Socialist paradise in Venezuela
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 31 May 15 10.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 6.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 31 May 2015 6.36pm
Quote dannyh at 31 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 3.59pm
Quote dannyh at 29 May 2015 3.50pm
Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 2.50pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm
let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.
Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.
Please enlighten me with stories of socialist utopias the world over.....wait a minute, you can’t , there aren't any. Enlighten you? I'm afraid i don't have a spare year on my calander but i'm sure if you phone the council they can give you the number of an excellent nursery You couldn't enlighten a candle. Try answering the questions posed instead of dismissing anyone's point of view whose isn't yours as being stupid. Socialism is good on paper but has no place in reality. Socialism really has redefined capitalism through the 20th century, arguably acting as a mechanism by which capitalist countries reacted to the threat of communism and socialism, and introduced socialist concepts into their states: most notably European countries which adopted a form of socialised capitalism. Whilst the UK isn't maybe as 'socialised' as some of its close neighbours, the history of 20th century capitalism is its embrace of the idea of protection of workers rights, civil rights and provision of welfare and social services. Arguably, this allowed it to outstrip many of the socialist states, such as the Soviet in terms of its delivery to the proletariat and working classes of society. What remains to be seen if Post-Industrialism and globalised capitalism will ultimately fall back into a progressive socialist-capitalist compromise, or whether there is a return to the kind of pure capitalism of the early industrial era and 19th century that resulted in the birth of the communist. At the heart of Socialism is state control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That has been tried in all the Socialist states, and it has been found simply to not work. Yet the likes of TUSC still put it forward as their policy; that is largely why they polled, on average, around 250 votes per candidate in the recent general Election. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that capitalism is actually that good at providing a stable means of production, distribution or exchange either. It does tend towards boom and bust. Those countries that were the soviet states haven't exactly roared into success with capitalism either. I'm not entirely certain you can call the Soviet system entirely a failure, it lasted nearly 70 years, in conflict with the worlds most powerful economies (I'd hesitate to call it a success either). Countries like Cuba and Laos, are probably preferable to be an average joe in many ways to their more capitalist neighbours. Cubans are poor, in terms of individual wealth, but not staving in the streets poor that you tend to see in say Honduras (and have better life expectancy and options). Calling Venezulan socialism a failure because of the collapse of the oil price, is a bit like calling capitalism a failure because of the collapse of the Greek and Ireland economies - the truth is more to do with one trick pony economics and poor management.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 01 Jun 15 8.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 31 May 2015 10.44pm
Quote derben at 31 May 2015 6.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 31 May 2015 6.36pm
Quote dannyh at 31 May 2015 5.48pm
Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 3.59pm
Quote dannyh at 29 May 2015 3.50pm
Quote ghosteagle at 29 May 2015 2.50pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote serial thriller at 28 May 2015 1.24pm
Quote dannyh at 28 May 2015 1.13pm
let me see if I've got this socialism right? Someone works like a demon all thier days and ends up with the same lot in life, as some workshy unwashed bin dipper. I think Capitalism seems a bit fairer.
Edited by serial thriller (28 May 2015 1.34pm) At some point someone called Wal-Mart worked his pips off to provide for his family and by hard work and luck he made a fortune, how the family administer that fortune is not for you to decide (or to distribute among your comrades). Much like Richard Branson, started off with one sh1t heap of a record shop, and through hard work, business savy, and persistence now has an empire, why should he just give at away to Jeremy Kyle types who make the three toes sloth look as productive as hive of bumble bee's. Last question, why is it always middleclass types who abhor the wealthy, is it because they really think they deserve to be as rich as Branson, or Lord Sainsbury, even though the only noteworthy they ever did was drive a bus for ten years ? Capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure is better than anything else out their.
Please enlighten me with stories of socialist utopias the world over.....wait a minute, you can’t , there aren't any. Enlighten you? I'm afraid i don't have a spare year on my calander but i'm sure if you phone the council they can give you the number of an excellent nursery You couldn't enlighten a candle. Try answering the questions posed instead of dismissing anyone's point of view whose isn't yours as being stupid. Socialism is good on paper but has no place in reality. Socialism really has redefined capitalism through the 20th century, arguably acting as a mechanism by which capitalist countries reacted to the threat of communism and socialism, and introduced socialist concepts into their states: most notably European countries which adopted a form of socialised capitalism. Whilst the UK isn't maybe as 'socialised' as some of its close neighbours, the history of 20th century capitalism is its embrace of the idea of protection of workers rights, civil rights and provision of welfare and social services. Arguably, this allowed it to outstrip many of the socialist states, such as the Soviet in terms of its delivery to the proletariat and working classes of society. What remains to be seen if Post-Industrialism and globalised capitalism will ultimately fall back into a progressive socialist-capitalist compromise, or whether there is a return to the kind of pure capitalism of the early industrial era and 19th century that resulted in the birth of the communist. At the heart of Socialism is state control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That has been tried in all the Socialist states, and it has been found simply to not work. Yet the likes of TUSC still put it forward as their policy; that is largely why they polled, on average, around 250 votes per candidate in the recent general Election. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that capitalism is actually that good at providing a stable means of production, distribution or exchange either. It does tend towards boom and bust. Those countries that were the soviet states haven't exactly roared into success with capitalism either. I'm not entirely certain you can call the Soviet system entirely a failure, it lasted nearly 70 years, in conflict with the worlds most powerful economies (I'd hesitate to call it a success either). Countries like Cuba and Laos, are probably preferable to be an average joe in many ways to their more capitalist neighbours. Cubans are poor, in terms of individual wealth, but not staving in the streets poor that you tend to see in say Honduras (and have better life expectancy and options). Calling Venezulan socialism a failure because of the collapse of the oil price, is a bit like calling capitalism a failure because of the collapse of the Greek and Ireland economies - the truth is more to do with one trick pony economics and poor management. Certainly Capitalism is characterised by boom and bust, it is a sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest. The profit motive makes for efficiency and is geared to supplying people with what they want, not what a government says they should want. Socialism is characterised by bust and bust, telling people what they want and restricting personal freedom. I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'. Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population. Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy. Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Kermit8  Hevon 01 Jun 15 11.56am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Norway functions very well and a lot of their ways are rooted in themes of socialism. As is the same of all of the better run and better managed countries whose education, healthcare, transport systems and general quality of life is regarded as being the best.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 01 Jun 15 12.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Jun 2015 11.56am
Norway functions very well and a lot of their ways are rooted in themes of socialism. As is the same of all of the better run and better managed countries whose education, healthcare, transport systems and general quality of life is regarded as being the best. The Kingdom of Norway has not nationalised all means of production, distribution and exchange and its high standard of living is owed largely to their oil and gas resources - that they seem to be able to manage far better than Socialist Venezuela.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 01 Jun 15 12.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 01 Jun 2015 11.56am
Norway functions very well and a lot of their ways are rooted in themes of socialism. As is the same of all of the better run and better managed countries whose education, healthcare, transport systems and general quality of life is regarded as being the best. Second in the 2013 UN poll of happiest countries. And has fjords.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 03 Jun 15 12.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am
I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'. Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population. Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy. Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back.
Capitalism as 'survival of the fittest': Darwin himself was keen to stress that his theory of natural biology shouldn't be adapted for more generalised political point-scoring. It's similar to the 'Capitalism is human nature' argument, a sign of such total indoctrination in a belief system that you begin to suppose there can be no other way, just as Romans believed the Roman Empire to be divinely supported and sent to free the world. Capitalism is only about 300 years old though, whereas humans are millions of years old. Why didn't cavemen start seizing the means of production from workers if Capitalism is so innate? And who exactly are the 'fittest' in Capitalist society? A Russian oligarch who bribes, money launders and murders his way to billions? A CEO of an oil company who massacres tribes in the rainforest, pollutes the environment and silences criticism to make sure he keeps hold of his fortune? Or maybe a banker who rigs financial rates, speculates away billions of public money and spends their squillions on coke and whores? If that's the cream of the crop, I don't really wanna be in the crop! It confuses me as well why you so willingly disregard the positive social benefits which socialism can bring. Look at the rates of absolute poverty in Venezuela before and after Chavez, look at literacy rates in Cuba in contrast to its neighbours, look at how Nicaragua promoted women's rights (before the Americans got involved). As I have said, these places aren't perfect, but your rose-tinted view on these societies is as bad as someone on the left unanimously defending them, and fails to comprehend that many in Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay etc. support the socialist governments. Wealth has never been more concentrated, nor society so economically unequal, as it is today. We continue to rely on slavery to drive our cheap-commodity economy, we have resource wars developing across the globe and environmental exploitation is perpetuating all of this, while killing millions in the poorest countries on earth. Don't kid yourself that Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 03 Jun 15 12.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.05pm
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am
I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'. Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population. Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy. Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back.
Capitalism as 'survival of the fittest': Darwin himself was keen to stress that his theory of natural biology shouldn't be adapted for more generalised political point-scoring. It's similar to the 'Capitalism is human nature' argument, a sign of such total indoctrination in a belief system that you begin to suppose there can be no other way, just as Romans believed the Roman Empire to be divinely supported and sent to free the world. Capitalism is only about 300 years old though, whereas humans are millions of years old. Why didn't cavemen start seizing the means of production from workers if Capitalism is so innate? And who exactly are the 'fittest' in Capitalist society? A Russian oligarch who bribes, money launders and murders his way to billions? A CEO of an oil company who massacres tribes in the rainforest, pollutes the environment and silences criticism to make sure he keeps hold of his fortune? Or maybe a banker who rigs financial rates, speculates away billions of public money and spends their squillions on coke and whores? If that's the cream of the crop, I don't really wanna be in the crop! It confuses me as well why you so willingly disregard the positive social benefits which socialism can bring. Look at the rates of absolute poverty in Venezuela before and after Chavez, look at literacy rates in Cuba in contrast to its neighbours, look at how Nicaragua promoted women's rights (before the Americans got involved). As I have said, these places aren't perfect, but your rose-tinted view on these societies is as bad as someone on the left unanimously defending them, and fails to comprehend that many in Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay etc. support the socialist governments. Wealth has never been more concentrated, nor society so economically unequal, as it is today. We continue to rely on slavery to drive our cheap-commodity economy, we have resource wars developing across the globe and environmental exploitation is perpetuating all of this, while killing millions in the poorest countries on earth. Don't kid yourself that Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees. Your rose-tinted view of Cuba makes me laugh, as I said before, a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. Have a referendum there asking them if they would like a Capitalist economy and democracy. Uruguay and Venezuela are democratic and of course not fully Socialist, they would of course go downhill and cease to be democracies if they were. Capitalism "killing millions in the poorest countries on earth", "Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees". I think Pol Pot had a good go at the latter. China and the USSR managed to kill millions upon millions of their own people. Why don't you tell us how much the North Koreans love their leader?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 03 Jun 15 12.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.31pm
Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.05pm
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am
I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'. Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population. Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy. Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back.
Capitalism as 'survival of the fittest': Darwin himself was keen to stress that his theory of natural biology shouldn't be adapted for more generalised political point-scoring. It's similar to the 'Capitalism is human nature' argument, a sign of such total indoctrination in a belief system that you begin to suppose there can be no other way, just as Romans believed the Roman Empire to be divinely supported and sent to free the world. Capitalism is only about 300 years old though, whereas humans are millions of years old. Why didn't cavemen start seizing the means of production from workers if Capitalism is so innate? And who exactly are the 'fittest' in Capitalist society? A Russian oligarch who bribes, money launders and murders his way to billions? A CEO of an oil company who massacres tribes in the rainforest, pollutes the environment and silences criticism to make sure he keeps hold of his fortune? Or maybe a banker who rigs financial rates, speculates away billions of public money and spends their squillions on coke and whores? If that's the cream of the crop, I don't really wanna be in the crop! It confuses me as well why you so willingly disregard the positive social benefits which socialism can bring. Look at the rates of absolute poverty in Venezuela before and after Chavez, look at literacy rates in Cuba in contrast to its neighbours, look at how Nicaragua promoted women's rights (before the Americans got involved). As I have said, these places aren't perfect, but your rose-tinted view on these societies is as bad as someone on the left unanimously defending them, and fails to comprehend that many in Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay etc. support the socialist governments. Wealth has never been more concentrated, nor society so economically unequal, as it is today. We continue to rely on slavery to drive our cheap-commodity economy, we have resource wars developing across the globe and environmental exploitation is perpetuating all of this, while killing millions in the poorest countries on earth. Don't kid yourself that Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees. Your rose-tinted view of Cuba makes me laugh, as I said before, a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. Have a referendum there asking them if they would like a Capitalist economy and democracy. Uruguay and Venezuela are democratic and of course not fully Socialist, they would of course go downhill and cease to be democracies if they were. Capitalism "killing millions in the poorest countries on earth", "Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees". I think Pol Pot had a good go at the latter. China and the USSR managed to kill millions upon millions of their own people. Why don't you tell us how much the North Koreans love their leader?
And why is Cuba 'fully socialist' but Venezuela and Uruguay aren't? I sadly don't have the necessary money or willpower to carry out these referendums you ask of me, but I do want to ask you one question: what would your criticism be of a non-authoritarian socialist society, like the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia or the Kurds in Syria?
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 03 Jun 15 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.39pm
Quote derben at 03 Jun 2015 12.31pm
Quote serial thriller at 03 Jun 2015 12.05pm
Quote derben at 01 Jun 2015 8.24am
I would say all of the East European ex-Communist countries are better off now, in particular compare Albania then and now. Hold a referendum in all those countries and ask them if they would like to return to the old system - you would have record percentages of votes saying 'no'. Cuba is a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. In Laos a third of the population lives below the international poverty line. Laos has one of the lowest annual incomes in the world. In 2013, Laos ranked in 138th place on the Human Development Index. Laos ranks as the 25th hungriest nation in the world out of the list of the 56 nations with the worst hunger situations. Laos has had a poor human rights record, especially with their acts of genocide towards its Hmong population. Venezula would certainly have ups and downs under Capitalism with oil being a key to their economy. But once again, they will just have downs under a Socialist economy. Captialism tends to be two steps forward and one back.
Capitalism as 'survival of the fittest': Darwin himself was keen to stress that his theory of natural biology shouldn't be adapted for more generalised political point-scoring. It's similar to the 'Capitalism is human nature' argument, a sign of such total indoctrination in a belief system that you begin to suppose there can be no other way, just as Romans believed the Roman Empire to be divinely supported and sent to free the world. Capitalism is only about 300 years old though, whereas humans are millions of years old. Why didn't cavemen start seizing the means of production from workers if Capitalism is so innate? And who exactly are the 'fittest' in Capitalist society? A Russian oligarch who bribes, money launders and murders his way to billions? A CEO of an oil company who massacres tribes in the rainforest, pollutes the environment and silences criticism to make sure he keeps hold of his fortune? Or maybe a banker who rigs financial rates, speculates away billions of public money and spends their squillions on coke and whores? If that's the cream of the crop, I don't really wanna be in the crop! It confuses me as well why you so willingly disregard the positive social benefits which socialism can bring. Look at the rates of absolute poverty in Venezuela before and after Chavez, look at literacy rates in Cuba in contrast to its neighbours, look at how Nicaragua promoted women's rights (before the Americans got involved). As I have said, these places aren't perfect, but your rose-tinted view on these societies is as bad as someone on the left unanimously defending them, and fails to comprehend that many in Venezuela, Cuba, Uruguay etc. support the socialist governments. Wealth has never been more concentrated, nor society so economically unequal, as it is today. We continue to rely on slavery to drive our cheap-commodity economy, we have resource wars developing across the globe and environmental exploitation is perpetuating all of this, while killing millions in the poorest countries on earth. Don't kid yourself that Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees. Your rose-tinted view of Cuba makes me laugh, as I said before, a family run dictatorship with crumbling building and ancient jalopies on the streets, with a significant part of the population engaged in 'illegal' economic activities because the state bans them and tries to carry them out in hopelessly inefficient ways via the state sector. Have a referendum there asking them if they would like a Capitalist economy and democracy. Uruguay and Venezuela are democratic and of course not fully Socialist, they would of course go downhill and cease to be democracies if they were. Capitalism "killing millions in the poorest countries on earth", "Capitalism will do anything other than bring civilisation to its knees". I think Pol Pot had a good go at the latter. China and the USSR managed to kill millions upon millions of their own people. Why don't you tell us how much the North Koreans love their leader?
And why is Cuba 'fully socialist' but Venezuela and Uruguay aren't? I sadly don't have the necessary money or willpower to carry out these referendums you ask of me, but I do want to ask you one question: what would your criticism be of a non-authoritarian socialist society, like the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia or the Kurds in Syria? And I haven't said all Capitalist countries are great or successful or democratic; although the more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be. The Paris Commune lasted a couple of months didn't it - and that was spent fighting, how can anyone judge its worth? Revolutionary Catalonia the same, in a chaotic war (with the left inflicting as much damage on each other as the Fascists did - read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Kurds in Syria - again in a chaotic war. Cuba is more Socialist than Uruguay and Venezuela because Cuba has practically everything under state control, with the inevitable inefficiencies, empty shelves etc, Uruguay and Venezeula still have lots of private (Capitalist) businesses, the fruits of which pay for their Socialist policies.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 03 Jun 15 1.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
And I haven't said all Capitalist countries are great or successful or democratic; although the more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be. The Paris Commune lasted a couple of months didn't it - and that was spent fighting, how can anyone judge its worth? Revolutionary Catalonia the same, in a chaotic war (with the left inflicting as much damage on each other as the Fascists did - read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Kurds in Syria - again in a chaotic war. Cuba is more Socialist than Uruguay and Venezuela because Cuba has practically everything under state control, with the inevitable inefficiencies, empty shelves etc, Uruguay and Venezeula still have lots of private (Capitalist) businesses, the fruits of which pay for their Socialist policies.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 03 Jun 15 1.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ghosteagle at 03 Jun 2015 1.05pm
And I haven't said all Capitalist countries are great or successful or democratic; although the more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be. The Paris Commune lasted a couple of months didn't it - and that was spent fighting, how can anyone judge its worth? Revolutionary Catalonia the same, in a chaotic war (with the left inflicting as much damage on each other as the Fascists did - read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Kurds in Syria - again in a chaotic war. Cuba is more Socialist than Uruguay and Venezuela because Cuba has practically everything under state control, with the inevitable inefficiencies, empty shelves etc, Uruguay and Venezeula still have lots of private (Capitalist) businesses, the fruits of which pay for their Socialist policies.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 03 Jun 15 1.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 03 Jun 2015 1.07pm
Quote ghosteagle at 03 Jun 2015 1.05pm
And I haven't said all Capitalist countries are great or successful or democratic; although the more democratic they are, the more successful they tend to be. The Paris Commune lasted a couple of months didn't it - and that was spent fighting, how can anyone judge its worth? Revolutionary Catalonia the same, in a chaotic war (with the left inflicting as much damage on each other as the Fascists did - read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia). Kurds in Syria - again in a chaotic war. Cuba is more Socialist than Uruguay and Venezuela because Cuba has practically everything under state control, with the inevitable inefficiencies, empty shelves etc, Uruguay and Venezeula still have lots of private (Capitalist) businesses, the fruits of which pay for their Socialist policies.
My sarcasm alarm is ringing......
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.