Brands Of Socialism.

Brands of socialism



Published May 5, 2005



During the last week in April, politics in Latin America centered on two separate and different views of socialism.

In Havana, the more radical element met to insult and make fun of the United States, to attack American-led plans for the establishment of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, and to call for others in the hemisphere to join their vision of a hemisphere free of American imperialist influence.

Almost simultaneously, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embarked on a four-country tour of American allies in the region -- two of them governed by moderate socialist presidents. In Brazil, she met with President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva's foreign minister, Celso Amorim, and agreed on a broad outline of the problems that plague the hemisphere. She even elicited a statement by "Lula" decrying the acrimony of U.S.-Venezuelan relations and promising he would try to help tone down the rhetoric.

From there Rice went to Chile, where she announced that the United States would vote for Interior Minister Jose Miguel Insulza for secretary general of the Organization of American States at this past Monday's meeting in Washington. Insulza obtained the American vote reluctantly, after its two first choices failed to get the needed majority among the member nations. Still, in Chile, where socialist Ricardo Lagos governs, the United States is an important trading partner and close ally.

In Havana, the meetings of the radical socialists began at midweek with bilateral talks between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his Cuban counterpart, Fidel Castro. They announced that Venezuela would increase to 100,000 barrels daily the amount of oil it sells Cuba at subsidized prices. Chávez announced that Venezuela would open an office in Havana to run its Caribbean petroleum operations from the Cuban capital and that a Venezuelan bank would also open an affiliate to grant up to $400 million in soft loans to businesses in the island.

The party grew by the weekend when other socialists with Marxist ideals gathered to rail against the "American-imposed" FTAA. Instead, they announced a new free trade zone outside of the U.S. sphere of influence and invited others in the hemisphere to join.

It was a joyous affair in Havana. They said Brazil had rejected American requests to pressure Chávez to moderate his anti-American rhetoric. Chávez repeated publicly that while he may say he leads a Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, what he actually means is that his government has embarked on leading Venezuela to socialism, similar to the kind Castro imposed in Cuba. They said the United States had been defeated in its efforts to impose its candidate as secretary general of the OAS, and that socialist presidents govern both Chile and Brazil.

Castro and Chávez are technically right. Both "Lula" and Lagos are socialists. Much has been made of the fact in the American media. Yet there is a vast difference between the brand of socialism that Lula and Lagos practice and the kind that Chávez and Castro would like to see come to power throughout the hemisphere.

It is important to note the difference.

Brazil's government under "Lula" has practiced extremely conservative economic policies, worthy of praise even by Wall Street bankers. Chile already is an active member of the North American Free Trade Agreement, along with the United States, Mexico and Canada. Trading partners can disagree on politics, as Chile, Mexico and Canada did when the United States decided to go to war in Iraq. Still, no rational analyst would dispute the statement that relations among these countries are good.

Chile may have a socialist president, but he embraced the free-market economic model his predecessors have been perfecting for over two decades. It is a country whose economy is built on two strong pillars -- free enterprise and free trade.

Now, let Castro and Chávez explain what their brand of socialism has in common with the conservative economic policies of Brazil, or those practiced by a socialist president strengthening a free-market democratic society in Chile.

No one can deny that the United States has problems in Latin America. It has many. Yet facing a united socialist alliance in the hemisphere is not one of them, at least not for the time being. Brazil and Chile are not enemies of the United States, nor are they likely to become so in the future.

Guillermo I. Martínez is a journalist who resides in South Florida. His e-mail address is: Guimar123@aol.com.

 

.

 

I recently read where Chavez was supposed to put in place a brand of socialism different from Castro's. I'd like to see how different it would be from Castro's considering how close these two seem to be.

 

Well this article really opened my eyes, cor blimy just imagine that there could be different brands of socialism, I tell you I nearly fell off my chair with the god darn surprise of it all.

Fucking hell just who is this Guillermo I. Martínez and do you think that there are no books on politics in the whole of South Florida?

 

To me it's another example of how several Socialist politicians and countries have moved towards free market approaches to their economies and away from the type of state control of the economy you see with Castro. China and Vietnam have made similar free market reforms.

 

There is something that I’ve noticed – it would seem that many Americans see the default setting of ‘socialism’ (or even ‘left wing’ governments) as some type of hard-line communism. They then claim that anything less than this is a victory of the ‘free market’ (or even the ‘American way’).

The thing is that they are usually very vague on their definition of exactly what is meant by ‘free market’ (or the ‘American way’ come to that).

This can lead to many Americans seeing any policy undertaken by any government that they personally don’t define as being ‘free market’ as ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’.

Such thinking can end up with any government being called ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ for supplying any social provision based on taxation however small.

**

So Motion, at what point is the right equilibrium reached? Is there a point were you would say that “free market reforms” had gone to far and there needed to be more socialism?

 

Well myself I do try to keep in mind the difference between the state socialism of a former Soviet Union and the Socialism found in countries like Sweden,where they try to combine capitalism with a socialist welfare state.

To me a free market economy is one that's consistent with it's basic or more common definition. An economy largely controlled by individuals and private companies instead of the government. Where people are free to decide how they will earn and spend their income,and where companies choose which goods and services to produce and how much to charge and how much to pay employees etc. All of these things along with enforcement of property rights,the rule of law and rooting out corruption.

I'd say that With the above free market elements in place,each country will decide on how they choose to use the wealth that's generated from a free market through taxation. I really don't have no big problems with the Nordic countries just as long as they are allowed to make changes in the economy when they see certain things aren't working well. Because from what I've read,the welfare states that they have can be challenging when it comes to funding and managing them. Issues related to the funding and managing of Sweden's welfare state are big in Sweden's upcomming election.

 

I believe it's called (by some) decentralized communism.

Decentralization has always been the most important goal as far as I can tell...but how do you decentralize and keep the social programs running?
Am I spelling decentralization right?

 

Pure socialism actually works to some degree in these South American countries because that's all they have. The west has deliberately indebted these countries, keeping them impoverished and at third-world status. It's not simply the leadership in these countries, as the media would have you believe. . . there is an intentional agenda by the globalists and the elite-controlled central banks to keep these countries impoverished. This is discussed in detail within the pages of John Perkins' New York Times Bestseller, titled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

People like Chavez are understandably seen as heroes to their country's people because they are standing up against the corruption of western capitalist exploitation that has kept them down for so many years. It's easy to see why Chavez wants to rid his country of these exploitative corporations. And because people like Chavez are willing to stand up against pigs like Bush, they are often targeted by countries such as the US for assassination. There is much talk in the news lately about not only military intervention in more countries in the Middle East, but now South American countries as well.

And don't think I am defending socialism. I am simply defending countries that are willing to stand up against the globalists and their expolitative ways.

This might also be a tad bit off topic from the original thread, but I felt like adding it anyway.

 

Where would you fit Chile into this?

 

Motion

Thank you, for a clear reply.

 

Rat

Pure socialism actually works to some degree in these South American countries because that's all they have.

What is "pure socialism"? What do you mean by "that's all they have"?

**

And don't think I am defending socialism. I am simply defending countries that are willing to stand up against the globalists and their expolitative ways.


But according to your ‘conspiracy theory’ about a shadowy world wide secret government, socialism is an invention of the exploitative globalists who make up part of this conspiracy. If I got it right don’t you think that Karl Marx was commissioned by this conspiracy to write about socialism? And don’t you believe that the shadowy conspirators secretly run socialist political parties and group throughout the world? That it is a ‘manufactured opposition’ to the conspirator’s evil plans?

So how can you also think that socialism (of the pure or other kind) is standing up to "globalists and their expolitative ways"?

**

 

The United States is, for all intents and purposes, a socialist country. Since the days of the "New Deal", the US has been transitioning towards a socialized government and economy. Any doubt-look at your taxes and where the money goes. Both of the major parties will continue to take and redistribute wealth unless they are stopped by force. We even have the oligarchy, elite, mega-quasi-governmental corporations and thirst for expansion so common to most socialist countries. Soon the transition will be complete. I doubt many of the cows out there will even notice. I find it ironic that the countries that tried socialism and failed are now transitioning towards a more free-market capitalist paradigm, while the US, which has profited so richly from free-market captialism, becoming the world's dominant power, is throwing it all away to go down the failed path of socialist misey.

 

Chaves is just castro butt budies neither 1 gives a fuck about the theyr own country . the few remaining communist in cuba are stomac communist they agree with anything castro regime saids so they get the extra food coupons or points so they can upgrade@ replace a TV or fridge . The rest of the cubans 99% wishes castro and his brother and the little elite group in power of the military would simply die or vanish from the cuban soil. Cubans in general never worry much about border wars or invasion so cubans did not need a lots of private own firearms but castro made sure they were all rounded up in the early 1960s is very hard to revolt with a machete against a 30 round AK 47. theres is fear among castro top dogs since they know theyr heads well fall if a major military coup accurs but they have learn a lot from the 1930s Nazis . anything that moves out of place the cuban gestapo knows about it.

 

Cubans workers made more money per hour than a german worker did in 1959. the cuban peso was worth equal to a U.S dollar in 1959. cuba still have more paved roads than any country in central or south america "but this were built before castro" Cuba most popular beaches like world known Varadero Beach where billioner Dupont used own a beach front Mansion Home is now off limit for cubans nationals . only turist are allowed in . there goes the socialist and communist theory down the toilet. OF course Chaves dont mention this back in Venezuela.

 

and of course they use any terrorist act or a isolated major crime to try to pass antigun laws of course Waco and Ruby Ridge did put a big dent on theyr efforts but many americans really have no ideas what really went on at waco or R ridge and other soon forget by the trash that the media keeps pumping out everyday = forget the schools they dont teach anything if anything they get brain washed . look how well the germans were brain washed after ww2 by the russians and allies.

 

Rob


Thank you for making an earlier point but please describe your ‘socialist’ free government?

 

That's my whole point--the government is systematically reducing freedom and moving toward a more socialist paradigm. One need only look at the US government, economy, tax structure and society to realize that the US is becoming a socialist nation. The Constitution no longer applies; all domestic interests are subverted in favor of a socialist concept of globalism. I don't believe it is part of some conspiracy, but it is clearly happening. So called conservatives, such as bush and his flunkies, are anything but. Under their watch government has expanded more than under any other era besides the "new deal" and he tosses the sheep $300 "refunds" on their taxes while he spends to heretofore unseen levels. Government is increasingly intrusive in not only business but personal liberties, and a centrally-planned economy is near. There is no such thing as a socialist free society. THe US is becoming increasingly less free. National ID, further restrictions on rights guaranteed by the Constitution-they're here, and they're getting worse.

 

AND once they manage to take all your firearms away you are totally screw.

 

You are right about that. It's just a matter of time. Look how many controls already exist. In some states, it is essentially illegal to own a firearm. They just keep chipping away...