Venezuela’s going to hell in a handbasket. Chavez has even started blaming the Jews. I think few will argue with that, so that’s not the debate.
Those of us who are older remember the economic failure of state socialism that was the Soviet Union and its satellite states, and the decline of socialist Britain in the 70s and its capitalist renaissance from the 80s to date. Is Venezuela going to serve as the example of the failure of state socialism for the 2000s? Or will it be ignored?
Actually, this was sort of my point: political and national socialism will never really work, but the general attitude from some sectors is that it has failed because the wrong people have done it; that if only people who reallllly care tried it, it would succeed…
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any such thing.
We need to be progressive, not socialistic, not capitalistic. Use the structures that advance justice and equality, chuck the ones that don’t. What form will those structures take? In my estimation, they will bear more similarity to a socialistic state than to a Randian capitalism. But the structures aren’t the point, there is no magic involved, merely being a socialistic solution guarantees neither success nor failure.
Progressive thinking is a direction, not a prescription. There will be experiments, and experiments will fail. The courage to admit failure, learn from it, and try again will be crucial.
Venezuela is being, in my estimation, woefully misled by a fool. I can empathize. But GW does not embody any critical flaw in capitalism any more than Chavez embodies a critical flaw in socialism, they are but men, and not very good ones, at that.
Why do we need to be progressive? I’m serious. Is it an unprovable axiom that you’re putting forth? Something you start with, and then build from there? And just so we’re clear, is something defined to be “progressive” if it advances “justice and equality”, or are those something to look for in addition to being progressive?
But I agree that Venezuala doesn’t prove anything. We have plenty of other examples to prove that state-run socialism is a disaster. It works great at the family level, and then goes downhill as you try and expand it further. And for just the reason others have noted-- it’s a system contrary to the proclivities of our species.
So, could you describe some ‘progressive’ policy proposals that involve moving away from government and towards freer markets, and not away from free markets and towards more government?
Sure it does. Socialism has been tried over, and over, and over again. It fails every damned time. There’s always an excuse. In the meantime, the most dynamic economies with the highest growth rates and the biggest per-capita incomes are all the countries with least amount of intrusion into the market. Capitalism works. Socialism doesn’t.
Uh huh. I’ll thank you to not ‘experiment’ with my money. And if experiments were truly abandoned when they fail, it might have more merit. When businesses experiment and fail, they go out of business. When government agencies fail, they have their budgets enlarged.
Chavez only became ‘a fool’ when the results of his socialism tuned out to be disastrous. It wasn’t long ago that people on this board were championing him as the new model of progressive socialism. I recall a thread from a couple of years ago in which I predicted exactly what was going to happen to Venezuela, and met all kinds of opposition from people who believed that this time, it was all going to be different.
Well, it wasn’t. So you need someone to take the fall. Chavez blames the Jews and America. You blame Chavez. Whatever. There’s always someone at fault. You can never admit that maybe, just perhaps, centralized control of a modern economy is doomed to fail.
Say what you will about Chavez’ economic program, it appears clear the majority of the people still want it. So far as we can tell, the recent referendum defeat expressed an aversion to going too far too fast, not a wholesale rejection of Chavismo.
It doesn’t surprise me that Socialism is appealing to a population that is used to State/Crony Capitalism with a touch of American Imperialism thrown in for good measure. Especially when you have an economy dominated by one particular natural resource.
Bless your heart, Sam, there never has been such a thing as the “free market”. The market generates commerce, commerce is money, and money, power. The question has never been whether or not the market is taxed, regulated and controlled, the question has only been who will do it, and to whose benefit. As a general thing, the market is regulated and controlled for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful, the conservative tends to see this as an acceptable and just arrangement, the progressive does not.
So I’ve been told, Sam, so I’ve been told. I remember reading that in the early sixties, how Sweden was going to collapse into chaos and anarchy, any second now… There’s probably an exception to your absolute, some special exemption for peculiar circumstances that would otherwise cast doubt.
Sorry, can’t be helped. Have some gum?
That one never gets old! Been enjoying it about forty years or so, now.
I’m sure we are all appropriately impressed. But, with all due awe, you’ve come a cropper, here and there, now haven’t you?
Mabye, just maybe, centralized control of a modern economy is doomed to fail. Not so hard, to admit really, just a standard avoidance of absolutes. I can certainly accept that is possible, but I don’t have to accept it as a proven truth simply due to your recitation of the conservative catechism.
OK, so tell me: how many times does it have to fail before you accept it as a proven truth? For some of you guys it’s almost like it’s a religion: a little more faith, a little more time, under the “right” circumstances, socialism will blossom and we’ll fawn all over ourselves with altruism. The days of wine and roses will be upon us.
I’d expect the Second Coming long before that day ever comes.