SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Various news outlets are reporting on an announcement by the Venezuelan government that it will leave the Organization of American States (OAS), a process that takes two years. The country will stop participating in OAS meetings immediately. No country has left the OAS since its founding in 1948.
According to Venezuela-based teleSUR, the move comes in response
[...] to a meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States to discuss Venezuela scheduled for Wednesday, which violates the rules of the organization because it does not have the consent of the affected country.
[The foreign minister] indicated that there is also a group of countries with right-wing governments working under U.S. imperialist orders against Venezuela.
Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets demanding [President Nicolás] Maduro hold elections and denouncing his government as being responsible for triple-digit inflation, food shortages and a rise [in] crime.
It also says that 29 people have been killed in connection with the protests.
Additional coverage:
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @05:31AM (16 children)
This may be true but one has to admit that it is a clusterfuck, and yes the united states is largely the hostile state actor, but cuba survived even the fall of their major trading partner(ussr) venezuela on the other hand attacked the very people chaves actually helped it's just another example of socialism being a proxy for capital, there is a reason there are no and never have been any Communists in power ever, Stalin was a good example hunting down and killing all people that wanted to be liberated from both the white Russians and the red army in the Ukraine, Communists or as they are more hatefully known Anarchists
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @07:17AM (15 children)
People are selfish. Period.
People will always want to get what they want, and as fast as possible. This is one of the most fundamental problem with communism.
1. Why work hard and well if I anyway do not get more than my lazy co-worker?
2. If I anyway gain nothing by working hard, corruption is the only way to get something.
I am all for free health care for everybody. Also I am all for public social care for all without income. Without these two things, people without money get desperate and you get high crime rate. Just look at the crime rate in US compared with all other western country and you will see.
However, communism is not about this (a working social system), it is about sharing everything in a community. According to Marx and Engel, even family should cease to exist and children should be raised by the community. According to them the people will also need to be forced into this by strong authority (at least in the initial face).
Nothing strange with that this does not work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @08:12AM (5 children)
Apex liberalism
"Why work hard and well if I anyway do not get more than my lazy co-worker?"
If you're having to work FOR someone to GET paid then that's not communism which entails worker democracy, workers ownership of the means of production and lack of currency (Yes, that means Venezuela, Cuba, China, the USSR aren't/weren't conmunist).
"According to Marx and Engel, even family should cease to exist and children should be raised by the community. According to them the people will also need to be forced into this by strong authority (at least in the initial face)."
Strawman.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @09:09AM (4 children)
thing?
Israeli Jews and American hippies.
Both still have communities in existence following some of the principles, but for most of them there are documented failures in facets of the organization/culture that didn't work. The most notable was the child rearing aspects: Communal child rearing doesn't work best for many kids, and being considered 'extended family' often leads children to think of their fellow children as siblings, requiring them to look outside the community for possible spouses. The financial aspects are many and varied, but often come down to either internal strife/power struggles, or external agitators coming in and damaging the foundations of the community, leading to its eventual sale/seizure.
Based on these results you can either claim 'Communism is a failure.' or that the requirements for communism place a much larger burden on individuals to be impartial and mature in their dealings, where most people culturally, emotionally, and mentally are unable to.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 28 2017, @05:08PM (3 children)
Look, Communism doesn't work. In theory it does but in theory so does absolute laissez-faire anarcho-capitalism. In practice, neither system works, and they both fail for the same reason: people suck. Not one in 25 people by my estimate has the strength of character it would take to be a pure communist OR a pure capitalist, and the ones that do have that kind of character would do about as well in either system.
I always say if you're having a problem, it's rooted in the layer "below," e.g., if you have an intractable problem in chemistry start looking at the physics. This is a problem of economics, so the answers lie in the psychology of the individual and the group.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @09:15PM (2 children)
neither system works
The Shakers existed before there was a USA and continued on for well over a century.
(There are still some tiny communities.)
They had communal ownership of the means of production (land, buildings, tools) AKA Socialism and they did everything as a community e.g. child care AKA Communism.
Their products (e.g. Shaker furniture, Shaker boxes) were and still are in high demand.
Their shortcoming was that they were first and foremost a religious bunch depending solely on converts to keep their numbers up.
Their founder established a no-sex rule that they kept even after her death.
Men and women lived in separate dormitories and the individuals in the group didn't reproduce.
If it wasn't for that whacko part, it seems likely they'd be huge and successful to this day.
Native American tribes had communal living that worked for centuries before white Europeans showed up and started murdering them.
The Oneida communities, famous for their flatware, was another communal living/working thing.
The Amana communities, famous for their appliances, was yet another.
Those lasted for decades.
With more and more people in the USA (especially young people) saying that they approve of Socialism (and disapprove of Capitalism), those places that are worker-owned should make a point to put that on their signage.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 28 2017, @10:51PM (1 child)
Dunbar's Number is going to kick any large-scale attempt at communism right in the pelmeni, sorry. And have you noticed those groups never really accomplished much advancement beyond late iron age? I'm certainly not saying that communal living is antithetical to science per se, but given human nature it will tend to lead to...well, there's a reason we have the term "Lysenkoism."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29 2017, @03:05AM
Oh, youngster.
I'll forgive you for being so clueless and not being aware of Amana appliances.
There was a time, not so long ago, when they were a big deal.
Oneida is still a widely-know name.
Apparently, at some point they let a fox into their multi-generational Socialist henhouse.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @12:11PM (8 children)
The problem with communism is that it idealize people to something they are not. And when reality meets ideology, reality wins ruthlessly. So real personal traits like egoism etc take over. So while communism seems like a good idea on paper or in single minded theory. It's a fantasy that can't handle the reality of survival mechanisms people have.
And while capitalism may suck hard. It takes into account by accident or design that people have egoism and greed. Such that it works with rather than against the system.
Much of politics is conflicting self interests and stupidity albeit at a high level. Which is why it can regurgitate the same bullshit over and over again. People is the problem and politics is one way to deal with it instead of war. Hence also a insight into some solutions.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @02:02PM (4 children)
You cannot do Communism without Totalitarianism. Cannot be done, period, end sentence.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @02:34PM
Wouldn't it be more optimal to compress "period", "end sentence" and "." to an ellipsis?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @09:43PM (2 children)
Communism, once achieved, would include the dissolving of national borders.
Communism follows a worldwide acceptance of Socialism (Democracy in the Workplace; Democracy EVERYWHERE).
What Venezuela has is NOT Communism.
It is a failed form of Liberal Democracy.
Their gov't has failed, but even more importantly their ECONOMY has failed.
If Chavez had started enabling worker-owned cooperatives as soon as he was in, Venezuela could be producing their own food and manufactured goods--perhaps even exporting that stuff.
Italy showed the way to workers practicing Socialism starting in 1985. The Marcora Law [google.com]
That has been monumentally successful and hasn't cost them one additional Euro (it's actually gotten them MORE revenue via employed workers and their Socialist companies paying taxes).
If you didn't have such crap sources of "information" (USA's Lamestream Media) you'd know about that (as well as Mondragon's success since 1956).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 29 2017, @01:54AM (1 child)
Borderless assumes indirectly that people on all sides of a border is similar. It's just like asking people to do away with locks on their house door. And any thoughts as to how that plays out hints on the issues at a national level. Like being roomies with a whole city. Which of course also precludes anyone doing anything different because a situation like that will indirectly thwart any initiative to make a difference.
Venezuela enabled top level greed and neglect. Then reality did them in. And that rule of course applies to any country that let their top level decision makers line their own pockets and neglect the society.
Regarding media. Have they ever presented sufficiently full and accurate information? like ever?
Mondragon, this? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29 2017, @02:58AM
Capital is already borderless.
Why is that deserving of special treatment when labor is not?
Highly mobile capital can be every bit as destructive as mobile labor. Moreso IMO.
Are you that committed to further enriching The Oppressor Class?
...or are you suggesting that transferability of capital be restricted to match the mobility of labor?
You appear to be clinging tightly to the Capitalist paradigm.
Let it go.
Try thinking in terms of workers as members of a group who work for the betterment of all workers.
...instead of trying to claw others out of the way in order to get a poverty-wage job busting their asses for a Capitalist who will exploit them.
.
Yes, -that- Mondragon. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
More here. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [leviatan-magazine.com]
...and dude, you really haven't been paying attention.
I must have mentioned that operation 100 times already and you're just getting curious -now-?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @02:16PM (2 children)
actually one of the problems with capitalism is it's idealist base, because of that it sits well on simple minded people
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 28 2017, @05:21PM
actually one of the problems with capitalism is it's idealist base, because of that it sits well on simple minded people
If that's the problem that comes to mind, then perhaps you should evaluate your stance on it? If the primary complaint for an ideology is that its adherents are just so damn smug, then they've already won.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 29 2017, @01:56AM
Let us know if you have the answer for a better system?