buffalo Loc: Texas

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/7/1362655807377/Venezuela-key-indicators--001.jpg

Denmark
Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less.

Finland
Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Whereas in the Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist welfare system remains. The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized, where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely.

Canada
Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings.

Sweden
Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is not a member of the European Union.

Ireland
Ireland has arguably one of the best welfare systems in the world, with unemployment checks higher on average than Denmark or Switzerland’s average. Around 25 percent of Ireland’s GDP goes towards paying for the welfare system, as compared to 15 percent of America’ GDP towards America’s social support programs.

son of witless

These are Utopia states. They have lived under the nuclear umbrella of the United States since the end of WW2, so they get to spend their military budgets on welfare. Even with this they are collapsing. You continue to live in your fantasy, the rest of us must live in reality. Venezuela is where they are all heading if they don't get their heads out of their butts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128485416

buffalo Loc: Texas

First, let me say I am not defending or advocating "socialism". What I AM trying to expose is the truth of the situation. And no one here can deny that this sounds just like what the corporations in America have done. They control the food supply, oil production, the mass media, and control over the largest military force in the world...the military industrial complex that is fueled by constant illegal, unConstitutional, immoral war, regime changes, and economic subjugation of the citizens of countries they have invaded for the benefit of their corporate masters, of course, always done in the name of spreading democracy or for the sake of "national security".

Just what is it that Chavez did? From the article: "Chavez took office on a platform advocating a path between capitalism and socialism. He restructured the government-owned oil company so that the profits would go into the Venezuelan state, not the pockets of Wall Street corporations. With the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil exports, Chavez funded a huge apparatus of social programs."

Oh, did he piss Wall Street corporations off? He was certainly no friend of GW or obammy.

"In 1998, Venezuela had only 12 public universities, today it has 32. Cuban doctors were brought to Venezuela to provide free health care in community clinics. The government provides cooking and heating gas to low-income neighborhoods, and it’s launched a literacy campaign for uneducated adults.

During the George W. Bush administration, oil prices were the highest they had ever been. The destruction of Iraq, sanctions on Iran and Russia, strikes and turmoil in Nigeria — these events created a shortage on the international markets, driving prices up."

Oil accounts for about 95% of Venezuela's export revenues and was used to finance some of the government's generous social programmes which, according to official figures, have provided more than one million poor Venezuelans with homes.

The lack of oil revenue has forced the government to curtail its social programs, leading to an erosion of support among its core backers."

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-led-economic-war-not-socialism-tearing-venezuela-apart/218335/

From The Nation:

"Yet there is clear evidence that the economic war is real, and is one of the factors behind the current crisis. This suggests that, as pro-government sources have claimed, there are parallels between Venezuela’s current situation and the crisis that confronted Chile in the early 1970s due to Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s efforts to “make the economy scream” to bring socialist president Salvador Allende down.

The second facet of the economic war is the damage to Venezuela’s economy wrought by US government actions. The most visible recent example (but by no means the only one) was President Obama’s March 9, 2015, executive order declaring that “the situation in Venezuela” poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” This order, which was renewed this past March, placed sanctions on seven high-ranking Venezuelan government officials accused of human rights abuses and corruption.

According to Alex Main, a senior associate for international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “Contacts in the financial sector have noted that the U.S. Treasury Department has strongly urged investors and bankers to avoid making loans to the Maduro government. Recent U.S. sanctions targeting Venezuelan officials also serve to discourage U.S. and European banks from doing business with Venezuela.” Recent US actions have had a considerable and highly detrimental impact at a time when Venezuela is in desperate need of dollars but is prevented from gaining access to them by Washington, which has made little secret of its support for Venezuela’s anti-government opposition.

Chavistas believe the opposition is reluctant to reveal its true plans because they would be so unpopular; they’re rumored to include full-scale privatization of the economy and a painful agreement with the IMF. It is far from clear that such actions are what Venezuela needs to get back on track."

Counterpunch:

"Any country that has oil or the pipeline routes, and a government that is in noncompliance with the U.S. Empire oil policies, then that government is a marked government for regime change. It really does not matter to the Empire’s foreign policy objectives if that marked country is capitalist, fascist, totalitarian, or theocratic; an oligarchy, monarchy or a democracy. Nor do the human rights record of any country matter to U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Any government that uses its oil wealth for the benefit of its own people will sooner or later become a marked government for regime change. Any government that decides to sell its oil in other than U.S. dollars will be a marked government by the Empire. By definition any oil rich socialist government will be marked. Venezuela has a socialist government that controls its own oil, uses that oil for the benefit of its own people and does not sell that oil exclusively in U.S. dollars. Its government is marked for regime change, it has been for a long time and it is under siege now by the Empire.

Looking at U.S. oil policy one realizes that there is no Empire foreign policy contradictions. It does not matters to the Empire if the country is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Mexico or Canada. The policy is the same and there is no squawking about democracy and human rights as long as a foreign government stays compliant. That is why there is no contradiction for the Empire if a marked government for regime change is a democratically elected governments such as Syria in 1949, Iranian in 1953, Guatemalan in 1954, Chile 1973, Haiti 1991, and Honduras 2009.

A democratically elected socialist government of an oil rich nation that uses its oil for social programs and sells that oil in other than U.S. dollars will definitely be on the Empires hit list. That is why the U.S. Empire has Venezuela in its crosshairs, under siege, and is using overt and covert forces to overthrow the government of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

The form of government and human rights only enters the Empire’s foreign policy equation when it is dealing with a marked government for regime change. A marked government will never be democratic-enough, and their human rights will always have the spotlight shined on it and criticized. Democracy and human rights are only important if they serve a propaganda purpose, no matter how democratic the government is or what its human rights record. The Fake News is the Empire’s best and faithful propaganda horn that will toot that the marked country is not democratic-enough and violates it peoples human rights.

Once U.S. foreign policy objectives are understood vis-a-vis oil, then one can have a rational understanding of why Venezuela and its oil is so important to the U.S. Empire. It is not about democracy and human rights. Get that straight in your mind.

The only reason the Empire has Venezuela under siege is because of the oil. Are there any questions?"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/21/venezuela-under-siege-by-u-s-empire/

Chavez didn't and Maduro isn't playing by the rules of the Empire. Socialism is not Venezuela's problem.

When all else fails, the empire will invade militarily to enforce it rules...is that next for Venezuela?

son of witless

I dispute almost every single word you just wrote. Why do you gloss over the tyranny of Chavez ? He nationalized everything and ran it into the ground. Venezuela has been through periods of low oil prices before and they did not end up like this. But okay lets us stick with the oil industry of that unfortunate nation. Do you even know what he did to it ? I do not think so. He fired all of the competent managers and put incompetent yes men in charge.

Blame it all on low oil prices. Like call fantasies there is a kernel of truth in it, but even if prices rebound Venezuela and it's people are screwed because of Socialism, period.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/21/venezuela-should-be-rich-but-its-government-has-destroyed-its-economy/?utm_term=.63d7ac9aa3a7

buffalo Loc: Texas

And why do you listen to and believe the lies and propaganda of the fake news controlled by the Empire? Or are you saying what the US did on behalf of the Empire in Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, Haiti in 1991, Iraq in 2003, Honduras in 2009, and Libya in 2011 didn't happen?

Again, I am not defending or advocating socialism, just seeing the truth of what US "foreign policy" has done under the guise of spreading democracy and "national security".

The Empire will bring Venezuela to its knees economically or, if that doesn't work, invade militarily to bring them in compliance with the Empire's rules. All in the name of democracy and human rights, of course.

son of witless

" And why do you listen to and believe the lies and propaganda of the fake news controlled by the Empire? "

I believe that exact opposite of every single word you just wrote. I doubt there is any further point to this conversation as both of us will not listen to the other. I hope your holidays are pleasant. Chow.

JoyV

Socialism: 1- a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be collectively owned. Usually by the government. 2- social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

Hallmarks of socialism include the philosophy that the needs of society are considered more important than the needs of the individual. Another is centralization. Another is public vs private ownership. And another is centralized distribution of resources. Another is single party system or parties which have few effective differences.

Denmark: Decentralized. Constitutional monarchy, with the monarch's signature required for any bill to become law. So the monarch is not just a figurehead. The monarch also has the power to appoint or dismiss any government official up to and including the Prime Minister. Though this is rarely exercised. There are 9 political parties. While the largest is the Socialist Democrat Party, that hardly makes the nation as a whole socialist.

Finland: Their government is a representative parliament. Their parliament is dominated by secular conservatives. They have 8 diverse political parties.

Canada: Parliamentary Monarchy. The monarch has authority over all institutions of government. Legislation is semi decentralized and divided between federal and provincial.

Sweden: While the current Swedish government fits closest so far as a socialist government, it has only been in effect since 1975. It has an export based economy which while strong now, can only remain so under its current form of government while natural resources are abundant. If it keeps exporting lumber and other natural resources at the rate it is now, those resources will inevitably be depleted. While equality is a hallmark of socialism, Sweden has had widening inequities since its current government has been in effect. Lets see how successful it is when it has been around for more than a few decades.

Ireland: Ireland was a country which had been poor and struggling until it adopted a free market system (in other words a capitalist society) with a low corporate tax rate. Yup. LOW taxes for corporations. One of the things liberals, socialists and progressives have been opposed to.

So of your examples, only one is mostly fundamentally socialist. Sweden. And Swedish socialist form of government has only been around for 40 years. Minimum hourly wage is well below the average for the EU. As low as 5 Euros per hour. Crime rate is high. A large drug problem. So as of now, Sweden seemed to be a great success. But its success is becoming less so over time. Not to mention they do not need a strong or even average sttrength military as we protect them along with many other nations. So without needing to spend for defense, there is more money for other things. If they weren't protected by us, their "success" would collapse.

AS for the US causing the internal problems in Venezuela. Get real. So oil prices are lower. That at the most would cause some reduction in spending. There is no embargo. Nor are there US troops destroying infrastructure or blowing up oil fields. Venezuela got wealthy and had a high quality of life during capitalism. Its citizens had high wages. Cost of living was low. Anfd this was while outside profit making corporations were operating with little restriction. Only AFTER capitalism was overturned and foreign corporations thrown out, did cost of living and far worse begin. Like many who see big business as a boogyman out to destroy the people; you can't understand reality. Corporations only succeed when they make a profit. To make a profit you must have a product in demand and employees wanting jobs. Destroying the employees society is counterproductive to making a profit.

JoyV

And how bout how the tax bill passing which will make the rich richer also making the middle class richer. Have you seen how many new jobs being created already? How much pay raises for middle class? How much corporate spending on charities and social issues? And hundreds of thousands of bonuses of one to two thousand dollars. This all on top of how much the economy was already improving even without the tax cut due to reversing some of the thousands of regulations businesses had to comply with to operate in the US. Middle class wage earners will pays hundreds to thousands of dollars less in taxes. But I'm sure if you really want to pay higher taxes, you can donate the difference to Uncle Sam.