http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/news/international/bc.venezuela.nationalization.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
So Chavez is privatizing everything he can get his hands on. Of course, he's doing it "for the people". I suppose there's no gain in it for him or his party at all is there? Isn't that how Castro started? Isn't that how the Socialist Republic of Russia started, or the Communist Party of China started? Bolivia? Peru? This should be more familiar [read: CLEAR WARNING] to people in Central and South America than to anyone else. Has it ever worked? EVER? This is the moment we'll be able to look back on and say, "That's when".
I'm aware poverty and difficult living conditions are hard to swallow, especially for an extended period of time. I also realize that sometimes it takes extreme measures to pull a country out of a deep hole. [The New Deal springs to mind. That was thisclose to Socialism, and we're still paying for that little project in some ways.] However, the answer cannot be to have everyone live off the backs of those who are producing. There has to be some level of personal responsibility and reward. At least in a free market there are reasons for people to have ambition. That doesn't happen when someone knows that no matter how hard they work, they get the same as everyone else. YAY socialism!!
This lack of ambition will turn most into drones. The ones it pisses off will look for away to get over. This will lead to two classes. The ruling party and everyone else. Say what you will about socialism and it's model, there will be a ruling party. There's simply no utopia where we can all join hands and live on the commune. People need leaders. Leaders will see themselves as entitled to more than the "common man". Inevitably that leads to a ruling class. It can be a singular entity; be it a dictator, or a monarch or an emperor, or it can be as it is in China or the former Soviet Republic where the party became the old boys network.
Pure socialism is just as pie in the sky as pure Democracy. The only place either of these ideals would hold up is a place where the population is small and easily controlled. Call me crazy, but the evils of a Republic Democracy aren't as vile as the evils of socialism turned to communism anywhere. I mean honestly, who doesn't want their voice heard? Only the apathetic, or the robots.
Read the book...Atlas Shrugged. It seems almost a road map. It's gonna be a bumpy ride
11 May 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would say that Cuba worked. Of course I prefer living in Canada, but if you compare Cuba to other Caribbean countries, with its great literacy and quality health care, I'd rather live there. for that matter, in many ways, China worked too.
I have to disagree. I suppose it depends on your definition of success. I would say that the goal of socialism/communism is to wipe out class inequalities and evenly distribute the wealth/services of a society. A fine goal indeed. Misguided, but not evil by any means.
I don't think that those goals were obtained in either of the places you mentioned. While a high literacy rate is a victory for Castro's legacy, it's not exactly helping to pay the bills. Without the support of the Soviet Union, the average Cuban (which there should be no need for the distinction "average Cuban" if communism was working) is not living as well as they should be. China has more dirt poor than anywhere else (except maybe India). They are starting to modify their government to infuse aspects of democracy to allow some wealth to be obtained by the individual. That takes away from the communist argument.
You said it best yourself, you'd rather stay in Canada then move to either of those places. I think that sums it up nicely.
Thanks for the comment... I always welcome an intelligent conversation with someone with a differing opinion. Especially when they don't get personally offended when we do disagree.
Post a Comment