Let's cut the crap about capitalism.

This nonsense about 'corporate capitalism' and 'predatory capitalism' is a waste of adjectives. It is Capitalism, plain and simple, stop making excuses. Just because it's showing it's teeth doesn't make it any different than it was the day before. Regulate, you say. How's that working out for ya? The Roosevelt boys both tried their hands at that, it works until you turn your back. Every time it is shackled it burst loose with renewed vigor and rapacity. Such is the nature of the beast, the pursuit greater profits will not be thwarted, it is mandated by the system. The greed which some bemoan as being the problem is secondary, when the system rewards greed then greed is what you get.

So please, let's stop the parsing. If you're OK with the roller coaster ride which is inescapable with the capitalist system, the periodic misery, the institutional injustice, the imperialism, the degraded life support services of Earth and the collapse of biodiversity then by all means, declare yourself. Likewise, if you're ready for something completely different then say so and say it loudly, so that we know how strong we are. The time is coming when there will be no viable middle ground, the only thing on the center line is roadkill.

Which side are you on?

:eyes:

The state has merged with the corporations, but we all get a cut.

Boy is she ever right.

However, capitalism screwed from the git go. It is a system predicated upon exploitation of one large class by one small class. With capitalism injustice and ecological wreckage are inherent, not aberrations.

elegant

Or it just wasn't "inherent" there? :eyes:

And how exactly is capitalism predicated upon (not just merely tends to result in, but is predicated upon) "exploitation of one large class by one small class"?

All human systems are subject to corruption, and I'd rather suffer the corruption of modern capitalism (although maybe with a good dose of democratic socialism, like in Sweden or Denmark) than anything that's ever resulted in the real world so far when rabid anti-capitalists get into power.

There were abuses of power during the Stalin years and ecological damage due to a too literal copying of capitalist industrial methods.

However, one must consider what the capitalists west was doing at the same time. The treatment of people of color in this country, for example. The treatment of colonial peoples wasn't exactly pretty. And western industry didn't even pretend to be green back then, which is why an environmental movement got started in the first place. so let's not have a double standard.

Yes all human endeavor is susceptible to corruption. The striking thing about Capitalism is that it out front endorses and rewards greed, so that is what you get, and it is not an aberration from the system at all.

Apparently all of capitalism's faults are inherently capitalism's faults, but when communism goes bad it's because it's trying to imitate capitalism?

Greed, unfortunately, is universal. Capitalism merely harnesses greed more effectively. It also does a good job of harnessing virtues like innovation and hard work (not that there aren't plenty of distortions in the relationship between effort and reward). Communism and socialism (non-democratic socialism -- "socialism" is a much abused word, and democratic socialism, such as in Sweden, which still has plenty of capitalism, is something I'm fine with) don't make people less greedy, they just leave greedy people fighting over the lesser spoils of an inefficient system, fighting more over power and privilege instead of money.

I'd be more willing to entertain recommendations of socialism and communism if there were historical examples of great success. Where are those examples? Or are there just bunches of excuses about why these things haven't been done the "right" way before?

Systems for organizing human society where life would be great if everyone were to jump on the bandwagon and follow the rules of one of those particular system are a dime a dozen. Communism, socialism, Confucianism, Catholicism, Islam... all of them would work marvelously if 99% of the population played along as good communists, socialists, Confucianists, Catholics, Muslims, etc. The beauty of capitalism is that a lot of capitalistic behavior comes naturally to people, and not everyone has to be a good capitalist for capitalism to work.

Regulated capitalism with a decent social safety net is, as far as real-world examples go, as good as it gets in my opinion. Capitalism will be abused, there will always have to be an ongoing fight to reign in the expected abuses, to keep regulations up to date, to fight the corrupting connections between money and political power. Every system is subject to abuse and requires constant vigilance, however.

soviet socialism or the nearly complete degradation of the environment under Soviet socialism.

Whatever faults might be found with the Soviet Union it was a people's state, not run for the benefit of an elite.

You grossly exaggerate the environmental damage. There was some bad shit, to be sure, which may for the most part be attributed to taking capitalist methodology too far, but that must be compared to the damage done by capitalism in the same period, worldwide.

Please don't try to imagine what I've seen, you are incapable.

and have done a fair bit of travel. Of Russia I have only read. But I have seen what capitalism has done throughout this country and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. I think it fair to say that the tragedy of the Aral Sea is equaled or exceeded by the pitiable condition of the Chesapeake Bay, an exquisite body of water which fed a multitude, reduced to not much more than a sewer by capitalist agriculture and sprawl.

the Soviet govt. would inflict on the Soviet people.

No, the Aral sea is FAR worse off than the Chesapeake Bay. And I work to protect the bay.

He was a brilliant revolutionary, but he was a loggerheads with Stalin over the direction of the revolution, did have a large ego and was caught playing party politics way too deeply and endangered the whole revolution thereby.

You don't remember what the Bay was like. When you can't get a decent harvest of crabs or oysters from that water things are far gone indeed. A friend who works for NOAA has told me that the death spiral is unabated.

going into it from the southern branch of the Elizabeth River.

how much of Russia can you have seen or remember?

Yes there were bad spots back then, Baltimore harbor for example, but nearby waters and the Bay in general were productive as hell.

<>

http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/11211/chernobyl-disaster-20-years-later/

There is no credibility to this notion that we can select various choices, choose a system, from some buffet table.

This is a product of cold war propaganda and McCarthyism - "they have system A, we have system B - choose one and only one."

Your argument is like saying "we can't outlaw murder, because no alternative system would ever stop murder."


...

Point is, doesn't matter what economic system we operate under, people will still attempt to corrupt it to their own benefit. We'll still need regulation. And people will still try to run away with the money bags when your back is turned. Socialism, capitalism, communism - doesn't matter. It's all corruptable.

organized crime, that is...

BUT the victims are being ignored.

Blamed.

SUFFERING.

True.

I say leave it to religion to perfect human nature. "It is all corruptible" is no excuse for not fighting back against exploitation now.

I don't think the OP is using the word "system" the same way you are. Why do we have to think in terms of operating under a system?

You may be using the word system according to this definition: "instrumentality that combines interrelated interacting artifacts designed to work as a coherent entity." Or perhaps "a complex of methods or rules governing behavior" or "a procedure or process for obtaining an objective." When people say they are "living under a system," that is usually what they mean. Something intentional, designed, and imposed and enforced. People who are management and success-oriented think in those terms - how to manage or control people.

I think the OP is using it in this sense: "a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole."

Interesting. Thanks.


...

education to the highest levels was free. Read this article by a Russian emigre who has scant time for Communism:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dtxqwqr_20dc52sm

There is a lot on a similar theme that is of interest, on his site.

Under capitalism, buisness-as-usual is not called "corruption" but the distinction is irrelevant because it is still mercilessly exploitative.

Your idea of combating corruption seems to be making sure the plutocrats are chosen based on merit.

The machinery of capitalism is lubricated by the blood of the worker.

You have nothing to loose but your chains!

It certainly is easy to say that you're "ready for something completely different," but what is that "something?"

If you think you have a superior alternative to regulated capitalism, let's hear what it is. I don't think its too much to ask that you put your cards on the table, given that this is your OP.

Isn't the 'socialists' part a clue?

Socialism is the obvious answer to the failings of capitalism, both as a matter of justice and ecological sustainability.

Can you point to a purely "socialist" nation that you think we should emulate?

Which fucking sucks so let's reverse it. I'm for Fred Block's BIG (Basic Income Grant) program.

"The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen's income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes"

http://www.usbig.net/

Socialism implies worker control of the means of production, ain't much of that going on around here. What they call socialism is the bare minimum of bribes they've thrown at us to stave off the pitchforks, and now they even want that back, so as to improve the bottom line. As long as they have control of wealth and resources they will use them to improve their position to our detriment.

Nuts to that.

No thanks. We've seen that movie, and the ending isn't good.

Recent scholarship shows those numbers grossly inflated. Of course there were problems, injustices, many needless deaths. Yet one must keep in mind what was going on in the capitalists world and it's colonies. There is a massive double standard applied to socialist states.

Which "recent scholarship" demonstrates that Communism wasn't really all that bad for the people living under it?

featuring a picture of a hirsute shirtless man practicing his best revolutionary smolder is not really the height of scholarship.

I understand that some of the text apparently was taken from the Village Voice (obviously on the forefront of historical scholarship) and some from a Russian researcher, but those posts are focused on the fairly narrow issue of whether the Ukranian famine is legitimately considered a "genocide." For what its worth, I don't believe it is, but that is neither here nor there with regards to your claims about "recent scholarship."

Apparently you didn't read far enough. The tables, text and accompanying links speak of much more than that. But you won't like it I think.

And be assured, Pinko can stuff you into a little box intellectually.

more important to talk about than people losing jobs, health insurance, their lives? Ok....

post pictures of themselves like that alongside their defenses of Stalinism? That's two strikes against a fella right there.

Avatars are not necessarily pictures of the posters. That is funny.

Also, that article is not a defense of Stalin, it is a discussion of how we have been misinformed and misled.

What difference would it make to anyone what you do or do not take seriously? You take avatars seriously.


...

Come on, do you really think that picture isn't worthy of some mockery? Really?

I don't think that is a picture of the poster. Lots of strange avatars. I don't pay much attention to them.

Yeah, I think when you have no argument, mocking the other person is all you can do.


...

From where I'm standing, Pinko should be taking potshots at you

the poster's putative point. Whether the Ukrainian famine was a "genocide" or not is not determinative.

You are supposed to read the content. If cutting and pasting text invalidates the message, well then....

I've pointed out that the cut & pasted messageboard posts are not really addressing
the poster's putative point. Whether the Ukrainian famine was a "genocide" or not is not determinative.

There. I just refuted your argument. It is now just a cut & pasted messageboard post.


...

The ridiculous pictures accompanying the Village Voice article are just a bonus.

What issue does it not address?

Regardless of what a person thinks of Stalin or socialism, why would they not be interested in learning how we may have been lied to and misled?


...

read it or don't. If you don't like the method of presentation, thats your bitch.

But at least you took the "mature" route by making fun of the messenger..very big of you

Not as big as Hairy McShirtless, that's for sure!

let's take Pinko's best numbers (from the Slavic journal) and say that forced collectivization and the various Stalinist purges killed ONLY 3.5 million people between 1927-1937. This doesn't include the secondary deaths from famine and the like. or the over 1 million who died in the Gulag System (Getty, Ritterspoon, 1994) between 1934-1954.


so your best argument is that it 'wasn't that bad'? huh. and Pinko is choosing to use his (obviously) prodigious gifts to defend this? what is different, I ask, between denying the scale of the Stalinist atrocities (hey, he only killed 8 million of his fellow citizens, not ten! he's a good chap, really!) and claiming that Hitler only had four million Jews killed, not six? this type of picayune argument about scale of brutality necessarily diminishes the human cost. Which is the point of the argument, really, isn't it? to diminish the perception of suffering?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114430/Russians-Link-Democracy-West.aspx

when Gallup recently asked Russian respondents which political system is the most suitable for their country, 40% favored a system that is similar to the old Soviet one, but is more democratic and market-based. Tied for the second most popular option, though only favored by about half as many respondents, are a Soviet system, similar to what was in place in Russia prior to "perestroika" (18%), and a Western-style democratic republic (18%). Ten percent of Russians surveyed favored a strong authoritarian system that places order above freedom.

Gallup asked Russians if they feel the creation of a free market economy, largely free from state control, is right or wrong for the country's future. Since Gallup began asking this question in 2006, Russians have tended to say this approach is wrong, rather than right for their county.



"There have been no dramatic changes in attitudes towards August 1991 coup in recent years... The number of those who consider the coup to be a tragedy with disastrous consequences still exceeds the number of people who consider the situation to be the victory of democracy that put the rule of the Communist Party to an end. The first ones account for 32 percent (against 27 percent in 1994). The number of the latter almost has not changed (7 percent in 1994 and 11 percent now)."

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Q99W0kWQ0v8J:english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/16016_coup.html+majority+of+russians+communist+preferred&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Put them in a time machine and send them back to the thirties. Let them see the "workers paradise" that Uncle Joe built.

who are more likely to have "ost-nostalgie". since they didn't do well in the transition, generally.

stalin's rule wasn't all about gulags, you know. it was also about sputnik, olympic wins, & the largest increases in productivity in history, a one-generation transition from a feudal to a modern economy.

i reported a gallup poll. you chose not to believe it.

it's probably just communist propaganda.

and a lot of East Germans miss the DDR. Heck, some people in the former Yugoslavia probably miss Tito. but then, there are Americans who miss George Bush, too. And Reagan. people really miss Reagan. must have been a good guy, right? since nostalgia makes him look good?

lemme guess, propaganda?

They really fucked everything up after he died.

the gallup poll & other sources say a large percent of people who lived it disagree.

that is not the same thing as thinking stalin, reagan, or any other leader was "a good guy".

i don't think nixon was a good guy, but for the most part, i liked his domestic policy initiatives more than, e.g., clinton's or bush's.

Except if they were Kulaks or Jews, or Ukrainian or a Chechen or a Orthodox priest/nun or a Pole or Volga German or an goverment official/military officier/party official that slightly disargeed with Stalin.

"stalin's rule wasn't all about gulags, you know. it was also about sputnik, olympic wins, & the largest increases in productivity in history, a one-generation transition from a feudal to a modern economy."

Well, you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs! Millions and millions of men/women and children eggs.

of a leg to stand on in the death count sweepstakes.

I just hate the whitewashing of history. All sides should acknowledge past misdeeds.

Are willing to attempt that all the glories you mentioned about the Stalin era were accomplished at the cost of millions of needless deaths?

Mein Gott, the hubris.

Rolling my eyes at people wishing for the good old days of Soviet butchery.

do.

Would you be as sympathetic to a group of Confederate revisonists or neo-Nazis?

1 million in iraq most recently.

as a matter of course, all the time. More than socialist "dictators" could kill in a century. You can't have missed that, so what are we to think of your "assertion" here? Self-serving comes to mind..

then so be it.

The class enemy is certainly willing to kill tens or hundreds of millions to maintain its status.

expanded the freedom of its citizens beyond our own?

Or how about a single successful communist nation?

Absolute communism and absolute capitalism are both flawed systems.

And yes, there is a difference between absolute capitalism and our system, as well as Europe's.

Freedom to starve?

Freedom to be homeless?

Freedom to have your tax money spread murder and theft throughout the world?

Freedom to watch your world despoiled for the benefit of the few?

But of course you were not talking about those things, relevant as they are. You are talking about Bill of Rights stuff. No socialists state to date has existed outside of a state of siege, if not outright war. In that situation wartime measures must be employed, as they have been in this country when necessary.

It is true, socialists states have succumbed to the relentless pressure, obvious and covert, of the capitalist nations. As has been noted in this thread, for socialism to succeed it must be a world-wide system, yet it's got to start somewhere, that's the hard part. The Cuban people are heroes for all humankind.

Who forced the Soviet Union to undertake the collectivization of farms? Who was besieging China during the Great Leap Forward?

Had the Soviets not collectivized agriculture they would surely have been crushed by fascism. You also can't be unaware of the Civil War in China, the invasion by imperialist Japan, or what followed...

Under siege hardly begins to cover it, because we have not really delved into the machinations of the West, have we? (And for the sake of brevity I'm assuming you concede the point concerning the Cold War)

a self-described "socialist" government for much of its modern history & enacted numerous socialist measures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120096313713705107.html

just cause you don't know your history doesn't mean the history doesn't exist.

sheesh, don't you know anything?

But I guess that sacrifices must be made.

As far as "freedom to starve," uh, we have charities, welfare and food stamps. Yes, they could do with some expansion, but it's not like 1930s Ukraine where the government decided that the Ukrainians needed to die, so they starved them.

Secondly, the homeless point is important, and needs to be fixed. But which country could fix it better for all its people: Cuba or America?

Your other two points are just sour grapes from the fact that Bush was in control of the country for the past eight years. That's what happens in a Republic. Whoever wins gets to make policy.

As far as the pressure goes, it's interesting that you leave out that two of the three powers during the Cold War were communist: China and the USSR. But of course, their failure wasn't from a bad system being corrupted by megalomaniacs. It was all the U.S.'s doing, just like every other problem in the world.

:eyes:

there are people in Cuba who look an awful lot like they might be homeless.

I have to say, why has there never been a major influx of people INTO a Collective State? why do they build walls to keep people in, not keep the maddening hordes out?

Yes Chiang Kai-Shek was making his attempts at taking back the mainland (which was about as realistic as Hamas destroying Israel) and the Dulles brothers tried to help him out but Eisenhower put the breaks on all of that nonsense before an actual war broke out. But I would hardly call that a state of war. Those threats were no more serious than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Mao's first five year plan was a disaster and his "Great Leap Forward" led to about 30 million people or so starving to death. China today is hardly a paradise but I would much rather live there now than in the 1950's and 1960's.

out of a political environment that had been fragmented since 1911. You might as well take Germany since 1949 and quit looking further back to declare that Germany has a peaceful history.

Or Mao's complete repression of individual freedoms. I recognize that Mao was given a broken country to fix and I'm not criticizing him because the standard of living wasn't as great as a rich country by the end of his reign. I'm criticizing him because the standard of living was basically stagnant during most of his reign and actually declined during the Great Leap Forward so much so that 30 million people starved.

Mao had few serious threats to his power from abroad and thus the excuse that the United States prevented whatever he was trying to do from working is just false. The Sandanistas in Nicaragua, Castro in Cuba, Arbenz in Guatemala, or Allende in Chile are all examples where you can point to US intervention as a primary cause of their problems. That is not the case with Mao and China.

That is cold war red-baiting propaganda.

Our freedoms are in contrast to ALL old world governments, whatever they were called.


...

And the point still stands. For all our faults, our nation is freer than any communist nation in history.

Yes, communities can implement communism and do OK. That's true. But such a system doesn't work in larger geographic echelons.

Socialism, however, works in some things and not others. It works, for example, with building and maintaining roads. It does not, however, with food supply.

Perhaps we'll mature to the point where it does work. I don't know. But right now, any nation that has implemented communism has become a ruthless dictatorship with a weak economy. China's economy only really started to improve after they began to implement capitalistic policies in some aspects.

major famine every 20 years or so.

mao took power in 1949. There was a major famine 1959-61. It was the last one. Mao died in 1976.

Food & other production expanded under the chinese communists & both life expectancy & average living conditions improved. i know it's impossible for some folks to believe, but that's what the population figures show.

I mean a government founded on the ideals of Marx and/or Lenin.

Before you say USSR wasn't communist, I'd point out that it was initially trying to be an idealized version.

they're throwing around.

"Principles of marxism/leninism" is a useless definition. Too broad, too various, too contradictory.

Is it so difficult for you to tell me what *you* mean when *you* talk about socialism or communism?

a state in which there is no private property. that's as good of a working definition of a functioning communist state as anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union.

There were two basic forms of property in the Soviet Union: individual property and collective property....

Individual property

To distinguish "capitalist" and "socialist" types of property ownership further, two different forms of individual property were recognized: private property (частная собственность, chastnaya sobstvennost) and personal property (личная собственность, lichnaya sobstvennost). The former encompassed capital (means of production), while the latter described everything else in a person's possession.

This distinction has been a source of confusion when interpreting phrases such as "socialism (communism) abolished private property"; one might conclude that all individual property was abolished, when this was in fact not the case.

Collective property

There were several forms of collective ownership, the most significant being state property, kolkhoz property, and cooperative property.

The most common forms of cooperative property were housing cooperatives (жилищные кооперативы) in urban areas, consumer cooperatives (потребительская кооперация, потребкооперация), and rural consumer societies (сельские потребительские общества, сельпо)...


Enterprises were classified into the major caterories, according to the major forms of property in the Soviet Union:

Based on the property of Soviet citizens:

Individual enterprises
Family enterprises

Based on the collective property:

Collective enterprises
Production cooperatives

Based on the state property:

Union state enterprises
Republican state enterprises
Communal state enterprises

yes, individuals could own their own pants. most things we would consider consumer goods were technically private property. (you couldn't GET them, but still, you could theoretically own them) you couldn't, however own actual property (real estate) or anything that could generate revenue.

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=29909.

There was, in fact, limited private property in real estate in the USSR. I'd bet it was mostly for elites or those on the peripheries in practice, but it did exist.

yes, a very very few very well connected people were able to own property. but for 99.99% of the population (and a few, as you mention, so far outside the centers of power that no one cared) it was illegal to own their domicile. to give you an idea, on my last visit to the USSR (yes, it was still the USSR) I was a guest of the (then) deputy chief of police in Moscow. that's a pretty high ranking position, wouldn't you agree? his son and daughter both went to University and were able to study abroad. they even had a car, a nice one (well, as nice as Ladas got) and a place they used in the country. in Moscow, however, they lived in a comparatively luxurious three bedroom flat. which was helpful, because there were four generations living in the same place (grandmother, father, mother, four children, and daughter in law.

and I thought we were talking about life for the average worker? not the elites?

by russians. i thought they'd be a reasonably knowledgeable source.

no, we were talking about whether private property existed or not.

if we're going by anecdotal evidence, i was told by my russian history prof in the 70s (who went there off & on) that there were also some small private businesses, non-black market (restaurants & artisans are how i remember it).

and also, that conditions varied by epoch (lenin tightened, loosened, stalin tightened, post-stalin = looser.)

would you consider, say, FreeRepublic to be a reasonable source for American History? they are Americans, right? surely they should know.

and yes, I concede the point, because corrupt elites and those far removed from anyone else were able to own property, you win. therefore, anyone could own property. you are correct, that's how it was. your average working class person could own property because the elites could. go it.

under the ussr - since they lived there.

got straw?

well, any of the ones over about 40 might have a realistic recollection of the actual market, or at least the market they were part of. recall, and Russian under 40 was not even twenty when the Soviet Union collapsed, hardly evidentiary to take into accounts the recollections of children. in fact, if we consider that the only people who would really understand the state of the residential market at any time are those in the workforce, you have to take into account that most people don't enter the workforce until at least after their mandatory military service and then some sort of educational time. So we'll take about 22. As a general rule, then, no Russian under 42 can really talk about what the real estate market was like from experience. Since the median age of a Russian today is 38.2, you are really dealing with less than half the population. And then, while we're thinking about it, what are the odds that your average Russian over, say, 50, spends a lot of time on English language message boards? not all that good, right?

ever go back to your childhood home? not nearly as big as you remember, right? memory is not evidence.

one of the posters made a nice list of the types of RE property that existed.

most of the comments jibed with what i knew of the situation.

straw, buddy.

you win. just before you do, would you mind googling "kommunalka"? there's a nice project at Colgate documenting such a living arrangement. check it out. and remember, this wasn't a choice, it was a requirement.

enjoy.

A society where everyone has an equal say in the managing of economic affairs throughout society. Everyone is expected to contribute according to his/her own ability. Everyone is given an equal share in necessities (i.e. each receives the same allotment of food/clothes/shelter/etc.)

Such a system will expand as workers around the world realize that they deserve better than their lot, so they will organize and overthrow the rich. Then, they will institute a system where everyone receives the same bounty. Currency will become mostly irrelevant as all necessities are already given.




However, in order to institute such a society, one MUST control the professional demographics (in other words, which people get which positions). Otherwise, one would not have enough farmers.

The whole system fails, of course, when people realize that their basic needs are met whether they do their part or not.

That's where capitalism comes in. Sure you can survive on the most basic level. But in order to have any ability to enjoy life, you have to actually get a job. However, you can learn whatever trade you want, but it doesn't guarantee you a job

That, to me, is the ideal economic system. One in which a person has the ability to do as they wish. But they don't have to worry about basic necessities like food, healthcare or clothes.

I wish we were mature enough to implement such a system.

nor does it describe life in e.g. soviet russia.

which is why people need to define their terms when they talk about "communism".

And why are we both staying up so late debating governmental philosophy? ;-)

CAPITALISM is the system that fails once the workers realize that they are creating everything only to have it taken from them by a tiny minority who produce nothing. At that point capitalism can't help but wither away, having exhausted its lifespan

but you can't go to much further. The USSR, the Eastern Bloc, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, North Korea..those were all communist nations. They stood as shining beacons, whatever their faults or aspects that make you uncomfortable or squeamish..

Trying to deny that there has ever been a true "socialist" experiment is a crock

were those experiments classless societies? very clearly not.

did the workers control the means of production or the distribution of the products of their labor? clearly not.

what's your definition of socialist?

ps: vietnam has had a putatively socialist government since the war ended, & the vietnamese "communists" weren't the pol pot "communists." they got rid of the pol pot "communists."

whom the US supported & funded.

If the workers didn't control the social product who did?

You say both questions are very clear, and they are. You are just too weak in the knees to admit the truth, and theres no time for that. We move with bold intention, no equivocating, no exceptions

Same as under the Czars, but higher productivity & more redistribution was an improvement over the Czars for most.

What is this "truth" you say I'm too weak-kneed to admit?

and the South was ruled by slave-owners. Does that mean that US wasn't a capitalist country under those "regimes"?

Honestly, what the fuck does the leadership matter..for them to take over and install themselves as a class they would have had to stage a coup AGAINST the workers revolutions. You think the workers would not have fought back against this?? In fact, that scenario came into full relief..with Mikhail Gorbachev..which leaves you scrambling to account for the 70s years between the Revolution and then

What in Gods name do you think constitutes a class..petty bureaucratic favoritism and machinations? If so, how is your view any different from those of people bitching about "corruption" in this thread?

Did the Soviet Union implement economic communism (ie providing socially determined necessities to EVERYONE) or not? As you're so fond of putting it, the answer is clearly yes.

away of classes and class exploitation - & the withering away of the state itself. with the workers who produce things deciding what, when & how to produce.

capitalism is defined by the particular form its class system takes.

"providing socially determined necessities to EVERYONE" doesn't define socialism. The US basically provides socially determined necessities to "everyone" (food, shelter, clothing) = welfare state + charity. Most societies have some kind of provision for the poor; doesn't mean they're socialist.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that labels aren't identical to material & social facts. The USSR was an attempt to create a socialist state, & successful in some respects but overall, not. The state grew.

Classes can be distinguished by looking at the ultimate source of their members' livelihoods.

Cuba, the USSR, China, Vietnam - they all have comparatively strong state power. While I don't see this as arising out of socialism per se, I also don't see any socialist societies where the state has been minimized. Your sort of pure non-state socialism doesn't seem to have taken root anywhere.

labels & self-identication don't make it so.

i don't see how america is a democracy, either. in lived practice, the demos doesn't rule.

OK, so if the self-declared socialist or communist countries aren't actually socialist or communist, how come there aren't any functioning socialist countries where the state has withered away?

2) I don't have any conclusions about it. I haven't reached any firm conclusions on what sort of entities the actually existing self-described communist states actually were/are, or the power politics involved in their creation & continuance.

I don't buy the storylines of either left or right on most of the popular revolutions or revolutionary governments.

Let's now study the Bolivarian Revolution to see if they get it right.

capitalists with untouchable bureaucrats in the boss role isn't socialism.

it's already pretty obvious chavez isn't getting it right either.

But I am grossed out to see that a handful of posters here at DEMOCRATIC Underground seem to be doing so. It's like they think the party of FDR/JFK/BHO is somehow a safe place to gush over Marx's greatness. Weird. And disturbing.

As for me, I'm for freedom, equality, justice, tolerance, peace and all those good things, not communism. I'm a Democrat (a social-Democrat who supports well regulated capitalism), I'm not a communist or socialist. (And no, it's not only because I have relatives from Cuba.)

not on a national level. It can function in communities, but not societies.

better standard of living, longer lifespan, more life-possibilities than the system preceding it?

Definitely. Without a doubt.

capitalist nation whose initial "success" wasn't based on limited the freedom of its citizens & the citizens of other locales?

as in, e.g., the slave system which was the basis of capital formation for subsequent industrial expansion?

First they enslaved them to work on the plantations they owned creating the plantation goods they owned, shipped, traded, then they "freed" them to work in the factories they moved their money into.

This the apologists celebrate as "expansion of freedom".

crock 'o crap.

Japan.

Post WWII, it was basically in the crapper. It had to be completely rebuilt from the ground up.

Now its economic success rivals our own.

As far as not having second class citizens, well most countries founded before 1950 or so will sadly not be able to claim this (One could argue that we still really can't). That's what happens when a country is still progressing toward equality.

japan was a capitalist country before ww2. and if you know anything about its history, there was plenty of unfreedom going on.

japan's post-war "success" was built on capital accumulated before the war, in some cases long before the war.

That's why so many of the big post-war companies = the old zaibatsu or pre-war business groups, e.g.:


Mitsui:

"Founded by Mitsui Takatoshi (1622–1694), who was born a fourth son of a shopkeeper in Matsusaka, called Echigoya (越後屋) in today's Mie prefecture. His father originally sold miso, a fermented soybean paste, and ran a pawn shop..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsui


Sumitomo:

"Masatomo Sumitomo began the company as a store selling medicine and books in 1630; however, copper made the company famous..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumitomo_Group


Mitsubishi:

"The first Mitsubishi company was a shipping firm established by Yataro Iwasaki (1834–1885) in 1870. In 1873, its name was changed to Mitsubishi Shokai (三菱商会)..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi


Matsushita (aka Panasonic): founded 1918:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konosuke_Matsushita


Nomura

The Nomura Group, formerly Nomura zaibatsu, one of the major industrial and financial conglomerate groupings of Japan, founded by Tokushichi Nomura II in 1919 after many successful business ventures and established on the Mitsui zaibatsu model...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomura_Group


Mori/Showa Denko

Dec. 1908 Sobo Marine Products K.K. was established by Showa Denko (SDK) founder, Nobuteru Mori, to manufacture and sell iodine...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showa_Denko


Kawasaki:

Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. traces its origins to 1876, when Kawasaki Shōzō (川崎正蔵) established Kawasaki Tsukiji Shipyard in Tokyo, Japan...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shozo_Kawasaki


Toyota

The company was founded in 1926 as Toyoda Automatic Loom Works, Ltd. by Sakichi Toyoda, the inventor of a series of manual and machine-powered looms...The company was eventually founded by Kiichiro Toyoda in 1937 as a spinoff from his father's company...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Industries



Nissan:

One of 15 of Japan's most powerful business groupings, founded 1928 by Yoshisuke Aikawa, originally a holding company created as an offshoot of Kuhara Mining Co., which Aikawa had taken over as president of from his brother-in-law, Fusanosuke Kuhara...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Group

government founded upon Marxist/Leninist principles.

Success is a country whose citizens have freedom (i.e. bill of rights type freedoms; don't have to worry about secret police/dissenters disappearing), consistently better off than their previous generation and whose economy is generally productive and stable.

I also provided a capitalist system that has succeeded. Hong Kong is another (and is actually more laissez-faire than even our own).

Now, what about a communist country that succeeded?

japan wasn't re-created from scratch after WW2, & the capital which "rebuilt" it was derived from feudal & merchant capital that very definitely was accumulated through exploitation, including slave & forced labor in the same way that much industrial capital in the us & britain derived from slavery & conquest. (see previous post).

In addition, the post-war period was very definitely a period in which citizens' freedom was limited.

Start with the Occupation, then work through the labor struggle (including the banning of unionization at various points & finally the enforcement of 'company unions' as a substitute for real ones, the seizure of properties & land from citizens (not war criminals), & similar events.


repeat:

1. define 'successful.' if i don't know what you mean by "success" i can't respond.

2. define 'communist.' ditto. "marxist-leninist principles" doesn't cut it. there are dozens to hundreds, some contradictory.

3. a capitalist nation whose initial "success" wasn't based on limiting the freedom of its citizens & the citizens of other locales?

japan isn't it.

While American capital did provide a lot of help, it didn't cause Japan to become reformed. Instead, it provided a foundation. The Japanese then built upon it, using a regulated form of capitalism.

Was some of it bloodmoney? Of course -- it came from a country almost 200 years old. People had progressed since the founding, but some money remains. Complaining about a country's wealth having been partly amassed by unsavory methods is pointless -- every nation's wealth comes, in part, from corruption.

The only way to solve that would be to take everyone's wealth, property and technology owned, destroy them, and say to everyone "start from scratch."

Secondly, yes, there was an occupying force and citizen's rights were curtailed. That's what happens in an occupation after losing a war.

But the loss of rights and occupational forces aren't what created Japan's economic success. It was an occupation to maintain security, and Japan's pecuniary success continued after the occupation force left. In fact, it had a constitution in 1947 and by 1952 the occupational forces had left.

After that, Japan's economy continued to gain steam.

I stand by my definitions. Yes, there were some contradictions between Marx/Lenin, but the core values are similar. A government founded on those principles is what I would consider communist. I already defined success above as well.

P.S. I'm cleaning. A lot. So my replies will be sporadic, but I will do my best.

The war didn't destroy all Japanese capital. Japan was capitalist before the war. It began industrializing in the Meiji era, 1868 on. Most of the big post-war japanese companies existed before the war; some existed hundreds of years before the war.

The post-war curtailment of rights, in fact, had a good deal to do with Japan's economic boom.

The forced dispossession of the landlord/landowning class & the redistribution of land, in particular, was highly important. It freed peasant bodies for the new factories, created a new class of small entrepreneurs and small capitals, increased the availability of land for development, & expanded internal markets.

It's funny you say "the only way to do that is take everyone's wealth, property" because that's exactly what was done by the US in Japan & then in Korea. The remnants of the large feudal landowners were dispossessed, large chunks of their property redistributed, & their class power broken.

My father-in-law's family was one of those dispossessed.


I don't understand why you see Japan as such a unique example, seriously.

I'm no special fan of the Russian experiment, but Russia underwent a bigger transformation, from a less developed starting point, without the military or economic umbrella of the world's largest power; & freedoms certainly did expand in many senses, even under Stalin's reign.

Women's rights, the detachment of the peasant class from serf-like conditions, free universal education & the very real class mobility that came into existence, increases in life expectancy, access to consumer goods & improved living conditions (e.g. electricity, plumbing), increased possibility of political participation - these were all expansions of freedom for their time & place.

Russia in 40 years went from a largely feudal economy to Sputnik, using mostly its own resources, in the face of near-continuous aggression from Europe & the US.

It was an unprecedented & still unmatched achievement.

Against this, you can put the purges, famine deaths, & the prison system. But there's nothing there unique to the soviet period or the soviet system.


Let's take the famine deaths, since most of the deaths laid at Stalin's/communism's door are famine deaths.

In the 19th century, in the capitalist British empire, we have ongoing famines with high (millions) mortality approximately 1 out of every four years.

1800-1801 famine in Ireland
1845-1849 Great Irish Famine killed more than 1 million people<45>
1846-1857 Highland Potato Famine in Scotland
1866 Orissa famine of 1866 in India; one million perished
1869 Rajputana famine of 1869 in India; one million and a half perished
1879 Famine in Ireland
1876-1879 5.25 million died in the Great Famine of 1876–78 in India.
1896-1902 ENSO famine in India.

Did British capitalism "cause" these famines?

Yes, in one sense; by pushing people off the land to produce crops for export, by not paying landless workers enough to buy sufficient market-priced foodstuffs, by not reducing agricultural exports during the famines or providing sufficient relief.

Was it the british capitalists' *aim* to kill people? No. But their profit & power came before people's welfare. Not unique to the 19th century, btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

But due to a peculiar blindness, these & similar famines are rarely held to show the "failure" or "despotism" of capitalism. And the events listed are only one piece of a bigger historic picture, e.g.:


"1990-2003: Iraq has faced famine conditions since 1990. The Iraq sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition. Between 200,000 and 1 million excess deaths."


Which is also not held up to exemplify the "failure" of capitalism.

But such events happen regularly under capitalism.

"Human nature," apologists say. "Corruption."

But those rationalizations should apply to communist as well as capitalist humans, yes?


As for the "Marxist/leninist" thing, you're going to have to specify what you mean. You may think it's self-evident, but it's not.

Marx & Lenin said many things, different things at different periods in their lives, & Lenin variously *did* different things than he said.

& beyond that, so many people have said different things about what they said that what's trickled down to the average american is a cartoon.

The ideal communist state, like the ideal capitalist one, is a paradise. However, both of them ignore human nature, and that's where they're flawed.

Ideal Communism (and to a lesser extent Socialism) assumes that all the workers will have equal standing and say. But it ignores the flaw that humans are corrupt. Once a person has power, for example, over distribution of a necessity (like food), it will degenerate into a power struggle, usually with millions dead. Dissent can't be tolerated, as there is only one option (has been the case with every "communist" country. If everyone becomes a video game designer, society can't work). You can't advance from your slot without duplicity. It is an immoral, inefficient system.

Capitalism solves that by saying that if someone wants a living and there's a need to be filled, they'll fill it.

Ideal Capitalism, however, assumes that companies will always behave responsibly, because that is what the market rewards. However, as we've seen so many times, the market rewards results -- nothing else. So, when a company sees that it can make more money with sugar than wheat, it will produce sugar, regardless of how much food is needed (see Irish potato famine). If the company can gain access to more land through forced acquisition, it will (eminent domain, for example). Capitalism is simply the rule that whoever is the smartest, bravest, cruelest and luckiest wins. It is a heartless, brutal system.

My thing is, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. But capitalism has proven itself the better of the two, so it should take precedence. However, I believe that a combination of the two, with a slow transition to Socialism (over the course of several decades) would yield the optimum result.

As we've seen countless times, a sudden conversion to socialism creates a despotic, insular regime (see Cuba, N. Korea); a sudden conversion to capitalism creates a corrupt, Darwinian system (see Russia).

But slow conversion to either allows for trial and error, as well as adaptation to new socioeconomic mores. I believe that certain socialistic policies can work for society. But a quick, absolute conversion to communism or socialism would be at least as disastrous as a quick, absolute conversion to a free market.

Entrenched power doesn't go down without it.

Question is, this "trial & error" & "adaption" you speak of - look at our present situation, & tell me - who's directing it, & in whose interest?

Is everyone directing, deciding - or just the few?

You can discuss your preference. But do you have the power to get it on the table?

I do not have the power to make the masses rebel, or accept their status, anymore than I have power to make the rich create a feudal system, or accept a socialistic state where they are subservient to the law of the masses.

However, neither does any sole person but Obama. He's already made his position clear. I can send him messages saying I disagree with his healthcare proposal, and get others to. But poll numbers rule the day.

Nonetheless, every "communist" country has had to fight and overcome the current power to create its government.

Even Russia. It had its Duma. It wasn't very good, but it was a representative body elected by the people (including serfs, who had been freed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861">1861.

Once again, however, human fallacies corrupted what should have been a wonderful thing. Instead, we got the USSR, which transformed rather quickly into a dictatorship.

Just like all the other "communist" nations.

So answer me this: Why is it that everytime "communism" is tried, the result is a despotic, corrupt regime that destroys the economy?

If so, that's fucking gross, dude. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground (I thought). I oppose Joe McCarthy as much as the next sane person- but communism, like racism or fascism, has no place in a country like the ol' USofA. Or the Democratic Party. I'm with the likes of JFK, not the reds.

If not, then thank goodness!

That question would make as much sense.

"communism" (in theory, as an ideal) ***does NOT equal*** ( despite what capitalist propaganda wants one to believe)
thouroughly anti-humanistic and simply monstrous Soviet/Chinese model/system

.

That's what it's all about. Socialism is when "I need someone to give me a job" is as ridiculous a statement to make as "I need to be given an aristocratic title". We currently live in a system that has already done away with aristocracy, we need to drop the other shoe and get rid of the hiring class.

Which was used in our revolution to overthrow a tyrannical Gov't and yet you want to impose a tyrannical Gov't.

:shrug:

good work on that

and I realize that only a mixed economy of socialism and regulated capitalism will keep us humane and competitive.

Capitalism will be a roller coaster ride even with regulation, but some people love roller coaster rides. Socialism will ensure that we survive them.

There IS no perfect solution, "no political solution to a troubled evolution."

There is no regulating capitalism. The capitalists will not allow it. As their technological power is consolidated, they don't have to allow it. There is no such thing as a "mixed economy" of socialism and capitalism (two opposite systems). What you're describing (increasingly impossible) social democratic reforms in Western democracies to placate the lower tier beneficiaries of the system. Social democratic reforms of capitalism are not a system of material production by the people for the people. I mean, Nazi Germany had a social democratic system of provision as the anchor of profit.

How has our "mixed economy" and even the "European mixed economy" stopped imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Coca Cola buying up water sources in Mexico, or the cheap flood of crap from the Chinese authoritarian capitalist state (which calls itself Communist, but hasn't been since at least the early 70s and some would argue, since earlier than that)? It hasn't. Most Americans--even Democrats--are brutally and foolishly nationalist when confronted with this problem. Let's call it what it is: racist. Nation is becoming irrelevant under global capitalism. Well, except for the fact that the West treats the rest of the world as its invisible slaves.

A "mixed economy" is growing increasingly improbable and is only being held in place by the weapon of mass strikes and riots, even in Europe. If Americans were to wield the power of mass strikes, it would be such a revolution unto itself I doubt that Wall Street would survive it.

Of course some capitalists will enjoy the roller coaster of capital gaming. Its not their wealth that's at stake. They're playing with the stolen wealth of others (and I mean not currency but real wealth--health, water, air quality, land).

Who is the "we" that's surviving? Americans? The global working class? Western democracy?

:applause:

:thumbsup:

That may well be true that some mix is best. But choosing our own personal stance as to what might be the ideal system is of absolutely no value, other than for chatting with folks in social situations and not looking like a completely idiot.

We can never get to any mixed system until and unless there are people strongly advocating from the Left. It is not possible. It is like saying that in a bargaining situation where the seller is saying "$10" our response is that we believe $5 is a fair price, an attainable goal. That is a certain way to make sure that we will never get it for $5, but more like $7.50 or something.

Obviously, in that situation we may want to start with a counter-offer of $1 if we hope to arrive eventually at $5. Yet people are representing $5 as the right answer, and as a substitute, a more practical and realistic and moderate alternative to those who are saying "$1" in response to the opposition's "$10" offer.


...

subject to becoming an instrument of oppression. that couldn't be much clearer.

with the corporate executives and their drones controlling the government drones...

Corporatism means that capitalists are given a government granted charter allowing them to manipulate capital without any personal liability or responsibility, while creating the right and protections of individual citizens.

Corporatism did not happen by accident, it is a powerful tool in the hands of the wealthy few.

The fight against corporations is also not new. It was the abuse of the colonists by the British crown corporations that led to the American Revolution. It was not an anti-monarchy movement, as we are now told.


...

winter999

North Europa, or more to the point Norway, Denmark Sweden, Finland and Iceland have managed to build decent society, who are much more regulated than many other country - but still allow a fair share of capitalism... 60% Ca... 3 of the country have even royals as head of state... But then this 5 country are not pure socialist country, but rather social democratic...


Diclotican

:eyes:

Raskolnik

You haven't followed the whole story I guess, since you can say that - and claim it on social Democratic values... Iceland was ruined by their own believe that debt and greed was the solution for everything.. Iceland was traditionally a country where you have to know to turn every krone (Icelandic currency) twice to get by. In the 1990s the whole game changed and everyone believed the sky was the limit. Deregulation of the economical sector did gave for a long time Iceland a edge against everyone else. Because the country of 300.000 people are well educated and are used to work hard.. One of the few resources at Iceland was Fish, who they have been fighting "wars" over in the 1970s when UK tried to cut into the deal with industry ship - UK failed miserably, and was forced to give up claim to a lot of sea.. But as pointed out in the 1990s fish was so "Old" and in the new economy, specially in banking the future was.. Iceland was been set up to be one of the "Largest" and most "Safe" places to trade and have money.. And compared to many, many other bigger country in Europa and indeed in the rest of the world, the Icelandic bank indeed was been seen as safe, and not least honest...

But it was as many americans call it was a ponzi sheme, who was ruled by less than 20 persons, who played really big fishes, and in the end managed to tear down the whole Enterprise when other pilares in the economy was hit by recession.. Today Iceland is a country in hard economical hardship - and ruled by a left wing party, who on the agenda have a closer relationship whit EU as goal, specially that Iceland Will be member of EU in the end.. The former Party was by the way, the right/center party, who have ruled Iceland for most year since it independence in 1944.. Iceland and the people there is rather conservative in where they vote, but after the right/center party was forced to resign, and to have a vote about the future of Iceland, one of the rather left wing party had to take the power - and trying to rebuild and to fix what the Right/center party had ruined...

But I guess, that was something you know about already?

Diclotican

Have only existed in their current state for a few decades, and already they're having problems maintaining their policies in the face of falling birth rates and rising immigrant populations. And every welfare state is built on the back of oppressive commercial policies. Ask anyone in the Middle East, Eastern Europe or Africa about the benevolence and charity of European governments. They indulge in the same cheap-labor imperialism that the US does, they just have the good taste to keep it outside their borders. Their toxic waste dumping off Somalia is what ultimately led to the rise of piracy, for one.

Irreverend IX

That is at least rubbish to say that the current welfare system have been there just for a couple of decades.. In the past we have had in one of another fashion welfare system in Scandinavia since at least the 1850s.. Specially after the great European revolutions in the 1840s many programs to protection of the most poor was started because they who had must to loose if the revolution ever came to Scandinavia was afraid of the working class people.. In sweden it was outright forbidden, by law to talk about both the french revolution and specially the great revolutions of 1840s.. But in the end the truth got out, and even that the great revolutions of the 1840 was flooded with blood, the idea of government who have full control was dashed, and in the 200 or so year thereafter, the programs to protect, and to give help to the poorest of the poor was made possible, both by private hand, but also by government hand. When Norway, as I am an Norwegian I tend to know my own country best, was in depended in 1905, it was a dirt poor country, where most people have to survive of what they had and where the whole idea of a welfare system as we have today was something they could just dream about.. But it was programs already in function.. And specially after World war one, who was hurting Norway hard, because of our trade who almost was at an stand till for a time. The programs to help, and to protect poor ones was build out, even that the great depression was hurting every program.. But they had a partial function social service, and they do had somewhat decent healtcare already then.. But off course the real "explosion" of an public welfare system for everyone was an idea from after world war two, where the Social Democratic Party AP was more og less dominating the whole political system from 1945-63 and then from 1963-66. And for the most part every single party in Norway have agreed about the welfare system we have today. Even the conservative party Høyre are more or less in agreement with the rest of the Parliament (Stortinget) about the idea of a welfare system who is generous and who can help and protect from birth to death. THe idea the different parties is in disagreement is how to do it best.. A totally free system, or a more "pay as you go" system.. But I doubt that most parties, with the exception of FRP, Ironic enough named Fremskritspartiet) would go the US type of things... And I somewhat doubt that FRP would be voted into power in fall of this year anyway.. They might be a power in our Parliament, but I have a feeling that the other parties would rather eat poison than to give FRP the reign of the government..

I am not about what you are claiming that Norway have been oppressed the rest of the world.. Compared to the total population in the country, we as a state are given quite a lot of money, to help this poor, illness stricken country you claim we oppress.. And we have been doing that for the last 60 year or so.. Our first country to get economical and other type of aid, was India already in 1948, at a time when Norway had a task of reboiling our own country who was ravaged by the world war. Specially the northern parts of Norway was a smoking ruin... And both private donations, and public handout have been given to Africa, Asia Latin America (included Mexico) and so on.. Where horrible accidence have happened, have Norway over the year at least given a couple of billions of dollar - and when you thing that Norway have 4.6 million I would NOT say that Norway have been the worst in the class when it came to helping other country... I would say Norway have been most generous with their help, compared to the old Colonial Powers, like United Kingdom, France Belgia, The Netherlands Germany and so on.. Compared to them, who have indeed exploited and harmed most of Asia, Africa and Latin America, Norway have been one of the most generous country there is.. And Norway haven't been a colonial power either in the past..

Many reason for the mess in Somalia, and the dumping of toxic waste out the coast of Somalia are indeed one of the reasons.. But the ONE reason.. One other maybe more important reason is the impossibility for the somalians to get a function central government to get into power - and to get the clan leaders to stop using their weapon against the central government.. After 1991 it have not been a function government in Somalia.. And after so many years without a central government, it is easy to be a pirate. And if you had followed the pirate ordeal at the coast,it is not that easy as to say that everything is Europa's fault.. The Somalians have had many chances to make the country a decent, maybe even prosperous country. It is rumored to be a lot of oil in the sea outside of Somalia, and if this is true, and they have a central government who can manage the wealth, it is no impossibility that Somalia at least can be a nice place to live - and they have a lot of nature to explode for tourist too..

Diclotican

Given the constraints under which they've been forced to operate they're doing pretty good. If they had been allowed to trade they would be further along.

There were many advances in the socialist nations which are blithely ignored by western capitalist. Ya gotta consider where they started, in a nation that was more than half feudal. In those things most important to human wellbeing, mortality, longevity, nutrition, live births, education, the advances were outstanding.

How, pray tell, did our isolationist policies create that?

There are a number of fine posters on this site who have been posting the truth for years. Educate yourself.

Here. http://www.diariolasamericas.com/news.php?nid=77655">Apparently, they're trying to restrict what people can access on the internet in hotels.

Nowadays, only government employees, academics and researchers are allowed to have Internet accounts, which are provided by the government. But, in recent years many ordinary Cubans had been using hotel Internet services, which have it for foreign tourists. This resulted in many bloggers who are critical of the government.

Since they no longer will have access to Internet at the hotels, a service that is expensive but that the bloggers in one way or another were able to pay, they will only have the possibility of using Internet services at the U.S. Interests Section or at a foreign embassy that would allow them to use it. This would entail the risk of an accusation by the government of being mercenaries at the service of “Yankee imperialism” or of any foreign government.

Oh, and Cuba's not http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art200905128165415">too good on freedom of the press either.

The organisation said out of the 195 countries and territories covered in the study, 70, or 36 per cent, were rated ”free,” 61 (31 per cent), were rated ”partly free” and 64 (33 per cent) were rated ”not free.”

Among the worst-rated in 2008 were Belarus, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, the Palestinian territories, Rwanda and Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.


On edit: added quotes.

And we do?

of the government, calls for leaders (or even whole economic systems!) to be replaced, and organizes protests without any legitimate fear of recrimination from the state.

Irony!

If what we are doing threatened the rulers, the suppression would be swift and brutal. You have no idea who here has and has not paid a price for testing this wonderful freedom you think we have.

Hard to get used to the reactionary and conservative things that get posted here.


...

And if you can provide a single example of someone being punished by the state for expressing political opinions on Democratic Underground, I will give you a dollar.

A dollar? I would get a dollar?

Saying "I am gay" can get you fired. You might have noticed that in the news recently. Hang onto your dollar, though.

Have you heard the phrase "free speech zones?" Keep that dollar, too.


...

I think many people, especially those enjoying a relative degree of material well-being and privilege, confuse obedience and compliance with "freedom." They do not see the ways in which they are controlled and restricted, or they explain it away, and they have all sorts of excuses for why those who do not enjoy the same privilege and well-being are suffering.


...

I answered your question. I freely admit to not putting much effort or thought into this exchange.

That much is clear. I'm glad we've found something upon which to agree.

Take care.

You claimed we have freedom of speech. What that has to do with capitalism I don't know. I offered two examples that disprove your assertion. If there is something else you want to discuss, or if you want to continue to debate this issue, I am right here.


...

:shrug:

So I'm not sure what it is you're complaining about.

and leave the comfortable confines of your closeted, well-protected abode to even get to the TV room. Give up a little bit of your security to come out and play sometime and see if it doesn't color your perspective just a bit.

I said to my butler just the other day that I thought I saw one of you through the viewing scope on my dirigible.

punishment comes when it begins to look like their opinions might affect something.

like the time the feds dropped bombs on the MOVE commune.

Seems like you'd refrain from arguing politics on the internet if you truly thought that was the case...

my post & your response = different.

Although that does beg the question as to what the point of your post actually was, but if you want to be oblique, I'm not going to try and ferret your point out of you.

isn't the same thing as being powerless, period, or "having no voice".

You obviously felt that it was, but I'm not sure how.

americans are compared to, e.g., cubans.

I said opinions are no danger to the state so long as people are powerless to do anything to implement them.

I further said that if people move to implement their opinions - for example, by organizing, by living them - you'll feel the limits of your un-freedom, as in, e.g., the example of MOVE:

"MOVE was created by John Africa... Africa and his followers, most of them black...advocated a radical form of green politics and a return to hunter-gatherer society while stating their opposition to science, medicine and technology...The police dropped a bomb from a helicopter onto the rooftop of the MOVE residence. The resulting fire was allowed to burn. This resulted in the deaths of six adults and five children.<2>"

Expressing opinions is about the only thing most middle-class Americans do. Since they rarely challenge anything & are allowed their impotent (though surveilled) expressions of opinion without being arrested, they imagine they're free.


Cubans can, & do, express political opinions. They aren't generally arrested for doing so unless there's more to the story (e.g., they're receiving funds from the US gov't, etc.)

Read some people who've been there & traveled, freely, talking to people, e.g.:

"The objective situation and the feelings of individual people are too complex for most generalizations.

We got to know a family in which both the parents and their two sons were exceptionally talented, well-educated professionals. The mother said to us, "We know that our sons, with their education and ability, could live better in another country, but this is our revolution. We know there are problems, but we want to make it work."

Just down the street lived another family of professionals in similar economic circumstances. The father said one day, "I'm too old to leave here now, but my greatest hope for my son is that he will get out of this terrible country."

If there is a fair generalization about the conditions and the politics of Cuba, it is this: As a visitor, you can see what you expect or want to see. If you come to Cuba looking for evidence of a police state, inefficient bureaucracy, and dissatisfied people, you can find it. If you look for evidence of a uniquely idealistic society in which people have a strong sense of community, respect their government, and are trying to solve problems without sacrificing the achievements of their revolution, you can find that too.

Let's ride."

http://www.bicyclingcuba.com/map.html

There is a lot more to politics than that. And that is the last thing that the elite want the people to realize.

and Ruby Ridge. if we're listing groups that decided gunfire was the correct response to warrants.

You should get your facts straight before spewing.

and didn't fire on police? why did they have a 'minister of defense'?

just say it right now: there was no gunfire from within the MOVE compound on police. write that, so we know your grasp of history.

you're serious, right? so write the following text: "on my honor, I know for a fact that there was no gunfire from within the MOVE compound and anyone who says differently is a liar." go ahead, call them out.

God. Some people on this board amaze me. They think it's 1940s Germany or USSR.

Jesus.

http://www.diariolasamericas.com/news.php?nid=77655">Here.

http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art200905128165415">And here.

But hey, keep saying that the U.S. is more draconian than a dictatorship. At least we choose who's our master, right?

/sigh.

That point is debatable. Do you truly think this country chose GWB twice?

I live in Ohio, and don't doubt our ability to mess up an election. That plus gerrymandering can cause many a problem.

Thursday, 17 July 2008, 14:12

CUBA HAS recently begun loosening its hold over its citizens, allowing mobile phones to be imported and purchased, and PCs in the home.

With this, will come data demands, and Cuba has an ace up its sleeve when it comes to getting around the US embargo in the form of Venezuela.

According to Julian Assange from a Wikileaks.org article, documents given to the site have revealed that Cuba and Venezuela signed a confidential contract in 2006 to lay an undersea fibre-optic cable, bypassing the United States. The cable is expected to be completed by 2010.

Assange writes that the contract between the two countries has been independently verified.

This will allow the Cubans to benefit from much higher-speeds - the country currently relies heavily on high-latency satellite access.

Not only will Cuba benefit but the proposed 1,500 kilometre cable will also connect Jamaica, Haiti and Trinidad to the rest of the world via La Guaira, Venezuela.

It should be noted that Cuba is situated a mere 120 kilometres off the coast of Florida.

The work is being carried out by CVG Telecom (Corporación Venezolana de Guyana) and ETC (Empresa de Telecomunicaciones de Cuba).

This hack recently spent time in Cuba and discovered that the proliferation of mobiles is much higher than we believe in the west, with a variety of normal-people walking around and using the devices.

PCs were also readily available with access to the Internet in hotels, albeit at dial-up speeds, providing you don't mind an old woman looking over your shoulder at your mail box.


http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1030109/cuba-gets-internet-access

"freedom" ratings in the world.

China also has fast internet, and yet China also restricts which Web sites its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China">people can visit.

From the wiki:

Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.

snip

Section Five of the Computer Information Network and Internet Security, Protection, and Management Regulations approved by the State Council on December 11, 1997 states the following:

No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:

1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.

More at link

On edit: tried to fix html.

to produce goods from scratch, & has until quite recently imported a limited number of computers which were limited to dial-up, so most people didn't even have access to a computer, what is the significance of this "website restriction" you describe?



China, OTOH, is blatantly capitalist, so I'm not sure what the relevance of their computer policy is.

the US. there are 191 other UN member states out there freely engaging in trade with Cuba, if there was anything to trade. (this is why you can buy Havana Club rum in the airport in Toronto or Mexico City) there are, therefore, just under 6 billion people in the world with the free right to trade with Cuba. and have been for 45 years. you'd think the place would be taking off any time now. Sure, you can't buy a new Chevy, but a Fiat? a Renault? a Toyota? a Honda? the streets must be packed with them, right?

but the embargo is a convenient excuse, I suppose.

"Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market.

United States opposition against Cuban membership in International Financial Institutions.

Exclusion of certain aliens from the United States, primarily senior officials or major stock holders, and their families, of companies that do business in Cuba on property expropriated from American citizens. To date, executives from Italy, Mexico, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom have been barred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_Act

It has an effect, though you may not think so, especially for key industrial imports, which is one reason Cuba buys oil from Venezuela.


OTOH, most Cubans who could roust up the foreign exchange & endure the bureaucratic hassles have always been allowed to travel overseas, e.g. to visit family, (as I learned, much to my surprise, from a Cuban emigre I worked with), & that limited freedom is being expanded, so I'm not sure what the point would be in banning "certain sites" on the currently mostly inacessible internet.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/04/18/2008-04-18_raul_castro_loosens_travel_restrictions_.html

Just as autos haven't been widely imported into Cuba since the fall of the Soviet Union, computers haven't either. Scarce foreign exchange & distribution issues for consumer goods are the primary reasons, I believe.

Explain to me how we are less free than the Cubans despite the fact that I can look up virtually any site I want yet they are limited by their government.

And as for China: They started out communist, but realized it didn't work. So, they've been slowly integrating capitalism. It has benefited them greatly.

Why is it that China suffered under communism but has improved under capitalism? (And, yes, I know that it's not perfect over there. But things have improved.)

can travel freely in cuba, talk to anyone they want, when cubans can & do travel overseas, & when until recently, most cubans had no access anyway.

here's what i think: i think there may be some kernel of fact to the internet restrictions, but reported through a highly distorted lens. the reports i read from people who've actually gone to cuba don't support your police state scenario.

here's who runs your "freedom house":


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House

Freedom House receives the majority (80%) of its funding from the U.S. government through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and the State Department. It also receives some funding from foundations such as the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Dutch government, and a list of others.<5>

Holly Sklar, details how former CIA agent Charlie Wick initiated a "public diplomacy" fundraiser campaign amongst right-wing donors organizations, lobbyists and PR specialists working in conjunction with the NED, NSC, CIA and White House Office of Public Liaison and the State Department of Public Diplomacy which established a special group called the Outreach Working Group. NSC official Walter Raymond and Roy Godson recommended donated $400,000 to Freedom House that has credibility in the political centre in a PR war against the Nicaraguan government.<12>

Author Mark McKinney bluntly defines Freedom House as "funded by both the US government and Soros to provide support to pro-Western opposition movements" and intimately links Freedom House with the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Election Systems<13>. Furthermore he argues Otpor, the group which overthrew Milosevic, received funds from the NED and Agency for International Development via the Reagan Administration established NED to do overtly what the CIA had done covertly, that is, promote Cold War propaganda and operations though Freedom House, then chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey and supported by Billionaire Soros foundations, who always support NED operations.

As for Cuba, it's simple: Free speech is DANGEROUS to tyrants. Anything they can do to limit it will be done.

their reports to other human rights orgs, you'll find a different story.

I've presented evidence that tourism is widespread in cuba, that tourists can travel freely & talk to people, that cubans voice a variety of opinions to foreigners, that cubans can, with some hassle & expense, travel overseas & return home, that there are, in fact, public protests & assemblies in cuba with minimal consequences, that until recently internet access was not even a consideration for most people, that cuba has bloggers....

seems to me you're the one disregarding evidence. i'm perfectly willing to concede there are some restrictions on speech & assembly (there are in the us, too).

but it's pretty obvious cuba's not the absolutist tyranny you paint it as. absolutist tyrannies, for one thing, don't let foreigners travel freely, & the evidence is overwhelming that they can & do.

It doesn't matter how many computers they have when it comes to the government censoring Web sites. They're still telling them they can't view certain content.

They're censoring. And, sorry to say, you're trying to defend it. Accept the fact that communism, in its current form, leads to a dictatorship. If not, please provide a communist government that has not become a dictatorship.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/04/18/2008-04-18_raul_castro_loosens_travel_restrictions_.html

restrictions are being lifted, but ordinary cubans who could get the money & endure the bureaucratic process have always been able to go abroad to visit their families & for other reasons - including to the US. I learned this from a cuban emigre i worked with in the us.


http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-cuban-travel-regs.html

Presumably while they were overseas they could view foreign media.

and talk about it when they came home.

Tourism has been a growing industry since 1991. Foreigners can travel anywhere in cuba, on their own, & talk to anyone they wish, as you can confirm for yourself by perusing travel sites.

In such circumstances, what would be the efficacy of "restricting certain sites" on the internet?

What is it you believe cubans don't know about the outside world that's being hidden from them?

how is it these people aren't in jail, then?

how is it they have a press spokesman/international representative?

how is it cuba has "bloggers"?

released with a fine? whoa, harsh repression.


http://flamurcuba.org/artman2/publish/Home_News/CIVIL_DISOBEDIENCE_IN_CUBA_PROTESTS_INSIDE_FOUR_RESTAURANTS_IN_HAVANA_TO_SUPPORT_WITH_THE_SAME_CURRENCY_CAMPAIGN.shtml


CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN CUBA: PROTESTS INSIDE FOUR RESTAURANTS IN HAVANA TO SUPPORT “WITH THE SAME CURRENCY” CAMPAIGN

Apr 2, 2009 - 6:32:


Havana, April 1st, 2009. Cubans continue to openly defy the regime, just 24 hours after blogger Yoany Sánchez and other young Cubans expressed their desire for freedom of expression during an art performance carried out by Tania Bruguera at the 10th Biannual Art Festival in Havana.

This time, a total of 28 activists, 15 women and 13 men, entered four restaurants in Havana in furtherance of the third phase of the “With the same Currency” campaign, ordering food and refreshments and refusing to pay with the Cuban convertible peso (CUC).

Instead, they offered to pay with the Cuban national currency, the Cuban peso. Similarly to previous occasions, some of the activists were temporarily arrested and released afterwards. 8 of the demonstrators were fined with $40 Cuban pesos. All of them maintained their intention to demand the right to pay for the services with the same currency in which they received their salaries, which is the purpose of the campaign.

Magdelivia Hidalgo, FLAMUR’s International Representative, called for international public opinion to express solidarity with these actions. “The third phase of the “With the Same Currency Campaign is an example of consistency, organization and vision of strategic nonviolent struggle”, she outlined. “We hope that finally the international media, particularly the foreign correspondents and bureaus based in Cuba, finally report properly about this reality.”

You can come up with all the explanations for why they haven't succeeded but that will never convert them into an example of success. The best you can get to is "well, they would've been a success if it weren't for...".

Look to European examples instead or perhaps other Latin American countries that are works in progress but arguably getting closer than Cuba.

Compare Cuba to the rest of Latin America. The Cuban people are much better off as a whole than the rest in terms of quality of life. Those countries which are moving left all hold Cuba in high esteem. For that matter so do the rest, if only for Cuba's resolute resistance to Yankee imperialism.

You won't trust be but I've been there and done that. The most miserable people that I've encountered have been those of one of our client states in Central America, the Cubans are among the happiest people in the world. And this despite their lack of access to all of our ridiculous bling.

but it doesn't make any of them successes.

I'm just not willing to believe that the miserable conditions in Cuba over the last five decades represent the end goal that we want to strive for. Surely we can look for a model somewhere else that has produced better results than that.