North Korean Labor Camps in Siberia [Archive]

Prairie Fire

13th January 2012, 15:28

I should find a beardy male Zach-Galifianakis looking host, and spoof this with the camps in Northern Alberta, Canada, where "temporary foriegn workers" live and work in the oil patch. Mostly of Phillipino and South Asian descent, our wonderful and free capitalist workers often work in camps that they are not permitted to leave, are paid next to nothing, and can be sent home for any reason, or no reason at all.

Not only that, but they often pay to become TWF as well, with the promise of "citizenship" that rarely comes.
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1463

How these DPRK workers are being exploited is far from unique, and the burden of blame can't be placed soley on the shoulders of those who are providing the workers.

Here is my assesment of some things that stuck out to me from the film.

* The host keeps repeating "hermit kingdom" like a verbal tic, when it is neither. He even makes mention of how odd it is that the DPRK is involved in this venture, given how 'hermitic' they are.

Yes, it is certainly odd that your assertion has been proven unfounded, but you continue on with it regardless.

* "...Peppered with some failed Stalinist industry."

1. Which part is "Stalinist"?
2. Which part "failed"? Even if the industry was in fact initiated duing the period of 1924-1954 (which is possible/probable), in what way did it "fail"?
3.Is this statement predicated on the dismantling of the USSR in 1991, and therefore everything in modern Russia that predates 1991 is an extension of that "failure"?

If so,

4. Is it possible that the greater geo-political reasons for the dismantling of the USSR are bigger than a "failure" in Soviet industry?

This is the type of 'journalism' we are treated to here.

* "We just got here, and we already see a poster of Kim Il sung".

Maybe this is nit-picking on my part, but the poster is clearly not, just a generic "intellectual" standing beside a soldier and holding up a book. This is maybe just semantics, because any poster at all is unnaceptable to the host.

* (in the abandoned camp, Juche study house) "... you kind of feel like you've stumbled on a cult house"

"We're finding crazy propaganda stuff because North Korea is a cult of personality. One man runs like a god the country."

Comments like the above are precisely why you were not allowed to wander in the DPRK. You are looking for flaws, and therefore you are finding them.

On the issue of tourists being closely observed in the DPRK, I would like to contast this to Cuba. I was watching a VHS tape documentary on the CIA (still, for the life of me,can't remember the name of it,), and they were interviewing former CIA agents and operatives. One former agent talked about how he had infiltrated Cuba under the guise of an American student radical, a friend and supporter of the Cuban revolution, and began sabotage in the country on this basis.

Fresh water taps were left running, light bulbs were burned out, cement was placed into milk cans...

He was eventually caught and expelled, but seriously compare these things. Compare how many assasination attempts there have been on Fidel Castro (with proven American complicity,), and how few there have been on the Kims. From this, must we conclude that the Kims are more popular than the Castros? Or do they simply have better security.

Consider the recent assasination of the scientist in Iran. A country slated for "regime change" which allows tourists to go where they please is now also facing internal espionage and sabotage.

Do you see a reason that the DPRK should implicitly trust all foriegn tourists, especially when it is abundantly clear that many enter the country explictly with either soft or strong regime change motivations? Is there no credible threat of espionage to North Korea? No threat of foriegn powers agitating and manipulating an opposition movement?

*On the town of Tatual: "It's as if the soviets had had come up to the edge of civilization, then dropped off their Stalinist apartment blocks in the middle of nowhere, then gotten back on the train and never looked back."

Yes, "Stalinist apartment blocks". Housing complexes, built for people to live in, become this dark and sinister thing with the turn of a phrase. Even in the boondocks of the USSR, the Stalinists built evil apartment blocks for their most remote logging communities.

* Shanes equation at the end: Kim Jong Il is selling his people to Russia, so he can get more cash, so they can buy more weapons, so they can extort more food and supplies from Japan and the US.

Let me repeat that last part. So that the DPRK, North Korea can extort food and supplies from the US and it's allies.

At no point anywhere is it it mentioned that the USA, and the UN have placed a draconian economic embargo on the DPRK (Much more extensive than the one placed on Cuba,).

Nowhere is it mentioned that the world has legislated against the DPRK having a viable economy on their own terms (perhaps giving rise to these camps in the first place? I would be interested to know how long the camps have been there for, how long this program has been going on. I sincerely doubt that it predates 1991, largely on account of the forces that profit from such a venture not being in existence at the time, as well as the DPRK's relative economic stability then).

And, frankly, the tired narrative that the DPRK is a credible threat to any country on Earth, even South Korea, is laughable. Maybe if they were fighting on their own soil they could do some damage, if they had the home-court advantage, but otherwise the whole premise is as stupid as that bullshit videogame that came out recently, where the DPRK conquers and occupies the US. :rolleyes:

No, according to this, with small arms and obsolete air-craft, etc, North Korea is holding a knife to the jugular of the world, demanding and Extorting the food to feed their people.

That's right. The DPRK is the aggessor. Clearly.

For me, his equation raises a(nother) question: Why does the DPRK need money to "buy weapons"? Isn't the UN embargo predicated on keeping the DPRK from exporting weapons? If the DPRK is building their own weapons, owns the factories that they are built from, then where do they need to "buy weapons" from?

Anyways, my final impression is that the whole thing is crocodile tears. At no point have I contested the authenticity of their footage, nor do I necessarilly defend it. I believe that Enver Hoxha criticized the Yugoslavian SFR for doing something similar, exporting their "guest workers" to Germany and other western European countries.

The primary difference being, Yugoslavia was not in half of the dire straits that the DPRK is now. Far from the US and Western Europe having Yugoslavia in their cross hairs (at the time,), they were it's greatest material supporters.

I don't condone the actions of the DPRK's worker program to Russia, nor do I support whoring themselves out to Hyundai, to Disney animation, to building Chinese "special economic zones", which they are. All of that said, the DPRK doesn't exist in a vaccuum, but that is exactly how it is presented here.

It is crocodile tears, because the blame is placed on the evil Workers party of Korea for sending their people to work for little in bad conditions, but quite literally not a single word is said about who are they working for.

That the DPRK is recompensated is reitterated ad nauseum, but who is it that is requesting the North Korean labour in the first place? Obviously there is profit being made from this venture; while the DPRK is likely getting their cut, who is the main benector? Who owns the lumber operations?

Unknown. Not a word was said about it. They lament that the workers are in horrible conditions, but not that someone other than North Korea is benefiting tremendously from this exploitation.

They lament that North Korean workers, specifically, live in deplorable conditions in these camps, but don't take time to compare this with the international average standard of living. Who cares that workers in the 'World Vision' countries, the majority of the worlds work force, live and work in comparable standards? These are not the countries targetted for 'regime change',so who gives a fuck how their people live.

Crocodile tears. Either you are against exploitation, or you're not. Either you are against deplorable living and working conditions, or you're not.

A central point of contention in the documentary is the personality cult of the Kims, as it is in all American and British (BBC, generally,) press on the DPRK.

I've always been taken aback by the audacity of this, when both countries have rampant cults for their own heads of state, whether alive or dead.

Our Galifianakis look-alike host here bemoans the elevation of the Kims, but not a word is spoken about the elevation of, say, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincolns birthday is still an official holiday in some American states. Lincoln has his face on every American penny and five dollar bill, a giant statue of himself in the capital ( not unlike Kim Il sung), and his likeness carved into the side of a mountain. Truly, this dwarfs any promotion of the Kims.

George Washingtons birthday is "presidents day", a national holiday.

The British BBC has much to say about the Kims, when they (and by extension, all 'commonwealth' countries)still have a literal monarchy, which is not as 'figure head' as they are often presented to be (ie. Canada's prorougation crises of 2009). Even in 'Commonwealth' Canada, all coins bare the likeness of Queen Elizebeth II, as well as the Canadian Twenty dollar bill, Canadian postage stamps, every post office, most schools, governmental, military and official buildings (even the town hall in my home village). This is probably the same across the former British empire and Anglophone countries.

Kim Jong Il was not born on Mt. Paekdu. And George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree.

The first thanksgiving at plymouth rock likely never happened...
The Alamo was on land stolen from Mexico...
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a hoax...

Do you really want to play tit-for-tat on each countries educational systems teaching mythology as historical fact?

Again, either you are against personality cults, or not. Either you are against historical falsifications, or you are not. Crocodile tears.

They remark in the film that the North Korean workers are paid mere Kopeks, the equivilent of American Pennies, for their labour. Well,I hate to break it to you, but this is actually the standard of world wages. 5/7ths of humanity live on less tha 10$ a day, with a billion living on a dollar or less. Where were these camera men in a Nike factory in Indonesia, carpet looms in Pakistan,or any other workplace chosen at random in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Carribean and the Pacfific Islands? In any and all of them they would find the median hourly wage under a dollar.

Do you care? No, that's different. They aren't nationals of the foriegn policy adversary of the week.

Crocodile tears. You care that North Koreans make only pennies, but not Haitians making textiles for Gildan.

You care that North Koreans are made to emmigrate to work programs in a foriegn country, but not Philipinos, Indians, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, El Salvadorians, Haitians, etc, etc.

'Well, they wern't forced to come and work by a government' . No, they were forced to come and work by the rumbling in their stomachs, and the desperate poverty in which they lived, which is a much more persuasive force.

Either you are against the proliferation of the worlds workers to where-ever they can be exploited for their bare necessities, or you are not.

They are perhaps comparing the living arangement of these North Korean workers to the average American dwelling; compare them instead to the living arrangements in the sprawling Kibera slum on the fringes of Nairobi, Kenya, or Haiti's Cité Soleil, for example.

Crocodile tears.

Everytime I see a documentary on North Korea, I contrast it to a charity television commercial, and the way that the two are presented. World Vision presents poverty very neutrally, as though it is a mysterious force, that is no ones fault (least of all the prevailing economic system in a given country,), while news networks from CNN to BBC make it abundantly clear that all economic problems in North Korea can be directly attributed to the economic policies of the regime, and no other factor on Earth.

Fuck all of this hypocrisy. You can't pick and choose which grave injustices you rail against, and how dare you condemn your victims for adapting to the conditions that you have imposed upon them.

RGacky3

13th January 2012, 17:45

seventeethdecember2016

13th January 2012, 21:16

Prairie Fire

13th January 2012, 23:17

^ I'm a "she" by the way ( you seemed to be unsure of my gender, refering to me in plural, even).

ВАЛТЕР

14th January 2012, 01:27

Bravo! Prairie Fire! A great analysis! :thumbup:

bcbm

14th January 2012, 02:12

^ I'm a "she" by the way ( you seemed to be unsure of my gender, refering to me in plural, even).

i think its becoming more common to use 'they' as a singular gender neutral pronoun

Ismail

14th January 2012, 04:36

So your defending the DPRK, NOT because the allegations are false, NOT because its not actually a draconian authoritarian failed state, NOT because its population lacks basic human dignity and living standards, but because some who criticize them are hypocrites????The points brought up in the video are pretty ridiculous, and that's what PF seems to emphasize. The guy's remarks about "failed Stalinist industry," for instance, could be something he'd easily say about any state that pursued some form of central planning, even though the DPRK was economically more advanced than South Korea until the 80's. Industries don't suddenly stop working because one day the Lord God decreed it. The country lacks the trade it had with the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, and China isn't a very good substitute. It's somewhat similar to Albania, where industrial development was very good (some sources put economic growth at 9-10% each year until the 80's) but lack of trade for spare parts and new technology dented that accomplishment pretty quickly.

The video demonizes the DPRK and repeats imperialist propaganda (that's not a cliché phrase; Jimmy Carter among other bourgeois figures has noted the anti-humanitarian nature of the sanctions and the need for food in the country) such as "DPRK wants to steal glorious American food for evil plans," so I don't see what's wrong with pointing out said demonization and propaganda. It's little different from claims that Saddam was an evil madman bent on taking over Arabia with his WMDs and that ending Iraqi sanctions meant that he will win.

You don't need to think that the DPRK is a wonderful socialist country to oppose shallow analyses. The subject of DPRK labor camps in Siberia can be treated without propagating "wow look at those exotic isolated Koreans and their wacky culture" and "THE DPRK IS EVIL" stereotypes.

NOT because its not actually a draconian authoritarian failed state"Failed state" is a neo-liberal term. Leftists shouldn't be using it, especially since it implies that said country shouldn't even have the ability to oppose imperialism since, apparently, everything that happens in Zimbabwe, the DPRK, Somalia, Myanmar, and what have you are entirely the faults of the inhabitants and governments of those countries and that the international community is thus "forced" to "clean up" and care after them via regime change.

capitalism is good

22nd January 2012, 08:03

Well it looks like the Socialist regime of N Korea exploits its workers. Meanwhile the top 1% of N Koreans live in luxury..

nytimes.com/2004/10/19/world/19iht-norkor.html?_r=1

I told you Socialism does not work and is prone to getting evil dictators.

#FF0000

22nd January 2012, 11:30

Well it looks like the Socialist regime of N Korea exploits its workers. Meanwhile the top 1% of N Koreans live in luxury.

You mean to say...

there are classes in North Korea?

Why, that almost sounds like it isn't socialist at all.

I also want to point out that if you zoom out enough, the entire planet, which is capitalist, looks exactly the same.

SHORAS

22nd January 2012, 12:15

Following on from Prairie Fire's initial point, there's plenty of states in the gulf where passports are taken away from workers, they are forced to work to pay back debts sometimes fictional ones, a very high rate of death and injury not just from exposure to weather conditions (heat) but absolutely appalling conditions. Then you have other workers say who are forbidden to drink from a water fountain in the place that they work. Or India 'The biggest democracy' where the material and ideological slavery of the caste system is still all pervasive.

RGacky3

22nd January 2012, 14:12

"Failed state" is a neo-liberal term. Leftists shouldn't be using it, especially since it implies that said country shouldn't even have the ability to oppose imperialism since, apparently, everything that happens in Zimbabwe, the DPRK, Somalia, Myanmar, and what have you are entirely the faults of the inhabitants and governments of those countries and that the international community is thus "forced" to "clean up" and care after them via regime change.

I'll change it, when I say failed state, I mean a government that has totally failed to provide the basic human dignity they are supposed to protect, and actually failed to do what they claim the would do.

Omsk

22nd January 2012, 14:18

and actually failed to do what they claim the would do.

By that definition,all countries in recent history were "failed-states".

capitalism is good

22nd January 2012, 14:41

You mean to say...

there are classes in North Korea?

Why, that almost sounds like it isn't socialist at all.

I also want to point out that if you zoom out enough, the entire planet, which is capitalist, looks exactly the same.

Not quite. The capitalist countries have well fed workers. The N Koreans are starving.

Speaking of zooming out, here is a link of what the Korean Peninsula looks like at night (Sorry I have not reached 25 posts yet):

news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/dramatic-satellite-photo-shows-north-korea-near-total-013138805.html

Notice how bright South Korea is at night. Then look at how dark North Korea is at night. It shows the level of development under Socialism. Socialism does not work. Capitalism does.

#FF0000

22nd January 2012, 14:45

Not quite. The well managed capitalist countries have well fed workers. The N Koreans are starving.

Mmmm that's not quite what I said, dawg. I said that on a global scale, things are much the same -- the majority suffer while an extreme minority thrive. And it's no coincidence. The entire world is capitalist (even the nominally socialist countries), and the vast majority of the world is poor.

Socialism does not work. Capitalism does.North Korea ain't socialist, guy.

capitalism is good

22nd January 2012, 15:13

So there are no Socialist economies in the world, according to you. I think what you are after is an impossible dream. The fact that none has reached your Socialist ideal means that it is not possible. They certainly have tried and countries like N Korea is the result. I have no doubt that if the revolutionary left gets the revolution they desire, the result will look something like North Korea.

It is natural to have class distinctions simply beause each of us is different. Some are more able than others and will rise to the top of whatever system they live under. Those at the top will get more than the average share of goodies, whatever that is.

It is simply a part of nature. Even out closest relatives - like gorillas have what you call class distinctions. The top gorillas get to mate with the females. They don't have a money economy but their societies are unequal too. The inequality does not come from wealth or income. Their inequality comes from access to females.

So the strongest gorrilas get the girls. The smartest and diligent humans get more money. You can't fight nature.

The second point I want to make is this. It is not true that the majority of people in capitalist countries are suffering. Do you see starvation in America or South Korea? No.

You only see widespread hunger in countries that tried Socialism - like North Korea.

#FF0000

22nd January 2012, 15:26

So there are no Socialist economy in the world, according to you. I think what you are after is an impossible dream.The fact that none has reached your Socialist ideal means that it is not possible.

That's a mighty leap, there. You should get a trainer and try for the Olympics, booboo.

They certainly have tried and countries like N Korea is the result. I have no doubt that if the revolutionary left gets the revolution they desire, the result will look something like North Korea.

Naaah that's an overly simplistic view of things, I feel. Without question, every communist revolution in history has failed. But it's pretty fucking dumb to try and paint all of these revolutions with one broad brush without delving into what actually happened and their historical context.

It is natural to have class distinctions simply beause each of us is different. Some are more able than others and will rise to the top of whatever system they live under. Those at the top will get more than their fair share of goodies, whatever that is.

1) Natural =/= Good. Cancer is natural too, booboo.
2) What you're saying is also flat out false considering most of humanity lived in stateless and classless societies for most of our time on Earth.

The second point I want to make is this. It is not true that the majority of people in capitalist countries are suffering. Do you see hunger and starvation in America or South Korean? No.

You certainly see food insecurity and a couple million homeless amongst 18 million empty homes but that's beside the point because the world is larger than America and South Korea. There is Africa. There is South America. And there's certainly more to Asian than South Korea and Japan.

And let's be frank -- most of the world goes on and survives on less than $10 a day (about 80% according to the World Bank). Does 80% of the world population live under socialism?

You only see widespread hunger in countries that tried Socialism - like North Korean.

India. Haiti. I could go on.

Tim Cornelis

22nd January 2012, 15:54

Not quite. The capitalist countries have well fed workers. The N Koreans are starving.

Are we ignoring the fact that 140 million people more are malnourished because of food speculation? 140 million malnourished people because of food speculation alone. Thus ignoring the other malnourished people who are so because of capitalist induced poverty. The famine in Somalia was amplified by speculation with food driving up food prices, leading to the death of thousands.(1)

Capitalism kills.

It is natural to have class distinctions simply beause each of us is different. Some are more able than others and will rise to the top of whatever system they live under. Those at the top will get more than the average share of goodies, whatever that is.

This general declarative statement could in fact be used unaltered to defend fascism, slavery, social Darwinism, etc.

It is simply a part of nature.

No it's not. For 99.8% of time (2) we have lived in egalitarian relations with one another (3). For 99.8% we had no state or class distinctions. Yet now that we have lived for 0.2% of human existence with state and classes all of a sudden it has become ingrained into our human essence? Sounds infeasible.

Sources:

(1) In Dutch: article on food speculation + broadcast (http://zembla.vara.nl/Nieuws-detail.2624.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=53974&cHash=9e8956e717b5d8ab6db74e04fc6d7d6b)
(2) "For 99.8 percent of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society#Prehistoric_peoples)"
(3) Primitive society was egalitarian and peaceful: How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways (http://libcom.org/history/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-peter-gray), by Peter Gray

manic expression

22nd January 2012, 16:49

They certainly have tried and countries like N Korea is the result. I have no doubt that if the revolutionary left gets the revolution they desire, the result will look something like North Korea.
The DPRK is in such an economic situation because they are under siege by imperialist powers. Restrict most food imports into the UK and people would be dying in the streets by the thousands (around 40% of UK's food supply is imported)...and yet in the DPRK they're managing to get through it. Nevermind the people of Africa and Latin America (but not Cuba) dying of preventable causes, though, which is capitalism's doing.

So: besieged socialism > capitalism

As always, the truth hurts for the capitalist apologist.

It is simply a part of nature. Even out closest relatives - like gorillas have what you call class distinctions. The top gorillas get to mate with the females.Capitalism: It's Just Like Gorillas Raping Each Other.

Nice slogan you got there.

Ocean Seal

22nd January 2012, 16:59

Not quite. The capitalist countries have well fed workers. The N Koreans are starving.

Since I can post links I will do so.
You seem to be poorly acquainted with capitalist countries
Let me add some capitalist continents to your list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America

How often do capitalists forget that they are most than just the US and Europe.

Are you going to tell me that there aren't people starving here, or that perhaps they don't suit your vision of capitalism? Try quoting some Adam Smith maybe.

Speaking of zooming out, here is a link of what the Korean Peninsula looks like at night (Sorry I have not reached 25 posts yet):

news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/dramatic-satellite-photo-shows-north-korea-near-total-013138805.html

Notice how bright South Korea is at night. Then look at how dark North Korea is at night. It shows the level of development under Socialism. Socialism does not work. Capitalism does.
You do realize that was fake right? North Korea might not be well developed but Pyongyang is a lit city.

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd January 2012, 17:20

Capitalism: It's Just Like Gorillas Raping Each Other.

Nice slogan you got there.

That is going in my signature. :lol:

Solzhenitsyn

22nd January 2012, 18:59

#FF0000

22nd January 2012, 19:17

So its all the Great Satan America's fault basically? No matter how much of the population is forced into the army where they can't grow food. No matter how lavishly the ideological elites in NK live. No matter how many resources are misappropriated to essentially worship the leader. No matter how much they spend on building propaganda houses instead of building new housing. No matter how much they spend on propaganda instead of real education. No matter how much is diverted to work camps and prisons instead of farms. In the end it's all America's fault. Unbelievable.

Nah people are just saying the sanctions have a negative impact (but don't let that get in the way of your huff'n and puff'n).

Anyway the only thing someone can say honestly is that they have no idea what North Korea is like.

Like I said in another thread -- whatever I hear about North Korea, positive or negative, I automatically assume to be false.

XenoLair

22nd January 2012, 20:47

Oh god how i hate subjectie "documentaries"...

Ocean Seal

22nd January 2012, 21:20

So its all the Great Satan America's fault basically?
No but to deny that they play a major part in this would be idiocy.

No matter how much of the population is forced into the army where they can't grow food.

You're right. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the US has tens of thousands of troops on its Southern border complete with a military presence in two of its largest aggressors. Oh and the 4.5 million South Korean troops have nothing to do with it either.

No matter how lavishly the ideological elites in NK live.

That's innate to every capitalist country NK being one of them so I clearly doubt that its worse off than most capitalist countries just because of that.

No matter how many resources are misappropriated to essentially worship the leader.

Resources can worship a leader wow I never knew that.

No matter how much they spend on building propaganda houses instead of building new housing.

How much do they spend? I don't know, do you?

No matter how much they spend on propaganda instead of real education.

How much do they spend? I don't know, do you?

No matter how much is diverted to work camps and prisons instead of farms. In the end it's all America's fault. Unbelievable.
How much is diverted? I don't know, do you?

#FF0000

22nd January 2012, 22:30

Oh god how i hate subjectie "documentaries"...

it could've been baller I feel

but this dumb Hunter S Thompson wannabe tryhard hipster douchebag had to be an awful journalist

Ismail

23rd January 2012, 04:22

No matter how much they spend on propaganda instead of real education.Yeah I'm sure DPRK textbooks on economics, engineering, agriculture, etc. are just "KIM IL SUNG IS GOD!!! KIM JONG IL MANSEI!!!! DEATH TO GREAT SATAN!!!!!!!!!!" everywhere, right?

I doubt propaganda strains the budget in any way.

Also, since you mentioned the military and inevitably the % of the budget going towards it gets thrown around, I'll quote an old post of mine:

The military budget argument is one of the weakest IMO. The amount the DPRK spends on its military certainly is huge, but it's also highly relative.

As has been noted elsewhere (http://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/commentary/the-dprk-is-not-a-strong-military-power-by-hazel-smith--professor-of-international-relations--warick-university), "The DPRK annual defence budget is dwarfed by that of its neighbours at US$2 billion in 2005 compared with Japan’s US$45 billion and South Korea’s US$21 billion. In addition, per capita spending on its huge armed forces has to cover food, clothing, housing and health supplies as well as every aspect of what would normally come from a civilian infrastructure in a developed state – telecommunications, transport, food supplies and agricultural production. This is because the social infrastructure barely functions and the civilian industrial fabric has all but disappeared since the economic meltdown of the 1980s." The US military budget is something like over $650 billion.Also you forget that food also tends to be grown in the army via tiny plots of land. Obviously it isn't a lot, but most of the DPRK is mountainous anyway so agricultural development isn't going to go well without access to better methods and technology.

capitalism is good

23rd January 2012, 14:14

Since I can post links I will do so.
You seem to be poorly acquainted with capitalist countries
Let me add some capitalist continents to your list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America How often do capitalists forget that they are most than just the US and Europe.

Are you going to tell me that there aren't people starving here, or that perhaps they don't suit your vision of capitalism? Try quoting some Adam Smith maybe.

Only a few people are starving in some desolate parts of Africa. The cause is not capitalism but more due to cultural factors. Some cultures are just more progressive than others.

Let's go continent by continent.

Asia - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have reached First World standards of living. They are all capitalist. Here is a link giving you the per capita GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)of the countries of the world. The higher the per capita GDP, the richer the country.

An interesting comparison can be made if we hold the factor of culture constant. Let's compare N and S Korea. Capitalist South Korea is rich while Socialist North Korea is poor.

Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are majority Chinese. Yet the people there are rich while China is still poor. That's because the rich Chinese adopted capitalism long ago, while China turned capitalist much later. But China is fast catching up.

It was the same story when comparing East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell. So when you hold culture constant as in the above examples, the only reason for the disparity in wealth must be the economic system. In every case, the one with the more capitalist economy runs miles ahead of the Socialist economy.

Latin America. Some parts of Latin America are not far behind the First World countries. Those considered Middle Income countries include Argentina, Chile, Brazil. None of them have starving people as in North Korea.

Africa - As stated earlier, some parts have people starving. This is due to their inability to provide rule of law which their culture is unable to produce at this moment. For capitalism to work, there must be rule of law. Otherwise contracts cannot be enforced. You need to change their culture to something more progressive. Someone I respect once suggested sending in the Christian (Protestant) missionaries. Christianizing the population will change the culture for the better. It would take a number of generations though.

You also must realize that there are degrees of capitalism and socialism. No country is 100% capitalist or 100% Socialist. All countries are hybrids of the two poles. Generally, those countries that are more capitalistic have better growth rates and are more prosperous on the average. But they also have more inequality. If you are interested, take a look at this table giving you the ranking of economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking). Those with more economic freedom are more capitalistic. The most capitalistic countries are Hong Kong and Singapore. The least capitalistic countries are North Korea, Zimbabwe and Cuba - two of which follows your ideology. They are also very poor and ruled by brutal dictatorships.

You do realize that was fake right? North Korea might not be well developed but Pyongyang is a lit city.

I don't think the picture is a fake. Pyongyang is a lit city alright. But compare N Korea to South Korea which is brightly lit all over the country and not just at its capital, Seoul. This tells you that Koreans live much better under capitalism than under Socialism. Since both north and south are ethnic Koreans, cultural differences cannot be the cause. It must be the economic system - proof that Socialism does not work but capitalism does.

RGacky3

23rd January 2012, 14:27

Only a few people are starving in some desolate parts of Africa. The cause is not capitalism but more due to cultural factors. Some cultures are just more progressive than others.

Evidence/Reasoning?

I can give you tons of evidence and reasoning that starvation is caused by Capitalism (profit movitve in agriculture, free trade policies, first world subsidies, rate of profit to fall applied to agriculture).

Asia - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have reached First World standards of living. They are all capitalist.

An interesting comparison can be made if we hold the factor of culture constant. Let's compare N and S Korea. Capitalist South Korea is rich while Socialist North Korea is poor.

North Korea is not socialist by any reasonable definition of the word.

Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are majority Chinese. Yet the people there are rich while China is still poor. That's because the rich Chinese adopted capitalism long ago, while China turned capitalist much later. But China is fast catching up.

Singapore and China have EXTREMELY unCapitalistic policies that are largely the story of their relative success (no land private property, limited private property rights elsewhere), you want to see a real capitalist country in the region see indonesia.

It was the same story when comparing East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell. So when you hold culture constant as in the above examples, the only reason for the disparity in wealth must be the economic system. In every case, the one with the more capitalist economy runs miles ahead of the Socialist economy.

There are many many many factors leading to that, from the outcome of WW2, to the arms race.

But the USSR was state-capitalist (did'nt undo the capitalist mode of production, did'nt democratize the economy).

But lets take europe, lets compare countries with strong productive public sectors and unions to countries that do not have that. Say Germany vrs Spain, Scandanavian countries vrs the UK.

Latin America. Some parts of Latin America are not far behind the First World countries. Those considered Middle Income countries include Argentina, Chile, Brazil. None of them have starving people as in North Korea.

Venezuela and Bolivia both undid their poverty significantly with socialistic policies, the same with Argentina after the economic colapose, the same with Bolivia. Chile right now is having some major problems.

Africa - As stated earlier, some parts have people starving. This is due to their inability to provide rule of law. For capitalism to work, there must be rule of law. Otherwise contracts cannot be enforced.

Oh there is rule of law ... For the ones that can afford it, infact that is a libertarians paradise.

Bronco

23rd January 2012, 14:37

You do realize that was fake right? North Korea might not be well developed but Pyongyang is a lit city.

Are you sure it's fake? Even in Pyongyang they routinely lose their electricity for hours at a time, and it can only be worse in the rest of the country

manic expression

23rd January 2012, 16:05

Asia - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have reached First World standards of living. They are all capitalist. Here is a link giving you the per capita GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita)of the countries of the world. The higher the per capita GDP, the richer the country.
GDP counts for absolutely nothing when it comes to standard of living and the human dignity of a society.

It was the same story when comparing East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell. So when you hold culture constant as in the above examples, the only reason for the disparity in wealth must be the economic system. In every case, the one with the more capitalist economy runs miles ahead of the Socialist economy.
No, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that West Germany was about twice as large as East Germany and held Germany's long-standing centers of industry (Hamburg, Rheinland Pfalz)... :rolleyes:

Latin America. Some parts of Latin America are not far behind the First World countries. Those considered Middle Income countries include Argentina, Chile, Brazil. None of them have starving people as in North Korea.
Oh, so those are the best-case scenarios? Let's look at the facts, shall we?

Argentina: An estimated 15,000 people are homeless in Buenos Aires (http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statistics), a poverty rate recently calculated at around 25% (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2008/0107/p04s02-woam.html).

Chile: More than a million and a half homeless (http://observadorglobal.com/chile-los-sin-hogar-n6114.html), unemployment is over 7% and expected to rise (http://cuva.uta.cl/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=637:nivel-de-desempleo-en-chile-se-incrementar%C3%ADa-en-el-2012).

Brazil: Recent surveys have concluded that up to 20 million Brazilians are illiterate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3093472.stm), a housing crisis equalling 20 million homeless people (http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statistics), while the murder rate sits at an intolerable 23.8 per 100,000 people (http://www.economist.com/node/8952551?story_id=8952551) (placing it at 12th highest in the world),

And remember these are capitalism's best-case scenarios.

Cuba: Unemployment? No. Homelessness? Nope. High crime rates? Not at all. Illiteracy? Not a chance. Oh, and it has the best infant mortality rates in the Americas.

Africa - As stated earlier, some parts have people starving. This is due to their inability to provide rule of law which their culture is unable to produce at this moment. For capitalism to work, there must be rule of law. Otherwise contracts cannot be enforced. You need to change their culture to something more progressive. Someone I respect once suggested sending in the Christian (Protestant) missionaries. Christianizing the population will change the culture for the better. It would take a number of generations though.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You do know that much of Africa was Christianized decades ago, right? You do know it hasn't helped anyone that much (except for the churches who collect donations). You sound like McKinley when he said the Philippines had to be Christianized, even though the Spanish already beat him to the job centuries beforehand. And then you have the gall to talk about "multiple generations" without realizing how you're echoing the ghosts of imperialism's past.

Anyway, the reason why there's so much instability in Africa is because your precious capitalists made it so. Every single conflict in the region since the end of WWII was the product of colonialism, decolonization and the resulting injection of imperialist interests there. South African apartheid and all the wars fought because of its aggression (Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, etc) is just one example. Instability is so common there because it is good for business. It has nothing to do with culture and any suggestion to the contrary is a decidedly chauvinistic suggestion.

It is the height of imperialist arrogance to blame Africa for the problems that Africans have been heroically struggling against for years. It's time to take some personal responsibility for what capitalism has wrought upon the people of Africa instead of trying to blame it on the least powerful.

The least capitalistic countries are North Korea, Zimbabwe and Cuba - two of which follows your ideology. They are also very poor and ruled by brutal dictatorships.
Cuba is the most democratic (http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/) country (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html) on the face of the planet.

I don't think the picture is a fake. Pyongyang is a lit city alright. But compare N Korea to South Korea which is brightly lit all over the country and not just at its capital, Seoul.
Most of the DPRK is mountainous...what you're saying is like loudly screaming of dictatorship because there aren't very many lights in Iceland (http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/391/overrides/space157-change-night-lights-europe_39176_600x450.jpg).

Further, what it does show is that the DPRK doesn't need streetlights on all night to discourage crime, which is 90% of the reason why capitalist countries need the lights on...in capitalism, it's rarely safe to walk a dark street because a dog-eat-dog society eats its own. In socialism, it is safe to do the same because it's a society based on human dignity.

seventeethdecember2016

23rd January 2012, 16:10

An interesting comparison can be made if we hold the factor of culture constant. Let's compare N and S Korea. Capitalist South Korea is rich while Socialist North Korea is poor.
Prior to the 1970s, the North was just as prosperous as the South. The North actually had an edge with close trading partners such as the SU or China, while the South had to trade with Japan, Europe, and the US. You also don't talk about the disastrous effect the sanctions by western nations have on the North. About 60-70% of the North's trading is done with China, and 20-30% is done with Russia. Do you really think the North would be more prosperous with economic factors such as these?

Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are majority Chinese. Yet the people there are rich while China is still poor. That's because the rich Chinese adopted capitalism long ago, while China turned capitalist much later. But China is fast catching up.
You obviously know nothing about Maoism(Cooperates), and how it relates to the modern Chinese surge. I admit that it is a stretch of the ideology, and that China's capitalism is Dengism, but Mao still plays a big role.

It was the same story when comparing East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell. So when you hold culture constant as in the above examples, the only reason for the disparity in wealth must be the economic system. In every case, the one with the more capitalist economy runs miles ahead of the Socialist economy.
Your arguing one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Your saying Capitalism is better than Socialism because it produces more Capital. Thanks for the obvious, however much of the world has broken from Capitalism. Europe for example does a mixing game that, in my opinion, swings more towards Socialism than Capitalism. The British Labor Party and the French and German Socialist parties have their foundings from Marxism. The French Communist party has also had a significant amount of influence, in the nation, during the time period you're referring to.

Latin America. Some parts of Latin America are not far behind the First World countries. Those considered Middle Income countries include Argentina, Chile, Brazil. None of them have starving people as in North Korea.
I doubt you've read anything about Hugo Chavez or other South American leaders who have made great leaps to conquer hunger. Many of the things your saying go back to the 80s. I'm sure you believe Imperialism is better, seeing how French Guiana has the highest per capita GDP in South America(excluding Island Nations).

Africa - As stated earlier, some parts have people starving. This is due to their inability to provide rule of law which their culture is unable to produce at this moment. For capitalism to work, there must be rule of law. Otherwise contracts cannot be enforced. You need to change their culture to something more progressive. Someone I respect once suggested sending in the Christian (Protestant) missionaries. Christianizing the population will change the culture for the better. It would take a number of generations though.
http://www.probioticsmart.com/media/smiling-horse.jpg

You also must realize that there are degrees of capitalism and socialism. No country is 100% capitalist or 100% Socialist. All countries are hybrids of the two poles. Generally, those countries that are more capitalistic have better growth rates and are more prosperous on the average. But they also have more inequality.
Seeing how it costs more to raise kids in Capitalist countries, there are far more children born in Socialist countries. Europe's growth rates are near collapse, while the Middle East and Africa are booming.

Deicide

23rd January 2012, 17:52

I don't want to point any fingers, but scanning this thread, I sense a tinge of apologetics and reality-denial, or at the least, disguised aspirations for the accusations directed at the North-Korean slave-state and its glorious leaders to be false, emanating from several posts.

I do not consider North-Korea to be socialist, I don't believe the North Korean elite even had an intention of ever constructing socialism, it's merely a monstrous caricature, like the USSR, and it serves to discredit Socialism. I loathe cliches, yet, it's impossible to ignore North-Korea's astute resemblance to George Orwel's novel, 1984. The recently demised Christopher Hitchens remarked that the resemblance is so profound, it's almost like Kim ll-Sung happened to read an early copy of 1984, and was inspired to construct a state with himself as Big Brother.

The Dear/Great/Supreme Leader apologetics that I have been unfortunate enough encounter on the internet, seem to incase themselves with an anti-reality husk, while fiercely dismissing the horrors of North Korea as 'the propaganda of capitalist pigs!' and those who denounce the sickening charade, that is North Korea, as 'imperialist sympathisers!'.

Oceania isn't the only totalitarian system that North-Korea shares a striking resemblance with. North Korea is also, essentially, a theocracy based around the constant praise and worship of the state and it's hereditary masters. You are forced to love someone that you fear, it's the essence of sado-masochism and a slave relationship.

Propaganda praising the brilliance of the leader, and your enslavement, is drilled into your skull from the day you are born. Children are bombarded with indoctrination on the way to school, before they enter school, in school, when they leave school and when they get home. In some cities, Pyongyang for example, you're even gifted with a radio, which, by the way, you can never turn off, so you can learn about the wonderful utopia and it's brilliant leaders all day long.

Sure, some of the accusations could possible be slightly distorted. But I don't see any reason to believe that they are distorted. One only has to read the shocking disclosures of death camps, famine, serfdom, and brutality inflicted on citizens, revealed by brave North Korean defectors, who narrowly escape the North Korean distopia and its life-long serfdom and misery. There's only two ways of escaping the 'Supreme' Leaders, otherwise, permanent worship and supervision; risk your life by crossing the border or take your own life.

Then, there's the numerous reporters who have visited North Korea as special guests, conveniently.. reporters are only allowed to visit areas(usually the capital) specifically designated by the state, they are not allowed to converse with citizens without permission, and, they're always strictly supervised by brainwashed guides that are delightful about their own enslavement. I wonder why? Seems rather odd? Does the 'Supreme' Leader have something to hide? One has to also mention the frequent videos taken from the Chinese border, displaying grief-stricken and backwards villages.

The chances are, North Korea will implement the Chinese Model, while still remaining a totalitarian slave-state.

A true communist, socialist or any freedom loving creature, would only have contempt and hatred for the North Korean regime. If you dare to call yourself a socialist, a supporter of the proletariat and a free-society, while acting as a apologist for North Korea, then I vehemently consider you my gravest enemy, the enemy of socialism and the enemy of humanity.

I personally want to see a North Korean apologist, from the western world, move to the North Korean Utopia they defend so ardently. Surely, the chance to eternally praise the magnificence of the Eternal-President, Kim ll-sung, and the Supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, and the greatest ideology ever conceived, Juche, instills them with ecstatic enthusiasm?

The Young Pioneer

23rd January 2012, 17:54

Africa - As stated earlier, some parts have people starving. This is due to their inability to provide rule of law which their culture is unable to produce at this moment. For capitalism to work, there must be rule of law. Otherwise contracts cannot be enforced. You need to change their culture to something more progressive.

What exactly is "their culture"? Because Africa's one of the most culturally diverse continents on the planet, comprising of between two and three thousand languages, and hundreds of ethnic groups.

And what culture would you propose forcing them to assimilate to?

Someone I respect once suggested sending in the Christian (Protestant) missionaries. Christianizing the population will change the culture for the better. It would take a number of generations though.

Ah.

It's been done! Foreigners have been coming in and setting up Christian churches since 43 AD! Though of course the biggest Christianisation came with the slave trade and imperial invasion- what a capital idea!

But I suppose the people of Africa enjoyed it. After all, the "Congo Free State" appreciated King Leopold II's "Christian missionaries" so much they all gave him a...hand.

seventeethdecember2016

23rd January 2012, 18:32

Ismail

23rd January 2012, 20:15

I personally want to see a North Korean apologist, from the western world, move to the North Korean Utopia they defend so ardently. Surely, the chance to eternally praise the magnificence of the Eternal-President, Kim ll-sung, and the Supreme leader, Kim Jong-un, and the greatest ideology ever conceived, Juche, instills them with ecstatic enthusiasm?Yeah, fuckin' commies, they should move to Cuba/China/Russia if they like it so much!

No one here is defending the DPRK as a socialist state. No one is calling it a paradise. Going on about 1984 or how the DPRK is an evil theocratic slaveocracy ruled by neo-feudal fascist totalitarian "sado-monarchists" does nothing to further any Marxist analysis and does, in fact, reek of liberal attacks which appeal to emotion rather than rational analysis, and liberal attacks have, of course, always been used to justify imperialist intervention because apparently a state is just so damn evil that imperialism must step in to "save" its people. See Yugoslavia/Serbia in 2000, Libya in 2011, etc.

Also Christopher Hitchens sucked and was an apologist of imperialism. And no, his comments on the DPRK have nothing to do with achieving that status (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/hitc-d17.shtml).

What we know about the DPRK is that it's poor, it's oppressed by imperialism, it's ruled by a fairly corrupt military, its ideological doctrines are not based on scientific socialism (instead it's based on the idealistic and obviously cynical "Juche" and "Songun"), the military uses a gigantic Kim family cult to legitimize the state, and that outside the capital, especially in the northern parts of the country, peasants live lives that can generally be described as either quite bad or very bad depending on things.

Then, there's the numerous reporters who have visited North Korea as special guests, conveniently.. reporters are only allowed to visit areas(usually the capital) specifically designated by the state, they are not allowed to converse with citizens without permission, and, they're always strictly supervised by brainwashed guides that are delightful about their own enslavement. I wonder why? Seems rather odd? Does the 'Supreme' Leader have something to hide?Every self-proclaimed "socialist" country does that to a greater or lesser extent, even Cuba (although people are willing to talk to you there.)

then I vehemently consider you my gravest enemy, the enemy of socialism and the enemy of humanity.Enemy of humanity? Wow, that's some Orwellian stuff right there. It's also self-important.

#FF0000

23rd January 2012, 21:39

The cause is not capitalism but more due to cultural factors. Some cultures are just more progressive than others.

Nobody who has ever even glanced at a history book can take this statement seriously.

Africa - As stated earlier, some parts have people starving. This is due to their inability to provide rule of law which their culture is unable to produce at this moment. For capitalism to work, there must be rule of law. Otherwise contracts cannot be enforced. You need to change their culture to something more progressive. Someone I respect once suggested sending in the Christian (Protestant) missionaries. Christianizing the population will change the culture for the better. It would take a number of generations though.

I've heard of White Man's Burden before. What you're saying here has been used as justification of some of the worst things humans have ever done to each other and I'm kind of surprised that someone who's so jumpy to call ideas failures is still clinging to this blood-soaked 19th century relic.

You also must realize that there are degrees of capitalism and socialism. No country is 100% capitalist or 100% Socialist.

I don't agree with this at all and in fact I think the definition of capitalism to be quite rigid. If a society depends on wage labor, relies on exclusive ownership over the inputs and outputs of production, and has an overclass that has exclusive control over the means of production, that society is capitalist. That's the capitalist mode of production, that is what socialists aim to get rid of, and that is what every country on the planet has.

The least capitalistic countries are North Korea, Zimbabwe and Cuba - two of which follows your ideology. They are also very poor and ruled by brutal dictatorships.

Neither are socialist. Nominally, perhaps, but they both employ the capitalist mode of production.

I don't think the picture is a fake. Pyongyang is a lit city alright. But compare N Korea to South Korea which is brightly lit all over the country and not just at its capital, Seoul. This tells you that Koreans live much better under capitalism than under Socialism. Since both north and south are ethnic Koreans, cultural differences cannot be the cause. It must be the economic system - proof that Socialism does not work but capitalism does.[/QUOTE]

#FF0000

23rd January 2012, 21:41

Seeing how it costs more to raise kids in Capitalist countries, there are far more children born in Socialist countries. Europe's growth rates are near collapse, while the Middle East and Africa are booming.

Every country is capitalist.

Omar the Lucky

23rd January 2012, 22:14

Comparing North Korea to South Korea is not very fair, given the obstacles put in place on the former by the international community. But surely it still most have some significance.

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 03:11

GDP counts for absolutely nothing when it comes to standard of living and the human dignity of a society.

Standard of Living is measured by per capita GDP and I have provided a link for that. Per Capita GDP is in layman's terms the average income of a person living in the country.

Human dignity is more subjective and is not quantifiable.

No, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that West Germany was about twice as large as East Germany and held Germany's long-standing centers of industry (Hamburg, Rheinland Pfalz)... :rolleyes:

The size of the country has nothing to do with average income. If it does, then India and China would be very rich. The economic system has a greater importance. So is culture of the people. All centres of production were destroyed during WWII. So both sides started out poor.

Oh, so those are the best-case scenarios? Let's look at the facts, shall we?

Argentina: An estimated 15,000 people are homeless in Buenos Aires (http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statistics), a poverty rate recently calculated at around 25% (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2008/0107/p04s02-woam.html).

Chile: More than a million and a half homeless (http://observadorglobal.com/chile-los-sin-hogar-n6114.html), unemployment is over 7% and expected to rise (http://cuva.uta.cl/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=637:nivel-de-desempleo-en-chile-se-incrementar%C3%ADa-en-el-2012).

Brazil:Recent surveys have concluded that up to 20 million Brazilians are illiterate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3093472.stm), a housing crisis equalling 20 million homeless people (http://www.homelessworldcup.org/content/homelessness-statistics), while the murder rate sits at an intolerable 23.8 per 100,000 people (http://www.economist.com/node/8952551?story_id=8952551) (placing it at 12th highest in the world),

And remember these are capitalism's best-case scenarios.

Assuming those stats are true, you are just cherry picking some data. The average income (ie Per Capita GDP) is still higher than Cuba or N Korea - the last true Socialist countries left.

Cuba: Unemployment? No. Homelessness? Nope. High crime rates? Not at all. Illiteracy? Not a chance. Oh, and it has the best infant mortality rates in the Americas.

Then why are Cubans risking their lives to flee their paradise for Miami?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You do know that much of Africa was Christianized decades ago, right? You do know it hasn't helped anyone that much (except for the churches who collect donations). You sound like McKinley when he said the Philippines had to be Christianized, even though the Spanish already beat him to the job centuries beforehand. And then you have the gall to talk about "multiple generations" without realizing how you're echoing the ghosts of imperialism's past.

to be continued ...

Ocean Seal

24th January 2012, 03:20

Only a few people are starving in some desolate parts of Africa. The cause is not capitalism but more due to cultural factors. Some cultures are just more progressive than others.

http://patrick.net/forum/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/what_the_fuck_am_i_reading.jpg

balls deep in revolution

24th January 2012, 03:37

Then why are Cubans risking their lives to flee their paradise for Miami?the overall standard of living is better in the United States than in Cuba. that should be obvious because the United States is a first world nation whereas Cuba is not, because it is a small isolated island. If the US allowed people from Haiti, a neighboring country which adheres much closer to right wing capitalist economics than Cuba free access to come to the US, then obviously there would be much more Haitians coming to American shores than Cubans.

Ocean Seal

24th January 2012, 03:39

Let's go continent by continent.

Asia - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have reached First World standards of living. They are all capitalist.

So is the rest of Asia and it hasn't reached first world standards of living.
Here's an article on Hong Kong if you're interested.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC12.html

Here is a link giving you the per capita GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita)of the countries of the world. The higher the per capita GDP, the richer the country.

Good thing I don't care much for how rich a nation is, rather how rich the people are.

Blah
So basically if a country is rich it is capitalist, if not then its not "economically free". Cool story bro.

Africa - As stated earlier, some parts have people starving. This is due to their inability to provide rule of law which their culture is unable to produce at this moment. For capitalism to work, there must be rule of law. Otherwise contracts cannot be enforced. You need to change their culture to something more progressive. Someone I respect once suggested sending in the Christian (Protestant) missionaries. Christianizing the population will change the culture for the better. It would take a number of generations though.

So Africa doesn't have contracts? I'm pretty sure that the US diamond companies have contracts with African warlords. Its not culture, the whole world is part of the capitalist system. The imperialist nations viciously oppress the third world. Why do you think that they're off fighting their wars and putting their henchmen in power throughout the world.
I refer you to the pony in my previous post.

You also must realize that there are degrees of capitalism and socialism. No country is 100% capitalist or 100% Socialist.

So in effect, you lied when you said that South Korea, Japan, Singapore etc. were capitalist?
Its okay you didn't lie, but this statement is just ignorant.
You can't have the workers are the ruling class and the bourgeoisie as the ruling class at the same time. Its an obvious contradiction.

All countries are hybrids of the two poles. Generally, those countries that are more capitalistic have better growth rates and are more prosperous on the average. But they also have more inequality. If you are interested, take a look at this table giving you the ranking of economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking). Those with more economic freedom are more capitalistic. The most capitalistic countries are Hong Kong and Singapore. The least capitalistic countries are North Korea, Zimbabwe and Cuba - two of which follows your ideology. They are also very poor and ruled by brutal dictatorships.

Again economic freedom doesn't mean shit to anyone who doesn't live in your fantasyland. And I'm pretty sure I know what my ideology is and they don't follow it. Again socialism=international, it can't exist under siege.
And if you think that Cuba is poor you should try living in Haiti, I'm sure the American backed dictators turned the place into a beautiful capitalist paradise. Or maybe it isn't capitalist because its poor. Or maybe it doesn't have a "capitalist culture. Again the wealthy capitalist nations and the poor "non-capitalist or ill-cultured" nations are all inextricably linked together in the world capitalist economy.

I don't think the picture is a fake. Pyongyang is a lit city alright.

Then its a fake dumbass.

But compare N Korea to South Korea which is brightly lit all over the country and not just at its capital, Seoul. This tells you that Koreans live much better under capitalism than under Socialism.

Again the DPRK isn't socialist. The socialist revolution is a worldwide event, it cannot exist in one country, let alone a tiny isolated nation without access to very many natural resources.

Since both north and south are ethnic Koreans, cultural differences cannot be the cause. It must be the economic system - proof that Socialism does not work but capitalism does.
Or you could just stop being a fucking idiot for a moment and realize that maybe, just maybe the DPRK's poverty might have something to do with the fact that its neighboring countries all have massive military budgets and are supported by the world's foremost imperialist power which has tens of thousands of troops lined up along its Southern border. Not to mention that North Korea lost its major trading parters when the Soviet bloc fell. Maybe, that has something to do with the fact that North Korea has an overbloated military budget and very paranoid leaders, and thus can't develop its economy.

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 06:02

... continued from above.

I had an errand to run. Let me continue my conversation with manic expression:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You do know that much of Africa was Christianized decades ago, right? You do know it hasn't helped anyone that much (except for the churches who collect donations). You sound like McKinley when he said the Philippines had to be Christianized, even though the Spanish already beat him to the job centuries beforehand. And then you have the gall to talk about "multiple generations" without realizing how you're echoing the ghosts of imperialism's past.

I think you are too brainwashed by your Marxist friends. At the moment, 48% of Africans are Christians (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/16/christians-muslims-almost-equal-in-numbers-in-afri/?page=all). But their faith tends to be syncretic in nature and it would take a few more generations to be fully Christianized. At the beginning of the 20th century, less than 10% were Christians. Even after conversion, it would take a few generations to remove the last vestiges of tribalism which divides them and instigates wars.

I understand to Marxists, Christianity is seen as a handmaiden of the bourgeosie class. Marx's worldview was based on the 19th century when the ruling elite was an alliance of church and Kings.

This is outdated. The person I respect (see one of my earlier post) who said that they should send in the missionaries was a fighter for Independence. His name is Dr Goh Keng Swee, one time no. 2 man in Singapore.

Here is a speech (http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/search.jsp?keyword=goh+keng+swee+methodist&matchType=1&typeCode=S&dateOfSpeechStartStr=&dateOfSpeechEndStr=&Thesaurus=true&pageLength=10&orderBy=date&access=&B1=++Search++) he once made which I will excerpt:

"Recently, I had an interesting after dinner discussion with a widely travelled American banker. Over coffee, when peoples' moods becomes expansive, he asked if I had to recommend one single prescription to solve the economic problems of a poor country, what would it be. I said I would recommend that the population be converted to some demanding, narrow minded, intolerant form of Protestant religion, such as one of the Calvinist sects. This would bring about the end of easy-going thriftless habits among the populace and the beginning of scrupulous honesty in public administration. This combination must result in spectacular economic growth."
There is a growing consensus amongst the Chinese that Christianity benefitted the West and was a major reason for its advancement. Here is a comment from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=1336) which advises the Chinese Communist Party:

“
We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.

“Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.

“But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.

“The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

Note the source. It isn't from a religious leader, or some religious think-tank. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is an instrument of the Chinese Communist government which spends a not inconsiderable amount of time and money persecuting Christians and is officially atheistic.

Even Jiang Zemin, the former head of the Chinese Communist Party (http://www.factsofinterest.com/tag/jiang-zemin/)understood Chrsitianity's value:

Early in 2002, China’s then-president and Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Zemin), attended a dinner party in a private home of another senior Chinese political figure in the heart of Beijing….A guest asked “f, before leaving office, you could make one decree that you knew would be obeyed in China, what would it be?” Jiang put on a broad smile and looked around the room. “I would make Christianity the official religion of China,” he replied. [I]Pages 17-18

It should be emphasized that none of these people are Christians. Jiang is in fact an atheist. They simply see Christianity as beneficial.

Forget what Marx said. I know he said something to the effect that "religion is the opium of the oppressed."

But he was a theoretician. Dr Goh Keng Swee, the man I respect, was a practioner who transformed a poor Third world country into a First world country. So if he thinks Christianity can transform the culture of some third world countries for the better, then it makes more sense to believe him. Marx after all never actually did anything. He was a writer, a ideologue who never put his ideas in to practice.

He was too much of an ivory tower type guy. That's why revolutionary leftists are chasing rainbows by believing him.

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 06:29

Cuba is the most democratic (http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/) country (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html) on the face of the planet.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Go move there. If it is so democratic, so good, then why are refugees (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/number-of-cuban-refugees-called-highest-since-boatlift.html)fleeing Cuba? Could it be that Socialism does not work (http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/CubaRefugeeFidelCastro/2010/09/27/id/371642)?

Most of the DPRK is mountainous...what you're saying is like loudly screaming of dictatorship because there aren't very many lights in Iceland (http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/391/overrides/space157-change-night-lights-europe_39176_600x450.jpg).

Further, what it does show is that the DPRK doesn't need streetlights on all night to discourage crime, which is 90% of the reason why capitalist countries need the lights on...in capitalism, it's rarely safe to walk a dark street because a dog-eat-dog society eats its own. In socialism, it is safe to do the same because it's a society based on human dignity.

Japan is also very mountainous. So how come it is so lit up:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark.jpg

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 07:01

the overall standard of living is better in the United States than in Cuba. that should be obvious because the United States is a first world nation whereas Cuba is not, because it is a small isolated island. If the US allowed people from Haiti, a neighboring country which adheres much closer to right wing capitalist economics than Cuba free access to come to the US, then obviously there would be much more Haitians coming to American shores than Cubans.

Culture also plays a part and not just the economic system. Take a look at the map of Haiti (http://maps.google.com.sg/maps?hl=en&tab=wl). Next to Haiti is the Dominican Republic. Take a look at the per capita income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita) table.

As you can see, the Dominican Republic is much richer than Haiti. The Dominican Republic has a per capita income of $9,289 per person as compared to $1,241 for Haiti. Both share the same island, the same climate and soils. Yet one is so much better than the other. I think culture has much to do with it and the degree of capitalism too which is also called "economic freedom".

See this table for economic freedom. The Dominican Republic has a ranking of 89 in economic freedom as comapred to 142 for Haiti. The most capitalist countries are Hong Kong and Singapore. At the bottom is N Korea. The more capitalist, the more successful.

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 07:04

Good thing I don't care much for how rich a nation is, rather how rich the people are.

Per capita GDP is in layman's terms the average income of a person living in the country. It is a rough measure of how rich the country is.

RGacky3

24th January 2012, 08:19

You wanna respond to my post Capitalism is good?

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 12:27

Culture also plays a part and not just the economic system. Take a look at the map of Haiti (http://maps.google.com.sg/maps?hl=en&tab=wl). Next to Haiti is the Dominican Republic. Take a look at the per capita income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita) table.

The Dominican Republic has been run by centrist social democratic parties since 1978. Haiti's been dealing with US imposed dictators since 1950.

But no, no it's the culture.

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 13:49

OK, I will reply to your post, RGacky

Evidence/Reasoning?

I can give you tons of evidence and reasoning that starvation is caused by Capitalism (profit movitve in agriculture, free trade policies, first world subsidies, rate of profit to fall applied to agriculture).

The starvation in Africa is caused by wars and drought. Western countries have been generous to donate food and aid. There is nothing much you can do with drought. But wars can be averted if the tribal culture changes.

African countries had their borders drawn up by colonial powers who had no knowledge or interest in tribal borders. So each African country has several tribes which often fight one another.

North Korea is not socialist by any reasonable definition of the word.

There are two kinds of people here whenever I mention N Korea, Russia under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot etc.The two groups are:

1)Those that disbelieve that these countries were hell holes. Instead they seem to believe that they were heaven on earth.

2)Those that acknowledges the evils of such countries and say, "That is not real Socialism". What they had in mind is not what they saw in those Socialist hell holes.

But this group are hard pressed to point out one successful Socialist countries that fits their idealized picture of what Socialism is. They can't and that's because it is impossible to achieve their Socialist heaven on earth. They are chasing rainbows for that pot of gold.

Singapore and China have EXTREMELY unCapitalistic policies that are largely the story of their relative success (no land private property, limited private property rights elsewhere), you want to see a real capitalist country in the region see indonesia.

I am familiar with Singapore. They do have private property. Heritage Foundation has ranked it the second (http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking) most capitalist country in the world.
They use the word, "Economic Freedom" because it sounds nicer, I guess.

China is ranked 138.

There are many many many factors leading to that, from the outcome of WW2, to the arms race.

But the USSR was state-capitalist (did'nt undo the capitalist mode of production, did'nt democratize the economy).

There you go again. The USSR is not true Socialism. Yes, I know it does not fit your ideal of what true Socialism entails. But can we at least agree that the USSR was an attempt at Socialism?

But lets take europe, lets compare countries with strong productive public sectors and unions to countries that do not have that. Say Germany vrs Spain, Scandanavian countries vs the UK.

There are at least 3 factors that results and economic growth and hence how rich a people is:

1)culture
2)economic system ie more capitalist or more socialist?
3)natural resources.

There could be one more factor which is too controversial to mention. Also I am not sure. So I will leave it out.

Let's start with culture. The more hardworking people are the faster a country's economic progress. That should be obvious. Other characteristics are honesty and thrift. In an earlier post, I mentioned that Dr Goh Keng Swee believed that Protestant Christianity is effective in cultivating qualities like diligence, honesty and thrift which are essential for economic growth. There is also a famous book written by Max Weber on how the Protestant faith made capitalism successful. His book is called:

Protestant ethics and the rise of Capitalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism)

Weber's views remain controversial. Some writers claimed that capitalism started in 14th century Catholic Italy and not Protestant England. But I believe that Weber has a point. That could explain why German culture is more progressive than Spanish culture.

So its difficult to compare between diffferent European states which have different cultures. It would be better if you compare West and East Germany during the Cold War where the culture is the same and the main difference is the economic system.

2)economic system. I have written much about this. I believe that capitalism is better at generating economic growth than Socialism. So people in capitalism countries are on average richer than Socialist ones after a period of time. The longer the time period the greater the gap.

3)natural resources - A country without the right culture can still prosper if they have lots of natural resources. Saudi Arabia is a good example. They have oil and employ foreigners to do the work.

Venezuela and Bolivia both undid their poverty significantly with socialistic policies, the same with Argentina after the economic colapose, the sam e with Bolivia. Chile right now is having some major problems.

Don't know much about Bolivia. I think Venezuelans became poorer (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/03/does-hugo-chavez-help-the-poor/2916/)after Hugo Chavez made his country more Socialist.

Excerpt from link:

But according to the Venezuelan Central Bank, inequality has actually increased during the Chávez administration, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of economic inequality, with zero indicating perfect equality and one indicating perfect inequality) increasing from 0.44 to 0.48 between 2000 and 2005.

The Gini coeficient measures inequality. 0.48 is very high. It is about the same as the USA. A high Gini for the USA can be expected because the US is a very capitalistic country, oops I mean has a lot of economic freedom. Here is another excerpt:

Poverty and inequality statistics, of course, tell only part of the story. There are many aspects of the well-being of the poor not captured by measures of money income, and this is where Chávez's supporters claim that the government has made the most progress -- through its misiones, which have concentrated on the direct provision of health, education, and other basic public services to poor communities. But again, official statistics show no signs of a substantial improvement in the well-being of ordinary Venezuelans, and in many cases there have been worrying deteriorations. The percentage of underweight babies, for example, increased from 8.4 percent to 9.1 percent between 1999 and 2006. During the same period, the percentage of households without access to running water rose from 7.2 percent to 9.4 percent, and the percentage of families living in dwellings with earthen floors multiplied almost threefold, from 2.5 percent to 6.8 percent.

Why should any of this surprise you? Hugo has the same ideology as the N Koreans.

manic expression

24th January 2012, 13:57

I think you are too brainwashed by your Marxist friends. At the moment, 48% of Africans are Christians (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/16/christians-muslims-almost-equal-in-numbers-in-afri/?page=all). But their faith tends to be syncretic in nature and it would take a few more generations to be fully Christianized.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You do know that Christianity in Europe, and by extension everywhere else, is highly syncretic, right? You don't think the Trinity was invented one day by a bunch of guys sitting in Nicaea one day, right? You don't actually believe that rosary beads were invented by Christians, right? Not even you could be that thick...but then again...

When you learn the first thing about Christianity, maybe you'll be in a position to judge its potential effects on a society. Suffice to say, peace isn't one of them:

At the beginning of the 20th century, less than 10% were Christians. Even after conversion, it would take a few generations to remove the last vestiges of tribalism which divides them and instigates wars.
So that's a full century of Christianity, and yet Africa is still a mess. Maybe that's your clue to know that Christianization doesn't change anything except for the income of certain churches.

Or maybe your clue was the 30 Years' War, or the 100 Years' War, or the Crusades (editions 1-6, my personal favorite being #4), or the Napoleonic Wars, or the War of Spanish Succession, or the Great Northern War, or the Italian Wars, or the Teutonic Wars (against Christian lands such as Poland-Lithuania), or WWI, or WWII...or one of the hundreds of horrifying conflicts fought between solidly Christian powers.

So yeah, your idea that Christianization helps with peace is racist and utterly proven wrong by history. Any other stale Victorian myths you'd like to contribute to the thread?

I understand to Marxists, Christianity is seen as a handmaiden of the bourgeosie class.
Um, no it's not. If anything it's the handmaiden of the feudal age, which it demonstrably was. But thanks for playing.

There is a growing consensus amongst the Chinese that Christianity benefitted the West and was a major reason for its advancement. Here is a comment from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=1336) which advises the Chinese Communist Party:
You mean, one member who reportedly made a comment. Way to be honest.

Even Jiang Zemin, the former head of the Chinese Communist Party (http://www.factsofinterest.com/tag/jiang-zemin/)understood Chrsitianity's value:
Sounds like BS. Here:

Asked about the Chinese government's persecution of Christians, Jiang said that Christians have not been persecuted in China, and that the constitution protects religious freedom, including Christianity.

Clearly he supports the PRC's progressive policies on all religions.

It should be emphasized that none of these people are Christians. Jiang is in fact an atheist. They simply see Christianity as beneficial.
Yes, that one unknown member of the Academy of Sciences really sums up the views of all Chinese atheists. You got them there! :lol:

Forget what Marx said. I know he said something to the effect that "religion is the opium of the oppressed."
And apparently you don't know what that means. Look at the full quote and tell me what he's saying instead of regurgitating capitalist lies like usual.

But he was a theoretician. Dr Goh Keng Swee, the man I respect, was a practioner who transformed a poor Third world country into a First world country. So if he thinks Christianity can transform the culture of some third world countries for the better, then it makes more sense to believe him. Marx after all never actually did anything. He was a writer, a ideologue who never put his ideas in to practice.
You mean a practitioner who sold out Singapore to the control of imperialism.

He was too much of an ivory tower type guy. That's why revolutionary leftists are chasing rainbows by believing him.
Agree or disagree with him, he was heavily involved in the organization of revolutionary groups.

manic expression

24th January 2012, 14:04

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 14:20

But this group are hard pressed to point out one successful Socialist countries that fits their idealized picture of what Socialism is. They can't and that's because it is impossible to achieve their Socialist heaven on earth. They are chasing rainbows for that pot of gold.

Nah it's actually because any "socialist country" you care to mention is either 1) the USSR or 2) a country that modeled itself after the USSR. The problem being that any hope for socialism in the USSR died before its civil war ended and what they had was nothing more than state-capitalism.

And so that's what these other "socialist" countries set up. State Capitalism.

And we hardly have an "idealized" picture of what socialism is. We just know what a socialist society is not -- a society that runs on the capitalist mode of production. Nothing "ideal" about it.

There you go again. The USSR is not true Socialism. Yes, I know it does not fit your ideal of what true Socialism entails.

It has nothing to do with "true" socialism. There is no such thing as "true" socialism. Only socialism. The USSR was a capitalist country.

But can we at least agree that the USSR was an attempt at Socialism?

Yup. The revolution was a legitimate socialist one, but by the end of the Civil War, any hope for socialism was pretty much dead in the water.

There could be one more factor which is too controversial to mention. Also I am not sure. So I will leave it out.

lol what factor is that, I'm curious.

Why should any of this surprise you? Hugo has the same ideology as the N Koreans.

I'm not a fan of Chavez but this is flat out incorrect.

manic expression

24th January 2012, 14:24

Standard of Living is measured by per capita GDP and I have provided a link for that. Per Capita GDP is in layman's terms the average income of a person living in the country.
Except it isn't. US GDP has grown (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp) since the 80's and yet real wages have decreased (http://www.fyremoon.net/%7Epsychosy/images/Misc/real-wage.jpg) consistently (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?pagewanted=all) since that time.

Human dignity is more subjective and is not quantifiable.
Translation: capitalists don't care about human dignity.

Truth hurts.

The size of the country has nothing to do with average income. If it does, then India and China would be very rich.
"Richer" than Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal...yes.

Assuming those stats are true, you are just cherry picking some data. The average income (ie Per Capita GDP) is still higher than Cuba or N Korea - the last true Socialist countries left.
Don't dodge the point like a capitalist, try to engage with the facts for once in your life. Those stats are not cherry picked, that's the reality of actual life in those "best case scenario" capitalist regimes. Again, GDP means nothing when it comes to living standards and human dignity. I know you don't care about the latter because you're a capitalist, but that's the point.

So to overview, your "best case scenarios" see horrible living standards while besieged Cuba sees none of those problems.

Besieged socialism > capitalism

Then why are Cubans risking their lives to flee their paradise for Miami?
Do you mean the criminals during the Mariela Boatlift (something the US government had to ask Cuba to stop) or the "refugees" during the Special Period that doesn't exist anymore?

Remember, Cubans are granted a special "dry foot" policy by the US, while refugees fleeing capitalist lunacy in Haiti, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and the rest of Latin America get the privilege of having their families broken up by ICE deportations. So why the special policy? Why the favoritism for Cuban "refugees"? Why is it that Cuban "refugees" are still dwarfed by the refugees of capitalist Latin American countries, in spite of this clearly hypocritical system?

Tune in next time, kids, as these questions and more are not answered by the capitalist apologist...same Bat time, same Bat place!

RGacky3

24th January 2012, 14:58

The starvation in Africa is caused by wars and drought. Western countries have been generous to donate food and aid. There is nothing much you can do with drought. But wars can be averted if the tribal culture changes.

Bullshit, that stuff was'nt happening at nearly the same scale as they are now before colonialism, (they did'nt have the nation state), tons of the ethnic conflicts (take hutus and totsies) were actually started by europeans, and with drought, where's the evidence for that? First of all a lot of the drought is artificial due to industry ripping apart the natural habitat, second most of those countries are purposefully kept in purpetual debt.

Your totally ignoring the agriculture industies contributoin, as well as the financialization of agriculture (the food crisis in 2007 was basically caused by goldman sachs, not some drought or war).

African countries had their borders drawn up by colonial powers who had no knowledge or interest in tribal borders. So each African country has several tribes which often fight one another.

Thats true, although most of the poverty there is not only caused by that recent history, its purpetuated by the european/American control and plundering of the resources.

2)Those that acknowledges the evils of such countries and say, "That is not real Socialism". What they had in mind is not what they saw in those Socialist hell holes.

But this group are hard pressed to point out one successful Socialist countries that fits their idealized picture of what Socialism is. They can't and that's because it is impossible to achieve their Socialist heaven on earth. They are chasing rainbows for that pot of gold.

I can give you plenty of examples of socialist policies ... And socialist revolutions.

Democracy thought up hundreds of years before any meaningful democratic country came up.

But its simple, a democratic economy, how is that a pot of gold???

I am familiar with Singapore. They do have private property. Heritage Foundation has ranked it the second (http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking) most capitalist country in the world.
They use the word, "Economic Freedom" because it sounds nicer, I guess.

China is ranked 138.

Go buy land in Singapore :laugh:, also the goverment of singapore has a HUGE shareholding in tons of the companies there (about 60% OF gdp). So no land property rights, and 60% owned by the state .... hmmmm, common now.

The Heritage Foundation is definately not a respected economic think tank outside the far far right.

There you go again. The USSR is not true Socialism. Yes, I know it does not fit your ideal of what true Socialism entails. But can we at least agree that the USSR was an attempt at Socialism?

Did they attempt to impliment a democratic economy???

There are at least 3 factors that results and economic growth and hence how rich a people is:

1)culture
2)economic system ie more capitalist or more socialist?
3)natural resources.

No, economic policy, capital acceess, credit access, natural resources (yes), consumption, savings.

You have not nearly enough knowlege to talk about economic stuff.

Let's start with culture. The more hardworking people are the faster a country's economic progress. That should be obvious. Other characteristics are honesty and thrift. In an earlier post, I mentioned that Dr Goh Keng Swee believed that Protestant Christianity is effective in cultivating qualities like diligence, honesty and thrift which are essential for economic growth. There is also a famous book written by Max Weber on how the Protestant faith made capitalism successful. His book is called:

Protestant ethics and the rise of Capitalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism)

Weber's views remain controversial. Some writers claimed that capitalism started in 14th century Catholic Italy and not Protestant England. But I believe that Weber has a point. That could explain why German culture is more progressive than Spanish culture.

So its difficult to compare between diffferent European states which have different cultures. It would be better if you compare West and East Germany during the Cold War where the culture is the same and the main difference is the economic system.

Webbers view is'nt supported by any mainstream economics, and the evidence shows otherwise, i.e. actual hours worked, productivity and so on.

2)economic system. I have written much about this. I believe that capitalism is better at generating economic growth than Socialism. So people in capitalism countries are on average richer than Socialist ones after a period of time. The longer the time period the greater the gap.

Depends on definitoin, the only countries that hav'nt been majorly hurt in the economic crisis are those with strong social democracies, and the ones that have gotten out of it are hte ones that implimented socialistic policies.

Don't know much about Bolivia. I think Venezuelans became poorer (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/03/does-hugo-chavez-help-the-poor/2916/)after Hugo Chavez made his country more Socialist.

Did you read that link? They are basically saying "ohh poverty DID drop, but there are some other statistics too," Sure and I'll find a ton of other ones as well, over all though poverty dropped in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina is getting better and so on.

The Gini coeficient measures inequality. 0.48 is very high. It is about the same as the USA. A high Gini for the USA can be expected because the US is a very capitalistic country, oops I mean has a lot of economic freedom. Here is another excerpt:

I've seen that statistic as well, keep in mind however you have population shifts, so a couple rich people invest in the country then your gini coefficient goes up, even though poverty has dropped.

Why should any of this surprise you? Hugo has the same ideology as the N Koreans.

He does'nt, he's a trotskyite, he would probably be executed in North Korea.

Poverty and inequality statistics, of course, tell only part of the story. There are many aspects of the well-being of the poor not captured by measures of money income, and this is where Chávez's supporters claim that the government has made the most progress -- through its misiones, which have concentrated on the direct provision of health, education, and other basic public services to poor communities. But again, official statistics show no signs of a substantial improvement in the well-being of ordinary Venezuelans, and in many cases there have been worrying deteriorations. The percentage of underweight babies, for example, increased from 8.4 percent to 9.1 percent between 1999 and 2006. During the same period, the percentage of households without access to running water rose from 7.2 percent to 9.4 percent, and the percentage of families living in dwellings with earthen floors multiplied almost threefold, from 2.5 percent to 6.8 percent.

Since the government increased public control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003, real GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7% in 5.25 years (average of 13.5% annually).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-weisbrot-chavez-at-10-5) GDP growth rates were 18% in 2004,[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-EconPov-66) 9% in 2005,[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-BCV2005-67) and 9.6% in the first half of 2006, with the private sector growing at 10.3%.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-BCV06Growth-68) From 2004 to the first half of 2006, non-petroleum sectors of the economy showed growth rates greater than 10%.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-69)

Keep in mind this is dispite capital flight.

During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela has dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. "Extreme poverty" has fallen even more - by 72%. Further, "these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn't take into account increased access to health care or education."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-weisbrot-chavez-at-10-5)[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-extra-wrong-nums-72)
Datos reports real income grew by 137% between 2003 and Q1 2006.[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-73) Official poverty figures dropped by 10%.[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-74) The World Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank) calculated a 10% drop in poverty.[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-75)[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-76)
Some social scientists and economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist) claim that the government's reported income poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast petroleum revenues in the last two years, much of which has been directed to social spending to decrease the cost of living.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-EconPov-66)
Venezuela's infant mortality rate fell by 18.2% between 1998 and 2006.[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-77)[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government #cite_note-CIA2005-78)

So anyway, anyone can cherry pick numbers, the the overall statistics show the story.

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 15:08

80% of the world is still poor beyond reason.

kinda wondering why that is, still.

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 15:14

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You do know that Christianity in Europe, and by extension everywhere else, is highly syncretic, right? You don't think the Trinity was invented one day by a bunch of guys sitting in Nicaea one day, right? You don't actually believe that rosary beads were invented by Christians, right? Not even you could be that thick...but then again...

When you learn the first thing about Christianity, maybe you'll be in a position to judge its potential effects on a society. Suffice to say, peace isn't one of them:

I think its you who does not know much about Christianity. Here are some books for your enlightenment:

1)The Idea of Natural Rights by Brian Tierney (http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Natural-Rights-University-Religion/dp/0802848540) - This book explains how Christianity started the concept of God given rights which became "human rights".
2)For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark (http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691114366)- how Christianity resulted in modern Science and the abolitionist movement.

So that's a full century of Christianity, and yet Africa is still a mess. Maybe that's your clue to know that Christianization doesn't change anything except for the income of certain churches.

After slightly more than a century, Africa is only half Christian and their Christian faith has syncretized with their old tribal religions. So fifty years ago, it was maybe only 20% Christian. Its not sufficient to make an impact yet.

Or maybe your clue was the 30 Years' War, or the 100 Years' War, or the Crusades (editions 1-6, my personal favorite being #4), or the Napoleonic Wars, or the War of Spanish Succession, or the Great Northern War, or the Italian Wars, or the Teutonic Wars (against Christian lands such as Poland-Lithuania), or WWI, or WWII...or one of the hundreds of horrifying conflicts fought between solidly Christian powers.

Of the wars you mentioned the only one that is truly a religous war are the Crusades, which in my opinion was perfectly justified as the Muslims were trying to conquer Europe. It was a long overdue counter-attack after Muslim invaders conquer half of Christiandom in the 7th century. It most likely saved Europe.

The 100 years war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War)was between the English and French to see who sits on the French throne. The 30 years war, I admit, is commonly regarded as a religious war because Protestants were fighting Catholics for control of Germany.

But in my view, it was, at the bottom, a war between two powerful royal families - the Houses of Bourbon and Hapsburg. It was a dynastic war dressed up as a religious conflict.

How else do you explain why the French sided with the Protestants? France was a majority Catholic country with a Catholic King. His Prime Minister, Richelieu, was a Cardinal of the Catholic Church! Yet France provided the Protestants with funds to fight Catholic Spain and the Holy Roman Empire (effectively Austria and S Germany) who were supported by the Pope!

Without French help, the war would have been over in less than a year with the Hapsburgs (who ruled Spain and Austria) victorious. It was France that kept it going for 30 years and ended up ruining Germany in the process. It also bankrupted their rivals - Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

In France itself, the King persecuted its Protestant minority called the Huguenots. So what was going on? The answer is that the French King wanted to make France the most powerful state in Europe and used the war in Germany to weaken the House of Hapsburg.

The Napoleonic wars, WWI and II were all secular wars. I don't know anything about the other wars you mentioned. But since you were wrong on the other wars, you are probably wrong here too.

So yeah, your idea that Christianization helps with peace is racist and utterly proven wrong by history. Any other stale Victorian myths you'd like to contribute to the thread?

You obviously don't know much about history.

You mean, one member who reportedly made a comment. Way to be honest.

If you read the article related to the link I provided you will notice he said "we". So he was saying it is the conclusion of his Academy which advises the Chinese government. So its not just him.

You mean a practitioner who sold out Singapore to the control of imperialism.

Dr Goh Keng Swee did not sell out Singapore to the control of imperialism. He fought for Singapore's indepence from the British.

Agree or disagree with him, he was heavily involved in the organization of revolutionary groups.

But Marx did not build up an impoverished country into a First world one. Marx did not make a successful Socialist country.

The Young Pioneer

24th January 2012, 15:16

Forget what Marx said.

So, why is anyone still giving the guy legitimate answers when he responds with this bullshit?

Telling leftists to ignore Marx... :lol:

I have to agree with #FF0000 on this one. 20% of the world consumes 80% of the world's food/products. Something seriously wrong with this picture.

What was even the topic again? Oh, right, North Korean Labor Camps. Yeah. Booo.

capitalism is good

24th January 2012, 15:22

80% of the world is still poor beyond reason.

kinda wondering why that is, still.

Well, as I said elsewhere there are at least 3 reasons why some countries progress and others don't:

1)Culture - Some cultures are more progressive than others. This is also related to religion. So far only Christian culture and Confucianist culture has produced successful societies

2)Economic system. The more economic freedom a country has the faster it will progress. Thus Socialists countries end up as basket cases.

3)Natural Resources. If you don't have the first two it helps if you are rich in natural resources. A good example is Saudi Arabia. You can always hire foreigners to do the work for you.

seventeethdecember2016

24th January 2012, 15:53

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Go move there. If it is so democratic, so good, then why are refugees (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/number-of-cuban-refugees-called-highest-since-boatlift.html)fleeing Cuba? Could it be that Socialism does not work (http://www.newsmax.com/JamesWalsh/CubaRefugeeFidelCastro/2010/09/27/id/371642)?

You don't have any idea what democracy is. The US has an election every two years, and idiots like you call it "the model democracy". This is very unlike the GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY that exists in Cuba. Not only do Cubans elect high level Politburo members, but they have Democracy interworked into their own lives. Cubans get to vote on working conditions, how to spend local funding, working hours, etc. Do Americans do that?

It is true that Cubans leave, but those who leave are individualistic puppets. Why would anyone leave a country that offers free housing, one of the best education system in the world, and one that offers its citizens TRUE Democracy. The US should end the Sanctions, which in effect will end the terrible conditions Cubans live in at the moment. The only thing keeping Cuba from prosperity is trading.

I can counter your lame "then why are Cubans leaving" argument by saying, "If you really like Capitalism(true Capitalism that is), then why don't you live in Monaco or Jersey or Qatar." Face it, the west isn't Capitalist anymore, rather mixed. You live in a combination of the two, which just makes workers lazy and investors flock to tax free countries like Monaco, Jersey, or Qatar.

"The only way to make money(in Capitalism) is to either marry into it, or steal it."-Elia Kazan in America, America.

Well, as I said elsewhere there are at least 3 reasons why some countries progress and others don't:

1)Culture - Some cultures are more progressive than others. This is also related to religion. So far only Christian culture and Confucianist culture has produced successful societies

2)Economic system. The more economic freedom a country has the faster it will progress. Thus Socialists countries end up as basket cases.

3)Natural Resources. If you don't have the first two it helps if you are rich in natural resources. A good example is Saudi Arabia. You can always hire foreigners to do the work for you.

If you really believe that the American government and economic system are best, I will give you an example where it has been tried and failed.
In 1888, Brazil had a Revolution and they decided to create a country in the image of their Northern America brothers: the USA. They liberalized, democraticized, federalized, capitalized, etc. The Brazilian had tons of resources, Christian culture, and a Capitalist economic system. 124 years later, the Brazilian GDP per capita is only $11,000. In fact, their economy didn’t pick up until they used central planning and other Socialist ideologies. India is the same, and their old British-style Capitalism has caused their poor conditions. It is thanks to their new Socialist government that they’re massively growing their economy.

Capitalism and Communism have something major in common. In their truest forms, they only work in small groups or countries. The only real Capitalist countries are countries like Qatar or Monaco, while Communism only works in tribal groups or other small groups.
My hope is that thanks to newer and better technology, along with mechanization, Communism will be possible under the lead of machines rather than the corruption of human government(perhaps I'm being cynical).

RGacky3

24th January 2012, 16:45

But Marx did not build up an impoverished country into a First world one. Marx did not make a successful Socialist country.

Neither did any economist dumb ass.

Well, as I said elsewhere there are at least 3 reasons why some countries progress and others don't:

1)Culture - Some cultures are more progressive than others. This is also related to religion. So far only Christian culture and Confucianist culture has produced successful societies

2)Economic system. The more economic freedom a country has the faster it will progress. Thus Socialists countries end up as basket cases.

3)Natural Resources. If you don't have the first two it helps if you are rich in natural resources. A good example is Saudi Arabia. You can always hire foreigners to do the work for you.

Except thats bullshit.

1. Never been proven, or even shown.

2. Empirically untrue, more social democratic countries actually develop much better, the more economically capitalist, they end up like Argentina in the early 2000s, Iceland, the US now, and so on.

3. Sure

Also there is a shitload more, access to technology, access to credit, starting capital, import-export growth, inflation, access to capital/investment, democratic control.

Ocean Seal

24th January 2012, 17:24

Ocean Seal

24th January 2012, 17:35

1)Culture - Some cultures are more progressive than others. This is also related to religion. So far only Christian culture and Confucianist culture has produced successful societies

So what you are telling me is that Europe was more prosperous than the Islamic world between the years 1000 AD- 1500 AD?
Because I'd have to disagree with you.
Again, you present absolutely no evidence for this.

2)Economic system. The more economic freedom a country has the faster it will progress. Thus Socialists countries end up as basket cases.

This is a clever strawman on your part. Economic freedom does not make a country rich, the fact that a country is rich gives it its economic freedom.

Historically nations like the United States, UK, France have profited from mercantilism and colonialism. This in turn has caused them to have a surplus in profits and thus allow for a more comfortable treatment of their petite-bourgeoisie. Hence, more economic freedom.

In the countries that the wealthy imperialist countries exploit what you have is a series of very brutal dictatorships. Those dictatorships are in the pockets of the western capitalists. Those dictatorships foster comprador capitalists who in turn prevent national bourgeoisie from springing up and taking control. Without a national bourgeoisie you cannot have economic freedom. Hence, why imperialists prevent economic freedom in the poorer countries.

So to conclude, you cannot have economic freedom if you are poor. And hence it is not economic freedom which leads to wealth, but rather wealth which leads to economic freedom.

3)Natural Resources. If you don't have the first two it helps if you are rich in natural resources. A good example is Saudi Arabia. You can always hire foreigners to do the work for you.
Then why are so many resource rich countries poor.

The difference between your analysis and mine, is that mine is based on evidence, and yours is based on what you would like to believe.

manic expression

24th January 2012, 17:45

I think its you who does not know much about Christianity. Here are some books for your enlightenment:

1)The Idea of Natural Rights by Brian Tierney (http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Natural-Rights-University-Religion/dp/0802848540) - This book explains how Christianity started the concept of God given rights which became "human rights".
Oh, I guess the concept of rights in Greek and Roman law were secretly Christian. :laugh:

2)For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark (http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691114366)- how Christianity resulted in modern Science and the abolitionist movement.Too bad Christianity has serially repressed scientific discovery by claiming that Aristotle was right about everything (even though he admitted he wasn't way back then).

Abolitionism is arguable, at least (for a change), but to argue that Christianity was more important in abolition than the development of industry is absurd.

After slightly more than a century, Africa is only half Christian and their Christian faith has syncretized with their old tribal religions. So fifty years ago, it was maybe only 20% Christian. Its not sufficient to make an impact yet.Half Christian and more than half ruined.

We've already been over syncretized religion...your precious European Christianity is as syncretic as they come. And yet long after one century of Christianization they were killing each other in droves as we see below.

Of the wars you mentioned the only one that is truly a religous war are the Crusades, which in my opinion was perfectly justified as the Muslims were trying to conquer Europe. It was a long overdue counter-attack after Muslim invaders conquer half of Christiandom in the 7th century. It most likely saved Europe.Nah uh uh. Don't move the goalposts. You said that Christianity brings an end to war...and yet history shows you're full of hot air.

The Crusades weren't even justified by their own standards. The biggest reason given by the Crusaders themselves during the First Crusade was that the Turks were going to stop Christian pilgrims from visiting the Holy Land, which actually was completely false as the Seljuks were allowing pilgrims to visit so long as they paid the same tax that everyone had charged. The other argument was that it was defending Christendom from Islam, which is entirely untrue seeing as the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and the Albigensian Crusade was exclusively against Southern France. :lol: Further, the Muslims were in the Levant precisely because they were far more tolerant than the Byzantine rulers who preceded them.

Ironically enough, the Crusader States of Outremer developed a style of rule very similar to the Muslims...they started learning the local language and customs, promoted toleration when they could. The newly arrived Crusaders were the ones who messed everything up in their ignorance. The Second Crusade, for example, attacked Damascus which was allied with the Kingdom of Jerusalem and left Outremer in a worse position than it was before.

So yeah, read up.

The 100 years war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War)was between the English and French to see who sits on the French throne. The 30 years war, I admit, is commonly regarded as a religious war because Protestants were fighting Catholics for control of Germany.Oh, right, that whole Joan of Arc business never happened. :lol: The entire rationale for the claims on the throne was that each claimant was ordained by god to be king. That was the whole basis of kingship.

Furthermore, this isn't about wars purely about religion, this is about Christians engaging in horrific wars, something you said doesn't happen.

Without French help, the war would have been over in less than a year with the Hapsburgs (who ruled Spain and Austria) victorious. It was France that kept it going for 30 years and ended up ruining Germany in the process. It also bankrupted their rivals - Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

In France itself, the King persecuted its Protestant minority called the Huguenots. So what was going on? The answer is that the French King wanted to make France the most powerful state in Europe and used the war in Germany to weaken the House of Hapsburg.Yes, and France was ruled by a Christian, full of Christians and had been Christian for over a millennium. Thus, you are wrong in believing that a Christianized Africa would become peaceful. Best get used to the feeling.

Nice job ignoring Swedish involvement, which militarily proved pivotal to the entire conflict.

The Napoleonic wars, WWI and II were all secular wars. I don't know anything about the other wars you mentioned. But since you were wrong on the other wars, you are probably wrong here too.Again, Napoleon called on religion to aid his cause, as did his enemies. Christians slaughtering Christians from Lisbon to Moscow...how's your Christianization plan for peace looking now?

You obviously don't know much about history.You obviously can't remember what you're arguing.

If you read the article related to the link I provided you will notice he said "we". So he was saying it is the conclusion of his Academy which advises the Chinese government. So its not just him.Oh, this looks fun, let me try:

We Americans (myself being an American) think that communism is awesome.

I'm saying it is the conclusion of my country. It's not just me.

Dr Goh Keng Swee did not sell out Singapore to the control of imperialism. He fought for Singapore's indepence from the British.Right, independence being financial dependence. Interesting concept.

But Marx did not build up an impoverished country into a First world one. Marx did not make a successful Socialist country.The concept of "First World" didn't exist when Marx was alive, so that would have been a tough trick.

m1omfg

24th January 2012, 18:22

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 18:24

1)Culture - Some cultures are more progressive than others. This is also related to religion. So far only Christian culture and Confucianist culture has produced successful societiesD'uhhhhh Islamic culture, what about? What about the number of pre-Abrahamic societies that did very well for themselves, e.g. the Sumerians, The Akkadians...etc. etc. etc.?

I don't usually do this, guy, but I have to point out that you're almost wholly ignorant of what you're talking about here. I suggest you just drop this "culture" bit until you're a little more well-read because it just weakens your already shallow argument.

m1omfg

24th January 2012, 18:32

Hey dipshit, 14 million people starve to death each year in this world, most under capitalist regimes. Starvation during the 1990s famine in the DPRK was about the same intensity as in every day present day India. And socialist countries were not "shitholes" either, all the Eastern Bloc countries occupied the first 45 places of the human development index. GDR was not as rich as FRG, but it had a far more extensive social support system and a living standard a bit higher than 1970s Britain. I, as someone from a post-communist country will just say - fuck you.

Oh and by the way, there is an acute famine in East Africa now, affecting 10 million people. Cease this "only some remote parts of Africa starve" crap, you know fucking well that many people go hungry even in the US. Oh, and most areas of South Korea are actually poorer than Poland (not that it is a very poor country, it is far superior to any third world one), you just cover it up with glitzy skyscrapers.

#FF0000

24th January 2012, 18:34

Oh and by the way, there is an acute famine in East Africa now, affecting 10 million people

and this is thanks to rampant food speculation and folks buying up tremendous tracts of land in Africa. Same people who were involved with the banks that torpedoed the world economy too lol

capitalism is good

25th January 2012, 09:15

Hi Havee,

I only have time to partially reply to you because I want to reply to others.

You don't have any idea what democracy is. The US has an election every two years, and idiots like you call it "the model democracy". This is very unlike the GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY that exists in Cuba. Not only do Cubans elect high level Politburo members, but they have Democracy interworked into their own lives. Cubans get to vote on working conditions, how to spend local funding, working hours, etc. Do Americans do that?

It is true that Cubans leave, but those who leave are individualistic puppets. Why would anyone leave a country that offers free housing, one of the best education system in the world, and one that offers its citizens TRUE Democracy. The US should end the Sanctions, which in effect will end the terrible conditions Cubans live in at the moment. The only thing keeping Cuba from prosperity is trading.

.

There are two kinds of people here whenever someone brings up Cuba or N Korea or the former Soviet Union:

1)Those that claim that such countries were/are Socialist paradises. They are blind to the evil in them.

2)Those that acknowledges that they were/are hell holes but say that "they are practicing true Socialism.

In the case of Cuba, let me point out that Freedom house (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)has classified Cuba as an "authoritarian regime". It has a democracy index on only 3.52, slightly below Libya. So much for Cuban democracy.

I believe that the Cuban regime (your world's best democracy) is on the verge of a people's revolution. I hope that Castro will live long enough to see it.

capitalism is good

25th January 2012, 09:22

Hi Manic Expression,

I only have time to give you a partial reply.

Why move there when I can help the struggle of oppressed people all over the world?

One of the most oppressed people in the world are the Cubans. See my previous post. As stated earlier, Cuba is an authoritarian regime worse than Gadaffi's Libya.

This is the latest report (http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/cuban-political-prisoner-dies-during-hunger-strike)from Freedom House:

Freedom House laments the death of Cuban political prisoner Wilmar Villar, who died January 20, 2012, 50 days after beginning a hunger strike to protest his four-year jail sentence for disrespecting authority and resisting arrest. The Cuban government’s confinement of Villar under extreme conditions, as well as its failure to provide timely medical attention, contributed to his death.

A member of political opposition group Cuban Patriotic Union, 31-year-old Villar was arrested in November 2011 for participating in a demonstration, and during the protest, was beaten and threatened with imprisonment if he did not rescind his allegiance to the opposition. He is the second Cuban political prisoner to die while participating in a hunger strike since February 2010, when prisoner of conscience Orlando Zapata died in a Havana hospital. Freedom House urges the government to end its crackdown against dissidents and to adhere to international human rights standards on freedom of assembly and expression.

Political dissent, whether spoken or written, is a punishable offense, and dissidents frequently receive years of imprisonment for seemingly minor infractions. Freedom House consistently places Cuba among the world’s most repressive societies (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/101.pdf). Cuba is ranked Not Free in Freedom in the World 2012, Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and Not Free in Freedom of the Press 2011. The island nation also received the third-lowest ranking in Freedom on the Net, a study of internet freedom in 37 countries released in 2011.

capitalism is good

25th January 2012, 09:28

Hi #FF000,

I only have a time for a quick reply.

Nah it's actually because any "socialist country" you care to mention is either 1) the USSR or 2) a country that modeled itself after the USSR. The problem being that any hope for socialism in the USSR died before its civil war ended and what they had was nothing more than state-capitalism.

And so that's what these other "socialist" countries set up. State Capitalism.

And we hardly have an "idealized" picture of what socialism is. We just know what a socialist society is not -- a society that runs on the capitalist mode of production. Nothing "ideal" about it.

Alright, that is fair enough. You are different from some of the others here. You only know what your ideal society is not. You don't know what it would look like. In that case, you should not call for revolution till you have a clear picture of what sort of society you will get. What if you succeed in tearing down capitalism and find that you end up with something worse?

RGacky3

25th January 2012, 09:31

Using "freedom House" or "the heratige foundation" or Cato institute or whatever and using their subjective designations as evidence is as Valid as me using Socialist-Worker or Monthley Review as evidence when they call the United States an "unjust economy."

Its just bullshit, no one gives a shit what Freedom House thinks, use actual numbers, and use non-biased sources.

I am no defender of Cuba, but honestly if you ARE a defender of the United States when it comes to human rights but a condemner of Cuba you are a hypocrite.

Anyway, enough with the rightwing "think tanks." Use stuff that is respectable.

RGacky3

25th January 2012, 09:34

In that case, you should not call for revolution till you have a clear picture of what sort of society you will get.

If that was the case, the American revolution, the French revolution, all the liberal revolutions would not have happened, its different times and different places and different circumstances.

manic expression

25th January 2012, 10:09

Hi Manic Expression,

I only have time to give you a partial reply.
No worries.

One of the most oppressed people in the world are the Cubans. See my previous post. As stated earlier, Cuba is an authoritarian regime worse than Gadaffi's Libya.

This is the latest report (http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/cuban-political-prisoner-dies-during-hunger-strike)from Freedom House:
As RGacky said, this is about as useless of a source you could ever attempt to cite. It's among the most anti-worker, pro-imperialist organizations around. Their opposition to Cuba vindicates Cuba as a country of a free people.

On the hunger strikers, all the evidence points to the fact that they received appropriate and adequate healthcare for the entirety of their confinement. In fact, he was in a hospital (http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9135:cuba-strongly-condemns-manipulations-of-recent-death-of-convict&catid=2:cuba&Itemid=14) intensive care unit when he died:

The inmate had been urgently taken to the Saturnino Lora provincial hospital from the Aguadores penitentiary last January 13, following symptoms of severe pneumonia that affected his left lung. The patient received the treatment corresponding to his condition, which included ventilation, artificial feeding, fluid therapy, blood derivatives, support on active drugs and last generation broad spectrum antibiotics.

The Juan Bruno Zayas hospital, where Villar died, is one of the highest-level health centers in the eastern Cuban province, while its intensive care unit counts on vast experience in treating patients in serious conditions.

I see that "Freedom House" failed to mention that Villar was in prison for assault against his wife (http://www.ntn24.com/news/news/cuba-rejects-international-cri-9806), and only claimed his was a "political prisoner" afterwards because he felt it could help him get out of prison.

The facts show that Cuba is the most democratic society in the world today. With elections that revolve around communities (http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/), not around money like in capitalist regimes; with debate from all sides (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm); with direct participation from the youngest ages (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/var/news/storage/images/world/cuba-goes-to-the-polls-in-local-elections/1484621-1-eng-GB/Cuba-goes-to-the-polls-in-local-elections_large.jpg) and the most remote areas (http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html). That is what a democracy is, not the part-circus and part-auction shams that happen in capitalist countries.

capitalism is good

25th January 2012, 10:09

Bullshit, that stuff was'nt happening at nearly the same scale as they are now before colonialism, (they did'nt have the nation state), tons of the ethnic conflicts (take hutus and totsies) were actually started by europeans, and with drought, where's the evidence for that? First of all a lot of the drought is artificial due to industry ripping apart the natural habitat, second most of those countries are purposefully kept in purpetual debt.

Your totally ignoring the agriculture industies contributoin, as well as the financialization of agriculture (the food crisis in 2007 was basically caused by goldman sachs, not some drought or war).

What a load of Marxist nonsense. The Rwandan genocide was caused by their leaders instigating hatred amongst their people so that they can stay in power (http://www.globalissues.org/article/429/rwanda) according to Human Rights Watch.

Excerpt from link:

This genocide resulted from the deliberate choice of a modern elite to foster hatred and fear to keep itself in power. This small, privileged group first set the majority against the minority to counter a growing political opposition within Rwanda.

Food crisis caused by Goldman Sachs? What proof do you have. That is nonsense. Why would Goldman Sachs want to cause a food crisis?

I can give you plenty of examples of socialist policies ... And socialist revolutions.

OK. Let's hear it. What are they?

But its simple, a democratic economy, how is that a pot of gold???

We already have a democratic economy. Its called the free market. The market consists of everyone of us. We are buyers and sellers of goods and services. The market is the people and the people is the market.

The people will decide who gets rich and who gets poor. Each of us must sell something - a product or service that someone else wants to buy. Suppose you sell hamburgers. If the people like your hamburgers you will end up with a chain of hamburger restaurants and make a lot of money. What could be more democratic than that?

Go buy land in Singapore :laugh:, also the goverment of singapore has a HUGE shareholding in tons of the companies there (about 60% OF gdp). So no land property rights, and 60% owned by the state .... hmmmm, common now.

Where did you get this misinformation? You can buy a freehold landed property in Singapore. Take a look at this advertisement (http://www.luxurysingaporehomes.com/livelistings/item/71). What do you mean by 60% of GDP? Are you saying that the profits of these investments come to 60% of GDP? sounds high.

Where did you get this figure? Singapore government does have investments in Singapore and all over the world. That's because it has been saving money instead of borrowing money. So it has to invest somewhere. It also owns a stake in Citigroup.

Singapore is the second most capitalist country in the world going by the index of economic freedom which I gave in an earlier link.

The Heritage Foundation is definately not a respected economic think tank outside the far far right.

I think the Heritage Foundation is a good economic think tank. Of course the Left does not like it because it stands for economic freedom.

Did you read that link? They are basically saying "ohh poverty DID drop, but there are some other statistics too," Sure and I'll find a ton of other ones as well, over all though poverty dropped in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina is getting better and so on.

Strange. When I read the link, it sounded like they were saying poverty got worse after Hugo Chavez came to power.

I've seen that statistic as well, keep in mind however you have population shifts, so a couple rich people invest in the country then your gini coefficient goes up, even though poverty has dropped.

Generally, businessmen do not like to invest in Socialist countries. So I don't think that is the reason.

He does'nt, he's a trotskyite, he would probably be executed in North Korea.

A Trotskyite is still a Socialist. There are so many flavor of Socialism and they all quarrel amongst themselves.

manic expression

25th January 2012, 10:24

What a load of Marxist nonsense. The Rwandan genocide was caused by their leaders instigating hatred amongst their people so that they can stay in power (http://www.globalissues.org/article/429/rwanda) according to Human Rights Watch.
You do know that the reason Hutus and Tutsis came to see themselves as two opposing groups is because of colonialism, right? Before the Europeans showed up, Hutus and Tutsis intermarried all the time, lived together and had virtually no antagonisms between them. However, under colonialism, at first the Europeans decided that the Tutsis were going to be the educated class, and so they used them as their middlemen in governing Rwanda. Then, as they left in the 1950's, they decided it was only right to empower the Hutus. So now the Hutus had all the power after being ruled over by a Tutsi governing class...the basis for violence was laid.

In effect, the hatred between the two was invented by colonial prejudice. Even someone like Paul Kagame (who has worked with western powers) has been quite outspoken about this fact.

capitalism is good

25th January 2012, 10:39

Except it isn't. US GDP has grown (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp) since the 80's and yet real wages have decreased (http://www.fyremoon.net/%7Epsychosy/images/Misc/real-wage.jpg) consistently (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?pagewanted=all) since that time.

I think it stagnated rather than declined. That's because of four factors:

1)Globalization - Jobs are being outsourced to China. They have cheap labor. So companies shut down US factories and move there.
2)techonological change - Old skills are now outmoded. Some older workers cannot fit into the tech jobs market. Also tech change makes globalization easier. A good example are the call centres send to India where labor is cheap.

3)Decline of Unions. Unions allow workers to earn above market wages. Now they just get what they deserve. If companies can hire someone cheaper, they will - like in China.

4)Growth of illegal workers. Illegals are stealing your jobs. They are not Americans and so do not deserve to work in America. If someone steals your car, he goes to jail. If someone steals your job, he gets amnesty. Stupid.

Translation: capitalists don't care about human dignity.

Truth hurts.

No, seriously. How do you define or quantify human dignity? What do you mean by that in terms of the economy?

Don't dodge the point like a capitalist, try to engage with the facts for once in your life. Those stats are not cherry picked, that's the reality of actual life in those "best case scenario" capitalist regimes. Again, GDP means nothing when it comes to living standards and human dignity. I know you don't care about the latter because you're a capitalist, but that's the point.

So to overview, your "best case scenarios" see horrible living standards while besieged Cuba sees none of those problems.

For once, wake up and face facts. Cuba is a hell hole. The Castro regime will one day face a people's revolution that you revolutionary leftists wish for America.

Remember, Cubans are granted a special "dry foot" policy by the US, while refugees fleeing capitalist lunacy in Haiti, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and the rest of Latin America get the privilege of having their families broken up by ICE deportations. So why the special policy? Why the favoritism for Cuban "refugees"? Why is it that Cuban "refugees" are still dwarfed by the refugees of capitalist Latin American countries, in spite of this clearly hypocritical system?

Its to do with politics. There is a large Cuban exile community in Florida that wants their fellow Cubans into the country. Second, the numbers are small relative to the potential number of Mexicans who can cross the border. Thirdly, people don't like Castro because he is a brutal dictator. This is stupid actually.

Personally, I think it is a wrong policy to allow the Cubans to enter. The more unhappy Cubans in Cuba, the quicker we say adios to Castro. Admitting Cuban refugees is only allowing Castro to "let off steam". Instead, allow the steam pressure to increase till the boiler explode in revolution.

manic expression

25th January 2012, 10:55

I think it stagnated rather than declined. That's because of four factors:
Wrong, real wages have declined quite consistently since the early 80's.

1)Globalization - Jobs are being outsourced to China. They have cheap labor. So companies shut down US factories and move there.In other words, class warfare.

2)techonological change - Old skills are now outmoded. Some older workers cannot fit into the tech jobs market. Also tech change makes globalization easier. A good example are the call centres send to India where labor is cheap.I think that's wishful thinking. Most jobs that have been lost haven't been lost to "higher tech" industries, it's just a lie capitalists tell themselves to feel better about screwing over unions they used to be nice with.

3)Decline of Unions. Unions allow workers to earn above market wages. Now they just get what they deserve. If companies can hire someone cheaper, they will - like in China.In other words, class warfare.

4)Growth of illegal workers. Illegals are stealing your jobs. They are not Americans and so do not deserve to work in America. If someone steals your car, he goes to jail. If someone steals your job, he gets amnesty. Stupid."Illegals" are Americans because most of them are Latin American. They are mostly in the US because US capitalists encouraged them to come by hiring them at wage levels that US workers simply can't accept. Of course, both groups of workers are punished while the businesses aren't...so goes it in a capitalist regime.

So the blame rests with the rich capitalists using undocumented workers for their own profit and then trying to fan the flames of racial antagonisms.

And both groups of workers have the same enemy: the capitalist class.

No, seriously. How do you define or quantify human dignity? What do you mean by that in terms of the economy?It is the idea that humanity takes precedence over profit: people's needs are to be the first priority of society, and common humanity is made the basis of interaction.

Racist, chauvinist, belligerent capitalist societies have nothing to do with this.

For once, wake up and face facts. Cuba is a hell hole. The Castro regime will one day face a people's revolution that you revolutionary leftists wish for America.Empty and worthless rhetoric.

Find me a country in the Americas with a better infant mortality rate, with a better literacy rate, with a better record on housing.

Oh, wait, you can't!

Its to do with politics. There is a large Cuban exile community in Florida that wants their fellow Cubans into the country. Second, the numbers are small relative to the potential number of Mexicans who can cross the border. Thirdly, people don't like Castro because he is a brutal dictator. This is stupid actually.There is a large Cuban exile community in Florida because they're either formerly rich families who are mad because the Revolution took away daddy's farms and factories or because they're criminals.

Mexicans don't get a "dry foot" policy of amnesty...therefore it begs the question why more Cubans aren't coming, and it's because life in Cuba is better than what capitalism can offer. Just ask Elian Gonzalez, who became a member of the communist youth organization in Cuba even after being shamefully used as a ploy for US imperialism.

People like Fidel and Raul because they have made Cuba far and away the leader in all living standards of Latin America. Imperialists hate Fidel and Raul because they kept defeating them and their pathetic mercenaries from the shores of Cuba to the deserts of Ethiopia.

Personally, I think it is a wrong policy to allow the Cubans to enter. The more unhappy Cubans in Cuba, the quicker we say adios to Castro.OK, make sure you hold your breath. :laugh:

RGacky3

25th January 2012, 11:14

What a load of Marxist nonsense. The Rwandan genocide was caused by their leaders instigating hatred amongst their people so that they can stay in power (http://www.globalissues.org/article/429/rwanda) according to Human Rights Watch.

Oh sure, but the whole ethnic divide was made by the Belgians, as was the whole concept of the nation-state (which put Europe in a constant state of violence for decades).

Food crisis caused by Goldman Sachs? What proof do you have. That is nonsense. Why would Goldman Sachs want to cause a food crisis?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

http://fex.ennonline.net/34/has.aspx

(from the second article)
http://fex.ennonline.net/assets/34/has6.jpg
http://fex.ennonline.net/assets/34/has7.jpg

OK. Let's hear it. What are they?

Socialist revolutions that worked out exactly as predicted.

Paris Commune
Anarchist Catelonia
Hungarian revolt against the USSR
Czech revolt against the USSR
Ukrainian Anarchism
Pre-Civil war Soviet autonomy
Argentinian worker takeovers
Chiapas Zapatista territories
South African Shanty town movement
Oaxaca popular assemballies

Then institutions
North Italian worker controlled buisinesses/towns
Worker Cooperatives
Banking Cooperatives
Unions

Then Policies
Universal non-profit education
Universal non-profit heathcare
Universal non-profit fire service
Public productive industry (norwegian statoil, Venezuelan oil, Postal service)
Non profit public banking
Co-determination in Germany (half the board of directors elected by labor)
direct democracy
decentralized democracy/assembally democracy
Non-profit public utilities
cooperative public support

We already have a democratic economy. Its called the free market. The market consists of everyone of us. We are buyers and sellers of goods and services. The market is the people and the people is the market.

Thats only democratic if you consider 1% controlling more votes than 99% dmeocratic, or where the vast majority of votes are controlled by a tiny tiny minority.

It WOULD be democratic if we all had the exact same income.

The people will decide who gets rich and who gets poor. Each of us must sell something - a product or service that someone else wants to buy. Suppose you sell hamburgers. If the people like your hamburgers you will end up with a chain of hamburger restaurants and make a lot of money. What could be more democratic than that?

No ... Not the people, the people with money.

Case in point? The richest people today are investment bankers, these guys produce "services" to a tiny tiny minority of people and do so at the expense of the rest of society, they don't "produce" anything, and they don't provide any public service.

Yet the market rewards them.

The market is'nt democratic under any sense of hte word. Plus its controlled by corporations that have almost no internal democracy.

Where did you get this misinformation? You can buy a freehold landed property in Singapore. Take a look at this advertisement (http://www.luxurysingaporehomes.com/livelistings/item/71). What do you mean by 60% of GDP? Are you saying that the profits of these investments come to 60% of GDP? sounds high.

I'm saying the 60% of the GDP is tied to the state.

Also read the law, the state owns all the land (like china), they rent it out, but you can never own it.

Where did you get this figure? Singapore government does have investments in Singapore and all over the world. That's because it has been saving money instead of borrowing money. So it has to invest somewhere. It also owns a stake in Citigroup.

Singapore is the second most capitalist country in the world going by the index of economic freedom which I gave in an earlier link.

http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2011/01/state-capitalist-mixed-economy-of.html

Your economic freedom index does'nt mean shit, because they don't take into account a bunch of stuff. Either way dispite being state-capitalist, it still depends heavily of cheap foreign labor, basically making it a little china.

You want a better example of pure Capitalism look at indonesia.

I think the Heritage Foundation is a good economic think tank. Of course the Left does not like it because it stands for economic freedom.

Economic freedom =/= capitalist, its only freedom if you can afford it.

Either way, its not just hte left that does'nt like it, mainstream economists would'nt accept it.

Strange. When I read the link, it sounded like they were saying poverty got worse after Hugo Chavez came to power.

Thats what they were trying to imply, by appealing to obscure statistics, if you ignore the generaly accepted statistics.

Generally, businessmen do not like to invest in Socialist countries. So I don't think that is the reason.

... NO shit, unless they can make a profit somehow. But the point is you can cherry pick all the statistics you like, I'm using the generally accepted ones.

(BTW which puts the capitalist country at the mercy of capitalists, i.e. destroying democracy)

A Trotskyite is still a Socialist. There are so many flavor of Socialism and they all quarrel amongst themselves.

... Ok.

4)Growth of illegal workers. Illegals are stealing your jobs. They are not Americans and so do not deserve to work in America. If someone steals your car, he goes to jail. If someone steals your job, he gets amnesty. Stupid.

I thought you believe in the free market? which would include for labor as well?

Or do you ONLY believe in freedom of capital and not labor?

2)techonological change - Old skills are now outmoded. Some older workers cannot fit into the tech jobs market. Also tech change makes globalization easier. A good example are the call centres send to India where labor is cheap.

Which in a socialist society would not mean unemployment, it would mean everyone gets to work less for more.

(because people would vote for that before voting for layoffs)

3)Decline of Unions. Unions allow workers to earn above market wages. Now they just get what they deserve. If companies can hire someone cheaper, they will - like in China.

What they deserve is subjective. The market does'nt reward based on warrent since the decision making is 100% decided by capital.

But eitherway, its a downward spiral, more unemployment and dropped wages mean less consumption, which under capitalism, leads to more unemployment, + under capitalism techology means more productivity which means more unemployment.

And you have a classic case of excess capacity, and along with that you have the rate of profit to fall.

2 things that are purely economic wihch show that capitalism, no matter what you think of its justification CANNOT work, and WILL collapse.

even if you think capitalism is totally justified, IT CANNOT WORK, thats hwat marxian economic analysis is all about, it shows how capitalism necceserily leads to collapse.

The only think keeping it going post-great depression is huge continual government spending (military industrial complex, prison industrial complex) and inventing new markets (financialization, third world exploitation), and these things are reaching a breaking point.

capitalism is good

25th January 2012, 12:11

Oh, I guess the concept of rights in Greek and Roman law were secretly Christian. :laugh:

The Greeks and Romans did not produce any concept of God given rights. That's because they gods were too amoral. Christianity did according to Brian Tierney. See the link to his book. You should read it sometime.

The idea of God given rights is in America's Declaration of Independence by the way.

Too bad Christianity has serially repressed scientific discovery by claiming that Aristotle was right about everything (even though he admitted he wasn't way back then).

Christianity has a two thousand year history. There are bound to be good and bad Christians, smart and dumb Christians. The Pope who claimed that Aristotle was right and Galileo was wrong was a dumb Pope. But this is cherry picking one incident in Christianity's 2000 year history. You have to see what it has done for Science on balance. I am sure you know that churches have been building schools and universities for centuries.

Go read Rodney Stark's book, "For the Glory of God". See my earlier post for the link. He is fair writer who also blamed Christianity for the witch hunts. Also see Edward Grants book, "Science and Religion 400BC to 1550 AD (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-400-B-C-1550/dp/0801884012)). He said similar things.

Excerpt from link:

Historian Edward Grant illuminates how today's scientific culture originated with the religious thinkers of the Middle Ages. In the early centuries of Christianity, Christians studied science and natural philosophy only to the extent that these subjects proved useful for a better understanding of the Christian faith, not to acquire knowledge for its own sake. However, with the influx of Greco-Arabic science and natural philosophy into Western Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Christian attitude toward science changed dramatically. Despite some tensions in the thirteenth century, the Church and its theologians became favorably disposed toward science and natural philosophy and used them extensively in their theological deliberations.

In fact, I think that Socialism suppresses Science. Some of you may have heard of Trofim Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko). He was a Soviet scientist who came up with a crackpot theory that the Kremlin loved.

Those scientists who disagreed with him got fired or jailed. His theory of environmentally acquired inheritance was false and Soviet crop yields did not improve. The case of whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolved around the sun had no impact on human lives. So the church's actions harmed no one. But Lysenko's crackpot theories did.

The reason why Stalin believed Lysenko was ideological. I have often claimed that human nature which is selfish makes Socialism impossible. But Socialists will counter that environmental factors (like how you are brought up) can change human nature making Socialism possible.

Thus Lysenko's theory of environmentally acquired inheritance gained favor with Stalin. If a plant is exposed to the cold say, its descendents from its seeds will be better able to survive the cold. The implication is that people can be trained to overcome their selfishness and live in a collective society. Less selfish people will produce even less selfish children and hence Socialism will eventually triumph. That's why it gained favor with the Kremlin. Anyone who disagreed was a "heretic".

Then there was the case of Nikolai Kondratief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Kondratiev)who came up with his theory regarding booms and busts. He said that in a capitalist economy long term booms and busts are inevitable and will go on forever. His political masters did not like this because it contradicted Socialist theory that Capitaism is destined to go bust, ushering in a revolution.

If the cycle is perpetual, it means that Marx was wrong. Kondratief was fired, then jailed and later shot. At least Galileo was allowed to recant. He remained a Catholic and a friend of the Pope and eventually published his theory! His theory was actually built on the one written by Copernicus, who was a monk or priest, I can't remember. The church in those days was very interested in Science. Compare Galileo's fate to poor Kondratief. So I think Socialism suppresses Science.

We've already been over syncretized religion...your precious European Christianity is as syncretic as they come. And yet long after one century of Christianization they were killing each other in droves as we see below.

Over time the pagan bits were Christianized. Today, we still have the Christmas tree but we don't worship them any more.

Nah uh uh. Don't move the goalposts. You said that Christianity brings an end to war...and yet history shows you're full of hot air.

I never said that. Please reread what I wrote earlier. I said that Christianity can develop the culture that makes ecnonomic growth possible and quoted Dr Goh Keng Swee on that. The traits that Dr Goh and myself believe essential are honesty, thrift and diligence.

Max Weber also said something similar that Protestantism contributed to the success of capitalism.

The Crusades weren't even justified by their own standards. The biggest reason given by the Crusaders themselves during the First Crusade was that the Turks were going to stop Christian pilgrims from visiting the Holy Land, which actually was completely false as the Seljuks were allowing pilgrims to visit so long as they paid the same tax that everyone had charged. The other argument was that it was defending Christendom from Islam, which is entirely untrue seeing as the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and the Albigensian Crusade was exclusively against Southern France. :lol: Further, the Muslims were in the Levant precisely because they were far more tolerant than the Byzantine rulers who preceded them.

The Crusades was started in 1095 after Emperor Alexius Comnenus of the Eastern Roman empire asked the Pope for help. The official reason given was the recover of the Holy Land. I suspect, it was more than that. The Pope was worried that Constantinople might fall and this would endanger the rest of Europe.

By this stage Christiandom was on its ropes. It has lost more than half of its territory and the Muslims were threatening to conquer the other half. So I think it was perfectly justified.

I agree with you that the Fourth crusade was a disgrance because they ended up sacking Constantinople. But that should not obscure the fact that the Crusades as a whole did delay the Muslim invaders who were trying to conquer Constnatinople in the 11th century. Byantium eventually fell in the 15th century. This delay helped Christiandom who had more time to strengthen itself.

Also don't forget that in the 7th century Arabs were at the outskirts of Paris. It took 700 years to recover Spain. It was called the Reconquista. This too is part of the Crusades though most people only think of the Holy Land whenever we talk of the Crusades. Spain was strategically more important than Israel because it guarded western Europe. It was also from here that America was discovered by Columbus. This voyage was only possible after Spain was recovered. Trans-Atlantic trade and gold from America enriched Europe and made it strong enough to withstand Muslim imperialism.

It was still touch and go. As recent as 1683, the Turks were at the gates of Vienna. They were beaten back by Jan Sobieski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_III_Sobieski)III whose war as a crusade too.

Excerpt from link:

Sobieski's military skill demonstrated in war against the Ottoman Empire (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) contributed to his prowess as King of Poland. One of his ambitions was to unify Christian Europe in a crusade to drive the Turks out of Europe. He joined the alliance of the Holy Roman Emperor (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor) and joined the Holy League (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Holy_League_(Great_Turkish_war)) initiated by Pope Innocent XI (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Pope_Innocent_XI) to preserve Christendom. The Alliance was unusual in that a number of Protestants, from Germany and even the son of Prince Rupert of the Stuarts fought.

There were bad Crusaders to be sure. There were also good ones like Jan Sobieski III who saved Europe. But overall, I would say they saved western civilization.

manic expression

25th January 2012, 12:38

The Greeks and Romans did not produce any concept of God given rights. That's because they gods were too amoral. Christianity did according to Brian Tierney. See the link to his book. You should read it sometime.

The idea of God given rights is in America's Declaration of Independence by the way.
Again, you're moving the goalposts from your original argument. The Greeks and Romans established concepts of political rights without Christianity, and so you're wrong.

Please note that in Roman law, the Roman state was sanctified by Jupiter Capitolinus...so even when it comes to "god given" you have no point.

Christianity has a two thousand year history. There are bound to be good and bad Christians, smart and dumb Christians. The Pope who claimed that Aristotle was right and Galileo was wrong was a dumb Pope. But this is cherry picking one incident in Christianity's 2000 year history. You have to see what it has done for Science on balance. I am sure you know that churches have been building schools and universities for centuries.Excuses, excuses, excuses. And lame ones at that. Christianity has, from Copernicus to Darwin, tried to stop the march of science. Take some personal responsibility for your precious religion.

You capitalists seem to have a problem with that personal responsibility thing.

Go read Rodney Stak's book, "For the Glory of God". See my earlier post for the link. He is fair writer who also blamed Christianity for the witch hunts. Also see Edward Grants book, "Science and Religion 400BC to 1550 AD (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-400-B-C-1550/dp/0801884012)). He said similar things.

Excerpt from link:You're obviously having trouble understanding what's said. The point of that is that everything was religious in early medieval Europe. Religion was intertwined with medicine (or a lack thereof), science (or a lack thereof), art and so on. The story of scientific progress in Europe is a story of religion losing its power to secular authorities. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment are two prominent examples of this dichotomy.

I can also play the cherry picking game. Since the Left likes to claim that Christianity suppresses Science, then let me say that Socialism suppresses Science. Some of you may have heard of Trofim Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko). He was a Soviet scientist who came up with a crackpot theory that the Kremlin loved.His theory was wrong, and Stalin was interested in it, but Lysenkoism was only in the ascendancy for a few years.

Those scientists who disagreed with him got fired or jailed.Name one.

Then there was the case of Nikolai Kondratief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Kondratiev)who came up with his theory regarding booms and busts. He said that in a capitalist economy long term booms and busts are inevitable and will go on forever. His political masters did not like this because it contradicted Socialist theory that Capitaism is destined to go bust, ushering in a revolution.

If the cycle is perpetual, it means that Marx was wrong. Kondratief was fired, then jailed and later shot. Galileo was allowed to recant. He remained a Catholic and remained a friend of the Pope and eventually published his theory! His theory was actually built on the one written by Copernicus, who was a monk or priest, I can't remember. The church in those days was very interested in Science. Compare his fate to poor Kondratief. So I think Socialism suppresses Science.Have you provided any evidence for the idea that Kondratief was shot because he disagreed with Marx? No, you haven't. I'll wait until you do.

Over time the pagan bits were Christianized. Today, we still have the Christmas tree but we don't worship them any more.No, you just worship the fourth quarter of the fiscal year.

And not just the Christmas tree, mind you...rosary beads, the trinity, the place of Mary, the direction of church entrances, the design and ornamentation of churches...

Even the Christian mythology is syncretic. The resurrection idea was taken from the Egyptian theology of the cult of Osiris.

I never said that. Please reread what I wrote earlier.Christianizing the population will change the culture for the better.

Even though two millennia of Christianity hasn't brought peace to Europe.

Max Weber also said something similar that Protestantism contributed to the success of capitalism.Max Weber also said that Germanization "made Poles men". I await your expression of agreement with this sentiment.

The Crusades was started in 1095 after Emperor Alexius Comnenus of the Eastern Roman empire asked the Pope for help. A The official reason given was the recover of the Holy Land.

By this stage Christiandom was on its ropes. It has lost more than half of its territory and the Muslims were threatening to conquer the other half. So I think it was perfectly justified.No, it wasn't on the ropes. Islamic expansion into Iberia had been halted, and moreover the rights of Christians were respected throughout Al-Andalus. The Byzantine Empire was on the ropes, but then again the western Christians had already excommunicated them in 1054 over the Filioque controversy.

Further, the Christians "lost territory" because they were intolerant to everyone who was living in the Levant and North Africa...the Christians of Jerusalem and Alexandria celebrated the defeat of the Byzantines and generally preferred Islamic rule to Byzantine dominion.

So what you think about the justification of the Crusades means nothing when we look at the facts.

I agree with you that the Fourth crusade was a disgrance because they ended up sacking Constantinople. But that should not obscure the fact that they did delay the Muslim invaders who were trying to conquer Constnatinople in the 11th century. Byantium eventually fell in the 15th century. This delay helped Christiandom.:laugh: You really don't know much about this. The Crusades largely bypassed Seljuk holdings in Anatolia, the power putting pressure on Constantinople, and instead went after Fatimid power in Egypt. The Byzantines won a bit of respite, but the turnaround had already started before the first Crusaders arrived under Alexius II. But the Byzantines' back was broken not by Muslims but by your boys the Fourth Crusade. Ultimately, the only real delay for the Turkish conquest of Byzantium was the invasion of Timur...suffice to say he was neither a Crusader nor a Christian.

Also don't forget that in the 7th century Arabs were at the outskirts of Paris. They ruled Spain for 7 ceturies. It took 700 years to recover Spain. It was called the Reconquista. This too is part of the Crusades though most people only think of the Holy Land whenever we talk of the Crusades. Spain was strategically more important because it guarded western Europe. It was also from here that America was discovered by Columbus. This voyage was only possible after Spain was recovered. Trade and gold from America enriched Europe and made it strong enough to withstand Muslim imperialism.In the 7th Century Muslims got to Tours, which isn't very close to Paris. Are you suggesting that the Crusades from 1095 onwards were a response to the incursion into France in the 600's? Are you drunk?

It was still touch and go. As recent as 1683, the Turks were at the gates of Vienna. They were beaten back by Jan Sobieski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_III_Sobieski)III who considered his war as a crusade too.Um, yeah, they were at the gates of Vienna partially because the Christian powers were busy stabbing each other in the back. 1683, if you didn't notice, was after the 30 Years' War...a shining example of how much peace Christianity brings. :laugh:

There were bad Crusaders to be sure. But overall, I would say they saved western civilization.Actually, the Crusades led to the development of western civilization because of how much they learned from Muslims. You're such an ignorant racist that you can't even recognize this from your own link: However, with the influx of Greco-Arabic science and natural philosophy into Western Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Christian attitude toward science changed dramatically.

Gosh, I wonder what changed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Oh, maybe it's the connection established between Europe and the Islamic world via Outremer. Go read a book.

Here, as always, the truth really hurts for the capitalist apologist.

capitalism is good

25th January 2012, 13:14

Hi RGacky,

Oh sure, but the whole ethnic divide was made by the Belgians, as was the whole concept of the nation-state (which put Europe in a constant state of violence for decades).

What makes you think they were not fighting before the Europeans came? Human beings have been fighting since the dawn of time. My guess is that they were even more bloody before the Europeans came.

There is a great book i read called, "Before the Dawn (http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/1594200793)", by Nicholas Wade. From his observations of the remaining primitive tribes left, he concluded that the primitives were even more bloody than we morderns are. So based on this I would question your assumption that they were very peaceful before the Belgians came. Either way, we have no data or historical records.

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis)http://fex.ennonline.net/34/has.aspx

(from the second article)
http://fex.ennonline.net/assets/34/has6.jpg
http://fex.ennonline.net/assets/34/has7.jpg
(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis)

This is a common mistake that people make. Speculation is not to blame for prices going sky high. Speculation can sometimes make prices go up but the effects are very short term. Ultimately, the price of commodities are determined by real supply and demand. One reason why grain prices are going up is because Chinese people are getting richer and can afford to eat better. This means they are eating more meat. You need to feed your cattle and pigs grains. So grain prices go up. By the way, this is the underlying reason for the Arab Spring (http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2011/10/10/egypt-descends-into-chaos/). Desperate Arabs are finding that food prices are going up making their lives tougher.

Here is a good video (http://www.france24.com/en/20110423-2011-04-23-food-safety-fao-agriculture-european-commission-market-speculation)on this topic. The conclusion is that speculation is not to blame. Its supply and demand. Prices may go up because of a drought meaning crop yields go down.

Socialist revolutions that worked out exactly as predicted.

Paris Commune
Anarchist Catelonia
Hungarian revolt against the USSR
Czech revolt against the USSR
Ukrainian Anarchism
Pre-Civil war Soviet autonomy
Argentinian worker takeovers
Chiapas Zapatista territories
South African Shanty town movement
Oaxaca popular assemballies

The Paris Commune, Hungrian and Czech revolt against the USSR were all crushed. The last two were nationalist revolts against a foreign imperialist power rather than a Socialist revolution.

I don't know anything about the rest but I suspect they were failures too. Otherwise, these revolutions would have an impact on the world. The one revolution that had a big impact on the world is the American Revolution. So it is more worthwhile to study that one.

Omsk

25th January 2012, 13:22

The last two were nationalist revolts against a foreign imperialist power rather than a Socialist revolution.

The USSR was not imperialist and did not act as an imperialist state toward the East Bloc countries after WW2.Learn what imperialism means,and than learn what was actually going on in the East after WW2.Than we can argue.

The one revolution that had a big impact on the world is the American Revolution. So it is more worthwhile to study that one.

Aside from your US patriotism,the "American revolution" is a mere gray shell compared to the October Revolution,the latter had a huge impact on the world,and humanity in general,advances made than,crush any advances before that revolution,historical progress was made.

RGacky3

25th January 2012, 13:39

What makes you think they were not fighting before the Europeans came? Human beings have been fighting since the dawn of time. My guess is that they were even more bloody before the Europeans came.

Oh, sure, they were fighting, but it was'nt nearly as bad as it is now, btw, I'm saying "blame it all on the europeans," I'm saying take historical context.

Europe had Capitalism for hundreds of years and went through tons and tons of murderous wars before it became what it is today.

Africa JUST got out of colonialism.

There is a great book i read called, "Before the Dawn (http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/1594200793)", by Nicholas Wade. From his observations of the remaining primitive tribes left, he concluded that the primitives were even more bloody than we morderns are. So based on this I would question your assumption that they were very peaceful before the Belgians came. Either way, we have no data or historical records.

I'll tell you why thats bullshit, its like the Apache, who became viscious as a reaction to the europeans.

Anyway, Europe developed naturally, Africa did not, HUGE difference.

This is a common mistake that people make. Speculation is not to blame for prices going sky high. Speculation can sometimes make prices go up but the effects are very short term. Ultimately, the price of commodities are determined by real supply and demand.

Its not a common mistake, look at the data.

if food prices were juts up to supply and demand you'd have a major major problem due to excess capacity and competativeness.

Speculation can make prices go up short term?? really? The housing bubble grew for 7 years, the food crisis lasted for about a year, enough for millions to DIE.

w5q7BotgTxw

Food prices are high now because agriculture is still for profit, meaning excess capacity has to be offset by subsidies and destruction of small farms keeping food prices high enough to maintain profit, which is partially due to the universal nature of food.

One reason why grain prices are going up is because Chinese people are getting richer and can afford to eat better. This means they are eating more meat. You need to feed your cattle and pigs grains. So grain prices go up. By the way, this is the underlying reason for the Arab Spring (http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2011/10/10/egypt-descends-into-chaos/). Desperate Arabs are finding that food prices are going up making their lives tougher.

bullshit, because agriculture STILL has extreme excess capacity even if you take into account the Chinese.

Read about the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, it applies directly to modern agriculture, agriculture as an industry has only survived due to subsidies and manipulative trade policies.

Here is some analysis and data on the fact
http://www.revleft.com/vb/agriculture-now-future-t165608/index.html?t=165608&highlight=agriculture

The Paris Commune, Hungrian and Czech revolt against the USSR were all crushed. The last two were nationalist revolts against a foreign imperialist power rather than a Socialist revolution.

Yes, violently.

And your wrong about the last 2, they both implimented actual WORKER control of industry rather than state control, (whe point of socialism).

They were crushed violently, yet they all functioned fine.

I don't know anything about the rest but I suspect they were failures too. Otherwise, these revolutions would have an impact on the world. The one revolution that had a big impact on the world is the American Revolution. So it is more worthwhile to study that one.

Most were crushed violently, many of them still are around, in Argentina there are whole towns that are worker controlled, chiapas is still esencially socialist, and so on.

Point is, IT IS NOT some pie in the sky heaven.

RGacky3

25th January 2012, 13:44

Food crisis caused by Goldman Sachs? What proof do you have. That is nonsense. Why would Goldman Sachs want to cause a food crisis?

For the same reason you'd want to drive up the price of anything ... Because you speculated on it.

Look man, your debating people who understand capitalism much much more than you do.

Bronco

25th January 2012, 13:46

#FF0000

25th January 2012, 13:49

Alright, that is fair enough. You are different from some of the others here. You only know what your ideal society is not. You don't know what it would look like. In that case, you should not call for revolution till you have a clear picture of what sort of society you will get. What if you succeed in tearing down capitalism and find that you end up with something worse?

Nah I have an idea of what it looks like. A society based on a federation of workers concils, on each shop floor, warehouse, farm, etc. etc. and upwards -- regional, state/province-wide, national, global etc.

I don't know anything about the rest but I suspect they were failures too. Otherwise, these revolutions would have an impact on the world. The one revolution that had a big impact on the world is the American Revolution. So it is more worthwhile to study that one.No doubt they were failures, but uh, to say the only revolution that had a big impact on the world was the American one is absolutely insane. The Chinese and Russian revolutions certainly had an impact, let alone the French revolution, and the revolutions of 1848, plus more.

seventeethdecember2016

25th January 2012, 16:42

There are two kinds of people here whenever someone brings up Cuba or N Korea or the former Soviet Union:

1)Those that claim that such countries were/are Socialist paradises. They are blind to the evil in them.

2)Those that acknowledges that they were/are hell holes but say that "they are practicing true Socialism.

In the case of Cuba, let me point out that Freedom house (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)has classified Cuba as an "authoritarian regime". It has a democracy index on only 3.52, slightly below Libya. So much for Cuban democracy.

I believe that the Cuban regime (your world's best democracy) is on the verge of a people's revolution. I hope that Castro will live long enough to see it.

After reading your little index, I found that those numbers were influenced only by 4 indicators.

"Whether national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections) are free and fair";
"The security of voters";
"The influence of foreign powers on government";
"The capability of the civil servants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_servant) to implement policies".

That index also claims that North America is more Democratic than Europe, which is completely false. For America(Two Party Dictatorship) to be considered an 8.11 is complete garbage.
I have never claimed that NK is a nice state, and for you to compare it with Cuba shows your ignorance. You obviously haven't read my whole comment, where I said Democracy isn't all about the man at the top. Cuba is a GRASSROOTS Democracy.

You seem to disregard anything and everything people say on this forums, so obviously we will do the same as you. You come off as an arrogant individualist who has no other ambition than missionary work. Trying to convert lefties into your own right-winged nightmare.

I don't know anything about the rest but I suspect they were failures too. Otherwise, these revolutions would have an impact on the world. The one revolution that had a big impact on the world is the American Revolution. So it is more worthwhile to study that one.
Here is the arrogant Missionary who will educate us uncivilized lefties on Western rationalism. Today he'll be teaching us how God wanted the world to preach Capitalism through the great prophets Smith and Locke, tomorrow he'll be telling us how Great Britain brought love to the world through their vast empire.
Next week we'll talk about how the GOD stopped the Turks from building the Tyranny in the Europe when the Ottoman Empire lost during the Siege of Vienna.

capitalism is good

26th January 2012, 02:21

The USSR was not imperialist and did not act as an imperialist state toward the East Bloc countries after WW2.Learn what imperialism means,and than learn what was actually going on in the East after WW2.Than we can argue.

Of course, it was. It invaded Afghanistian and installed a puppet government. It kept control of East Europe through puppet regimes. The Czechs and Hungarians did not want them and revolted. It took Russian tanks and troops to restore their imperialist control.

capitalism is good

26th January 2012, 02:24

Nah I have an idea of what it looks like. A society based on a federation of workers concils, on each shop floor, warehouse, farm, etc. etc. and upwards -- regional, state/province-wide, national, global etc.

You need to tell me more how it works in practice. Is there a real example somewhere in the world?

No doubt they were failures, but uh, to say the only revolution that had a big impact on the world was the American one is absolutely insane. The Chinese and Russian revolutions certainly had an impact, let alone the French revolution, and the revolutions of 1848, plus more.

Oh obviously, these other revolutions you mentioned had an impact too but mostly in a bad way.

capitalism is good

26th January 2012, 02:25

So which group do the people who don't think such countries were Socialist fit into to?

Number 2.

capitalism is good

26th January 2012, 03:31

For the same reason you'd want to drive up the price of anything ... Because you speculated on it.

Look man, your debating people who understand capitalism much much more than you do.

Hi RGacky,

Speculation works in this way. With commodities it usually takes place in the Futures Exchanges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange)such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Mercantile_Exchange)or Chicago Board of Trade. There two are the largest.

These were originally started to help farmers and buyers. it works like this. Suppose a farmer John Brown wants to sell wheat but his harvest won't be in for another 3 months. He can sell a "futures contract" on his crop to, say, a cereal company like Kellogs.

In 3 months time, he harvests and delivers his crop at the price agreed on 3 months ago. Both these guys are genuine buyers and sellers.

Now enter the speculators. Unlike John Brown or Kellogs, they are not geniune buyers or sellers. If a speculator buys he has no intention of taking delivery of the wheat or rice or whatever. Instead he hopes to sell the contract before delivery date for a profit if the price goes up.

A speculator can also sell a contract on the commodity even though he is not a farmer and has nothing to deliver. In this case, he hopes to buy back before the delivery date and make a profit if the price goes down.

Purchases will increase demand and sales will decrease demand. Because a speculator has to close his position, his net contribution to demand is zero. Only genuine buyers and sellers will can affect prices. If there are lots of real buyers who will take delivery of the crop, prices will go up. If there are lots of real sellers who want to deliver their crop, prices will go down.

Speculators cannot in the long term affect prices. In the short term his purchase can temporarily push prices up. But the moment he sells he pushes demand down again. The net effect on demand and hence price is zero. It works the same when a speculator sells first because he eventually has to buy back.

capitalism is good

26th January 2012, 03:49

After reading your little index, I found that those numbers were influenced only by 4 indicators.
"Whether national (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation) elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections) are free and fair";
"The security of voters";
"The influence of foreign powers on government";
"The capability of the civil servants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_servant) to implement policies".
That index also claims that North America is more Democratic than Europe, which is completely false. For America(Two Party Dictatorship) to be considered an 8.11 is complete garbage.

That's just your opinion. What do you base your opinion on?

I have never claimed that NK is a nice state, and for you to compare it with Cuba shows your ignorance. You obviously haven't read my whole comment, where I said Democracy isn't all about the man at the top. Cuba is a GRASSROOTS Democracy.

In which case, you are going to be surprised when the Grassroots throw out the Castro regime. I hope Castro live long enough to see it.

You seem to disregard anything and everything people say on this forums, so obviously we will do the same as you. You come off as an arrogant individualist who has no other ambition than missionary work. Trying to convert lefties into your own right-winged nightmare.

Well, this is a debating forum. I present my views which are different from most people here. What comes across to you as disregard for what others say is actully what i believe to be true.

The best way to see who is right is to predict future events. I predict that the Cuban regime will be overthrown by the People. Now if you are right that Cuba is a ideal democracy, then this should not happen.

Here is the arrogant Missionary who will educate us uncivilized lefties on Western rationalism. Today he'll be teaching us how God wanted the world to preach Capitalism through the great prophets Smith and Locke, tomorrow he'll be telling us how Great Britain brought love to the world through their vast empire.
Next week we'll talk about how the GOD stopped the Turks from building the Tyranny in the Europe when the Ottoman Empire lost during the Siege of Vienna.

Well, I believe leftists are wrong on most things. I am here to see if I can be convinced otherwise.

RGacky3

26th January 2012, 08:59

Speculation works in this way. With commodities it usually takes place in the Futures Exchanges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange)such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Mercantile_Exchange)or Chicago Board of Trade. There two are the largest.

A: I participate in securities markets, so you don't need to tell me how speculatoin works.

B: Your missing out the HUGE amount of trades that don't happen on public markets. i.e. a giant amount of the derivative markets.

These were originally started to help farmers and buyers. it works like this. Suppose a farmer John Brown wants to sell wheat but his harvest won't be in for another 3 months. He can sell a "futures contract" on his crop to, say, a cereal company like Kellogs.

In 3 months time, he harvests and delivers his crop at the price agreed on 3 months ago. Both these guys are genuine buyers and sellers.

Now enter the speculators. Unlike John Brown or Kellogs, they are not geniune buyers or sellers. If a speculator buys he has no intention of taking delivery of the wheat or rice or whatever. Instead he hopes to sell the contract before delivery date for a profit if the price goes up.

Yeah .... But there arn't ONLY futures contracts, you have ETFs and the such and different credit swaps and so on.

Or what a speculator does is hold and wait for prices, and so on.

Purchases will increase demand and sales will decrease demand. Because a speculator has to close his position, his net contribution to demand is zero. Only genuine buyers and sellers will can affect prices. If there are lots of real buyers who will take delivery of the crop, prices will go up. If there are lots of real sellers who want to deliver their crop, prices will go down.

Speculators cannot in the long term affect prices. In the short term his purchase can temporarily push prices up. But the moment he sells he pushes demand down again. The net effect on demand and hence price is zero. It works the same when a speculator sells first because he eventually has to buy back.

Except your wrong, what Goldman sachs was doing is buying futures contracts then continually rolling them over, sending the prices higher and higher.

You have the same thing with Oil prices, Also ITS NOT JUST FUTURES CONTRACTS, there are many ways you can speculate, a while back people were buying oil tankers and just holding it for a year or so, then you have different ETFs, differend credit swaps, different collateral swaps.

It honestly looks like you just copied and pasted this stuff here.

Also its not ONLY speculation, its also the whole agricultural system under capitalism.

Capitalismisgood, if I were you I would slow down the arrogance until you have a basic undertanding of economics.

capitalism is good

26th January 2012, 15:45

Speculation works in this way. With commodities it usually takes place in the Futures Exchanges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange)such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Mercantile_Exchange)or Chicago Board of Trade. There two are the largest.
I wrote:

Speculation works in this way. With commodities it usually takes place in the Futures Exchanges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_exchange)such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Mercantile_Exchange)or Chicago Board of Trade. There two are the largest.

RGacky wrote:

A: I participate in securities markets, so you don't need to tell me how speculatoin works.

B: Your missing out the HUGE amount of trades that don't happen on public markets. i.e. a giant amount of the derivative markets.

What do you think the CME and CBOT are trading? They are trading derivatives!

Yeah .... But there arn't ONLY futures contracts, you have ETFs and the such and different credit swaps and so on.

Or what a speculator does is hold and wait for prices, and so on.

Yes there are other types of derivatives like ETFs and credit swaps. But we are talking about the rise in food prices, remember? The commodity derivatives (which deals in things like wheat futures) are traded in the futures market like the CME and CBOT.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Except your wrong, what Goldman sachs was doing is buying futures contracts then continually rolling them over, sending the prices higher and higher.

You have the same thing with Oil prices, Also ITS NOT JUST FUTURES CONTRACTS, there are many ways you can speculate, a while back people were buying oil tankers and just holding it for a year or so, then you have different ETFs, differend credit swaps, different collateral swaps.

Nobody, not even a large company like Goldman Sachs, is stronger than the market. If the rest of the market is selling, you can be sure Goldman Sachs would have been losing money, assuming the buying was for its own account and not on behalf of its clients.

It honestly looks like you just copied and pasted this stuff here.

Also its not ONLY speculation, its also the whole agricultural system under capitalism.

Capitalismisgood, if I were you I would slow down the arrogance until you have a basic undertanding of economics.

So what's wrong with the agricultural system?

I wish you would educate yourself. You seem to be totally misinformed about economics, fiinance and other stuff. I am very sure that what I told you is correct. Please read a good book on economics. How about this one:

Economics for Dummies (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Dummies-Business-Personal-Finance/dp/0470879483)

I have not read the book but I am a fan of the dummies series. They are easy to understand.

seventeethdecember2016

26th January 2012, 16:06

That's just your opinion. What do you base your opinion on?

I think the TWO PARTY DICTATORSHIP was pretty self explanatory.
That same index named Iran below other Middle Eastern nations, which is completely wrong. Iran is 1/3 Democracies in the Middle East, and seeing that it was ranked so low just proves how bias that index is.

In which case, you are going to be surprised when the Grassroots throw out the Castro regime. I hope Castro live long enough to see it.

Do you Westerners always think that the TOP position is what makes a country Democratic or not?

Well, this is a debating forum. I present my views which are different from most people here. What comes across to you as disregard for what others say is actully what i believe to be true.

The best way to see who is right is to predict future events. I predict that the Cuban regime will be overthrown by the People. Now if you are right that Cuba is a ideal democracy, then this should not happen.

Predictions are always very vague. Cuba is also very Nationalists, and Nationalist states rarely fall. To add to, Authoritarian states are almost impossible to collapse without foreign intervention, or in the case of the October Revolution, War.

Well, I believe leftists are wrong on most things. I am here to see if I can be convinced otherwise.
On the contrary, you come on here and expect us to follow you as if we are drones. Your simple excuses to make this sound untrue lack taste. From the beginning, you have come on here and attacked a philosophy of egalitarianism, countries which vaguely follow that philosophy as examples, and you have thrashed at every culture that doesn't seem to be European, Christian, or North American.
I don't know how you expect us to take you at all seriously.
The Gini index rightfully states what countries are the most Socialist, and Sweden tops the list. This is followed by Norway, Finland, Germany, former Yugoslavia, former Eastern block, former USSR(excluding Russia, which has the most Billionaires per capita among significant states, and then Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/GINIretouchedcolors.png
.0 = Everyone makes equal money.
1.00= One person owns all the money.

RGacky3

26th January 2012, 18:39

What do you think the CME and CBOT are trading? They are trading derivatives!

Yes, and I was saying a huge about of the derivatives market is NOT on the public market, that was a huge thing with the crash, no one knew how many derivatives there were out there, who had them, who bought them and so on.

Yes there are other types of derivatives like ETFs and credit swaps. But we are talking about the rise in food prices, remember? The commodity derivatives (which deals in things like wheat futures) are traded in the futures market like the CME and CBOT.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Do you know what an over the counter market is?

(i.e. where the majority of derivative trading takes place).

BTW, people can take credit default swaps out on commodities as well, and futures, AND there are ETFs attached to commodities, I think you don't seam to know what your talking about.

Shit most of gold is traded with ETFs. (gold is a commodity fyi).

Nobody, not even a large company like Goldman Sachs, is stronger than the market. If the rest of the market is selling, you can be sure Goldman Sachs would have been losing money, assuming the buying was for its own account and not on behalf of its clients.

It honestly looks like you just copied and pasted this stuff here.

well the data say otherwise, its called momentum btw, and goldman sachs are one of the major market movers, when a big guy like goldman start to do something people pay attention.

You can yelp all you want the data and analysis for the 2007 food crisis is there. You can't deny the data, not even with the smugness of ignorance you seam to show

So what's wrong with the agricultural system?

Whats wrong with the agricultural system is it no longer works under capitalism, thats why every industrialized country needs huge subsidies to keep agriculture profitable, but that happens at the expense of food prices else where, that has to do with the tendancy both marx and adam smith found out within capitalism called the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, which happens in a competative market (like agriculture) when the capital/labor ratio gets too high.

read this thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/agriculture-now-future-t165608/index.html?t=165608&highlight=agriculture

I wish you would educate yourself. You seem to be totally misinformed about economics, fiinance and other stuff. I am very sure that what I told you is correct. Please read a good book on economics. How about this one:

A very smug attitude for someone that does'nt realize what an over the counter market is, and does'nt realize the way futures contracts work (they can be rolled over, which is what goldman sachs did), nor understands things like spot trading and storage.

RGacky3

26th January 2012, 18:40

BTW Adam smith (who came up with a version of the rate of profit to fall tendancy) is the dude in your avatar, Marx expanded on the idea. Now maybe YOU should go read some economics.

m1omfg

27th January 2012, 17:00

seventeethdecember2016

27th January 2012, 18:39

BTW Adam smith (who came up with a version of the rate of profit to fall tendancy) is the dude in your avatar, Marx expanded on the idea. Now maybe YOU should go read some economics.
Agreed. People often forget that Adam Smith wasn't an economist, rather a professor of Morals in Edinburgh. His idea wasn't meant to be the destructive enslavement of the lower classes, rather a Utopian ideology where the workers, farmers, land owners, etc. work together.

Although not very Democratic, Modern countries that follow Smith's ideology to the fullest are pretty successful. Given that most of the money is concentrated in the hands of few. In countries like Qatar, workers are given great benefits paid for by the businesses and corporations themselves, rather than the government. This means that corporations have taken the place of government, and are making donations to society just as Smith said. The only government in Qatar is pretty much the King. The people of Qatar are given every benefit those in Socialist countries receive, but that is only because Qatar is a pirate state that steals investors from Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia with no taxes. I think it is safe to say that Qatar is neo-Feudal.

This little thing I wrote was not to worship a Feudal state, rather to show that all systems can work. The user capitalism is good seems to have a skewed vision of both Capitalism and Socialism.

According to this Capitalistic concept, countries with Capitalist systems and high taxes will slow down and soon collapse.
There is no 3rd Way, so stop advocating it.

RGacky3

1st February 2012, 10:32

To clarify, the Prague Spring was not even a revolt (although it was a positive development and the 1968 invasion definitely set things backwards). The crushing of it was the removal of the more liberal wing of KSC from power. The Prague Spring was an attempt to build socialism with a human face by Alexander Dubcek and his associate. The 1968 invasion was a symptom of USSR's increasing paranoia and corruption, considering Dubcek did not even want to leave the Warsaw Pact, he just changed the internal policies in the country. The "crushing" was not dramatic either, tanks came, with soldiers who thought they were surpassing a fascist coup in the GDR rather than a more permissive communist movement in the CSSR, toppled our leaders (who were relegated to office jobs rather than really hurt in any way) and they had some army presence here until 1991. That was it. They did not declare a war or shoot at people, the return to neo-stalinism right after the tanks came was way more unpleasant than the invasion itself, and even then, instead of the deadly 1950s purges, "politically undesirable" people simply lost their jobs/were relegated to a lower rank.

It was'nt a war, but it was crushed by the threat of war, I guess curshed is'nt the right word, strong armed I suppose would be more accurate.

Although not very Democratic, Modern countries that follow Smith's ideology to the fullest are pretty successful. Given that most of the money is concentrated in the hands of few. In countries like Qatar, workers are given great benefits paid for by the businesses and corporations themselves, rather than the government. This means that corporations have taken the place of government, and are making donations to society just as Smith said. The only government in Qatar is pretty much the King. The people of Qatar are given every benefit those in Socialist countries receive, but that is only because Qatar is a pirate state that steals investors from Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia with no taxes. I think it is safe to say that Qatar is neo-Feudal.

It depends how you interprate smiths ideology, Smith was, according many economic historians, pro government intervention.

This little thing I wrote was not to worship a Feudal state, rather to show that all systems can work. The user capitalism is good seems to have a skewed vision of both Capitalism and Socialism.

According to this Capitalistic concept, countries with Capitalist systems and high taxes will slow down and soon collapse.
There is no 3rd Way, so stop advocating it.

Thats one of the biggest pet peves of mine, they have No understanding of the internal contradictions IN capitalism, and all of these economic problems (i.e. they are ignorant on economics other than the most basic of neo-classical propeganda), and they have no concept of socialism, other than tax+welfare.