Venezuela ...... seems to be having a spot of bother ....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... is-bolivar

Inflation could hit 1,000,000 % this year, 90% of the Country live in poverty, and this year's version of " Who want's to be a Millionaire? " has been cancelled as the top prize is now worth the equivalent of less than £1 !! It should be remembered that Venezuela has the highest proven oil reserves in the World , and should be a wealthy Country !

The late President Chavez, who died in 2013, was a great favorite of Mr Corbyn as can be seen below....

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status ... 92?lang=en

However, Jezza has been rather tight lipped since it was revealed by Forbes magazine, that Chavez's daughter has assets of over $4.2 billion in bank accounts in the United States and Andorra ....

And the point of this post is?.................Oh i'm another daft Daily Mail reader who thinks Theresa May is doing a great job?
Just a guess!

Taffy on the wing wrote:And the point of this post is?.................Oh i'm another daft Daily Mail reader who thinks Theresa May is doing a great job?
Just a guess!

Is She?

Taffy on the wing wrote:And the point of this post is?.................Oh i'm another daft Daily Mail reader who thinks Theresa May is doing a great job?
Just a guess!

What makes Venezuela a socialist country and not a communist country?

After Chavez’s death in 2013, Corbyn spoke at a vigil in London, at which he acclaimed Chavez for showing us that there was a “different and a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice and it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step towards.”
https://www.socialist.net/corbyn-ignore ... ezuela.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damo wrote:After Chavez’s death in 2013, Corbyn spoke at a vigil in London, at which he acclaimed Chavez for showing us that there was a “different and a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice and it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step towards.”
https://www.socialist.net/corbyn-ignore ... ezuela.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's perfectly possible that fundamentally corrupt people also have some good ideas, like helping the poor. That doesn't mean you're OK with the corruption if you praise them for doing something good.

Just out of interest, are you trying to suggest that Corbyn was OK with Chavez's corruption and dictatorship?

Except that Chavez did not have that fundamentally good idea. He didn't want to help the poor. If he did, he wouldn't have stolen vast amounts of money from them, would he?

Chavez did help the poor in the short term

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's perfectly possible that fundamentally corrupt people also have some good ideas, like helping the poor. That doesn't mean you're OK with the corruption if you praise them for doing something good.

Just out of interest, are you trying to suggest that Corbyn was OK with Chavez's corruption and dictatorship?

Chavez came to (and remained in) power in elections that were considered by outsiders to be fair and open. He may have had an outlandish style, but it wouldn't be correct to call him a dictator. What he did that was good, as you say, building hospitals and schools, looking after the poor, enabling local democracy, and using the country's natural resources to pay for this. He took on big economic interests, but not in such a way that their power was crushed. A lot is always made of his use of state media, but during his time in office the majority of media in the country remained privately owned. Certainly the problems currently facing Venezuela have nothing to do with the good things Chavez did, but probably corruption; and I doubt Corbyn was praising the corruption when he lauded Chavez.

The claim is that Corbyn is Old Left but sociologically speaking he is very much New Left. The great change in left-wing thinking in the 60s was from class-based issues towards identity-based issues such as sexuality, gender, race, drugs and so on. Ed Milliband's father was signed up to this movement for goodness sake! What Blair et al. represent is a corporatist take-over of left-wing interests to gain power and they are rightly being rejected. Corbyn has re-engendered the spirit of the sixties new left with new categories. He has done well. Centrists in Labour need to take a good long, hard look at themselves and think whether they would really have made anything better had Corbyn not changed the party's image.

That said, the left in this country, IMO, is too Americanised. I was recently a graduate student, and some people there really are miles away from what could be electable. But that's not the end of the world. You have a right who subsist on a diet of Rand and Hayek, shrinking the state for the sake of their pathetic experiments into how the weakest members of humanity might survive without. That ideology would not suit a lot of people on middle incomes, it would not, in reality, suit a lot of small business owners. There is a possibility for a coaltion but the shennanigans need to stop, and people need to start talking about what is in their joint interest.

I met Venezuelans who see paradise differently, moving to Reading to avoid the kidnapping and violence that is rife.

Corbyn's problem is that he has spent most of his political career like some Z list celebrity desperately trying to be seen in all the right places and espousing all the right causes, in order to supplement his Saturday night vegan dinner party conversations. Now that he is actually in a position where he has to bear some sort of responsibility it's all coming home to roost.
That said, he can't be held responsible for praising someone's laudable early achievements, who then turned out to have feet of clay.

Chavez is the only one whoever helped the poor.

Here's an interesting explanation as to why dictatorships being overturned often end up back into dictatorships. Especially in countries where a nation's wealth is dependent on few types of resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndrewJB wrote:Chavez came to (and remained in) power in elections that were considered by outsiders to be fair and open. He may have had an outlandish style, but it wouldn't be correct to call him a dictator. What he did that was good, as you say, building hospitals and schools, looking after the poor, enabling local democracy, and using the country's natural resources to pay for this. He took on big economic interests, but not in such a way that their power was crushed. A lot is always made of his use of state media, but during his time in office the majority of media in the country remained privately owned. Certainly the problems currently facing Venezuela have nothing to do with the good things Chavez did, but probably corruption; and I doubt Corbyn was praising the corruption when he lauded Chavez.

In a nutshell the good things he did were 'because socialism'. The fact he's ruined the country, that's corruption so not his fault anyway. Corbyn just wants the good stuff, all the nice hospitals, helping the poor and that.

That makes it easier for me to follow. Maybe Jeremy is on the right track after all.

Taffy on the wing wrote:And the point of this post is?.................Oh i'm another daft Daily Mail reader who thinks Theresa May is doing a great job?
Just a guess!

The point probably is to show the Corbyn numpties on here what an absolute pr!ck he is. He admired Chavez and Venezuela.

This on top of his now proven connections to Terrorists here and there would demonstrate to most sane people he is not fit for office in England.

Good old Jezza!

Stayingup wrote:The point probably is to show the Corbyn numpties on here what an absolute pr!ck he is. He admired Chavez and Venezuela.

This on top of his now proven connections to Terrorists here and there would demonstrate to most sane people he is not fit for office in England.

He admired him now? So Corbyn's gone from praising one aspect of Chavez's rule to actually admiring him all in one thread.

Stalin had an absolutely fantastic moustache that I admired. Thankfully i'm not in politics otherwise that would mean that I admire Stalin.

Socialism/communism - sooner or later it runs out of other people's money.

Venezuela - has more oil than Saudi Arabia.

And if socialism/communism came to the desert. Eventually, they'd run out of sand.

Corbyn said "Thanks Hugo Chavez for showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared. He made massive contributions to Venezuela & a very wide world."

It's hard to interpret that as anything other than admiration. It certainly isn't damning him with the faint praise that is coming out on this thread, that he was a massive crook and grossly incompetent but had some good ideas.

One might also note the benefits gained by the poor people of Cuba under a socialist regime, despite an illegal trade embargo by the USA.

Erasmus wrote:One might also note the benefits gained by the poor people of Cuba under a socialist regime, despite an illegal trade embargo by the USA.

You mean to say there are actually "poor people" existing in Cuba, despite there being a socialist regime?

Good job there's the yanks to hang the blame on eh!?

Erasmus wrote:One might also note the benefits gained by the poor people of Cuba under a socialist regime, despite an illegal trade embargo by the USA.

That's why all the Cuban people I know are desperate to live here

HieronymousBoschHobs wrote:The claim is that Corbyn is Old Left but sociologically speaking he is very much New Left. The great change in left-wing thinking in the 60s was from class-based issues towards identity-based issues such as sexuality, gender, race, drugs and so on. Ed Milliband's father was signed up to this movement for goodness sake! What Blair et al. represent is a corporatist take-over of left-wing interests to gain power and they are rightly being rejected. Corbyn has re-engendered the spirit of the sixties new left with new categories. He has done well. Centrists in Labour need to take a good long, hard look at themselves and think whether they would really have made anything better had Corbyn not changed the party's image.

That said, the left in this country, IMO, is too Americanised. I was recently a graduate student, and some people there really are miles away from what could be electable. But that's not the end of the world. You have a right who subsist on a diet of Rand and Hayek, shrinking the state for the sake of their pathetic experiments into how the weakest members of humanity might survive without. That ideology would not suit a lot of people on middle incomes, it would not, in reality, suit a lot of small business owners. There is a possibility for a coaltion but the shennanigans need to stop, and people need to start talking about what is in their joint interest.

What are you on about?

So let's have a quick rundown on economies which failed their people and led to poverty, human rights violations and worse

The USSR
Maoist China (pre capitalist reform)
North Korea
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
South Africa
Cambodia
Argentina

All of these countries chose economies based on socialist/communist policies and each and every one of them failed. It's just off the top of my head but it's essentially every country which adopted a socialist economic model.

Many people will argue that perhaps they simply "didn't do it the right way"? But just how many times would you want to keep trying?

All the folk with the ideologies, the commies, the lefties, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Islamists all claiming better than thou societal knowledge BULLSH*T.

Krishnamurti said feeling good in a sick country is not a good thing. What sick country was he thinking of, his own?

Rowls wrote:So let's have a quick rundown on economies which failed their people and led to poverty, human rights violations and worse

The USSR
Maoist China (pre capitalist reform)
North Korea
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
South Africa
Cambodia
Argentina

All of these countries chose economies based on socialist/communist policies and each and every one of them failed. It's just off the top of my head but it's essentially every country which adopted a socialist economic model.

Many people will argue that perhaps they simply "didn't do it the right way"? But just how many times would you want to keep trying?

Have a read about 'The Nordic Model' is you want an example of how it should work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is how it would work if a left leaning party gained power in Britain.

I notice none of you have provided the link to Jeremy's amended statement on Venezuela based on the latter part of Chavez's rule and what's happened since.

:"Jeremy " lol...

Cuba has one just about the highest literacy rate in Latin America, the lowest infant mortality rate and the highest life expectancy. Socialism can work if it is applied in the right way. And as for the 'failed' socialist economies Rowls cites, anyone could mention the greater number of capitalist economies in the poorer regions of the world. In almost all cases the economic system adopted is of secondary significance in relation to the level of development, trading potential and availability of natural resources. Cuba is an exception to that rule as it has produced outstanding benefits for the majority of the population despite all the circumstances stacked against it.

randomclaret2 wrote::"Jeremy " lol...

They're all close personal friends in that big happy family. Eveything is kosher - oops.

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote:Have a read about 'The Nordic Model' is you want an example of how it should work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is how it would work if a left leaning party gained power in Britain.

Sadly that's not how it would work. I'm afraid we (the masses) don't have the mentality as the Scandies

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote:Have a read about 'The Nordic Model' is you want an example of how it should work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is how it would work if a left leaning party gained power in Britain.

That's not a socialist economic model.

It's a capitalist economic model with social democrat spending policies. Scandinavian countries do NOT have centrally organized economies.

In fact they rank highly in terms of economic freedoms.

2014 rankings are as follows:

Denmark - 6th
Norway - 9th
Sweden - 15

Clearly not socialist or communist countries.

Chip Harrison wrote:What are you on about?

I could understand what he/she was saying and thought it was one of the better posts on here. Try reading it again perhaps.

Stayingup wrote:The point probably is to show the Corbyn numpties on here what an absolute pr!ck he is. He admired Chavez and Venezuela.

This on top of his now proven connections to Terrorists here and there would demonstrate to most sane people he is not fit for office in England.

This post is almost too idiotic to warrant a response! You clearly get your 'knowledge' from the Daily Mail or other such rag.
Jeremy Corbyn will make a fine PM &at the very least he will try to help the poor.

NottsClaret wrote:In a nutshell the good things he did were 'because socialism'. The fact he's ruined the country, that's corruption so not his fault anyway. Corbyn just wants the good stuff, all the nice hospitals, helping the poor and that.

That makes it easier for me to follow. Maybe Jeremy is on the right track after all.

No. What I said was the hospitals and schools built aren’t to blame for Venezuela’s problems - which has more to do with corruption in my opinion. The country’s economic issues were around before Chavez, and appear to stand the test of time now he’s gone.

walter the softy wrote:I could understand what he/she was saying and thought it was one of the better posts on here. Try reading it again perhaps.

Thank you Walter. I have since re-read the post and all I can say is what are they on about?

AndrewJB wrote:Chavez came to (and remained in) power in elections that were considered by outsiders to be fair and open. He may have had an outlandish style, but it wouldn't be correct to call him a dictator. What he did that was good, as you say, building hospitals and schools, looking after the poor, enabling local democracy, and using the country's natural resources to pay for this. He took on big economic interests, but not in such a way that their power was crushed. A lot is always made of his use of state media, but during his time in office the majority of media in the country remained privately owned. Certainly the problems currently facing Venezuela have nothing to do with the good things Chavez did, but probably corruption; and I doubt Corbyn was praising the corruption when he lauded Chavez.

A lot of what you say is true but, still, Chavez was simply a populist, albeit of the left.

Sometimes populism can bring short term benefits and it is absolutely "a good thing" to try to help the lot of the poor especially in places where poverty really is extreme. It seems as well that his initial government had an overwhelming mandate from the population. No problem there.

The problem is with someone like Chavez though is that with his outlandish style and sloganeering made him more of media star rather than a politician (the guy had his own show on state television for example that lasted for several hours at a time where he would give away flats to poor people etc in some kind of flamboyant modern day Robin Hood style). Without even getting into the debate about the rights and wrongs of "socialism" here, Chavez should have spent more time encouraging a state founded on the rule of law rather than encouraging a cult of his own personality and the arbitrary use of power. In my opinion, the seeds of the collapse of Venezuela were already sown whilst he was in power and you can not separate the "corruption", as you call it, from his legacy.

Chip Harrison wrote:Thank you Walter. I have since re-read the post and all I can say is what are they on about?

Ok, fair do's.

Rowls wrote:That's not a socialist economic model.

It's a capitalist economic model with social democrat spending policies. Scandinavian countries do NOT have centrally organized economies.

In fact they rank highly in terms of economic freedoms.

2014 rankings are as follows:

Denmark - 6th
Norway - 9th
Sweden - 15

Clearly not socialist or communist countries.

Who wants centrally organised economies? Who's advocating for that?

walter the softy wrote:A lot of what you say is true but, still, Chavez was simply a populist, albeit of the left.

Sometimes populism can bring short term benefits and it is absolutely "a good thing" to try to help the lot of the poor especially in places where poverty really is extreme. It seems as well that his initial government had an overwhelming mandate from the population. No problem there.

The problem is with someone like Chavez though is that with his outlandish style and sloganeering made him more of media star rather than a politician (the guy had his own show on state television for example that lasted for several hours at a time where he would give away flats to poor people etc in some kind of flamboyant modern day Robin Hood style). Without even getting into the debate about the rights and wrongs of "socialism" here, Chavez should have spent more time encouraging a state founded on the rule of law rather than encouraging a cult of his own personality and the arbitrary use of power. In my opinion, the seeds of the collapse of Venezuela were already sown whilst he was in power and you can not separate the "corruption", as you call it, from his legacy.

Well put.

And by Rowls’ definition, Venezuela has always been a capitalist economy as it’s certainly more free market than Sweden or Denmark, and those countries we are told are capitalist success stories.

Rowls wrote:That's not a socialist economic model.

It's a capitalist economic model with social democrat spending policies. Scandinavian countries do NOT have centrally organized economies.

In fact they rank highly in terms of economic freedoms.

2014 rankings are as follows:

Denmark - 6th
Norway - 9th
Sweden - 15

Clearly not socialist or communist countries.

Are Labour campaigning for a Socialiast or Communist government?

No...

The Nordic model is exactly what they want to achieve and it works.

Why do folk always let rich folk dictate their lives?

The only thing most rich folk are good at is getting richer...at others expense.

Most of the land is still owned by the descendents of Norman Knights!

It would have been better in the hands of Norman Wisdom!

IanMcL wrote:Why do folk always let rich folk dictate their lives?

The only thing most rich folk are good at is getting richer...at others expense.

Most of the land is still owned by the descendents of Norman Knights!

It would have been better in the hands of Norman Wisdom!

That's rich coming from you jetting around Europe ......

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote: Are Labour campaigning for a Socialist or Communist government? No... The Nordic model is exactly what they want to achieve and it works.

You might want to let Corbyn, McDonnell and Ms Abbott know that they're not campaigning for a Socialist Government, it might come as news to them !!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Who wants centrally organised economies? Who's advocating for that?

All of the countries I listed in post 26.
Jeremy Corbyn
John McDonnell

AndrewJB wrote:And by Rowls’ definition, Venezuela has always been a capitalist economy as it’s certainly more free market than Sweden or Denmark, and those countries we are told are capitalist success stories.

Complete, utter, total nonsense.
As already stated: Denmark, Sweden and Norway are ranked 6th, 9th & 15th in the world (respectively) for economic freedom (ie. capitalism).
Venezuela was ranked 155th (out of 159).

https://humanprogress.org/dwrank?p=752&yf=2008&yl=2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UpTheClaretsFCBK wrote:Are Labour campaigning for a Socialiast or Communist government?
No...
The Nordic model is exactly what they want to achieve and it works.

They very much are campaigning as socialists and for a socialist economic model. Both Corbyn and McDonnell are both on record repeatedly saying so.
McDonnell is a self-proclaimed Marxist and want to implement Marxist economic policies - just like Venezuela did.

Rowls wrote:All of the countries I listed in post 26.
Jeremy Corbyn
John McDonnell

Can you demonstrate either of those two advocating for a centralised economy?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Can you demonstrate either of those two advocating for a centralised economy?

Hi IT, hasn't McDonnel declared it his life's work to over throw capitalism? Isn't "nationalisation" the state's ownership of the "means of production?"
Who does the state "delegate" the operation of the economy? It's not the consumer. It's the state, ie the "central planners."

Rowls wrote:All of the countries I listed in post 26.
Jeremy Corbyn
John McDonnell



Complete, utter, total nonsense.
As already stated: Denmark, Sweden and Norway are ranked 6th, 9th & 15th in the world (respectively) for economic freedom (ie. capitalism).
Venezuela was ranked 155th (out of 159).

https://humanprogress.org/dwrank?p=752&yf=2008&yl=2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



They very much are campaigning as socialists and for a socialist economic model. Both Corbyn and McDonnell are both on record repeatedly saying so.
McDonnell is a self-proclaimed Marxist and want to implement Marxist economic policies - just like Venezuela did.

To wriggle your way into this absurd position you've redefined Capitalism as "economic freedom" (whatever that means!), and used figures from a rightwing think tank to back up your position.

Capitalism is the ownership of the means of production in private hands. If we say 'means of production' relates to all economic activity (rather than Adam Smith's more limited definition), then we have a measure by which we can rank different countries. And under such a ranking no western country will get anywhere near the top ten of 'the most capitalist countries in the world' list, because all of them (even the US) have mixed economies with large public sectors. In fact I would venture a guess that Venezuela's private sector as a percentage of its economy is larger than ours. As much as you like to draw up lists of what you call 'Marxist' countries, Venezuela is far from being all state owned.

As for Corbyn and McDonnell, you're just cracking on with Tory Project Fear. Just keep calling them 'communists' and avoid discussing the means by which they intend to resolve real issues.