Is this the end for Venezuela Socialism?

The Nazis had no intention of collectivizing production. Capitalists who got in bed with Nazis knew they wouldn't have the freedom they had under a democratic regime.

 

This post, like your previous one (#221), illustrates the problems we encounter with malleable terms such as "collectivized". Obviously, it can mean different things and sometimes it has nothing to do with government ownership and/or control.

For example, you mentioned voluntary farm cooperatives. The largest one in my area is Southern States Cooperative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_States_Cooperative

Another example would be a coop I purchase my own vegetable seeds from:

Southern Exposure Seed Exchange
https://www.southernexposure.com/
Our Seed Growers
http://www.southernexposure.com/our-seed-growers-ezp-138.html

Collectivized or not collectivized? It depends on your definition of "collectivized".

 

I don't dispute much of what you said there.

As for "name association", the name of the National Socialist German Workers' Party is no fluke, accident or coincidence as many socialists and Leftists would have people believe.

Hitler and the socialist dream
http://socialismtoday.info/blog/2018/01/15/hitler-socialist-dream/

As for the pursuit of power, the German national socialists are no different than other socialists and fascists - the only things they truly care about is power and control. The socialists who masquerade as "progressives" in our country are no different. Look at AOC and her New Green Deal - it's not about the environment, it's about power.

 

http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-international-oil-companies-in-iraq/
Perhaps, if interested, you can find one or more?
But it looks like an international raid on Iraqi oil.

 

Let's see what the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party had to say about that:

The common good before the individual good.
-- Adolf Hitler, February 24, 1920, Munich, Germany

Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good
-- August 15, 1920

Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge.
-- August 15, 1920

At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it "National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.
-- April 12, 1922

To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.
-- May 4, 1931

I am a socialist, and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Reventlow. I was once an ordinary workingman… But your kind of socialism is nothing but Marxism.
-- 1940

We shall banish want; we shall banish fear. The essence of National Socialism is human welfare. ... National Socialism is the revolution of the common man. Rooted in a fuller life for every German from childhood to old age, National Socialism means a new day of abundance at home and a better world order abroad.
--1944

Most definitely Left-wing.

Here's a bonus nugget from Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism":

"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State...The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people."

Most definitely Left-wing, again...

 

Correct. Marx and Lenin were not Big Government Progressive Republicans/Democrats.

"The socialist principle that 'he who does not work, neither shall he eat' is already realized; the other socialist principle, namely 'an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor', is also already realized." The State and Revolution, VI Lenin, Penguin copyright 1992, p. 85.

 

I bet you stole all those quotes from Bernie Sanders and AOC.
Stop doing that!

 

Some people who identify as "conservative" or "right wing" are advocates for Big Government.
They are all somewhere on the same end of the political spectrum as the Fascists and Nazis - and socialists, and establishment Democrats, and establishment Democrats.

 

Socialism as we understand it was not around at the dawn of your republic. And the founding fathers were about as anti-democratic as it gets. There is a reason why only white male property owners had the vote and there is a reason why land speculation in Indian lands across the great rivers was the driver of revolutionary forces determined to undo treaties signed by the British Empire. But much of this history is lost in the rush to eulogize a group of men who only understood freedom or liberty in 18th century colonial terms.

Again, taking 18th century thinking and ideology and trying to make it applicable to modern nation states with complex social structures and economies is at best disingenuous and at worst delusional.

Democratic social principles survive because when used as a tool to mitigate the contradictions and excesses of capitalism, they work like a charm. The American experience during the post-war era of greatest prosperity and the experience of a vast number of nations around the world prove this out.

Ask yourself why the US cannot have a functioning universal healthcare system and ranks last among developed countries for efficiency of it's system or why it's level of inequality ranks with third world countries?

18 century thinking propagandized to make people think it is the natural order of things.............

 

People went to America because it was a frontier society with land and opportunity that was in decreasing supply as populations rose in their countries. Unless you are referring to more recent refugees and immigration which in many cases are situations created by your own failed policies of war on drugs and endless military occupations, sanctions and regime changes which usually destabilize whole regions of the globe into a living hell and force desperate people to seek refuge in the heart of empire.

 

Okay,......so failed right wing dictatorships such as Pinochet, Marcos or Suharto are not fascist then..........or is the term only applied to failed socialist countries?

Any examples for consideration?

 

Actually, the history shows that right wing fascists and their international compadres NEVER stop....and can't stand being denied.
No gov't is perfect, but chicanery must not be ignored.

 

That would be true if you define Big Government as fascist.

 

But I didn't, and yet history shows what I say is true.

 

Socialism "as we understand it"?

In many respects, socialism as we understand it has been around since Plato first laid its philosophical foundations over 2000 years ago. Furthermore, as you can see from my signature, the Founders and Framers were familiar with the proto-socialist movements in Europe and their beliefs. Everything you need to know about the socialist ethos was articulated by François-Noël Babeuf before he got guillotined in 1797.

Where did you get your propaganda about the Founders being "as anti-democratic as it gets" - Howard Zinn?

That hogwash is as easily dismissed as it is dispensed, and if you take the time to do some research you'll find that the vote wasn't limited to white male property owners, either.

As for the other history you mentioned it hasn't been lost nor did all of those men understand freedom and liberty in 18th Century colonial terms.

Again, the Founders were clearly aware of the visionary/utopian and impractical nature of socialism and the arbitrary and despotic means necessary to impose it on people. They were also prescient enough to see that socialists in the future would twist the meaning and intent of things like the General Welfare Clause in our Constitution to grant a veneer of legitimacy to their policy proposals:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
-- James Madison

Of course, socialists have vainly tried to portray those men as simpletons who couldn't see past their own noses because it suits their own purposes, but after reading their writings one finds that they were more politically sophisticated than a lot of us living today. If you don't believe me read John Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer from Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies and you'll get a glimpse of why Voltaire likened him to Cicero.

Our social welfare programs would not exist were it not for the prosperity that our economic freedom has created, and while our social safety nets do serve a useful and beneficial purpose they have not always worked like a charm. Thanks to those programs we have created a situation that Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about when his colleagues were enacting our Great Society/War on Poverty programs in the mid-1960s:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.

This has been an unmitigated disaster not just for our society but most of all for the young men who have grown up in those conditions on account of our good intentions.

Thomas Sowell expanded on its negative impact on the African-American community in this look back at the outcomes of our "War on Poverty":

War on Poverty Revisited
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2004/08/war-on-poverty-revisited/

I have received timely, high quality and affordable health care from our private HC system my entire life and have no desire to see it turned over to a corrupt, inefficient and over-expensive federal government and bureaucracy that can't even provide a functioning universal healthcare system for our nation's veterans, much less the entire country. A majority of Americans agree with me on this, which is why we haven't made the mistake of doing that already.

I've said the same thing about socialism more times than I can count...

 

History proves that Big Government, regardless of any costume it wears, is the great enemy of humanity.

 

Really? Because women, various ethnic and religious minorities, and a whole lotta black folk would disagree with you.

 

Human history is hard to look at. That's why most don't know much about it.

"… from 1900 to 1987 governments MURDERED almost *170* MILLION people ... far exceeds the 34.4 million battle deaths ... from all...wars fought during the same period.... democratic governments were responsible for only about one percent of the twentieth century's death toll from democide...." The Atlantic Monthly, "The World In Numbers," "Murder By The State," Vol. 292 NO. #4, 11/20. (emphasis mine)
The Atlantic's source: "Rummels books on the subject - particularly "Death By Government" (1994) and "Statistics of Democide" (1997).

 

I guess since many other countries have oil contracts with Iraq the US didn't steal it all after they were defeated.

 

Collectivized production is where ownership is in the hands of workers or the public. Some socislists want to limit to it workers because separates them from communist states. The idea workers could somehow acquire the capital to build a pipeline, dam, or oil refinery is far fetched, snd what happens to all the worker-owners when the dam is completed and 98% of them are no longer required. I could go on and on with examples of their model having gaping holes.

 

Hard core socialists are always their own worst enemy. Well, actually that is not true. They are their nation's worst enemy.

 

The Nazis weren't socialists. Hitler never collectivized production even when he had nearly absolute power.

I think many socialists think what they're proposing will benefit society. When they get power, what they do ultimately is use force because their economic system doesn't work. Some, of course, are using their "revolution" as a means to acquire personal power.

 

Calling everyday Democrats "fascists" is absurd.

 

That may be correct. Which Nazi policies were 'right wing'?

 

Perhaps you have your own personal definition of what is 'Fascist' and what is 'Right Wing'. Where does that leave those in the middle who feel they are neither? Do you feel Communists were "Left Wing"?

Which US leaders go you feel are right wing or left wing?