3 ms·

You seem unaware of the history of US foreign intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://e

You seem unaware of the history of US foreign intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... There's a very unfortunate reason only the strongmen last.

adwn 6y ago
Oh no, I'm very much aware of it. What I'm saying is that your insinuation – that socialism only failed because the CIA murdered socialists – doesn't make sense, because socialism has been tried several times in different countries. It would only make sense if the CIA had exclusively murdered the competent socialist leaders, while leaving the incompetent socialist leaders alive to try out socialism in their countries. This would also require the CIA to have the foresight to know beforehand which leaders will turn out to be incompetent.
- robocat 6y ago
  I suspect you are using the word “socialism” wherever it would be more honest and clearer to use “communism”. Firstly, your definition of socialism makes it a strawman or tautology - socialism is that which has failed. Many other people in the world use the word socialism to also have positive meanings where society shares its wealth with everyone in that society. Most every wealthy first world country has a significant taxation system that is inherently “socialist” IMHO. The individual is taxed, and the tax income is spent for the weal of all: on infrastructure, defence, social benefits, health benefits, etcetera. What word do you use for that concept? I am from New Zealand, which is definitely not a failed state, where: “Total core Crown revenue for the 2018/19 financial year was $119.3 billion. Tax revenue [] totalled $86.5 billion in the 2018/19 financial year.” and “The three largest areas of total Crown expenditure for the 2018/19 financial year were: Social security and welfare: $34 billion, Health: $18.7 billion, Education: $15.3 billion”. That is, in NZ, 3/4 of tax income was spent on “socialist” welfare state expenditures of education, health, and social services for the majority. I know that is off-topic, but I just find how you frame your arguments to be severely biased.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- heterodoxxed 6y ago
  | This would also require the CIA to have the foresight to know beforehand which leaders will turn out to be incompetent. First, as I said before, when the CIA targets socialist leaders, only the strongmen survive. It's my belief that strongmen are not great leaders, they're just the best at not getting killed. This is why people associate "socialist" with "authoritarian", because the crunchy, hippy Bernie Sanders types get shot and their supporters get thrown from helicopters. Second, killing socialist leaders isn't the only thing the CIA does. Look up any CIA counter-revolution manual and part of their cointel is to do as much as possible to destabilize the politics and economy of the country. Any socialist leader (or even just mildly social democratic leader) has to contend with this in a way that a capitalist leader doesn't. Even under these circumstances, we still have relative success stories like Cuba, which while not great from a first world perspective is a much better place to be an average citizen than Haiti or Dominican Republic. Or Bolivia, which got coup'd but popular support was able to oust Añez and whose economic reforms have increased GDP per Capita by 50%. You can't state something as definitive as "socialism doesn't work" when history includes the greatest empire the world has ever known doing everything in its power to crush it.

adwn 6y ago

Oh no, I'm very much aware of it. What I'm saying is that your insinuation – that socialism only failed because the CIA murdered socialists – doesn't make sense, because socialism has been tried several times in different countries. It would only make sense if the CIA had exclusively murdered the competent socialist leaders, while leaving the incompetent socialist leaders alive to try out socialism in their countries. This would also require the CIA to have the foresight to know beforehand which leaders will turn out to be incompetent.

robocat 6y ago
I suspect you are using the word “socialism” wherever it would be more honest and clearer to use “communism”. Firstly, your definition of socialism makes it a strawman or tautology - socialism is that which has failed. Many other people in the world use the word socialism to also have positive meanings where society shares its wealth with everyone in that society. Most every wealthy first world country has a significant taxation system that is inherently “socialist” IMHO. The individual is taxed, and the tax income is spent for the weal of all: on infrastructure, defence, social benefits, health benefits, etcetera. What word do you use for that concept? I am from New Zealand, which is definitely not a failed state, where: “Total core Crown revenue for the 2018/19 financial year was $119.3 billion. Tax revenue [] totalled $86.5 billion in the 2018/19 financial year.” and “The three largest areas of total Crown expenditure for the 2018/19 financial year were: Social security and welfare: $34 billion, Health: $18.7 billion, Education: $15.3 billion”. That is, in NZ, 3/4 of tax income was spent on “socialist” welfare state expenditures of education, health, and social services for the majority. I know that is off-topic, but I just find how you frame your arguments to be severely biased.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
heterodoxxed 6y ago
| This would also require the CIA to have the foresight to know beforehand which leaders will turn out to be incompetent. First, as I said before, when the CIA targets socialist leaders, only the strongmen survive. It's my belief that strongmen are not great leaders, they're just the best at not getting killed. This is why people associate "socialist" with "authoritarian", because the crunchy, hippy Bernie Sanders types get shot and their supporters get thrown from helicopters. Second, killing socialist leaders isn't the only thing the CIA does. Look up any CIA counter-revolution manual and part of their cointel is to do as much as possible to destabilize the politics and economy of the country. Any socialist leader (or even just mildly social democratic leader) has to contend with this in a way that a capitalist leader doesn't. Even under these circumstances, we still have relative success stories like Cuba, which while not great from a first world perspective is a much better place to be an average citizen than Haiti or Dominican Republic. Or Bolivia, which got coup'd but popular support was able to oust Añez and whose economic reforms have increased GDP per Capita by 50%. You can't state something as definitive as "socialism doesn't work" when history includes the greatest empire the world has ever known doing everything in its power to crush it.