Venezuela - Example of How Socialism Leads to Dictatorship?

[DaveDodo007]

http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/04/f ... ctatorship

Last week's episode is only the latest reminder of the tendency of socialism to lead to dictatorship, as identified by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

In 1944, when he wrote his book, Hayek noted that the crimes of the German National Socialists and Soviet Communists were, in great part, the result of growing state control over the economy. As he explained, growing state interference in the economy leads to massive inefficiencies and long queues outside empty shops. A state of perpetual economic crisis then leads to calls for more planning.

But economic planning is inimical to freedom. As there can be no agreement on a single plan in a free society, the centralization of economic decision-making has to be accompanied by centralization of political power in the hands of a small elite. When, in the end, the failure of central planning becomes undeniable, totalitarian regimes tend to silence the dissenters

Recommended reading: "The Road to Serfdom," by FA Hayek. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2 ... 351pdf.pdf

Let's talk about where the Reason article and/or FA Hayek has it wrong.

How communism/socialism will definitely work this time, ignore all the other times it turned into a genocidal cult. Sorry, what is the definition of insanity again by that smart bloke?

[pErvinalia]

Tremendous. Really tremendous country. Most tremendous socialism in the New World. Nicolas Maduro is a good friend of mine, sends me all the coffee and cocaine we use at mar a lago. I fly down there all the time, before I became President, and judge the Miss Teenage Venezuela contest.Miss Universe from Venezuela is a personal friend of mine. I send her sacks of rice.

And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?

[JimC]

Populist dictatorships have been a feature of South American politics for years, as has the use of the bogeyman of yankee imperialism. A veneer of socialism doesn't obscure the corrupt, power-hungry politics in the slightest...

[Forty Two]

Populist dictatorships have been a feature of South American politics for years, as has the use of the bogeyman of yankee imperialism. A veneer of socialism doesn't obscure the corrupt, power-hungry politics in the slightest...

When Hugo was with us, it seemed to obscure it from view of leftists, who tended to view Venezuela as a shining example of socialism...

“Hugo Chavez was a leader that understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the powerless. R.I.P. Mr. President....He understood democracy and basic human desires for a dignified life. His legacy in his nation, and in the hemisphere, will be assured as the people he inspired continue to strive for a better life for the poor and downtrodden.” Representative Jose E. Serrano (Democrat - New York)

Boston Globe - https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/edi ... story.html

In a Salon piece titled “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle,” David Sirota declared that the Venezuelan ruler, with his “full-throated advocacy of socialism,” had “racked up an economic record that . . . American president could only dream of achieving.” The Guardian offered “Three cheers for Chavez.” Moviemaker Oliver Stone filmed a documentary gushing over “the positive changes that have happened economically in all of South America” because of Venezuela’s socialist government. And when Chavez died in 2013, Jimmy Carter extolled the strongman for “improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen.”

Look at the language in the Salon piece referenced by the Boston Globe - http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_ch ... c_miracle/ They said Hugo Chavez was "marginalized as a radical.." there's the usual leftist lingo...he's "marginalized" by the oppressors, and despite that, "his brand of socialism" (you know, the good kind, the kind we've been waiting for...not the Soviet kind...not the Mao kind...not the Castro kind...not the Pol Pot kind...not the Ho Chi Minh kind...not the Kim Il Sun kind, not those kinds.... we have new "brand" of socialism...the one that works...). LOL.

No articles in Salon anymore...no more documentaries from Oliver Stone...no more Sean Penn visits... no glowing reviews for how socialism works and the US needs to take a lesson from Venezuela.... and no pieces examining why it failed, what went wrong, what was done wrong? Why did it collapse into empty stores, extreme poverty, and even extreme hunger now in Venezuela...?

...it wasn't the socialist policies of Hugo Chavez and his team, I'm sure. It's that his "brand" either wasn't the right brand of socialism after all, or that it was subverted by meddling oppressors who, if only Chavez's brand of socialism could have been left to bloom unmolested, it would have created an even greater boon to the people....

So, there will be another Venezuela, and a new brand of socialism touted as the way forward...don't bother about how it never works anywhere...we just have to keep trying until we find the right brand. After all, you can't argue that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, the Sandinistas, Ho Chi Minh, the Kims, and the like, well, they all had the best interests of the poor in mind. Their hearts were in the right place. Gotta be a brand out there somewhere that works...

[DaveDodo007]

Populist dictatorships have been a feature of South American politics for years, as has the use of the bogeyman of yankee imperialism. A veneer of socialism doesn't obscure the corrupt, power-hungry politics in the slightest...

When Hugo was with us, it seemed to obscure it from view of leftists, who tended to view Venezuela as a shining example of socialism...

“Hugo Chavez was a leader that understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the powerless. R.I.P. Mr. President....He understood democracy and basic human desires for a dignified life. His legacy in his nation, and in the hemisphere, will be assured as the people he inspired continue to strive for a better life for the poor and downtrodden.” Representative Jose E. Serrano (Democrat - New York)

Boston Globe - https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/edi ... story.html

In a Salon piece titled “Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle,” David Sirota declared that the Venezuelan ruler, with his “full-throated advocacy of socialism,” had “racked up an economic record that . . . American president could only dream of achieving.” The Guardian offered “Three cheers for Chavez.” Moviemaker Oliver Stone filmed a documentary gushing over “the positive changes that have happened economically in all of South America” because of Venezuela’s socialist government. And when Chavez died in 2013, Jimmy Carter extolled the strongman for “improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen.”

Look at the language in the Salon piece referenced by the Boston Globe - http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_ch ... c_miracle/ They said Hugo Chavez was "marginalized as a radical.." there's the usual leftist lingo...he's "marginalized" by the oppressors, and despite that, "his brand of socialism" (you know, the good kind, the kind we've been waiting for...not the Soviet kind...not the Mao kind...not the Castro kind...not the Pol Pot kind...not the Ho Chi Minh kind...not the Kim Il Sun kind, not those kinds.... we have new "brand" of socialism...the one that works...). LOL.

No articles in Salon anymore...no more documentaries from Oliver Stone...no more Sean Penn visits... no glowing reviews for how socialism works and the US needs to take a lesson from Venezuela.... and no pieces examining why it failed, what went wrong, what was done wrong? Why did it collapse into empty stores, extreme poverty, and even extreme hunger now in Venezuela...?

...it wasn't the socialist policies of Hugo Chavez and his team, I'm sure. It's that his "brand" either wasn't the right brand of socialism after all, or that it was subverted by meddling oppressors who, if only Chavez's brand of socialism could have been left to bloom unmolested, it would have created an even greater boon to the people....

So, there will be another Venezuela, and a new brand of socialism touted as the way forward...don't bother about how it never works anywhere...we just have to keep trying until we find the right brand. After all, you can't argue that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, the Sandinistas, Ho Chi Minh, the Kims, and the like, well, they all had the best interests of the poor in mind. Their hearts were in the right place. Gotta be a brand out there somewhere that works...

Get fucked you capitalist running dog, the magic money tree totally exists. Why do you hate poor people?

[DaveDodo007]

Tremendous. Really tremendous country. Most tremendous socialism in the New World. Nicolas Maduro is a good friend of mine, sends me all the coffee and cocaine we use at mar a lago. I fly down there all the time, before I became President, and judge the Miss Teenage Venezuela contest.Miss Universe from Venezuela is a personal friend of mine. I send her sacks of rice.

And doesn't that photo of Trump and Miss Universe say it all?

Says what exactly? that straight men fancy fit women? That most women are attractive to the top 20% of Alpha males? I really don't get your adherence to an ideology that fucks you over at every turn. Yeah I'm fucked too, I'm involved in a arranged marriage against my wishes but I have enough money to do an end run around it, though it is still a pain in the arse. I still fight for and hope for a different set of cultural norms. You on the other hand seem to embrace your slavery and even fight for it. Though at least you will die knowing nobody could accuse you of being racist or sexist and if that is your goal in life rather than being intellectually honest, then go for it.

[pErvinalia]

0.21% BAC?

I think there's a delicious irony that you can't see what's wrong with that photo. You conservatives have so little social awareness.

[DaveDodo007]

0.21% BAC?

I think there's a delicious irony that you can't see what's wrong with that photo. You conservatives have so little social awareness.

Yep the delicious irony when a bunch of globalist, corporatist sheep do what they are told to do even when the outcome is not in their best interest. Collectivism, don't apply unless you have no mind of your own.

[pErvinalia]

BAC going up?

[Forty Two]

0.21% BAC?

I think there's a delicious irony that you can't see what's wrong with that photo. You conservatives have so little social awareness.

I have a view on it, but how about you describe what you think is wrong with it?

[pErvinalia]

The look in her face and she is pulling away from him. She is repulsed by him.

[Animavore]

Yeah, it's like this.

http://www.impawards.com/1992/alien_three_ver4.html

[Forty Two]

I thought you were going to refer to him leaning in and smiling, but possibly in a leering way. Her position seems more prim. She's sitting properly. Hands loosely resting in her lap, legs together, shoulders turned slightly toward him. Her smile is and eyes do not seem particularly uncomfortable, but more in the sense of someone behaving in the proper, expected manner.

I would think the "wrong" thing in the picture would have something to do with what he's doing. The worst thing I can pick up on what he's doing is leaning towards her, but he's so far away, he's not in her space. I don't detect a leer in his expression. He seems just to be enjoying himself and smiling at her.

But, it is very difficult to tell from single photographs what's going on in those fine details. Most of what we see in these pictures, we bring to the table ourselves. If a person really loathes trump and thinks he's a lech, then they will see his lean and smile as intrusive and leering. The angle of the photo and such makes a huge difference, too.

Like, the infamous butt leer...



Pictures don't "say it all"

[Hermit]

...you can't see what's wrong with that photo. You conservatives have so little social awareness.

I can, but then I am not particularly conservative. The fact that a man reveals his sexual desire via body language is a moral outrage!

Women never do anything of the sort.

[Forty Two]

It's not creepy when women do it because women are marginalized and men are oppressors, so they leer up while men leer down.