Hugo Chavez: Glaring example of Socialist FAIL!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

First, you're wrong. Oil was the biggest industry under Perez .. before Chavez.

Capitalists make more money for themselves. Common people are near meaningless.

History has GLARING examples of what capitalists do and have done throughout Latin America for centuries.

Carlos Andres Perez was that example in Venezuela. He was bought off by the IMF and the World Bank .. capitalists. The common Venezuelan suffered. Chavez was ELECTED as president .. and the Venezuelan people are better off.

And this is the argument that is repeatedly made in defense of Socialism. The problem is, all of the criteria for measurement of who is "better off" and who isn't, is being formulated and manipulated by the Socialists. We know for a fact, the people of Venezuela are ate least a billion dollars LESS well off, than they would have been under a free market capitalist system, where the ruler for life didn't steal a billion dollars worth of wealth for himself.

No need to throw the IMF and World Bank under the bus, if you think they are a bad idea, we should abolish them. However, these entities were created by Socialists, not Capitalists.

Batista is that example in Cuba. The mafia ruled the country and Cuban women in 'donkey shows' was a popular tourist attraction .. which is why the CUBAN PEOPLE got rid of him. The Cuban people are exponentially better off.

You remind me of my niece, who has historically ended up the worst losers for boyfriends. Each time a new one comes along, in spite of the Big L on their foreheads, she points out how much better he is than the last loser. The Cuban people are not "better off" than they would have been under a capitalist free market system.

Running away from what? Sorry to inform you but your arguments are not that difficult and are seriously unlearned.

I asked you what fail? You didn't answer.

But I did explain it to you, in the simplest of terms that even a moron could understand. The basic tenants of Socialism call for more equitable distribution of wealth, but in Venezuela, we have one man who amassed a billion dollars of wealth for himself, and contributed nothing in the way of production or providing any good or service for this wealth. He basically stole the wealth from his people.

You claim that Chavez is a glaring example of socialism fail .. where is it? Is it in your claim that Venezuelans might be better off under capitalism? That's your fail when history tells a different story>

It's in the fact that Chavez was worth a billion dollars, and the average Venezuelan isn't. History doesn't tell any story regarding Venezuelans and free market capitalism, because free market capitalism has never existed there.

That's your claim when capitalism is failing in your own country?

:0)

Capitalism isn't failing in America. It's under constant and relentless attack from Socialists. What's the difference between a Capitalist 1%er and a Venezuelan 1%er? The Capitalist earned his wealth through capitalizing on a demand and supplying a need. The Venezuelan just fucking stole as much wealth as he could from his people. Which system would be better for the people of Venezuela? The one where everyone has the opportunity to earn a billion dollars of wealth, or the system where only Chavez gets that kind of wealth?

You prove the limitations of your own mind. You look for an argument you can challenge rather than engage in an honest discussion and debate on the subject .. which is why I have no real interest in talking to meme people. What's the point?

You sure are a long-winded son of a bitch, for someone who doesn't have an interest in talking.

You're talking to a socialist .. demanding that you know more about socialism than I do.

No, I am talking to an idiot who calls himself a Socialist, because he has bought into the propaganda of Socialism.

Socialism: Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time in place of financial calculation. Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

I'm a democratic socialist. Point out where it says that everybody gets the same.

You don't know what you're talking about and still claim to be an expert.

Every account of a Socialist government, regardless of what variety, has ended in FAILURE! The reason Socialist governments fail, is because of human greed and corruption from within, which is unaccounted for in a Socialist system. In a free market Capitalist system, whenever someone becomes too greedy, another Capitalist capitalizes and prevails. Whenever someone becomes corrupt, we put them in prison, because our system demands accountability by the free people. In the Socialist model, there is no one to be accountable to, the ruling class control both wealth and power, and the people are shit outta luck. They are forced to live with the corruption.

This explains how Chavez ends up with a billion dollars of wealth, but never worked a day in his life.

 

[cancel2 2022]

If Venezuela is this paradise according to some, why is that Caracas is the murder capital even more dangerous than Johannesburg, Medellin or Detroit?

 

[Timshel]

Let's stop being obtuse. His life history is outlined on Wikipedia, he never held a "regular" job. He went straight from being in the military, to being in politics. He's like Obama, sans the military service. So there is no evidence his fortune could have come from a legitimate capitalist business, since he was never associated with one. He did have a fortune, I don't care who reported what on a blog. Reuters and nearly every major news outlet, isn't reporting this based on speculation of a blogger. Most legitimate news outlets are reporting a billion dollars or so, but some have estimated his holdings to be closer to $6 billion. In either event, it is more than the average person, and it's in a system which promises wealth equality. That's my beef, that's what I am asking you Neo-Socialists to explain, and so far, no one has.

Now, we have heard a plethora of excuses for Chavez and his wealth; Like the assertion he wasn't REALLY a Socialist... or he "practiced" Socialism by enforcing Socialist policies on his people as he accumulated great wealth. We're shown the great and wonderful "improvements" in the lives of the common people, as a result of the oil industry, but we can't compare this with the improvement which may have been realized under a free market capitalist system. One thing is for certain, Chavez had considerably more wealth than the average Venezuelan, and he never worked a regular job. This completely contradicts every principle of Socialism.

Source?

Dumbfuck, you are far more supportive of market interventions than me. I am just not as eager to uncritically accept some right wing bullshit and your primarily motivated by your crush on Bush. I would not be surprised at all if he was cheating the system and in fact I would be more surprised to find he had not. But where is the source for your claims?

 

[Taichiliberal]

If Venezuela is this paradise according to some, why is that Caracas is the murder capital even more dangerous than Johannesburg, Medellin or Detroit?

Who claimed it was a paradise? It sure as hell wasn't when the oligarchs ran it prior to Chavez. And of course England has NO civil unrest or history of murder and mayhem (the last sentence was sarcastic in nature).

Bottom line: the subject title of this thread was proven wrong.

 

[blackascoal]

If Venezuela is this paradise according to some, why is that Caracas is the murder capital even more dangerous than Johannesburg, Medellin or Detroit?

Typical silly argument.

Who claims Venezuela is paradise?

As you've stated, crime and murder is resident in far more cities than Caracas, and far more countries than Venezuela.

What has been stated is that the lives Venezuelan people improved exponentially under Chavez .. which is why he was so popular.

If you care to challenge what was actually said .. be my guest.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Typical silly argument.

Who claims Venezuela is paradise?

As you've stated, crime and murder is resident in far more cities than Caracas, and far more countries than Venezuela.

What has been stated is that the lives Venezuelan people improved exponentially under Chavez .. which is why he was so popular.

If you care to challenge what was actually said .. be my guest.

I am not denying that he spent money on the poor, that is a common enough tactic by despots to buy votes. Peron did much the same in Argentina decades before. Chavez also treated PDVSA as his personal piggy bank and left the country's finances in a terrible mess. During his reign, oil production has declined by a million barrels a day because he starved the national oil company of investment.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/06/what-hugo-chavezs-death-means-for-oil.aspx

 

[Lowaicue]

Why is it that most 'debates' here degenerate into simplistic 'binary' nonsense.
Chavez did a lot of good. Chavez might have salted away money that did not belong to him. Chavez might never have had a proper job.

He stole money and was a self avowed socialist. Therefore everyone to the left of Attilla the Hun is a dishonest thieving commie.
He never had a proper job. Therefore everyone who was in the services is a socialist commie thief.
He helped the poor. Therefore he must have been 100% good.

What absolute baloney!

No one is all good. No one is all bad. But some people are unblievably prejudiced. Prejudice is a cancer that drives people apart and destroys societies, black, white, left, right, up, down, yellow or green.

It is the judges not the judged that must be punished. (Yes, that's a judgement too)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Source?

Dumbfuck, you are far more supportive of market interventions than me. I am just not as eager to uncritically accept some right wing bullshit and your primarily motivated by your crush on Bush. I would not be surprised at all if he was cheating the system and in fact I would be more surprised to find he had not. But where is the source for your claims?

Reuters and Associated Press have been reporting his estimated wealth since he died, I don't dispute their reporting. Other sources have reported estimates as high as $6 billion, but I used the number reported by Reuters and AP. This has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike President Bush. I realize you believe everyone's personal opinions are based and rooted in how they feel about Bush, but honestly, most non-retards have forgotten about Bush and moved on with our lives.

I'm glad you're not surprised by the point I made in the OP, that's really all you needed to tell us.

 

[Timshel]

Reuters and Associated Press have been reporting his estimated wealth since he died, I don't dispute their reporting. Other sources have reported estimates as high as $6 billion, but I used the number reported by Reuters and AP. This has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike President Bush. I realize you believe everyone's personal opinions are based and rooted in how they feel about Bush, but honestly, most non-retards have forgotten about Bush and moved on with our lives.

I'm glad you're not surprised by the point I made in the OP, that's really all you needed to tell us.

You don't have a valid source, that's all you really needed to tell us, and so your entire argument is speculative.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Why is it that most 'debates' here degenerate into simplistic 'binary' nonsense.

Then let's dissect some of your binary nonsense:

Chavez did a lot of good.

So say the propagandists. However, a billion dollars goes a long way in improving the lives of the impoverished, so he certainly didn't do as much good as he could have, and he certainly wasn't adhering to the Socialist philosophy of wealth equality.

Chavez might have salted away money that did not belong to him.

There's no "might have" it's a verified fact that he most certainly DID do this.

Chavez might never have had a proper job.

Again, this is verified fact, not speculation.

He stole money and was a self avowed socialist. Therefore everyone to the left of Attilla the Hun is a dishonest thieving commie.

The first sentence is true, the second sentence is not something I said. Is this an example of binary nonsense? If so, I would surmise the nonsense is coming from YOUR fingertips, not mine.

He never had a proper job. Therefore everyone who was in the services is a socialist commie thief.

Wow, a second example of binary nonsense?

He helped the poor. Therefore he must have been 100% good.

Oh, and a THIRD example, for good measure?

What absolute baloney!

Yes, since no one has said the things you are claiming were said, it IS absolute baloney!

No one is all good. No one is all bad. But some people are unblievably prejudiced. Prejudice is a cancer that drives people apart and destroys societies, black, white, left, right, up, down, yellow or green.

It is the judges not the judged that must be punished. (Yes, that's a judgement too)

But we're not debating what is good or bad. The OP argues Chavez is an example of Socialist fail. Since the tenants of Socialism call for wealth equality, and since his wealth wasn't exactly equal to the wealth of the average citizen, we need to examine the source of his wealth, and find out why the Socialist model failed so badly. In doing this, we find that Chavez never had a legitimate business or financial interest in the private sector, he didn't inherit the wealth, so where did it come from? My guess (and it's purely a guess) is that it came from leveraging oil contracts. Clearly, this is money which should have gone to the people of Venezuela, and not Chavez.

 

[Lowaicue]

Then let's dissect some of your binary nonsense:



So say the propagandists. However, a billion dollars goes a long way in improving the lives of the impoverished, so he certainly didn't do as much good as he could have, and he certainly wasn't adhering to the Socialist philosophy of wealth equality.



There's no "might have" it's a verified fact that he most certainly DID do this.



Again, this is verified fact, not speculation.



The first sentence is true, the second sentence is not something I said. Is this an example of binary nonsense? If so, I would surmise the nonsense is coming from YOUR fingertips, not mine.



Wow, a second example of binary nonsense?



Oh, and a THIRD example, for good measure?



Yes, since no one has said the things you are claiming were said, it IS absolute baloney!



But we're not debating what is good or bad. The OP argues Chavez is an example of Socialist fail. Since the tenants of Socialism call for wealth equality, and since his wealth wasn't exactly equal to the wealth of the average citizen, we need to examine the source of his wealth, and find out why the Socialist model failed so badly. In doing this, we find that Chavez never had a legitimate business or financial interest in the private sector, he didn't inherit the wealth, so where did it come from? My guess (and it's purely a guess) is that it came from leveraging oil contracts. Clearly, this is money which should have gone to the people of Venezuela, and not Chavez.

Sorry old fruit. I wasn't addressing you. However to address your obvious concerns, the word 'might' here is not used in the way you think. No I do not need to explain to the likes of you.
The rest of your crap? Cant be bothered. Toodle-oo.

 

[blackascoal]

Why is it that most 'debates' here degenerate into simplistic 'binary' nonsense.
Chavez did a lot of good. Chavez might have salted away money that did not belong to him. Chavez might never have had a proper job.

He stole money and was a self avowed socialist. Therefore everyone to the left of Attilla the Hun is a dishonest thieving commie.
He never had a proper job. Therefore everyone who was in the services is a socialist commie thief.
He helped the poor. Therefore he must have been 100% good.

What absolute baloney!

No one is all good. No one is all bad. But some people are unblievably prejudiced. Prejudice is a cancer that drives people apart and destroys societies, black, white, left, right, up, down, yellow or green.

It is the judges not the judged that must be punished. (Yes, that's a judgement too)

They become binary by those who can't address facts .. only the meme that they've swallowed.

I've never once argued that Chavez was all good. My argument is that he was good to anf for his people .. validated by a history of popular support and never losing an election for office.

There are no perfect people .. but there are many people who do good things for which they are appreciated.

Chavez was one of them.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I am not denying that he spent money on the poor, that is a common enough tactic by despots to buy votes. Peron did much the same in Argentina decades before. Chavez also treated PDVSA as his personal piggy bank and left the country's finances in a terrible mess. During his reign, oil production has declined by a million barrels a day because he starved the national oil company of investment.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/06/what-hugo-chavezs-death-means-for-oil.aspx

Catch what you are saying here, "...I am not denying that he spent money on the poor, that is a common enough tactic by despots to buy votes."

Unconsciously, you are putting forth the EXACT reason why Chavez got re-elected....because the previous gov't DID NOT TAKE CARE OF IT'S PEOPLE! To compare Chavez to Peron is atypical of the knee jerk garbage that imperialistic gov't types that supported the oligarchy in Venezuela spew.....BIG difference between fascism and socialism. In effect, they minimalize and discount how important this aspect of governing is:

http://www.alternet.org/world/dont-...er-was-beloved-home-reducing-extreme?page=0,1

And then there are the liars:

http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2...-about-hugo-chavez-is-apparently-proud-of-it/

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/03/08/nyt-debates-hugo-chavez-minus-the-debate/