151–160 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Socialism/communism are inherently unfair and unjust, hence breeding a truly staggering amount corruption (almost by necessity).
Socialism != communism. The Nordic countries are pretty damn socialist.
Sweden and Denmark are probably more free market than the US.
They do have high taxes and extensive welfare systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have it in South Africa too. The official, political term for it is "load shedding".
Nepal calls it load shedding too. In practice it's fairly counterproductive there. People buy banks of car batteries and inverters to store power when it's available and use it later. So they use as much power as before, with the added benefit of tons of hazardous waste from all the equipment at each building. Which of course they just throw into piles of broken stuff. Does the same happen in South Africa?
Related anecdote: a friend of mine is an engineer that builds and operates glass factories all around the world, mostly producing bottles for beer, wine, and liquor. One of his company's factories was in Venezuela, and while he was there working, Chavez et co decided to nationalize that industry because they were "forcing unfair labor conditions." The company rushed to get every American out of the country before the…
Isn't it possible that the Americans sabotaged the factory on their way out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this getting downvoted? Edit: In for a penny, I suppose: why is this getting downvoted? I don't think "why is this getting downvoted" is a controversial question.
It's utterly off-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say all 10 are clearly capitalist. All have strong recognition of property rights including private property in the means of production. It is unfortunate that political terminology is muddy enough to allow for this sort of confusion. If I think these 10 countries are capitalist and you think 8 of them are socialist, what is the likelihood of us having a useful conversation discussing capitalism and socialism…
Socialism doesn't preclude capitalism, it just harnesses for a different goal.
A lot of people who cheer for socialism believe capitalism, in the sense of private property in the means of production, is a problem and should be abolished. Others, like yourself, are advocating fundamentally capitalist states with extensive welfare programs like Denmark or Sweden.
Unfortunately, the word socialism is used in both senses quite commonly, and it isn't always easy to tell the intent from the word.
(Also, I think sometimes the advocates of socialism aren't very clear on what they mean themselves. Which is unfortunate, as the difference between the two meanings is enormous.)
To be fair, it isn't just fans of socialism who perpetuate this. It does not help when right wingers insist on calling Obama a socialist.
Since the fraction of internet socialists who would actually like to try Marxist totalitarianism one more time is fairly sizable, I tend to assume the worst when I see people choosing that word for themselves.
I will say, if you care about distancing yourself from the totalitarian socialists, but you still like the sound of "socialism", making sure to describe yourself a "democratic socialist" does get the idea across. It's not my favorite term but at least it does suggest Sweden rather than Maoist China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's utterly off-topic.
Topic is regarding Venezuela shutting down for a week since they can't cope with basic needs. Questioning factory working conditions is quite on-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter how you to try to spin it. The vast scale of the horrors inflicted on humanity because of authoritarian socialism is well known and won't just go away.
I never denied them, so I don't know what you're driving at. I just don't think that being "horrified" at the excesses of only one extreme on the ideological spectrum -- whilst remaining indifferent (or willfully oblivious) to the skeletons in one's own ideological basement -- makes for a particularly useful or instructive view of the world.
But the opposite, shrugging one's shoulders in the face of the explicit, obvious failure of a mode of governance and saying "well, who are we to judge really, these other guys did something bad once too," has its own faults. Namely, if we can't point at how Chavismo has played out so disastrously in Venezuela without getting uselessly entangled in whataboutery, what rhetorical tools do we have left to use the next time a charismatic socialist with an authoritarian streak starts getting close to political power in a democracy?
(Any comparison with the current political situation in a large nation whose name rhymes with "Bunited Bates of Bamerica" is, of course, left as an exercise for the reader.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of the world's dumbest attempt at privatization. Forcing utilities to buy power regardless of cost was destined to fail from day one.
It was no more, or less, "privatised" than the previous arrangement. It was just a change of regulation. A stupid change, as you noted. Preventing utilities from hedging... how could that ever work?
I had a gas bill of well over $350 one month for just water heating and furnace... and my thermostat was never over 62F, and on only 10 hours a day. (For local climate perspective, this is with an average overnight temperature never below freezing... it's not like the furnace was fighting blizzards.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazi Party, even though it has "socialism" and "workers" in its title, is not considered to be a form of Socialism (nor, for that matter, to be pro workers). Not that it matters much, but the only mention of Nazism in the Wikipedia article you linked doesn't refer to it as a form of socialism.
The Nazi Party, even though it has "socialism" and "workers" in its title, is not considered to be a form of Socialism (nor, for that matter, to be pro workers) I hate getting down in the weeds on this, but its "not considered socialism" by those on the left who are embarrassed that the Nazis were pretty much a command economy and have socialism in its name.
I don't think Trump is a murderous totalitarian (though I guess he could be), but fascism is actually an accurate label for his political ideas. He doesn't have a problem with state authority, he just thinks he could do it better, and would encourage nationalist social upheaval instead of SJW social upheaval. This is why the conservative movement hates him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unimaginable corruption (as opposed to our run-of-the-mill corruption) is a symptom of a communistic/dictatorial government.
Has nothing to do with Communism, and everything do with the rhetoric that follows this sort of approach towards governance, in which some idiot dictator uses Communist rhetoric to destroy the country by parceling out private corporations to his family and friends in the name of the people where he knows nothing about anything. The Soviet economy was perfectly functional until the very end. Chavez was a military dict…
You have never spent much time in the former Soviet Union have you?
The Soviet Union could only survive because of its reliance on natural resources. They could not export exept to people they keeped under millitary controll and all of those tried to get western stuff if they could.
The Soviets themself always imported lots of tech from the west, with the exeption of select industries like space they were behind. Read:
- Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917–1930 (1968) - Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1930–1945 (1971) - Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945–1965 (1973)
Internally the Soviet economy never functioned as claimed. The only reason it could survive at all is because illegal market makers would travel around and exchange resources between different factories.