Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

Actually, if you want markets to be as free as possible, you cannot be a socialist. It appears you are just a liberal, not a full-blown socialist, and what you advocate is the welfare state not necessarily state ownership of and control of the market.

Socialism is state ownership and control of industry. People gettign together to compete in a capitalist system, just because they are the workers forming a collective to compete, is not socialism. That's just another capitalist entity.

India and China comprise 2/5ths of the world's population alone, and contrary to your claims, more business and enterprise has made them more prosperous, not less. You seem to forget that under Mao and communism, those same poor people barely scraping by were starving to death by the millions. Introducing capitalist reforms has helped those millions go from starving to death to barely getting by, and many more millions to some prosperity.That's the truth. What you have posted has no coorealation to reality at all.

Crash, here is some info for you to show you the real effective use of social security. The raiding began under democrats, not Republicans, and began nearly right off the bat. Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network SolutionsI must admit that I had read this began more in the 60s, but it appears the scheme was being used to finance the government via regressive taxation very early on.

Actually, in reality the "prosperity" that is going on in China right now is pretty much confined to the coastal regions, where the industries devoted to exports are located. However, this "prosperity" is pretty much confined to increasing the wealth of a relatively small number of "entrepeneurs". The majority of the workers in those regions are suffering deteriorating working conditions and poverty conditions are worsening.The rural areas are also suffering more as the welfare safety nets and public infrastructure are degrading. Rather than previously starving people now eking out a living, it is the opposite: whereas people before were pretty much eking out a living there is more widespread unemployment, hunger, and lack of medical care in rural areas.

---

"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

Nope, that's pretty much wrong chiro, but it is interesting that the areas they have opened to the free market enterprise are the ones prospering, and it's not just a few wealthy folks either.The rural areas are hurting, but if you think they had a decent infrastructure before this, you are wrong. The infrastructure is increasing.I'd like to take address something else as well. Socialism, as I was taught, is state ownership of the means of production, of key industries. The Soviet Union was socialist. The idea that it was not socialism is ludicrous.I visited the Soviet Union when it was still socialist, and it didn't work. You probably have no idea how dysfunctional that society was. The truth is we tried leftist ideas of socialism, and it was extremely disastrous. A somewhat free market is necessary to produce a functional society.Maybe lighter, less communist versions of limited socialism can work, but then again, under that definition, the United States is socialist or a mixed economy.

Well, let's see you prove it.

I don't see where any raiding is going on in your little article. I simply see where they reduced FICA taxes because they had surpluses.You know, lower taxes. All that stuff you're into.

Ok, so name 1 Western European "socialist" state?

Read the article. They used the money to pay for other stuff. What don't you understand about that?

quote:

---

Nope, that's pretty much wrong chiro....

---

If you say so. I have no desire to just trade "yes it is" and "no it's not" back and forth all day long.-

quote:

---

Socialism, as I was taught, is state ownership of the means of production, of key industries.

---

It's the common colloquial definition; however, it is not the definition used by people who want to have deeper discussion of economic and political issues. If you want to use that as your definition, fine; however, then you are not addressing the points that anyone is making. It certainly isn't relevant to much of the discussion on this thread. In particular, it isn't relevant to mick's OP, which is how the lives of Venezuelans are being improved by the social and economic policies of the Chavez government. If you don't want to call it socialist, then so be it; but it doesn't seem to be capitalist, either; in any event, it appears that mick's point is that there is a non-capitalist alternative that seems to work.-

quote:

---

I visited the Soviet Union when it was still socialist, and it didn't work.

---

In what way didn't it work?-

quote:

---

You probably have no idea how dysfunctional that society was.

---

I have an idea. I actually read. However, it would appear the totalitarian (and therefore non-socialist) nature of the government had a lot to do with it. How you connect the economic policies with the dysfuntional nature of the society is beyond me.Nazi Germany was also dysfunctional; however, I wouldn't link this to the Nazi economic policies, either.-

quote:

---

A somewhat free market is necessary to produce a functional society.

---

Not only have you still not stated what makes a society "functional", but there is neither data nor a logical argument that links the two.-

quote:

---

Maybe lighter, less communist versions of limited socialism can work, but then again, under that definition, the United States is socialist or a mixed economy.

---

Yes, you can define "socialism" whatever you want; however, by defining you words any way you please you lose the value of having definite words with definite meanings, and communication ceases. To speak deeply about a subject, ones definitions should be precise enough to indicate what you are talking about, and the definitions should be relevant to the discussion.Making the definition of "socialism" simply mean any time the government is involved in the economy is making so broad a definition that it becomes useless for purposes of discussion.Making the definition of "socialism" to be complete, direct state control over the means of production at least does give the word a definite meaning, but since no one here is advocating such a thing the word again becomes pretty useless, at least for the discussion on this thread.Again, I invite you to read mick's OP. mick was actually posting a very definite idea -- that the non-capitalist economic and political policies are proving to be clearly beneficial to the Venezuelan people. Instead of arguing his point, you are choosing to get worked up over what the proper meaning of the word socialist is.

---

"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

No, it says that they expanded benefits. And it says that some claimed that it was being used for other programs.What don't you understand about that?

No, it says they used the money to pay for other stuff such as WWII, not just additional benefits. Read the quotes.The government spends all the surplus rather than investing it, and in exchange they give IOUs to the social security so-called "trust fund" which they are under no obligation really to honor. It's one big sham, started way back under Roosevelt and continues today.The democrats instituted a regressive taxation scheme to tax American workers to pay for government programs. That's what happened.One of my beefs with the dems is every time they talk of helping the common man, or even taxing the rich, it comes with the price of taxing the poor and middle class more and more. That's their whole schtick and has been for decades, which is one I have refused thus far to ever vote for a democrat. Increasing taxes on the poor and middle class is not my idea of helping people.This message has been edited by randman, 11-08-2005 01:49 PM

Actually that's not correct. There is a branch of socialism called market socialism, and you can read a very short overview about it here and a historical overview hereIt often seems to me that market socialism is closer to the capitalist ideal described the early classical economists than is the corporate-protectionist "capitalism" found in western europe and north america. The latter form of capitalism is utterly weighed down with market distortions such as the advertising industry. I often wonder why ethichal people on the political right don't like market socialism because it seems much closer to their supposed ideals.Mick

Maybe they should not call it socialism. It might get more of a hearing.