Anti-Communism/Socialism/Marxism Thread

david starling

Well-known member
And the hundred million deaths under communism in a very short span of history were???

I think the problem you've got is that you're vastly over-simplifying matters. Capitalism itself, not a bad thing. Human beings, however, are far from perfect.

The US has a social safety net, too, you know. Medicare, social security, disability payments, aid to single mothers, local welfare, all that. You guys pay taxes for it.


Are you really unable to see any solutions that don't involve violence against the rich, or overthrowing the government? That's just a failure of imagination.

There are those who characterize taxing the very rich and their Corporations and off-shore accounts as "violence" , and the " Tyranny of the Majority " (which is somehow supposed to be worse than the current Tyranny of the Minority, for some reason).
If you want to argue that it's bad for the economy, fine. But it's not about the "Sanctity of private property" under Capitalism. This entire Capitalistic economy was based on taking land and resources by force. Forced labor as well, known as "Slavery" .
 

Oddity

Well-known member
And wealthy countries were the first to end slavery. It's still a big problem in Africa, though, and people in those countries aren't doing so great.

I think you probably believe a little bit in the 'sanctity of private property', though I'd call it a right (a legal fiction we all pretty much agree on), and not sanctity. In the US, the government has to have a compelling reason to comandeer your property, and if they do it, they have to pay you for it.

Rich people are not the problem. Large government isn't the answer. A lot of the problems in post-Stalinist Russia were as much logistics as ideology. You had a huge central bureaucracy making rules for everyone, with pretty much no knowledge of actual conditions in different parts of the country. The US Constitution tried to prevent that kind of thing happening in your country, and to a great degree succeeded. Though I have to agree with Reagan on those most scary words: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

Why so much faith in government and none in individual people, David?

There are those who characterize taxing the very rich and their Corporations and off-shore accounts as "violence" , and the " Tyranny of the Majority " (which is somehow supposed to be worse than the current Tyranny of the Minority, for some reason).
If you want to argue that it's bad for the economy, fine. But it's not about the "Sanctity of private property" under Capitalism. This entire Capitalistic economy was based on taking land and resources by force. Forced labor as well, known as "Slavery" .
 

david starling

Well-known member
Oh, given the Thread title, I should explain that I'm against Communism, Socialism and Marxism. I'm for a gradual, peaceful changeover to a new, as yet unknown, way of allocating material goods and services. I believe that this will happen inevitably, once Capitalism has obviously outlived its usefulness.
 

david starling

Well-known member
And wealthy countries were the first to end slavery. It's still a big problem in Africa, though, and people in those countries aren't doing so great.

I think you probably believe a little bit in the 'sanctity of private property', though I'd call it a right (a legal fiction we all pretty much agree on), and not sanctity. In the US, the government has to have a compelling reason to comandeer your property, and if they do it, they have to pay you for it.

Rich people are not the problem. Large government isn't the answer. A lot of the problems in post-Stalinist Russia were as much logistics as ideology. You had a huge central bureaucracy making rules for everyone, with pretty much no knowledge of actual conditions in different parts of the country. The US Constitution tried to prevent that kind of thing happening in your country, and to a great degree succeeded. Though I have to agree with Reagan on those most scary words: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

Why so much faith in government and none in individual people, David?

Finding illegal drugs on your property, even if you didn't know it was there, is considered a "compelling reason" for confiscation!
I'm a firm believer in private property rights, but I don't object to be taxed for it at a reasonable rate. Under Capitalism, we need rich people, and we need to tax them at a reasonable rate.
Those who think Reagan was right are perfectly willing to accept, and even ask for, Government assistance when it comes to disaster relief.
I'm putting ALL my faith in individual people to do what's right. The governments and Corporations can't change themselves. It's the INDIVIDUALS within them that have to change them. The bunch we have now want to keep them like they are, or make them even worse. But, that will change, just as the pendulum swings.
 

david starling

Well-known member
For those that like Socialism, for whatever reason, some videos for you.

The Myth of the Socialist Scandinavian countries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY27TBAFqBE


How's Socialism Doing in Venezuela?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCIdm3cM6zQ


How Socialism Ruined My Country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKhR9i5CGkA

I think it's pretty clear the greed and lack of entrepreneurship of the rich oligarchy in Venezuela is what ruined it for the poor. The rich are still doing just fine, last I heard.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
I think it's pretty clear the greed and lack of entrepreneurship of the rich oligarchy in Venezuela is what ruined it for the poor. The rich are still doing just fine, last I heard.

There was crony capitalism helping to push things over the edge, no doubt. But do look at that first video - it's only four or five minutes.
 

david starling

Well-known member
There was crony capitalism helping to push things over the edge, no doubt. But do look at that first video - it's only four or five minutes.

So, according to the video, things were GREAT in Venezuela before Chavez. I notice Venezuela went up against Big Oil--BIG mistake. A cautionary tale, indeed.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Things were really good in Venezuela, I had friends there. They fled. As did most anyone who could.

Chavez takes over, grabs as much money from the rich as he can, and redistributes it, unilaterally destroys international contracts, so nobody will play with him anymore. All well and good? Well, until the people who owned the businesses and skilled workers left. No more capital for investment or expansion, no more expertise in how to run companies.

Which is how it tends to work.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Things were really good in Venezuela, I had friends there. They fled. As did most anyone who could.

Chavez takes over, grabs as much money from the rich as he can, and redistributes it, unilaterally destroys international contracts, so nobody will play with him anymore. All well and good? Well, until the people who owned the businesses and skilled workers left. No more capital for investment or expansion, no more expertise in how to run companies.

Which is how it tends to work.

This sounds like propaganda. There must have been some serious problems before Chavez, unless he was so charismatic he was able to convince the majority of voters to let him "fix something that wasn't broken". By "grabbing" money from the rich, do you mean raising taxes? I had the impression the rich had no regard whatsoever for the majority of the population, which was sorely impoverished. What was the income level of your friends? I'm guessing middle-class? If I'm right, they should have put more effort into expanding the Safety-net (if there even was one) before it all went to h*ll.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
That's because it's complicated, and as a rule I don't like to link people to two hour videos about alien lizard people!

My friends were a doctor and engineer, pretty sure they were doing quite enough for the social safety net.

But despite not liking to link except for reference, there's a good two-parter at mises.org on what happened, that gives you some actual backstory (and no lizard people).

https://mises.org/wire/venezuela-chavez-prelude-socialist-failure
 

Dirius

Well-known member
This sounds like propaganda. There must have been some serious problems before Chavez, unless he was so charismatic he was able to convince the majority of voters to let him "fix something that wasn't broken". By "grabbing" money from the rich, do you mean raising taxes? I had the impression the rich had no regard whatsoever for the majority of the population, which was sorely impoverished. What was the income level of your friends? I'm guessing middle-class? If I'm right, they should have put more effort into expanding the Safety-net (if there even was one) before it all went to h*ll.

Chavez expropriated a lot of private companies when he rose to power, mainly the oil companies. The direct consequence was a lack of investment in the country, both by international investors, as well as local entrepeneurs who shifted their investments to foreign countries.

All oil companies were ran by the goverment. Slowly, within a decade, production of oil was reduced significantly, mostly due to inept managers (who got their position for being supporters of the regime), and huge political corruption, who took the profit margins for themselves.

Now this sort of balanced out, when oil prices were high during the 2000's. But in the early-mid 2010's, the price of oil dropped internationally, their economy tanked, and with no investment from either foreign or local capital, they began experiencing a shortage of basic supplys. They tried putting out bonds and taking debt, but no bank would be crazy enough to loan to venezuela's corrupted goverment. Furthermore Chavez's death created a political vacuum.

Long story short, this is what happens when you apply socialism as your prefered system.
 

david starling

Well-known member
It's not a video, and I'm a fast reader. Sounds like Venezuela had a long term, right-wing dictatorship before Chavez. Doesn't sound like the paradise portrayed by the simplistic propaganda.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Chavez expropriated a lot of private companies when he rose to power, mainly the oil companies. The direct consequence was a lack of investment in the country, both by international investors, as well as local entrepeneurs who shifted their investments to foreign countries.

All oil companies were ran by the goverment. Slowly, within a decade, production of oil was reduced significantly, mostly due to inept managers (who got their position for being supporters of the regime), and huge political corruption, who took the profit margins for themselves.

Now this sort of balanced out, when oil prices were high during the 2000's. But in the early-mid 2010's, the price of oil dropped internationally, their economy tanked, and with no investment from either foreign or local capital, they began experiencing a shortage of basic supplys. They tried putting out bonds and taking debt, but no bank would be crazy enough to loan to venezuela's corrupted goverment. Furthermore Chavez's death created a political vacuum.

Long story short, this is what happens when you apply socialism as your prefered system.

Was there extreme poverty under the repressive right-wing dictatorships prior to the nationalization of oil? A sharp divide between Haves and Havenots?
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Actually, no. It wasn't a paradise, but on the whole people were doing pretty well. Exceptionally well, even.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Was there extreme poverty under the repressive right-wing dictatorships prior to the nationalization of oil? A sharp divide between Haves and Havenots?

There was no dictatorship before Chavez. Before him venezuela enjoyed decades of democracy.

Chavez himself lead a coup in 1992 against a democratic goverment. He was later pardoned and he won the democratic elections in 1999. But it shows you the kind of man he is.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
There was no dictatorship before Chavez. Before him venezuela enjoyed decades of democracy.

Chavez himself lead a coup in 1992 against a democratic goverment. He was later pardoned and he won the democratic elections in 1999. But it shows you the kind of man he is.

Still not seeing how this could have happened. Something must have been wrong with how things were being done.
 
Top