Al Jazeera: 'Venezuela Vote Result Could Impact Latin America'

Source:Al Jazeera- interviewing Pablo Pastro for this piece.

"Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is campaigning ahead of next Sunday's presidential election, where he hopes to be voted in for another term in office.  The vote will be crucial for the future of the oil-rich nation.   But the result could also affect many people far beyond Venezuela's borders, as the budgets of several Latin American countries factor in aid from Chavez's government.  Al Jazeera's Lucia Newman reports from Caracas." 

From Al Jazeera

"Al Jazeera (Arabic: الجزيرة, romanized: al-jazīrah, IPA: [æl (d)ʒæˈziːrɐ], "The Island")[3] is a state-owned[a] Arabic-language international news network of Qatar. It is based in Doha and operated by the media conglomerate Al Jazeera Media Network. The flagship of the network, its station identification, is Al Jazeera.

The patent holding is a "private foundation for public benefit" under Qatari law.[4] Under this organizational structure, the parent receives funding from the government of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence.[5][6] In June 2017, the Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, and Egyptian governments insisted on the closure of the entire conglomerate as one of thirteen demands made to the Government of Qatar during the Qatar diplomatic crisis.[7] The channel has been criticised by some organisations as well as nations such as Saudi Arabia for being "Qatari propaganda." 

From Wikipedia

I'm obviously no fan of Socialist President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. But it seems from this Al Jazeera piece (which is no right-wing news organization) that the Chavez Administration (if you want to call it that) has been giving way their oil and gas for free, to other Latin American countries with socialist government's, like Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because their ideological allies. That's Venezuelan money that was created in Venezuela, bye Venezuelans, that should be going into the Venezuelan economy, for the Venezuelan people, that instead is going to Nicaragua and Cuba, simply because those countries have socialist government's.

Norman Thomas vs Barry Goldwater: Socialism vs Conservatism (1961)

Source:WNYC- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas: the George McGovern.Bernie Sanders of his generation.

Source:The Daily Journal

“With socialism enjoying a boom right now, I thought it’d be appropriate to write a biography of the most prominent socialist during the mid 20th century. During his long career, Thomas moved the Socialist Party’s image from being a bunch of soapbox orators to an almost respected pressure movement on the left. Even into his old age, he was a tireless activist for social justice and a prolific writer throughout. The Thomas era of socialism was a testament to how social democracy evolved after the war and can teach today’s left a thing or two.

Thomas was born in 1884 in Marion, Ohio. He was the oldest of six children and his father was a Presbyterian minister. During High School, he was a paper carrier for the Marion Daily Star, a newspaper owned by none other than Warren Harding. After graduating, he attended Bucknell University, and left after 1 year after the fortune of an uncle of his allowed him to attend Princeton. After graduating in 1905, he decided to become a minister like his father. He attended the Union Theological Seminary in New York and was ordained in 1911. UTS was a bastion for the social gospel and Thomas would preach this at his congregation where he spoke out against US entry into World War I. This pacificism alienated the leaders of the Presbyterian Church of New York, and he was forced to resign.

220px-Morris_Hillquit_NYWTS.jpg

SPA Leader Morris Hillquit- Thomas’ political mentor

But as the saying goes, when one door closes, another one opens. Thomas became employed with the New York mayoral campaign of Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquit in 1917. This would be his gateway into leftist politics. After the First World War ended, he quickly moved his way up the hierarchy of the socialist movement, at a time when it was being hit hard by the Palmer Raids. He became an editor at The Nation magazine in 1920, co-director of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1922, and would go on to help found the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which became the ACLU.

He also mounted several electoral campaigns. He ran for Governor of New York in 1924, Mayor of New York City in 1925 and 1929, State Senate in 1926, and Alderman in 1927. None of these were successful.”

From Daily Kos

“Socialist Norman Thomas debates Barry Goldwater at the University of Arizona in November 1961.”

Source:Joseph Hewes- Conservative Barry Goldwater vs. Socialist Norman Thomas 

From  Joseph Hewes

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with, but what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism, not communism, or Marxism. But basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide.

Norman Thomas was debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom, pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing.

And Socialists today (even though they prefer to be called Progressives) share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary.

Norman Thomas and Bernie Sanders would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

Democratic Socialists believe you need, well a big government, according to the the (Democratic Socialist) big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector.

Socialists believe things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.