3 ms·
How many socialist regimes need to end in "dictatorship and corruption" before the world realises that the latter is the inevitable consequence of the former?
by gaius 9y ago
How many socialist regimes need to end in "dictatorship and corruption" before the world realises that the latter is the inevitable consequence of the former?
- cdancette 9y agoI think you're confusing socialism and communism. A lot of Western European countries have or have had in the past decades socialist regimes.
- ekianjo 9y agoThere's often many names for the same ill.
- gaius 9y agoThe Western European countries are social democracies - not in socialism as a transitional phase as defined by Marx and Engels.
- tonfa 9y agoI don't think e.g. wikipedia agrees with such a restrictive view (there are many form of socialism). Also many of those countries have their main left wing party named "socialist party". (I think it's cultural difference between US and rest of world where the US considers socialism ~= communism)
- gaius 9y agoWell, M'n'E used the terms almost interchangeably, from the horse's mouth as it were. The USSR called itself "socialist".
- whistlecrackers 9y agoWhat's that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
- RA_Fisher 9y agoYep. Chavez started as a proletariat leader. I believe some liberal leaders like Sean Penn publicly supported Chavez (? someone fact check me here).
- gaius 9y agoIn the UK Jeremy Corbyn as recently as last January (when all the signs were already clear) was holding up Venezuela as a role model for the UK. He still hasn't denounced the regime there.
- RA_Fisher 9y agoYep and here's Michael Moore when Chavez died: https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/309124649244057600 https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/309124649244057600 "Hugo Chavez declared the oil belonged 2 the ppl. He used the oil $ 2 eliminate 75% of extreme poverty, provide free health & education 4 all" - Michael Moore
- thesmallestcat 9y agoSean Penn is a movie actor, not a "liberal leader," what are you on?
- ptaipale 9y agoI think he's also an "opinion maker", not just an actor. Like many pop stars etc who use their position as well-known people to spread their political beliefs. This is not a new phenomenon.
- dang 9y agoCommenting like this will get you banned here. If you want to keep commenting on HN, please don't vandalize it, even when other comments are wrong and annoying.
- thesmallestcat 9y agoTo be clear, and not that it necessarily makes it better, but I wasn't saying "what [intoxicating substance] are you on", but "what are you on" as a British turn of speech, meaning "what are you trying to say here?" I admit it's a bit sharp, but bannable? In any case will be more careful. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8540/what-is-what-are-you-on-about-on-about https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8540/what-is-wha...
- yequalsx 9y agoThe word socialist has a variety of connotations in the U.S. For instance to a segment of the U.S. population having universal healthcare is equated with socialism. Capitalists in France, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany etc. tend disagree with this equating. So when someone says, “Not true socialism” we need to know if they are referring the actual definition of socialism or the popularly bastardized colloquial meaning. What is for sure true is that power corrupts and concentrating too much in too few hands is bad. Ignorant people like Chavez and Maduro who have simplistic ideas and too much power is really, really bad. Think Mao and Pol Pot. When the cause becomes more important than the truth, whether it be communism, environmentalism, religion, free markets, etc., then people will suffer if policies are implemented simply to support the cause. Just saying, “Socialsim is bad” is not helpful because then all one has to do is paint a particular policy as being socialistic to be defeated. There are countries that have what many Americans would call socialist policies that do great. Some do not.
- mmirate 9y agoBut how do we know that western Europe is doing well because of the welfare systems that their capitalist economies prop-up? How do we know it isn't the opposite; that western Europe would do better if its highly effective capitalist economies didn't each have to prop-up a welfare system?
- yequalsx 9y agoMy comment was about how socialism has different connotations to different people. That capitalists in America decry universal healthcare as socialist and capitalists in Europe tend not to. Just labeling capitalism as good or bad is not helpful. Aspects are good. Aspects are bad. Same with socialism.
- intended 9y agoIndia says hi? And considering that the nation has no oil wealth, enough language and cultural diversity to make a single language impossible, massive poverty from independence, its achievements are nothing to sniff at. And they passed Net Neutrality laws after people pushed for it against incumbent telcos having the upper hand at the start of the process.