|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28712 Posts
The former leader of the socialist left party in Norway has spent the past 20 years or so working with peacekeeping missions/ as a diplomat / as minister of development (that is - development of development countries, not of Norway) and later on minister of the environment. His experiences actually lead him to the realization that - while he still favored socialism/strong social democracy in Norway - development countries did better by focusing on growth first and redistribution second rather than the other way around. Now, this guy is definitely an example of someone who has been made somewhat of a pariah in his old socialist circles (and he is now a member of the green party, which is more of a left of center than a leftist party), but myself, I think there's a substantial amount of logic to it , and this guy is someone I both trust as intellectually honest and one I think is a genuinely good human being. None of it disqualifies my opinion that more prosperous countries should focus more on tackling inequality, because that is the driving force of many social problems.
Anyway, this also addresses the why countries that went the 'communist route' can both be defended in terms of their performance while also described as 'not communist'. This discussion starts because some people think that implementing more socialism or communism would turn a rich western country into venezuela or into the USSR. That's the nonsense position. Venezuela wasn't a rich country that went communist and then became poor, it was a desperately poor country that went communist, had a bunch of initial success (extreme poverty dropped 72% between 2003 and 2008), before mismanagement led to disaster. USSR wasn't a rich country that decided to go communist, which then ruined everything. It was a terribly impoverished pre-industrialized society where the population was brutally oppressed. Then after implementing 'communism', the oppression stayed much the same and partially became worse, while industrialization happened at a really fast pace. (Arguably this pace could be attributed to the terror and oppression - which does not justify said terror and oppression.)
The point is that 'communism' in a western, rich and developed country would not look anything like 'communism' in a development country that quickly tries to industrialize or that rapidly attempts to make huge changes. It's more about doing stuff like nationalizing natural resources and using the wealth generated for public benefit rather than it going to capitalist investors. (For Norway, I regard that as the single most successful piece of policy ever, and the main reason why we do even better than the other Scandinavian countries by many metrics. But for development countries, nationalizing resources has been the best way to inspire a coup supported by the CIA, and this extremely real threat has also led to them becoming more autocratic as a response.)
|
Donald Trump prevented for doing one potentially good deed in life, aka shouting that the stimulus checks should be at least 1,200 and up to 2,000 dollars. His aides stopped him out of fear of blowing up stimulus talk apparently.
I can't wait to get my 200 dollar stimulus check that will Im sure be the last stimulus any average american sees til the pandemic is over!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/
Oh, and has anyone else been following the talk of withholding votes from Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House unless she agrees to bring a M4A vote to the floor of the House? The Democrat majority in the House is slim enough that progressives have real actual power, so theres a debate about whether they should exercise it to force a vote on M4A, aware that it will fail.
I personally think they should, the point not being to pass M4A, but to get Democrats on the record as being against it so we know who to primary, and if they DO pass it then it if we win the Senate we'll have the House on record as being able to make it happen, if a freshly Democrat controlled Senate declines healthcare during a pandemic? That'll be a reaaaaaal bad look.
I want to see every ounce of power exercised by progressives like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, etc.
|
On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo.
|
Picking on someone's allegedly ahistorical take while describing post-war Germany in terms of market capitalism without mentioning the Marshall Plan is.....interesting, to put it mildly.
|
On December 18 2020 21:49 farvacola wrote:
Picking on someone's allegedly ahistorical take while describing post-war Germany in terms of market capitalism without mentioning the Marshall Plan is.....interesting, to put it mildly.
Why? Sure, the Marshall Plan was a highly effective (especially politically), but also quite limited stimulus package (the total amount of spending was in fact quite low, even in today's dollars). Most economists agree that it helped bring about the ECSC and was the first step in lowering trade barriers within the european market. It most definitely doesn't prove though that germany somehow had a strong industrial base because of hitler's totalitarian policies (complete fabrication) and it also mostly reinforces the fact the conditions for the german economic success story were the forces of a healthy market capitalist (egalitarian) society that could make effective use of the stimulus package (also note that most of germany's economic growth started years after the Marshall Plan had ended).
Nowhere did I argue that I am opposed to focused government spending. Something like the Green New Deal has been necessary since 20-30 years at least.
(also note that e.g. britain's share of the Marshall Plan was by far the highest, but due to existing inefficiencies - like their outdated industrial base - they didn't really profit from it all that much in the long term. The "Wirtschaftswunder" is without a doubt linked to the Marshall Plan, but the plan was most definitely not the single most important factor)
|
On December 18 2020 17:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
@ JimmiC: It always irks me how people discuss the supposed superiority of free market democracies over authoritarian 'communist' states using Korea as the evidence of it. South Korea was actually more repressive and authoritarian in the first couple decades after the war than the North; it remained an authoritarian police state all the way into late 80s/early 90s. It also received significant subsidies and technology transfers from the Western world. The rapid change from the backwards agrarian South Korea to the economic powerhouse that it is today had absolutely nothing to do with free markets or democracy -- its economic growth happened thanks to exploitation of cheap and plentiful labor, smart protectionist policies, and Western support.
It's also rather strange when people talk about the divided Germany in this context and how things got so much better after the curtain fell. Not only was West Germany significantly more developed and educated than East Germany before the divide, but also today, 30 years after the unification, there remains a massive gap between the two and it is actually increasing rather than falling. (not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf).
If anything, the evidence shows that authoritarian, centrally-controlled economies are often successful at rapidly developing their countries (albeit at the expense of freedom and usually massive loss of life) while free market, democratic societies are better at maintaining the status quo but are generally not very good at playing catchup. India is a good example of a democratic society largely failing to create any meaningful change. After the end of WW2, India was in much better shape than China; it was touted as the future powerhouse of the developing world for decades. Yet it lags behind China massively in just about every metric you could think of; at this point, it's not even close.
Now, are authoritarian, centrally-controlled economies better for a prosperous, developed country? I think 'no' is the right answer here. But I also think it's very short-sighted to claim that free market capitalism and representative democracy are the pinnacle of economic and political development and that no change in the way we run our society is needed; or to reject the ideas and ideals touted by demagogues of the past purely on the failures of their time. Just because Stalin or Mao did some vile shit in the name of 'communism' doesn't mean that any and all communist ideas are wrong or useless.
This bolded part is such a huge strawman of my argument that it is really hard to take the rest of your post seriously which had some good points within it. There are certainly CAN be successes for authoritarianism especially in the short term in regards to economy and large infrastructure projects but most of those are "fascists" not "communists" . Those economic gains have been historically erased eventually because of the nepotism and corruption. China might buck this trend I guess we will see, that is what makes them especially scary, it has nothing to do with communism (because they have almost nothing in common with communism and lots incommon with fascism) and everything to with their government being ruthless, their belief in the superiority of the Han, and complete disregard for human rights along with a whole host of other problems. When you're talking best form of government I'd hope you would be taking more than economy into account, and considering how much worse they are in regards to human rights they would have to be spectacularly far ahead to have it even be a close contest. The no change thing is stupid, I've never said that nor would I ever, we have a long way to go. I have said that democratic socialism is IMO the best form of functioning government yet, and when I say that I mean more than simply economy. Nor have I ever said all communism ideas are wrong or useless, in fact that is completely contrary to my posts. I also find it ignorant that you only seem to be measuring success based on economy, sure that is part of it . That the south did better when it stopped being authoritarian actually helps my point. That the east is doing worse than the west semi counters my point, except that it is doing much better now than it was under "communism". I'm not going to rehash everything or even anymore. You clearly have not bothered to read my posts so it is not worth my time to rewrite it as what are the chances you will this time?
I'm sorry, that was definitely some serious formatting fail on my part; the last paragraph wasn't intended as a response to your arguments at all since like you said yourself, that's not what you are saying. I definitely should have separated my replies to you and my own thoughts on this and I apologize for not making this clearer.
That said, your points regarding economy not being the only measure of success of a government are very valid, and I think they get ignored far too much when it comes to discussing various forms of governance and whether X country is 'successful' or not; but I think you're also contradicting yourself a little bit (or at least, lacking nuance especially when it comes to your comments on USSR and Korea specifically).
You say that South did better when it stopped being authoritarian -- but it's not actually that clear if it did in fact do better. Their economic growth slowed to a halt and they had a major recession shortly after democratizing; a recession that they basically bought their way out of via IMF with a shady deal that included a complete gutting of their workers' rights and unions. Now it's a country where the old look back at 'the good old days' of military dictatorship and the young call it 'Hell Korea' and nobody has children any more. It's still a better place to live in than NK obviously -- thanks mostly to economics -- but it's not as if free markets and democracy brought happiness and meaning to the masses. The idea that the economic gains from authoritarian times are simply erased by corruption and nepotism definitely doesn't fly here, either -- all these gains formed the backbone of modern democratic Korea (actually many believe that the excessively protectionist policies of Park's government and his preferential treatment of large corporations are what led to the current stifling business climate in Korea but that's a conversation for another day, regardless 'the gains' are definitely still there).
Likewise in USSR, there were definitely a lot of issues caused by general lack of... things, primarily due to economic reasons and also some serious fuckups with logistics / management, but USSR did tackle a lot of issues that many developed countries to this day struggle with. In terms of things like gender equality, worker rights, access to education and healthcare -- really most things related to social policies -- Soviet Union was significantly ahead of the rest of the world, heck even by today's standards they'd look pretty good in many aspects. So if we focus less on things like GDP or purchasing power of the population and more on having an equitable and happy society... things get a lot more blurry. A lot of older folks who actually lived in USSR remember it quite fondly to this day, and not all of that is nostalgia.
Anyway, I think we actually mostly agree on our conclusions. Democratic socialism is a better way to run a state than having a shadow cabal of old drunks backstabbing each other for their chance to spend the last 5 years of their life being 'in charge', but we definitely have a long way to go.
|
On December 18 2020 21:30 rope123 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo.
Japan's post-war recovery had nothing to do with 'market capitalism' at all. They regulated and micromanaged nearly every aspect of their economic development for several decades after the war, and had heavily protectionist policies. I'd also question any sources that claim that Germany's industrial successes aren't in any way linked to stuff built before the war, although it's true that it's quite popular to say that nazis never did anything good or useful so that take isn't particularly surprising. It's wrong but, not surprising.
|
United States43255 Posts
On December 18 2020 23:55 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 21:30 rope123 wrote:On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo. Japan's post-war recovery had nothing to do with 'market capitalism' at all. They regulated and micromanaged nearly every aspect of their economic development for several decades after the war, and had heavily protectionist policies. I'd also question any sources that claim that Germany's industrial successes aren't in any way linked to stuff built before the war, although it's true that it's quite popular to say that nazis never did anything good or useful so that take isn't particularly surprising. It's wrong but, not surprising.
It’s not just anti Nazi sentiment, you’d have to believe that the benefits of Nazi economic policy outweighed the destruction of most major cities and the death or crippling of half of the young male population. Nazi policy wasn’t just artificially stimulating the demand for steel, it was artificially stimulating the demand for steel and Allied bombs. It’s a net negative.
|
On December 18 2020 23:55 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 21:30 rope123 wrote:On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo. Japan's post-war recovery had nothing to do with 'market capitalism' at all. They regulated and micromanaged nearly every aspect of their economic development for several decades after the war, and had heavily protectionist policies. I'd also question any sources that claim that Germany's industrial successes aren't in any way linked to stuff built before the war, although it's true that it's quite popular to say that nazis never did anything good or useful so that take isn't particularly surprising. It's wrong but, not surprising. How much of Germany's industry was actually left standing by the time they surrendered? Allied bombing missions probably have a lot to do with why there are limited links between pre and post war industrial success.
|
On December 19 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 23:55 Salazarz wrote:On December 18 2020 21:30 rope123 wrote:On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo. Japan's post-war recovery had nothing to do with 'market capitalism' at all. They regulated and micromanaged nearly every aspect of their economic development for several decades after the war, and had heavily protectionist policies. I'd also question any sources that claim that Germany's industrial successes aren't in any way linked to stuff built before the war, although it's true that it's quite popular to say that nazis never did anything good or useful so that take isn't particularly surprising. It's wrong but, not surprising. It’s not just anti Nazi sentiment, you’d have to believe that the benefits of Nazi economic policy outweighed the destruction of most major cities and the death or crippling of half of the young male population. Nazi policy wasn’t just artificially stimulating the demand for steel, it was artificially stimulating the demand for steel and Allied bombs. It’s a net negative.
It's not a question of whether or not benefits Nazi economic policies outweighed the damage caused by the war, that's silly and not at all the point of my comment. What I said was that the infrastructure and industrial base built up during the interwar period did play a part in the post-war recovery, and West Germany had a lot more to work with after the dust settled than the East, on top of things like the Marshall Plan or the massive reparations taken by Soviets from the East. There were far more factors than just the differences between market capitalism and planned economy that played into how differently post-war recovery played out in the two Germanies.
On December 19 2020 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 23:55 Salazarz wrote:On December 18 2020 21:30 rope123 wrote:On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo. Japan's post-war recovery had nothing to do with 'market capitalism' at all. They regulated and micromanaged nearly every aspect of their economic development for several decades after the war, and had heavily protectionist policies. I'd also question any sources that claim that Germany's industrial successes aren't in any way linked to stuff built before the war, although it's true that it's quite popular to say that nazis never did anything good or useful so that take isn't particularly surprising. It's wrong but, not surprising. How much of Germany's industry was actually left standing by the time they surrendered? Allied bombing missions probably have a lot to do with why there are limited links between pre and post war industrial success.
Even factories rendered inoperable by bombs and city fighting still had a lot of equipment that could be salvaged or repurposed. You can't discount the importance of infrastructure, either. Another poster used an off the cuff remark about the autobahn as something inconsequential, but having a highly developed road network is vital for an urbanized, industrialized nation. West Germany had by far the highest highway density of any European nation.
|
|
|
On December 19 2020 00:45 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2020 00:02 KwarK wrote:On December 18 2020 23:55 Salazarz wrote:On December 18 2020 21:30 rope123 wrote:On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo. Japan's post-war recovery had nothing to do with 'market capitalism' at all. They regulated and micromanaged nearly every aspect of their economic development for several decades after the war, and had heavily protectionist policies. I'd also question any sources that claim that Germany's industrial successes aren't in any way linked to stuff built before the war, although it's true that it's quite popular to say that nazis never did anything good or useful so that take isn't particularly surprising. It's wrong but, not surprising. It’s not just anti Nazi sentiment, you’d have to believe that the benefits of Nazi economic policy outweighed the destruction of most major cities and the death or crippling of half of the young male population. Nazi policy wasn’t just artificially stimulating the demand for steel, it was artificially stimulating the demand for steel and Allied bombs. It’s a net negative. It's not a question of whether or not benefits Nazi economic policies outweighed the damage caused by the war, that's silly and not at all the point of my comment. What I said was that the infrastructure and industrial base built up during the interwar period did play a part in the post-war recovery, and West Germany had a lot more to work with after the dust settled than the East, on top of things like the Marshall Plan or the massive reparations taken by Soviets from the East. There were far more factors than just the differences between market capitalism and planned economy that played into how differently post-war recovery played out in the two Germanies. Show nested quote +On December 19 2020 00:02 Gorsameth wrote:On December 18 2020 23:55 Salazarz wrote:On December 18 2020 21:30 rope123 wrote:On December 18 2020 16:36 Salazarz wrote:
not to mention that the significant industrial base that Germany did have was also built up in large part thanks to authoritarian policies of one guy named Adolf
How do people even come to such ridiculous, ahistorical conclusions. Did you just hear at some time that hitler built the autobahn and simply assumed that post war germany profited from hitler's industrialism? Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Post-war western germany's industrial successes are in no way linked to anything the nazis "built up". If you desparately want to make a causal connection to hitler's policies, it's the total destruction of industrial facilities that was caused by ww2 that is seen - by some historians - as an advantage compared to e.g. England. Germany being a more equal society after ww2 and having to start from scratch led to a lot of the positive effects of (social) market capitalism being unleashed. Same thing happened in Japan. So yes, market capitalism can also be extremely effective in lifting a society out of poverty and is not just good for maintaining the status quo. Japan's post-war recovery had nothing to do with 'market capitalism' at all. They regulated and micromanaged nearly every aspect of their economic development for several decades after the war, and had heavily protectionist policies. I'd also question any sources that claim that Germany's industrial successes aren't in any way linked to stuff built before the war, although it's true that it's quite popular to say that nazis never did anything good or useful so that take isn't particularly surprising. It's wrong but, not surprising. How much of Germany's industry was actually left standing by the time they surrendered? Allied bombing missions probably have a lot to do with why there are limited links between pre and post war industrial success. Even factories rendered inoperable by bombs and city fighting still had a lot of equipment that could be salvaged or repurposed. You can't discount the importance of infrastructure, either. Another poster used an off the cuff remark about the autobahn as something inconsequential, but having a highly developed road network is vital for an urbanized, industrialized nation. West Germany had by far the highest highway density of any European nation.
This is not a good hill to die on, beyond what others mentioned:
- their steel and coal industries were dismantled by the allies, including machinery
- they lost all patents and intellectual property, with them whatever technological edge the Nazis built up
- they lost their top scientists in numerous fields, shipped to the US and USSR
- the war reparations paid amounted to more than the aid received later
The one way the Nazis did help the post war recovery was with an unintentional consequence. Due to the anti-German sentiment, millions of ethnic German cheap skilled laborers were deported to them from other countries, in a time where most of Europe had labor shortages,
|
On December 18 2020 23:05 Salazarz wrote:
In terms of things like gender equality, worker rights, access to education and healthcare -- really most things related to social policies -- Soviet Union was significantly ahead of the rest of the world, heck even by today's standards they'd look pretty good in many aspects.
Aside from gender equality in some very specific instances, there is not a single thing on that list that wasn't better in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy (aside from Calabria) or Scandinavia.. but go ahead and continue living in fantasy land. Nostalgia is something we psychologically are drawn to no matter how good or bad certain things really were. For every old person looking back quite fondly on their cozy time in the GDR (or soviet union) there is one who remembers being tortured and three who are happy to now be born into a society which grants them both personal and economic freedom.
|
On December 19 2020 01:37 JimmiC wrote:
Your look at Venezuela is mixing up correlation with causation, as I mentioned in another post Venezuela did well not because of Chavista policy but because of oil prices. You can see this because Chavezista was doing poorly before the massive oil prices and terrible after. The time period you picked happens to be when oil prices were exploding. If you look into it more you can also see that production was slipping even when the prices were very high because the theft was so high that none of the maintenance was happening. This is a country with not only the worlds largest oil reserves but having as much gold as the continent of Africa. Venezuela, if you look into it even slightly below the surface, is one of the worst examples of communism. Even their food packages for the poor are a grift. They get their "clap" from Mexico. Mexico sells it at one price and in the Venezuelan books it is a much higher price. The difference (millions a month) just disappears into the pockets of the political and military elite. Chavez/Maduro is what Trump tried to be, the tiny bit of good is completely out weighed by the horrible. Human rights abuses, theft, environment, extrajudicial killings, it is a sess pool of awful. That was hidden to some degree by 100 dollar oil prices but just look before the spike and after and it becomes pretty obvious. Venezuela should be BY FAR the richest country in SA not contending for poorest and being one of the worst places to live on many levels. And before you bring up the sanctions from the US, yes they have recently been impactful, but this was all clear before they started.
Venezuela was the richest country in South America.
A similar thing happened to Argentina in the early 20th century. It was, by most accounts a top 10 country in the world, and in some years more Europeans were choosing to immigrate to Argentina in lieu of immigrating to the United States.
|
On December 19 2020 04:17 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2020 01:37 JimmiC wrote:
Your look at Venezuela is mixing up correlation with causation, as I mentioned in another post Venezuela did well not because of Chavista policy but because of oil prices. You can see this because Chavezista was doing poorly before the massive oil prices and terrible after. The time period you picked happens to be when oil prices were exploding. If you look into it more you can also see that production was slipping even when the prices were very high because the theft was so high that none of the maintenance was happening. This is a country with not only the worlds largest oil reserves but having as much gold as the continent of Africa. Venezuela, if you look into it even slightly below the surface, is one of the worst examples of communism. Even their food packages for the poor are a grift. They get their "clap" from Mexico. Mexico sells it at one price and in the Venezuelan books it is a much higher price. The difference (millions a month) just disappears into the pockets of the political and military elite. Chavez/Maduro is what Trump tried to be, the tiny bit of good is completely out weighed by the horrible. Human rights abuses, theft, environment, extrajudicial killings, it is a sess pool of awful. That was hidden to some degree by 100 dollar oil prices but just look before the spike and after and it becomes pretty obvious. Venezuela should be BY FAR the richest country in SA not contending for poorest and being one of the worst places to live on many levels. And before you bring up the sanctions from the US, yes they have recently been impactful, but this was all clear before they started. Venezuela was the richest country in South America. A similar thing happened to Argentina in the early 20th century. It was, by most accounts a top 10 country in the world, and in some years more Europeans were choosing to immigrate to Argentina in lieu of immigrating to the United States.
Venezuela corrupt took all their money, and bought/built a city in Miami called Doral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doral,_Florida#Demographics
The last paragraph shows the influx of them before Venezuela went to the shitter.
|
On December 19 2020 02:24 rope123 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2020 23:05 Salazarz wrote:
In terms of things like gender equality, worker rights, access to education and healthcare -- really most things related to social policies -- Soviet Union was significantly ahead of the rest of the world, heck even by today's standards they'd look pretty good in many aspects. Aside from gender equality in some very specific instances, there is not a single thing on that list that wasn't better in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy (aside from Calabria) or Scandinavia.. but go ahead and continue living in fantasy land. Nostalgia is something we psychologically are drawn to no matter how good or bad certain things really were. For every old person looking back quite fondly on their cozy time in the GDR (or soviet union) there is one who remembers being tortured and three who are happy to now be born into a society which grants them both personal and economic freedom. Curious that you left out USA, and included countries with strong socialist principles combined with a capitalist market. That's just taking what you wrote at face value by the way, since there weren't any good indicators of such metrics back when the Soviet Union existed curiously enough.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26074 Posts
On December 19 2020 07:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2020 04:41 ShoCkeyy wrote:On December 19 2020 04:17 cLutZ wrote:On December 19 2020 01:37 JimmiC wrote:
Your look at Venezuela is mixing up correlation with causation, as I mentioned in another post Venezuela did well not because of Chavista policy but because of oil prices. You can see this because Chavezista was doing poorly before the massive oil prices and terrible after. The time period you picked happens to be when oil prices were exploding. If you look into it more you can also see that production was slipping even when the prices were very high because the theft was so high that none of the maintenance was happening. This is a country with not only the worlds largest oil reserves but having as much gold as the continent of Africa. Venezuela, if you look into it even slightly below the surface, is one of the worst examples of communism. Even their food packages for the poor are a grift. They get their "clap" from Mexico. Mexico sells it at one price and in the Venezuelan books it is a much higher price. The difference (millions a month) just disappears into the pockets of the political and military elite. Chavez/Maduro is what Trump tried to be, the tiny bit of good is completely out weighed by the horrible. Human rights abuses, theft, environment, extrajudicial killings, it is a sess pool of awful. That was hidden to some degree by 100 dollar oil prices but just look before the spike and after and it becomes pretty obvious. Venezuela should be BY FAR the richest country in SA not contending for poorest and being one of the worst places to live on many levels. And before you bring up the sanctions from the US, yes they have recently been impactful, but this was all clear before they started. Venezuela was the richest country in South America. A similar thing happened to Argentina in the early 20th century. It was, by most accounts a top 10 country in the world, and in some years more Europeans were choosing to immigrate to Argentina in lieu of immigrating to the United States. Venezuela corrupt took all their money, and bought/built a city in Miami called Doral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doral,_Florida#DemographicsThe last paragraph shows the influx of them before Venezuela went to the shitter. All that money went into the elites pockets and they left their country and their people broken and destitute. It bugs me more than when "capitalists" do it because at least capitalists are honest about the greed. People who think that Venezuela is in the situation they are in because of the USA are delusional or reading way to much Maduro propaganda. No one needs to believe me on this they can talk to any of the millions (not exaggerating) refugee's, such a disaster and Maduro is just solidifying his power after the attempt to unseat him failed, he even lost a election and just created a new house and ignored the elected officials. It is so incredibly sad what Madruo and his cronies have done pretending it is socialism. Anyone who actually believes in socialism should not defend Venezuela they should demonize it, if you don't it is like political equivalent of the priests that defended the priests and hid their crimes for "the good of the church". This is on that level of evil and could be just as damaging to the "cause".
Well if we contrast the attitude and policy of the rest of the world to Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States etc and Venezuela, there clearly is a difference.
This doesn’t at all absolve Maduro et al of blame for their failings, but there’s a marked difference in tolerance between abhorrent regimes that are capitalist and those that are ostensibly socialist.
|
Keep it up Ron Johnson. We just might win Georgia if you keep this up.
|
On December 19 2020 09:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2020 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On December 19 2020 04:41 ShoCkeyy wrote:On December 19 2020 04:17 cLutZ wrote:On December 19 2020 01:37 JimmiC wrote:
Your look at Venezuela is mixing up correlation with causation, as I mentioned in another post Venezuela did well not because of Chavista policy but because of oil prices. You can see this because Chavezista was doing poorly before the massive oil prices and terrible after. The time period you picked happens to be when oil prices were exploding. If you look into it more you can also see that production was slipping even when the prices were very high because the theft was so high that none of the maintenance was happening. This is a country with not only the worlds largest oil reserves but having as much gold as the continent of Africa. Venezuela, if you look into it even slightly below the surface, is one of the worst examples of communism. Even their food packages for the poor are a grift. They get their "clap" from Mexico. Mexico sells it at one price and in the Venezuelan books it is a much higher price. The difference (millions a month) just disappears into the pockets of the political and military elite. Chavez/Maduro is what Trump tried to be, the tiny bit of good is completely out weighed by the horrible. Human rights abuses, theft, environment, extrajudicial killings, it is a sess pool of awful. That was hidden to some degree by 100 dollar oil prices but just look before the spike and after and it becomes pretty obvious. Venezuela should be BY FAR the richest country in SA not contending for poorest and being one of the worst places to live on many levels. And before you bring up the sanctions from the US, yes they have recently been impactful, but this was all clear before they started. Venezuela was the richest country in South America. A similar thing happened to Argentina in the early 20th century. It was, by most accounts a top 10 country in the world, and in some years more Europeans were choosing to immigrate to Argentina in lieu of immigrating to the United States. Venezuela corrupt took all their money, and bought/built a city in Miami called Doral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doral,_Florida#DemographicsThe last paragraph shows the influx of them before Venezuela went to the shitter. All that money went into the elites pockets and they left their country and their people broken and destitute. It bugs me more than when "capitalists" do it because at least capitalists are honest about the greed. People who think that Venezuela is in the situation they are in because of the USA are delusional or reading way to much Maduro propaganda. No one needs to believe me on this they can talk to any of the millions (not exaggerating) refugee's, such a disaster and Maduro is just solidifying his power after the attempt to unseat him failed, he even lost a election and just created a new house and ignored the elected officials. It is so incredibly sad what Madruo and his cronies have done pretending it is socialism. Anyone who actually believes in socialism should not defend Venezuela they should demonize it, if you don't it is like political equivalent of the priests that defended the priests and hid their crimes for "the good of the church". This is on that level of evil and could be just as damaging to the "cause". Well if we contrast the attitude and policy of the rest of the world to Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States etc and Venezuela, there clearly is a difference. This doesn’t at all absolve Maduro et al of blame for their failings, but there’s a marked difference in tolerance between abhorrent regimes that are capitalist and those that are ostensibly socialist.
Those countries you mentioned are Theocracies and their economies are mostly modeled after Muslim doctrine. You really consider SA capitalist when women cannot own property? Even if that was so, SA is also again far preferrable to live in than Venezeula. At least the people in SA aren't eating their own pets, living in absolute squalor, and Venezeulans have a far far higher likelihood of death even when you factor in SA abysmal track record.
Its weird you think socialist/communist countries are looked at without tolerance. Many folks on the left fawn over these places and make the most contorted rationalizations and excuses for them. Thats a considerable amount of people. You don't get this with equivalent atrocious regime doctrines (eg fascism - you don't see much defense and rationalization with the same magnitude for Nazi Germany, Italy, Franco Spain, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
