Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Chavez hates capitalism even more

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 5:44:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Turns out Chavez is willing to seize shops raising the price of goods in light of Venezuelas currency begin de-valued.

"He said there was no reason for prices to go up, and speculators' businesses would be handed over to the workers."

Yep, if it wasn't clear 100% Socialist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 11:22:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 5:44:37 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
"He said there was no reason for prices to go up, and speculators' businesses would be handed over to the workers."

Yay, Chavez! :D
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 12:24:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 11:28:26 AM, Nags wrote:
Yay! Cuba is 108th in GDP per capita! One must ask why this occurs. :)
https://www.cia.gov...

Nags those are like gay bashing conservative figures! Obama will fix 'em and then Cuba will be like 1st and we'll be last!!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 12:26:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 5:44:37 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
"He said there was no reason for prices to go up, and speculators' businesses would be handed over to the workers."

Lol @ economics fail
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 2:42:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 11:28:26 AM, Nags wrote:
Yay! Cuba is 108th in GDP per capita! One must ask why this occurs. :)
https://www.cia.gov...

Cool. Venezuela is 80th.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 2:45:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 2:42:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/11/2010 11:28:26 AM, Nags wrote:
Yay! Cuba is 108th in GDP per capita! One must ask why this occurs. :)
https://www.cia.gov...

Cool. Venezuela is 80th.

Lmao, I'm an idiot. Nice pick-up. 80th still sucks.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 2:48:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hugo Chavez wrote:
I don't understand why creating wealth would prompt business owners to become so greedy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 2:49:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Its funny because Chavez is becoming more and more despised in the country - among non-socialist, non-poor, non-menial workers, anyways. He is purposefully polarizing the electorate. Good times!
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 2:54:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 2:49:50 PM, Volkov wrote:
Its funny because Chavez is becoming more and more despised in the country - among non-socialist, non-poor, non-menial workers, anyways. He is purposefully polarizing the electorate. Good times!

Of course wealthy people don't like Chavez. He's a socialist and socialism prevents them from being able to be ruthless to their workers.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 2:57:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 5:44:37 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Turns out Chavez is willing to seize shops raising the price of goods in light of Venezuelas currency begin de-valued.

"He said there was no reason for prices to go up, and speculators' businesses would be handed over to the workers."

Yep, if it wasn't clear 100% Socialist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

It sounds more like syndicalism than socialism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 2:58:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 2:54:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Of course wealthy people don't like Chavez. He's a socialist and socialism prevents them from being able to be ruthless to their workers.

It isn't just the "wealthy." The middle class is generally not happy with Chavez on any point at all. I don't blame them. The man is an autocrat, who holds no regard for free speech/media and democracy. Its one thing to be a socialist, its another completely to be what is essentially a dictator. You yourself say Stalin in no way represented socialism - it astounds me that you could defend Chavez when he does the exact same thing.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:04:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 2:58:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/11/2010 2:54:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Of course wealthy people don't like Chavez. He's a socialist and socialism prevents them from being able to be ruthless to their workers.

It isn't just the "wealthy." The middle class is generally not happy with Chavez on any point at all. I don't blame them. The man is an autocrat, who holds no regard for free speech/media and democracy. Its one thing to be a socialist, its another completely to be what is essentially a dictator. You yourself say Stalin in no way represented socialism - it astounds me that you could defend Chavez when he does the exact same thing.

I'm not uncritical of the man. I just view him as a lesser evil as he is still working towards a goal of collectivisation. It's better than having a capitalist in power.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:06:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 2:57:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/11/2010 5:44:37 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Turns out Chavez is willing to seize shops raising the price of goods in light of Venezuelas currency begin de-valued.

"He said there was no reason for prices to go up, and speculators' businesses would be handed over to the workers."

Yep, if it wasn't clear 100% Socialist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

It sounds more like syndicalism than socialism.

It can lead to syndicalism but I doubt it.

+Syndicalism is a name rip of Corporatism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:08:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:04:22 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not uncritical of the man. I just view him as a lesser evil as he is still working towards a goal of collectivisation. It's better than having a capitalist in power.

Really? That flies in the face of countries like Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, which all have either capitalists or social democrats in power, which are all light years ahead of Venezuela in every aspect of the economy, human rights, and democracy.

Go socialism! Destroy 'dem countries!
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:09:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 2:58:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/11/2010 2:54:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Of course wealthy people don't like Chavez. He's a socialist and socialism prevents them from being able to be ruthless to their workers.

It isn't just the "wealthy." The middle class is generally not happy with Chavez on any point at all. I don't blame them. The man is an autocrat, who holds no regard for free speech/media and democracy. Its one thing to be a socialist, its another completely to be what is essentially a dictator. You yourself say Stalin in no way represented socialism - it astounds me that you could defend Chavez when he does the exact same thing.

Chavez doesn't seek Imperalist Communist rule over the world(J.Stalin), he just hates Armerica, much like Bin Ladin. He is a autocrat but he's not a tyrant.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:12:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:08:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/11/2010 3:04:22 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm not uncritical of the man. I just view him as a lesser evil as he is still working towards a goal of collectivisation. It's better than having a capitalist in power.

Really? That flies in the face of countries like Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, which all have either capitalists or social democrats in power, which are all light years ahead of Venezuela in every aspect of the economy, human rights, and democracy.

Go socialism! Destroy 'dem countries!

I have argued with other people before outside of this site, but I would be willing to sacrifice political freedom if it was for the good of the people. Our present "democracy" is ineffective anyway. Also, sure products made under a socialist economy aren't as good, but at least everybody has access to them unlike under capitalism where you have starving homeless people.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:20:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:12:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I have argued with other people before outside of this site, but I would be willing to sacrifice political freedom if it was for the good of the people.

Freedom is for the good of "the people." Its a helluva lot better than forcing everyone to be the same as everyone else, and never give them a chance to show their worth, their skills, and their individuality.

Our present "democracy" is ineffective anyway.

So the better option is a dictatorship? Please; even Russians don't want to go back to that mayhem.

Also, sure products made under a socialist economy aren't as good, but at least everybody has access to them unlike under capitalism where you have starving homeless people.

Capitalism offers a way for people to make something of their lives, and for there to be actually something there that people can live on. Socialism offers a structured plan to be consistently poor. There is ways of helping the homeless within a capitalist system, but why should we keep them back from achieving something better, as socialism does?
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:20:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's established Capitalism is based on the exploitation of others or the exploitation of the succeeding.

Socialism is a likable ideal but hardly achievable due to selfishness of mankind and merchant like economics. Nice idea but as likely as an Utopia.

Capitalism seems preferable apparently, but I'm still impartial.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:22:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:20:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's established Capitalism is based on the exploitation of others or the exploitation of the succeeding.

Socialism is a likable ideal but hardly achievable due to selfishness of mankind and merchant like economics. Nice idea but as likely as an Utopia.

Capitalism seems preferable apparently, but I'm still impartial.

Make that elite or "happy" Citizen Socialism.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:23:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:20:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's established Capitalism is based on the exploitation of others or the exploitation of the succeeding.

Socialism is a likable ideal but hardly achievable due to selfishness of mankind and merchant like economics. Nice idea but as likely as an Utopia.

Capitalism seems preferable apparently, but I'm still impartial.

Sure, socialism is likable. Its even noble - but it isn't plausible nor does it actually give people the best chance at life.

And yes, capitalism is essentially exploitation, but what is exactly so bad about that? As long as people's rights are protected, and no one is forced to work without fair compensation, and everyone is given the chance to succeed if they so chose to - all things the government can provide - then it is clearly the better option. I'd take the freedom I get with capitalism, over the inherent authoritarianism I get with socialism, any day.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:27:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:20:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
Freedom is for the good of "the people." Its a helluva lot better than forcing everyone to be the same as everyone else, and never give them a chance to show their worth, their skills, and their individuality.
So the better option is a dictatorship? Please; even Russians don't want to go back to that mayhem.

Socialism isn't about everybody being the same though. People actually have choices in socialism. They can do work based on their interests rather than just being forced into something based on being desperate for money. The only incentive capitalism offers is "get ahead or starve!".

Capitalism offers a way for people to make something of their lives, and for there to be actually something there that people can live on. Socialism offers a structured plan to be consistently poor. There is ways of helping the homeless within a capitalist system, but why should we keep them back from achieving something better, as socialism does?

Sure, homeless people can be helped, but it's not good enough. It's still widespread. There was no homelessness in places like the USSR(not saying I support the USSR, but I'm just saying...). Also, alot of the time the money that could be used to help the poor, etc is put towards pointless things such as the olympics to use my own province as an example. Better everybody "poor" and not starving and having the basics than having a small minority with more than they need and a majority which suffers daily.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:29:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:20:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's established Capitalism is based on the exploitation of others or the exploitation of the succeeding.

Socialism is a likable ideal but hardly achievable due to selfishness of mankind and merchant like economics. Nice idea but as likely as an Utopia.

Capitalism seems preferable apparently, but I'm still impartial.

Mankind isn't naturally selfish. Desires for material things such as money creates greed and selfishness. Hunter/gatherer societies lived an almost communistic lifestyle.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:37:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:27:29 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Socialism isn't about everybody being the same though. People actually have choices in socialism. They can do work based on their interests rather than just being forced into something based on being desperate for money. The only incentive capitalism offers is "get ahead or starve!".

Is that so? So, say if someone wanted to work in a more lucrative field... oh wait, sorry! That can't exist. Or, how about if they wanted to advance.. oh, wait, they can't do that either! No incentive. Well, what if they wanted more influence.. oh, wait, you still can't do that! Since its controlled by autocrats.

There is nothing workable within socialism. You'll get base necessities - barely. There is no incentive to actually do something. There is no incentive to create, except for what is wanted by the autocrats. There is no drive to succeed, since you'll never get anything better than what you already have. There is nothing.

Better everybody "poor" and not starving and having the basics than having a small minority with more than they need and a majority which suffers daily.

I disagree. Why shouldn't those with the drive to succeed get higher status? Why shouldn't those who actually have skills get something out of it? Human society is based on competition. If you take it away, you won't have anything left to drive people to do something.

Besides, where is this "majority" that are suffering, especially in Canada? We're mostly middle-class suburbanites who can provide for ourselves by our own merits, and when we get shafted we can still survive by the good graces of a responsible government. I don't see multitudes of poor which are starving in the streets here, or in the US even - but I do see this in "socialist" countries.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:37:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Is that so? So, say if someone wanted to work in a more lucrative field... oh wait, sorry! That can't exist. Or, how about if they wanted to advance.. oh, wait, they can't do that either! No incentive. Well, what if they wanted more influence.. oh, wait, you still can't do that! Since its controlled by autocrats.

There is nothing workable within socialism. You'll get base necessities - barely. There is no incentive to actually do something. There is no incentive to create, except for what is wanted by the autocrats. There is no drive to succeed, since you'll never get anything better than what you already have. There is nothing.

Once again, you're going by common misconceptions. Most people automatically think socialism=autocracy. In pure Marxism it's stateless and everything is controlled by the workers through direct democracy.

I disagree. Why shouldn't those with the drive to succeed get higher status? Why shouldn't those who actually have skills get something out of it? Human society is based on competition. If you take it away, you won't have anything left to drive people to do something.

Besides, where is this "majority" that are suffering, especially in Canada? We're mostly middle-class suburbanites who can provide for ourselves by our own merits, and when we get shafted we can still survive by the good graces of a responsible government. I don't see multitudes of poor which are starving in the streets here, or in the US even - but I do see this in "socialist" countries.

There is so homeless people in Canada. Look around. My own mom has even been homeless twice. And then in the US there's people who can't even afford proper healthcare thanks to greedy corporations. Also, people aren't starving in socialist countries. It's just more media slander. The media is controlled by corporations so of course they would be against socialism as well.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 3:48:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:29:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Mankind isn't naturally selfish.

Yes, they kinda are.

Desires for material things such as money creates greed and selfishness.

And collectivism entails dependence on government to oddly high levels, which is counterproductive to individuality, and therefore, rationality.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:15:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:23:58 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'd take the freedom I get with capitalism, over the inherent authoritarianism I get with socialism, any day.

What are you, again? Politically speaking of course.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:17:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:29:55 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Mankind isn't naturally selfish. Desires for material things such as money creates greed and selfishness. Hunter/gatherer societies lived an almost communistic lifestyle.

Desires for material things could be considered part of human nature. Why did material possessions arise in the first place?

And on a second note: What's wrong with greed when it doesn't have the benefits of violence or coercion? Pursuing one's desires isn't harming anybody, nor is it a threat to society.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 4:30:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 3:43:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/11/2010 3:37:35 PM, Volkov wrote:
Is that so? So, say if someone wanted to work in a more lucrative field... oh wait, sorry! That can't exist. Or, how about if they wanted to advance.. oh, wait, they can't do that either! No incentive. Well, what if they wanted more influence.. oh, wait, you still can't do that! Since its controlled by autocrats.

There is nothing workable within socialism. You'll get base necessities - barely. There is no incentive to actually do something. There is no incentive to create, except for what is wanted by the autocrats. There is no drive to succeed, since you'll never get anything better than what you already have. There is nothing.

Once again, you're going by common misconceptions. Most people automatically think socialism=autocracy. In pure Marxism it's stateless and everything is controlled by the workers through direct democracy.

First of all, pure Marxism is impossible. We are discussing the realities of socialism, not the ideals. Give us one example of a society that has thrived in an attempt at socialism... oh wait, there are none. You cannot deny that humans are naturally self-serving. It's a basic survival instinct. Settling for equality does nothing to increase your chances of being successful.

I disagree. Why shouldn't those with the drive to succeed get higher status? Why shouldn't those who actually have skills get something out of it? Human society is based on competition. If you take it away, you won't have anything left to drive people to do something.

Besides, where is this "majority" that are suffering, especially in Canada? We're mostly middle-class suburbanites who can provide for ourselves by our own merits, and when we get shafted we can still survive by the good graces of a responsible government. I don't see multitudes of poor which are starving in the streets here, or in the US even - but I do see this in "socialist" countries.

There is so homeless people in Canada. Look around. My own mom has even been homeless twice. And then in the US there's people who can't even afford proper healthcare thanks to greedy corporations.

Don't even begin to say that there isn't opportunity in this country to those who seek to take advantage of it. Capitalism helps those who help themselves. Your mom is obviously an example of this. If she was homeless at a point in her life, I don't believe for one second that she improved here quality of life by simply doing nothing and waiting for a hand-out. Success is achieved only by those who strive for it. On the other hand, socialism gives "equality" to those who don't necessarily deserve it. Why should people who do unequal amounts of work be considered equal? Where is the incentive to be productive when at the end of the day you don't get anything for your effort? Unless of course, you introduce a gun into the equation. Then this becomes autocracy or a dictatorship... which is fail.

Also, people aren't starving in socialist countries. It's just more media slander. The media is controlled by corporations so of course they would be against socialism as well.

HAHAHA that's rich (no pun intended)... I forgot it was the media's fault. Even if they aren't starving, they sure as hell aren't getting what they deserve. I have a thought, lets give our doctors, lawyers, and engineers the same that we give to the potato farmers and construction workers. Once again Fail. This system is a deterrent to hard work and innovation and thus a damper on the progress of mankind as a whole. If you believe otherwise, than you should be able to explain where my incentive to work harder than my neighbour for the same result would come from.