Thomas Sankara

He was murdered by his best friend

who was backed by France

Just like Patrice Lumumba, btw.

It's always the same. Either you have a socialist leader who becomes a dictator and ruins his country, like Ahmed Sekou Touré in Guinea, Julius Nyerere in Tanzania or Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia, and then leftists in the West pretend they never supported them in the first place, or these wannabe tyrants are killed in some coup or another, and Western leftists claim that had they won they would be the exception to the rule of African socialists ruining their countries.

but he ruled for 4 years and did many great things

like making the country self-sufficient in food, reducing government spending and balancing the budget

It's not only in Africa. People still think that had Rosa Luxemburg won, communism in Germany would somehow not be the totalitarian nightmare that it was everywhere else.

Commies are retarded like this because they believe that the utopian future they claim to represent in the present justifies everything they say or do, so they never take responsability for the real-world effects of their policies, they just keep claiming to represent the better future and justify their ideas on this future that only exists inside their mind.

Just see how quickly they've come from claiming that Venezuela was the harbinger of "socialism of the 21st century" to pretend it doesn't even exist once the country entered collapse stage.

4 years is too little time for a socialist to ruin a country, unless you're Pol Pot, of course.

Had Hugo Chávez been deposed in 2002, for example, people would say the same shit they say about Sankara about him.

>capitalist country collapses
>"it's reason xyz"

>socialist country collapses
>"it's socialism, I told you it's socialism!"

Every time. Great depression was socialism too, amirite?

America is still around, user.

what's wrong with Chavez?

And what does that prove? A dozen other capitalist countries in the third world collapse every few years.

>A dozen other capitalist countries in the third world collapse every few years.
List them.

what wasn't wrong with Chavez more like

Do your own research brainlet:

theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/ng-interactive/2015/feb/25/democracy-africa-maps-data-visualisation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-century_coups_d'état_and_coup_attempts

>what's wrong with Chavez
what's right with him
>inb4 hurr durr he stood up to imberialist murica

>hurr durr, everything capitalism does is right
>hurr durr, everything communism does is wrong

Commiehaters are the worst idiots.

Right up there with communists.

>not agreeing with a failed idea who has left behind a trail of millions of dead people within some decades is being like the worst idiot
Besides, I've asked you about the good things about that ape Chavez and you remaint silent so cut the bullshit please.

*remained

>country isn't sanctioned
>country isn't invaded
>no military coup
>country has some of the world's largest proven oil reserves
>socialism is implemented
>economy collapses

When Arabs do a better job of running their country than you do, you know you have a fucking problem.

Possibly. I still think commiehaters are more blatantly retarded. If you look at all the wars capitalism has caused (and still causes, sadly) certainly you have to be an indoctrinated idiot to fully support it.

healthcare, education, wages, social security

I feel sorry for you that you get your education on Veeky Forums.

I'm living in a country near to Venezuela, where many of them have migrated because basic products are scarce, let alone anything you need to give healthcare, education and social security
>wages
skyrockeyting 200% (and still going up) inflation destroys any wage

I feel sorry for you that you got educated with a red sickle-shaped dildo

HUEfag?

he looked too much like Will Smith

Yes.

You're a moron. I can't believe you are THAT stupid. Chavez is dead since 2013. Oil prices have been dropping since 2014. Besides, if you want to discuss current political affairs

Every time.

>country with a source of literal free money is doing worse than their neighbor with a 50 year old civil war
>this has nothing to do with their economics
>there isn't a problem
>what problem
>it isn't that their currency has lost 95% of its value in two years, the agricultural sector is collapsing, and hunger is starting to spread
>it's just capitalist propaganda.

This is precisely why men like Pinochet and Fujimori eventually become necessary.

>socialism works great for 15 years
>economy crisis
>"socialism doesn't work"

You do understand your argument is complete and utter nonsense? I mean, I don't care, you can be a retard all you like, but you're not doing yourself a favor. Honestly, try to reflect and think before you post any more, don't just repeat what other people told you, it won't make you a better person.

Meanwhile, Mexico is doing considerably better, despite also depending on oil wealth, and also being a Latin American country with considerable security and corruption issues.

Mexico languished under the PRI for decades, but even they had the common sense to adopt a few basic free market policies to prevent their country turning into Zimbabwe.

This isn't even getting into countries like Norway that had the same amount of oil and adopted genuine free market policies. I think most Venezuelans would rather be in a Norwegian prison than continue living in the aftermath of the Bolivarian Revolution.

>socialism works great for 15 years
QUESTIONABLE, but even so:
>has an economic crisis so severe people completely run out of basic necessities like toilet paper
>thinking this isn't a direct result of the previous economic circumstances

Because frogs get le butthurt when any Francophone African country stops stroking their dick.

People still like Hugo Chavez.

Because he tried to stop capitalist exploitation of his home country

That's just asking to get freedom bombed

cringey desu. anyway

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on earth, yet it it's even poorer than the rest of South America. I wonder why that could be?

>can't come up with real arguments
>j-just go to /pol/ you stormfront meanies
Communists everyone.

The collapse in global oil prices?

>he thinks socialists aren't also /pol/ vermin
>he thinks /pol/ doesn't have dedicated, active leftist communities
>he thinks command economics is a valid choice in the 21st century

...

I don't lack arguments. You do.

Okay, why is Venezuela currently in a state of economic collapse when Mexico, which less oil and considerably more violence, continues to grow?

More generally, why have no command economies achieved parity with the western social democracies?

It seems like we're at the "cherrypicked charts" stage of the argument.

Which is precisely why every other nation with an oil based economy fell quite as hard as Venezuela? Or maybe Chavez just didn't feel the need to diversify the economy to prevent something like this? Or the fact Venezuela was doing worse than all of its neighbors even before oil prices flat lined? Nah, never mind, Chavez and his lackeys did a great job, just ask a Venezuelan immigrant how heart broken they were when he died.
That's entirely because he nationalized the oil industry, giving them more money that can be embezzled. The proletariat sees nothing of that money.

>capitalist country collapses
Other than the great depression, when did this happen?

Brown eyes = fuggo

Because they don't rely as much on oil exports

Because "command economies" only existed in backwater shitholes which can't be directly compared to the developed world.
They did usually see a huge growth in economic power though. (Russia and China turning from semi-feudal nations to superpowers)

Economic planning has been widely successful in Western Europe as well (Marshall Plan)

>Venezuelan economy collapses so hard that supermarkets can't supply toilet paper
>inflate the currency until it's worth more as toilet paper than as money
face it conservashits, socialism is the way of the future

Why did Japan and South Korea, which used Keynesian economics rather than Marxist economics, do so much better than China and North Korea?

Both of them were absolutely ruined in 1950, today they're at parity with the rest of the industrialized world.

And you still haven't explained why Venezuela is doing worse than countries that never even had oil exports.

Because the oil prices have collapsed? Venezuela always relied on oil, even before Chavez. It was bound to happen. Once they're out of the crisis, the money they put into social programs will pay off, you'll see.

Why have no 3rd world "free market economies" achieved parity with 1st world "free market economies"?

>argues country's wealth
>"GDP is an arbitrary metric"

this gets more retarded by the minute

But they have.

South Korea.

Japan.

Taiwan.

Hong Kong.

Even Chile is getting up there these days, no thanks to Salvador Allende.

Most of the shittiest countries on the planet are countries that couldn't protect private property rights from the government.

>Why have no 3rd world "free market economies" achieved parity with 1st world "free market economies"?
the only free market economy in the third world was Chile, and as a member of the OECD, I'd say they have achieved parity with the first world

Is this a falseflag? I don't even care about Venezuela but this is just embarrasing. Literally making real the "go to /pol/" meme for no reason.

>And you still haven't explained why Venezuela is doing worse than countries that never even had oil exports.

Because those countries built their industry around other goods.

>Even Chile is getting up there these days
You mean the country with the largest wealth disparity in South America?
The country that relies on copper mining?
Yeah, I'm sure it's going somewhere.

Why couldn't they develop other industries along with their oil industry.

This isn't mutually exclusive, if anything, they should reinforce each other.

Norway managed to combine oil revenues with a diverse, service based economy, and end up rich as fuck.

>could it be because of command economics throttling the economy
>no, no

It's heading ahead of Venezuela in every conceivable way.

>Chile is going to reach first world status!
>Actually, no it isn't, but at least it's better than FUCKING VENEZUELA!

Missing far-sightedness in planning certainly played a role.
Given a free market there would have been no incentives to build up any industry but oil either though.

>You mean the country with the largest wealth disparity in South America?

>some people being poor is worse than everyone being poor
every fucking time

>free market economy in the third world was Chile

Is it? There is no significant correlation between economic freedom and GDP in Latin America.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

>some people being poor is worse than everyone being poor
Wealth disparity and wage gaps got worse after Pinochet's reforms.
I guess the free market didn't fix it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

The average person in Chile is doing better than in any other Latin American country.

>Given a free market there would have been no incentives

This is precisely why I approve of Operation Condor.

>people won't do things that make them money if we let them do it
>that doesn't make economic sense

>some people

Not if "some people" is 90% of the country famerlan. European social democracy is the minimum, or you'll suffer long term consequences. There won't be a US in 40 years.

>Wealth disparity and wage gaps got worse after Pinochet's reforms.

>Everyone is much better off than they were under Socialism
>B-b-but the rich and capable rose to the top the moment it became possible to escape crushing poverty!

Clearly, this means that going back to everyone starving to death - such as is life in Venezuela today - is the answer. Yay Socialism!

>people won't do things that make them money if we let them do it

My point is that oil would have made them the most money.

>This is precisely why I approve of Operation Condor.
>That is precisely why I approve of mass murder

edgy

>This is precisely why I approve of Operation Condor.
This is precisely why you're a sociopath.

Oil employs next to nobody relative to the amount of money involved.

And again, we have case studies to compare.

>Mexico has quite healthy oil revenues
>they also have quite a healthy trade in heavy manufacturing and agriculture
>Norway has a large amount of oil
>also create powerful multinational corporations and a high income service economy
>United States and Canada produce huge amounts of oil
>continue to do Anglo things

If you're depending on oil that much, it's because your economy would be shit without it.

Oil is literally free money. For it to harm the economy, you'd have to have it sustain some kind of corrupt oligarchy

>oh wait

It's only murder if the victims are humans. Socialists, Communists, and their sympathizers are not.

Animal cruelty is still not something to be proud of, but it should be carried out if there is a significant benefit to be gained - Such as the end of Socialist rule.

>it's better to have infants die from lack of adequate medical care than have adults die because they tried to take over their country

Look up infant mortality rates in places that have adopted socialism.

Wew

>Look up infant mortality rates in places that have adopted socialism.

I have.

Infant mortality rate Russia 1900: 250/1000
Infant mortality rate Russia 1990: 22/1000

Colombia's doing better than Venezuela despite being in a civil war for fifty years and having comparatively little in the way of resources, so they have to be doing something right.

Okay.

>US was down to 9.2 in 1990
>UK was down to 7.9
>France was down to 7.2

In all seriousness, I think that eliminating communists is morally superior to allowing them to take power.

It's unfortunate, but the communist made the choice to try and enslave their country. An infant never made the choice to smother their countries economy and stop breathing before they had a chance to experience life.

>create planned economy where producers are forced to sell stuff at a fixed price
>producers refuse to produce shit for more than they can sell and just fuck off
>government nationalize everything, killing the entire non-oil economy
>oil prices fall and economy is fucked up
>"It's the fucking oil prices, I tell you, socialism was working just fine before".

Venezuela has the highest crime rates in Latin America. Caracas is the murder capital of the world. Much of the killing is conducted by government armed militias.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)

If people applied the same standard to Venezuela they apply to right-wing regimes in Latin America, considering people killed by government funded death squads as "victims" of the regime itself, then Hugo Chávez and Nicolas Maduro would have killed more than Pinochet and Videla already.

>communist made the choice to try and enslave their country

I'm pretty sure that that's not what's written in the Communist Manifesto. You try to defend all the actions by capitalism, even the most heinous. Pretty pathetic.

Given that Maduro is on his way out, and the Venezuelan public despises everything he stands for, I don't think I have to defend shit.

I'm just happy my tax dollars help to save lives and promote freedom.

And you try to defend Lenin, Castro, and Chavez. Which is worse?

>Comparing Russia to France and Britain

Oh boy

>try and enslave their country

To whom? It's not like they are at the mercy of international corporations like under capitalism.

You could compare with Finland. It was part of the Russian Empire, after all, and it was the only part where the Bolsheviks didn't won.

How did it turn out?

>I'm just happy my tax dollars help to save lives and promote freedom.

You should've better used your tax dollars to get a proper education.

>And you try to defend Lenin, Castro, and Chavez

I don't. I only say they did some good things too.

Except nothing you said was a fact. Nobody in this thread has attempted to talk about Sankara, they're just ignorantly drawing idiotic comparisons and making sweeping generalizations.

>There won't be a US in 40 years.
That's what they've been saying for the past 200 years.

mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/world/americas/dying-infants-and-no-medicine-inside-venezuelas-failing-hospitals.html?referer=

Hi, I'm an actual Venezuelan! I've noticed some leftists from the first world seem to have some serious mental deficiencies and parrot things not even our own state propaganda networks would have the gall to claim. So here, please enjoy this article from your typically leftist NY Times.

And yes the 90s were objectively better, before you come at me with graphs made based on statements by government statisticians who have stated just a few months ago that they don't believe in inflation because it's an "imperialist concept". I'm sure of this because my grandpa was a doctor in the old medical system (and no I'm not an evil bourgeoise, he worked his way up from the peasantry). In the 90s people from other countries would move here, I could be out after sunset without being fucking killed by mad max style gangs, and there were these magical things called supermarkets that were full of all kinds of food, with lines no more than a few minutes long!

I do dearly hope all you rich leftists can experience socialism some day too. (And now you'll say our red flag waving faggots aren't real socialists).

this

top kek

What people don't understand is that shitty capitalism like free market corporatism is bound to fail at some point and it in fact happened all across the world which is what allows pseudo-socialists to rise to power in the first place.

>typically leftist NY Times.

rolf, how can you call any mainstream US newspaper leftist?

I bet you are one of those opositors who thinks Leopoldo dindu nuffin

>South Korea.
>Japan.
>Taiwan.
>Hong Kong.
>free market economies

Kek

Venezuela spends less in percent of budget for their citizen than any developped country.

Okay but like.... The countries in red didn't exist in 1938. Also, a better way to measure socialist and communist countries is happiness and such. Since the life of the average commoner should**** be the nations main goal.

Even if Boris Slavski lives in a small apartment, so long as he is content with his life whereas under a capitalist state he wouldn't be, then socialism has succeeded.