Chavez On Private Schools: Teach Socialism or Face Takeover

[Epicurus]

The word "public pensions" even appears in our constitution. I doubt the people who wrote the constitution and its amendments, considered public pensions to be akin to Karl Marx.

Socialism is an economic system. Pertaining to manufacturing, production, and distribution. It is not a reference to public parks, public pensions, or public healthcare. Those are social services.

Marx coined the term as a transitory phase to Communism. Do I think that by tomorrow every industry will be nationalized? Certainly not. But we are moving down a dangerous path. Now healthcare is set to become the realm of the state as well. I hate the slippery slope argument but it really is.

 

[TheDanold]

The word "public pensions" even appears in our constitution. I doubt the people who wrote the constitution and its amendments, considered public pensions to be akin to Karl Marx.

Socialism is an economic system. Pertaining to manufacturing, production, and distribution. It is not a reference to public parks, public pensions, or public healthcare. Those are social services.

Yes but calling someone a socialist in the modern sense can denote a more extreme lefty or someone who favors policies that are more extreme left. Just like how some Repubs are called fascists when someone hears a policy that they consider extreme advocated by them, even though they aren't really fascists.
Most people think of those words that way, your argument is a strict academic one, not reconciled with reality.

 

[Damocles]

Marx coined the term as a transitory phase to Communism. Do I think that by tomorrow every industry will be nationalized? Certainly not. But we are moving down a dangerous path. Now healthcare is set to become the realm of the state as well. I hate the slippery slope argument but it really is.

Slippery slope is not always a fallacy. Shoot, even ad hominem is not always a fallacy if it addresses the expertise of the originator.

 

[Cypress]

Marx coined the term as a transitory phase to Communism. Do I think that by tomorrow every industry will be nationalized? Certainly not. But we are moving down a dangerous path. Now healthcare is set to become the realm of the state as well. I hate the slippery slope argument but it really is.

We simply disagree. I don't think public social services means we are becoming a socialist nation. I don't think universal health care means we are becoming a socialist nation. The Dutch, Swedes and Finns, have highly developed and very innovative capitalist economies. They have an euntrepenuerial spirit, like us. I don't think they consider themselves a Socialist economy, per the historical or dictionary definitions.

 

[blackascoal]

Money only comes into play when companies have something to gain via government (ie: setting up regulations to favor them or punish competitors).
Make a smaller government like in the past that does a lot less and you instantly have less money involved - just as we once had less money involved.

None of the above is true in my opinion.

Money and corporations control everything in this country including politicians, the elections system, and the so-called "free press." You can't be the president in the US unless you can amass tons of money.

The whimsical fantasy of "smaller government" doesn't usually come with much specifics, just pipe dreams that are far removed from reality.

I choose to focus on the benefit of the whole, not just the priviledged.

 

[Epicurus]

We simply disagree. I don't think public social services means we are becoming a socialist nation. I don't think universal health care means we are becoming a socialist nation. The Dutch, Swedes and Finns, have highly developed and very innovative capitalist economies. They have an euntrepenuerial spirit, like us. I don't think they consider themselves a Socialist economy, per the historical or dictionary definitions.

There certainly should be some level of government spending on the social services which, while not neccessarily needed, are not harmful to the economy for the government to provide when done sparingly and efficiently.

I am not trying to argue for anarcho-capitalism in America. That is only slightly more unlikely than a wholesale switch to Communism in America. But I feel that we long ago passed a reasonable level of spending on the social services.

 

[blackascoal]

I said we can learn from what he has done and watch for the signs of it here. I said nothing about changing anything in his nation.

Learning from what is done elsehwere whether you think it is good or bad only can happen if you discuss and pay attention to what is done elsewhere.

Everybody seems ready to dismiss any discussion regardless of what form it takes if it is about Venezuela. I say that is a mistake.

I think there is a great deal of positive that can be learned from the Venezuela and Chavez. I personally believe that the best system comprises a mix of socialist and capitalist policies, which is exactly what Chavez is doing.

People come before corporations and the resources of the land belong to everybody.

Talk about dismissing a conversation .. try discussing what's good about Chavez.

 

[Damocles]

I think there is a great deal of positive that can be learned from the Venezuela and Chavez. I personally believe that the best system comprises a mix of socialist and capitalist policies, which is exactly what Chavez is doing.

People come before corporations and the resources of the land belong to everybody.

Talk about dismissing a conversation .. try discussing what's good about Chavez.

What did I suggest? I suggested learning from them whether you thought it was good or bad. You see much good, I see much bad.

I have promoted talking about the subject because I believe that there are things we can learn. The lefties in this thread have said that what is done there is unimportant and that we shouldn't hold any conversations on the subject. They have even made mock threads about Zugabe pretending that nothing that happens elsewhere should or could have any impact on the US.

This is total garbage. So, my argument was to have the conversation and to learn, not to ignore and thus be forced to repeat.

So. Again, you have either deliberately missed my point, or choose to ignore those parts that say, "Whether you believe it is good or bad we should have the conversation" and attempt to say I am dismissing the conversation.

I get tired of that. I don't purposefully misrepresent what you say.

 

[Epicurus]

Talk about dismissing a conversation .. try discussing what's good about Chavez.

Well Venezelua's economy has actually done quite well under him, though this is largely due to the increase in world oil prices and not from his Communist-style nationalization of the oil industry.

He's also increased the literacy rate remarkably and made some progress at reducing poverty in select areas. I can't see how this is a good thing, but he has also purchased a great deal of old Soviet weaponry and trained many Venezeualans into small communal militias.

That's really about it.

 

[TheDanold]

None of the above is true in my opinion.

Money and corporations control everything in this country including politicians, the elections system, and the so-called "free press." You can't be the president in the US unless you can amass tons of money.

The whimsical fantasy of "smaller government" doesn't usually come with much specifics, just pipe dreams that are far removed from reality.

I choose to focus on the benefit of the whole, not just the priviledged.

That post was just pure whimsy. I worked for a telecom company, it donated money and had a Washington lobbyist to work to ease rules so they were more competitive with cable (which had fewer regulations).
Likewise cable companies had lobbyists with cash there to try and keep the harsher rules on telecom to sustain their advantage.

Were government not to involve itself in regulating either, then neither would bother spending money for government and politicians, their products would be cheaper too and more competitive.

I'm sorry you are wrong, EVERY single thing you stop government from doing, means less money get involved. Look at gun control, the Dems gave up on that (for now) and the NRA spends far less money on politicians than it did in the 90's.

Less government, less corruption.

 

[blackascoal]

That post was just pure whimsy. I worked for a telecom company, it donated money and had a Washington lobbyist to work to ease rules so they were more competitive with cable (which had fewer regulations).
Likewise cable companies had lobbyists with cash there to try and keep the harsher rules on telecom to sustain their advantage.

Were government not to involve itself in regulating either, then neither would bother spending money for government and politicians, their products would be cheaper too and more competitive.

I'm sorry you are wrong, EVERY single thing you stop government from doing, means less money get involved. Look at gun control, the Dems gave up on that (for now) and the NRA spends far less money on politicians than it did in the 90's.

Less government, less corruption.

You repeat the lassiez-faire mantra that has NEVER worked in modern society. I challenge you to demonstrate a fully developed working lassiez-Faire "free market" system that has ever worked. Withoit government control and regulation, large multi-national corporations will do whatever they want.

The telecom company you worked for may not even exist as it falls victim to monopoly. Try telling Californians how wonderfully de-regulation worked for their power industry.

There is a real interesting piece of 19th Century ruthless history that you might consider giving study. It was called the time of the robber barons.

 

[blackascoal]

Well Venezelua's economy has actually done quite well under him, though this is largely due to the increase in world oil prices and not from his Communist-style nationalization of the oil industry.

He's also increased the literacy rate remarkably and made some progress at reducing poverty in select areas. I can't see how this is a good thing, but he has also purchased a great deal of old Soviet weaponry and trained many Venezeualans into small communal militias.

That's really about it.

You can't see how reducing poverty and education people is a good thing?

I'm confused.

 

[Damocles]

You can't see how reducing poverty and education people is a good thing?

I'm confused.

He was discussing the good things he had done. Why is that confusing?

 

[Epicurus]

You can't see how reducing poverty and education people is a good thing?

I'm confused.

You would be.

 

[Epicurus]

Haha and I even said "and I can't see how this one could be a good thing but" about the militias.

Wow.

 

[blackascoal]

What did I suggest? I suggested learning from them whether you thought it was good or bad. You see much good, I see much bad.

I have promoted talking about the subject because I believe that there are things we can learn. The lefties in this thread have said that what is done there is unimportant and that we shouldn't hold any conversations on the subject. They have even made mock threads about Zugabe pretending that nothing that happens elsewhere should or could have any impact on the US.

This is total garbage. So, my argument was to have the conversation and to learn, not to ignore and thus be forced to repeat.

So. Again, you have either deliberately missed my point, or choose to ignore those parts that say, "Whether you believe it is good or bad we should have the conversation" and attempt to say I am dismissing the conversation.

I get tired of that. I don't purposefully misrepresent what you say.

If I've misunderstood you then I sincerly apologize.

I do not intend to be intentionally confrontational with you my brother as I respect your opinion, even though I may disagree.

My point about Chavez .. and why I believe in some socialist policies, is because he focuses on the needs of his people, not pandering to the corporate will.

Look at America today and you'd have to be blind to miss the ills of pandering to corporate will.

WAR, outsourcing, down-sizing, poverty, and an emphasis on incarceration are hard to miss. There is no patriotism, nationalism, or even concern for the American people in capitalism. There is only money.

If a corporation thinks it can save a nickel by moving its operations offshore or into a prison, then fuck Americans or any consequence that occurs. The bottom line is all that matters.

Americans are a highly conditioned people and words like "socialism" and "collectivism" are supposed to send chills down our spines and send us rushing to stand behind a flag to ward off the evil spirits. But Americans now know that nationalized health care, just like all other industrial nations have, makes a lot of sense and is in the best interest of people regardless of whether it adheres to the concept of capitailsm. Even republicans are having to face this truth.

Our educational system is falling and lagging behind the rest of the world in critical disciplines and our healthcare system has left many Americans wondering if they can even afford to stay alive.

I welcome the conversation about socialism and collectivism.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I guess I'm like a corporation, then. I think non-Americans are just as good as Americans.

 

[blackascoal]

He was discussing the good things he had done. Why is that confusing?

You man he's confused why having militas and buying soviet weapons aren't a good thing when his country stands under the shadow of CIA intervention, corruption, and attack?

Perhaps he's knows history and knows of the School of the Americas and their reign of terror throughout Latin America. The rest of Latin America knows .. which is why they've turned left.

 

[blackascoal]

I guess I'm like a corporation, then. I think non-Americans are just as good as Americans.

If you're like a corporation you don't give a damn about either.

 

[Epicurus]

You man he's confused why having militas and buying soviet weapons aren't a good thing when his country stands under the shadow of CIA intervention, corruption, and attack?

Perhaps he's knows history and knows of the School of the Americas and their reign of terror throughout Latin America. The rest of Latin America knows .. which is why they've turned left.

I'm well aware of Operation Condor thank you.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say "Well America is perfect in every aspect, but Chavez buys soviet weapons!!"

Stop being childish. It's not my fault you misread.