If service means what you say, then you're absolutely right. I think of manufacturing and writing programs as a form of service. It's doing things that help other people, meet their needs, and create a wealthy world. I find an energy in the notion of putting my heart into really helping people, trying to make something people are happy to pay well for. I call it service. I definitely see how the word could be misconstrued.

It's not a matter of giving them the word. It defines the basis of their ethics. The economy is based on trade for mutual benefit, i.e., profit, not on service, and there are a lot more components to the economy than the so-called "service sector". (Why not say that the Venezuelans "want to manufacture" or "grow" or "write programs"?) Why focus on "service" at all about an article that was about people fleeing for their lives?

Service as an ethical primary should be rejected regardless of whether it is forced. Don't voluntarily accept or sanction an ethics of sacrifice in the name of voluntarism, as if politics were the only issue. Once that is done, the politics and the force follow, but serving others is a destructive basis of ethics, voluntarily accepted or not. Every ethics, including altruism, is accepted voluntarily when it is believed, and the notion of serving others as an ethical principle is destructive to one's life regardless of what others do to impose more of it.

""Service" in the sense of something provided in a trade is a different concept than the ethical injunction and motive to serve others as a primary or a complete end in itself."
Right. I won't give collectivists the word. We're not the minority. Most people don't want to be forced with guns, manipulation, or pity into serving one another. They've re-defined it so when I even used the word "serve" it spawns this long discussion about whether we can use "serve" in the sense of a "service station". I support "service". I don't support arm-twisting, appeal to sympathy, being hit up for help/money. There are plenty of words for collectivists' forced service. We're about living life, being happy, serving one another in mutual deals that work for all parties involved. That's where our society's amazing wealth comes from. It's what appears to be wrong in Venezuela: People are eager to serve one another, but people with guns won't permit them to do it unless it's under threats, manipulation, etc.

Argentina and the US had the same per capita GDP at the beginning of the 20th century, but Argentina is far poorer now.

The political thing at the end is nonsense though. If it were true, the deficit, which has been shrinking for the past seven years, would start shrinking faster now the Republicans control the government. Instead it will go up. The video has the political parties reversed.

I know, it was a brain glitch. I thought I'd just leave for a laugh. We need more laughs these days.

South American continent

Indeed. More frequently, I encounter the delusional notion that the only reason socialism has not been successful is due to the restraints that keep it from being "properly" implemented.

But in a socialist or mixed economy. That is how failing social systems are propped up and rationalized as "working".

Those countless individuals and businesses are acting in a capitalistic manner.

The insiders exploiting the power are stealing, but not the countless individuals and businesses who are still producing and trading in spite of the controls, with no choice but to try to function within the system imposed on them.

Propped up or supported it is a cancer on the economy and it always is a failure. I guess prosper could be a word to describe the ill gotten gains from cronyism I call it theft.

It fails but can be propped up for a while by productive people inside or outside of it who continue to try to help it. Some "prosper" for a while at the expense of others, whether crony fascists or isolated businesses selling into it while it still functions at all. That is how mixed economies survive and outright dictatorships survive too long, but that occurs due to productive individuals paying and working for it. The socialism itself contributes nothing and is morally and economically destructive.

Just because it exists along side capitalism, a little socialism is still a failure. It never produces positive results. Socialism fails every time because it is fundamentally and philosophically flawed.
Prosperity is never the result of collectivism.

It depends on how much they understand. If they don't understand the fundamental cause of their plight they may want to return and re-implement socialism in a "better" way. The false ethical beliefs are what drives people to continue promoting collectivism as an ideal regardless of its historical wake of disaster.

A duty to sacrifice to others as an end in itself is altruism. That is the realm of ethics. Socialism is the political result and implementation.

"Service" in the sense of something provided in a trade is a different concept than the ethical injunction and motive to serve others as a primary or a complete end in itself.

A "service worker" as someone who works in a restaurant or hotel, or a "service station" as the old name for a gas station, were not the concept of ethics expressing altruism.

The article is about mass escapes because the people can't survive, not about anyone wanting to serve others. That is not semantics. Words stand for concepts. Prosperity requires trade, not service to others. Socialism requires the opposite and is based on a moral duty of service. The politics doesn't sprout out of a vacuum. Whatever different Venezuelans understand about that in whatever degree, the article is about their trying to escape the very visible consequences.

They believe in collectivism but don't like the results, not seeing the connection. They don't realize their ideology makes the destruction possible. Whether or not they deserve the results depends on how honest they are in looking for the right ideas.

"socialism (people serving one another)"
Socialism is NOT the same as service, by my definition. Serving people in some form of slavery is just one type service, a perverted, evil type. Most service in the world is voluntary. I know socialists will say things like it's not really service if you're want to do it and benefit from it. They'll say if you have fun doing something and made money serving clients, you must have stolen from the fixed pie of happiness and value in the world. I won't give them the word.

Yes , more power to them and all individuals.

That a different spin.

Now THIS is interesting, "Prosperity requires people serving one another." I say that because I was thinking that we see that a little socialism (people serving one another) repeatedly managing to function where there is prosperity (a strong free economy). But, it appears that Socialism always fails when not surrounded by a strong free economy that provides the excess wealth to feed from. I know - semantics. And, it depends on our definition of "prosperity". Been a long week.....

Exactly.

“not that that they want to serve others”
This is an issue of semantics, but I insist on saying it how I said it. Prosperity requires people serving one another. We can do it freely for ourselves or under some kind of coercion: money or guns. These people are fleeing guns, and what's the first thing they do according to the article? They make money however they can.

This reminds me. I recently hit the half-century mark. Feeling a little older (finally). The more I see this kind of thing now, I'm finding that it really bothers me. I see it even here where I live. I see women begging, and so many people here now just sleeping on the sidewalk. I see these people and, as a father I suppose, I'm deeply saddened by it. Strange to explain. I recently saw a photo in an article about how many parents in Venezuela are abandoning their kids to the government because they can't feed them anymore(?) I couldn't bring myself to actually read the article. Too troubling a concept. Somebody gave me a book about the young man who, after being born in a labor camp in N. Korea, managed to escape and come to the U.S. I didn't bother to read that, either. I just shelved it. I've gotten to the point in my life where I'm thinking, "Yeah. Things are really messed up. People are being royally hosed by 'leaders'. By way of our low value towards children we are now not valuing anybody. I get it. I can't help." When the establishment tells you that you can help, they just want your resources (altruism). All this is manifested in what we're seeing in Venezuela - just the absolute hell-on-earth environment brought on when people lose track of the sanctity of life...

They may want to serve one another. You can't do that in their system, apparently. They can't even protect themselves very well. Sad.