When libs lie & try to say Denmark is socialist & Venezuela is not socialist
Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist
How Socialism Ruined Venezuela
I like real life
Side Score: 4
|
 |
I create my own reality
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
In Scandinavia we have the system of social democracy. So yes it means we are not socialist, even if we use some socialist ideas and capitalist ones. However, Venezuela declared itself as socialist, and was considered socialist until the government turned bad and stole people's money and collapsed on itself. As I've seen, Socialists and communists only see the theoretical Socialism as true Socialism; while the applied Socialism with Venezuela, The people's republic of China, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Cuba aren't seen as Socialist because they turned different from the Theoretical Socialism they sought to achieve. Links: https://www.quora.com/ Side: I like real life
1
point
However, Venezuela declared itself as socialist, and was considered socialist Venezuela is a piece of rock you moron. It didn't declare anything. The government claimed it was socialist. The Nazis also claimed to be socialists. So does the Chinese government. Have a guess how many of them are actually socialist? FUCKING NONE OF THEM. Side: I create my own reality
Venezuela is a piece of rock you moron. It didn't declare anything. The government claimed it was socialist. The Nazis also claimed to be socialists. So does the Chinese government Well, claiming and declaring is pretty much the same as they're synonyms. Socialists did see Venezuela as socialist as a socialist country before it got corrupted and the government stole the people's money and such things. Now, Venezuela is a country, while the borders it owns is on a rock. We see governments, the people and the borders as a country rather than the rock and dirt it's on, as it only owns the land. Plus I didn't say any of them were socialist, but I said that socialists didn't see them as socialist. Does that mean I saw them as socialist myself? No. I also said the outcome was much different from what those sought to achieve. The theoretical socialism is what socialists see as the real socialism, while the Stalinist regimes' and Nazi Germany's failed attempts at socialism aren't seen as socialist, which of course they aren't because of the corruption in those countries. Side: I like real life
|
1
point
Nice bunch of irrelevant links, bronto. "Socialism? But Look at Venezuela!” Debunking Anti-Socialist Propaganda w/ Actual Logic If you want an online socialist to feel exasperated, one of the best ways is to ask them “so, what do you think about Venezuela?” Then — before they type a response — say “checkmate!” That will usually do the trick. Any socialist or leftist with enough patience take up the cause on the interwebs has surely run into the “what-about-Venezuela” fallacy at some point and it’s a reliable red-flag ( pun intended ) that a discussion is about to get reactionary. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, or even Thanksgiving with the extended family — no public forum, social network, or comment section is safe. These comments, articles, & memes make the argument that Venezuela’s current economic trouble somehow proves that socialism will never work. Since the Venezuelan crisis is truly heart-breaking, right-wing bloggers often try to persuade people ( & themselves ) that it “exposes” socialism by using deeply flawed — but sadly effective — emotional arguments. To help clean up our shared digital environment, here are a few of the clearer & quicker ways to dismantle a what-about-Venezuela argument with a bit of logic & critical thinking… The ad Venezuelum fallacy wears many different masks but they are all the same once you remove the packaging. Whether it’s a meme or some fancy-pants article in the National Review, the implied reasoning is: if economies fail as a result of bad economic ideas & if Venezuela’s economy is failing, then socialism is a bad idea. It may be awkward but that is one way to turn an argument into formal logic and the cool thing about formal logic is it’s a lot like math ( math is cool, right guys? ), which lets us grade their work. Formal logic is either true, false, or invalid, just like math — 2 + 2 is definitely 4 and dividing by zero is invalid ( unless you want to torture a calculator ). Formulas like E=mc² prove things in physics and syllogisms are like formulas to prove things in logic. Like E=mc², a valid syllogism must give the right answer — the numbers change but the formula must always work or its wrong. Make sense? So, if the major premise is true ( failing economies are the results of bad economic ideas ) then we will see bad economic ideas wherever we see a failing economy — like Zimbabwe in the ‘90s. If the Major Premise Is True, Capitalism Also Fails.* In 1992, Zimbabwe — a capitalist country — watched as its manufacturing output dropped by half, dragging real wages with it. After cutting social spending, privatizing public infrastructure, & opening their markets to foreign capital, Zimbabwe’s inflation skyrocketed while growth stagnated. By ’98, their economy went into free fall & their currency devalued by over 80%. By 2002, 60–70% were under the poverty line, life expectancy dropped to 37 years, interest rates ran at 70%, & millions could no longer afford to eat. According to the reactionaries’ own argument, capitalism must also be considered a bad economic idea since the logic also applies to Zimbabwe’s economic crisis, as you can see below Got any more propaganda for us, you lying fascist scumbag? Side: I create my own reality
1
point
Socialism: government owns means of production. Venezuela: government owns means of production. Sweden and Denmark: government does not own means of production. Side: I like real life
1
point
|
