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

61–70 of 276 posts

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

#61

Post by eudox »

CamonZ wrote: post #49
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.

@eudox. Rigged elections.

Firstly, that's not how replies work. Secondly, no, they were not rigged elections. A couple of links:

https://www.cartercenter.org/documents/297.pdf

http://eeas.europa.eu/eueom/missions/2006/venezuela/index_en...

Of course democracy is not incompatible with Communism. How could it be when the people are enthusiastic supporters of Communism?

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

#64

Post by TillE »

seibelj wrote: post #54
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. Presumably, the real problem we're talking about is state-controlled economies, regardless of the ideologies that set them up.

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 wish we could call that "empathetic capitalism".

OK, but the universally accepted term is democratic socialism, which is quite accurate. "Capitalism" implies a lot more than just free markets.

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

#65

Post by randiantech »

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).

Having democrat elections is not the same of having a functional democracy.

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

#66

Post by tptacek »

awt wrote: post #26
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. Presumably, the real problem we're talking about is state-controlled economies, regardless of the ideologies that set them up.

Would you agree that the term collectivist encompasses both communism and socialism?

This distinction has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

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

#67

Post by ktRolster »

tptacek wrote: post #17
seibelj wrote: post #4

I highly recommend reading Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng [0]. It's a factual, first-hand account of the China's Cultural Revolution and what living in a communist / socialist society is really like from an educated person's perspective. My inlaws escaped Saigon when it fell and say the picture is very accurate. The socialist downfall of countries are all unique, but follow similar paths. I encourage people…

I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. Presumably, the real problem we're talking about is state-controlled economies, regardless of the ideologies that set them up.

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 understand you. If by socialism you mean, "a country that takes care of the poor" than say that.

Arguing over the definition of the term 'socialism' is arguing over a definition, and a waste of breath.

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

#68

Post by randiantech »

markeroon wrote: post #53
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.

Uhhh... how about almost every Nordic country?

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

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

#69

Post by ktRolster »

SilasX wrote: post #51
beloch wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several countries that are fairly socialist have higher living standards than the U.S., where "socialism" is an epithet for some reason. McCarthy lives on I suppose. Venezuela's problem is totalitarianism . In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in Venezuala.

But what was totalitarian about it? All of the economically destructive measures (price controls, currency exchange rates, impositions on the rich/foreign investment) were immensely popular, right?

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

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

#70

Post by tptacek »

seibelj wrote: post #54
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to be more careful with our terminology than using the terms "communist" and "socialist" interchangeably. Presumably, the real problem we're talking about is state-controlled economies, regardless of the ideologies that set them up.

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".

You can be irritated that the word "socialism" is ambiguous, but your irritation doesn't change the fact that it is. We should be careful trying to use the word "socialism" to mean things that it doesn't always mean. That's all I'm saying.

There are already specific, well-known terms that capture the real problem with states like Venezuela or the Soviet Union. For instance, "command economy".

Post reply on HN