|
Hugo...doing it again. (pg. 34)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
And that would make you a socialist no? ;) |
How do you figure? The individual doesn't even exist in an identifiable manner in a socialist construct.:confused: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
How do you figure? The individual doesn't even exist in an identifiable manner in a socialist construct.:confused: |
Of course it does! That's just a lazy assumption people make who don't actually know what socialism is!
In a capitalist society, it is impossible to be economically equal and therefore it is impossible to have equal opportunities in life because your opportunities depend on what you can afford... |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Of course it does! That's just a lazy assumption people make who don't actually know what socialism is!
|
socialism = collectivism
collectivism = opposite of individualism |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | And you come back with those two sources??? Hmmm I suppose I could respond with counter-arguments from the weekly standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...5ruylo.asp?pg=1
But I can’t stoop that low. Apparently you’ve been learning a few things from republicans … What’s next, memory hole? |
Of course you can use the Weekly Standard! And of course I will call you a neocon if you do! ;)
But, you asked me what I had criticised about Chavez and the story in the WS was what I criticised earlier (if you remember). Altho I detest the WS and would try my utmost to argue against anything it said, it's still not some individual's internet blog, so as much as I don't think "reliable" and "Weekly Standard" should ever be used in the same sentense, its at least more reliable than some two bit internet blog that is easily disputed
| quote: | “FACT”?? The only “facts” that I’m facing is you’re increasingly imitating the Bush administration in trying to defend a failed policy/stance at any expense which only digs you further into the grave while fully endorsing cognitive dissonance.
The penalty for treason in the US is legally defined as, “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Yes with those facts in mind, obviously the US would put those tv producers to death!! |
In America, would helping to organise and implement a military overthrow of the democratically elected (actually, as we're talking about America, perhaps that should be "democratically" elected) government be considered treason - yes or no?
| quote: | | What? The media did a story on corruption in the military and the government threatened to revoke their license and that’s “perfectly reasonable” with you?? |
I read that wrong - I read as if it said Chavez had warned them because Globovision were involved in corruption in the military, not that they reported on it. If that is the actually story then I will take it back what I said about it being reasonable (IF that is the story which I remain sceptical...)
You have to remember the media in Venezuela is not the same as in America or Europe. It's a whole different ball game. Altho obviously we have media companies that have political sympathies and back certain parties, they are expected to try to remain impartial and unbiassed (which a hell of a lot fail to do!). But in Venezuela there seems to be complete political polarisation in the media to the extent the media companies are directly interfering with the democratic process. Whatever you think about Chavez, if you have any concern for democracy you would certainly have concern for the actions of the undemocratic Venezuelan opposition for their lack of consideration fro the democratic process (something you falsely accuse Chavez of). Now in the UK, we have libel laws, as does the US...I think the owners of the Venezuelan opposition media companies would have their own box in the courts if they opperated in any of our two country's!
So you have to bare in mind constantly one - are reports of media censorship true or undistorted; and two - are the actions of the Venezuelan opposition media compatible with democracy?
| quote: | | Apparentely we haven’t. Can you pull the relevant information from the two articles you posted? I mean after all, you did say this to me when I asked you to respond to my argument, “Then post it again and tell me exactly what you want me to comment on because iirc I've replied twice to that post and have no intention of repeating myself if you're not going to tell me what you're on about” and I requited my arguments. Show me similar courtesy. |
I'll do it in the next post as not to confuse things...
| quote: | | C’mon Georgie, you’re completely incoherent. WTF are you talking about? If you’re referencing something I said than freaking quote it and respond to it. You presented a completely nonsensical criticism. Bringing in Spanish linguistics isn’t going to help. |
My point was that the story about it being made illegal to "insult" Chavez in the media (could this simply be libel laws?) was rather ambiguous and liek I said, I remain sceptical of the media being able to report the truth over Chavez (boy who cried wolf syndrome I guess). You asked me what I criticised, and I said this story (the WS article you posted up earlier covers the stroy in more depth). The spanish translation is because I would be interested what the ACTUAL wording of the law said, and not the interpretation of some anti-Chavez journo...
| quote: | | Dude … all my sources were REUTERS and the BBC. I posted criticism that came from the EU. What’s your excuse for all of that???. Stop with the strawmen arguments already … it’s getting pathetic. Attaching “American” to a criticism does NOT an argument make. |
The BBC doesn't accuse Chavez of being a dictator unlike the American media...In fact it's stayed pretty nuetral, making a point of saying that Chavez was elected democratically. When controvercial stuff is said about Chavez, the BBC tend to report using words such as "alleged" etc, whereas in America, you get these comments and analysise printed as facts, rather than opinions. Just the impression I get anyway.
The reason I use "American" is because America seems to be the only nation that cares that much about Venezuela, the only reason being is the economical culture that says socialism equals an evil dictator that wants to sell WMDs to terrorists to blow up New York...
| quote: | | Erm so raise taxes to pay for those initiatives rather than nationalize an efficient and performing industry that will ultimately lose more money in the long run. |
Not very often does a party who wants to raise taxes win elections!
But like I said, if your criticisms of Chavez are economical then keep it that way, don't trawl the internet for people siting political criticisms so you can use them to back up your economic criticisms... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
RCTV........
| quote: | Venezuela's Media Coup
Poor Endy Chávez, outfielder for the Navegantes del Magallanes, one of Venezuela's big baseball teams. Every time he comes up to bat, the local TV sportscasters start in with the jokes. "Here comes Chávez. No, not the pro-Cuban dictator Chávez, the other Chávez." Or "This Chávez hits baseballs, not the Venezuelan people."
In Venezuela, even color commentators are enlisted in the commercial media's open bid to oust the democratically elected government of Hugo Chávez. Andrés Izarra, a Venezuelan television journalist, says that the campaign has done so much violence to truthful information on the national airwaves that the four private TV stations have effectively forfeited their right to broadcast. "I think their licenses should be revoked," he says.
It's the sort of extreme pronouncement one has come to expect from Chávez, known for nicknaming the stations "the four horsemen of the apocalypse." Izarra, however, is harder to dismiss. A squeaky clean made-for-TV type, he worked as assignment editor in charge of Latin America at CNN en Español until he was hired as news production manager for Venezuela's highest-rated newscast, El Observador on RCTV.
On April 13, 2002, the day after business leader Pedro Carmona briefly seized power, Izarra quit that job under what he describes as "extreme emotional stress." Ever since, he has been sounding the alarm about the threat posed to democracy when the media decide to abandon journalism and pour all their persuasive powers into winning a war being waged over oil.
Venezuela's private television stations are owned by wealthy families with serious financial stakes in defeating Chávez. Venevisión, the most-watched network, is owned by Gustavo Cisneros, a mogul dubbed "the joint venture king" by the New York Post. The Cisneros Group has partnered with many top US brands--from AOL and Coca-Cola to Pizza Hut and Playboy--becoming a gatekeeper to the Latin American market.
Cisneros is also a tireless proselytizer for continental free trade, telling the world, as he did in a 1999 profile in LatinCEO magazine, that "Latin America is now fully committed to free trade, and fully committed to globalization.... As a continent it has made a choice." But with Latin American voters choosing politicians like Chávez, that has been looking like false advertising, selling a consensus that doesn't exist.
All this helps explain why, in the days leading up to the April coup, Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión and Televen replaced regular programming with relentless anti-Chávez speeches, interrupted only for commercials calling on viewers to take to the streets: "Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!" The ads were sponsored by the oil industry, but the stations carried them free, as "public service announcements."
They went further: On the night of the coup, Cisneros's station played host to meetings among the plotters, including Carmona. The president of Venezuela's broadcasting chamber co-signed the decree dissolving the elected National Assembly. And while the stations openly rejoiced at news of Chávez's "resignation," when pro-Chávez forces mobilized for his return a total news blackout was imposed.
Izarra says he received clear instructions: "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn't make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn't tell.
When Chávez finally returned to the Miraflores Palace, the stations gave up on covering the news entirely. On one of the most important days in Venezuela's history, they aired Pretty Woman and Tom & Jerry cartoons. "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chávistas," Izarra says. "[but] the information blackout stood. That's when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave."
The situation hasn't improved. During the recently ended strike organized by the oil industry, the television stations broadcast an average of 700 pro-strike advertisements every day, according to government estimates. It's in this context that Chávez has decided to go after the TV stations in earnest, not just with fiery rhetoric but with an investigation into violations of broadcast standards and a new set of regulations. "Don't be surprised if we start shutting down television stations," he said at the end of January.
The threat has sparked a flurry of condemnations from the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders. And there is reason for concern: The media war in Venezuela is bloody, with attacks on both pro- and anti-Chávez media outlets. But attempts to regulate the media aren't an "attack on press freedom," as CPJ has claimed--quite the opposite.
Venezuela's media, including state TV, need tough controls to insure diversity, balance and access, enforced at arm's length from political powers. Some of Chávez's proposals (such as an ominous clause banning speech that shows "disrespect" to government officials) overstep these bounds and could easily be used to muzzle critics. That said, it is absurd to treat Chávez as the principal threat to a free press in Venezuela. That honor clearly goes to the media owners themselves. This fact has been entirely lost on the organizations entrusted to defend press freedom around the world, still stuck in a paradigm in which all journalists just want to tell the truth and all threats come from nasty politicians and angry mobs.
This is unfortunate, because we are in desperate need of courageous defenders of a free press at the moment--and not just in Venezuela. After all, Venezuela isn't the only country where a war is being waged over oil, where media owners have become inseparable from the forces clamoring for "regime change" and where the opposition finds itself routinely erased by the nightly news. But in the United States, unlike in Venezuela, the media and the government are on the same side.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein |
| quote: | Venezuela, RCTV, And Media Freedom: Just The Facts, Please
May 29th 2007, by James Jordan
Lessons In Curtailing Media Freedom
There are a number of ways to curtail press freedom. You can charge a journalist with murder and put him on death row-Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance. You can grant special favors, privileges, and access to corporate media giants while raiding and shutting down low-power, independent radio stations, which the FCC does with some regularity. You could arrest independent journalists at anti-war demonstrations-again, a regular occurrence. For instance, I recall my friend and Indy journalist, Jeff Imig, who has been repeatedly threatened with arrest, while recording anti-war demonstrations in Tucson, Arizona, for violating the statute against filming federal buildings. Jeff finally got arrested-for jaywalking! Corporate press, on the other hand, seems to have free reign to jaywalk and film federal buildings at these same events-behavior I and countless others have witnessed!
And then there is the Mother of All Media Manipulations: the blackout engineered by the Bush administration which blocks media from showing the arrival of body bags and coffins of newly dead soldiers "coming home" from Iraq.
Those are some pretty good ways of curtailing freedom of speech. And they're each and everyone home grown right here in the good ol' United States of America.
So what's the deal with Venezuela, anyway?
So, pardon me if I'm just a little astounded by all this noise in the media, the Bush administration, the Senate and the House, about how Venezuela is "attacking" free speech and independent media by not renewing the broadcasting license of RCTV. Perhaps even more disturbing is that this ridiculous assertion is being repeated even among some persons on the Left.
Just last week the Senate passed a condemnation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' refusal to renew the license. Senate Resolution 211 was sponsored by Richard Lugar, (R-IN) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), with vocal, and disappointing, support from presidential contenders Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barak Obama (D-IL). Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) has introduced similar legislation into the House. Puerto Rico's delegate to the House, Republican Luis Fortuno has outspokenly supported this legislation, which is surprising, considering his complete lack of action or outcry when the FBI was harassing Puerto Rican journalists in 2006.
Anyway, who says bipartisanship is dead?
Joining in these condemnations are a whole host of so-called "press freedom" advocates, lead by the National Endowment for Democracy funded Reporters Without Borders. One would think that the iron hand has fallen and the crackdown has begun in Venezuela.
The facts, please?
Corporate media seems to regularly forget that along with freedom of press is the responsibility of presenting facts to back up their news reporting. Well, dear reader, you are in for a rare treat-a discussion of some actual facts.
The general situation is this: In April of 2002, there was a two-day, illegal coup carried out against Venezuela's electoral government, which involved the kidnapping and jailing of President Hugo Chavez. There were four major media outlets, along with others, who actively aided and abetted this coup (more later). In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.
Another important fact is that the heads of the media-monopoly in Venezuela, including Marcel Granier -owner of RCTV, also participated in the economic sabotage that occurred between 2002-2003. Yet, no one went to prison for endangering the country's social and economic stability.
What is truly amazing is that it has taken five years for the Chavez administration to take action in any way against media that helped carry out this coup. Certainly, if the same thing happened in the United States, it wouldn't be tolerated. Just ask Aaron Burr or Timothy McVeigh what happens when folks plot against the existing, elected government. The fact is.you don't get away with it, you get punished, and pretty severely. Getting their broadcasting licenses renewed would be the least of their problems.
When RCTV's broadcasting license came up for review, Pres. Chavez decided, after exhaustive research and study, not to renew the license. Chavez is legally responsible for renewing such licenses under laws which were enacted before he became president. The reasons given for not renewing the license cite RCTV's participation in the coup, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV's problems pre-date the Chavez administration, having been censured and closed repeatedly in previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions.
Another interesting fact is that our corporate media and distinguished Members of Congress have neglected to mention that on April of 2007 the government of Peru did not renew the broadcasting licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations for breaking their Radio and Television laws. It is obvious that Venezuela continues to be a target.
What, then, are the facts behind the charges made by the Chavez administration?
On the morning of April 11th, 2002, the first day of the coup, the anti-Bolivarian opposition had started a march from the headquarters of the state owned oil company. Across town, supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution were gathered outside the presidential palace. Breaking with its previously announced plan, the opposition changed directions and headed to the presidential palace, greatly increasing the chances of a violent confrontation between the two opposing sides.
During the midst of this confusion, shots rang out from the rooftops, where snipers were firing on both crowds, resulting in the deaths of 18 persons, with 150 wounded. Reports on the opposition's four largest TV stations indicated the violence was the result of pro-Bolivarian gunmen, and this became the immediate catalyst "justifying" the coup.
However, the testimony of eyewitnesses and videos taken from other angles show that a much different scenario was actually taking place. The following transcript is excerpted from the video documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which was produced for television in Ireland. It sheds important light on the sequence of events. Note particularly the quotation included from RCTV News Correspondent, Andre Cesara.
NARRATOR: The opposition march was fast approaching and some in the vanguard seemed ready for a fight. With thousands of Chavez supporters still surrounding the palace a confrontation seemed imminent. Then at about 2:00 p.m., we saw the opposition march arrive. The army tried to act as a buffer between the two groups. [shouting]
NARRATOR: We moved back into the heart of the Chavez crowds when all of a sudden the firing started. [sirens]
NARRATOR: We couldn't tell where the shots were coming from, but people were being hit in the head. [gunshots]
NARRATOR: Soon it became clear that we were being shot at by snipers. One in four Venezuelans carry hand guns and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from.
WITNESS (in Spanish): One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace that captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they are shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see them, they themselves are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.
ANDRE CESARA, RCTV journalist (in Spanish): Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on the unarmed peaceful protesters below.
NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn't broadcast was this camera angle which clearly shows the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez.
There is no doubt, and no dispute, that RCTV and the three other largest corporate television stations (Globovision, Venevision, and Televen) aided and abetted the ensuing coup throughout the three day period it was being carried out. They knowingly broadcast false and manipulated information, including the lies that Bolivarian supporters instigated violence against demonstrators, and that Pres. Chavez, as a result, had willingly resigned and left the country. Pres. Chavez had not resigned. He had been kidnapped and was being held prisoner by traitors within the Venezuelan military.
During all this, RCTV hosted coup plotters, including co-leader Carlos Ortega of the corrupt and US government supported labor union, the CTV, and had broadcast Ortega's appeal rallying demonstrators to march on the presidential palace.
RCTV and its partners undertook a complete blackout on reporting any news relating to the more than a million citizens who had taken to the street and surrounded the presidential palace in defense of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Rather than broadcasting this news, RCTV treated its viewers to reruns of Tom and Jerry cartoons and the movie Pretty Woman. Vice-Admiral Ramirez Perez spoke for all his fellow coup plotters when told a Venevision reporter, "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." His congratulations were premature, however, as multitudes of people in the street, with the aid of truly independent, community based media and patriots within the Venezuelan military were able to defeat this coup without firing a shot, returning Pres. Chavez to his rightful office on April 13, 2002.
On the Job at RCTV-Eyewitness, Andres Izarra Speaks
If any doubts remain as to RCTV's complicity in this coup, the voice of one of its own producers should lay them all to rest. Andres Izarra had worked as the assignment editor in charge of Latin America for CNN before being hired by RCTV as news production manager for Venezuela's highest ranked newscast, El Observador. Izarra says, quite clearly, "We were told no pro-Chavez material was to be screened". Later, RCTV officials would maintain that they could not film pro-Bolivarian demonstrations for security reasons. Even if that were true, Izarra notes, footage of these demonstrations was available from sources such as CNN. RCTV also continued broadcasting reports that President Chavez had willfully resigned and left the country, even though Izarra notes that they were receiving news to the contrary, and that Mexico, Argentina, and France had all issued statements condemning the coup and refusing to recognize the new government. Conversely, the United States welcomed this illegal government.
Izarra says the last straw came for him when, "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chavistas.[but] the information blackout stood. That's when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave". Asked what he thought the response should be to this level of disinformation, Izarra replied, "I think their licenses should be revoked". Having had enough of corporate media's complicity in blocking news reportage, Izarra now serves as head of Telesur, the joint news channel broadcast by the nations of Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Cuba.
As Patrick McElwee, of Just Foreign Policy, points out: "It is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chavez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." Despite their participation in the coup, the Chavez administration entered into repeated negotiations with RCTV and its partners, Venevision, Globovision, and Television to make sure that such crass manipulation of the news would not occur again, and about other infractions. RCTV refused to reach any agreements.
Despite the nonrenewal of its broadcasting license, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be available to RCTV; moreover they will continue to broadcast through their two radio stations in Venezuela. The new broadcasting license is being given to a public station, TVes-Venezuela Social Television, which will run shows produced mainly by independent parties. The station will be controlled not by the government, but by a foundation of community members, with one chair reserved for a government representative. TVes also hopes to reach into some of the most remote areas of the nation, not covered before by RCTV.
The coup government and media freedom-an alternative?
There is, indeed, an example that shows a real alternative to how Pres. Chavez and the Bolivarian movement deals with freedom of the media and freedom of speech. The two-day coup government of Pedro Carmona revealed that alternative.
But, first, let's quickly review the general state of media freedom in Venezuela under the presidency of Hugo Chavez. Shortly after Chavez became president, media law was reformed so that it became legal for anyone who could broadcast to do so. In the United States, many fans of underground and independent radio speak fondly of "pirate" radio-low powered, but illegal stations broadcast from small, "renegade" transmitters. There are no "pirate" radio stations in Venezuela, because such stations are legal. Rather, there is a significant Community Media movement-community based and non-profit media production centers run locally by community volunteers.
Corporate and opposition media also have great freedom in Venezuela. In fact, the radio and television airwaves, and the print media as well, continue to be dominated by corporations which support the opposition. There is no shortage of negative opinions and portrayals of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution-in fact, these remain the standard among the for-profit news and entertainment industry. This concept is strange to those of us in the United States, where official party lines and major news sources are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
But while corporate and community media both retain enormous freedoms in Venezuela, the April 11-13th, 2002 coup, and the two day coup government, provide a much different example. Once interloper Pedro Carmona had declared himself President of Venezuela, among the very first actions taken by the coup government involved the suppression of Venezuela's non-corporate media. Police troops answering to Carmona raided and shut down Channel 8, the government TV station. They ordered the Catholic Church's Radio Fe y Alegria to play only music and not report national events, lest they also be shut down. Carmona's raiders also hit a number of Community Media centers, closing down, among others, TV Caricua, Catia TV, and Radio Perola. Fortunately, reporters from Catia TV and Radio Perola were able to escape and recapture their transmitters. Because of this, they were able to provide mobile broadcasts to the people of Venezuela of the news that RCTV and its partners were blacking out.
Another action taken by the Carmona government was to release the persons who had been arrested in connection with the sniper attacks that instigated the coup. Instead, coup forces arrested independent journalist Nicolas Rivera and accused him of participating in these attacks. The only weapon Rivera had had with him during these demonstrations was a tape recorder-obviously considered a threat by coup plotters. Rivera was freed after the two-day coup was defeated and democratic government was reestablished. However, the scars of his detention remained, with his face disfigured by the torture he had endured while incarcerated. Rivera's wife said that the forces that raided their home planted a sack of bullets on Rivera, beat both of them, and threatened to kill their children. Yet despite these attacks and threats to this journalist and his family, not one, single international organization in "defense" of press freedoms spoke out on behalf of Rivera. Perhaps it was in this case that Reporters Without Borders found its border.
Also silent about these attacks on freedom of speech and press were both houses of the US Congress, both parties, the Bush administration..no, there was no resolution of any kind condemning the attacks by the coup government on these freedoms. Could that be because coup leaders were funded by Congress, via USAID and the so-called National Endowment for Democracy, and were aided, abetted, and advised by the Bush Administration, the State Department, and the US military? Just maybe these factors were an influence.
Again: the Facts
While Representatives and Senators weep bipartisan crocodile tears about supposed threats to media rights in Venezuela; while US and Venezuelan corporate press crow about the "unfair" targeting of RCTV; while even some segments of the US Left express "concern" about press freedoms in Venezuela; an examination of the facts leads one to this clear conclusion: these folks are full of a substance that emanates from the hind end of a male bovine.
Fact: not renewing the broadcasting license of coup plotters, lawbreakers, and liars like RCTV is the kind of thing it takes to defend Venezuela and make it the haven of free speech, free media, and participatory democracy that it is today.
Want to learn more about the movement to change US policy toward Venezuela?
Visit www.vensolidarity.org and be sure and join the Emergency Response Network to receive regular action alerts!
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2416 |
|
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
socialism = collectivism
collectivism = opposite of individualism |
Capitalism = you pay for education (the richer you are the better your education the better your opportunities)
Socialism = free education (wealth has no correspondence to opportunities equals economic equality) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Capitalism = you pay for education (the richer you are the better your education the better your opportunities)
Socialism = free education (wealth has no correspondence to opportunities equals economic equality) |
That has nothing to do with the point he was making. The point is that socialism is not about the individual, rather it is the system for anti-individuals.
Also, there are plenty of public schools in capitalist societies. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Thanks Shakka...for saving me time with the post above ;)
Also, nothing is "free" under socialism smiley. The costs are still there, and you are still paying for all of those so-called "freebies" through direct taxes, or through taxes that are passed on to you indirectly. We know you love to tax big business...but corporations simply shift their heavy tax burden to the middle class and the poor by charging higher prices and by paying lower wages than they otherwise would.. There is not much you can do to stop this. One way or another, everyone in a socialist country is going to pay for their "free" state benefits. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
That has nothing to do with the point he was making. The point is that socialism is not about the individual, rather it is the system for anti-individuals. |
Us two were talking about equality of opportunity (for an individual). Capitalizt quoted me so I assumed he was extending that discussion. I didn't know Capitalizt was making a completely random and off topic remark, so thanks for pointing that out.
The ironic thing is, that under "individualism" there is no economic equality. Economic freedom = economic unequality
| quote: | | Also, there are plenty of public schools in capitalist societies. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. |
There is no such thing as a purely capitalist society, which is why there are many public schools. I don't know how it works in America, but in the UK the standard are free state schools. There are also private schools where you have to pay (and I guess the students usually do better) but the vast majority go to state schools.
I assume there are free schools in America or a hell of a lot of kids wouldn't go! But I don't know if this is the norm or just for the poor or what? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | | Originally posted by George Smiley "The ironic thing is, that under "individualism" there is no economic equality. Economic freedom = economic unequality" |
damn right...freedom is far more important than equality of outcome. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Also, nothing is "free" under socialism smiley. The costs are still there, and you are still paying for all of those so-called "freebies" through direct taxes, or through taxes that are passed on to you indirectly. |
That's a fair comment (and true). The difference between you and me is that I think society as a whole has a responsibility to their fellow man to provide certain vital services such as health care or education. You seem to be suggesting that only those who have the fortune to be able to afford it should have the right to these services (or can only access substandard services).
| quote: | | We know you love to tax big business...but corporations simply shift their heavy tax burden to the middle class and the poor by charging higher prices and by paying lower wages than they otherwise would.. There is not much you can do to stop this. One way or another, everyone in a socialist country is going to pay for their "free" state benefits. |
That's why we have the minimum wage! ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
damn right...freedom is far more important than equality of outcome. |
How is economic freedom better than economic equality?!
:conf: |
|
|
|
|
