Is this the end for Venezuela Socialism?

Had I meant any of that I would have said so. There is no reason to guess.

 

You didn't understand the post and what it related to. Failed Socialist countries, especially the more violent ones, are later termed 'Fascist' or 'right wing' in order to distance themselves from the reality of what eventually happens under socialist systems.

 

No, actually, in the mind of the Alt-Left this isn't fake news at all.
ANYBODY that isn't of the Alt-Left is, in their estimation, "extreme right."

 

The Soviet Union? ROFL

The economy fell apart.

 

Yes, so even Stalin becomes a Fascist?
He was "Uncle Joe" to the fawning Left.
Until he was exposed.

 

It's fake news, in their mind or not.

 

Correct, and hey have low business taxes. No reason to kill the Golden Goose.

 

Looks like a Democrat Socialist at a MAGA rally?

"Definition of socialism

"There are other synonyms for "socialist system" in the literature on the subject as well, for example, "Soviet-type system," "centrally administered economy," "centrally planned economy," "command economy," "and "state socialism." Janos Kornai, "The Socialist System," Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ 1992, p.10.

 

VZ had a Big Bad Government before Chavez, under Chavez and after Chavez under Maduro.
The history of human governance should convince anyone that VZ will have a Big Bad Government after Maduro.

 

Yeah, and Communism during the Cold War is now becoming 'right wing'. It may take a while before 'Left' becomes 'Right' in the MSM but it will always happen, just as Nazism also became 'Right Wing'.

 

Marx did not promote "social welfare" programs, that simply wasn't part of his agenda. He was in favor of citizens owning guns, hell even cannons, and he believed in his doomed utopian ideals on universal worker ownership of production and equality and the eradication of "class" in society. He was not thinking about health care, unemployment insurance, higher education or any of the other safety net and general benefit ideas that came from Capitalists, not from Socialists or Communists.

That's because Capitalists in industrialized democracies thought up those ideas, not the Socialists or the Communists. That began in Germany under Otto Von Bismarck. He saw these programs in two ways, as both investments in the work force and as moral choices in an advanced society. Oh and a third way too, as a means of fightign the influence of Socialists and Unions.

If a Socialist should also promote social safety net programs, he is borrowing from Capitalist ideas, not from Karl Marx.

In the USA similar concepts began under another Capitalist, Theodore Roosevelt. He began what would become Federal meat inspections and drug approvals. He did it because people were being poisoned by tainted meats and unsafe medicines. Industry wasn't helping, so a Republican did all that.

TR brought up national health insurance too, but never took action beyond some simple discussion and a few comments in speeches. Possibly if he'd won that full second term we wouldn't have the troubles we do today. We'd have a non-profit market based insurance approach like Bismarck created, rather than the crap package our for profit insurance industry slapped together.

 

Top marks for this. Quite interesting.

 

Really f'ing stupid propaganda that takes Angry Bernie's comments out of context. It's the sort of BS that appeals to people too stupid to understand why Sanders' economic ideas won't help workers.

The irony in your video is that there really are hungry people in this country when we could make sure no one goes without food. Sanders would make sure everyone gets food, but his ideas are bad for the economy because most of us want a lot more than food security.

 

Real socialism where production is collectivized has never worked in any country. Not once.

Has collectivized production worked at all? Sure. We've had voluntary farm cooperatives, for example, from earliest human civilization. Would cooperatives work in a modern society? Yes, they do. We have them. Would cooperatives form the basis for our economy? No.

 

Which is precisely what happened with the National Socialist German Workers' Party and other fascist parties, despite their socialist roots. Furthermore, were it not for the Left's efforts to distance itself from fascism I would find its inclusion on the Right curious.

 

Venezuela needs investment it hasn't been getting because it hasn't been a good place to invest.

 

Central Planning by government wherein government controls the means of production. Wont work SW. That just produces equal misery.

 

Their roots, indeed the basis of their success, was in opposing socialism. The "socialist roots" were limited to the propaganda value of the idea of doing something for average folks in an era when the capitalist system included only the most limited social safety net. In every instance, fascists in fact courted the support of capitalists who feared real socialists taking their assets.

 

Not quite correct. Rightwingers label them as "fascist" to hide the danger of people on the right who are the real fascists.

 

Nazism was always rightwing. Always.

 

Try as you might to claim otherwise, the Nazis never intended to collectivize production.

 

They opposed Marxism (and the internationalism associated with it), but not socialism - big difference.

As Mussolini stated in "The Doctrine of Fascism", "...in the great river of Fascism one can trace currents which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, Lagardelle of the Movement Socialists..."

As for the German National Socialists, their ancestors Johann Gottlieb Fricht, Johann Karl Rodbertus and Fredinand Lassalle were all socialists as were the national socialist ideologues, such as Johann Plenge, Moeller van der Bruck and others.

I think where people get tripped up on those two is that they had their own unique approach which differed from the conventional definition of socialism and the Soviet concept and model which we are more familiar with. Mussolini and Hitler's parties took a more unorthodox approach where they figured out that they could exercise de facto government control over industries without having to nationalize and dispossess them of their private ownership. Since they weren't interested in the class warfare that Marx and Lenin espoused they were willing to take a more cooperative approach that deliberately avoided the conflict that took place during and after the revolutionary period in Russia.

Their programs went beyond mere propaganda, but as I pointed out earlier you are correct that fascists and capitalists were willing to cooperate with one another, even though the fascists exercised control over them.

 

Not in the Marxist or Soviet sense, certainly.

This is a quote from national socialist ideologue Johann Plenge:

"The war economy created in Germany in 1914 "is the first realization of a socialist society, and its spirit the first active, and not merely demanding, appearance of a socialist spirit. The needs of the war have established the socialist idea in German economic life, and thus the defense of our nation produced for humanity the idea of 1914, the idea of German organization, the people's community (Volksgemeinschaft) of national socialism..."

 

The US defeated Iraq. Many claimed the US would steal Iraq's oil. How many US oil companies have contracts with Iraq?

 

They opposed collectivizing production and made common cause with capitalists.

Mussolini was a socialist who abandoned socialism. In any event, he was a propagandist seeking power.

No amount of name association will change the reality of the Nazis courting support from German industrialists to oppose the socialists.

The fascists were interested in POWER and not committed to controlling business for ideological reasons or a social purpose.

As I said, fascists sought POWER. Hitler was interested in capitalist support, willing to leave them in control of and profiting from their businesses, but intended to exercise power over them when necessary.