Things are not looking good in Venezuela.
Discussion
andy_s said:
'No white hats in geopolitics' = recognition that the US isn't blameless.
'Don't privilege 'socialism'' = ...it's not just socialism the US is involved with.
If you want history, read Solzhenitsyn or Dostoevsky, read Das Kapital by the bourgeois Karl Marx and see what he omitted in his great theory, you may intuitively come to the same conclusions as Sowell, Keynes, Freidman, Hayek, Hegel or even Engels himself. See The Killing Fields or if you can't stomach a 'right' version then look at Year Zero by Pilger to see calamity and needless death on both sides or Orwell's Wigan Pier to see how moderate socialism or socialist elements maybe good but in 1984 how the dystopian conclusion may be very harmful. See what any ideology does to a country - right or left, it ain't pleasant, and to me support of such a bare-faced ideological trap that accounts for more deaths than any other style of governance, including fascism and national socialism, through necessary oppression of the common citizen while dressed up as being the very opposite is more insidious and more reprehensible than any geopolitical tinkering by states that at least proffer some form of liberal [classic, not neo] freedom to its citizens.
f
king 'read history', try it some time.
You foolishly assume, because I staunchly oppose neoliberalism and point out Its relentless assault on an opposing ideology, that, by default I must be a proponent of said opposing ideology. Read my posts again, and point out any instances of me praising socialism or communism. That’s right, I don’t. Ideologues are lazy, and generally can’t form good ideas of their own. Therefore most ideologies are flawed.'Don't privilege 'socialism'' = ...it's not just socialism the US is involved with.
If you want history, read Solzhenitsyn or Dostoevsky, read Das Kapital by the bourgeois Karl Marx and see what he omitted in his great theory, you may intuitively come to the same conclusions as Sowell, Keynes, Freidman, Hayek, Hegel or even Engels himself. See The Killing Fields or if you can't stomach a 'right' version then look at Year Zero by Pilger to see calamity and needless death on both sides or Orwell's Wigan Pier to see how moderate socialism or socialist elements maybe good but in 1984 how the dystopian conclusion may be very harmful. See what any ideology does to a country - right or left, it ain't pleasant, and to me support of such a bare-faced ideological trap that accounts for more deaths than any other style of governance, including fascism and national socialism, through necessary oppression of the common citizen while dressed up as being the very opposite is more insidious and more reprehensible than any geopolitical tinkering by states that at least proffer some form of liberal [classic, not neo] freedom to its citizens.
f
king 'read history', try it some time.I’m not an ideologue, but I can recognise bad ideas, and neoliberalism is a bad idea.
andy_s said:
On this we can agree, but surely you must recognise that Marxist / Communist ideology is equally as bad if not worse, even by dint of body count...?
To a degree yes, but those ideas haven’t been allowed to fully mature unfettered. Therefore no one really knows what a true socialist state would look like. But we can all see what unchecked neoliberalism looks like, and it’s not pretty.PMacanGTS said:
To a degree yes, but those ideas haven’t been allowed to fully mature unfettered. Therefore no one really knows what a true socialist state would look like. But we can all see what unchecked neoliberalism looks like, and it’s not pretty.
Go on, where is this neoliberal dystopia?PMacanGTS said:
My apologies. My point was, both the liberal, and now neoliberal, agenda, that insidiously pervades most western governments and institutions, is ideologically opposed to socialism/communism. It’s a battle of ideas, and what liberals/neoliberals have been brilliant at is undermining states where socialism has been adopted. The US, as the vanguard in this liberal/neoliberal agenda, has used its considerable might to bring about regime change on numerous occasions, including in the USSR.
Socialism in its purest form, has never succeeded because it’s never been allowed to. Even those governments they couldn’t topple, like Castro in Cuba, were systemically attacked both overtly through sanctions etc. and covertly. No matter the cost to the local population.
So swap "socialism" with capitalism, and swap "ussr" with "usa" and "western" with, well whatever is the opposite and that all pretty much holds true apart from the "never succeeded" bit.Socialism in its purest form, has never succeeded because it’s never been allowed to. Even those governments they couldn’t topple, like Castro in Cuba, were systemically attacked both overtly through sanctions etc. and covertly. No matter the cost to the local population.
Socialist states have been just as busy with propaganda, regime change and interference as any other system.
The difference is.. their system is rubbish at it Haha
So whilst not supporting socialism but not supporting capitalist country's desire to stop the spread of socialism (and all the negatives it brings to the residents of those countries and the wider regions), what exactly is your position on Venezuela?
Or are you just wanting the internet to be better educated about your views of things?
PMacanGTS said:
To a degree yes, but those ideas haven’t been allowed to fully mature unfettered. Therefore no one really knows what a true socialist state would look like. But we can all see what unchecked neoliberalism looks like, and it’s not pretty.
So a ‘true socialist state’ may a good idea in theory but can never work in practice, in that case. Like, it could work for a spherical country in a vacuum.Hereward said:
Scratch the surface??? I have dealt with PDVSA at work for 20 years...have you?
It wouldn't have anything to do with the President putting/rewarding people that he wanted to keep in favour (military) in to PDVSA that knew nothing about oil? Skimming money and making no investment into refineries, etc, essentially destroying their primary industry from within?Just a hunch.
PMacanGTS said:
andy_s said:
On this we can agree, but surely you must recognise that Marxist / Communist ideology is equally as bad if not worse, even by dint of body count...?
To a degree yes, but those ideas haven’t been allowed to fully mature unfettered. Therefore no one really knows what a true socialist state would look like. But we can all see what unchecked neoliberalism looks like, and it’s not pretty.The US was tinkering in foreign affairs well before Reagonomics - that's protectionism and projections of power that all states are guilty of to some degree, pragmatically speaking. I don't think it has much to do with the tenets of Adam Smith nor free-market policies per se.
simoid said:
So a ‘true socialist state’ may a good idea in theory but can never work in practice, in that case. Like, it could work for a spherical country in a vacuum.
You also assume I think it’s a better system. I simply don’t know, and neither does anyone else. As a species I firmly believe we haven’t matured enough yet to make it work. But if we’re going to succeed as a species, we’ll have to overcome this penchant for wanting more than our neighbour, otherwise we’re fked.PMacanGTS said:
You need a history lesson. The US doesn’t make much of a secret of being ideologically opposed to socialism. The Korean War, Vietnam and the Cold War were all driven by this ideology. Not to mention the coups in countless Latin American countries during the mid to late 20th century. Even the word ‘socialism’ is used as a weapon of fear in US politics.
Do you think the US should have not got involved with Korea/ Vietnam/ Cold War, so in effect allow the USSR do as it pleased?Do you think the US did right getting involved with the European war of the 1940s?
PMacanGTS said:
A Winner Is You said:
You can provide a list of Socialist and Communist states that have succeeded without surpressing the rights of its citizens then?
Can you list a neoliberal state that has succeeded without suppressing the rights of its citizens then?PMacanGTS said:
simoid said:
So a ‘true socialist state’ may a good idea in theory but can never work in practice, in that case. Like, it could work for a spherical country in a vacuum.
You also assume I think it’s a better system. I simply don’t know, and neither does anyone else. As a species I firmly believe we haven’t matured enough yet to make it work. But if we’re going to succeed as a species, we’ll have to overcome this penchant for wanting more than our neighbour, otherwise we’re fked.If we didn’t want more than our neighbour, or at least more tomorrow than we had yesterday, we’re f
ked too. In fact we’d be extinct. Hopefully as a species we all push and drag each other on and don’t step on each other.nikaiyo2 said:
Do you think the US should have not got involved with Korea/ Vietnam/ Cold War, so in effect allow the USSR do as it pleased?
Do you think the US did right getting involved with the European war of the 1940s?
Cause and effect, it’s so ingrained in us in the west that the USSR was evil. But would they have been so expansionary without the threat from the US? Probably not. If a country or government feels threatened, they’ll react, just as they did.Do you think the US did right getting involved with the European war of the 1940s?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff