Democratic Socialism In Venezuela

The dysfunction that is currently thought of as the Republican brand of dysfunction is theirs of course but if you go back in time before that was the case many of our problems still existed. That was my point there. The current Republicans have added another layer of problems of course.

My broader point is also that there seems to be a reticence toward making any meaningful changes in our system. If some feature that we might want to consider is working out well for another Western industrialized country and is used as an example the rejection is always "they are Socialist" and then the rant is on about Capitalism.

When in fact most of the countries we are talking about are all largely capitalist and none of them are pure (including the U.S.) so to me there is nothing wrong with trying to actually fix some of our problems and excesses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not "reticence". It's active opposition to further change in the New Deal direction, and a rollback of the New Deal, and a re-establishment of the basis for a plutocracy in the US: governance in the interests of rightwing authoritarian capitalism, heavily militarized and based in atavistic myth. The center of political power for this movement in the US is the Republican Party, and has been since 1980 if not earlier.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which is another way of saying that when people are without education and jobs it brings out their "atavistic" nature. The right wing segment of the Republican Party takes advantage of this just as the left wing segment of the Democratic Party used to take advantage of these same fears by embracing the unions.

It's getting harder to argue that the average worker in the U.S. is better off than the average worker in Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, etc. because they probably aren't better off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no such thing as a "right wing segment" of the Republican Party - the whole thing, the entire voting base, is more or less equivalently "right wing".

The Republican Party has been manipulating racial bigotry and fundamentalist religion since 1968, hitting its stride in 1980. It is now a bona fide fascistic Party - essentially without ideology or coherent governing principles. That's where the mythmaking comes in - or historical "revision", if you prefer.

Meanwhile: Union organizing and "embracing" hasn't involved anything like that since WWII, and union organizing is not a corrupt and manipulative operation of that kind in the first place. The Democratic Party "left wing" hasn't done anything like that in your lifetime. Besides: It's been decades since there was much a "left wing" in the Democratic Party.

The "both sides" schtick is rightwing dominated media deception. The Republican Party is unique here, there is no equivalent on some other "side".

 

I don't disagree with the current uselessness of the Republican Party. If that is what you are mostly interesting in talking about there is no disagreement. Since the topic was Socialism and Venezuela and the issues that we face in the U.S. talking about Republicans isn't the whole issue.

It's not that there is some false equivalency between the parties. I don't give any credence to the Republican Party. I just don't see any solutions coming from the Democrats either. That's not to say that I want more Republicans in office however.

 

It's not "ueslessness". They have gone out of their way to do damage, and their agenda is to do more.

Recently: Democrats have nominated and properly vetted dozens of solid and competent Federal justices. Democrats tried to prevent the Iraq invasion, tried to oppose the politicization of Federal agencies such as FEMA (and made some progress in rehabilitation), have tried to at least attach some controls and proper oversight to the Bailout (compare Obama's oversight of the money going to GM and AIG with W's oversight of the bailout in the first place http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...g-bailout-it-just-wasn-t-generous-enough.html), have negotiated some kind of realistic treaties with countries such as Iran, have proposed sound modifications to the health care plan they borrowed from the Republicans (who had abandoned all reasonable approaches to the US health insurance crisis, the single most important issue facing the country for the past generation). And so forth.

True, most of the Dem "solutions" have been attempts to prevent or handle Republican disasters minor and major, deal with Republican messes and screwups, rather than make progress of their own. But they still should get some credit, no?

 

Sure, I'll give Dems some credit.

 

Google: Socialism + Definition
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Cambridge
socialism
noun [ U ]

US /ˈsoʊ·ʃəˌlɪz·əm/
1. economic or political system based on government ownership and control of important businesses and methods of production
​

Webster
socialism
play
noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

• : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

 

What's your point? We know the definition.

 

You'd be surprised; some people will go so far as to say a person born and raised in Scotland, is no True Scotsman. Imagine going so far as to suggest the United Socialist Soviet Republic, wasn't actually 'Socialism'.

I always think it's important to illustrate by example.

For example:
Is a Government School, an example of Socialism?
How about the FDA? An example of Socialism?
What of our fiat currency? The USD. Is this an example of Socialism?
Are our Government employed Central Bankers, Socialists?
The US Military? Socialism?
The NSA? Socialism?
Are IRS Agents, an example of Socialism?

Regulation of healthcare. Socialism?
Regulation of public water. Socialism?
Regulation of whom can marry whom. Socialism?

What of the War on Drugs by the US Police Forces. Socialism?
The US Prison Industrial Complex. Is this Socialism?


Of course, all of these fall under the umbrella of State Authoritarianism, and therefor Ethically defined as immoral, but the Question is: Are they examples of 'Socialism' as per the commonly used definition?

 

I guess it depends on who you are arguing against. Some seem to want to argue that any improvements in our current system is "Socialism". I would agree that we don't have (nor should have) a "pure" system of Capitalism and by their standards already have some socialism and therefore arguing for a little more in some area if it improves our system just makes sense.

Cuba or Venezuela under Chavez is usually brought up and that's just a non-sequitur in my opinion. No one is really arguing for a system like Venezuela. It's just misdirection to suggest as much.

 

Many Government run Ghettos are indeed like stepping into the Third World - actually, that's an insult to the third world.

The primary problem is a reliance on violence and coercion to solve social problems. IOWs, Statism is NOT the solution, therefor Socialism is the furthest from a 'solution' to any problem. Of course, it's not that the State cannot play a role - it should, for now, play a very limited role. As was outlined in the US Constitution, prior to the 16th amendment.

The solution (IMO) is to peacefully raise children who understand different types of reasoning; like deductive rationalism and inductive empiricism. Including/emphasizing, limitations. But that's not enough. These children will also require sound money derived through free-market competition, laws that protect their private property beginning with the ownership of their body and those that uphold valid contract. They'll require a limited means that is charged with enforcing the law, this may be private - as is done now in terms of international trade; trillions of dollars a day (from nation states, all the way to somebody simply using eBay) but will probably be the one role for Government. I'd also suggest children are taught to delineate between profit, which is virtuous, and spoils - which are not. I now believe the price-mechanism is of crucial importance as well - as a means of information transfer, since not knowing as much, has lead to the death of unknown 10s, maybe 100s, of millions of humans. All of which, are not difficult concepts to understand - but, most of which are clearly not understood, or even heard of.

Of course, this will take decades, as children take a long time to grow up into reasoned adults. And, quite frankly, the West simply isn't up to the challenge. We're done. Our only hope now, as a species, is the northern far East: China, Japan and Korea - as well as peripheral Nation States. Many of which have economies run by ethnic Chinese anyway.

Not that the West can't play a part - peaceful logical parenting has made great strides in the West and these will continue though private schools. Thus, the West will lead by example, of what to do, and what never to do. And, at least we have technology on our side - as a species I mean. If we can make it another 80 - 100 years, most of our current discussions will be comprised of moot points.

 

LOL .... the WikiLeaks DNC insider was shot 4 times in the back and left for dead on the side of the road only a few weeks ago. Oh, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence. You know, people are routinely gunned down, nothing stolen, and just left for dead right after they commit a massive leak of a major political party. One that has no qualms with invading and bombing flat various oil-rich nations - regardless of the millions of children who are either killed, sold off as sex-slaves after their families are killed or simply starved to death.

Anyway, you were carrying water a moment go?

LOL

Luckily, we have empiricism, and Venezuela can be chucked onto the pyre of failed Socialist Nation States. Another data point of what not to do.

 

I don't know that government run ghettos are any worse than any other ghettos. The issue is to eliminate ghettos.

Most problems aren't due to not living in a pure system whether it's capitalism or socialism or any other "ism".

I don't think the way children are raised is a particular failing of our system. Most kids seem to be just fine.

I agree that coercion and violence isn't the solution. Speak softly and carry a big stick (while coercive) would be a big improvement over our current foreign policy. The same goes for some of our domestic policies. The police are too coercive, we have too many prisons (should just be for violent offenders) and the war on drugs isn't working out very well.

Yes, technology does seem to solve many problems and I too hope that continues into the future.

 

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Unity in Diversity

The movement against neoliberalism and war must be built, but so too must the revolutionary Marxist current within it.

--o--
You literally can't make this sh*t up. It's insane. Millions dead across a century of this insanity, and like an STI, it the gift that keeps on giving.... LOL

 

I'm sure parents in KSA, North Korea, Sweden, Canada, Ancient Roma, pre-Revolutionary America and etc.... would say the same. I disagree. Firstly, most children are spanked, with many, spanking begins before the age of 3. Spanking has been shown to only be slightly (thought statistically) less adverse than outright beating. Secondly, many children grow up without a nuclear family - one of the single strongest indicators for future dysfunction, is not having a father at home. Particularly for boys. But also girls. Government Schools are poorly designed pedagogically, again, particularly for boys. They also encourage the worse behaviors and are unnatural learning environment for the most part. Finland and Japan do okay. Ours are, for the most part, a total mess. Then there's the dysfunction that has been shown to correlate very strongly with so-called "daycare". Currently, children can start long-term daycare at age 21 days. That's 6 am to 7 pm. Add to this the insane amount of drug abuse being done to children by their parents.

Believe me, in the future, people will look back on parenting of today, as we would look back at the Dark Ages. An Age of Superstition and ignorance. Probably with even more disgust. Of all the problems our society faces, the single greatest is child-rearing. Any attempts to fix society without addressing this issue, will fail.

And, we're not up to the task. Well, that's a generalization, but yes, for the most part - don't expect any major changes, anytime soon.


As a small example, lanugo, the hair that covers a child's body (particularly their backs, but also face and legs etc...) probably requires to be stimulated to fully develop the somatosensory cortex (the body map in the brain for touch). Without being touched regularly (maybe as high as 1 time in 10 minutes) this part of the cortex doesn't develop properly. Without a proper body map, some children will develop an eating disorder. Because their parietal lobe and occipital lobe will not communicate correctly, leading to a discrepancy between vision and touch and body dysmorphia.

Just one of unknown numbers of examples where modern parenting, with it's reliance on daycare, leads to future problems. Children diagnosed with AN have a 33% chance of death, after diagnosed and with care. As an example.

 

I don't think most modern parents in the U.S. spank their kids. I was spanked a few times growing up but not much. My father died when I was 3 so you can grow up without a father and turn out swell

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but I get your point.

Society doesn't raise the child however...unless you just dump them in daycare. There's not much we can do about every parent. I agree that too many are using child care too young but then again some that are using it too early are probably the one's where you'd rather have the kid in child care than in that particular home.

Kids do need to be touched. Studies on orphans conclude as much. This sounds like an area that you are particularly concerned about which is good however I don't agree that it's the cause of much of what is wrong in our society.

There have always been bad parenting and bad home environments for some (hopefully) small segment of society. I'd like to see that improve of course.

 

Nobody has ever done that, here. So that's irrelevant to this forum.

Those aren't examples, but questions. And you can't answer them consistently - your answers to those will not match the definitions you posted.

For example:

No. "Regulation" and "Socialism" are independent terms - the one does not imply the other.

You appear to be confusing two different Parties - the Democratic Party is the one implicated in the first sentence, and the Republican Party in the second.

Of course.

Do not attempt central micromanagement of your national economy, for example: local market mechanisms are far better for allocating production. That is a good lesson to learn from Venezuela. Also, never allow large capitalist corporate interests, especially foreign ones, to dominate your government. Do you agree?

The major causes of the specific ills you listed there are two: 1) capitalist corporate workplace demands, that remove the parent from the home and separate adults from children 2) racism and other oppressions of blue collar labor, that prevent a single job from supporting a family.

The only factor in the list caused by anything else, is spanking - which disproportionately and severely characterizes the more religious, less secularly humanist, and less financially secure, homes. It is very common in countries lacking appropriate socialist economic organization of community resources, for example - in which violent competition at the family level is a basic organizational factor.

 

Government Schools?

They're closely related terms. State mandated 'Regulation' of drug approval or Central Bank 'Regulation' of interest rates, are examples of State Authoritarianism that would fall under the umbrella "Socialism" because they happen to include State owned Regulatory agencies as opposed to privately own regulatory businesses in a free-market (which would be different from privately owned regulatory entities that work for Government - Fascism).

Give me a break. Japan has extremely intense work-scheduling and yet it's common for mothers to remain at home with their kids. Essentially, Americans want more and want it bigger. Oh, and don't forget all the 'free' Government 'services' cost a shit ton of money. Particularly when you're repaying back T-Bonds that were spent decades (or longer) ago.

It really depends on. Many wealthy people spank, and neglect, their children - you just don't know about it. They certainly have the means to neglect them emotionally, while providing for them financially. I will agree it may come out that in some cases poorer people hit their kids more. I'd guess this has more to do with IQ. Lower IQ people are generally poorer, and hit their kids. Anyway, these data are hard to come by.
At least we agree, hitting kids, not necessarily a good idea.

 

No, they aren't. They are in a sense opposed terms - the State often badly neglects regulating what it owns, which is one of the serious arguments against socialist setups (they should not be owned by the largest level of government unless unavoidable, because then they have to be self-regulating).

The US Central Bank is not owned by the State. The FDA is not a "business", and it regulates capitalist enterprise. And so forth.

You can't answer those questions consistently with your posted definitions. You've tried before.

In the US, racial bigotry combined with corporate oppression combined to destroy a good share of US families - far more than the US government did, even counting war.

In the US the rich people, especially secular humanist types, don't hit their kids as much as the lower class and more religious people do. Internationally, places with less wealth inequality and more socialist institutions hit their kids less than countries with greater wealth inequality and heavily competitive, capitalist organizational patterns.