Ask a red

[Huayna Capac357]

No, I don't like Venezuela's model. As I said, it is entirely dependent on oil sales, which must stay about $74/barrel to remain economically sound. It is around $55 or so now IIRC, and has been down for some time. He needs to get a basis for his economy quickly, or he won't be able to afford his social programs. Those programs, however, are doing real wonders for the vastly impoverished, illiterate, and insalubrious population. I like Chavez himself, though, even if he is a tad bombastic.

What do you think would be able to give Venezuela a sustainable source of income?

Also, I like your use of the word "insalubrious."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What do you think would be able to give Venezuela a sustainable source of income?

Also, I like your use of the word "insalubrious."

Most of Latin America's industry is light industry and the production of raw materials. They export those materials to the more developed world to be refined and processed, and then they have to buy that finished product; they produce little in that manner for themselves. I think Chavez could find a real strength for his economy if he could get some of that heavy industry in Venezuela, then it would acomplish multiple goals for him: first, it would reduce the power of the United States, the primary trading partner of nearly every nation in Latin America, which would facilitate the second, which is making himself and Venezuela into the new regional leaders, and third, it would of course give Venezuela a real, dependable basis for an economy, as well as facilitate a growing industrialization and modernization of his country, and greater wealth to bring his nation and people out of poverty and the third world and into a real economic, and thus political, power.

 

[innonimatu]

Most of Latin America's industry is light industry and the production of raw materials. They export those materials to the more developed world to be refined and processed, and then they have to buy that finished product; they produce little in that manner for themselves.

Latin America actually did made good progress on getting its industrialization going, until the 1970s. Then, in the late 1980s and after, it embraced "free trade", privatization, etc. - basically the "Washington consensus" - and has wasted some 20 years thanks to that. But governments there (Venezuela included) are showing signs that they learned from those mistakes and shifting to good development policies again - where the state must identify strategic industries and then protect those which exist, or create and operate them from the start.

The sad thing is that outside the mass media there were always people and organizations pointing out the folly of abandoning those older development policies, but they were ignored and are only now again getting attention.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Latin America actually did made good progress on getting its industrialization going, until the 1970s. Then, in the late 1980s and after, it embraced "free trade", privatization, etc. - basically the "Washington consensus" - and has wasted some 20 years thanks to that. But governments there (Venezuela included) are showing signs that they learned from those mistakes and shifting to good development policies again - where the state must identify strategic industries and then protect those which exist, or create and operate them from the start.

The sad thing is that outside the mass media there were always people and organizations pointing out the folly of abandoning those older development policies, but they were ignored and are only now again getting attention.

I believe Latin America was robbed by the USA. In the 1980's US encouraged the Latin American banks to take out USD loans. However, in the late 1980's, the value of the USD suddenly rose heavily, doubling or tripling the loans of the Latin American countries, leading to bankruptcy and inflation. Took no genius to see what happened. Japan and most of southeast asia also had their wealth "redistributed" in this way.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I apologize again for lagging behind, buy I will try to catch up the next few days.
En passant let me just point out that there are only three countries in Scandinavia. that none of them ever were remotedly socialist, and that life is too short for debating Orwell on such terms.
Also, I must once again remind you that this is not a debate thread.

 

[Crezth]

How is justified the hundreds of millions killed or left to die by Soviet and Chinese communist regimes?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

It's not. What you just did is a troll.

 

[Crezth]

So calling attention to the crimes of political leaders is "trolling" now? Excuse me, Mr. Zedong, I didn't mean to imply anything by discussing your fifty million own citizens killed, please allow me to step aside. Oh, sorry Hitler, my intention was not to offend by bringing up the holocaust.

It's extremely puerile and sheltered to denounce the most powerful opposition arguments as trolls. Why *doesn't* everyone embrace communism? I'd say the millions of dead provide a compelling argument.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

You should have read the past 427 posts in this thread. There are many different types of communists, just like there are many different capitalists. Do all capitalists espouse the views of Pinochet? No. Likewise, not all (or even most) communists are Stalinists. Not to mention Stalin wasn't so much communist as kleptocratic fascist.

The millions dead are arguments against fascist or totalitarian government, not a communist economic system.

 

[potatokiosk]

Not to mention Stalin wasn't so much communist as kleptocratic fascist.

What makes you say that? Do you consider the Soviet Union to have been a fascist state?

 

[Crezth]

Let's look at communal economic systems where they have occurred.

Lenin's economy failed spectacularly and required private stimulus, in the form of the NEP.

Mao's economy was spurred on by a "great leap forward," a collectivist effort at industrialization. Millions died.

Stalin's economy was essentially collectivist; dressing it up as "kleptocratic fascism" doesn't do justice to the Soviet Union's vast social implications. To that end, what IS kleptocratic fascism? And does it include liberalizing women, providing free health care to millions of Soviet citizens, and making an industrial power out of a backwater mess? As I recall fascism was opposed to two out of three of these things. Guess which ones!

Your description of Stalinism, as well as your defense of communism, fails to acknowledge some of the tendencies of communist governments. Wherever they have been established, they have been enforced by oppressive regimes which killed many millions. All ostensibly positive things such as healthcare and social equity aside, you cannot deny that a vast majority of "communist" regimes were dictatorships. That's the way it goes.

But of course, they weren't real communism. The party line has it that they were fascist ploys. Am I right?

When individuals spout communist ideals and create states they call communist backed by communist social and economic reforms, you can bet that there's going to be some association there. Making a perfect non-repressive communist society is like making a perfect non-repressive ethnocentric theocratic monarchy in a cosmopolitan community. It won't happen.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

EDIT: Ubercrosspost

Yes. It has all the hallmarks (for example extreme militarism, nationalism, and dictatorship)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cease and desist, Crezth, or the authorities will be alerted to your actions here.

This is a question and answer thread about the nature of socialism and communism. It is not a discussion thread. If you wish to start a discussion, then start a new thread.

Huayna, don't engage the troll, it only encourages him.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

EDIT: Deleted.

 

[carmen510]

Rich????? The last time I checked the rich don't ride public transit. And they don't drive 8 year old hondas.

Last time I checked, in New York at least, the rich DO ride public transit.

Oh and, I don't think that poor or middle-class Africans even have 8 year old Hondas.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You should have read the past 427 posts in this thread. There are many different types of communists, just like there are many different capitalists. Do all capitalists espouse the views of Pinochet? No. Likewise, not all (or even most) communists are Stalinists. Not to mention Stalin wasn't so much communist as kleptocratic fascist.

The millions dead are arguments against fascist or totalitarian government, not a communist economic system.

With regards to this and the post you deleted, you may find the link in this post of Luce's to be of some use. I also have a much longer read for you if you're interested, which I will deliver to you via PM if you so wish.

 

[Crezth]

Cease and desist, Crezth, or the authorities will be alerted to your actions here.

This is a question and answer thread about the nature of socialism and communism. It is not a discussion thread. If you wish to start a discussion, then start a new thread

I asked a perfectly reasonable question and was promptly shouted down for trolling. When I tried to justify my position I was shouted down for not asking questions. You guys really are communist. If it's that much of a worry (communism not being able to hold up to close scrutiny, for example) then I shall take my leave. I wonder if it's too much to expect the question of "How is justified the death of millions at communist hands?" to be answered.

 

[holy king]

I asked a perfectly reasonable question and was promptly shouted down for trolling. When I tried to justify my position I was shouted down for not asking questions. You guys really are communist. If it's that much of a worry (communism not being able to hold up to close scrutiny, for example) then I shall take my leave. I wonder if it's too much to expect the question of "How is justified the death of millions at communist hands?" to be answered.

it is the equivalent of: "do you still beat your wife?". in internet speak: trolling.

if you want to start such a (rather lame, if you ask me) discussion, start a new thread and hope for someone to take the bait.

 

[Crezth]

I honestly wanted to know (and still do) how it's accounted for. It is the product of communism. How can communism atone for this crime?

 

[holy king]

by asking "how is it justified?" you presuppose the answerer will try to justify.
how about finding out if that is the case at all first?

also, what era and area are you talking about? your question is rather unspecific, do you expect any kind of specific and meaningful answer?