some stuff to you people to understand more about venezuela

[Mechagodzilla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swedish_1krona_2001_front.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2ec_fin.png
http://currency.diy.myrice.com/papanmoney/Norway/NorwayP36b-10Kroner-1983_f.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Isl_Krone.JPG

Guess what those are!

They're some of the many currencies of Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland; you capitalist stooge!

So much for eliminating the working class! Instead you taunt them with capital dropped sparsely from YOUR BLOODSTAINED HANDS.

Fat cat go home!

 

[Solaris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swedish_1krona_2001_front.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2ec_fin.png
http://currency.diy.myrice.com/papanmoney/Norway/NorwayP36b-10Kroner-1983_f.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Isl_Krone.JPG

Guess what those are!

They're some of the many currencies of Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland; you capitalist stooge!

So much for eliminating the working class! Instead you taunt them with capital dropped sparsely from YOUR BLOODSTAINED HANDS.

Fat cat go home!

Leave me alone I'm trying my best.

 

[Gray Fox]

They are not socialist countries. Try again.

Yes they are.

Yes there is - the People's Republic of China.

No it isn't, it's pretty much socialist.

Norway is not a socialist country. It's also a small country, which inevitably helps it. Nice try, though.

By the way, you have conviniently glossed over the fact that GDP makes up only a fraction of the HDI score. The USA has relatively low standards of education, adult literacy and life expectancy - so what do you expect?
No shit, that because it is so rightwing, and has so little social policies compared to the socialist scandinavian countries. Thats one of the big differances between socialism and capitalism. With capitalism it's free for all, while socialism makes the populus share the burden more equally.

 

[repiV]

Yes they are.

No, they are not. They are capitalist countries with socialist tendencies - like all Western countries are.

No it isn't, it's pretty much socialist.

No, it's not. The Chinese economy is capitalist now. That alone is responsible for the economic miracle in China.

By the way, you have conviniently glossed over the fact that GDP makes up only a fraction of the HDI score. The USA has relatively low standards of education, adult literacy and life expectancy - so what do you expect?
No shit, that because it is so rightwing, and has so little social policies compared to the socialist scandinavian countries. Thats one of the big differances between socialism and capitalism. With capitalism it's free for all, while socialism makes the populus share the burden more equally.

Hong Kong is far more capitalist than the USA is and it has the most intelligent population in the world, a very high standard of education, and the second highest life expectancy in the world. So, what's your point?

 

[delusional]

people would flee from china too hong kong because communist china was in the shithole

 

[repiV]

people would flee from china too hong kong because communist china was in the shithole

Fortunately, China seems to be imitating Hong Kong rather than the other way around as many feared.

 

[Gray Fox]

No, they are not. They are capitalist countries with socialist tendencies - like all Western countries are.

That is Contemporary socialism. A healthy mix between capitalism and communism.

No, it's not. The Chinese economy is capitalist now. That alone is responsible for the economic miracle in China.

No it's definalty socialist, and that alone is not the reason of it's rise, not by a longshot. China's crackdown on corruption, and the fact that it has a totalitarian government that can't act quickly and brutally. Companies tend to favor totalitarian countries, with little human rights.

But even if china doesn ot have freedom of speech, and political freedoms, it's populace did not start benefiting until china reformed it's social programs, and it's current growth could not have been sustained if the chinese government did not do that. Now only that China is just the latest example of a country that is moving to the left the richer it get's, the more educated it's people get.

Hong Kong is far more capitalist than the USA is and it has the most intelligent population in the world, a very high standard of education, and the second highest life expectancy in the world. So, what's your point?

And your source/evidence is?

Besides one country/ city is not going to cut it. There wil always be exeptions to the rule, like the oil rich middle eastern countries, but when you look at the overall trend, and multiple countries, and asociate them with the policies of different styles of government it's shows that capitalism is as much a dead road as communism is. And that the more socialist a country is the better it tends to fair.

 

[repiV]

That is Contemporary socialism. A healthy mix between capitalism and communism.

Why don't you go and look in the CIA factbook? I think you'll find the economic systems of all these so-called socialist countries to be defined as capitalist.

No it's definalty socialist, and that alone is not the reason of it's rise, not by a longshot. China's crackdown on corruption, and the fact that it has a totalitarian government that can't act quickly and brutally. Companies tend to favor totalitarian countries, with little human rights.

It is NOT socialist. Nor are any of its socialistic aspects responsible for the economic miracle.

But even if china doesn ot have freedom of speech, and political freedoms, it's populace did not start benefiting until china reformed it's social programs, and it's current growth could not have been sustained if the chinese government did not do that. Now only that China is just the latest example of a country that is moving to the left the richer it get's, the more educated it's people get.

China is NOT moving to the left. From communism to capitalism - does that sound like moving to the left to you?

And your source/evidence is?

Look it up.

Besides one country/ city is not going to cut it. There wil always be exeptions to the rule, like the oil rich middle eastern countries, but when you look at the overall trend, and multiple countries, and asociate them with the policies of different styles of government it's shows that capitalism is as much a dead road as communism is. And that the more socialist a country is the better it tends to fair.

The USA as an example and the large list of failed socialist states pretty much trashes your entire theory.

 

[kirovman]

And that the more socialist a country is the better it tends to fair.

Well, I'd say you need to get a good mix of capitalism and socialism.

Simply put, capitalism to generate the wealth, socialism to distribute it fairly.

 

[delusional]

"Companies tend to favor totalitarian countries, with little human rights." Gray Fox
evidence/proof?

 

[Solaris]

"Companies tend to favor totalitarian countries, with little human rights." Gray Fox
evidence/proof?

19th and early 20th century britan. Germany in 1870's during their industrial revolution. China now.

 

[15357]

I'm going to say, socialism sucks. I don't care what it's like idealistically, all I know is that these are the best words in the goddamn entire world.

http://kr.img.blog.yahoo.com/ybi/1/...r/3426759/img_3426759_959011_3?1122986533.jpg

"My dream." -By unknown 4th grader.

http://kr.img.blog.yahoo.com/ybi/1/d0/63/yamiguk/folder/3/img_3_17_75?1156996808.jpg

 

[Gray Fox]

Why don't you go and look in the CIA factbook? I think you'll find the economic systems of all these so-called socialist countries to be defined as capitalist.

Well you got me there, I couldn't possibly find a source as unbiased and truthfull as that.

It is NOT socialist. Nor are any of its socialistic aspects responsible for the economic miracle.

It is, it even focuses on non financial incentives more then most western country's.

China is NOT moving to the left. From communism to capitalism - does that sound like moving to the left to you?

The problem is that it never was communist, you can't just look at what a party calls itself. Remember Saddam holding elections, did that mean that Iraq under Saddam was a democracy? The only thing that china had was a plan economy thats it. The gap between the poor and the rich was relativly wider then in lets say the US. The social laws were abominal. China did indeed get an economic boost when it switched to a market economy, but you can't just call it capitalist because of that, and just ignore all the social reforms that let it's populace benefit, and allowed them to thrive. Now China's politics today have more influence from the left then the right, hence I would call China socialist in that regard.

Look it up.



The USA as an example and the large list of failed socialist states pretty much trashes your entire theory.

There is a large example of failed capitalist states. And the USA is the best example of how a strong economy does not translate in better living conditions for it's populace if the wealth generated by it is not properly distributed.

Well, I'd say you need to get a good mix of capitalism and socialism.

Simply put, capitalism to generate the wealth, socialism to distribute it fairly.

You can put it that way. But when I talk about socialism I talk about contemporary socialism, Which is a mix between capitalism and communism that leans more to the left. Just like capitalism as it is put in to practice today is far removed from what it once was, and was envisioned to be. The countries today considerd capitalist are countries that are also a mix between capitalism and communis but lean to the right.

But I find it odd, that people take one aspect which is the (semi)free market economy, a capitalistic idea, and just ignore the rest of the policies taken from socialism and call a country capitalist. You know history just as much if not more then I do kirov, and you know that capitalism as it was envisioned was a complete failure. It's failings gave birth to communism.

 

[Danimal]

I'm going to say, socialism sucks. I don't care what it's like idealistically, all I know is that these are the best words in the goddamn entire world.

http://kr.img.blog.yahoo.com/ybi/1/...r/3426759/img_3426759_959011_3?1122986533.jpg

"My dream." -By unknown 4th grader.

Could you translate the picture, Numbers?

 

[15357]

First one: "My Dream" (and the guy is Kim jong il)

Second one: "Catch Communist Spies"

254,855 total civilians executed by socialists since 1950(non-bombing, or combat)

kidnapped-84,532

 

[delusional]

i hate these people who say china wasnt communist. marx advocated a dictator of the proletariot which is a transitional state between capitalist and communist, but it got stuck in that state. but china still still had communist ideas integrated into its society like collectivised farming, free transport, nationalized industries, and free healthcare.
china now still has the lingering effects of communism but i wouldnt be surprised if china ends up more like hong kong with economic and social freedom

 

[15357]

I hope not.

China's GDP would rise too much.

 

[Gray Fox]

i hate these people who say china wasnt communist. marx advocated a dictator of the proletariot which is a transitional state between capitalist and communist, but it got stuck in that state. but china still still had communist ideas integrated into its society like collectivised farming, free transport, nationalized industries, and free healthcare.
china now still has the lingering effects of communism but i wouldnt be surprised if china ends up more like hong kong with economic and social freedom

He advocated a dictatorship of the proletariot, not a totalitarian government run by a lunatic. Mau China had just as much to do with communism as Iraq had to do with democracy.

 

[15357]

You mean your ideal version.


Mao's China was communist.

It failed.

 

[Gray Fox]

You mean your ideal version.


Mao's China was communist.

It failed.

Fine then Iraq under Saddam was a democracy.

 

[15357]

Fine then Iraq under Saddam was a democracy.

No, it doesn't work that way.


Actually, Saddam was elected...

 

[repiV]

Well you got me there, I couldn't possibly find a source as unbiased and truthfull as that.

It is, actually.

It is, it even focuses on non financial incentives more then most western country's.

Like what?

The problem is that it never was communist, you can't just look at what a party calls itself. Remember Saddam holding elections, did that mean that Iraq under Saddam was a democracy? The only thing that china had was a plan economy thats it. The gap between the poor and the rich was relativly wider then in lets say the US. The social laws were abominal. China did indeed get an economic boost when it switched to a market economy, but you can't just call it capitalist because of that, and just ignore all the social reforms that let it's populace benefit, and allowed them to thrive. Now China's politics today have more influence from the left then the right, hence I would call China socialist in that regard.

China is economically capitalist and socially communist. Call it what you will - but the economy is what we're discussing.

There is a large example of failed capitalist states. And the USA is the best example of how a strong economy does not translate in better living conditions for it's populace if the wealth generated by it is not properly distributed.

The USA has a much higher material quality of life and greater opportunities than any other country on earth. The reason it scores somewhat lower on surveys is for other reasons...cultural reasons and infrastructure problems.

You can put it that way. But when I talk about socialism I talk about contemporary socialism, Which is a mix between capitalism and communism that leans more to the left. Just like capitalism as it is put in to practice today is far removed from what it once was, and was envisioned to be. The countries today considerd capitalist are countries that are also a mix between capitalism and communis but lean to the right.

But I find it odd, that people take one aspect which is the (semi)free market economy, a capitalistic idea, and just ignore the rest of the policies taken from socialism and call a country capitalist. You know history just as much if not more then I do kirov, and you know that capitalism as it was envisioned was a complete failure. It's failings gave birth to communism.

If it has a market-based economy, it's capitalist. Your "contemporary socialism" as you call it is something I support - to an extent, I just don't consider it socialism.
The UK is too socialist, and the US is too far the other way. Something in the middle would be best.

 

[delusional]

im on the complete other side of the spectrum and want to nearly abolish welfare and such

 

[CptStern]

why? are you saying that people should help themselves? maybe we should just take the single mothers, the mentally handicapped, the sick the needy and throw them out in the streets to fend for themselves because according to people like you they're prefectly capable of taking care of themselves ..better still why dont we just round them all up put them on trains and give them free showers ..albeit without actually using water

 

[kirovman]

You certainly have a way with words, Stern :E

 

[ComradeBadger]

19th and early 20th century britan. Germany in 1870's during their industrial revolution. China now.

You know what's funny? Germany during it's industrial revolution was way ahead of any other countries in providing insurance, healthcare, pensions and benefits than ANY other country at the time.

Krupp was the best example of this.

 

[Solaris]

You know what's funny? Germany during it's industrial revolution was way ahead of any other countries in providing insurance, healthcare, pensions and benefits than ANY other country at the time.

Krupp was the best example of this.

True, I didn't relise that was true in the 1870's though? I'm writing an essay on it atm

 

[ComradeBadger]

During it's industrial development yes, by 1914, such factories + support networks existed.

Most notabley in the city of Essen.

 

[delusional]

ok my sister is a single mother and you know what shes trash, she cant take care of her son, has no job and has no intention of getting one. she doesnt deserve welfare, and then there are these mothers who keep poppin out kids so they can get a bigger gov'n check. i think handicapped need welfare though and people with permanent diseases. im also against corporate welfare too. my philosophy is if you can help yourself but choose not to then you dont deserve welfare which applies too many welfared people

 

[KoreBolteR]

chevez is an evil dictator!

but tries hide that by bad mouthing bush all the time.

chavez is a dick

 

[CptStern]

chevez is an evil dictator!

but tries hide that by bad mouthing bush all the time.

chavez is a dick

source?

despite negative north american press coverage over the debate the reality is that when Chavez' speech ended he received a 5 minute standing ovation ..and this was in front of the general assembly ..obviously quite a few world dignataries found his speech compelling

 

[DeusExMachina]

Well yeah, Chavez had a good point. It's just Chavez is the exact opposite of who you would want to actually say something like that. It's incredibly ironic and hypocritical.

 

[madog]

Of course he is going to defend Chavez. He has Ernesto Che Guevarra as his Avatar. He's a freakin commy.
You may say capitalism is evil but I say Capitalism>Communism. That shit is weak sauce.

Also Chavez claimed the UN was "worthless" which is the same viewpoint that Bush has about the UN. So they have something in common I guess. But I don't think Bush is anywhere near as bad as Chavez. That guy is a sneaky one and the US doesn't like him already. He better watch what he says and does or else the US will be after his ass next.

 

[Absinthe]

US won't ****ing touch him. Not overtly, at least.

If the US did decide to go to war with him, or do another one of their coups, I'd side with Venezuela.

 

[madog]

Well its a good thing this country doesn't mind people not supporting the war. In other times, supporting the opposing side could get you thrown in the slammer.
Not even anti-Bush propaganda can cover for Chavez though.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

why? are you saying that people should help themselves?

Yeah, that's the idea.

US won't ****ing touch him. Not overtly, at least.

If the US did decide to go to war with him, or do another one of their coups, I'd side with Venezuela.

But what does "siding with Venezuela" mean? A coup isn't necessarily a horrible situation. See: Thailand

Does siding with Venezuela mean siding with its administration or with what its people want?

 

[Absinthe]

What its people want is hardly unanimous.

A coup started by the people for the people is fine. That expresses a severe want for change. But one instigated and financially/militarily supported by the US for the US (ie. not the people of Venezuela) is hardly ever conducive for a positive outcome. Certainly hasn't been in the past.

 

[0mar]

US won't ****ing touch him. Not overtly, at least.

If the US did decide to go to war with him, or do another one of their coups, I'd side with Venezuela.

The CIA already tried to overthrow him in 2002, but they failed. It gave Chavez some ammo and solidified his position with the people.

 

[15357]

why? are you saying that people should help themselves? maybe we should just take the single mothers, the mentally handicapped, the sick the needy and throw them out in the streets to fend for themselves because according to people like you they're prefectly capable of taking care of themselves ..better still why dont we just round them all up put them on trains and give them free showers ..albeit without actually using water

And thats why we have goverment; people aren't perfect.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Let's increase freedom by taking freedom away and putting ultimate power over everything into the hands of a central few. Makes perfect sense...

Watch out! Big ... sister's watching you!!!1