Fidel and Hugo

[danny android]

Ok here is the deal my economics teacher is a capitalist libertarian and he keeps claiming that fidel and hugo both have used violience or fear or other forms of opression to subduy the people. He has also said that Hugo Chaves was not freely elected. I want to see if there are actually any documented facts to back these claims or if he is just pulling this out of his ass as a kind of capitalist propoganda, or stereotyping of communists. So are there any facts behind these claims?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nothing new here, your teacher is simply spouting capitalist libertarian rhetoric, as they are wont to do.

They call radical Leftists idealistic, and yet they espouse a system with no checks and balances because it's "self-regulating" :lol: Why do they think checks and balances were initiated in the first place?

[Freedom Works]

Idiocy.

It's the same reason religion came about.

[quincunx5]

Why do they think checks and balances were initiated in the first place?


To make it look like government can stay under control.

Any self-respecting libertarian outright rejects any and all Constitutions.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:42 PM


Why do they think checks and balances were initiated in the first place?


To make it look like government can stay under control.
Stay under control? Are you suggesting government isn't self governing? Obviously government is self-governing; the question is how effectively is it governed.


Any self-respecting libertarian outright rejects any and all Constitutions.

Because? Exploitive organizations will automatically act in people's best interests? This has been tried before: fascism, monarchies, etc; they all hold unregulated power over society.

[fernando]

Ok here is the deal my economics teacher is a capitalist libertarian and he keeps claiming that fidel and hugo both have used violience or fear or other forms of opression to subduy the people.
Sounds more like the Bush administration to me who keep on going about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism"...even during his 'support speech' for New Orleans Bush kept on going on how the American people should be fighting terrorism, European leaders loyal to the US have been screaming similar crap, the Dutch government especially!


He has also said that Hugo Chaves was not freely elected.
Bullshit...he won the first elections, he won the referendum (with a higher percentage than Bush won his elections I might add), his popularity rate is currently about 70% if I recall correctly.


I want to see if there are actually any documented facts to back these claims or if he is just pulling this out of his ass as a kind of capitalist propoganda, or stereotyping of communists. So are there any facts behind these claims?
No real facts...just gusano propaganda or scared yankee lies, the US are jsut scared and try to pull their Cold War policy for Latin America again...well it isnt really a Cold War policy, they just used the Cold War as an excuse for that policy

[Hiero]

What grounds does your teacher have that Hugo wasn't elected freely?

[Amusing Scrotum]

What grounds does your teacher have that Hugo wasn't elected freely?

Isn't it obvious. He doesn't like comrade Chavez, therefore he has the right to make bullshit up about him.

Its the mantra of the right, "If you can't find the evidence, just make it up".

[Master Che]

Is there any proof he wasnt freely elected? Libertarian's pull this kind of shit on everyone they even tried to fake a scandal on Comrade Lula just so he could lose support.

[Forward Union]

Not as bad as earlier today, I was told that Class no-longer existed :lol:

I think the professor has a different opinion on Class now.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Not as bad as earlier today, I was told that Class no-longer existed

I think the professor has a different opinion on Class now.

Someone can make a daft statement like that and yet, they are in a position of authority, with the power to influence young minds.

Wonders like this, never cease to amaze me.

[Freedom Works]

Is there any proof he wasnt freely elected?
The only free government is none.


Not as bad as earlier today, I was told that Class no-longer existed
Class is a figure of the imagination, like the need for "government".

[quincunx5]

Stay under control? Are you suggesting government isn't self governing? Obviously government is self-governing; the question is how effectively is it governed.


Every government has violated it's own constitution numerously to various degrees.
This is a non-contestable fact.

You and others tell me that it's all a matter of how it's governed. But one has to wonder if there is something wrong with the institution itself. I think there is.



Because? Exploitive organizations will automatically act in people's best interests?


Yes. They exist to serve the customer. That is how they make profits.

The profits that organizations create go into a money pool that anyone can borrow from.



This has been tried before: fascism, monarchies, etc; they all hold unregulated power over society.


How can you compare them to profit-seeking organizations?

Fascism is private property that is publicly regulated or managed. What profit-seeking organization today seeks to regulate or manage your private property (that is not government backed)?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:05 PM
You and others tell me that it's all a matter of how it's governed. But one has to wonder if there is something wrong with the institution itself. I think there is.
"how it's governed," is "something wrong with the institution itself." A government is the governing body, the structure is defined by governing. Obviously there is something inherently wrong with an institution if the reliant procedures are flawed.




Because? Exploitive organizations will automatically act in people's best interests?


Yes. They exist to serve the customer. That is how they make profits.

:lol: Sure, organizations that profit seek are only trying to do a great job for customers. Diminishing the quality of a product and overcharging for opportunistically is to serve the customer.


The profits that organizations create go into a money pool that anyone can borrow from.

Are you talking about investment capital? This is unregulated remember, in your perfect system; so why wouldn't the company rulers stockpile all of the spoils and only invest in their empire, allowing for no R&D?



This has been tried before: fascism, monarchies, etc; they all hold unregulated power over society.


How can you compare them to profit-seeking organizations?

They all seek power and concentration/control of resources?


Fascism is private property that is publicly regulated or managed.

So what? The rulers of either a corporation or fascist state are "free" to do as they please with any-thing/one under their power.


What profit-seeking organization today seeks to regulate or manage your private property (that is not government backed)?

Your question is quite absurd; corporate interests are incestuously involved with governing the state. Why do you think the government backs up private enterprise?
The line between state and corporate institutions is for official propaganda purposes; politicians work for corporations and corporations support the state. One big fucking family, working for profit, regardless of the human "cost."

[Freedom Works]

A corporation is not necessarily a business.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 28 2005, 01:41 PM
A corporation is not necessarily a business.
Your point being? What exactly were you responding to?

[quincunx5]

"how it's governed," is "something wrong with the institution itself." A government is the governing body, the structure is defined by governing. Obviously there is something inherently wrong with an institution if the reliant procedures are flawed.


So what are the right procedures that will ensure there will not be flaws?
Do these procedures ever change?
And how can something written down on paper possibly be interpreted exactly the same by every individual?



Sure, organizations that profit seek are only trying to do a great job for customers. Diminishing the quality of a product and overcharging for opportunistically is to serve the customer.


One organization may indeed do this, but that just leaves the opportunity for someone else to do something different.

Does this happen? YES!

Otherwise I'd be driving a shitty American car.



Are you talking about investment capital? This is unregulated remember, in your perfect system; so why wouldn't the company rulers stockpile all of the spoils and only invest in their empire, allowing for no R&D?


That would be financial suicide.

Anyone who buys raw materials, employs labor, goes through the process of converting them to a useful good or service, will find themselves bankrupt in no time, if they can't SELL it.

In fact, corporations rely on cash flow. They need to sell to buy and sell, and then buy and sell some more.

Your typical supermarket makes 1-5 cents profit on each item. The point is that the overturn of products, and the sheer volume of sales is what keeps it going. The supermarket could not become a supermarket if it never sold anything. No thinking business man would buy a supermarket just to have food on display.



They all seek power and concentration/control of resources?


They seek to obtain it, but it means nothing if they can't sell it. Monopolies are government privleges. A monopoly can not survive for any significant time in a free market.



So what? The rulers of either a corporation or fascist state are "free" to do as they please with any-thing/one under their power.


Stop equating corporations with fascism. Fascism is a socialist form, not a capitalist form.

Selling stuff to people is not a power. Constantly competeting with other sellers is not power either.

Think of it this way. Your home is typically bought by the bank. They lent you the money to buy it. You still have 100% over your home and property since you OWN it, even though you're in debt. Should you stop paying the bank - that is only when they can foreclose it.



Your question is quite absurd; corporate interests are incestuously involved with governing the state. Why do you think the government backs up private enterprise?
The line between state and corporate institutions is for official propaganda purposes; politicians work for corporations and corporations support the state. One big fucking family, working for profit, regardless of the human "cost."


You don't seem to understand how the incestuous relationship between government and government backed corporations were formed.

The government itself typically does NOT produce goods and services. It extracts it's funds from the public, and must then use it arbitrarily for whatever reason.

The government then has to go to the market place and buy goods and services. There is no other way. It will typically TRY to get the best deal in a competitive market place.

The corporations love to get government business - because they can get non-voluntary tax payer money, they don't even have to bother advertising to the general public. Once this corporation gets this money it will continually support the politicians that will bring further money.

Once the government is engaged in business with a given corporation, it will use it's power to preserve this corporation. It's sort of like out-sourcing your plans to a third 'loosely' independent party.

In the process the government will hamper the market, rates will go up, and the government will just extract more money from the public to pay for the higher cost of the goods and services or just print more money (it's really a non-legislative tax).

The government OWNS the air waves and gives licenses to corporations. Corporations have to appease the government to keep their license. That's why propangda is all you get.

Luckily, the internet is not owned by government, it is only loosely regulated and this is why we can engage in this discussion.

Get rid of the governments, and suddenly the corporations will just be left in the self-regulating market.

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:32 PM

What grounds does your teacher have that Hugo wasn't elected freely?

Isn't it obvious. He doesn't like comrade Chavez, therefore he has the right to make bullshit up about him.

Its the mantra of the right, "If you can't find the evidence, just make it up".
yeah that is pretty much what i think. I'll probobly just print out the article about him on wikipedia and hand it to him.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by danny [email protected] 27 2005, 08:57 PM
Ok here is the deal my economics teacher is a capitalist libertarian and he keeps claiming that fidel and hugo both have used violience or fear or other forms of opression to subduy the people. He has also said that Hugo Chaves was not freely elected. I want to see if there are actually any documented facts to back these claims or if he is just pulling this out of his ass as a kind of capitalist propoganda, or stereotyping of communists. So are there any facts behind these claims?
First, make it clear that you don't advocate all of the actiosn of these leaders. Their respective countries are not model socialist societies.

Then tell him that Cuba is a revolutionary society. Like any class society, it suppresses threats to its existance. You can't deny that the US is the exact same in that respect.

Cuba is also far more democratic that he is admiting.
this is a good article about Cuba's political system (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)

Chaves was also certainly democratically elected. He's clearly a total idiot.
Libertarians tend to be.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Is there any proof he wasnt freely elected? Libertarian's pull this kind of shit on everyone they even tried to fake a scandal on Comrade Lula just so he could lose support.

Comrade?

What a comrade.... Get on with it. This is not 1917 Russia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Condoleezza_and_Lula1.jpg/800px-Condoleezza_and_Lula1.jpg

You can see it in his eyes... He is horny.

Oh, but it doesn't end here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Condoleezza_in_Brazil2.jpg/800px-Condoleezza_in_Brazil2.jpg
How cute they are.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Condoleezza_and_Lula2.jpg/800px-Condoleezza_and_Lula2.jpg
Condoleezza: I want you, Lula!
Lula, holding a Martini, shaken but not stirred: Oh really? ^_^

[Master Che]

Lol the last pic looks like she's hitting on him.

[KC]

Class is a figure of the imagination, like the need for "government".

Class is a figure of the imagination as much as mathematics is a figure of the imagination.



Yes. They exist to serve the customer. That is how they make profits.


They exist to serve the customer. The customer isn't always the worker (in present day it's barely the worker).


Fascism is private property that is publicly regulated or managed. What profit-seeking organization today seeks to regulate or manage your private property (that is not government backed)?

Just because you don't see it at first glance doesn't mean it isn't happening. It happens almost accidentally; the big businesses put the small enterprises out of business, limiting the options for the consumer. This is, in fact, regulation of private property.


A corporation is not necessarily a business.


You are correct. A corporation is an enterprise, sanctioned by the state, with a form of shareholders who invested money for a specific purpose. They were started by governments of states (and cities, and even individuals) to undertake tasks too risky for an individual or government to embark upon on its own. I'd suggest watching "The Corporation". It is a fascinating documentary on the development of the corporation and its effects on society and the world.




One organization may indeed do this, but that just leaves the opportunity for someone else to do something different.

Not if it isn't profitable.




Stop equating corporations with fascism. Fascism is a socialist form, not a capitalist form.


Fascism is more capitalist than socialist. Again, I suggest you watch "The Corporation".




Get rid of the governments, and suddenly the corporations will just be left in the self-regulating market.

Why do you think corporations are only powerful because of government? You claim that government regulation is to blame for the power of corporations, and that once government is done away with, these corporations will fall because nobody will buy their products. But who's being forced to buy McDonald's? Gap? Old Navy? Nike?