Venezuela shuts down free speech

[Sea Demon]

No surprise. Never fails. Socialism/Communism always comes to this. Political oppression is always the eventual outcome when trying to implement Marxism. When will people learn....

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...ype=RSS&rpc=22

[Yahoshua]

History now repeats itself, with the near exact circumstances that slowly brought Stalin into power.

[Frau_Phillips]

*sighs*

If only Marxism WORKED.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by Frau_Phillips

*sighs*

If only Marxism WORKED.

If only democracy worked! It's just the best of a bad bunch!

[NefariousKoel]

I won't go into political idealism as some of you have. I think we all agree that this is a horrible indicator. Hopefully you saw it coming years ago as I did.

As for the Venezuelans, whom this thread should be about, I feel pity.

Many of them have already fled to the US previously, and I suspect some of the holdouts will do so now or die.

Being an immigration reformist supporter, as all Americans are, I hope any Venezuelan wishing to become a US citizen is given it without a hassle. I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.

I wish them luck.

[Frau_Phillips]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.

Yeah, extreme poverty isn't a legit enough reason. Neither is the desire for a better life for one's children, or anything like that..

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

Being an immigration reformist supporter, as all Americans are, I hope any Venezuelan wishing to become a US citizen is given it without a hassle. I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.

Nope. I don't agree at all. The people need to stay where they are and fight what it is they need to fight. To just move on out is to invite tyranny to stay in. Not acceptable.

-S

PS. All Americans may be a reformist supporters but I know no one that supports the ideas of opening up the borders as you suggest - The majority want exactly the opposit. They want them to tighten our borders and kick all these illegals out - lest we end up like Spain. They allowed them to stay in Spain, and it ended up being an open ticket invitation to the rest of the world - Word spread like wildfire with everyone wanting to come in and they did come in. Now to win a governmental election in Spain simply requires you to campaign on tough immigration. Nice. Now we have stupid people trying to do the same in the US and allow the illegals to stay. Good thing this bill that was proposed by Bush is getting squashed.

To put it simply - To allow illegals to stay after entering illegally is to invite disaster for the United States of America. No other way to put it.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

If only democracy worked! It's just the best of a bad bunch!

You have to define "works". Democracy does "work". The fact that your sitting at home able to criticize it is proof of that. It works to give people a reasonable defense against brutality/oppression in most situations (unless of course your a minority part of the population subject to majority tyranny in a state without baseline citizen rights laws).

Marxism "works" to... but only for the guy at the top... Castro, Jong-il, and Chavez... that reap the benefit while everyone else a glorified slave.

[The Avon Lady]

Don't cry for me, Venezuela.........

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

If only democracy worked! It's just the best of a bad bunch!

It does. Thats why it will eventually kill us or it.

[Yahoshua]

Chavez' thugs open fire n protestors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/...a_chavez_vs_tv

[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.

[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!