Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

It would appear that you don't think that the Soviet Union was a functional society. That may very well have been the case, but what when do you consider a society functional?

---

"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:

---

First off, as one pointed out, we already have a measure of socialism in the US, and no, it didn't help pull us out of the Depression. WWII did that.

---

Ha ha ha. This is exactly what the Marxists say.-

quote:

---

socialists will often talk...how they can envision a Third Way

---

I hope not to commit the "No True Scotsman Fallacy", but none of the Socialist articles I read advocate a "third way".-

quote:

---

As far as Scandanavia, they defense was paid for by the US for 50 years....

---

To be exact, the imperialist policies that guaranteed a constant flow of raw materials and cheap labor from the Third World into the West (including Scandanavia and the rest of Europe) has been paid for (in money and blood) largely by the US (although the UK and France also helped a bit). This, again, is right in line with Marxist critique.-

quote:

---

Did socialism work in any of the large nations it was tried, such as China and Russia?

---

Was Socialism ever tried in Russia or China? If I recall correctly, one of the first things the Bolsheviks did when they got into power was to dismantle the independent workers councils and co-ops, instituting centralized state control. I don't know much about China, I admit, but I've been under the impression that their economy was largely under centralized state control as well.-

quote:

---

It hasn't worked in many smaller nations either such as Cuba.

---

Actually, since the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the subsidies that Cuba recieved), Cuba has had to implement a lot of actual Socialist policies, like decentralized planning processes, which has had a relatively large effect on the economy, despite that Cuba has few natural resources and is under trade embargo with the US.At any rate, Cuba has done a very good job in educating its citizens compared to the rest of Latin America, and exports medical personnel and medicines. Nicaragua under the Sandanistas were also making great progress under Socialism, until the economy was badly damaged by the terrorist campaign funded and supported by the US -- since the end of the Sandanista regime the standard of living for the Nicaraguans has decreased.-

quote:

---

...a predominantly socialist economy does not work....

---

This could possibly be true -- since the only attempts at socialism (Cuba, Nigaragua, post-Kerensky Russia) were destroyed or badly warped from the wars waged against them by the capitalist powers, we have no data by which to judge what a socialist economy can do. All we have are the very positive gains that occurred during the very short time that socialism existed and the declines that occurred when socialism was destroyed. That is what makes Venezuela so exciting -- it is an actual experiment with definite socialist tendencies -- my guess is that it won't be long before the capitalist powers destroy it.-

quote:

---

Furthermore, in a global economy, we are seeing nations that are more socialist fall behind....

---

Actually, what we see recently are the failures of "neo-liberal" capitalism; every Third World nation that has implemented capitalist "reforms" has suffered terrible losses in the standard of living among its citizens.

---

"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:

---

socialism involves centralization, nearly by definition....

---

Actually, it doesn't. Socialism involves worker control over the means of production. That has been the basic definition of "socialism" for a century and a half or more. It is true that the Leninist branch of Marxism has traditionally been in favor of a vanguard that leads the proletariat, but the centralized state-run economy that they instituted in the Soviet Union ended up having some of the the same basic problems that a capitalist economy has -- in fact, many socialists refer to the Soviet model as "State Capitalism".It is indeed true that many socialists will say that some degree of centralized coordination has a place in a socialist economy, but that is true of capitalism as well.Edited to add link.Edited to add another link:
Here is a decent article on the definition of Socialism. Notice that the actual meaning of the word can depend on the context and the ideology of the writer.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-Nov-2005 10:17 PM

---

"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

Basically other industrialized nations manage to provide more health care to a greater number of people for less money than the US.

---

"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:

---

The idea that you don't have state control and can still have socialism is a myth.

---

randman, I am a socialist, I talk with other socialist, and I even subscribe to a socialist magazine. I know what socialism is. The links I supplied in a previous post (#16, above) pretty much describes how I understand socialism and what it may entail, depending on the writer.

---

"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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

In a true socialist system all members must work and live within a single goal.

---

(Sigh.) Hello, Francis. Are you another non-socialist who is going to tell the rest of us what "true socialism" is? At any rate, I'm interested in knowing what this "single goal" of "true socialism" is supposed to be.-

quote:

---

It only takes one member to take more than his share or only one member to do less than his share for the entire system to fail.

---

How does this happen?-

quote:

---

A legislative socialism can only survive as long as there is a strong working class which can be bled to support the less fortunate and freeloaders.

---

Socialism, by its very definition, means that the working class is the one that is in control. Are you saying that in "true socialism" that the "single goal" that everyone has is to bleed themselves?-

quote:

---

The human animal is naturally selfish and will endure great effort to survive.

---

This is false. If cross-cultural studies show anything, they show that most societies are heavily based on cooperation and sharing. And modern experiments attempting to test how game theory applies to real life situations show that people in the capitalist West (including the US) do not naturally follow what the assumptions about rational self-interest indicate that they should.The entire gamut of studies in psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, and so forth show, at best, that humans are not naturally anything. At worst (for your argument) they show that humans may have a natural tendency to cooperation and sharing, and that it takes a great deal of socialization to teach them to behave in naturally self-interested and selfish ways -- not surprising, since humans evolved from a social species. And socialism does not require human beings to be naturally cooperative anyway -- at least it requires no more than the natural tendency toward "enlightened self-interest" that the early capitalist theorizers, like Adam Smith, assumed.-Seeing that this is your first substantive post in a debate thread here, I should be kind to you. But since your first post chortled about how few intelligent "liberals" you have ever met and how you see very little intelligence on this board, I feel compelled to point out how this post is little more than empty rhetoric. But maybe you'll reign in your tendency toward condescension and I'll do likewise, and maybe we can have a polite, civilized discussion.Added in edit:
Ah, I just saw the short note that you wrote me in the other thread. I withdraw this last paragraph.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Nov-2005 10:43 PM

---

"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:

---

What has amazed me here is the incredibly miserly attitute towards the achievement of lifting one an a half million people out of illiteracy in just a few years.

---

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.By the way, literacy rates in Nicaragua are way down, 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

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

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