Hugo Chávez statue torn down by students in Venezuela state of Zulia - Polidicks

[quote]In an incident loaded with symbolism, a group of young men destroyed a statue of the late leader Hugo Chávez in the oil-producing Zulia state, according to videos circulating on social media on Friday evening. Footage shows the statue, which depicts Chávez saluting and wearing a sash, being yanked down to cheers in a public plaza before it is bashed into a sidewalk and then the road as onlookers swear at the leftist, who died in 2013 from cancer. “Students destroyed this statue of Chávez. They accuse him, correctly, of destroying their future,” the opposition lawmaker Carlos Valero said about the incident, which was also reported in local media. Reuters was unable to independently confirm it. [/quote] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/06/hugo-chavez-statue-torn-down-as-death-toll-rises-in-venezuela-protests[/url]

Holy shit that's pretty huge. This coupled with the videos showing the president (dictator) dancing on public tv while the riots are going on everywhere else is insane. Best of luck to the Venezuelan people

There are some videos of GNB personnel marching along people (Gendarmerie). + This + The government escalating violence It's coming down soon boys. And it won't be pretty at all. Maduro had the chance to save this clusterfuck. He will have to flee somewhere. From bus driver to being executed by a horde of angry and hungry people. Nice way to go into the history books.

Another failed Socialist state. I think this really goes to show how a country whose entire livelihood depends on a single nationalized natural resource is in actuality extremely unstable [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting + Ban history." - Bradyns))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;52195666]Is this bannable yet[/QUOTE] Not that I agree with the guy, but is a pretty general political opinion really ban worthy? I mean nothing he said really seems out of order it's literally just a 2 cent comment on whats happening. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a major change in governance coming for Venezuela. People are tired of standing in lines for bread and paying inflated prices for it. Maduro seems to have done next to nothing in solving the problem and has been dogged with constant controversy. If students are tearing down a statue of a dead man who is supposedly seen as a kind of socialist icon in the region what does that say about how that method of governance is faring in the country?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52194986]Another failed Socialist state. I think this really goes to show how a country whose entire livelihood depends on a single nationalized natural resource is in actuality extremely unstable[/QUOTE] Last time I checked, a majority of Veneuzala's economy is private, and workers do not own the means of production and is production done for profit...therefore....No, its not Socialist

[QUOTE=ImUnstoppable;52195756]Last time I checked, a majority of Veneuzala's economy is private, and workers do not own the means of production and is production done for profit...therefore....No, its not Socialist[/QUOTE] It nationalized its oil industry and made its entire economy based on this one, single nationalized industry. I would call that fairly socialist in nature.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52196120]It nationalized its oil industry and made its entire economy based on this one, single nationalized industry. I would call that fairly socialist in nature.[/QUOTE] It's only socialist if it works, otherwise it's not real socialism

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52196120]It nationalized its oil industry and made its entire economy based on this one, single nationalized industry. I would call that fairly socialist in nature.[/QUOTE] Then you don't know what socialism is.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52196120]It nationalized its oil industry and made its entire economy based on this one, single nationalized industry. I would call that fairly socialist in nature.[/QUOTE] where the fuck did you learn about socialism? lmao

you're an idiot if you think any examples of socialism exist in the real world. if socialism existed in the real world then anti-socialists would have something to point to when they want an example of it failing. the beauty of socialism is that you can't (nor are you supposed to) give it any kind of test which it can potentially fail and therefore be discredited. marx was much smarter than you give him credit for

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52197098]you're an idiot if you think any examples of socialism exist in the real world. if socialism existed in the real world then anti-socialists would have something to point to when they want an example of it failing. the beauty of socialism is that you can't (nor are you supposed to) give it any kind of test which it can potentially fail and therefore be discredited. marx was much smarter than you give him credit for[/QUOTE] The numerous failed and oppressive states approaching/claiming it discredit it just fine for me.

[QUOTE=Omesh;52197128]The numerous failed and oppressive states approaching/claiming it discredit it just fine for me.[/QUOTE] but that's an example of something in reality. the entire point is that there's nothing in reality that can exist (by definition) which has the potential to refute it

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52194986]Another failed Socialist state. I think this really goes to show how a country whose entire livelihood depends on a single nationalized natural resource is in actuality extremely unstable [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting + Ban history." - Bradyns))[/highlight][/QUOTE] damn no criticism allowed venezuela best country in the world

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52197156]but that's an example of something in reality. the entire point is that there's nothing in reality that can exist (by definition) which has the potential to refute it[/QUOTE] If it does not exist in our reality and every attempt fails then saying nothing has the potential to refute it seems like saying that the existence of God cannot be disproved, which is true, but it was not proven to begin with. Likewise people arguing for a new system should prove its merits in the confines of our reality and not with some preconceived ideas and assumptions. If that was the idea of it all, that it cannot be proven nor disproved, then that doesn't exactly put confidence in me for the idea.

[QUOTE=Omesh;52197446]If it does not exist in our reality and every attempt fails then saying nothing has the potential to refute it seems like saying that the existence of God cannot be disproved, which is true, but it was not proven to begin with. Likewise people arguing for a new system should prove its merits in the confines of our reality and not with some preconceived ideas and assumptions. If that was the idea of it all, that it cannot be proven nor disproved, then that doesn't exactly put confidence in me for the idea.[/QUOTE] not at all, see the issue is that since nothing can refute socialism this means that everything else is inferior to socialism (by definition), and therefore anything which claims to be against it is automatically false. see you don't get knowledge by empirical observations, but instead by defining everything. if it doesn't fit the definition then its wrong - no matter how much evidence refutes you (although socialism doesn't need evidence to begin with, it's already the truth)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52197478]not at all, see the issue is that since nothing can refute socialism this means that everything else is inferior to socialism (by definition), and therefore anything which claims to be against it is automatically false. see you don't get knowledge by empirical observations, but instead by defining everything. if it doesn't fit the definition then its wrong - no matter how much evidence refutes you (although socialism doesn't need evidence to begin with, it's already the truth)[/QUOTE] Maybe, if you just arbitrarily decide that a definition trumps reality. Let me define that I am not hungry even though my empirical observation tells me otherwise.

[QUOTE=Omesh;52197497]Maybe, if you just arbitrarily decide that a definition trumps reality. Let me define that I am not hungry even though my empirical observation tells me otherwise.[/QUOTE] then it's true, you're starting to get it now

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52197553]then it's true, you're starting to get it now[/QUOTE] Not sure if sarcasm. Edit: Nevermind

Something I consider important is the symbolism of the leaders. Chavez was praised in his time and shortly after his death. Now what he represents is no more, oil is basically useless, and as the source says "destroying their future" means he failed the people he tried to help. Thr only thing I can think off that Maduro can do to keep power is: Army and Militias. The former I don't know how it operates, and he seems to be arming the latter.

[QUOTE=Omesh;52197497]Maybe, if you just arbitrarily decide that a definition trumps reality. Let me define that I am not hungry even though my empirical observation tells me otherwise.[/QUOTE] But that's exactly what's happening when some people point at Soviet Union (or Venezuela in this case, it's kinda similar) and go "that wasn't real socialism". Sure it wasn't, but it was the closest thing anyone will ever get to one, and it's shit.

to be devils advocate, chavez didn't turn the country into a defacto dictatorship, ruin the economy, or destroy civil order, all these things have happened under his successor. Now whether they would have happened under chavez if given enough time we can never be certain of, but the cult of chavez certainly helped the current government get to power. [editline]7th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;52197868]But that's exactly what's happening when some people point at Soviet Union (or Venezuela in this case, it's kinda similar) and go "that wasn't real socialism". Sure it wasn't, but it was the closest thing anyone will ever get to one, and it's shit.[/QUOTE] some people always point to the communists and socialists and try to conflate them with corruption too. the governments of south america are horrible corrupt institutions and things wouldn't be any different under any different government and economic systems.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52197874] some people always point to the communists and socialists and try to conflate them with corruption too. the governments of south america are horrible corrupt institutions and things wouldn't be any different under any different government and economic systems.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, of course that shouldn't be overlooked too.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52197874]some people always point to the communists and socialists and try to conflate them with corruption too. the governments of south america are horrible corrupt institutions and things wouldn't be any different under any different government and economic systems.[/QUOTE] Corruption always existed in Brazil, but the current party (the one that aligns with Cuba, Venezuela and friends) institutionalized corruption to absurd levels, basically thrashing our economy around hardcore. [editline]7th May 2017[/editline] There's a pattern here.

How about we try to discuss the horrible situation and suffering Venezuelans are going trough instead of ranting about whatever this is a socialist country o not?

[QUOTE=Sableye;52197874]to be devils advocate, chavez didn't turn the country into a defacto dictatorship, ruin the economy, or destroy civil order, all these things have happened under his successor. Now whether they would have happened under chavez if given enough time we can never be certain of, but the cult of chavez certainly helped the current government get to power.[/QUOTE] You are completely, and abso-fucking-lutely, wrong. Everything wrong with Venezuela right now began with Chavez. The disaster was already exploding by the time he kicked the bucket, his successor simply didn't had the charisma to keep things quiet (Matter of fact, just a year after Chavez died, the chavistas were effectively split into two sides: those who support Maduro, and those who believe that Maduro's got to go...because he is not running the show the way El Comandante used to) Chavez began to acquire power by transfering his own people into the justice and legislative systems Chavez began to fire workers from public entitites by investigating their political preferences, and firing anyone who had voted against the government Chavez began to ruin the economy by creating a complete dependency on oil money and dollars Chavez, ironically, began to bleed its country dry by [B]not[/B] reinvesting some of their money into upgrading or maintaining their oil facilities (Not like it matters, a lot of the workers required to keep said facilities running had either fled the country or had been fired), and tossing shitloads of money into "public works" that only made the poor depend on the state Chavez began to destroy civil order by harassing members of the opposition, within and outside Venezuela

Whenever I see the word Chavez, I keep picturing Caesar Chavez. One was a dictator and the other wasn't right?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52196369]It's only socialist if it works, otherwise it's not real socialism[/QUOTE] It's only a socialist nation when it fails, otherwise it's Europe.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52200399]It's only a socialist nation when it fails, otherwise it's Europe.[/QUOTE] Nah man Europe is an Islamic wasteland.