See, we should have defined our terms earlier. I would call Cuba, China, Vietnam, and the USSR “communism,” which I would never go to these lengths to defend. Especially since I agree that they do indeed require an authoritarian system.

I realize it was the later generation. But I put it up to make a point that GM went absolutely nuts with the eyeball vents, cheap gray plastic mixed in with other plastics. It was a riot of shapes, textures, materials, and surfaces.

Stylistic preferences are subjective. I just know that Pontiac got harranged by the motoring press for its interior styling and quality back in the day. And, as will likely surprise no one, I preferred the Buick interior instead.

Nope. Pontiacs were consistently criticized for their crap interiors. And that dash photo is from a 2000-05 Bonneville.

Acceptable quality and design? Seriously? Pontiacs were notorious for overstyled interiors awash in different textures and a zillion eyeball vents.

The Bonneville was on the large H platform shared with the Olds 88 and Buick LeSabre. The GP was on the midsize W platform shared with the Lumina, Cutlass Supreme, and Regal.

This isn’t 1848 anymore and economic and political theory have advanced beyond Marx, while building upon his ideas. While Marx et al may have used the terms interchangeably, they are not interchangeable today.

Socialism, of course, CAN lead to authoritarianism. But it needn’t. That’s what Democratic Socialism attempts to adjust for. Democratized political AND economic power. And in many cases, it’s doing a pretty good job thus far in industrialized nations.

I can’t star this enough.

I guess we have to expand our meaning of property rights, then, don’t we?

Yeah, Mao and Kim il-Sung are really lacking support, huh?

Have you confused the definitions of socialism with communism? I think so.

So then why did you blame socialism when Venezuela isn’t strictly socialist?

Exactly. Which is why I made a distinction between authoritarian socialism and socialism in general. The form of government employing socialism makes all the difference.

Fascism is not socialism no matter what you call the party. Just like China and North Korea aren’t republics.

Ah yes, now fascism is socialism because that’s what Hitler called it. I’ll just head over to China now. It’s a Republic, you know!

Authoritarianism requires socialism? Tell that to Hitler.

Also, I’m amazed at your ability to judge this situation. Were you privy to the logistics GM explored concerning shutting the plant down, canceling contracts, repatriating equipment and in a way that went unnoticed by the government, who could then just come in and seize everything anyway before GM could pack it all…

I’m sure they were on notice. I’m also sure that they have every right to pursue all legal avenues to having their property returned or compensated for.

Socialism is an economic system, not exactly a form of government. You can have authoritarian socialism, democratic socialism, monarchic socialism...