Wall in the way of social progress

[Mauricio Coutinho]

In this day in age, its very easy to simply blame the US for all the troubles of latin america. The corrupt upper class systems in brazil and argentina maintains the poverty very high and cheap labor, well.....superfluous - and excessive enough So these people who sell their countries are an outlet of the capitalist deamon. They sell their country because it makes them rich - not that anyone else wouldnt do the same in their position. I dont know who the president of argentina is, but before I kill bush and his oil cronies, I would like to kill him.

Turning to communism or radical socialism of che should be the very last resort after all other possibilities have been exhausted and in a country where poor peasants or lower middle class make up more than 75% of the population(Brazil and Argentina are getting there). Only then can it work. Besides, I dont think too many of us are ready to give up coca cola or playstation so easily (at least im not!).

[CheViveToday]

Coca-Cola and Playstation [or similar products] could still be produced in a Socialist society, as long as the companies who produced them were run in a way respectful to the people, where nobody was getting too much of the profit over the lesser workers.

[Larissa]

In fact, there are many "capitalist" companies based in China now. That is just an example.

What about the brand new hotels in Cuba? (not fully owned by the private sector, of course)

If you can keep a socialist political system AND carry out businesses to improve a country's economy, I don't see the risk.

A socialist country doesn't have to be some sort of "poor" country. And true socialist ppl are cultured and intelligent enough to understand how can coke or play station or nintendo games may "affect" their views.

Socialism is about something else. And we are all aware about this besides coke or play station being considered symbols of capitalism.

[YerbaMateJ]

The thing that gets to me about the capitalistic way is not that people consume certain commodities, but that PEOPLE are commodities.

[Domino]

People has this erroneous idea that a socialist country is/will always be a poor country. People bases on what they hear from the media, they focus only on the present but don't see to the future (and they don't read either).

[Pete]

I think Socialism will have to be a slight Hybrid of Capitalism and communism, since it is the transition period. But by thet ime a Communist state comes into being it will consider wealth to be something immaterial.

[bluerev002]

Socialism doesnt mean that they get rid of all those commodities, not really. There was even a discussion about on wether Che prefered Pepsi or Coca-Cola a while back.

Why ppl see, to think that Socialist/Communist countries HAVE to be poor beats me. A lot of ppl think that ppl in Cuba are poor, and it can be because everytime they look at pictures of Cuba on the Television they see the same picuture of thos old buildings in the background.

either way, YerbaMateJ, can you explain to me more on what you meant about the ppl being the commodities?
Still cant figure it out ^.^()

[Larissa]

"either way, YerbaMateJ, can you explain to me more on what you meant about the ppl being the commodities? "

It's something Che explained in Man and Socialism in Cuba.

[Valkyrie]

hmmm. I think certain superficial commodities would have to be forfeited.

Why I think that, is because certain other things are going to take priority such as manufacturing basic needs for quality of life --- health care, education, agriculture, enviro-technologies, i.e. conserving resources for present/ future use- inventing new ones. Remember, we will be putting the whole population , if not just one country or region, than ideally the entire world, onto a system that relies on the workforce/government to furnish needs and resources. That's a lot of people needing healthcare etc. and while this doesn't entail money, it does entail a laborforce to create/invent these resources. So, in that.. Newton's Third Law of Physics applies: For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction -- in building up one part-- basic needs, than something on the other side, (non-needs) has gotta give.

That's not to say that the communist starndard of living will be impoverished. -- but that industry will better concentrate on integral resources that keeps the world in equal balance while not bleeding the laborforce in doing so.





(Edited by Paris at 8:22 am on Mar. 11, 2003)

[YerbaMateJ]

Quote: from Larissa on 1:03 pm on Mar. 10, 2003
"either way, YerbaMateJ, can you explain to me more on what you meant about the ppl being the commodities? "

It's something Che explained in Man and Socialism in Cuba.


Absolutely, Larissa. Thank you for making me dig it up because this is one of the quotes of Che that explains what I was talking about:

"Under capitalism, man is guided by a cold ordinance which is usually beyond his comprehension. The alienated human individual is bound to society as a whole by an invisible umbilical cord: the law of value. It acts upon all facets of his life, shaping his road and his destiny."

And bluerev002--- In my own experience with capitalism and the people I see every day (family, friends), I see people's alienation from one another. Sometimes it is just to make ends meet and survive--- other times I see people who have enough but feel they HAVE to have more and more. They don't feel like---nor act like whole human beings. Their relationships suffer. I believe Che wanted to help create a "new man" to cure this disease.

[redstar2000]

One of the curious "strengths" of capitalist societies is the sense of "false novelty."

We are constantly provided with "new this" and "new that"...even though, in the vast majority of cases, there's nothing that's really "new" and almost never is it really "better". On many occasions, the "new" is actually worse.

But many people are quite fascinated and delighted with this endless parade of the "new"...and I can foresee a certain kind of discontent in socialist/communist societies due to the failure to engage in this charade.

Being rational, we communists would, after all, only introduce new products when they represented a clear and definite improvement over the existing product...would we not? So, for example, a new model of personal auto might only appear every 10 years. Likewise for personal computers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and other major appliances.

Many simple commodities might well be effectively immortal...is there any reason to change the formula for detergent, cigarettes, dish-washing liquid, soft drinks, potato chips, whisky, etc.? Even the capitalists are more likely to change the packaging than they are the product.

And what of fashions in clothing and accessories? People do seem to enjoy continuous change in these commodities...don't ask me why. But I know many people who would be very unhappy if they couldn't "change their look" with considerable frequency.

In a fundamental sense, Paris is right: the basic needs of billions of people must have priority. But there's a delicate balance involved here...the new housing in Nigeria will not help us if the kids in Manhattan are bored or pissed off...they could grow up to be counter-revolutionaries.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:09 pm on Mar. 13, 2003)

[Valkyrie]

Hopefully communism will foster a society that strives for artistic and educational recreational activities.. Lots of street theatre and theatre, art, & music spaces, anthropologic and art museums, craft and music workshops, nature retreats. I would love to see the millions of Malls be torn down and replaced with nature reserves, parks and community gardens. alot more green and a lot less concrete jungles. I would LOVE to see a Green or atleast greener Manhattan. A huge Reclaim the Streets. and A reversal on all the pollution 20th century technology has produced.

But I completely agree, there's a sort of brain drain going on when the brightest minds are busy producing capitalist gadgets rather than putting that brain power into research for disease and environmental and societal concerns. True, it is not an technological advance when the TV screens get bigger & bigger and the remotes get smaller & smaller. it's now just a wasteful redundant technology. And what to do with the "old" technology? I can imagine it all goes to the graveyard along with the b/w TV's consoles and 8 track players and tapes.



(Edited by Paris at 6:50 am on Mar. 14, 2003)