Current Events > Venezuela's poverty rate is now 94.5%

(+) Yeah! (+)

Which means the equality rate is also 94.5%. And people said communism doesn't work!

---

Vuvuzuela!

---

If everyone is in poverty, no one is in poverty

---

NeonOctopus posted...

If everyone is in poverty, no one is in poverty

https://i.imgur.com/unFfJEP.mp4

---

I see they've reached the "this wasn't actually socialism" stage of socialism.

---

This topic is about Venezuela to which you have no argument.

I enjoy the lack of self-awareness though.

Looks like that guy who was sent there to work for Creole wasn't the messiah they were expecting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJY2S_brQbQ

---

What percentage of those people are killing Rune Dragons in Runescape?

Broseph_Stalin posted...

This topic is about Venezuela to which you have no argument.

I enjoy the lack of self-awareness though.

lmao, rekt

---

NeonOctopus posted...

If everyone is in poverty, no one is in poverty

---

MrToothHasYou posted...

---

lol their poverty rate went up by 20 percent in 1 year what even happened there in 2016?

---

in terms of the way the country functions, Venezuela is more similar to a Nordic-style social democracy than to actual socialism

---

Too bad all those lazy people cant pull on more bootstraps

---

How many tens of people in America actually want it to be exactly like Venezuela?

The majority of people that are accused of wanting "communism" actually just like Scandinavian countries or whatever, which both them and their critics confuse with socialism.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

How many tens of people in America actually want it to be exactly like Venezuela?

The majority of people that are accused of wanting "communism" actually just like Scandinavian countries or whatever, which both them and their critics confuse with socialism.

They legit say they want communism and suck off Marx

---

s0nicfan posted...

So they're like the people who admit capitalism is flawed but refuse to believe we can improve it without turning to communism.

---

Squall28 posted...

They legit say they want communism and suck off Marx

Who does?

---

hockeybub89 posted...

How many tens of people in America actually want it to be exactly like Venezuela?

Chavez ran on a platform that is indistinguishable from what American progressives support. That is why they praised him constantly and still defend his failures.

It's absolutely terrifying that uninformed people like you can't recognize the cause of such problems.

MrToothHasYou posted...

Seems to be the go-to. They never mention Sweden or Portugal.

---

SoggyBottomBoy posted...

They never mention Sweden or Portugal.

They are capitalist yet they don't criticize capitalist nations, curious!

Broseph_Stalin posted...

They are capitalist yet they don't criticize capitalist nations, curious!

They implement a lot more socialist ideas than we do, tho.

---

Venezuela was destroyed over sanctions not communism, and really they were a socialist society not a communist one

SoggyBottomBoy posted...

They implement a lot more socialist ideas than we do, tho.

Public spending is not socialism, especially when those countries fund it by having a more regressive taxation system than the US.

2Pacavelli posted...

Venezuela was destroyed over sanctions not communism

"Venezuela's 2010 economic crisis was created by sanctions in 2019" might just be my favorite tankie take.

To dredge up an old post of mine around venezuela:

Venezuela nationalized their oil industry in the seventies, which started a multi-decade decline in said industries while the government became increasingly reliant on it for profits.

Then in 2003 Chavez fired a huge number of oil employees so he could put in party loyalists who had no idea what they were doing.

Then in 2007 Venezuela tried forcing oil companies to pay significantly more than had previously been agreed upon, and when those companies refused Venezuela seized their assets.

Then the oil market collapsed in 2014 and their government had put way too much investment into it.

Then the state started seizing private assets from other companies, like factories, which started a long chain of international companies abandoning the country.

Then in 2015 sanctions were put on their government for corruption.

By 2016 dozens of major companies had fled the country citing a variety of issues.

In 2017 GM had to leave because the state seized their plant and stole their assets.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/01/29/charting-the-decline-of-venezuelas-oil-industry/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/general-motors-says-venezuelan-officials-illegally-seize-plant-n748741

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36294939

And to answer the question "what does any of that have to do with socialism?"

It has somewhat to do with socialism, both the real definition and the one that people tend to use when they talk about it. The former because the state was literally seizing the means of production through taking over factories and refineries. The latter because of their social safety nets.

The former created problems because it caused most international corporations to flee the country, gutting their industries. It was then made worse when cronies were installed in leadership positions for said state-run assets which then failed to perform because people didn't know what they were doing. When the state runs industry, there's little reason for industry to participate in that state.

As to the latter, one of the reasons why Chavez was so popular in his country is because he took the massive profits from the oil industry and ran a number of social safety net programs for the poor with them. The problem was that he wasn't reinvesting any of those profits into growth, so when the one industry that they depended on collapsed they no longer had any money to give to the poor, nor did they have any money to create new industries. He basically just used the economy to bolster his popularity among the people in order to retain power, which in the short term seems incredibly generous but in the long term contributed significantly to the collapse of the country.

Now, if you want to make the case that he didn't do socialism right or that the country is some weird combination of socialism and pseudo dictatorship, sure. You can make that argument. But socialism 100% played a factor into why the situation was as bad as it was.

---

I'd be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what socialism actually is and just parrot talking points from moderates and right-wingers.

---

s0nicfan posted...

To dredge up an old post of mine around venezuela:

And to answer the question "what does any of that have to do with socialism?"

Socialism isn't just the implementation of social programs though. It means the workers are in control of those industries.


---

NeonOctopus posted...

If everyone is in poverty, no one is in poverty

---

SoggyBottomBoy posted...

Seems to be the go-to. They never mention Sweden or Portugal.

Sweden is neoliberal as heck

---

scar the 1 posted...

Sweden is neoliberal as heck

IIRC, Sweden has strong labor unions that are able to negotiate and dictate wages, which definifely follows leftist ideology.

---

American leftist not realizing that Sweden went through a ton of neoliberal reforms in the 90s after decades of decline under social democrat economic policy is really funny.

Hmm

I wonder if conservative trad nations are rolling in wealth

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

IIRC, Sweden has strong labor unions that are able to negotiate and dictate wages, which definifely follows leftist ideology.

https://twitter.com/fiskargubbe/status/1400758567498563586

Swedish labor unions have been weakened for several decades, to the point where predatory companies use collective agreements as PR. Sweden is neoliberal as heck.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I'd be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what socialism actually is and just parrot talking points from moderates and right-wingers.

Most American socialists dont even know what socialism is lmao

---

scar the 1 posted...

https://twitter.com/fiskargubbe/status/1400758567498563586

Swedish labor unions have been weakened for several decades, to the point where predatory companies use collective agreements as PR. Sweden is neoliberal as heck.

Ah, I think I was thinking of Switzerland. My bad.

---

Samurontai posted...

Most American socialists dont even know what socialism is lmao

Eh...I can't really deny this.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

American leftist not realizing that Sweden went through a ton of neoliberal reforms in the 90s after decades of decline under social democrat economic policy is really funny.

These are the same people that believe that Europe is some sort of far left utopia, so it doesnt surprise me really.

---

Maybe we should clear some things up in this topic about socialism and communism

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

In both communism and socialism, the people own the factors of economic production. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

Under communism, the people are compensated or provided for based on their needs. In a pure communist society, the government provides most or all food, clothing, housing and other necessities based on what it considers to be the needs of the people. Socialism is based on the premise the people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy. Effort and innovation are thus rewarded under socialism.

Pure communism is an economic, political, and social system in which most or all property and resources are collectively owned by a class-free society rather than by individual citizens. According to the theory developed by the German philosopher, economist, and political theorist Karl Marx, pure communism results in a society in which all people are equal and there is no need for money or the accumulation of individual wealth. There is no private ownership of economic resources, with a central government controlling all facets of production. Economic output is distributed according to the needs of the people. Social friction between white and blue-collar workers and between rural and urban cultures will be eliminated, freeing each person to achieve his or her highest human potential.

Pure socialism is an economic system under which each individualthrough a democratically elected governmentis given an equal share of the four factors or economic production: labor, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources. In essence, socialism is based on the assumption that all people naturally want to cooperate, but are restrained from doing so by the competitive nature of capitalism.
Socialism is an economic system where everyone in society equally owns the factors of production. The ownership is acquired through a democratically elected government. It could also be a cooperative or public corporation in which everyone owns shares. As in a command economy, the socialist government employs centralized planning to allocate resources based on both the needs of individuals and society as a whole. Economic output is distributed according to each individuals ability and level of contribution.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Ah, I think I was thinking of Switzerland. My bad.

You probably were thinking of Sweden. It's just that it's a bit of an outdated picture. Swedish labor unions were pretty powerful for quite a while. Wouldn't exactly say it was socialist though, but labor used to have a lot more influence than in various other capitalist states.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

American leftist not realizing that Sweden went through a ton of neoliberal reforms in the 90s after decades of decline under social democrat economic policy is really funny.

What history is this?

You mean the Neoliberal reforms which started in the late 70s and grew in strength during the 80s until we had a national financial crash like the one the US had in the 00s which triggered the global financial crisis? And while several Neoliberal reforms from that era still remain intact, traditional Socialdemocratic measures by PM Gran Persson (1996-2006) and his Government are what got us back on our feet.

Then we had a super Neoliberal Right-wing coalition as Government 2006-2014 and under them our national debt grew and we got a budget deficit. Enter the SocDems again with Lfvens 1st Cabinet - bam bam we have a budget surplus and a low national debt once again.

---

I'm seeing a discrepancy in the number of posts here.

I have a hunch that a certain someone is posting in this topic

---

BalanceLost posted...

What history is this?

You mean the Neoliberal reforms which started in the late 70s and grew in strength during the 80s until we had a national financial crash like the one the US had in the 00s which triggered the global financial crisis? And while several Neoliberal reforms from that era still remain intact, traditional Socialdemocratic measures by PM Gran Persson (1996-2006) and his Government are what got us back on our feet.

Then we had a super Neoliberal Right-wing coalition as Government 2006-2014 and under them our national debt grew and we got a budget deficit. Enter the SocDems again with Lfvens 1st Cabinet - bam bam we have a budget surplus and a low national debt once again.

I don't think he was expecting an actual person from Sweden to show up

But I did want him to reply to my query

---

Lol is Broseph embarrassing himself again? I can't see any of those replies.

---

BalanceLost posted...

You mean the Neoliberal reforms which started in the late 70s and grew in strength during the 80s until we had a national financial crash like the one the US had in the 00s which triggered the global financial crisis?

The neoliberal reforms did not start until the 90s, they were a response to an economic crisis that followed decades of relative decline in Sweden. The moderate parties did not come to power because liberalization was failing, that doesn't even make sense.

Sweden did go through various neolib reforms in the '90s though, didn't they? That's when schools and healthcare were opened up for private actors, to pretty devastating effects. Today Gran Persson owns shares in Attendo. And not to mention Pr Nuder or Jan Emanuel :)

---