End of maduro - hopefully. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14982692
The list of right wing dictatorships supported by the USA, and their related body counts and human rights abuses, is far longer and far more violent than the list of Chinese imperialist atrocities, if any.
#14982695
B0ycey wrote:To Venezuela, America is worse. Once relations between Bush and Chavez went south, America went for Venezuela like they did with Chile and Allende. So they should actually just focus on China now. It isn't even like a choice.


When you say worse, do you mean worse for the regime, or worse for the citizens?
#14982699
Rancid wrote:When you say worse, do you mean worse for the regime, or worse for the citizens?


Ultimately I will say "The Regime". But citizens would be better off if Venezuela spent their oil revenues on an industrial revolution there - which will then pay for their socialism policies - and that can only occur if America back off. And that is where China can come into play.

Perhaps a Chinese nuke or two based in Venezuela might stop US aggression.
#14982703
B0ycey wrote:
Ultimately I will say "The Regime". But citizens would be better off if Venezuela spent their oil revenues on an industrial revolution their which can then pay for their socialism policies and that can only occur if America back off. And that is where China can come into play

Perhaps a Chinese nuke or two based in Venezuela might stop US aggression.


I agree for the most part that this a possibility. However, my doubt is that you are basing this on two very big ifs statements. Both of which I think would evaluate to false. Namely, could Venezuela really pull off an industrial revolution as you state? Given they failed to do this under Chavez/Maduro? Second, what makes you so sure China is going to be a benevolent afriend of the Venezuelan people?Why wouldn't they basically colonize Venezuela?

Look at what China recently tried in Sri Lanka and the Maldives. That was certainly not benevolent to the people of those nations.
#14982707
Rancid wrote:Namely, could vanazuela really pull of an industrial revolution as you state, given they failed to do this with Chavez. Second, what makes you so sure China is going to be benevolent and not want a lot of that oil for themselves, and basically colonize Venezuela?


If I look at your first if, it would be successful if production focused on the needs of Venezuela. That is artificially recreate the invisible hand. So they should focus on food production and medicine and make themselves self reliant. Exporting desirable goods perhaps is harder to break but I see no reason that if China and Russia have turned a nation of pleasants into superpowers that Venezuela can't do likewise within reason.

As for your second if, I expect China to indeed want much of their oil for themselves. And Venezuela should give it to them for protection and investment - as well as for finance. Unfortunately they do not have much of a choice when America are aggressive against them.
#14982712
Russia spends billions on Venezuela while its pensioners are living off a 180$ pension on average (that means many are receiving much less than that)
now its all going waste
hail Putin the great leader Im sure Russia have a bright future ahead with Putin :lol:
#14982732
B0ycey wrote:My comment was not intended to be an endorsement for China but a solution for Venezuela. Venezuela have done many wrong things to achieve a successful economy when given the biggest prize of all - vast oil fields. But when America stacks the cards against you, you are fucked. So sorry, I do not think all the blame can be put on Maduro or even Chavez. Let's not forget America, the nation who actively tries to destroy any nation that even dares to wear the Socialism banner. And that is why Venezuela should create and promote trade relations with China and tell America to fuck off. But first they need to also promote a Soviet style industrialisation program - minus the Gulags.


And here we have a problem. Soviet industrialization doesn't work properly without Gulags and collectivization. I would even argue that socialist policies and industrialisation will inevitabely lead to something like the Gulags and Collectivisation if you want to achieve the socialist/communist dream. You will have no other choice because the markets/capital/people will not surrender without a fight.

The alternative way is northern European social democracy. Swedish one i guess. They have achieved a lot what the communist and socialists wanted without the Gulags, without the collectivisation and without even destroying business and private property.
#14982740
JohnRawls wrote:And here we have a problem. Soviet industrialization doesn't work properly without Gulags and collectivization. I would even argue that socialist policies and industrialisation will inevitabely lead to something like the Gulags and Collectivisation if you want to achieve the socialist/communist dream. You will have no other choice because the markets/capital/people will not surrender without a fight.


"He who does not work, shall not eat."

If your means of production is to feed your nation, and your nation has empty shelves, gulags are not needed to bring them to order. Pure socialism is government ownership. So if people don't work for the nation when work is provided then they should not complain when they are starving. And that is the difference. It isn't socialism that is the problem but history is full of faux socialist states that were totalitarian states and people believing that is the only direction for such an economic system is totalitarism. It isn't. And China is testament of that despite their flaws.

Also the Soviet Union collapsed because they neglected the free market. They put the nations interests above their own peoples. So perhaps it is true that the invisible hand works best under Capitalism because of self interest. But if the nation considers the populous interest when focusing the means of production, then the state doesn't need to fail at all actually.
#14982758
B0ycey wrote:"He who does not work, shall not eat."

If your means of production is to feed your nation, and your nation has empty shelves, gulags are not needed to bring them to order. Pure socialism is government ownership. So if people don't work for the nation when work is provided then they should not complain when they are starving. And that is the difference. It isn't socialism that is the problem but history is full of faux socialist states that were totalitarian states and people believing that is the only direction for such an economic system is totalitarism. It isn't. And China is testament of that despite their flaws.

Also the Soviet Union collapsed because they neglected the free market. They put the nations interests above their own peoples. So perhaps it is true that the invisible hand works best under Capitalism because of self interest. But if the nation considers the populous interest when focusing the means of production, then the state doesn't need to fail at all actually.


You don't understand. A successful farmer doesn't need to work for the government because he can already work for himself. A successful businessmen doesn't need to work for the government because he can work for himself. You can't reach a certain level of state ownership with there being independent people in the first place who can work for themselves.

This is the reason why collectivisation happened in the SU and China happened. Voluntary collectivisation of the soviet union didn't produce any results so Stalin implemented forceful collectivisation. It was done because majority of the SU economy at the time was in agriculture and that agriculture was based on the free market and little state ownership. The farmers simply didn't want to get collectivised since they are already producing most of things themselves for themselves. Things changed after that ofcourse and it provided the resources for industrialisation. Problem is though, it came at a price of famine and death of great many people. Also the output of the agriculture decreased because the farmers had no insensitive to work as hard as they did when they did it for themselves.
#14982760
JohnRawls wrote:You don't understand. A successful farmer doesn't need to work for the government because he can already work for himself. A successful businessmen doesn't need to work for the government because he can work for himself. You can't reach a certain level of state ownership with there being independent people in the first place who can work for themselves.


No, you don't understand. The farmer need land to work for himself. The businessman needs a means of production to work for himself. In a system of private ownership who benefits? This is why the world is a class divide. The solution is to give the means to everyone then there is no issue. Until then it is the top 1% vs everyone else.

There is an interesting post from Sivad in another thread which is quite poignant here. The Earth has enough resources for everyone to live comfortably if if the world collaborated. It is self interest that drives divisions and capitalism works on a principle of profit and debt. So for every winner in Capitalism there is a loser. So if you are against Maduro because he doesn't fall in line with the Capitalists interests then I would say we need more leaders like him to sink the ideology all together.
#14982767
B0ycey wrote:No, you don't understand. The farmer need land to work for himself. The businessman needs a means of production to work for himself. In a system of private ownership who benefits? This is why the world is a class divide. The solution is to give the means to everyone then there is no issue. Until then it is the top 1% vs everyone else.

There is an interesting post from Sivad in another thread which is quite poignant here. The Earth has enough resources for everyone to live comfortably if if the world collaborated. It is self interest that drives divisions and capitalism works on a principle of profit and debt. So for every winner in Capitalism there is a loser. So if you are against Maduro because he doesn't fall in line with the Capitalists interests then I would say we need more leaders like him to sink the ideology all together.


Depends what you mean by "enough resources". Everybody has his own definition of it. Lets say we managed to distribute the GDP per capita perfectly fairly(PPP). That would mean that Estonian gdp would have to go down 2x times to the worlds average. More developed western countries 3x times. (USA,France,Germany, Japan etc) And super rich countries(Small ones) by a lot more then that.

Why would anyone agree to that? Also what would be the point of trying to improve your country if you know that any excess growth will be given to everybody else? What is the point for me to surrender my countries standard of living and drop down to the point of Brazil, China and the Dominican Republic?(For the average Joe) :eh: This is not a perfect example but it is good enough.
#14982769
Naturally we need to accept Marx’s stateless society for such a concept of unity to become a reality @JohnRawls - and as such a time when we can all share the spoils that the Earth can provide.

But ultimately for Communism to work human nature needs to be less greedy. Can human instinct repent such thinking? I doubt it. So the closest we will ever get to a functioning socialist state is through Centrism. A free market economic model, nationalised vital structure and tax credits for the poor. And that is really where Maduro/Chavez went wrong. They focused their economy on oil when the price was high and didn't consider an economic model where the price was low.
#14982772
B0ycey wrote:Naturally we need to accept Marx’s stateless society for such a concept of unity to become a reality @JohnRawls - and as such a time when we can all share the spoils that the Earth can provide.

But ultimately for Communism to work human nature needs to be less greedy. Can human instinct repent such thinking? I doubt it. So the closest we will ever get to a functioning socialist state is through Centrism. A free market economic model, nationalised vital structure and tax credits for the poor. And that is really where Maduro/Chavez went wrong. They focused their economy on oil when the price was high and didn't consider an economic model where the price was low.


Well, that is how centralisation of vital industries work. This is how they planned to give this tax credit to the poor.(AKA nationalise the oil to work for the people) The problem with that model is that once you do that, instead of spending the profit in to technological improvement, expansion of production, calculations on how the market will procede you start spending that profit to give the credit so the industry collapsed. (In reality it collapsed because of more reasons actually compiled on top of that)

But that applies to many industries not just oil in Venezuela. If you are going to spend profits of some industry to give it to somebody else besides the business then you remove the incesitive for that industry to exist/improve in the eyes of the people who actually work in this industry. Now this applies if you do it for all of the profit. Liberal social democracy find a stable balance of sorts in that regard. But socialism and communism did not as history shows.

Once again, we come to the point where liberal values are better in this regard and capable of achieving things that communism/socialism fails at.
#14982823
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is interesting how many people here think national sovereignty is irrelevant.


I have to say, some countries are so messed up that they have effectively given up their sovereignty already, so it makes no difference if the West intervenes. As I said, at least the pro-West politicians are more competent or have more integrity.

And in worse cases, some group of people simply don't deserve soverignty themselves, at least for the time being.
#14982824
Rancid wrote:It's time for Communism with Chinese Characteristics.


I don't find it work, although one can argue that Xi Jingping is working his way away from it.
#14982830
I think it is about time chinese emperors stopped wearing boring overalls and bourgouis suits while taking titles for themselves which are so dismally plebian like "Chairman" or "General Secretary" and instead resume ruling over billions of crawling ant people like they mean it by doing it in style, like in the old days.

Image

correct :up:

------------

Image

FAIL - he looks like a petty shoe salesman; who wants to be bossed around by some random crappy shoe salesman? It's just embarrassing. :roll:
Last edited by SolarCross on 26 Jan 2019 03:24, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 74

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]