Venezuela: A left wing Socialist disaster and warning to America

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
One of the key points that I attack Liberals on is that their social welfare policies INCREASE crime.
Can anyone look at the massive increase in Venezuela that has occured under Socialist Chavez and say that there is no link?
When you have the state disrespect private property and dole out welfare, people get a mindset that things are supposed to be given to them and not earned. Moreover it conditions people to think that it's ok to steal and rob because not only is the government doing it but they are justifying and glorifying it.

"Inflation in 2008 was 31%—the highest in Latin America.
Food prices in Caracas rose by almost 50%.
With almost 15,000 murders in 2008—an increase of two-and-a-half times since Mr Chávez took office—Venezuela has become one of the world’s most violent countries. "

Look at how economic freedom suppression has brought about civil liberties suppression too:
"Violence and intimidation of opponents by the security forces and by armed civilian groups (some openly linked to the government) have increased. Students campaigning against the constitutional change have faced harassment and arrest."
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13061800

Now of course Liberalism in the US is not that extreme, but there is no question it is headed in the same direction, at least in Venezuela with a more rapid expansion of leftist policies you can more easily see the affects.
 
As I always say, it's a really good thing that America is not a Socialist Country, and that neither of its major parties is Socialist...
 
Onceler said:
As I always say, it's a really good thing that America is not a Socialist Country, and that neither of its major parties is Socialist...
Click to expand...

In name, at least.

In any case, the Democratic majority in the Senate from 2006-2008 was technically due to the coalition with the Socialist Bernie Sanders. So I make it a point to refer to this period as the Democratic-Socialist majority.
 
Onceler said:
As I always say, it's a really good thing that America is not a Socialist Country, and that neither of its major parties is Socialist...
Click to expand...

But you would be wrong. They both are, it's a matter of degree. It's easier for the Republicans to pretend they aren't, when out of power. We saw what they are like in power. Then again, like I said, relative. Look at what the Dems have accomplished in less than a month!
 
Epicurus said:
In name, at least.

In any case, the Democratic majority in the Senate from 2006-2008 was technically due to the coalition with the Socialist Bernie Sanders. So I make it a point to refer to this period as the Democratic-Socialist majority.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders isn't really that radical. The Labour party in Britian is technically "socialist" (I believe they even have "a democratic socialist party" on their website) as well. In europe socialist is as vague and wide a thing as conservatism and liberalism is in America. Sandesr means the European definition of socialist, but I think that Sanders is just pointlessly confusing people and only trying to stick out by calling himself a socialist, because in America socialism means something very extreme (it means something extreme here mainly because they were never in power, and therefore never had a chance to compromise all of their beliefs once they were there).

But Chavez is an outright Marxist. Give me a list of his left wing policies and I'll criticize them just as much as you would. Price fixing, for instance, is idiotic.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
But you would be wrong. They both are, it's a matter of degree. It's easier for the Republicans to pretend they aren't, when out of power. We saw what they are like in power. Then again, like I said, relative. Look at what the Dems have accomplished in less than a month!
Click to expand...

Clearly, you are using "Socialist" in a very loose way.

We are not a Socialist country, and we do not have systemic Socialism or even a creep of Socialism.

It would be like me comparing some of the more overtly religious members of the GOP, pointing to the Taliban & saying "see what happens when religious values overtake the gov't!"

It's just a bad comparison. We aren't anything like Venezuela.
 
Watermark said:
Bernie Sanders isn't really that radical. The Labour party in Britian is technically "socialist" (I believe they even have "a democratic socialist party" on their website) as well. In europe socialist is as vague and wide a thing as conservatism and liberalism is in America, and I think that Sanders is confusing people and just trying to stick out by calling himself a socialist, because in America socialism means something very extreme.

But Chavez is an outright Marxist. Give me a list of his left wing policies and I'll criticize them just as much as you would. Price fixing, for instance, is idiotic.
Click to expand...

They have no Conservatives in any real power there, they are all gone just like you wanted.

Yes price fixing is idiotic but criminals are not stealing and robbing people because the government is screwing business with fixed prices. Social welfare eggs on people to have a mindset that it is ok to take from others.
 
I really wish people would respect the actual meaning of words instead of using them as dirty names to call people (or policies) that they don't particularly care for.

Prescriptivism is dead.
 
Onceler said:
Clearly, you are using "Socialist" in a very loose way.

We are not a Socialist country, and we do not have systemic Socialism or even a creep of Socialism.

It would be like me comparing some of the more overtly religious members of the GOP, pointing to the Taliban & saying "see what happens when religious values overtake the gov't!"

It's just a bad comparison. We aren't anything like Venezuela.
Click to expand...

Unless you can define when SPECIFICALLY you stop growing government, then how can you not lead to anything but Socialism? How can an end or a border exist when none is planned, defined or sought out?
 
Onceler said:
Clearly, you are using "Socialist" in a very loose way.

We are not a Socialist country, and we do not have systemic Socialism or even a creep of Socialism.

It would be like me comparing some of the more overtly religious members of the GOP, pointing to the Taliban & saying "see what happens when religious values overtake the gov't!"

It's just a bad comparison. We aren't anything like Venezuela.
Click to expand...

Onceler it is truly hilarious that in a state with a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, 2/3rds of its budget dedicated to entitlement spending, and several different bailouts totalling in the trillions, that you could attempt to deny the influence of socialism on our country.

You may not think these are bad policies, but they are socialistic policies and that much is indisputable. You need not be dishonest in your defense of policies you support. I know that some level of entitlement spending is needed to support those who cannot support themselves, but I accept that this is a socialist notion.

Calling things by their proper names is a good step.
 
KingCondanomation said:
They have no Conservatives in any real power there, they are all gone just like you wanted.

Yes price fixing is idiotic but criminals are not stealing and robbing people because the government is screwing business with fixed prices. Social welfare eggs on people to have a mindset that it is ok to take from others.
Click to expand...

Does Venezula have a large welfare state? I don't think they're rich enough to maintain one. I think Chavez is mainly trying to cover up that fact by over regulating and killing business, which is a policy doomed to failure.
 
Epicurus said:
Onceler it is truly hilarious that in a state with a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, 2/3rds of its budget dedicated to entitlement spending, and several different bailouts totalling in the trillions, that you could attempt to deny the influence of socialism on our country.

You may not think these are bad policies, but they are socialistic policies and that much is indisputable. You need not be dishonest in your defense of policies you support. I know that some level of entitlement spending is needed to support those who cannot support themselves, but I accept that this is a socialist notion.

Calling things by their proper names is a good step.
Click to expand...

Is social welfare really a "socialist" policy?

It seems to me that it was developed as a common sense alternative to the state control of industry that socialism prescribed and the rabid laissez-faire capitalism the conservatives were wanting.
 
Onceler said:
Clearly, you are using "Socialist" in a very loose way.

We are not a Socialist country, and we do not have systemic Socialism or even a creep of Socialism.

It would be like me comparing some of the more overtly religious members of the GOP, pointing to the Taliban & saying "see what happens when religious values overtake the gov't!"

It's just a bad comparison. We aren't anything like Venezuela.
Click to expand...

Yes we are, you just wish to deny it, as it's not popular to think that.
 
Onceler said:
Clearly, you are using "Socialist" in a very loose way.

We are not a Socialist country, and we do not have systemic Socialism or even a creep of Socialism.

It would be like me comparing some of the more overtly religious members of the GOP, pointing to the Taliban & saying "see what happens when religious values overtake the gov't!"

It's just a bad comparison. We aren't anything like Venezuela.
Click to expand...

If you haven't, many of your partisans have.
 
Epicurus said:
Onceler it is truly hilarious that in a state with a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, 2/3rds of its budget dedicated to entitlement spending, and several different bailouts totalling in the trillions, that you could attempt to deny the influence of socialism on our country.

You may not think these are bad policies, but they are socialistic policies and that much is indisputable. You need not be dishonest in your defense of policies you support. I know that some level of entitlement spending is needed to support those who cannot support themselves, but I accept that this is a socialist notion.

Calling things by their proper names is a good step.
Click to expand...


I agree that calling things by their proper names is a good start, but you start off very poorly on that score. Social welfare is not socialism.
 
Dungheap said:
I agree that calling things by their proper names is a good start, but you start off very poorly on that score. Social welfare is not socialism.
Click to expand...

Well it is debatable, while the others you did not address are not.

Are you seriously going to sit here and argue with me that socialism has not affected the development of our state?

We spend 2/3rds of our budget on entitlement programs, we have a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, and a host of other society-driven programs that would have made Marx smile.

I can only guess that you are afraid that if you acknowledge what is commonly known it will legitimize attacks on Democrats as socialists. But Republicans who do not advocate the immediate repeal of all those policies are also socialists, or at the very least support maintaining socialist policies.

We both want to call things by their proper names, and to you that means applying so narrow a definition that you can say neither Republicans nor Democrats or socialists. To me, I apply a slightly broader definition based on Marx's own that allows me to point out that Democrats and Republicans both support degrees of socialism.

I'm not even arguing here about the merits of socialism, I'm merely trying to get people to stop being dishonest about the terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top