under the Soviets, or on the other side in Nazi Germany ("central planning" was big in Germany, Italy and Japan back then..).

When I see the disaster in Venezuela repeatedly miscast as a "failed 'socialist experiment" instead  of the autocratic military dictatorship that it is, I look to see who it is peddling that corporatist/"free market" bullshit  --   using a broken faux_'socialist' state as an example to badmouth all socialist institutions (including healthcare, education, public & workplace safety, environmental protections, police and military..), while pushing their usual line that "big business is good --  workers are no-good bludgers;  oil and coal is good --  science is bad;  ignorance is good --  education is bad."


As for the USA itself --  with the American military complex, right there you are looking at the largest "socialist" entity that has ever been created in modern times --  and with the American Tax System to underwrite it..

Maddog wrote:Denmark, Sweden, France, Canada, Australia, NZ, are free market capitalist countries. Socialism requires social control of the means of production with central planning. Like Venezuela.  

Some countries have more taxation and entitlements than others.  

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Genuinely 'democratic' socialist-style mixed economies don't go that far either, (just look at some of the previous governments in "mixed" economies such as Denmark, Sweden, France, Canada, Australia, NZ, where they put in place public health and education systems superior to anything ever seen in the USA..).

Autocratic Communist and Fascist states both do --  that means both far left-wing and right-wing systems will be heavy on "central planning".


Just because various tyrannies call themselves "socialist democratic republics" or a "peoples' republic" doesn't necessarily make them any of those things --  as clearly seen with North Korea, Maoist China, East Germany under the Soviets, or on the other side in Nazi Germany ("central planning" was big in Germany, Italy and Japan back then..).

When I see the disaster in Venezuela repeatedly miscast as a "failed 'socialist experiment" instead  of the autocratic military dictatorship that it is, I look to see who it is peddling that corporatist/"free market" bullshit  --   using a broken faux_'socialist' state as an example to badmouth all socialist institutions (including healthcare, education, public & workplace safety, environmental protections, police and military..), while pushing their usual line that "big business is good --  workers are no-good bludgers;  oil and coal is good --  science is bad;  ignorance is good --  education is bad."


As for the USA itself --  with the American military complex, right there you are looking at the largest "socialist" entity that has ever been created in modern times --  and with the American Tax System to underwrite it..

Denmark, Sweden, France, Canada, Australia, NZ, are free market capitalist countries. Socialism requires social control of the means of production with central planning. Like Venezuela.  


Some countries have more taxation and entitlements than others.