Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
the problem is that "wealth" doesn't work that way. it's not a finite quantity and needs constant creation.
what chavez redistributed instead was... poverty. they basically annihilated every wealth-creating concern in venezuela. seized, mismanaged, and pushed to exile property and systems and talent.
free market and free enterprise are a really good way to create wealth. really. we have ample empirical proof of this. it's actually the wealth-producing societies that can afford the social safety nets. the worker's paradise didn't come to russia but to germany.
the problem is when oligarchies develop and hijack their societies while foregoing their civic responsibilities. this is what's happening in the USA now. it's lunacy.
|
Yes and no because in almost every instance of supposed "free market success" we see an underlying Keynesianism. Personally i don't buy into any of the myths of free market capitaliam.
What happened to the Soviet Union is the same thing that happened to most Leninist failed economies. It doesn't work for largely underdeveloped agrarian societies. In other words Marxism in principle is fine, its about being properly applied and executed in the right circumstances
And interestingly by most metrics and by most public opinion Russia was better under "Communism"