| RolStoppable said: I suppose this is the consequence of socialism. |
Of state-socialism, yep. The two can't mix. The nation-state is fundamentally a capitalist institution designed to secure capitalist privilege.
| Gamer147 said: Socialism is no bueno. |
It depends on the socialism one talks about. Socialism is a broad tent of ideologies aiming to bolster the laborer's, renter's, borrower's, etc bargaining power to the point where they can choose not to be exploited. Some socialisms prescribe state controls, other's prescribe freedom and liberty. The latter category es muy bueno.
hunter_alien said:
Now this is a tricky comment. One, Venezuella is not a prime example of working socialism, that would be a country like Norway. Second, there were plenty of destabilizing factors directed by certain... ahem... political entities, against that country. The fact that the US wants to create yet another South Maerican puppet state is not a secret. |
Norway hasn't been all that socialist since the 70's, from what I know about its political history. Modern social democracy = |= socialism.
Leadified said:
How can Venezuela be socialist if it has a private sector? Where do you draw the line between Norway and Venezuela. |
Define "private sector", there is nothing about socialism which inherently precludes markets, money, or individually controlled property. Socialism is merely the bulk of ideologies which wish to solve various inequalities in bargaining power so that the laborer, borrower, and renter are not exploited by absolutist proprietors. There are plenty of socialisms that wish to eliminate all governmentalism and "public" sector entirely. The biggest difference between Norway and Venezuela is rhetoric and implementation. Venezuela's government was aiming for a socialist society, whereas Norway's has given up on that goal. Norway is of course the smarter of the two, as socialism and the modern nation-state are incompatible. The latter cannot achieve the prior through mandates.
Nem said:
Oh it's just the old american tropes. It got taught to their fathers during the post WW2 and passed on to them, because the enemy were the germans. They really don't know/understand much about economy. Heck, most of them think socialism=dictatorship. |
Nem said:
It's both. Communism for the cold war. Whatever sort of political inclination it's rivals had, americans got taught to hate, most don't even understand why and confuse those doctrines with dictatorship. |
It is a bit more complex than that. The colloquial definition of socialism has shifted significantly for many different reasons, and it has come to encompass a subset of socialisms that are incompatible with other values held dear by Americans. In the late 19th century most American socialists were either Mutualists, syndicalists, or libertarian (Kropotkin-influenced) communists. They had relative popularity among the working class. Once the progressive movement started going though, Christian Socialists (who also promoted nationalism, ironically), and big "C" Communists/Marxist-Leninist dominated the movement and all of these are pretty authoritarian ideologies which put off Americans well before World War II. Right-socialism/state-socialism is just not interesting to Americans.
Benjamin Tucker talked about these authoritarian socialists in State Socialism and Anarchism
| Such is the economic programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx. The history of its growth and progress cannot be told here. In this country the parties that uphold it are known as the Socialistic Labor Party, which pretends to follow Karl Marx; the Nationalists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Edward Bellamy; and the Christian Socialists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Jesus Christ. |
Ricardian socialism pushed under a different name would probably be very appealing to Americans. Likewise, certain reforms that would allow certain socialist goals to be achieved, like Georgism have been popular as well.
