Venezuelan Government Shuts Down Internet

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
Which brings up a paradox.

If I am a small country, underdeveloped, etc, and I want to grow up and be a Socialized Nation, refined, and hold my pinkie finger just so while taking my tea. What form of government do I adopt in the mean time while I create the economy to support the land of milk and honey?

Which form of government do you propose I use as I crawl from despotism through monarchy, capitalism, etc?

Socialism is an economic system and not a form of government ... the only successful socialist nations were all democratic or constitutional monarchies ... the unsuccessful ones were almost exclusively totalitarian dictatorships or Oligarchies of some form or another ... the recommended form of government would likely be democratic republics (although usually of the Parliamentary style not the Presidential style, like the USA) ... as to the form of economy you would use, it would be some form of regulated capitalism (probably akin to China's current economy)
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
So Venezuela shuts down the internet because the internet is harmful to to their system of justice.

And what do I read in the Harvard Crimson? Why, an article decrying the obsession with "academic freedom".

I'll run that by you again: Harvard University's newspaper now publishes opinions that academic freedom is less important than "workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do".

Collectivism's ultimate outcome, no matter where you try it.
 

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
In other words, it's an economic system that is incapable of building and sustaining an economy.

Neat.

It can sustain one (the Scandinavian economies aren't stagnant) but it is difficult to grow one ... you get maximum growth from Laissez-faire capitalism (although that growth can come with steep social penalties) ... most countries opt for some form of regulated capitalism (like that of the USA or China) ... since I am a pro corporate person I actually favor Laissez-faire capitalism myself (less beneficial for consumers but generally good for the overall economy) :cool:
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Apparently Venezuelan citizens were complaining about their Netflix streaming quality...
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
It can sustain one (the Scandinavian economies aren't stagnant) but it is difficult to grow one ... you get maximum growth from Laissez-faire capitalism (although that growth can come with steep social penalties) ... most countries opt for some form of regulated capitalism (like that of the USA or China) ... since I am a pro corporate person I actually favor Laissez-faire capitalism myself (less beneficial for consumers but generally good for the overall economy) :cool:

As do I. However, if an economic system is unsustainable without a competing system to start it off, how can it be considered a legitimate economic system?

When humans are collective, they're typically in poverty. Everyone pools their resources to sustain the whole. When humans have prosperity and security, they tend to become more individualist. No longer needing to rely on the pack, they go off to make their own choices and changes. When they lose that prosperity and security, they go back to the tribe.
 

kbrickley

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
7,514
As do I. However, if an economic system is unsustainable without a competing system to start it off, how can it be considered a legitimate economic system?

When humans are collective, they're typically in poverty. Everyone pools their resources to sustain the whole. When humans have prosperity and security, they tend to become more individualist. No longer needing to rely on the pack, they go off to make their own choices and changes. When they lose that prosperity and security, they go back to the tribe.

True in a non-global economy ... but in a global economy you MUST be able to provide value and services at global scales to really succeed ... this is why corporations are generally more successful in the long run than individuals ... limited socialism has some benefits (care for the sick or the aged) but unrestricted care for the poor (like the approach countries like the USA take) is unsustainable ... the poor are a resource to be exploited ... care for the old and sick but put the poor to work (a true capitalist wouldn't support the aged and sick but I can't quite go that Laissez-faire ;) )
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
True in a non-global economy ... but in a global economy you MUST be able to provide value and services at global scales to really succeed ... this is why corporations are generally more successful in the long run than individuals ... limited socialism has some benefits (care for the sick or the aged) but unrestricted care for the poor (like the approach countries like the USA take) is unsustainable ... the poor are a resource to be exploited ... care for the old and sick but put the poor to work (a true capitalist wouldn't support the aged and sick but I can't quite go that Laissez-faire ;) )

To say capitalists wouldn't support the aged and sick is to imply that no true capitalists believe in philanthropy, which is untrue.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
True in a non-global economy ... but in a global economy you MUST be able to provide value and services at global scales to really succeed ..

I don't think this is true. It may be true for some business segments, but certainly not all. For instance, how much of the US home construction industry competes at a global scale?
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
LOL ^^^^

Vanish tomorrow hey?

I live about 35 miles from the border, I need details. Vanish as in just gone, this big empty white spot? or vanish as in I own beach front property cause I can buy acres of that shit up real cheap right now, then you do your vanish thing and we can split the profits bro :D
 

Brownstone

Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
873
Shortened it up for you. This is all you're really saying. You just want people to stop saying bad things about a system you like. Get over it. Maduro screamed socialism with every other word, as did Chavez. Pretending otherwise just shows how insecure you are about the system you're trying to protect.

I suggest you go to an airport and buy an airplane ticket, anywhere. You lack world under your feet.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
I suggest you go to an airport and buy an airplane ticket, anywhere. You lack world under your feet.

So if I were more worldly, I'd tell more people to stop criticizing things I like? Interesting.

You lack substance in your comment.
 

Brownstone

Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
873
So if I were more worldly, I'd tell more people to stop criticizing things I like? Interesting.

You lack substance in your comment.

You infer incorrectly that I like Socialism, which I do not.

What you claim to be a socialist country is actually a totalitarian government, which waves a socialist flag as a false flag.

It is a very complex issue, and very hard to grasp from a distance. I know this because i live in Argentina, which is very much like Venezuela in a lot of aspects. Cristina, our president, is very close to Maduro as she was to Chavez, she waves de same flag of socialism. But trust me, what she does has made at least 2 generation of people beyond lost.

Divide and conquer, Panem et circenses. That is their motto, an ignorant population is easier to subjugate.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
You infer incorrectly that I like Socialism, which I do not.

What you claim to be a socialist country is actually a totalitarian government, which waves a socialist flag as a false flag.

It is a very complex issue, and very hard to grasp from a distance. I know this because i live in Argentina, which is very much like Venezuela in a lot of aspects. Cristina, our president, is very close to Maduro as she was to Chavez, she waves de same flag of socialism. But trust me, what she does has made at least 2 generation of people beyond lost.

Divide and conquer, Panem et circenses. That is their motto, an ignorant population is easier to subjugate.

You speak as though socialism and totalitarianism are mutually exclusive, when it's quite the opposite. As I said in an earlier post, people are more collectivist during times of hardship, and more individualist during times of prosperity. Socialism itself is not particularly good at generating growth. A stagnant economy leads to long-term economic turmoil. Leaders are generally left with three options, from least totalitarian to most totalitarian:

1. Change economic policy to encourage growth. Risky because it admits failure, and socialism is a rallying cry for many people. If the movement fails, the people become despondent and resentful. Totalitarian score:

2. Change economic policy to take over industry. Risky because it usually moves closer to communism than socialist advocates are prepared for, and buyer's remorse soon sets in. In the past, this has often had an elastic reaction of coup, then rebound back so far that fascism soon sets in.

3. Declare war on another country, or on a subgroup of the population, or on any target that can be sufficiently demonized as to distract the populace. I'm guessing I don't need to explain this one.

Here is my question to you: why is it that the people who wave the flag of socialism the highest are the ones we're told don't represent the movement? Britain and Canada have socialist economic policies but they don't refer to them publicly as such. Same with Scandinavia. They either use their party labels or recycle old ones like "progressive".
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,416
Look, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, and Belgium would have all been the USSR had they're defense not been so heavily subsidized by the US during the Cold War. Some provided a small token Army but none of them spent any serious amount of their GDP towards their own defense. In short, they only did enough to keep the US there standing up for them. Now I am not saying we did this all just for them because we did it for ourselves. But I am saying that if the US had not taken on that burden these countries would have been absorbed into the USSR in one fashion or another. These countries still to this day rely on others for their defense and save their pennies for their "advanced socialist paradise".

And with that the U.S may not be the #1 world power right now either, so it was for them just as much as anyone else....
 

Brownstone

Gawd
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
873
You speak as though socialism and totalitarianism are mutually exclusive, when it's quite the opposite. As I said in an earlier post, people are more collectivist during times of hardship, and more individualist during times of prosperity. Socialism itself is not particularly good at generating growth. A stagnant economy leads to long-term economic turmoil. Leaders are generally left with three options, from least totalitarian to most totalitarian:

1. Change economic policy to encourage growth. Risky because it admits failure, and socialism is a rallying cry for many people. If the movement fails, the people become despondent and resentful. Totalitarian score:

2. Change economic policy to take over industry. Risky because it usually moves closer to communism than socialist advocates are prepared for, and buyer's remorse soon sets in. In the past, this has often had an elastic reaction of coup, then rebound back so far that fascism soon sets in.

3. Declare war on another country, or on a subgroup of the population, or on any target that can be sufficiently demonized as to distract the populace. I'm guessing I don't need to explain this one.

Here is my question to you: why is it that the people who wave the flag of socialism the highest are the ones we're told don't represent the movement? Britain and Canada have socialist economic policies but they don't refer to them publicly as such. Same with Scandinavia. They either use their party labels or recycle old ones like "progressive".

To answer your question, isn´t it obvious ? You answered it yourself. The ones who wave it are from poor countries. A lot of the people in this countries are having an extremely hard time, and this people want a socialist or even communist state, like you said. So they come waving that flag, to gain popularity but they do the bare minimum to qualify as a socialist state.

In latin america, every totalitarian or dictatorship government, have been praised by at least some extent of the people. It is only when we look back, we see the horrors of our wrong belief.
 

Retronym

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
13,608
The natural conclusion to government ownership of property.

Everyone stop complaining, it belongs to them, they can do whatever they want with it. They manage it better, don't they?
 
Top