Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

The Soviets had a high literacy rate as well. Teaching people to read is a good thing, but it takes more than that for a functional soceity.

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.But it's interesting because socialists will often talk of how the Soviets were supposedly not socialist, and how they can envision a Third Way, and are extremely critical of the United States, all the while ignoring the fact the US is the third way. We have a "mixed economy" with plenty of socialism.In fact, many think we have too much socialism.As far as Scandanavia, they defense was paid for by the US for 50 years, and they are smaller nations with different immigration issues, or used to be different, and are not analogous.Did socialism work in any of the large nations it was tried, such as China and Russia? It hasn't worked in many smaller nations either such as Cuba.The answer is a predominantly socialist economy does not work, unless subsidized as the Scandanavian countries were by the US for so long.Furthermore, in a global economy, we are seeing nations that are more socialist fall behind, and the ones adopting more of a free market move ahead.

Judging by the responses thus far, that seems to be the case, which is an interesting fact.But the sample is probably too small.Are there no evos here that think socialism doesn't work?

Chiroptera, socialism involves centralization, nearly by definition, since it involves the taking of the means of production away from private ownership into the hands of something representing the soceity as a whole, which usually is the central government.Central planning is a major feature of socialism, and socialism was tried in the Soviet Union and China and elsewhere, and failed miserably.Private co-ops are not socialism on a macro-scale, but actually part of capitalism. You just have ownership via the co-op, kibuttz or group of people, workers, whatever, running the entity.This message has been edited by randman, 11-07-2005 04:40 PM

Stated like someone that watched the West Wing last night?

Waiting lists for critical surgery are one reason the US does not follow England and Canada's lead. Compensation for doctors leading to less innovation and quality is another.Check the whole story.As far as socialism as oppossed to capitalism, unless you have the government outlawing private ownership by the owners, you don't have socialism. Just because some workers corporately own a company does not mean you have socialism. All you have is a worker-owned entity in a capitalist society.The idea that you don't have state control and can still have socialism is a myth. Socialism means beaurocrats have the ultimate power on how business is done. This in turn often leads to excessive corruption.

Can you back up the 1% percent claim for overhead costs in social security please?As far as essential services, do you think food is an essential service? Seems like the market in America does quite well that regard.It's hard to say as far as utilities since they are not really under a free market despite most socialists arguing the big energy companies are capitalist, but clean water, electricity and fossil fuels are available whether they are considered the result of capitalism, socialism or a mix of both.I think a big problem with excessive socialism is excessive taxation which makes it hard to compete in a global market which is why some nations like the Netherlands are moving to some more free market reforms.Socialists and liberals can win all the "job protection" and union wages they want, but if the whole factory or industry moves overseas, what have they gained?

Can you show where any nation has adopted socialism without government control?

You beleive all thatr tripe. If you do, I hear there's some ocean-front property in Montana for sale.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.Now, that doesn't mean some welfare-type programs are not necessary, but keep in mind that the average worker being forced to fork over 15% of his earning power for social security and medicare is not getting a good deal. The libs and socialists are defrauding the low wage worker of any chance for a decent retirement via excessively high FICA and medicare taxed. It's a bad deal for him. If that same money was invested where those making more money invest, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate, those people would be far better off.But the socialists and liberals are standing in the way of that.Why do you think that is? I don't think any objectively minded person can justify taxing poor people at such a high rate and then giving them a paltry return, regardless of the claims of "efficiency."The reality is social security is a scheme whereby the government can collect taxes to spend on programs from poor people at an absurdly high rate and get away with it because they essentially lie to those people and tell them they are giving them a good deal. Social security is a means by which government profits from the backs of working America and takes in more than it spends out for retirement so government pork spending can be funded. That's socialism and liberalism for ya, imho!

A lot of that has to do with regulations. Unfortunately, the doctors are poor business-people and allowed the insurance industry to take over their industry. They thought it would enable more people to get better care, but was short-sighted. It used to be doctors just did a substantial amount of care "pro-bono" as the lawyers state, but they thought the insurance thing would make it that more people paid them when in reality it just created another level of beaurocracy that wasn't necessary.The solution, imo, is:1. Most people resorting to catastrophic insurance only, and paying the rest out-of-pocket. Heck, the government could offer universal catastrophic coverage to encourage this. If you incur over a certain amount of medical bills and that equals a certain percentage of one's wealth, the government picks up the tab.The reason this is so important is you cannot lower health-care costs while increasing demand, and as someone who has had health insurance with 4 children and who has not, I can tell you if you have insurance you are far more likely to go to the doctor (just inc case) than when you do not, but most of the time, it's unnecessary. Moms have gotten so bad that if their child gets sick and has a fever, they go to the doctor because, you know, "it might be strep" or some such. But if they had to pay out of pocket, they could just give their kid some children's tylenol, and if the fever breaks, they will probably get better with bedrest.In fact, what happens is all these kids take a bunch of unnecessary antibiotics which increases allergies and helps breed resistant strains. Plus, it's often a lot cheaper to pay out of pocket than pay regular insurance. Insurance really works better if reserved for more catastrophic bills.2. The other thing we could do is offer some basic services and screening for serious illnesses in free clinics to those that can't pay for such things. For example, it makes sense to offer a dental clinic free to anyone that wants it in a poor neighborhood so that these same people don't wind up in the emergency room with more serious issues. Imo, a lot of this could be accomplished via private charities with tax credits given for people that donate.

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?

You gotta link because it was long before 1983.

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.