Well, it looks like the 2008 election campaign is in full swing, or is it? Does anyone know who the Greens are running? Or the Socialists? Or the Progressives or Populists or Workers World? Nah, I guess we don't need them to get started. They can fill in the chorus parts at the end of the play. All we need is Big Politics. Come and get it. One party for the price of two!
Democrats and Republicans alike beseech us to get out there and vote, and why not? Besides making these self-anointed guardians of democracy seem open and civic-minded, there is the reassuring prospect that each will get their standard split (results will not vary greatly from 50/50). The virtual monopoly control of election apparat enjoyed by these two parties make them confident they will not have to face serious challenges from minor party candidates.
We are counseled that every vote matters, even a single one. While this may be true on the Supreme Court, a school board, or even a village election, as the vote count grows larger the odds alone make it progressively more unlikely that a single vote could be decisive.
The pivotal Florida count in the 2000 presidential election may seem to support one-vote-matters theory. Out of 5,861,785 votes cast in the State a mere 537 vote margin decided the whole shebang (via the Supreme Court). Okay, so 537 is not 1 but it's tantalizingly close considering the total number of votes. Didn't this prove that a single vote could, in principle, make the difference?
Forget it! It's not a matter of odds. It's a matter of appearance. In an election of sufficient size and importance, a single vote will never be decisive. That is the Florida lesson. Remembering Florida, think what would happen if the difference was a single vote, which, taking the Florida figures, works out to a margin of .000017 percent. Since this is hideously less than the margin of error in the count it would never be allowed to stand. It would be challenged and re-challenged until the margin raised high enough to quell some of the surrounding noise. All of which means one thing. Your vote will never matter!
Both parties see it as a bad sign when voters stay away from the polls. It signifies that people may have stopped paying attention. Democrats and Republicans each struggle to maintain the illusion that they are uniquely suited to guide the country that they alone deserve to lead by dint of tradition.
The absurdity is compounded each election cycle by these stalwart defenders of the status quo each promising to bring about the next great change, exploiting the public's thirst for it.
While we are encouraged to vote for change, in our system it works the opposite way. At the present stage, the entrenched power of Big Politics is such as to render any rival upstart stillborn. It won't happen at the ballot box, not in the expected sense. Voting is their game and you can't beat someone at their own game.
When 100 million people vote each major party will get between 40 and 60 million each, leaving mavericks the crumbs and millions of votes to overcome. Since mavericks are the only people who represent true change (supply your own proof), what we get is reluctance to change.
If only 1 million people vote each major party will have ulcers at the prospect of their vulnerability to the maverick. The fewer people who vote, the fewer needed to upset the power balance. Is this a partial explanation of why the establishment frets about low voter turnout?
So the message is if you really want to see things shaken up, stay away from the polls. This will take some discipline considering how it counters the prevailing advice. Your vote may be personal to you, but to those in control it is a commodity. It is bought and paid for in accordance with a formula (dollar/vote correspondence) well known to those in the field (applied electioneering), only you're not supposed to know this, even though you really know this.
You may feel that you vote freely, but ask yourself why you don't feel free to vote for a minor party candidate. Ask yourself why you don't want to "waste" your vote, yet instead reward with it the very parties responsible for this state of futility.
The army teaches a valuable survival lesson. When you are captured, the best time to escape is as soon as you can, because it gets harder as you go on. This presupposes something so obvious that it can be overlooked. That you know you are captive! Applying this to discussed circumstances, our primary obstacle may be that we do not fully recognize that all is futile.
23rd August 2007 06:24 PM
glencar
quote:Chuck wrote:
"Nowhere do 'politicians' form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions. It is well known that the Americans have been striving for 30 years to shake off this yoke, which has become intolerable, and that in spite of all they can do they continue to stink ever deeper in this swamp of corruption."
Frederick Engels, Introduction to Marx's 'The Civil War in France', (International 1940, p.20), 1891.
This sounds like Venezuela in the days before Hugo Chavez. In other words, they had it much better back then!
23rd August 2007 06:39 PM
Joey
quote:mojoman wrote:
i like Pho Bo.........and spring rolls
mojoman ........................
You are much loved by The Joey ..
...and " Uncle Ho " !!!!
23rd August 2007 07:08 PM
Chuck
quote:glencar wrote:
This sounds like Venezuela in the days before Hugo Chavez. In other words, they had it much better back then!
Engels' quote about America's corrupt bourgeois democracy is still relevant.
The Venezuelan bourgeoisie had it better before Hugo was elected 10 times in 8 years. Now they're whining like little bitches.
Pilger's 'War on Democracy' video (I know you won't watch it because it runs against your pro-imperialist perspective):
Hey Chuck. We get it. You hate your country,and would rather live in a socialist country. So then why not just move to one of those oh-so-prosperous countries and quit your bitching?!
It takes a villiage idiot!
Riffy
23rd August 2007 07:20 PM
glencar
Does Cuba take emigres?
23rd August 2007 07:29 PM
Chuck
quote:Riffhard wrote:
Hey Chuck. We get it. You hate your country,and would rather live in a socialist country. So then why not just move to one of those oh-so-prosperous countries and quit your bitching?!
It takes a villiage idiot!
Riffy
Actually, I love my country. I'd just like to see the working class take the state and means of production away from the bourgeoisie and it's labor-aristocrat prostitutes.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it you sad little man.
[Edited by Chuck]
23rd August 2007 07:31 PM
Chuck
Promoters of capitalism and democracy are quick to point to America with its universal suffrage, freedom of speech, high living standards and social liberalism AS exemplifying capitalism and democracy; they invariably attempt to minimize or avoid, say, Mexico with its political corruption, overt repression, low living standards and social conservatism. Yet the two nations form one functional whole in the process of production. Capitalism and democracy can only be TRULY evaluated when the two geographical components of the one productive whole are AVERAGED.
23rd August 2007 07:41 PM
Riffhard
quote:Chuck wrote:
Actually, I love my country. I'd just like to see the working class take the government away from the bourgeoisie and it's labor-aristocrat prostitutes.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it you sad little man.
Sad little man? LOL! Dude I am obviously much happier than you are. I live in a country that allows me to make a good living doing a job that I love. I love the whole capitalist system because it allows me this freedom. I can make as much or as little money as my own self determination and will power strives for.
I don't want, or need, any government handouts and I sure as hell have enough common sense to know that socialism never has, and never will, work! Shit son I knew that obvious fact way back in the 7th grade after reading Orwell's Animal Farm! Socialism is one very small step away from communism,and you can not cite one historical example of a successful communist country. Keep your silly little socialist pipe dream alive though. Whatever gets you through the night.
Riffy
23rd August 2007 07:54 PM
glencar
I wonder if he does indeed get through the night. He seems so unhappy.
23rd August 2007 07:54 PM
Riffhard
quote:Chuck wrote:
Promoters of capitalism and democracy are quick to point to America with its universal suffrage, freedom of speech, high living standards and social liberalism AS exemplifying capitalism and democracy; they invariably attempt to minimize or avoid, say, Mexico with its political corruption, overt repression, low living standards and social conservatism. Yet the two nations form one functional whole in the process of production. Capitalism and democracy can only be TRULY evaluated when the two geographical components of the one productive whole are AVERAGED.
So the corrupt government in Mexico is the USA's fault too, huh?! Why the hell should those who promote the greatest democracy in history be obligated to defend a corrupt government?! Be it a democracy or dictatorship. Have you never heard of a corrupt socalist country? Here's an easier question. Have you ever heard of an honest one?! Geesh! You're so predictable it's almost funny!
While you are thinking of those answers please also tell me which country has liberated more peoples from tyrany, and helped establish more universal civil rights than any other country in history. This same country has also been leading the world in charitable donations every year for well over a century. If you need any hints don't be afraid to ask. I'll tell you this much. It ain't Cuba.
Riffy
23rd August 2007 08:28 PM
Chuck
"Socialism is one very small step away from communism"
No---that's utopianism. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that Marxists are fierce critics of utopian socialism.
Marx certainly didn't think socialism was "one very small step away from communism":
'[W]e say to the workers: "You will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national struggles not only to bring about a change in society but also to change yourselves'" ('Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne,' Marx & Engels' Collected Works volume 11, International 1978, p. 403).
Nor did Lenin:
'The abolition of classes requires a long, difficult and stubborn class struggle, which, AFTER the overthrow of capitalist rule, AFTER the destruction of the bourgeois state, AFTER the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, DOES NOT DISAPPEAR (as the vulgar representatives of the old socialism and the old Social-Democracy imagine), but merely changes its forms and in many respects becomes fiercer' ('Greetings to the Hungarian Workers,' Collected Works volume 29, Progress 1965, p. 389).
Socialism, according to Marxists, is the dictatorship of the proletariat---i.e., the workers have seized the means of production and the state. Communism is stateless and classless. The transition time would depend, in large part, upon the level of industrialization of a particular country---e.g., it would take an under-developed country much longer than a developed one.
23rd August 2007 08:35 PM
Chuck
quote:Riffhard wrote:
So the corrupt government in Mexico is the USA's fault too, huh?! Why the hell should those who promote the greatest democracy in history be obligated to defend a corrupt government?! Be it a democracy or dictatorship. Have you never heard of a corrupt socalist country? Here's an easier question. Have you ever heard of an honest one?! Geesh! You're so predictable it's almost funny!
While you are thinking of those answers please also tell me which country has liberated more peoples from tyrany, and helped establish more universal civil rights than any other country in history. This same country has also been leading the world in charitable donations every year for well over a century. If you need any hints don't be afraid to ask. I'll tell you this much. It ain't Cuba.
Riffy
You miss the point. As I've tried to explain, the capital-rich industrially-developed nations and the resource-rich industrially underdeveloped nations form a productive whole. The underdevelopment of the latter is no coincidence; indeed, it is a GOAL of the developed nations to SUSTAIN the industrial backwardness of the colonies and neocolonies. The technology and capital that is used to plunder these satellites is almost invariably held by the creditors, the exporters of capital, while the plundered nations barter in only the rawest of materials---perpetually.
(I never said socialist states were perfect)
[Edited by Chuck]
23rd August 2007 08:42 PM
Chuck
With the exception of primitive communal societies, all societies, being characterized by class divisions, have been dictatorships---class dictatorships.
Engels: '[The state] is a product of society at a particular stage of development; it is the admission that this society has involved itself in insoluble self-contradiction and is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to exorcise' (Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, International 1942, p. 155).
Although we Americans seem to live in a benign democracy, it is in actuality a bourgeois democracy---that is, a democracy for the bourgeois or, put from the perspective of those who are NOT the bourgeoisie, a class dictatorship OF the bourgeoisie; the only reason that it seems benign is that the proletariat has fully surrendered to the terms set by the bourgeoisie, at least for the moment.
As long as there are classes, there will be dictatorships.
Bukharin: '[Social-Democrats]... do not understand that the FORMAL side of matter alone ('dictatorship' in general), which they understand incorrectly at that, does not decide anything: the important thing is its class meaning; its content---material and ideological; the dynamics of its development; its relationship to the general current of world historical development. Only imbeciles can fail to understand that the dictatorship of the PROLETARIAT and the dictatorship of the CAPITALISTS are polar opposites, and that their content and historical significance are entirely different' (Culture in Two Worlds, International n.d., p.4)
23rd August 2007 08:50 PM
Chuck
The socialist revolution---i.e. the collectivized ownership in the means of production---will not immediately transcend the existence of classes. Those who once owned factories, businesses, the alienated labor-power of others, will retain (for an indefinite period) their class ORIENTATION after their class property has been expropriated. Those workers who labored in the circulation sphere will share, to varying degrees, this orientation.
A monopoly of force---the state---will be initially required to protect the new social relations.
Engels: '[S]o long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries' (Marx & Engels' Selected Correspondence, International 1934, p. 337).
Or more precisely: the proletariat will use the state to defend the freedom of workers (socialism) against the freedom of capitalists (capitalism). It is understood by all Marxists that once all antagonisms between the capitalists and the workers are resolved and, consequently, the productive forces of society are set free to create a rational abundance available to all, then the state, and with it its monopoly of force, will wither away.
Engels: 'So long as the total social labor only yields a produce which but slightly exceeds that barely necessary for the existence of all; so long, therefore, as labor engages all or almost all the time of the great majority of the members of society---so long, of necessity, this society is divided into classes' (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, International 1935, p. 70).
Antagonism between classes, bound to happen when one class appropriates the labor of the other, necessitates state force (controlled by the ruling class). When the productive forces of society have developed to the point where abundance is available to all, the social relations of society may be changed from antagonistic to cooperative relations.
Engels: '[A]s soon as the productive power of human labor has developed to this height, every excuse disappears for the existence of a ruling class' (The Housing Question, International n.d., p. 30).
23rd August 2007 08:52 PM
Chuck
**yawn** off to bed.
Nighty night
23rd August 2007 09:51 PM
robpop
It amazes me how much people don not know the meaning of the word liberal. All the liberal name callers know the talk radio meaning of the word liberal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln were all liberals. Bill Clintion was an extreme conservative compaired to those presidents.
Wanna disagree? If George Washington was not a "liberal", why would he lead a revolution?
23rd August 2007 10:30 PM
Riffhard
quote:robpop wrote:
It amazes me how much people don not know the meaning of the word liberal. All the liberal name callers know the talk radio meaning of the word liberal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln were all liberals. Bill Clintion was an extreme conservative compaired to those presidents.
Wanna disagree? If George Washington was not a "liberal", why would he lead a revolution?
"Today's" liberals are not the same as yesterday's liberals!
George Washington led a revolution against unfair taxation without representation. So what party today raises taxes every time the wind changes direction? The same party that is being overrun by insane kook fringe hard-left liberals. The same party that takes it's orders from George Soros and his MoveOn.org freaks. You're right though, they are not, by definition, true liberals.
By the way Lincoln was a Whig/Republican. He won the Republican nomination in 1860.
Riffy
24th August 2007 07:19 AM
Chuck
If we assess the positive contributions socialism brought into the world (primarily Slavic Europe and the Third World), we may easily list (1) guaranteed employment; (2) free access to secondary education; (3) free health and child care; (3) basic nutrition; and (4) retirement pensions.
Since 'well-educated, "normal", middle-class / upper middle-class' people ALREADY take these things for GRANTED in the capitalist world---plus a zillion luxuries and a semblance of political freedom, both of which socialism did NOT provide---there is no reason in the least they would find socialism anything but TERRIFYING.
Here we see the CLASS DIVIDE that characterizes socialism and the response it provokes. Most people in Eastern Europe and the Third World (as well as many people in the First World) do NOT even EXPECT to receive such amenities as the four listed above. These are the people to whom socialism REALLY speaks---not the labor aristocracy (primarily located in the circulation sphere) who benefits from the exploitation of the overwhelming majority of workers (primarily located offstage in the production sphere).
Since the 'end of socialism,' i.e. unchallenged global capitalism, the lives of most people across the world have deteriorated.* (see post below)
(It may be useful to point out that leading intellectuals from both the right and left, from Bohm-Bawerk to Veblen, declared Marxism dead sometime around 1900)
Soviet socialism REMAINS an example that (1) capitalism can be overthrown; (2) capitalism can make way for socialism (however marred by scarcity and encirclement); (3) socialism can improve the living standards of millions of people; and (4) socialism, however repressive, can make its way towards liberalization in a remarkably short time. And that is what should be remembered---for future reference.
24th August 2007 07:22 AM
Chuck
Rebelión, March 1, 2004
Capitalism versus socialism: The great debate revisited
The debate between socialism and capitalism is far from over. In fact the battle of ideas is intensifying. International agencies, including the United Nations, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Food and Agricultural Organization, the World Health Organization and reports from NGO's, UNESCO and independent experts and regional and national economic experts provide hard evidence to discuss the merits of capitalism and socialism.
Comparisons between countries and regions before and after the advent of capitalism in Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Europe as well as a comparison of Cuba and the ex-communist countries provide us with an adequate basis to draw some definitive conclusions. Fifteen years of "transition to capitalism" is more than adequate time to judge the performance and impact of capitalist politicians, privatizations, free market policies and other restoration measures on the economy, society and general welfare of the population.
Economic Performance: Growth, Employment and Poverty
Under communism the economic decisions and property were national and publicly owned. Over the past 15 years of the transition to capitalism almost all basic industries, energy, mining, communications, infrastructure and wholesale trade industries have been taken over by European and US multi-national corporations and by mafia billionaires or they have been shut down. This has led to massive unemployment and temporary employment, relative stagnation, vast out-migration and the de-capitalization of the economy via illegal transfers, money laundering and pillage of resources.
In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the Solidarity Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of the labor force is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/22, 2004) and has been for the better part of the decade. Another 30% is "employed" in marginal, low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband, drugs, flea markets, street venders and the underground economy). In Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and East Germany similar or worse conditions prevail: The average real per capita growth over the past 15 years is far below the preceding 15 years under communism (especially if we include the benefits of health care, education, subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities have grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80% of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels exceed 50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-central Asian republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living standards have fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has out-migrated or become destitute and industries, public treasuries and energy sources have been pillaged. The scientific, health and educational systems have been all but destroyed. In Armenia, the number of scientific researchers declined from 20,000 in 1990 to 5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide
(National Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which most people live without central heat and electricity.
In Russia the pillage was even worse and the economic decline was if anything more severe. By the mid 1990's, over 50% of the population (and even more outside of Moscow and St. Peterburg - formerly Leningrad) lived in poverty, homelessness increased and universal comprehensive health and education services collapsed. Never in peace-time modern history has a country fallen so quickly and profoundly as is the case of capitalist Russia. The economy was "privatized" - that is, it was taken over by Russian gangsters led by the eight billionaire oligarchs who shipped over $200 billion dollars out of the country, mainly to banks in New York, Tel Aviv, London and Switzerland. Murder and terror was the chosen weapon of "economic competitiveness" as every sector of the economy and science was decimated and most highly trained world class scientists were starved of resources, basic facilities and income. The principal beneficiaries were former Soviet bureaucrats, mafia bosses, US and Israeli banks, European land speculators, US empire-builders, militarists and multinational corporations. Presidents Bush (father) and Clinton provided the political and economic backing to the Gorbachov and Yeltsin regimes which oversaw the pillage of Russia, aided and abetted by the European Union and Israel. The result of massive pillage, unemployment and the subsequent poverty and desperation was a huge increase in suicide, psychological disorders, alcoholism, drug addiction and diseases rarely seen in Soviet times. Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year of socialism to 58 years in 2003 ( Wall Street Journal, 2/4/2004), below the level of Bangladesh and 16 years below Cuba's 74 years (Cuban National Statistics 2002). The transition to capitalism in Russia alone led to over 15 million premature deaths (deaths which would not have occurred if life expectancy rates had remained at the levels under socialism). These socially induced deaths under emerging capitalism are comparable to the worst period of the purges of the 1930's. Demographic experts predict Russia's population will decline by 30% over the next decades (WSJ Feb 4,
2004).
The worst consequences of Western supported "transition" to capitalism are still to come over the next few years. The introduction of capitalism has totally undermined the system of public health, leading to an explosion of deadly but previously well-controlled infectious diseases. The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) published a comprehensive empirical report which found that in Eastern Europe and Central Asia…"infection levels are growing faster than anywhere else, more than 1.5 million people in the region are infected today (2004) compared to 30,000 in 1995" (and less than 10,000 in the socialist period). The infection rates are even higher in the Russian Federation, where the rate of increase in HIV infection among young people who came of age under the Western-backed 'capitalist' regimes between 1998-2004 is among the highest in the world.
A big contributor to the AIDS epidemic are the criminal gangs of Russia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Baltic countries, who trade in heroin and each year deliver over 200,000 'sex-slaves' to brothels throughout the world. The violent Albanian mafia operating out of the newly "liberated" Kosova controls a significant part of the heroin trade and trafficking in sex-slaves throughout Western Europe and North America. Huge amounts of heroin produced by the US allied war lords of "liberated" Afghanistan pass through the mini-states of former Yugoslavia flooding Western European countries. The newly 'emancipated' Russian Jewish mafia oligarchs have a major stake in the trafficking of drugs, illegal arms, women and girls bound for the sex- industry and in money-laundering throughout the US, Europe and Canada (Robert Friedman, Red Mafiya ,2000). Mafia billionaires have bought and sold practically all major electoral politicians and political parties in the self-styled "Eastern democracies", always in informal or formal alliance with US and European intelligence services.
Economic and social indicators conclusively document that "real existing capitalism" is substantially worse than the full employment, moderate growth, welfare states that existed during the previous socialist period. On personal grounds -in terms of public and private security of life, employment, retirement, and savings -the socialist system represented a far safer place to live than the gang-controlled capitalist societies that replaced them. Politically, the communist states were far more responsive to the social demands of workers, provided some limits on income inequalities, and, while accommodating Russian foreign policies interests, diversified, industrialized and owned all the major sectors of the economy. Under capitalism, the electoral politicians of the ex-communist states sold, at bargain prices, all major industries to foreign or local monopolies, fostering monstrous inequalities and ignore worker health and employment interests. With regard to ownership of the mass media, the state monopoly has been replaced by foreign or domestic monopolies with the same homogenous effects. There is little question that an objective analysis of comparative data between 15 years of capitalist 'transition' and the previous 15 years of socialism, the socialist period is superior on almost all quality of life indicators.
Let us turn now to compare Cuban socialism to the newly emerging capitalist countries of Russia, Easter Europe and south-central Asia.
Cuban socialism was badly hit by the turn to capitalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Industrial production and trade fell by 60% and the daily caloric intake of individual Cubans fell by half. Nevertheless infant mortality in Cuba continued to decline from 11per 1000 live births in 1989 to 6 in 2003 (comparing favorably to the U.S.). While Russia spends only 3.8% of its GNP on public healthcare and 1.5% on private care, the Cubans spend 16.7%. While life expectancy among males declined to 58 years in capitalist Russia, it rose to 74 years in socialist Cuba. While unemployment rose to 21% in capitalist Poland, it declined to 3% in Cuba. While drugs and criminal gangs are rampant among the emerging capitalist countries, Cuba has initiated educational and training programs for unemployed youth, paying them salaries to learn a skill and providing job placement. Cuba's continued scientific advances in biotechnology and medicine are world-class while the scientific infrastructure of the former communist countries has collapsed and their scientists have emigrated or are without resources. Cuba retains its political and economic independence while the emerging capitalist countries have become military clients of the US, providing mercenaries to service the US empire in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast to Eastern Europeans working as mercenary soldiers for the US in the Third World, 14,000 Cuban medical workers serve some of the poorest regions in Latin America and Africa in cooperation with various national governments that have requested their skills. There are more than 500 Cuban medical workers in Haiti. In Cuba, most industries are national and public with enclaves of private markets and joint ventures with foreign capital. In ex-communist countries, almost all basics industries are foreign-owned, as are most of the mass media and "culture industries". While Cuba retains a social safety net for basic foodstuff, housing, health, education and sports, in the emerging capitalist countries the "market" excludes substantial sectors of the unemployed and underpaid from access to many of those goods and services.
Comparative data on economy and society demonstrate that "reformed socialism" in Cuba has greatly surpassed the performance of the emerging capitalist countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, not to speak of Central Asia. Even with the negative fall-out from the crisis of the early 1990's, and the growing tourist sector, Cuba's moral and cultural climate is far healthier than any and all of the corrupt mafia- ridden electoral regimes with their complicity in drugs, sex slavery and subordination to U.S. empire building. Equally important while AIDS infects millions in Eastern Europe and Russia, Cuba has the best preventive and most humane treatment facilities in the world for dealing with HIV. Free anti-viral drugs, humane cost-free treatment and well-organized, extensive public health programs and health education explains why Cuba has the lowest incidence of HIV in the developing world despite the presence of small-scale prostitution related to tourism and low incomes.
The debate over the superiority of socialism and capitalism continues because what has replaced socialism after the collapse of the USSR is far worse on every significant indictor. The debate continues because the achievements of Cuba far surpass those of the emerging capitalist countries and because in Latin America the emerging social movements have realized changes in self-government (Zapatistas), in democratizing land ownership
(MST Brazil) and natural resource control (Bolivia) which are far superior to anything US imperialism and local capitalism has to offer.
The emerging socialism is a new configuration which combines the welfare state of the past, the humane social programs and security measure of Cuba and the self-government experiments of the EZLN and MST. Wish us well!
24th August 2007 07:57 AM
Chuck
"hard-left liberals."
LOL Liberals aren't hard-left. They are conservative bourgeois socialists---i.e., they want to reform capitalism, not overthrow it.
Marx:
"Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
....
The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie."
(Selected Works, Communist Manifesto, International 1986, pp.58-59, 1848.)
Only hard-right, free market demagogues think someone like Soros is "hard-left".
[Edited by Chuck]
24th August 2007 08:27 AM
Chuck
quote:robpop wrote:
It amazes me how much people don not know the meaning of the word liberal. All the liberal name callers know the talk radio meaning of the word liberal. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln were all liberals. Bill Clintion was an extreme conservative compaired to those presidents.
Wanna disagree? If George Washington was not a "liberal", why would he lead a revolution?
Washington wasn't a liberal---he was a leftist. He didn't try to REFORM monarchist domination, HE HELPED OVERTHROW IT.
Remember, the nascent bourgeoisie was the original "left wing". The terms "left" and "right" come from the French revolution where, in the National Assembly, the free-market Jacobins sat to the left of the king and the monarchists sat to the right. The capitalist bourgeoisie became "right wing" after it overthrew the monarchies and consolidated it's revolution in opposition to the working classes (e.g., when the National Assembly, under the Jacobins, instituted the Chapelier Law, which made the formation of guilds/unions and strikes illegal).
24th August 2007 08:42 AM
Chuck
Somebody above asked "which country has liberated the most people from tyranny?"
With the exception of flag-waving retards---can anyone else really argue with a straight face that the US has "liberated the most people from tyranny"?
[Edited by Chuck]
[Edited by Chuck]
[Edited by Chuck]
24th August 2007 12:24 PM
Dan
quote:Chuck wrote:
Rebelión, March 1, 2004
Capitalism versus socialism: The great debate revisited
Did anybody read all that?
24th August 2007 12:30 PM
pdog
quote:Dan wrote:
Did anybody read all that?
Hell no... It's about as difficult to read, as this video is to watch.
24th August 2007 12:32 PM
pdog
another long winded liberal jew?
24th August 2007 12:35 PM
monkey_man
24th August 2007 12:40 PM
Riffhard
quote:pdog wrote:
another long winded liberal jew?
In a nutshell. Yes.
Riffy
24th August 2007 12:40 PM
Joey
" The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. "
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
