Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

I think it obviously is. What's awkward about this question, is that "socialism" is a broad term.There are certainly conservatives in USA who argue that public schools are socialist, and we should discontinue them. There is a continuing effort from the right to undermine public schools with various alternatives (voucher programs, for example).

Hi, jar.With apologies to mick for not sticking to topic, but I have my doubts on this. A society based strictly on people acting in their own self-interest seems awfully unstable to me. I can't see what would prevent such a society from eventually collapsing.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi nwr, Out of interest, could you give me some names, or a link? I mean to people who think public schools should be discontinued. What do they want to put in their place? I hadn't heard of that! It would seem hard to justify. It seems incredible.in edit: I just looked up the figures, and in the UK there are 5-6% of pupils enrolled in "public schools" (which are called "private schools" in the US) and in the US around 10% enrolled in private schools.What the hell happens to the remaining 90%???MickThis message has been edited by mick, 11-08-2005 08:49 PM

I don't know that there is or should be any connection between Literacy Rate and Democracy and or Socialism.But there is a definite connection between Literacy and Good Government.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, I think it will most definitely collapse. And the rich Capitalists will go on to suck some other peoples dry.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh. Sorry that I didn't get it the first time. Sometimes I'm a little slow.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

So maybe providing free preventive care, to a certain degree, is a good idea, if it saves money.

---

Right.Like what Canada and England do.What I want to know, actually, is why Republicans consistently shoot down any initiative which would provide basic healthcare to all American children.Why is it OK with them, in (by far) the most incredibly wealthy nation in the world, that millions of children go without basic healthcare. (Or enough food, or adequte education, or basic dental care for that matter)Why it seems much more important for them to give fat tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans instead.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-08-2005 09:02 PM

I was always told that one should never, ever invest any money in the stock market that I was not prepared to lose, as the stock market can, and does, crash on occasion due to unforseen events.It is, to a large extent, akin to gambling.Why should Social Security funds be gambled with, in your opinion?

quote:

---

We go to work, not because we enjoy what we do but, because we want the personal reward every two weeks.

---

Please speak for yourself.I enjoy my job immensely.And in fact, it is extremely well known in business (HR, mostly) that monetary reward is not what keeps people happy in their jobs. It is a factor in attracting people to a job but it doesn't keep them content. Things like getting to do what they do best every day, having all of the tools they need to be effective in their work, if their comany's mission makes them feel they are doing worthwhile work, if they feel that their opinions matter at work, do others at work seem to care about them as a person, etc., are what matter to people MORE than money.These and several other similar facors are consistently rated as most important in retaining employyees in almost every line of work, at every pay scale and across the entire country."Making buttloads of cash" doesn't rate high at all in employee retention.

quote:

---

We work harder when the opportunity for recognition or advancement is present.

---

I work harder when I need to work harder to get the job done, because acheiving professional, career, and personal goals is rewarding in and of itself.I also work harder when my coworkers, the other members of my team, need me to, because I know that they will do the same in return.Then again, I work for a company that places a high priotity on creating a culture in which my needs, as an employee, are met, and that I am happy in my work. This attitude, that there is more to work than a paycheck and that doing a great job at whatever one does is also a reward in and of itself, is not uncommon in my workplace.

quote:

---

Corporations advertise because they want a larger share of the market. We want, we want, we want.

---

We are trained to want, to want, to want. Not all cultures, even those with plenty of capitalism, are like that.Most cultures do not see the point of giant Wal-Marts filled with a lot of cheap, plastic crap that nobody needs. They spend their money instead upon great food, education, art, etc.Americans are kept in consumer infancy, by training. We never grow up.

quote:

---

The more we want, the more we are willing to work for it.

---

...or go into debt for.

quote:

---

This is what makes a capitalistic society work.

---

Quantity over quality is not the essence of capitalism.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-08-2005 09:36 PM

http://www.issues2000.org/...Libertarian_Party_Education.htm
PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates
Public School Movement vs. the Libertarian Tradition | Mises InstituteOn the other hand, here is a link to a poll of attitudes toward public education. It seems to indicate good support.
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-1.htm Some of the objection appears to be to the idea of paying taxes to support public schools. Presumably those with this view don't care what happens to the 90%.Others would probably favor church schools, perhaps with the churchs paying the cost for students who cannot afford it. The principle here, as far as I can tell, is that they don't mind paying for the schools as long as they have the right to indoctrinate the children with their religious views. Many from the fundamentalist churches are offended by what they see as the teaching of atheism and/or secular humanism

I posted 2nd on this thread and mentioned that Mick would take a hit for this and, lo and behold, the figures are argued, questioned and not even grudging admiration for an achievement independently assessed by UNESCO.A point that seems to be missed by many on this thread is the difference between political system and economic system. What many people are referring to (centralised control), in an economic sense, is a COMMAND economy. That is a centralised control of all aspects of economic activity. That is, what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, where it is to be produced and by whom it is produced. And then after production, where, when,to whom , and at what price it is to be sold. Yet this economic system could be implemented by any political party. The Nazis in Germany pretty much had this economic system in mind, fascists in Italy, Spain and Argentina also had the same idea.The opposite is true, free trade, ie the operation of a free market , allowing free movement of all means of production including labour and materials to satisfy the supply-demand mechanism anywhere with no artificial barriers, is rarely implemented by any economy, let alone right wing (capitalist) countries.I will finish now although I have much more to say, other than to finish with: why are people more comfortable with the leading industrialists controlling economic direction (who are not elected by the general population - and have a small base of shareholders to answer to), rather than a government of whatever colour (who are elected every 4/5 years by the general population and therefore have those to answer to)?.Oh and the first person to mention National Socialists with reference to the Nazis is a big fat idiot.

Socialism is neither good nor bad. Too much of anything is bad.But just for kicks, since you're so against socialism, do you disagree with anti-trust laws, social security, insurance, public schooling, medicare, etc.? In a true capitalist society, none of those things would exist you know.

For those of us with scientific instincts, there is always some basic skepticism. We should be cautious about indicating admiration, particularly if we haven't taken the time to study the details ourselves.I certainly applaud Venezuela for solving literacy problems. I don't have any idealogical objections to socialism used appropriately (not taken to excesses). I'm a pragmatists - go with what works.My reading was that Chiroptera, Coragyps, Ringo316 were all neutral or favorable to what is happening in Venezuela.

I suppose I'm a pragmatist also. We can't just say one ideology is bad therefore we should not use anything from it. I believe that every ideology that have ever existed have something to contribute. We just need to pick out the positive aspects and use them.

I think what is being missed here is not even really a question of economic systems with their advantages and disadvantages. It is a conflict as to what people actually want their government to do for them, or whether they do not want anything to be done for them. At the extremes you have some conservatives who want no taxes, no public services, and a pure market driven economy with perhaps the government imposing fair trade laws etc.This won't work because the government (in so called socialist countries) is there precisely to supply services in areas where the market fails i.e. providing education for the poor, health care, pension guarantees, and varying amounts of welfare. The US does not provide shit for the economically disadvantaged (including millions of children) so that you basically have an enormous segment of the population living in third world conditions with almost no public services available i.e. 43 million uninsured Americans in what is supposed to be the pinnacle of pure capatalist success. (Amazingly, social conservatives seem to have no moral qualms with this discrepancy).At the other end, you do have those who want central planning of the economy since you have little incentive to actually do anything and a lot of incentive not to do anything. Germany is an example of a "socialist" country that has gone too far in the other extreme. By offering benefits such as extremely high pensions, welfare, and health care at a level that is unaffordable to the state, they are forcing their system into collapse. If they had paid any attention to demographics and economic cycles, they could have planned a milder reductions along the way to keep their system running but not at an unaffordable level.(Amazingly, social liberals in Germany have no moral qualms about the effects this overspending will have on their children and grandchildren).Somewhere in the middle of these extremes is likely an appropriate balance of a government that provides services for ALL of its citizens without centrally planning the entire economy and dampening the benefits of a free market economy i.e. by removing the positive incentives to start business and employ people in the private sector. But at the same time, not eliminating all government programs under some fairly tale wish that the market will some how rush to fill in the gaps and serve the different segments of society.Unfortunately, the influence of private lobbying groups, the willfull ignorance of most people in the US about any issue, and the painfully retarded presentation of "news" means that a proper debate about what people actually want from their government, what services they support, and a consensus of how to bring it about, is unlikely to occur any time soon.