Socialism in Venezuela has made illiteracy a thing of the past

It is certainly true that literacy alone proves and solves nothing about an economic system's functionality.Then again, what do the Soviets have anything to do with socialism? They were a communist dictatorship. Your subthread title is socialism doesn't work, but you provide nothing for that claim. At least the OP suggests something that can be helped.Scandinavian nations are socialist. They also have the highest standards of living. Many other European nations are socialist and they also usually fare better than strictly capitalist nations regarding standard of living.This tends to suggest socialism does work.Netherlands is about to end all of its socialist practices (except apparently those programs involving thought/moral legislation) and will probably pay a large price for it. Well we already do know they will pay a large price for it. Despite taxes remaining the same, health costs will now jump tremendously (this is already known) with coverage likely lessening. The selling point on privatized healthcare being cheaper health costs, which of course is the standard lie, quickly disproven in practice.For large scale activity/service needed by a majority of the population for quality of life issues, there is no better system than socialism to provide it. That is unless you are living in a very small community.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-07-2005 04:19 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Notice that they also called themselves a republic and in their constitution suggested that they were a democratic nation. They also continually claimed to have a gov't that was representative of the working class leading themselves.They could call themselves the Union of Soft Cheeses, that does not make it so.They were not socialist. I figured the reference was to Stalin's russia which was a dictatorship, but I totally agree it became an oligarchy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you want to use your own definition of socialism and demand that it mean a central authority which banishes all forms of private ownership, then it sounds like you are simply arguing past everyone.Clearly there are some differences here and there on how it is interpreted. My version does involve some sense of centralization, or collectivization. It doesn't have to be the workers in control of production, though I do see how that is a form of socialism.It also does involve the gov't, but does not in any way destroy concepts of private ownership. For example we have a socialist system of military and police protection. That does not remove your ability to hire or operate private police and military forces.You also missed the fact that many capitalist market answers to modern problems (like healthcare) are to centralize and collectivize. If you would care to explain the benefit of several smaller collectives that must expend money fighting each other, and fighting people they should be helping, and wholly excluding many, over a singular entity which provides for all, I'd like to hear it.Oh yeah... long lines. That idea that that doesn't happen in a capitalist system is complete BS. Try to get to the best doctors or any doctors for major surgery. You wait just like the rest. At least in socialist systems it is a question of resource allocation, and could be improved if the people chose to to do so.As far as Scandinavian nations, trying to pretend that they are better than the US because of the help of the US is also rather questionable. You have anything beyond those assertions? How much did we pump into them and for how long?As far as the Netherlands go, your assertion that the reason it is changing away from socialism is circular. The changes are highly unpopular and rather roundly criticized. They have no evidentiary support. Indeed studies have been coming out that most of what the gov't has been doing has no evidentiary support. The nation has a corrupt gov't of idealogues which has decided to make these changes.In fact it is a mirror to the US. After nearly a decade of improvements under a moderate liberal gov't, the populations of each decided to "punish" the gov't for slight problems by voting in something different, anything different. And they both got idealogues in the disguise of "moderates" who are pushing privatization, panic, and warfare as the solution to society's problems.The result has been the same in both, negative financial and security situations. What I love is that also in both, those parties refuse to acknowledge that it is their leadership and policies which have led to the greater problems.Perhaps you can explain how privatization in the Netherlands is supposed to help economic growth and competition when taxes stay at the same high rate, the pay rates must stay the same, and people must now pay more and get less service for those services?Oh yeah, by competitive, you mean the rich here will get richer?AbE: Just so we can work more productively why don't you tell me what I am according to your economic definitions. I believe in central and collective solutions to products and services which are necessary to the welfare of the population, where markets are shown to only add expense to the cost of that service or will result in the denial of such service.I personally like free markets, as free as possible, and think ownership (while kind of theoretical as we all die at some point) is an enjoyable and useful concept.I think I'm socialist and people have considered me socialist. But for sake of argument I'll use whatever you think is appropriate.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-08-2005 04:51 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I am short of time lately and so just hitting the first few replies I can get to. Glad to see you are interested in discussing things with me. If you want me to work on your blog project just shoot me an email.On to this topic... Socialism has worked in Scandinavia. I'm still baffled when people claim this, when socialist nations have the highest standards of life quality in the world. If this is meant to deny the success of Socialist nations by reclassifying them, then it is the No True Scotsman fallacy.While I don't agree with the above classification, and I don't believe that the human animal is inherently selfish, I do agree that humans like things. They like to have things and feel really good at accomplishing things, which obtaining objects and services is a sign of accomplishment.I do believe that is why communism is less likely to work, except on small scales. Socialism does not bar ownership nor industry. Believe me, I have been in Scandinavia and they have plenty of things, very very nice things.I had a girlfriend that was unemployed in Denmark and she lived better than I did in the US with a really nice job. I watched them receive the protection of a healthcare system and so not slip into poverty over health issues, which my own family had been forced to face.I'm sorry but if you really want quality of life, try living in a socialist nation like Sweden or Denmark. Living examples of success beat out theories any day of the week. Ask any of them what's in it for them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry but wtf are you talking about? Since 911 they have tightened immigration and benefits but not removed it. And before that it was the same as everywhere else.When I lived in Denmark it was with an unemployed person and there was a whole block of apartments dedicated to immigrant housing. Along with immigrants from outside Europe, it also contained immigrants from Europe such as Sweden. I knew some that were also poor and unemployed. I myself was unemplyed at that point in time and was slated for acceptance into Denmark.Its not that they do not have poor people and unemployed and so have a high standard of living. They do have poor people, they have allowed in poor people, and they end up with a higher standard of living. They are cared for until they can stand on their own two feet, instead of being wiped out by illness and perpetual poverty.I'm trying to figure out where you got your idea and what that has to do with socialism. What prevents an affluent country from providing necessary services to all? The key is the affluence of the nation, not of any individual.Also, you are suggesting that capitalist systems cannot be swamped? Or is it that the nature of the world is that there must always be a poor underclass which should starve and stay sick?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are right that it may cost more for insurance than out of pocket payments for healthcare with an HMO. It all depends. It is gambling on your health. And unfortunately the odds are stacked in their favor.Unfortunately it is a situation where most are forced into playing the game because they simply cannot risk not having the money when a health cost occurs.What you hae perfectly demonstrated why HMOs are the worst socialized medical system to institute. Public socialized medical systems which do not rely on profits provide much more security for cheaper cost.Hahaha, as I write this I am watching a commercial for the new private medical care system that netherlands is putting into action this January. After promising a drop in costs and better service, it is already known it will cost everyone more, and may hit the poor the hardest.Everyone is mandated by law to play the game. You will actually be fined for not having the very coverage you just decried. Oh yeah and the taxes stay the same.Gotta love conservatives.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just to let you know, I am from the US. Spent most of my life there. And indeed am still quite the American. Indeed often times I feel quite proud to be an American when I see some of the backwards crap which goes on in other nations.But I am also openminded and have travelled to other nations, seeking ways that may be different and better. Over the course of the last ten years I have spent much time in Europe, particularly those with better standards of living and more freedoms.What you have just done is tried to argue that successful programs that are actually working in other nations, must not actually work, or that they could never work in the US based on a (lets assume for arguments sake) failed program within the US.Now remember, I am cutting you a huge amount of slack by even accepting your claims to be true regarding that program's effects. I see others are attacking your claims and I will let them handle that. Here I will show you that I don't even need to address that in order to shoot down your argument.What does a singular social program conducted experimentally within the US, tying aid to children, rather than simply making sure all people have aid, have anything to do with what I was talking about?I cannot make a unicycle, fall off of it once and hurt myself badly, and then declare wheeled vehicles a failure and menace. And I certainly cannot do so, when right next door the neighbors have bikes and cars and get along just fine.I have pointed to a system that is functioning and has not had such results. Criticize what I am talking about, and don't bring in your unicycles, unless you are going to make the argument that all US citizens are inherently incapable of what northern europeans can handle. You look at what works in other nations, both their benefits and drawbacks, and create even better systems within the US. That is exactly what our founding fathers did. It has been one of the biggest mistakes the US has made, to believe it can no longer learn anything from the rest of the world, and instead everyone must take a lead from us.If you want specific answers for specific problems I can answer them, but I fully admit I do not have all answers for all problems.What I can tell you for sure is that what is NOT an acceptable answer, is allowing medical care and social welfare to be a conducted using a gambling model of for profit enterprise. It makes no logical sense at all, nor practical sense.Despite claims about how wonderful our system of medicine is, the population does not receive its benefits, and the costs can be destructive. A wealthy nation is capable and should put in place supports so that things we all must face (ill health and old age and times of unemployment) do not destroy a person and become a self-perpetuating cycle.There is no question that the US is at the top of third world countries, and about the bottom of first world countries in quality of life issues. We can do better ane we should do better.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)