Madvillain
Pro
He's saying nationalizing companies to offer subsidized products and centrally planning your economy is somehow capitalism.![]()
Leftcoms/anarchists/Trotskyists/etc will make this argument & I see no prob with that

He's saying nationalizing companies to offer subsidized products and centrally planning your economy is somehow capitalism.![]()

Your comprehension skills are lacking.![]()
Orwell was not a Socialist, though he called himself one. He was a Social Democrat and heavily critical of Capitalism and it's associated ideologies. .
Wait what???? So let me get this right..What he called himself doesnt matter ...what you call him (even though never personally knew him) does.....really bruh..a man who fought for socialist revolution,who started a socialist party gets to be labelled by a coffee shop revolutionary...wonderfulThe socialists themselves said 1984 is critical of them not stalin ["the Daily Worker: “When he wrote 1984, the anti-socialist work that shocked the nation on television, George Orwell was sick in mind and body, a fast dying man”"]You're confusing him attacking the State Capitalist USSR with attacking Socialism
You're the guy who refuses to accept the existence of State Capitalism though right?[
When did that happen? i want recieptsHe's saying nationalizing companies to offer subsidized products and centrally planning your economy is somehow capitalism.![]()

Leftcoms/anarchists/Trotskyists/etc will make this argument & I see no prob with that![]()

Yup...running seized nationalized industries at a loss,to fund social programs while taking land away from big farmers and redistributing it to peasants....
These coli socialists call that state capitalism
where is the profit?????...you cant call something capitalism without the profit motive
thats not socialismsocialism
![]()

thats not socialism thoHe's saying nationalizing companies to offer subsidized products and centrally planning your economy is somehow capitalism.![]()

thats not socialism tho![]()
Are we pretending that Maduro has no reason to suspect foul play here?
Like I said before I'm not trying to make this about socialism but foul play or not, this jackass needs voted out before this ends in collapse and riots.
Are you going to take a look at the article?
Or maybe look into Orwell's thoughts on Capitalism and Imperialism?![]()
Are we pretending that Maduro has no reason to suspect foul play here?
they probably had way more signatures than necessary....Im sure some unnamed Agency has tried subverting them before in the chavez days
and now they are just watching him.they probably had way more signatures than necessary....Im sure some unnamed Agency has tried subverting them before in the chavez days
but once the Agency realized Maduro is taking his country apart much faster and way better than they can they were likeand now they are just watching him.
As for the discussion on what constitutes state capitalism in here: I tend to use Trotsky's definition of state capitalism(i.e. An economic system that features the state in a semi manageral role but maintains atleast nominal private ownership of the means of production).
A social democratic state can be argued to constitute this but I disagree with that interpretation. Using the term Capitalism in the moniker implies that the state views it's function as a means to capital accumulation. Social democracies, at least nominally, operate in their way to achieve better results for workers, not to accumulate capital.
Maduro, and Chavez before him, were not perfect. But it's both ignorant and ahistorical to act as if there's not ample reason to suspect foul play from the opposition(who attempted a violent coup in the very recent past and has known ties and support from foreign factions).
Maduro isn't a dictator. He won his term fair and square. He attempted no measures to block the new anti-Chavismo parliament when they won election. This is a misuse of the recall election system, as it was in 2011 Wisconsin. This is partisan brinksmanship pure and simple.