Venezuela ravaged by socialism.

[P@triot]

Socialism has nothing to do with monetary policy rube. In the last year Venezuela has increased it's money supply 127%. The money is worth nothing.

And why did they do that? Because of socialism, you dimwit. It's time to grow up. The immature idealism should be left in junior high where it belongs (I realize you're only in high school - but come on).

 

[P@triot]

I guess I have a different understanding of Socialism.

Yes you do. Which is why you should stop commenting on this issue.

 

[OnePercenter]

Isn't Venezuela a third world country?

Yeah. But they have the resources to be a very much First World nation. Too bad it's run by a bunch of progressives.

Lack of infrastructure, two class system, no middle class. Third world.

Pretty much what progressives are trying to do here.

Stagnant middle class income is Republican supported capitalist racketeers.

obummer and his progressive allies in Congress caused the middle class to lose net worth for the first time....ever.

How was that?

 

[P@triot]

Venezuela a third world country?

It was one of the wealthiest nations in the world (due to oil resources) until Hugo Chavez was elected and turned it into a socialist nation.

 

[Tehon]

I guess I have a different understanding of Socialism.

Yes you do. Which is why you should stop commenting on this issue.

What are you, fascist? You won't tolerate a differing opinion snowflake?

 

[Tehon]

Socialism has nothing to do with monetary policy rube. In the last year Venezuela has increased it's money supply 127%. The money is worth nothing.

And why did they do that? Because of socialism, you dimwit. It's time to grow up. The immature idealism should be left in junior high where it belongs (I realize you're only in high school - but come on).

It was a populist policy, nothing to do with socialism.

 

[P@triot]

Authoritarian and collective are contradictory terms. Which is it?

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is nearly impossible to have socialism (collective) without oppression (authoritarian).

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom,” he said in 1848; “socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” - Alexis de Tocqueville

Excerpt From: F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.” University of Chicago Press, 2010-04-06. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[P@triot]

What are you, fascist?

No, I'm not left-wing.

You won't tolerate a differing opinion snowflake?

Because you don't get to have an opinion on socialism itself. You can have an opinion on if you like it. You can have an opinion on if you hate it. But you don't get to have an opinion on the meaning of socialism. There is a definition which society has already determined. Sorry, not sorry if you don't like it.

 

[P@triot]

It was a populist policy, nothing to do with socialism.

Populist is a political ideology, socialism is an economic ideology. You're terribly confused. The political (populist) decision was for the economic (socialism) decision.

It was pure socialism and nothing you can do will change that fact. You can't deny reality out of existence.

 

[P@triot]

Socialism is just a scapegoat for the ignorant.

Socialism isn't a "scapegoat" for the ignorant....socialism is for the ignorant.

“To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives—the craving for freedom—socialism began increasingly to make use of the promise of a “new freedom.” The coming of socialism was to be the leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. It was to bring “economic freedom,” without which the political freedom already gained was “not worth having.” Only socialism was capable of effecting the consummation of the age-long struggle for freedom, in which the attainment of political freedom was but a first step.

The subtle change in meaning to which the word “freedom” was subjected in order that this argument should sound plausible is important. To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised, however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us, although for some very much more than for others. Before man could be truly free, the “despotism of physical want” had to be broken, the “restraints of the economic system” relaxed.

Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. Yet, although the promises of this new freedom were often coupled with irresponsible promises of a great increase in material wealth in a socialist society, it was not from such an absolute conquest of the niggardliness of nature that economic freedom was expected. What the promise really amounted to was that the great existing disparities in the range of choice of different people were to disappear. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth. But the new name gave the socialists another word in common with the [capitalists], and they exploited it to the full. And, although the word was used in a different sense by the two groups, few people noticed this and still fewer asked themselves whether the two kinds of freedom promised could really be combined.”

Excerpt From: F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.” University of Chicago Press, 2010-04-06. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I AM A CAPITALIST....

Not a heartless one that wants the 1% to have it all but one that is the most normal in this world today...I believe in a mixed economy.

 

[OnePercenter]

Venezuela a third world country?

It was one of the wealthiest nations in the world (due to oil resources) until Hugo Chavez was elected and turned it into a socialist nation.

It's been in the 80's for decades.

 

[Tehon]

What are you, fascist?

No, I'm not left-wing.

You won't tolerate a differing opinion snowflake?

Because you don't get to have an opinion on socialism itself. You can have an opinion on if you like it. You can have an opinion on if you hate it. But you don't get to have an opinion on the meaning of socialism. There is a definition which society has already determined. Sorry, not sorry if you don't like it.

How very fascist of you. Forcing me to accept societies meaning of things.

 

[P@triot]

I AM A CAPITALIST....

No...you are an idiot. There is a monumental difference.

 

[Tehon]

It was a populist policy, nothing to do with socialism.

Populist is a political ideology, socialism is an economic ideology. You're terribly confused. The political (populist) decision was for the economic (socialism) decision.

It was pure socialism and nothing you can do will change that fact. You can't deny reality out of existence.

Define socialism for the class.

 

[P@triot]

How very fascist of you. Forcing me to accept societies meaning of things.

Again...you don't get to create your own facts or definitions. Nobody cares if you don't like that. 2+2=4 no matter how much you wish it equaled 5.

 

[P@triot]

Define socialism for the class.

I'm sorry....is your Google broke?

(In a nutshell....centralized control of an economy - including but not limited to - means of production, distribution, regulation, money supply, etc.).

 

[Tehon]

Define socialism for the class.

I'm sorry....is your Google broke?

Right, you can't.

 

[P@triot]

Define socialism for the class.

I'm sorry....is your Google broke?

Right, you can't.

I just did dimwit. Look again

 

[Tehon]

Define socialism for the class.

I'm sorry....is your Google broke?

(In a nutshell....centralized control of an economy - including but not limited to - means of production, distribution, regulation, money supply, etc.).

Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.