Venezuela shuts down free speech

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Frau_Phillips

*sighs*

If only Marxism WORKED.

I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that. Just because Lenin was inspired by Marxism, doesn't mean that the string of autocratic pseudo-communist regimes that have spawned in the wake of the Soviet Union comprise a true test of the marxist state.

Stalin for one wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't a socialist. He was a capitalist, just like every other despot. He hi-jacked the movement and turned it into another autocracy where he had the monopoly on everything. Just because a man waves a flag doesn't mean he actually salutes it. Remeber also that Nazi means 'National Socialist".

Also, you can make legitimate claims that Leninist Communism itself is fundamentally flawed or very unlikely to succeed, but to paint all of modern socialist thought as the same is just a gross generalization. The fact is that if you actually knew Marxism you'd know that Marx said that there were very specific circumstances that would have to pass for a true socialist movement to succeed. For one he said that a modern industrial movement would have to have occurred, that capitalism would have to have corrupted itself to the point that nobody would take it anymore. Now if we all remember history correctly we'll notice that Russia only became industrialized AFTER Stalin was in power, and he was not a Marxist.

And finally lets get some perspective here. The first communist revolution occurred in 1917 and since then every subsequent communist state has been affected by the Soviet Union and that is not a Marxist state. China is a direct off shoot of the USSR. North Korea isn't even an industrial giant. These aren't examples that Marx himself would accept as being anything near what his own theories discuss.

And since it is only 2007, it has been only 90 years since the Russian Revolution and history has proven that it takes a very long time for a real change in the structure of society to occur if it is to be progressive towards the majority. It took thousands of years since the idea of democracy first became real for a functional and lasting one to form in Britain and the United States. And a few failed states is hardly enough to condmn socialism, especially since you are also discounting the successes in socialist ideas.

Sweden is a legitimate Social Democratic nation and has been for some time. All through the cold war and even predating it the social tradition has grown and flourished. Sweden took a different approach to socialism than Lenin did and it worked out alot better. It isn't a utopia, it has its serious issues like any state, but has proven that a lasting movement can meet real success. It was going so well that in the 70s the elected Social Democrats even actively explored a proposed program that would effectively create that much spoken of socialist dream: "The workers shall control the means of production". That they considered making it a practical application says that the progress towards that end is real, if not still far off.

Another excellent example is Nicaragua. The Sandinistas took a nation that had been brutalized by a dictator family for decades and within a few years had made huge strides. The basis of the Sandinista party's ideology was an absurd sounding melding of Socialism and Catholicism. The growth in social welfare over the first few years was massive given the brief time they had. It was a true progressive socialist mided regime. However the US backed Contras demolished that nation once again. So that is also proof that success for socialism will only be seen after it has faced as much if not more persecution as democracy faced in its formative times.

Now call me a pinko, a radical, a moron, or whatever. But I'd like to see an honest, genuine response to what I've written, and no simple flag waving and lefty hating.

A real discussion, instead of an absolutist back and forth.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Repeating a 15 minute must-see video: Immigration by the Numbers.

That was a good and informative vid. Thx for the post.

[Frau_Phillips]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

Well, I've stirred something up...

Perhaps these people should strive to better their poverty level and not expect us to do it for them. I've seen far too many illegals lately and I assure you, they're buying steak with foodstamps my taxes helped pay for while I'm waiting in line behind them at the grocery store scraping money for bread. I see these people daily where I'm at. They're not fleeing oppression, they're embracing a free ride at our expense.

Oh no, I don't support having illegals over here at all. All I was saying is that there are a lot of legitimate reasons, but we have to know where to draw the line. Poverty is just as good a reason as political oppression, but we still can't just let all the people who claim those things waltz right in.

[Frau_Phillips]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that. Just because Lenin was inspired by Marxism, doesn't mean that the string of autocratic pseudo-communist regimes that have spawned in the wake of the Soviet Union comprise a true test of the marxist state.

Stalin for one wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't a socialist. He was a capitalist, just like every other despot. He hi-jacked the movement and turned it into another autocracy where he had the monopoly on everything. Just because a man waves a flag doesn't mean he actually salutes it. Remeber also that Nazi means 'National Socialist".

Also, you can make legitimate claims that Leninist Communism itself is fundamentally flawed or very unlikely to succeed, but to paint all of modern socialist thought as the same is just a gross generalization. The fact is that if you actually knew Marxism you'd know that Marx said that there were very specific circumstances that would have to pass for a true socialist movement to succeed. For one he said that a modern industrial movement would have to have occurred, that capitalism would have to have corrupted itself to the point that nobody would take it anymore. Now if we all remember history correctly we'll notice that Russia only became industrialized AFTER Stalin was in power, and he was not a Marxist.

And finally lets get some perspective here. The first communist revolution occurred in 1917 and since then every subsequent communist state has been affected by the Soviet Union and that is not a Marxist state. China is a direct off shoot of the USSR. North Korea isn't even an industrial giant. These aren't examples that Marx himself would accept as being anything near what his own theories discuss.

And since it is only 2007, it has been only 90 years since the Russian Revolution and history has proven that it takes a very long time for a real change in the structure of society to occur if it is to be progressive towards the majority. It took thousands of years since the idea of democracy first became real for a functional and lasting one to form in Britain and the United States. And a few failed states is hardly enough to condmn socialism, especially since you are also discounting the successes in socialist ideas.

Sweden is a legitimate Social Democratic nation and has been for some time. All through the cold war and even predating it the social tradition has grown and flourished. Sweden took a different approach to socialism than Lenin did and it worked out alot better. It isn't a utopia, it has its serious issues like any state, but has proven that a lasting movement can meet real success. It was going so well that in the 70s the elected Social Democrats even actively explored a proposed program that would effectively create that much spoken of socialist dream: "The workers shall control the means of production". That they considered making it a practical application says that the progress towards that end is real, if not still far off.

Another excellent example is Nicaragua. The Sandinistas took a nation that had been brutalized by a dictator family for decades and within a few years had made huge strides. The basis of the Sandinista party's ideology was an absurd sounding melding of Socialism and Catholicism. The growth in social welfare over the first few years was massive given the brief time they had. It was a true progressive socialist mided regime. However the US backed Contras demolished that nation once again. So that is also proof that success for socialism will only be seen after it has faced as much if not more persecution as democracy faced in its formative times.

Now call me a pinko, a radical, a moron, or whatever. But I'd like to see an honest, genuine response to what I've written, and no simple flag waving and lefty hating.

A real discussion, instead of an absolutist back and forth.

This is kinda funny, I'm a "Marxist" and I've used every argument you've just said with other people :p

I just realized that human nature doesn't really allow for a successful Marxist society. It's kind of like a Utopia, it'll never happen.

People just can't deal with a society like that, they'll rebel, they have to be censored, it's all a vicious cycle.

[AntEater]

Problem is, is the only other option to that really the libertarian dream?
In my opinion, a true libertarian society based on free competition and unregulated markets is just as utopian as socialism, and seems to lead to undesired side effects as well.
It seems to me that nations were best off if they tried for a middle way, like Sweden, Finland, Germany or incidentally the US under Roosevelt or Eisenhower.
Regarding Venezuela, I've given up on forming an opinion. I know enough Chavez fans, some of whom actually visited the country, on the other hand, I know enough critics.
I don't think this TV station promoted freedom very much, as it mainly aired Telenovelas, and generally mainstream media today do not tend to promote democracy, but rather try to brainwash their audiences to the likes of whoever owns them.
But regarding Venezuela, it is not all gold that glitters, of course. As with Allende, ambitious experiments are bound to collide with reality.
But I think it is time to let latin americans do their own politics.

[The Avon Lady]

Don't try Marxism at home!

[Happy Times]

It seems to me that nations were best off if they tried for a middle way, like Sweden, Finland, Germany or incidentally the US under Roosevelt or Eisenhower.

This has worked because of a very homogenic culture and sense of unity, relying on that everyone will do their best and work hard. Things have changed with imigration, legal and ileagal, spinning out of control. In all these countries conservatives have come in power within a year.. Also in Denmark and Netherlands, Norway is still rich with oil and gas to throw away by the Socialists..

[AntEater]

A conservative in european sense still is very much of a leftie in american terms
But with immigration, you have a point.

Problem is, the economic model currently en vogue in the west has some serious self-destructive tendencies.
Basically the west is currently squandering away its industrial and economical edge at bargain prices to nations that do not see economy as a self-regulating market for personal profit for the greater good, but rather as a tool for national glory and expansion.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that.

Marxism doesn't work. Despite the quibbling in your ppst, there is no successful basis from where it's been applied. And as Frau_Phillips said, human nature doesn't permit it. Marxism as a "philosophy", and I use the term philosophy lightly, is one of the largest ponzi scheme hoaxes ever put upon mankind. It's founder (Marx himself) was a useless bum that didn't produce anything for his society.....except his view of the way the world should be. It makes sense that this bum would come up with a philosophy of collectivism. I'm just amazed that people still grasp for it, like it's some sort of salvation. Those countries that have taken the plunge, usually result in economic oppression. And that usually has led them to political oppression at the end of it all. The Europeans haven't embraced it as an end all. Their versions of it are totally watered down. Bottom line, Marxism, or at least grasping for it, will never embody the best of mankind. It seeks to hold back human potential in the interests of the collective good. Marxism is at best a failure, at worst a cruel hoax on mankind.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by AntEater

I don't think this TV station promoted freedom very much, as it mainly aired Telenovelas

You don't seem to be promoting their freedom to exist, so you have mined your own authority to question their own promotion of freedom.

I think it is time to let latin americans do their own politics.

Do you ignore 500 years of History as lightly because you just wanted to finish your post and move on or is that an insult masked by condescendence?

[AntEater]

I neither mine anything, nor insult anything. I merely stated an opinion. If you disagree, try stating that in a more mature way.
I don't saw off any branches, because I sit in a hole in the ground.
Jeez, lighten up.

[Hitman]

In the beginning there is a Kingdom. The King is fair and leads his people, thus he became a king. But as time passes, heirs of that King start becoming cruel and despotic, so the best ones from tehir blood, the noblemen, stand up and fight that. Once they throw out the King, they institute a government of them, which again gets as time goes by corrupted and turns into an oligarchy. At that time, the population can't stand it any more and make their own revolution. The democracy is born. Yet the democracy is the government of the majority, and the majority are idiots, uneducated or simply worthless. Thus they soon fall in the hands of the demagogues, and there comes a time when one of the demagogues, more skilled than others, manages to seize the whole power and start a dictatorship. And if enough time goes by, that dictator may even legitimate himself as a monarch, choosing his heir.


Those are not my words. It's from Aristotle, 300+ years B.C.

[geetrue]

The best thing about history leasons over sixty years old is that most of the people are all dead.

Now it's our turn to voice an opinion or to vote, but some people can't even do that much.

American supports freedom in every country we have been in conflict with. I have often wondered what
they must think in repressive countries when they finally recieve the true news that Americans are allowed
to voice their opinions in daily radio talk shows, newspapers, forums, emails, television news casters,
even man on the street interviews are the proof that freedom is better than repression any old day.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by AntEater

I neither mine anything, nor insult anything.

Oh ok, I thought for a moment that you were condescending with persecution of opinion from your hole of freedom of opinion.

[PeriscopeDepth]

What Chavez said concerning opposition media. It's Reuters quote of the day:

Originally Posted by Hugo Chavez

I recommend you take a tranquilizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary

PD