A question for the capitalists

[The Sloth]

Under capitalism, of course, there are classes of people that are going to be oppressed simply because it's what makes the system work. Racism is a by-product of this only because "race" is used as an easy distinction between people, and if this "race of people" are a minority, by playing on insecurities and xenophobic tendencies, America was able to exploit this entire group, and of course the after-effects remain to this day (unless, of course, you're a capitalist that believes since schools were integrated and blacks were given the right to vote, all of a sudden you have equality and whites have a desire to move into the slums of Harlem...haaa!). Now, the second you have equality among the races (of course, under capitalism it will not happen, but I'm just saying this for the sake of argument), it means that you will no longer have warfare between the races, no longer have all of these insecurities, no longer will have whites that believe "blacks are the enemy" for reasons of labor competition, myths regarding sexual competition, cultural competition, etc. Once this unity is reached, I assume the One People of America (and the entire world, for that matter) will be able to identify the oppressor more clearly --- not the white, or the black, or the Jewish store owner in Harlem, but the capitalist! And this is a big no-no for the capitalist class, isn't it?

None of that has to do with my question, however! I was merely using it as background for understanding my question, which is about the Third World and indirectly about race. Also, the above information is there to make a case against racial equality under capitalism, you know, how it simply cannot work.

Anyway, my question is...

Can any capitalist on this board please draw up a blueprint which serves as a method for the elimination of a Third World (an entire group/nation/culture of people that is systematically oppressed for the profit of another)? The catch is, however, is that it cannot adopt socialist reforms - the elimination of the Third World must operate within the framework of capitalism. And, of course, also please ensure that when the Third World is eliminated, there will not be mini-Third Worlds popping up all over the place.

[Loknar]

You cant eliminate poverty with out some form of socialism.

In any event, let the country work it self out, I don’t see why America is responsible for those nations.

[RedRevolution]

As being the sole super power and one of the riches countries in the world That task falls upon you.
Some major of the problems of the world are to be blamed upon the US anyways.

[Nyder]

The only way to eliminate poverty in the third world is to get rid of the socialist despots and dictators who have ravaged the country for over half a century and actually let the people start producing wealth. Capitalism is the freedom to make economic transactions. That doesn't exist in the third world nearly as much as rich countries as the US, Britain and Australia.

[RedRevolution]

There is a lot less poverty in Cuba, a socialst-state, than there is in the US, a capitalist nation. Capitalism only works if there are poor people to work (e.g sweatshops in the Philippines and workers in the US)

[The Sloth]

The only way to eliminate poverty in the third world is to get rid of the socialist despots and dictators who have ravaged the country for over half a century and actually let the people start producing wealth. Capitalism is the freedom to make economic transactions. That doesn't exist in the third world nearly as much as rich countries as the US, Britain and Australia.


You mean the socialist, fascist, and capitalist despots that have been supported and put in power by American capitalists themselves?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan


Of course, if the capitalist class business owners wouldn't have profited somehow from these dictators, they would have never been in power. That is why American government has always opposed communist dictators, but not necessarily fascist or even socialist despots such as Saddam Hussein or Papa Doc Duvalier. It has always been a trend in American foreign policy: "we'll back your government 100% as long as you are not a communist; you can be a ruthless killer, but if you are not a communist, we will help you stay in power."

:lol:

[__ca va?]

A main difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism makes economic reforms while socialism makes social reforms. Either of them exists without the other. The last century proves this: communism collapsed because of the lack of economic reforms and capitalism survived because it made some social reforms. So in my opinion eliminating a Third World only with capitalistic steps is impossible. :blink:

[Y2A]

*spits on himself for being a dirty spic*

[The Sloth]

So.....not a single response that draws up a blueprint on how to eliminate the Third World within the framework of capitalism?

Hmmm...

I'm beginning to think that the capitalists believe a Third World is necessary, so it is unimportant to get them out of poverty.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:37 AM
There is a lot less poverty in Cuba, a socialst-state, than there is in the US, a capitalist nation. Capitalism only works if there are poor people to work (e.g sweatshops in the Philippines and workers in the US)
Thats a good one. Tell us another funny.
I would rather be poor in the US than Cuba any day.

[elijahcraig]

I would rather be poor in the US than Cuba any day.

Even Sunday?

Why?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 22 2004, 02:24 PM
So.....not a single response that draws up a blueprint on how to eliminate the Third World within the framework of capitalism?

Hmmm...

I'm beginning to think that the capitalists believe a Third World is necessary, so it is unimportant to get them out of poverty.
Hey, I answered you, you cant eliminate poverty with capitalism alone. I know that capitalism isn’t perfect, I don’t like the basis of capitalism due to what big business have done over the years. But like it or not it works in my life and most peoples lives.


About the US supporting this dictators.....


What's t he big deal? the Soviet Union also supported dictators, it was the cold war. And the SU supported Hitler way more than the US did.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:05 AM
The only way to eliminate poverty in the third world is to get rid of the socialist despots and dictators who have ravaged the country for over half a century and actually let the people start producing wealth. Capitalism is the freedom to make economic transactions. That doesn't exist in the third world nearly as much as rich countries as the US, Britain and Australia.
Yes, then everyone can be a bourgeois, we wont need any of those proletarians, we all know they're poor becuase they don't contribute anything to society.

[synthesis]

And the SU supported Hitler way more than the US did.

That depends how you look at it. Through the actions of the government, yes, the Soviet Union told the German Communist party to ally with the Nazis against the centrists because he thought that the Nazi party would be easier to overthrow.

I don't know if the American government supported Hitler at any time, but the support that the Nazi regime received from American industrialists was incredible.

You can read about it here. (http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html)

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:32 PM
I don't know if the American government supported Hitler at any time, but the support that the Nazi regime received from American industrialists was incredible.

You can read about it here. (http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html)
Economic support is indeed what I am talking about. The SU delivered tons of rubber to t he Nazi regime even on the day before the Nazi invasion of Russia began. Germany was a business interest to American companies, Russia was friends to Germany because t he west told Russia they didn’t want friendship with the SU. I don’t blame the US or Russia for supporting Hitler, the concentration camps weren’t known about until after the war started.

[The Sloth]

Economic support is indeed what I am talking about. The SU delivered tons of rubber to t he Nazi regime even on the day before the Nazi invasion of Russia began. Germany was a business interest to American companies, Russia was friends to Germany because t he west told Russia they didn’t want friendship with the SU. I don’t blame the US or Russia for supporting Hitler, the concentration camps weren’t known about until after the war started.



Oh fucking really?

The whole basis of my argument regarding the U.S. support to murderous dictators is the fact that we in America are constantly reminded of our "humanity" and "superior culture" and "devotion to democracy" and other rhetorical non-sense.

The USSR, on the other hand, are mostly connected with evil, human rights violations, and tyranny.

So, by pointing out the many dictators we have supported over the years, I am trying to dispell the myth of our "superior humanity" and our "devotion to democracy" because, in the end, we are devoted to "democracy" whenever it benefits us and we are just as devoted to tyranny whenever it benefits us just as well. The whole thing about being the "greatest democratic nation on earth" is really a cloak for whatever we choose to do behind the scenes......and the second someone criticizes us, we are able to instead point to their own faults and remind them that we are the greatest democratic state there could ever be and anyone that disagrees is a lousy, anti-American piece of shit terrorist.

The USSR, however, cannot make such claims about itself. And since few would doubt that it wasn't exactly a haven for freedom-lovers, it makes no sense to point to their support of dictatorships considering it was a dictatorship itself.

So, unless you're willing to agree that the United States and its cappie imperialist friends have done so much worse than the USSR and its evil scumbag "communist" allies, please don't try to ever connect the two again.

[NYC4Ever]

OMG, all of these chief arguments about the US supporting this and creating problems world wide is so awful. Look, The US gets into some heavy shit, what would you expect from people in charge? You guys are all about altruism, its pathetic sometimes.
The problems in the US were because of political struggles at the time. The Cold War played a huge effect on the Third World and I admit that it didn't benefit anyone and all of humanity. Most of the problems we have today are a direct result of the Cold War and we are trying to rid the world of that. But we would never scrap our style of government now for some failed experiment like Communism. Oh wait, I forgot Communism has never really been implemented, right? ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

OMG, all of these chief arguments about the US supporting this and creating problems world wide is so awful. Look, The US gets into some heavy shit, what would you expect from people in charge? You guys are all about altruism, its pathetic sometimes.

What's wrong with altruism?


Oh wait, I forgot Communism has never really been implemented, right? ;)

Neither was capitalism in AD 1500. What is your point?

[NYC4Ever]

What's wrong with altruism?

Because it's all about egoism.


Neither was capitalism in AD 1500. What is your point?

My point is why do you guys get to say that China, USSR, N.K. and Cuba aren't really Communist, while every single other nation with the exception of the US is capitalism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it's all about egoism.

Just because it feels good to help others does not make it egoism.


My point is why do you guys get to say that China, USSR, N.K. and Cuba aren't really Communist, while every single other nation with the exception of the US is capitalism?

Because 'communist nation' is an oxymoron.

[NYC4Ever]

Just because it feels good to help others does not make it egoism.

I think that theres a difference in what 'feels' good and what is right.



Because 'communist nation' is an oxymoron.
Oh right. How could I forget that every single time when the government has to give the state back to the people it never does! It just develops into this totalitarian regime where the leaders are exalted into cult status. Communism in reality (thats an oxymoron) is really stateless. Silly me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that theres a difference in what 'feels' good and what is right.

Are you saying altruism isn't right? A lot of people use the phrase 'it's for their own good' to justify inflicting pain on others.


Oh right. How could I forget that every single time when the government has to give the state back to the people it never does!

That's because of Leninism. Anarcho-Communism will not have this problem because it will not set up a "workers' state"


It just develops into this totalitarian regime where the leaders are exalted into cult status.

And that is why Leninism-trotskyism-stalinism-maoism fails.


Communism in reality (thats an oxymoron)

No need for that attitude.

[NYC4Ever]

Or should I say Marxist inspired nations? Would that fit better into your little anaology about the totalitarian regimes that have caused millions to die?


Are you saying altruism isn't right? A lot of people use the phrase 'it's for their own good' to justify inflicting pain on others.

I dont want to get into an egoism vs. altruism debate. Admiration, friendship, love, good-will, charity, generosity: these are wonderful values that a selfishness person would want as part of his life. But these values do not require true sacrifice, and thus are not altruistic in the deepest sense of the word.
Altruism is incompatible with individualism. A demand of sacrifice, which many are not willing to do, is the cause for such distaste among Communism and Socialism which forces this.
So it's either to the re-education camps ya go, or the Gulags.


That's because of Leninism. Anarcho-Communism will not have this problem because it will not set up a "workers' state"
Anarcho- Communism? Are you sure that's not an oxymoron?


And that is why Leninism-trotskyism-stalinism-maoism fails.
No thats why Commusim/Marxism fails because it turns into these failed "isms" listed above.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Odd definition of selfishness you have there. As for individualism vs collectivism, I recommend you look at this: The Myth of "Individualism vs. Collectivism" (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083239145&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Anarcho- Communism? Are you sure that's not an oxymoron?

No contradiction. Call it 'Marxism without the crap!' :P

[NYC4Ever]

Odd definition of selfishness you have there. As for individualism vs collectivism, I recommend you look at this: The Myth of "Individualism vs. Collectivism"

Odd definition no. I believe all humans are inherently selfish. After even reading this, I feel as if it is absurd to think that any Marxist/Socialist ideals benefit the individual.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Can you prove that humans are inherently selfish?

[NYC4Ever]

Can you prove that humans are inherently selfish?
The question that commies get an orgasm debating. Can you prove that we're not?

I think that we have two different definitions of altrusim. The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity, and helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it demands sacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is not acting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple charity. Altruism is the grocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own college education so that others may go. Parents who spend a fortune to save their dying child are helping another person, but true altruism would demand that the parents spend their money to save ten other children, sacrificing their own child so that others may live.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The question that commies get an orgasm debating. Can you prove that we're not?

You are making a positive assertion. the burden of proof is on YOU! :angry:


I think that we have two different definitions of altrusim. The first confusion is to confound altruism with kindness, generosity, and helping other people. Altruism demands more than kindness: it demands sacrifice. The billionaire who contributes $50,000 to a scholarship fund is not acting altruistically; altruism goes beyond simple charity. Altruism is the grocery bagger who contributes $50,000 to the fund, foregoing his own college education so that others may go. Parents who spend a fortune to save their dying child are helping another person, but true altruism would demand that the parents spend their money to save ten other children, sacrificing their own child so that others may live.

You are confusing altruism with self-sacrifice.

[NYC4Ever]

You are confusing altruism with self-sacrifice

Well I believe that Marxist theory implemented is a self-sacrifice. No?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Can't see how that is so. What makes you think that?
Marxism requires more altruism than capitalism requires of you, true. This is because you are not working and producing to get paid so can pay your rent and not get kicked out, but you are working and producing to benefit your community.

[The Sloth]

OMG, all of these chief arguments about the US supporting this and creating problems world wide is so awful. Look, The US gets into some heavy shit, what would you expect from people in charge? You guys are all about altruism, its pathetic sometimes. The problems in the US were because of political struggles at the time.


Huh?!

I expected about as much, however, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Where do I start? I'll begin with the U.S. getting into "a lot of shit." Of course I agree with this. I also understand that since the United States is powerful it has a duty to get involved!

However, what has the United States been doing? For every action of "good", it seems as if it committed ten abominable acts globally. What's worse is that these atrocities are committed against not these highly developed nations such as Britain and France (although O' Reilly served as the one-man vanguard party in attempting to implement a boycott because to stop nations that had the AUDACITY to criticize America!)

Now, unless you can somehow turn the action of supporting Pol Pot or Hitler or overthrowing democratically elected presidents such as Jean-Bertrand Aristide into something positive, I'll have to get like Bill O' Reilly and order you to SHUT UP!

Are the things I mentioned positive or negative involvement?

Most of the problems we have today are a direct result of the Cold War and we are trying to rid the world of that.

Hmmm...

According to the chief Middle Eastern terrorist, Osama bin Laden, terrorism is a reaction to Western oppression and the killing of Palestinians.

Places in Asia such as India are poor due to past imperialism. Africa is poor due to imperialism. Crime is a direct effect of poverty, backwardness and hopelessness.

And how can you connect all of that to the Cold War? True, problems do exist as a result of the Cold War, but I think you're just trying to get a shot at communism without actually taking time to analyze.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 03:48 PM

Well I believe that Marxist theory implemented is a self-sacrifice. No?
Perhaps, but it ensures that the recipient of one's sacrifice will, in turn, grant him the efforts of collective society.

Capitalism, as a whole, is based on self-sacrifice - the sacrifice of the worker for the benefit of the bourgeois. The worker tries to make ends meet with minimum wage while the bourgeois buys jet planes and small islands with the wealth that he has accrued from the labor of the worker. This is the origin of the concept of alienation of labor.

Thus, communism is not true self-sacrifice - one knows that his or her own labor (minimal, considering the continued mechanization and automation of manual labor) contributes to a massive pool from which he can draw to support himself. The self-sacrifice of capitalism ensures no such thing.

[The Sloth]

I find it interesting that the capitalists have decided to stray away from my question into less dangerous territory, you know, something they feel more comfortable with: communist-bashing.

Of course, answering my question would reveal one of two things:

1) Either the capitalist is totally heartless and does not believe the Third World should rise up from poverty, or

2) The capitalist traps himself in a state of illogic because it is impossible to eliminate the Third World within the framework of capitalism

In case anyone forgot my question/request, here we go:

Offer us a blueprint on how to raise the Third World out of poverty and make those nations more or less equal, within the context of capitalism, without adopting socialist reforms, and in a way that would ensure there would be no mini-Third Worlds popping up all over the place in the future.

[NYC4Ever]

1) Either the capitalist is totally heartless and does not believe the Third World should rise up from poverty,
or

I really do not care what happens in those countries. Most of them do not practice free enterprise anyways. I believe that if a country does not let their people prosper and supress he creation of wealth then a revolution is more than justified. But, in the end it leads to bloodshed, and the US has it's right to protect it's interests. That is what you find heartless.


2) The capitalist traps himself in a state of illogic because it is impossible to eliminate the Third World within
the framework of capitalism

The illogical? I never stated that the framework of capitalism was going to save third world countries. I dont believe in the magic utopia you guys surround yourselves around. But I know that Communism wouldn't be any better. But I do have to ask, even though Pinochet was a murderous tyrant ( and I know the US planted him there) aren't they now one of the richest Latin American countries? Now, don't act like you're all about it because My family is Chilean and they were there when the whole thing happened.





Offer us a blueprint on how to raise the Third World out of poverty and make those nations more or less
equal, within the context of capitalism, without adopting socialist reforms, and in a way that would ensure
there would be no mini-Third Worlds popping up all over the place in the future.

The best way is to go Chicago Boys style.

[The Sloth]

I really do not care what happens in those countries. Most of them do not practice free enterprise anyways. I believe that if a country does not let their people prosper and supress he creation of wealth then a revolution is more than justified.


Free-enterprise? Wealth, eh?

Interesting...America has the highest GDP value by far, making us the richest country. Unfortunately, for some odd reason *ahem*cappie-parasites*ahem* we have extremely high crime, poverty, a lack of adequate healthcare, starvation, and a collectively sick mentality.

Now, is that an example of a government "letting their people prosper"? Because the nation prospers, OH YES, but unfortunately seeks to return as little as possible back to non-elite communities.

Free-enterprise is not a prequisite for the accumulation of wealth, which you misguidedly believe. Can you please prove to me how socialism itself remains the responsible factor that ruins a nation? Simply because it is the adopted economic system, I hope you're taking into a wealth of other factors that are, in the end, the real determination of a nation's successes or failures...these factors are foreign intervention, political divisions, pre-socialist domestic conditions, stability, etc.

By the way, since your user name hints that you are from New York City (and so am I), don't you just hate walking down black and hispanic neighborhoods only to see run-down buildings and desperation in the streets, in this wealthiest of wealthy capitalist utopias?

I dont believe in the magic utopia you guys surround yourselves around.

What "magic utopia"? It's obvious that you haven't really analyzed socialism without resorting to emotional reactions over rationale.

But I do have to ask, even though Pinochet was a murderous tyrant ( and I know the US planted him there) aren't they now one of the richest Latin American countries? Now, don't act like you're all about it because My family is Chilean and they were there when the whole thing happened.

You don't have to be a muderous tyrant in order to secure a good future for your people. By your logic, you would also have to support Stalin and Hitler. If it weren't for Stalin, Russia might have looked like any post-colony of today, such as India.

However, I'm not making excuses for tyrants.

The best way is to go Chicago Boys style

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. But like I said...go ahead and outline a method for the elimination of the Third World within the context of capitalism.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] on Jun 25 2004, 05:21 PM
But I do have to ask, even though Pinochet was a murderous tyrant ( and I know the US planted him there) aren't they now one of the richest Latin American countries? Now, don't act like you're all about it because My family is Chilean and they were there when the whole thing happened.

Let's talk about Pinochet. Did you know that GNP per capita fell 6.2% between 1972 and 1987? In 1973, Chile's GDP per capita was U.S. $3,600. As late as 1993, Chile's economy was still lower at U.S. $3,100. What was the first thing the Chicago Boys did to the economy? They heavily cut back government spending. They didn't have to worry too much about privatizing everything, as Pinochet had already gotten that started, which is important to keep in mind. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Pinochet privatized the pension system, that will be relivant later on. They also undermined labor unions and ended the minimum wage law. The cut-back in government spending predictably lead to a massive fall in inflation, which Pinochet had previously caused to go over 300%, but it also caused unemployment to rise from 9.1-18.7 in the period of 1974-1975, that's a depression. Let's take note here that unemployment in 1973 was only 4.3%. This caused output to fall by 12.9%. And then of course came the "economic miracle" in the period from 1978 to 1981, the economy grew an impressive 6.6% a year. An economic miracle, right? Well, not really, all that did was sort of recover from a recession, it didn't cover any new ground(as you can see for example, in the first statistics I cited). And even what growth there was was mainly meaningless, 80% of Chile's growth in the period from 1977 to 1981 was in marketing and financial services, hardly what Chileans needed. By 1983, unemployment in Chile was at 34.6%, that's high even by Latin American standards. As a result of this, marketing production fell 28%. And Chile's methods of trying to recover from all of these things were particularly destructive for most of the population, they recieved massive IMF loans on the condition that Chile's foreign debt of U.S. $7.7 billion would be competely payed off, and this was payed off through socializing the costs, making the people pay for it. After privatizing everything they can, and the subsequent failure of those industries privatized, the population was forced to pay for it. Another words, Chileans lives were being ruined the whole time. Once again, the IMF loans sort of helped Chile's economy, it again had a high growth between 1986 and 1989, but also again, that was merely a recovery from a recession. And as was obvious during this whole catastrophe, the worker's didn't ever share much of the benefits. From 1970-1989 labors share of the national income, meaning the misleadingly-called, "middle class," fell from 52.3% to 30.7%. It's quite an accomplishment to have unemployment increasing at depression levels and worker's share of income to drop so drastically at the same time. From 1980 to 1987, real wages dropped from 97.7% to 55.5%. It's obvious who was benefitting from the "economic miracle" of Chile. And we can go on, Chile's poverty rate by 1989 was a massive 41.2%. The poor were devastated in every way by the policies of the Chicago Boys, in 1970 the daily diet of the poorest 40% of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980, this had fallen to 1,751, and 1990 at 1,629. Between 1972 and 1988, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing rose from 27% to 40%. We have charts to show figures of inequality in Chile:

Consumption by Household Quintiles (percent distribution)

1970 1980 1989


First (poorest) 7.6% 5.2% 4.4%

Second 11.8% 9.3% 8.2%

Third 15.6% 13.6% 12.7%

Fourth 20.5% 20.9% 20.1%

Fifth(richest) 44.5% 51.0% 54.6%


For more elaboration on this, in 1980 the richest 10% of Chileans took in 36.5% of the national income. This rose to 46.8% nine years later. During the same period, the bottom 50% of income earners had their share fall from an already low 20.4% to 16.8%. Truly a dramatic case of devastating your own population. Here's another table on inequality:

Concentration in the Export Sector by Main Industry, 1988

# of firms Industry share

Paper, cellulose 2 90.0%

Chemicals 2 71.4%

Wine and Beverage 2 70.2%

Forest products 5 78.4%

Food 6 67.3%

Fish products 6 51.1%

Mining 7 97.1%

Wood 7 78.6%

Agriculture 8 80.6%



And the fact that agriculture is the best among those is revealing, because this is partly due to Salvador Allende's nationalization policies, Pinochet was never able to privatize all of the agricultural industries nationalized by Allende, which created a new class of productive till-owners and producers, which in turn prevented Pinochet from interferring as much as he initially wanted.

So what accounts for Chile's current "economic miracle" which is still quite dubious? These were indeed policies of Pinochet's, sort of, but not at all like those of the Chicago Boys. Pinochet changed course, he brought back the minimum wage laws, allowed for a bit of higher roles for labor unions(although far from enough), created a government-run program to create 500,000 jobs, instituted a program to ensure unemployment benefits, nationalized banks and industry on a scale dramatically higher than even Allende's, and most dramatically, Pinochet created a law which heavily restricted the flow of foreign capital. Later, a universal education program was created under the administration of the national government, which has almost everything to do with Chile's very high literacy rate. These actions explain why Chile is one of the best countries in Latin America now. A move closer to Socialism is what saved Chile. What's even more revealing is to look at what two of the main driving forces behind Chile's economic growth, namely copper and agribusiness But wait? It was Allende who first was the one responsible for nationalzing Chile's copper mines. And it was also Allende as I pointed out the last paragraphy who was responsible for Chile's agricultural advancements. There is also Manufacturing, but I would point out that most of that is in fact copper and general refining of Chile's agricultural resources. Get it? Another words, Salvador Allende was the real genius who was going to create an economic miracle, he's the hero. So much for the Chicago Boys.





http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572974/Chile.html

[The Sloth]

Thank you for that enlightening information, LuZhiming.

I think the question of Pinochet is...over. :)

But my request still seems to remain unheeded...

[hotsexygrl42]

In 1870, Sweden was poorer than Congo is today. People lived twenty years shorter than they do in developing countries today, and infant mortality was twice as high as in the average developing country. My forefathers were literally starving.

But reforms for liberalization at home and free trade abroad changed all of this. A trade agreement with England and France in 1865 made it possible for Swedes to specialize. We couldn’t produce food well, but we could produce steel and timber, and sell it abroad. For the money we made, we could buy food.

MOD EDIT:


If you are even remotely interested in reading the rest of this truth from the Cato "Institute" click here. (http://www.cato.org/special/symposium/essays/norberg.html)

WARNING!

if you are not ready for the truth do not click on the artical

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Show us where you cut and pasted that from!

[synthesis]

Show us where you cut and pasted that from!

http://www.aworldconnected.com/article.php/383.html

This seems to contain part of his/her post. (I am deeply suspicious that anyone with a name like HotSexyGirl is a female, but I digress.) It seems to have been heavily edited, which I believe is illegal.

edit: Never mind, it wasn't edited. For some reason, the link above is a different version of this same essay:

http://www.cato.org/special/symposium/essays/norberg.html

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:39 PM
In 1870, Sweden was poorer than Congo is today. People lived twenty years shorter than they do in developing countries today, and infant mortality was twice as high as in the average developing country. My forefathers were literally starving.

But reforms for liberalization at home and free trade abroad changed all of this. A trade agreement with England and France in 1865 made it possible for Swedes to specialize. We couldn’t produce food well, but we could produce steel and timber, and sell it abroad. For the money we made, we could buy food.

MOD EDIT:


If you are even remotely interested in reading the rest of this crap from the Cato "Institute" click here. (http://www.cato.org/special/symposium/essays/norberg.html)

WARNING!

By reading material from this site, independent scientific analysis has shown that your IQ may drop as many as 24.684 points.
Instead of editing my article why don't you debate me on the content of the article.

I think the reason you do not want debate the content in the article is because you know i am right

[The Sloth]

I think the reason you do not want debate the content in the article is because you know i am right


:lol:

I don't think you have "debating skills" to begin with, unless the phrase means "selective plagiarism" or simply providing us with trashy articles that serve as the "proof" against Marxism. Either way, you never seem to add any real substance to your posts...how about actually arguing instead of using some bullshit article as a crutch to fall back on so you don't have to speak for yourself?

But I'm willing to take your open "challenge" to debate whatever garbage you can come up with.

Of course, this thread consisted only of one major part that the creator of the thread hoped the rest of the posts would focus on: a blueprint for the elimination of the Third World within the framework of capitalism, with no socialist reforms, no possibility/need for future moves into socialism, and insurance against the possibility of future "mini-Third Worlds" popping up all over the place. This request/question was not answered by a single person in this thread, not even you, who claims that the communists are "scared" to argue "your" points. I, however, take the cappy silence as evidence against their own inability to answer even this very basic question.

[hotsexygrl42]

I don't think you have "debating skills" to begin with, unless the phrase means "selective plagiarism" or simply providing us with trashy articles that serve as the "proof" against Marxism. First of all every fact i stated is true. Second the reason i post so many articles is because i do not understand english that well


Of course, this thread consisted only of one major part that the creator of the thread hoped the rest of the posts would focus on: a blueprint for the elimination of the Third World within the framework of capitalism, with no socialist reforms, no possibility/need for future moves into socialism, and insurance against the possibility of future "mini-Third Worlds" popping up all over the place.

I sorry I cannot answer you question because true capitalism has never existed. But however countries who embrace an open market are way better off financially then countries that do not have open markets.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I sorry I cannot answer you question because true capitalism has never existed. But however countries who embrace an open market are way better off financially then countries that do not have open markets.

What is 'true capitalism' then? (And don't give me some Randian fantasy)
I can define true communism, but can you define true capitalism?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 09:39 PM
In 1870, Sweden was poorer than Congo is today. People lived twenty years shorter than they do in developing countries today, and infant mortality was twice as high as in the average developing country. My forefathers were literally starving.

But reforms for liberalization at home and free trade abroad changed all of this. A trade agreement with England and France in 1865 made it possible for Swedes to specialize. We couldn’t produce food well, but we could produce steel and timber, and sell it abroad. For the money we made, we could buy food.
Hahaha, that is very revealing that you start at 1870, since that wondeful liberalization was being implemented in the early days of Oscar I, way before 1870. Hmm, that's odd, it would seem perhaps the liberalization really didn't work. :huh: You see, what those "free markets" did in Sweden was what they are doing now in Indonesia, they force workers to work for more than half a day for tiny wages. And this did change, it changed from the Democratic struggle against Capitalism. It was the reforms of labor unions, universal education, worker's rights, 8 hour work days, vacation benefits, and the rest from a giant welfare system. It wasn't Capitalism. Why else were their so many strikes? The reason is common sense, "free markets" just enhance private power, which forces wokers to slave away for $0.15 wages. And in fact, you defeat your own arguement by mentioning the trade agreements with Britain and France, because it isn't even contraversial to say that Britain and France got rich from stealing of other nation's natural resources, subjugating people's of other nations to do slave labor in their own countries, the slavery businesses at home, and general piracy. If your post would be true, Sweden would not have gotten rich without those other nations exploiting the world. And we know it isn't foreign investment and foreign markets that help countries, if so, Indonesia right now would be rich, or Mobutu's Zaire would have been rich, they had tons of dollars flowing into the countries from foreign nations, Indonesia has much more than Scandinavia, and profits went up, while the majority of the population didn't benefit. Sweden has one of the most comprehensive welfare programs in the world, welfare programs are not a Capitalist institution. :rolleyes: And by the way, no offense, but using an article from the CATO Instituate of all places is really lame.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:07 PM

What is 'true capitalism' then? (And don't give me some Randian fantasy)
I can define true communism, but can you define true capitalism?
an economic system based on private ownership of capital

[Y2A]

"True Capitalism" would be complete privatization of everything. Things such as Social Security, Medicare, Financial Aid, Workfare/Welfare, and countless other social programs would seize to exist. However, many Americans realize that without occasional state intervention a capitalist economy would collapse like it did during the Great Depression.

[The Sloth]

Second the reason i post so many articles is because i do not understand english that well.

Your posts are understandable, so don't worry about that.

I sorry I cannot answer you question because true capitalism has never existed. But however countries who embrace an open market are way better off financially then countries that do not have open markets

In "true capitalism", everything would be privatized. No state intervention would exist. The closest we have ever been to this was during the 1800's, before any reforms took place, when the world slaved away for most of the day at factories for a wage that covered only substinence (survival). This was allowed because there were few to no laws regarding employment and it was perfectly legal to force children to work twelve hours for crumbs.

I sincerely hope that you are not advocating such a system.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 27 2004, 09:48 PM
The closest we have ever been to this was during the 1800's, before any reforms took place, when the world slaved away for most of the day at factories for a wage that covered only substinence (survival). This was allowed because there were few to no laws regarding employment and it was perfectly legal to force children to work twelve hours for crumbs.

I sincerely hope that you are not advocating such a system.
Such a system would not have the anti-union laws that existed back then.

It would be a finely balaced mix of the unions and the big business. A neverending struggle which creates dynamic equilibrium.

[Vìcmælon]

It's somewhat breathtaking so many politically conscious individuals seem unaware of basic economic concepts such as the Law of Comparative Advantage (one of Ricardo's better enunciations).

Surely you are aware of the classical economic tenet that specialisation/division of labour is the source of wealth?!?

:huh:

Vìc

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 28 2004, 12:40 AM
Such a system would not have the anti-union laws that existed back then.

It would be a finely balaced mix of the unions and the big business. A neverending struggle which creates dynamic equilibrium.
Yet in the 1800's and onto the early 1900's, while anti-union laws did not exist, there were still anti-union enforcers. I'm sure you remember that it was difficult for anyone to organize back then when they had no protection under the law.

There was no "dynamic equilibrium" and I fail to see how "dynamic equilibrium" would exist today if we revert back to the system of a century ago.

[hotsexygrl42]

Originally posted by Brooklyn-[email protected] 27 2004, 09:48 PM
.

In "true capitalism", everything would be privatized. No state intervention would exist. Please explain to me why the state could not interfere if true capitalism was in place?


I sincerely hope that you are not advocating such a system.

I do support a system that has cut hunger and child labor in developing countries in half

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:32 PM
I do support a system that has cut hunger and child labor in developing countries in half
If you take a look at history it has done the opposite in countries like Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. Although then again, I'm not even sure what exactly you mean by 'Capitalism,' it's such a general term. The doctrines of John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, and Adam Smith are all labeled Capitalism even though they're very different in many ways. Perhaps you could explain.

[hotsexygrl42]

If you take a look at history it has done the opposite in countries like Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia, Thailand, etc.

it is not capitalism fault for brazil (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=246)
Bolivia - Unemployment rate in 1997 was 11.4 percent and in 2000 it was 7.6
Source: CIA World Factbook


I'm not even sure what exactly you mean by 'Capitalism,' it's such a general term. I mean open boarder trading freely and able to own their own business without the government interfering, owning their own property

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:44 PM
"True Capitalism" would be complete privatization of everything. Things such as Social Security, Medicare, Financial Aid, Workfare/Welfare, and countless other social programs would seize to exist. However, many Americans realize that without occasional state intervention a capitalist economy would collapse like it did during the Great Depression.
Come on Y2A, the economy collapsed thanks to government meddling in the free market. Not by government refraining from intervention. Read up on your economic history/theory.

As debated in other topics, the general level of education of your average Joe is not that high, so they can be easily tricked into believing such nonsense.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:24 AM
it is not capitalism fault for brazil (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=246)
Bolivia - Unemployment rate in 1997 was 11.4 percent and in 2000 it was 7.6
Source: CIA World Factbook

I mean open boarder trading freely and able to own their own business without the government interfering, owning their own property
I'm not talking about current day Brazil or Bolivia. Bolivia's economy is a complicated story. If you look at recent years from 1999-2003, Bolivia's economy has been dropping every year. In 1999 it was $3,000 by 2003 it $2,500 U.S. dollars. That is a significant drop. And if you look at the period of massive Capitalist reforms in Bolivia, namely the 1980-Present period as a whole, there were no advancements. Growth was at -1%. The fact that unemployment decreased in the period you mentioned, is good, but it isn't saying much at all. Bolivia had already had massive Capitalist instituted programs by 1990, the country went into a short recession after 1992, which changed with some growth in 1996 as a recovery, and contiued until 1999, and the whole system collapsed again. Just take a look at the selective figures you picked, the drop in unemployment during that period was just another recovery froma recession. Just the year before that, in 1996 unemployment was only 4.2%, much lower than the 11.4% the very next year. And even in the year 2000, employment was 7.6%, but if you check just about any source, Bolivia at the time was notorious for having massive underemployment, your source, the CIA World Factbook ackowledges it. Bolivia's growth is frankly a joke, it sort of goes up, falls down, and might go up again, but it never has any serious growth in the long run, as I pointed out above.

But again, I was referring to Bolivia in the 1970s and 1980s, when child slavery was flourishing. And for Brazil, I was referring to the period from after Joao Goulart's overthrow to late 80's, when Capitalism was flourshing. Brazil was the absolute darling of the Western business world, and take a look, the economy was doing ok for some time, but poverty was increasing massively, and by the 80s the whole system collapsed.

And I still don't understand exactly what you mean by Capitalism. For example, what are you opinions on taxes? Do you believe everyone should be taxed equally? Should taxes be high or low? etc.

[hotsexygrl42]

For example, what are you opinions on taxes? Do you believe everyone should be taxed equally? Should taxes be high or low? etc. I think that america should do a national sale tax

[hotsexygrl42]

economy is a complicated story. Yes it is


If you look at recent years from 1999-2003, Bolivia's economy has been dropping every year. In 1999 it was $3,000 by 2003 it $2,500 U.S. dollars. That is a significant drop. That is true but the reason that Bolivias economy is not doing so good is because high inflation rates.

"What's worse, the Brazilian government's tax policies appear to be adding fuel to the inflation fire. Hoping to raise cash and following the IMF's advice, the government recently hiked taxes on corporations so that most companies will pay +8% to +23% higher tax revenues over the next two years. These companies will attempt to pass along these additional tax costs to their customers by charging higher prices." Capitalism Magazine

[Pale Rider]

I think that in large part the "class" system, in the US particualrly, is misunderstood. True, there are classes here, but people move in and out of classes all the time. Being born poor here (the US) doesn't curse you to poverty for your entire life. I am living proof of that. And being born rich is no promise that you will remain rich. In fact, nearly 85% of all millionaires in this nation are first generation rich.

In this country most of the people who are born poor and remain poor throughout their entire lives are victims of the welfare system...it has created a situation of generational dependence and for that we should be ashamed.

[Raisa]

<<I think that in large part the "class" system, in the US particualrly, is misunderstood. True, there are classes here, but people move in and out of classes all the time.>>

Wonderful&#33; I am glad for you because its not nice to have to live that way, so congratulations from you to me, my friend.
You have left but that doesnt change the fact that poverty still exists and denial still exists, it doesnt change poverty&#39;s existance or its necisity to the capitalist system because ...just try to imagine capitalism with no lowerclass? It would not exist&#33;
The sucess of one does not erase the whole struggle, no matter how glad for you I am.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:50 AM
<<I think that in large part the "class" system, in the US particualrly, is misunderstood. True, there are classes here, but people move in and out of classes all the time.>>

Wonderful&#33; I am glad for you because its not nice to have to live that way, so congratulations from you to me, my friend.
You have left but that doesnt change the fact that poverty still exists and denial still exists, it doesnt change poverty&#39;s existance or its necisity to the capitalist system because ...just try to imagine capitalism with no lowerclass? It would not exist&#33;
The sucess of one does not erase the whole struggle, no matter how glad for you I am.
I think what a lot of people fail to take note of the fact that very few people actually remain poor for their entire lives. Most people start out poor when they are young and have no marketable skills or experience...As they mature, they usually earn more and leave the ranks of the poor...UNLESS, they make bad decisions...drugs, crime, knocking up thier girlfirends etc...then they can create barriers to success that can haunt them for years.

It seems that the poor never go away, because we always have young, inexperienced peope coming onto the market...most of them move on up the ladder.

In this country 80% of all the millionaires are first generation rich...that is a startling statistic when viewed in the light that many believe the only way to get rich is to be born into it.

Like I said before, just about the only people in this country who remain poor for their entire lives are the people who are trapped in the welfare system..it has created a situation of generational dependence for the people in it...they live in a perpetual state of just getting by...many of them grew up in the system and simply became part of it rather than doing what most of the population does...that is...developing marketable skills and experience... One day they realize that they are 35 years old and have no skills and no hope...so they just resign themselves to the ranks of the poor until they die.

It is sad, but I don&#39;t know how to fix it short of simply ending welfare and forcing people to learn to get along on their own...I know we can&#39;t do that, so we are stuck with the system and unfortunately, most of the people who are in the system are doomed to die poor...I hate that we have done it to them..I hate the welfare system...but what can we do?

[synthesis]

In this country 80% of all the millionaires are first generation rich


In fact, nearly 85% of all millionaires in this nation are first generation rich.

Make up your mind :lol:

When your statistics aren&#39;t even consistent within two posts of each other, that&#39;s a pretty good indicator that you&#39;re talking out of your ass.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:37 AM



Make up your mind :lol:

When your statistics aren&#39;t even consistent within two posts of each other, that&#39;s a pretty good indicator that you&#39;re talking out of your ass.

The fact is that I don&#39;t rely on one source for my information...from year to year the number changes...pick one...either one and prove me wrong. Assume that you learn that the number is acutally 80...or 85, or 82%, it still puts the lie to the suggestion that the only way to become rich in this nation is to be born into it and does nothing to change my basic premise.

Rather than quibble over a 5% statistical deviation, why not actually discuss the idea? What next, spelling and punctuation critiques? Is that it? Is that all you have?

[synthesis]

You seem to have missed the point.

The fact that the statistic changed at all within two posts of each other without an explanation isn&#39;t a good sign.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by DyerMa[email protected] 14 2004, 07:29 PM
You seem to have missed the point.

The fact that the statistic changed at all within two posts of each other without an explanation isn&#39;t a good sign.
And you seemed to have missed the point...80% 85%...it doesn&#39;t matter...either way, they put the lie to the idea that we are simpy downtrodden and without hope.

again, if the best you can do is quibble over a few percentage points, then you really don&#39;t have an argument...do you?

I left a word or two misspelled in case you need fodder for future arguments.

[DaCuBaN]

Again, you have missed the point. Your inconsistency has cast doubt on your credibility. You&#39;ve been branded a fabricator.

That&#39;s a liar to you and I.

[The New Yorker]

yeah I could see the elimination of the 3rd world, but as to drawing up a blue prints to that well I say go romance your self with an iron shaft. I aint loading up paint to draw up blue prints only to have them mocked by commies. Any how, the 3rd world could be eliminated if these countries that fall under the category of a 3rd world nation were to provide free education. As well as a means of acquiring a higher form of education after elementary school and high school.

Why will this work? well it’s a fact that many people are simply sick of being dirt poor and eating bugs out of the bush. So some of them will go to school and work hard and get acquire an education and make something of them selves. By doing this there be giving back to their countries.

You were talking about racism and a minority being oppressed in a capitalistic society. Your failing to mention how your beloved Fidel Castro treats black citizens of his country. However that’s not what you were talking about so I wont dwell on the issue. Now this oppressed minority is a half truth. True it is harder for say a black American to become head of a company. However it aunt easy for anyone regardless of their race. The fact of the matter is racism is decreasing every day. Society so far proves this. We haven’t gone from enslaving black people to giving them equal rights back to enslaving them. Why? Because were moving forward, and its only a matter of time before there is no oppressed race as you put it.

If you wish to remain thinking there will always be an oppressed race then I suggest you get on bored a bus, and go to the nearest place where the reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are “performing” at. When you get there please remember to ask the Reverend Jesse Jackson where exactly his church is for me.

[Pale Rider]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:23 PM
Again, you have missed the point. Your inconsistency has cast doubt on your credibility. You&#39;ve been branded a fabricator.

That&#39;s a liar to you and I.
As I said...I don&#39;t always use the same sources...I look for my information all over...If you guys can&#39;t verify for yourselves...then it is you who have the problem...not me...

be sure to check my spelling...so you will have a rebuttal..