Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Venezuela From Wealth To Horror


Lilly

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

The Nazis? You mean the "National Socialist Party"? People like to say that regime was "right wing" because racism and arguments but according to history, the platform the Nazi's ran on was far from Conservative, other than limiting immigration.

Interestingly, even Wiki list the Nazis as "far right" despite the inconsistencies in their own article? :huh: 

But just a few lines later...

So it was a Socialist party that followed all the typical Socialist ideals yet they were also far-right? Wiki, cover yourself because your bias is showing...

 

This whole thing about Hitler lead Nazi Germany being portrayed as far right when it was, as you say the National Socialist Party -
is very :wacko:

It's like a myth has been created and history re-written and the big question is....why.....?
Who would want to do that - what are the motives..?

Don't want to disappear down the rabbit hole :) but I think the why is because it is connected to what's going on
in politics at the moment -- yes... the dreaded Globalists and their tricks... ^_^

The Globalists who appear to be this weird mixture of mega rich bankers and corporate capitalist who have a
socialist / communist / totalitarian agenda... complete with artificial intelligence, robots and population (reduction?)
control...  

perhaps it's like how some rich people get heavily involved in charitable work --- but on a bigger scale -
the psychology of having mega wealth but the need to virtue signal and balance it off with '''good work''' 
while at the same time not relinquishing power...

I wonder if Nazi Germany was created and used as part of an earlier Globalist plot -- we know that the Bush family
and Ford were part of the financing - just to name two US families off the top of my head -- this is in no way to
cast aspersions on the citizens of the US - it's just that it looks like the US and the Democrats might be one of the
main centres for Globalist planning and activity...?..if not THE centre... hence the vicious and deceitful campaign against Trump -
who isn't part of their agenda.... 

so the Super rich bankers and corporate capitalists who fancy themselves as creators of the Global Socialist Utopia --- and -- 
maybe fancy themselves as the Modern Master Race as well - don't want the Nazis to be linked to their agenda - or they might
get rumbled... :ph34r:.....so they have to con people into believing the Nazis to be far right not far left...??

something like that anyway...... :) 

 

Edited by bee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

True, but is that their fault?  If I put out a Memorandum and it's rules at school asking all students to not pee on the floor in the toilets and they continue to do so, am I at fault, is there something wrong in the Memorandum or something wrong with the Students.  Most likely there is something wrong in the family structure where the kid hasn't been taught the proper method of peeing but there is nothing wrong with the Memorandum.  :P

A brilliant metaphor for socialism. It doesn't work, and you end up smelling of wee ! :D

There are something like 197 countries in the world, developed over a period of many hundreds or thousands of years. Name me ONE successful socialist country that is NOT a dictatorship or authoritarian oligarchy.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bee said:

it's just that it looks like the US and the Democrats might be one of the
main centres for Globalist planning and activity...?..if not THE centre... hence the vicious and deceitful campaign against Trump -
who isn't part of their agenda.... 

 

I tried to edit this but I was too late -- because it isn't just many Democrats it's some of the Republicans as well -

although I do feel that Obama is a bit of a jewel in the globalist's crown and this is why Clinton has more protection
than she might otherwise have - because prosecuting her would drag Obama into it all and tarnish his legacy -
plus they might be playing around with the idea of running Michelle for President at some point...?
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bee said:

 

This whole thing about Hitler lead Nazi Germany being portrayed as far right when it was, as you say the National Socialist Party -
is very :wacko:

It's like a myth has been created and history re-written and the big question is....why.....?
Who would want to do that - what are the motives..?

Don't want to disappear down the rabbit hole :) but I think the why is because it is connected to what's going on
in politics at the moment -- yes... the dreaded Globalists and their tricks... ^_^

The Globalists who appear to be this weird mixture of mega rich bankers and corporate capitalist who have a
socialist / communist / totalitarian agenda... complete with artificial intelligence, robots and population (reduction?)
control...  

perhaps it's like how some rich people get heavily involved in charitable work --- but on a bigger scale -
the psychology of having mega wealth but the need to virtue signal and balance it off with '''good work''' 
while at the same time not relinquishing power...

I wonder if Nazi Germany was created and used as part of an earlier Globalist plot -- we know that the Bush family
and Ford were part of the financing - just to name two US families off the top of my head -- this is in no way to
cast aspersions on the citizens of the US - it's just that it looks like the US and the Democrats might be one of the
main centres for Globalist planning and activity...?..if not THE centre... hence the vicious and deceitful campaign against Trump -
who isn't part of their agenda.... 

so the Super rich bankers and corporate capitalists who fancy themselves as creators of the Global Socialist Utopia --- and -- 
maybe fancy themselves as the Modern Master Race as well - don't want the Nazis to be linked to their agenda - or they might
get rumbled... :ph34r:.....so they have to con people into believing the Nazis to be far right not far left...??

something like that anyway...... :) 

 

I think it's simpler than this...I think the lie...spouted continually as accepted fact...that anyone or thing that leans right is nazi-ism or racist is because the opposition cannot afford to lose any more votes than they already have. If they lose their targeted demographic...those they've kept with these lies and false promises for decades...They are done as a party. Why do you think they desperately need the illegal immigration to continue? To shore up the base they've lost over time. It's one if the reasons they need to demonize Fox news...I've never known a time in my life when so many have been indoctrinated to be terrified of simply hearing a different opinion.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

A brilliant metaphor for socialism. It doesn't work, and you end up smelling of wee ! :D

There are something like 197 countries in the world, developed over a period of many hundreds or thousands of years. Name me ONE successful socialist country that is NOT a dictatorship or authoritarian oligarchy.

I'll repeat it again.  True Socialism can't exist with authoritarian oligarchy's.  The same reason why it can't exist with Capitalism where the spread of wealth is unbalanced and the gap tends to widen as populations grow and demand on goods increases.  In the US, 29% of the population live below $10,000, in GB almost 20%. Capitalism is great for the Donald Trump's of this world and as the trends show, as the gap widens, the middle class reduce.

Now, while we're on the subject, name one successful fascist country in history that has been successful and that hasn't caused a war, ethnic cleansed its minority, oppressed its population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread has just flopped over into the Conspiracy section.  Communist globalists, Nazism ideology was left wing......LMFAO

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

So you create this hypothetical theory in your head where a society run under a Marxist system runs out of production and then you claim this is proof Socialism will never succeed. :P How about paying workers an equal share of the profits of a Company?  Would the Company survive under a Capitalist system where the Company is owned by privates?

How about expanding your definition of Socialism,

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
 
As you can see, it's not only about production.

You know definitions are listed in order of importance, right? It’s not coincidence that it’s what’s at the top of both lists... but hey, I only majored in Political Science and that definition is Poli Sci 101.

You can call a table a chair (or a banana an apple) if you like, just don’t expect the rest of us to go along with you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

I'll repeat it again.  True Socialism can't exist with authoritarian oligarchy's.  The same reason why it can't exist with Capitalism where the spread of wealth is unbalanced and the gap tends to widen as populations grow and demand on goods increases.  In the US, 29% of the population live below $10,000, in GB almost 20%. Capitalism is great for the Donald Trump's of this world and as the trends show, as the gap widens, the middle class reduce.

Now, while we're on the subject, name one successful fascist country in history that has been successful and that hasn't caused a war, ethnic cleansed its minority, oppressed its population?

I never said that socialism coexists with authoritairan oligarchies. I suggested rather that socialist societies contain the seed of authoritarianism, and gradually morpth down into it.

But now you've raised the point... tell me... why do you think that a socialist society CAN'T function as an authoritarian oligarthy ? What is there in the definition of Socialism that excludes authoritarianism ? Gawd knows... all "socialist" countries in history where authoritarian. (with the possible exception of the Catalanian anarchies). The desire to control the means of production practically requires authoritarianism. (again, with the exception of Anarchist societies). 

To raise the mirror... could you also (or as an alternative) name any countries that are functional capitalist societies that ARE authoritarian oligarchies ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

 

3 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

...Now, while we're on the subject, name one successful fascist country in history that has been successful and that hasn't caused a war, ethnic cleansed its minority, oppressed its population?

Umm... no, I can't. 

Why do you ask ? Are you suggesting a connection between Fascism and Socialism ? :D 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alaric said:

You know definitions are listed in order of importance, right? It’s not coincidence that it’s what’s at the top of both lists... but hey, I only majored in Political Science and that definition is Poli Sci 101.

You can call a table a chair (or a banana an apple) if you like, just don’t expect the rest of us to go along with you.

Who said they're listed in the order of importance?  Also, I'm not interested what you majored in, only in what you scribe (only if it makes sense and you're borderline). 

I don't base my theories on hypothetical solutions that perfectly adapt to my narrative, but on true facts listed and linked.  Read up, you might learn something you missed in class.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm... no, I can't. 

Why do you ask ? Are you suggesting a connection between Fascism and Socialism ? :D 

No, just been watching the Australian Open these days and thought I'd return your virtual serve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 

But now you've raised the point... tell me... why do you think that a socialist society CAN'T function as an authoritarian oligarthy ? What is there in the definition of Socialism that excludes authoritarianism ? Gawd knows... all "socialist" countries in history where authoritarian. (with the possible exception of the Catalanian anarchies). The desire to control the means of production practically requires authoritarianism. (again, with the exception of Anarchist societies). 

 

People mix Marxism with Socialism and while they're similar in many ways they differ politically and economically.  What you see in China is a mono party State Capitalist driven economy.  This is Marxism, not Socialism.  As I said Capitalism can't exist with Socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

To raise the mirror... could you also (or as an alternative) name any countries that are functional capitalist societies that ARE authoritarian oligarchies

How about those Middle Eastern Royal poppies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Who said they're listed in the order of importance?  Also, I'm not interested what you majored in, only in what you scribe (only if it makes sense and you're borderline). 

I don't base my theories on hypothetical solutions that perfectly adapt to my narrative, but on true facts listed and linked.  Read up, you might learn something you missed in class.

 

You telling me to study up, that’s rich... dictionaries list the definitions of words in order, with the most preeminent definition first.

"Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." - Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen

Lars also defines a socialist economy as a planned economy... but what does he know, he’s only the prime minister of a country.

Here’s something you should study up on:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alaric said:

You telling me to study up, that’s rich... dictionaries list the definitions of words in order, with the most preeminent definition first.

"Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." - Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen

Lars also defines a socialist economy as a planned economy... but what does he know, he’s only the prime minister of a country.

Here’s something you should study up on:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

Obviously digressing into ad hominem attacks is something that you excelled in at Uni.  Probably due to the fact you failed miserably in Political Science, tried Comedy and failed at that as well.

Come back when you've got something intelligent to say.  :st 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 7:19 AM, Black Red Devil said:

The real answer is in your link :

The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work;

An article that glorifies capitalists.  Well, here are ten reasons of the disadvantages of capitalism.

https://listverse.com/2012/01/16/top-10-disadvantages-to-capitalism/

I read the first 3 or 4 of these objections, then never bothered to read the rest. Why? Because they seemed patently ludicrous. One of the objections to capitalism is that supposedly it promotes starvation. Yeah, right. Like no one ever starved under Stalin or Hitler or Chairman Mao. I rest my case....  I could go on, but why bother?  I like what Lilly said, if you think socialism is so great, go ahead and  move to a socialist country. I'll be the first to admit, capitalism is not perfect, but imo, it sure beats the alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

No, just been watching the Australian Open these days and thought I'd return your virtual serve.

Ouch ! The Aussies opened up a HUGE stubby of "whoop-ass" all over the England team, to be sure. It was painful to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

How about those Middle Eastern Royal poppies?

Hmm... good point.

Well... Saudi Arabia has state control of most of its industries, including the all-important Oil and Water industries. So all though it is a trading nation, it is not free-market capitalism. As a theocratic monarchy, is shares many of the traits associated with Socialism. (especially public whipping :P )

It is a similar story in the other Gulf States (primarily Kuwait and the UAR). However... the picture is a bit.. confusing. With such vast revenues from the oilfields, these countries where shielded from the NEED to trade (other than in oil). As an illustration: 90% of employment in Saudi Arabia is in government-created jobs. The King can simply arrange to buy his way out of the usual economic tensions that countries face. (and that tend to destroy Socialist countries, which are incapable of competing in a free market).

All of the Gulf countries are starting to denationalise and "liberalise" their marketplaces. Curiously, this seems to go hand-in-hand with a reduction in authoritariansim. (consider the social reforms occurring in Saudi Arabia). Jordan was ahead of the pack here - it embraced 'free market capitalism' way ahead of the surrounding nations , and simultaneously has the most "liberal" society and legal code in the region. (although still comparatively medieval compared to neighbouring Israel).  They don't even publicly whip people any more :( 

In summary - and returning to your point - I don't think you can categorise most ME countries as "capitalist and authoritarian". They are authoritarian to be sure, but they are neither Capitalist nor Socialist in the usual meaning of the terms.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm... good point.

Well... Saudi Arabia has state control of most of its industries, including the all-important Oil and Water industries. So all though it is a trading nation, it is not free-market capitalism. As a theocratic monarchy, is shares many of the traits associated with Socialism. (especially public whipping :P )

 

LOL Yeah right!

 

13 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

It is a similar story in the other Gulf States (primarily Kuwait and the UAR). However... the picture is a bit.. confusing. With such vast revenues from the oilfields, these countries where shielded from the NEED to trade (other than in oil). As an illustration: 90% of employment in Saudi Arabia is in government-created jobs. The King can simply arrange to buy his way out of the usual economic tensions that countries face. (and that tend to destroy Socialist countries, which are incapable of competing in a free market).

All of the Gulf countries are starting to denationalise and "liberalise" their marketplaces. Curiously, this seems to go hand-in-hand with a reduction in authoritariansim. (consider the social reforms occurring in Saudi Arabia). Jordan was ahead of the pack here - it embraced 'free market capitalism' way ahead of the surrounding nations , and simultaneously has the most "liberal" society and legal code in the region. (although still comparatively medieval compared to neighbouring Israel).  They don't even publicly whip people any more :( 

In summary - and returning to your point - I don't think you can categorise most ME countries as "capitalist and authoritarian". They are authoritarian to be sure, but they are neither Capitalist nor Socialist in the usual meaning of the terms.

 

There is no way any of these countries are Socialists but they are Kingdoms who follow National Conservatism (based on religion), a right wing trait who also oppose anything that goes against their traditional values.  As for the Capitalist part, they are State Capitalist Autocracies, similar to China.  Would you call China a capitalist country?  Many do.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gummug said:

I read the first 3 or 4 of these objections, then never bothered to read the rest. Why? Because they seemed patently ludicrous. One of the objections to capitalism is that supposedly it promotes starvation. Yeah, right. Like no one ever starved under Stalin or Hitler or Chairman Mao. I rest my case....  I could go on, but why bother?  I like what Lilly said, if you think socialism is so great, go ahead and  move to a socialist country. I'll be the first to admit, capitalism is not perfect, but imo, it sure beats the alternative.

If you read the article properly you’d find that it’s not saying Capitalism “promotes” poverty.  It refers to the abundance and wastage of food while others starve.  If you don’t believe people are starving in this world then you must be living in a bubble.  What the point DOES PROMOTE is that goods (food) should be better spread.

I live in a Democracy where people vote freely.  During one term you have a Govt formed by the left-wing party, then in another term the right-wing party goes to power. They obviously promote their own agendas during election time which assimilate right-wing or left-wing ideology.  Obviously nothing extreme, like removing all ethnicities (ultra National right wing) or change to a totalitarian system of Govt (Marxists/Communists).  Now, over the years, they agree and pass bills that adopt similar principals of both ideologies which supposedly enrich voters of all spectrums financially, socially etc..  We have Medicare but you may choose a Private fund if you wish and there is no regulation on prices but the Govt does recommend a retail price (RRR).  These just to name a few that encompass both left and right principals and guess what, it’s probably a very similar situation in most Democratic countries in the world. 

Now listen carefully because I’ve mentioned it over and over again.  I was disputing the claim made by the author that Venezuela was a Socialist nightmare, but IMO, this is simply not true because IT DOES NOT follow Socialist philosophy as per it’s manifesto and I also disputed the OP’s claim that Socialism has a poor track record because, IMO and debatable, right wing philosophy which stemmed from Monarchial rule, is a lot worse going back over a thousand years and continuing in on modern times with Fascism/Nazism and those tin pot South American dictatorships.  Under Socialist ideology there would be no inequality, starvation, rich and poor etc. but unfortunately that’s Utopia in our day and age and human greed in the world rotates and always has around the power of who possesses more (gold, property……), so in modern day Democracies we get a bit of Socialism, a bit of right wing ideology and a lot of Capitalism.  Does this mean I reject the society we live in? No.  Could it be better?  Yes.  

Anyway, sounds like you’re appeased with what the fat cats dish out and that’s fine, your choice. But just remember not to whine when you read about Banks making record profits, 80% tax cuts for the rich, record payouts for CEO’s etc.

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2018 at 10:52 AM, Alaric said:

It’s funny how young people that have never experienced socialism are so enamored with it... yet the actual people living under it were always trying to get the heck out and come to capitalist countries.

 

That's because for starters, most young adults watch too much msm and are scared out of their minds being told they have no real future. Which is not true. You have to earn a living, for yourself by your own hands. Second, politicians telling these same kids that (wait for it) "if you elect me I will give you everything for free" ....free school, free phone, free this that and the other. Just vote for Me and your life will be a paradise.

Can never happen. Politicians know it, young people do not. Everything cost money. Can't say you'll take from someone just becuase you want an easy life, that's called stealing.

And to you poeple that cry about the "wealthy" have everything let me ask you when was the last time a poor person gave you a paycheck? Also, if you tax the hell out of corporations what do you think will happen? Could it be, jobs will vanish? Like what happened in the last 8-10 years.

Oh but let's turn the screws on them because it takes longer for the left's tax the life out of everyone in order for this country to boom economically. Right?

Or will tax cuts bring jobs back and btw, many of the big companies have given out $1,000 bonuses to their employees.

Yea, tax cuts suck and capitalism is a fraudulent sham. 

Capitalism has worked the best so far. The U.S. has done well for over 200 years and Venezuela lost its behind in just under 20 years. So if capitalism is so terrible explain how it has survived for over 200 years. 

I expect no replies but thats ok. 

Edited by Sooth Sayer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

If you read the article properly you’d find that it’s not saying Capitalism “promotes” poverty.  It refers to the abundance and wastage of food while others starve.  If you don’t believe people are starving in this world then you must be living in a bubble.  What the point DOES PROMOTE is that goods (food) should be better spread.

I live in a Democracy where people vote freely.  During one term you have a Govt formed by the left-wing party, then in another term the right-wing party goes to power. They obviously promote their own agendas during election time which assimilate right-wing or left-wing ideology.  Obviously nothing extreme, like removing all ethnicities (ultra National right wing) or change to a totalitarian system of Govt (Marxists/Communists).  Now, over the years, they agree and pass bills that adopt similar principals of both ideologies which supposedly enrich voters of all spectrums financially, socially etc..  We have Medicare but you may choose a Private fund if you wish and there is no regulation on prices but the Govt does recommend a retail price (RRR).  These just to name a few that encompass both left and right principals and guess what, it’s probably a very similar situation in most Democratic countries in the world. 

Now listen carefully because I’ve mentioned it over and over again.  I was disputing the claim made by the author that Venezuela was a Socialist nightmare, but IMO, this is simply not true because IT DOES NOT follow Socialist philosophy as per it’s manifesto and I also disputed the OP’s claim that Socialism has a poor track record because, IMO and debatable, right wing philosophy which stemmed from Monarchial rule, is a lot worse going back over a thousand years and continuing in on modern times with Fascism/Nazism and those tin pot South American dictatorships.  Under Socialist ideology there would be no inequality, starvation, rich and poor etc. but unfortunately that’s Utopia in our day and age and human greed in the world rotates and always has around the power of who possesses more (gold, property……), so in modern day Democracies we get a bit of Socialism, a bit of right wing ideology and a lot of Capitalism.  Does this mean I reject the society we live in? No.  Could it be better?  Yes.  

Anyway, sounds like you’re appeased with what the fat cats dish out and that’s fine, your choice. But just remember not to whine when you read about Banks making record profits, 80% tax cuts for the rich, record payouts for CEO’s etc.

I'm not an expert on economics I'm more of a learner than a know-it-all (that's why for the most part I prefer to read and like rather than post) but I am scratching my head as to why you continually seem to associate monarchy/feudalism with right-wing capitalism. I don't think most monarchies really had a free trade, or even much private ownership of businesses. At any rate I know at least on one point, most monarchies sided with socialism in severely frowning on private weapon ownership, and probably other issues as well. In the UK for example, although I know they do have private businesses, they also have the Royal Coachworks, the Royal this the Royal that and although it's not actually owned by the king or queen (as far as I know) I'm sure they do get a lot of favorable incentives....oh well, I admit I don't know a lot in this area but I'm not sure how much time and energy I want to invest to research it since most people are already convinced in their own minds.  And for the record, I had way more spending money under Nixon than under Obama. Yeah, there was Clinton, we had a good economy, but I think that's more thanks to a Republican controlled Congress during his tenure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marxism and socialism look great.......on paper. Some what's the problem? There's no incentive to do better or be better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just think there are many college kids that want socialism .they should go to these places and live there a few weeks

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, coolguy said:

Just think there are many college kids that want socialism .they should go to these places and live there a few weeks

My wife went and lived in a place where they practiced socialism during college.  It was a Kibbutz in Israel.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.