• The opposition has won the Venezuelan parliamentary elections by a landslide.
    87 replies, posted
This touches on something that I wanted to talk about since it's key to this whole discussion. I'd really appreciate it if you read it all. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49266558]the most accurate term is anocracy an anocracy (in most cases) is usually an unstable form of political system that is a mix of authoritarianism and democracy. usually it is turning from one into another i'd classify venezuela as being a more open anocracy, but it's still not really a democracy[/QUOTE] I wholly agree. This describes most modern states up until recent history (or apparently, still most modern states). Indeed, many only became democracies and the European project only became possible when liberal ideas and parties became ruling ideas and parties, when there is no threat from fascism, communism, rival nations and states, or internal divisions. Liberal politicians usually describe this as 'political maturity for democracy', or how much the population holds liberal values (now suddenly 'European values'), and it's coincidentally at its lowest levels on the front lines of the world's strife and conflict. Whether it's Weimar or Venezuela. It's not a bad thing, it's history, it's always at work. That map reflects such perfectly, with the democracies being much more likely to be white and Western, a place in the world which has just come out of an era of imperialist war, revolution, and fascist reaction and is currently in a state of affluent liberal hegemony, an 'end of history' and 'democratic peace'. Hybrid states and worse are often in global south and on Europe's periphery, a long time battleground for ideologies, ethnicities, religions, etc., where nation-states have had trouble consolidating, where the Enlightenment never spread and capitalism developed unevenly. Not exactly fertile ground for liberalism. Latin America in particular is like an intersection of civilizations while also being poor and a victim of imperialism, so it's quite natural that it's been such a hotbed for struggle and has historically lacked democracy. Building on that point, this is where Libertarians win. What does it take for democracy? Is democracy necessary for capitalism and freedom? Hayek correctly identified that a transitional liberal dictatorship that rigidly protects property rights and ushers in liberalization was not only not a contradiction, but key to a future free democratic society in Chile. Park chung-hee is why south Korea is now such a shining example for the west to hold up to north Korea, Singapore is widely praised as an economic and political miracle and symbolic of the Asian tigers, however that wouldn't be possible without an anti-communist dictatorship to [i]keep the state intact, the nation united, and property rights respected.[/I] This is how democracy is exported. These are the things that are the fundamental pillars for 'democracy' and its export as we know it, not pluralism, not rule of the people, not even political liberalism (just economic). The first conclusion we can draw, is that 'freedom and democracy' (tm) exists insofar liberals are in power and their principles guide the state and mainstream opinion, and The Economist will obviously [b]never[/b] reflect anything but that. Democracy is, therefore, not rule of the people (which every liberal philosopher despises anyway) but a metric. The second conclusion is that describing venezuela as either a dictatorship or a democracy is politically loaded garbage, as you'd expect, and essentially means democracy or dictatorship for your side, your people, your class, whatever, which is what democracy has always meant whether it's ancient Greece or the revolutionary republics of old. The third conclusion is that history works. We don't think or wish democracy into existence, you don't just propagate it as a good idea, and it is similarly idealistic to believe democracy just suddenly ended and began again with administrations elected into the state. The reality is Venezuela was and still is a capitalist republic that engenders ruling interests (economic in nature) it has to take care of, it manages the affairs of national capital, and if it mismanages them with 'socialism' (compounded by falling oil prices and foreign support for opposition) the system will correct itself. And it did. History works. The left wing of capital has been replaced with its more right wing, liberal cousin out of systemic need, lest Maduro be lynched by impoverished masses blaming the incumbent, anyway.
More than 24 hours have passed since the election was over and the CNE still has not delivered the full, complete results of the election. And they dare to call Venezuela's electoral system "better than Switzerland's".
[QUOTE=Conscript;49267393]The third conclusion is that history works. We don't think or wish democracy into existence, you don't just propagate it as a good idea, and it is similarly idealistic to believe democracy just suddenly ended and began again with administrations elected into the state. The reality is Venezuela was and still is a capitalist republic that engenders ruling interests (economic in nature) it has to take care of, it manages the affairs of national capital, and if it mismanages them with 'socialism' (compounded by falling oil prices and foreign support for opposition) the system will correct itself.[/QUOTE] venezuela is a textbook example of a failed socialist experiment that squandered the economic and social resources of an entire nation for a whole generation. it was an explicitly socialist project carried out by self-described socialists, supported by a massive number of socialists worldwide (from the west to cuba and beyond), and for the best part of a generation was cited as an example of the project succeeding it's failed miserably and now suddenly everybody is backpedaling? i hope the venezuelan people are smart enough to never allow retards like chavez back into power again
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49273077]venezuela is a textbook example of a failed socialist experiment that squandered the economic and social resources of an entire nation for a whole generation. it was an explicitly socialist project carried out by self-described socialists, supported by a massive number of socialists worldwide (from the west to cuba and beyond), and for the best part of a generation was cited as an example of the project succeeding it's failed miserably and now suddenly everybody is backpedaling? i hope the venezuelan people are smart enough to never allow retards like chavez back into power again[/QUOTE] Good lord. You're just repeating yourself. I normally am polite to you but you're openly peddling bullshit at this point while styling yourself as an expert on socialism and an ex-marxist. It's pretty contemptible. Venezuela was objectively state capitalist and is widely regarded as such, just like China. Chavez represented left populism not socialism (even if you define such as state ownership it wouldn't even fit that definition, and other capitalists states have similar policies), it was nothing more than using oil revenues for various welfarist measures. Please cite evidence of 'massive support' (I don't even know how you'd prove this), this claim is particularly stupid since the rest of the time you're talking about how divided the left is. They got more outpouring of support from ties with countries like Iran and Cuba (for economic reasons), Chavez's call for a new international was laughed at and '21st century socialism' was never regarded as a model by anybody. It only got anti-imperialist sympathies from the majority of the left, and nobody campaigned for the Chavez model let alone revolted for it. Chavez's death wasn't even really received. Venezuela never inspired anything, it didn't birth a new international, it didn't expropriate employers, it had no form of working class rule, it still had private property, wages, and commodity production. It kept paying debts and selling oil as usual, it based its power on the existing state and was wholly hinged on an elected administration within such. Do you honestly fucking expect the left to own this as a failure of socialism? But none of that matters, since you're only concerned with form. In fact, in our last debate it was [b]form[/b] that separated cuba from, say, a social democracy. This sort of thing is really why you have no leg to stand on, and why I doubt you were ever a marxist. I'm sorry to be abrasive, however you are so full of shit. Your claims of massive support, regarding it as a model, and 'backpedaling' are nothing more than baseless projection and rhetoric, which is particularly bad since you're misleading FPers, you style yourself as some expert on socialism. But it's so painfully obvious you never followed the socialist debate regarding venezuela, and I invited you to other forums, so I don't know why you even bother other than to grind an axe. In which case, get in line. Your entire argument rests on the fact that there was state intervention, a self proclaimed socialist (a beyond watered down word), and redistribution of wealth. I'm just going to let men from 150 years ago deal with that: [Quote]But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. [B]The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head[/B][/quote] [Quote]But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares•all•State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.[/quote] There's no other way around it. If you're going to peddle this as a failure of Marxism you're going go have to use marxist definitions and theory, in which case it doesn't matter what you proclaim yourself as, the superstructure does not determine the base. Metternich did not represent socialism, yet he used state ownership and appealed to a middle class sort of socialism. Nobody in their right mind would claim his state was anything but 19th century capitalism. If you'd rather not do that and want to insist on the [b]form[/b] of Chavez's state, rather than its substance and where it stands in socialist theory, then you might as well give up because you're not going to win this debate and lay Venezuela at the feet of Marxists any more than Greece.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49273728]If you'd rather not do that and want to insist on the [b]form[/b] of Chavez's state, rather than its substance and where it stands in socialist theory, then you might as well give up because you're not going to win this debate and lay Venezuela at the feet of Marxists any more than Greece.[/QUOTE] you're being overly specific, venezuela discredits not just socialism, but leftist populism in general people don't care about bullshit hairsplitting. they look at venezuela and see policies which are a very obvious product of socialist thought and practice, and see failure the fundamental point is that venezuela attempted a command economy and it failed for very predictable reasons in a way that did not at all surprise anyone [quote]Do you honestly fucking expect the left to own this as a failure of socialism? [/quote] no because socialists never owns up to their failures on anything
Attempted a command economy...LOL. You have no argument. If your case rests on popular perceptions and a 'product of' a thought substituting a system, you really have no argument at all. That's exactly the sort of logic you retreat to when it comes to economically distinguishing between, say, cuba and imperial germany. Because you can't. It's fucking sad, you are nothing more than a sophist. It's pathetic I even have to rehash a well over 100 year old argument with someone that's otherwise intelligent. You are literally arguing with marx at this point what socialism is, redefining it, all in order to make a system fit the definition so you can proclaim failure (how backwards). Venezuela is, and was, a capitalist economy. It's not being overly specific, it's rebuking newspeak on your account
[quote]It's fucking sad, you are nothing more than a sophist.[/quote] i'm being called a sophist for using words in a meaningful way while you call venezuela a "capitalist economy" you aren't fooling anyone [QUOTE=Conscript;49273949][b][I][U]Venezuela is, and was, a capitalist economy.[/U][/I][/b][/QUOTE] it's official: words have no meaning
Does venezuela have wages, money, capital, classes, and commodity production? Yes. Unlike with liberals the Marxist definition of capitalism and socialism isn't nearly as nebulous, which is exactly why you retreat to vague arguments of a 'command economy' (is a corporation socialist?), a 'product of' socialist thought (am I supposed to apologize for ba'athism now?), and 'but the leader raises his fist!' (Is south Africa our failure too?) You must be using some orwellian definition of meaningful. The only thing you have shown is that venezuela is not [b]liberal[/b] capitalism. Your definition of socialism is pretty liberal, which is the problem. I mean seriously: [Quote]venezuela discredits not just socialism, but leftist populism in general [/quote] What a leap in logic. Who knew venezuela engendered everything left, you must know something all commies don't Chavez must have been some kind of socialist superman to achieve so much with so little. Makes you wonder why anyone thought a revolution was necessary in the first place.
[quote]Does venezuela have wages, money, [b]capital[/b], classes, and [b]commodity production?[/b][/quote] lmao what? you literally cannot have an economy without capital (or commodity production for that matter) a capital good is literally something used in the process of creating other goods, it can be machinery or a tool or a railway [QUOTE=Conscript;49274173](am I supposed to apologize for ba'athism now?) (Is south Africa our failure too?)[/quote] yes and yes [quote]You must be using some orwellian definition of meaningful. The only thing you have shown is that venezuela is not [b]liberal[/b] capitalism.[/QUOTE] your definition of capitalism is as broad and uncharitable as possible, while your definition of socialism is as narrow and charitable as possible. why should we take your definitions seriously when they're so obviously ideologically biased?
I'm not talking about capital goods, I'm talking about capital as the accumulation of surplus value from the productivity of wage labor. Profit. It's pretty much what defines capitalism coupled with the rest of those characteristics (I forgot to mention the law of value), which we've spent most of our human existence without so I don't know how you can claim it's intrinsic to an economy. Also, whether you think it's possible or not is pretty irrelevant. That doesn't mean you can go around redefining words to fit whatever state you need it to, just so you can condemn it with Marx's scary labels sans their meaning. This is backwards, and not to mention newspeak. Again, all you've shown is that venezuela is not a liberal capitalist economy. My definitions of socialism and capitalism are in the exact same sense Marxists used them for 150 years. I use liberal capitalism in the same sense economists and politicians do. It's only you with the confusion. I still have no idea what [i]exactly [/i] command economy is or how it's separate from capitalism as a mode of production, because it's basically when a corporation comes to encompass a whole economy or a war time measure. [Quote]yes and yes[/quote] lol
[QUOTE=Conscript;49274429]I'm not talking about capital goods, I'm talking about capital as the accumulation of surplus value from the productivity of wage labor.[/quote] you're just wrong about what capital means. a group of inbred echoey academics who failed to inherit enough land/money don't get to change the meaning of a term everyone knows the meaning of surplus value doesn't exist either [quote]Profit. It's pretty much what defines capitalism coupled with the rest of those characteristics (I forgot to mention the law of value), which we've spent most of our human existence without so I don't know how you can claim it's intrinsic to an economy.[/quote] toolmaking and other skills are utilized by hominids. the ability to create tools and produce things with them is a product of many generations of natural selection. when we get to the point they are producing tools you are dealing with perhaps the simplest form of economy in even this economy you have capital, because tools constitute a form of capital
i assume he's taking his definitions on 'capital' from the weird voodoo like 'marxist theorists'
[QUOTE=Octavius;49263450]Oh no! Looks like you're fantasy of Venezuela being some undemocratic dictatorship isn't true! Just cry that it's undemocratic, that is, until you win.[/QUOTE] Suffrage != Democracy [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;49265737] As for MUD and neoliberalism, those parties in the international are irrelevant, and we saw how fast the market socialism of warsaw pact dissidents was thrown away under advice and guidance of the West.[/QUOTE] Voluntad Popular, the party inside MUD that got the second largest amount of seats is a member of Socialist International. The leader of the party is Leopoldo Lopez. I wouldn't call them irrelevant.
ded
[QUOTE=Big Bang;49265804]They're planning an amnesty law to free the political prisoners, as well as laws targeting our absurd crime rate. I also can only assume that they're planning to remove the prosecutor commander Luisa Ortega Diaz as well, and remove any other Maduro appointed judges to restore the Judicial power as well. Getting rid of Tibisay Lucena (AKA the reason why the results are announced 6 hours after the election ends every time) and her sidekicks in the National Electoral Center would be great for increasing transparency, as well as giving the comptroller general position to somebody not involved with the government as it should be.[/QUOTE] Personal wishlist for the new National Assembly: - Remove all current justices, open a public and transparent search for new ones - Remove Tarek from People's Defender seat - Renovate CNE board of rectors with balanced list of members from both major parties - Give autonomy to Central Bank again but force it to release monthly reports on inflation, GDP, and other economic stats - Streamline or straight-up get rid of capital controls - Repeal Ley RESORTE (Social Responsibility Law for Radio and Television media, used for intimidating and self censoring private TV and radio stations) - significantly cut disadvantageous trade deals with Cuba, China and other nations in the caribbean. [B]- Strip Diosdado Cabello and Cilia Flores from their immunity and open an investigation on drug trafficking allegations[/B] All this will be possible because it was confirmed today that the opposition got two thirds of the assembly, which gives them qualified majority. [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] Conscript's just a massive, walking no-true-scotsman fallacy [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Octavius;49274912] Please explain to me the undemocratic nature of Venezuela then. Additionally, a party belonging to the Socialist International is pretty meaningless. Just look at how quickly these social democratic parties have sold out to neoliberalism worldwide.[/QUOTE] I don't think belonging to The International means anything at all, I was just pointing out your innacurate statement. I have one example that perfectly exemplifies how undemocratic the Venezuelan government is: [B]When the president of the national assembly rolls in a military tank (with soldiers, not policemen or members of the public ministry) through a peaceful concentration to execute an order of capture (on an opposition leader) that was issued by the Public Ministry on direct order of the president of Venezuela...[/B] I'm pretty fucking sure we're not dealing with a democratic government. And that's exactly how Leopoldo Lopez was arrested last year: [thumb]http://cdn01.am.infobae.com/adjuntos/163/imagenes/010/701/0010701365.JPG[/thumb] [URL]http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2014/02/18/pdte.-maduro-diosdado-cabello-conduce-vehiculo-que-traslada-a-leopoldo-lopez-en-resguardo-de-su-integridad-5922.html[/URL] My point is that for a government to be democratic, there needs to be a real division and autonomy of powers. The amount of coordination and agreement within the different parts of the government in this instance make it evident that there is no such division of power. Also, why the hell is the president of the national assembly performing a capture order? That is so far off from his role.
[QUOTE=Octavius;49274912]For a Marxist, capital is not a tool, capital is essentially money.[/quote] economists do not define capital that way that definition of capital fell out of use about a hundred and fifty years ago [quote]Also, brilliant refutation of surplus value. I suppose if I just state 'Venezuela wasn't ever socialist' then I am also correct, even though no critique has been made?[/quote] surplus value doesnt exist because labour does not hold intrinsic value you cannot subtract surplus from it because all value is ultimately subjective economists had already realized this by the 1860s when the models they had developed didn't fit what they were observing in reality, hence they updated them and took this into account there are no economists today who think surplus value is a thing - it was debunked years ago [quote] Additionally, a party belonging to the Socialist International is pretty meaningless. Just look at how quickly these social democratic parties have sold out to neoliberalism worldwide.[/QUOTE] i wonder why, it must be the machinations of evil foreigners
ded
[QUOTE=Octavius;49275369]You mean 150 years ago, before Capital was published or Marxism had a large following, terms used in Marxist economics had already fallen out of use? Please, help me understand such a claim![/quote] that was because the marginal revolution began at the same time and quickly eclipsed it. marxist economics is an interesting curiosity from the 19th century when some disciplines were rapidly changing. in terms of economic theory and practice, marxism is considered an irrelevant dead end that only a shrinking clique of academics and college students masturbate over. [quote]Praise the subjectivity of value, I should never have believed in something as ridiculous as surplus value! Surely I am alone in my error and there are no economists who currently believe in such a thing![/quote] there are people who believe in it, but they don't adhere to basic scientific methodology, and they aren't called economists. if alexander ii hadnt been killed in russia, marxist economics would most likely occupy a few footnotes on the bottom of various history books as some weird philosophy much like the forgotten books about crude examinations of skulls to determine racial traits [quote]Hah, oh, you sure had me fooled there. The subjective theory of value is not a universally accepted thing. It'd do you good not to just have your whole critique of Marxist economics be the fact that Marxist economists are not in the majority.[/quote] the reason marxist economists are not in the majority is the same reason that the people who believe vaccines cause autism are not in a majority. economists no longer cite marx in the same capacity in much the same way that psychologists no longer cite freud to explain behaviours people fall for intellectual scams all the time, marxism and foot reflexology are no surprises.
[QUOTE]you're just wrong about what capital means.[/quote] I'm not so sure. From wiki: 'Capital•is a type of good that can be consumed now, but if consumption is deferred an increased supply of consumable goods is likely to be available later. Adam Smith defines•capital•as "That part of a man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue is called his•capital.' This was Marx's, as a man in the times of classical economics, working definition too. Capital reproduces itself by engaging in a relationship with labor, which arguably is based on surplus value but it's really inconsequential whether you believe this or not, because the capital-labor relationship is still the foundation of capitalism and very much what Venezuela's economy is based on. Just, instead of a private employer you work for the state. But it remains the same, a class society based on the exploitation of labor, which works in a system of commodity production in order to accumulate capital. All venezuelan workers, by nature of their class being propertyless and without anything to sell but their skills, toil for those in possession of capital (whether private citizen or state) for such a length of time so as to not only reproduce what was invested in their wages, but more. This creates a social surplus (since we're basically producing for each other now in a form of socialized production, but not socialized distribution which is socialism) which is appropriated as profit and used (in venezuela) by the state, essentially one big capitalist, to reinvest and accumulate more capital (but since the administration says it's 'for the people' it is suddenly socialism). Compounding this is the fact that in the big picture this state is just another economic actor in the world market, it can very much be compared to a large corporation. You can also accumulate capital just from savings, however this is based on the same principle of consuming less than the value your work produces, and it's also far less efficient and you'll never compete with someone who employs the work of countless people. This is why most workers and poor people opt to have children instead. Re: no true scotsman, I don't see how it is such when you utterly don't fit the definition and this has been something pointed out long before any of us. To quote Wilhelm Liebknecht from 1896: [Quote]A propos,•talking of misunderstandings, whoever put it into comrade Keir Hardie’s head that the German Socialists were State Socialists, and our French friends, Guesde, Devine, Lafargue, Jaurès, a kind of French Fabians? Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists, nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!•[/quote] And to restate that engels quote on the nature of the state, also from the 1890s: [Quote]And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head[/quote] And to quote Lenin on his own system: [Quote]What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.[/quote] German state capitalism, especially as conditioned by Bismarck 'stealing' the socialist platform (in the sense of welfare) of the German SPD out from under them, was a model for Lenin especially when the soviet state was isolated and couldn't 'skip' capitalism with the assistance of an advanced country. He had no illusions about Russia's prospects for socialism, especially alone, and made it clear as early as his April Thesis in 1917 that the it was not the task of the Bolsheviks to just 'introduce' socialism. Such a thing is impossible, and unlike Chavez, the Bolsheviks overthrew the old order. It is clear that within that frame that Chavez's system is no more socialist nor has any more prospects for it than german, or chinese, or even soviet state capitalism, especially as evidenced by the fact that since Bismarck the system has adopted various 'socialist' concessions to labor yet this does obviously not compromise its capitalist nature. I raise this point consistently to Sobotnik and his only means of apparent distinguishing from this capitalist 'socialism' and the state capitalism of an administration of self-proclaimed socialists, is form. Even when Lenin is idolizing and proclaiming state capitalism, and Bismarck creates a state-oriented welfare state to [i]negate[/i] the socialists, he insists one is a socialist system and the other is capitalist, and accuses me of hair splitting. I can only speculate that, since he correctly realizes Nordic socialism isn't really socialism and therefore doesn't use the typical liberal definition of it (how much the state intervenes, thus the 'mixed economy' bullshit and the Nolan chart), what would make such a Nordic system actually socialist in his eyes would be a red flag waving head honcho. It's a superficial difference, if you're a materialist anyway, and basically down to form rather than substance. It wouldn't matter, though, if Sobotnik wasn't trying to slander those materialists with a definition he pulled out of his ass (kidding, it was taught to you). This isn't the case of no true scotsman, it's just two completely different views of capitalism, liberal and marxian socialist. However, these liberal definitions are considerably newer yet trying to retain the label and thus the 'scare' factor of Marx's terms, which are gutted of their meaning in order to lambast existing political opponents on the modern (center-)left (thus the GOP browbeating dems as pinkos), all in a time when marxism is marginalized and the left has shifted right. The 'spectre' of Marxism is kept alive by the anti-communists, however. Thus, this is not a case of no true scotsman. This is a case of newspeak on the part of liberal anti-leftists who want to demonize systems not economically liberal and regimes not loyal to the neoliberal West, which is all Chavez ever amounted to.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49275673]'Capital•is a type of good that can be consumed now, but if consumption is deferred an increased supply of consumable goods is likely to be available later. Adam Smith defines•capital•as "That part of a man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue is called his•capital.'[/quote] you forgot the second part: [quote]In a fundamental sense, capital consists of any produced thing that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work—a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is an input in the production function.[/quote] i.e there is such a thing as capital in a subsistence hunter-gatherer economy [quote]I raise this point consistently to Sobotnik and his only means of apparent distinguishing from this capitalist 'socialism' and the state capitalism of an administration of self-proclaimed socialists, is form. Even when Lenin is idolizing and proclaiming state capitalism, and Bismarck creates a state-oriented welfare state to [i]negate[/i] the socialists, he insists one is a socialist system and the other is capitalist, and accuses me of hair splitting.[/quote] the difference is that bismarck adopted policies of pragmatism that actually worked - the other adopts policies on the basis of their ideological purity [quote]The 'spectre' of Marxism is kept alive by the anti-communists, however.[/quote] for the past 17 years a socialist party heavily influenced by marxism ruled venezuela and drove it into the ground. it will take another generation for venezuela to recover from chavismo it's not yet finished causing miseries for people, in much the same way that neonazi and communist bullies in europe go around beating up muslims or each other. if we want to prevent the atrocities of the 20th century or the slow grinding misery that followed in those countries from happening again, we shouldn't grow complacent when extremists find it acceptable to use violence and intimidation to get what they want
no government will ever be socialist because nobody agrees or even understands what this contrived bullshit of RealSocialism™ you're describing is. Also please stop spouting this 1800s marxist babble that is hardly applicable to anything nowadays.
[QUOTE=barttool;49274933]Personal wishlist for the new National Assembly: - Remove all current justices, open a public and transparent search for new ones - Remove Tarek from People's Defender seat - Renovate CNE board of rectors with balanced list of members from both major parties - Give autonomy to Central Bank again but force it to release monthly reports on inflation, GDP, and other economic stats - Streamline or straight-up get rid of capital controls - Repeal Ley RESORTE (Social Responsibility Law for Radio and Television media, used for intimidating and self censoring private TV and radio stations) - significantly cut disadvantageous trade deals with Cuba, China and other nations in the caribbean. [B]- Strip Diosdado Cabello and Cilia Flores from their immunity and open an investigation on drug trafficking allegations[/B] All this will be possible because it was confirmed today that the opposition got two thirds of the assembly, which gives them qualified majority.[/QUOTE] Took 'em long enough, I knew of the results more than 24 hours ago yet they were made legitimate at 6PM today. The CNE also needs to be sanitized. But anyhow, in terms of what you're saying the proper order is to, first and foremost, remove Tarek and put anybody else in place, which the Assembly can do without problem, this can then be used to remove the CNE without problem. Upon doing so, removing the justices involves a kinda lengthy procedure where you have to demonstrate that they have committed a crime, this is really easy because most of those clowns were taking direct orders from the government. With that, you can sanitize the Constitutional Chamber of the TSJ. From there, you can pass laws without the Chavistas being able to shoot them down, and that's when you start doing all the hard legislative work, reforms, organic laws, and constitutional reforms if necessary (the latter if only to remove indefinite re-election, or re-election altogether). This is when you get rid of Ley Resorte, CADIVI, SICAD, SIMADI, regulations on gas and food prices, so forth and so forth, of course by replacing them with other, more functional systems, like the equivalent of food stamps, which albeit fallible, works better than just keeping prices artificially low. After that, that's when you sick the dogs at them. Depending on how Maduro behaves, this is about the time a referendum for his impeachment is called, all while indicting the top dogs, Diosdado, Cilia, Jorge Rodriguez, Mario Silva, Tibisay Lucena, Nelson Merentes, Asdruval Chavez, Tania Diaz, Pedro Carreno, Luisa Ortega Diaz, Vielma Mora for unjust enrichment. You're bound to find something on them, and I'm forgetting quite a few. I don't think a case against Maduro will really stand if Cilia's drug connections aren't proven in court. After this purge, you need to start rewriting how the system works, kickstart the economy and bring back foreign investment. It's hard work to this point, really, but I think the country can go back to being one of the strongest economies in the region if we can all cut the crap and start working on putting this nation back together.
How much capacity will Maduro still have to prevent MUD's changes? For example, will he be able to pardon anyone the Assembly investigates, or issue executive orders to contradict MUD policies? And what are the odds he is removed completely before the end of his term?
[QUOTE=Amfleet;49276447]How much capacity will Maduro still have to prevent MUD's changes? For example, will he be able to pardon anyone the Assembly investigates, or issue executive orders to contradict MUD policies? And what are the odds he is removed completely before the end of his term?[/QUOTE] None. The president's power is actually rather limited, the TSJ is more powerful than him. The reason why Chavez was such a dominant force in Venezuelan politics was because he always had legislative power due to the Assembly granting him enabling acts all the time, additionally, he had the Supreme Justice Tribunal, Assembly, National Electoral Center and every part of the Citizen Branch working for him, so he had unopposed rule. The opposition simply couldn't do anything against him legally other that one time where they attempted to impeach him. That's why it was such an uphill battle to get to this point, the Chavistas own everything. It's actually more likely that he'll quit before being impeached, so there's that.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;49276595]None. The president's power is actually rather limited, the TSJ is more powerful than him. The reason why Chavez was such a dominant force in Venezuelan politics was because he always had legislative power due to the Assembly granting him enabling acts all the time, additionally, he had the Supreme Justice Tribunal, Assembly, National Electoral Center and every part of the Citizen Branch working for him, so he had unopposed rule. The opposition simply couldn't do anything against him legally other that one time where they attempted to impeach him. That's why it was such an uphill battle to get to this point, the Chavistas own everything. It's actually more likely that he'll quit before being impeached, so there's that.[/QUOTE] How are enabling acts handled? Is it like the US and its Executive Orders, or like France and its 'state of emergency' powers or?
[QUOTE=cccritical;49277164]How are enabling acts handled? Is it like the US and its Executive Orders, or like France and its 'state of emergency' powers or?[/QUOTE] Two ways: Via referendum (The way Chavez used in 1998 to write the new constitution) or by approval from 2/3rds of the national assembly. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] There are still executive orders and emergency state powers, but when it comes to regular lawmaking, the president has no veto power. He can only request changes on bills sent to his desk but if he does not sign a bill within a 15 day period, the president and vice-president of the assembly have the right to sign the law. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] The most lovely part of all this is all the Chavismo reforms and laws backfiring on them.
Oh yeah, the sweetest irony of this whole thing is the fact that we got this many deputies on the election, because the Chavismo changed electoral and parliamentary law in order to produce more deputies out of smaller majorities, splitting main opposition bastions in Caracas like Baruta from adyacent areas that are supposed to be Chavista like Petare, abusing the fact that they had a very slight majority in 2013. It backfired horribly because the opposition got a significant majority which got amplified by their own laws, giving the opposition twice as many seats as PSUV with only 2 million more votes. But it's their fault, after all, there was no need to modify the law, and they became pretty unpopular all by themselves, the opposition just focused on keeping the elections clean rather than directly competing with them, exhausting their ammo for propaganda.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49262973]Feels like just another step in the endless back and forth historical struggle between left and right in south America. Where's that Ben garrison picture 'March of tyranny'?[/QUOTE] Ben Garrison? As in Ben 'one man klan' garrison? As in, 'Zyklon Ben' Garrison?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.