Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Hugo Chavez, the champion of the poor, somehow amassed a $1 billion fortune while in office   (celebritynetworth.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Hugo Chavez, double major, military sciences  
•       •       •

8803 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-06 09:20:38 AM  
Damn.  That is one expensive funeral.  He had 2 billion yesterday.
 
2013-03-06 09:20:43 AM  
I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat.  You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny.  The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...
 
2013-03-06 09:29:12 AM  
Sucker died due to iatrogenic illness, a bug picked up in a hospital.

If you want someone to die give them an interventionist personal doctor.
 
2013-03-06 09:33:37 AM  
I, for one, am just so suprised that he squirreled away  embezzeled $500M.

I am certain that the $250M will go to a good cause.
 
2013-03-06 09:34:09 AM  

FullMetalPanda: I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat.  You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny.  The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...


Never trust or fear a man whose ass is wider than his shoulders.
 
2013-03-06 09:34:35 AM  
Did the cancer make it, though? It was the innocent victim in all this.
 
2013-03-06 09:34:46 AM  
seems like i heard some saying about absolute power corrupting absolutely...i'm sure it has no bearing here. The guy was only about helping the poor.
 
2013-03-06 09:34:59 AM  
Judyth Baker did it.
 
2013-03-06 09:35:13 AM  
A billionaire president of an oil-rich country still has to fly to a different country for medical care.  To be fair, he certainly put a lot of money into importing Cuban doctors and medical practices to Venezuela, and Cuba has pretty good healthcare in the first place, but still.  Money not well-spent, clearly.

He seemed to be a man in which his ego and his "heart" competed on the playing field that was his country as a whole.  He wanted to do a lot for the little guy, but also did much for himself.  In the end, he died relatively young and his big plans are half-fulfilled.
 
2013-03-06 09:36:10 AM  
Man of the people, no doubt about it.

.smh
 
2013-03-06 09:36:37 AM  

I_C_Weener: Damn.  That is one expensive funeral.  He had 2 billion yesterday.




At least we know his half billion dollar fortune won't go to waste.

/elections cost a lot to buy, after all.
 
2013-03-06 09:37:18 AM  
An honest politician is one who stays bought.
 
2013-03-06 09:37:20 AM  
Irony tag in the bread line?
 
2013-03-06 09:37:49 AM  
How much money does Obama have?
 
2013-03-06 09:37:50 AM  
I'm sure he was keeping all that evil capitalistic wealth to protect his people and country. HERO!
 
Skr
2013-03-06 09:38:06 AM  
He was just holding it for the country, to be redistributed upon his demise.
 
2013-03-06 09:38:28 AM  

doubled99: How much money does Obama have?


All of it.
 
2013-03-06 09:38:48 AM  
Well, that does it, I'm not voting for him next time around.
 
2013-03-06 09:40:32 AM  
Let's hope Venezuelans choose for their next leader an individual who has the same respect for human rights and free markets that Americans have. You know, somebody like Augusto Pinochet, or Hosni Mubarak.
 
2013-03-06 09:40:41 AM  
Say what you will about Chavez, but he never banned 2 liter pop with your pizza order.
 
2013-03-06 09:40:48 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I'm sure he was keeping all that evil capitalistic wealth to protect his people and country. HERO!


Well, duh.

He was Champion of the Poor.

What happens when poor people get a pile of money?  They're not poor any more.

He was just preserving his constituency.
 
2013-03-06 09:41:01 AM  
Hey, give the man his due.  Even Jesus said, "There's always going to be poor people" before getting his feet washed.  Chavez was just following Jesus' idea out to its logical conclusion.
 
2013-03-06 09:41:18 AM  

BunkoSquad: Well, that does it, I'm not voting for him next time around.


Don't be too hasty.  Zombie Chavez might have it all going on for himself.........or Robot Chavez, death may come quickly to his enemies....Seek Destroy etc...
 
2013-03-06 09:42:19 AM  

I_C_Weener: Say what you will about Chavez, but he never banned 2 liter pop with your pizza order.


By how fat he was I'm pretty sure he had a 2 liter soda hooked up via IV on him at all times.
 
2013-03-06 09:42:47 AM  
factoryconnection:

He seemed to be a man in which his ego and his "heart" competed on the playing field that was his country as a whole.  He wanted to do a lot for the little guy, but also did much for himself.  In the end, he died relatively young and his big plans are half-fulfilled.

Folks, I present to you, "What if Jackie Harvey of The Onion wrote obituaries?"
 
2013-03-06 09:43:58 AM  
FTFA:

cdn.cnwimg.com

/Two dbags, one photo
 
2013-03-06 09:44:16 AM  
With a high score like that, I guess it does make him the champion.
 
2013-03-06 09:50:04 AM  
 I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it. Mark Twain
 
2013-03-06 09:50:17 AM  
As long as we just don't send him, he should be perfectly well qualified to continue in his enlightened rule.
 
2013-03-06 09:50:46 AM  
Saw a couple of idiots who were saddened by the loss of "such a great man"
When somebody pointed out the dictator part they turned it in to the silliest thing ever.
YOU HAVE CHAVEZ BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK! YOU RACIST!!!!!
 
2013-03-06 09:51:11 AM  
Not to dispute the sentiment but, celebritynetworth.com?
 
2013-03-06 09:51:30 AM  
As soon as he got 2 billion, the next guy, the Vice President will get two billion. Then the next. It's Slo Mo Socialism.

Just you watch. The VP will get his 2 billion very soon.
 
2013-03-06 09:51:33 AM  
Never understood Hollywood's hero worshipping of Chavez
 
2013-03-06 09:51:34 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.com

You don't.... yeah.
 
2013-03-06 09:51:38 AM  
At least in Venezuela they still have to pretend to be acting in the interests of the people.  In the USA the politicians can't even muster the energy to do that.
 
2013-03-06 09:52:21 AM  
It'll trickle down.
 
2013-03-06 09:52:37 AM  

WordsnCollision: FTFA:

[cdn.cnwimg.com image 850x557]

/Two dbags, one photo


I always did appreciate his commitment to the faux turtleneck undershirt.
 
2013-03-06 09:52:58 AM  
Those things don't have to be mutually exclusive, subby.
 
2013-03-06 09:55:21 AM  
Chavez's rule looked like something out of Woody Allen's Bananas. There must be something in the water down there that turns a champion of the people into a ruthless dictator as soon as they get power.
 
2013-03-06 09:55:41 AM  

karnal: Never understood Hollywood's hero worshipping of Chavez


imageshack.us

How does that coincide withyour post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids.....
 
2013-03-06 09:55:46 AM  
Who wants butter in their popcorn?
 
2013-03-06 09:57:06 AM  
I always find it amusing that these guys who spend all their lives living on a government salary seem to wind up rich.
 
2013-03-06 09:58:52 AM  
Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.
 
2013-03-06 09:59:35 AM  
I could simply die of not surprise.
 
2013-03-06 09:59:36 AM  
Wait a minute -- you mean the distribution of wealth doesn't actually apply to the politicians themselves?!?!
 
2013-03-06 09:59:53 AM  

I_C_Weener: Say what you will about Chavez, but he never banned 2 liter pop coke with your pizza order.


FTFY

;)
 
2013-03-06 09:59:53 AM  
Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.
 
2013-03-06 10:01:11 AM  

Karma Chameleon: Those things don't have to be mutually exclusive, subby.


This is the fark readership we're talking about. They need exceedingly simple narratives.
 
2013-03-06 10:01:13 AM  
Will Dennis Rodman be giving the eulogy?
 
2013-03-06 10:01:44 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Saw a couple of idiots who were saddened by the loss of "such a great man"
When somebody pointed out the dictator part they turned it in to the silliest thing ever.
YOU HAVE CHAVEZ BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK! YOU RACIST!!!!!


Are you trying to get people to make fun of you?  You're not very competent at trolling lately.
 
2013-03-06 10:02:46 AM  

1. Put snakes on plane: Folks, I present to you, "What if Jackie Harvey of The Onion wrote obituaries?"


ITEM! I promise to CAPITALIZE more words next TIME.

Also, perhaps I'll be a bit more clear that his end-game seems to have been a failure.
 
2013-03-06 10:02:57 AM  
I used to love the threads where American Farkers would tell Venezuelan Farkers that Chavez really wasn't a bad guy.  Those Venezuelans just didn't know what was good for them.
 
2013-03-06 10:03:56 AM  

FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.


I see you ignored the false equivalencies, red herrings, and....well, you created your own strawman, so I'll give you that.....
 
2013-03-06 10:04:06 AM  
So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.
 
2013-03-06 10:04:23 AM  
Will the autopsy confirm whether or not Chavez had a neck?
 
2013-03-06 10:04:52 AM  

FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.

I see you ignored the false equivalencies, red herrings, and....well, you created your own strawman, so I'll give you that.....


I see you believe all Venezuelans hated Chavez.  That's awesome for you.  I'm really happy that you believe that.
 
2013-03-06 10:04:55 AM  
i.imgur.com

I still need to see more proof for Chavez, but I don't quite doubt it.

Reminds me of Arafat of the Palensitnian LIberation Organization.  Amassed over a billion dollars, bribes and scraping from aid packages, while Palenstinians lived in shiat.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995651,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-582487.html
 
2013-03-06 10:05:07 AM  

epoc_tnac: At least in Venezuela they still have to pretend to be acting in the interests of the people.  In the USA the politicians can't even muster the energy to do that.


Shut up and smile for that red light camera, would you?
 
2013-03-06 10:05:25 AM  

factoryconnection: He wanted to do a lot for the little guy, but also did much for himself.


That's like saying Hitler wanted world peace so he started a bigass war to kill everyone that could disrupt world peace
 
2013-03-06 10:05:52 AM  

FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.


When Pelosi kicks off there will be dancing in the streets!
 
2013-03-06 10:06:32 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.

When Pelosi kicks off there will be dancing in the streets!


American politicians die, meh.  They are all capitalist swine.
 
2013-03-06 10:06:34 AM  

FarkedOver: FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.

I see you ignored the false equivalencies, red herrings, and....well, you created your own strawman, so I'll give you that.....

I see you believe all Venezuelans hated Chavez.  That's awesome for you.  I'm really happy that you believe that.


Another strawman!  Nice!  No, I said I enjoyed the threads where Venezuelan Farkers.....

I like Venezuela and all, but I'm going to go ahead and assume not all Venezuelans are on Fark.
 
2013-03-06 10:06:39 AM  
Venezuela is a shiathole, I worked in Caracas in
1990  = Mad Max
2000  = Road Warrior
2010  = Thunderdome

He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or so it seems.  He nationalized foreign business under the guise of getting the evil gringo infidels out of the country.  From telecom to grocery stores.  Most recently the Colombian chain Exito was grabbed and "given" to the people.

The majority of his gifts did not come from his coffers, but from those of others.
 
2013-03-06 10:06:43 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Chavez's rule looked like something out of Woody Allen's Bananas. There must be something in the water down there that turns a champion of the people into a ruthless dictator as soon as they get power a hot meal, decent clothes and some hookers.

ftfy

 
2013-03-06 10:07:24 AM  

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


Well, for one, he had his legislature repeatedly pass "enabling laws" that allowed him to rule by decree.  Chavez signed a paper--new law.  No vote.

Imagine if the Congress did that for a US president.  (Thankfully, I have a little faith left in the system and believe that most Congresscritters, even of the same party, would vote against such a measure.)
 
2013-03-06 10:07:34 AM  

FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.

I see you ignored the false equivalencies, red herrings, and....well, you created your own strawman, so I'll give you that.....

I see you believe all Venezuelans hated Chavez.  That's awesome for you.  I'm really happy that you believe that.

Another strawman!  Nice!  No, I said I enjoyed the threads where Venezuelan Farkers.....

I like Venezuela and all, but I'm going to go ahead and assume not all Venezuelans are on Fark.


So then you had no real point you were just typing for the sake of typing.  Cool.
 
2013-03-06 10:07:43 AM  
My wife is Venezuelan and we just had family visit. The news broke just after they arrived, so much for the scotch in the house. Chavez has been terrible to his middle class of which my family was a part. They were very happy to hear the news. It's an amazing country with a wonderful diverse population. I sure hope things get better.
 
2013-03-06 10:08:11 AM  

theflatline: Venezuela is a shiathole, I worked in Caracas in
1990  = Mad Max
2000  = Road Warrior
2010  = Thunderdome

He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or so it seems.  He nationalized foreign business under the guise of getting the evil gringo infidels out of the country.  From telecom to grocery stores.  Most recently the Colombian chain Exito was grabbed and "given" to the people.

The majority of his gifts did not come from his coffers, but from those of others.


Well, lets be totally honest, Santa Claus doesn't actually make all those toys he hands out every year either.
 
2013-03-06 10:08:12 AM  

theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor


I'm ok with this.
 
2013-03-06 10:08:35 AM  
"Moon Over Parador" was a more realistic version of a banana-republic dictatorship.
Chavez just couldn't pull off the character as well as Richard Dreyfuss.

Plus it had Sammy Davis, Jr. and Charro. It was practically an episode of "The Love Boat."


/R.I.P Raul Julia
 
2013-03-06 10:09:05 AM  

dogdaze: My wife is Venezuelan and we just had family visit. The news broke just after they arrived, so much for the scotch in the house. Chavez has been terrible to his middle class of which my family was a part. They were very happy to hear the news. It's an amazing country with a wonderful diverse population. I sure hope things get better.


The scotch is always in danger when latin americans are present.  They view it as some sort of ambrosia, they would have found an excuse to drink it anyway. :)
 
2013-03-06 10:09:54 AM  

snocone: I, for one, am just so suprised that he squirreled away  embezzeled $500M.

I am certain that the $250M will go to a good cause.


THIS.  We'll see all of that $100 million handed to charity in 3...2...

/sees what you did there
 
2013-03-06 10:10:06 AM  

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


Because he set democracy is South America back dramatically while at the same time claiming to be democratic.  He wasn't as brutal of a dictator as Saddam, but he was very similar: suppressed his enemies, suppressed democracy, used oil as a tool for personal gain at the expense of his nation, used the same style of international PR, etc
 
2013-03-06 10:10:08 AM  

skinink: Will Dennis Rodman be giving the eulogy?


To befFollowed up with a stirring version of Amazing Grace, sung by Cindy Sheehan.
 
2013-03-06 10:10:38 AM  

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


He was a dickhead and a corrupt as hell dictator, but certainly not the only one.  He's probably a little better than Hussein, but certainly not as bad as Bin Laden.  He's hyped-up because he so frequently criticized the US and tried to stymie our elite's interests.  And usually tried to do it in a particularly AW sort of way.  So he got a lot of press.
 
2013-03-06 10:10:44 AM  

theflatline: Most recently the Colombian chain Exito was grabbed and "given" to the people.


I'm also ok with this.  Fark the Colombian government.
 
2013-03-06 10:10:55 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: When Pelosi kicks off there will be dancing in the streets!


She can't die.  Great healthcare.
 
2013-03-06 10:10:57 AM  

WordsnCollision: /Two dbags, one photo


It's like Penn goes out of his way to be a douche.  His group is probably doing some good in Hati, a problem that the world can't seem to get excited about, but there are just days where he needs a pimp slapping.
 
2013-03-06 10:11:48 AM  
Why can't a billionaire champion the poor? Championing the poor isn't the same as championing poverty.
 
2013-03-06 10:12:23 AM  

FarkedOver: FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.

I see you ignored the false equivalencies, red herrings, and....well, you created your own strawman, so I'll give you that.....

I see you believe all Venezuelans hated Chavez.  That's awesome for you.  I'm really happy that you believe that.

Another strawman!  Nice!  No, I said I enjoyed the threads where Venezuelan Farkers.....

I like Venezuela and all, but I'm going to go ahead and assume not all Venezuelans are on Fark.

So then you had no real point you were just typing for the sake of typing.  Cool.


As opposed to this statement, which will live forever in the halls of infamy.

Get over yourself.  Your Robin Hood schtick is straight out of some community college sociology professor's curriculum.  You sound really sad and miserable.
 
2013-03-06 10:12:52 AM  

theflatline: The scotch is always in danger when latin americans are present. They view it as some sort of ambrosia, they would have found an excuse to drink it anyway. :)


If you put some Indians on the other side of the bottle you would have a show.

/by Indians I mean dot not feather.
//I had to be clear so not to be racist.
 
2013-03-06 10:13:03 AM  

FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.


the difference is, conservatives can die filthy wealthy and not be hypocrites.
 
2013-03-06 10:13:05 AM  

FarkedOver: theflatline: Most recently the Colombian chain Exito was grabbed and "given" to the people.

I'm also ok with this.  Fark the Colombian government.


Why?
 
2013-03-06 10:13:26 AM  

JohnAnnArbor: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Well, for one, he had his legislature repeatedly pass "enabling laws" that allowed him to rule by decree.  Chavez signed a paper--new law.  No vote.

Imagine if the Congress did that for a US president.  (Thankfully, I have a little faith left in the system and believe that most Congresscritters, even of the same party, would vote against such a measure.)


Okay, well that's a start.  Let's go all out and say he changed the law to make himself a dictator.  And then, what evil deeds did he get up to with his new powers?  If you want to be part of the modern-day axis of evil, it's not enough to just change the law to give you the *ability* to be evil.  You have to actually do something evil.

So - let's hear it.
 
2013-03-06 10:14:37 AM  
He was just saving it for the poor because they are too stupid to spend it themselves, and he needed that money to entertain Sean Penn
 
2013-03-06 10:15:03 AM  

FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: theflatline: Most recently the Colombian chain Exito was grabbed and "given" to the people.

I'm also ok with this.  Fark the Colombian government.

Why?


Right-wing hit squads.  Collusion with the US government to propagate the cocaine trade.
 
2013-03-06 10:17:46 AM  
So the CIA decided they wanted Hugo dead.
 
2013-03-06 10:19:00 AM  

FullMetalPanda: I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat.  You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny.  The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...


Yon Cassius  has a lean and hungry look - he thinks too much, and such men are dangerous.
 
2013-03-06 10:19:21 AM  

FLMountainMan: Get over yourself. Your Robin Hood schtick is straight out of some community college sociology professor's curriculum. You sound really sad and miserable.


I judge Chavez from a Marxist point of view.  Was he a great Marxist? No, he wasn't.  Was he the best hope for the disenfranchised and the poor of Venezuela? Yes he was.  I believe the nationalization of the oil companies helped the poor in more ways than a market driven company could have.  Even the people of the US could say this is true, well at least the 250,000 low income people of New England that got free home heating oil from the Venezuelan government.

He was not the "dictator" or the "boogeyman" that everyone makes him out to be.  Hell after there was a US supported "coup" of Chavez the people went on strike and DEMANDED he be put back in power.  This doesn't sound like something an oppressed people would do.
 
2013-03-06 10:19:23 AM  
I thought Victor Hugo was dead?
 
2013-03-06 10:19:24 AM  
Not sure how "Links lullen, rechts vullen" translates into English, but you sure see these "lefties" amass cash through nefarious means a lot.
 
2013-03-06 10:19:25 AM  
What fascinates me is that we are talking about his personal failings and not the fact that he survived a coup attempt by business elites bankrolled and armed by America.  He survived the coup because the entire nation rose up to support him.
 
2013-03-06 10:19:36 AM  

FarkedOver: theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor

I'm ok with this.


Im sure you have something I want but cant afford mind if I swing by later and pick it up? You worked for it and Im entitled to it
 
2013-03-06 10:20:02 AM  

FLMountainMan: I used to love the threads where American Farkers would tell Venezuelan Farkers that Chavez really wasn't a bad guy.  Those Venezuelans just didn't know what was good for them.


Were you here in yesterday's thread? It was that times elevnty.
 
2013-03-06 10:20:19 AM  

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


American politicians say he's a bad man for not cooperating with "American" corporations. That's pretty much it.
 
2013-03-06 10:21:28 AM  

Clash City Farker: So the CIA decided they wanted Hugo dead.


Actually, it appears that a colony of microscopic organisms wanted him dead.
 
2013-03-06 10:21:41 AM  

bhcompy: factoryconnection: He wanted to do a lot for the little guy, but also did much for himself.

That's like saying Hitler wanted world peace so he started a bigass war to kill everyone that could disrupt world peace


Wat.

Chavez wanted to alleviate poverty and so he created a bunch of social programs to help the poor.  He was just bad at it and a lot of his work ended up being "big idea, shoddy execution" that hasn't benefited anyone but him in the long run.

How the hell does that jib with your statement?  Also: Godwinning, really?

FLMountainMan: He was a dickhead and a corrupt as hell dictator, but certainly not the only one. He's probably a little better than Hussein, but certainly not as bad as Bin Laden. He's hyped-up because he so frequently criticized the US and tried to stymie our elite's interests. And usually tried to do it in a particularly AW sort of way. So he got a lot of press.


Wait, in which war did Chavez take over a neighboring country?  In which war did he use chem/bio weapons, including on his own people?  And at what point did Bin Laden become a dictator?

I mean, jeez, Chavez was a corrupt, self-serving, anti-US blowhard but have I missed all this behavior?  It is possible.
 
2013-03-06 10:22:02 AM  

Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor

I'm ok with this.

Im sure you have something I want but cant afford mind if I swing by later and pick it up? You worked for it and Im entitled to it


No. Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
 
2013-03-06 10:22:20 AM  
Where's MNGuy?  Apparently he took a few trips to Venezuela, so he probably is familiar with Chavez's personal finances, and us stupid Americans just don't get it.  Just ask him.
 
2013-03-06 10:22:35 AM  
Pact in the sun
Slum and skyscraper meet
Billion dollar penthouse
And people on the street
Pact in the sun
Shade by foreign debt
Amnesia in the Sambadrome
King bandits gonna sweat

Three months of freedom
A fugitive from the law
Got to take him alive
Chè martyr no more
Bless the little children
With nylon football shorts
Fly their kites as warning
Their King is never caught

Socialised by compassion
Yeach crime`s his occupation
King bandit for president
Of the sambadrome nation

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/b/badbigaudiodynamitelyrics/sambadromel y rics.html
 
2013-03-06 10:23:18 AM  

Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor

I'm ok with this.

Im sure you have something I want but cant afford mind if I swing by later and pick it up? You worked for it and Im entitled to it


Yeah that's not how socialism works.  Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class.  I own no capital and have no means of oppressing a worker.  Thanks for playing though.
 
2013-03-06 10:23:46 AM  
Neither in mourning nor celebration

When an illness becomes serious, when medical attention becomes a vehicle for myopic, politically motivated decisions and when a patient becomes drunk with power, it can only end this way. The strongman has died, and in so doing, he has initiated a substantial shift in the Venezuelan political landscape.

What used to be the regime's greatest strength has suddenly turned into its defining weakness: it was all Chávez, and, without him, the only solution is to fabricate an absolute commitment to his memory and his plans for succession. The government's true fragility can now be seen, a government which tried to demonstrate its "popular, socialist" character via a grotesque personality cult, a practice that has now been reduced to the empty invocation of spirits. The deceased himself is to blame for this outcome as the secrecy around his illness was propelled by the same motivations as the extreme centralisation of power around him, while the lack of ideological coherence amongst his followers has left them scrapping for crumbs. The high-level "rojo-rojito" [chavista red] bureaucrats and the upper echelons of the military are best placed to benefit, as they negotiate impunity for their various misdemeanours and corruptions.

For the right-wing and social democratic opposition, the new situation finds them unable to overcome their losses of the presidential elections of October 7 and the regionals of December 16, offering a "yuppy populism" which promises voters that they will maintain and fine-tune the clientelist tools of governmental power which were so useful to Chavez. This accommodation assumes the belief that a fortuitous metastasis has brought them within reach of the power that their greed, mistakes, laziness and incompetence had kept them away from, power they will wield with similar stupidity and greed as the Chavista bolibourgeoisie.
The backdrop to this load of petty opportunism - from both the Gran Polo Patriótico [the Chavista coalition] and the Mesa de Unidad Democrática [the opposition coalition] - is Venezuela, a country that faces its own problems: out of control inflation, rising unemployment and precarious jobs, the devaluation of the currency, shocking personal insecurity, crises in electricity and water provision, education and health systems in decline, a housing shortage, obsolete - or incomplete - public works, a demagogic approach which pays attention to only the most extreme scarcities experienced by the most desperate people... a whole host of other problems which are equally disastrous.

These issues are not the central concern of the two gangs in competition for Miraflores [the President palace/seat] and the oil booty. Our collective response must be to not relent to their blackmail: support at the ballot box in exchange for 'solutions' that either never materialise or are ludicrously inadequate. Now is the time to overpower the rotten powers that be and build - from below - a real democracy of equality, social justice and freedom. We must unleash the generalised anger caused by our suffering, and convert it into autonomous social struggles, self-managed and extensive. We must spell out for the politicians in power that we don't need them, neither as intermediaries nor as gracious givers of what we ourselves can construct - united and from the base - without any need for "clean hands" or "red berets".

EL LIBERTARIO Editorial Collective
 
2013-03-06 10:24:00 AM  

EyeballKid: Let's hope Venezuelans choose for their next leader an individual who has the same respect for human rights and free markets that Americans have. You know, somebody like Augusto Pinochet, or Hosni Mubarak.


Chavez had already hand-picked his successor.
 
2013-03-06 10:24:02 AM  
Communism: The Long Con.
 
2013-03-06 10:24:08 AM  

Bored Horde: What fascinates me is that we are talking about his personal failings and not the fact that he survived a coup attempt lead a successful coup.


FTFY
 
2013-03-06 10:24:32 AM  

JackieRabbit: EyeballKid: Let's hope Venezuelans choose for their next leader an individual who has the same respect for human rights and free markets that Americans have. You know, somebody like Augusto Pinochet, or Hosni Mubarak.

Chavez had already hand-picked his successor.


And elections will be held in April.
 
2013-03-06 10:24:53 AM  
Typical leftist.

On the surface, it's all civil rights and wealth redistribution.

Underneath, pure business.

That's why they talk such a good game. Their goal is to make themselves beyond criticism so they can loot the treasury and make off with the tax money.

And most people fall for it -- that's the amazing part.
 
2013-03-06 10:24:55 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: When Pelosi kicks off there will be dancing in the streets!


Does steering your Hoveround back and forth, then in a circle, qualify as "dancing" now?
 
2013-03-06 10:25:04 AM  

JackieRabbit: EyeballKid: Let's hope Venezuelans choose for their next leader an individual who has the same respect for human rights and free markets that Americans have. You know, somebody like Augusto Pinochet, or Hosni Mubarak.

Chavez had already hand-picked his successor.


How Democratic of him to not bother his people with such a decision.
 
2013-03-06 10:25:10 AM  

Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.


Capitalism: Straight Up Rape
 
2013-03-06 10:27:45 AM  

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor

I'm ok with this.

Im sure you have something I want but cant afford mind if I swing by later and pick it up? You worked for it and Im entitled to it

Yeah that's not how socialism works.  Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class.  I own no capital and have no means of oppressing a worker.  Thanks for playing though.


so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing
 
2013-03-06 10:27:48 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape


Better dead than red
 
2013-03-06 10:27:51 AM  

howdoibegin: Karma Chameleon: Those things don't have to be mutually exclusive, subby.

This is the fark readership we're talking about. They need exceedingly simple narratives.


And when the narratives are true, everyone wins. Except the poor. They don't win.
 
2013-03-06 10:28:23 AM  
Get off his back. He had good intentions.
 
2013-03-06 10:28:45 AM  

Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing


Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)
 
2013-03-06 10:29:01 AM  

spiderpaz: JackieRabbit: EyeballKid: Let's hope Venezuelans choose for their next leader an individual who has the same respect for human rights and free markets that Americans have. You know, somebody like Augusto Pinochet, or Hosni Mubarak.

Chavez had already hand-picked his successor.

How Democratic of him to not bother his people with such a decision.


Im sure he cleared it with Jimmy Carter first
 
2013-03-06 10:29:04 AM  
Ah, yes, it is now time to come up with random impressive, unsubstantiated numbers to profane a foreign politician who disagreed with certain policies endorsed by the "american" media.  This is just silly.
 
2013-03-06 10:29:23 AM  

Frank N Stein: FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape

Better dead than red


Nah, I'll stay red.  It's much better.
 
2013-03-06 10:30:16 AM  

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)


Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?
 
2013-03-06 10:30:33 AM  

Robert1966: Why can't a billionaire champion the poor? Championing the poor isn't the same as championing poverty.


This.

Just look into our own past with Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Gates.
 
2013-03-06 10:31:08 AM  

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)


I like how you assume labor just magically creates itself.

/your economic theories were laughable in the 19th century. Now they're both laughable and outdated.
 
2013-03-06 10:31:16 AM  

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


Curious if one of the right wingers at work will make comment on this; she's gone into anti-Chavez rants several times in the past, describing him as evil, etc.  I honestly doubt she / most people know anything about him, what he's done, what his policies are, etc.  All they know is that Fox and other right wing pundits says he's a Bad Man.

Personally?  I think he was a corrupt sack of shiat, but he was hardly evil or a dictator.   The reason there's been a lot of hate aimed at him from the US is due to him being a dick, him constantly bad mouthing the US, and that he's cost some big rich companies a lot of money.   Especially the oil industry.  Any surprise that the previous administration, full of oilmen, hated him?
 
2013-03-06 10:31:24 AM  

Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?


They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?
 
2013-03-06 10:32:26 AM  
A homeless guy asked me if he could have my fries, and I told him to screw off. I would look like a hypocrite if a wealthy guy like me helped out someone less fortunate, unless I gave away everything I own.
 
2013-03-06 10:32:39 AM  

Frank N Stein: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

I like how you assume labor just magically creates itself.

/your economic theories were laughable in the 19th century. Now they're both laughable and outdated.


I'm happy you enjoy your wage slave existence.
 
2013-03-06 10:33:24 AM  

epoc_tnac: JohnAnnArbor: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Well, for one, he had his legislature repeatedly pass "enabling laws" that allowed him to rule by decree.  Chavez signed a paper--new law.  No vote.

Imagine if the Congress did that for a US president.  (Thankfully, I have a little faith left in the system and believe that most Congresscritters, even of the same party, would vote against such a measure.)

Okay, well that's a start.  Let's go all out and say he changed the law to make himself a dictator.  And then, what evil deeds did he get up to with his new powers?  If you want to be part of the modern-day axis of evil, it's not enough to just change the law to give you the *ability* to be evil.  You have to actually do something evil.

So - let's hear it.


Silly me, I thought deomcracy was a good thing and unilaterally grabbing power was in of itself bad.
 
2013-03-06 10:34:25 AM  
This has just gotta be true coz its on the internet, right?
 
2013-03-06 10:35:22 AM  

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?


Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people
 
2013-03-06 10:35:23 AM  
I'm always a little skeptical about these kinds of reports, considering it's in the US's best interest to vilify any successful attempt at social reform that benefits the poor for fear it might spread here as well.

BTW, did anyone bother to look up the source of this guy's information?

http://sites.google.com/a/cjiausa.us/www/

Seems legit.
 
2013-03-06 10:36:22 AM  

Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people


I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.
 
2013-03-06 10:37:31 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: jehovahs witness protection: Saw a couple of idiots who were saddened by the loss of "such a great man"
When somebody pointed out the dictator part they turned it in to the silliest thing ever.
YOU HAVE CHAVEZ BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK! YOU RACIST!!!!!

Are you trying to get people to make fun of you?  You're not very competent at trolling lately.


Not trolling. Just repeating what idiots said. Are you stupid enough to agree with them?
 
2013-03-06 10:38:38 AM  

So basically Chavez was known for putting more and more private enterprise under Government Control.


Huh.....

 
2013-03-06 10:40:11 AM  

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.


Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.
 
2013-03-06 10:40:41 AM  

FarkedOver: Frank N Stein: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

I like how you assume labor just magically creates itself.

/your economic theories were laughable in the 19th century. Now they're both laughable and outdated.

I'm happy you enjoy your wage slave existence.


Lol. The "Wage slave" line. It's really like you're 17 and read your first socialist pamphlet.
 
2013-03-06 10:41:00 AM  

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.


I figured if we went around and around long enough we would agree on something
 
2013-03-06 10:42:18 AM  
FarkedOver
Yeah that's not how socialism works. Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class.

'A Kulak is anyone who has enough to eat'.
 
2013-03-06 10:43:26 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Yeah that's not how socialism works. Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class.

'A Kulak is anyone who has enough to eat'.


A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization.  It's not my fault they were retards.
 
2013-03-06 10:43:48 AM  
This sort of thing might be why some people think old Huge was a bit flaky a la the Kim trinity:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/ 08 /hugo_boss.single.html

Whilst Hitchens also had his blind spots, it's an interesting read.
 
2013-03-06 10:44:11 AM  

Frank N Stein: FarkedOver: Frank N Stein: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

I like how you assume labor just magically creates itself.

/your economic theories were laughable in the 19th century. Now they're both laughable and outdated.

I'm happy you enjoy your wage slave existence.

Lol. The "Wage slave" line. It's really like you're 17 and read your first socialist pamphlet.


Ok.  Thanks for posting. I guess?
 
2013-03-06 10:44:46 AM  

Onkel Buck: Liberals are pussies.

I figured if we went around and around long enough we would agree on something


haha :)
 
2013-03-06 10:44:56 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.

Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.


Link

/couldn't help myself. I have a sudden Tea Party Moment -- not wait, it was just gas pain
 
2013-03-06 10:45:23 AM  

Electrify: A homeless guy asked me if he could have my fries, and I told him to screw off. I would look like a hypocrite if a wealthy guy like me helped out someone less fortunate, unless I gave away everything I own.


A better analogy would be if 1 million homeless guys asked you for fries, so you used an army of homeless guys to kill the owner of the french fry plant, took over $1 billion of his assets for yourself, and then gave all the homeless people french fries, while destroying the economy.
 
2013-03-06 10:45:51 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Yeah that's not how socialism works. Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class.

'A Kulak is anyone who has enough to eat'.


I hope you are trotting out that line to show how stupid his thinking is.

Knowing you, probably not.
 
2013-03-06 10:48:11 AM  
Want a real champion of the poor? Try the president of Uruguay.
 
2013-03-06 10:49:27 AM  

FarkedOver: RanDomino: FarkedOver
Yeah that's not how socialism works. Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class.

'A Kulak is anyone who has enough to eat'.

A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization.  It's not my fault they were retards.


If you htink a farmer can't own his own cow, or profit fromt he toil on his own land you aren't a socialist, but a communist.
 
2013-03-06 10:49:44 AM  
www.pbs.org

A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards.

-Joseph Stalin
 
2013-03-06 10:49:55 AM  

liam76: Silly me, I thought deomcracy was a good thing and unilaterally grabbing power was in of itself bad.


Yes, you have a point, but it's not enough to put someone on a list of the world's most despised leaders.  Unless your country has a farkton of oil.

So it really comes down to 'we normally wouldn't give a shiat about your corrupt practices but we really want you oil so we're going to label you one of the worst people in the world (not to mention try and fail to overthrow you after you were democratically elected.)
 
2013-03-06 10:51:27 AM  

liam76: If you htink a farmer can't own his own cow, or profit fromt he toil on his own land you aren't a socialist, but a communist.


I'm glad you fully understand the end goal of socialism.
 
2013-03-06 10:52:03 AM  

halfof33: [www.pbs.org image 275x354]

A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards.

-Joseph Stalin


Nah, that could have been any Bolshevik.
 
2013-03-06 10:55:47 AM  

halfof33: [www.pbs.org image 275x354]

A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards.

-Joseph Stalin


I like young, bank robber Stalin better.

t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-06 10:57:21 AM  

FarkedOver: I like young, bank robber Stalin better


You weren't as big a fan when he was killing everybody then?
 
2013-03-06 10:58:16 AM  

halfof33: FarkedOver: I like young, bank robber Stalin better

You weren't as big a fan when he was killing everybody then?


Especially not a fan when he had Trotsky killed.
 
2013-03-06 10:58:55 AM  

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


Gained power through violence, used America as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries while complaining about us doing the same thing, bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote constitution and didn't follow it anyway, shut down media outlets that were critical of him, that's just off the top of my head.
 
2013-03-06 10:59:47 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Satanic_Hamster: jehovahs witness protection: Saw a couple of idiots who were saddened by the loss of "such a great man"
When somebody pointed out the dictator part they turned it in to the silliest thing ever.
YOU HAVE CHAVEZ BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK! YOU RACIST!!!!!

Are you trying to get people to make fun of you?  You're not very competent at trolling lately.

Not trolling. Just repeating what idiots said. Are you stupid enough to agree with them?


Right.  I'm sure that totally happened.

And you sure have Chavez all right.
 
2013-03-06 11:00:44 AM  
onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

So what country were they at war with?
 
2013-03-06 11:01:06 AM  
He robbed from the rich and gave to himself.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:38 AM  
FLMountainMan:  I used to love the threads where American Farkers would tell Venezuelan Farkers that Chavez really wasn't a bad guy.  Those Venezuelans just didn't know what was good for them.

And you can show us those actual threads?
 
2013-03-06 11:03:37 AM  

Latinwolf: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

So what country were they at war with?


What he means is that now all is right with the world now that there is hope that wall street investors can get their hands on Venezuela's natural resources.
 
2013-03-06 11:03:41 AM  
www.aidthoughts.org
it's good to be the king.
 
2013-03-06 11:03:46 AM  

epoc_tnac: liam76: Silly me, I thought deomcracy was a good thing and unilaterally grabbing power was in of itself bad.

Yes, you have a point, but it's not enough to put someone on a list of the world's most despised leaders.  Unless your country has a farkton of oil.

So it really comes down to 'we normally wouldn't give a shiat about your corrupt practices but we really want you oil so we're going to label you one of the worst people in the world (not to mention try and fail to overthrow you after you were democratically elected.)


I never called him the "world's most despised leader".

The US never tried to overthrow him. It wasn't exactly the most stable govt, and contrary to what some on Fark seem tot hink US involvement is not required.  People seem to forget that he first tried to get into power through a coup.
 
2013-03-06 11:04:31 AM  

ajt167: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Gained power through violence, used America as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries while complaining about us doing the same thing, bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote constitution and didn't follow it anyway, shut down media outlets that were critical of him, that's just off the top of my head.


I thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:02 AM  
Venezuela is sort of like a whole-country oil company.  Almost all their income is from oil, which was nationalized and controlled by the state.  So Chavez was basically the CEO, and like most oil company CEOs he was well compensated.

Sucks for the people though, as not much of that wealth trickles down to them.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:06 AM  

liam76: The US never tried to overthrow him


O rly!?
 
2013-03-06 11:06:41 AM  
FarkedOver:  FLMountainMan: Get over yourself. Your Robin Hood schtick is straight out of some community college sociology professor's curriculum. You sound really sad and miserable.
I judge Chavez from a Marxist point of view.  Was he a great Marxist? No, he wasn't.  Was he the best hope for the disenfranchised and the poor of Venezuela? Yes he was.  I believe the nationalization of the oil companies helped the poor in more ways than a market driven company could have.  Even the people of the US could say this is true, well at least the 250,000 low income people of New England that got free home heating oil from the Venezuelan government.
He was not the "dictator" or the "boogeyman" that everyone makes him out to be.  Hell after there was a US supported "coup" of Chavez the people went on strike and DEMANDED he be put back in power.  This doesn't sound like something an oppressed people would do.


But he doesn't kiss up to the U.S. which is the real reason conservatives can't stand him.  This concern for the people is total bullshiat on the part of conservatives.
 
2013-03-06 11:06:49 AM  

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Sucks for the people though, as not much of that wealth trickles down to them.


Chavez did a hell of lot more than previous administrations who were selling their oil rights to the highest bidder and farking the people of Venezuela.
 
2013-03-06 11:08:00 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: If you htink a farmer can't own his own cow, or profit fromt he toil on his own land you aren't a socialist, but a communist.

I'm glad you fully understand the end goal of socialism.



This is really pathetic.

That you thinkt eh end goal of socialism is forced collectivization and removing the ability of any individual to suceded or improve their lot through their own hard work.

What is more pathetic is that evenw itht hat stupid view you support it.  You normally only hear they type of stupidity from troll crying abotu how bad socialism is.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:20 AM  

liam76: This is really pathetic.

That you thinkt eh end goal of socialism is forced collectivization and removing the ability of any individual to suceded or improve their lot through their own hard work.

What is more pathetic is that evenw itht hat stupid view you support it. You normally only hear they type of stupidity from troll crying abotu how bad socialism is.


That isn't what I said. What I said was the end goal of socialism is communism.  The fact that you believe the ability of one individual to "succeed" (and by succeed, let's face it: you mean fetishize accumulation of wealth and power) trumps everything else at the expense of countless human lives is disgusting.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:30 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: The US never tried to overthrow him

O rly!?


I am not going to be mad if my neighbor's wife tries to divorce him, does that mean I am trying to get them seperated?
 
2013-03-06 11:11:58 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape


No, rape is straight up rape.

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)


No, labor is entitled to get what it's promised to get in exchange for its labor.  But labor is only one part of producing valuable things, so labor's share of the proceeds is only going to be part of the total revenue derived from selling valuable things.

Labor, for example, doesn't create the business itself.  Those are entrepreneurial functions (which may or may not be performed by the same person who does the actual labor, as is the case in many small businesses, but they are not always the same person).  The entrepreneurial functions include identifying the goods and services that are being under-provided and can be produced economically, marshaling and organizing all of the resources and factors of production (including but not limited to labor), obtaining the capital and financing to advance all of the costs before the revenues arrive, organizing the business itself, at every level of decision-making, etc.  In other words, deciding what to make and how to make it.

I realize you are young, so I'll put it in terms you might understand -- when people make a movie, there are hundreds or thousands of people involved.  There are the actors that you (as a consumer) actually see, and they are the ones who (from your perspective) are doing the "labor" of entertaining you.  But there are many more people working behind the scenes to make it all happen.  The entrepreneurial functions in a movie-production project are generally performed by the producer.  He is the one who identifies the particular project to be done in the first place, arranges the financing, hires the key personnel, and delegates (to some extent) the tasks of hiring the right actors, writers, production crew, etc.  It's a huge, complex operation, and the producer (who may or may not also perform in other capacities) is at the center of it, organizing it, and coordinating all of the other factors of production. As with everyone else's contribution to the project, the producer's skill is a crucial factor of movie-production.

Likewise, whenever any business makes a profit, the profit (what's left over after everyone else gets paid) is how the business organizer (the entrepreneur) gets paid for doing a good job of organizing the business.

In your silly world view, only the people doing the manual labor deserve to get paid.  But the manual labor is only one part of many that contribute to the success of a business.  Organizing and other decision-making tasks are also crucially important, in any economic enterprise, and the people who do those tasks better than others deserve to get paid more than others.

If you had ever started a business or two, from scratch, you'd know that.
 
2013-03-06 11:13:22 AM  
FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?
 
2013-03-06 11:16:16 AM  

Phinn: FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape

No, rape is straight up rape.

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

No, labor is entitled to get what it's promised to get in exchange for its labor.  But labor is only one part of producing valuable things, so labor's share of the proceeds is only going to be part of the total revenue derived from selling valuable things.

Labor, for example, doesn't create the business itself.  Those are entrepreneurial functions (which may or may not be performed by the same person who does the actual labor, as is the case in many small businesses, but they are not always the same person).  The entrepreneurial functions include identifying the goods and services that are being under-provided and can be produced economically, marshaling and organizing all of the resources and factors of production (including but not limited to labor), obtaining the capital and financing to advance all of the costs before the revenues arrive, organizing the business itself, at every level of decision-making, etc.  In other words, deciding what to make and how to make it.

I realize you are young, so I'll put it in terms you might understand -- when people make a movie, there are hundreds or thousands of people involved.  There are the actors that you (as a consumer) actually see, and they are the ones who (from your perspective) are doing the "labor" of entertaining you.  But there are many more people working behind the scenes to make it all happen.  The entrepreneurial functions in a movie-production project are generally performed by the producer.  He is the one who identifies the particular project to be done in the first place, arranges the financing, hires the key personnel, and delegates (to some extent) the tasks of hiring the right actors, writers ...


Thanks for all that.  Oh I get what you're saying.  I understand capitalism is needed to ramp up businesses and production.  But in a post-capitalist society (yes one day capitalism will end, as has every other economic model throughout history), labor should own and operate workplaces democratically.  A CEO doesn't not create wealth.  He owns capital and uses that to exploit labor in effort to increase his/her profit.

You're old, so let me explain this to you.  Your old ways are dying.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.
 
2013-03-06 11:17:11 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?


My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.
 
2013-03-06 11:18:02 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?


because they're pussies.
 
2013-03-06 11:18:31 AM  

FarkedOver: ajt167: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Gained power through violence, used America as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries while complaining about us doing the same thing, bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote constitution and didn't follow it anyway, shut down media outlets that were critical of him, that's just off the top of my head.

I thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.


You know, I should have worded that more clearly. He gained popularity that enabled him to become president through violence.
 
2013-03-06 11:19:13 AM  
FarkedOver
A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards.

Wouldn't that be "the people's animals" and "the people's grain"?


Phinn
Labor, for example, doesn't create the business itself. Those are entrepreneurial functions (which may or may not be performed by the same person who does the actual labor, as is the case in many small businesses, but they are not always the same person). The entrepreneurial functions include identifying the goods and services that are being under-provided and can be produced economically, marshaling and organizing all of the resources and factors of production (including but not limited to labor), obtaining the capital and financing to advance all of the costs before the revenues arrive, organizing the business itself, at every level of decision-making, etc. In other words, deciding what to make and how to make it.

Most of those count as "labor".

He is the one who identifies the particular project to be done in the first place, arranges the financing, hires the key personnel, and delegates (to some extent) the tasks of hiring the right actors, writers, production crew, etc. It's a huge, complex operation, and the producer (who may or may not also perform in other capacities) is at the center of it, organizing it, and coordinating all of the other factors of production. As with everyone else's contribution to the project, the producer's skill is a crucial factor of movie-production.

That's just a matter of organizational style. There are plenty of ways of organizing tasks to not create a dictatorship.

Likewise, whenever any business makes a profit, the profit (what's left over after everyone else gets paid) is how the business organizer (the entrepreneur) gets paid for doing a good job of organizing the business.

Some work is paid with leftover profit. Some work is paid by an hourly wage or salary. If it's all just work, why the difference in compensation methods? That's the source of the class divide.
 
2013-03-06 11:21:44 AM  

FarkedOver: RanDomino: FarkedOver
Liberals are pussies.

Why is it that all Socialists are either crazy 3rd-wave RadFems or misogynists?

My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.


You should add that it doesn't work. You eventually run out of other people's money.

You say it hasn't been tried? It's been tried and fails every time.  Heck, we're in a socialist country now -- over half the money I earn is taken from me (income tax + sales + property + automobiles + gas tax [gov makes more money off gas than the gas cos] + etc)
 
2013-03-06 11:21:45 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: This is really pathetic.

That you thinkt eh end goal of socialism is forced collectivization and removing the ability of any individual to suceded or improve their lot through their own hard work.

What is more pathetic is that evenw itht hat stupid view you support it. You normally only hear they type of stupidity from troll crying abotu how bad socialism is.

That isn't what I said. What I said was the end goal of socialism is communism.


I said-If you htink a farmer can't own his own cow, or profit from the toil on his own land you aren't a socialist, but a communist.

You said-I'm glad you fully understand the end goal of socialism.

So no you didn;t come out and say you are for removing the right of a farmer to own a cow, or improve his lot through hard work, you did agree that was your end goal, and the end goal of socialism.


FarkedOver: The fact that you believe the ability of one individual to "succeed" (and by succeed, let's face it: you mean fetishize accumulation of wealth and power) trumps everything else at the expense of countless human lives is disgusting


Where did I say it trumps everything else?

The fact is with your little "kulak" claims you are saying is that any whim of a central govt (regardless of it';s legitimacy) trumps the most basic property rights and abilities of the individual to feed himself.

You are a farking clown.
 
2013-03-06 11:22:04 AM  

RanDomino: Wouldn't that be "the people's animals" and "the people's grain"?


Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

Later they become the people's :)
 
2013-03-06 11:22:06 AM  

JohnAnnArbor: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Well, for one, he had his legislature repeatedly pass "enabling laws" that allowed him to rule by decree.  Chavez signed a paper--new law.  No vote.

Imagine if the Congress did that for a US president.  (Thankfully, I have a little faith left in the system and believe that most Congresscritters, even of the same party, would vote against such a measure.)


Um, Chavez stood for election four times.  The US president already has vast executive powers.
 
2013-03-06 11:22:57 AM  
FarkedOver
My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.

We shouldn't say that women are weak. How absurd. Why don't those biatches just shut up and get back in the kitchen?
 
2013-03-06 11:23:40 AM  

liam76: The fact is with your little "kulak" claims you are saying is that any whim of a central govt (regardless of it';s legitimacy) trumps the most basic property rights and abilities of the individual to feed himself.

You are a farking clown.


Property rights should be abolished when they are used to exploit labor.
 
2013-03-06 11:24:23 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
My only gripe with the socialist movement is that is way to PC. It's absurd.

We shouldn't say that women are weak. How absurd. Why don't those biatches just shut up and get back in the kitchen?


You make a joke like that in a socialist drum circle you're likely to get purged comrade.
 
2013-03-06 11:25:09 AM  

Latinwolf: FLMountainMan:  I used to love the threads where American Farkers would tell Venezuelan Farkers that Chavez really wasn't a bad guy.  Those Venezuelans just didn't know what was good for them.

And you can show us those actual threads?


There's a green one on the Politics tab as we speak.
 
2013-03-06 11:27:16 AM  

vsavatar: He robbed from the rich and gave to himself.


Now be fair. He did give the lupins to the poor.
 
2013-03-06 11:29:02 AM  

FarkedOver: thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.


You know, there's at least one other guy who was elected, but also used violence to gain and increase power, used a particular race/religion as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries, had bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote his country's laws and still didn't follow them, shut down media outlets or simply killed those that were critical of him.

Being elected doesn't prevent one from becoming a tyrant
 
2013-03-06 11:33:28 AM  
FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).
 
2013-03-06 11:33:48 AM  

JustGetItRight: FarkedOver: thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.

You know, there's at least one other guy who was elected, but also used violence to gain and increase power, used a particular race/religion as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries, had bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote his country's laws and still didn't follow them, shut down media outlets or simply killed those that were critical of him.

Being elected doesn't prevent one from becoming a tyrant


Too compare Chavez to "one other guy" is a littler absurd, no?
 
2013-03-06 11:35:37 AM  

Bored Horde: What fascinates me is that we are talking about his personal failings and not the fact that he survived a coup attempt by business elites bankrolled and armed by America.  He survived the coup because the entire nation rose up to support him.

the coup plotters were too stupidly righteous to shoot him.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:54 AM  

FarkedOver: Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class. I own no capital and have no means of oppressing a worker.


FarkedOver: A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards


Was that Kulak's grain, or animals opressing workers?

You aren't just a joke, you are a bad joke.
 
2013-03-06 11:37:15 AM  

gunga galunga: vsavatar: He robbed from the rich and gave to himself.

Now be fair. He did give the lupins to the poor.


lupines! lupines! I'm sick to bloody death of lupines!  we eat lupines! we wear lupines! look! the poor cat has just choked to death on lupines!

//this whole wealth redistribution is more complicated than it looks.
 
2013-03-06 11:37:52 AM  

FarkedOver: I understand capitalism is needed to ramp up businesses and production.


Entrepreneurship is always "needed."  The economy constantly changes.  New technologies are constantly being developed and implemented.  Different producers are constantly being organized and disbanded.  Consumer preferences are constantly changing, and and those preferences being fulfilled by a constantly-changing set of new producers.  New people are born and the old ones die.

As a result, entrepreneurship is not just the creation of a business as a one-time event at the beginning of a new enterprise.  It's the constant adaptation to economic circumstances (i.e., everything that everyone else is doing or not doing).

FarkedOver: But in a post-capitalist society (yes one day capitalism will end, as has every other economic model throughout history), labor should own and operate workplaces democratically.


Only if the people who are participating agree to work together on those terms. They have the right to agree to cooperate according to whatever terms each of them decides.  Adult relationships are voluntary.

But the entrepreneurial functions still have to be done.  Someone still needs to decide what goods to produce, and how to produce them.  This involves organization-wide decision-making on the order of about 200-300 times per day.

FarkedOver: A CEO doesn't not create wealth.  He owns capital and uses that to exploit labor in effort to increase his/her profit.


A CEO creates wealth by organizing a profitable business, in all the ways I mentioned.

In modern business, the CEO is not usually the one who supplies the capital.  He arranges it, from specialized capital-providers (who are grotesquely over-compensation, on account of the modern form of state-sponsored cartelized banking, but that's another issue).  He might be, but the larger the enterprise, the less likely he is to be both CEO and the main source of capital.

In a free enterprise, the people who agree to perform labor (as their part of contributing to an enterprise) do so because that agreement is preferable to all of their existing alternatives.  That's not exploitation.  That's giving people the option of taking the best deal they're being given at the time.

Everyone works to increase his/her profit, all the time.  Everyone chooses to do things because they believe that doing so is a benefit, compared to not-doing that thing, or doing something else.  That's what economic choice is.  (Of course, everyone values slightly different things, and constantly changes those values, which is how it should be.)

As long as they refrain from aggressive violence, then I want everyone to succeed in obtaining his/her own maximum profit, benefit and wealth increase, in whatever terms each person defines those things.  That includes you.  Just keep your hands off me and my stuff, and we'll get along perfectly well.
 
2013-03-06 11:41:27 AM  
Phinn
In a free enterprise, the people who agree to perform labor (as their part of contributing to an enterprise) do so because that agreement is preferable to all of their existing alternatives. That's not exploitation. That's giving people the option of taking the best deal they're being given at the time.

If the situation is manufactured to make all options bad, but the least-bad one gives someone else a tangible profit, then, yes, that's exploitation.
 
2013-03-06 11:42:53 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).


When I agree with Ran about how stupid your communist ideas are you have really lost the plot.
 
2013-03-06 11:43:47 AM  

FarkedOver: Thanks for all that.  Oh I get what you're saying.  I understand capitalism is needed to ramp up businesses and production.  But in a post-capitalist society (yes one day capitalism will end, as has every other economic model throughout history), labor should own and operate workplaces democratically.  A CEO doesn't not create wealth.  He owns capital and uses that to exploit labor in effort to increase his/her profit.


LOL, you owe me a new keyboard.  I nearly fell off my Ayn Rand booster seat.
 
2013-03-06 11:48:00 AM  

RanDomino: FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).


I don't agree with the assertion that Kulaks were the peasantry.  They were affluent farmers.

According to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories:  Bednyak bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants. In addition, they had a category of batraks, landless seasonal agriculture workers for hire.

They were petite bourgeoisie at the very least.
 
2013-03-06 11:49:48 AM  
We cannot point fingers anymore

We have the biggest bag of douche of them all, squatting in the White House. A pretentious usurper dedicating his years of Communist/Socialist programming to destroying the Constitution while enriching himself at our public trough.

You call Chavez a filthy a-hole? Well you should.
Now, turn your indignation upon the correct target.

www.floppingaces.net
 
2013-03-06 11:51:51 AM  

RanDomino: Phinn
In a free enterprise, the people who agree to perform labor (as their part of contributing to an enterprise) do so because that agreement is preferable to all of their existing alternatives. That's not exploitation. That's giving people the option of taking the best deal they're being given at the time.

If the situation is manufactured to make all options bad, but the least-bad one gives someone else a tangible profit, then, yes, that's exploitation.


It doesn't count as "exploitation" when both parties in a voluntary transaction realize a benefit.  That's why free economies are so prosperous -- both parties benefit in mutually-voluntary transactions.  This is because people only voluntarily agree to do things that benefit them. Without mutual benefit, there will be no agreement. "Exploitation" is one of those scary-sounding words that means whatever you want it to mean, as long as it's something along the lines of "bad."

Neither you nor any other commie I've ever encountered has been able to identify exactly how, in a free market, what "situation" is being "manufactured," and show how that is wrong, unjust, inequitable, etc.  But I'm always willing to hear a new attempt.  Don't just say "capitalism."  Be specific.
 
2013-03-06 11:53:39 AM  

FarkedOver: liam76: The fact is with your little "kulak" claims you are saying is that any whim of a central govt (regardless of it';s legitimacy) trumps the most basic property rights and abilities of the individual to feed himself.

You are a farking clown.

Property rights should be abolished when they are used to exploit labor.


Property rights are abolished in order to exploit labor.
 
2013-03-06 11:54:38 AM  

dogdaze: My wife is Venezuelan and we just had family visit. The news broke just after they arrived, so much for the scotch in the house. Chavez has been terrible to his middle class of which my family was a part. They were very happy to hear the news. It's an amazing country with a wonderful diverse population. I sure hope things get better.


that's ok, you can replace it with a proper drink.  like whiskey
;-p
 
2013-03-06 11:54:50 AM  

FarkedOver: RanDomino: FarkedOver
Well prior to collectivization they were "theirs" in the sense that they owned and used them to oppress the peasantry.

They were the peasantry. During the ending of serfdom, the village common land was divided up and each peasant was made a small landowner, thus making them Bourgeoisie in the eyes of the Marxists.

Later they become the people's :)

Because collectivization was imposed, the peasants rejected it. Had the Bolsheviks instead allowed them to reconstitute their natural organizational system of 'village communism', they would have been more than happy to donate their excess (which would have been vast, both since no one knows how to get more out of land than the people who work it, and they would have invested in new technology and organizational systems) to their comrades. Instead, they resented being made into virtual slaves. Result: over three million dead in the Ukraine alone (of course, the fact that they had gone Black in the civil war probably had something to do with it).

I don't agree with the assertion that Kulaks were the peasantry.  They were affluent farmers.

According to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories:  Bednyak bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants. In addition, they had a category of batraks, landless seasonal agriculture workers for hire.

They were petite bourgeoisie at the very least.


I am sure you are the type of guy who thinks that anybody that has more than you are the affluent, and should be willing to give it up.
 
2013-03-06 11:55:27 AM  

FullMetalPanda: I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat.  You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny.  The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...


Skinny guys fight 'til they're hamburger
 
2013-03-06 11:56:31 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.

Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-06 12:00:19 PM  

FarkedOver: JustGetItRight: FarkedOver: thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.

You know, there's at least one other guy who was elected, but also used violence to gain and increase power, used a particular race/religion as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries, had bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote his country's laws and still didn't follow them, shut down media outlets or simply killed those that were critical of him.

Being elected doesn't prevent one from becoming a tyrant

Too compare Chavez to "one other guy" is a littler absurd, no?


My point is that to say he was elected neither proves nor disproves the assertion that he was a tyrant.  In that discussion, it is most certainly a fair comparison.
 
2013-03-06 12:02:44 PM  

uber humper: [i.imgur.com image 318x450]

I still need to see more proof for Chavez, but I don't quite doubt it.

Reminds me of Arafat of the Palensitnian LIberation Organization.  Amassed over a billion dollars, bribes and scraping from aid packages, while Palenstinians lived in shiat.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995651,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-582487.html


The deal with Arafart is that while he was an evil capitalist pig, he was a moslem terrorist and therefore hated Jews.  So it was ok for him to be an evil capitalist pig.

Now I can't wait until I see the excuses the occutards will use for why it's ok for Chavez to have all that money.
 
2013-03-06 12:06:02 PM  

Beeblebrox: TheDumbBlonde: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.

Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 259x194]


hahahahaha I miss czar
 
2013-03-06 12:08:27 PM  

liam76: I am sure you are the type of guy who thinks that anybody that has more than you are the affluent, and should be willing to give it up.


Do i begrudge the small mom and pop store no.  They are just as much a part of the proletariat as any factory worker.  Do I loathe the CEO and the owners of major companies? Yes, they have made a living exploiting labor.
 
2013-03-06 12:10:17 PM  
Phinn
It doesn't count as "exploitation" when both parties in a voluntary transaction realize a benefit.

Nothing in capitalism is "voluntary". Most people have to do wage-labor in order to pay rent/mortgage and buy food. We merely get the choice of masters (if we're lucky; most people take whatever work they can get).

"Exploitation" is one of those scary-sounding words that means whatever you want it to mean, as long as it's something along the lines of "bad."

If someone takes advantage of another's misfortune in order to profit, that's exploitation.

Neither you nor any other commie I've ever encountered has been able to identify exactly how, in a free market, what "situation" is being "manufactured," and show how that is wrong, unjust, inequitable, etc. But I'm always willing to hear a new attempt. Don't just say "capitalism." Be specific.

See above- taxes/mortgage/rent, mainly. Psychologically manipulative marketing. If you want to go back to the dawn of capitalism in the 16-1700s, people were driven from their land by force (for example the Enclosure movement in England; later, imperialism). Today, you have things like banks telling people to take ARMs, then jacking the rates, then telling them to stop paying in order to get an adjustment, then foreclosing because they stopped paying- keeping all the money paid AND the full value of the house. For example.
 
xcv
2013-03-06 12:12:02 PM  
"there is film of the Americans landing on the moon," [Chavez] scoffed.

"Does that mean the moon shot really happened? In the film, the Yanqui flag is flying straight out. So, is there wind on the moon?"

As Chávez beamed with triumph at this logic, an awkwardness descended on my comrades, and on the conversation.
 
2013-03-06 12:14:07 PM  

RanDomino: See above- taxes/mortgage/rent, mainly. Psychologically manipulative marketing. If you want to go back to the dawn of capitalism in the 16-1700s, people were driven from their land by force (for example the Enclosure movement in England; later, imperialism). Today, you have things like banks telling people to take ARMs, then jacking the rates, then telling them to stop paying in order to get an adjustment, then foreclosing because they stopped paying- keeping all the money paid AND the full value of the house. For example.


Debtors prisons are making a comeback as well.
 
2013-03-06 12:15:49 PM  

FarkedOver: liam76: I am sure you are the type of guy who thinks that anybody that has more than you are the affluent, and should be willing to give it up.

Do i begrudge the small mom and pop store no.  They are just as much a part of the proletariat as any factory worker.  Do I loathe the CEO and the owners of major companies? Yes, they have made a living exploiting labor.


The mom and pop store would be the kulak you so gleefully labeled retards for not having over evertyhing they own.

If your fantasy was ever realized (communist revolution in the US) you would be in the forefront calling the blood of th emom and pop.  Luckily that will never happen.
 
2013-03-06 12:19:00 PM  

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor

I'm ok with this.

Im sure you have something I want but cant afford mind if I swing by later and pick it up? You worked for it and Im entitled to it

Yeah that's not how socialism works.  Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class.  I own no capital and have no means of oppressing a worker.  Thanks for playing though.


That implies that socialism works. First you have to define what "works" means.
 
2013-03-06 12:19:11 PM  

liam76: The mom and pop store would be the kulak you so gleefully labeled retards for not having over evertyhing they own.

If your fantasy was ever realized (communist revolution in the US) you would be in the forefront calling the blood of th emom and pop. Luckily that will never happen.


I don't think that is necessarily true.  There may be some hard liners that may say that I wouldn't be one of them.  BUT to compare kulaks to mom and pop stores is not a good comparison at all.  There was very little of a capitalist economy built up in Russia at the time, there was the ending of WWI and an on-going civil war.  They needed to ramp up production and kick start an economy that didn't exist in the first place.  They had to collectivize farms for this purpose.  In the US it is a completely different scenario and the comparison is just not valid.
 
2013-03-06 12:19:48 PM  

PaLarkin: Now I can't wait until I see the excuses the occutards will use for why it's ok for Chavez to have all that money.


You know what? It won't make any difference. There will always be people to drink the kool-aide -- true believers. Like I mentioned yesterday: it's amazing the reach of Chavez, all the way to American suburban teenagers. But, there is hope, most grow out of it.
 
2013-03-06 12:20:07 PM  
Typical socialist, 1 for you 3 for me.
 
2013-03-06 12:21:46 PM  

onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.


Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.
 
2013-03-06 12:24:03 PM  

Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.


images.thetruthaboutcars.com
 
2013-03-06 12:24:04 PM  

xcv: "there is film of the Americans landing on the moon," [Chavez] scoffed.

"Does that mean the moon shot really happened? In the film, the Yanqui flag is flying straight out. So, is there wind on the moon?"

As Chávez beamed with triumph at this logic, an awkwardness descended on my comrades, and on the conversation.


Hahahha.  Awesome.
 
2013-03-06 12:28:43 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

You can't be rich and help the poor routinely? Not a fan of Chavez, but that's a dopey argument.
 
2013-03-06 12:30:25 PM  

Joe Blowme: Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

[images.thetruthaboutcars.com image 400x373]


So he wasn't elected?
 
2013-03-06 12:32:26 PM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

[images.thetruthaboutcars.com image 400x373]

So he wasn't elected?


Does riggin an election really count as being elected?
 
2013-03-06 12:35:12 PM  
Lots of North Americans talking about South America like they know the place.
 
2013-03-06 12:35:44 PM  

Wayne 985: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 190x266]

You can't be rich and help the poor routinely? Not a fan of Chavez, but that's a dopey argument.


Not as an elected official who made his money in office.
 
2013-03-06 12:35:59 PM  
He would have made a heck of a pope
 
2013-03-06 12:36:08 PM  

Joe Blowme: Does riggin an election really count as being elected?


I guess it does in some parts of the world.

www.biography.com
 
2013-03-06 12:38:46 PM  

RanDomino: If someone takes advantage of another's misfortune in order to profit, that's exploitation.


That sounds like awfully bad stuff, but unfortunately it has no concrete meaning.

What exactly is "taking advantage"?  All parties in all voluntary transactions seek an advantage, compared to what situation they will be in without the transaction.  That's just another word for profit or benefit.  I expect that you (and everyone I meet) are constantly seeking to benefit from decisions you make  about what to do, at any given moment.  I want you to succeed, actually -- to get whatever benefit that you want, as you define it -- as long as you don't attack (or threaten) or defraud me or anyone else.

What exactly is "misfortune"?  A disparity of wealth?  That's a constant feature of all life.  Not only does it constantly change, but wealth is largely subjective.  You might find sitting in a small college-town apartment with some buddies, strumming a guitar and eating pork rinds, to be the pinnacle of human bliss and happiness.  Others might liken that situation to being in prison.  If you enjoy what you have, then you are a wealthy man.

If one person offers another person a trade, to which either party can respond by agreeing or declining, without fear of being attacked by that other party for declining, then the trade is voluntary.  When that trade occurs, it's BECAUSE both parties expect to profit by the trade.

What exactly is wrong with profit?  As I said, in any voluntary transaction, by definition, both parties are profiting.  You seem to have an emotional attachment to one type of party (employees), and hate the other (employers), and so you reflexively conclude that one person's profit is good and just, while the other person's is wrong.  But you have completely failed to articulate a principle that show exactly why it is wrong, or to distinguish between good profits and bad profits.

I submit that acting for profit is never wrong.  It's aggressive violence that's wrong.  Of course, as Chavez shows, aggressive violence can also be extremely profitable.  But it's the aggression that's the wrongful part.

RanDomino: See above- taxes/mortgage/rent, mainly. Psychologically manipulative marketing. If you want to go back to the dawn of capitalism in the 16-1700s, people were driven from their land by force (for example the Enclosure movement in England; later, imperialism). Today, you have things like banks telling people to take ARMs, then jacking the rates, then telling them to stop paying in order to get an adjustment, then foreclosing because they stopped paying- keeping all the money paid AND the full value of the house. For example.


The act of "driving people off their land" is a problem flowing from a LACK of property rights, not from the presence of property rights.  And, yes, I would certainly agree with you that the feudal system of property that preceded an emerging free market in land was, comparably, worse.  The poor (and unfree) definition of feudal property, derived as it was by more or less constant war (i.e., theft) and de facto slavery, was economically inferior, precisely because it was unfree.

Banks today are agents of a state-sponsored cartel.  What they peddle nowadays (paper and electronic state-sponsored "money") is the diametric opposite of a free market for currency.

I'm all in favor of prohibiting deceptive trade practices, as a subset of fraud.  That has nothing to do with communism and the economic and ethical benefits of clearly-defined property rights.
 
2013-03-06 12:40:03 PM  

Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

[images.thetruthaboutcars.com image 400x373]

So he wasn't elected?

Does riggin an election really count as being elected?


Jimmy Carter says yes
 
2013-03-06 12:41:42 PM  
Here is how Chavez won his elections, as anyone who has lived in Latin America can attest.

Election time is rolling around so pick up trucks filled with toys for the kiddies and chicken dinners are passed around with some money taped to the inside.  Then the day of the election the buses come and bring the people to the voting boths.

You grease the poor only slightly to buy their loyalty when it is time to vote.

Unfortunately the majority of latin americans vote not with their heads but with their nationalistic pride.  Which is the way it happens in most countries, but it is worse south of ye old border.

Ask the Farker Magorn who was shot with rubber bullets  for walking past a protest.
 
2013-03-06 12:48:23 PM  

corronchilejano: Lots of North Americans talking about South America like they know the place.


You hang out at La Piscina or 49?  Or only en la zona t drinking the horrible ass BBC company swill they call beer.  Tres cordilleras de medellin es la mejor cerveza que hay en Colombia.

/Colombian
/Bogota is is much better than it was years ago
/Medellin>Bogota.
 
2013-03-06 12:50:05 PM  
Far be it from me to defend an authoritarian leftist...but...

Is there any other source making this claim besides that celebrity blog thingie? Like CNN or MSNBC or whatever?
 
kgf
2013-03-06 12:50:38 PM  
Some animals are more equal than others.
 
2013-03-06 12:51:16 PM  

theflatline: Here is how Chavez won his elections, as anyone who has lived in Latin America can attest.

Election time is rolling around so pick up trucks filled with toys for the kiddies and chicken dinners are passed around with some money taped to the inside.  Then the day of the election the buses come and bring the people to the voting boths.

You grease the poor only slightly to buy their loyalty when it is time to vote.

Unfortunately the majority of latin americans vote not with their heads but with their nationalistic pride.  Which is the way it happens in most countries, but it is worse south of ye old border.

Ask the Farker Magorn who was shot with rubber bullets  for walking past a protest.


There is no "ye". We've been through this.
Also, what kind of voting population would be stupid enough to keep voting for someone who steals from the rich, keeps the money himself and always promises a better tomorrow? Never happened. He was a wise a benevolent leader that outwitted his oppressors at every turn. I have been to college. This is what I learned.
 
2013-03-06 12:54:17 PM  

JeffDenver: Far be it from me to defend an authoritarian leftist...but...

Is there any other source making this claim besides that celebrity blog thingie? Like CNN or MSNBC or whatever?


I agree. I'd like to see a little more proof. I have a feeling it will eventually come, but this is not a good source.

BTW, don't call MSNBC credible. It's no more so than Fox.
 
2013-03-06 12:56:06 PM  
...because, clearly, if he was a true champion for the poor, he would have been poor himself.  It's not like money is power or anything.
 
2013-03-06 12:57:05 PM  
Hugo was just a shrewd investor.  You know, like RON PAUL.
 
2013-03-06 12:58:57 PM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Does riggin an election really count as being elected?

I guess it does in some parts of the world.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]


There there now, show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.
 
2013-03-06 01:00:16 PM  

uber humper: BTW, don't call MSNBC credible. It's no more so than Fox.


At this point I would settle for anything mainstream, period.

I completely believe Chavez is capable of this btw. I think it would be in character. But the article is not a terribly credible source.
 
2013-03-06 01:00:41 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Does riggin an election really count as being elected?

I guess it does in some parts of the world.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

There there now, show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.


Right here:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-06 01:06:48 PM  

FarkedOver: Lt. Cheese Weasel: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Does riggin an election really count as being elected?

I guess it does in some parts of the world.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

There there now, show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.

Right here:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x167]


img.docstoccdn.com
 
2013-03-06 01:08:43 PM  

factoryconnection: Wat.

Chavez wanted to alleviate poverty and so he created a bunch of social programs to help the poor. He was just bad at it and a lot of his work ended up being "big idea, shoddy execution" that hasn't benefited anyone but him in the long run.

How the hell does that jib with your statement? Also: Godwinning, really?


Oh, I dunno, suppression of civil liberties, with force on occasion, among other things.  He wasn't "bad at it", he was a bad person.
 
2013-03-06 01:09:38 PM  

theflatline: corronchilejano: Lots of North Americans talking about South America like they know the place.

You hang out at La Piscina or 49?  Or only en la zona t drinking the horrible ass BBC company swill they call beer.  Tres cordilleras de medellin es la mejor cerveza que hay en Colombia.

/Colombian
/Bogota is is much better than it was years ago
/Medellin>Bogota.


Didnt mean you. Someone suggested that the exito takeover was a blow to the colombian goverment, and even worse, that Chavez' death will bring "peace".
 
2013-03-06 01:12:38 PM  

bhcompy: factoryconnection: Wat.

Chavez wanted to alleviate poverty and so he created a bunch of social programs to help the poor. He was just bad at it and a lot of his work ended up being "big idea, shoddy execution" that hasn't benefited anyone but him in the long run.

How the hell does that jib with your statement? Also: Godwinning, really?

Oh, I dunno, suppression of civil liberties, with force on occasion, among other things.  He wasn't "bad at it", he was a bad person.


Read what alot of people are thinking, IN Venezuela.
 
2013-03-06 01:18:11 PM  
I was IN Chavez's bank vault during his last deposit.  You people have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-03-06 01:22:14 PM  
Anytime someone says they are doing something "for" someone else "I do it for the people", "I do it for the children", "I do it  for country" they really mean I do it for my damn self and I'm probably breaking the law in doing so.
 
2013-03-06 01:22:40 PM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Does riggin an election really count as being elected?

I guess it does in some parts of the world.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]


LOL this is why i have you in commie red
 
2013-03-06 01:34:47 PM  

Joe Blowme: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Does riggin an election really count as being elected?

I guess it does in some parts of the world.

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

LOL this is why i have you in commie red


Thanks :)
 
2013-03-06 01:40:57 PM  

FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.


You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.
 
2013-03-06 01:54:32 PM  

give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.



But not by him and his crew. THIS time they will get it to work.
 
2013-03-06 01:57:59 PM  

give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.


internut scholar: give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.


But not by him and his crew. THIS time they will get it to work.


Capitalism works great if you're in a powerful country.  Ask the people of any country rich in natural resources but lacking any semblance of a life for the people are doing.  They are exploited day in and day out so that you can rest comfortably every day and not have to think about what a shiatty place the world really is.  When people in these countries become class aware you should be scared.
 
2013-03-06 01:58:03 PM  

internut scholar: give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.


But not by him and his crew. THIS time they will get it to work.



"This time he'll stop drinking and hitting me. He promised!"
 
2013-03-06 01:59:41 PM  

Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.


Man what an abrasive cawk.

I hope the anonymous tongue lashings you give on Fark make you feel better about your pathetic life.
 
2013-03-06 02:04:32 PM  

IlGreven: ...because, clearly, if he was a true champion for the poor, he would have been poor himself.  It's not like money is power or anything.


The issue isn't the presence of wealth, but the means by which it was acquired.

If the article is correct - and I'm not particularly impressed with the source cited - then there is almost certainly a corruption problem.  Hugo Chavez spent the last fourteen years or so in public service, and spent most of the time before that in the military.  There's no way his legitimate income for that adds up to $1-2 Billion.

If he's really got that kind of net worth it's from stealing from the government treasury.  That's a major problem if you've been portraying yourself as a socialist with the best interests of your nation's poor at heart.

/Here's a 2009 article where President Chavez stated his Presidential income was $1300/month, and that he also received a military pension.  He noted that he insisted on paying taxes despite the fact that his income was low enough that he was not required to.  http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4334">http://venezuelanalysis.com/ne ws/4334
 
2013-03-06 02:07:30 PM  

FarkedOver: Capitalism works great if you're in a powerful country.  Ask the people of any country rich in natural resources but lacking any semblance of a life for the people are doing.  They are exploited day in and day out so that you can rest comfortably every day and not have to think about what a shiatty place the world really is.  When people in these countries become class aware you should be scared.


What they need is protection of their property rights.  In other words, economic freedom, which necessarily includes market freedom.

The main impediment to their achieving these things is you (and people like you), via the promotion of error, falsehood, and other bad ideas.
 
2013-03-06 02:09:01 PM  

Phinn: What they need is protection of their property rights. In other words, economic freedom, which necessarily includes market freedom.

The main impediment to their achieving these things is you (and people like you), via the promotion of error, falsehood, and other bad ideas.


Hmmmm it's almost as if they should organize and make demands....
 
2013-03-06 02:12:00 PM  

FarkedOver: give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.

internut scholar: give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.


But not by him and his crew. THIS time they will get it to work.

Capitalism works great if you're in a powerful country.  Ask the people of any country rich in natural resources but lacking any semblance of a life for the people are doing.  They are exploited day in and day out so that you can rest comfortably every day and not have to think about what a shiatty place the world really is.  When people in these countries become class aware you should be scared.



 Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.


/guess who
 
2013-03-06 02:14:21 PM  

Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.


Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.
 
2013-03-06 02:16:35 PM  
"So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system"

"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
 
2013-03-06 02:19:35 PM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.


tell me, is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed?
 
2013-03-06 02:20:15 PM  
When capitalism fails I am going to switch sides, get on the ground floor of the revolution so I can rise up high in the Commie Party so I can be wealthy like Chavez. Us capitalist will do whatever it takes to be successful.
 
2013-03-06 02:20:39 PM  
"The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system"
 
2013-03-06 02:22:46 PM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: What they need is protection of their property rights. In other words, economic freedom, which necessarily includes market freedom.

The main impediment to their achieving these things is you (and people like you), via the promotion of error, falsehood, and other bad ideas.

Hmmmm it's almost as if they should organize and make demands....


This is why talking to a Marxist is largely a waste of time -- you tend to use ordinary words (like "organize") in ways that don't agree with ordinary usage.

Economic freedom and property is a form of social "organization."  So, yes, they should "organize" their society on economically-free terms.

You think "organize" means something else, like "stealing somebody's stuff, because he has it and we don't."  Or "creating an artificial labor scarcity by violently preventing other people from entering voluntary relationships with employers."

The reason that you resort to sanitizing the language is that your arguments can't stand on their own.

"Make demands" is another term that's been twisted beyond recognition by Kollege Kommies.  To whom would one make these demands?  Who is supposed to be giving things in response?  An economically-free society doesn't depend on the largess of omnipotent rights-givers to function.  The very language you use demonstrates that you still believe in an all-powerful giver, like a god or parent, who doles out what you want and need.  So, naturally, your solution to your perceived deprivation is to "make demands," louder and louder, until someone gives it to you.

It never occurs to you to go out into the world, like an adult, and create benefits for yourself, by cooperating with others on a mutually-voluntary basis.  You can't do that, or choose not to, so you resort to stealing, just like Chavez did his whole life.
 
2013-03-06 02:24:22 PM  

Joe Blowme: "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system"

"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."


Communism would be the grand answer.  Communism is a worldwide struggle and movement.  The whole of the proletariat must take part in the struggle to achieve communism.  This is why I like Trotsky.  He advocates for struggle against oppression every where worldwide and solidarity amongst all workers.  Stalinists advocated (and probably still do) for "Socialism in one country".  Which is just anti-marxist/anti-worker/anti-communist as you can be.

I'm sorry, I don't put my faith in free markets.  I put my faith in cooperation of the working class, more will be achieved that way than any other way.
 
2013-03-06 02:27:07 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm sorry, I don't put my faith in free markets.  I put my faith in cooperation of the working class, more will be achieved that way than any other way.


I don't put faith in anything.  Faith is for zealots, dupes and con men.

Try logic, reason and evidence.  They're better.
 
2013-03-06 02:29:24 PM  

Phinn: FarkedOver: Phinn: What they need is protection of their property rights. In other words, economic freedom, which necessarily includes market freedom.

The main impediment to their achieving these things is you (and people like you), via the promotion of error, falsehood, and other bad ideas.

Hmmmm it's almost as if they should organize and make demands....

This is why talking to a Marxist is largely a waste of time -- you tend to use ordinary words (like "organize") in ways that don't agree with ordinary usage.

Economic freedom and property is a form of social "organization."  So, yes, they should "organize" their society on economically-free terms.

You think "organize" means something else, like "stealing somebody's stuff, because he has it and we don't."  Or "creating an artificial labor scarcity by violently preventing other people from entering voluntary relationships with employers."

The reason that you resort to sanitizing the language is that your arguments can't stand on their own.

"Make demands" is another term that's been twisted beyond recognition by Kollege Kommies.  To whom would one make these demands?  Who is supposed to be giving things in response?  An economically-free society doesn't depend on the largess of omnipotent rights-givers to function.  The very language you use demonstrates that you still believe in an all-powerful giver, like a god or parent, who doles out what you want and need.  So, naturally, your solution to your perceived deprivation is to "make demands," louder and louder, until someone gives it to you.

It never occurs to you to go out into the world, like an adult, and create benefits for yourself, by cooperating with others on a mutually-voluntary basis.  You can't do that, or choose not to, so you resort to stealing, just like Chavez did his whole life.


You're anti-union / bull yourself up by the bootstraps kind of guy.  That's great.  I, on the other hand, do not see things that way.  Sorry to be on the complete opposite end of the spectrum as you.  The ideas are only bad if you stand to gain through the exploitation of labor, in my humble opinion.
 
2013-03-06 02:30:18 PM  

Phinn: FarkedOver: I'm sorry, I don't put my faith in free markets.  I put my faith in cooperation of the working class, more will be achieved that way than any other way.

I don't put faith in anything.  Faith is for zealots, dupes and con men.

Try logic, reason and evidence.  They're better.


Sure, I can do that.  I can reasonably assume that through information and education the working class will realize they are being duped by free market zealots and con men.
 
2013-03-06 02:33:46 PM  

airsupport: Pants full of macaroni!!: When Pelosi kicks off there will be dancing in the streets!

She can't die.  Great healthcare.


I believe she died years ago.  She's now a zombie.
 
2013-03-06 02:33:58 PM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.


Einstein was a patent clerk. He worked for a government agency that guaranteed property rights on ideas.

Ford paid good wages so his employees would be happier and healthier and thus more productive. He also got hugely rich. He may have had some ideas on social experimentation (good and bad), but never forget that he was a rich capitalist CEO and factory owner.
 
2013-03-06 02:35:11 PM  

FarkedOver: You're anti-union / bull yourself up by the bootstraps kind of guy.  That's great.  I, on the other hand, do not see things that way.  Sorry to be on the complete opposite end of the spectrum as you.  The ideas are only bad if you stand to gain through the exploitation of labor, in my humble opinion.


Thanks for attempting to tell me who I am, but I'm a "cooperate with others on a mutually-voluntary basis" kind of guy.

You still can't define "exploitation."
 
2013-03-06 02:37:14 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm sorry, I don't put my faith in free markets. I put my faith in cooperation of the working class, more will be achieved that way than any other way.


And the middle class, which is a formation of the capitalist system, cooperates by keeping the semi-free market system going.
 
2013-03-06 02:38:04 PM  
Well, at least he's a good Commie now.
 
2013-03-06 02:42:16 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: There there now, show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.


I think you make this post in every single political thread.  When the best thing you've got is to imply that your opponent is a victim of pedophilia, you might want to just scoot back from the computer and take some time away.
 
2013-03-06 02:44:01 PM  

FarkedOver: I can reasonably assume that through information and education the working class will realize they are being duped by free market zealots and con men.


Which free market zealots and con men have impoverished the people of Venezuela over the last, say, 10-15 years?  What is the mechanism by which this process of impoverishment has been accomplished?

In your analysis, be sure to account for the roles of the state-sponsored bank and the state-owned oil company that accounts for 95% of the country's exports, both of which are the direct opposite of free market enterprises.
 
2013-03-06 02:47:40 PM  

Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.


He may have won his first election fairly, but afterwards things got dirty.  He shut down any news business that criticized him or supported the opposition, he manipulated the polls, he used terror tactics on voters.  An election means nothing when the people in power can guarantee the results they wish.  He was by any definition, a dictator.
 
2013-03-06 02:49:37 PM  

FarkedOver: Capitalism works great if you're in a powerful country. Ask the people of any country rich in natural resources


Is that why it failed so spectacularly in Japan?
 
2013-03-06 02:51:58 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm sorry, I don't put my faith in free markets. I put my faith in cooperation of the working class, more will be achieved that way than any other way.


Capitalism assumes everyone is in it for themselves.
Communism assumes everyone has a shared goal.

I'll leave which assumption is more likely to be correct as an exercise to the reader.
 
2013-03-06 02:56:34 PM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.


Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?
 
2013-03-06 02:58:01 PM  

Phinn: Thanks for attempting to tell me who I am, but I'm a "cooperate with others on a mutually-voluntary basis" kind of guy.

You still can't define "exploitation."


You're assuming that there is a choice for the working class in this matter, and this has already been explained to you up thread.  You reject the premise outright fine.  But I won't waste my breath explaining it again.  It's an exercise in futility as are most of your arguments with me.... so can't we just agree to disagree.
 
2013-03-06 02:59:15 PM  

FarkedOver: Lot of right wing pro-democracy glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.


FTFY
 
2013-03-06 03:00:22 PM  

Spare Me: Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?


Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality.  Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.
 
2013-03-06 03:01:35 PM  

FarkedOver: Spare Me: Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?

Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality.  Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.


There are no other forms of greed?
 
2013-03-06 03:03:48 PM  

Spare Me: FarkedOver: Spare Me: Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?

Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality.  Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.

There are no other forms of greed?


Fundamentally what is that humans want? To go through life with as little hardship as possible.  I don't believe the entire human centers around greed and people acting like dicks constantly.  I am not subscribing to some bullshiat randian philosophy.
 
2013-03-06 03:09:36 PM  

FarkedOver: You're assuming that there is a choice for the working class in this matter, and this has already been explained to you up thread.  You reject the premise outright fine.  But I won't waste my breath explaining it again.  It's an exercise in futility as are most of your arguments with me.... so can't we just agree to disagree.


I'll agree not to attack you, but that's as far as I'll go.  It's not actually possible to agree or disagree with objective fact.  You're just wrong.

Your whole, tired, broke-ass, re-heated worldview depends on the idea of "exploitation" and yet you can't define it, because you've never paused to think about what it means.  Your mind requires that you gloss over this half-baked concept, and never examine or question it.  Otherwise you'd be forced to realize that you've wasted an inordinate amount of time advocating for something that's patently stupid, or worse, that you are responsible for the condition of your own life, that you lack the ability to work with others and negotiate for your desires in a free social environment.

What would you do if you suddenly realized that the exploitative oppression you feel was imaginary the whole time?  Even more frightening -- if that's true, then who is FarkedOver?
 
2013-03-06 03:10:28 PM  

FarkedOver: Spare Me: FarkedOver: Spare Me: Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?

Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality.  Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.

There are no other forms of greed?

Fundamentally what is that humans want? To go through life with as little hardship as possible.  I don't believe the entire human centers around greed and people acting like dicks constantly.  I am not subscribing to some bullshiat randian philosophy.


lol..nice dodge, comrade. I'd much rather have some dollar greedy people floating around than a central committee of a handful of people with power greed over a population.
 
2013-03-06 03:12:25 PM  

Phinn: FarkedOver: You're assuming that there is a choice for the working class in this matter, and this has already been explained to you up thread.  You reject the premise outright fine.  But I won't waste my breath explaining it again.  It's an exercise in futility as are most of your arguments with me.... so can't we just agree to disagree.

I'll agree not to attack you, but that's as far as I'll go.  It's not actually possible to agree or disagree with objective fact.  You're just wrong.

Your whole, tired, broke-ass, re-heated worldview depends on the idea of "exploitation" and yet you can't define it, because you've never paused to think about what it means.  Your mind requires that you gloss over this half-baked concept, and never examine or question it.  Otherwise you'd be forced to realize that you've wasted an inordinate amount of time advocating for something that's patently stupid, or worse, that you are responsible for the condition of your own life, that you lack the ability to work with others and negotiate for your desires in a free social environment.

What would you do if you suddenly realized that the exploitative oppression you feel was imaginary the whole time?  Even more frightening -- if that's true, then who is FarkedOver?


I respect your opinions but you're not convincing me of anything haha.  Sorry man.
 
2013-03-06 03:12:34 PM  

FarkedOver: Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality. Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.


Greed is as old as the first amoeba that ate another amoeba.
 
2013-03-06 03:13:56 PM  

Spare Me: lol..nice dodge, comrade. I'd much rather have some dollar greedy people floating around than a central committee of a handful of people with power greed over a population.


ok.
 
2013-03-06 03:15:09 PM  

This text is now purple: FarkedOver: Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality. Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.

Greed is as old as the first amoeba that ate another amoeba.


That's not a good comparison at all.  So if there is some homeless man living on the street that hasn't eaten in days and he goes into a grocery store and steals some bread, he does so because he is greedy?
 
2013-03-06 03:18:07 PM  

FarkedOver: So if there is some homeless man living on the street that hasn't eaten in days and he goes into a grocery store and steals some bread, he does so because he is greedy?


I don't think Chavez missed too many meals.
 
2013-03-06 03:21:36 PM  

Phinn: FarkedOver: So if there is some homeless man living on the street that hasn't eaten in days and he goes into a grocery store and steals some bread, he does so because he is greedy?

I don't think Chavez missed too many meals.


The man had some chins lol, but the response I posted to the Amoeba comment is still true. You cannot equate greed and survival that's just terrible.
 
2013-03-06 03:27:58 PM  
That took a while to read.

Citing Henry Ford for anything is fraught with peril. The man, while a genius in regimentation, was almost certainly manic/depressive and borderline sociopath. He thoughts, both private and what few public ones that are available, show both his business practices and either terribly inconsistently applied. Trying to figure out Henergy Ford is almost a sub-area of historical research in and of itself.

As a classist historian, I hate the word Marxist as it has too much baggage, I am forever seeing this misreading of Capitalism, Socialism, and even Communism (although to be fair FarkedOver's understanding of Communism is fairly solid). Socialism at best distantly related to Communism.

Socialism, as governmental form,  is an agreement between the people and government that all citizens of a country deserve a certain level of maintenance and opportunity that only government can provide. "From each his ability, to each his merit."

At its most basic level this means is that a socialist economy does not recognize oligarchical or inherited wealth, and that a certain percentage of output is, by necessity, have to be consumed by the state to ensure basic support of its citizens. More extreme views take this to mean that government should raise children so that all inherited advantages are null, but more typically it means that little to no wealth should be subject to generational transfer, instead once a person has died that anything in the excess should be taxed back to the government to help perpetuate society. This, by necessity, rejects any validity of claims to ownership of wealth via genetics or legal contrivance.

Where a lot of the confusion for people lies is what constitutes "basic support." Most socialist would agree that basic support should be based on three humanist priniciples.

1)The right to life- Everyone has a basic right to live and to assume that society will provide them with the minimal support to do so in cases where they cannot. This means enough nutrition to not suffer deprivation, basic medical care, and freedom from detention, punishment, or execution outside of acts agreed by the rest of society to be criminal in nature.

2)The right to safety- Everyone has the right to pursue their life with the expectation that others will not unduly interfere with, or jeopardize, its continuance. This means that a government should protect its populous from outside threats  (military) and internal threats. Internal threats are anything that compromises populations access to the first principle, be it crime, environmental damage, or safety issues. This may, of course, lead to some cases of the "needs of the many, needs of the few" situations. But its hard to argue that someone has a natural right to perform a action that brings undo harm unto others.

3)The right to wages- While society expects you to work, it doesn't expect you to do more then you are capable of. This means that every citizen has a right to work as hard, produce as much, and consume as much as they desire once the basic needs of society are met. If a individual can muster the capital to construct a factory, then they deserve the wages and lifestyle becoming of an owner. If they are unable to meaningfully produce for society, then deserve access to the basic food, shelter, and medicine that the society provides to all their citizens, along with any arts and entertainment produced for public consumption in hopes of bettering the populous as a whole. This does not mean that they have a right to frivolous items, or items of excess, as these are items that should be purchased via wages.

/TL:DR You could drive a truck through the holes in peoples understanding of socialism
//including mine
///My Masters Degree keeps me warm at night
////This is why whenever there is a revolution that academics like me get shot no matter who wins.
 
2013-03-06 03:30:05 PM  

FarkedOver: Spare Me: Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?

Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality.  Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.


That's not greed, that's just consumerism. It's a very particular subtype of greed, and yes, it's unique to the modern capitalist era. But greed (and more generally, striving for status, which is the real issue--we just live in a culture that defines status primarily by wealth) is as old as humanity. Hell, it's even older, with territorial animals struggling for the areas with more food and the better mates. And that's why cooperation among the working class tends to break down: because they're the same flawed, competitive human beings as the capitalist class, and plenty of them will be happy to sell you out to get ahead. By all means, if you think you can somehow reforge humanity into a perfect cooperative, go for it. But I don't think you can. The reason Communism has turned out so badly when attempted in real life is that some of those oppressed workers, given any semblance of power, will just start using it to accumulate their own wealth, whether it be Black Sea dachas in the USSR or Chavez's alleged billions. In the end, some people are willing to share, but the struggle for power filters them out and puts the worst of whatever group is in charge on top.

I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that if you could solve the problems that make Communism fail, you could use that same knowledge of fixing human kind to make any social system work. Capitalism isn't fair, but it tries to take advantage of humanity's bad aspects, and as cynical as it, and as imperfect as the results are, that's why it works out better than idealistic societies that assume all humans want to share or be equal or work together. Will it have to end some day? Sure. But it'll probably be resource constraints ending growth and collapsing the system rather than a change in human ways.
 
2013-03-06 03:32:57 PM  

FarkedOver: Spare Me: FarkedOver: Spare Me: Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?

Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality.  Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.

There are no other forms of greed?

Fundamentally what is that humans want? To go through life with as little hardship as possible.  I don't believe the entire human centers around greed and people acting like dicks constantly.  I am not subscribing to some bullshiat randian philosophy.


This got posted while I was typing the above, but yeah: this is where we disagree. There are multiple types of people, some just want minimal hardship, but some are social climbers, and there have always been those, and they'll always end up at the top over the ones that just want to get by, and they'll always exploit that place at the top, whether to siphon labor surplus into their own pockets as CEOs or to have the NKVD jail anyone with something they want.
 
2013-03-06 03:34:04 PM  

FarkedOver: Spare Me: Guhh wut? Soo, nobody was greedy before Capitalism? Soo, if Capitalism ends, no one will ever be greedy?

You actually believe you can eliminate greed?

Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality.  Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.


Greed as we know it stems from having material wants and needs which must be met for ourselves and those we assume responsibility for (spouses, children, etc.). Needs like food, water, shelter.

All the Jonesing and McMansioning stuf comes from playing on those needs.
 
2013-03-06 03:42:51 PM  

corronchilejano: theflatline: corronchilejano: Lots of North Americans talking about South America like they know the place.

You hang out at La Piscina or 49?  Or only en la zona t drinking the horrible ass BBC company swill they call beer.  Tres cordilleras de medellin es la mejor cerveza que hay en Colombia.

/Colombian
/Bogota is is much better than it was years ago
/Medellin>Bogota.

Didnt mean you. Someone suggested that the exito takeover was a blow to the colombian goverment, and even worse, that Chavez' death will bring "peace".


I know you did not mean me.  I guess the Exito(which is my favorite grocery store in Colombia which my wifes says "vamos a ver tu amigo, el exito".) take over was a brilliant plot to foil the Colombian and French owners of the chain.
 
2013-03-06 03:59:37 PM  
I'm no fan of Chavez but I looked into the source for that article, it's this guy:

http://www.cjiausa.org/">http://www.cjiausa.org/

I'm not sure what to make of this.  There are some red flags i there, but it doesn't look like a Freeper.
 
2013-03-06 04:08:55 PM  

Necronic: I'm no fan of Chavez but I looked into the source for that article, it's this guy:

http://www.cjiausa.org/">http://www.cjiausa.org/

I'm not sure what to make of this.  There are some red flags i there, but it doesn't look like a Freeper.


Jesus Christo, I could build a better website from my Windows 7 Phone while sitting at Starbucks. Maybe I should donate some time.
 
2013-03-06 04:45:42 PM  

Robert1966: Why can't a billionaire champion the poor? Championing the poor isn't the same as championing poverty.


Honest answer - it depends entirely on the order of events.

Bill gates step 1) amass personal billions (from starting succesful companies)
Bill gates step 2) become champion of the poor.

Chavez Step 1) become "champion of the poor"
Chavez step 2) amass personal billions (from ????)

Even ardent Chavez supporters should be able to admit that the difference is obvious.
 
2013-03-06 04:46:22 PM  

FarkedOver: I don't agree with the assertion that Kulaks were the peasantry. They were affluent farmers.

According to the Soviet terminology, the peasants were divided into three broad categories: Bednyak bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants. In addition, they had a category of batraks, landless seasonal agriculture workers for hire.

They were petite bourgeoisie at the very least.


They may have been 'petit bourgeoisie' in a purely Marxist sense, but they were farking peasants. They lived and thought and acted like Russian peasants. The kulaks were just the guys who got a small windfall of land in the revolution. And with the nobility gone, the only people in a position to oppress the peasantry were the Bolsheviks, which of course, they did. I can't remember why Stalin had insisted on collecivization in the first place, since it wasn't necessary to mess with Soviet agriculture. The peasants (and 'kulaks') were doing just fine under Vladimir Ilyich's New Economic Policy.
 
2013-03-06 05:07:41 PM  

Bad_Seed: The peasants (and 'kulaks') were doing just fine under Vladimir Ilyich's New Economic Policy.


Lenin wasn't too fond of the Kulaks either.
 
2013-03-06 05:28:03 PM  

FarkedOver: This text is now purple: FarkedOver: Greed as we know it aka the keeping up with the Jones' mentality. Accumulating as much needless crap as we can stuff in our McMansions. Yes, these are products of marketing and capitalism.

Greed is as old as the first amoeba that ate another amoeba.

That's not a good comparison at all.  So if there is some homeless man living on the street that hasn't eaten in days and he goes into a grocery store and steals some bread, he does so because he is greedy?


If he does it without considering and accounting for the various needs of the storekeeper, and the society in which he exists writ large, then yes, he's being greedy.
 
2013-03-06 05:43:55 PM  

Toby Flenderson: I'm always a little skeptical about these kinds of reports, considering it's in the US's best interest to vilify any successful attempt at social reform that benefits the poor for fear it might spread here as well.

BTW, did anyone bother to look up the source of this guy's information?

http://sites.google.com/a/cjiausa.us/www/

Seems legit.


A Zionist propaganda firm out of Miami? How much more legit can it be?
 
2013-03-06 06:14:19 PM  

give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.

Einstein was a patent clerk. He worked for a government agency that guaranteed property rights on ideas.

Ford paid good wages so his employees would be happier and healthier and thus more productive. He also got hugely rich. He may have had some ideas on social experimentation (good and bad), but never forget that he was a rich capitalist CEO and factory owner.


Ford's "$5 dollar day" was revolutionary but came with a lot of strings. He expected a lot from his employees for it. Surprise inspections of his employees homes being one. If you were living foul you got a warning and a fine, if the come back and you're still living like a pig you got fired. He still ended up being like the people he hated on some level.
 
2013-03-06 06:28:51 PM  
You gotta love the socialist/marxist wingnuts on this thread trying to justify this pillaging of the Venezuelan coffers - hahahahahaha! Hey he was gonna give the $2 billion back - right?  The Bush's, Romney et al will never amass that much money. Who's the "devil" now Chavez?
 
2013-03-06 06:32:22 PM  

factoryconnection: In the end, he died relatively young and his big plans are half-fulfilled.


Good thing

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20070222.aspx

February 22, 2007: Venezuela is rearming, mainly via six billion dollars worth of Russian weapons. Officials insist that claimed the stuff is needed to protect the country from an American invasion. But for the last two years, Venezuelan officials, including the country's demagogic president, Hugo Chavez, have made numerous public statements about the "reunification" of the islands of the Dutch West Indies (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaτao) with Venezuela. Added to that there is the ancient claim on most of neighboring Guyana, some disputed Colombian territorial waters, and very flimsy claims on Caribbean islands like Trinidad and Tobago. There has been some actions as well. Venezuelan violations of Dutch air space and territorial waters, including illegal over flights by military aircraft, have occurred with some frequency. In addition, Venezuelan authorities have urged residents of the islands to form "Bolivarian" cells, in support of eventual "reunification."

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)  wanted to help Chavez in his search for weapons. Lee is infamous for asking whether the Mars Rover could find the flag planted by the astronauts on the moon.
 
2013-03-06 06:56:38 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Chavez's rule looked like something out of Woody Allen's Bananas. There must be something in the water down there that turns a champion of the people into a ruthless dictator as soon as they get power.


Gamerscore:
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/tropico-4/achievement/56789- Fi lthy-Rich.html
 
2013-03-06 07:07:18 PM  

FarkedOver: liam76: The mom and pop store would be the kulak you so gleefully labeled retards for not having over evertyhing they own.

If your fantasy was ever realized (communist revolution in the US) you would be in the forefront calling the blood of th emom and pop. Luckily that will never happen.

I don't think that is necessarily true.  There may be some hard liners that may say that I wouldn't be one of them.  BUT to compare kulaks to mom and pop stores is not a good comparison at all.  There was very little of a capitalist economy built up in Russia at the time, there was the ending of WWI and an on-going civil war.  They needed to ramp up production and kick start an economy that didn't exist in the first place.  They had to collectivize farms for this purpose.  In the US it is a completely different scenario and the comparison is just not valid.


Actually no they didn't "have" to collectivize farms to do that.  Collectivized farms were less efficient.

You seemed pretty chipper about the treatment of Kulaks, I don't see how you don't classify yourself as a hardliner.

The comparison is completely valid.  The mom and pops will suffer because they will have or at leas appear to have more than the lowest common denominator.  They will suffer not because it is more "efficient" but because the state will demand control and wants to strike fear in anyone who doesn't bend over for it.
 
2013-03-06 07:14:46 PM  

FarkedOver: Einstein was a socialist. Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.


Communism, especially the flavor you support (a farmer doesn't have the right to better himself through hard work on his land) has nothing to do with socialism.
 
2013-03-06 08:19:29 PM  
Last i checked, most people in the US were poor also...
 
2013-03-06 08:25:00 PM  
Hrm, still no cure for cancer.
 
2013-03-06 10:46:15 PM  
Phinn
What exactly is "taking advantage"?

Suppose someone gets their foot stuck in train tracks, a train's coming, and no one else is around. They yell for help, and you saunter over and say you'll pull them out... but only if they give you $200 first.

All parties in all voluntary transactions seek an advantage, compared to what situation they will be in without the transaction.

Obviously, that person ended up stuck because they made a voluntary transaction. Not because of bad luck. Nope, bad luck doesn't exist.

wealth is largely subjective. You might find sitting in a small college-town apartment with some buddies, strumming a guitar and eating pork rinds, to be the pinnacle of human bliss and happiness. Others might liken that situation to being in prison. If you enjoy what you have, then you are a wealthy man.

Clean water, food, shelter, health care, educational opportunities, and a few amenities like occassional vacations. Everything above that is a luxury. Not that I'm saying that people should be forcibly limited to that.

If one person offers another person a trade, to which either party can respond by agreeing or declining, without fear of being attacked by that other party for declining, then the trade is voluntary. When that trade occurs, it's BECAUSE both parties expect to profit by the trade.

That's a pretty specific caveat. If workers on strike, picketing outside the workplace but not trespassing, get attacked by police under orders from a mayor who's protecting the advantages held by the ownership class by crushing workers who are trying to organize, is that "the other party"?

What exactly is wrong with profit? As I said, in any voluntary transaction, by definition, both parties are profiting. You seem to have an emotional attachment to one type of party (employees), and hate the other (employers), and so you reflexively conclude that one person's profit is good and just, while the other person's is wrong. But you have completely failed to articulate a principle that show exactly why it is wrong, or to distinguish between good profits and bad profits.

Profit is (units sold) x ((sale price per unit) - (cost per unit)). That only applies to people who sell commodities. Workers don't sell commodities. We get paid for labor-time. You can't increase that. Sure, you can go to college or technical school and get paid more per hour, but that's only going to get you to a certain point- maybe $100,000 a year if you're extremely lucky. The people who are pulling down millions are doing it by selling commodities. But as you said earlier, that's really just 'entrepreneurial functions' which are specific tasks... which is really just work. So why the difference in compensation mechanisms? One person gets $12/hr busting their ass all day to pull in $300 net profit for a boss... just because he put up the capital? Risk is not the same as work! Especially since the 'primitive accumulation' of capital was a series of acts of incredibly violent robbery (as I said- enclosures, imperialism, etc)

The act of "driving people off their land" is a problem flowing from a LACK of property rights, not from the presence of property rights. And, yes, I would certainly agree with you that the feudal system of property that preceded an emerging free market in land was, comparably, worse. The poor (and unfree) definition of feudal property, derived as it was by more or less constant war (i.e., theft) and de facto slavery, was economically inferior, precisely because it was unfree.

I don't think you understand what I said. The act of people being forcibly driven from their land happened at the START of capitalism. For most people, village communism was BETTER than early-through-industrial capitalism (i.e. all but the last ~80 years, in Western Europe and the US anyway).

I'm all in favor of prohibiting deceptive trade practices, as a subset of fraud. That has nothing to do with communism and the economic and ethical benefits of clearly-defined property rights.

Impossible. Small disparities turn into systemic manipulations. Do you think the banks just all of a sudden became corrupt one day? No, the modern failure of capitalism is systemic. Your ideal for functional capitalism is even more of a far-fetched fantasy than the ravings of Leninists.


FarkedOver
Sure, I can do that. I can reasonably assume that through information and education the working class will realize they are being duped by free market zealots and con men.

This is why you fools will never be anything more than tiny cults. Capitalism is seductive. You're going to try to beat seduction using... education and information?


Phinn
Which free market zealots and con men have impoverished the people of Venezuela over the last, say, 10-15 years?

Are you kidding? Practically every social/health indicator in Venezuela is better since the mid-90s. Infant mortality is down, poverty is down, literacy is up... I'm an anti-Marxist, but radical social democracy is still a hell of a lot better than being a victim of neoliberalism (oh, did you think Venezuela was capitalist before Chavez?).


SheltemDragon
"From each his ability, to each his merit."

er, what? I'm not sure if you got that wrong on purpose.

///My Masters Degree keeps me warm at night

Burning for heat is all most are good for.


Thats_right_ALL_the_tea
territorial animals struggling for the areas with more food and the better mates.

Intraspecies competition is, by far, the exception.

The reason Communism has turned out so badly when attempted in real life is that some of those oppressed workers, given any semblance of power, will just start using it to accumulate their own wealth

It wasn't the workers in the Soviets (which just means "councils") who became the Red bureaucrats. That was the Bolsheviks, who took power from the Soviets by force in the coup d'etat of October 1917.
The problem with past revolutions is that we've given far too much leeway to Marxists, who subsequently found incredibly brilliant and evil ways to seize power, annihilate any democracy and worker control, and round up and execute any potential rivals no matter how devoted- in fact, the more devoted ones may be shot first, since they pose the greatest threat. "Next time the people rise they'll turn against the red butchers first. That will be the first moment of the real revolution!"

Capitalism isn't fair, but it tries to take advantage of humanity's bad aspects, and as cynical as it, and as imperfect as the results are, that's why it works out better than idealistic societies that assume all humans want to share or be equal or work together.

Capitalism assumes that everyone is a selfish prick. Communism (well, college-hippy communism, but whatever) assumes that everyone just wants to get along. In fact probably about 95-97% of the species just wants to get on with their lives and not be a dick, with the rest being sociopaths who have no concept of empathy. We can make a system which is basically communistic but which accounts for the occasional evil bastard.
 
2013-03-07 02:24:11 AM  

FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape


I lol'ed
 
2013-03-07 02:55:48 AM  

Beeblebrox: TheDumbBlonde: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.

Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 259x194]


ha!  goin' old school
 
2013-03-07 04:08:34 AM  

FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.


Well, Henry Ford believed that if his workers prospered, he would eventually prosper.  It's a shame that so few execs today can see how much richer they'd be if they actually paid their workers commensurate to their production.
 
2013-03-07 09:22:10 AM  

IlGreven: FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.

Einstein was a socialist.  Henry Ford believed in paying a living wage to employees.

Further more, I think a case can be made that greed as we all know and love it is actually a construct of capitalism itself.

Well, Henry Ford believed that if his workers prospered, he would eventually prosper.  It's a shame that so few execs today can see how much richer they'd be if they actually paid their workers commensurate to their production.


And it's not socialism, either.  It's just not near-sighted capitalism.  Profit today doesn't mean that you'll have it in 5 years.  That style of belief is basically an R&D budget for your employees, betting on "development" to pay off in the form of productivity(quality, quantity, whatever).  I do believe that Ford wouldn't have gotten away with it in today's world as a public company, but that's a problem with today's economic world and our laws, not necessarily capitalism(too many investors that have no stake in the business other than the quarterly return on their dollar).
 
2013-03-07 09:39:04 AM  

bhcompy: And it's not socialism, either. It's just not near-sighted capitalism. Profit today doesn't mean that you'll have it in 5 years. That style of belief is basically an R&D budget for your employees, betting on "development" to pay off in the form of productivity(quality, quantity, whatever). I do believe that Ford wouldn't have gotten away with it in today's world as a public company, but that's a problem with today's economic world and our laws, not necessarily capitalism(too many investors that have no stake in the business other than the quarterly return on their dollar


Our laws set it up so it isn't so much capatilism as corporatism.  If you are too big to fail or can profit with no risk or hard work (simply y having a lot of money and connections), that isn't capitilism.
 
2013-03-07 10:21:52 AM  

liam76: bhcompy: And it's not socialism, either. It's just not near-sighted capitalism. Profit today doesn't mean that you'll have it in 5 years. That style of belief is basically an R&D budget for your employees, betting on "development" to pay off in the form of productivity(quality, quantity, whatever). I do believe that Ford wouldn't have gotten away with it in today's world as a public company, but that's a problem with today's economic world and our laws, not necessarily capitalism(too many investors that have no stake in the business other than the quarterly return on their dollar

Our laws set it up so it isn't so much capatilism as corporatism.  If you are too big to fail or can profit with no risk or hard work (simply y having a lot of money and connections), that isn't capitilism.


That's only on the top level, though I agree it exists(and actually that's mostly political, without government intervention it would be more capitalistic).  The vast majority of businesses(80%+) in the US are entrepreneurial: sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.  No one is going to give them corporate welfare benefits if they struggle.
 
2013-03-07 10:57:22 AM  
I'm glad the guy is dead, he was such a jackhole.
As far as getting rich tho..
have you ever seen a poor congressman in the U.S.?
 
2013-03-07 12:10:37 PM  

uber humper: [i.imgur.com image 318x450]

I still need to see more proof for Chavez, but I don't quite doubt it.

Reminds me of Arafat of the Palensitnian LIberation Organization.  Amassed over a billion dollars, bribes and scraping from aid packages, while Palenstinians lived in shiat.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995651,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-582487.html


Didn't he also tour with the Beatles under the name Ringo Starr?

static.gigwise.com
 
2013-03-07 02:29:45 PM  
RanDomino:  Capitalism assumes that everyone is a selfish prick. Communism (well, college-hippy communism, but whatever) assumes that everyone just wants to get along. In fact probably about 95-97% of the species just wants to get on with their lives and not be a dick, with the rest being sociopaths who have no concept of empathy. We can make a system which is basically communistic but which accounts for the occasional evil bastard.

I think that number is way too high, even if you exclude only those with Libertarian ideals.
 
2013-03-07 07:43:36 PM  
Latinwolf
I think that number is way too high, even if you exclude only those with Libertarian ideals.

The prevalence of this disorder is 3% in males and 1% in females
That's how many people are actual sociopaths.
 
2013-03-08 07:23:37 PM  

RanDomino: Capitalism assumes that everyone is a selfish prick. Communism (well, college-hippy communism, but whatever) assumes that everyone just wants to get along. In fact probably about 95-97% of the species just wants to get on with their lives and not be a dick, with the rest being sociopaths who have no concept of empathy. We can make a system which is basically communistic but which accounts for the occasional evil bastard.


Guess what?  You are wrong.  Most people are selfish pricks.  Citation:  All of human history.

Well, maybe not quite that extreme.  But what drives people to work hard at a job isn't because they just like hard work.  They are hoping for a pay raise or a promotion.  That's greed.  Under the communist system, there was no real reward for hard work.  Unless you count getting a lovely medal to pin on your jacket on parade days.  In fact, working too hard could be detrimental to your employment.  Your boss might see you as a threat to his job and look for a reason to get rid of you.  The result, everybody worked at the absolute minimum required to retain their job.  Each year, that bar was lowered (look at production statistics in the Soviet Union over the years for proof).

If you give people an incentive to put in a little extra effort, most people will take advantage of that opportunity.  Some people will be happy where they are and coast along.  If the only incentive is "the good of the community", everyone becomes "coasters".  A side note, companies that make false promises about production bonuses can only get away with the lie for a couple of years before the workers say, "fark that, I'm coasting".
 
2013-03-08 09:42:50 PM  
OgreMagi
Guess what? You are wrong. Most people are selfish pricks. Citation: All of human history.

Suppose you have a village with a few hundred people who generally get along fine, except that one of them is a sociopath. He's also the biggest and strongest guy around. He spends most of his time mugging the others, but then he gets an idea: one day he kidnaps someone's kids, and tells that person that if they ever want to see their kids again, they have to start mugging the other villagers and giving him the proceeds.

That person has two terrible options. Does that make them a selfish prick?

Suppose the sociopath forces everyone to pay him tribute, and gives some of it to the most desperate villagers (who can't otherwise afford the tribute) in order to get them to form posses to enforce the tribute. Everyone's been put in a bad situation and is making the best of it. But there's still only one person who we can definitively say is a selfish prick.

Now, suppose the villagers got organized... Oh, but that would be communism!
 
2013-03-08 09:47:17 PM  
Under the communist system,

I'm ignoring the rest of this, because you're not talking to me. Maybe FarkedOver was the intended audience?
 
Displayed 322 of 322 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report