What is it about Socialism that makes you want it here in the United States?

[dblack]

Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.

I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.

Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

I know what it is, you pompous prick.

But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.

 

[Tehon]

I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.

Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

I know what it is, you pompous prick.

But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.

You don't have a foundation to stand on. You are running away because what you know about political economy fits on a bumper sticker. You're right, we've already been down this road.

 

[dblack]

I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.

Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.

 

[Tehon]

Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.

A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?

 

[dblack]

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.

A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?

Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking about is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?

Here's why: because you're lying. Because you want to spread confusion and doubt and undermine the meaning of the words we use in order to manipulate people. Fuck you.

 

[Tehon]

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.

A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?

Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?

Here's why: because you're lying.

I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.

You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose then I would advise you to find another one.

I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.

 

[dblack]

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.

A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?

Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?

Here's why: because you're lying.

I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.

You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose than I would advise you to find another one.

I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.

Sling your con job somewhere else.

 

[GLASNOST]

Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.

I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.

Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

You clearly have no idea what it is all about, no experience, not even well-read. Even simple words like 'control' and 'regulate! are beyond your comprehension.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, people wait for socialism. Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks. It never works. You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food? Never. It's never happened. I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.

Not all have enough money to buy capitalist food. Venezuela is a good example for this. The Supermarket Chains:

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (Charity Supermarket)

Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.

Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public? When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so. And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.

There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.

Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
The Most Dangerous Cities in the World

A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.

​

The irony of that statement, is that it is true. Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.

​

While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.

See here:
Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program
About food delivery in Venezuela

Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.

Amid Shortages, Venezuela Forces All Food Distribution into State Hands

What began as rumors of state meddling in the food-distribution market in Venezuela were finally confirmed on Monday. The Nicolás Maduro government is compelling the country’s food producers to send up to 100 percent of their output to state-owned distribution centers and stores, in an attempt to solve the nation’s shortage problems.
​

The shortages of food at private stores, is identical to the government run stores, because the government is imposing it's rule on both. It is socialism. Direct ownership is not required to impose socialism, as long as you have control. If I dictate to you, every aspect of your life.... I may not own you on paper, but I certainly control you.

There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.

There was a general claim about violence against children. If you are saying this is an isolated incident... then that isn't a systemic problem across the country. Whereas the violence in Socialist Venezuela, most certainly is. You can directly trace the rise and violence, to the policies that Chavez implemented.

If you are saying there is a general problem of police being violent against children, the only cases I know about, the children instigated the violence.

Nothing in that video shows what led up to that point. I don't see anything wrong with what the officer was doing. Innocent until proven guilty, is for all citizens, including citizens that become police officers. You don't magically lose your constitutional rights when you get a badge. When you can provide clear undeniable proof that officer just randomly starting beating a kid without reason or cause, then show it. Even then, this isn't a national problem. You have 3 videos out of 300+ million people.

Meanwhile, over 2 million people have fled Venezuela. I don't see even a thousand people "fleeing" the US to get to Venezuela, but they are coming here. So clearly the problem is there, not here.

A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.

Well yes. Socialism and Capitalism are not like light-switches. It's not one or the other system. Some places have more socialism than others. In fact, even in the Soviet Union, it wasn't 100% socialism. Fun fact: only about 90% of all farms in the USSR were government owned. 10% were still privately run, and ironically 33% of all food produced in the USSR, came from those private farms. (Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics)

So yes, in many ways I would suggest that Detroit was highly socialized. From their pro-union policies, to their heavy regulation, to their pro-minority and entitlement policies.

Regardless.... you do actually have a point. I did not suggest to you that all violence is inherently due to just socialism. Do you see the difference?

All socialism tends towards violence.

That statement does not imply that all violence is due to socialism.

If you do not enforce the law, under any system, you will have violence. Lack of law enforcement, results in violence.

But socialism inherently results in violence.

About food delivery in Venezuela

For poor Venezuelans, a box of food may sway vote for Maduro - Reuters

The government sources almost all the CLAP goods from abroad, especially from Mexico, since Venezuela’s food production has shriveled and currency controls restrict private imports.

Critics, including Maduro’s main challenger for the May 20 vote, Henri Falcon, say the CLAPs are a cynical form of political patronage and are rife with corruption.

Erratic supply and control of distribution by government-affiliated groups have sown resentment among others.

“I can’t count on it. Sometimes it comes, sometimes not,” said Viviana Colmenares, 24, an unemployed mother of six struggling to get by in Petare.

The administration of the CLAP - the Local Supply and Production Committees - does not hide its political motivation.

“It has helped us stop a social explosion and enabled us to win elections and to keep winning them,” he told Reuters, referring to government victories in 2017 local polls.​

So let's review. This is a direct attempt to buy votes from the public, which is working. They can't even source the food from Venezuela, which prior to the socialist revolution, was a net-exporter of food. Not only this, but this makes people even more dependent on Maduro, which is his whole goal. He wants to keep people under his control with food, which is why he maintains the policies that has destroyed the food production in the country.

To top it off, the program is funneled through politically connected groups, and rife with corruption.

You know what this is? It's a real life version of the hunger games, except people are dumb enough to support it.

Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program

In Venezuela’s housing projects, even loyalists have had enough

The Villa Poligono housing project, near the city of San Félix, in Venezuela’s south-eastern Bolívar state, is somewhere President Maduro might once have felt his popularity was secure.

But for the past few weeks few of its residents have been at home. Instead they can be found on the road outside, mounting a noisy protest. “We’ve had enough’, says Anna Karena, 44. “This has to end.”

She has multiple grievances. Shockingly, none of the breezeblock homes in the entire complex has ever had running water. When the residents were given their keys in 2014, they were told that the plumbing would soon be connected. It never was. More recently, electricity blackouts, lasting four hours at a time, have become routine, as a combination of drought and inefficiency has left the nation without enough generating capacity.

But what seems to have persuaded her and her neighbours to protest openly is the extreme scarcity of basics, such as rice, soap and medicines. Unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the rampant black market, Karena has to queue for hours, sometimes from before dawn, just to buy enough to eat.

Hers are the same allegations of government incompetence and corruption that are echoing across this nation. A crash in the global price of oil, by far Venezuela’s most significant export, has unmasked both its dysfunctional economy and a calamitous lack of foresight on the part of its leaders. It is grappling with the world’s deepest recession, the world’s highest inflation (estimated at around 500%), and the world’s second highest murder rate. It has no sovereign wealth fund and is facing the serious risk of default by November.

“They have been telling us for years it’s about to get better,” says Karena, pointing to a field that the residents use as a public latrine. “You want to know what happened to the money that they should have set aside for electricity and water?” says her neighbour, Yanileth. “They stole it.”
​

2.7 Million flats, and they are all garbage. No running water, no ventilation, and many buildings do not even have electricity. I was blown away by some pictures posted by Maduro supporters, trying to show off how great the apartment buildings were, not one had any lights on. Turns out, they didn't have power, and thus they couldn't turn on the lights.

Nicolás Maduro's plan for Venezuela adds bewilderment to despair

The UN estimates that 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled since 2015 with Colombian authorities predicting 2 million more could follow by 2020. That would mean some 4.3 million people – 14% of Venezuela’s population – had taken flight.​

Over 2 million people have fled the country, and more leaving every day.

If that food, and those houses were so great, why are literally millions of people leaving? Do you see millions of people leaving the Capitalist based US, to get to Venezuela? No you do not. But they have free food and housing!

Socialism sucks.

I'm honestly a little baffled by some of the housing projects in Venezuela. They build some of those million units, in areas that have no jobs. So what exactly is the long term plan? They stay in their apartments and die?
Whatever.

Wow, your propaganda sources are really comprehensive. I guess this is why your days are all about Socialism. Truth is different though.

Paris priciest city, Caracas cheapest

You really posted that? You really posted that..... Did you actually read your own link? Bottom of the page *YOU* posted.....

“Put simply, cheaper cities also tend to be less livable,” EIU said.
​

The super cheap cities to live in, are super cheap because they suck. Duh.... When you can buy an entire house for $1,000... like in Detroit.... it's because people are leaving Detroit. No one wants those properties.... that's why they are cheap.

Are you an idiot? I'm completely baffled by this... you posted a link proving your own position idiotic.

“As Damascus and Caracas show, a growing number of locations are becoming cheaper because of the impact of political or economic disruption,” EIU said.
​

Again, this is from YOUR link.... Caracas has overtaken Damascus as the cheapest city...... Damascus... you know.... Damascus Syria where the government has dropped barrel bombs on schools, and used chemical gas on it's own people, where they have been in civil war for 8 full years now......

Caracas is even LESS desirable than the capital city of a country in full blown civil war.

You don't see how hilariously stupid you look to everyone on this forum now?

​

 

[GLASNOST]

Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.

I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.

Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

It is very civilized of you to ask him .... but we already know the answer so it's sort of a rhetorical question.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

The outcome would be the same.

If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism. Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism. There is no socialism involved.

You can't have it both ways. It either is operating like a market, or it is not. It can't be both.

 

[GLASNOST]

I know what it is, you pompous prick.
But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.

You are just another voluntary ignorant side-stepping the onslaught of truth, sense, and logic heading your way.

 

[Andylusion]

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.

A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?

Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?

Here's why: because you're lying.

I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.

You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose then I would advise you to find another one.

I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.

I don't really have a problem with co-ops.... but generally co-ops are really only co-ops in name only. The employees have no real ownership of the company.

What would you suggest as a successful co-op?

The only co-ops I've seen have been niche businesses, that were small, and employed few people.

 

[Tehon]

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.

Did you even bother to look up what it is?

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

The outcome would be the same.

If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism. Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism. There is no socialism involved.

You can't have it both ways. It either is operating like a market, or it is not. It can't be both.

Don't you understand the basics of political economy? Factors of production are treated as independent of the market. Market socialism simply means that factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately. Regardless of the way in which you organize the factors of production, the products can still be sold in the market.

 

[Tehon]

Yeah, it's just socialism.

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something. This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market. It's just socialism.

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.

A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?

Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?

Here's why: because you're lying.

I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.

You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose then I would advise you to find another one.

I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.

I don't really have a problem with co-ops.... but generally co-ops are really only co-ops in name only. The employees have no real ownership of the company.

What would you suggest as a successful co-op?

The only co-ops I've seen have been niche businesses, that were small, and employed few people.

Mondragon Corporation is a successful co-op.

 

[Bleipriester]

Yes, people wait for socialism. Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks. It never works. You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food? Never. It's never happened. I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.

Not all have enough money to buy capitalist food. Venezuela is a good example for this. The Supermarket Chains:

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (Charity Supermarket)

Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.

Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public? When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so. And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.

There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.

Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
The Most Dangerous Cities in the World

A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.

​

The irony of that statement, is that it is true. Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.

​

While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.

See here:
Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program
About food delivery in Venezuela

Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.

Amid Shortages, Venezuela Forces All Food Distribution into State Hands

What began as rumors of state meddling in the food-distribution market in Venezuela were finally confirmed on Monday. The Nicolás Maduro government is compelling the country’s food producers to send up to 100 percent of their output to state-owned distribution centers and stores, in an attempt to solve the nation’s shortage problems.
​

The shortages of food at private stores, is identical to the government run stores, because the government is imposing it's rule on both. It is socialism. Direct ownership is not required to impose socialism, as long as you have control. If I dictate to you, every aspect of your life.... I may not own you on paper, but I certainly control you.

There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.

There was a general claim about violence against children. If you are saying this is an isolated incident... then that isn't a systemic problem across the country. Whereas the violence in Socialist Venezuela, most certainly is. You can directly trace the rise and violence, to the policies that Chavez implemented.

If you are saying there is a general problem of police being violent against children, the only cases I know about, the children instigated the violence.

Nothing in that video shows what led up to that point. I don't see anything wrong with what the officer was doing. Innocent until proven guilty, is for all citizens, including citizens that become police officers. You don't magically lose your constitutional rights when you get a badge. When you can provide clear undeniable proof that officer just randomly starting beating a kid without reason or cause, then show it. Even then, this isn't a national problem. You have 3 videos out of 300+ million people.

Meanwhile, over 2 million people have fled Venezuela. I don't see even a thousand people "fleeing" the US to get to Venezuela, but they are coming here. So clearly the problem is there, not here.

A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.

Well yes. Socialism and Capitalism are not like light-switches. It's not one or the other system. Some places have more socialism than others. In fact, even in the Soviet Union, it wasn't 100% socialism. Fun fact: only about 90% of all farms in the USSR were government owned. 10% were still privately run, and ironically 33% of all food produced in the USSR, came from those private farms. (Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics)

So yes, in many ways I would suggest that Detroit was highly socialized. From their pro-union policies, to their heavy regulation, to their pro-minority and entitlement policies.

Regardless.... you do actually have a point. I did not suggest to you that all violence is inherently due to just socialism. Do you see the difference?

All socialism tends towards violence.

That statement does not imply that all violence is due to socialism.

If you do not enforce the law, under any system, you will have violence. Lack of law enforcement, results in violence.

But socialism inherently results in violence.

About food delivery in Venezuela

For poor Venezuelans, a box of food may sway vote for Maduro - Reuters

The government sources almost all the CLAP goods from abroad, especially from Mexico, since Venezuela’s food production has shriveled and currency controls restrict private imports.

Critics, including Maduro’s main challenger for the May 20 vote, Henri Falcon, say the CLAPs are a cynical form of political patronage and are rife with corruption.

Erratic supply and control of distribution by government-affiliated groups have sown resentment among others.

“I can’t count on it. Sometimes it comes, sometimes not,” said Viviana Colmenares, 24, an unemployed mother of six struggling to get by in Petare.

The administration of the CLAP - the Local Supply and Production Committees - does not hide its political motivation.

“It has helped us stop a social explosion and enabled us to win elections and to keep winning them,” he told Reuters, referring to government victories in 2017 local polls.​

So let's review. This is a direct attempt to buy votes from the public, which is working. They can't even source the food from Venezuela, which prior to the socialist revolution, was a net-exporter of food. Not only this, but this makes people even more dependent on Maduro, which is his whole goal. He wants to keep people under his control with food, which is why he maintains the policies that has destroyed the food production in the country.

To top it off, the program is funneled through politically connected groups, and rife with corruption.

You know what this is? It's a real life version of the hunger games, except people are dumb enough to support it.

Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program

In Venezuela’s housing projects, even loyalists have had enough

The Villa Poligono housing project, near the city of San Félix, in Venezuela’s south-eastern Bolívar state, is somewhere President Maduro might once have felt his popularity was secure.

But for the past few weeks few of its residents have been at home. Instead they can be found on the road outside, mounting a noisy protest. “We’ve had enough’, says Anna Karena, 44. “This has to end.”

She has multiple grievances. Shockingly, none of the breezeblock homes in the entire complex has ever had running water. When the residents were given their keys in 2014, they were told that the plumbing would soon be connected. It never was. More recently, electricity blackouts, lasting four hours at a time, have become routine, as a combination of drought and inefficiency has left the nation without enough generating capacity.

But what seems to have persuaded her and her neighbours to protest openly is the extreme scarcity of basics, such as rice, soap and medicines. Unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the rampant black market, Karena has to queue for hours, sometimes from before dawn, just to buy enough to eat.

Hers are the same allegations of government incompetence and corruption that are echoing across this nation. A crash in the global price of oil, by far Venezuela’s most significant export, has unmasked both its dysfunctional economy and a calamitous lack of foresight on the part of its leaders. It is grappling with the world’s deepest recession, the world’s highest inflation (estimated at around 500%), and the world’s second highest murder rate. It has no sovereign wealth fund and is facing the serious risk of default by November.

“They have been telling us for years it’s about to get better,” says Karena, pointing to a field that the residents use as a public latrine. “You want to know what happened to the money that they should have set aside for electricity and water?” says her neighbour, Yanileth. “They stole it.”
​

2.7 Million flats, and they are all garbage. No running water, no ventilation, and many buildings do not even have electricity. I was blown away by some pictures posted by Maduro supporters, trying to show off how great the apartment buildings were, not one had any lights on. Turns out, they didn't have power, and thus they couldn't turn on the lights.

Nicolás Maduro's plan for Venezuela adds bewilderment to despair

The UN estimates that 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled since 2015 with Colombian authorities predicting 2 million more could follow by 2020. That would mean some 4.3 million people – 14% of Venezuela’s population – had taken flight.​

Over 2 million people have fled the country, and more leaving every day.

If that food, and those houses were so great, why are literally millions of people leaving? Do you see millions of people leaving the Capitalist based US, to get to Venezuela? No you do not. But they have free food and housing!

Socialism sucks.

I'm honestly a little baffled by some of the housing projects in Venezuela. They build some of those million units, in areas that have no jobs. So what exactly is the long term plan? They stay in their apartments and die?
Whatever.

Wow, your propaganda sources are really comprehensive. I guess this is why your days are all about Socialism. Truth is different though.

Paris priciest city, Caracas cheapest

You really posted that? You really posted that..... Did you actually read your own link? Bottom of the page *YOU* posted.....

“Put simply, cheaper cities also tend to be less livable,” EIU said.
​

The super cheap cities to live in, are super cheap because they suck. Duh.... When you can buy an entire house for $1,000... like in Detroit.... it's because people are leaving Detroit. No one wants those properties.... that's why they are cheap.

Are you an idiot? I'm completely baffled by this... you posted a link proving your own position idiotic.

“As Damascus and Caracas show, a growing number of locations are becoming cheaper because of the impact of political or economic disruption,” EIU said.
​

Again, this is from YOUR link.... Caracas has overtaken Damascus as the cheapest city...... Damascus... you know.... Damascus Syria where the government has dropped barrel bombs on schools, and used chemical gas on it's own people, where they have been in civil war for 8 full years now......

Caracas is even LESS desirable than the capital city of a country in full blown civil war.

You don't see how hilariously stupid you look to everyone on this forum now?

​

The meaning is that people there don´t have much money. Nobody denies this. Because of reasonable measures taken by the government, stuff is still affordable. Places that really suck, like some in Africa suffer from a lack of of countermeasures and there is no proper alternative for the small bottle of water for 2 Dollars.
Your logic is: The place sucks, this is why electricity ect is cheap. But actually, it is a good thing when stuff is cheap.

 

[dblack]

I know what it is, you pompous prick.
But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.

You are just another voluntary ignorant side-stepping the onslaught of truth, sense, and logic heading your way.

If it were only a matter of side-stepping it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If socialists merely wanted to form collectives and communes - that would be great. But of course, they aren't satisfied with that and want to force their collectivism on everyone else.

 

[GLASNOST]

... socialists ..... want to force their collectivism on everyone else.

Who told you that?

 

[dblack]

... socialists ..... want to force their collectivism on everyone else.

Who told you that?

Socialists. Did someone try to convince you otherwise?

 

[GLASNOST]

... socialists ..... want to force their collectivism on everyone else.

Who told you that?

Socialists. Did someone try to convince you otherwise?

Are you out of your mind? I am from Sweden. During the Cold War I have been to the Soviet Union. I have been to Poland. I have been to East Germany. I have been to Hungary. I have been to Romania. I have been to Czechoslovakia. I have been to the Ukraine. I have been to Belarus. I have been to Yugoslavia. I have been to Albania. I have been to Latvia. I have been to Lithuania, I have been to Estonia. My wife is from Czechoslovakia. I guess your "Dick & Jane Easy Reader" didn't tell you that Socialism in this country, and that country, and the other country, and in the minds of the people who you've met, and in the minds of the people who I've met ........ are not the same. Why am I even trying to tell you anything? This is a waste of time.