RE: Social-Democracy is Socialism, and this is Socialism!

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Social-Democracy is Socialism, and this is Socialism!

in politics •  7 years ago 

Embargo may have been the wrong word to choose I was writing without sleep for 20 hours, there are many points that I agree with you on. Such as venezuela failing to diversify their economy in spite of a oil crash; it doesn't disprove a social democratic system of governance.

Also some correction to your claim about the GDP produced by the oil industry, according to the OPEC their responsible for 95% of the exports and 25% of the GDP, which falls closely my claim of how much the private sector is responsible for.

Other than that, I don't have much to say I think we can come to a more or less agreement unless you want to dispute that.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Of course we can reach an agreement, personally I like to discuss different arguments, it is the main way I know to carry out a good feedback.

But you will see, in Venezuela there is private property, with few guarantees, since it can be expropriated by the State at any time. But the truth is that the private company is totally hanged by the State, because it does not matter if the ownership of the means of production is public or private, when the process of production and distribution is at all levels controlled by the State. According to the Central Bank of Venezuela, the private sector is over 50%, but it is less than 60%, according to 2013 data, however, the most important companies are dominated by the government, in addition to the fact that the entire Venezuelan economy is directly subsidized and dependent on oil.

I invite you to pass the following publications if you have enough time and interest in this topic. Thank you very much for your comments.

How Venezuela met Socialism? brief political history (4/5)

How Venezuela met Socialism? brief political history (5/5)

private property can not exist without the monopoly of force provided by a government, so the fact that the gov can take it at any time means nothing

In fact, there have been cases in history where private property exists without the need for a government, and it is something that in itself is quite feasible, as long as someone can protect their property by itself, or as long as nobody tries to take the property of another, that situation could occur, without the need of the State. Although it is true, the State is perhaps the best mechanism to secure private property, but the fact that the government removes the property at any time does mean something, and something very negative.

"Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g., artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas. Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle could result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private property and ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. (Private property and ownership, in this context, means ownership of the means of production, not personal possessions)."

Private property is a relationship between those who control the means of production and those who don't. Control can only be done through force. That force is the state. (Even if it is a "business" they simply become a state)

Ok, I understand then that you mean private property, but exclusively talking about the means of production, or not? If that is the case, I can say that in the same way, the participation of the State is not necessary for there to be such property.

In addition, Marx the only thing that got with his theory is to increase the power of the State, not to diminish it, socialism, brings maximizes all the problems of capitalism and does not bring any of its benefits.

We will never succeed in destroying the state by expanding it.

Mijaíl Bakunin

"In addition, Marx the only thing that got with his theory is to increase the power of the State, not to diminish it, socialism, brings maximizes all the problems of capitalism and does not bring any of its benefits."

complete opposite actually, all it did was improve the condition of the workers

I think it is very bold to say that it has improved the quality of life of workers, the nationalization and centralized planning has been the misfortune of each country that has implemented it, in fact, the countries that have the highest quality of life, are where it exists. more legal security of private property, and those that appear better positioned in the index of economic freedom.

you forgot one thing though, imperialism. Third world countries are capitalist too, and they are poor because capitalism. Capitalism can not function without imperialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

also communism does not need centralised planning (although things like project cybersyn have shown that it is better than capitalism in every way.)

"Ok, I understand then that you mean private property, but exclusively talking about the means of production, or not? "

Private property is a relation between people over the means of production. I'm not using the stupid capitalist definitions

I still believe that private ownership of the means of production is something that can be reached quite easily without the need for a monopoly of force. Although it is true, that the State is a great guarantor of private property.

"I still believe that private ownership of the means of production is something that can be reached quite easily without the need for a monopoly of force. Although it is true, that the State is a great guarantor of private property."

By definition private property is taking away one groups ability to freely use the means of production without taking away their dependence on it. The only way to take away freedom is (violent) force (or threat of force) on one group from another to do their bidding. This is how most anarchists would define a state, so by definition private property cannot exist without a state.

if you think that there will be no problem in that you give us your account and all the money in it. that is, property is a robbery, right?

private vs personal property.

Private property itself is offensive violence and thus requires a monopoly of force

It requires the use, or intent, of the use of force, but not the monopoly of it. There may be cases in which individuals have the power to defend what they consider their property, without the need of the State.