Economy Bolivia's Socialist Economy Booming

[kpt018]

Guns is not an economic issue, you can be right-wing and still be for socialism. Most of the European far-fight tend to favor some degree of socialism.

Ok, logically I agree of course. But my experience has been that he's quite moderate. But of course I can't read everything everyone posts.

And my main point is you should probably talk through it instead of making assumptions. Just let him tell you he's for socialism. If he has and I missed it, well, my bad then.

 

[Rod1]

Evo changing the tune of the song when it comes to Venezuela.

 

[Four]

I know and I think its a superior form of state ownership of firms, at least in most cases. You may not consider it socialism but I guarantee you if anyone suggested that at the national level in the US it would be deemed a socialist policy.

Yeah i agree. Just pointing that out so that nobody equates a bunch of ragtag Latin America semi-dictators nationalizing and monopolizing their natural resources compared to Norway’s government owning parts of companies and making sure the companies compete with other private businesses

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Huh? Obviously you didn't read the piece but this is a bad misreading of the tweet too. He's saying Bolivia is a better example to look at the effects of socialism, not that Venezuela isn't real socialism.

Here's what I was commenting on: "but [Venezuela]'s more of a kleptocracy than an actual socialist state." See how it seeks to distinguish Venezuela from an "actual" socialist state? So my observation was correct.

Judging from how socialist apologists view actual socialist history, seems like the biggest problem with socialism is that it is almost impossible to get it right.

 

[kpt018]

Here's what I was commenting on: "but [Venezuela]'s more of a kleptocracy than an actual socialist state." See how it seeks to distinguish Venezuela from an "actual" socialist state? So my observation was correct.

Your observation is not correct, though. He is claiming that socialism isn't the full story as to why they're experiencing massive problems.

Why do you want him to frame it in a less accurate way? We know why. It's so you can't point to any program that can be categorized as socialist so you can't point to an obvious failure. Bringing up Bolivia makes that more difficult so you want to claim there's a true Scottsman fallacy.

If you can, tell us why it is socialism that caused their downfall and not the other stuff he points to in the article.

Judging from how socialist apologists view actual socialist history, seems like the biggest problem with socialism is that it is almost impossible to get it right.

I'm not sure what you think I believe (I'm a pretty big fan of capitalism, actually) but I would like it very much if you guys can just be honest when discussing socialism.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Good for Bolivia. I hope they do even better going forward. Lol at that tweet though. Bloomberg taking the position that Venezuela is not real socialism.

Socialism is like Islam, when it inevitably does what is obviously expected of it, it becomes not real.

 

[Rod1]

their system of government, like financing and reliance on commodities. I mean, click on the link for fuck sakes, it will not cause brain damage. I promise!

Destroying every industry except the oil industry, followed by the destruction of the oil industry itself was the result of socialism.

 

[kpt018]

Destroying every industry except the oil industry, followed by the destruction of the oil industry itself was the result of socialism.

I don't think Noah Smith is arguing Venezuela isn't "real socialism" like Inga is claiming.

Again, I'm a big fan of capitalism (I want to avoid conversations going off the rails), but why would we ignore examples like Bolivia or the Nordic countries when we discuss the issue? The point I am trying to convey, and the reason why Smith is writing about the topic, is that Venezuela is being used as the example to counter folks like Bernie, Warren, AOC, etc. because it's a clear failure. We're seeing arguments like if you want America to look like Venezuela vote for the Democratic Socialist! It's a straw man argument. But the point is that if we want to argue against socialism let's look at other examples.

That's very inconvenient for right wingers, though.

 

[Rod1]

I don't think Noah Smith is arguing Venezuela isn't "real socialism" like Inga is claiming.

Again, I'm a big fan of capitalism (I want to avoid conversations going off the rails), but why would we ignore examples like Bolivia or the Nordic countries when we discuss the issue? The point I am trying to convey, and the reason why Smith is writing about the topic, is that Venezuela is being used as the example to counter folks like Bernie, Warren, AOC, etc. because it's a clear failure. We're seeing arguments like if you want America to look like Venezuela vote for the Democratic Socialist! It's a straw man argument. But the point is that if we want to argue against socialism let's look at other examples.

That's very inconvenient for right wingers, though.

Because as i pointed out Bolivia is not an example of success, is a classic Latin American example of riding a commodity supercycle, Bolivian economy is in full throttle to a big wake up if they dont throttle down on government spending but throttling down on government spending is certainly going to hurt it.

As to the nordic model, not even their economists claim its socialism, its capitalism with a lot of welfare and strong unions.

 

[kpt018]

Because as i pointed out Bolivia is not an example of success, is a classic Latin American example of riding a commodity supercycle, Bolivian economy is in full throttle to a big wake up if they dont throttle down on government spending but throttling down on government spending is certainly going to hurt it.

Agreed, but who said Bolivia is a success? They are experiencing growth but the piece pointed out some warnings about their success. I also didn't say they're the best example to use.

As to the nordic model, not even their economists claim its socialism, its capitalism with a lot of welfare and strong unions.

I'm aware of that (although what they want to call it doesn't matter that much to me). I feel like you're not really addressing my main argument. If America was to adopt the left's "ideal" policy views (at least the Sanders, Warren's, etc. view of the world) America would look more like the Nordic model and nothing like Venezuela. In that context it makes sense to look at other countries, not Venezuela, if you want to argue with Sanders/Warren right? And that pointing to Venezuela as a failure of socialism wouldn't be a valid counter-argument to Sanders/Warren, right?

With each of your posts it seems like your avoiding this important context.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Your observation is not correct, though. He is claiming that socialism isn't the full story as to why they're experiencing massive problems.

Bullshit.
The story literally has nothing to do with Venezuela. The one sentence in the article devoted to Venezuela simply notes that it has fallen into ruin. Yet the tweet, which is what I was commenting on, adds a lot of nuance to why that ruin happened. And it uses a weasel phrase to create the impression that Venezuela ought not to be mistaken for "actual" socialism. It's a shitty, biased tweet that undermines the credibility of an otherwise informative article about Bolivia. Which was my point all along. If he wanted only to claim that there was more to the story, I think he would have said so more directly. Your sentence "Socialism isn't the full story as to why they're experiencing massive problems" is much superior, for example. But I don't think that was the impression the author was trying to make at all.

 

[kpt018]

Bullshit.
The story literally has nothing to do with Venezuela. The one sentence in the article devoted to Venezuela simply notes that it has fallen into ruin. Yet the tweet, which is what I was commenting on, adds a lot of nuance to why that ruin happened. And it uses a weasel phrase to create the impression that Venezuela ought not to be mistaken for "actual" socialism. It's a shitty, biased tweet that undermines the credibility of an otherwise informative article about Bolivia. Which was my point all along. If he wanted only to claim that there was more to the story, I think he would have said so more directly. Your sentence "Socialism isn't the full story as to why they're experiencing massive problems" is much superior, for example. But I don't think that was the impression the author was trying to make at all.

If you want to have a good faith discussion stop fucking cutting out the portions of my post that lay out the most important part of the point I'm making.

If you want to just rant go find someone else.

 

[Reactionary Corporatist]

Socialism is like Islam, when it inevitably does what is obviously expected of it, it becomes not real.

This is a poor argument. Socialism is socialism. Those systems of government which call themselves socialist are not socialist unless their country is economically organized under a socialist model.

This is like calling North Korea a democracy because they have democracy in the DPRK name. Then someone arguing against democracy saying "ohhh so North Korea isn't a democracy? Wow I love how every time things go bad with democracy it's 'not real democracy'" That's your argument. Sad.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If you want to have a good faith discussion stop fucking cutting out the portions of my post that lay out the most important part of the point I'm making.

If you want to just rant go find someone else.

Spare me the histrionics. You quoted me and bitched about how I didn't read the article and thus missed the point the author was trying to make. So I went and read the article to see if I had missed something. Sure enough, the contents of the article are irrelevant to the point I made about the tweet, because the article is entirely free of analysis of Venezuela's problems. So who is arguing in bad faith here?

I see your point about different ways the tweet can be taken, but it's a one liner designed to ensure the reader comes away contrasting Venezuela and "actual socialism". If you can't grasp that that's a shitty and weasely way to introduce a story that is not at all about Venezuela, then by all means please stop commenting on my posts. I didn't come to you looking to argue about anything.

 

[kpt018]

Spare me the histrionics. You quoted me and bitched about how I didn't read the article and thus missed the point the author was trying to make. So I went and read the article to see if I had missed something. Sure enough, the contents of the article are irrelevant to the point I made about the tweet, because the article is entirely free of analysis of Venezuela's problems. So who is arguing in bad faith here?

I see your point about different ways the tweet can be taken, but it's a one liner designed to ensure the reader comes away contrasting Venezuela and "actual socialism". If you can't grasp that that's a shitty and weasely way to introduce a story that is not at all about Venezuela, then by all means please stop commenting on my posts. I didn't come to you looking to argue about anything.

So why do you care about the headline at all? Tell us, honestly, about why you think it's important that Venezuela be recognized as a failure of socialism.

And I don't care about getting attention. I think cutting out the most important part of someone's post is slimy unless it's clearly unrelated to the topic.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

So why do you care about the headline at all? Tell us, honestly, about why you think it's important that Venezuela be recognized as a failure of socialism.

First of all, if you are going to keep arguing with me, then please stop behaving as if I am the one looking for an outlet to rant. I'm not. I don't mind a discussion, however.

It's important to recognize the massive dangers of socialism and it's long history of failure, murder, and misery, precisely because it seems so good on paper to so many people. Defenders of socialism, usually unable to directly defend the terrible history of socialism, often opt instead to deflect. "It wasn't real socialism" has been used to excuse everything from the Holodomor to the Cultural Revolution. This tweet falls into that line and deserves criticism for contrasting Venezuela with "actual socialism".

That's not to say that socialism has no successes. I think it does, and I noted that in my very first post. But there are fewer successes than failures and the failures have so often been much more extreme. The most obvious danger, and the reason why any sort of Marxism really isn't a very good idea even in theory, is that it centralizes far too much power in the hands of a small group than is safe for the population as a whole. Even in Bolivia, which is enjoying some success under a socialist regime, there are already signs that the leadership is entrenching itself permanently. Thus the old saying, you can vote your way into socialism but you have to shoot your way out.

 

[Rod1]

Agreed, but who said Bolivia is a success? They are experiencing growth but the piece pointed out some warnings about their success. I also didn't say they're the best example to use.

OP article says its an stellar example.

I'm aware of that (although what they want to call it doesn't matter that much to me). I feel like you're not really addressing my main argument. If America was to adopt the left's "ideal" policy views (at least the Sanders, Warren's, etc. view of the world) America would look more like the Nordic model and nothing like Venezuela. In that context it makes sense to look at other countries, not Venezuela, if you want to argue with Sanders/Warren right? And that pointing to Venezuela as a failure of socialism wouldn't be a valid counter-argument to Sanders/Warren, right?

Because Sanders conveniently leaves out the hypercapitalistic nature of nordic nations.

Nordic model is hypercapitalist which is kept in check with high government spending (high taxes) and a strong labor movement, but people conveniently leave out the capitalistic nature of these countries.

They fail to realize that the Nordic model taxation system isnt really progressive, the middle class is taxed a lot, there is little to no business regulation to protect local industries and it requires a high level of global competitiveness.

Thats not something that you see the Bernie bros talking about, Bernie himself voted against NAFTA and thinks that free trade hurts labor. So no, Bernie doesnt represents the Nordic model, he represents something like the UK left.

 

[kpt018]

First of all, if you are going to keep arguing with me, then please stop behaving as if I am the one looking for an outlet to rant. I'm not. I don't mind a discussion, however.

You posted in the WR.....

It's important to recognize the massive dangers of socialism and it's long history of failure, murder, and misery, precisely because it seems so good on paper to so many people. Defenders of socialism, usually unable to directly defend the terrible history of socialism, often opt instead to deflect. "It wasn't real socialism" has been used to excuse everything from the Holodomor to the Cultural Revolution. This tweet falls into that line and deserves criticism for contrasting Venezuela with "actual socialism".

That's not to say that socialism has no successes. I think it does, and I noted that in my very first post. But there are fewer successes than failures and the failures have so often been much more extreme. The most obvious danger, and the reason why any sort of Marxism really isn't a very good idea even in theory, is that it centralizes far too much power in the hands of a small group than is safe for the population as a whole. Even in Bolivia, which is enjoying some success under a socialist regime, there are already signs that the leadership is entrenching itself permanently. Thus the old saying, you can vote your way into socialism but you have to shoot your way out.

That doesn't really answer the question as to why it's so important to make sure Venezuela is "real socialism". No one is claiming they're not, including the piece.

 

[kpt018]

OP article says its an stellar example.



Because Sanders conveniently leaves out the hypercapitalistic nature of nordic nations.

Nordic model is hypercapitalist which is kept in check with high government spending (high taxes) and a strong labor movement, but people conveniently leave out the capitalistic nature of these countries.

They fail to realize that the Nordic model taxation system isnt really progressive, the middle class is taxed a lot, there is little to no business regulation to protect local industries and it requires a high level of global competitiveness.

Thats not something that you see the Bernie bros talking about, Bernie himself voted against NAFTA and thinks that free trade hurts labor. So no, Bernie doesnt represents the Nordic model, he represents something like the UK left.

I was asking if myself or the piece did and didn't mean to imply no one did.

Again, all reasonable, but it doesn't seem to address my issue. Are you implying to counter Bernie's failure to sufficiently address his policy views we should point to the worst failures that wouldn't be applicable to America's situation?

 

[Trotsky]

That's not what a command economy is at all.

He didn't say it was a command economy. He commanded it.

You are adamant to "prove" that socialism works, for some odd reason.

I think you're the only one here insisting on pegging a definition of socialism to say doesn't work. That's kind of your agenda, it seems, although I strain to see how it's productive or what exactly you are trying to hedge against since there isn't really any political thirst for command economy. Furthermore, most informed persons, left and right, know that engaging in that sort of absolutism with terms and concepts that are not absolute is a fool's errand, which is why you're attracting support from the most reductive and dumbest fucking posters here. As a tip, when I find myself in a coalition with Alex89, TheScorpion, and fonzob1, I always make sure to recheck my position and my phrasing.

The sham is that the country growth and expansion of social programs came thanks to an extractive policy of state capitalism, selling commodities abroad to finance an unsustainable model inside, a model that broke down once the commodity slump of 2014 came. As of now Bolivian "socialism" is just running the credit card, the last 5 years have seen Bolivian deficit go up dramatically.

That's not a sham in the way that fonzob1 was implying: that socialists were stealing the capitalists' secret herbs and spices and then claiming it as their own success. Also, I don't think the argument was ever made that the legitimacy of Morales' government or its achievements rested on prolonging the current level of growth indefinitely.