Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 276 posts

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#121

Post by tptacek »

jdblair wrote: post #111
ktRolster wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. You might be surprised to learn that not even the Soviet Union considered itself communist (they considered themselves socialist transitioning to communist). The reality is that "socialist" is a word without a clear definition, and it's better to avoid using it altogether if you want people to und…

"Socialism" has a clear, simple definition. Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the government for the people. Its the mis-use of the term socialism and the details of actually implementing government ownership of the means of production that makes discussions so confusing. To pick a few examples, Obamacare is not socialism. Government assistance, as implemented in the US, is not soci…

It's more complicated even than this, and, unfortunately, that means your argument isn't dispositive. There is, for instance, "market socialism", which describes public/private cooperatives. Sweden would call itself a "social democracy", rather than a "socialist country", but Sweden does some things that clearly cross the line in ownership and control of the means of production for some industries. Moreover: most countries with single-payer health care --- the UK, Canada, France --- have state control over one of the most important sectors of the economy! By your definition, they're (at least in part) socialist countries. But they would dispute the characterization.

It's not other people who are causing these problems by incorrectly using the terms. It's that reliably using the term "socialism" with any precision requires so much clunky verbiage that nobody --- on either side --- can use it correctly. When we use the term or see it used, we should raise a flag so that we all understand it's ambiguous, and leave it at that.

For what it's worth: by no definition does it make sense to call Obamacare "socialist".

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#122

Post by adamsea »

elliotec wrote: post #86
ktRolster wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, not totalitarian policies, just stupid policies. Genghis Khan could become dictator and if he fixed those policies, the economy would improve.

I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by uniting the Silk Road, standardizing a writing system, and ran a meritocratic society. So yeah of course he could fix it, he's one of the most successful rulers of all time by all metrics. Edit: Yeah, obviously he and his conquest killed a lot of people. And ye…

Uhhhh what about the metric of most civilians slaughtered? Just sayin' .... which metrics here constitute "success"?

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#123

Post by astrodust »

daxorid wrote: post #95

Looking at this disaster, I have to wonder why most people regard "preppers" as crazy.

You can be prepped up the wazoo and if a Venezuela goes down in your backyard what are you going to do? Hide out in your basement and eat tinned tuna?

The best "preparation" is looking ahead and living in a place that isn't about to go to shit. Having a plane ticket and a passport is infinitely more valuable than a bucket of bullets and a gun.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#124

Post by seibelj »

pastProlog wrote: post #92
seibelj wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I say socialism and communism, I mean that the government regulates the economy or large pieces of it. Successful "socialist" western democracies are free-market economies that have higher taxes to provide a social safety net. I wish we could call that "empathetic capitalism".

> I mean that the government regulates the economy or large pieces of it The Federal Reserve, bank bailouts, the government spending and government-backed monopolies that created the Internet we're typing on etc. The US "government regulates the economy or large pieces of it".

No one had a monopoly on "creating the internet". The government pays for basic, fundamental research, and as a consequence of those investments a new technology we call The Internet was created. A good use of public money, but trying to use the invention of the internet to argue that the US government is controlling the economy is a total misunderstanding of basic facts.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#125

Post by RodericDay »

jdblair wrote: post #111
ktRolster wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. You might be surprised to learn that not even the Soviet Union considered itself communist (they considered themselves socialist transitioning to communist). The reality is that "socialist" is a word without a clear definition, and it's better to avoid using it altogether if you want people to und…

"Socialism" has a clear, simple definition. Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production by the government for the people. Its the mis-use of the term socialism and the details of actually implementing government ownership of the means of production that makes discussions so confusing. To pick a few examples, Obamacare is not socialism. Government assistance, as implemented in the US, is not soci…

eh, i don't know

this is like saying that "real-time" has clear, simple definition... except for all those times in which people writing medical software disagree with people writing videogames.

socialism is a word that doesn't let people communicate effectively. you say it meaning one thing, and people may understand in a multitude of ways. I think the advice to avoid using it is sound.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#126

Post by AnimalMuppet »

awt wrote: post #99
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your definition of socialism. If you mean "all the means of production are owned by the state", then yes, that probably counts as collectivist. But if by "socialism", you mean "what goes by that label in Scandanavia", then probably no, "collectivist" doesn't fit. It's just somewhat more government services than the US has, at the price of somewhat higher taxes.

Right which is why I prefer to use collectivism which is prioritizing the group over the individual and would seem to subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give.

You sound like you think you're agreeing with me, but you're not.

I'm saying that socialism, as practiced in Scandanavia, is not collectivist. That means that, no, collectivism does not "subsume any definition of socialism you could ever reasonably give".

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#127

Post by tptacek »

adventured wrote: post #110
mortenjorck wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, this is the difference between socialism in a free market and socialism in a command economy. While the former may try to influence the market (through social programs, state investment, money supply), it still must bend with the winds of market forces. The latter is an imposition of structure irrespective of the market: It might be seen more as a rigid body that can stand in certain conditions but begins to…

There's no such thing as Socialism in a free market, that's a contradiction in terms. Socialism means non-free market, and uses extreme violence to accomplish its ends of nationalizing wealth and production (which are inherently linked). And indeed, very liberal applications of force is the sole means to accomplish such a thing, which is why all attempts at Socialism throughout history always involved the equivalent…

I understand that 51% of Wikipedians on the page for "Socialism" have come to this conclusion, but it may trouble you to know that 51% of Wikipedians on other pages about other aspects/flavors of socialism do not agree, let alone political scientists as a whole.

I'm sorry to be so snarky about this, but "socialism means command economy" is the Scholar's Checkmate of Internet political science debates, and I'm think we benefit by not dignifying it.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#128

Post by icebraining »

clarkmoody wrote: post #19
icebraining wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes online computers & etc different? You could say that about many technologies, even about agriculture. Life was much simpler and sustainable when we were hunter-gatherers (I'm being sincere, not facetious). In my opinion, whether they are "necessary" is irrelevant (by objective measures, most things aren't) and simplicity is not a meaningful goal in itself.

Simpler, yes. But everyone lived near subsistence, and maximum population density was enforced by war, human sacrifice, and starvation.

Yet, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#129

Post by astrodust »

randiantech wrote: post #68
markeroon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhh... how about almost every Nordic country?

Then probably we are not referring to the same thing when we talk about socialism.

If you're using "socialism" as a bugaboo, probably not. It has a broad meaning, like "democracy", but it's not always a bad thing.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#130

Post by huherto »

eudox wrote: post #40
randiantech wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cant recall a single example of a functional democracy in a socialist government. Seems to be mutually exclusive outputs.

Venezuela elected Chavez in at least three internationally verified and observed elections (1998, 2000, 2006).

He was elected democratically, but then he behaved like a dictator. He was not aware of his ignorance in economics, and he had to support of the people. The results were disastrous.
Post reply on HN