Equality though Socialism or Communism

[FarfromNear]

You all say that with communism you want equality. What you basically are saying is that you rather everybody be poor , than some poor and some rich. You cant have it both ways. With communism the only rich will be the Gov't leaders. Besides, if we were all in a communist place, who would do what? I tell you what we would do. We would have Deadman farming, he will be responsible for farming. He will work long hours and at the end of the day, we will split his crops 3 ways. Norton, you will be a Doctor. You dont want to be a doctor but we need some so we will force you to be a Doctor. Youll study 8 years in Medical School , you will become our doctor and you will treat us for free. I will be a fruit picker. I will pick the apple trees, and orange trees and We will split whatever I pick. That sounds really good to me, if you guys object, the gov't will take care of you. Sounds good.

A communist system is based on the will of the people. Are you willing to be got to med school for 8 years so that I can have a good doctor?

You know what, what most amazes me is that some of you actually deny the fact that Stalin killed 5 million people, more than what Hitler did. I am not saying Hitler was good, im saying both of them were terrible. It is a known fact that Staling made slavery and essential part of the communist party. Stalin basically established a communist dicatorship. No freedom in that.

" The Soviet State has not ruled and does not intend to rule anybody or to impose our way on anybody." - Khrushchev. It obviously didnt go that way did it. It was basically forced on them.

What also amazes me is that some of you Che followers actually deny the fact that Che supported Stalin. Fact is, Che supported Marxism/Leninism, just like Stalin.
" I am a Marxist/Leninist and will be one till the day I die." - Castro. It is funny how Marxism, just like you is after equality for all, yet Castro is living an awesome life. He is rich, living in a palace. That is equality. Right?

After the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Bloc, sociologist Peter Berger wrote a book about the newly induastilizing coutnries of East Asia. He called them 'little tigers' and 'litte dragons' and described them as being part of a capitalist revolution and he showed how they were defeating poverty at an amazing rate. He also compared them to Third World Countries that have tried socialism for the last three decades and shows that none of those nations grew, in fact, they actually moved backward. If you look at that comparison again, those East Asia countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, have all grown, and actually have strong economies and way better standards of living. Take a look at the third world coutnries in Latin America, they moved backwards. Just look at their economic rates like inflation and unemployment, they have more than doubled. The countries poverty levels are high, and the standards of living in those nations are terrible.


Look at the riots and chaos that communism has caused in many countries. Look at the killing fields of Cambodia, The Soviet Union, Ikraine, and the mass murders in China. Whether you guys like it or not, we have history on our sides.


I agree with you in something. The communist system sounds really good because like Georgi Shakhanazarov put it, "In essence, Communism presupposes the all-round develpment of the human personality in a perfectly organized society." Fact is, communism does not work. It cant work. The reason that it cant work is that as human beings we cannot make it work. What would we do with those who dont want to work? Do we kill them? There are people today that are so lazy that they wont work to better their conditions, how are we going to make them work so that they can better societies condition. As human beings, we are selfish, communism would not work. It would have to be imposed on us and it would en up in being a tyrannical dicatorship or a civil war. It just has no human rights, just the rights tp assist the further advancement of the communist or socialist system. It has never worked, and it will never work. That is why I oppose it.

[FarfromNear]

A lot of you oppose Capitalism without understanding it. Many of you have said that capitalism in Latin American failed and they are moving towards socialism. They are moving towards socialism and thatst he only truth in what you say.

Latin America has never had Capitalism. What we have in Latin America is mercantilism. Mercantilism is a system in which a certain group is actually protected. Mercantilism was created with certain ideas of socialism like protectionism. So nobody can really succeed economically because the only ones that actually ger rich are the ones protected by the government.


Let me give you an example of a country in Central America which was basically like all the other Central Amercan coutnries during that time. It was during the 1950's that Guatemala, and El Salvador had better income per capita rates than Taiwan. They basically were focused on the agriculture industry. They were doing good. What those coutnries did was use mercantlism. They followe the example of socialism in things like closing the borders, high taxation, and protectionism of industry. They copied those aspects of socialism from socialistic countries in Europe.

How are things there now, well, look at Latin America, mostly third world countries. The economy in Guatemala and El Salvador are bad. People can't move forward.

Look at Taiwan, who embrace Capitalism. They have the world's 13th( or something) strongest economy. They are doing way better than these coutnries. You can not use the argument that Capitalism failed in Latin America because Latin America has never had Capitalism. DOnt argue with me that they have had Capitalism because if you want, I will just prove to you that what Latin America has had is mercantilism and not capitalism. Thats why those countries are soo poor, because they have never had capitalism. So dont use the argument that capitalism failed in Latin America, because it didnt. In fact, Capitalism has been succesful in the United States, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, it is starting to be seen in Ireland as it is rising above( economically) over other european countries, and it can be see in many other nations. So dont let your main argument against Capitalism be Latin America, because there never existed Capitalism in Latin America. On the other hand, the places were it does exist, are far better economically, they are some of the World's strongest economies.

Those capitalistic countries made their riches through Capitalism. The US created its own riches, Australia was a place for British exiles and prisoners, they also created riches, Taiwan was worse( economically) than Latin American countries and now it is far stronger, and look at Ireland, it did not have a good economy till they started integrating Capitalism in their system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To me, socialism isn't about the state taking all the wealth and distributing it equally to everybody as it chooses. The problem is that working people (the labor that creates all the wealth that capitalist enjoy and then get to decide how to use) have no power over their own labor. You can have a capitalist country with a large welfare state where people get free healthcare and transportation and all that, but it dosn't solve the problem that the means of production are controlled by a handfull of people and the system then reqires that everyone else work for thoes people at wages set by the market (which means as low as the business owners can get away with since the less it costs to produce something, them more profit is made).

Marxism is based on the obsevation that all societies are controlled by the same people who controll the means of production, so I advocate democratic worker's controll over production which means that people get to decide how things are run rather than the aristocracy or the business people or the government burocrats.

"How are things there now, well, look at Latin America, mostly third world countries. The economy in Guatemala and El Salvador are bad. People can't move forward." This argument is complete BS... Latin America is capitalist, just maybe not in a form you advocate... most of the problems today in Latin AMerica are because of neo-liberalization policies - i.e. free-market capitalism where there is no protectionism (which hurts the petty-bourgoisee in thoes countries because they can not compete with companies from the US or Europe). Additionally, there's the example of Pinnochett's economy which was run and designed by a group of capitalist economisists from Chicago... it was definately capitalist.

What about the US and Europe in the 1800s? Was that not capitalist... and yet working people lived in horribly poor conditions.

"A communist system is based on the will of the people. Are you willing to be got to med school for 8 years so that I can have a good doctor?"

If this was a socialist society, I would go to school for the rest of my life and work at the same time so that I could learn how to do all sorts of things. School was great because I could actually get real benifits for working harder than I had to... now in the workforce, if I work harder, I get paid the same wage and it just sets a precident: say I'm a salesman and I sell 5 widgets on average each week but one week I sell 10... then when I sell five the following week, my bosses get mad and say I'm slacking off. Capitalism dosn't nurture productivity, it only threatens people in order to get them to produce. Stalin used guns to make russians work, but the US uses the threat of poverty and homelessness.

[nezvanova]

With communism the only rich will be the Gov't leaders.

In a true communist state, there arne't supposed to be any leaders. In theory, the revolution would bring about a communist state, and any revoltuionary leaders would step down and the country would govern itself without leaders. By definition, there haven't been any true communist states. I would rather live in an egailitarian society, rather than once where I see rich people spitting on the poor. I see it everyday, and everyone turns the other cheek. It sickens me. you probably think i'm exagerating, but I've seen poverty here in Canada. Look at any Native reservation, look at the corner of every street, look at people sitting in hospital waiting rooms bleed because their aren't enough docters employed to help them. I've seen the capitalist system fail. I see it everytime I have someone ask me for money when i walk down the street infront of my mom's office. I never denied that stalin killed people, but I'm not a stalinist. you are again making an unfair assumption about the poeple on this forum. There are hard core stalinists here, but many of us are not among them. At least in Cuba everyone has a home, everyone gets fed, everyone has an equal chance to get an education. In the capitalist system, we all have the equal right to get ripped off by the system.

[Soviet power supreme]

With communism the only rich will be the Gov't leaders.

Yes could somebody show me Stalin's,Lenin's,Castro's,Che's,Mao's palaces.Please put them here or give me links because I havent ever seen them.

When Castro goes to state visting in other countries she stays at the cheapest hotel.When Gaddaf goes he stays in a beduine tent.


Besides, if we were all in a communist place, who would do what? I tell you what we would do. We would have Deadman farming, he will be responsible for farming. He will work long hours and at the end of the day, we will split his crops 3 ways. Norton, you will be a Doctor. You dont want to be a doctor but we need some so we will force you to be a Doctor. Youll study 8 years in Medical School , you will become our doctor and you will treat us for free. I will be a fruit picker. I will pick the apple trees, and orange trees and We will split whatever I pick. That sounds really good to me, if you guys object, the gov't will take care of you. Sounds good.


Have you thought that someone actually wants to be a doctor or a fruit picker or farmer?Have you thought that someone wants to go med school instead of going to hard work?Someone doesnt want to go schools anymore or they arent clever enough so they go and do non-academic work eg farmer,lumberjack etc,etc


Are you willing to be got to med school for 8 years so that I can have a good doctor?

Not me but sure many others wants to be a doctor.


You know what, what most amazes me is that some of you actually deny the fact that Stalin killed 5 million people, more than what Hitler did. I am not saying Hitler was good, im saying both of them were terrible.

Hitler killed 6 million jew, overall he killed 10 million.


It is a known fact that Staling made slavery and essential part of the communist party. Stalin basically established a communist dicatorship. No freedom in that.

Could someone please answer me this:

What are you going to do with those cappies who dont give their property to common ownership?

Sure Stalin put many kulaks in labour camps and I would have done the same thing.It is better to put those cappies in labour camps instead of killing them dont you agree?


He is rich, living in a palace. That is equality. Right?

Again show me his palace.


Fact is, communism does not work. It cant work.

Yeah keep telling that to yourself.You may believe it. :D


What would we do with those who dont want to work?

From each according his deeds and to each according his needs.Those who dont do anything for commune, gets nothing.But I believe that most of people wants to work in some job.I dont want to be unemployee for the rest of my life.


There are people today that are so lazy that they wont work to better their conditions, how are we going to make them work so that they can better societies condition.

It is so little number who dont want to work in any jobs.The current unemployees arent unemployees because they want to be.They are baecause they dont have any jobs here in western societys.Many jobs have gone in to third world countries.The current workers have no money or schools to re-educate themselve into a new job.


As human beings, we are selfish, communism would not work.

I have always liked history and history tells me that capitalism hasnt been here always.The societys before neo-politian revolution were communist.People arent greed bu their nature but capitalism make the greed look natural.

[Bolshevika]

Actually, Nezavona:

Marx outlines that in a communist state there is "administrative forces" that take the place of the official state machinary. Hence, there are still leaders, elected delegates, etc watching over the interests of society, however, the official central state machinary 'dissolves' into several small forces.

And Cuba, even though denies it, has a democratic government that is extremely similar to the one under Stalin in Russia.

I don't understand something. Most of you deny the lies about Fidel Castro, yet believe those about Stalin?

[redstar2000]

It has never worked, and it will never work. That is why I oppose it.

That doesn't make sense. There's no reason to oppose something that "can't work"...you can just sit back and watch it collapse.

If "history is on your side", why not turn off your computer and go out and make some money...instead of arguing with us "misguided" folk.

I mean, suppose you "convinced" us? Then we'd abandon our "bad ideas" and embrace capitalism. We'd become your competitors.

And since we're smarter than you are, we'd eat your lunch...you'd have to go apply for welfare. :lol:

Better leave us alone to wallow in our "ignorance". The last thing you need is real competition. :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Soviet power supreme]

That was a good one Redstar. :lol: And gongratulations on your 4000 posts.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 04:13 AM


"How are things there now, well, look at Latin America, mostly third world countries. The economy in Guatemala and El Salvador are bad. People can't move forward." This argument is complete BS... Latin America is capitalist, just maybe not in a form you advocate... most of the problems today in Latin AMerica are because of neo-liberalization policies - i.e. free-market capitalism where there is no protectionism (which hurts the petty-bourgoisee in thoes countries because they can not compete with companies from the US or Europe). Additionally, there's the example of Pinnochett's economy which was run and designed by a group of capitalist economisists from Chicago... it was definately capitalist.


:o :o Latin America is capitalist???????? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

What makes you say that, what proof do you have?

capitalism has never existed in Latin America. the only country where you can really make this argument is Chile. And chile has the best economy is Latin America. What you have had in Latin America is a history of ictators, civil wars, corrupt polititians which have all helped to keep latin america like it is.
What you also have is gov. that have protected wealthy familiies and their bussiness by not allwoing any competition with theri products.(that is not capitalism, that is not a free market).
Gov. puts high tariffs on imported products to "protect" the national companies, but what they are doing is just protecting the monopoly of som eof the wealthy. (that is not capitalism, high tariffs, gov. protection)
You have had this happen from mexico to barzil and argentina. That is why you see extremely wealthy familias, most have had their products protected by corrupt goverments. And those goverments most have been socialist and some have been more to the right side. But there is no difference between them cause they are corrupt.
Know what capitalism is before you say that there is Capitalism in Latin America.

Look at these following presidents:
Toledo in Peru, he is an admited leftist. In his campaing for president, he used something whcih has become very common in latin america. I will fight for the poor against the rich. What he starts is hatred against anyone who has 2 cars whcih is considered rich. then he got into power and still protects those rich which he was supposed to fight against. 2 years into his gov. and people where protesting and wanted him out.

Lula in Brazil. He wants to develop a program to feed poor people with more than 4 kids. If that is not leftist, then what is? obvioulsy his plan has not succeded.

Chavez in venezuela. is a supporter of Castro. Has invied castro to venezuela and he has gone to Cuba many times. he took over the oil industry in venezuela. (not capitalism).

Argentina, has had socialist goverments that have left the country with massive debt and has eliminated the middle class (they are now poor).

these are just a few examples , you can see the same in Central America. These countries are not only poor because of the current presidents but because of those things that i mentioned when i started my argument.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 08:00 PM
:o :o Latin America is capitalist???????? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

What makes you say that, what proof do you have?

capitalism has never existed in Latin America. the only country where you can really make this argument is Chile. And chile has the best economy is Latin America.

You have had this happen from mexico to barzil and argentina. That is why you see extremely wealthy familias, most have had their products protected by corrupt goverments. And those goverments most have been socialist and some have been more to the right side. But there is no difference between them cause they are corrupt.
Know what capitalism is before you say that there is Capitalism in Latin America.

Look at these following presidents:
Toledo in Peru, he is an admited leftist. In his campaing for president, he used something whcih has become very common in latin america. I will fight for the poor against the rich. What he starts is hatred against anyone who has 2 cars whcih is considered rich. then he got into power and still protects those rich which he was supposed to fight against. 2 years into his gov. and people where protesting and wanted him out.

Lula in Brazil. He wants to develop a program to feed poor people with more than 4 kids. If that is not leftist, then what is? obvioulsy his plan has not succeded.

Chavez in venezuela. is a supporter of Castro. Has invied castro to venezuela and he has gone to Cuba many times. he took over the oil industry in venezuela. (not capitalism).

Argentina, has had socialist goverments that have left the country with massive debt and has eliminated the middle class (they are now poor).

these are just a few examples , you can see the same in Central America. These countries are not only poor because of the current presidents but because of those things that i mentioned when i started my argument.
Yes, latin america is capitalist... agian, read my first responce. It may not be a kind of capitalism you preferr, but the way things are produced in latin america is capitalist.

Europe is also capitalist, they just have a large welfare state. I want you to do me a favor... go look up Keensian economics online and report back here. Again, these are capitalist economies, it is just a form of capitalism you don't agree with. But maybe this is a semantic argument... for marxists, the qualifications for what kind of economy a country has comes from looking at who or what force in society controlls the means of production... if it's not the workers, then it's not really socialist; if it is private companies, then it is capitalist; if it is the state, then it is stateist or nationalist.

"And chile has the best economy is Latin America" I thought Argentina used to have the best standard of living... could anyone provide some figures on Latin AMerica standards of living and economy?

"What you have had in Latin America is a history of ictators, civil wars, corrupt polititians which have all helped to keep latin america like it is." Yes, capitalist... Pinnochet, El Slavadore and so on. Capitalist dosn't mean rich, it means that the means of production are privately owned and people have to sell their labor for wages.

"What you also have is gov. that have protected wealthy familiies and their bussiness by not allwoing any competition with theri products.(that is not capitalism, that is not a free market). Gov. puts high tariffs on imported products to "protect" the national companies, but what they are doing is just protecting the monopoly of som eof the wealthy. (that is not capitalism, high tariffs, gov. protection)" The only businesses which are generally protected across the board are the American and European ones... think about all the products you get which come from latin america... they were manufactured or harvested there, but when you buy these products, they are from American companies like Chikitta (I have no idea how to spell that company's name).

You bring up Chavez... why is there turmoil in that country right now, well he wanted to enact some minor protectionist reforms and the American companies (such as Coke and the shipping companies) held a bosses-strike to prevent this.

"Argentina, has had socialist goverments that have left the country with massive debt and has eliminated the middle class (they are now poor)."Man, you really are way off on this... people are protesting in argentina because of neo-liberal (free-market) reforms recomended by the IMF which have devaluated the currency and caused joblessness and poverty.

"Chavez in venezuela. is a supporter of Castro. Has invied castro to venezuela and he has gone to Cuba many times. he took over the oil industry in venezuela. (not capitalism)."Considering the US get's about 1/4th of it's oil from Venesuela, I think if Chavez took over the oil from the US and European companies, we'd all know it because it would cause a great deal of turmoil in the US.

[Bolshevika]

Chavez in venezuela. is a supporter of Castro. Has invied castro to venezuela and he has gone to Cuba many times. he took over the oil industry in venezuela. (not capitalism).

Chavez is a genuine champion of the poor. He took the oil industry back from you capitalist oligarchs, and has put it where it belongs (in the hands of the Venezuelan people of course!).

Chavez is cleaning after the messes you capitalists have made.

The rest you are sort of right about. But Argentina has never been "socialist" in the Marxist sense. Peron was a populist, and the person who put Argentina in the debt it is today is your capitalist friend Menem, who is a false peronist.

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 11:34 PM

Yes, latin america is capitalist... agian, read my first responce. It may not be a kind of capitalism you preferr, but the way things are produced in latin america is capitalist.

Europe is also capitalist, they just have a large welfare state. I want you to do me a favor... go look up Keensian economics online and report back here. Again, these are capitalist economies, it is just a form of capitalism you don't agree with. But maybe this is a semantic argument... for marxists, the qualifications for what kind of economy a country has comes from looking at who or what force in society controlls the means of production... if it's not the workers, then it's not really socialist; if it is private companies, then it is capitalist; if it is the state, then it is stateist or nationalist.

"And chile has the best economy is Latin America" I thought Argentina used to have the best standard of living... could anyone provide some figures on Latin AMerica standards of living and economy?

"What you have had in Latin America is a history of ictators, civil wars, corrupt polititians which have all helped to keep latin america like it is." Yes, capitalist... Pinnochet, El Slavadore and so on. Capitalist dosn't mean rich, it means that the means of production are privately owned and people have to sell their labor for wages.

"What you also have is gov. that have protected wealthy familiies and their bussiness by not allwoing any competition with theri products.(that is not capitalism, that is not a free market). Gov. puts high tariffs on imported products to "protect" the national companies, but what they are doing is just protecting the monopoly of som eof the wealthy. (that is not capitalism, high tariffs, gov. protection)" The only businesses which are generally protected across the board are the American and European ones... think about all the products you get which come from latin america... they were manufactured or harvested there, but when you buy these products, they are from American companies like Chikitta (I have no idea how to spell that company's name).

You bring up Chavez... why is there turmoil in that country right now, well he wanted to enact some minor protectionist reforms and the American companies (such as Coke and the shipping companies) held a bosses-strike to prevent this.

"Argentina, has had socialist goverments that have left the country with massive debt and has eliminated the middle class (they are now poor)."Man, you really are way off on this... people are protesting in argentina because of neo-liberal (free-market) reforms recomended by the IMF which have devaluated the currency and caused joblessness and poverty.

"Chavez in venezuela. is a supporter of Castro. Has invied castro to venezuela and he has gone to Cuba many times. he took over the oil industry in venezuela. (not capitalism)."Considering the US get's about 1/4th of it's oil from Venesuela, I think if Chavez took over the oil from the US and European companies, we'd all know it because it would cause a great deal of turmoil in the US.
That is no capitalism. That is mercantilism. We have never had Capitalism in Latin America. Mercantilism has some aspects of capitalism, but it is not capitalism. You are saying that a pear is an apple. They are two different things. True Capitalism has never existed in Latin America. Latin America has protected industries. Protectionism which is basically socialistic, is what we have down there. They have created a monopoly that protect a limite, very limited few. We dont have capitalism down there, we never had, so dont use the argument. A lived there my whole life, my parents grew up there, their parents grew up there, and the parents of their parents grew up there. We have never had true Capitalism there. Look at how those countries have actaulkly moved back in progress, look at how Taiwan, a capitalist nation, has moved to the 13th strongest economy in the world with far better living conditions then in Latin America.

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 11:58 PM


Chavez is cleaning after the messes you capitalists have made.

The rest you are sort of right about. But Argentina has never been "socialist" in the Marxist sense. Peron was a populist, and the person who put Argentina in the debt it is today is your capitalist friend Menem, who is a false peronist.
We capitalists made? There has never been real Capitalism in Latin America and that is why we havent been able to improve economically.

The perons were actually the ones who started to screw up Argentina. Argentina is soo screwed up because of protectionism, high taxes which scare off foreign investors, and damn labor unions.

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 04:13 AM
To me, socialism isn't about the state taking all the wealth and distributing it equally to everybody as it chooses. The problem is that working people (the labor that creates all the wealth that capitalist enjoy and then get to decide how to use) have no power over their own labor. You can have a capitalist country with a large welfare state where people get free healthcare and transportation and all that, but it dosn't solve the problem that the means of production are controlled by a handfull of people and the system then reqires that everyone else work for thoes people at wages set by the market (which means as low as the business owners can get away with since the less it costs to produce something, them more profit is made).

Marxism is based on the obsevation that all societies are controlled by the same people who controll the means of production, so I advocate democratic worker's controll over production which means that people get to decide how things are run rather than the aristocracy or the business people or the government burocrats.

"How are things there now, well, look at Latin America, mostly third world countries. The economy in Guatemala and El Salvador are bad. People can't move forward." This argument is complete BS... Latin America is capitalist, just maybe not in a form you advocate... most of the problems today in Latin AMerica are because of neo-liberalization policies - i.e. free-market capitalism where there is no protectionism (which hurts the petty-bourgoisee in thoes countries because they can not compete with companies from the US or Europe). Additionally, there's the example of Pinnochett's economy which was run and designed by a group of capitalist economisists from Chicago... it was definately capitalist.

What about the US and Europe in the 1800s? Was that not capitalist... and yet working people lived in horribly poor conditions.

"A communist system is based on the will of the people. Are you willing to be got to med school for 8 years so that I can have a good doctor?"

If this was a socialist society, I would go to school for the rest of my life and work at the same time so that I could learn how to do all sorts of things. School was great because I could actually get real benifits for working harder than I had to... now in the workforce, if I work harder, I get paid the same wage and it just sets a precident: say I'm a salesman and I sell 5 widgets on average each week but one week I sell 10... then when I sell five the following week, my bosses get mad and say I'm slacking off. Capitalism dosn't nurture productivity, it only threatens people in order to get them to produce. Stalin used guns to make russians work, but the US uses the threat of poverty and homelessness.
Welfare, free healthcare, and protectionism are not a capitalist.

Non liberalization policies in latin america, where there is no protectionism? There is protectionism, the govt protects the few with high taxes that scare off investors. The economy never improves.

Chile is just now starting to get a better stronger economy, better than all those other south American coutries. Why? Because of capitalism, and their 'Chicago Boys' which were actually chileans who studied in The University of Chicago.

IN the US and Europe in 1800s? Well, it was when the industrial revolutions first started. Capitalism was far from being some what developed in those countries. The injustices were those of child labor and all that. That is when protectionism and labor unions first started too.

The rich that control in gov' is basically due to protectionism, not capitalism.

[FarfromNear]

Let ask you something, if you all love communism, why dont you just go to Cuba and live there? Seriously, wouldnt that be like paradise for you guys.

[el_profe]

Yes, latin america is capitalist... agian, read my first responce. It may not be a kind of capitalism you preferr, but the way things are produced in latin america is capitalist.

Europe is also capitalist, they just have a large welfare state. I want you to do me a favor... go look up Keensian economics online and report back here. Again, these are capitalist economies, it is just a form of capitalism you don't agree with. But maybe this is a semantic argument... for marxists, the qualifications for what kind of economy a country has comes from looking at who or what force in society controlls the means of production... if it's not the workers, then it's not really socialist; if it is private companies, then it is capitalist; if it is the state, then it is stateist or nationalist.

"And chile has the best economy is Latin America" I thought Argentina used to have the best standard of living... could anyone provide some figures on Latin AMerica standards of living and economy?

"What you have had in Latin America is a history of ictators, civil wars, corrupt polititians which have all helped to keep latin america like it is." Yes, capitalist... Pinnochet, El Slavadore and so on. Capitalist dosn't mean rich, it means that the means of production are privately owned and people have to sell their labor for wages.

"What you also have is gov. that have protected wealthy familiies and their bussiness by not allwoing any competition with theri products.(that is not capitalism, that is not a free market). Gov. puts high tariffs on imported products to "protect" the national companies, but what they are doing is just protecting the monopoly of som eof the wealthy. (that is not capitalism, high tariffs, gov. protection)" The only businesses which are generally protected across the board are the American and European ones... think about all the products you get which come from latin america... they were manufactured or harvested there, but when you buy these products, they are from American companies like Chikitta (I have no idea how to spell that company's name).

You bring up Chavez... why is there turmoil in that country right now, well he wanted to enact some minor protectionist reforms and the American companies (such as Coke and the shipping companies) held a bosses-strike to prevent this.

"Argentina, has had socialist goverments that have left the country with massive debt and has eliminated the middle class (they are now poor)."Man, you really are way off on this... people are protesting in argentina because of neo-liberal (free-market) reforms recomended by the IMF which have devaluated the currency and caused joblessness and poverty.

"Chavez in venezuela. is a supporter of Castro. Has invied castro to venezuela and he has gone to Cuba many times. he took over the oil industry in venezuela. (not capitalism)."Considering the US get's about 1/4th of it's oil from Venesuela, I think if Chavez took over the oil from the US and European companies, we'd all know it because it would cause a great deal of turmoil in the US.
Youre first argument. you must know the definition of capitalism first, here it is:Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market. from http://www.capitalism.org

Your second paraghraph. Talking to me about keynes. Please dont bring that moron into the conversation. How can anyone see him as a capitalist, OMG. He believed that the gov. needed to have a role in the economy and he believed in deficit spending, both are not capitalist.
Capitalism is an advocate of laissez-faire (free -market) this is what laissez-faire and capitalsim believe the involvment of gov should be: It is to protect rights that governments are instituted. A proper government's only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud. http://www.capitalism.org/faq/government.htm

Chile has the best economy in latin america. Costa Rica has the best economy in central america. i learned these facts in high school, ive seen it in recent mags. and read it in books. But here is alink to a site with all the facts you need to know about the economy in each country in latin america. It is in Spanish though so hope you can read spanish, dont have time to find one in english and couldnt find one as good as this one.
Go to page 38 to see the inflation rates in the past 12 months in latin america you will see argentina at the top of the list. you should know argentina is going through a terrible rescession that started about 3 years ago.
And Argentina socialist policy led to that recession and the FIM (which im not to fond of) is trying get Argentina to lossen up its economic restrictions.
Argentina is at fault for its poverty, not anyone else.

THE PROBLEM IS YOU BLAME THE BIGGER COUNTRIES for the problems in Latin America, their is something called personal responsabilty. I bet when/if you fail/failed a class you blamed it on the school or on someone else, but not yourself. Latin America is victim of its own decisions, not anyonelse's decisions.

[/QUOTE]The only businesses which are generally protected across the board are the American and European ones... think about all the products you get which come from latin america... they were manufactured or harvested there, but when you buy these products, they are from American companies like Chikitta (I have no idea how to spell that company's name).
[QUOTE]
That is the biggest misconception in your argument. I would suggest you read. "fabricantes de miseria" (poverty makers) but since that book is only in spanish, read "The guide to the perfect latin american idiot" written by 5 latin americans, that book will tell you why how latin americans think keeps them poor. I prefer fabricantes de miserai, becausee it shows how everyone in latinamerica, from politicans, the miliaries, businessmen, guerillas, unions etc. are to blame for the state in which latin america is.

about 75% of the richest companies in Latin America are owned by Latin Americans, so that notion that they have protected US and european countries is false.
This is why: LIKE I PREVIOUSLY stated, Gov's in Latin Amrica have protected national prodcuts from foreign investment because they believe that is the only way the national companies(and in somecases because they are corrupt govs. that take money from these companies) and industries will succed. But what they have created is monopolies all across latin america.
Here is link to forbes, where they have the richest man in mexico http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/200...datatype=Person (http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=WYDJ&datatype=Person)
He owns mexico's telecom company which was protected for so many year that he has now a monopoly. He also owns large parts of other telecom companies in other latin american countries. this is a microcosim of what has hapened through latin america.
There are some exceptions like you said with chiquita. But even chiquita lost large part of its businnes in central amercia, for a number of reasons.


Chavez. HAHAHAHAHAHA. LOL, the bosses strike, youre very misinformed, go look this up anywhere you want. It was a 3 month strike in whcih a large part of the country participated in to protest him, millions participated in the strike even union leaders.

The strike lasted over 2 months. And for a 3 day period. Every private sector including banks went on strike, paralyzing the country. The coke and shipping companies you must be talking about is when the bottleling company that is incharge of shipping coke joined the strike (this company is owned by A venezuelan family, go check it out on the 3 page of forbes most rich, you will find somoene from venezuela you can see what he owns.) , Chavez ordered the military to take the trucks full of cokes and other beverages to be taken from them, the military entred by force hit any poor workers that tried to stop them from taking the trucks , they took the trucks and went handing out coke to the "people". chavez also has his thugs, he calls them "ciruclos bolivarianos" to clash the strike members. In one clash these "Circulo bolivarianos" killed 17 people whop where in the strike. you can look this up on google or wherever you wish to.
Also just today teh venezuelan's that want chavez out (80%) , handed in more than 3.5 million signatures that should force the gov. to have new election in 2004 to get rid of Chavez.the "ciruclos bolivarianos" also violently disturbed the people waiting in line to sign. In one video you can see these dugs with guns (one with a Ak-47) breaking up a place where they where signing. You can also find this video on the web.I saw it on the news and on the web.

Like I said before, I was born and lived 18 years in Latin America. and i still vistit. so i should know how things work over their. I also know more things and the truth of how thing are.

[redstar2000]

Let ask you something, if you all love communism, why don't you just go to Cuba and live there? Seriously, wouldn't that be like paradise for you guys.

It's been discussed on this board before...several non-U.S. citizens have visited there and I know one who is planning to move there.

In my own case, it's lack of resources...both to make the trip and to live there after I arrived (it would hardly be fair to ask the Cubans to support an old guy who wouldn't be able to make much of a contribution).

Many of the younger members of the board also lack the resources to move there.

But it would not altogether surprise me if, say within five years, there will be Che-Lives members reporting "live" from Havana.

(And, by the way, Cuba is a socialist country...not a "communist" one.)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Danton]

It takes five years to be naturalized, you also have to renounce your country of birth, no problem there. You also need good Spanish, the easy way is to marry or serve a year in the army, all options I'm seriously considering. I've been twice, once on holiday and another more serious learning trip. I don't pretend they've got it easy but I could definatley live there, of course such matters need lengthy consideration...

I also know a comrade who is probably on the way there now and has enquired extensivley about such possibilities...

Redstar, I'm sure you could make a valuble contribution...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 01:12 AM
That is no capitalism. That is mercantilism. We have never had Capitalism in Latin America. Mercantilism has some aspects of capitalism, but it is not capitalism. You are saying that a pear is an apple. They are two different things. True Capitalism has never existed in Latin America. Latin America has protected industries. Protectionism which is basically socialistic, is what we have down there. They have created a monopoly that protect a limite, very limited few. We dont have capitalism down there, we never had, so dont use the argument. A lived there my whole life, my parents grew up there, their parents grew up there, and the parents of their parents grew up there. We have never had true Capitalism there. Look at how those countries have actaulkly moved back in progress, look at how Taiwan, a capitalist nation, has moved to the 13th strongest economy in the world with far better living conditions then in Latin America.
Ok, ok, this is just a rediculous semantic argument... you and that other guy support some specific dogmatic form of capitalism which has never existed. By your definitions, capitalism also dosn't exist in the US since the US has inddustrial subsities and protectionism and all that other stuff.

When I am taling about economic systems, I am talking about who controlls the economy. In capitalism (an economy cand state run in the intrests of business) there can be lots of protectionism or none... it depends on what the ruling class considers to be the best stratagy at the time for them to increase their profits. For example, many companies in the US want the USG to stop protectionism in some latin American states so that the US companies can come in. In Jameca the US wants to have free trade because European companies have the strongest influence there and if the trade regulations were changed, then US companies could come in. European countries do not want thoes trade realtions to change because they want to continue to hold a large influence in these countries. On the other hand, the US is protectionist when it comes to certain imports so because that favors native companies.

The problem in the US and Latin America arn't from what specific strain of capitalism exists there, the problem is that the people who rely on production and create production (the working class) have no economic and therfore no real political control over society. Again, the importan factor is not what specific trade policies a ruling class engages in at any specific point in time; the important factor is who is that ruling class... the workers, the state, the bourgoise, the aristocratic land-lords?

"Why do you love the US or go to Cuba?" Well, I for one do not think that cuba is socialist because the working class is not in control of production there either. The state controlls production and it is more like a left-wing nationalist country in Cuba that a socialist country. But many people on this site would disagree with that and you can look at other topics on this site about this subject.

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 09:36 PM

Ok, ok, this is just a rediculous semantic argument... you and that other guy support some specific dogmatic form of capitalism which has never existed. By your definitions, capitalism also dosn't exist in the US since the US has inddustrial subsities and protectionism and all that other stuff.

When I am taling about economic systems, I am talking about who controlls the economy. In capitalism (an economy cand state run in the intrests of business) there can be lots of protectionism or none... it depends on what the ruling class considers to be the best stratagy at the time for them to increase their profits. For example, many companies in the US want the USG to stop protectionism in some latin American states so that the US companies can come in. In Jameca the US wants to have free trade because European companies have the strongest influence there and if the trade regulations were changed, then US companies could come in. European countries do not want thoes trade realtions to change because they want to continue to hold a large influence in these countries. On the other hand, the US is protectionist when it comes to certain imports so because that favors native companies.

The problem in the US and Latin America arn't from what specific strain of capitalism exists there, the problem is that the people who rely on production and create production (the working class) have no economic and therfore no real political control over society. Again, the importan factor is not what specific trade policies a ruling class engages in at any specific point in time; the important factor is who is that ruling class... the workers, the state, the bourgoise, the aristocratic land-lords?

"Why do you love the US or go to Cuba?" Well, I for one do not think that cuba is socialist because the working class is not in control of production there either. The state controlls production and it is more like a left-wing nationalist country in Cuba that a socialist country. But many people on this site would disagree with that and you can look at other topics on this site about this subject.
Did I ever say that the US doesn't have Capitalism? No.

You are talking about who controlls the economy?? That is teh basic communist argument. The economy is controlled by the market, not the rich. If the rich decide that the price of something is going to go up, then they wont be rich for too long. People wont buy the product.

No, protectionism is socialist. It was intented in Capitalism.

See, once again, in Latin America we have not had Laissez Faire Capitalism. What we have is mercantilism. I suggest you read about mercantilism. I suggest you read Wealth of Nations.

Protectionism is intended to favor, or protect, native companies. That is not capitalism. I am against protectionism because it just results in higher prices and higher taxes. We dont want that.

You are basically saying that we have had Capitalism in Latin America, where in fact, we havent. You might call it a semantic argument. Point is that Capitalism is not the same thing as Mercantilism. We see mercantilism which is basically gov't protection to very few people, which creates monopolies, higher taxes, and scares off investors. In the end , we dont have that competition were firms compete for employees by raising wages, and were firms compete by lowering prices. In the end, this mercantilism , without true competition, results in people getting screwed. Wages are low, and prices are high, basically inflation. That is what we have down there. The ruling class, might be 10 families, 20 families, in the whole country, that control land, and firms. That is mercantilism, it is not Capitalism. So unlike my "Semantic argument", youre argument is entirely false.

[Bradyman]

Quite a heated debate we got here.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up mercantilism. Most of us on the boards are not in favor of any sort of mercantilist society, it's just another way to protect wealthy business interests instead of supporting the workers. Keep in mind that during the colonial America period, England used mercantilism in the colonies. All that did was protect a few people in the mother land rather than helping all those in the "empire".

And also, at this period in time, there is no "communist state" or whatever you want to call it, be it Latin America or wherever. We here, do not advocate dictators to command the economy, that's not what we want.

We just realize that under "lassiez-faire" capitalism, there is a giant dichotomy between the rich and poor, and in every case, far more rich than poor. We wish to protect the individual rights of everyone. You guys don't realize that governments aren't the only ones who can exploit people. A multinational coporation employing several million workers has far more say in the workers' life than a government.

Keep in mind, it was through workers' power that the United States was able to obtain such a middle class. But's that's not nearly enough. There are far too many people in this world who don't have this oppurtunity, far too many who will never have any sort of oppurtunity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 09:42 PM
Did I ever say that the US doesn't have Capitalism? No.

You are talking about who controlls the economy?? That is teh basic communist argument. The economy is controlled by the market, not the rich. If the rich decide that the price of something is going to go up, then they wont be rich for too long. People wont buy the product.

No, protectionism is socialist. It was intented in Capitalism.

See, once again, in Latin America we have not had Laissez Faire Capitalism. What we have is mercantilism. I suggest you read about mercantilism. I suggest you read Wealth of Nations.

Protectionism is intended to favor, or protect, native companies. That is not capitalism. I am against protectionism because it just results in higher prices and higher taxes. We dont want that.

You are basically saying that we have had Capitalism in Latin America, where in fact, we havent. You might call it a semantic argument. Point is that Capitalism is not the same thing as Mercantilism. We see mercantilism which is basically gov't protection to very few people, which creates monopolies, higher taxes, and scares off investors. In the end , we dont have that competition were firms compete for employees by raising wages, and were firms compete by lowering prices. In the end, this mercantilism , without true competition, results in people getting screwed. Wages are low, and prices are high, basically inflation. That is what we have down there. The ruling class, might be 10 families, 20 families, in the whole country, that control land, and firms. That is mercantilism, it is not Capitalism. So unlike my "Semantic argument", youre argument is entirely false.

You are basically saying that we have had Capitalism in Latin America, where in fact, we havent. You might call it a semantic argument. Point is that Capitalism is not the same thing as Mercantilism. We see mercantilism which is basically gov't protection to very few people, which creates monopolies, higher taxes, and scares off investors. In the end , we dont have that competition were firms compete for employees by raising wages, and were firms compete by lowering prices. In the end, this mercantilism , without true competition, results in people getting screwed. Wages are low, and prices are high, basically inflation. That is what we have down there. The ruling class, might be 10 families, 20 families, in the whole country, that control land, and firms. That is mercantilism, it is not Capitalism. So unlike my "Semantic argument", youre argument is entirely false.And the US dosn't have subsidies and has no protectionist trade laws? I think if you'll look at the countries which have been following IMF trade policies, their regulations or industry and trade are far more Lassez Faire than in the US. Rent the film "life and Debt" for example, where they talk about this very hypocracy of US companies complaining of protectionism in Jamaacan industries while the same companies are getting subsidies from the USG and then using that money to export to Jamaca, undercutting native jamacian industries.

Most of the revolts in Latin America over the last 4 years have been brought about because of such "protectionist laws" as... privitizing water, letting US and European countries into the central american coffee-bean industry, the cutting of social welfare policies and other lassez faire neo-liberal economic policies.

Yes it is basic communist theory that the people who controll production also control the society... and this is very true and the reason strikes are such an effective defense against attacks by employers. It is true that the bourgoise ruling classes can not induvidually controll all aspects of the market and this is part of the reson the state is an importan tool for them and also the reason that states create all kinds of different capitalist policies in order to try and "solve" aspects of the market which cause them problems... such as economic crisis of overproduction, monopolization and so on.

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 11:00 PM
Quite a heated debate we got here.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up mercantilism. Most of us on the boards are not in favor of any sort of mercantilist society, it's just another way to protect wealthy business interests instead of supporting the workers. Keep in mind that during the colonial America period, England used mercantilism in the colonies. All that did was protect a few people in the mother land rather than helping all those in the "empire".

And also, at this period in time, there is no "communist state" or whatever you want to call it, be it Latin America or wherever. We here, do not advocate dictators to command the economy, that's not what we want.

We just realize that under "lassiez-faire" capitalism, there is a giant dichotomy between the rich and poor, and in every case, far more rich than poor. We wish to protect the individual rights of everyone. You guys don't realize that governments aren't the only ones who can exploit people. A multinational coporation employing several million workers has far more say in the workers' life than a government.

Keep in mind, it was through workers' power that the United States was able to obtain such a middle class. But's that's not nearly enough. There are far too many people in this world who don't have this oppurtunity, far too many who will never have any sort of oppurtunity.
The only reason that I keep bringing mercantilism is because you fail to understand that we have never had Capitalism in latin america.


It was through workers, thanks to Capitalism, that the US has a middle class. Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty. Capitalism is basically a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Capitalism promotes individual sovereignity. Man works for himself, and is not a slave to the ends of society. Capitalism gives us the right to do whatever we want. You are not tied up to work for society. What are the indivual rights that Capitalism takes away? You talk about those rights, yet you dont mention them.

The Corporations have far more say? NO, the person still has complete authority over his life. If he wants to quit, he can quit. Capitalism gives freedom and opportunities, what one does with them is his own choice. IT doesnt take away anything. You still have to work hard if you want to succeed. Thats why Capitalism helps societies better themselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 11:00 PM
Keep in mind, it was through workers' power that the United States was able to obtain such a middle class. But's that's not nearly enough. There are far too many people in this world who don't have this oppurtunity, far too many who will never have any sort of oppurtunity.
Very well said. Especially this part I quoted.

This is the part that is most often neglected. Democrats and liberals will say it was FDR's economic policies which created the standard of living in the US and conservatives claim that FDR was a fluke and it is the private sector and the war which created higher standards of living, but the truth is that we'd all be working 12 hour days and be making as much as undocumented farmworkers if it wasn't for worker's organizing themselfves and fighting in their own intrests for better living conditions.

[el_profe]

Will anyone answer my post?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 12:42 AM
It was through workers, thanks to Capitalism, that the US has a middle class. Capitalism looks to get people out of poverty. Capitalism is basically a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Capitalism promotes individual sovereignity. Man works for himself, and is not a slave to the ends of society. Capitalism gives us the right to do whatever we want. You are not tied up to work for society. What are the indivual rights that Capitalism takes away? You talk about those rights, yet you dont mention them.

The Corporations have far more say? NO, the person still has complete authority over his life. If he wants to quit, he can quit. Capitalism gives freedom and opportunities, what one does with them is his own choice. IT doesnt take away anything. You still have to work hard if you want to succeed. Thats why Capitalism helps societies better themselves.

There is choice in capitalism as long as you choose to do what the system reqires you to do. We arn't even really free to be homelss in this society anymore since there are loitering laws and police regularly harass the homeless.
Capitalism has one perpose and that is to create profits above all else. Why is it that undocumented laborers make so little compared to people woirking in the same industry who have labor unions and labor rights? Everything we have that make work a little less horrible was ripped from the hands of business... everytime the business has claimed that it will make products cost too much and it will cause them to go out of business to make coal-mines a little safer or to prevent a few more limbs from getting crushed into machines.

The corporations do set the terms that we have to follow... shurte we can quit, but then we have to work for the next company doen the street for similar conditions and wages... often less because you've lost all your vaccation time and your $.24 raise for working at your old job for 6 more months. What does the corporation suffer... not much, they just hire the next guy, they don't have to worry that they'll loose their homes or the factory or starve because they don't loose their wages, they just loose a little bit of production. The only way workers can hurt corportations is by striking and then preventing production.

Rights that capitalism takes away... they take away the right to meanful property for all but a very few. Capitalist enclosed the land whereever they go so that now the indigenous farmer who owns the land from generations of farming, has lost the land because someone made up a contract and bought the land from under the farmer. Or companies come into an area and flood the market with their mass produced food and so farmers can not compete and then they go into debt and the bank takes their land and now they have to work for the company that drove them out of business on the farmland that use to be theirs.

The best hope for owning property that most of us have is someday owning a place to live or a car, but most of us end up renting these for years and years which means that now we are subject to the whims of our employer and of the bank or landlord and the ups and downs of the market

[Jimmie Higgins]

"THE PROBLEM IS YOU BLAME THE BIGGER COUNTRIES for the problems in Latin America, their is something called personal responsabilty. I bet when/if you fail/failed a class you blamed it on the school or on someone else, but not yourself. Latin America is victim of its own decisions, not anyonelse's decisions."It was not my intent to defend "smaller countries" against "bigger countries"; the ruling classes of Latin AMerica are just as at fault as the ruling classes of North America and Europe for propagating a system where thoes who do the work to create wealth in society don't get to have any control over that wealth.

Second, a country is not a person, so a country has no induvidual responcability because for such a thing to exist, then the actions of a country and the will of all people in that country would have to be the same. I take no personal responcability for the actions of the US government since it does not represent my intrests or my will.

[FarfromNear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:00 AM


Capitalism has one perpose and that is to create profits above all else. Why is it that undocumented laborers make so little compared to people woirking in the same industry who have labor unions and labor rights? Everything we have that make work a little less horrible was ripped from the hands of business... everytime the business has claimed that it will make products cost too much and it will cause them to go out of business to make coal-mines a little safer or to prevent a few more limbs from getting crushed into machines.

The corporations do set the terms that we have to follow... shurte we can quit, but then we have to work for the next company doen the street for similar conditions and wages... often less because you've lost all your vaccation time and your $.24 raise for working at your old job for 6 more months. What does the corporation suffer... not much, they just hire the next guy, they don't have to worry that they'll loose their homes or the factory or starve because they don't loose their wages, they just loose a little bit of production. The only way workers can hurt corportations is by striking and then preventing production.

Rights that capitalism takes away... they take away the right to meanful property for all but a very few. Capitalist enclosed the land whereever they go so that now the indigenous farmer who owns the land from generations of farming, has lost the land because someone made up a contract and bought the land from under the farmer. Or companies come into an area and flood the market with their mass produced food and so farmers can not compete and then they go into debt and the bank takes their land and now they have to work for the company that drove them out of business on the farmland that use to be theirs.

The best hope for owning property that most of us have is someday owning a place to live or a car, but most of us end up renting these for years and years which means that now we are subject to the whims of our employer and of the bank or landlord and the ups and downs of the market


Capitalism has purpose to promote individual rights and freedom, to help society advance and improve, and to create riches. Capitalism provides us with the incentive and the initiative that we need. Without it we wouldnt have technology or people constatly trying to improve what we have. Our society improves economically and advances technologically thanks to Capitalism.

The reason that undocumented laborers make so little is because they are in fact undocumented. That is why immigrants should be able to go to the US to work. There shouldnt be as many barriers for all those people who are trying to improve their situation and want to go to the US to have a better life.

Labor Unions are a piece of crap and they should be abolished.

You think that the rich dont suffer, look at forbes.com billionaires who have lost money . There are some who lost their whole fortunes because of bad business deals, so dont say that those guys dont have anything to lose.

There is something called responsibility, like el Profe said. In not Capitalisms fault if a guy loses his job and has no money to pay his debts. He has no money because he didnt save. He is in debt because he charged his credit cards more than he could afford. People refuse to take responsibilty for that. I have a friend whos Dad use to make big money, he lost his job and isnt able to afford much. He has 4 kids, 2 that he needs to send through college. Whos fault was that? His own. On the other hand, I have another friends Dad who worked as a Truck driver and he is actually retired because he was able to save and invest properly. They have control over what they do. That is what capitalism does. It gives people freedom to rule over their life. With Capitalism, companies compete for better employees so they raise wages and benefits. Companies also compete for consumers so they lower prices. Employees try to better themselves and work harder to get those good jobs. The guys who dont get the best jobs were simply not better than that 4.0 Student with a masters degree, who worked hard through college, instead of partying. It was his own choice to work hard. That is how society betters itself. People are able to earn more, and pay less for stuff, in Capitalistic competition. What you see In the US now is higher taxes for protectionism and social programs, the end result being higher prices due to restrictions in trade. People end up paying more tax, and more for the goods that they buy. There are often more unemployeed because of trade unions trying to impose wages on companies. If the economy would run as it should, laissez faire, you wouldnt need labor unions because people would automatically get paid more.


YOu say that capitalism takes away meaningful property? What would taht be. It gives them individual rights. The right to do whatever. The right to the most important of all private property, their life. By meainingful property do you mean BMW, Beach HOuse, yacht, and mansion? Because in a socialistic world none of that would even exist due to the lack of incentive.

The reason that banks take away their land is because in debt up to their heads. Its not capitalisms fault, its their own, that is were personal responsibility comes in.

Farmers, many of them are still there because of protectionism, it just isnt efficient to have protectionism and pay more for goods grown here, when we can get them cheaper somewhere else. That again is not capitalism, that is protectionism. For example, you can get a mango that was grown here for 2 dollars, while you can get it somewhere esle for a quarter, why? Because it is produce more efficiently somewhere else. That is why we shouldnt have some types of agriculture, nonetheless, gov't subsidies for those industries. Again, consumers pay more. Protectionism is to blame.

YOu might also argue that it is thanks to competition that little mama and papa stores go out of business. MAinly due to things like wal mart. Its more efficient to buy from Wal Mart. Wal MArt gives more jobs. Things are cheaper. I would rather buy at wal mart for lower priced goods.

Renting is in fact smarter, by the way. YOu start out small and then buy a house. Those are little things that will help you save. People have to learn to sacrifice in the present, for the future. What ends up happening is that people spend too much. People buy new cars, new clothes, go out to eat every day, dont save, etc. That is the way to not be rich. Then people blame it on other when it was really all their fault.

I just have to end this by saying that it is in fact Capitalism that gives incentive for people to better products. Things will always improve because people have incentive for it. Nothing that we have today would not have been possible without the incentive provided by Capitalism. Think about it, the computers we have, the cars we have, the homes we have, the entertainment we have, all of it. Without incentive people wouldnt do something that isnt required. Capitalism promotes creativity and people expression, promotes hard work, promotes improvement, but above all, it promotes liberty of the individual.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Capitalism has purpose to promote individual rights and freedom, to help society advance and improve, and to create riches. Capitalism provides us with the incentive and the initiative that we need. Without it we wouldnt have technology or people constatly trying to improve what we have. Our society improves economically and advances technologically thanks to Capitalism.Capitalism does provide us an incentive: create wealth for the system and we will give you wages to live on. The incentive is not starving or living on the street and capitalism dosn't provide us with that, nature does... capitalism just controlls all the avenues to produce a descent living and thefore we have to sell our labor for wages the market dictates. If people controlled the means of production themselves, then their incentive would be to do a good job because their work would actually be going to make a better lives for themselves and their coworkers.

People only improve things in capitalism if it is profitable... that dosn't always mean it's better. Scientists could work on things which might improve our lives in unknown ways, but because companies dictate where to research, they'd rather develop prozac knock-offs than drugs that might help people kick substance addiction or make cancer more bareable. Invention and creativity are only driven by financial gain in capitalism, but invention and productivity are also driven by people who want to make their lives easier. If new production technology is invented to produce 2x as many widgets in 1/2 the time, companies use this technology to keep production levels the same and then lay off 1/2 of their now redundant workforce. In a worker society, then that technology could be used to increase production by 4 or let people work 1/2 as many hours while still creating surpluss wealth.


Labor Unions are a piece of crap and they should be abolished. At your next job, tell them that you think this and you don't like only working 8 hours a day and that you don't think there should be minimum wage and also that you want to stand outside the business everymorning and compete with other people for that job that day.


You think that the rich dont suffer, look at forbes.com billionaires who have lost money . There are some who lost their whole fortunes because of bad business deals, so dont say that those guys dont have anything to lose. Of course rich people suffer. SOmetimes they get cancer... of course, then they can afford medical treatment and they can afford all the time they have to take out of work and recovering... but still, cancer and chemothrapy are painful events that make rich people suffer.

Hmm, Forbes.com. Really, I have nothing against rich people as induviduals, just the system which they support and represent. But I really don't care about them looseing a few million dollars of their personal fortune just as they don't care when they have to lay people off to build that personal fortune. Seriously, show me an ex-billionare who has to sleep on his mom's couch or in his car after loosing that money and then I'll shed a tear.


There is something called responsibility, like el Profe said. In not Capitalisms fault if a guy loses his job and has no money to pay his debts. He has no money because he didnt save. He is in debt because he charged his credit cards more than he could afford. People refuse to take responsibilty for that. I have a friend whos Dad use to make big money, he lost his job and isnt able to afford much. He has 4 kids, 2 that he needs to send through college. Whos fault was that? His own. Yeah, it's his fault that the world is like it is and that he has only limeted controll over his economic life. Seriously, do you really want to live in a world where you have to beg someone to give you the means to eat and have a place to sleep and then even if he gives you a job, he expects you to live for that job and to "go the extra mile" and all the while you should be saving money for the day when he may or may not fire you because it might make the companie's end of quarter figures look good?!

Sure some people of all economic levels live outside their means, but this justifies lay-offs?


On the other hand, I have another friends Dad who worked as a Truck driver and he is actually retired because he was able to save and invest properly. Invest properly... so by that you mean he didn't loose his shirt on a gamble. That guy couldn't forsee if the market was going to crash or not and the other guy couldn't see that he was going to be layed off... so it comes down to luck in capitalism, crazy.


Employees try to better themselves and work harder to get those good jobs. The guys who dont get the best jobs were simply not better than that 4.0 Student with a masters degree, who worked hard through college, instead of partying. I had a 3.5 in college and know several people who barely went to class, but their parents worked in Hollywood and so now they have better jobs then me. Some of them don't like their jobs though - they wish they were back in school partying. See, this is the problem with trying to characterize the entire society by a few anicdotes, there are always exceptions.

Some people make it out of poverty - by talent or by fluke, while others loose all their money and become poor by fault of their own or by fluke. Induviduals do not make layoffs happen or inequality happen, these are aspects which are essential to how the system works.


YOu say that capitalism takes away meaningful property? What would taht be. It gives them individual rights. The right to do whatever. The right to the most important of all private property, their life. Which they are forced to rent-out for an hourly rate in oredr to maintain that life.

By meainingful property do you mean BMW, Beach HOuse, yacht, and mansion? Because in a socialistic world none of that would even exist due to the lack of incentive. Big houses, big boats, and transpotation all predate capitalism, so I don't understand how you can logically make that argument. We might have other things even better if it wasn't a profit driven system.


The reason that banks take away their land is because in debt up to their heads. Its not capitalisms fault, its their own, that is were personal responsibility comes in.In the 1880s and 1930s, banks took many many farms and displaced many many farmers.... both of these times were called "the great depression" and inflation caused people with small debts to be unable to pay them off. Farmers in capitalism typically buy a bunch of supplies and go into debt to do so and then pay off the banks after the harvest.... now if the economy collapses due to overproduction, then you can not sell your goods... this dosn't mean nobody wants them (especially during a depression) it's just that the distributers can't sell what they have and so they won't buy anything new you're trying to sell. So is this crisis any induviduals fault? Did the farmer stop making good corn? Are people tired of eating corn? No, there's too much corn while at the same time people are going hungry but can not afford corn. These are systematic problems, not induvidual problems. If coca cola drinks started having shards of glass inside them, would you say that the induvidual consumer is at fault for not checking his drink or would you say well let's go check the assembly line and fix whatever is causing our drinks to have glass shards in them?


YOu might also argue that it is thanks to competition that little mama and papa stores go out of business. MAinly due to things like wal mart. Its more efficient to buy from Wal Mart. Wal MArt gives more jobs. Things are cheaper. I would rather buy at wal mart for lower priced goods. I know people who have worked for wal-mart and so I will not shop there. I don't really think boycotts are a good tactic all the time, but this is more a choice out of personal disgust than part of any organized boycott. But you are correct, capitalism tends towards monopoly.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:05 AM
"THE PROBLEM IS YOU BLAME THE BIGGER COUNTRIES for the problems in Latin America, their is something called personal responsabilty. I bet when/if you fail/failed a class you blamed it on the school or on someone else, but not yourself. Latin America is victim of its own decisions, not anyonelse's decisions."It was not my intent to defend "smaller countries" against "bigger countries"; the ruling classes of Latin AMerica are just as at fault as the ruling classes of North America and Europe for propagating a system where thoes who do the work to create wealth in society don't get to have any control over that wealth.

Second, a country is not a person, so a country has no induvidual responcability because for such a thing to exist, then the actions of a country and the will of all people in that country would have to be the same. I take no personal responcability for the actions of the US government since it does not represent my intrests or my will.
No but individuals that elect corrupt goverments do have a personal responsabilty to choose correctly.

Politicians have become great at using the people's ignorance to theri advantage.
Ignorance is strength.

My main point was, dont blame the USA or Europe for the problems in latin america.

The people (almost everyone in the country, rich, poor, middle class, the politicians, the guerillas, the militaries...) are to blame for the failures of latin america.