Hugo Chavez: Glaring example of Socialist FAIL!

[Cancel 2016.11]

What prevented Chavez from giving his billion dollars to the state government? Aren't Socialist supposed to believe in wealth redistribution and everyone shares an equal piece of the pie? .

No. You have a very simplistic view of Socialism. Socialistic views differ greatly, and Low gave a great explanation of what socialism broadly means.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Just as a matter of interest, the Koch Brothers net worth is approx 31 billion dollars. The Chavez family are accused of having 2 billion.
How have the Koch Brothers improved the lot of poor Americans? How much of their fortune is being invested in the education of young Americans, in the pensions of aging Americans. How much tax are they paying to support the infrastructure that there companies take advantage of? How about Bush baby? What good did he ever do for the poor and disadvantaged? Did he never lie?
Glass houses, methinks.

Typical left wing diversionary tactics when their dear leaders are shown to have no clothes. So defense of Chavez the socialist king amassing a billion dollar fortune is "HEY LOOK AT THE KOCH BROTHERS". An 8 year old can come with a better argument than that.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Probably the Persian Gulf War. Desert Storm was executed successfully, we achieved all of the objectives, and we didn't have to worry about a successful occupation, because we chose not to oust Saddam and occupy the country. All other military campaigns have either been too small (Granada, Panama, etc.) or they were not done well as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

That's interesting. I suppose we did meet our objectives if our only objectives were to force Saddam out of Kuwait. I wonder though why, since we met all our objectives, we had to have an enforced no-fly zone, years of bombings, and of course, the sanctions which caused widespread malnutrition, and led to so many deaths...many of which were children.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. You have a very simplistic view of Socialism. Socialistic views differ greatly, and Low gave a great explanation of what socialism broadly means.

All I asked for was an explanation, and none has been given. Chavez never had a job other than lifetime president of Venezuela. He wasn't a CEO of anything, he didn't earn a fortune through capitalist free markets. How did he manage to accumulate a billion dollars of wealth in a system which promises wealth equality for all? How were the "poorest of the poor" helped by Chavez holding a billion dollars, which wasn't earned through capitalism? He didn't even meet a demand for goods and services, as far as we can tell.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

All I asked for was an explanation, and none has been given. Chavez never had a job other than lifetime president of Venezuela. He wasn't a CEO of anything, he didn't earn a fortune through capitalist free markets. How did he manage to accumulate a billion dollars of wealth in a system which promises wealth equality for all? How were the "poorest of the poor" helped by Chavez holding a billion dollars, which wasn't earned through capitalism? He didn't even meet a demand for goods and services, as far as we can tell.

Well, you seemed to be claiming that being wealthy is incompatible with being a socialist, and I don't think that it is. Nor is it "hypocritical" as so many like to claim. I am not a student of Chavez and honestly have no idea how he made his money, but the point is, his having money has nothing to do with his being socialistic in his views and policies. one can be wealthy and fervently believe that there should be opportunities, safety nets, support, minimum living wages, health care, etc, for those who have not been as lucky or talented. One may also work for, advocate, and even institute policies to accomplish those things. The two things are not in opposition to each other.

America seems to celebrate a "I got mine too bad about you" attitude. Not sharing that attitude, even if you are wealthy, does not make a person a hypocrite. I would judge them to be the better human beings actually.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, you seemed to be claiming that being wealthy is incompatible with being a socialist, and I don't think that it is. Nor is it "hypocritical" as so many like to claim. I am not a student of Chavez and honestly have no idea how he made his money, but the point is, his having money has nothing to do with his being socialistic in his views and policies. one can be wealthy and fervently believe that there should be opportunities, safety nets, support, minimum living wages, health care, etc, for those who have not been as lucky or talented. One may also work for, advocate, and even institute policies to accomplish those things. The two things are not in opposition to each other.

America seems to celebrate a "I got mine too bad about you" attitude. Not sharing that attitude, even if you are wealthy, does not make a person a hypocrite. I would judge them to be the better human beings actually.

So, Socialism is only an "idea" of how things ought to be, and it doesn't really mean that Socialists have to actually adhere to principles of the idea? As for your "I got mine, too bad about you" attitude, isn't that Chavez? He had a billion dollars, what did the poor people in Venezuela have? At least with a capitalist there is a trade-off for goods and services in demand. They become wealthy from people willingly giving them money for a product or service, Chavez didn't provide a product or service.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

All I asked for was an explanation, and none has been given. Chavez never had a job other than lifetime president of Venezuela. He wasn't a CEO of anything, he didn't earn a fortune through capitalist free markets. How did he manage to accumulate a billion dollars of wealth in a system which promises wealth equality for all? How were the "poorest of the poor" helped by Chavez holding a billion dollars, which wasn't earned through capitalism? He didn't even meet a demand for goods and services, as far as we can tell.

They are twisting themselves into knots defending Chavez' massive accumulation of wealth at the expense of his people. What is shocking is how they try to point to the improvements of the poor, but completely ignore that given the boom in oil prices these improvements are meager at best. Highlighting even further the ideology these folks espouse.

I am always amused by these self ascribed well off liberals who claim to care about the poor and try to attempt to feel morally superior to others. They never help with their own money, they expect others to do it. Meanwhile these same liberals do all they can to amass all kinds of wealth.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well, that is one view point.
There is no law stating that socialists should not improve their lot. The rule is that those on the bottom of the heap be given a fair crack. To me that is human decency which, indeed, seldom works. That doesn't prevent it from being an aim.
What capitalists do and why is well understood by both socialists and capitalists. What socialists do is understood by socialists and usually willfully misunderstood by capitalists who are frightened to death that people will one day come to their senses and demand the answers that capitalists work so hard to keep hidden.
Imagine if the Koch brothers took just one lousy billion dollars and donated it to a state government for the sole purpose of creating jobs. Jobs that the Koch-ups had no control nor interest in. They would still have 30 billion! Suppose they took a leaf out of Gates' book and set up apolitical trusts for the betterment of humanity. They could give 30Billion and still have $1,000,000,000 left. Surely enough for any brothers?
Of course they would have to have their revolting greed and political views surgically removed, but there would be a queue of volunteers with scalpels at the ready.

Improving your lot is one thing running a kleptocracy is another as this CNN article explains. No wonder he was such big buddies with Gaddafi and ArmaniDinnerJacket.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/tag/exxonmobil/

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

So, Socialism is only an "idea" of how things ought to be, and it doesn't really mean that Socialists have to actually adhere to principles of the idea?

Like all political ideologies, it is an idea, yes. So is capitalism. As far as adhering to the idea, how do you mean? Are you claiming that there were no socialistic policies under Chavez?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

He had a billion dollars, what did the poor people in Venezuela have? .

Well, according to the stats BAC posted, they had quite a bit more than they started out with didn't they? Generally speaking, they were doing better than before he took office yes?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Like all political ideologies, it is an idea, yes. So is capitalism. As far as adhering to the idea, how do you mean? Are you claiming that there were no socialistic policies under Chavez?

No, there were Socialist policies, but the Ruling Class doesn't have to adhere to these policies, they are free to accumulate as much wealth as they can, at the expense of the people, who are having to adhere to socialist policies.

Well, according to the stats BAC posted, they had quite a bit more than they started out with didn't they? Generally speaking, they were doing better than before he took office yes?

Stats are often used in propaganda to support a particular view or argument, but stats are often subject to interpretation as well as manipulation, you know this. The bottom line is, they were at least a billion dollars less well off, because that's what Chavez had, and he didn't earn it through free market capitalism. As has been pointed out, before he took over, Venezuela didn't have an oil industry. It's not really fair to compare 'bottom line' here, and ignore the fortune of Chavez, as well as my point.

Like I said to BAC, the people of Socialist Venezuela MUST have been better off... if Chavez had a billion dollars, then every average Venezuelan had a billion dollars, right? Wealth Equality? Everyone shares the pie? No more 1%ers to protest! Evil Capitalism is Dead! With glorious Socialism running the show, if Chavez had that much wealth, with as little as he produced, then most every Venezuelan is wealthy beyond belief, I would imagine.

You see, as the thread title says, this is an example of how Socialism fails. Chavez was the 1%, the Koch Brothers, the evil controllers of all the wealth. The problem with such a system is this; it removes the citizenry from any opportunity or freedom. In a free market capitalist society, ANYONE can aspire to be a Koch Brother. We have that freedom and liberty in our system. In a Socialist system, the people who enjoy such freedom are the Ruling Class. They make the rules and laws and they control the wealth and power, and the citizenry are dependent on their generosity and benevolence.

So the question becomes, are we better off with a system which allows everyone the same access to wealth acquisition, to reach the upper 1% through capitalist free enterprise? Or... with a Socialist system where the Ruling Class is the 1%, and have complete control of everything, including the people?

 

[Lowaicue]

Typical left wing diversionary tactics when their dear leaders are shown to have no clothes. So defense of Chavez the socialist king amassing a billion dollar fortune is "HEY LOOK AT THE KOCH BROTHERS". An 8 year old can come with a better argument than that.

I am most awfully sorry. That kind of argument is continually used by the right wing. i was not aware that it was not open to all.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

No, there were Socialist policies,

So Chavez in fact then, did adhere to his socialistic ideas by instituting socialistic polices. Okay, now that we are finally agreed on that.

but the Ruling Class doesn't have to adhere to these policies, they are free to accumulate as much wealth as they can, at the expense of the people, who are having to adhere to socialist policies.

Didn't have to adhere to which policies? What are you talking about here? Which socialistic policies were people forced to adhere to? You have no specifics, no facts, just a meandering narrative.

Stats are often used in propaganda to support a particular view or argument, but stats are often subject to interpretation as well as manipulation, you know this. (reams of paragraphs saying nothing cut)

So, you don't like the statistics because they show an improved quality of life for the poor under Chavez. You present nothing to show these statistics aren't true, you just meander on for a few paragraphs of right wing catch phrases. That might make you feel good, but it does nothing to counter BAC's post.

 

[christiefan915]

Clinton did use military force in Iraq, he was bombing the no fly zone and anything that looked like mobile missiles. Clinton just didn't occupy Iraq with troops.

Righties are unbelievable. They're forgetting "aspirin factories" and "wag the dog". They never cheered on Clinton for bombing, they claimed it was a cheap political ploy to divert attention from Monica.

 

[christiefan915]

Well, tell it like it is......Clinton was already at war in Iraq, using the methods he and his generals choose to use......WITHOUT any authorization from the US Congress,
just on his orders, his terms, like a dictator, not giving a shit what the country, our citizens, or their elected representatives thought about the situation....

don't beat around the bush ...... tell the hard truth of the matter......the war was limited, but it was nonetheless, WAR.


He was a draft dodger and I don't think he had it in him to put ground troops in harms way for that reason.

cheney was a five-time draft dodger who didn't give a hoot about putting ground troops in harm's way.

 

[christiefan915]

Probably the Persian Gulf War. Desert Storm was executed successfully, we achieved all of the objectives, and we didn't have to worry about a successful occupation, because we chose not to oust Saddam and occupy the country. All other military campaigns have either been too small (Granada, Panama, etc.) or they were not done well as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

I love how Bush Sr. had an awesome record on military actions and Bush Jr. an abysmal record. Apparently, father didn't teach son much about tactics and strategy (or speech patterns, for that matter).

Yet we didn't topple Saddam, which is one of the main arguments people made for the second Gulf war.

It's hilarious reading the complaints about Clinton and Saddam, since GHWB didn't get him out when he had the chance either.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So Chavez in fact then, did adhere to his socialistic ideas by instituting socialistic polices. Okay, now that we are finally agreed on that.

I never disagreed on the fact Chavez instituted socialist policies, but he did not adhere to them. You don't end up with a billion dollars you didn't earn, following the tenants of socialism, unless EVERYONE has a billion dollars they didn't earn.

Didn't have to adhere to which policies? What are you talking about here? Which socialistic policies were people forced to adhere to? You have no specifics, no facts, just a meandering narrative.

Free market capitalism, I thought we understood this was the debate here. Socialism destroys free market capitalism, so the people are no longer free to prosper through capitalist means. Meanwhile, those who now control power, the Socialists, can make whatever exceptions for the Ruling Class they desire, and pilfer as much money as they can grab. So while the "working class" are stuck in perpetual poverty, without the ability or freedom to ever attain greater wealth, the Ruling Class become super-wealthy, like Chavez.

So, you don't like the statistics because they show an improved quality of life for the poor under Chavez. You present nothing to show these statistics aren't true, you just meander on for a few paragraphs of right wing catch phrases. That might make you feel good, but it does nothing to counter BAC's post.

No, I don't like statistics from propagandists designed to advance a narrative that isn't true. I explained that. I did present a fact, that Hugo Chavez was worth over a billion dollars. I also presented the fact that he never worked a real job in his life, and didn't earn his wealth through free market capitalism. Finally, I presented the fact that such wealth accumulation by an individual is supposed to be the antithesis of Socialism, where everyone is supposed to share wealth equally.

No right wing catch phrases have been harmed in the making of this post.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I never disagreed on the fact Chavez instituted socialist policies, but he did not adhere to them. You don't end up with a billion dollars you didn't earn, following the tenants of socialism, unless EVERYONE has a billion dollars they didn't earn.

.

It's like talking to a wall. Did you read any of my prior posts? Socialism isn't something you "adhere" to. Wealthy people can be socialists. I personally advocate for a social democracy, which does include free markets, it's a mixed economy. I don't have to "adhere" to anything.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Free market capitalism, I thought we understood this was the debate here. Socialism destroys free market capitalism, so the people are no longer free to prosper through capitalist means.



.

This is simply false.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's like talking to a wall. Did you read any of my prior posts? Socialism isn't something you "adhere" to. Wealthy people can be socialists. I personally advocate for a social democracy, which does include free markets, it's a mixed economy. I don't have to "adhere" to anything.

Ahh.... Principles Without Borders!