Sanders Refuses to Address Latin American Socialist Failures on Univision

a reply to: atomish

I can't disagree with a word you said.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Free whatevers, and rules doesn't equal means of production.

Means of production are the tools, the machines, the ideas etc...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

Free whatevers, and rules doesn't equal means of production.

Means of production are the tools, the machines, the ideas etc...

And that's what he wants.

Why is it so hard for everyone to admit?

All these countries in Latin America like Cuba and Venzuela are not socialist- they are dictatorships. That's very different than socialism.

If you want to talk about socialism look at Europe where people have a decent standard of living and many freedoms as well.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

Bernie does not want government control of the means production. He wants to change what we spend our taxes on.

Lets just call it what it is.

Communism.

Bernie (and Hillary for that matter) wants government to mandate a living wage.

Basically, they want government to provide the basics for everyone.

Communism.

I'm so sick of people playing with definitions and dancing around the word.

How could government ever be the one to mandate a living wage while they are at the same time implementing policies that devalue our currency and inflate the cost of goods and services? That is one thing that seems patently absurd to me, that this inefficient government would be the one to ensure everyone made the money they needed to survive.

I do think Government should be able to take care of many of the basics for most, if not all, it's people whenever they may fall upon hard times. We should want to make sure the least of us has the opportunity to rise above their lot, at the minimum.

The problem is, for this to be plausible, our government needs to be optimized, reigned in. If we stopped spending so much on ridiculous causes, unjust wars and bloated beauracracy, maybe it wouldn't be so terrible to make sure everyone is fed, clothed and has shelter.

Tldr: IMO the government SHOULD BE able to provide the basics for all its people. That is, however, not wholly plausible until we do away with all the government waste and corruption.

I think there is a healthy middle ground to be found here, somewhere!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Because he has a very long public record to judge by. Your accusation just doesn't fit.

a reply to: NthOther

If you socialists are so damn smugly confident in your philosophy, why can't you ever be open and honest about what it is you really want and how you want to achieve it?

Many of us have talked about what we want, how we plan to pay for it, the differences between democratic socialism/socialism/communism, and much more. But it's like talking to a brick wall. No matter how many threads there are on ATS about socialism, the detractors just ignore our words and continue to spout the same crap anyway. So if you really want to know our views, why not look into the large number of already existing ATS threads about it (Krazysh0t has a good thread HERE)?

And for the record, Bernie doesn't have to talk about those countries anymore than a capitalist American candidate has to answer for the failings of capitalism in Greece. There are plenty of geopolitical events that can cause recessions and political upheaval. But that's the same in capitalist countries, too. Unless you're expecting us to overlook the constant capitalist collapses like 1987 Savings & Loans collapse, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the 2000 Dotcom collapse, the 2007-2009 foreclosure crisis & its worldwide effects, etc).

Ouch.

a reply to: CB328

All these countries in Latin America like Cuba and Venzuela are not socialist- they are dictatorships. That's very different than socialism.

Yeah don't look at the failures...Those aren't real socialists...

Venezuela's socialist revolution disagrees with you...

Cuba would also disagree with you.

a reply to: Kali74

There's no doubt that America has interfered with Central and South American nations.

But to place ALL the blame on America for the failures of socialist regimes is dishonest. America isn't all powerful.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: CB328

All these countries in Latin America like Cuba and Venzuela are not socialist- they are dictatorships. That's very different than socialism.

Yeah don't look at the failures...Those aren't real socialists...

Venezuela's socialist revolution disagrees with you...

Cuba would also disagree with you.

Cuba; the US of A had a trade embargo against Cuba since the 60's. It stands to reason the US of A has been a part of Cuba's economic failure.

Venezuela;

1) American Navy 'Helped Venezuelan Coup'
2) Washington channelled funds to groups that opposed Chavez
3) Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
4) US Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move
5) Otto Reich's Propaganda is Reminiscent of the Third Reich
6) Venezuelan Media accused in failed coup

source

So both countries mentioned have been under economic attacks from the US of A for years!

So socialism is so weak that it cannot withstand an "economic attack" from capitalistic nations.

Sounds about right.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So socialism is so weak that it cannot withstand an "economic attack" from capitalistic nations.

Sounds about right.

Or third world nations economies can be controlled or devastated by the most the most powerful country on earth and it's allies.

Sounds a lot more like the truth!!!

a reply to: projectvxn

The blame is accurately placed and America pretty much was all powerful and still is when it comes to the Latin American economy... all for our corporations to rob the resources, build the factories, employ the locals at slave wages. It's absolutely no different than what the British Empire did with banana's and sugar cane.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Or the most Socialized countries in the world just happen to be third world countries. What are the odds?

a reply to: NthOther

Venezuela's gov went through the same crash when they were capitalist, they put all their eggs in the oil business and when that fell they were/are boned.

Why don't you look at countries where it does work?

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Or the most Socialized countries in the world just happen to be third world countries. What are the odds?

Then there is Sweden...

Over the past several decades, Sweden has laid a strong economic foundation by committing to economic fairness and has positioned itself as one of the world’s strongest economies. Today, Sweden, along with the rest of Scandinavia, is among the leaders in terms of quality of life, enjoys one of the world’s highest GDPs, and not surprisingly, continually ranks as having the happiest people on the planet.

source

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I said the most socialized countries in the world. Sweden still has capitalism at it's core with free markets and open elections, unlike Venezuela and China.

Even so IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad fled the country in 1973 when Sweden instituted a scheme to confiscate corporate profits and hand them over to labor unions.

Why Socialists Shouldn't Cite Sweden as Success

a reply to: thinline

Except in all of Europe.

originally posted by: Kali74

The US doesn't let it happen as soon as a Populist or Socialist pops up we start fueling the opposition and if that fails we back a coup.

Then why didn't he say that?

Why didn't he say anything? He doesn't want people talking about it because he can't defend the failures produced by his core ideology.