Katrina reveals the true face of US Capitalism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spike Lee's film:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/whe...-collapsed.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-levees-collapsed.html)

[Tungsten]

Capitalism causes hurricanes. And Katrina was planned by Bush, as was 9/11.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:10 PM
Capitalism causes hurricanes. And Katrina was planned by Bush, as was 9/11.
Capitalism doesn't cause hurricanes, but it hardly helps the victims of them. Bush paid very little attention to the victimes after the hurricane. I see that Bush has a mid-term election coming up, so he is using the anniversary to make it look like he cares so he can win some votes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Tungsten:


Capitalism causes hurricanes. And Katrina was planned by Bush, as was 9/11.

Yes, dear, now drink your cola, and I'll read you a nice story.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 1 2006, 04:29 PM--> (patton @ Sep 1 2006, 04:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:17 PM

[email protected] 1 2006, 03:10 PM
Capitalism causes hurricanes. And Katrina was planned by Bush, as was 9/11.
Capitalism doesn't cause hurricanes, but it hardly helps the victims of them. Bush paid very little attention to the victimes after the hurricane. I see that Bush has a mid-term election coming up, so he is using the anniversary to make it look like he cares so he can win some votes.
Couldn't it be that Bush might actually have heart and care? [/b]
Yeah, he cared about Iraqi civilians a lot, didn't he?

He cared about Afghanistani civilians a lot, didn't he?

He cares a lot about the poor of America, doesn't he?

No, No and No. He only ever cares about himself, the rich and making sure everyone else in the world do as he wants.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 1 2006, 05:13 PM--> (patton @ Sep 1 2006, 05:13 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:17 PM

[email protected] 1 2006, 03:10 PM
Capitalism causes hurricanes. And Katrina was planned by Bush, as was 9/11.
Capitalism doesn't cause hurricanes, but it hardly helps the victims of them. Bush paid very little attention to the victimes after the hurricane. I see that Bush has a mid-term election coming up, so he is using the anniversary to make it look like he cares so he can win some votes.
Couldn't it be that Bush might actually have heart and care?
Yeah, he cared about Iraqi civilians a lot, didn't he?

He cared about Afghanistani civilians a lot, didn't he?

He cares a lot about the poor of America, doesn't he?

No, No and No. He only ever cares about himself, the rich and making sure everyone else in the world do as he wants.
:lol: :lol: Oh i see the light your right Bush hates everyone in the world the whole is gonna end up in bush concentration camps. [/b]
We're not, but Bush is one of those Americans who thinks that the system in place in America needs to be exported by any means at their disposal.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

...for capitalists to make money.
I think it's pretty funny how you people actually think that imperialism is beneficial. Have you ever been to a country that is victim to imperialism? Or rather, have you ever read a book?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7915.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4395525.stm

Or better yet, just read anything at all about 20th century history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paton:


Couldn't it be that Bush might actually have heart and care?

Only about the rich; everyone else can go tilt. This film brings that out well, as do others.

He certainly does not care about the 2600+ dead, or the 20,000 wounded, uniformed murderers who have returned in body bags from EyeRack; he has yet to attend a single funeral.

And he definitely does not care about the 100,000+ murdered civilians in Iraq.

Or about the 1000+ killed in Lebanon with US weaponry....

Here is your profound reply:


Oh i see the light your right Bush hates everyone in the world the whole is gonna end up in bush concentration camps.

Which shows you too do not care.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 1 2006, 12:10 PM--> (patton @ Sep 1 2006, 12:10 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 04:47 PM
...for capitalists to make money.
I think it's pretty funny how you people actually think that imperialism is beneficial. Have you ever been to a country that is victim to imperialism? Or rather, have you ever read a book?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7915.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4395525.stm

Or better yet, just read anything at all about 20th century history.
There is the made up truth from guys and then there is the real truth by the cappie news. [/b]
BBC news is about as cappie as it gets
as for the other allegation, you can do your research and see than the same news has been reported by infinite realible sources
as for the nature of imperialism, I challenge you to show me how imperialism benefits the underdog in this inhrently oppressive relationship.

[Hampton]

The Spike Lee joint is actually pretty good.

[atlas]

Imperialism = feudalism on an international scale.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:10 PM
The Spike Lee joint is actually pretty good.
is it only on American TV?

[atlas]

do you even know what feudalism is? It's the system of lords and serfs, they would trade, to make it seem 'fair' but the serfs would always get fucked over.

from wikipedia:

Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another.

For Example:


Banana republics in south america
the tin, copper and gold mines in south america
the oil in south america, from what I've read/heard the venezuelans were mad because the US was getting their oil, and they were getting very little in return


Many things made in China or India. The people make 43 cents an hour and can easily work up to 19 1/2 hour shifts. Can they escape this job? No. If they work somewhere else, they will have the same conditions. They cannot pack up and leave, and they can't get out of the country, they are too poor. Sounds like serfdom to me.

[atlas]

But they are still not able to leave. They do not have the money, and they cannot get a job that would get them more money, either. So they are stuck in this situation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patton:


Every death saddens me Rosa but poeple die in war.

Unlike you, Bush does not care.


We humans have been murdering each other since the dawn of time and will be until the end of time. Its our nature.

Says who?

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 1 2006, 11:49 PM
Patton:


Every death saddens me Rosa but poeple die in war.

Unlike you, Bush does not care.


We humans have been murdering each other since the dawn of time and will be until the end of time. Its our nature.

Says who?
says just about every anthoplogic study for one. neolothic indian tribes on the americas fougth wars, neothloci afrinca tribes fought wars. we have found cave men with evdince of violinent deaths i believe and if not well its not like we've found many cavemean fossils.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


says just about every anthoplogic study for one. neolothic indian tribes on the americas fougth wars, neothloci afrinca tribes fought wars. we have found cave men with evdince of violinent deaths i believe and if not well its not like we've found many cavemean fossils.


and will be until the end of time

Says who?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 1 2006, 05:47 PM--> (patton @ Sep 1 2006, 05:47 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 10:33 PM
do you even know what feudalism is? It's the system of lords and serfs, they would trade, to make it seem 'fair' but the serfs would always get fucked over.

from wikipedia:

Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another.

For Example:


Banana republics in south america
the tin, copper and gold mines in south america
the oil in south america, from what I've read/heard the venezuelans were mad because the US was getting their oil, and they were getting very little in return


Many things made in China or India. The people make 43 cents an hour and can easily work up to 19 1/2 hour shifts. Can they escape this job? No. If they work somewhere else, they will have the same conditions. They cannot pack up and leave, and they can't get out of the country, they are too poor. Sounds like serfdom to me.
In serfdom they counld not leave there land they were tied by law thats not whats happening today there are no laws tieing them to anything. [/b]
The defining feature of serfdom is that the masses of peasents had to work for their lords in order to earn access to a barely-sufficient amount of land -- the basic means of survival in rural society. This departed from the feudal notion that all land belonged to noble lords -- kind of like how today the means of production belong to the bourgeoisie.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The rest of Spike Lee's expose of the heartless Bush regime and Katrina is up now, here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/09/whe...-continued.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/09/when-levees-collapsed-continued.html)

You'll enjoy, no doubt, the guy who tells Cheney, to his face, to "Go f*ck himself".

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:33 PM
do you even know what feudalism is? It's the system of lords and serfs, they would trade, to make it seem 'fair' but the serfs would always get fucked over.

from wikipedia:

Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another.

For Example:


Banana republics in south america
the tin, copper and gold mines in south america
the oil in south america, from what I've read/heard the venezuelans were mad because the US was getting their oil, and they were getting very little in return


Many things made in China or India. The people make 43 cents an hour and can easily work up to 19 1/2 hour shifts. Can they escape this job? No. If they work somewhere else, they will have the same conditions. They cannot pack up and leave, and they can't get out of the country, they are too poor. Sounds like serfdom to me.

Would the folks in central or South America be better off if NOBODY wanted their bananas or tin? Where did those Chinse or Indian work before the factories came?

The Venezualans have been getting market prices for their oil, which I am sure you know means they are swimming in money of late. Venezuala is actually giving away oil now. Whatever complaints Venezuala had were silly.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You clearly have read absolutely nothing about twentieth century Latin American history. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ almighty. I mean, you have the fucking internet. There is absolutely no excuse for being this motherfucking ignorant. Especially someone with the pretense of understanding world economics.

The presence of imperialism in Latin America and Asia has been anything but a mere economic presence of providing employment. Not to mention exporting resources, wealth, driving out national competitors, and driving wages down.

The United States government has had a tremendous political role in securing political and economic conditions for various American companies in Latin America. Do some research. You'll be surprised the shit you'll find. There's nothing classically liberal about American foreign policy. It's a fucking travesty that you're so ignorant of this.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Negro, please.
What the US did in Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, etc. All lies? I don't think so. Are you familiar with the United Fruit Co.? The MEC-USAID accords? The overthrow of Salvador Allende? Anything that Henry Kissinger did in Latin America?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Do you realize how many people died at the expense of fighting communism in Latin America?

I gurantee that death tolls were the last thing in mind when the Americans were plotting these things. How do I know this? Because they killed and brutalized thousands and installed even more ruthless undemocratic regimes.

Regardless of the death tolls, the United States' actions have been about anything but democracy and laizzes faire capitalism. They've been about imperialism and force. Popular movements were surpressed in the name of securing land and rights for murderous capitalists.

And furthermore, not all of these examples involve fighting against communism. Some involve merely fighting against defenseless people.

What was the US trying to stop with it's actions? Death? I don't think so. Allende's Chile was one of the most humane and democratic societies in the world. Replaced by Pinochet's military regime which killed thousands. The socialists and communists you were fighting against had nothing at all to do with Stalin's or Mao's actions.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 5 2006, 05:48 PM--> (patton @ Sep 5 2006, 05:48 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 05:09 PM
Negro, please.
What the US did in Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, etc. All lies? I don't think so. Are you familiar with the United Fruit Co.? The MEC-USAID accords? The overthrow of Salvador Allende? Anything that Henry Kissinger did in Latin America?
The U.S. did the right thing in those countrys communism had to be stopped. Why don't we ask 20 millon who died under Stalin if they the U.S. was doing the right thing or 65 millon who died under Mao or the 2 millon who died under Pol Pot? HMMMMMMMMM [/b]
Do some research and you willl find out 99% of those death tolls are made up or exagerrated US propaganda. More anti red crap.

(The only exception to this is Pol Pot, but he was close to primitivism - the fucking ****.)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 5 2006, 04:37 PM--> (patton @ Sep 5 2006, 04:37 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 01:56 AM
You clearly have read absolutely nothing about twentieth century Latin American history. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ almighty. I mean, you have the fucking internet. There is absolutely no excuse for being this motherfucking ignorant. Especially someone with the pretense of understanding world economics.

The presence of imperialism in Latin America and Asia has been anything but a mere economic presence of providing employment. Not to mention exporting resources, wealth, driving out national competitors, and driving wages down.

The United States government has had a tremendous political role in securing political and economic conditions for various American companies in Latin America. Do some research. You'll be surprised the shit you'll find. There's nothing classically liberal about American foreign policy. It's a fucking travesty that you're so ignorant of this.
Do some research and you willl find out 99% is made up red propaganda. More anti U.S. crap. [/b]
It has to be a bunch of made up red propaganda. RIGHT.......................

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:48 PM
the 2 millon who died under Pol Pot? HMMMMMMMMM
I find it hilarious how Americans like to bash Pol Pot. Do you know how the Khmer Rouge was overthrown? It wasn't overthrown by the Virtuous Capitalist Empire of America, it was overthrown by Vietnamese Communists! In fact, the CIA actually armed and trained the Khmer Rouge to fight the Vietnamese after they invaded. And don't forget that one of the reasons Pol Pot was able to rise to power in Kampuchea was because of the the American-backed coup that installed the dictator Lon Nol, not mention Nixon's secret, illegal, bombing raids that destabilized the country. So before you smugly mention Pol Pot as an example of the horrors of Communism, take some time to learn about your own government's collaboration with him.

[mauvaise foi]

Really everthing i have ever read about Pol Pot talks about him being funded by red china before vietnam invaded and after not one word about the CIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Ka...ratic_Kampuchea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Kampuchea#The_Coalition_Government_of_D emocratic_Kampuchea)


China, the U.S., and other Western countries opposed an expansion of Vietnamese and Soviet influence in Indochina, and refused to recognize the People's Republic of Kampuchea as the legitimate government of Cambodia, claiming that it was a puppet state propped up by Vietnamese forces. China funneled military aid to the Khmer Rouge, which in the 1980s proved to be the most capable insurgent force, while the U.S. publicly supported a non-Communist alternative to the PRK; in 1985, the Reagan administration approved $5 million in aid to the republican KPNLF, led by former prime minister Son Sann, and the ANS, the armed wing of the pro-Sihanouk FUNCINPEC party. The KPNLF, while lacking in military strength compared to the Khmer Rouge, commanded a sizable civilian following (up to 250,000) amongst refugees near the Thai-Cambodian border that had fled the KR regime. Funcinpec had the benefit of traditional peasant Khmer loyalty to the crown and Sihanouk's widespread popularity in the countryside. In practice, the military strength of the non-KR groups within Cambodia was minimal, though their funding and civilian support was often greater than the KR. The Thatcher and Reagan Administrations both supported the Khmer Rouge covertly, with weapons, and military advisors in the form of Green Berets and SAS units, who taught sabotage techniques in camps just inside Thailand.

Critics such as Human Rights Watch alleged that U.S. policy was contradictory; while claiming to not support the Khmer Rouge, the U.S. continually supported UN recognition of the shadow Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK, formed in 1982) as the legitimate Cambodian government, despite the fact that the tripartite alliance included the Khmer Rouge. The U.S. government, for its part, claimed that in spite of the alliance it was attempting to bolster the position of the non-Communist forces through humanitarian and military aid. [1] [2] [3]
It makes sense. The non-Khmer Rouge anti-Vietnamese forces couldn't fight. The U.S. wanted to punish the Vietnamese. It wasn't gonna do that by backing losers. So they backed the group with the biggest chance of winning, and that just happened to be the Khmer Rouge.


Why in hell would this country back a red during the cold war? Not a chance!!!!

Ever hear of Nixon's visit to China?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 5 2006, 10:55 PM--> (patton @ Sep 5 2006, 10:55 PM)
Originally posted by mauvaise [email protected] 5 2006, 10:25 PM

[email protected] 5 2006, 05:48 PM
the 2 millon who died under Pol Pot? HMMMMMMMMM
I find it hilarious how Americans like to bash Pol Pot. Do you know how the Khmer Rouge was overthrown? It wasn't overthrown by the Virtuous Capitalist Empire of America, it was overthrown by Vietnamese Communists! In fact, the CIA actually armed and trained the Khmer Rouge to fight the Vietnamese after they invaded. And don't forget that one of the reasons Pol Pot was able to rise to power in Kampuchea was because of the the American-backed coup that installed the dictator Lon Nol, not mention Nixon's secret, illegal, bombing raids that destabilized the country. So before you smugly mention Pol Pot as an example of the horrors of Communism, take some time to learn about your own government's collaboration with him.
Really everthing i have ever read about Pol Pot talks about him being funded by red china before vietnam invaded and after not one word about the CIA. Why in hell would this country back a red during the cold war? Not a chance!!!![/b]

Pol Pot, like Ho Chi Minh, and Chou Enlai, studied Marx in Paris. Pol Pot indeed is another shining triumph for Marxism.

However, this being said, it is true that Pol Pot did receive aid, for a brief period of time, in the 80s from Reagan and Thatcher. The motivation being a resistence to the Communist Party and believing the reds to be worse. This is one of the few cases where were on the side of "angels." But such an unhappy circumstance was akin between choosing Hiter or Stalin. Reagan, of course, was ridiculed for backing the commmunists by the Left.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:08 PM
Pol Pot indeed is another shining triumph for Marxism.
Bullshit!
Pol Pot did't follow any of the basic principles of Marxism in governing Cambodia. It was a tremendously autocratic dictatorship which killed millions and effectively reverted all of the technological progress that had been made. Pol Pot's regime was more akin to feudalism than to Marxism.

Again, the US was involved neither for humanitarian reasons or for the purpose of furthering democracy, but for the economic and political purposes of promoting capitalist hegemony and imperialism.

[Orion999]

I'm just curious as to what exactly you all think would be going on in the third world if the West had never interfered in it? Do you really think they'd be better off? People in Africa and South america have always been poor, and I fail to see how the U.S. is resposeible for this.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Blatant display of ignorance of recent history!
South American countries had their own independent and budding economies. Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile were actually quite prosperous at the time of the turn of the century. Other countries... not so much. Poverty in these countries is primarily due to the nature of their colonization, and more recently, populist/fascist/military governments (by the right-wing and the US), IMF tyranny caused by external debt (and the US), and corruption.

Where would Latin America be without American jobs? Better.
Believe it or not, Latin America has employers. Rather large ones too. We have our own companies, and would hava had even more, had so many not been driven off by multi-national competitors.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No they haven't all been autocratic. Pol Pot wasn't a communist. The Communists opposed him. The US supported him. I hardly see how he qualifies. And furthermore, one of his principle objectives was the destruction of all technological innovation... a very un-communsitic measure.

[Orion999]

How do you explain all the other authoritarian mass murdering dictatorships that inevitably emerge from these "revolutions". I have yet to hear a good reason why the next revolution is going to be any different.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There were no mass murderings.
What did occur was the selective murdering of reactionaries. This happens in every single revolution and I seriously hope it happens in future proletarian revolutions.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 6 2006, 11:34 AM--> (patton @ Sep 6 2006, 11:34 AM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 04:12 PM
No they haven't all been autocratic. Pol Pot wasn't a communist. The Communists opposed him. The US supported him. I hardly see how he qualifies. And furthermore, one of his principle objectives was the destruction of all technological innovation... a very un-communsitic measure.
I find it funny that you reds claim poeple like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao wern't real commies when they themselves all claimed to be commies. [/b]
They can call themselves whatever they want. But I dont have to agree with them...

Do you agree with every politician who has called him/herself a capitalist? Do you agree with Oliver Cromwell's fervent support for the slave trade? Do you agree with the countless fascist and military dictators of the twentieth century who called themselves capitalists?
Negro, please.

[Just Dave]

I find it funny that you reds claim poeple like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao wern't real commies when they themselves all claimed to be commies.

I claim to be the reincarnation of St Paul. Just because someone claims to be a communist doesn't make their government communist.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:41 AM
Blatant display of ignorance of recent history!
South American countries had their own independent and budding economies. Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile were actually quite prosperous at the time of the turn of the century. Other countries... not so much. Poverty in these countries is primarily due to the nature of their colonization, and more recently, populist/fascist/military governments (by the right-wing and the US), IMF tyranny caused by external debt (and the US), and corruption.

Where would Latin America be without American jobs? Better.
Believe it or not, Latin America has employers. Rather large ones too. We have our own companies, and would hava had even more, had so many not been driven off by multi-national competitors.

Quite true! Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries on Earth up through the 1920s. It rivled France in per capita income.
What happened?
Right wing governments? No. It was Peron, who nationalised property, raised taxes and in general behaved in quite a "progressive" manner. The same sorts things happened elsewhere. With the same sort of results. They turned away from capitalism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh, look everyone, more ignorance!
Peron was neither the cause of poverty in Argentina or a leftist.
Peron was a fascist.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Let's overthrow our oppressors. But for the sake of this not seeming like Nazi genocide, let's not kill anyone!

[red team]

No. It was Peron, who nationalised property, raised taxes and in general behaved in quite a "progressive" manner. The same sorts things happened elsewhere. With the same sort of results. They turned away from capitalism.

Every "Capitalist" country in the world that is rich today became that way from subsidising their own industries within very high tariff walls while pursuing an export oriented policy. Japan became rich that way and China's following the same foot steps. No country in the world became rich from letting foreign competitors swamp their domestic markets with cheap government subsidised goods brought in from other countries. The United States is no different. Key industries in technology and agriculture are massively subsidised by the government to gain an edge over competitors when exporting their goods worldwide.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:46 PM
Oh, look everyone, more ignorance!
Peron was neither the cause of poverty in Argentina or a leftist.
Peron was a fascist.
And like so many "fascists" he was a socialist prior to.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 6 2006, 02:08 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 6 2006, 02:08 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 06:46 PM
Oh, look everyone, more ignorance!
Peron was neither the cause of poverty in Argentina or a leftist.
Peron was a fascist.
And like so many "fascists" he was a socialist prior to. [/b]
He had long-since been friendly with the European fascists.
He was a populist... he was in the Department of Labor and pandered to workers by promoting some labor laws. Big fucking deal. He was never a socialist.

[red team]

When the third documentary, “When the Levees Broke,” was shown on Aug. 21 and 22 in two-hour segments each day, it had been nearly one year after Hurricane Katrina swept through the Gulf Coast. The storm exposed for all the world to see—in case there had been any doubt—the great chasm caused by racism in capitalist society—especially in the U.S..


Spike Lee said, “This film will showcase the struggle for New Orleans by focusing on the profound loss, as well as the indomitable spirit, of New Orleaneans.” His film is indeed part requiem, but more.

Back on topic, Spike Lee's documentary portrays the relationship between racism, poverty and Capitalism quite accurately. I highly anticipate watching it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

USSR, Cuba

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Cuba is governed by a democratically-elected legislation
Stalin was elected as general secretary of the central committee of the communist party
and the USSR was governed by a democratically-elected legislation... at least at some point

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Fidel also seldom makes enforces his own decisions. Mostly, he acts as the comander in chief of the military.

[Orion999]

Cuba is governed by a democratically-elected legislation
Stalin was elected as general secretary of the central committee of the communist party
and the USSR was governed by a democratically-elected legislation... at least at some point

This is all complete bull shit. If Cuba is so great why don't you A: go live ther and see how great it is. B: why are so many people floating on intertubes toget over to the U.S? Why does every Cuban in the U.S. hate Castros guts and love it here in America?

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:53 PM

Cuba is governed by a democratically-elected legislation
Stalin was elected as general secretary of the central committee of the communist party
and the USSR was governed by a democratically-elected legislation... at least at some point

This is all complete bull shit. If Cuba is so great why don't you A: go live ther and see how great it is. B: why are so many people floating on intertubes toget over to the U.S? Why does every Cuban in the U.S. hate Castros guts and love it here in America?
medicine!, america refuses to deliver medicine to cuba because they dont like Castro and want the cuban people to dislike him too thats why cuba doesnt get medicine this has good affetcs for america (the people who buy but then they come here) but also critism from the cubans

[KC]

If Cuba is so great why don't you A: go live ther and see how great it is.

I would if you gave me the money for the plane ticket.


B: why are so many people floating on intertubes toget over to the U.S?

"Q. Why do so many people leave Cuba and go to the United States?
A. Actually, by percentage, few Cubans actually leave Cuba, and there are many issues involved. Firstly, before the Cuban Revolution the United States gave very few Cubans visas to come to the United States, but after the revolution the doors were opened wide. Secondly, the United States has held an unjust trade embargo against Cuba for five decades (which has been condemed several times in the United Nations by almost every country in the world) which has caused the people of Cuba to suffer. Finally, the United States enacted the 'Cuban Adjustment Act', the only act of its kind anywhere in the world, which grants residency to anyone, no matter if they are a criminal or not, who leaves Cuba and reaches the United States in any fashion. Imagine if the same act applied to all of Latin America! How many people from other countries would leave for the United States? How many people leave places like Mexico and the Dominican Republic now? "
Source (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/cuba/qanda.html)


Why does every Cuban in the U.S. hate Castros guts and love it here in America?

If that were the case, then voter turnout wouldn't be 95-99% with each winning candidate receiving at least 50% of the vote. And these are candidates that support the revolution and when election time comes around for the President (Fidel) they vote him back in. If people were against the government then the majority of the country wouldn't be voting in support of Fidel and the revolution with such a majority.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:53 PM

Cuba is governed by a democratically-elected legislation
Stalin was elected as general secretary of the central committee of the communist party
and the USSR was governed by a democratically-elected legislation... at least at some point

This is all complete bull shit. If Cuba is so great why don't you A: go live ther and see how great it is. B: why are so many people floating on intertubes toget over to the U.S? Why does every Cuban in the U.S. hate Castros guts and love it here in America?
Billions of people in third-world countries want to come to North America and Western Europe... and do. Nobody is denying that Cuba is poor. That would be absurd. Socialism, however, has made Cuba the most egalitarian and democratic country in Latin America. Not to mention that ALL Cubans enjoy a much higher quality of education, healthcare, food, and housing than the masses of miserables in pre-revolution Cuba and in the neighboring Latin American countries.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 6 2006, 04:34 PM--> (patton @ Sep 6 2006, 04:34 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 04:12 PM
No they haven't all been autocratic. Pol Pot wasn't a communist. The Communists opposed him. The US supported him. I hardly see how he qualifies. And furthermore, one of his principle objectives was the destruction of all technological innovation... a very un-communsitic measure.
I find it funny that you reds claim poeple like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao wern't real commies when they themselves all claimed to be commies. [/b]
Who took out Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue you ignorant langer?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+Sep 10 2006, 09:40 AM--> (PRC-UTE @ Sep 10 2006, 09:40 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:34 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 04:12 PM
No they haven't all been autocratic. Pol Pot wasn't a communist. The Communists opposed him. The US supported him. I hardly see how he qualifies. And furthermore, one of his principle objectives was the destruction of all technological innovation... a very un-communsitic measure.
I find it funny that you reds claim poeple like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao wern't real commies when they themselves all claimed to be commies.
Who took out Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue you ignorant langer? [/b]
There can only be ONE interpretation of communism?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 10 2006, 02:53 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 10 2006, 02:53 PM)
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 10 2006, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:34 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 04:12 PM
No they haven't all been autocratic. Pol Pot wasn't a communist. The Communists opposed him. The US supported him. I hardly see how he qualifies. And furthermore, one of his principle objectives was the destruction of all technological innovation... a very un-communsitic measure.
I find it funny that you reds claim poeple like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao wern't real commies when they themselves all claimed to be commies.
Who took out Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue you ignorant langer?
There can only be ONE interpretation of communism? [/b]
Fine, you can claim that they were 'interpretations' of communism, if we can claim the following as interpretations fo captilaism:Pinochet, Franco, Hitler an Moussilini. Being that they were facsists and facsism is an interpretation of capitalism.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 10 2006, 11:16 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 10 2006, 11:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 10 2006, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 04:34 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 04:12 PM
No they haven't all been autocratic. Pol Pot wasn't a communist. The Communists opposed him. The US supported him. I hardly see how he qualifies. And furthermore, one of his principle objectives was the destruction of all technological innovation... a very un-communsitic measure.
I find it funny that you reds claim poeple like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao wern't real commies when they themselves all claimed to be commies.
Who took out Pol Pot's Khmer Rogue you ignorant langer?
There can only be ONE interpretation of communism?
Fine, you can claim that they were 'interpretations' of communism, if we can claim the following as interpretations fo captilaism:Pinochet, Franco, Hitler an Moussilini. Being that they were facsists and facsism is an interpretation of capitalism. [/b]

This entire board is testament that there are varying interpretations of socialism/communism. How many debates are present in other forums as to the correct formula and structure of socialism? I am not so much making a charge as to making an observation.

[Janus]

In all the other areas where hurricanes have hit; the response was never as terrible as what occured in New Orleans. I wonder how long people would have to stand on their roofs if a hurricane or tropical storm hit the Northeast coast. :rolleyes:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 6 2006, 01:56 PM

No. It was Peron, who nationalised property, raised taxes and in general behaved in quite a "progressive" manner. The same sorts things happened elsewhere. With the same sort of results. They turned away from capitalism.

Every "Capitalist" country in the world that is rich today became that way from subsidising their own industries within very high tariff walls while pursuing an export oriented policy. Japan became rich that way and China's following the same foot steps. No country in the world became rich from letting foreign competitors swamp their domestic markets with cheap government subsidised goods brought in from other countries. The United States is no different. Key industries in technology and agriculture are massively subsidised by the government to gain an edge over competitors when exporting their goods worldwide.
no, but once industrialization occurs trade barriers lead to stagnation in the market.


In all the other areas where hurricanes have hit; the response was never as terrible as what occured in New Orleans. I wonder how long people would have to stand on their roofs if a hurricane or tropical storm hit the Northeast coast. :rolleyes:

they probably wouldn't at all as their houses aren't built below sea level.


Being that they were facsists and facsism is an interpretation of capitalism.

no it isn't. fascism is inherently politicaly authoratarian, capitalism isn't.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

no it isn't. fascism is inherently politicaly authoratarian, capitalism isn't.

Yes it is.
Capital, a social product, can only be maintained under the control of such few people through force.

[Janus]

they probably wouldn't at all as their houses aren't built below sea level.
The Northeast is actually quite prone to flooding.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:53 PM

no it isn't. fascism is inherently politicaly authoratarian, capitalism isn't.

Yes it is.
Capital, a social product, can only be maintained under the control of such few people through force.
yeah but thats not the even the same type of coercion used in fascism. in capitalism the market shapes society, fascism used the government directly to regulate the aspects of poeples lives.