Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 193 (257919)
11-08-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by randman
11-08-2005 5:40 PM


Re: so are the evos here socialists???
Crash, what do you think "payroll taxes" are?
Income tax. Why, for what reason do you assert that they're referring to FICA taxes?
But even if you didn't know that, how could you miss it considering the context of the quote?
Because they're talking about a lot of different taxes. It's not apparent that they're referring to FICA tax. Oh, I mean, it's obvious that you think they are, but why would I take your word for anything?
Why not just admit you were wrong here?
Prove to me that they're talking about FICA taxes, about Social Security withholding, and I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't see the fact that you think that's what they're saying as evidence of anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 11-08-2005 5:40 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 11-08-2005 6:13 PM crashfrog has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 77 of 193 (257920)
11-08-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Chiroptera
11-08-2005 6:03 PM


Re: What about literacy?
chiroptera writes:
Be thankful that the attitude is only miserly, mick. The last time a government (the Sandanistas in Nicaragua) invested resources into literacy (and other social programs), the attitude was openly antagonistic, leading to an all-out war of terrorism by the U.S. that destroyed them.
I was just thinking that perhaps the right wingers are correct. Socialist economic systems are less efficient than capitalist economic systems, because socialist systems "waste" money on literacy, national health systems, state pensions, etc. In that sense, socialist economics is EXTREMELY wasteful. All that money is wasted on enriching people's daily lives, whereas it could have been invested profitably in rebranding projects, telemarketing, development of new malls for bovine consumers...
added in edit: By the way, I've heard that the Pentagon has a special alarm that goes off when a third world country eliminates illiteracy. Apparently, all the nuces retarget themselves automatically.
This message has been edited by mick, 11-08-2005 06:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2005 6:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 78 of 193 (257921)
11-08-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Francis Marion
11-08-2005 6:02 PM


We go to work, not because we enjoy what we do but, because we want the personal reward every two weeks.
Really? So, nobody has hobbies, or volunteers for public service?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Francis Marion, posted 11-08-2005 6:02 PM Francis Marion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Francis Marion, posted 11-08-2005 6:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Francis Marion
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 193 (257923)
11-08-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mick
11-08-2005 5:58 PM


Re: What about literacy?
Their government said it so it must be true. [/sarcasm]
Let's see a third party evaluation and international comparison of their literacy rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mick, posted 11-08-2005 5:58 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mick, posted 11-08-2005 6:41 PM Francis Marion has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 193 (257924)
11-08-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
11-08-2005 6:06 PM


Re: so are the evos here socialists???
Anyone with a 6th grade education can tell the paragraph refers to social security. How many more times do you need it posted to you?
The 1940s wartime economy generated a series of apparent Social Security surpluses. By 1950 the trust fund balance had grown to a level large enough to finance benefits fully for the next decade. But this balance existed only on paper. The war’s cost had also driven up the national debt, which had registered a fivefold increase during the 1940s. One reason was that the federal government had used surplus payroll taxes to finance the war effort, so as to limit increases in other taxes. Because of this, the trust fund was given credit for debt reduction that had never occurred.
Notice the constant references to social security, to the trust fund, to payroll taxes which were at that time only social security taxes and not income taxes. Income taxes were not taken out of your payroll.
At this point, I can't tell if you are just mentally challenged or can't own up to being wrong. But assuming that by chance it is the former, I will provide a definition for you below.
payroll taxes
taxes based on payroll (wages) that is used to finance the Social Security and Medicare programs
http://www.wwnorton.com/...itzwalsh/economics/glossary.htm#p
This message has been edited by randman, 11-08-2005 06:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 6:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 6:21 PM randman has replied

Francis Marion
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 193 (257925)
11-08-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
11-08-2005 6:08 PM


Don't manipulate my words. I said exactly what I intended. I never mentioned hobbies or public service. Do not try to redefine what I said.
Just to humor you, 99% of a society could be unselfish but it only takes one selfish person to ruin it all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 6:27 PM Francis Marion has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 193 (257927)
11-08-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by randman
11-08-2005 6:13 PM


Re: so are the evos here socialists???
Notice the constant references to social security, to the trust fund, to payroll taxes which were at that time only social security taxes and not income taxes. Income taxes were not taken out of your payroll.
I don't know anything about tax law in the 1940's.
Anyway, whatever. As it turns out, your source is wrong - there wasn't even a SS Trust Fund at all until 1983. Prior to then, FICA taxes simply went into the general fund; FICA benefits were paid out of the general fund. There was no specifically set-aside FICA budget until 1983. (This is proven by the ruling in Helvering vs. Davis, which held that because FICA taxes were not really a seperate tax structure, Social Security didn't violate the federal Constitution because it was simply an expansion of Congress's explicit power to tax.)
So, you're wrong again. Democrats didn't raid anything in the 1940's; there was nothing to raid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 11-08-2005 6:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 11-08-2005 6:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 193 (257928)
11-08-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Francis Marion
11-08-2005 6:02 PM


quote:
It is inarguable that socialism cannot survive the presence of greed/selfishness.
It is perhaps arguable, but you have yet to make the argument. To make the argument you have to explain what socialism is, how it is supposed to work, and how greed and selfishness will actually work to undermine it. Seeing how you have already made the common error (common in the US, anyway) of equating "socialism" with the capitalist "welfare states" (admittedly, many of the people arguing for "socialism" on this thread have made the same error), I suspect that you don't fully know or understand what socialism really means, although that is common in this country. I could also criticize the unsubstantiated claim about "long lists of freeloaders", but first things first.
You also make unsubstantiated claims about human nature -- well, actually you did "substantiate it", but mostly by repeating what other people have told you about human nature, or perhaps by over-generalizing your own attitudes and feelings to the entire human race. You fail to acknowledge that at best people can be taught to behave in many different ways, and at worst it takes a lot of teaching and pressure before people use their own material self-interest as their primary motivations, and why I should want people to be taught this way.
You also make the claim that capitalism "works" -- I would like to know what it means when a society "works", and why I should care whether a society "works". I could easily say that capitalism doesn't work; I could tell you what I expect from a society that is supposed to work and why no capitalist society has met those expectations.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Francis Marion, posted 11-08-2005 6:02 PM Francis Marion has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 11-08-2005 6:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 193 (257929)
11-08-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Francis Marion
11-08-2005 6:16 PM


I never mentioned hobbies or public service.
Of course you didn't. The existence of people with hobbies, or people who volunteer, prove you wrong.
I said exactly what I intended.
And what you said is exactly wrong. We know that people do nto labor enitrely out of financial self-interest, because a great many people take on labors for no pay at all, or even pay to perform those labors. (Like the people who pay to use gym equipment or treadmills.)
Do not try to redefine what I said.
I haven't redefined anything. I'm showing you a counterexample to your points, a counterexample that you apparently didn't think of, and one that proves you wrong. Here's what you said, remember?
quote:
Yes, humans are social because we learn quickly that it is easier and more pleasant to survive in cooperation with others. This doesn’t change the basic selfish desires we have but in fact supports selfish desires at a more intellectual level.
Our culture is full of examples. We go to work, not because we enjoy what we do but, because we want the personal reward every two weeks. We work harder when the opportunity for recognition or advancement is present. Corporations advertise because they want a larger share of the market. We want, we want, we want. The more we want, the more we are willing to work for it. This is what makes a capitalistic society work.
Selfish desires. You're asserting that it's basic human nature to work only in one's financial self-interest. Yet, almost everybody has labors they perform for no recompense at all; or even pay for the privilege of performing those labors.
Socialism, when it succeeds, does so because people act both ways - sometimes, they are mercenary, and sometimes, they are altruistic. No position on economics, like yours, can be valid unless it takes into account both of these tendancies.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-08-2005 06:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Francis Marion, posted 11-08-2005 6:16 PM Francis Marion has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 193 (257932)
11-08-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
11-08-2005 6:21 PM


Re: so are the evos here socialists???
Crash, this is absurd. It's like you are the black knight or something.
As it turns out, your source is wrong - there wasn't even a SS Trust Fund at all until 1983. Prior to then, FICA taxes simply went into the general fund; FICA benefits were paid out of the general fund. There was no specifically set-aside FICA budget until 1983.
If that's the case, which it isn't, then are you now saying that all the excess FICA money was spent by Congress each year until Reagan was president, and then he insituted a trust fund.
LOL. That's the opposite of what you claimed before.
In reality, there is no Trust Fund, not even today, because it all goes into one big pot, but that doesn't change the fact that the government claims a trust fund was set up. Let's look at what the Social Security adminstration has to say. Note social security trust funds have existed since 1937. You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.
Even though there is presently more FICA taxes coming in each year than benefits paid out, this has not always been the case. Since 1937, there have been 11 years in which benefits paid out exceeded income and so the assets of the Trust Funds had to be spent to make up the difference. This cashing-in of the Trust Fund bonds amounted to about $26 billion in those 11 years.
Social Security History
Q27: Is it true that the Retirement Trust Fund spent some of the money from the Disability and Medicare Trust Funds?
A: Money was borrowed by the Retirement Trust Fund in 1982, and fully repaid in 1986. This is the only time such "interfund borrowing" has occurred. (See detailed history)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 6:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 7:32 PM randman has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 86 of 193 (257934)
11-08-2005 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Francis Marion
11-08-2005 6:10 PM


world bank seems to agree with me
Francis Marion writes:
Their government said it so it must be true. Let's see a third party evaluation and international comparison of their literacy rate.
Okay, I said quite clearly in my opening post that the announcement was that illiteracy was eradicated on 28 October 2005. That was only a few days ago so it's another example of the "miserliness" I mentioned above that you want a third party evaluation.
But, fortunately, you don't have to take my word for it! I'm not the leading authority on social development in socialist countries. I'm not asking you to take my interpretation or the interpretation of the Venezuelan government at face value! The facts are out there on the internet and if you can't be bothered to seek them out for yourself it amounts to wilful ignorance on your part.
Don't take my word for it! How about the words of James Wolfensohn in 2001, head of the World Bank at the time? You will have some difficulty in convincing anybody that he is a communist agitator. Here's what he said in 2001 after the release of the World Banks annual "World Development Indicators".
"Cuba has done a great job on education and health and, if you judge the country by education and health, they've done a terrific job. They have done a good job, and it does not embarrass me to admit it...It was not with our advice but it was not without our advice either. We just have nothing to do with them"
Here's a copy of the Inter Press Finance news agency's report:
InterPress writes:
Inter Press Service Finance: Learn from Cuba, says World Bank
by Jim Lobe
Washington, 30 Apr -- World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday
extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing
"a great job" in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people.
His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition
of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping
virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics.
It also showed that Havana has actually improved its performance in
both areas despite the continuation of the US trade embargo against
it, and the end of Soviet aid and subsidies for the Caribbean island
more than ten years ago.
"I think Cuba has done -- and everybody would acknowledge -- a great
job on education and health," Wolfensohn told reporters at the
conclusion of the annual spring meetings of the Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). "I have no hesitation in
acknowledging that they've done a good job, and it doesn't embarrass
me to do it. ...We just have nothing to do with them in the present
sense, and they should be congratulated on what they've done."
His remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba's
social record, despite recognition that Havana's economic policies are
virtually the antithesis of the "Washington Consensus", the
neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank's policy advice and
its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of
the last 20 years.
Some senior Bank officers, however, go so far as to suggest that other
developing countries should take a very close look at Cuba's
performance.
"It is in some sense almost an anti-model," according to Eric Swanson,
the programme manager for the Bank's Development Data Group, which
compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of
economic, social, and environmental indicators.
Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank's dictum that
economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor
is over-stated, if not downright wrong. The Bank has insisted for the
past decade that improving the lives of the poor was its core mission.
Besides North Korea, Cuba is the one developing country which, since
1960, has never received the slightest assistance, either in advice or
in aid, from the Bank. It is not even a member, which means that Bank
officers cannot travel to the island on official business.
The island's economy, which suffered devastating losses in production
after the Soviet Union withdrew its aid, especially its oil supplies,
a decade ago, has yet to fully recover. Annual economic growth,
fuelled in part by a growing tourism industry and limited foreign
investment, has been halting and, for the most part, anaemic.
Moreover, its economic policies are generally anathema to the Bank.
The government controls virtually the entire economy, permitting
private entrepreneurs the tiniest of spaces. It heavily subsidises
virtually all staples and commodities; and its currency is not
convertible to anything. It retains tight control over all foreign
investment, and often changes the rules abruptly and for political
reasons.
At the same time, however, its record of social achievement has not
only been sustained; it's been enhanced, according to the WDI.
It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in
1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the
western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo
Ritzen, the Bank's Vice President for Development Policy, who visited
Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.
By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in
1999; Chile's was down to ten; and Costa Rica, at 12. For the entire
Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in
1999.
Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in
Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That
figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country
closest to Cuba's achievement. For the region as a whole, the average
was 38 in 1999.
"Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain -
is just unbelievable," according to Ritzen, a former education
minister in the Netherlands. "You observe it, and so you see that Cuba
has done exceedingly well in the human development area."
Indeed, in Ritzen's own field, the figures tell much the same story.
Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up
from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher
even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most
advanced Latin American countries.
"Even in education performance, Cuba's is very much in tune with the
developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina,
Brazil, or Chile."
It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba
amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion
in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.
There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a
ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing
country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high
at 25 to one.
The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the
Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America,
where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement,
with one percent youth illiteracy.
"Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years,"
said Ritzen. "If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden
of proof to those who say it's not possible."
Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP)
during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada's rate.
Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the
world.
The question that these statistics pose, of course, is whether the
Cuban experience can be replicated. The answer given here is probably
not.
"What does it, is the incredible dedication," according to Wayne
Smith, who was head of the US Interests Section in Havana in the late
1970s and early 1980s and has travelled to the island many times
since. "Doctors in Cuba can make more driving cabs and working in
hotels, but they don't. They're just very dedicated," he said.
Ritzen agreed that the Cuban experience probably couldn't be applied
wholesale to another poor country, but insisted that developing
countries can learn a great deal by going to the island.
"Is the experience of Cuba useful in other countries? The answer is
clearly yes, and one is hopeful that political barriers would not
prevent the use of the Cuban experience in other countries. Here, I am
pretty hopeful, in that I see many developing countries taking the
Cuban experience well into account."
But the Cuban experience may not be replicable, he went on, because
its ability to provide so much social support "may not be easy to
sustain in the long run".
"It's not so much that the economy may collapse and be unable to
support such a system, as it is that any transition after Castro
passes from the scene would permit more freedom for people to pursue
their desires for a higher standard of living." The trade-off,
according to Ritzen, may work against the welfare system that exists
now.
"It is a system, which on the one hand, is extremely productive in
social areas and which, on the other, does not give people
opportunities for more prosperity."
It would have been as easy for you to find that out as it was for me. Google
(edited to correct bulletin board tags)
(and edited again to change subheading)
This message has been edited by mick, 11-08-2005 06:42 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 11-08-2005 06:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Francis Marion, posted 11-08-2005 6:10 PM Francis Marion has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 193 (257937)
11-08-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chiroptera
11-08-2005 6:22 PM


however Capitalism thrives in the presence of greed/selfishness.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2005 6:22 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by mick, posted 11-08-2005 7:15 PM jar has not replied
 Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2005 8:29 PM jar has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 88 of 193 (257940)
11-08-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
11-08-2005 6:50 PM


jar writes:
however Capitalism thrives in the presence of greed/selfishness.
I don't agree with that. It's more pernicious and more complex. Capitalism thrives in the presence of a strange double-think. A good example is from the press report I cited in my last message. Look at the comments made by Jo Ritzen, the World Bank Vice President for Development Policy. S/he says:
ritzen writes:
Even in education performance, Cuba's is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile... Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years. If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it's not possible. Is the experience of Cuba useful in other countries? The answer is clearly yes, and one is hopeful that political barriers would not prevent the use of the Cuban experience in other countries. Here, I am pretty hopeful, in that I see many developing countries taking the Cuban experience well into account.
Then s/he goes on to say:
Ritzen writes:
It's not so much that the economy may collapse and be unable to support such a system, as it is that any transition after Castro passes from the scene would permit more freedom for people to pursue their desires for a higher standard of living.
So, the idea seems to be that being literate is in conflict with a high standard of living. That you can increase your standard of living by increasing levels of illiteracy, and reducing levels of health care, in your community.
Quite what Ritzen means by "higher standard of living" is beyond me. He is suffering from a severe case of double-think, where you can have a better quality of life by being less healthy and more stupid.
It would be great if somebody could explain this to me!
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 11-08-2005 6:50 PM jar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 193 (257947)
11-08-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by randman
11-08-2005 6:35 PM


Re: so are the evos here socialists???
If that's the case, which it isn't, then are you now saying that all the excess FICA money was spent by Congress each year until Reagan was president, and then he insituted a trust fund.
LOL. That's the opposite of what you claimed before.
No, it's exactly what I claimed - that a trust fund had been set up to ensure the program's solvency through the 2070's, and that Bush and his Republican congress were no longer putting the FICA surpluses into that trust fund, thus endangering the program's solvency and giving them the opportunity to present a "solution" to a problem they created, a solution that the American people weren't stupid enough to fall for.
You've merely been clouding the issue with irrelevancies about Eisenhower Democrats and outright falsehoods like the "oh, there's no trust fund" lie.
You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.
I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, but we're pretty much off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 11-08-2005 6:35 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by mick, posted 11-08-2005 8:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 90 of 193 (257963)
11-08-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
11-08-2005 7:32 PM


literacy and socialism - back on topic
crashfrog writes:
I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, but we're pretty much off-topic.
This is all interesting (and new to me) but yes, I would like to stick to the topic of my opening post:
1. literacy
Is literacy important, and if not why not? Hardly anybody has discussed this or the links between literacy and democracy.
2. socialism
Is socialism better able to provide literacy than capitalism? I don't want to argue about Keynesianism or anything like that, you folks can easily find cross-country comparative information about literacy levels if you like. Am I correct to suggest that there's a pattern?
I've claimed that literacy is the bedrock of democracy (and, more importantly, the bedrock of internet forums).
I've provided evidence from the world bank to show that, for a third world country, communist/socialist policies are best placed to increase literacy. The Venezuelan experience shows that capitalists are unwilling to improve levels of literacy despite an ability to do so if they wished. The question of why capitalist governments don't place literacy as a high priority would be of interest. As a side issue, communist/socialist policies also appear to improve the population's health care systems (and health is a prerequisite for any kind of democracy, and any kind of learning).
Quick answers to off-topic questions:
are all evolutionary biologists socialists?
No. Google will provide more information. Search for "right wing evolutionary biologist".
are all creationists right wingers?
No. Google will provide more information. Search for "socialist christian".
What is the definition of "socialism"
Here's the Oxford English Dictionary definition:
"A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all." That's pretty clear, further discussion belongs elsewhere.
Literacy is the question here. Why is a transition to socialism associated with increases in literacy rates in third world countries?
The secondary question that has arisen in this thread, is why are so many first-world capitalists so keen on bashing the achievements of third world socialist countries? Despite the fact that the World Bank seems to think third world countries should follow the example of Cuba?
One final question: why did Jo Ritzen, World Bank Vice President for Development, suggest that a population's level of literacy and its "standard of living" are in conflict?
Mick
in edit: sorry, perhaps this should have been the opening post. Would have saved us six pages of discussion.
This message has been edited by mick, 11-08-2005 08:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 7:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by nwr, posted 11-08-2005 8:28 PM mick has replied
 Message 94 by jar, posted 11-08-2005 8:42 PM mick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024