Posted on 03/30/2019 4:13:12 AM PDT by Libloather
These days it seems you can't talk about socialism without being required to talk also about Venezuela—largely because certain people on the right bring up the failures of Venezuela every time the word "socialism" appears. Right-wing pundits claim incessantly that socialist policies are to blame for the terrible conditions that Venezuelans are now living through.
But this story is fundamentally false.
"It's a cheap rhetorical tactic," says James Galbraith, professor of economics at the University of Texas–Austin.
"No serious person makes this argument," says Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus in economics at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst.
There are many reasons why Venezuela failed in the way that it did. But it certainly wasn't because Venezuelans got free health care. An over-reliance on oil exports in the years before oil prices plummeted in 2016 was a partial cause of the crisis. Intervention by the United States is another important part of it. Most crucially, it was a government rife with corruption that shattered Venezuela.
(Excerpt) Read more at psmag.com ...
Noam should live there. But he doesn't. Yeah, it was socialism.
The Venezuela government siezed control of the means of production, and distribution of various industries. Text book socialism.
Corruption is endemic to South America.
As much as the Spanish language it bathes everything down there.
Has to have the worst track record of implementation because it's never done correctly, somehow and keeps failing - this time because of "corruption". As if a fundamentally flawed system like socialism isn't inherently corrupt.
Corruption is the other side of the socialist coin. You can’t have the one without the other.
Nothing wrong with socialism, mind you. It has never failed. It's just that somehow kleptocrats keep messing it up. Think about that.
Seems to me that corruption and socialism are two sides to the same coin.
However, I also believe that corruption and government are two sides to the same coin.
Unfamiliar with the concept of a syllogism?
1.) Concentration of power facilitates corruption.
2.) Socialism concentrates power.
3.) Therefore, socialism facilitates corruption.
They’re one and the same!
What is it about socialism that the wrong people get in charge every single time? Could it be that governments and economies just don't mix? In which case the problem is socialism.
The only half way good socialism is like in the Scandinavian countries where they saw they were falling behind in the 70s and 80s, sold off their state owned industries and became former socialists without needing a bloody revolution to do it.
Exactly. In what real world scenarios can you take a bunch of human beings - with our long track record of personal behavior - who have never run a business and have no concept of how markets work, put them in charge to decide, top down, top to bottom, what people can make, buy, and how they are to work and be compensated, and expect these same empowered few not to let it all go to their heads?
Pigs, milk, apples. Like clockwork.
1.) Power corrupts.
2.) Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
3.) Therefore, giving power and money to politicians is like giving car keys and liquor to teenage boys.
Nor do True Scotsmen!
Corruption - Socialism
What’s the difference?
Exactly. The foundational philosophy of socialism is that people who embrace it think they're going to get a bigger slice of the wealth-pie because they're more deserving. Socialism is thievery.
The author assumes it’s possible to have socialism without corruption, that the people given total control of the economy won’t use that to enrich themselves.
Corruption and socialism go hand in hand, nuff sed
“They just didn’t do it right”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.