Venezuela Doesn't Have Enough Money to Pay for Its Money - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sableye;50216289]you know the 1950s was the most prosperous time in US history, it was also the time when our social safety nets were their strongest. it was the time when tens of thousands of engineers were churned out thanks to free college on the GI bill, millions of men graduated college marched into the workplace, meanwhile the new social security kept the elderly who had lost 20 years of income to the depression and ww2, from living in poverty. health programs kept children fed in school, schools were fully funded[/QUOTE] ah yes the glorious socialist 50s, when taxes were lower, GDP growth was higher, and government intervention was near non-existent.

[QUOTE=sb27;50216296]The Communist Party of China governs China. Doesn't mean that China's communist. Just because a party identifies as something doesn't mean that it is that thing. The Australian Labor Party identifies as democratic socialist, but it is at the most a social democracy party.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sb27;50216296]democratic socialist social democracy[/QUOTE] You literally just flipped the words.

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50216291]interesting that you should send that list. if you go down and do some research, you'll find that a majority of those states fell in to disarray after that party came into power.[/QUOTE] At this point you quite clearly arent going to persuade anyone that you are correct. And since you obviously know that as well im forced to conclude that the only reason for your continued arguing is to get a reaction out of us.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;50216298]Yeah, Australia collapsed after Labor came into power and prevented our economy from failing when the recession happened in 2008.[/QUOTE] notice how i said a majority, not the entirety.

-Snip- He got banned.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50216280]Oh okay then I guess you're the person we should listen to and not you know, wikipedia which says you're wrong but then again, the great sb27 of facepunch is here to set the record straight for the whole rest of the world.[/QUOTE] There seriously has never been a democratic socialist country. Sure, there are democratic socialist parties, and some have held government, but that doesn't make those countries democratic socialist. Arguably the closest that has ever come to actual democratic socialism is some Latin American states, but even then those are mixed economies which are trying to appeal to foreign investment for private ownership of the means of production.

[QUOTE=sb27;50216313]There seriously has never been a democratic socialist country. Sure, there are democratic socialist parties, and some have held government, but that doesn't make those countries democratic socialist. Arguably the closest that has ever come to actual democratic socialism is some Latin American states, but even then those are mixed economies which are trying to appeal to foreign investment for private ownership of the means of production.[/QUOTE] You do realize that while technically the definition of democratic socialism is essentially communism but with democracy, in reality it's what you refer to as social democracy right?

[QUOTE=Reshy;50216302]You literally just flipped the words.[/QUOTE] Social democracy and democratic socialism are different concepts. I would recommend you check them out. Eg most European countries are social democracies, but none are democratic socialist. [editline]28th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TornadoAP;50216318]You do realize that while the definition of democratic socialism may be essentially communism but with democracy, in reality it's basically social democracy right?[/QUOTE] You do realise that they aren't the same thing? Also democratic socialism has nothing to do with communism except being one of the 'stepping stones' towards it. Socialism and communism are not similar concepts at all, except that socialism is a means towards the end, communism. Anyways, have some Wikipedia definitions because typing on this sucks: Social Democracy: Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Democratic Socialism: Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.

[QUOTE=sb27;50216319]You do realise that they aren't the same thing? Have some Wikipedia definitions because typing on this sucks: Social Democracy: Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Democratic Socialism: Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain we have a decent mix of both of those.

Like I'm just going to go off of wikipedia, and not some random on the internet who swears there's never been socialist democracies

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50216330]Like I'm just going to go off of wikipedia, and not some random on the internet who swears there's never been socialist democracies[/QUOTE] Name a single democratic socialist state. Don't say any European country, because those are social democracies, and don't say any Latin American countries, because none of them, not even Venezuela, are actually democratic socialist. Venezuela certainly doesn't have the 'democratic' part.

[QUOTE=sb27;50216319]Social democracy and democratic socialism are different concepts. I would recommend you check them out. Eg most European countries are social democracies, but none are democratic socialist. [editline]28th April 2016[/editline] You do realise that they aren't the same thing? Also democratic socialism has nothing to do with communism except being one of the 'stepping stones' towards it. Socialism and communism are not similar concepts at all, except that socialism is a means towards the end, communism. Anyways, have some Wikipedia definitions because typing on this sucks: Social Democracy: Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Democratic Socialism: Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point here. While sure these may be the definitions of these idea, very few if not anyone actually uses them in practice. Nowadays when the majority of people are talking about Democratic Socialism they mean what you mean about Social Democracy.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50216302]You literally just flipped the words.[/QUOTE] They are technically two different philosophies.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50216345]You're missing the point here. While sure these may be the definitions of these idea, very few if not anyone actually uses them in practice.[/QUOTE] That's the fault of people who don't use them properly, then.

[QUOTE=sb27;50216358]That's the fault of people who don't use them properly, then.[/QUOTE] Or maybe we should really just change the definitions because that's what they have meant for quite a long time now?

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50216370]Or maybe we should really just change the definitions because that's what they have meant for quite a long time now?[/QUOTE] Kinda like how communism has really only ever meant "state capitalism."

[QUOTE=sb27;50216344]Name a single democratic socialist state. Don't say any European country, because those are social democracies, and don't say any Latin American countries, because none of them, not even Venezuela, are actually democratic socialist. Venezuela certainly doesn't have the 'democratic' part.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism[/url] I'm just going off of this. Look at the "ideas" and "models" and tell me that none of that applies to us in our countries. it does.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50216370]Or maybe we should really just change the definitions because that's what they have meant for quite a long time now?[/QUOTE] No. Academics use them properly. However if one name were to change, it would have to be social democracy. Democratic socialism exactly describes a democratic transition to socialism (as opposed to say Marxism-Leninism), so that name ought to remain the same.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50216372]Kinda like how communism has really only ever meant "state capitalism."[/QUOTE] Eh, it's a bit more ambiguous of a term. The USSR was really more of a state capitalist economy and they were considered the most communist of the communist but in reality China was, at least during Mao's reign, a better example of being actually communist. Democratic Socialism is a bit more of a direct term since generally the people who fall under it's banner have really only meant one or two things. [editline]27th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sb27;50216413]No. Academics use them properly. However if one name were to change, it would have to be social democracy. Democratic socialism exactly describes a democratic transition to socialism (as opposed to say Marxism-Leninism), so that name ought to remain the same.[/QUOTE] Whatever you say then I guess. Meanwhile me and everyone else here are anchored in the real world.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50216409][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism[/url] I'm just going off of this. Look at the "ideas" and "models" and tell me that none of that applies to us in our countries. it does.[/QUOTE] I'm still waiting for you to name a single democratic socialist society. I will grant you that some ideas from democratic socialism are implemented in our societies, such as social ownership of the means of production (what we know as co-ops, however, they are far from the norm as business structures). But that doesn't mean our societies are democratic socialist. Our societies take inspiration from many ideologies, but when you try to categorise any society within one ideology, some societies predominantly align with some ideologies more than others. Eg, most European countries are social democracies, and not democratic socialist. [editline]28th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TornadoAP;50216417]Whatever you say then I guess. Meanwhile me and everyone else here are anchored in the real world.[/QUOTE] Academia isn't the real world? Sounds like something Pol Pot would say. And just because you, possibly your friends and your internet buddies believe something is something, doesn't mean it's true across broader society. We were taught the differences between social democracy and democratic socialism in one of my politics courses at university. For us to be taught that means there's at least some kind of general acceptance in society, or at least academia, about the 'real world' definitions.

Although I agree that OP's arguments are either invalid or irrelevant, Venezuela had not gone down just because of oil prices. It as going down a long time ago, even before that, with public order deteriorating because of unsuccesful reign of the current regime. Here's some of my points. 1. Strict economical regulations: The people of Venezuela have a hard time running their own bussiness and services because the goverment prohibits it. I guess that's a way of fighting for equality and shit. Anyway, they must work in state owned companies, and they're relying on oil companies to feed them. Because there's no internal building of private wealth, so as every communist state in history, Venezuela relies on export. Yeah, state-owned companies... 2. Corruption. I can speak from my experience from Poland, where the state owns, for example, coal mines. And for some reason it's cheaper to import coal from fucking Australia, than to mine it here. It combines corruption, poor management due to every government naming their own people in the companies' management after every election, and a rampant social program for the miners, which includes earlier retirement and various bonuses a regular Kowalski can only dream about. And those cheeky basterds have it in em to protest every time a government wants to shut down a mine, and goverment doesn't do it because they're afraid of losing potential voters. And we're billions of $$$ in our ass because of that. 3. Okay, and finally, socialism. The state is owning all the money by itself and is funding schools, hospitals and shit. Sounds great, Bernie fans? Well, it's not. Education and medical care of millions of people rely on politically instable bussiness of oil. If those people were able to make money on their own, they could at least pay for it, if the government doesn't want to fund it. But no. Also, state-controlled shops is one of the most retarded things in the world and one of the main reasons people that actually lived in communist states resent communism, while people living in the rich west are praising it for some retarded reason. I'm to young to remember, but almost my whole family lived in pre-1988 Poland, and they never praised waiting in a huge line to "buy" very limited toilet paper with worthless money. And it as shit paper too, worse than sandpaper. Not to mention lack of meat or vegetables. There was only vodka and shit beer. In pre-war Poland we were drinking ine. Now we're associated ith vodka. Thanks, Stalin. Some people lived off their own gardens, where they grew vegetables, and if someone lived in a village they could buy off meat from someone "on the side". The goverment didn't allow that, because officialy everything as perfect. Okay, I'm ending this. Hope you have some idea about what is happening in Venezuela and why the people are upset (they want capitalism, would you look at that?!). Hope this changes your mind about "it's bad because of oil prices".

[QUOTE=Reshy;50216302]You literally just flipped the words.[/QUOTE] Democratic socialists are hardline socialists hoping to work through democratic means to achieve a strong socialist system. Usually resulting in mass nationalisation of industry. Social democrats are more moderate, and are more about working alongside the free market and just focusing on getting the government to help improve living standards through nationalisation of important industry (ie healthcare) and welfare.

A huge, and I do mean HUGE part of the problems in this country stem from failed economic policy, not strictly corruption. Socialists in Facepunch seem to never own up to it saying that Venezuela isn't a socialist country, yet somehow Sweden is more socialist than Venezuela just because Sweden works? Look, let's just face the facts, the simplest possible definition of Socialism is the collectivized, social ownership of the means of production. Venezuela's policies, and actions have ALWAYS geared towards this, and the reason for it fits what it has been anywhere in the world, some things shouldn't be sold, some things shouldn't be subject to capitalist control, things like food or water should be a right, not a benefit only few can afford. If you guys don't think that Venezuela has geared towards that goal then I don't know what to tell you. I think one of the worst things I read in the last few pages was that Venezuela is somehow not socialist, but communist, and I ask of you, if you think Venezuela is not radical enough to be socialist, how the fuck is it going to be communist then? I need you guys to read up on this shit, I can't google it for you, but the concept of social ownership, self management and workers owning the means of production are key elements of the decisions taken by Hugo Chavez in economic matters. Almost all of the country's economic policy has been geared towards wage equalization, redistribution of wealth, elimination of capitalist frivolities, and the elimination of private property. Corruption has rose as a result of these policies, it is not the cause of why the system has failed. The system never worked in reality, it was doomed from the beginning, not because they didn't go "all the way", but because it's based on flawed logic. You cannot simultaneously believe that the Venezuelan government managed to reduce poverty, and that their policies didn't work, you have to understand what they actually did to "decrease" poverty.

Didn't this happen to Zimbabwe?

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50216300]ah yes the glorious socialist 50s, [B]when taxes were lower[/B], GDP growth was higher, and government intervention was near non-existent.[/QUOTE] In terms of strength of the economy, levels of education, wealth distribution between rich and poor, social mobility and availability of healthcare the 1950s were by far the best point in US history. And you know how this was achieved? With tax rates of 91% on individuals (millionaires paying an effective tax rate of about 50%) and 50% on corporations. With strong government intervention in the economy, carrying on the big government policies of FDR. 1950s America was achieved with the policies of Democratic Socialism.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;50219986]In terms of strength of the economy, levels of education, wealth distribution between rich and poor, social mobility and availability of healthcare the 1950s were by far the best point in US history. And you know how this was achieved? With tax rates of 91% on individuals (millionaires paying an effective tax rate of about 50%) and 50% on corporations. With strong government intervention in the economy, carrying on the big government policies of FDR. 1950s America was achieved with the policies of [b]Democratic Socialism[/b].[/QUOTE] I hate to be that guy again, but you know... The policies were those of social democracy such as Keynesianism, not democratic socialism. Keynesianism also failed to respond to the economic crash of the 70's, hence why neoliberalism is a thing today.