Wow, new video shows what it looks like in Venezuela. Scary to think govt is capable of this

[Tehon]

I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.

Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a social democrat . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

 

[Divine Wind]

Video Shows Tank Running Over Protestors

I say it's scary to see governments capable of this, but it comes as no surprise to me at least. Maduro needs to go, I hope the citizens oust him without much bloodshed, and stay the hell away from socialism.

Remember when the left was all about Chavez and the socialist utopia he set up...well it looks like the faster socialism progresses, the faster it collapses. Remember this is a country very rich in oil, and should have a leg up on most of the other South American countries surrounding it. Chavez took over oil, and pretty much screwed the pooch on it over night. I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.

Gotta love Socialists and their tanks!

 

[sakinago]

I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.

Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

 

[sakinago]

I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.

Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

What we are seeing in Venezuela was an experiment in socialism unopposed, one man (with the best of intentions) using government as the biggest and end all hammer to do right for his country. It has collapsed within our own lifetime, like so many have before it (I don't know how much more history we need). Can we pleeeeeassse not say that government is/should be the answer to all our problems.

 

[BluesLegend]

That's not Venezuela its Obama's old neighborhood in Chicago.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

now we wait and see who Pelosi and what video Hillary blames it on

 

[Tehon]

I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.

Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Those poor, poor people.

Those poor people actually voted for this. Much like what the Sanders people were for.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.

Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a social democrat . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

Oh FFS, are you seriously trying to deny this is exactly what we would end up with under a Sanders admin?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I'm sorry to good hearted socialist on this site, but government does not do a good job at producing like citizens can. There's very few things government can do well. When people tell you otherwise, they're just trying to expand control and power.

Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

 

[Tehon]

Socialism doesn't necessitate government control over production. That is how it has translated thus far but it misses the mark. It is not Socialism.

What is happening in Venezuela is a nightmare......Maduro should be hung.

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.

 

[sakinago]

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.

Ok I'm going to bring up different issues, but by principle still show the same stark lack of recognition of reality. Bernie did in fact question why the interest rates were so different on a home loan than a college loan, and he did so from a tweet from his twitter account. Now, does that sound like someone who is based in reality, especially in our day where we have so many "overeducated" yet unemployed? He actually questioned that, during a presidential campaign. And we're suppose to call him the socialist not a populist?

 

[pwjohn]

I guess you're to stupid to understand that crapazula is a third world toilet. They always have been and they always will be. They will never realize their wealth in oil so they will forever remain that third world toilet.

You must not be old enough to remember the praise Chavez received for the bang up job in Venezuela. They made movies about him up until a few years ago. One of them is on Netflix now with micheal Pena. And venezuelas is not 3rd world, that's just a cop out, they have plumbing, cars, roads, electricity, etc. they're no more 3rd world than Spain.

And you must be a deeply stupid man.

 

[Snouter]

Yes, Mexico, Central and South America are disasters with filthy savages assaulting, murdering and raping each other daily. But the rioters assaulted some of the military employees a few feet from the armored vehicle. The armored vehicle did exactly what it should have.

 

[Desperado]

Pelosi and Shummer see this as their Democratic Utopia.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Energy, medicine, transportation, "utilities", food, wages, prices, these are all socialistic moves in america alone with great effects on production, yet not enough has been done to for most progressives. Progressivism has one goal and never stops until that goal is reached, by definition. Progressivism requires the government to be always in flux, by nature. Chavez was single handedly able to carry out his socialist agenda, despite any opposition. And if you look at the policies in Venezuela up until 3 years ago, socialist in America would wholeheartedly agree with them. So what makes him different from Bernie sanders?

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.

Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?

 

[Tehon]

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.

Ok I'm going to bring up different issues, but by principle still show the same stark lack of recognition of reality. Bernie did in fact question why the interest rates were so different on a home loan than a college loan, and he did so from a tweet from his twitter account. Now, does that sound like someone who is based in reality, especially in our day where we have so many "overeducated" yet unemployed? He actually questioned that, during a presidential campaign. And we're suppose to call him the socialist not a populist?

I don't call Sanders a socialist and took exception to his calling himself one. It only adds to the confusion of Americans about socialism.

I think his message that you refer to was populist. His ignorance adds nothing to the discussion of socialism vs populism. Ignorance emanates from all parts of society these days.

 

[Tehon]

Chavez carried out a populist agenda.

Bernie Sanders, like Chavez, is socialist in name only. Bernie is actually a Social democracy - Wikipedia . Not to be confused with democratic socialism.

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.

Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?

I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.

Ok I'm going to bring up different issues, but by principle still show the same stark lack of recognition of reality. Bernie did in fact question why the interest rates were so different on a home loan than a college loan, and he did so from a tweet from his twitter account. Now, does that sound like someone who is based in reality, especially in our day where we have so many "overeducated" yet unemployed? He actually questioned that, during a presidential campaign. And we're suppose to call him the socialist not a populist?

I don't call Sanders a socialist and took exception to his calling himself one. It only adds to the confusion of Americans about socialism.

I think his message that you refer to was populist. His ignorance adds nothing to the discussion of socialism vs populism. Ignorance emanates from all parts of society these days.

Mostly emanates from people like you. He said straight up when asked he was a democratic socialist. How are you confused by that?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

No this is also another cop out that's trying to be made by the left, with the election of trump, that chavez was a populist, more than a socialist, with trump being described as populist. Don't get me wrong I think trump is a socialist by nature. But so was Chavez and so is maduro.

And if Chavez was such a populist, then why didn't the socialist in America call him out for being just a populist? They had nothing but praise for him. Again, we have streets named after Chavez, we have movies with pretty big actors like micheal Pena glorifying Chavez. Would this have been done had the left only considered Chavez a populist?

I don't see the left in America as being socialist either. Social democrats sure, but not socialist. They supported a neo-liberal presidential candidate for crying out loud.

Well, you're kinda dumb then.

Who on the left is calling for the social ownership of the means of production? Abolishing capital if you will.

Did Chavez do it? Or did he simply replace private capital for state capital? Thereby leaving the wage laborer in the same predicament.

Are you seriously so fucking stupid you don't know what socialism is?

I just defined it for you. Do you lack the ability to understand?

It's actually been defined throughout history. Socialism kills not only nations but millions of people. It never can work out any different. Venezuela will next see millions die because they chose this route. Why would we do that here?