USA's Dominance over latin america

[el_profe]

Many of you believe that American corporations own most of the Biggest Companies(corporations) in Latin America. And this is what you use to say the USA has caused that poverty in Latin America.

I of course know this is not true. Im tired of mentioning this every time Latin America comes up. So I will just put the facts on here.

I found this in www.americaeconomia.com (http://www.americaeconomia.com)

I hope these link work cause you have to be a member of the site to view these. But membership is free so you can go check them out.

Ill just give a quick summary of the stats(facts).

The site has the 500 biggest companies of Latina America.

THE 500 companies all together made almost $857 billion dollars, HERE IS the % of what the 3 sectors made :
32.9% from the ones that are owned by private international companies.
35.8% are privately and localy owned.
31.3% from the state owned companies
100% TOTAL

65% are locally owned either by state or by local owners. The rest of the 35% comes from all over the world. NOT ONLY THE USA.

IN the top 10 biggest companies in latin america: ONly 2 are internationally owned.
#3 Telefonica, which owns many of the telephone companies in latina america and is a large celular phone provider and internet provider= NO exploitation in selling phones.
and the #9 company which is general motors: has a car making factory in mexico and they sell those cars in Latin America.
Here are the top 10 biggest companies in Latin America:
1.PDVSA- petro/gas from Venezuela, this is state owned, and we can all se how badly that moron chavez is using the money.
2. Petroleos Mexicanos- Mexico, petro/gas
3. Telefonica- Spain, telecom
4. Pemex Refinacion- mexico petro/gas
5. Pemex exploracion y produccion- Mexico, petro/gas
6.Petrobras- Brasil , petro/gas
7.P.M.I. Comercio Internacional- Mexico, trading
8.Comisión Federal de Electricidad - Mexico, energy
9. General Motors mexico - USa
10. Telmex- Mexico, telecom
The real tragedy hear is only 3 privately owned companies. you think the mexican, brasilian and venezuelan gov's would do more with that money, but they don because the gov's are full of corrupt politicians.



Here is the list of the top 10 internationally owned companies in latin america (the last number on the right is theri ranking in the top 500)
1. TELEFONICA- form Spain, its in the telecom industry #3
2. General MOtors- USA #9
3. Wal-mart de mexico- its partially owned by Wal-mart USA, cause the mexican owner is one of mexicos richest persons. #11
4.Daimler Chrysler group - Thats the german car maker (mercedes) that bought chrysler #13
5. Delphi Corporation - USA # 14
6. Volskwagen- Germany , cars # 15
7. Repsol Ypf- SPain, petroleum refining #17
8. Nissan Mexicana- Japan, cars #24
9. Sony de Mexico- Japan, sony #25
10. Samsung de Mexico - Korea # 26

Only 3 americans in there.

So bottom line, NO its not the USA's fault Latin america is poor and their is not much USA dominance in the top 10 companies. Althogu obviously their will be more american companies in the Top 500 than any other international country because their in the same continent.
Also I dont see much exploitation poor farmers. No chiquita on that list.

And of course cars are mostly assembled by robots now so its not exploitations.

Here are 3 different links to stats:
this one has privatly, state and internationally owned bussiness.
http://www.americaeconomia.com/FilesMC/500...0secprop-sp.pdf (http://www.americaeconomia.com/FilesMC/500secprop-sp.pdf)

This one has the countries (not all) and which company is the biggest in their country:
http://www.americaeconomia.com/FilesMC/500pais-sp.pdf

The top 500:
http://www.americaeconomia.com/FilesMC/500...0ranking-sp.pdf (http://www.americaeconomia.com/FilesMC/500ranking-sp.pdf)

[Vinny Rafarino]

http://www.petsignsplus.com/1farmxgif/jackass.gif

[Nelson Mandela]

What a brilliant counterargument, comrade!

[Bradyman]

hahaha. That's a pretty funny picture.

Alright, so it's not just capitalist America exploiting Latin America, but the other capitalist countries in the world.

[D'Anconia]

Very interesting and well-researched post, el profe. Of course you know that will not stop anyone from disputing it. But it was helpful to me because I was not aware of that information. Thanks.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:11 AM
hahaha. That's a pretty funny picture.

Alright, so it's not just capitalist America exploiting Latin America, but the other capitalist countries in the world.
NO, that is what the facts i got prove.

[Nelson Mandela]

I'd also like to thank el profe for this information proving that the rich white liberals on these forums that blame the US for everything are indeed incorrect.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 02:28 AM
THE 500 companies all together made almost $857 billion dollars, HERE IS the % of what the 3 sectors made :
32.9% from the ones that are owned by private international companies.
35.8% are privately and localy owned.
31.3% from the state owned companies
100% TOTAL

65% are locally owned either by state or by local owners. The rest of the 35% comes from all over the world. NOT ONLY THE USA.

IN the top 10 biggest companies in latin america: ONly 2 are internationally owned.
#3 Telefonica, which owns many of the telephone companies in latina america and is a large celular phone provider and internet provider= NO exploitation in selling phones.
and the #9 company which is general motors: has a car making factory in mexico and they sell those cars in Latin America.
Here are the top 10 biggest companies in Latin America:
1.PDVSA- petro/gas from Venezuela, this is state owned, and we can all se how badly that moron chavez is using the money.
2. Petroleos Mexicanos- Mexico, petro/gas
3. Telefonica- Spain, telecom
4. Pemex Refinacion- mexico petro/gas
5. Pemex exploracion y produccion- Mexico, petro/gas
6.Petrobras- Brasil , petro/gas
7.P.M.I. Comercio Internacional- Mexico, trading
8.Comisión Federal de Electricidad - Mexico, energy
9. General Motors mexico - USa
10. Telmex- Mexico, telecom
This doesn't proove anything...of course that many of those corporations aren't yankees, many of them are spanish, which is the same because there's still the same economical exploitation. Who benefits from corporations like PetroBras, Telefonica, Pemex, are the yanks. After all, the basic defense capitalism has is spreading to have a bigger market. This companies allow that to happen.


The real tragedy hear is only 3 privately owned companies. you think the mexican, brasilian and venezuelan gov's would do more with that money, but they don because the gov's are full of corrupt politicians.

Corrupt politicians? I would agree, however we have already suffered enough from the corrupt capitalist politicians.


And of course cars are mostly assembled by robots now so its not exploitations.

Which is worse: more unemployment. There arent even jobs for doing those robots, so this is just another incentive the exploiters use to put pressure on the pure so that they work hard because they are sooo "lazy". If they work hard their kids might be able to study, get a job, and design those robots. So they try to "progress", "salir adelante", so they give up against their exploiters hoping that such an attitude will give them "hapiness".

[el_profe]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 10 2004, 04:49 AM
This doesn't proove anything...of course that many of those corporations aren't yankees, many of them are spanish, which is the same because there's still the same economical exploitation. Who benefits from corporations like PetroBras, Telefonica, Pemex, are the yanks. After all, the basic defense capitalism has is spreading to have a bigger market. This companies allow that to happen.




many of them are spanish? not that many if you compare to what each country has.
1. the fact that 65% of these companies are latin american shows that most of them are owned by latin amerians.
2. I just proved to everyone that the USA doesnt have that "mass exploitation" everyone is talking about.



The real tragedy hear is only 3 privately owned companies. you think the mexican, brasilian and venezuelan gov's would do more with that money, but they don because the gov's are full of corrupt politicians.

Corrupt politicians? I would agree, however we have already suffered enough from the corrupt capitalist politicians.
Name one corrupt capitalist polititian, I mean true capitalist, not somone who lowered some taxes.



And of course cars are mostly assembled by robots now so its not exploitations.

Which is worse: more unemployment. There arent even jobs for doing those robots, so this is just another incentive the exploiters use to put pressure on the pure so that they work hard because they are sooo "lazy". If they work hard their kids might be able to study, get a job, and design those robots. So they try to "progress", "salir adelante", so they give up against their exploiters hoping that such an attitude will give them "hapiness".
???? OH SO NOW YOUR AGAINST TECHNOLOGY. THOSE ROBOTS MAKE THE CAR MORE EFFICENTLY, they spare people from harder work, with those robots they can produce much more cars.
Of course your range of thought is not that much, so you cant think of the fact that somoen needs to see that the machines dont make a mistake they need to check that the parts where well put together, these machines need maintanance and who does all that work? humans.

then the rest of your paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

[Valishin]

Those robots are also doing jobs that are down right dangerous.

[redstar2000]

Many of you believe that American corporations own most of the Biggest Companies(corporations) in Latin America. And this is what you use to say the USA has caused that poverty in Latin America.

Well, you have successfully refuted the first proposition; American corporations do not own the biggest companies in Latin America.

Good for you (and bad for sloppy lefties who didn't check their facts).

I noticed there were no banks on your list. Don't they count?

Also your list could be misleading in several respects. It's often the case that a U.S. corporation will "take a part-interest" in a foreign corporation without buying an actual "controlling interest". Needless to say, the one or two members of the board of directors from the American corporation will have a very "heavy" voice in the board meetings of the "domestic" corporation. Everyone's aware that the rich Americans can "buy them out" if they wish to do so.

Another misleading factor could be the "flagship" effect; American corporations may not wish to take over a "leading domestic corporation" because of the "bad feelings" it could cause...as when a Japanese corporation purchased the landmark Empire State Building in New York City.

Thus, as you worked your way down that list, more American names might start to "pop up" with increasing frequency.

The "simplest" explanation for poverty in Latin America is that it has always produced foodstuffs and mineral resources (cheap) for export to the advanced capitalist countries while importing manufactured goods (expensive).

Why hasn't Latin America industrialized?

It has, a little. Brazil, Mexico, Argentine and Chile have some industry but not all that much.

There are lots of reasons, some of them pretty complicated. Those who did have wealth from the beginning--the landed aristocracy--preferred a life of indolence with an assured income to the risks of enterprise.

European and American capitalists saw little reason to invest in a continent that was so backward and ruled by a class content to remain so. The English came and built some railroads, the Germans built some hotels, the Americans dug some mining pits...but it was all "around the edges" of a stagnant and even semi-feudal economy.

It was probably World War II that began the process of dragging Latin America into the modern world...as it did many places that had been mostly untouched by the 20th century. The Nazis made a serious effort to "win friends and influence people" in Latin America...and the Americans perforce followed.

The winds of change began to rise.

After the war, investments began to flow into Latin America...beginning the process of fully integrating it into the world economy. The old peasant-based subsistence economy began to falter...and peasant discontent began to rise. The cities began to fill with dispossessed peasants, ready to hear a Marxist message.

As corrupt oligarchic rule was followed by military despotism and then corrupt oligarchic rule again, the process of developing a modern capitalist economy proceeded by fits and starts...never really "taking off" but never really coming to a complete halt either.

What about the Americans, though? Well, from the 1950s onwards, they trained each new generation of military despots.

It's unlikely that the Americans were motivated by a desire to "keep Latin American poor"...what they wanted was to make sure that Latin America didn't "go communist". If, as a by-product of this mission, Latin America "stayed poor" or "poorer than it might otherwise have been", well, "tough shit".

We know from the experience of the USSR and China that backward countries under a "Stalinist" version of "socialism" can industrialize quite rapidly by historical standards. Had Brazil or Argentina become Stalinist countries in 1960, they would be "big players" on the international economic stage today (though probably on their way to re-establishing capitalism).

Thus far, that has not been permitted to happen...thanks to the U.S.A. And Latin America remains an artificially impoverished continent, unable to develop more than a semi-modern capitalist economy. Most of the oligarchs and their supporters in the Catholic hierarchy are still around. Corruption is rife. There's always some generalissimo waiting in the wings to "save the nation from communism". And so on.

What will happen next? Could Chavez "evolve" into the next "Castro"? Could the FARC/ELN actually win in Colombia? Could there be a genuine proletarian revolution in Argentina?

Who can say?

Whatever path the peoples in Latin America choose, it is pretty clear that to "get out of the shit" they must be prepared to totally defy the United States across the board.

That especially includes American surrogates like the World Bank/International Monetary Fund.

The first step in liberating that hapless continent is to flatly refuse to pay another fucking centavo to those parasitical bloodsuckers under any circumstances whatsoever.

Then we'll see.

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

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

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:17 AM
many of them are spanish? not that many if you compare to what each country has.
1. the fact that 65% of these companies are latin american shows that most of them are owned by latin amerians.
2. I just proved to everyone that the USA doesnt have that "mass exploitation" everyone is talking about.
Your argument is stupid. It doesnt matter if the biggest companies are owned by yanks, becuase as you can see, there's not a single mention to one of the most popular exploiters in the world: McDonalds. I will use this popular example to explain that there's a lot of McDonalds influence here (maybe like in the rest of the world), however it's not a big corporation that could take part in your argument. Why? Because those are, as you said, the "500 biggest companies of Latin America". That means, that yanqui companies in Latin America arent taken into account, especially because the "big" part of the yanqui corporations we have here are in yanquiland. And what's "big"? Money? Market influence? Clients? What?? It doesnt matter the "size" of each company, but the influence. Let's see: if Telefonica's so big, why doesnt it work on yankeeland?


Name one corrupt capitalist polititian, I mean true capitalist, not somone who lowered some taxes.

Carlos Saul Menem. And all his cronies.



???? OH SO NOW YOUR AGAINST TECHNOLOGY. THOSE ROBOTS MAKE THE CAR MORE EFFICENTLY, they spare people from harder work, with those robots they can produce much more cars.
Of course your range of thought is not that much, so you cant think of the fact that somoen needs to see that the machines dont make a mistake they need to check that the parts where well put together, these machines need maintanance and who does all that work? humans.

then the rest of your paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, sure, so everyone who is unemployed because of those robots can pay their kids the education to have a good job to "work hard" (such as creating or "managing" those robots). So they will do anything to secure their kids future, like becoming completely exploited by any boss. Even the quantity of jobs the machines leave for humans are few compared to how many workers there are. In fact those robots are not efficient if they are only there to do cars more "efficiently".

[kylie]

Which is worse: more unemployment. There arent even jobs for doing those robots, so this is just another incentive the exploiters use to put pressure on the pure so that they work hard because they are sooo "lazy". If they work hard their kids might be able to study, get a job, and design those robots. So they try to "progress", "salir adelante", so they give up against their exploiters hoping that such an attitude will give them "hapiness
So you are against technology being used to reduce the amount of labour needed to produce objects? But you realise that by reducing the amount of resources having to be spent on creating transportation for example, more would be available to be spent on other things that need to be produced. There always being scarcity for some items, due to how on Earth we have limited resources, for both materials and labour. This contradicts the entire idea of society improving through increasing the production possibility frontier, ie increasing production allowing for needs to be satisfied better.
And where does it stop? How about we get rid of machines used in agriculture and bring back the use of large amounts of labour and horse. It'll reduce our ability to produce and efficiency, but therefore we will need to employ more people!

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:45 PM
Well, you have successfully refuted the first proposition; American corporations do not own the biggest companies in Latin America.

Good for you (and bad for sloppy lefties who didn't check their facts).

I noticed there were no banks on your list. Don't they count?




Yes their are banks. Look in the last link of 500 companies, you will find banks.


Also your list could be misleading in several respects. It's often the case that a U.S. corporation will "take a part-interest" in a foreign corporation without buying an actual "controlling interest". Needless to say, the one or two members of the board of directors from the American corporation will have a very "heavy" voice in the board meetings of the "domestic" corporation. Everyone's aware that the rich Americans can "buy them out" if they wish to do so.

Another misleading factor could be the "flagship" effect; American corporations may not wish to take over a "leading domestic corporation" because of the "bad feelings" it could cause...as when a Japanese corporation purchased the landmark Empire State Building in New York City.

Thus, as you worked your way down that list, more American names might start to "pop up" with increasing frequency.
1. they also had a list for multi-national companies. So the companies that where owned by latin americans. where only owned by latin americans. As to who is sitting in the board of directors. theyre could be americans, but i dont think that many. You saw Wal-mart that is partly owned by a mexican was listed as a foreign bussiness.
But in the top 10, 7 where owned by the stae, so you know theyre is no American on their board of directors. Could the americans buy those companies , probably, but dont you think they would of done it already???
Yes obviously their are alot of american companies, most of them in mexico, but that is for obvious reason.


Why hasn't Latin America industrialized?
for too many reasons, Mainly latin america has a history (still does today) of dictators that only have one interest, and that is to fill their pockets with money. The political system is very very corrupt.
You had centralization, no real rural development. That left the people in Rural areas (alot of them indians) isolated, That is why you have/had large numbers of people that cant read or write.
Since their was/is no development or much job opportunity in the rural ares, most of them still do agriculture, and many of them plant the same type of food, so the demand is greater than the supply so that brings prices down, and they cant really make a living in agriculture, so many migrate to overpupolated cities which already have employments problems.

Also you have to take into account how these countries whee formed. Unlike the USA or Canada, you had people coming to the new continet escaping from persecutions and others came just to start new lifes in the new continent. while in latin america you had the spanish that only wanted to steal and dig gold to take it back to the kings. They had no intention to star new lives here.


After the war, investments began to flow into Latin America...beginning the process of fully integrating it into the world economy. The old peasant-based subsistence economy began to falter...and peasant discontent began to rise. The cities began to fill with dispossessed peasants, ready to hear a Marxist message.
And those marxist messages only led to wars that in the end only affected those peasent more. As those wars helped to make the poverty even worse.


It's unlikely that the Americans were motivated by a desire to "keep Latin American poor"...what they wanted was to make sure that Latin America didn't "go communist". If, as a by-product of this mission, Latin America "stayed poor" or "poorer than it might otherwise have been", well, "tough shit".
many on this board still think the USA just wanted to keep latin america poor.
The mission to keep latin america from going communist was not really the reason they stayed poor.
First of all, like in Vietnam or Korea the soviets supported with weapons and money the communist movement in those places, so the USA helped the anti-communist in those countries.
In latin america, cuba helped the guerillas and the Usa was forced to help the anti-guerilla gov's to fight these guerillas.
So if where going to blame somoen for the wars,first the latin amercians, then both the communist countries and the USA. Of course what came first the guerillas or the USA helped gov's. i think in most places first came the guerillas.


We know from the experience of the USSR and China that backward countries under a "Stalinist" version of "socialism" can industrialize quite rapidly by historical standards. Had Brazil or Argentina become Stalinist countries in 1960, they would be "big players" on the international economic stage today (though probably on their way to re-establishing capitalism).
Well also look at vietnam, north korea and cuba.
And look at what more free-trade policies have brought to countries like South Korea, taiwan, chile...



Thus far, that has not been permitted to happen...thanks to the U.S.A. And Latin America remains an artificially impoverished continent, unable to develop more than a semi-modern capitalist economy. Most of the oligarchs and their supporters in the Catholic hierarchy are still around. Corruption is rife. There's always some generalissimo waiting in the wings to "save the nation from communism". And so on
The oligarch (small very powerfull rich group ) really does not have that much say in the elections, sure they can suppport a certain candidate with a lot of money, but that still does not win an election. What they usually do is give money two the 2 candidates with more chances of winning and secure their bussiness by protection from the next gov. With some industries this has ended but others are still protected.

But what really is the problem is that being a polititian has become a get rich quick profession. So you have many corrupt people that become politicians just to make money. Most of these just run for congress and since you can run as many times as you want for congress they can just join or stay in a party that always wins seats in congress and you have the same corrupt congressmen in congress.
the sad thing is people really dont pay attention who is running for congress and for what party, so they ignorantly vote the same corrupt assholes into gov. So even when a good president comes along he cant really change anything even if he is not corrupt, you need to first clean house and then they can really help to improve a country.


What will happen next? Could Chavez "evolve" into the next "Castro"? Could the FARC/ELN actually win in Colombia? Could there be a genuine proletarian revolution in Argentina?
Chavez hopefully and probably wont become the next chavez. 3.6 million people signed to get Chavez out of gov., 2.4 million votes is what they needed but they got more. Also Chavez failed in something that castro told him, in order for a "revolution" to be succesfull he needs to control the media, and thank god he has not achieved that.
Farc could win, and I hope no communist "revolution" happens in Argentina, can you imagine a Castro in Argentina not letting soccer players and other sports players leave the country to play in foreign league :o :o

[el_profe]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jan 10 2004, 06:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jan 10 2004, 06:56 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 06:17 AM
many of them are spanish? not that many if you compare to what each country has.
1. the fact that 65% of these companies are latin american shows that most of them are owned by latin amerians.
2. I just proved to everyone that the USA doesnt have that "mass exploitation" everyone is talking about.
Your argument is stupid. It doesnt matter if the biggest companies are owned by yanks, becuase as you can see, there&#39;s not a single mention to one of the most popular exploiters in the world: McDonalds. I will use this popular example to explain that there&#39;s a lot of McDonalds influence here (maybe like in the rest of the world), however it&#39;s not a big corporation that could take part in your argument. Why? Because those are, as you said, the "500 biggest companies of Latin America". That means, that yanqui companies in Latin America arent taken into account, especially because the "big" part of the yanqui corporations we have here are in yanquiland. And what&#39;s "big"? Money? Market influence? Clients? What?? It doesnt matter the "size" of each company, but the influence. Let&#39;s see: if Telefonica&#39;s so big, why doesnt it work on yankeeland?




[/b]
That you dont understand what biggest companies in latin america means, is not my problem.
Biggest means the ones that are making the most money. SO YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENTS IS false.
LOL, what the hell did you think it means, Big as in the size of the company. JAJAJA, I think mcdonalds could win because look at all the people the food restaurants they have. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Then you continue with another stupid statement as to why if telefonica is so big , why doesnt it work on yankeeland? I dont know ask them, are you saing my stats are false, and that they are not that big???



Name one corrupt capitalist polititian, I mean true capitalist, not somone who lowered some taxes.

Carlos Saul Menem. And all his cronies.
:lol: :lol: , yes he is a true capitalist. :lol: :lol:



???? OH SO NOW YOUR AGAINST TECHNOLOGY. THOSE ROBOTS MAKE THE CAR MORE EFFICENTLY, they spare people from harder work, with those robots they can produce much more cars.
Of course your range of thought is not that much, so you cant think of the fact that somoen needs to see that the machines dont make a mistake they need to check that the parts where well put together, these machines need maintanance and who does all that work? humans.

then the rest of your paragraph makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, sure, so everyone who is unemployed because of those robots can pay their kids the education to have a good job to "work hard" (such as creating or "managing" those robots). So they will do anything to secure their kids future, like becoming completely exploited by any boss. Even the quantity of jobs the machines leave for humans are few compared to how many workers there are. In fact those robots are not efficient if they are only there to do cars more "efficiently".
What the hell are you talking about?? I dont see people in Japan, Korea, Usa, france, germany making protest because robots took their job????

Obvioulsy your against technology, would you still want to be in the stone age? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[LuZhiming]

This is utter idiocy. The U.S.&#39; devastation of Latin America is primarily from actions in the 80&#39;s and earlier. Not current ones, the U.S. interventions in Latin America have largely stopped. What a way to twist facts.

This type of list doesn&#39;t include former businesses that were collaborators with the U.S. Is anyone here going to be stupid and dispute that United Fruit used to own an extremely large portion of lands in Latin America? And the post doesn&#39;t take note of U.S. control of areas like say the Panama Canal. And secondly, it should be realized that this arguement conveniently ignores that most of the devastating brough from U.S. businesses were from a single business, that owned a lot of land. That was the problem. The United Fruit Company is a particularly devastating example to anyone who really wants to be truthful on the matter.

Don&#39;t make me run through the list of U.S. interventions in Latin America and the Carribean, it is painfully and blatantly obvious.

[Osman Ghazi]

And those marxist messages only led to wars that in the end only affected those peasent more. As those wars helped to make the poverty even worse.

Newsflash: trying your best to improve the situation of your fellow man and failing is not a crime. You can&#39;t honestly believe that the guerillas weren&#39;t trying to help people. You said yourself that the politicans were and are corrupt and that the people are ignorant of what&#39;s going on in politics and vote in corrupt politicians. So riddle me this riddlin&#39; man: if you are against fighting the corrupt govt, then what is your grand solution to poverty in Latin America?

PS: what ever happened to United Fruit anyway?

PPS: Lu, I think that your going to have to break out the US intervention list to show our reluctant comrade the error of his ways.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:27 AM
This is utter idiocy. The U.S.&#39; devastation of Latin America is primarily from actions in the 80&#39;s and earlier. Not current ones, the U.S. interventions in Latin America have largely stopped. What a way to twist facts.



jaja, yeah,. Many of you insist how the USA companies exploits(present) latin america, and how they own the biggest bussniness in latin america. Now you backtrack and say it was in the 80&#39;s.
El inflitrado and redstar did not say it use to happen, they said it still happens.


This type of list doesn&#39;t include former businesses that were collaborators with the U.S. Is anyone here going to be stupid and dispute that United Fruit used to own an extremely large portion of lands in Latin America? And the post doesn&#39;t take note of U.S. control of areas like say the Panama Canal. And secondly, it should be realized that this arguement conveniently ignores that most of the devastating brough from U.S. businesses were from a single business, that owned a lot of land. That was the problem. The United Fruit Company is a particularly devastating example to anyone who really wants to be truthful on the matter.
NO SHIT IT DOESNT INCLUDE FORMER BUSSINESS, its a 2003 ranking.
The land the UNited fruit company had was LEGALLY PURCHASED, they bought it from private owners or from the state, whoever owned the land.
Another thing what they did was create jobs, not exploit people. What makes you think another person would of used that land to create jobs.
The united froot company went to latin america because it had good weather for growing
bananas.
Ill give you an example of what the United fruit company did in a rural area of my country.
They brought that poor town jobs, they actually built communisties with houses and a school to bring workers. That town benefited from enormously from that. When the Fruit company left, the people that worked their, that attended those schools. Lost their jobs, their children probably had no school to go to or they went to public schooling (which sucks).
Was the work hard, yes, probably, BUT your myopic way of thinking does not let you see the good things(jobs) that the fruit company brought to poor nations.
This was just to show, that Most international companies in latin america, help it more than hurt it.


Don&#39;t make me run through the list of U.S. interventions in Latin America and the Carribean, it is painfully and blatantly obvious.
When have i denied the interventions the USA has made? never, also do you want me to show you how castro helped the guerillas in latin america?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 02:49 AM

And those marxist messages only led to wars that in the end only affected those peasent more. As those wars helped to make the poverty even worse.

Newsflash: trying your best to improve the situation of your fellow man and failing is not a crime. You can&#39;t honestly believe that the guerillas weren&#39;t trying to help people. You said yourself that the politicans were and are corrupt and that the people are ignorant of what&#39;s going on in politics and vote in corrupt politicians. So riddle me this riddlin&#39; man: if you are against fighting the corrupt govt, then what is your grand solution to poverty in Latin America?

PS: what ever happened to United Fruit anyway?

So your saying the war was good?, I said those wars only worsened the poverty situation.
I cant see how starting a war is trying to help the poor, and if the poor dont join you guerilla you shoot them? (like happende to many).

No if they really wanted to help they would of tried to do it in a civilized way, not by starting wars.

I am not against fighting the corrupt gov., I just dont think , killing military and civilians and terrorizing civlilians is the way to do it.

What ever happened to the fruit company?
I dont know, you look for them in the top 500. Are you questioning my list now??

[Osman Ghazi]

You don&#39;t seem to understand the difference between a job and a job that actually pays a living wage. The United Fruit Company did in fact exploit it&#39;s workers quite horribly. Even most neo-liberals will admit to that. The problem was that they did not pay their workers enough to live on. Also, they were very heavily into "company towns" where UFC owned the houses that their workers lived in and they owned all the stores that people shopped at. Hell, they probably owned the school too. Prices were artificially controlled so that they always paid their workers slightly less than what it would cost to live in the town. That way, everyone would slowly sink into debt. Try and tell me that that&#39;s not exploitation.
Secondly, you have to understand the practicality of waging a war of revolution. If your enemies are willing to ruthlessly murder your allies, then you have to be willing to ruthlessly murder theirs. It&#39;s not pretty, but otherwise victory is impossible.

What the hell are you talking about?? I dont see people in Japan, Korea, Usa, france, germany making protest because robots took their job????
Those countries are industrialized nations whose economies are dependant mostly on service industries. Most of the population do not rely on jobs in the manufacturing sector. Those that do require a high degree of education that the people of those countries would have access to. Unfortunately however, the people of Latin America do not.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 06:16 AM
You don&#39;t seem to understand the difference between a job and a job that actually pays a living wage. The United Fruit Company did in fact exploit it&#39;s workers quite horribly. Even most neo-liberals will admit to that. The problem was that they did not pay their workers enough to live on. Also, they were very heavily into "company towns" where UFC owned the houses that their workers lived in and they owned all the stores that people shopped at. Hell, they probably owned the school too. Prices were artificially controlled so that they always paid their workers slightly less than what it would cost to live in the town. That way, everyone would slowly sink into debt. Try and tell me that that&#39;s not exploitation.
Secondly, you have to understand the practicality of waging a war of revolution. If your enemies are willing to ruthlessly murder your allies, then you have to be willing to ruthlessly murder theirs. It&#39;s not pretty, but otherwise victory is impossible.

the problem with the fuit company was that they also sometime or patly paid with food stamps.
But like you said, they where low paying jobs. WELL MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE AFTER THAT HAD NO JOBS.
Its funny how most commies in this board and pther many communist and commie leaders (Castro, that zapatista sub -comandante marcos, che guevara) always want to protect the poor when most of you and the ones I mentioned where/came from rich or middle class families. JAJAJA.
Then most on this board talk about hard jobs and hard work, but most arent even in high school. And havent worked a day in their life.

[redstar2000]

Then most on this board talk about hard jobs and hard work, but most aren&#39;t even in high school. And haven&#39;t worked a day in their life.

Took a survey, did you? Sent out questionnaires to all the more than 6,000 members of the Che-Lives board, right? Tabulated all the answers carefully?

And LO&#33; 50.01% of the members "have never worked a day in their life"...&#33;&#33;&#33;

When you are reduced to blowing smoke out of your ass--as is obvious in this case--you may as well admit (at least to yourself) that you have been out-argued and move on.

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

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

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 07:41 PM
So you are against technology being used to reduce the amount of labour needed to produce objects? But you realise that by reducing the amount of resources having to be spent on creating transportation for example, more would be available to be spent on other things that need to be produced. There always being scarcity for some items, due to how on Earth we have limited resources, for both materials and labour. This contradicts the entire idea of society improving through increasing the production possibility frontier, ie increasing production allowing for needs to be satisfied better.
And where does it stop? How about we get rid of machines used in agriculture and bring back the use of large amounts of labour and horse. It&#39;ll reduce our ability to produce and efficiency, but therefore we will need to employ more people&#33;
You don&#39;t get it, don&#39;t you? My point is: if those jobs dissapear, all that people isn&#39;t well educated so they can&#39;t have the knowledge, to, for example, design those robots. So, that people will do anything so that their children can have a good education and a good future. That includes getting as humilliated as needed. Now, even if they could his process of improving technology doesnt work work on doing those robots, this will mean having to learn new things and changing a lot of things. Even if they got employed, there&#39;s not a real difference in the quality. Robots can fail too. Twith capitalism, it justs deletes workplaces and creates more products which are mostly useless. Even if having more of those products (ie those cars) reduce their costs, if that people doesnt have a good job they wont be able to pay them.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:41 PM
That you dont understand what biggest companies in latin america means, is not my problem.
Biggest means the ones that are making the most money. SO YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENTS IS false.
LOL, what the hell did you think it means, Big as in the size of the company. JAJAJA, I think mcdonalds could win because look at all the people the food restaurants they have.
Your so stupid. It doesnt matter of they are the ones making more money. Have you seen which companies are those? Phone companies, oil companies, OF COURSE THOSE GET MILLIONS&#33; But they dont sell you your food, your clothes, your shoes, your computer, your house, your tv.
If you check the companies that follow the oil and phone ones, you will see a lot of yankee influence. Even if the biggest companies aren&#39;t onwed by yanks, I repeat: SO WHAT?? The yanks LOVE that market growth, it benefits them. With yanks I&#39;m talking about the rich ones, those in big corporations in high places, I make this clear because people like you identify a country with all their people, like Germany=nazis, Russia=communists, Israel=jews, Palestine=terorrists.
And how many machine shere have Linux??? How many Macs are here?? Not so many...everything is from Microshit, and they arent on that list. However selling is the Miami paradise, the American way of life, all their propaganda, the "terrorist threat", self-help books, the "buying to get hapiness" culture, trying to make the countries here support the embargo on Cuba or face the consequences, are attitudes that you havent counted on your small research.
And btw I already noted the "THE 500 companies all together made almost &#036;857 billion dollars, HERE IS the % of what the 3 sectors made" when I opened the post.


Then you continue with another stupid statement as to why if telefonica is so big , why doesnt it work on yankeeland? I dont know ask them, are you saing my stats are false, and that they are not that big???

Companies like telefonica are obviously big because of the demand, and here they own most of the market together with Telecom (from France). Are you going to tell me that they have all this because they are good? Excuse me, but their huge propaganda&#39;s campaigns, the need for telephone lines, cell phones, internet services, and all this things make them so big. Yankees corporations dont come here because the market has been controlled by this big companies for a long time now. And once again, this companies are here to loot as much money as they can, but yankees have done worse things...



Carlos Saul Menem. And all his cronies.
:lol: :lol: , yes he is a true capitalist. :lol: :lol:

Oh, I didnt know he was a communist&#33; Wow. So he sold our soul to the yankees, did so many privatizations, controlled inflation, however he is not in your side?? Trying to clean your hands from what the "other" ones did, the "mercantilists", won&#39;t help.


Obvioulsy your against technology, would you still want to be in the stone age? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY, my point is that in your utopian capitalism where everyone works, gets millions and is happy, that techonology only creates unemployment and few opportunities to the poor.
Technology is good only when it&#39;s useful and doesnt harm the people. Nothing would be better than letting the robots do the job, but the point is that I dont see it as a compatible thing with capitalism. That&#39;s all.

[kylie]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jan 11 2004, 05:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jan 11 2004, 05:19 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 07:41 PM
So you are against technology being used to reduce the amount of labour needed to produce objects? But you realise that by reducing the amount of resources having to be spent on creating transportation for example, more would be available to be spent on other things that need to be produced. There always being scarcity for some items, due to how on Earth we have limited resources, for both materials and labour. This contradicts the entire idea of society improving through increasing the production possibility frontier, ie increasing production allowing for needs to be satisfied better.
And where does it stop? How about we get rid of machines used in agriculture and bring back the use of large amounts of labour and horse. It&#39;ll reduce our ability to produce and efficiency, but therefore we will need to employ more people&#33;
You don&#39;t get it, don&#39;t you? My point is: if those jobs dissapear, all that people isn&#39;t well educated so they can&#39;t have the knowledge, to, for example, design those robots. So, that people will do anything so that their children can have a good education and a good future. That includes getting as humilliated as needed. Now, even if they could his process of improving technology doesnt work work on doing those robots, this will mean having to learn new things and changing a lot of things. Even if they got employed, there&#39;s not a real difference in the quality. Robots can fail too. Twith capitalism, it justs deletes workplaces and creates more products which are mostly useless. Even if having more of those products (ie those cars) reduce their costs, if that people doesnt have a good job they wont be able to pay them. [/b]
ok i&#39;ve just read that three times, and decided you are right, i certainly don&#39;t get what the hell you are talking about.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Jan 11 2004, 04:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Jan 11 2004, 04:44 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 11:41 PM
That you dont understand what biggest companies in latin america means, is not my problem.
Biggest means the ones that are making the most money. SO YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENTS IS false.
LOL, what the hell did you think it means, Big as in the size of the company. JAJAJA, I think mcdonalds could win because look at all the people the food restaurants they have.
Your so stupid. It doesnt matter of they are the ones making more money. Have you seen which companies are those? Phone companies, oil companies, OF COURSE THOSE GET MILLIONS&#33; But they dont sell you your food, your clothes, your shoes, your computer, your house, your tv.
If you check the companies that follow the oil and phone ones, you will see a lot of yankee influence. Even if the biggest companies aren&#39;t onwed by yanks, I repeat: SO WHAT?? The yanks LOVE that market growth, it benefits them. With yanks I&#39;m talking about the rich ones, those in big corporations in high places, I make this clear because people like you identify a country with all their people, like Germany=nazis, Russia=communists, Israel=jews, Palestine=terorrists.
And how many machine shere have Linux??? How many Macs are here?? Not so many...everything is from Microshit, and they arent on that list. However selling is the Miami paradise, the American way of life, all their propaganda, the "terrorist threat", self-help books, the "buying to get hapiness" culture, trying to make the countries here support the embargo on Cuba or face the consequences, are attitudes that you havent counted on your small research.
And btw I already noted the "THE 500 companies all together made almost &#036;857 billion dollars, HERE IS the % of what the 3 sectors made" when I opened the post.




[/b]
I dont know if you know Mac&#39;s is also from the USA, so if they had mac you would still be mad.

Also didint you see wal marte their at #9?? or all the car makers??

Im not sure what your point was with the 857 billion dollars wuote, they count it in dollars because there are so many different currencies in latin america so they just try to use 1.


Companies like telefonica are obviously big because of the demand, and here they own most of the market together with Telecom (from France). Are you going to tell me that they have all this because they are good? Excuse me, but their huge propaganda&#39;s campaigns, the need for telephone lines, cell phones, internet services, and all this things make them so big. Yankees corporations dont come here because the market has been controlled by this big companies for a long time now. And once again, this companies are here to loot as much money as they can, but yankees have done worse things...
Telefonica has controlled the markets for so long?? no. especially in the cell phone market.
In the last 10 years is when they started getting in all latin america.
No they dont make that money because theyre good (except maybe on cell phones, with the telephone lines, they just have a monopoly, because they gov.&#39;s where overpaid for the telecom company so that telefonica would have a monopoly. I blame the gov&#39;s for doing this not telefonica.




Carlos Saul Menem. And all his cronies.
:lol: :lol: , yes he is a true capitalist. :lol: :lol:

Oh, I didnt know he was a communist&#33; Wow. So he sold our soul to the yankees, did so many privatizations, controlled inflation, however he is not in your side?? Trying to clean your hands from what the "other" ones did, the "mercantilists", won&#39;t help.
when did i say he was a communist.
You classify pople as only communist or capitalist, most people are in the middle.



Obvioulsy your against technology, would you still want to be in the stone age? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY, my point is that in your utopian capitalism where everyone works, gets millions and is happy, that techonology only creates unemployment and few opportunities to the poor.
Technology is good only when it&#39;s useful and doesnt harm the people. Nothing would be better than letting the robots do the job, but the point is that I dont see it as a compatible thing with capitalism. That&#39;s all. :blink: . So you are against technology "techonology only creates unemployment and few opportunities to the poor". How are robots that do dangerous jobs and do it faster, hurting the poor??
Once again, do you want to go back to before the industrial age??
JAJA. another amazing way of thinking by a communist, this guy wants us all back in the stone age. :lol: :lol:

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:03 PM
I dont know if you know Mac&#39;s is also from the USA, so if they had mac you would still be mad.
You&#39;re right. But of course they dont care about us, that&#39;s why there will never be a Latin America competition to Microsoft.


Also didint you see wal marte their at #9?? or all the car makers??

I was talking about Telefonica, Pemex, TelMex, PDVSA and Petrobras. And btw where&#39;s Wal Mart 9th?? And what&#39;s the point?


Im not sure what your point was with the 857 billion dollars wuote, they count it in dollars because there are so many different currencies in latin america so they just try to use 1.

Well, my point was that I had just understood what you exactly meant by biggest.


Telefonica has controlled the markets for so long?? no. especially in the cell phone market.
In the last 10 years is when they started getting in all latin america.
No they dont make that money because theyre good (except maybe on cell phones, with the telephone lines, they just have a monopoly, because they gov.&#39;s where overpaid for the telecom company so that telefonica would have a monopoly. I blame the gov&#39;s for doing this not telefonica.

Well they control the cell phone market, but that&#39;s because of being already a pretty big company. That means they can invest more and develop more things. And they of course have more "trust" and more possibilities of doing good propaganda.


when did i say he was a communist.
You classify pople as only communist or capitalist, most people are in the middle.

Menem is NOT in the middle, he is clearly in your side. I don&#39;t get what you meant with "most people are in the middle". Then it means YOu are the one accepting that classification. And if with communism you talk about the "tyrannical totalitarian authoritarian Soviet government which opposes individual rights and me going to other countries and looting their oil", then your way of classifying people is wrong.



:blink: . So you are against technology "techonology only creates unemployment and few opportunities to the poor". How are robots that do dangerous jobs and do it faster, hurting the poor??
Once again, do you want to go back to before the industrial age??
JAJA. another amazing way of thinking by a communist, this guy wants us all back in the stone age. :lol: :lol:

I will explain this only once more and I hope you and kylie understand what I mean: the people that could work, let&#39;s say, doing cars, who doesnt have money to study in university to be a "robot designer" is out on the streets. Even if the companies educate them to do new tasks, it is not efficient to them. So this reduces the workplaces and only allows those with a good education have a job. Now a typical response by you would be "but if those workers work hard they or their children could become rich by designing and selling those robots". But that&#39;s impossible because if their jobs are replaced by machines, they will do anything to give their sons a better life, or even give it to themselves. This puts them in a vulnerable position because they will accept any job and maybe even any pay. That&#39;s it. It only helps the capitalists produce more and, instead of paying wages to all the workers, they invest once on the machines (and sometimes on different related things), and they produce more. So, this robots bring a new problem. In a leftist society, however, people should access to free education so they could do robots if they want (they are prepared and have the knowledge), then once a few people produce them (this is the most dangerous and the worst part but it can be changed by giving those who do that jobs a special benefit), and then they move to another task, while the machines do the rest. Which shouldnt be much because after all, cars aren&#39;t that important.
And I&#39;m not a communist, I&#39;m an ANARCHIST.

[kylieII]

So I think you are saying that we shouldn&#39;t create any new technology, because it would mean some peoples knowledge would become irrelivant and they would no longer be useful.

Firstly, as an anarchist, aren&#39;t you for the ideals of the collective? So if something, such as technological change will allow for increased production capability, it should be done if the benefit will be greater than the loss to the few whos knowledge is now obselete.
Secondly Marxism is meant to include more flexible job opportunities. As peoples needs change, and the labour force needs to be re-distributed. So the idea that people will be left with nothing to do because of this shouldn&#39;t apply, assuming that they want a new job.
I think you are overestimating the training and skills needed to do most jobs nowadays. Most manufactering jobs require little training, this kind of job being one of the most prominent. Even more so in a communist society.
Thirdly you are applying this only to cars, but it is relevant to anything were technology is involved, including more important areas such as agriculture.

Your arguement can work in reverse you know, to argue that we should as El Profo has said, become less technologically advanced so more jobs and peoples skills are needed. Such as removing type-writers and computers so that we can utilise those not in works ability and experience to write. This ignores how there is limited resources though - there is in a communist society always going to be a deficit of labour, because of how the economy is organised to supply everyone with jobs, hence &#39;to each according to their ability&#39;.

And unless you are an anarcho-individualist, it makes no difference whether you call yourself communist or anarchist.

[LuZhiming]

jaja, yeah,. Many of you insist how the USA companies exploits(present) latin america, and how they own the biggest bussniness in latin america. Now you backtrack and say it was in the 80&#39;s.
El inflitrado and redstar did not say it use to happen, they said it still happens.

I haven&#39;t backtracked and you and I both know it.


NO SHIT IT DOESNT INCLUDE FORMER BUSSINESS, its a 2003 ranking.

Yeah exactly, no shit. You are purposefully fabricating the arguements of other users to strengthen yours, and it is clearly a blatant lie.


The land the UNited fruit company had was LEGALLY PURCHASED, they bought it from private owners or from the state, whoever owned the land.

Legally? Do you realize how incrediblly ridicolous this is under the circumstances? The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia that stopped Pol Pot&#39;s massacres was illegal, the U.S. bombing of peasents in Cambodia before that was legal. Isn&#39;t that a bit odd? It is all about the people in power. If Saddam Hussein had set up a puppet government in Kuwait, and bought land from it to turn into businesses, would that be legal and acceptable to you? It was legal becaues the United Fruit Company were collaborators with the people running the show, who were dictators, and U.S. backed ones. That applies to Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, Honduras, you name it, the interventions make it so clear. Why else was the great threat of a doctor named Salvador Allende overthrown? What about Jacobo Arbenz, another democratically elected leader? Or the Sandinistas? Or Fidel Castro? Every single one of these examples (Except Allende, who I am not 100% sure on.) were proven to increase the economy and life of their people.


Another thing what they did was create jobs, not exploit people. What makes you think another person would of used that land to create jobs.

What do you mean by this? Other people did use those lands to create jobs or homes for peasents. Namely Salvador Allende, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, and Jacobo Arbenz. All enemies of the U.S.


Ill give you an example of what the United fruit company did in a rural area of my country.
They brought that poor town jobs, they actually built communisties with houses and a school to bring workers. That town benefited from enormously from that. When the Fruit company left, the people that worked their, that attended those schools. Lost their jobs, their children probably had no school to go to or they went to public schooling (which sucks).
Was the work hard, yes, probably, BUT your myopic way of thinking does not let you see the good things(jobs) that the fruit company brought to poor nations.
This was just to show, that Most international companies in latin america, help it more than hurt it.

This is such a joke. Do you realize that most of the peasents in those countries had no shelter? Why else most of those lands owned by the United Fruit Company get turned into homes for peasents? Was it just for no reason? And why would Jacobo Arbenz, who owned many of these United Fruit lands because of his family, turn over much of this land (Including much owned by his own family) to peasents? Why??? Was it just a waste? And why did Cuba, Nicaragua, and Guatemala somehow became better after all of this? Go to Guatemala, and ask what they think of Arbenz. He is beloved by the masses, much to the hatred of many of the rich in that country.


When have i denied the interventions the USA has made? never, also do you want me to show you how castro helped the guerillas in latin america?

:lol: And I&#39;m sure you will also somehow show me how Castro benefitted enormously from this. :rolleyes:

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:48 PM

The land the UNited fruit company had was LEGALLY PURCHASED, they bought it from private owners or from the state, whoever owned the land.

Legally? Do you realize how incrediblly ridicolous this is under the circumstances? The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia that stopped Pol Pot&#39;s massacres was illegal, the U.S. bombing of peasents in Cambodia before that was legal. Isn&#39;t that a bit odd? It is all about the people in power. If Saddam Hussein had set up a puppet government in Kuwait, and bought land from it to turn into businesses, would that be legal and acceptable to you? It was legal becaues the United Fruit Company were collaborators with the people running the show, who were dictators, and U.S. backed ones. That applies to Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, Honduras, you name it, the interventions make it so clear. Why else was the great threat of a doctor named Salvador Allende overthrown? What about Jacobo Arbenz, another democratically elected leader? Or the Sandinistas? Or Fidel Castro? Every single one of these examples (Except Allende, who I am not 100% sure on.) were proven to increase the economy and life of their people.




But many of the united fruit company plantations in latin america where their before dictators, sure some dictators did sell the land, other times private owners sold the land.
Arbenz, illegally seized the land, to "give it to the people". why didnt he buy other land to give to the people, or give state owned land to the people. The Cia did help overthrow him, but they (guatemalans) where going to get him out of there anyway.

the sandinistas, violent guerillas that took power illegally, in fact i know a person from nicaragua who fled and lost their home.
Allende, was overthrown by pinochet, unless im getting him confused with somoene else, but im pretty sure it was pinochet, i dont know if he had american help?


This is such a joke. Do you realize that most of the peasents in those countries had no shelter? Why else most of those lands owned by the United Fruit Company get turned into homes for peasents? Was it just for no reason? And why would Jacobo Arbenz, who owned many of these United Fruit lands because of his family, turn over much of this land (Including much owned by his own family) to peasents? Why??? Was it just a waste? And why did Cuba, Nicaragua, and Guatemala somehow became better after all of this? Go to Guatemala, and ask what they think of Arbenz. He is beloved by the masses, much to the hatred of many of the rich in that country.

haha, I can assure you people barley remember Arbenz in Guatemala, he is not loved by the masses, im 100% sure of that.



When have i denied the interventions the USA has made? never, also do you want me to show you how castro helped the guerillas in latin america?

:lol: And I&#39;m sure you will also somehow show me how Castro benefitted enormously from this. :rolleyes:
he didnt, but he eventually would of benefited from this. This only was a waste of money that could of gone into helping cuba.

[LuZhiming]

But many of the united fruit company plantations in latin america where their before dictators, sure some dictators did sell the land, other times private owners sold the land.

Really? Which ones?


Arbenz, illegally seized the land, to "give it to the people". why didnt he buy other land to give to the people, or give state owned land to the people.

Yes, what a terrible guy. :rolleyes: Some of that land was owned by his family, he must have been terrible to do something like that. After all, we all know the peasents he was giving houses to actually had houses before that and were just moving into a new one for the heck of it. :rolleyes: Why should he let the United Fruit Company keep that land? Why should he not let the people have that 1.5 million acres, instead of some corrupt businesses men? Why shouldn&#39;t he give homes to about 100,000 families?


The Cia did help overthrow him, but they (guatemalans) where going to get him out of there anyway.

That&#39;s not true. Still today, the people of Guatemala refer to the period under Arbenz as the "Democratic Spring" and Jacobo as the "People&#39;s Soldier." He won by the greatest amount of votes in Guatemalan history&#33; The people who overthrew him were exiles from the previous dictatorship, the peasents of Guatemala loved him.


the sandinistas, violent guerillas that took power illegally, in fact i know a person from nicaragua who fled and lost their home.

This is such an ironic thing to say. The Somoza&#39;s were a hell of a lot more violent than the Sandinistas, as were the Contras. The World Bank said the Sandinistas progress was "remarkable" and as "laying a solid foundation for long-term socio-economic development." The UNICEF in 1986 said that in the health sector, the country enjoyed "one of the most dramatic improvements in child survival in the developing world." Nicaragua was also a law abiding state. Did Nicaragua ever try to set off bombs in Washington in response to the Contra terrorism? No. It brought up a case with the World Court, and the court ruled in its favor.(The U.S. ignored of course.) And it did the same with the Security Council and the General Assembly twice. And let&#39;s not forget that Ortega was democratically elected in 1984. The Sandinistas were heroes.

Note: I don&#39;t want to take credit for pointing this out, Noam Chomsky brilliantly did.


Allende, was overthrown by pinochet, unless im getting him confused with somoene else, but im pretty sure it was pinochet, i dont know if he had american help?

The information on this one has been out for quite a long time. The CIA trained Pinochet and others, and sent them into Chile. They also previously had intervened in the Chilean elections to try to keep Allende from winning.


haha, I can assure you people barley remember Arbenz in Guatemala, he is not loved by the masses, im 100% sure of that.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/47/042.html


he didnt, but he eventually would of benefited from this. This only was a waste of money that could of gone into helping cuba.

:lol: It also could have went into helping Castro, but for some reason, it didn&#39;t. Castro has helped Cuba considerablly.

[Germanator]

El Profe, your information proves nothing. It doesn&#39;t dispute the fact that the US government manipulates Latin American governments to bend to the will of American corporations based there. They need not be the largest companies in Latin America to be guilty of abuses. Coca-Cola got away with assassinating labor leaders. United Fruit convinced the US to stage TWO coups to overthrow the elected government of Guatamala. Finally, we attacked Panama for the sake of maintaining control of the Canal Zone...in the interest of American corporations.

The subversiveness comes in the form of politics, not economic domination of the area.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 09:27 PM

Arbenz, illegally seized the land, to "give it to the people". why didnt he buy other land to give to the people, or give state owned land to the people.

Yes, what a terrible guy. :rolleyes: Some of that land was owned by his family, he must have been terrible to do something like that. After all, we all know the peasents he was giving houses to actually had houses before that and were just moving into a new one for the heck of it. :rolleyes: Why should he let the United Fruit Company keep that land? Why should he not let the people have that 1.5 million acres, instead of some corrupt businesses men? Why shouldn&#39;t he give homes to about 100,000 families?








Tha land was legally bought, so you cant illegaly take it away from them.



But many of the united fruit company plantations in latin america where their before dictators, sure some dictators did sell the land, other times private owners sold the land.

Really? Which ones?
go search on google for "history of the untied fruit company" you will find they have a very long hisotry going back to 1860&#39;s or 70&#39;s, the thing is they established plantashions in latin america in some countries that probably had dictators and in other countries elected officials. You know not every country in latin america had a US backed dictator.



The Cia did help overthrow him, but they (guatemalans) where going to get him out of there anyway.

That&#39;s not true. Still today, the people of Guatemala refer to the period under Arbenz as the "Democratic Spring" and Jacobo as the "People&#39;s Soldier." He won by the greatest amount of votes in Guatemalan history&#33; The people who overthrew him were exiles from the previous dictatorship, the peasents of Guatemala loved him.
actually the "democratic spring" started after 1944, when a revolution got the dictator ubico out of office.
Arevalo who came in 1947 was the first democraticly elected official since(?) i forgot, but since a long time more than 20 years. i doubt that arbenz would of survived his full term. the military was not exactly in his favor.

And if the sandinistas where so great why did so many nicaraguans fled to costa rica, el salvador, guatemala, honduras?



haha, I can assure you people barley remember Arbenz in Guatemala, he is not loved by the masses, im 100% sure of that.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/47/042.html
Yes, they had a big ceremony for him, he was the president and was given a presidential burial. The Communist party also organized a large crowd, so they helped in getting the large crowd. But i didnt even remember that had happened, so it was like the peoples president was coming back, the president before him was also elected democratically. To tell you the truth not many people remember him, he is not like a peron or this popular figure. The only thing people talk about is that they didnt like the CIA interfering in guatemala. But if the USA would of ousted the president before Arbenz the feeling would be the same.
Guatemala is different that other countris (or the same as other countries in latin america) in the fact that their is not one president that everyone can look back on and say "he was a great president", I dotn know how to describe it but, politically its like their really is nothing to be proud of.

[LuZhiming]

Tha land was legally bought, so you cant illegaly take it away from them.

It&#39;s funny how you keep using this legal world and refuse to answer my Saddam/Kuwait scenario. And the United Fruit Company by the way did move its businesses in Guatemala during the rule of a dictator. His name was Manuel Estrada Cabrera.


go search on google for "history of the untied fruit company" you will find they have a very long hisotry going back to 1860&#39;s or 70&#39;s, the thing is they established plantashions in latin america in some countries that probably had dictators and in other countries elected officials. You know not every country in latin america had a US backed dictator.

Yes, not every Latin American country had a U.S. backed dictator. Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Belize never did. If you read the history of the United Fruit Company, from the very beginning in Costa Rica it was a corrupt business. The person who formed it took ruthless measures to get his businesses powerful.


actually the "democratic spring" started after 1944, when a revolution got the dictator ubico out of office.
Arevalo who came in 1947 was the first democraticly elected official since(?) i forgot, but since a long time more than 20 years. i doubt that arbenz would of survived his full term. the military was not exactly in his favor.

Yes, the Democratic Spring started after the overthrow of Ubico (Which Arbenz had active participation in) and ended after Arbenz&#39;s resignation. There is little reason to believe Arbenz would have been overthrown. There was no organized opposition against him until the CIA directed a group.


And if the sandinistas where so great why did so many nicaraguans fled to costa rica, el salvador, guatemala, honduras?

What&#39;s your source for this?


Yes, they had a big ceremony for him, he was the president and was given a presidential burial. The Communist party also organized a large crowd, so they helped in getting the large crowd.

He was more than the President, he was a hero.


But i didnt even remember that had happened, so it was like the peoples president was coming back, the president before him was also elected democratically. To tell you the truth not many people remember him, he is not like a peron or this popular figure. The only thing people talk about is that they didnt like the CIA interfering in guatemala. But if the USA would of ousted the president before Arbenz the feeling would be the same.

The feeling would have been similar, but not exactly the same. The U.S. installed dictator after Arbenz had all of the homes given to peasents taken away from them and given back to corrupt businesses men. The dissapointment in that is easy to imagine.


Guatemala is different that other countris (or the same as other countries in latin america) in the fact that their is not one president that everyone can look back on and say "he was a great president", I dotn know how to describe it but, politically its like their really is nothing to be proud of.

Why would you deny Arbenz and Arevalo were great Presidents?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:07 AM


And if the sandinistas where so great why did so many nicaraguans fled to costa rica, el salvador, guatemala, honduras?

What&#39;s your source for this?


Yes, they had a big ceremony for him, he was the president and was given a presidential burial. The Communist party also organized a large crowd, so they helped in getting the large crowd.

He was more than the President, he was a hero.


But i didnt even remember that had happened, so it was like the peoples president was coming back, the president before him was also elected democratically. To tell you the truth not many people remember him, he is not like a peron or this popular figure. The only thing people talk about is that they didnt like the CIA interfering in guatemala. But if the USA would of ousted the president before Arbenz the feeling would be the same.

The feeling would have been similar, but not exactly the same. The U.S. installed dictator after Arbenz had all of the homes given to peasents taken away from them and given back to corrupt businesses men. The dissapointment in that is easy to imagine.


Guatemala is different that other countris (or the same as other countries in latin america) in the fact that their is not one president that everyone can look back on and say "he was a great president", I dotn know how to describe it but, politically its like their really is nothing to be proud of.


I dont know what saddam/kuwait scenario you gave me?

My source? the nicaraguans that fled, that is my source, you might find info on the internet.

Who was he a hero to? you?, cause in Guatemala no one really sees him like a hero, he is seen as the president that the CIA helped get out of office. Like I told you their are no presidents that is seen as a hero in guatemala, politicians are not seen as great people in guatemala. That is just how it is. Their was some good one, but it was in the 1800&#39;s. The 1900&#39;s has seen few good presidents.

And the army didnt exactly like arbenz, at any moment they could of taken him out of office.
Actally the USA installed a leader, then that leader was replaced by 3 leaders(from the military) and from those 3 came Castillo armas who got killed like 2 years later.


Why would you deny Arbenz and Arevalo were great Presidents?
Cause thats the truth their not. Their have been very few good presidents in guatemala in the last 100 years. I cant remember what i learned about arevalo, but again he is not see as the great president, same with arbenz.

[LuZhiming]

I dont know what saddam/kuwait scenario you gave me?

If Saddam had set up a puppet government with a dictator in Kuwait after he invaded it, and Iraqi businesses bought large amounts land with that governments approval, and there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, would you consider that legal and acceptable?


My source? the nicaraguans that fled, that is my source, you might find info on the internet.

Oh please, one can also find on the internet how the Sandinistas were drug traffickers. :rolleyes:


And the army didnt exactly like arbenz, at any moment they could of taken him out of office.

That&#39;s like saying the army of Venezuela doesn&#39;t like Hugo Chavez. It is at best a half-truth. The highest commanders may have hated him, but that doesn&#39;t apply to the lowly soldiers.


Actally the USA installed a leader, then that leader was replaced by 3 leaders(from the military) and from those 3 came Castillo armas who got killed like 2 years later.

Who are you arguing with? :blink:


Cause thats the truth their not. Their have been very few good presidents in guatemala in the last 100 years. I cant remember what i learned about arevalo, but again he is not see as the great president, same with arbenz.

So overthrowing a dictator, giving homes to 100,000 families, greatly improving Human Rights conditions, preserving indigenous language and culture, getting rid of corrupt business men, bringing democracy to Guatemala, improving Guatemala&#39;s economy, improving women&#39;s rights, allowing political freedom, dissolving the secret police, promoting national literacy, banning the repressive labor codes, creating farm cooperatives, etc. doesn&#39;t make either of these two great Presidents? You talk as if they were meaningless. I would hope you could at least appreciate them over the dictators.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:23 AM
So I think you are saying that we shouldn&#39;t create any new technology, because it would mean some peoples knowledge would become irrelivant and they would no longer be useful.

Firstly, as an anarchist, aren&#39;t you for the ideals of the collective? So if something, such as technological change will allow for increased production capability, it should be done if the benefit will be greater than the loss to the few whos knowledge is now obselete.
Secondly Marxism is meant to include more flexible job opportunities. As peoples needs change, and the labour force needs to be re-distributed. So the idea that people will be left with nothing to do because of this shouldn&#39;t apply, assuming that they want a new job.
I think you are overestimating the training and skills needed to do most jobs nowadays. Most manufactering jobs require little training, this kind of job being one of the most prominent. Even more so in a communist society.
Thirdly you are applying this only to cars, but it is relevant to anything were technology is involved, including more important areas such as agriculture.

Your arguement can work in reverse you know, to argue that we should as El Profo has said, become less technologically advanced so more jobs and peoples skills are needed. Such as removing type-writers and computers so that we can utilise those not in works ability and experience to write. This ignores how there is limited resources though - there is in a communist society always going to be a deficit of labour, because of how the economy is organised to supply everyone with jobs, hence &#39;to each according to their ability&#39;.

And unless you are an anarcho-individualist, it makes no difference whether you call yourself communist or anarchist.
No, my point was that in that particular case I dont see benefits (except for the capitalist). And I was talking about what happens in a capitalist society, things on a more socialist society will be different because the objectives of technology will be different, and because of the essence of such an economy.

[FarfromNear]

All I am going to say is that all the things that everyone has mentioned in this post just helps prove the obvious fact that Capitalism has never, and doesnt exist in Latin America. Therefore, your&#39;e basic arguments of Latin America being Capitalist are wrong. Just proves.

I will also say that I have learned that it doesnt matter how many facts or real life events we give you people, you never acknowledge them. You ignore them or simply say that they are false. Often times, you just give excuses for them. I remind you of a post I created some time ago, nobody touched the real facts and examples, everybody just gave me dumb arguments and excuses. What happens is that people bash on Capitalism and they dont even really know anything about it. This is very true. MAny of you a lot of times attribute things to Capitalism without really understanding them, or without understanding Capitalism and the free market economy. This is very true, and IM sure you will all deny it. Fact is, a lot of people in this board talk out of their ass, they dont know what they are talking about. A lot of them say stuff about Communism without understanding it, it is the same thing with Capitalism. I read a post in which one of your comrades actually said that the Communist Manifesto wasnt the real communist guide book, he said that it was Das Kapital. BEfore saying all that, they should really read it first. Its the same thing with Capitalism. Understand it before you bash on it.


Its funny, but you will all deny it. You will give me your examples. Fact is, the proof is in your posts. There are so many false statements about Latin America. A lot of people even use it as their prime examples, and their arguments are just terrible.

I really dont want to get in to details right now but I will sometime soon. In the mean time, study about Capitalism and how the economy works, as well as Latin American history. Then, give your arguments.
The reason I am not getting in to details is because I just dont want to waste my time. Whenever somebody posts something worth while, I&#39;ll come back.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:57 AM
I will also say that I have learned that it doesnt matter how many facts or real life events we give you people, you never acknowledge them. You ignore them or simply say that they are false. Often times, you just give excuses for them. I remind you of a post I created some time ago, nobody touched the real facts and examples, everybody just gave me dumb arguments and excuses. What happens is that people bash on Capitalism and they dont even really know anything about it. This is very true. MAny of you a lot of times attribute things to Capitalism without really understanding them, or without understanding Capitalism and the free market economy. This is very true, and IM sure you will all deny it. Fact is, a lot of people in this board talk out of their ass, they dont know what they are talking about. A lot of them say stuff about Communism without understanding it, it is the same thing with Capitalism. I read a post in which one of your comrades actually said that the Communist Manifesto wasnt the real communist guide book, he said that it was Das Kapital. BEfore saying all that, they should really read it first. Its the same thing with Capitalism. Understand it before you bash on it.
Well, then you think it&#39;s better than people accept anything that they are told as the absolute truth. That&#39;s the road to being exploited. Do you believe everything you hear? Don&#39;t you judge if it&#39;s true or false or if it is really an absolute proof of something?

[Osman Ghazi]

All I am going to say is that all the things that everyone has mentioned in this post just helps prove the obvious fact that Capitalism has never, and doesnt exist in Latin America.
Are you completely retarded? (excuse my un-PCness)
Capitalism is money and private ownership, more or less. It is also trade. I don&#39;t know what the hell your on but it seems to me that all those things exist in every Latin American country and always has.
Go ahead and explain your Grand Theory of Capitalism that somehow doesn&#39;t exist in Latin America because I am literally dying to hear it.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 18 2004, 03:36 PM

All I am going to say is that all the things that everyone has mentioned in this post just helps prove the obvious fact that Capitalism has never, and doesnt exist in Latin America.
Are you completely retarded? (excuse my un-PCness)
Capitalism is money and private ownership, more or less. It is also trade. I don&#39;t know what the hell your on but it seems to me that all those things exist in every Latin American country and always has.
Go ahead and explain your Grand Theory of Capitalism that somehow doesn&#39;t exist in Latin America because I am literally dying to hear it.
I already proved it in a post i wrote, go search for it, i dont want to post it again. I am from latin america and i can tell you, capitalism does not exist in latin america, what we have is mercantilism, high tariffs,high taxes.....

[el_profe]

Originally posted by LuZhiming[email protected] 16 2004, 10:28 PM

I dont know what saddam/kuwait scenario you gave me?

If Saddam had set up a puppet government with a dictator in Kuwait after he invaded it, and Iraqi businesses bought large amounts land with that governments approval, and there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, would you consider that legal and acceptable?




The only problem is the USA did not overthrow or install a gov. so that the fruit company could by the land.



Cause thats the truth their not. Their have been very few good presidents in guatemala in the last 100 years. I cant remember what i learned about arevalo, but again he is not see as the great president, same with arbenz.

So overthrowing a dictator, giving homes to 100,000 families, greatly improving Human Rights conditions, preserving indigenous language and culture, getting rid of corrupt business men, bringing democracy to Guatemala, improving Guatemala&#39;s economy, improving women&#39;s rights, allowing political freedom, dissolving the secret police, promoting national literacy, banning the repressive labor codes, creating farm cooperatives, etc. doesn&#39;t make either of these two great Presidents? You talk as if they were meaningless. I would hope you could at least appreciate them over the dictators.
they did not overthrow a dictator, they helped, but many people helped overthrow that dictator, I know people who where in that revolution in 1944.
Giving homes to 100,000 families? they just gave them the land, and you cant just give land away that is not yours, that is not good. Greatly improving human rights conditions? they did not greatly improve human rights conditions, getting rid of corrupt bussinesmen? not really, they still protected local "corrupt" bussinessmen. DEMOCRACY TO GUATEMALA WAS BROUGHT BY EVERYONE WHO TOOK PART IN THE 1944 revolution, how did they greatly improve women human rights?, Arbenz did not exactly allow political freedom, he also had political prisoners, dissolving the secret police? did not really dissolve it, but yes the secret police was not as bad as it was under ubico. Promoting literacy? in the early 90&#39;s still 50% of the country was illterate. I guess i do prefer them over dictators.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by el_profe+Jan 18 2004, 09:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Jan 18 2004, 09:29 PM)
Osman [email protected] 18 2004, 03:36 PM

All I am going to say is that all the things that everyone has mentioned in this post just helps prove the obvious fact that Capitalism has never, and doesnt exist in Latin America.
Are you completely retarded? (excuse my un-PCness)
Capitalism is money and private ownership, more or less. It is also trade. I don&#39;t know what the hell your on but it seems to me that all those things exist in every Latin American country and always has.
Go ahead and explain your Grand Theory of Capitalism that somehow doesn&#39;t exist in Latin America because I am literally dying to hear it.
I already proved it in a post i put, go search for it, i dont want to post it again. I am from latin america and i can tell you, capitalism does not exist in latin america, what we have is mercantilism, high tariffs,high taxes..... [/b]
What economic system is it then?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Death+Jan 18 2004, 09:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Death @ Jan 18 2004, 09:43 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 09:29 PM

Osman [email protected] 18 2004, 03:36 PM

All I am going to say is that all the things that everyone has mentioned in this post just helps prove the obvious fact that Capitalism has never, and doesnt exist in Latin America.
Are you completely retarded? (excuse my un-PCness)
Capitalism is money and private ownership, more or less. It is also trade. I don&#39;t know what the hell your on but it seems to me that all those things exist in every Latin American country and always has.
Go ahead and explain your Grand Theory of Capitalism that somehow doesn&#39;t exist in Latin America because I am literally dying to hear it.
I already proved it in a post i put, go search for it, i dont want to post it again. I am from latin america and i can tell you, capitalism does not exist in latin america, what we have is mercantilism, high tariffs,high taxes.....
What economic system is it then? [/b]
social-democrata? I guess that is what you call it, anyway, there is alot of taxes, alot of tariffs, it takes months to start a bussiness, heavy goverment intevention in the economy, mercantilism. All that is not capitalism, learn what capitalism is before you start saying latin america is capitalist.
In fact people also dont like "capitalism" or like they call it "liberalismo" or "neoliberalismo".

[Osman Ghazi]

social-democrata? I guess that is what you call it, anyway, there is alot of taxes, alot of tariffs, it takes months to start a bussiness, heavy goverment intevention in the economy, mercantilism. All that is not capitalism, learn what capitalism is before you start saying latin america is capitalist.[QUOTE]
Why don&#39;t you tell us what you think capitalism is because what you just said doesn&#39;t make sense.

there is alot of taxes

There are a lot of high taxes in Canada too. Canada is capitalist.

alot of tariffs

The U&#036; has tariffs on softwood coming from Canada. The U&#036; is capitalist.

it takes months to start a bussiness

You have to have business licenses in Canada and the U&#036; as well. They are capitalist.

heavy goverment intevention in the economy

There are &#39;crown corporations&#39; in Canada that are owned by the government. As I&#39;ve said Canada is capitalist

mercantilism

Mercantilism is : The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade (according to dictionary.com)
Are you trying to tell me that Latin American nations are trying to accumulate bullion, establish colonies and a merchant merine?

neoliberalismo[QUOTE]
neoliberalism is when countries deregulate their economies so that there are no minimum wages and there is complete economic freedom i.e. no rules for businesses Neoliberalism is still capitalism.

All in all, id appreciate it if you didn&#39;t tell me that i dont know what capitalism is because clearly you have no idea what in all the seven hells your talking about.

PS: Capitalism as defined by dictionary.com is : An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

[LuZhiming]

The only problem is the USA did not overthrow or install a gov. so that the fruit company could by the land.

Well they didn&#39;t have to in the early days of Guatemala, because the dictator was a United Fruit Company puppet that did anything they said. But they did participate in overthrowing Carlos Herrera in 1921 to protect United Fruit Company interests.


they did not overthrow a dictator, they helped, but many people helped overthrow that dictator, I know people who where in that revolution in 1944.

That&#39;s true, but I believe they were leaders in that revolution.


Giving homes to 100,000 families? they just gave them the land, and you cant just give land away that is not yours, that is not good.

They gave them the land and built houses there. Not theirs? As if the corrupt United Fruit Company had any real right to it. United Fruit Company since its formation had manipulated the government, exempted itself from almost all taxes for 99 years, supported dictators that murdered hundreds daily, seized most of Guatemala&#39;s transportation routes, and oppressed the peasents. It was legitimate to rid the country of a company like that which has blood on its hands and defied international law.


Greatly improving human rights conditions? they did not greatly improve human rights conditions,

You and I both know they did. The mass murdering that was committed by dictators had been ceased. And let&#39;s not forget the improvements in healthcare as well.


getting rid of corrupt bussinesmen? not really, they still protected local "corrupt" bussinessmen.

I haven&#39;t found a single bit of evidence to back that up. Do you have any examples?


how did they greatly improve women human rights?,

I believe that was a mistake on my part.


Arbenz did not exactly allow political freedom, he also had political prisoners, he also had political prisoners, dissolving the secret police? did not really dissolve it, but yes the secret police was not as bad as it was under ubico.

What? I haven&#39;t been able to find a shred of evidence on that. Not even U.S. propaganda accused him of that. I have found evidence that he did allow political parties to operate freely (Which the U.S. used as propaganda to &#39;prove&#39; he was a Communist, because one of those parties was the Communist Party.) and every single book claims he dissolved the secret police.


Promoting literacy? in the early 90&#39;s still 50% of the country was illterate. I guess i do prefer them over dictators.

I don&#39;t have any figures, but sources I have checked claim that they did promote literacy. I do know that Arevallo built over 6,000 schools.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 19 2004, 02:49 AM
[QUOTE]social-democrata? I guess that is what you call it, anyway, there is alot of taxes, alot of tariffs, it takes months to start a bussiness, heavy goverment intevention in the economy, mercantilism. All that is not capitalism, learn what capitalism is before you start saying latin america is capitalist.[QUOTE]
Why don&#39;t you tell us what you think capitalism is because what you just said doesn&#39;t make sense.

there is alot of taxes

There are a lot of high taxes in Canada too. Canada is capitalist.

alot of tariffs

The U&#036; has tariffs on softwood coming from Canada. The U&#036; is capitalist.

:blink: what i said does not make sense? goverment intervention in the gov. is not capitalism, taxes is not capitalism, tariffs is not capitalism.

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 www.capitalism.org, http://www.capitalism.org/tour/index.htm
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/trade.htm
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/government.htm
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/taxation.htm

Its not my fault you dont know what SOCIAL DEMOCRAT(democracy) is :

Socialism has thus been integrated with capitalism in many European countries and in other parts of the world. These systems are referred to as social democracies. Social democracy typically involves state ownership of some corporations (considered strategically important to the people) and participation in ownership of the means of production by workers. This can include profit sharing and worker representation on decision-making boards of corporations. Social services are important in social democracies. Such services include social welfare for the disadvantaged and unemployment insurance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

That is what canada and the USA is.

In the USa it takes about a day to start a bussines (get all the paper work done and have the name registered), i dont think you understood what i ment. In my country in latin america it takes like 1 month to get everything done.


heavy goverment intevention in the economy

There are &#39;crown corporations&#39; in Canada that are owned by the government. As I&#39;ve said Canada is capitalist :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
RETARD, gov. owned corporations is not capitalim, I GUESS CUBA IS CAPITALIST, the gov owns everything there. :lol: :lol: :lol: , what a moron. IN capitalism the gov is not suppose to own companies. :lol: :lol:
You need to learn what capitalism is.



mercantilism[QUOTE]
Mercantilism is : The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade (according to dictionary.com)
Yu had to look further down. Of course inlatin america, this exist and they protect certain industries from competition creating monopolies.

[kylieII]

No, my point was that in that particular case I dont see benefits (except for the capitalist). And I was talking about what happens in a capitalist society, things on a more socialist society will be different because the objectives of technology will be different, and because of the essence of such an economy

So in capitalism technology is not of any help. Ok, well how about improved equipment at factories. This has allowed workers to be in a more safe and healthy environment. An example of how technology is beneficial.
Secondly the fact that it benefits the capitalist, or the owner of whatever is being sold, means it will benefit the worker. Firstly directly, through increased job security - technology will mean a more efficiant firm, lower costs, and therefore less need to reduce the cost incurred by wages.
Secondly through as i have explained, increasing the production power of society. Meaning more goods, and with increased supply comes a cheaper price. If distributed correctly, ie not allowing there to become a wastage and supplying goods to where there is a demand, such as the butter mountains in europe and the need for food in many third world countries, then it will allow them to benefit from the improved technology too.

[kylieII]

I was a bit rushed for time, i&#39;ll elaborate more now.
As i was saying, it secondly increases production power of the country, and society in general. This will lead to one of two things, more diverse goods being produced, in which case a wider range of needs are being met. Or through more of a product being created, which if in short supply(such as the health service of a country) will be beneficial in that more people can have it, or if its already meeting demand, then price will fall.
Also as i just mentioned, it doesnt have to be a product that is bought. With better technology workers in a capitalist society may become unemployed, but will thus be able to get jobs elsewhere, improving other sectors of society. So it is a win-win situation, the industry that brings in the technology improves production, as do the industries that pick up the excess labour or resources no longer needed.

Apart from how labour and goods are organised and allocated, capitalist and communist economies are quite similar, improved technology would be beneficial whichever one you are talking about.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 05:17 PM
So in capitalism technology is not of any help. Ok, well how about improved equipment at factories. This has allowed workers to be in a more safe and healthy environment. An example of how technology is beneficial.
it&#39;s not really helpful on that particular case I was talking about.


Secondly the fact that it benefits the capitalist, or the owner of whatever is being sold, means it will benefit the worker. Firstly directly, through increased job security - technology will mean a more efficiant firm, lower costs, and therefore less need to reduce the cost incurred by wages.
Secondly through as i have explained, increasing the production power of society. Meaning more goods, and with increased supply comes a cheaper price. If distributed correctly, ie not allowing there to become a wastage and supplying goods to where there is a demand, such as the butter mountains in europe and the need for food in many third world countries, then it will allow them to benefit from the improved technology too.

Well the problem here is that it depends on what product are we talking about, and who controls the market. If there&#39;s a monopoly in, let&#39;s say, a milk product&#39;s company, then they will be able to impose high prices for a necessary product. Capitalism sucks at distributing resources and this can be seen in situations like when excess of supply are destroyed to bring down the prices.


As i was saying, it secondly increases production power of the country, and society in general. This will lead to one of two things, more diverse goods being produced, in which case a wider range of needs are being met. Or through more of a product being created, which if in short supply(such as the health service of a country) will be beneficial in that more people can have it, or if its already meeting demand, then price will fall.
Also as i just mentioned, it doesnt have to be a product that is bought. With better technology workers in a capitalist society may become unemployed, but will thus be able to get jobs elsewhere, improving other sectors of society. So it is a win-win situation, the industry that brings in the technology improves production, as do the industries that pick up the excess labour or resources no longer needed.

Apart from how labour and goods are organised and allocated, capitalist and communist economies are quite similar, improved technology would be beneficial whichever one you are talking about.

Truth is that capitalism doesnt really care that much about the society as a whole, because of how they divide it in the different individuals.

[Osman Ghazi]

El profe, for the last time capitalism is : private control of the means of production and distribution. Social Democracies ARE capitalist. Secondly, i would hardly call Latin America a social democracy as they tend to lean towards neo-liberalism, which means they are against socialism. Capitalism is a very, very broad concept and there are different knds but Latin America is still capitalist. And now your just being completely absurd by trying to tell me that the U&#036; and Canada aren&#39;t capitalist, which is about the single most #&#036;%&#33;*&-up thing i&#39;ve ever heard. Please, further argument against this point is fruitless because this is not theory, it is fact

PS: after checking out that link to capitlaism.org, ive determined that they are completely ed in the head. Capitalism is an economic system (hence capital i.e. money) Capitalism is not a social system. What they are thinking of is called democracy.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 21 2004, 01:36 PM
El profe, for the last time capitalism is : private control of the means of production and distribution. Social Democracies ARE capitalist. Secondly, i would hardly call Latin America a social democracy as they tend to lean towards neo-liberalism, which means they are against socialism. Capitalism is a very, very broad concept and there are different knds but Latin America is still capitalist. And now your just being completely absurd by trying to tell me that the U&#036; and Canada aren&#39;t capitalist, which is about the single most #&#036;%&#33;*&-up thing i&#39;ve ever heard. Please, further argument against this point is fruitless because this is not theory, it is fact


Social democracies, is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. You have big goverment, govberment intervenes and regualtes the economy. that is not real capitalism.
Latin america does not lean towards neo-liberalism, hahaha.
Look at lula,chavez, the new argentinian president, toledo, the presidetn from ecuador.
You have no idea what youre talking about with latin america. You couldnt even name the latin american countries on a map, so you shouldnt talk about there politics. HAHAHA.


PS: after checking out that link to capitlaism.org, ive determined that they are completely ed in the head. Capitalism is an economic system (hence capital i.e. money) Capitalism is not a social system. What they are thinking of is called democracy.
:blink: , what they are thinking is democracy? :blink: , okay you need to learn about capitalism first, then we can talk.

[Osman Ghazi]

For the last time 1) Capital = money. All states that currently exist have money. Therefore: all states that exist are [/B]capitaist. It&#39;s called logical thinking.

2) Every state has an economic system and a political system. Capitalism, like socialism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. You can have only one economic and one political system. I.E. You could have democracy and socialism or democracy and capitalism. You cannot however, have capitalism and socialism, you must have one or the other.


[b]You have no idea what youre talking about with latin america. You couldnt even name the latin american countries on a map, so you shouldnt talk about there politics. HAHAHA.

Please, we aren&#39;t 4-year olds. Let&#39;s try to have an adult conversation. I know that you aren&#39;t stupid and you know that im not.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected]Jan 19 2004, 06:17 PM

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
That&#39;s crap. Because then when you start a description of a system it would immediately mention it&#39;s principle and the "rights" it defends. I don&#39;t think fascists would describe themselves as:
"Fascism is a system based on heroism, militarism, and the greatness of our nation". If they would, it would be propaganda
In fact what you posted is propaganda

Capitalism is not a "social" system. The following phrase shows that they deny the "free-market". Maybe they hide their greed and their love for taking away the wealth produced by most people? The use of the "individual rights" is a good attemp to associate people to "rights", however the "individual rights" are mostly about private property. But they hide that in the economical idea it only means private property over the means of production, while other types of private property are also defended in some way by other systems. Also the word rights inmediately attracts those neutral to this system, making them believe that those who wrote that site care about their well-being, even if they would put them 16 hours working in a sweatshop for 3 dollars a century if they could.

Capitalism is an economical system with a few related social ideals where there&#39;s usually a market economy, private property over the means of production, and where those who control them use them to get profits, usually by hiring people or investing where they see more possibilities of getting profits. The word comes from capital, the wealth represented in the ownership of what&#39;s needed to run a business.
That&#39;s my definition of capitalism.

[Osman Ghazi]

Latin america does not lean towards neo-liberalism, hahaha.
Look at lula,chavez, the new argentinian president, toledo, the presidetn from ecuador.

I’m not even really sure that this deserves a response. All you have done is given me a statement that I know is false and then backed it up by telling me to look at five liberal (left-center) presidents, if you could even call them that. Let’s see what we find when we do a little research.

Lula


Today, it is getting harder to argue that Lula has remained true to his leftist past. Since coming into office, he has pursued essentially neoliberal economic policies, which have rankled some of his left-wing supporters
On Dec. 12, the Brazilian Senate passed Lula’s pension reform bill, which would cut benefits for retiring government employees and raise the retirement age. Lula says the bill aims to close the gap between private- and public-sector pensions. International financiers applauded the bill as a step toward closing the Brazilian government’s US&#036;250 billion debt. On the same day the bill passed, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which Lula and the PT once criticized as the source of the country’s woes, approved a new &#036;14.8 billion loan for Brazil. On Dec. 16, IMF Director Horst Köhler called Lula’s economic management team an example and congratulated them on their economic policies.

The simple fact that the neo-liberal IMF is giving Lula any money at all is clear evidence of his complete betrayal of the Partido dos Trabalhadores.

Kirchner, or as you call him ‘the new president of argentina’

Simply put, he is head of the Partido Justicialista. Peron founded this party and it is no secret that his favourite state other than Argentina was Mussolini’s Italy. Enough said.

Toledo

Firstly, he will not be president for very long. He will lose in 2006. Secondly, he isn’t even a leftist. He is following blatantly neoliberal economic doctrines including increased privatization. Also, you seem not to grasp the fact that a president has very little power in legislative matters.

Col. Lucio Guttierrez

Firstly, the man is an army colonel, which pretty much disqualifies him from being a leftist. Although he got his support from the lower classes, he has already begun to betray them. His increasing moves toward the economic right show that well enough.

Chavez i&#39;ll give you even though i have problems with him. However that makes one out of 19 by my count.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 04:57 AM

Latin america does not lean towards neo-liberalism, hahaha.
Look at lula,chavez, the new argentinian president, toledo, the presidetn from ecuador.

I’m not even really sure that this deserves a response. All you have done is given me a statement that I know is false and then backed it up by telling me to look at five liberal (left-center) presidents, if you could even call them that. Let’s see what we find when we do a little research.

Lula


Today, it is getting harder to argue that Lula has remained true to his leftist past. Since coming into office, he has pursued essentially neoliberal economic policies, which have rankled some of his left-wing supporters
On Dec. 12, the Brazilian Senate passed Lula’s pension reform bill, which would cut benefits for retiring government employees and raise the retirement age. Lula says the bill aims to close the gap between private- and public-sector pensions. International financiers applauded the bill as a step toward closing the Brazilian government’s US&#036;250 billion debt. On the same day the bill passed, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which Lula and the PT once criticized as the source of the country’s woes, approved a new &#036;14.8 billion loan for Brazil. On Dec. 16, IMF Director Horst Köhler called Lula’s economic management team an example and congratulated them on their economic policies.

The simple fact that the neo-liberal IMF is giving Lula any money at all is clear evidence of his complete betrayal of the Partido dos Trabalhadores.

Kirchner, or as you call him ‘the new president of argentina’

Simply put, he is head of the Partido Justicialista. Peron founded this party and it is no secret that his favourite state other than Argentina was Mussolini’s Italy. Enough said.

Toledo

Firstly, he will not be president for very long. He will lose in 2006. Secondly, he isn’t even a leftist. He is following blatantly neoliberal economic doctrines including increased privatization. Also, you seem not to grasp the fact that a president has very little power in legislative matters.



Shit, i swear this is like hitting my head against a brick wall. I already adressed this in this topic, and because you cant read it I have to address it again. :angry:

That is 1 of lulas policies. he formed the workers party in brazil, he is for "reforma agraria" where he wants to redestribute the land. He has always been against big bussiness and corporations, he was leader of one of the unions in brazil, how can you say he is a capitalist, because he cut benefits for gov. emplyes? what if those benefits where high?

The IMF gives money to almost any country.

Kirchner, somone on this site was praising kichner and happy that he was in gov. because he is left-minded president.
Peron was a capitalist? he redistributed land, he was a populist, he made a gov. union, he supported the unions, ask anyone from argentina if he was capitalist? he wasnt, why do you think he was so loved by the people, he was a populist.
Mussolini was not capitalist, dont confuse capitalism and fascism.

Thank god toledo will not last long. He is not leftist? I remember his speeches in the news, talking about the rich and how he was fighting for the workers and the poor and he was going to redistribute money. Can you prove he is not a leftist, I followed those elections by tv, and i remember his speeches, in fact, a neoliberal writer is in exile in spain because toledo wants to throw him in jail for defamation, because that author has writtne against toledo for his corruption and his policies.


Legislators by far are not capitalist, they are mostly against the corporations and the "rich" people.
Have you ever talked to a congressmen or legislator form latin america? I have and my dad has also talked to many and I can tell you almost all of them are against capitalism, this does not mean they are communist, it means they are against capitalism.


Col. Lucio Guttierrez

Firstly, the man is an army colonel, which pretty much disqualifies him from being a leftist. Although he got his support from the lower classes, he has already begun to betray them. His increasing moves toward the economic right show that well enough.
Chavez is also a military man? does that disqualify him?. Increasing moves toward economic right? what moves?



Chavez i&#39;ll give you even though i have problems with him. However that makes one out of 19 by my count.
1 out of 19, no. In guatemala(my country) you have(had till the start of this year, thank god) a president with leftist policies, he increased taxes, he increased minimum wage 4 times in 4 years. he tried to pass a "reforma agraria".
In mexico you had Pri running the o****ry for 70 years, they definetly are not capitalist, many of the leaders from el pri came from the Unions.
El salvador has been moving slowly toward a more free-market style economy, by lowering taxes, and that has worked out great for them, they where the fastest growing country in latin america and like top 5 or 3 in Latin america.
Chile has been the most "capitalist" country in Latin america, and they are the best country for latin america.

Listen, Ive lived in latin america for 18 years, I know how people dont belive in capitalism, they want more of a socio-democrat country. In fact a neo-liberal (mario vargas llosa) ran for president in peru, he hardly got any votes.


For the last time 1) Capital = money. All states that currently exist have money. Therefore: all states that exist are capitaist. It&#39;s called logical thinking.

2) Every state has an economic system and a political system. Capitalism, like socialism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. You can have only one economic and one political system. I.E. You could have democracy and socialism or democracy and capitalism. You cannot however, have capitalism and socialism, you must have one or the other.
every country is capitalist? your getting to technical or your stuck with a definition used 100 years ago.
You know what is meant when somone talks about capitalism.
So are you saying the USSR was capitalist? or cuba? or north korea? i dont think anyone here will support your comments.

you cant have a mixture of capitalism and socialism?
Obviously you dont know what social-democracy is or youre just a retard, its the term being used to describe what countries like france,sweden,germany are doing. In fact its an old term already, you didnt knwo that? I dont have time to be your personal teacher so please if you want to have a discussion, go get informed, until then , i will not respond anymore to your post.


Please, we aren&#39;t 4-year olds. Let&#39;s try to have an adult conversation. I know that you aren&#39;t stupid and you know that im not.
Know youre probably about 14 or 15, I know youre not stupid your just not informed, go get informed if you want to keep on discussing these things.

El inflitrado:

Capitalism is not a "social" system. The following phrase shows that they deny the "free-market". Maybe they hide their greed and their love for taking away the wealth produced by most people? The use of the "individual rights" is a good attemp to associate people to "rights", however the "individual rights" are mostly about private property. But they hide that in the economical idea it only means private property over the means of production, while other types of private property are also defended in some way by other systems. Also the word rights inmediately attracts those neutral to this system, making them believe that those who wrote that site care about their well-being, even if they would put them 16 hours working in a sweatshop for 3 dollars a century if they could.
:blink: the more you post the more you dont make sense. When did they deny the free-market? They hide their greed and love for talking away the wealth produced by others? no, they want to be able to keep waht they produce, actually you just just described politicians, they want to get what is produced by others.

[kylieII]

it&#39;s not really helpful on that particular case I was talking about.

To start with you talked about cars, but you have generalised this into technology being bad in all industries under capitalism. You said:

I SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY, my point is that in your utopian capitalism where everyone works, gets millions and is happy, that techonology only creates unemployment and few opportunities to the poor.
Technology is good only when it&#39;s useful and doesnt harm the people. Nothing would be better than letting the robots do the job, but the point is that I dont see it as a compatible thing with capitalism. That&#39;s all.
And it applies to cars anyway. Improved technology means less labour needed to produce them, or safer working conditions. If it means less labour, then that means that for a period people may be unemployed, but in the long term, with these moving into other jobs, it would create a more efficiant workforce.


If there&#39;s a monopoly in, let&#39;s say, a milk product&#39;s company, then they will be able to impose high prices for a necessary product
A monopoly on such an easy and cheap product is impossible. But ignoring the example, there is measures to prevent monopolies to emerge, and even if they do, then the wastage that occurs when such a market type is in place would eventually cause its downfall. The post office in the UK being a good example of this.


Capitalism sucks at distributing resources and this can be seen in situations like when excess of supply are destroyed to bring down the prices.

This doesn&#39;t happen that much, supplies being destroyed to raise the price. Usually it involves just reducing production to restrict it, which costs much less. This method, applied by firms such as the crude oil cartel, does not mean that resources are spent on products, then destroyed. It means that less resources are used to start with. And therefore there is not resources that are wasted, labour for example will simply move to other industries, not be stuck with producing goods just for them to be destroyed.
As for distributing goods in general, I disagree. The success of a firm is very much based on its ability to read and meet supply correctly. In communism however, with no mechanism such as the market to find demand from, it would be in fact harder to meet the needs of people. Hence there was often lack of supplies in some things in the old soviet union, while in others a surplus. Sure it may not have been correctly marxist as im sure you would claim, but it was based on communist economics.



Truth is that capitalism doesnt really care that much about the society as a whole, because of how they divide it in the different individuals.

Whether a firm cares that it is benefiting society or not makes no different to whether it is or not.

[Osman Ghazi]

Improved technology means less labour needed to produce them, or safer working conditions. If it means less labour, then that means that for a period people may be unemployed, but in the long term, with these moving into other jobs, it would create a more efficiant workforce.

Theoretically, your right. However, without education opportunities people dont &#39;move into other jobs&#39; because there wont be any for someone with no education. They will simply be displaced. El Infiltrado is not against technology per se. However, he is against it when it sweeps people aside so that U&#036; corporations can make more money.

The thing is that capitalism no longer exists individually in seperate countries. It has become global. So while technology is a good thing in the West in that it increases the amount we can produce, in third world countries it simply eliminates jobs. There are no education opportunities and so people are simply replaced by machines.

That&#39;s what it looked like he was trying to say anyway.

[Osman Ghazi]

That is 1 of lulas policies. he formed the workers party in brazil, he is for "reforma agraria" where he wants to redestribute the land. He has always been against big bussiness and corporations, he was leader of one of the unions in brazil, how can you say he is a capitalist, because he cut benefits for gov. emplyes? what if those benefits where high?

[URL=http://http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1726.cfm[/URL]


The IMF gives money to almost any country.

Clearly you know jack shit about the IMF. They will only give money to countries that follow their policies. They always have. They have never given money to a socialist country Isn&#39;t it curious how Cuba never recieved any cash?


Kirchner, somone on this site was praising kichner and happy that he was in gov. because he is left-minded president.
Peron was a capitalist? he redistributed land, he was a populist, he made a gov. union, he supported the unions, ask anyone from argentina if he was capitalist? he wasnt, why do you think he was so loved by the people, he was a populist.
Mussolini was not capitalist, dont confuse capitalism and m.

So what your telling me is that Peron was a socialist who liked m? That makes sense.

Also, m and Bolshevism = state capitalism. So yes USSR, Cuba, and N. Korea are state capitalist

I told you before that capitlaism is a very broad concept. You, comrade, seem to be confusing capitalism with democracy, and who would blame you with that crappy site you put up before. It&#39;s complete lies, as El infiltrado already said.


you cant have a mixture of capitalism and socialism?
Obviously you dont know what social-democracy is or youre just a retard, its the term being used to describe what countries like france,sweden,germany are doing. In fact its an old term already, you didnt knwo that? I dont have time to be your personal teacher so please if you want to have a discussion, go get informed, until then , i will not respond anymore to your post.

Actually, i know what a social democracy is. :o However, you seem to be confusing capitalism and democracy again. As ive said before: democracy is a political system, capitalism is an economic system.

NB: also for the records im 17. How old are you oh grand master of economics?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 02:57 PM

That is 1 of lulas policies. he formed the workers party in brazil, he is for "reforma agraria" where he wants to redestribute the land. He has always been against big bussiness and corporations, he was leader of one of the unions in brazil, how can you say he is a capitalist, because he cut benefits for gov. emplyes? what if those benefits where high?

[URL=http://http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1726.cfm[/URL]


The IMF gives money to almost any country.

Clearly you know jack shit about the IMF. They will only give money to countries that follow their policies. They always have. They have never given money to a socialist country Isn&#39;t it curious how Cuba never recieved any cash?


Kirchner, somone on this site was praising kichner and happy that he was in gov. because he is left-minded president.
Peron was a capitalist? he redistributed land, he was a populist, he made a gov. union, he supported the unions, ask anyone from argentina if he was capitalist? he wasnt, why do you think he was so loved by the people, he was a populist.
Mussolini was not capitalist, dont confuse capitalism and m.



you cant have a mixture of capitalism and socialism?
Obviously you dont know what social-democracy is or youre just a retard, its the term being used to describe what countries like france,sweden,germany are doing. In fact its an old term already, you didnt knwo that? I dont have time to be your personal teacher so please if you want to have a discussion, go get informed, until then , i will not respond anymore to your post.

1 policy and its just a pension reform bill.

Yes the IMF pressures countries into putting the policies the IMF wants so they can receive money.


So what your telling me is that Peron was a socialist who liked m? That makes sense.

Also, m and Bolshevism = state capitalism. So yes USSR, Cuba, and N. Korea are state capitalist

I told you before that capitlaism is a very broad concept. You, comrade, seem to be confusing capitalism with democracy, and who would blame you with that crappy site you put up before. It&#39;s complete lies, as El infiltrado already said.
Peron was a populist, you keep on misusing the word capitalism. Your getting to technical retard, or you just dot know what your saying. You idiot,I know you just read das kapital or communist manifest, but please try to see that the meaning of words change(look at the word liberal, it used to describe capitalist or neoliberals as we know the today) you know what it means when i say capitalism. The site is comple lies? what lies would does be.




Actually, i know what a social democracy is. :o However, you seem to be confusing capitalism and democracy again. As ive said before: democracy is a political system, capitalism is an economic system.

NB: also for the records im 17. How old are you oh grand master of economics?
What confusion? capitalism is an economical system and a political system, for true capitalism(in th economic sense) you need a capitalist political system. The government&#39;s only responsibility would be protect the rights of the individual.

[Osman Ghazi]

What confusion? capitalism is an economical system and a political system, for true capitalism(in th economic sense) you need a capitalist political system. The government&#39;s only responsibility would be protect the rights of the individual.

I keep telling you there is no such thing as a capitalist political system
This &#39;capitalist&#39; political system that you are thinking of is called democracy.


Peron was a populist
Yes, Peron was a populist, but in the bad sense meaning he told complete lies to the Argentinian people to get elected. You are also forgetting that he was an authoritarian.

As for all this of &#39;social democracy&#39; technically yes, you are right. Technically, it blends the economic systems of capitalism and socialism. However, that being said, it is expected today in every advanced country that you have at least some social programs. Besides which, maybe you haven&#39;t considered the fact that pretty much all of Latin America consider themselves to be capitalist.

We are both using outdated definitions of capitalism and socialism.
I have said that capitalism is just money but it&#39;s more than that.
Likewise, you have said that government intervention in the economy is socialism but it is more than that also.


The site is comple lies? what lies would does be.[QUOTE]

The lies that this site propagates is that capitalism and democracy are irrevocably connected. In reality, you could have capitalism without democracy and vice versa.

1 policy and its just a pension reform bill.[QUOTE]

sorry, my link to the article didn&#39;t work but it should be fine now. read it. it is about how lula has begun to lose socialist support and gain that of the upper classes.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 09:56 PM



Peron was a populist
Yes, Peron was a populist, but in the bad sense meaning he told complete lies to the Argentinian people to get elected. You are also forgetting that he was an authoritarian.

As for all this of &#39;social democracy&#39; technically yes, you are right. Technically, it blends the economic systems of capitalism and socialism. However, that being said, it is expected today in every advanced country that you have at least some social programs. Besides which, maybe you haven&#39;t considered the fact that pretty much all of Latin America consider themselves to be capitalist.

Latin America consider themselves capitalist? not me, capitalism, is not: high taxes, minimum wage increases, tariffs, the protection of an industry by not allowing anycompetition, having 7 of the 10 largest companies in latin america are owned by the gov. , all that is not capitalism.

Listen true capitalism has never existed.

[Osman Ghazi]

What is true capitalism then?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 12:06 AM
What is true capitalism then?
:blink: Didnt I give you the definition already?, i gave you links, its not my problem that you dont know what capitalism is, people on this website agree that a true capitalist country has not existed.

[Xuix]

i know this is off topic but, why does your title say fat ugly lesbian?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:15 AM
i know this is off topic but, why does your title say fat ugly lesbian?
dont know, some admin put it there cause i said "Feminist are fat or ugly or lesbians, and/or hates men and modles, all feminist have fit 2 or 3 of those descriptions". So after that statement someone decided to change the comandante to fat ugly lesbian.

[Osman Ghazi]

When I say tell me I mean in your own words

Or do you not have any thoughts of your own?

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 12:24 AM
When I say tell me I mean in your own words

Or do you not have any thoughts of your own?
Okay, here it goes.
true capitalist country, there would be no restrictions,taxes or tariffs on the economy, it would be a true free-market. Schools would be privatized. Goverments role would only be to see that the rights of the individuals are protected (i.e. you wouldnt see gov. trying to make restaurants ban smoking).
There would be no gov. sponsored health care, or welfare. Welfate would come from non-profit organizations that would like to help those having trouble finding jobs... and too much more to write

anyway, all of this could not be achieved in 1 year, it would be a process.

[Osman Ghazi]

What you have just described to me is one of the sickest things I&#39;ve ever heard. I used to respect you.
Do you really think people would give a ing red cent to another person if they didn&#39;t have to?
The world is ed up enough already without your sick, twisted, neoliberal society.

This is Socialism: (ideal, of course)
You aren&#39;t forced to pay for education. (Unlike in your system where only those whose parents had good jobs could afford to have an education)
You aren&#39;t forced to pay for healthcare. (Unlike in your system where if people didn&#39;t have money, they would simply die.)
If you couldn&#39;t find a job, you would have enough to live on. (Unlike in your system where they would simply die.)
How would the government be able to &#39;protect the rights of the individuals&#39; if they didn&#39;t have any money from taxes?
I have news for you: we already tried that system. It was called slavery. The rich did whatever they wanted and the poor worked for them.

I don&#39;t subscribe to the brand of Communism that thinks that everyone should have the same amount of wealth, because the fact is that not all men are created equal. However, i do think that people should have what they need.

Who would protect those with no money from being exploited?

It seems to me that both of us want the same things but with one difference: you want the power to rest in the hands of those who have repeatedly abused it while i think that the power should rest equally in the hands of every human.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:23 AM
:blink: the more you post the more you dont make sense. When did they deny the free-market?
I have to admit I made a mistake. They aren&#39;t denying the "free" market, what they are doing is not talking about it but they start talking about how they defend the "individual rights".


They hide their greed and love for talking away the wealth produced by others? no, they want to be able to keep waht they produce, actually you just just described politicians, they want to get what is produced by others.

Yes they do. After all workers do a big part of the work while the exploiters "are busy". I agree about the politicians thing, however I don&#39;t see any difference because after all, they are financed by the bourgueoisie. Privatizations can be a dangerous thing too because of the damn politicians.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 02:23 PM

Improved technology means less labour needed to produce them, or safer working conditions. If it means less labour, then that means that for a period people may be unemployed, but in the long term, with these moving into other jobs, it would create a more efficiant workforce.

Theoretically, your right. However, without education opportunities people dont &#39;move into other jobs&#39; because there wont be any for someone with no education. They will simply be displaced. El Infiltrado is not against technology per se. However, he is against it when it sweeps people aside so that U&#036; corporations can make more money.

The thing is that capitalism no longer exists individually in seperate countries. It has become global. So while technology is a good thing in the West in that it increases the amount we can produce, in third world countries it simply eliminates jobs. There are no education opportunities and so people are simply replaced by machines.

That&#39;s what it looked like he was trying to say anyway.
EXACTLY&#33;

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:48 PM
To start with you talked about cars, but you have generalised this into technology being bad in all industries under capitalism.
My point is the same anyway.


And it applies to cars anyway. Improved technology means less labour needed to produce them, or safer working conditions. If it means less labour, then that means that for a period people may be unemployed, but in the long term, with these moving into other jobs, it would create a more efficiant workforce

Efficient for WHO? I don&#39;t think people would be too happy if all of a sudden technology changes on every single job and they feel like they can&#39;t have a stable job.


A monopoly on such an easy and cheap product is impossible. But ignoring the example, there is measures to prevent monopolies to emerge, and even if they do, then the wastage that occurs when such a market type is in place would eventually cause its downfall. The post office in the UK being a good example of this.

It&#39;s possible. It only requires a very rich man who buys all the farms and milk companies and creates a huge company that is unchallenged. Nothing would stop that unless a smaller company gets enough money to do good advertisement and provide a good product in the market.


This doesn&#39;t happen that much, supplies being destroyed to raise the price. Usually it involves just reducing production to restrict it, which costs much less. This method, applied by firms such as the crude oil cartel, does not mean that resources are spent on products, then destroyed. It means that less resources are used to start with. And therefore there is not resources that are wasted, labour for example will simply move to other industries, not be stuck with producing goods just for them to be destroyed.
As for distributing goods in general, I disagree. The success of a firm is very much based on its ability to read and meet supply correctly. In communism however, with no mechanism such as the market to find demand from, it would be in fact harder to meet the needs of people. Hence there was often lack of supplies in some things in the old soviet union, while in others a surplus. Sure it may not have been correctly marxist as im sure you would claim, but it was based on communist economics.

I don&#39;t see why communism wouldn&#39;t meet the people&#39;s needs. If it doesn&#39;t then maybe it&#39;s time to go into a more federative economical system such as Anarchism or alternatives like Parecon (although I wouldn&#39;t support such a system for a long time because it seems it would make things very complicated). I prefer to have an almost accurate quanity of needed products than someone producing tons of something and suddenly nobody can buy those things so they become a waste of resources and the comapny has to cut their expenses to compensate the financial losses. And it&#39;s known that they will cut their human resources...


Whether a firm cares that it is benefiting society or not makes no different to whether it is or not.

I was talking about the whole system.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 12:45 AM
Schools would be privatized.
That&#39;s insane. Have you ever studied on one of those? They make you go with old-fashioned uniforms, they are very authoritarian (and they have to be because when most of those kids see some freedom, they will use it) and they won&#39;t fix anything because of their incredible love for getting money. The kids there are so arrogant, greedy and fascists and their parents are rich idiots. The education level is nothing special but still they are very expensive. The don&#39;t pay much to the teachers (but the teachers who are sons/daughters of owners have a new car every damn month). Those schools are the most clear proof of what capitalism is like and capitalists are like. I don&#39;t think that would change with "true" or "ideal" capitalism. There is where kids will be indoctrinated to follow this insane, egoist, greedy and imperialist system.

I agree with Osman Ghazi about the rest

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 01:08 AM
What you have just described to me is one of the sickest things I&#39;ve ever heard. I used to respect you.
Do you really think people would give a ing red cent to another person if they didn&#39;t have to?
The world is ed up enough already without your sick, twisted, neoliberal society.

This is Socialism: (ideal, of course)
You aren&#39;t forced to pay for education. (Unlike in your system where only those whose parents had good jobs could afford to have an education)
You aren&#39;t forced to pay for healthcare. (Unlike in your system where if people didn&#39;t have money, they would simply die.)
If you couldn&#39;t find a job, you would have enough to live on. (Unlike in your system where they would simply die.)
How would the government be able to &#39;protect the rights of the individuals&#39; if they didn&#39;t have any money from taxes?
I don&#39;t subscribe to the brand of Communism that thinks that everyone should have the same amount of wealth, because the fact is that not all men are created equal. However, i do think that people should have what they need.

It seems to me that both of us want the same things but with one difference: you want the power to rest in the hands of those who have repeatedly abused it while i think that the power should rest equally in the hands of every human.
What I described cannot be achieved in latin america(or almost anywhere else) immidetly, it would take many many years.
But you start by cutting taxes and tarifs, by privatizing the social security (which has had great suces in chile, where 90% of the people decide to put there social security with private companies and only 10% with gov.)
How great is socialism:
Your kid is forced to go to the crappy school the gov. wants to send him, you have no option to decide where he goes, The gov. controls what he learns, and they can brainwashhim all they want. Great system
AND IF YOU DONT HAVE A KID, tough luck you still have to pay for the education of another persons kid.

Then health care, instead of letting many companies compete to make better and cheaper vaccines and medicines (only 2 vaccine makers and like 5 drug makers in the USA, because the program has controlled prices, and even with that it sucks) you get the gov. with its unreliable health care system where medicine is still expensive.

Finding a job wouldnt be that hard, because of the creation of jobs in a free market would be alot, but still, in any system you will have unemployment. Of course in socialism youd be better of getting a welfare check then working, because in some countries welfare check actually pay better than jobs. Instead of encouraging a person to get a job and be productive you only worsen his situation because he realizes how great it is not to work and get money.
Look at how many unemployed people there are in the USA? i dont see them dying of starvation, and i know not all of them use welfare.


I have news for you: we already tried that system. It was called slavery. The rich did whatever they wanted and the poor worked for them.
Slavery, socialism is slavery, you work for everyone else.
Talking about slavery, every civilization or society had slaves (had). Im not saying it was good but dont make it sound as if only white people had slaves, in fact black people had slaves also.


Who would protect those with no money from being exploited?
Of course a very little percent of the population has no money, and if you have no money you look for a job. Its that simple. You think people in latin america are exploited? no they most of the time get paid above average (the average for there country) or average. So youre misinformed with that.

Infiltrado:

Yes they do. After all workers do a big part of the work while the exploiters "are busy". I agree about the politicians thing, however I don&#39;t see any difference because after all, they are financed by the bourgueoisie. Privatizations can be a dangerous thing too because of the damn politicians.
yes youre right, ALL WORKERS DO A BIG PART, the ceo, the mangers, the janitors, the secretaries they all help a company.
POliticians financed by the bourgueoise? partly true if your talking about the lobbying, but they are actually financed by everyone who is forced to pay taxes.



Schools would be privatized.

That&#39;s insane. Have you ever studied on one of those? They make you go with old-fashioned uniforms, they are very authoritarian (and they have to be because when most of those kids see some freedom, they will use it) and they won&#39;t fix anything because of their incredible love for getting money. The kids there are so arrogant, greedy and fascists and their parents are rich idiots. The education level is nothing special but still they are very expensive. The don&#39;t pay much to the teachers (but the teachers who are sons/daughters of owners have a new car every damn month). Those schools are the most clear proof of what capitalism is like and capitalists are like. I don&#39;t think that would change with "true" or "ideal" capitalism. There is where kids will be indoctrinated to follow this insane, egoist, greedy and imperialist system.
HMMM, your confusing religious schools and private schools. INFACT YOUR POST IS RETARDED. Yes i studied in a privated school. No very few make you wear old fashioned uniforms, besides what would be wrong with uniforms?, authoritarian? , its suppose to be to some extent, its a school, you learn and respect the teacher. The education level is nothing special and they are expensive? education level depends on the school, expensive not the one i went to.
Dont pay much to the teachers? wrong. they pay better in private schools, I know about this my mom was a teacher for 18 years, whe got paid better when she worked in a private school.

IF THE SCHOOL WANTS TO INDOCTRINATE YOU, you can go to another school.

So you support the gov. schools that idoctrinate you, give you a crappy education, the student does not respect the teacher... ?

And where the hell did you get your info on the private schools? maybe you went to a religious private shcool, there is a difference between a religious and non religious school.

[Osman Ghazi]

You don&#39;t seem to understand that we tried this already in the 1850&#39;s. There were no laws liniting the amount of hours you had top work. If you didn&#39;t work 2 8-hour shifts a day, you would get fired. The working conditions were incredibly poor but that didn&#39;t matter because if you complained, you would get fired. If you tried to organize, so that you could get better wages, you would be fired. The capitalist pigs only care about money and this is before the days of widespread corporations. The thing with a corporation is that if you simply own part of the company, you don&#39;t feel like you are directly responsible for the human misery you cause.


Your kid is forced to go to the crappy school the gov. wants to send him, you have no option to decide where he goes, The gov. controls what he learns, and they can brainwashhim all they want. Great system
AND IF YOU DONT HAVE A KID, tough luck you still have to pay for the education of another persons kid.

I think that this is quite possibly one of the dumbest things you&#39;ve ever said. Actually, the school that I go to is not crappy at all. Why would you want to send your kid to another school? Why are private schools mystically unable to brainwash your kid while public schools can? At least your kid gets an education. So what if you have to pay for someone else&#39;s kids. The responsibility of raising and educating children belongs to society, not to an individual. By denying education to people, you only weaken your society as a whole.


Then health care, instead of letting many companies compete to make better and cheaper vaccines and medicines (only 2 vaccine makers and like 5 drug makers in the USA, because the program has controlled prices, and even with that it sucks) you get the gov. with its unreliable health care system where medicine is still expensive.

Actually, in Canada, where I live, you don&#39;t have to pay a single cent to go to the hospital. You don&#39;t have to pay for most medicines either. The problem with drug companies in the U&#036; is that once they put all the R&D into making a new vaccine, they have a monopoly on selling the vaccine So they can sell the vaccine for whatever price they want and if you don&#39;t like it, you can just go curl up in a corner and die. This has already been proven by U&#036; drug companies willingness to force Africans to pay &#036;15000 for AIDS anti-retroviral drugs when they can be manufactured for &#036;350. Do they give a rat&#39;s ass whether or not millions of &#39;darkies&#39; are dying from AIDS? Hell no&#33;


Finding a job wouldnt be that hard, because of the creation of jobs in a free market would be alot, but still, in any system you will have unemployment. Of course in socialism youd be better of getting a welfare check then working, because in some countries welfare check actually pay better than jobs. Instead of encouraging a person to get a job and be productive you only worsen his situation because he realizes how great it is not to work and get money.[QUOTE]

No country has ever given more than you could earn with minimum wage in the history of the world. In the U&#036;, you get about &#036;150 a month. Although I&#39;m not quite sure about that. Does someone have actual statistics?

Look at how many unemployed people there are in the USA? i dont see them dying of starvation, and i know not all of them use welfare.


Your completely right. And hey 150 million Africans survive on less than &#036;1 a day. And they&#39;re not doing so bad. I think everyone should be paid &#036;1 a day and the rest should go to the rich. That logic seems to make sense to you.

Slavery, socialism is slavery, you work for everyone else.


I would rather have every man and woman enslaved to humanity than to the rich.

Of course a very little percent of the population has no money, and if you have no money you look for a job. Its that simple. You think people in latin america are exploited? no they most of the time get paid above average (the average for there country) or average. So youre misinformed with that.[QUOTE]

Clearly, you are a huge dipshit who came from the suburbs. The fact that you were able to study in a nice private shcool while your countrymen had to drop out to feed their families must make you feel very proud. You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course they get paid more than the average, because no one has jobs. High unemployment sort of changes the avergaes a little. In Haiti, 70% of the population is unemployed. Where do their loads of cash come from? How do you expect them to get into a nice little private school. Maybe you should stop and look back and realize that not everyone in your country was as lucky as you. More or less they live under the system that you described.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 02:05 PM
You don&#39;t seem to understand that we tried this already in the 1850&#39;s. There were no laws liniting the amount of hours you had top work. If you didn&#39;t work 2 8-hour shifts a day, you would get fired. The working conditions were incredibly poor but that didn&#39;t matter because if you complained, you would get fired. If you tried to organize, so that you could get better wages, you would be fired. The capitalist pigs only care about money and this is before the days of widespread corporations. The thing with a corporation is that if you simply own part of the company, you don&#39;t feel like you are directly responsible for the human misery you cause.












It didnt work? the industrial revolution didnt better the live of everyone? was working in factories hard, yes but working as a farmer was also alot harder. Dont compare today to the 1850&#39;s, people where used to working more hours, wehter in a factory or in a farm. The industrial revolution was a great period that benefited all humans.
And some wages (ford paid almost 2 times as much as other car makers did) where low because the demand for the job was higher than the jobs available, but still if it was that bad, why didnt people leave back to their countries or become farmers?
Do you think corporations own everything, there is middle class that owns small bussiness, i dont know if you have realized that.
Capitalist pigs only care about money? everyone wants more money, why do you think people try to find better jobs? to get more money.


I think that this is quite possibly one of the dumbest things you&#39;ve ever said. Actually, the school that I go to is not crappy at all. Why would you want to send your kid to another school? Why are private schools mystically unable to brainwash your kid while public schools can? At least your kid gets an education. So what if you have to pay for someone else&#39;s kids. The responsibility of raising and educating children belongs to society, not to an individual. By denying education to people, you only weaken your society as a whole.
Well schools in the USA are crappy, the public schools, the students rank low when tested with children from around the world. Its incredible you support education that is controlled by the gov. , the gov. decides what you learn, what books you read, what a great system, and the gov. sends you to the school they want to send you.Ive seen that youve been brainwashed already, you have so much believe in your gov. You trust gov. more than you do yourself , that is sad, why should you be depending on the gov. to do everything for you Of course a private school can brainwash you, but if you dont like the school or your parents dont like the school, you can easliy change to another school.
Society does have a responsability to educate kids, not the goverment. That is why you have many non-gov. sponsored scholarships, that is society helping students.



Actually, in Canada, where I live, you don&#39;t have to pay a single cent to go to the hospital. You don&#39;t have to pay for most medicines either. The problem with drug companies in the U&#036; is that once they put all the R&D into making a new vaccine, they have a monopoly on selling the vaccine So they can sell the vaccine for whatever price they want and if you don&#39;t like it, you can just go curl up in a corner and die. This has already been proven by U&#036; drug companies willingness to force Africans to pay &#036;15000 for AIDS anti-retroviral drugs when they can be manufactured for &#036;350. Do they give a rat&#39;s ass whether or not millions of &#39;darkies&#39; are dying from AIDS? Hell no&#33;

No, OMG, please get informed. the problem with drug companies in the USA is they have a gov. sponsored monopoly, the gov. monopolized the industry. There are only 2 vaccine makers and there prices are set by the gov. or they have a limit on the price, then there are like 5 drug makers and the gov. is the major buyer of all the drugs made and they buy it at a certain price. They subsidize it and allow practically no competition.
If the gov. would allow a free-market for vaccine and drug making, you would have companies competing to get better and cheaper drug and vaccines. Its common sense, you try to have a cheaper and better product so you can sell more than your competitor."AND GOD SAID, LET THERE BE LIGHT" :lol: :lol: :lol:



Look at how many unemployed people there are in the USA? i dont see them dying of starvation, and i know not all of them use welfare.


Your completely right. And hey 150 million Africans survive on less than &#036;1 a day. And they&#39;re not doing so bad. I think everyone should be paid &#036;1 a day and the rest should go to the rich. That logic seems to make sense to you.
HMM. Your where making it seem like if everyone unemployed starves to death. Listen when you start working its always good to have money saved for when you might needed it, many people dont do that, you also make it sound like the same poor of today are the poor of yesterday, that is not true. Its not like the poor are always poor.


Slavery, socialism is slavery, you work for everyone else.


I would rather have every man and woman enslaved to humanity than to the rich.
So your in favor of slavery :o . I would rather see a man work for whoever he wants to work than be a slave to gov.



Of course a very little percent of the population has no money, and if you have no money you look for a job. Its that simple. You think people in latin america are exploited? no they most of the time get paid above average (the average for there country) or average. So youre misinformed with that.


Clearly, you are a huge dipshit who came from the suburbs. The fact that you were able to study in a nice private shcool while your countrymen had to drop out to feed their families must make you feel very proud. You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course they get paid more than the average, because no one has jobs. High unemployment sort of changes the avergaes a little. In Haiti, 70% of the population is unemployed. Where do their loads of cash come from? How do you expect them to get into a nice little private school. Maybe you should stop and look back and realize that not everyone in your country was as lucky as you. More or less they live under the system that you described.
I was talking about the latin americans that work for international companies, they get paid more thatn the average.
CLEARLY youre a white rich rascist moron that has never set foot in latin america and does not know shit about latin america, and has never seen true poverty.
Haiti is exploited? no, its such a shitty country (because of there fault) that no one or very few invest there.

HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE UNEMPLOYMENT IN HAITI, what would you do to provide jobs?

NOT ALL PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE expensive moron, WTF, have you ever been to latin america, Not all private schools are expensive.
Have you ever seen a public school in latin america? sadly they are a total piece of shit, because the gov. sucks and steals alot of money that could go to helping the schools.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 07:23 AM
Your kid is forced to go to the crappy school the gov. wants to send him, you have no option to decide where he goes, The gov. controls what he learns, and they can brainwashhim all they want. Great system
That&#39;s funny because with your capitalism they will be brainwashed by CAPITALISTS that will indoctrinate them to defend private property and other ways of robbery, and teach them to work "efficiently" in the future.


Slavery, socialism is slavery, you work for everyone else.

Sorry to keep replying what you are discussing with someone else but in capitalism YOU ARE ALSO WORKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE&#33;&#33;&#33; And there aren&#39;t laws to limit how much they can exploit you&#33;


yes youre right, ALL WORKERS DO A BIG PART, the ceo, the mangers, the janitors, the secretaries they all help a company.

And then why some get paid much more than others and treat them like lazy bastards to make them be at their best level so that they can take more money from them???


POliticians financed by the bourgueoise? partly true if your talking about the lobbying, but they are actually financed by everyone who is forced to pay taxes.

So? Who puts them there? Who pays all the propaganda that makes people believe there are 2 or 3 candidates and they have to vote for the one who looks more honest or closer to their interests?


HMMM, your confusing religious schools and private schools.

No I&#39;m not, I&#39;m talking about private schools where no religions are taught (although they usually promote christianism but it&#39;s not like in the religious schools)


INFACT YOUR POST IS RETARDED.

Who the fuck do you think you are? You go around laughing at every post someone who doesnt think like you do does. Is it part of your egoist, selfish, reactionary ideology? Or is it just you? I don&#39;t want to imagine if the world would be completely made up by people with that attitude.


Yes i studied in a privated school. No very few make you wear old fashioned uniforms, besides what would be wrong with uniforms?, authoritarian? , its suppose to be to some extent, its a school, you learn and respect the teacher.

Around here 100% of the private schools make you use uniforms. And I&#39;m not kidding. I haven&#39;t ever seen a private school where you can go dressed as you want.


The education level is nothing special and they are expensive? education level depends on the school, expensive not the one i went to.

Yes. However some of the cheapest seem to be considered the best.


Dont pay much to the teachers? wrong. they pay better in private schools, I know about this my mom was a teacher for 18 years, whe got paid better when she worked in a private school.

Still teachers aren&#39;t considered so important by people like you. You love businessmen. Education isn&#39;t your more supported "business".


IF THE SCHOOL WANTS TO INDOCTRINATE YOU, you can go to another school.

They are all simmilar.


So you support the gov. schools that idoctrinate you, give you a crappy education, the student does not respect the teacher... ?

We need a new education system where teachers give freedom of thought and they encourage the students to be creative and not being exploited.


And where the hell did you get your info on the private schools? maybe you went to a religious private shcool, there is a difference between a religious and non religious school.

I went to a non-religion private school.

[Osman Ghazi]

It didnt work? the industrial revolution didnt better the live of everyone? was working in factories hard, yes but working as a farmer was also alot harder. Dont compare today to the 1850&#39;s, people where used to working more hours, wehter in a factory or in a farm. The industrial revolution was a great period that benefited all humans.


Firstly, the Industrial Revolution was in the 1780&#39;s. Actually, no it didn&#39;t benefit the lives of everyone. It benefited the lives of rich Westerners immensely, i&#39;ll give you that. And to an extent, poor Westerners got to have better stuff, but I have a bit of a newsflash for you: there is more than just the West. And their economic situation got worse.


And some wages (ford paid almost 2 times as much as other car makers did) where low because the demand for the job was higher than the jobs available, but still if it was that bad, why didnt people leave back to their countries or become farmers?

You idiot, people didn&#39;t go back to their country because it costs money to go half way around the world. They didn&#39;t start to farm because it isn&#39;t an innate skill that every human knows from birth. You have to learn how to farm. And they would also have to own land.


Well schools in the USA are crappy, the public schools, the students rank low when tested with children from around the world. Its incredible you support education that is controlled by the gov. , the gov. decides what you learn, what books you read, what a great system, and the gov. sends you to the school they want to send you.Ive seen that youve been brainwashed already, you have so much believe in your gov. You trust gov. more than you do yourself , that is sad, why should you be depending on the gov. to do everything for you Of course a private school can brainwash you, but if you dont like the school or your parents dont like the school, you can easliy change to another school.

You know, the government isn&#39;t necesarilly evil. I don&#39;t like my gov. but i have the intelligence to see that it is a hell of a lot better than the American one. Who should i depend on? The rich capitalist pigs? What about the money youve already spent on tuition. No refunds. Besides that, what&#39;s to stop any comany from buying up all the schools in town. Then they would control everything I learned. I trust the gov. a hell of a lot more than i trust a corp.


I was talking about the latin americans that work for international companies, they get paid more thatn the average.
CLEARLY youre a white rich rascist moron that has never set foot in latin america and does not know shit about latin america, and has never seen true poverty.


No they don&#39;t. All the companies are interested in is getting the most money they can. They use Latin America as a source of cheap labour. Of course, they can afford to pay a bit more than LatinAmeriocan companies. Secondly, Im so fucking sick of you acting like you know evcerything about Latin America. How many countries there have you been to? Growing up in a rich white barrio in Guatemala City hardly makes you a fucking expert. Also, I&#39;ve been to the Dominican Republic, i have seen the poverty there. Another thing: Hispanics aren&#39;t a race. Filipinos are Asian Hispanics. Dominicans are black Hispanics. Mexicans are mestizo Hispanics. And of course there are white Hispanics. So how am I a rascist?

A question: Why do you hat &#39;the gov.&#39; so much? There is such a thing as a responsible gov.