3 ms·

The government has routinely nationalized both foreign and domestic businesses and expensive infrastructure, and sets prices on goods. When this caused inflatio

The government has routinely nationalized both foreign and domestic businesses and expensive infrastructure, and sets prices on goods. When this caused inflation and shortages they responded by nationalizing more businesses and setting more prices, and trying to enforce a false exchange rate. I'm not going to bother explaining how this is self defeating since everywhere this has been tried the same things happen, and if you can't figure it out it's because you don't want to.

RugnirViking 8y ago
There are plenty of places where buisnesses have been nationalised, from many arab states and norway's state-owned oil buisnesses to nationalised rail, post, and other services in many western countries. I don't dispute that the country has been run badly but calling states that do these things communist makes almost every state communist.
- phyller 8y ago
  There's nationalized in the sense of, only the government can control this resource, it is owned by the people. Good. Then the government builds it and spends money on it. If you have a good government you get a good resource for the people. If you have a bad government you get a mess. The nationalization referred to in Venezuela, is someone invests their own resources in building something, legally with the approval of the government. After they have built it, the government comes with people with guns, and says, "this belongs to us now" and either the owners go away, or go to jail, or get shot. Is that what they do in Norway? Do you think smart, capable people with access to capital want to work in Venezuela? Or maybe all those people left and provide their services to other countries. And by the way, this Venezuelan kind of nationalization sounds too me like the kind that Marx was advocating, it's real socialism too.
  - RugnirViking 8y ago
    You are making strawman attacks against me. Nowhere did I claim that the situation isn't bad in Venuezala, or that I support the government. I am simply saying that calling it socialist for the actions it has taken is extremely similar to what western countries have done and continue to do. For examples of already-existing companies being nationalised, see RBS in the UK, or Cardiff Airport in wales. After the 9/11 attacks in the US, all airport security firms were forcibly nationalised. If you are claiming that the definition of socialist requires it to be done with guns instead of money, I don't know what to say. However be aware that if somebody did create an oil company in norway against the law then I imagine that some nice people from the government would have to come and ask them not to. If they refused despite that - they may actually have to make use of the state monopoly of violence.
    - phyller 8y ago
      Right, but to your original point. You said Venezuela is a capitalist country. Is Norway socialist because they used capital to acquire assets, and Venezuela capitalist because they used force to acquire assets? I don't think most people here have a problem with a democratic country with socialist leanings, which maintain a largely market economy. People have a problem with populist leaders who promise to enrich the poor by forcefully taking the means of production away from "capitalist pigs" and using the wealthy and the West as a scapegoat for all their problems. No one complains about Sweden and Norway, but the propaganda that goes around in Latin America is the more violent kind. And I don't see how that doesn't fall under the umbrella of socialism.

RugnirViking 8y ago

There are plenty of places where buisnesses have been nationalised, from many arab states and norway's state-owned oil buisnesses to nationalised rail, post, and other services in many western countries. I don't dispute that the country has been run badly but calling states that do these things communist makes almost every state communist.

phyller 8y ago
There's nationalized in the sense of, only the government can control this resource, it is owned by the people. Good. Then the government builds it and spends money on it. If you have a good government you get a good resource for the people. If you have a bad government you get a mess. The nationalization referred to in Venezuela, is someone invests their own resources in building something, legally with the approval of the government. After they have built it, the government comes with people with guns, and says, "this belongs to us now" and either the owners go away, or go to jail, or get shot. Is that what they do in Norway? Do you think smart, capable people with access to capital want to work in Venezuela? Or maybe all those people left and provide their services to other countries. And by the way, this Venezuelan kind of nationalization sounds too me like the kind that Marx was advocating, it's real socialism too.
- RugnirViking 8y ago
  You are making strawman attacks against me. Nowhere did I claim that the situation isn't bad in Venuezala, or that I support the government. I am simply saying that calling it socialist for the actions it has taken is extremely similar to what western countries have done and continue to do. For examples of already-existing companies being nationalised, see RBS in the UK, or Cardiff Airport in wales. After the 9/11 attacks in the US, all airport security firms were forcibly nationalised. If you are claiming that the definition of socialist requires it to be done with guns instead of money, I don't know what to say. However be aware that if somebody did create an oil company in norway against the law then I imagine that some nice people from the government would have to come and ask them not to. If they refused despite that - they may actually have to make use of the state monopoly of violence.
  - phyller 8y ago
    Right, but to your original point. You said Venezuela is a capitalist country. Is Norway socialist because they used capital to acquire assets, and Venezuela capitalist because they used force to acquire assets? I don't think most people here have a problem with a democratic country with socialist leanings, which maintain a largely market economy. People have a problem with populist leaders who promise to enrich the poor by forcefully taking the means of production away from "capitalist pigs" and using the wealthy and the West as a scapegoat for all their problems. No one complains about Sweden and Norway, but the propaganda that goes around in Latin America is the more violent kind. And I don't see how that doesn't fall under the umbrella of socialism.