Is this the end for Venezuela Socialism?

The response to failed socialism tends to be calls for more socialism. However the Scandinavian countries, I understand, have taken a right turn realizing that they were taxing and socializing themselves out of business. But that's rare.

 

Yeah let's get what they have now

 

Or the bernie sanders fanatic who actually tried to murder republicans

 

Okey dokey pokey

 

Or anyone who wears a red hat.

 

If the scandinavians renounced socialism they would be the first liberals in history to admit they were wrong about anything

 

They never will. It is too successful

 

It may have worked well for them for a while because they shared the same culture but even that couldn't save them over the longer term. As a result of Socialism the culture changed, as well as an influx of foreign culture.

Maybe you saw that interview with Milton Friedman where he was told by a Swede, as a result of Socialism, that there was no poverty in Sweden. Friedman replied that there was no poverty among Swedes in America either.

Culture counts.

 

"Is this the end for Venezuela Socialism?"

probably as likely as if the USA goes BK it would be the end of capitalism

 

Au contraire, my friend.

https://www.austriancenter.com/shattering-myth-nordic-socialism/

 

They're a pragmatic people.

 

Dude. They are a HUGE success

 

Okay. Your belief is good enough for me.

 

I knew you could get there

 

You are no worse or better than most in the world ... but there is a big difference and it has the title "US Hypocrisy, Arrogance and Ignorance"

I could give countless examples now, but let's stick to a relatively recent case:

Explain the difference between Aleppo in Syria 2016 and Fallujah Iraq 2004 ... and tell me why Aleppo = evil issue and Falluja = no evil issue!

 

Well said

As vegas giants is an example of, liberals will never admit they are wrong

I really dont care what the swedes do as long as they dont do it here

 

The problem is a confusion of terms that never should have used the same title, for they mean completely different things.The "Socialism" of the former USSR for example is unrelated to the "Socialism" of certain Northern European countries.The former is a utopian wet dream of a classless society where all are equal, the government owns and controls all means of production, assigns all work and wages and always rapidly corrupts into tyranny. The latter is a capitalist democracy enacting safety net legislation to protect people.

Programs that provide a "social safety net", such as health care or unemployment insurance or old age retirement benefits, were not dreamed up by the utopian crackpots that gave us the great evil of the USSR. These "social welfare" concepts originated in industrialized, capitalist and democratic Germany in the late 19th century. Mandatory health insurance, unemployment insurance and old age benefits were created to secure the work force for the growing industries and push back against rising unionism and the original and only Socialism of Karl Marx.

When people like Bernie Sanders or "A.O.C." talk "Democratic Socialism", they are not talking about any of the ideas of Karl Marx or the former Soviet Union. They are talking about varying degrees of a capitalist democracy enacting legislation to benefit people. As protections against some of the worst habits of capitalism, among other concerns.

Some portions of their ideas appeal to me, but certainly not the extremes they take them to. In any case, they are damned fools to use the term "Socialism" as all it does is confuse Americans. For most of whom their aware of "Socialism" is limited to the era when the USA fought a Cold War against Socialist and Communist countries.

"Democratic Socialists" should have dreamed up new terms. Using the same title for their ideas as Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin and others was a colossal blunder. At least in trying to sell themselves to American voters.

 

There it is. Wow.

 

A minimum wage always screws the working class and empowers Big Business.

 

Most of the social programs are just government boondoggles designed to expand the bureaucracy. Maximum cost minimum benefits for recipients. Marxists used to know that.

 

Governments kill. That's why we have them.

 

Twirling around in a circle a crying "False False, Contradiction Contradiction" is not an argument for anything other than your complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about.

 

Neither, it’s your inane banter and prattling, parading as if it’s profound—its mind boggling.

 

Then they should no use the term "Socialist", because they're using it in a blanket sense. Instead, if they want to distance themselves from what happened in the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., they should only refer to social programs they may like, such as free universities and health care, and run on that as an election promise, including a cost/benefit analysis.

But they're not doing that. They are calling them Socialists in the traditional sense, and Bernie Sanders doesn't try to keep it a secret.

Calling themselves "Socialists" does not confuse anyone. If their message is garbled then they should change the message.

They can continue to call themselves "Democrats" and separate themselves from "Socialism" altogether. Whatever Social programs they may want for the country might then be introduced and debated. But once they took on the mantle of "Socialism" it inherited all the baggage the term brings along with it.

 

It creates layers of bureaucracies, unelected officials who are then capable of creating or enforcing laws of their own choosing, outside of elected officials. We see that all the time.

And of course the first duty of any bureaucracy is to protect that bureaucracy.