Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am no fan of most forms of socialism , but Venezuela isn't what it is because of mere socialism. If anything its a repudiation of democracy. I could certainly make that argument far easier using the Tytler fromula:
A poll carried out between Feb 19 and March 2 put Chavez 's approval rating at 70.5%, while "confidence" in the leftist leader was slightly lower at 58.2%. Chavez 's approval rating was the highest since early 1999, when he first entered office.
this example I am afraid is the worst example of conservative oversimplification that will do nothing to advance the argument. All a leftists has to do is mention a wealthy socialist country.
Did you read any of the material I posted from the earlier pages?
I read your material. From the second link...
Luis Vicente Leon, the head of the polling firm, said popular social programs and the absence of a political opposition have helped boost support for the president. Venezuelan opposition groups saw support wane after failing to oust Chavez in a recall referendum in August.
"There is no alternative. It is better to approve of Chavez than nobody," said Leon.
Venezuela spends billions of dollars each year on oil-financed social outreach programs, or "missions," that range from adult literacy classes to subsidized food. One program, the state-run Mercal food distribution network, sells discounted food that reaches 46% of the population.
"A large part of the population evaluates Chavez based on the missions," said Leon.
Basically the government controls the distribution of goods. People like it when the money is flowing. When the money stops and the government needs money to survive, this is when pure socialism rears its ugly head as it turns people into slaves to produce for the government. That's what is happening now as people are being forced to worked in the fields to produce food.
Tell us in which country the workers have ever owned the means of production. This is the definition of socialism. To claim that workers owned the means of production in countries like the Soviet Union is absurd! They, and all the other similar countries used labels like "socialism" as a mask! Just like North Korea which claims it is a "Democratic People's Republic"! Why do people in the west believe these propaganda labels?
No - that is not the definition of socialism. Look it up.
Websters Online...
socialism - a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
Socialism is about government ownership.
As far as worker ownership... unless there is a tangible contract in play for a particular company, how do workers gain ownership in an entity?
There is a discussion area on the Webster's page that adds this...
It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as “democratic socialism,” in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
Venezuela would be in the pure socialism category.
Europe would be in the democratic socialism category.
No - that is not the definition of socialism. Look it up.
Nope. It has nothing to do with government.
Quote:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.
Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[383][384] left-libertarianism[385][386] and socialist libertarianism[387]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[388] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy[389] including criticism of wage labour relationships within the workplace,[390] as well as the state itself.[391] It emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplace[391] and decentralized structures of political organization,[392] asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.
Venezuela would be in the pure socialism category.
Europe would be in the democratic socialism category.
Venezuela is pure corruption and third world. Just like El Salvador.
Europe is social democratic. Not democratic socialist. They have public schools like America and also fully funded public higher education and health care. America has a mostly publicly funded education system, while the health care system is about 50/50 with large aspects of crony capitalism. Do you honestly believe medicare is socialism?
"It wasn't until the 1980s that anarchist movements again resurfaced - the Colectivo Autogestionario Libertario (CAL. Libertarian Self-managing Collective) was the most visible. Two journals, El Libertario (published by CAl 1985-87) and Correo A (published 1987-1995) emerged. Some youths were drawn in through anarcho-punk. The Cuban anarchist editorial collective Guángara had correspondents in Venezuela, by 1985. Prominently, the Argentine anarchist philosopher and university professor Ángel Cappelletti (1927–1995) worked in Venezuela for 26 years, until his retirement in 1994."
In 1980, at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, I was invited by a large company in Caracas, to devise and implement a system for their company to survive the government's unthoughtful (not fully thought out at the time) implementations of the Libertarian force of government.
The companies were burdened to handle the employment system as:
1) Employers firing any employees for any reason were required to pay 80% of their wages for three years or until they found another job.
2) Employers of quitting employees were required to pay 40% of their wages for three years or until they found another job.
3) Employers were required to withhold 10% of employees wages and deposit the withholds into an established employee bank account to coved employee retirement or disability.
All of these government implements failed, and all of the companies were ravaged by . . THE PEOPLE.
For my work-brain, the CEO promised my lawyer and I that we would each be provided with three "womans", and would also be provided with a nice villa.
I was told by the CEO that the country found so much oil, that the money of it would provide more than enough to provide every family in Venezuela with a $100,000 home - FREE.
I don't wand to tell any further at this time.
Last edited by Hyperthetic; 08-03-2016 at 10:40 AM..
I was told by the CEO that the country found so much oil, that the money of it would provide more than enough to provide every family in Venezuela with a $100,000 home - FREE.
I don't wand to tell any further at this time.
Here is a list of pure socialism in America, worker co-operatives:
The two-cow explanation of the difference between governments:
Feudalism: You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream. Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for you share of the milk, but it's so long that the milk is sour by the time you get it. Dictatorship: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Everyone votes on who gets the milk. Anarchy: You have two cows as long as you can keep someone from taking them. Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
Don't know who started this, I found various versions on the internet. I heard it first while in college in the 70s.
My favorite tho is Margaret Thatcher's comment: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
The Founding Fathers wanted a limited, representational form of government. (The word 'democracy' is not found anywhere in the Constitution.) I don't think anyone of them realized the power that would be given to governmental bureaucracies, or the power that cities would exert on elections. Both bureaucracies and city residents are, to a large extent, insular. They possess power, but are not always subject to outcomes produced by the use of that power. Bureaucracies, by exercise of dictatorial powers, and cities, thru their votes, can legally force others to comply with their vision of our country.
Adding to that, demagogs use jealousy, avarice and entitlement to gain power. Once power is attained, the 'will of the people' can be used to justify just about any action. The people suddenly find they have become powerless. Worse, the things they thought they would be given turn out to be false promises.
Venezuela is not the only country that has followed this path, it's just the latest.
The two-cow explanation of the difference between governments:
Feudalism: You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream. Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for you share of the milk, but it's so long that the milk is sour by the time you get it. Dictatorship: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Everyone votes on who gets the milk. Anarchy: You have two cows as long as you can keep someone from taking them. Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
Don't know who started this, I found various versions on the internet. I heard it first while in college in the 70s.
My favorite tho is Margaret Thatcher's comment: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
The Founding Fathers wanted a limited, representational form of government. (The word 'democracy' is not found anywhere in the Constitution.) I don't think anyone of them realized the power that would be given to governmental bureaucracies, or the power that cities would exert on elections. Both bureaucracies and city residents are, to a large extent, insular. They possess power, but are not always subject to outcomes produced by the use of that power. Bureaucracies, by exercise of dictatorial powers, and cities, thru their votes, can legally force others to comply with their vision of our country.
Adding to that, demagogs use jealousy, avarice and entitlement to gain power. Once power is attained, the 'will of the people' can be used to justify just about any action. The people suddenly find they have become powerless. Worse, the things they thought they would be given turn out to be false promises.
Venezuela is not the only country that has followed this path, it's just the latest.
But this is all just my opinion!!!
You ignored social democracy. Why? It is the most common form of economic and political system. A free enterprise economy with a strong social safety net. The question you have to ask yourself is. Why are you so against social democracy?
Venezuela is pure corruption and third world. Just like El Salvador.
Europe is social democratic. Not democratic socialist. They have public schools like America and also fully funded public higher education and health care. America has a mostly publicly funded education system, while the health care system is about 50/50 with large aspects of crony capitalism. Do you honestly believe medicare is socialism?
Medicare socialism...
If they are simply giving out benefits, no.
When they start controlling what the doctors do, and how hospitals are paid, and they worm their way into the revenue stream of private entities, yes.
When they start controlling what the doctors do, and how hospitals are paid, and they worm their way into the revenue stream of private entities, yes.
Private insurance does the same thing though.
You have to put some sort of guidelines around what you will pay and what procedures are covered etc. or you'll get over-run with fraud.
It's ironically no different than auto insurance paying to repair your car.
The only significant differences I can see are the funding mechanism and the compulsory element but there are strong financial arguments supporting the reasoning behind both.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
