Hugo Chavez Dies at 58

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

You have this underlying assumption that unless the state runs X, there is no way X will be done.

Yes, and it's a correct assumption. The small, private interests.....

 

 

What exempts the state from being classified as "private interests"? It's merely a theory that the state is on the side of the subject. In fact, it's naive and submissive to believe that state ownership/interest = public ownership/interest. Considering the extent to which we expose ourselves to government exploitation, it's a downright irresponsible assumption.

Edited March 13, 2013 by canttakemyid

[sivispacem]

Apart from all the places it does work, like Scandinavian countries

Scandinavia (well Europe more generally) is/are neoliberalist. Not, by any stretch of the imagination, socialist. The only people I've ever seen call Western Europe "socialist" are Americans who've been indoctrinated with the idea that we're all borderline commies and don't really seem to understand the term themselves.

[Clem Fandango]

You have this underlying assumption that unless the state runs X, there is no way X will be done.

Yes, and it's a correct assumption. The small, private interests.....

 

 

What exempts the state from being classified as "private interests"? It's merely a theory that the state is on the side of the subject. In fact, it's naive and submissive to believe that state ownership/interest = public ownership/interest. Considering the extent to which we expose ourselves to government exploitation, it's a downright irresponsible assumption.

We aren't having a broad, general discussion though: we are talking about Venezuela. I'm not saying the state is inherently a tool of public good, what I am saying is that in a country where all of the resources are controlled by a very small percent of the population, and that percent of the population has yet to provide education or health care for the masses, it's absurd to think the market is somehow the way to fix Venezuela's infrastructure problems.

 

We aren't discussing our ideal education systems, here. We're talking about whether Venezuela's lack of public infrastructure should be left to the market.

[LeVelocar]

 

Apart from all the places it does work, like Scandinavian countries

Scandinavia (well Europe more generally) is/are neoliberalist. Not, by any stretch of the imagination, socialist. The only people I've ever seen call Western Europe "socialist" are Americans who've been indoctrinated with the idea that we're all borderline commies and don't really seem to understand the term themselves.

They've (thinking Norway in particular) got a lot of socialist tendencies, so long as you understand that keeping certain things away from money grabbing greedy fuggers and caring for your fellow man is the true spirit of socialism. I would never imply that they are totally socialist. For one I haven't moved there yet.

 

So in a way, yankies are accidentally right. They've decided that "not being an arse" = evil, and "being a right arse" = good. Then they went and decided evil = socialism, so you end up with "not being an arse" = socialism, and a society where being an arse is considered a goal. This is what happens when you populate a new country by taking those too dysfunctional to live in europe and packing them into wooden boats for months. Hello there, for profit healthcare.

 

I feel bad for the people who think that the "free market" will solve anything. The goal of a for-profit enterprise is to gain the most money by spending the least. It is not to help people, and that is why it never, ever has. That is why they fight every minimum wage raise, leaving the goverment to cover the remaining cost of living through housing benefits, child benefits, and working tax credits. That is why they take people on from mandatory "workfare" schemes en-masse instead of hiring paid workers. That is why they will cut costs any way possible, even though they know it will result in a shoddy product that will have to be replaced almost immediately. Capitalism does not exist to help anyone except those who own the business in question.

Edited March 13, 2013 by LeVelocar

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

You have this underlying assumption that unless the state runs X, there is no way X will be done.

Yes, and it's a correct assumption. The small, private interests.....

 

 

What exempts the state from being classified as "private interests"? It's merely a theory that the state is on the side of the subject. In fact, it's naive and submissive to believe that state ownership/interest = public ownership/interest. Considering the extent to which we expose ourselves to government exploitation, it's a downright irresponsible assumption.

We aren't having a broad, general discussion though: we are talking about Venezuela. I'm not saying the state is inherently a tool of public good, what I am saying is that in a country where all of the resources are controlled by a very small percent of the population, and that percent of the population has yet to provide education or health care for the masses, it's absurd to think the market is somehow the way to fix Venezuela's infrastructure problems.

 

We aren't discussing our ideal education systems, here. We're talking about whether Venezuela's lack of public infrastructure should be left to the market.

I know. Which is why I felt compelled to point out your false assumption. I never said anything about the market either. This discussion just seems to have little potential to progress with such assumptions flying about (blindly advocating state power and such...especially when the state is as corrupt as Venezuela).

 

In Venezuela's case, they should actually try a real democracy for once instead of a dictatorship and maybe they'll get somewhere. By "they", I really mean the corrupt individuals that poses the wealth. It's a shame how the greedy have cloaked themselves in government authority in order to exploit the citizens of that nation. This is why I have warned against assumptions like the one you've made. It's a dangerous assumption made by many people who are eager to stick it to the capitalist and show that the public can hold power. Only they make the fatal error of entrusting the state with just about all of their rights since they've been fooled into thinking that public ownership=gov't ownership. That's all I was really saying.

 

As for how to fix things there, that's beyond me. I try to work from an economic perspective. The most moral, popular, and economic decisions aren't always the same thing. My views work from a basis of utility maximization (the most economic decision) as what's moral and popular are bound to change anyway. "There are no rules, there are only results" - Unknown

[Clem Fandango]

Not sure how I managed to open an ideological can of worms about state-power and the morality of Capitalism with my completely uncontroversial claim that spending money on education is good.

 

Not sure where all this stuff about "rights" are coming from. Venezuela's education infrastructure was underfunded. Chavez funded it. Venezuelan's have greater access to education as a result. I never made any assumption, nor did I equate the government with the the wider population, or claim that the former is always representative of the latter. I said it's a positive thing that Venezuelan's now have access to education. Someone else said that it was a negative thing, because the market should be relied on, even though Venezuela already had a laissez faire system.

[LeVelocar]

 

In Venezuela's case, they should actually try a real democracy for once instead of a dictatorship and maybe they'll get somewhere.  By "they", I really mean the corrupt individuals that poses the wealth.  It's a shame how the greedy have cloaked themselves in government authority in order to exploit the citizens of that nation.

You just described the United States.

 

Honestly, it's a far more accurate description of the United States than anywhere else in the world bar North Korea.

Edited March 13, 2013 by LeVelocar

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

 

In Venezuela's case, they should actually try a real democracy for once instead of a dictatorship and maybe they'll get somewhere.  By "they", I really mean the corrupt individuals that poses the wealth.  It's a shame how the greedy have cloaked themselves in government authority in order to exploit the citizens of that nation.

You just described the United States.

 

Honestly, it's a far more accurate description of the United States than anywhere else in the world bar North Korea.

I actually just described every political system in the world involving humans who are inherently "corrupt". However, I couldn't agree more with your statement. People here in the US love getting bent over and shafted by the government. Furthermore, anarchy is a dirty word in the US associated with violence and such, when it is really the basis of our founding. It's funny how my fellow countrymen want to reward our government for screwing up by providing it with more power and less financial regulation, while providing the populace with the exact opposite. That's for another thread; but to bring things full circle, it's all a result of this irresponsible and naive sentiment that public ownership=government ownership.

 

The government is just another corporation. It is only as legitimate as its investors (the public) perceive it to be. We (humans) have yet to find a proper political mechanism for transferring public interest to our wealth-possessing deliberative bodies. Until then, we should be suspect of ANY system demanding absolute authority. Among others, the Venezuelans had to learn this the hard way.

 

 

 

 

@Melchoir Whatever you say. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. I just corrected you on your assumption. I even quoted you saying "Yes, and it's a correct assumption", so I don't the point of you denying that you made any assumptions. I like where the discussion is going. However, the general integrity of discussion becomes compromised when assumptions start to become the framework. You just seem to hate being corrected for some reason.

Edited March 13, 2013 by canttakemyid

[sivispacem]

 

They've (thinking Norway in particular) got a lot of socialist tendencies

Are you sure about that?

 

 

socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole.

Most unlike Scandinavia, or Europe as a whole in all honesty. European nations are, as I said before, neoliberal. Socialism entirely rejects the idea of a capitalist, free-market-based economy. Europe consists entirely of capitalist, free-market-based economies, and therefore cannot be socialist.

[LeVelocar]

 

They've (thinking Norway in particular) got a lot of socialist tendencies

Are you sure about that?

 

 

socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole.

Most unlike Scandinavia, or Europe as a whole in all honesty. European nations are, as I said before, neoliberal. Socialism entirely rejects the idea of a capitalist, free-market-based economy. Europe consists entirely of capitalist, free-market-based economies, and therefore cannot be socialist.

Yes, I'm entirely sure, because I am not a dingus working in absolutes.

 

Nationalizing something is a socialist policy. That is not to say that they have full socialism, or even that such would be desirable. Even the soviets had money.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

They've (thinking Norway in particular) got a lot of socialist tendencies

Are you sure about that?

 

 

socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole.

Most unlike Scandinavia, or Europe as a whole in all honesty. European nations are, as I said before, neoliberal. Socialism entirely rejects the idea of a capitalist, free-market-based economy. Europe consists entirely of capitalist, free-market-based economies, and therefore cannot be socialist.

Yes, I'm entirely sure, because I am not a dingus working in absolutes.

 

Nationalizing something is a socialist policy. That is not to say that they have full socialism, or even that such would be desirable. Even the soviets had money.

The problem with all of these "ism"s is that they completely disregard the need to deviate from a standard formula of procedure. They lack versatility and disregard context. Different scenarios call for different approaches. This realization is undermined by the absolute nature of each "ism".

 

In theory, several systems are feasible on their own. Yet, in reality, no system can stand on its own without the influence of other systems. This is why pure capitalism, socialism, and communism never have and never will exist. So to bring things full circle, no one has "full" anything. America never even had "full" capitalism.

[sivispacem]

They've (thinking Norway in particular) got a lot of socialist tendencies

Are you sure about that?

 

 

socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole.

Most unlike Scandinavia, or Europe as a whole in all honesty. European nations are, as I said before, neoliberal. Socialism entirely rejects the idea of a capitalist, free-market-based economy. Europe consists entirely of capitalist, free-market-based economies, and therefore cannot be socialist.

Yes, I'm entirely sure, because I am not a dingus working in absolutes.

 

Nationalizing something is a socialist policy. That is not to say that they have full socialism, or even that such would be desirable. Even the soviets had money.

Then why refer to them as "socialist" when they're clearly not by any definition of the word? Especially given the near-complete lack of nationalised industry in Europe in comparison to privately owned industry. I mean, aside from occasional pieces of critical infrastructure there's no nationalised industry in Europe. So, care to explain to me how this equates to socialism?

[LeVelocar]

 

Then why refer to them as "socialist" when they're clearly not by any definition of the word? Especially given the near-complete lack of nationalised industry in Europe in comparison to privately owned industry. I mean, aside from occasional pieces of critical infrastructure there's no nationalised industry in Europe. So, care to explain to me how this equates to socialism?

I'm sorry, what?

 

No nationalised industry?

 

I know we both live in a con-dem led Randian theme park of a country, but to claim places like Norway don't have aton of nationalisation is ridiculous. The world outside our tiny little island is a very different place.

 

And your definition of socialism is broken. The NHS is an institution founded and ran (badly) on socialist principles, for example, but you're happy to claim there's no such thing just because we haven't hung Lizzie from a lamp post and destroyed the concept of money. Get real.

Edited March 14, 2013 by LeVelocar

[sivispacem]

but to claim places like Norway don't have aton of nationalisation is ridiculous. The world outside our tiny little island is a very different place.

 

And your definition of socialism is broken. The NHS is an institution founded and ran (badly) on socialist principles, for example, but you're happy to claim there's no such thing just because we haven't hung Lizzie from a lamp post and destroyed the concept of money. Get real.

As I said, government ownership relates usually to critical infrastructure. That's perfectly reasonable and logical, and a common theme across the world even in predominantly free market economies. The reason Norway possesses a disproportionately high quantity of state-owned enterprise compared to continental Europe is because the majority of it's GDP is derived from operations concerning areas of critical infrastructure- most notably natural resource exploitation in the form of extraction of Brent crude and natural gas. Norway is a glowing example of a Hybrid economy but the complete lack of current desire on the part of government organisations to expand state ownership of enterprise further than it currently extends suggests that we aren't talking about a country that can really be referred to as Socialist.

 

Similarly, the presence of a nationalised heath service is not an indicator of Socialism. Even the United States pre-Obama had some form of nationalised healthcare. In fact, I'm relatively sure it exists in every country in the world. Again, certain sectors of the economy related to critical infrastructure- of which I'd call healthcare provision one- tend to be state-run or run as a public-private-partnership as we have here in the UK, because that way it allows the government to maintain a secure monopoly on the services required to ensure the proper functioning of the nation.

[acmilano]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/16/world/am...html?hpt=ila_c1

 

Unfortunatly,Venezuela can't find some peace these days. New elections brings more violence and division.