Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Hugo Chavez Dies at 58

104 replies to this topic
EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#61

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:56 PM

How strong was his grip on the political situation in Venezuela? Is this just another Kim Jung Un scenario or will reforms actually take place with the strong man gone? A civil war maybe?

Street Mix
  • Street Mix

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2008
  • Dominican-Republic

#62

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:37 AM

R.I.P. Hugo Chavez. He was a good leader who stood for what he believed, not a satan as brainwashed people and media made him look like.

Straznicy
  • Straznicy

    Laugh at your problems

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008

#63

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:03 PM

Right-wing media backlash is expected, but no less hilarious. A great example of how much truth and accuracy matter to liberals when it comes to someone who doesn't buy into their bullsh*t.

Had his downsides like any leader will, but Chavez brought about a lot of progress for Venezuela in many regards, and I always admire someone who speaks out against American hegemony.

RIP.

Deffpony
  • Deffpony

    Stay Golden Ponyboy

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2007
  • None

#64

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:11 PM

QUOTE (Straznicy @ Friday, Mar 8 2013, 07:03)
Right-wing media backlash is expected, but no less hilarious. A great example of how much truth and accuracy matter to liberals when it comes to someone who doesn't buy into their bullsh*t.

Had his downsides like any leader will, but Chavez brought about a lot of progress for Venezuela in many regards, and I always admire someone who speaks out against American hegemony.

RIP.

I just dont understand how anyone who doesnt live in Venezuela can say how good of a leader he was. If his people are so ridiculously unhappy then dont you think there is something wrong

lloydo
  • lloydo

    Count

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2006

#65

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:27 PM

Rest in peace icon14.gif

LifeWithScissors
  • LifeWithScissors

    Veni Vidi Vici

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2013

#66

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:48 PM

I heard that Chavez will be embalmed just like Lennin.

stu
  • stu

    I drink it up

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • European-Union

#67

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:39 PM

QUOTE (deffpony @ Friday, Mar 8 2013, 13:11)
I just dont understand how anyone who doesnt live in Venezuela can say how good of a leader he was. If his people are so ridiculously unhappy then dont you think there is something wrong

Information about Venezuela isn't just restricted to those living in Venezuela. The same way you don't have to have fought in Iraq to have an opinion on that war and know stuff about it. He was democratically elected multiple times, and when a coup was staged to try force him out, the people put him back in.

Most of those who left Venezuela will have done so because they didn't like chavez and his policies, which is fair enough. But there are still a lot of Venezuelans who did and do support him, it's just you only see the ones who don't like him. So of course you're going to think every Venezuelan hates him, if pretty much every Venezuelan you come into contact with thinks that way. But the ones you come into contact with are obviously not a fair and true reflection of the whole of Venezuela and Venezuelan people.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#68

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:04 PM

Personally, I think both sides are guilty of hypocrisy. The left for idolising as a martyr someone who was a practical despot; whose overseen economic stagnation and massive increases in crime and internal violence, including political violence both motivated by and perpetrated by his supporters and allies. Plus the conspiracy theories around it are just hilarious. But then again, no-one can deny that he had a great deal of popular grass-roots support amongst the poorest 20% who his regime benefited the most, though that must be said at the expense particularly of the middle classes rather than the out-and-out wealthy. It's hard to underestimate just how important his premiership has been in shaping a new wave of Socialism in South America, as well as a period of greater Southern integration. Involvement in funding insurgencies and border conflicts in Peru and Colombia aside, anyway.

GTASAddict
  • GTASAddict

    0_0

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2012

#69

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:09 PM

When a "controversial" politician is alive, they're vilified; when they die, they're hailed a "hero". Indeed fascinating!

acmilano
  • acmilano

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011

#70

Posted 10 March 2013 - 05:18 PM

RIP i guess.Didnt know much about him exept from media.Of course Western medias demonise him becouse he was against US and colonisation of Latin America and leftist medias glorify him for a same reason.Reading through this topic i can see that not all Venezuelans liked him and did see some documentaries that life in Venezuela is still hard.Unfortunatelly,life there was hard before Chaves so we will see how this will end for that country,with better life or with more exploatation .Also this:

http://www.washingto...h-could-be-us-/

Considering history of CIA in South America this could be truth.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#71

Posted 10 March 2013 - 05:35 PM

In the first eight years of his presidency, he halved the number of deaths by starvation. He was re-elected multiple times in internationally certified free elections.

When capitalists tried to overthrow him, the public outcry was immense. That coup failed.

But his country is massively oil-rich, and he was an outspoken critic of US imperialism. He was one of the very few South American leaders the United States failed to control or overthrow.

It is no surprise then, that western media attempts to paint him as a Stalin. Because he put building hospitals and schools, and feeding and caring for the poor ahead of the whims of US-Friendly interests.

It is telling that in all the attempts to paint him as a monster none of them mention his actual flaw. It's a pretty big one, but facts aren't allowed in the pro-neoliberalist, capitalist echo chamber that is western news media. After all, fact checking costs time and money, and makes profit go down.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil" ™

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#72

Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

QUOTE (LifeWithScissors @ Friday, Mar 8 2013, 10:48)
I heard that Chavez will be embalmed just like Lennin.

you heard right.

Chavez's body is going to be rendered for public display behind a glass case... for all time lol.gif
just like Lenin. just like Mao Zedong. just like Kim Jong Il and his father.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#73

Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Sunday, Mar 10 2013, 18:35)
In the first eight years of his presidency, he halved the number of deaths by starvation. He was re-elected multiple times in internationally certified free elections.

When capitalists tried to overthrow him, the public outcry was immense. That coup failed.

But his country is massively oil-rich, and he was an outspoken critic of US imperialism. He was one of the very few South American leaders the United States failed to control or overthrow.

It is no surprise then, that western media attempts to paint him as a Stalin. Because he put building hospitals and schools, and feeding and caring for the poor ahead of the whims of US-Friendly interests.

It is telling that in all the attempts to paint him as a monster none of them mention his actual flaw. It's a pretty big one, but facts aren't allowed in the pro-neoliberalist, capitalist echo chamber that is western news media. After all, fact checking costs time and money, and makes profit go down.

What, so the following aren't factual:

1) That he removed land and property from middle-class citizens in order to use in loss-leading state-funded projects, many of which failed and are now just gathering dust?
2) The violent crime rate has almost doubled?
3) Inflation is rampant?
4) He engaged in electioneering and electoral fraud in the last poll?
5) He funded and supported guerilla movements in Peru and Colombia?

All the conspiracy theories around the US involvement in coups and assassination attempts are truly hilarious. The primary way that he united the people was to scapegoat all the vast, practically insurmountable economic problems on the US.

Moth
  • Moth

    Sweet Roll Thief

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#74

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:41 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Sunday, Mar 10 2013, 14:59)
Chavez's body is going to be rendered for public display behind a glass case... for all time lol.gif
just like Lenin. just like Mao Zedong. just like Kim Jong Il and his father.

You forgot Stalin, no one forgets Stalin.

Funny how all of these men are "Socialist Heroes", or at least claim to be.

meta187
  • meta187

    Challenge Convention, Question Authority.

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2004
  • None

#75

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:55 PM

user posted image

relevant.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#76

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:06 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Mar 10 2013, 19:59)
QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Sunday, Mar 10 2013, 18:35)
In the first eight years of his presidency, he halved the number of deaths by starvation. He was re-elected multiple times in internationally certified free elections.

When capitalists tried to overthrow him, the public outcry was immense. That coup failed.

But his country is massively oil-rich, and he was an outspoken critic of US imperialism. He was one of the very few South American leaders the United States failed to control or overthrow.

It is no surprise then, that western media attempts to paint him as a Stalin. Because he put building hospitals and schools, and feeding and caring for the poor ahead of the whims of US-Friendly interests.

It is telling that in all the attempts to paint him as a monster none of them mention his actual flaw. It's a pretty big one, but facts aren't allowed in the pro-neoliberalist, capitalist echo chamber that is western news media. After all, fact checking costs time and money, and makes profit go down.

What, so the following aren't factual:

1) That he removed land and property from middle-class citizens in order to use in loss-leading state-funded projects, many of which failed and are now just gathering dust?
2) The violent crime rate has almost doubled?
3) Inflation is rampant?
4) He engaged in electioneering and electoral fraud in the last poll?
5) He funded and supported guerilla movements in Peru and Colombia?

All the conspiracy theories around the US involvement in coups and assassination attempts are truly hilarious. The primary way that he united the people was to scapegoat all the vast, practically insurmountable economic problems on the US.

If you're going to deny the fact the United States has overthrown many governments, and attempted to overthrow many more, especially in South America, then nothing else you can claim has any credibility either.

But please, continue to bleat nonsense from your local western news source while not bothering to mention Chavez's huge, glaring flaw. It makes it easier to single you out as too dumb to be worth listening to.

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#77

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:26 AM Edited by Chunkyman, 11 March 2013 - 03:51 AM.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Mar 11 2013, 01:06)

If you're going to deny the fact the United States has overthrown many governments, and attempted to overthrow many more, especially in South America, then nothing else you can claim has any credibility either.

But please, continue to bleat nonsense from your local western news source while not bothering to mention Chavez's huge, glaring flaw. It makes it easier to single you out as too dumb to be worth listening to.

Arguments stand on their own merits, and the truth is neither dependent on who the speaker is or how wrong he might be on another issue. As explained by myself and others, he made his country worse off and was a rather authoritarian ruler.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#78

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:48 AM

If your definition of "worse" is "has more schools, more hospitals, and less people starving to death" then you have a very strange dictionary.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#79

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:00 AM Edited by sivispacem, 11 March 2013 - 08:05 AM.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Mar 11 2013, 02:06)
If you're going to deny the fact the United States has overthrown many governments, and attempted to overthrow many more, especially in South America, then nothing else you can claim has any credibility either.

1) Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy. Just because the US has historically supported coups in Latin and Southern America (and we're talking three decades ago at the latest here), that does not mean it can be rationally asserted without evidence that the same or similar is true in this circumstance.
2) I see you have no intention of actually addressing the points I've made? Is that because you don't have any responses to them, or purely through ignorance?
3) I find it deeply ironic for you to question the credibility of my statements when you've provided a blanket dismissal of everything everyone else has said as part of a Western media conspiracy, without any substantive support for that thesis, and then failed entirely to even explain your own views let alone substantiated them. To me, it reads like you've been sucked into the whole conspiratorial side of this event and are just regurgitating state-sponsored propaganda without any real understanding of what you're actually saying. That's the only reason I can think of that you'd be so unwilling to actually engage with the arguments of others.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Mar 11 2013, 02:06)
It makes it easier to single you out as too dumb to be worth listening to.

Yes, yes, that's right, attack me, not my argument. That's really going to make you appear intelligence, rational and wise.

Utterly laughable.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Mar 11 2013, 04:48)
If your definition of "worse" is "has more schools, more hospitals, and less people starving to death" then you have a very strange dictionary.

How about violent crime? Do you consider the effective doubling of the murder rate over the course of his premiership as objectively "good"?
How about human rights? Do you consider the invalidation of human rights provisions for citizens given in earlier terms of government, including restrictions of freedom of speech and political action, as objectively "good"?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#80

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:41 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Mar 11 2013, 05:59)
The primary way that he united the people was to scapegoat all the vast, practically insurmountable economic problems on the US.

Is it really scapegoating though? Like, in order to explain these problems should we assume that South Americans are prone to instability and poor economic performance and management, or do we look to the neighbouring society that has constantly undermined democracy, supported brutal dictators and raped South America with cartel economics and military action and connect the dots?

Moreover, anti-US sentiment is a positive thing when talking about South America, given the west has only ever been a destructive and exploitive force in the region.

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Wednesday, Mar 6 2013, 11:32)
I have quite a few issues with that study. For starters, it takes place before Chavez ramped up his policy of nationalizing industries. Venezuela is also one of the worst countries to start a business in or invest, hardly anyone wants to do business their because it's regulatory agencies are bureaucratic nightmares, forcible seizure of property (including businesses) is common, and it has a tax code based on tall poppy syndrome.

Furthermore, they rely on numerous (completely unsupported) assumptions as evidence. These include assumptions the state throwing money at problems makes things better (*cough* free lunch myth *cough*), they assume GDP (and other macroeconomic statistics) gives accurate information about people's actual standard of living, and they ignore the possible affects of business cycles.

So basically, Venezuela should deal with it's myriad social and economic problems by relying on... the market?

Don't get me wrong, I like free markets as much as you but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. Government interference is sometimes necessary if you want to see sweeping reforms. I'd like to see a continuation of his policies, but with better management. A lot of his (not ostensibly bad) policies seemed to have been enacted on a whim with little concern for variables. Like the measures he took to end economic dependency on the west (America makes a lot of cars and stuff) were good ideas, but he didn't do anything to make sure Venezuela was self-sufficient.

I also don't see why you're bringing so much rhetoric into this. Like in a country plagued by issues the top priority is to respect "property rights" and yes, throwing money at the problem is a good approach to things like education and health care.

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#81

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:54 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Mar 11 2013, 10:41)
and yes, throwing money at the problem is a good approach to things like education and health care.


I'm rather skeptical of this claim.

user posted image

This money doesn't spring out of nowhere, it comes at the expense of the citizens in the country. It therefore has an opportunity cost, and typically the benefits received by wildly throwing money at bureaucracies is dramatically less than the benefits that had to be lost in the market sector of the economy.

stu
  • stu

    I drink it up

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • European-Union

#82

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:26 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Mar 11 2013, 08:00)
How about violent crime? Do you consider the effective doubling of the murder rate over the course of his premiership as objectively "good"?



You can't really pin that on Chavez though. Violence and crime has been prevalent throughout Latin America for decades and has been rising across the continent for years. It's something that is heavily ingrained in Latin American culture, and one of the major contributors to the high crime rates is the incredibly high levels of inequality that exist throughout Latin America, as well as lack of education. These are problems which Chavez tried to address. The increasing levels of crime were largely out of his control.

QUOTE
How about human rights? Do you consider the invalidation of human rights provisions for citizens given in earlier terms of government, including restrictions of freedom of speech and political action, as objectively "good"?


In terms of the "freedoms which he eroded", I'll admit his record is far from perfect. But in some circumstances eroding certain freedoms isn't necessarily a bad thing, you have to look at it in context. The media was monopolised by the upper classes and continues to be in Venezuela. The vast vast majority of it is run by private corporations, that is every aspect of the media from TV to radio to newspapers. Chavez took away their dominance and you might say undeserved influence. This was for his own gain yes, but at the same time you could also say limiting their influence was a positive thing overall.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#83

Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 00:54)
[IMG]http://img29.imagesh...3755/aaabzt.jpg[IMG]

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying money = good marks (especially since curriculum would accommodate resources or a lack thereof anyway), but if a country like Venezuela has very poor infrastructure, then how is throwing money at it not a good idea? It's not a matter of throwing money at something and hoping for the best, it's a matter of not having something, then buying it.

QUOTE
This money doesn't spring out of nowhere, it comes at the expense of the citizens in the country. It therefore has an opportunity cost, and typically the benefits received by wildly throwing money at bureaucracies is dramatically less than the benefits that had to be lost in the market sector of the economy.

You do realise we're talking about Venezuela, right? Surely you know it's not a case of "fine, have your educated populace... but you'll be sorry when Atlas shrugs." What's more important: having a comparatively small sum of money continue to circulate through Venezuelan industries, or actually educating the populace? If your answer is the former, your ideological lens has failed you. What's the point of even having any industry when nobody has access to education and training? Yeah, maybe it is as simple as "spending cash on education means less construction jobs" or whatever, but we'd run into a bigger problem if nobody could learn how to lay a brick.

This isn't an issue of "wildly throwing money at beurocracies." You're looking at this through a Western scope; we already have comprehensive infrastructure, so we'd don't need to spend money on it. Venezuela doesn't- they aren't hiring a million new administrators whose job is to do nothing, they're actually buying books and desks and chalk.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#84

Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:03 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 12:19)
QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 00:54)
[IMG]http://img29.imagesh...3755/aaabzt.jpg[IMG]

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying money = good marks (especially since curriculum would accommodate resources or a lack thereof anyway), but if a country like Venezuela has very poor infrastructure, then how is throwing money at it not a good idea? It's not a matter of throwing money at something and hoping for the best, it's a matter of not having something, then buying it.

Venezuela also has endemic political corruption at local and regional levels. Whilst I don't doubt that there has been a marked general improvement in the education of the citizens- especially the poor- much more could be done if more efforts had been made to deal with political corruption. The nature of Chavez' government did nothing to reduce the chances of corruption, and may have even increased it, even through the various attempts he made to reduce it. It's hard to accurately gauge exactly how well increased funding correlates with increased learning when such a large proportion of the money is potentially subject to untoward interests.

Kalasinn
  • Kalasinn

    Zomb Thatch™

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2006

#85

Posted 12 March 2013 - 07:03 PM

QUOTE (Ryan @ Wednesday, Mar 6 2013, 00:08)
To hate the man simply because he was a socialist is naive. He was one of the few in the world who actually stood up to the greed of corporate multinationals and put the people of his nation first. Just look at what he did for the poor by providing housing and education.

Is this the same Neo-Liberal tosspot, Thatcherite-Ryan I know from Z-club? monocle.gif

Anyhowitzer, great post. inlove.gif


LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#86

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:26 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 11:19)
QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 00:54)
[IMG]http://img29.imagesh...3755/aaabzt.jpg[IMG]

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying money = good marks (especially since curriculum would accommodate resources or a lack thereof anyway), but if a country like Venezuela has very poor infrastructure, then how is throwing money at it not a good idea? It's not a matter of throwing money at something and hoping for the best, it's a matter of not having something, then buying it.

QUOTE
This money doesn't spring out of nowhere, it comes at the expense of the citizens in the country. It therefore has an opportunity cost, and typically the benefits received by wildly throwing money at bureaucracies is dramatically less than the benefits that had to be lost in the market sector of the economy.

You do realise we're talking about Venezuela, right? Surely you know it's not a case of "fine, have your educated populace... but you'll be sorry when Atlas shrugs." What's more important: having a comparatively small sum of money continue to circulate through Venezuelan industries, or actually educating the populace? If your answer is the former, your ideological lens has failed you. What's the point of even having any industry when nobody has access to education and training? Yeah, maybe it is as simple as "spending cash on education means less construction jobs" or whatever, but we'd run into a bigger problem if nobody could learn how to lay a brick.

This isn't an issue of "wildly throwing money at beurocracies." You're looking at this through a Western scope; we already have comprehensive infrastructure, so we'd don't need to spend money on it. Venezuela doesn't- they aren't hiring a million new administrators whose job is to do nothing, they're actually buying books and desks and chalk.

B-b-b-b-but socialism!!!!!

EgyptianStar
  • EgyptianStar

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2012

#87

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:47 AM

While you may disagree with his policies. We should at-least respect the deceased and send our condolences to his family and to his supporters.

The Stagnation of the Venezuelan economy just shows that Socialism no matter how good your intentions are doesn't work.

Venezuela & the poor would have been better off If capitalism and the Free market was embraced.

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#88

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:49 AM Edited by Chunkyman, 13 March 2013 - 01:10 AM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 11:19)
What's more important: having a comparatively small sum of money continue to circulate through Venezuelan industries, or actually educating the populace? If your answer is the former, your ideological lens has failed you. What's the point of even having any industry when nobody has access to education and training? Yeah, maybe it is as simple as "spending cash on education means less construction jobs" or whatever, but we'd run into a bigger problem if nobody could learn how to lay a brick.

This isn't an issue of "wildly throwing money at beurocracies." You're looking at this through a Western scope; we already have comprehensive infrastructure, so we'd don't need to spend money on it. Venezuela doesn't- they aren't hiring a million new administrators whose job is to do nothing, they're actually buying books and desks and chalk.

You have this underlying assumption that unless the state runs X, there is no way X will be done.

Historically, as people no longer had to devote all the family's labor (and income derived from it) into not starving to death, they were able to give their children time to get some education. As standards of living continued to rise, it allowed for greater and greater opportunities for parents to get their children educated (as most parents tend to care about the well being of their children). This is one of the main reasons why you saw continuously rising literacy rates and general education levels throughout the industrial revolution prior to the implementation of compulsorily funded and attended state schools.

Furthermore, the education ran by basically every state isn derived from the horrendously bad Prussian system, which was explicitly designed to make schools as mills that pumped out dull, obedient sheep who would be particularly useful as cannon fodder and as blindly loyal supporters of the state. This system perverse brainwashing system was creamed over by socialists in America (and elsewhere) as they thought this kind of system would be perfect for creating a sort of "new socialist man", in other words a veritable robot who would work for "the greater good" of some utopian Marxist society. Eventually of course they won, and now we have our wonderful public school system.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#89

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:59 AM Edited by LeVelocar, 13 March 2013 - 02:13 AM.

QUOTE (EgyptianStar @ Wednesday, Mar 13 2013, 00:47)
While you may disagree with his policies. We should at-least respect the deceased and send our condolences to his family and to his supporters.

The Stagnation of the Venezuelan economy just shows that Socialism no matter how good your intentions are doesn't work.

Venezuela & the poor would have been better off If capitalism and the Free market was embraced.

Apart from all the places it does work, like Scandinavian countries, and, actually Venezuela.

If socialism stops people from starving to death, It has not failed. If socialism stops people from dying of treatable illness and injury, it has not failed. If socialism has provided education to those who could not otherwise afford it, it has not failed. To claim that it has is utterly deluded.

How would a market more "free"* than Venezuela help the poor? How has it ever? Minimum wage is below the living wage, yet we don't see employees scramble to give people working McJobs a pay rise.

The usual randroid rhetoric is to go "Well, if they don't like it they can get a better job!". Except in free market capitalist world, they wouldn't have gone to school, because it would cost money. And KFC would pay no better, because that would lower profit.

Of course, imagine a world where everyone was qualified for a middle class job. Who do you think would be driving the garbage trucks now?

Keep longing for that free market dream world kid. Meanwhile, socialism stops people from dying and provides them with the tools to advance in life. Free healthcare and student loans you don't have to pay off till you're earning real money! Wooooo!

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Mar 12 2013, 11:19)

Furthermore, the education ran by basically every state isn derived from the horrendously bad Prussian system, which was explicitly designed to make schools as mills that pumped out dull, obedient sheep who would be particularly useful as cannon fodder and as blindly loyal supporters of the state. This system perverse brainwashing system was creamed over by socialists in America (and elsewhere) as they thought this kind of system would be perfect for creating a sort of "new socialist man", in other words a veritable robot who would work for "the greater good" of some utopian Marxist society. Eventually of course they won, and now we have our wonderful public school system.


If you think this you a truly insane.

For one, there are no socialists in positions of infuence in the united states, nor has there ever been. The closest there are to a left wing is a bunch of spineless neoliberals. They call themselves democrats.

Second, what you're seeing is the classic symptoms of capitalist thinking applied to the public sector: Gotta pay those teachers less! Gotta buy less textbooks! Who cares that the computer lab is full of apple ][es! We need to build the new football stadium and bring in the big bucks!

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#90

Posted 13 March 2013 - 07:09 AM

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Wednesday, Mar 13 2013, 10:49)
You have this underlying assumption that unless the state runs X, there is no way X will be done.

Yes, and it's a correct assumption. The small, private interests that control most of the wealth in Venezuela weren't about to educate the entire populace, and I'm not sure why they would. They've already got a good thing going.

As for the whole trickle down economics argument.... why hasn't it happened yet? There's been decades of laissez-faire capitalism in South America (much more so than in the US) and yet we haven't seen the rich invest in the country's infrastructure, raising up the poor, in fact quite predictably we've seen the rich suck the life out of the country; the status quo has more to offer the wealthy than transforming their country does.

QUOTE
Furthermore, the education ran by basically every state isn derived from the horrendously bad Prussian system, which was explicitly designed to make schools as mills that pumped out dull, obedient sheep who would be particularly useful as cannon fodder and as blindly loyal supporters of the state.

I nodded as I read this... then you lost me with the whole "public education is a socialist conspiracy to break the spirits of capitalists" thing.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users