The communist position. NO freedom. Plain and simple. Refreshingly honest comrade.
Or you could take my statement within context.
I am all for denying free speech to those whose sole agenda is to exploit the common worker. No one should be subject to that.
Apparently you are still a bit unclear just who the "opposition party" is. The only opposition Chavez possibly garners (being that his system is a benefit to everyone else) is the wealthy elite, who would love nothing more than to re-claim their oppressive throne.
What about a man or woman that dreams to make something of themselves other than a factory dying on the way to work?
What about them? They certainly would not be part of the OPPOSITION, if that is what you are saying.
The government is not going to give them that chance.
To be anything than a slave on communist wages.
You mean the $40 a week
socialist minimum wages? Did you prefer it when the country was "free" and the minimum wage was $25?
As a matter of fact I worked side by side with a Kenyan that left Kenya to live the American dream. He is now probably done with med school and into his position working in an American hospital. I'll have to look him up.
No. And Kenyans are not on their way to Venezuala either.
You see worthless people that do not need a better life? Every man and woman dreams of American freedoms. Not Venezuelan handouts dictated by a totalitarian communist.
What I see are poor people that would chose America over their own countries anytime.
And many other things as well. You cry freedom for others but want Venezuelans and Africans given a communist government because that is all they are worth. The people would come to America for freedom if they could.
How many people flood our borders as compared to commie countries?
Okay, you are really not getting it. I will try again.
Capital= Material wealth (money, property, resources) used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
Kenyans (I know I keep bringing them up, but just as an example). What do they have? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Absolutely.......... nothing.
Do you understand yet? Nada? Zilch? Nil? Null? Zip? Void?
You know how you are always saying that
something can't come from
nothing? 1x1=1? Apply that simple concept here. What little they have, is what little they have, and cannot (in the present state of affairs) ever become anything more. Refer to the definition I provided.
According to you, we make them "free", and they will inevitably prosper. "Okay then Africans, be free! Partake in fruits of capitalism! Start your businesses! Live your dreams! Laugh and Sing all the way to stately mansion on the northern Mediterranean!"
You are going to be left with a lot of blank stares. What exports can Africa provide? By what means do they utilize what little resources they have? How do they ship them?
Obviously you have to provide them with some capital to start off with. Via Socialism. The concept is simple: take a little money from a successful enterprise, distribute it to a poorer one. Equal the playing field, then let them run with it. Socialisms may evolve into successful capitalisms (just as has happened with countries such as S. Korea and Tiawan).
Now let's examine Venezuela. They do have
one source of income; oil. One fifth of US oil comes from Venezuela, the industry there is massive. HOWEVER, massive as it may be, its wielding requires but a small fraction of the nation's population. So what do you suggest we do with all the extra workers? You can't take them to any money (as no other viable source exists in this particular area of the world), but you CAN bring the money to them. Higher incomes means less money spend feeding your starving family, more money invested in higher opportunities. Of course, you also must create and accomodate those said opportunities, something which Chavez has been more than happy to do. Tens of thousands of new jobs are now available to the (considerably better equipted) average Venezuelan, which is one of the prime factors contributing to the nation's
9% economic increase. That's right, 9%. Argue against this supposedly inevitable future oppression all you want, right now all you are arguing against is undeniable economic prosperity. I bet the Venezuelans would wish you "compassionate" conservatives would quit fussing over them so much. Average joe never dreamed of making this much money in the "free" Venezuela.
Capitalism will not work in Venezuela, nor in any other country of similar resources. If logical evidence is not enough for you, I suggest you take a look at the floundering third-world capitalist economies of countries such as Kenya (where 10% of the workforce harbors 60% of the wealth, I might add).
The best suggestion you have henceforth offered is for every poor person to move to America. I don't suppose I need to delve too far into the irrationality of this sentiment? Funny how the same people using the immigrants argument to further their (failed) capitalist notions are the same ones calling to seal our borders against those evil Mexicans. Always willing to flaunt our abundant resources, but never willing to share them.
For this sole reason, I would also advocate socialism in the US. Not necissarily just nationwide socialism, but GLOBAL socialism. Hey George, you really want to help the world? Because there is a continent just a small stretch of water away from where half your troops are currently stationed that has been crying help for centuries.... or really, pretty much ever since God cast them onto such a miserable hell-eaten plot of crap in the first place. Here's an idea, you "compassionate" conservatives. Send our troops to Africa (Oh, but wait, God forbid they actually do anything
useful). Cut Bill Gates' monthly "business meeting" to Malibu, and use that ever-waning petroleum for something more meaningful (like for example, sending supplies to those tsunami victims starving in their decimated streets. Yeah, there was a tsunami, it was like a year ago. Biggest natural disaster in recorded human history. Don't suppose you managed to take time away from managing your stock portfolio to glance at the news?)
3 billion worldwide live in poverty. Meanwhile, you may find 256 billionaires taking residence in these 'free' states of America. Not many people seem to notice this obvious social injustice. But of course, who would when our lives are so consummed by this brigade of homosexual/liberal crusaders who have (supposedly) gathered to invade decent "Bible believing" Christian's homes and phisically force their children to indulge in brutal anal intercourse. No, our time is much better spent focusing on the "important" issues.
Want to convince me that these Right-Wing do-gooders plotting against Hugo mean well? Better lay it on hard, because if reality is any sort of an indication, "tax breaks for the rich" pretty much sums up their political stance.
Communist. But I take it from reading your political point of view, that it is not an offensive label.
Communist. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the
common advantage of all members.
An evil theory? Why, because your mommy and daddy told you so? It's not my fault that you choose to associate a noble welfare notion with a few scum who decided to use it's inherent power to achieve (ironically) everything Marx speaks out against. People have done the same with capitalism, by the way.
But then again, I am not even issuing communism. But I don't expect you to notice this anytime soon, as admitting such would null your entire argument's very basis.
Russia, Cuba, China, Cambodia all modern examples and all prove I have no assumptions not based on grueling facts to judge communism as evil.
Of course, the oppression in the mentioned countries is fact.
Likewise, in support of my thesis, I could dwell on the fact that 54 countries are poorer today than they were in 1990 (when communism was officially declared "dead", and capitalism became the internationally recognized sole sustainable model of "success").
I could also dwell on the fact that more children over the age of five are dying in 14 countries, and that enrollment in primary schools is down in another 12.
Then of course, I could sufficiently rest my very case on the fact that in former soviet nations recently taken to capitalism, poverty has
trippled.
But I'm not. You see, that would be
generalizing. And we never want to do that, right (*hint hint*)?
But alas, I am sure you have all ready discovered the flaw in my UN statistics. They were not judging the standard of living by the
wealthy's well-being. The wealthy are all who REALLY matter, afterall.
