Topic: Could Bitcoin Smash Socialism in Venezuela? - page 3. (Read 1245 times)

This is a breakthrough! A caring government has solved all the problems of the people, the United States is defeated, socialism has won!
This is a joke, of course, and most likely not funny. How can you treat your people like cattle? Why instead of real steps to stabilize the economy and its modernization (it was necessary to diversify the economy for a long time - it is stupid to focus only on oil). That one hundred now "raised" the minimum level of income - tomorrow it will turn into dust ... There is no point in "treating" the manifestations of the "disease", it is necessary to correct the cause of these manifestations!

Even here in India, this type of governing model is being implemented. Once the people are used to freebies and handouts from the government, they seldom get out of that thinking. But the main issue is that with every passing year, they will demand more and more handouts. This will require a hike in the tax rate, which will have an impact on the economic growth. And eventually this will leave the government with less revenue and like the Venezuelan regime they will be forced to print unlimited quantities of banknotes.

I bring you News:

The government of the  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has officially increased the min wage to a total of 10 million Bolivars or about 3USD per month.

Source:
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-raises-minimum-wage-fourth-year-hyperinflation-2021-05-01/

Populance is obviously offended by this increase and we are expecting for price of food and other basic services to sky-rocket by Monday.

 

You are somewhat right, but it is not easy when the mentality of the people has been working for more than 20 years, the same government was in charge of looking for the most dangerous people in the neighborhoods to give them work defending the political movement as it is, in addition of the speeches that Chávez gave focused on helping the poor and there are always more poor than rich, or even middle class, and to those who had never had a job he gave one on the condition of defending them and they obtained very good results, money from Easy way, in the capital of the country (Caracas) is the one that is currently in that way, that is why the current government does not give importance to the rest of the states of the country, only to the states closest to the Capital, to They the capital is the priority because the politicians, the President and the Congress reside there.

Right, Venezuela is slumped because the government provides a large subsidy facility, so that the people are lulled into a comfortable life, they seem to be lazy and do not develop other economic sectors besides oil. coupled with bad governance, so that a mental revolution must be enforced immediately

The problem of the USSR even after its collapse of the independent countries, not only in socialism. Socialism was partially and nominally built, but there were still 2 problems: the partocraty (monopoly power of the ruling elite, in fact "gods" among people) and the planned economy controlled by people far from understanding what an economy is. Fortunately, you did not live in the USSR. Imagine a country with the greatest potential, enormous resources, and ordinary butter is in short supply! Deficit - meat, deficit - normal clothes, shoes! Everything is in short supply! And so it was from the time of the creation of the USSR until its collapse. Well, plus the partocraty. The idea of ​​equality was initially perverted. There was a population living according to the principle "let it be poor, but soon communism" (the influence of total propaganda), and the partocrats - the political elite and their henchmen. They had separate service shops where a normal selection of food and merchandise was available. They were treated in separate hospitals inaccessible to other citizens. They rested in the best sanatoriums not accessible to ordinary citizens. They allowed themselves almost everything they could want, unlike 95% of the rest of the population. Finally, in the country, as they say in our country, "the refrigerator has won over TV" - this means that the desire to live a normal life has won over state propaganda.
But most of the countries that emerged after the collapse of the USSR inherited this partocraty, in fact, former party bosses became power in these countries and already built a clan-oligarchic system of power, a kind of mixture of crime, politics, regional "leaders."

[quote author=stompix link=topic=5317787.msg56878812#msg56878812 date=1619499777
Maduro is incompetent that doesn't mean anybody else would have achieved it.
True socialism can never be achieved, it's just a utopia that collapses well before it even begins to be built because it's flawed from the core. Simple as that, it has been tried hundreds of times and it has failed the same number, the only way socialism has ever worked is when the main ideas of it are dumped.

Look at the exact definition you have written above and then think of the so-called socialist states of Europe, none fits, there is no universal equality, there is no production owned by random people, there is no distribution of resources at a whim, every single thing socialism stand for is not applied in any of the Nordic countries. People have the wrong idea and again I find it amazing that even if guys from Denmark or Sweden deny they are socialist, some who have seen Europe only on TV will still claim otherwise.
[/quote]

Socialism, communism and other ideologies of "universal equality and happiness" are nothing more than a utopia. But the problem is not that this is nonsense to which not very smart people are being led. The problem is that in most cases the road to "general happiness" is flooded with the blood of those who understand that this is just a decoy, it is a tool for managing the masses and turning them into "biomass" - not smart, controlled, ready for the sake of ephemeral "happiness" kill, rob, imprison millions of people.
There is no socialism in Europe, there is adapted capitalism. In Europe, over time, they came to the conclusion that the strong stratification into "nobles" and "slaves" (the "eastern" concept of the community, brought by the Golden Horde, and leaving a strong influence in Eastern Europe) is not beneficial to the developed community. In the countries you mentioned, there are no key signs of socialism, but there is a more reasonable and balanced socio-economic ideology

That is not easy. Even the public in the United States have gone for a governing model that is in favor of higher taxes and higher government spending, after dumping the low-tax, low-government spending model. The problem with this model is that it incentivizes the non-productive population and punishes the successful people who are creating wealth. This is a global trend and the same is happening with Venezuela as well. Everyone want free money and subsidies from the government, although it means that the economy will be destroyed in the long term.

It is possible that if you show the majority of the people a common-sense economic model that works they wouldn't reject it. The problem with certain national economies is partly due to pressure to apply extreme economic models rather than something that works, is safe and sustainable.
I would be surprised if they reject a safe economic model that combines both socialism, capitalism and other models that are suitable to their way of life.

Which part of my post did I say that I am leaning towards the other, I am for a balance because I know that the extremes of both are a bad thing and I have seen both destroy a nation. I am not sure that they only have petrol as a commodity, they just forgot to improve on other industry so they are getting left behind.

^^^ It is not correct to label Nordic countries such as Sweden and Denmark as socialist nations. The governments may be run by Social Democrats, but whatever wealth they are enjoying right now comes from capitalist economies. If they had socialist economies, then they would have ended up like Ukraine or Moldova. Norway is the perfect example. They are rich in petroleum resources and thanks to the capitalist policies they became one of the richest countries in the world. Neighboring Russia is even more abundant in natural resources. But they had socialist system until 1992, and as a result most of the wealth was stolen.

Congratulations you have achieved level one in socialist-communist propaganda.
Your rank is novice whataboutist


Sorry but at this point, all I can say is that I find it amusing how somebody from the other side of the globe is teaching me how countries in Europe are, especially since you've mention two in which I've lived for more than 4 years :)Ever been to Europe?


Maduro is incompetent that doesn't mean anybody else would have achieved it.
True socialism can never be achieved, it's just a utopia that collapses well before it even begins to be built because it's flawed from the core. Simple as that, it has been tried hundreds of times and it has failed the same number, the only way socialism has ever worked is when the main ideas of it are dumped.

Look at the exact definition you have written above and then think of the so-called socialist states of Europe, none fits, there is no universal equality, there is no production owned by random people, there is no distribution of resources at a whim, every single thing socialism stand for is not applied in any of the Nordic countries. People have the wrong idea and again I find it amazing that even if guys from Denmark or Sweden deny they are socialist, some who have seen Europe only on TV will still claim otherwise.

It's very nice to see a person with knowledge! You have indicated everything correctly. In the "classics" socialism, from an economic point of view, "is characterized by social and / or state control over the economy, the means of production and the distribution of resources." As you can see, much of what you have listed is indicated extremely correctly.
Well, I will add about the main thing, if we talk about socialism as a state system - "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy aimed at achieving universal equality and social justice, which are supposed to be achieved through public ownership of the means of production."
Everything seems to be correct.
Now let's digress a little. Tell me - how do you assess, for example, a person, his business qualities. Or the "value" of his word or his competence? First, I will answer the same question - I evaluate any statements, slogans and promises, and in general a person ONLY BY THE END RESULT. Not by the process, not by how tired the person is, or how many hours he worked, but BY THE RESULT - whether the GOAL has been achieved, and how well!
Now you give your answer ...

And now - we take socialist slogans / ideas, combine them with Maduro, look at the result! What's the bottom line? There is no socialism as such. the goal of "achieving universal equality and social justice" has not been achieved. Ie he is just a populist or a "crooked fool". In fact, the result of his rule is the final destruction of the economy, total impoverishment of the population, and the destruction of industry.

Do you agree with me regarding the assessment of Maduro's abilities, his competencies as a president, or even a manager, and the results of his rule? If not, your arguments!

You have to realize that there are some of the things you list that happens in any nation in the world, not common of course but it does happen, USA for example is the most capitalist nation in the world yet they do have welfare, nationalized certain lands, had nationalized banks at start but now all private I think?

I am not sure about this one, basically it is amount difference, when you do it tiny bit it is capitalist, when you do it obviously and all around it becomes socialist to some people. I have always said never give example of anything from a dictator run nation, Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, all of these nations were said to be communist, what do they have in common?

They were all managed by one man and one party, it is all dictatorship, how would we know if they were communist or not if only one person decided everything? Look at France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, UK they are all mix nature nations, not fully capitalist not fully communist and it is amazing work they are doing compared to other nations.

-Control over currency exchange and distribution -was not allowed for us to use USD legally-

-Control over so called ``estrategic resources´´, one cant own a significant quantity of copper, gold, aluminium, ect. If one does, you go to jail.

-Seizing privated companies which decided to leave the country, being the Kellogg's case the most recent. We producing kellogg's without their permission.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44136293

-Seized and had a monopoly on gas and fuel distribution

Let me check:
- nationalization of land
- nationalization of all electricity/oil/banks and construction companies
- redistribution of wealth at whim, choosing random houses in visits and giving them to the "poor"
- controlled prices combined with subsidies that make no economic sense

What did I miss from the list?
What was not socialism in ANY of Chavez-Maduro decisions?

This is getting old, every time a socialist country goes down the drain, it wasn't socialist, whenever people see a capitalist country with welfare programs they claim it as socialist, not even funny right now, is disgusting.



There is no such thing as wrong socialism and good socialism. Socialism is cancer by definition.
Again, as in the previous reply, do not mistake a social welfare program with socialism, they have zero in common.
All the richest capitalist free-market countries have social welfare programs, not a single socialist country is a free market economy.


Yeah, the currency backed by a country that can't afford toilet paper and its economy is the size of Montana is a threat to the US.

I reread the topic about Venezuela and the "cunning Maduro". And I realized that I have one more question. The title of this thread is "Could Bitcoin Smash Socialism in Venezuela?" Tell me, for what reasons did you decide that there is "socialism" in Venezuela? Hugo Chavez headed the Socialist Party, but did not build socialism. The only association with socialism I have is the memories of the "socialist paradise" - the USSR, which in reality represented an inept management of everything possible, the collapse of the economy, the total impoverishment of the population. According to this indicator - Madurovskaya Venezuela = classic "developed socialism", in the final stage

At least in case of Venezuela, socialism played a large role in its decline. The first thing the socialist party did after coming to power was to nationalize the petroleum deposits. They nationalized most of the important resources, such as factories. And once these institutions came under government control, corruption and incompetence increased by a magnitude of several times, which eventually resulted in their collapse. And this in turn, destroyed the economy.

Not just corruption because there are a lot of countries that corrupt but they aren't socialist, to me, the reason that Venezuela is suffering is not because of socialism but because of incompetence of the government and they invested in the wrong socialism which prioritizes the individual instead of the society and its institutions.

for current conditions it is like that, where the fee required to move bitcoin is still relatively large, so it is not suitable for small payments. but hopefully in the future there will be a solution so that it can be used in all conditions and situations