Allende was a pretty cool guy. Shame Nixon couldn't stand to see him get elected democratically.

There was a time in my life in which I could cry just thinking about 9/11. Allende just wanted a fucking working and livable place for workers to chill a little, fucking gringo pigs.

Allende was a great man. Not sure if he was a great politician, not sure if there are any great politicians, but he was a great man.

He was great proof that socialism won't work if you only do it in a single country because then you get porky trying to strike you down.

Stalin begs to differ

Stalinism is not socialism.

Stalinism is not even communism.

Epic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCqHoEKXIAIri43.jpg

>>7,8
Stalin begs to differ

Just calling something "communism" or "socialism" doesn't make it so.
Like how Venezuela, China or North Korea aren't either at all.

The words "communism" or "socialism" no longer have useful in politics, because the confusion of those in ordinary people is exploited. .

However, stalinism was born in the name of Marx's ideas, just like christianity was born and developed by the church in the name of Jesus ideas...but you cannot change the fact that even if Jesus would totally disapprove of this christianity it cannot be named otherwise.

"Communism" and "Marxism" are abstractions. Stalinism, on the other hand, is an empirical type which nonetheless tried to manifest socialism in real life by its own interpretation of said abstractions. There cannot be a "pure" socialist/communist system in real life.

That line of thinking is what makes people say "Venezuela is in shambles! See? Socialism doesn't work!" when the workers don't even own the means of production.

I think that Lenin was the closest to communism.

>>12
>Venezuela
It's always this tactic - call it socialism when it's successful, suddenly it's no longer socialism when it starts failing.

It was never socialism to begin with.

Maybe not your particular brand of perfect socialism?

Did the workers ever own the means of production? No? Not socialism then.

Social ownership is not always direct. It also means public, collective, cooperative ownership, or any combination of those. For Venezuela in particular, there is a large amount of cooperatives and public (state-owned) enterprises.

Nationalization isn't socialization.

Chavez was a dumbfuck. Focused too much on oil instead of actually diversifying and industrializing Venezuela like anyone with common economic sense would. Maduro is even fucking worse.

Then you have capitalist piggies and the US government sabotaging the country (i.e. driving down oil prices to fuck with Russia, Venezuela and Iran) so everyone can blame le spooky commies just like during the Cold War.

Also Allende was fucking cool. So cool he made Nixon shit his pants for being a democratically elected commie.

>>22
There are many different kinds of socialism and not one single definition encapsulates them all. If you want to argue that Venezuela is not anarcho-syndicalist or Marxist, then I agree. But it's still socialist by the commonly accepted definition of what socialism is and has been over the last century.

Well, there's the definition that reads "socialism is when the community as a whole own the means of production and exchange", but I agree with BG, this definition was made in an utopic way, and cannot be applied in this stage of history. What Chavez did was pretty much socialism in the context of XXI Century, but of course, not the only way to establish socialism. What Allende did was also socialism in his own context.

On the other hand, what does "the community as a whole own the means of production and exchange" mean? You may not like it, but during the last 2 centuries, State was understood as the structure which embodied the community as a whole and his will. So, State control of the means of production was (and continues to be) a valid interpretation of the way in which the community as a whole can own the means of production.

What do you mean with "You may not like it", I said I agree with that, that's why I said that what Chavez and Allende did was socialism. They took the means of production and exchange through the Statization.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean "you the last poster". English is so vague...

Oh, alright, "you" as in "you all".

Ugh why you even using the terms "socialism" or "communism", they are too general and have been applied for things that are way too different between them, so much that they are no longer useful in conversation because someone will get confused about it.

Venezuela sucks
The US sucks
Stalin sucked
Allende sucked (but not as much)
Pinochet sucked a big deal

Not memeing here, what we actually need, is to liberate ourselves from the spooks, or in other words, to have a massive change of mind from people, and the only way we can direct ourselves to that objective is not being shy about our political opinions, sharing them with other people, arguing with them, lending them books for them to read, etc.

Now I'm off to work, peace.

>>30
Or more like, "you the ones who postulate: "the community/workers must own the means of production" as a requirement for socialism definition".

>not being shy about our political opinions
Saying "he sucks" is not really a political opinion. It's more like a childish opinion. Is not even an opinion. That's the kind of comment that actually deviates and twist a rational debate. What's the point of your first and second paragraph there, you could've just left the last one and it would've been way more serious.

>>34
Well I wasn't talking about that opinion, I was talking about your opinion on different things in life in general.

Chill down though man.

ww, yeah I think >>31 was just being colloquial for a moment, that's all...

Allende is a mediocre Balmaceda.

"The Last Tango of Salvador Allende" was a great book

>>26
>utopic
AAAAAAAAAA

I used to be kind of sympathetic about how Allende was fucked over in my younger more leftist days, but was he really any better? Was he really independent of Soviet influence or a puppet of the USSR? Would Chile have ended up with its own type of Holodomor? I guess we'll never know, he was only in power for 1,043 days. I can't help but notice in a lot of far-left nations, after a while their leaders tend to get caught up in the minutiae and abstractions of theory to the point of pure autism while their populations suffer from economic inefficiency and empty supermarket shelves. It might be time to consider such a thing a recurring feature rather than a bug.