Socialism Kills. Venezuela is Hell

Venezuela ain't communism and it's failing because it's dependent on exporting oil.

Who needs to read Das Kapital when we have the infinite wisdom and total factual accuracy of Wikipedia at our disposal?

Stay stupid Holla Forums, you're doing what you do best.

I don't think you understand the words "literal" or "cuckhold".

wtf is with his eyelids they give me the heebies

And it imports literally everything.

Does cucking someone violate the NAP?

youtube.com/watch?v=DZhqPC6d_DA

Socialism on a grand scale can never be achieved, and you morons will still be defending socialism until the end of time for that same fact. If I started a Utopian movement and failed to deliver Utopia time and time again after achieving power, you'd think people would catch on eventually. Not so with Marxists. But things do get measurably worse whenever it's attempted, so there's that…

can molyneux hurry up and have his cult start the mass suicide thing already? getting tired of his shit

...

What is Not An Argument

He should be worried because I'm about to force him to suck my dick with the barrel of a gun and steal his toothbrush

Too many arguments makes your head hurt.

...

Classy. Real classy.

So, did he actually resume the whole argument thing in the end? I thought it was over.

It's an ancap/fashie (what's the difference), they don't have rights.

No thanks.

So you're too stupid to know what utopian socialism is and why Marx was against it?

Presumably you do have rights? I'm interested to know your position.

Where have I said anything about utopian socialism? My mentioning of "Utopia" was as an analogy, hence the capital letter.

Fascists don't think I do, such is life. Why should I extend them the courtesy.

You will too. Bend over.

Yes we do. You don't. Start sucking now plz.

Marxism-Leninism is a

science

1. Not an argument.
2. >Why should I extend them the courtesy.
Extend what courtesy? Making an argument? Presumably you're just too stupid to make an argument.

le mudbiez :DDDDDDDDDDDDD

There isn't a single relevant Leninist Party today.

Socialism wasn't "tried many many times", it was tried, in one single wave, and was crushed, pretty much all at once.

I would love to know where your precious "rights" come from. And don't be surprised to find that you don't have any once you've succeeded in destroying civilized society.

1. Not an argument.

Wrong. The Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea has stood strong against decades of imperialist aggression.

The barrel of the gun I want you to suck.

Spooky. Why do you believe in so many made up things?

I don't tbh, you're the snobbish kind of ancap that deserves the same kind of treatment the Nazis got, I hope you stay illiterate so that you will get it.

I don't think you understand how debate works. If you won't respond to my argument with an argument, you leave me nothing to respond to. Hence my non-argument. Are you really that dumb?

This is such a stupid argument. The Left is in power in Venezuela, and even if it is a capitalist country there are things to defend in Venezuela.

You posted the insane serial killer with mom issues.

LOL. I don't believe in rights. It's the marxist SJW's that are always preaching that bullshit. As for civilized society, would you not agree that there's a spectrum for it? Do you seriously see no difference between Western countries and North Korea?

...

Now that's interesting.

stop

Good that's all you had to say

Bend over

oh no its an attempt at socialism
but it was destroyed by foreign and local porky (Not to mention Venezuela's economy was in little shape for socialist experimentation)

I'm not the snobbish sort that tells people who haven't read Boxcar Children that they're illiterate. But that is what you do.

You are on the political level of boxcar children.

Go back to mommy with your youtube celebrities.

Clearly your violent revolution will work the next time around, amirite?

thats what i thought

Who's the snob now? I thought so.

TRS's narrative on Venezuela is that Maduro is a Jew and that since dual Venezuela-Israeli citizens are the only people who can buy USD and successfully hedge against inflation, the worse the country does, the more Jews profit.

...

It's working as we speak. Reactionaries are being killed, beheaded, executed.

We are the snobs.

All these shitposts.

Do you think you're going to be spared eventually

Everyone is going to know your browser history

its all an ancap who shills for molymemes thread is good for

Yes your question?

You know it was Orwell who observed that leftists don't generally care about poor people. They simply hate the successful bourgeois. I'm already aware that "my side" has lost. But if you think you're going to be among the winners, you're a fool. Everyone's going to lose hard. Unless of course the only thing you have to live for is your hate, in which case you could consider my downfall a victory, which wouldn't surprise me tbh.

Are you really that unaware of what an ugly human being you are?

I don't care, and neither will you. Less crying when you die.

[citation fucking required]

Maybe if you started to care, you wouldn't hate your life and others so much.

in the sense that a parasite may be successful

I don't hate my life. I hate your life

...

The Road to Wigan Pier

I am sorry I do not know of any words that stop the inevitability of bullets

I seriously couldn't make it past the first half of the book that described the conditions of Industrial working class society + technical stuff.

I've heard that the second half of the book is much better though, maybe I should get around to finishing that part.

wow thanks for your therapeutic intercession

i love capitalism now!

Amazing. Now fuck off and take Saint George with you.
exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/
scribd.com/document/37707720/The-Betrayal-of-Dissent-Beyond-Orwell-Hitchens-and-the-New-American-Century-Scott-Lucas

I'm not an ancap. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate Molyneux or Hoppe.

I also volunteer at a homeless shelter and have donated to causes that I believe in, which is more than most leftists can claim.

As for "right-wingers" on the whole, they give only slightly less to charity if you excluded donations to churches (which is a stupid qualifier anyway because churches often give out charity non-discriminatively, e.g. they provide homeless shelters and meals for the homeless).

It was very depressing for me to learn all this about Orwell. I hadn't known of it in any detail for a long time.

"Capitalism Kills. Syria is Hell."

"The principles of Communism" by Frederich Engels

It's really short. Just read it.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

I don't really care for Orwell or Hitchens. They were confused thinkers. But they had far more credibility in the eyes of the average person than probably anyone else you might replace them with. But your mistake is my gain, so no worries.

Tankis deserve every gram f shit they get for being such naive retards

orwell didn't seem particularly confused to me, his insight was incredible

He defines the proletariat as:

And then he says that proletarians have not always existed, as if proletarians are a less fortunate variety of working class than existed previously.

Yet it's the division of labor that gave rise to the proletariat, and they benefited heavily from it. The outcry at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution had to do with the fact that great amounts of wealth had been achieved and it became feasible to redistribute more of it, whereas before abject poverty was taken for granted.

It would be more accurate to say they were shills. Especially Hitchens who literally buddied up with GW and the rest of the neocon crew in public for the whole world to see. Although they knew fuck all about Marxist theory, especially Orwell, those two were incredibly smart and eloquent men. But they weren't working for our side unfortunately. The fact that right-wingers defend those two Brits and even go so far to say that we should uphold them if we know what's good for us, as you have done, really makes me think.

He was a snitch, I think snitches deserve to be killed.

Let's be honest, you don't disagree with snitching. You wouldn't have any problem with Alger Hiss. You have a problem with right-wingers. All right-wingers need to be shot, per communist theory.

If you take up arms then yeah, that's how war works. If the revolution happens then just leave. I'm in favor of self-deportation.

Honestly, true.

Why do an-caps always dickride Venezuela or China claiming that there no progress or achievements in these countries.

still makes me cringe to this day

I'm in favor of physical separation. Unfortunately communists, globalists, and neoliberals won't allow that. There's a reason they call it "international socialism". If you simply favored Not Socialism, peace might be possible. But I don't believe that's what you want. I liken you to a jihadist or monotheist, who believes that their way of life has absolute meaning and purpose, and must be enforced universally throughout the world.

No man is an island, as socialists have rightly pointed out. But they're wrong when they go a step further and declare that there exists only one world island.

GLOBALISTS

what does this word mean? i've been hearing it since 2005 and never heard it defined.

Spreading socialism by war is pointless, if you believe our system would never work anyway then you shouldn't be worried, it will just collapse before long and you can move back.

Dumb polyp

he definitely showed that in the more academic left their is a disconnectedness with the working class. However this does not change the fact that in the end the ideology will always be centered around those unjustly exploited (and if you came to this board looking for meaningful leftist activism, well I pity you)

my dear Comrade, i thought it was the left that where suppose to be the virtue signalers!
But seriously, I'm glad to see an ancap with enough humanity in them for once (that is if your not bullshiting). This still however shows little, and in the end your homeless will still exist and be thrown to the wolves under capitalism.

wow, lets generalize an entire side of the political spectrum why don't we?
pics very related

It means whatever you want it to mean. It's the globalists.

It refers to any single worldwide system of governance, but more specifically to the Western hegemony that's come to dominate the world since the end of the Second World War. And if you think it's a capitalist system because George H W Bush and Son happened to be its agents, you're wrong. It was the international socialists that defeated the Not Socialists and created the system that's in place today. Those who favor consolidation of state power are its tacit ally.

GLOBALISTS

How does it feel to be fucking stupid?

BTW, I don't know what the fuck's going on with my comments. Twice now it's posted "Not Socialist" in a random location and deleted some of my text.

Lurk more newfie

SHUT IT DOWN

You know that Paris Hiltons personality was a fabrication for the show, she's nothing like that in real life.

...

...

Globalism and international socialism aren't identical. Globalists don't have to be socialists. The ones that happened to win the war WERE international socialists.

...

WAT?

i don't think it's capitalist because of any particular leader, it's capitalist because that is the economic system.

if by the "system that's in place today" you mean "western hegemony", then international socialists most certainly did not establish it and the claim is ridiculous. you should read a history of the cold war. any history of the cold war.

Why is advancing the interests of capital is a form of consolidation of state power?

So, for instance, it's no coincidence that leftists favored Remain, that they've generally supported any and all increases in federal power, that they tend to favor large international trade agreements, that they formed the EU, etc.

WAT

the only reason anyone considered """"""left"""""" supported it was to spit nationalists. But no we did not support it as a movement and stop watching info wars

serious question tho
how old are you?

jesus fucking christ mate.

familiarize yourself with the history behind the formation of the EU and for god's sake pick up a book (any book) on the cold war.

Firstly, economic power IS power. Control a man's bread and butter and you can largely dictate what he thinks. Secondly, globalism is about more than just capital. It seeks to create hegemony, which is why it seeks to destabilize any independent regions around the globe and institutionalize "democracy", so it can dictate its agenda throughout the world.

I really don't think we actually support the EU

Ah, I get it now. It's the jews, right?

agreed, which is why monopolistic capitalism is every bit as hegemonic as the system you fear. the capitalist class, which recognizes its shared interests, controls the economic system in its entirety. and in case you haven't noticed, deregulation has been the order of the day since the reagan-thatcher counterrevolution. it must be that this class judges deregulation to be in their interest, seeing as the control the government.

I don't mind being doxed, but I'm not going to do the work for you.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the EU hasn't been a "socializing" force in Europe.

I don't watch Info Wars, although I do enjoy Molyneux. Mostly I read books. If you think that globalism is tin-foil-hat-level-conspiracy, I've got news for you.

you don't know what socialism means.

look into what happened to greece.

look at the economic policies they demanded of greece.

please for god's sake just read something.

youtube.com/watch?v=lB3D8dkVFAU

I'm surprised his followers can actually dislike his videos

capitalism saves: africa, india, all of latin america is a wonderland thanks to it

also its not like countries are only rich if they are imperialist and mine other countries for resources. communist china sure is poor

of course
How is EU actually leftist to begin with.

You seriously think that total regulations have decreased? There's a video of Peter Hitchens you can find on YouTube (not gonna look it up right now) where he's walking through a section of library containing books on all the laws and regulations in Britain, and it's wall after wall of books. I'm not opposed to regulations, per se, although I am against the consolidation of power. It's also worth pointing out that state power is most often used by big corporations to restrict competition by introducing costly regulatory laws.

EU constitution is literally one of the only constitutions in the world that explicitly says its social order is founded on capitalism.

Seems like a normal Ancap to me, just more honest.

This is correct. And I would add to that:
- anti-union laws
- subsidies
- socialization of risk (bailouts, seed capital grants)
Other things that corporations rely on the state for in capitalism.

yes they have. the most important economic event in recent history, the recession of 2008, was caused by government deregulation. there has been a consistent drive for deregulation by democratic and republican administrations since the 1980s. that is the broad trend. please consider reading a brief history of neoliberalism by david harvey. of course if you display existing regulations in a library, the quantity will seem extensive. that doesn't mean they haven't decreased. that's just dishonest showmanship.

I'm not an ancap, as stated previously. I don't believe in rights, as I think they're a misformulation or (at best) poor articulation of moral law. I'm a deontologist of sorts. I believe that there are rules or natural laws that exist that can benefit everyone. I admit that I can't prove any of the laws to you, but I think that there's some evidence for them. I believe that morality consists of that which is against zero-sum human interactions. The focus of deontology is upon duty or obligation of the individual, whereas "rights" focuses upon the duties are obligations of the group. It's a reversal of responsibility.

...

I agree with everything you said and the Chomsky quote. Molyneux does too, btw. Still, the fact that corporations support anti-union laws doesn't mean that unions are a good thing. There are certainly a lot of pros and cons on both sides of the argument. Just to name one: unions reduce competition, and destroy jobs. It's at least conceivable that unions make the jobs that do exist more bearable, but I think it's hard to argue that they don't destroy jobs or send jobs overseas, especially if you don't accompany such domestic penalties with higher tariffs on imports.

Oh Jeeze. I actually anticipated that you might mention the bailout. It's true that deregulating something that's already highly tampered with can cause more problems. Even ancaps recognize this fact. So, for instance, ancaps generally recognize the right to free migration when there are no social penalties placed upon natives for doing so. The trouble with deregulating borders is that it leaves the native population open to attack, given the bloated system that's already in place.

As far as regulations go, they HAVE increased. Look at the first chart here for starts:

uschamber.com/above-the-fold/these-9-charts-put-federal-regulations-different-light

hmm.. really made me think

Wikipedia's article on social is actually surprisingly decent. Usually politics are just about the worst of all topics to look for reliable information on that site.

Das Kapital is a critique of capitalism, it doesn't describe socialism

As a right-winger, this "gas the kikes" type rhetoric disturbs me. I'm doing my best to stop it, as it's extremely troubling.

That said, I would rather live under right-wing dictatorship than left-wing dictatorship any day of the week, and it sometimes seems as if Latin America is capable of only one or the other. I'd much rather live under Pinochet's Chile than Chavez's Venezuela tbh, and I suspect that 99% of leftists would also prefer it, if they had to make the real decision.

Kek
I would much rather live under Castro than Pinochet and rather live under Sandinista administration over Contra administration.

I miss when Molyneux used to focus on Statism, history, historical heroes who were really assholes, explaining philosophy, exposing child abuse, shaming americans for the iraq war, talking about debt. My heart broke a little when he started shilling for Trump and appealing to stormfags. I distinctly remember when the comment sections on those vids started to drift hard towards white supremacist narratives and rhetoric.

I think leftists would choose Venezuela anytime. At least there they wouldn't be killed for being leftists.

Also Venezuela only started going shit under Maduro (not really his fault though), and Chavez improved a lot compared to the former neoliberal governments like life exceptancy, productivity and standard of living. He also controlled inflation lot better than the neolibs and decreased poverty.

He can't even be classified as a dictator, since there were free elections under his rule.

b-but muh nap

The difference is that Castro was bad for nearly all Cubans, whereas Pinochet was simply bad for those who opposed him.

He ended illiteracy, broke the land monopoly, created one of the best healthcare systems in the world and eliminated extreme poverty, all while being terrorized by the United States.
Meanwhile all of Pinochet's "accomplishments" came after privatization failed and he was forced to scale back on his own neoliberal project.

Doesn't no one know the difference between communism, socialism and democratic-socialism???

Molymeme certainly doesn't. Not that that's stopped right wingers before.

/thread

I despise those who supported trump to "drain the swamp", and after all of this, still support him (ಠ_ಠ). Could they really be this stubborn?

As a right-winger, I think that anyone who wants to save a child by forcibly removing them from oncoming street traffic is both doing the right thing and violating the NAP. Still, I think that the ancaps are onto something by suggesting that government needs to be voluntary in some sense, and I think that's the reason for their invention of the NAP. I don't believe that government needs to get approval from everyone to have legitimacy, as even a child might object in the moment to being forcibly swept off the street for his own protection. But I do agree with Chomsky that if you want to impose a government action on someone, that the burden of proof is upon you to show how it benefits that person. Leftists are no longer making that case. First they told us we needed unrestricted immigration because diversity was a strength. Then they said we needed it because we had no other choice. Now they're simply telling us that we deserve it.

It amuses me to see Leftypol treat Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto as gospel and you guys also treat Marx like he's the Christian God, and you treat Lenin and Stalin like they are Jesus Christ.

I mean, if you have to splurge out into autistic conspiritard rants about how the Holodomor "didn't exist", and this weird need to defend the failed Soviet Union, and impoverished, shitty regimes like Cuba, North Korea, then you are a religious movement failing to become a global political movement. It's safe to say that communism is a cult.

Capitalism has brought great technological wonders, and you people would prefer to live in a primitive communal society, with low lifespans, greater tribalism, no individuality.
Capitalism, while being your unholy devil figure (aka Spook) has allowed you to criticize it's existence, while communism would have never allowed for such a discussion.

I just came here to laugh at all the delusional lefties.

Seriously, your cognitive dissonance is so far and beyond your arseholes, It should feature a full length Documentary on BBC. :D

Polite Sage, I am here on a Humanitarian Mission after all.
Fuckn Manchildren

I suppose that's true if you take Castro for his word. But according to that same logic, Mugabe ended hunger in Zimbabwe.

You need some Molyneux perspective:
youtube.com/watch?v=2EhlTI0fte0

Check out reddit drama and r/subredditdrama.
There's some juicy drama about delusional communists being incapable about explaining their religious beliefs.
I mean, the Soviet Union was an utter failure, Cuba is an impoverished shithole with crumbling buildings, Venezuela is a starving shithole with it's own citizens trying to escape it.
Communism just creates crumbling, impoverished shitholes centred around cult worship of it's leaders and founders.

extremely excellent that this is one of the top threads. stay classy Holla Forums

jim needs to shut this board down. you're an embarrassment to Holla Forums.

UN data claims that Cuba has a 100% adult literacy rate.
Is the UN communist propaganda now?

Yes, actually

I should have expected this response.

This
Molyposter, cite some actual evidence against Castro's accomplishments.

...

Not an argument

why watch molymeme then

Exploitation isn't a benefit.

Show me where the workers owned the means of production in any of those countries.

No, there are real failures of communism to acknowledge (like the Paris Commune or Anarchist Spain), but they failed for different reasons. The state capitalist countries failed for their own reasons. The distinction is not made for convenience, but for truthfulness. State ownership does not entail socialism. If this were the case, any monarchy would be socialist.

I guarantee you've spent all of three minutes on this board if you think anyone besides the 5% of tankie posters we have here defends Stalin, reveres the Manifesto (which isn't actually a manifesto for communism, but for the Communist Party at the time, similar to how the Conservative Party in England produces a manifesto for governing every year), worships Marx, and rejects the Holodomor.

Most technological advancements of the past seventy years have been incubated in public-funded research departments and laboratories before being privatized. NASA discoveries, computers, the Internet, operating systems, etc. Look it up.

This is a gross mischaracterization of our views. Only anprims think this way. Most communists and anarchists see capitalism as holding back modernity.

Under capitalist healthcare and welfare, these factors worsen. Just compare lifespan, average height, and infant mortality in the US to other developed countries and you'll realize this.

Pic related. We oppose you and anyone else who wishes to subject workers to authoritarianism and vulgar collectivism.

Good post, comrade. Also:

In some cases, you don't even have to compare to developed countries. Cuba has a superior healthcare system to the US.

Disgusting.

Wow, tankies don't give a shit about who owns the MoP. I am truly stunned.

If Venezuela was doing good before chavez, WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY ELECT HIM!

y'know why Venezuela is experiencing such a bad economy now? Oil prices dropped massively and Venezuela relies on oil massively, same thing happened under the neo-liberals. In fact under the neo liberals the economy relied more on oil, so the situation would be even worse now.

this video explains more

I'm not a tankie. But Marx identified Communism with the movement, and it's ludicrous to treat the USSR like it wasn't the path the communist movement took in the 20th century. I think the USSR is a failed state, but it deserves more of an explanation beyond arguing from semantics and denying the association of "communism" with the USSR. Really, these arguments come off impotent and aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already have leftist inclinations. So, we should do what Marxist do and explain the failure of the USSR in terms of historical and material circumstances. Instead of going "BUT THE MEMES!".

Also: Stalin was an evil meanie is not an argument either.

you have sauce on the youtube video, I want to use this in future debates

m8, it's not semantics. It's an actual, tangible difference from. It was literally state capitalism. I don't see why it's necessary to waste your time, arguing past that. I mean, you could probe further and ask "But why was it state capitalist?", and chalk it up to the danger of putting too much power in the hands of too few people (ie. a strong argument for ancom).

I get what you're saying about how normies will have no idea wtf owning means of production has to do with anything. But that's remedied with a quick explanation of what MoP are, and therefore the USSR was state capitalist.

This is good, but how does it jive with those arguing "Venezuela isn't actually socialist.

youtube.com/watch?v=vF_ntTLk0dc

actually that was the wrong link
sorry, youtube.com/watch?v=Pd4tsaRJBes

it still isn't socialist, but it's also not the government's fault.

I agree: it was state Capitalism. But like I said, I don't think that is sufficient. I don't think the problem was "putting too much power in the hands of a few people". Marx was pretty clear that the State should act concisely and violently in the aftermath of a revolution, and if this means suppressing reactionary parts of the working class (like Lenin did) then that's what it means. So this argument can quickly lead to Marx being a proponent of a terrorist state if they bother to read say, "On Authority" or some of Marx's newspaper articles.

My point is that while this argument may work on an apolitical 16 year old, a more "intelligent" anti-communist is going to clarify by saying they mean "communism in practice". In this case it is necessary to delve into the material and historical circumstances that propelled it to be X instead of Y without regressing into alternate history BS about what "could've been". And shortcuts like chalking it up to "power in the hand of too few people" (which was a problem but it doesn't explain why it became a problem) or "the workers didn't have full control of the MOP" do not cut it. At least in my humble opinion.

Venezuela was never Marxist. That much is clear. The same can't be said for the USSR.

...

this is your mind on anarchism

thanks famarade

larpers lol

That's like a celibate hooker

Yes, you're using their private property without permission

Fair enough.

Well, that's literally true. USSR was state capitalist, while Paris and Catalonia were taken down through war.

Yeah, I'm no tankie. But I thought it was fitting that the poster used a Chomsky image because as far as intellectuals go, Chomsky is one of the main guys advocating dissociation from failure instead of examination/critique.

Fair enough, but why isn't that also valid? The majority of socialists aren't tankie, and have no connection to the USSR since it was state capitalist. The same way I don't waste my time "examining" ISIS since they don't have a thing to do with me, the left really has no obligation to "self-examine" USSR.

It's true that the USSR is very tied to communism in people's minds, but pointing out flaws in them legitimizes them in a way. If you get what I'm saying.

Rojava should be critiqued in order to be improved, since it's actually socialist. The USSR should not.

Thats how you know its not the side of intellectuals

in 20 years you will call the politicians that de-regulated banks "leftists"

It's valid - relative to them. To me it is not. Again, Marx identified Communism with the movement. This is why (for me as a Marxist) I am compelled to critique the USSR, but I don't see why we shouldn't spend time examining ISIS.

I don't really. You're an Islamic Socialist so I understand why you might say that, I can not agree. In general, I feel the "It was State Capitalism" one liner is shallow apologetics. You should at least make reference to Engel's "national Capitalist" and give proof of that existing in the USSR (like leftcoms have). That my friend, is discourse.

But it's linked the legacy of socialism forever.

Really makes you think..

I worded that part badly. I'm saying don't critique as if it's part of the same tradition. So to go to back to the ISIS example, I don't take issue with a few of their actions here and there, but literally the foundation of their existence as they're borne entirely outside of traditional Islamic scholarship.

However, you do make a better point in that it's not analogous, since Marx connected them (even though he didn't live to see the USSR really).

Right, I get your point. We need to go deeper than just a single sentence.

Charity is a tithe that does almost nothing to resolve systematic issues.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you crash the job market for fishermen.

A rule stating that all aircraft cargo holds need to have fire extinguishers as a rule patch to oxygen canisters (which should never have been in the hold without a special licence to begin with.) is never going to go away, and is not fungible with - say - another rule (or indeed set of rules, you can toss out FAA precedents all day.) to deregulate the entire industry in terms of allowing airlines to open-and-close routes without having to go through an approval process, buy foreign planes without first checking if a domestic competitor is available, set their own ticket prices freely, and so on and so on.

Anything focusing on the number of regulations instead of what they actually regulate is nonsense.

lurk, thats all you have to do, not even read any books, just lurk before posting your nonsense

...

molymeme is canadian

...

How's that capitalism working for Honduras

...

How do you explain the inflation from the day that Maduro took over to July 2014 (before prices dropped)?

Yeah, because Latin America is filled with dictatorships right now amirite? most governments right now are your run of the mill bourg center left of right wing government, and their usual shenaningans like corruption and continuing abuse of vulnerable populations.

Holla Forums pls go

95% of people who end up reading Marx agree with him to some degree ,even if they don't identfiy as Marxists.

If you do think about giving marx a try,try the David Harvey companion book.

The only reason Venezuela is so heavily derided as an example of how evil "socialism" is, despite there being far worse countries with self-declared left wing governments, is because burgers have a definition of "socialism" and capitalism" that deviate from the actual terms.

Why can't you right wingers talk about politics without bringing immigration into it?

*Angry Bakunin noises*

I don't watch his shit on Holla Forums. What makes you think Holla Forums will watch it?

The left media is triggered by the right media. The right media is triggered by the left.

We have little impartiality now, just media on both extremes.
Frankly, we need a new source of news to emerge that is more technical with regards to procedure and evidence. It needs a classification standard or something.

AHAHAHAHA

Not even the most hardcore Stalinists deny the famine happened kek

How can we convince Venezuelans that socialism isn't capitalism with free shit, without them getting buttmad and ignoring you before they even finish reading the first paragraph?

Holodomor refers to an attempted genocide, not the famine itself.

Oh well yeah even if you ascribe the worst intentions to the Soviet government it still wouldn't be an attempted genocide of Ukrainians

The national.socialists were already defeated by Hitler long before WW2 started

Thumb down and move on.

I want an answer for this question.

He was a failed philosopher before he went over to the new right to gain views and attention.
He has an extreme aversion to mind thought experiments for views that he does not at least partially hold.

Philosophers' Media is the only proper name I can identify for such a discussion broadcast.
You must have guests from all sides and discuss their ideas with them instead of just attacking them for every view they hold that isn't exactly like yours or more extreme than yours (which both left and right like to cheer for - when others views are their own but more complete and more aggressive).

…is that… an attempt at meme-based performance art? This guy really is fucking pathetic.

They were printing money to try to fulfill domestic spending obligations. It's obvious however that the majority of the inflation is due to oil prices dropping.

I think you need to stop advertising on 8ch molly!