Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

One more time: we have a long history of Marxist parties crushing small farmers and causing starvation. Happens again and again: Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea and now Venezuela.

Each time there are some gullible folks like you in the West who believe the regime when they deny it.

My question for you is Why?

You've now got a century of Marxists in power leading to famine. Just what evidence do you need after a century of hunger?

When North Korea tells you that everyone is well fed, do you believe them too?

You're nothing but an absolute Kulak Deeps. You need to get reading that little red book right now before they book you in for a working holiday helping to widen the White Sea Canal.

If we are being honest, Latin America is more notable overall for its Fascist dictatorships and running dogs of capitalism than for its left wing dictatorships and heroes of socialist labour, and American foreign policy and the Monroe Doctrine is part of the reason why. We saw some of this in the 1980s in the work of Mrs Jean Kirkpatrick, for whom the murderous and highly treasonable Argentinian military junta were good business partners; she was gutted when Britain won the Falklands War and democracy was restored in Argentina.

So criticising the Venezuelan government doesn't have to be a ringing endorsement of all things Uncle Sam. But Venezuela has nationalised everything that moves without compensating the legal owners ( this is technically known as "theft" or "stealing"); mismanaged and broken industries which used to trade successfully, been hopelessly misgoverned by a government who cannot be peacefully removed or replaced, and is now on a path previously explored by Zimbabwe and by Argentina under Juan Peron.

What is the use of denying that which is plain to see? The USA did not create the situation we see in Venezuela today. The credit for this belongs to Hugo Chavez and his heirs and successors. They conform to a long observed Communist pattern of esurient shitness.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Each time there are some gullible folks like you in the West who believe the regime when they deny it.

My question for you is Why?

You've now got a century of Marxists in power leading to famine. Just what evidence do you need after a century of hunger?

When North Korea tells you that everyone is well fed, do you believe them too?

Because I can't trust the administration of the richest country in the world, that get 48 millions people living under the line of poverty.
An administration that nuclear bombed civilian people twice... yes twice.
An administration that deliberately showed a fake flask to the UNO to go to war in a country that already was destroyed after the first Gulf war.
An administration that made an embargo against Cuba instead to negociate with Castro.
An administration that spied the governments of European alliés.
An administration that put several dictatorship in Southern American countries.
An administration that tells to its citizen, that's ok to waste energy and that climate changing is BS.
An administration that has decided to follow the Milton Friedman's theories, that has contributed to destroy the life of their own workers.

Your administration never contributed to improve the social life in countries you bombed. Never. Your industries went there, exported to USA the raw materials for a cheap price and let the people they bombed in poverty.

Do you need more why I can't trust liberal administrations like yours?

Why don't Trump didn't speak to invade Sudan instead of Venezuela? Can you tell me why?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Because I can't trust the administration of the richest country in the world, that get 48 millions people living under the line of poverty.

Again, that's "whataboutery" -- do you understand that that's logically defective? Nothing about my point involves "trusting the administration" of the United States.

I've provided you with Venezuelan documentation of the famine in Venezuela caused by "Marxists".

This is not about the United States, its about Venezuela, and all the other workers' paradises collectivized agriculture and starved their citizens.

So one more time, can you try to engage the demonstrated history of starvation and famine in countries which adopt Marxism?

Not by some "what about" evasion.

Please engage why the people of the Soviet Union, of China, of Cambodia, of North Korea and of Venezuela have to starve for the idea you're so fond of.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

So criticising the Venezuelan government doesn't have to be a ringing endorsement of all things Uncle Sam. But Venezuela has nationalised everything that moves without compensating the legal owners ( this is technically known as "theft" or "stealing"); mismanaged and broken industries which used to trade successfully, been hopelessly misgoverned by a government who cannot be peacefully removed or replaced, and is now on a path previously explored by Zimbabwe and by Argentina under Juan Peron.

What is the use of denying that which is plain to see? The USA did not create the situation we see in Venezuela today. The credit for this belongs to Hugo Chavez and his heirs and successors. They conform to a long observed Communist pattern of esurient shitness.

Did you listen to the international division of work?
Why the right parties and dictatures that controlled the Venezuela until 1992 didn't contribute to improve the social structure in that country, if it was the American goal to create better conditions in less developped countries?

Oils barons were in Venezuela since 1922.
Left parties were banned in this country.

So... yeahhh... nice liberals leaders developped that well this country. They had almost 70 years to developped it.
But people were so poor, that in 1994 Chavez was democraticaly elected.
And don't tell me that he wasn't honestly, because even Swiss observers travelled during several elections and reported they were honest.

The fact is that the international division of work specialized each country to produce specifics commodities.
Like that all the countries are interdependant but the poorest ones (the less educated ones) are unable to diversify themselves quickly in case of crisis.


That's what happened to Venezuela.
I was a country that was specialized in petrol and after the artificial fall of the oil price, they started to get problem to buy goods they didn't know to produce.

The imperialism is winning through this way.

But do not forget... the liberals runned this country until 1994 and never fairly developped it.
Do not only blame Chavez. 30 years to develop a country, when you are attacked by all the sides, that's impossible.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Did you listen to the international division of work?
Why the right parties and dictatures that controlled the Venezuela until 1992 didn't contribute to improve the social structure in that country,

I'm not sure what any of this is supposed to mean.

When Chavez took power in 1999, Venezuela was rich. The people were well fed. Venezuela has the world's largest proven petroleum reserves -- discovered and developed by American oil companies, by the way. This produces a lot of income, and Venezuela had prosperity and plenty of food.

Venezuela is far richer than neighboring Colombia, for example.

Then in comes your beloved Marxists . . . and the result is famine.

There was no famine in 1992. Venezuela was _rich_ in 1992.

One more time: what part of this are you missing?

Marxists in power reliably produce famines, while they argue whether good communists can permit a little bit of private agriculture so the people won't starve.

In the 21st century, in the non-Marxist world, the problem is usually obesity. Being poor in the US means being fat, not starving. Africa increasingly has an obesity problem.

The only folks who starve are either in war zones (Somalia, Sudan) or in countries that seek to implement "Communism".

Can there be a failure for a political system more extreme than "with our brilliant ideas, our people can no longer feed themselves?"

[Arturo2nd]

Abby Martin also has an agenda, but corroborates xyzde69's assertions.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/4...get&id=0&data=

https://youtu.be/YUYWrPiUeWY

https://youtu.be/e92OUVTImNg

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/ne...0703-0031.html

https://www.mintpressnews.com/venezu...martin/228482/

I am just presenting this and am not at all sure if Abby gives us propaganda or reporting.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Again, that's "whataboutery" -- do you understand that that's logically defective? Nothing about my point involves "trusting the administration" of the United States.

Please engage why the people of the Soviet Union, of China, of Cambodia, of North Korea and of Venezuela have to starve for the idea you're so fond of.

Could you tell me why the Venezuelan people elected several times in the raw Chavez, if your liberal politic was that fair and honest in the past?

Even the UNO recognised that Chavez contributed to improve the general wealth and education of his population.

Today, Venezuela pays cash its desire of freedom against imperialism.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Marxists in power reliably produce famines, while they argue whether good communists can permit a little bit of private agriculture so the people won't starve.

Eastern German didn't starve, Soviets didn't starve, Chinese didn't starve, Polish didn't starve, Vietnamian people didn't starve, Yugoslavian didn't starve, Hungarian didn't starve, Czeck people didn't starve....

Only, but only BS in your comments.

I'd like to know, why Marxism would be a theory based on starving their people?

You must be an agent of the CIA.

Edit: I just want to mention one point that come to my mind. A few days ago, a French cooker explained on the radio that in Europe, until the end of the WWII, European countries were used to suffer of huge famines.
It was because the agricultural techniques were badly developped.
Famines almost disappeared recently in human history.

BUT with the climate changing, famines could come back.
As example, there already are agricultural tensions all around the Mediteranean sea.

According to studies that I published on the global warming topic, the war in Syria and maybe some Northern African revolutions, were caused by the droughts.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Even the UNO recognised that Chavez contributed to improve the general wealth and education of his population.

After two decades of Chavez and Maduro, the country is broke and starving. That's the record. This is the country with the largest petroleum reserves in the world. Its an incredible achievement to make a rich nation starve, and that's what Chavez and Maduro have done for the country.

One more time, I'll direct you to the reports of Venezuelan hospitals, universities and food banks, "ENCOVI". This is produced by the Central University of Venezuela, the Andrés Bello Catholic University and the Simón Bolívar University, along with the Fundación Bengoa food and nutrition group. They describe their methods and reporting.
https://www.ucab.edu.ve/investigacio...n/encovi-2017/

This isn't "something I heard someone say on a Youtube video"

Venezuela is starving, just as North Korea is starving. Just as Cambodia, China and the Soviet Union starved.

All these regimes have some guy who, like you, believe in Marxism; and with remarkable consistency these policies produce famine. Its particularly extraordinary because Venezuela has so much oil and should be so rich, and because obesity is such a big problem in the region (Mexico, for example).

In an age where most people are over-fed, starving them in a moderate income society represents a catastrophic policy failure.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'd like to know, why Marxism would be a theory based on starving their people?

Here's some Russian peasantry enjoying the benefits of Marxism as they lie dead of starvation on the streets of Kharkiv in 1933.