3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

The three (corruption, incompetence, socialism) seem to always be bedfellows though. Corruption and socialism are particularly insidious because countries like Venezuela, with greater government control and involvement. This gives corruption more opportunities to flourish. It was always present, but flourished under Chavez and Maduro.  Food production also dropped under socialism.  Again, the two seem to go hand in hand.

 

Again, still waiting to hear where socialism has actually worked.....

Is Venezuela a socialist country?

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Is Venezuela a socialist country?

Considering the ruling political party for most of this century has been the "United Socialist Party of Venezuela, one may assume so. Chavez nationalized many industries, imposed controls on foreign currency, and interfered with agriculture, resulting in a rich country starving. So yes, I think it is socialist.

Perhaps, but Maduro is the face of failed socialism in Venezuela. Between him and Chavez, they managed to take a country with the largest reserves of oil in the world and make it a basket case. The society has become unliveable due to the socialist policies of the government.  Corruption is a huge part of socialism, as doling out favors and contracts is the exclusive purview of the government. Similarly, personal enterprise and hard work are discouraged by policies that favor confiscation and over regulation.
 
So again I ask, especially to you Jingthing, where has socialism ever worked?

You're obsessed with purist simplistic black and white labels. The real world doesn't work that way. I'm not going to get baited down to your level so don't bother even trying anymore. I think we both agree that Venezuela is an extreme case of a national failure.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

12 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Considering the ruling political party for most of this century has been the "United Socialist Party of Venezuela, one may assume so. Chavez nationalized many industries, imposed controls on foreign currency, and interfered with agriculture, resulting in a rich country starving. So yes, I think it is socialist.

I think the socialist ideology has been largely abandoned, but I can see how they would still call themselves socialist.  I'm not a socialist myself, but Venezuela strikes me more as a dictatorship.

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

The three (corruption, incompetence, socialism) seem to always be bedfellows though. Corruption and socialism are particularly insidious because countries like Venezuela, with greater government control and involvement. This gives corruption more opportunities to flourish. It was always present, but flourished under Chavez and Maduro.  Food production also dropped under socialism.  Again, the two seem to go hand in hand.

 

Again, still waiting to hear where socialism has actually worked.....

Actually, the USA for starters. Social Security was a socialist program and was denounced quite correctly as such by right-wingers when Franklin Roosevelt introduced it.

 

Medicare is another socialist program. Here's what Ronald Reagan had to say about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Speaks_Out_Against_Socialized_Medicine

 

And then there's progressive taxation:

Ronald Reagan: Progressive Taxation Came Direct From Karl Marx

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/ronald-reagan-progressive-taxation-came-direct-karl-marx

 

So after reading through the posts, theres differently disagreements.

 

However, once again we have the worlds largest superpower interfering in a sovereign country. Is there weapons of mass destruction again?

 

3 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

So after reading through the posts, theres differently disagreements.

 

However, once again we have the worlds largest superpower interfering in a sovereign country. Is there weapons of mass destruction again?

 

The mass destruction that is happening is the Venezuelan people being destroyed by their own failed government, starving to death and being forced in the MILLIONS to flee the country to have any hope to save their lives.

On 1/24/2019 at 9:01 PM, Jingthing said:

The mass destruction that is happening is the Venezuelan people being destroyed by their own failed government, starving to death and being forced in the MILLIONS to flee the country to have any hope to save their lives.

What do you mean by failed government exactly? Please explain.

2 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

What do you mean by failed government exactly? Please explain.

I really meant to say failed state. Google it. It happens sometimes and it has happened in Venezuela. 

 

Here's a start --

 

Quote

 

Venezuela’s Suicide

Lessons From a Failed State

 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-america/2018-10-15/venezuelas-suicide

 

 

Edited January 25, 20197 yr by Jingthing

So thank you for article, I did skim through it. The article describes decades of bad economic times, political turmoil, debt, “...a predatory, extractive oligarchy that ignores regular people...,” and humanitarian crisis.

It seems you agree with intervention as you previously said “Regardless most all people can agree it's a disaster there and regime change is the only hope for relief. Hopefully the people there can manage that all by themselves but somehow I doubt that.”

 

Oh and your support for the self-declared “president of Venezuela” Juan Guaido in another one of your previous neo-con/mainstream friendly comments regarding this topic, is in vain. Here is why…

 

“Juan Guaido, was not contesting the presidency in last year's vote and in fact his political party did not even participate in the presidential election. So it is not as if there were two contestants for the presidency and one claimed the other cheated.”  Goes on to say..

“Guaido was declared President of Venezuela by Washington despite the fact that not a single Venezuelan had voted for him to be President of Venezuela. That's what the neocons call "restoring democracy."”

 

 

The article fails to clarify the following:

 “Under these unusual conditions, he was able to sweep away the whole structure of democratic checks and balances in just a few years.” 

How?

Edited January 25, 20197 yr by Solinvictus

1 minute ago, Solinvictus said:

So thank you for article, I did skim through it. The article describes decades of bad economic times, political turmoil, debt, “...a predatory, extractive oligarchy that ignores regular people...,” and humanitarian crisis.

It seems you agree with intervention as you previously said “Regardless most all people can agree it's a disaster there and regime change is the only hope for relief. Hopefully the people there can manage that all by themselves but somehow I doubt that.”

 

Oh and your support for the self-declared “president of Venezuela” Juan Guaido in another one of your previous neo-con/mainstream friendly comments regarding this topic, is in vain. Here is why…

 

“Juan Guaido, was not contesting the presidency in last year's vote and in fact his political party did not even participate in the presidential election. So it is not as if there were two contestants for the presidency and one claimed the other cheated.”  Goes on to say..

“Guaido was declared President of Venezuela by Washington despite the fact that not a single Venezuelan had voted for him to be President of Venezuela. That's what the neocons call "restoring democracy."”

 

 

The article fails to clarify the following:

 “Under these unusual conditions, he was able to sweep away the whole structure of democratic checks and balances in just a few years.” 

How?

 

I have actually not supported military intervention.

I'm hopeful the people there can do it all by themselves but not optimistic as Maduro is so brutal and apparently he still has the military on his side.

I was thinking more about tactics other than military intervention that could be supportive of the Maduro opposition.

The solidarity of most of Latin American and now added the USA and Canada in not recognizing Maduro is that type of thing. 

I'm not an expert on such matters as to what else could be done short of military intervention so I won't make specific suggestions.

 

Your last two quotes, I can't see on the article so I won't comment on what appears to be unlinked text. 

 

 

I forgot sorry. Those qoutes were from:

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

 

Hes on a show with Ron Paul. You can see on their YouTube channel. He also has a newsletter.

 

So yeah I understand more of your views on this Venezuelan uprising. I believe more in non-intervention.