[Huggybaby]

There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.

[Turey]

There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.

Which ones?

[Huggybaby]

Tip of the iceberg:
"We're heading toward socialism."
"So, what's wrong with that?"

The ignorance in that statement is so profound that there are no words to describe it, other than deadly dangerous.

Somebody doesn't have a clue about history, has never heard of Pol Pot, or Stalin. Somebody has a Che Guevara poster on his bedroom wall, the one in his mommy's house.
Somebody thinks that government is good, so big government must be better.
Somebody can hardly wait to be old enough to become a foot soldier for the New World Order.

Somebody hasn't lived long enough to have any perspective.

I think my head is going to explode.

[aldo_14]

Tip of the iceberg:
"We're heading toward socialism."
"So, what's wrong with that?"

The ignorance in that statement is so profound that there are no words to describe it, other than deadly dangerous.

Somebody doesn't have a clue about history, has never heard of Pol Pot, or Stalin. Somebody has a Che Guevara poster on his bedroom wall, the one in his mommy's house.
Somebody thinks that government is good, so big government must be better.
Somebody can hardly wait to be old enough to become a foot soldier for the New World Order.

Somebody hasn't lived long enough to have any perspective.

I think my head is going to explode.

You don't know what socialism is, do you?

[Centrixo]

normal chavez, he dont change one bit.

so, how many years before venezuelans ask western countries to help them rebuild their economy?

i dont think that will happen for atleast 60 years, hes got oil and thats of money and along with the telecoms thats even more.

[Huggybaby]

You don't know what socialism is, do you?

No, man, enlighten me.

[Unknown Target]

Well, he's asking because you just basically described communism, not socialism. Not only that, but everything you else you said is just....wrong.

[Ford Prefect]

Actually I think most of what he said doesn't even have truth value.

[redmenace]

Haven't I been saying all of this the whole time? He is fricken insane.

[Sarafan]

Tip of the iceberg:
"We're heading toward socialism."
"So, what's wrong with that?"

The ignorance in that statement is so profound that there are no words to describe it, other than deadly dangerous.

Somebody doesn't have a clue about history, has never heard of Pol Pot, or Stalin. Somebody has a Che Guevara poster on his bedroom wall, the one in his mommy's house.
Somebody thinks that government is good, so big government must be better.
Somebody can hardly wait to be old enough to become a foot soldier for the New World Order.

Somebody hasn't lived long enough to have any perspective.

I think my head is going to explode.

(Sarcasm on)

Why, thank you for my calling me a complete imbecile.

(Sarcasm off)

Dont know what socialism is? Ready to be a foot soldier of the New World Order? Never heard of Pol Pot or Stalin? Dont make me laugh. You absolutely have no idea what I know. Really, you want to talk about the subject of the thread, fine, go right ahead. But have some damn respect.

[karajorma]

and Sadam Husain won every election he held with like a 99.9% margen (wich was coincedentaly followed with a 0.1% drop in the population). if you think his election was even as legitimate as Bush's, then you need to reexamine your position.

Yeah. Everyone knows Bush cheated.

There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.

Another comment like that and you'll be taking a holiday from Hard Light. If you can't argue your point without resorting to childish name calling you don't belong in a political debate.

[Nuclear1]

"Will of the majority" doesn't do jack to prevent a politician from doing this sort of **** once he's elected and takes measures like these to ensure his power.

Sort of. I'd note however that the possiblity of military coup or popular rebellion always exists. You always rule at the sufferance of the people. How your system of rule works, however, determines the level of suffering they'll endure before they decide to get rid of you.

Democracy normally has the support of smart politicians in part because in a democracy you aren't hung from the nearest lamppost.

True.  I didn't forget, per se, about the military coup or rebellion, but I was more leaning toward the JFK reasoning:  "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."  Basically, once Chavez makes it impossible for Venezuelans to elect new leadership, a violent revolution out of that 40% or so anti-Chavez population will come about. 

Democracy, especially in the American system, allows for the people to alter their government however they like through frequent elections and various other measures provided in the US Constitution.  It allows for the people to peacefully assemble to protest government actions, to petition for change, and to voice opposition to the government without fear of persecution.  Govenrments such as what Chavez has planned on does absolutely none of this.

So really, Chavez is just screwing himself in the long run by doing this.

There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.

Another comment like that and you'll be taking a holiday from Hard Light. If you can't argue your point without resorting to childish name calling you don't belong in a political debate.

Alright, got it, he was being immature, can we keep this to PMs, please?  I'd really like to not have another thread locked because some guy threw a rock and ten savants fought over it.

[Flipside]

And believe me, it's heading there.....

[aldo_14]

You don't know what socialism is, do you?

No, man, enlighten me.

# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism)

# An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." (7)
(www.ilstu.edu/class/hist127/terms.html)

# According to Joseph Schumpeter, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and distribution; but in American parlance it is often used pejoratively to describe any attempt at governmental regulation or intervention. As an economic concept, it is independent of political concepts like democracy and authoritarianism as well as of theological notions like atheism (as in "Godless Marxism") or religiosity (as in Christian or Jewish socialism).
(www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/lindeen/glos3260.htm)

(p. 776) nineteenth-century ideology which critiqued the social and economic problems generated by capitalism and industrialization. Socialists deplored economic inequalities and the exploitation of labor. Early socialists sought to expand the Enlightenment understanding of equality involve an economic as well as a social, political and legal dimension.
(www.mhhe.com/socscience/history/world/bentley/stud_olc/chap30glossary.htm)

[karajorma]

Alright, got it, he was being immature, can we keep this to PMs, please?  I'd really like to not have another thread locked because some guy threw a rock and ten savants fought over it.

Public warnings are generally better as they prevent retaliation from people who don't realise that the offender has been warned.

[WeatherOp]

Me thinks Nuke has by far the best post in this thread.

Hey Nuke, care to go and secretly steal China's weather machine with me?

[miskat]

I will never understand everyone's fear of socialism.  Seems almost like a rebound effect after the USSR screwed it up.  National socialism CAN work, if it occurs in moderation.  Once the government takes control of everything... you're just about done for economically.  But socialized healthcare?  Happens often, and works.

We could spend days arguing the virtues of capatilism versus socialism and whether making a few extra dollars really is what motivated Joe Worker to work harder and better, but it would get us nowhere.  The fact is that socialism CAN work in moderation, but extremes are never good.  And, I believe, socialism has a MUCH better chance to work in a true Democracy (IE. not an "Iraq" style democracy) than in the totalitarian-state that the USSR was in (or that Cuba is in now... or that... well... nevermind.)

At least the democratic system COULD (and I believe, would) prevent the leaders of the government from padding the own pockets at the expense of the people.

*shrugs*  Just my 2cp worth.

And as a disclaimer: No, I'm not a communist/socialist, I'm actually a rabid capitalist.  I just like to play devils advocate every once in awhile.

Honestly, what scares me about the OP's first post was the quote about him staying in power indefinitely, with a vow to be there until 2021.  Regardless of anything else that was said, that sounds like a try at being Mr Dictator, everything else falls in line with that being accomplished.  After that, it doesn't matter if he's capatalist or communist.

[SadisticSid]

Yes, socialism works well in some cases - I mean no-one wants the complete abolition of the welfare state for people who can't work because they're severely disabled, for example. There has to be at least some safety net for the incapable. But I think the point people are trying to make is that what Chavez is doing is well past those comfortable minima.

[Unknown Target]

SadisticSid is right - it's not the fact that we don't like the fact that he's making it a socialist state (although I'm sure some people out there are) - it's the fact that he's turning it into a dictatorship-style socialist state.

[Nuclear1]

Yes, socialism works well in some cases - I mean no-one wants the complete abolition of the welfare state for people who can't work because they're severely disabled, for example. There has to be at least some safety net for the incapable. But I think the point people are trying to make is that what Chavez is doing is well past those comfortable minima.

Exactly.  The US during the Depression ran a semi-socialist economy under FDR's recovery programs, and we seemed to turn out just fine economically.