Shouldn't an economic system be able to thrive without interactions with other systems?
Why not just convert the oil into fertilizer and then use it to have super productive agriculture and have a surplus of food? They could do it with zero trade. Instead Venezuela starves. So why does Venezuela sell the oil instead? Because the proceeds go right into the leader's bank account and he uses it to buy toys. This is what happens every time in communism. The leaders don't work for the people.
Of course that actually how every political system works. People struggle to get to the top and then they want a good life for themselves. They didn't get where they are for other people. It's how communism actually works. It's how republics work. The difference is that in a capitalist republic the people are able to produce value for themselves a little faster than it is stolen away. They can do this because the default is that property isn't taken and being stolen from is the exception. Unfortunately it is a common exception. But in communism where resources are meant to be centralized by default and then hopefully distributed, and where producing is seen as a negative and only results in being targeted, the hopes of out producing the theft are gone.
Not the point. You're supposed to seize control of capitalist industry and make it work more efficiently for the people, not to regress back to primitivism.
Technically that's not true for most of Russia/China. The revolution/civil war and forced industrialization were brutal. But most people of those nations went from living like 17th century serfs to educated working class within decades, and then beating the USA to space.
Well you can haggle over Russia vs USA in the space race, but the fact that they were the 2nd most powerful nation in the world, competing toe-to-toe with the US geopolitically a few decades after being mostly feudal is pretty remarkable.
I read his book, Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution. I think it has some really good insights, but all it really shows is that some bankers were betting on the communists while (most) others weren't. They had their reasons (some were Jews who just wanted revenge on Russians for pogroms) and indeed did score some exclusive contracts with the Soviets. But overall I think this is a relatively small part of the story.
In fact, I think this book reinforces the conspiracy theories about Trotsky.
Socialism in one country vs permanent world revolution.
We have the red scare where Americans thought communists were everywhere but they really were not. Stalin worked with the capitalist USA a lot such as during WW2. Plenty of American factories in Russia, ford had deals.
On the flip side, why has the American economy declined since the Cold War ended? No more need for the elites to bribe the workers with decent wages so they don't go socialist.
Trotsky seemed to be too bourgeois; he placed bourgeois concerns over the concerns of the worker, to appease westerners, which corrupts a socialist movement.
His tactics are essentially terroristic, sectarian and anarchistic. The sorts of ineffective, anti-populist tactics Antifa, BLM and queer revolutionaries use. These end up being used as penetration tests by the security state, and they simply apply patches as necessary.
Meanwhile everyone else wonders why the left wants queerness and mass-migration, which are bourgeois objectives, and finds themselves increasingly unable to speak out against the existing regime.
Trotsky would say the USSR failed cuz it wasn't really communist but a deformed workers state. He predicted its collapse. So what did he want to happen instead of Stalinism? With permanent world revolution he'd agree that the struggle would go on forever but you have to at least try to make the entire world socialist. I don't agree that that would work out but that's what Trotsky wrote about. Calling Trotsky bourgeoise is something Stalin would say to distract attention. Or is just a reference to Trotsky being Jewish. Bourgeoise are the capitalist
class so it's like saying Trotsky was too capitalist. And then a capitalist wouldn't want to push stuff that hurts the economy? But a capitalist might be willing to hurt himself and his country economically if it helps divide workers and hence precludes a socialist revolution.
Log in
Reminds me of this old gem.
Well, they got a warrant from a U.S. Federal Judge. The ship was using U.S. assets, probably banking, illegally against U.S. sanctions on Venezuela.
OK - but it's difficult to know who or what to believe in government these days
Look at me. I'm the Somali pirate now.
Somalis started living on tax dollars and the US government started hijacking oil tankers. It's an upside down world.
Yep, this is America
Marjorie Taylor Greene Just Drew a Line in the Sand — The Pentagon Is PANICKING | Redacted (18:35)
https://youtu.be/I26Ql-uX6AM
Just like they stole their gold a few years back.
It's just not going to be that easy.
It does make you wonder how differently socialist dystopias might fare if the US weren't actively trying to destroy their economies.
Shouldn't an economic system be able to thrive without interactions with other systems?
Why not just convert the oil into fertilizer and then use it to have super productive agriculture and have a surplus of food? They could do it with zero trade. Instead Venezuela starves. So why does Venezuela sell the oil instead? Because the proceeds go right into the leader's bank account and he uses it to buy toys. This is what happens every time in communism. The leaders don't work for the people.
Of course that actually how every political system works. People struggle to get to the top and then they want a good life for themselves. They didn't get where they are for other people. It's how communism actually works. It's how republics work. The difference is that in a capitalist republic the people are able to produce value for themselves a little faster than it is stolen away. They can do this because the default is that property isn't taken and being stolen from is the exception. Unfortunately it is a common exception. But in communism where resources are meant to be centralized by default and then hopefully distributed, and where producing is seen as a negative and only results in being targeted, the hopes of out producing the theft are gone.
They could leave their oil in the ground and pursue a pastoral economy.
Not the point. You're supposed to seize control of capitalist industry and make it work more efficiently for the people, not to regress back to primitivism.
The regular folks of Venezuela don't get any benefit from the oil but do get hurt by the USA blockading them.
It does work for the people at the top, while the rest regress back to primitivism.
Technically that's not true for most of Russia/China. The revolution/civil war and forced industrialization were brutal. But most people of those nations went from living like 17th century serfs to educated working class within decades, and then beating the USA to space.
Sounds like propaganda especially the space race part. People In Russia who starved to death would likely have a Different view on that.
Well you can haggle over Russia vs USA in the space race, but the fact that they were the 2nd most powerful nation in the world, competing toe-to-toe with the US geopolitically a few decades after being mostly feudal is pretty remarkable.
As for the death count... make up your own mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVWun9jfSac
Have you heard of Anthony Sutton? Cold War was phony.
I read his book, Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution. I think it has some really good insights, but all it really shows is that some bankers were betting on the communists while (most) others weren't. They had their reasons (some were Jews who just wanted revenge on Russians for pogroms) and indeed did score some exclusive contracts with the Soviets. But overall I think this is a relatively small part of the story.
In fact, I think this book reinforces the conspiracy theories about Trotsky.
Haha I was just talking about Trotsky . It did help prove Trotsky right.
Stalin vs Trotsky was
Socialism in one country vs permanent world revolution.
We have the red scare where Americans thought communists were everywhere but they really were not. Stalin worked with the capitalist USA a lot such as during WW2. Plenty of American factories in Russia, ford had deals.
On the flip side, why has the American economy declined since the Cold War ended? No more need for the elites to bribe the workers with decent wages so they don't go socialist.
Trotsky seemed to be too bourgeois; he placed bourgeois concerns over the concerns of the worker, to appease westerners, which corrupts a socialist movement.
His tactics are essentially terroristic, sectarian and anarchistic. The sorts of ineffective, anti-populist tactics Antifa, BLM and queer revolutionaries use. These end up being used as penetration tests by the security state, and they simply apply patches as necessary.
Meanwhile everyone else wonders why the left wants queerness and mass-migration, which are bourgeois objectives, and finds themselves increasingly unable to speak out against the existing regime.
Trotsky would say the USSR failed cuz it wasn't really communist but a deformed workers state. He predicted its collapse. So what did he want to happen instead of Stalinism? With permanent world revolution he'd agree that the struggle would go on forever but you have to at least try to make the entire world socialist. I don't agree that that would work out but that's what Trotsky wrote about. Calling Trotsky bourgeoise is something Stalin would say to distract attention. Or is just a reference to Trotsky being Jewish. Bourgeoise are the capitalist
class so it's like saying Trotsky was too capitalist. And then a capitalist wouldn't want to push stuff that hurts the economy? But a capitalist might be willing to hurt himself and his country economically if it helps divide workers and hence precludes a socialist revolution.
Because "capitalists" ultimately become monopolists who care more about preserving their monopoly than absolute profit or growth.