Hugo Chavez: Glaring example of Socialist FAIL!

Darla said:
This is simply false.
Click to expand...

No, it's true, according to Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It is at the core and root of their philosophy. Any "capitalism" is controlled by the state, which is again, the "ruling class" elite. The common citizen, under such a system, is not permitted to engage in private capitalist ventures, therefore, they can never become wealthy through capitalist means.

It's amazing to me, Socialists can go to war with capitalism, attack it relentlessly for years, then all of a sudden, claim they don't want to destroy it. I can't figure out if you are putting me on, or if you are trying to convince yourself of your own insanity.
 
Darla said:
No. You have a very simplistic view of Socialism. Socialistic views differ greatly, and Low gave a great explanation of what socialism broadly means.
Click to expand...

We know what it means....the question is what happens in reality....and the hypocrisy or some of those that preach it....

They redistribute the wealth of others while they accumulate more for themselves....
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

The agreement between the countrys that made up the coalition for the Gulf War had the stipulation that NO coalition forces would enter Baghdad .... the mission
of the coalition was Kuwait and removing Saddams forces from that country....and that only.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's true, according to Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It is at the core and root of their philosophy. Any "capitalism" is controlled by the state, which is again, the "ruling class" elite. The common citizen, under such a system, is not permitted to engage in private capitalist ventures, therefore, they can never become wealthy through capitalist means.

It's amazing to me, Socialists can go to war with capitalism, attack it relentlessly for years, then all of a sudden, claim they don't want to destroy it. I can't figure out if you are putting me on, or if you are trying to convince yourself of your own insanity.
Click to expand...


What has become clear, in the last 200 years or so, is that pure Communism and Pure Capitolism do not work. There is an art to finding the proper ballance and in a democracy, it seems to ballance itself over time. The United States has always erred toward the Pure Capitolism side of the spectrum while The USSR and some other nations erred too far toward the Communist side. IT appears much of Europe has found a more posative ballance, as Germany, and to a lesser degree France, and England have settled into a more healthy economic situation. Our ballance is clearly different than that of Germany of France but we are finding it.


The USSR destroyed itself by not allowing reform fast enough. The USA was saved by the new deal and TR's Trust busting.. both of which which ushered in change preventing a collapse.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's true, according to Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It is at the core and root of their philosophy. Any "capitalism" is controlled by the state, which is again, the "ruling class" elite. The common citizen, under such a system, is not permitted to engage in private capitalist ventures, therefore, they can never become wealthy through capitalist means.

It's amazing to me, Socialists can go to war with capitalism, attack it relentlessly for years, then all of a sudden, claim they don't want to destroy it. I can't figure out if you are putting me on, or if you are trying to convince yourself of your own insanity.
Click to expand...

No, under your definition anyone who does not support unrestrained capitalism would be communist. The fact is that socialism can and often does mean regulating the means of production. You are perhaps describing socialism in marxist theory where it is a transitional phase, and not the ends itself. I am not really sure what the hell you are describing to be honest.

As I stated, I am for a mixed economy. I find unrestrained capitalism to be immoral period. I am not at war with capitalism, I simply do not support unrestrained capitalism and don't really know any moral person can.
 
NOVA said:
The agreement between the countrys that made up the coalition for the Gulf War had the stipulation that NO coalition forces would enter Baghdad .... the mission
of the coalition was Kuwait and removing Saddams forces from that country....and that only.
Click to expand...

What's your point?
 
Darla said:
No, under your definition anyone who does not support unrestrained capitalism would be communist. The fact is that socialism can and often does mean regulating the means of production. You are perhaps describing socialism in marxist theory where it is a transitional phase, and not the ends itself. I am not really sure what the hell you are describing to be honest.

As I stated, I am for a mixed economy. I find unrestrained capitalism to be immoral period. I am not at war with capitalism, I simply do not support unrestrained capitalism and don't really know any moral person can.
Click to expand...

Very serious serious students of social systems support unrestrained capitolism. I cant think of an American President who has...
 
Darla said:
Exactly! So it all becomes a matter of how much regulation, and how large and strong of a social safety net, you support.
Click to expand...

Right, thats why back when they were calling Presidnet Obama a socialist, the were so silly. Its all a matter of degree, he is as much a Capitalist as he is a socialist... its all a matter of degree.

Regan was a socialist if you want to call Obama a Socialist. And Chavez was a capitalist if you compare him to Karl Marx.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The US isn't promoting the idea that it's a Socialist Government, yet; but just give Obama enough time and it might occur.

It was kind of enjoying though, to see you try to defend Chavez's idea of "all for one and all for me".
Click to expand...

You have no clue of what socialism is .. and the US also isn't promoting the idea that it's corporate-owned and operated .. but it undeniably is.
 
The claim of his personal wealth has little support. It comes from one guy with a blog that apparently has formed a persoanl agenda against Chavez.

I would not doubt that Chavez and his family have profited greatly from graft but the source is not very useful.

http://www.cjiausa.org/
 
Darla said:
No, under your definition anyone who does not support unrestrained capitalism would be communist. The fact is that socialism can and often does mean regulating the means of production. You are perhaps describing socialism in marxist theory where it is a transitional phase, and not the ends itself. I am not really sure what the hell you are describing to be honest.

As I stated, I am for a mixed economy. I find unrestrained capitalism to be immoral period. I am not at war with capitalism, I simply do not support unrestrained capitalism and don't really know any moral person can.
Click to expand...

No one that I am aware of, has advocated unregulated capitalism. Your side is arguing for destruction of capitalism through excess regulation, and capitalists are opposed to that. We need to get the facts straight about the argument here, because you are being dishonest if you claim capitalists want no restrictions or regulations on capitalism whatsoever.

The important thing to note is, in a purely Socialist system, the capitalists are the ruling class elite, and the general public is not permitted to engage in capitalism or profit from it. In order for a Socialist system to emerge from a Capitalist system, the means of Private Capitalism must be destroyed. There is no other way to transition us, according to the aforementioned Socialists. Having common sense restraints on capitalism is one thing, that's how we get the SEC and FDA, and literally thousands of government agencies devoted to regulating free market capitalism. In all my years, I have never heard anyone on the right argue that we should have absolutely no restriction or government regulation on any capitalism. We as a nation Busted the Trusts, eliminated the Monopolies, implemented rules, boundaries and limitations regarding securities and exchange, so obviously capitalists are being regulated, restrained, and restricted.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we all generally agree with your post..................but, as always, it comes back to the methods to achieve the goals.....
Obama himself said in with no ambiguity, the believes in redistribution of the wealth....so to accumulate a personal fortune is kinda incomparable with that....
and hypocritical to a degree.....just whose wealth does he want to redistribute ?....Certainly not his own or he would not building a personal wealth that
dwarfs the wealth of 99 % of his subjects.....

one can be wealthy and fervently believe that there should be opportunities, safety nets, support, minimum living wages, health care, etc......

the very description of conservatives and republicans, who support all of the above to the degree necessary that people don't starve.....and I see you mentin
'opportunities' first.....just as it is the number one item for republicans.....
It is only when people game the system, take advantage of their neighbors charity and help that creates a riff in the ranks.....

Support and safety nets are not meant to be a way of life that continues for several generations as it now does ......
No one has been denied emergency health care in the US for decades, even to people that don't belong here, illegals, etc.
Min. wage laws are been a part of the country for a century.

We all support these things to some degree....its what that degree is that causes the divide.....and the degree to which the government intrudes into
our private lives and personal space that needs to be held to a minimum......
 
So where is the proof of his personal wealth and how it was accumulated?

I don't care how rich he is, but if he made it through graft that's a problem.
 
Darla said:
What's your point?
Click to expand...

You seemed confused and unsure of what was going on and why...don't you remember your own post....

Originally Posted by Darla
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, we met out objectives.
I explained why those objectives were limited.

The no-fly zones, bombings, and sanctions, that you blame for so much suffering and death, came with the Clinton presidency......
 
NOVA said:
You seemed confused and unsure of what was going on and why...don't you remember your own post....

Originally Posted by Darla


Yes, we met out objectives.
I explained why those objectives were limited.

The no-fly zones, bombings, and sanctions, that you blame for so much suffering and death, came with the Clinton presidency......
Click to expand...

So you are claiming that the post-gulf war no-fly zones were instituted by Bill Clinton, is that correct?
 
Jarod said:
Very serious serious students of social systems support unrestrained capitolism. I cant think of an American President who has...
Click to expand...

What the hell is unrestrained capitalism and where has it ever existed in reality. Not your made up reality, but reality.

Markets restrain capitalism. Free people making individual decisions restrains capitalism.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Albert Einstein
Ernest Hemingway
Victor Hugo
George Orwell
Nelson Mandela
Helen Keller
Lawrence O'Donnell
Katharine Hepburn
Angela Davis
Lloyd Bridges
Harry Belafonte
Margaret Sanger
Carl Sandburg
W.E.B. Dubois
Noam Chomsky
Kurt Vonnegut
Upton Sinclair
Paul Robeson
Howard Zinn
Jack London
Edward Asner
Woody Guthrie
Lewis Black
Cornel West

.. to name a few socialists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top