6 thoughts on ““But that wasn’t REAL socialism!” (Part 3: Venezuela)”

  1. Posted 06/08/2017 at 03:08 | Permalink

    Brilliant analysis. I remember working with a guy in the late 60’s who was a Trotskyist and he kept telling me that USSR was not socialist but state capitalist. Your analysis helps me clear my thoughts on this and I cannot agree more with what you say.

  2. Posted 07/08/2017 at 07:55 | Permalink
  3. Posted 17/01/2020 at 07:00 | Permalink

    Outstanding. I lived in the Socialist Republic of Romania (1970-1989) and lived the full horror of socialism. Of course, promoters of criminal socialism on Facebook tell me that was Communism (which was never implemented anywhere) and the new darling “democratic” socialism as in Sweden is THE THING. All bullshit.

  4. Posted 13/04/2020 at 11:56 | Permalink

    Quite a pointless article with (I doubt innocent) ignorant and selective recollection of history. Rather than taking ‘successes’ of what is undoubtedly socialist policies, notably ALL industrialised, first-world nations, you make quite a fallacious argument. Historically, Soviet Union as well as China “leaders” have used the popular appeal and luster of socialism to come into power by riding the popular wave, then destroyed all those socialist institutions and gains of socialism and ended up in totalitarian governments (dictatorships), which completely contradicts socialism: “that production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”. You say there are 2 timelines. This is nonsense. Soviet Union as well as China (and many other cases in the 3rd world) used ‘socialism’ as their party line, with (what seems apparent now) no intention to implement it, as these individuals were ‘arrivalists’ (you might want to check how the “great” Socialist of France, Francois Mitterand, never was a socialist in the first place but just chose it to succeed politically).
    If in fact your argumentation was correct and the “package is what it says it is”, you don’t need to go beyond Germany of the 20s-40s and say “look where [Nationalist] Socialism (Nazi) will gets you to”.
    In fact your article seems to validate history: (i) one group/side have chosen ‘socialism’ for the luster and moral values that are assigned to a “community having a say on how a country is run, economically and politically” – one might want to consider the ‘democratic’ aspect of this? – even though they had no intention to implement it; (ii) the other group/side taking the totalitarian, dictatorial aspect of the these so-called ‘socialist’ groups, to espouse the murderous aspect that ‘socialism’ would lead to.
    This article proves that you are not capable of listening to what is being said and are bent upon rehashing the decade- or century-long “arguments” of group (ii).

  5. Posted 21/07/2020 at 21:19 | Permalink

    The argument set forth above (Cheenu) insists that the totalitarian realities that evolve in socialist countries use the socialist ideal to gain power and then betray them. OK. But how is it that this pattern seems to work out again and again and again, most predictably? One might expect to see it somewhere as an exceptional circumstance, but every time? The question is (and this is THE question, as far as I’m concerned) what makes socialist ideology and practice so obviously and predictably so vulnerable to these “distortions?” Perhaps it is something that is, itself, rooted in the idea itself. The article does a good job of outlining the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of socialist/communist advocates. There are still people around, for example, who put any reference to Communism is scare quotes, as if to say that it’s all a figment of a fevered, paranoid mindset. Tell that to the 100 million or so who died unnatural deaths for ideological purposes to sustain utopia.

  6. Posted 02/08/2020 at 16:26 | Permalink

    On Cheenu’s argument: you seem to be espousing the common, Rousseauean, idealistic view of socialists that all failed socialist countries simply contradict the intended fabric of socialism. This would have been like Samuel Langley claiming that his model of the aircraft shouldn’t have been abandoned because its failure contradicted its original, intended design. Big governments which can impose limitless taxes and regulations, and seize private property almost always become corrupt and dictatorial. It is called ‘human nature’ – something that shall always play a role in the mechanisms of government, because humans have always had a desire for power, which you can’t simply override and manipulate, as Marx argued.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.