Hey kids: Don't be a sucker for socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Why is Venezuela starving? It's the socialism, stupid.

With all that farmland, why are Venezuelans starving?

With all of the unrest, riots and murders in Venezuela these days, it’s easy to overlook one very basic question about the abysmal conditions its citizens are enduring. Venezuela has some of the richest farmland in the western hemisphere and was a net exporter of agricultural products until very recently. How can the people be starving? That’s the question being tackled at the Washington Post this week and the answer comes down to a single source: it’s the socialism, stupid.

The case of Escobar’s chicken farm is only one of thousands of such examples, but it’s an excellent one to describe the problems the farmers are facing. He had a ranch with nearly a quarter million hens in a country where people are starving to death. That would mean the opportunity of a lifetime in any free portion of the world. But the socialist regime in Venezuela has taken charge of every aspect of the food production and distribution supply chain. They determine how much Escobar will be paid for his eggs and it turns out to be a net loss for him rather than a profit. Unable to buy sufficient amounts of feed and new chicks to raise, Escobar’s farm is withering and will soon be gone.

That basic reality would be enough to put the farmer out of business eventually all by itself, but Escobar faces other problems as well. He’s been raided and extorted by both armed criminal gangs and government troops. They’re not paying anything for eggs or chickens… just taking them. And nobody from the government is protecting him. These are the hallmarks of socialism, particularly in its final throes. Insufficient law enforcement resources to protect the people and corrupt government and military leaders who roam the land taking what they want for themselves. So in a place completely capable of producing more than enough food for its citizens and their neighbors as well, farms are underutilized or sitting vacant, producing nothing.

The cause of the starvation is obvious. Even under the most benevolent of socialist regimes, the government is ill equipped to operate such a complex system. And this one is far from benevolent, with the party leaders more interested in ensuring their own comfort and security than that of the rank and file. But all of this was predictable because, as we’ve said here more times than I can count, this is how socialism ends. Every. Single. Time.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/27/f ... -starving/

The Fruits of Socialism: Venezuela in Shocking 13 Photos

After spending 18 years under socialism, Venezuela has collapsed and is on the verge of having all of its institutions collapse around it as out of control debt has destroyed the country.



15 percent of the Caracas population digs through garbage to eat.



Even the animals in the zoo are starving.



http://americanlookout.com/rms-the-sout ... ins-photos

Meh, there is also Sweden.

a) Sweden isn't really socialist, they're a mixed economy with significant influence from social democracy.
b) Shh, we can't have examples of left-wing success, we only talk about failures otherwise those crazy commies will start to make other people question if pure capitalism isn't the path to utopia and freedom.

Basically, idealized systems like capitalism or socialism work great in theory, but in the real world economics is far more complicated and everywhere on earth, from North Korea to the US to Sweden has a 'mixed economy' that combined mercantilist, socialist and capitalist ideas. Further, given all the various strains of capitalism and socialism one can't even reasonably describe what a 'pure' form of either would resemble if actually implemented.

I have always had an issues with command economies. Often command economies are to idealistic. Command economies such as socialism experience a deadweight loss. There are benefits and cons to each and every economic system. In a socialist economy I would be concerned about innovation, or rather the lack of innovation.

Edit: Disregard Command Economy. A better
term could be controlled.

Last edited by Oroborus on 18 Jun 2017, 2:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

Socialism doesn't require a command economy though, there's a number of ideologies that are described as 'market socialism'. Leninist socialism often makes the argument that the state owns 'the means of production' and therefore can't not be managing in the people's interest, whereas one could argue that if the means of production are privately owned, but with the entities that own them were democratically self-managed by their employees that would allow for a form of socialism with far less state-intervention than you see in 'social democratic inspired mixed economies' (like Sweden) or in Leninist 'deformed worker's states/state capitalism'.

Further even capitalism has command economies on a smaller scale, every business is effectively a command economy unto it's own.

You do make a fair point. I should of used better terminology. I presumably was thinking about a specific type of socialism.

That's fair, other than the kibbutz movement most socialism as practised has been either the 'social democratic inspired mixed economies' flavour or the Leninist 'deformed worker's states/state capitalism' flavour.

(sarc) But, it's not real socialism. Let's try it, again.

My stance on socialism is that it can work if it's put into use properly. If the bare necessity is provided to those who need it like shelter, food, power and public transportation then I'm all for it. But luxurious things is what people have to earn such as a new car, a bigger house, xbox, or anything that people don't need but have a desire to obtain.

It's never the "real" one.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_LKH0HUMAARDVR.jpg

I think I would modify this relationship, slightly, to portray corporate welfare and social welfare as a viscous circle, or shell, in which the forever-failing, social contract shields the banking interest from scrutiny. Whose fault is it.

Neither crony capital nor the poorer kind of beggar are living on terms of their own choosing. They are not culpable, except for being useful idiots.

'If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain'...
Always loved that quote...<chuckle>
Someone should tell it to the Brits...

What I personally love about said quote is how mentions political conformity. Political conformity is somewhat of a pain. If you disect the quote you come to the understanding of individuality, especially in terms of politics.

Funny quote, funnier still when you consider how often it's misquoted. An older, more correct version is:

He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”

It's of French origin, possibly from or regarding Edmund Burke.

As attributed to Victor Hugo:

“If a man is not a republican at twenty, it is because he has no heart, and if he is one at forty, it is because he has no brains.”

Mixed, as in "Angry Foreigner" and "Sweden, yes."

Corbyn scares me. he bribed the students to follow his crazy plans.

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status ... lang=en-gb