Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Well then you're doubly dumb.

    The problem with imperialism is that you eventually run out of other people's countries.

    And the problem with Thatcher is that she can only die once.
    Yeah but then you have Major to continue her policies( or at least tory rule) and then Blair to continue neo liberalism so its all good.
    A
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    And you haven't done the same?
    :rofl::rofl:
    No. It's not like I posted a quote with a opinion and no fact.

    The simple fact is that capitalism has the upside of producing tremendous wealth, but at the expense of the many and the benefit of the few.
    All socialism does is transfer ownership of capital from a handful of the few to all the people.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Imperialism works just fine with a finite nu!Ber of countries, imperialism doesn't require constant expansion, any good empire knows when to stop

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    "Any good empire"? Every empire has tried to expand to the point where they have been blocked by another imperial power (e.g. England) or their expansion has become too large to maintain - which has led to their inevitable collapse (e.g. Rome).
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No. It's not like I posted a quote with a opinion and no fact.

    The simple fact is that capitalism has the upside of producing tremendous wealth, but at the expense of the many and the benefit of the few.
    All socialism does is transfer ownership of capital from a handful of the few to all the people.
    At the expense of the many? I guess that's why all those in capitalist systems have benefited while the beneficiaries in the socialist systems are the corrupt bureaucrats at the top, and why those trying to cross the Berlin wall were heading west, not east, and the only people who are wishing for the rise of socialism are the ones who have never suffered it?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    All socialism does is transfer ownership of capital from a handful of the few to all the people.
    Or just destroy capital and cause the equal sharing of misery.
    The fact is capitalism has increased living standards and pulled people out of poverty.
    You are focused on equality of outcome, I am focused on the equality of opportunity

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Or just destroy capital and cause the equal sharing of misery.
    The fact is capitalism has increased living standards and pulled people out of poverty.
    You are focused on equality of outcome, I am focused on the equality of opportunity

    Chile is peng, reason: Pinochet got rid of all the leftists, basically a right wing utopia.

    Also, Pinochet = Pinobae.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Chile is peng, reason: Pinochet got rid of all the leftists, basically a right wing utopia.

    Also, Pinochet = Pinobae.
    This calls for a Pinochet meme :rofl:

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    "Any good empire"? Every empire has tried to expand to the point where they have been blocked by another imperial power (e.g. England) or their expansion has become too large to maintain - which has led to their inevitable collapse (e.g. Rome).
    Rome's monetary system led to its demise
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    At the expense of the many? I guess that's why all those in capitalist systems have benefited while
    All? Every single person in capitalist society has benefited?

    Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3.5 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.

    the beneficiaries in the socialist systems are the corrupt bureaucrats at the top, and why those trying to cross the Berlin wall were heading west, not east,
    Socialism - the social ownership and workers' control of the means of production.
    Stalinist states - the social ownership and control of the means of production by a single leader.

    and the only people who are wishing for the rise of socialism are the ones who have never suffered it?
    Only those who have never suffered it? Even those in former degenerated and deformed workers states disagree.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...ferendum,_1991
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Or just destroy capital and cause the equal sharing of misery.
    The fact is capitalism has increased living standards and pulled people out of poverty.
    If you're going to compare it to a feudal society, of course it did.

    You are focused on equality of outcome, I am focused on the equality of opportunity
    While it is relatively easier to deal with unfairness for people with different races or genders, it is much harder to deal with social class since "one can never entirely extract people from their ancestry and upbringing."
    As a result, efforts to bring fairness by equal opportunity are stymied by the difficulty of people having differing starting points at the beginning of the socio-economic competition. A person born into an upper-middle-class family will have greater advantages by the mere fact of birth than a person born into poverty.

    Yes because Venezuela is clearly socialist. Oh wait, wait, no, no it isn't.

    1. It relies on the export of oil through the global capitalist market.
    2. Nationalisation doesn't equal socialisation.
    3. The majority of its poor performance under global capitalism is due to its currency policy, a typically non-socialist policy.

    Again not proving anything on socialist terms but let's look at "the Miracle of Chile". You have to laugh that technically, the Chicago School did far more damage to Chile than the CIA ever did.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    If you're going to compare it to a feudal society, of course it did.



    While it is relatively easier to deal with unfairness for people with different races or genders, it is much harder to deal with social class since "one can never entirely extract people from their ancestry and upbringing."
    As a result, efforts to bring fairness by equal opportunity are stymied by the difficulty of people having differing starting points at the beginning of the socio-economic competition. A person born into an upper-middle-class family will have greater advantages by the mere fact of birth than a person born into poverty.



    Yes because Venezuela is clearly socialist. Oh wait, wait, no, no it isn't.

    1. It relies on the export of oil through the global capitalist market.
    2. Nationalisation doesn't equal socialisation.
    3. The majority of its poor performance under global capitalism is due to its currency policy, a typically non-socialist policy.



    Again not proving anything on socialist terms but let's look at "the Miracle of Chile". You have to laugh that technically, the Chicago School did far more damage to Chile than the CIA ever did.
    You like telling us how things aren't socialist (and things are capitalist) without telling us what is socialist.

    Is Cuba a socialist state?
    Was China? How about the USSR?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You like telling us how things aren't socialist (and things are capitalist) without telling us what is socialist.

    Is Cuba a socialist state?
    Was China? How about the USSR?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I just said what was socialist. Check the post I quoted you in.

    Socialism - the social ownership and workers' control of the means of production.
    Non-socialist states - the social ownership and control of the means of production by a person or group other than the people.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I just said what was socialist. Check the post I quoted you in.

    Socialism - the social ownership and workers' control of the means of production.
    Non-socialist states - the social ownership and control of the means of production by a person or group other than the people.
    And non-socialist=capitalist, aye?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And if course corruption totally drives states to failure to the extent of Venezuela, we can all see that most of Africa is in deep depression with spiraling unemployment, severe shortages of goods as per the will of the government, hyperinflation, and a surging exchange rate. Sorry, I forgot, socialist governments never lie so the official exchange and inflation rates are totally true and there are no problems in the country at all.
    So there's the oil price, there's corruption, and there's dishonesty. The government just happens to be socialist.

    Or do you have any argument to explain how socialism had directly contributed to it?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And non-socialist=capitalist, aye?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No. States such as Cuba and the Soviet Union are/were under the rule of a bureacracy and/or leader. The capitalist class has been overthrown, the economy is largely state owned and planned, but there is no internal democracy or workers' control of industry.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    >corruption
    >nothing to do with communism

    Hahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahah ahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahhah ahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahaha hahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahah hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhah ahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahha hahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahah ahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahhahah ahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahaha hhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahha hahahahhahahahahahahahhhahhahaha hahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahah hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha hhahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahaha hahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahha hahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahah ahahhahahahahahahahhhahhahahahah hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhah ahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahha hahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahah ahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahhahah ahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahaha hhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahha hahahahhahahahahahahahha
    :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
    Corruption is rampant in both capitalist and socialist governments.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Ok lets go.
    Price controls

    The government decided to regulate the markets and the prices of goods. The idea was to make essential goods more affordable for the poor. Producers were oProveperating at a loss so just stopped selling these goods all together and moved out of the country. As a result the country was even more reliant on imports. Supply was lowered and as demand remained the same or even increased, this caused prices to increase even further
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#59cc75443849


    Nationalisation
    The government is nationalising lots of private companies and given them to the poor however the poor don’t have the skills to run them so they go bankrupt. For example when Chavez nationalised Venezuela’s biggest electric company there were severe shortages and the working week for public sector employees was only 2 days. They even nationalised oil giants and made the production of oil highly inefficient causing them to suffer even more as they received even less dollars as they are producing less oil. The government also raised the price of petrol from $0.01 to $0.60 per litre.

    "The Chavez government has expropriated or nationalised numerous companies (no one seems to be able to count them all) involved in various sectors including aluminum, cement, gold, iron, steel, farming, transportation, electricity, food production, banking, paper and the media. The number of private companies in industry has dropped from 14,000 in 1998 to only 9,000 in 2011, according to Torres.
    Companies need investment to grow and hire new workers. One of the biggest failures of the Chavez government has been to drive away both domestic and foreign investors. In 2011 Latin America enjoyed a record of more than $150 billion in foreign investment with Brazil receiving $67 billion. Venezuela's neighbor Colombia received $13 billion while Venezuela received only $5 billion. To avoid expropriation and find investment a number of Venezuelan companies have moved to Colombia, Panama and the United States."

    Venezuela produced just 2.15 million barrels of crude oil per day in June, according to S&P Global Platts estimates. That's the weakest pace since February 2003, Platts said.

    Nationalisation has killed Venezuela, socialism destroyed it , obviously corruption is an issue . The currency is also a mess as it has 3 different exchange rates
    Price control is socialism but incompentency isn't restricted to it. The problem you pointed out with nationalization was not with nationalization per se but the execution of it. Mismanagement happens in all kinds of government and it's worse with nationalization only if it's not democratic.

    Inflation and currency devaluation are very common issues across Latin America, not just Venezuela. In fact, under the conservative government, Argentina was worse in both earlier last year and doing about the same this year as it was under the populist government. Countries like Ecuador and Panamá and El Salvador even gave up their currencies altogether and use just the dollar. Those are not socialist countries. The main issue here is corruption (coupled with incompetency).
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    So there's the oil price, there's corruption, and there's dishonesty. The government just happens to be socialist.

    Or do you have any argument to explain how socialism had directly contributed to it?
    So the fact that the problems are also present in other states but it is only the socialist states that are failing suggests to you its those other factors?

    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No. States such as Cuba and the Soviet Union are/were under the rule of a bureacracy and/or leader. The capitalist class has been overthrown, the economy is largely state owned and planned, but there is no internal democracy or workers' control of industry.
    I guess the academics and socialists are wrong about what socialism is. It is incredible how today's socialists dismiss yesterdays socialists as not socialists because the alternative is to accept the failings of socialism. It is made even richer when you shout about the failings of capitalism, apparently socialism is only socialism when it conforms to your pure utopian view of socialism, but everything from what, the middle of the left rightwards is capitalist?

    Do "true" socialists really exist, or is it something that you just tell yourself to help you sleep at night when you know deep down it simply does. not. work?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Or just destroy capital and cause the equal sharing of misery.
    The fact is capitalism has increased living standards and pulled people out of poverty.
    You are focused on equality of outcome, I am focused on the equality of opportunity

    You do realize the Communist Party forms the coalition that is governing Chile right now, right?

    The Socialist Party is not only a part of that same coalition, but the second largest party in congress.

    In fact, the Chilean president is socialist.

    Or is this your way of conceding?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So the fact that the problems are also present in other states but it is only the socialist states that are failing suggests to you its those other factors?
    Really? Only socialist states are failing?

    Is Argentina not still with heavy inflation?

    Did Ecuador, El Salvador, Panamá not abandon their own currencies?

    Is most of Africa socialist?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.