Robert Naiman wrote: But, once you go down that road, you have to concede that the same is true of "socialists" all over the world who accept a "mixed economy" and "bourgeois democracy." By the same argument, Chavez was a "social democrat" rather than a "socialist." Anybody who has visited Venezuela in the last 15 years can tell you that capitalism is doing just fine in Venezuela, thank you very much. Venezuela no more became "socialist" as a result of Chavez becoming President than the US became "socialist" as a result of FDR becoming President.
What is the point of fighting about this, exactly? The point is that when I call myself a socialist, I mean something radically other than what Bernie Sanders and the social dems mean. I mean that I advocate the socialization of the major means of production. This is also what most people mean by "socialism". I would like to maintain the original definition, and not let Sanders or Chavez redefine the word.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
