Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

Actually, I can't think of any country that has adopted socialism, with or without government control.Actually, as I stated before, the workers and peasants in Russia during the 1917 revolution spontaneously set up independent workers' councils and co-ops. Russia was pretty much moving toward a socialist economy; unfortunately, the Bolsheviks shut them down.There was also the Paris Commune in 1870 -- unfortunately they were liguidated by the reactionaries.There were a number of anarchist communes set up in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, which were liquidated by both the Stalinists and the Fascists.Right now, if you don't equate government involvement with "control", I would say that Venezuela has definite tendencies toward socialism. (Remember the OP?)

---

"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:

---

Sorry, but the reality is globalism has meant factories closing down and moving overseas, and that being replaced with other industries here. Socialism doesn't work too well in a global economy.

---

Actually, the countries to which those factories are moving have had their economies commandeered by the capitalist powers, through the IMF, World Bank, and WTO. If the people in those countries were actually allowed to set up the economic conditions that they wanted, those countries would be a lot less attractive to Western producers.

---

"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

Hey, you're absolutely right. Higher taxes on the rich, then. They're sure not paying their fare share - less than 15%, in many cases. Unless, of course, that worker became disabled in car accident or something - or died at age 30. Let's see his ten years worth of stocks and bonds pay out disability benefits for him and his family, or surviorship benefits for his children not until the money runs out, but until they're old enough to work on their own.Only an idiot would exchange a guaranteed benefit for a guarantee of only what you paid in, minus thousands in broker fees and admin costs. Bettter off? I don't see it that way, and neither does anybody else, except for the brokers and firms that would stand to collect fees out of your paycheck.There's something wrong with somebody who hates government so much that they'd rather turn their paychecks over to private companies who, unlike the government, are going to collect an enormous percentage in fees for nothing in return, just to buy a few more boats or something. With the support of a vast majority of the American people. Why do you suppose that is? Because most Americans are dumbasses? Actually, Social Security surpluses used to be held in trust to pay future benefits. Only recently were the proceeds raided to fund your government pork - under your Republican "compassionate conservative" president and congress. Socialism and liberalism? Try again, chief.

I've never seen that show. However, I have heard of it.

Pure baseless proganda; so much of your post is BS that it would take too much time to point it all out. Suffice to say, clearly only someone totally ignorant of the history of government and social security would make the stupid comment I quoted above.Take some time to learn when social security began to be "raided" and under which Congress that was instituted and get back to me.Hint: it was a democratic Congress.2nd Hint: judging by some of your comments, I suspect it occurred before you were born, but I could be wrong.

How has China been commandeered by the WTO, IMF and the World Bank? The fact is factories were moving over there long before they were even in the WTO.And while you're at it, can you explain the same concerning India and Vietnam?

Notice that they also called themselves a republic and in their constitution suggested that they were a democratic nation. They also continually claimed to have a gov't that was representative of the working class leading themselves.They could call themselves the Union of Soft Cheeses, that does not make it so.They were not socialist. I figured the reference was to Stalin's russia which was a dictatorship, but I totally agree it became an oligarchy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you want to use your own definition of socialism and demand that it mean a central authority which banishes all forms of private ownership, then it sounds like you are simply arguing past everyone.Clearly there are some differences here and there on how it is interpreted. My version does involve some sense of centralization, or collectivization. It doesn't have to be the workers in control of production, though I do see how that is a form of socialism.It also does involve the gov't, but does not in any way destroy concepts of private ownership. For example we have a socialist system of military and police protection. That does not remove your ability to hire or operate private police and military forces.You also missed the fact that many capitalist market answers to modern problems (like healthcare) are to centralize and collectivize. If you would care to explain the benefit of several smaller collectives that must expend money fighting each other, and fighting people they should be helping, and wholly excluding many, over a singular entity which provides for all, I'd like to hear it.Oh yeah... long lines. That idea that that doesn't happen in a capitalist system is complete BS. Try to get to the best doctors or any doctors for major surgery. You wait just like the rest. At least in socialist systems it is a question of resource allocation, and could be improved if the people chose to to do so.As far as Scandinavian nations, trying to pretend that they are better than the US because of the help of the US is also rather questionable. You have anything beyond those assertions? How much did we pump into them and for how long?As far as the Netherlands go, your assertion that the reason it is changing away from socialism is circular. The changes are highly unpopular and rather roundly criticized. They have no evidentiary support. Indeed studies have been coming out that most of what the gov't has been doing has no evidentiary support. The nation has a corrupt gov't of idealogues which has decided to make these changes.In fact it is a mirror to the US. After nearly a decade of improvements under a moderate liberal gov't, the populations of each decided to "punish" the gov't for slight problems by voting in something different, anything different. And they both got idealogues in the disguise of "moderates" who are pushing privatization, panic, and warfare as the solution to society's problems.The result has been the same in both, negative financial and security situations. What I love is that also in both, those parties refuse to acknowledge that it is their leadership and policies which have led to the greater problems.Perhaps you can explain how privatization in the Netherlands is supposed to help economic growth and competition when taxes stay at the same high rate, the pay rates must stay the same, and people must now pay more and get less service for those services?Oh yeah, by competitive, you mean the rich here will get richer?AbE: Just so we can work more productively why don't you tell me what I am according to your economic definitions. I believe in central and collective solutions to products and services which are necessary to the welfare of the population, where markets are shown to only add expense to the cost of that service or will result in the denial of such service.I personally like free markets, as free as possible, and think ownership (while kind of theoretical as we all die at some point) is an enjoyable and useful concept.I think I'm socialist and people have considered me socialist. But for sake of argument I'll use whatever you think is appropriate.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-08-2005 04:51 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So if it works, it falls under "capitalism" and if it doesn't work, you categorize it under "socialism".I guess that about sums it up?

On the subject of taxes, I think I should put forward the Irish system as an example.The very wealthy pay, as far as I know, up to 65% of their income in taxes. My parents, who are quite well off and own our house plus 3/4 of an acre of land, pay about 48% in taxes. I'll be paying about 25% tax once I get another job. People on the minimum wage, earning the bare minimum to survive on, usually don't pay taxes at all - I didn't while I was in college, because it was a part-time job and I was a student.This level of taxation doesn't seem excessive to me, but then I've lived here all my life.People probably don't realise it, but we get a lot of good services back for our money.- Cheap medication: if I can't pay for prescription drugs I need, I can pay a flat monthy rate of about 40 euros and get my medication, regardless of how much it might actually cost. People can afford cancer treatments, anti-depressants, heart pills - just about anything that means they can get better or live a normal life.- If I get hurt (and I have in the past) I can walk into any hospital A&E and get treatment. I might have to wait a while if it's busy and I'm not actually dying, but I know I will get it.- From personal experience, the Irish education system is one of the best in the world. We're guaranteed a degree as long as we've the brains and determination to get through four years of college - otherwise there are Institutes of Technology, cert schools, FAS courses... There is little or no monetary barrier to getting a qualification of some kind.- Rent Allowance, that will help you pay your rent if you're not earning enough.This is just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure there's more. It's not a perfect system, and it does get abused, but I know it does ten times as much good as bad. Having seen the flip side - the American system - I wouldn't swap it for the world.Well, that's an understatement - I think anyone who says the American system is the better one is either a liar, insane, or just plain stupid.

India and Vietnam and China are three countries that have been nominally "socialist" that have recently begun to "liberalize" their economies on free market models. Whether or not any of these three countries made their decisions due to coersion by the "international" financial organizations or for other reasons, they actually serve my point in that the more they have implemented "free market reforms" the greater the poverty and other problems the people have had to face.I cannot fathom why you bring up these examples, unless you know nothing about China, Vietnam, or India, or perhaps you are confused and have lost track of your point.If I recall your point was supposed to be that socialism doesn't work. Are you trying to change the subject now?

---

"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

There seem to be different definitions of "socialism" at work here.Crashfrog was talking about a mix between privately run businesses and government-run services--the "welfare state" we might call it.Randman is talking about communism.Which are you referring to?

Yes, randman is trying to define "socialism" as centralized state control of the entire economy -- that may or may not work, but it has little to do with mick's OP. mick's OP seemed to have to do with socialism as it is being implemented in Venezuela, but randman, as usual, would rather fight a strawman of his own construction.My definition of "socialism" is the classical one -- in one brief sentence (and thereby being not quite inaccurate), socialism is the direct control of the workplace by the workers themselves.I've already linked to this, but this article does a decent job at describing what socialism is (and the many different conceptions of it) beyond the juvenile "socialism is government control" definition.

---

"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

1983 was the first time that FICA taxes began to exceed SS payouts. At that time, anticipating changes in the nation's population, the SSA began putting that money in trust as a hedge to pay the future benefits that would exceed future tax input.More recently, the profligate government spending that exploded under Bush and his Republican congress have run deficits exceeding the FICA surplus.So, what I've told you is true, according to the facts. I notice that you have yet to present any. Nor rebut my comments about the failure of the free market to provide required goods and services.

You gotta link because it was long before 1983.