Now anyone who knows me also knows that I am not shy about my desire for some form of Socialism here in America. But this does not mean that I am unaware of the problems of Socialism when it is implemented by a corrupt or selfish individual. In this case word has just come out (by way of the Associated Press) that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has just won a referendum to eliminate term limits. So what this means (the actual article is linked above please read it) is that after ruling the country for a decade there will be another election in 2012 and Chavez has already said that he intends to run again.
This genuinely concerns me because I do not think Hugo Chavez is good for the citizens of Venezuela. He has installed most of his family in positions of influence within the country as well as just making all there lives ones of affluence. Now I do not want to get into a debate here about the obvious problems of Socialism. I would and will gladly do that an another day. I think Chavez is a thug and a criminal and would be bad for the people of any country under any system of government. The fact is that with him in charge there will be no equality and to believe any other way is I feel to be naive in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I have said my piece and any readers that would like to join in pro or con please feel free to do so.
7 comments:
“Now I do not want to get into a debate here about the obvious problems of Socialism. I would and will gladly do that an another day. I think Chavez is a thug and a criminal and would be bad for the people of any country under any system of government. The fact is that with him in charge there will be no equality and to believe any other way is I feel to be naive in the face of overwhelming evidence.”
Hmm… no, sorry, the debate can’t be divided, they are one and the same. First off, a quick definition check, since we all, myself included, have in the past been somewhat loose in the labeling of this and that notion as 'socialism'. That looseness has followed from the fact that we have been living in a very loosely defined system, a 'mixed-economy', for the last 3/4+ of a century.
Capitalism - primacy of property rights under a constitutional system of laws upholding individual rights and, necessarily, private property; Govt's purpose is to defend the individuals rights and property from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Laws which infringe on these rights are unconstitutional.
Socialism - does away with private property entirely, with the state owning all property in the name of the people; govt's purpose is to allocate property and services among the people 'fairly', as determined by those in power. Laws are written to ensure the states ability to control and distribute property and services.
Fascism - private property is retained as a figure head, where individuals still have 'title' to property but the state has first claim to all property and how it will be used and allocated for the benefit of all the people, as determined by the leader in power. Laws are written to impose and enforce the directions of the leader for the benefit of the volk, as determined by the leader.
The 'mixed-economy' we've been operating under is an unstable shoving match between these three systems, and will eventually result in one system eliminating the others. For my money, if your goal is power, the one who is the most ruthless in seizing and exercising it, will win. The system which does that best, partly because it makes it easier for people to delude themselves into thinkng that they can have their property and eat others too, is fascism. That is the system which is more consistent with your notions of (summing up as) 'I don't want to total socialism, I just want to make some things more fair'. That is the system which best describes the actions, purposes and policies openly engaged and touted from the initial ‘bailout’ and the current ‘stimulus’. It is the action of making ‘lawful’ the actions of those in power, to dictate how ‘private property’ will be allocated. As usual, the left rabidly has accused the right as being ‘fascist’ in every action that was at best authoritarian, and completely missed the actual, clearly fascist, action which the Bush administration carried out. Why?
Btw, fascism was the exciting 'new way' of progressivism, and was thought well of by the left and right-lite political thinkers of the early 20th century... until Hitler went and gave it a bad name. Since then, anything 'bad' has been called 'fascist', but most calls for 'socialism' have in fact been more closely related to fascism, than socialism.
Be that as it may, when any system is designed to establish 'fair' (socialism) or 'effective' (fascism) distribution of property and services among 'the people' by those in power, the individual becomes unimportant except in regards to which groups have the most individuals in them, and (more importantly) can effectively lend their numbers to those in power, or seeking power; how can you possibly expect the ultimate end result of such a system to be something other than a creature such as Chavez?
Forget the pretty decorations of 'fairness' and 'fair distribution of goods and services', what makes them possible is nothing but the acquirement and use of force to satisfy the desires of those having, seeking, or expecting, rewards based upon their desires.
If you dilute (which means abandoning, but only admitting it incrementally) property rights, you make any rights secondary to the purposes of those in power, with the so damn obvious end result being that the more the pretense of rights is discarded, the more power the powerful can grab.
Flatter yourself all you want with your desires for more ‘fairness’,
“The fact is that with him in charge there will be no equality and to believe any other way is I feel to be naive in the face of overwhelming evidence.”
To believe that anything else will result from whatever ‘socialist’ notion you pursue, is naïve, and there is overwhelming evidence to support it, but don’t worry, you’ll be able to safely ignore any and all of it, as long as you cling to the idea that property rights can be diluted in favor of more ‘fair’ methods of distribution of property.
But Chavez, and those seeking to emulate him, appreciate your efforts.
... and on that happy note, Hi Lance.
;-)
Hello Van, :) (Removes gloves and checks with his second for his dueling sword) The battle is joined!! :)
Van said :"Socialism - does away with private property entirely, with the state owning all property in the name of the people; govt's purpose is to allocate property and services among the people 'fairly', as determined by those in power. Laws are written to ensure the states ability to control and distribute property and services."
Hmmmm it seems to me that my understanding of Socialism or at least what I think I am calling Socialism is wrong. I know that I do not want to do away with all private property. I in fact have private property as I am a homeowner. I am not sure what to call what I am advocating then. Side question, Do people in Sweden and other Socialist states own their homes? I am asking an honest question given what Van brought up I am not trying to be snarky about it.
Ooh... self administer's a 'Doh!'.
Socialism purports to be the state ownership of the means of production, not the explicit elimination of private property... in effect that means the elimination of private property, but I left the steps out... sorry about that.
Read the rest of the comment, and between the lines, and it still works.
(What's the 'smilley' for red faced with embarrassment?)
I figured he wasn't giving up his position no matter what the results of the election were, so this is just a formality.
Communism eliminates private property, socialism eliminates private business: the state controls the economy to greater degrees, or totally.
Thus, the nazis were socialists, even though they were big on private property.
CT said: "I figured he wasn't giving up his position no matter what the results of the election were, so this is just a formality."
I tend to agree with you CT. I really wonder if there was even a vote.
Thanks for the clarification Van. I really intended for this to be a post focusing on the corrupt nature of Hugo Chavez. Not on the failings of Socialism. Because I think he would be a criminal in a capitalist society as well as a socialist one.
Yep, I agree with Christopher on that as well.
Lance said "Thanks for the clarification Van. I really intended for this to be a post focusing on the corrupt nature of Hugo Chavez."
Yeah, and with that in mind I tried to crop my longwinded down to a brief gust... see what comes of that? Blow wind... blow....
(ahem)
Christopher said "Thus, the nazis were socialists, even though they were big on private property."
They were big on giving the appearance of private property, but with primary right and use of it being secondary to the directions of the state.
Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" gives a good journalistic level history of the development of fascism through the left side of the 'political scale'.
Post a Comment