• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Venezuela Hyperinflation Index Reaches the One Million Mark

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Wrong again. Listen to what Marx's says here.

Socialism is about controlling the market demand through centralized direct control. The state should regulate the interchange because if not they will be control of the blind power (Markets). Community ownership cannot really happen as effectively that is a free market. This is why he understood that there must be a state to take control in Socialism.

It's odd that you call me wrong and then repeat back to me my own argument, haha. The state takes control of the means of production and the state is the community. Your understanding of Marx's view of the state is also badly flawed. Marx's end goal was no state at all, not a state to continually control market demand through centralized control. This is why under Marxism once successful socialism has been achieved the state is dissolved.

I think you take our interactions personally at this point and aren't just looking at what I write objectively. The Nazi economy was not socialist by any commonly used definition of the word.
 
Kevin Williamson nailed it when he described Venezuela's descent.

"The central planners in Venezuela were arrogant and hubristic, as they always are. (As, indeed, the entire concept of central planning is.) When oil revenues proved insufficient to sustain their program, they printed money; when the foreign-exchange markets responded by devaluing Venezuela’s currency, they enacted controls on foreign exchange; when prices rocketed out of control (Venezuela’s inflation rate is difficult to calculate, but it is estimated to have been around 18,000 percent a month in April), they enacted price controls; when producers declined to produce at those artificially low prices, they seized their assets.

Venezuelans are not fools — they noticed that this wasn’t working as advertised. When the critics began to say so, their newspapers and broadcast facilities were shut down; when they protested individually, they were jailed or assassinated; when they protested en masse, they were massacred. When central planning fails — and it always fails — the result is almost never the relaxation of political regimentation but the redoubling of efforts to impose the plan by increasingly brutal application of force. Sometimes that force takes the form of killings, torture, and beatings. In the old Soviet Union, in North Korea, and in Venezuela, it also has taken the form of politically imposed hunger. The largest share of the 100 million human beings murdered by socialist regimes in the 20th century died of hunger: in the cities, in the countryside, and in the gulags. The Holodomor alone killed between 7 million and 12 million people. Mao’s famine killed between 20 million and 43 million, and many of those deaths happened in places where food production remained at or close to normal rates: Appropriation of economic output for political purposes is always part of the plan."
 
It's odd that you call me wrong and then repeat back to me my own argument, haha. The state takes control of the means of production and the state is the community. Your understanding of Marx's view of the state is also badly flawed. Marx's end goal was no state at all, not a state to continually control market demand through centralized control. This is why under Marxism once successful socialism has been achieved the state is dissolved.

I think you take our interactions personally at this point and aren't just looking at what I write objectively. The Nazi economy was not socialist by any commonly used definition of the word.

Marx ultimate goal was true Communism. The fact that you bring this up shows you are being dishonest or not able to follow what is being said. We are talking about what Communism is, and how it should be defined. Communism is not part of the topic at all, even if Socialism was a transition phase.

Socialism is control by the state and the people that run the state. Even if people democratically elect people, they are not making decisions, the leaders are. It mattes not if the leaders are elected or not, as what defines Socialism is the centralized control of the state.

So, I did not call you wrong and repeat what you said back to you. Read what I said again.
 
Marx ultimate goal was true Communism. The fact that you bring this up shows you are being dishonest or not able to follow what is being said. We are talking about what Communism is, and how it should be defined. Communism is not part of the topic at all, even if Socialism was a transition phase.

This isn't personal, you're just ignorant of this topic and I was trying to help you. I won't try to educate you in the future as you react very poorly to it. Nice job pulling a DSF or a werepossum though where people who disagree with you are suddenly liars. 🙂

Socialism is control by the state and the people that run the state. Even if people democratically elect people, they are not making decisions, the leaders are. It mattes not if the leaders are elected or not, as what defines Socialism is the centralized control of the state.

So, I did not call you wrong and repeat what you said back to you. Read what I said again.

Yes you did, you just don't understand the topic well enough. I have no desire to engage in this pedantic nonsense with you yet again. I strongly suggest you learn more about this.
 
This isn't personal, you're just ignorant of this topic and I was trying to help you. I won't try to educate you in the future as you react very poorly to it. Nice job pulling a DSF or a werepossum though where people who disagree with you are suddenly liars. 🙂



Yes you did, you just don't understand the topic well enough. I have no desire to engage in this pedantic nonsense with you yet again. I strongly suggest you learn more about this.

Lol, label me and dismiss me.
 
So once again we see the failure of socialism, not surprised at all. socialism is a disgusting ideology which has destroyed Venezuela. That scumbag leader and his cronies should be in jail for what they have done. Things are getting so desperate over there that under age girls are prostituting themselves which is sickening. I hope the socialists are happy, this is what they wanted.

Once again we see the failure of a tiny ATOT mind not grasping things over his head. Venezuela is not in any way, shape or form a socialist country. It's socialist in name only and identifies that way to get help from Russia and China. It's a dictatorship and military junta rolled into one. Maduro is one of the biggest idiots on the face of the Earth He would be out on his ass without military backing, so he essentially gave away almost all power to the military in exchange for them not siding against him in what would be an inevitable coup. There is no talent at any level of the government, it's people who don't understand what they're talking about (like you) in positions they can't handle raping and pillaging the economy to feather their own nests and consolidate their own power. That's not socialism. That's what stupid people (like you) *think* is socialism.
 
Once again we see the failure of a tiny ATOT mind not grasping things over his head. Venezuela is not in any way, shape or form a socialist country. It's socialist in name only and identifies that way to get help from Russia and China. It's a dictatorship and military junta rolled into one. Maduro is one of the biggest idiots on the face of the Earth He would be out on his ass without military backing, so he essentially gave away almost all power to the military in exchange for them not siding against him in what would be an inevitable coup. There is no talent at any level of the government, it's people who don't understand what they're talking about (like you) in positions they can't handle raping and pillaging the economy to feather their own nests and consolidate their own power. That's not socialism. That's what stupid people (like you) *think* is socialism.


Who owns the oil industry
 
Once again we see the failure of a tiny ATOT mind not grasping things over his head. Venezuela is not in any way, shape or form a socialist country barrrfff barff....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Socialist_Party_of_Venezuela

Its always funny to me when the left barfs up made-up-on-the-spot horseshit to explain away their habit of falling for shit regimes. Riiiiiight... socialists never know they are socialists. Its up to cowering keyboard jockeys sucking off the teat of capitalism to define them!

The problem for you is, if the left isn't wearing Che t-shirts and making fawning movies for socialists....

...then you just worship brutal dictatorships!

Mi_amigo_Hugo_TV-239062136-large.jpg


Now enjoy your copy of Mi Amigo Hugo and make up some more excuses!
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Socialist_Party_of_Venezuela

Its always funny to me when the left barfs up made-up-on-the-spot horseshit to explain away their habit of falling for shit regimes. Riiiiiight... socialists never know they are socialists. Its up to cowering keyboard jockeys sucking off the teat of capitalism to define them!

The problem for you is, if the left isn't wearing Che t-shirts and making fawning movies for socialists....

...then you just worship brutal dictatorships!

Mi_amigo_Hugo_TV-239062136-large.jpg


Now enjoy your copy of Mi Amigo Hugo and make up some more excuses!
Exactly, I say we ship all Leftists in this country to Venezuela to give them a taste of the "free gimmedats" wishlist.
 
Exactly, I say we ship all Leftists in this country to Venezuela to give them a taste of the "free gimmedats" wishlist.

Considering that people on the left of the political spectrum contribute a great deal to our country, in so many vital fields, I don't think you would very much like America without the left leaning people. Imagine United States of Alabama...not exactly a great place now is it.
 
Exactly, I say we ship all Leftists in this country to Venezuela to give them a taste of the "free gimmedats" wishlist.

Or they could go to Canada, or Sweden, or other countries with government-run services that largely work just fine. Venezuela is not the sum total of socialized offerings.
 
What are you going to do with your Trump tax break money? Cut the Treasury a check, am I right? lol

When we all receive $1,000/mo in Basic Income, I'll have no problem paying a 25% tax on the rest of my income.

We know you are concern trolling over "doing our part" because our policy, ALL ALONG, has been for everyone to do theirs. Of course we all know you are the obstacle in the room. Champion of trickle down, are you not? The problem with screwing over an ever increasing number of people is that... eventually they out number you.
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Socialist_Party_of_Venezuela

Its always funny to me when the left barfs up made-up-on-the-spot horseshit to explain away their habit of falling for shit regimes. Riiiiiight... socialists never know they are socialists. Its up to cowering keyboard jockeys sucking off the teat of capitalism to define them!

The problem for you is, if the left isn't wearing Che t-shirts and making fawning movies for socialists....

...then you just worship brutal dictatorships!

Mi_amigo_Hugo_TV-239062136-large.jpg


Now enjoy your copy of Mi Amigo Hugo and make up some more excuses!


I'm confused. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you're just being deliberately obtuse because pretty much nobody could be stupid enough to believe that governments are socialist because they call themselves socialist, but I think you really are that stupid. Allow me a second to marvel at that... okay, done. ROFL!!

You're an idiot and there's no nicer way to phrase it. A political dictatorship pretty much calls itself "socialist" as a de facto deflection of what they really are. It's like when a country insists on shoe-horning "democratic" into the name of the country, it's a pretty good giveaway that they're not. Remember that EAST-fucking-Germany called itself the German DEMOCRATIC Republic. That didn't make it so. Maduro can call his government socialist, democratic or the Lollipop Guild, it's still not any of those things. It's a dictatorship, not a socialist state. Stalin called himself a socialist, Pol Pot called himself a socialist, Mao called himself a socialist, Kim Il-Sung called himself a socialist and they're the most brutal DICTATORS in recent history. At one point Venezuela was a socialist country, that was maybe 20 years ago. Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to the real world.

Read the real definition and practices of socialism and see if Venezuela is even close to any of those things. Then look up dictatorship and see if that's closer. Then look up military junta and see if that's in the ballpark too. The countries that are closest to socialist now are places like Denmark, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, even Ireland and Canada are kind of leaning that way. Venezuela is about as close to actually being socialist as you are to being politically astute. About a billion miles away and not going to happen in this space-time continuum.
 
When we all receive $1,000/mo in Basic Income, I'll have no problem paying a 25% tax on the rest of my income.


I'm curious what makes the basic income route preferable to something like basic housing or whatever. Do they get the basic income and we do away with the government programs currently in operation, or do those still remain active and they just get $1000 on top of that?
 
It's funny with the idiocy of all the above posters, except one, that some Democrats think the answer is to run socialist candidates.
 
This is the problem. Its true that Socialism was used a tool and was not part of the ideals of the party, but it does not mean that their economy was not socialist. What VG is trying to do is say that because Socialism is supposed to be about people having power and not the rich elite that the Nazis could not have been Socialist. The Nazi regime was totalitarian and was concerned about expanding its power for its own means, was was not concerned about helping people, which VG believes is the goal of Socialism. The problem he has is that he sees Socialism as something good, and the Nazis as something bad (they are) so they must be incompatible.

There has been a shift in the modern usage where Politics is now lumped in with how people use it. When Marx first came up with it, he used it in an economic sense.
The Nazi economy wasn't socialist in any way, shape or form. Hitler cozied up to the business elite immediately (as soon as they were willing to talk to him) and crushed worker protests and any other socialist-minded groups ruthlessly. He hated socialists. He also hated the business elite, but he worked with them because he had to. The working class, however, were to be duped, threatened or killed if they got out of line.

Totalitarianism and socialism are so far apart in ideals and goals that that was a comedic statement to make, but I really don't have the energy or patience to write why. I genuinely suggest you read up on the subject.
 
I'm curious what makes the basic income route preferable to something like basic housing or whatever. Do they get the basic income and we do away with the government programs currently in operation, or do those still remain active and they just get $1000 on top of that?

Basic income is supposed to replace most other forms of government assistance. (I’m sure there would be a few that must continue like Medicaid)
 
This is the problem. Its true that Socialism was used a tool and was not part of the ideals of the party, but it does not mean that their economy was not socialist. What VG is trying to do is say that because Socialism is supposed to be about people having power and not the rich elite that the Nazis could not have been Socialist. The Nazi regime was totalitarian and was concerned about expanding its power for its own means, was was not concerned about helping people, which VG believes is the goal of Socialism. The problem he has is that he sees Socialism as something good, and the Nazis as something bad (they are) so they must be incompatible.

There has been a shift in the modern usage where Politics is now lumped in with how people use it. When Marx first came up with it, he used it in an economic sense.

You spend a fair bit of the above pretending that you know what I think. You don't and should stop pretending that you do.
 
Basic income is supposed to replace most other forms of government assistance. (I’m sure there would be a few that must continue like Medicaid)


You'd be surprised how many on the right would go along with that too if there was absolute guarantee of doing away with the other programs. Not sure if political leadership is willing to go along with campaigning on that, but they aren't willing to go along with even legalizing mj either though. But I think there would be more support than you think on both the right and left of that.
 
The Nazi economy wasn't socialist in any way, shape or form. Hitler cozied up to the business elite immediately (as soon as they were willing to talk to him) and crushed worker protests and any other socialist-minded groups ruthlessly. He hated socialists. He also hated the business elite, but he worked with them because he had to. The working class, however, were to be duped, threatened or killed if they got out of line.

Totalitarianism and socialism are so far apart in ideals and goals that that was a comedic statement to make, but I really don't have the energy or patience to write why. I genuinely suggest you read up on the subject.

I think the problem there is the belief that totalitarianism and socialism are somehow mutually exclusive. I wont pretend that socialism is or requires totalitarianism, but, socialism inherently requires a strong central state that can enforce its directives upon the society. Socialism very much requires that the populace be subservient to its edicts or else its a free market and not a market controlled by a central authority. This is why you almost always see totalitarianism use socialism, because, totalitarianism is anathema to wealth being owned by anyone other than the central state.

If you think of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism as a radar chart, then you would almost always see totalitarian governments skew toward Socialism as its the only one that allows for the consolidation of power within the state. Capitalism offers private owner ship which a totalitarian state would not want, but, must accept some of on smaller scales. Communism where everyone owns everything equally would mean the state would again have to share its power which would go against the desires of wanting total control.

Hitler hated anyone that would take power from him, be it a Socialist, Communist, and or Capitalist. That does not mean that the economy he set up was not Socialist. As I said before, the problem people have is how the define Socialism now, vs what it actually is.
 
Back
Top