You know what cost the GDP climb between '26 and '56 came with? Five-year plans, millions dead from widespread famines, a major world war, and deadly political repression

The soviet union declined only after Stalin's highly oppressive regime, because the only way socialism really works is when the entire population is essentially enslaved to the government and their ideology.

@aeon#2560 are you anti-soviet? A traitor to the proletariat?

haha kekistan

haha funny meme

"a traitor to the proletariat" lololol already doing the ideology lingo

im sure socialism is working wonderfully in venezuela

yup workers paradise, im sure pol pot would be proud

Venezuela isn't socialist

Venezuela nationalized the oil industry, that's about it

And it worked quite well until 2014

When the oil market crashed

the CAPITALIST oil MARKET

oooh scary

Point is Venezuela isn't doing bad because of socialism they're doing bad because of the instability of global capitalism

And to debunk your statement that socialism only works when forced, the CNT FAI in Catalonia were borderline anarchist and were still able to implement socialism, without killing or oppressing or forcing people, and they did so even better than the countries that did force socialism.

@Deleted User ^

And @Shalton#3556 the soviets were about as traitorous as they get, they turned a corrupt oligopoly into a corrupt monopoly with the name "republic" slapped on it

Failed capitalism isn't socialism

^

I mean come on, even Fox News admitted that Venezuela's economy was still dominated by capitalist markets.

And I mean, even if you try to argue that the less than 30% of the market that was nationalized made it socialist, I have an essay to pull up that explains why nationalization is not socialistic in the least bit

Written in the 1930s by an anti soviet socialist

Venezuela isn't "failed capitalism", it's had adopted socialist policies since Chavez. And the oil industry isn't the only sector they nationalized, food distribution itself is controlled by the government, and that hasn't worked out at all, the government can't even feed it's own people with rations, and people can't even buy toilet paper because the factories are occupied. It's not a real democracy nor is it really market capitalism if the government is controlling most aspects of economic life for Venezuelans.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia

Here ya go

It did just fine until the oil market crashed

And 70% of the economy is privately owned

The government relied on revenue from the nationalized oil industry to fund itself

It worked amazingly until of course the oil market crashed

The CAPITALIST oil MARKET

Food shortages were prevelant well before the oil market crash.

they were being solved quite quickly

The government was drowning in money before 2014

And then oil prices dropped by 70 some percent

And oil of course was a massive part of venezuelas economy and the largest source of government income

I dare you to find an article on Venezuela being in crisis before 2013/14

If you find one, read the essay I sent above, if not, my point has been proven

The government might've been drowning in money, it's hard to find a socialist government that doesn't have a rich government. That doesn't mean that regular people have money, or are living comfortably, Venezuelans have had problems since Chavez.

It's been in a food shortage crisis since 2010.

They're not socialist tho

70% of their economy is privately owned

Where do you get that figure?

Fox fucking News

Your lord and savior

I don't really take a news source from so-called experts seriously, I only look at actual citations from studies or analysis.

:/

Take the damn source

l0l0l

You don't wanna know how many times I've gotten into debates where the whole thing boils down to whose sources are better

Trust me I prefer raw data but so many conservatives worship Fox News that I was elated when I found their article on how much of the Venezuelan economy was privately owned

Well I never read that, you should show me.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/18/socialism-private-sector-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade.html

"Yet creating a socialist economy is one of Chavez's most elusive goals — a stark example of the disconnect between the president's rhetoric and the reality on the ground. In fact, the private sector still controls two-thirds of Venezuela's economy — the same as when Chavez was elected in 1998"

This is from 7 years ago.

Look up their nationalizations since then

It's hardly anything

The largest "socialist" policies were implemented immediately before this article was written

Food distribution was nationalized after 2010, and so were many more industries.

Right now, I don't think it's the same thing as it was in 2010.

It's pretty close honestly

How do you know?

The government is insanely corrupt which doesn't help things but that's about it

Do you have any figures from 2017?

Food industry is the only one after 2010, and according to this it was only a promise

(The pictures are in the wrong order, bottom one should be on top)

And again if you do some research the vast majority of people agree that oil market fluctuations and not socialism are responsible for Venezuelas crisis

I mean, socialism sure didn't make it any better, the fact that all of chavez' social programs relied on oil for funding amplified the effects of the crash

But there's hardly anything to suggest that Venezuela would be peachy if it Chavez weren't in the picture

Nothing is peachy, but the socialist government has a lot of blame to take for choking out the economy and causing hyperinflation

*the government has a lot to blame

The fact that they're called socialist is irrelevant

Why wouldn't they be called socialists?

Well first of all I can list a million reasons why they aren't socialists

And just because they call themselves socialist doesn't make them socialist

They even adhere to principles of marxism-leninism, and their policies are socialist policies.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia

Marxism Leninism isn't socialism

There ya go

It's not merely marxism-leninism, they're officially a socialist party.

By name

Exclusively by name

By practice they're nothing but corrupt oligarchs

I can agree with that, but I think all socialist governments are like that.

Socialism is democratic, socialism is communal, socialism is not a dictatorial government doing whatever they want with the economy

Well yeah because every socialist government based itself on Russia's model

With one exception that I know of which is revolutionary Catalonia

But that was overrun by fascists in the Spanish civil war so

I agree with that but so what's your idea of socialism and having a socialist government?

I, along with anyone who's not some sort of Stalin apologist, would probably support a purely democratic government and an economy that is truly owned and operated by the workers

And how would it be owned and operated by workers?

Well one was is Syndicalism, it's like a republic flipped upside down

Representatives don't represent, they take orders

Way is*

And your business or whatever you call it would operate itself, send a representative to a local trade union, which would coordinate the economy on a local level, which would then send a representative to the syndicate to organize the economy on an even larger scale, which would then send a representative to the Bourse du Travail which consists of syndicates working together on the basis of mutual consent

So your union would represent something like a small town, your Syndicate would operate something like a state, and the bourse du travail would operate the nation, only instead of the national level having the final say/authority it's the people

Something like this