Maaja
13th October 2002, 09:19
That's what he wrote me some days ago...
Everything I say below is my opinions on things, and,
everything between the stars, I addressing Marx and
Che, not you…
********
The more I have read (Che's speech and Marx), the more
I disagree with them.. Their justifications are based
on false assumptions and a lack of respect for
individual freedoms, and they exploit human weaknesses
and fears. Both Marx and Che treat humans controlling
their own lives and human controlled by "society" as
equal ends - which, to me, is a serous flaw in their
writings.
Castro seems different. I have not read about him yet,
but here does seem to have been a genuine desire on
his part to help the Cuban people (unlike dictators
such as Hussein).... I probably will disagree with his
methods of implementing his ideas, but he does seem an
interesting person, and I will be reading about him
fully!
The question you asked assumes that Communism and
Capitalism are competing political systems - they are
not. Communism is a system of government defined by
control by government of economic activity. Western
democracies are simply “limited governments” that do
not interfere excessively in economic activity.
Capitalism is not a system of government - it is
merely the economic system that develops when people
are free from government controlled require a system
for exchanging goods and services among each other.
To me, ands to the vast majority of free people,
Communism is characterized by violations of
fundamental human rights, greed, and insecurity. I
realize that it may seem more comforting to have
society take care of you, and treat you "equally" as
others, much like caged animals in a zoo, who do not
have to worry about food or shelter, than to live
free, like an animal in the wild, who must provide for
themselves. Yes, I believe Communism is about greed -
the greed of expecting others to provide for you.
Freedom is about self-reliance, about controlling your
own life and taking care of your own needs without
burdening others or having your life be imposed on by
others. When you have others take care of you, they
control you, much as parents both provide for and
control their children. Communism is about
surrendering economic control to that state, and
becoming children to the "state." Myself , and
millions of others, would rather fight to teh death
than surrender to that. My motto in life is that of an
early American solider, and also the motto of one of
the states: "Live Free or Die!"
The issue of human rights in free vs. Communist
countries is very striking. Free nations are
represented by "sovereign" individuals, where
individuals have all rights not expressly given to
the government, and every individual life matters. If,
for example, the United States government wanted to
"relocate" the Cuban population of Florida, it would
have no right to, and any government official who
tried to would face a lifetime in prison for violating
individuals' human rights. On the other hand, all
Communist nations have placed the good of the State
over the rights of the individuals (as in the mass
deportations of the Circassians and the restrictions
on leaving).
There is no such thing as "pure Communism",, "Pure
Democracy", or "pure Anything." In order to force a
controlling system of government on people, dissenters
must be oppressed and eliminated - resulting in the
mass deportations and murders by the Soviets, the
human rights violation of China, and the political
prisoners of Cuba. An institution must be created for
the government to assert its power. Communists have
killed many millions, and since Communism will never
arise after people are truly free, the argument you
presented (that Communism not arising after capitalism
is not real Communism) has the effect of guaranteeing
a false denial of reality and of the millions who have
been killed.
Equality is a word that sounds ideal, but that does
not have a solid meaning. Both Western and Communist
nations have “equality” in religious freedom - Western
nations provide religious *freedom equally* to all,
while Communist nations *equally oppress* all. With
standards of living, equality exists in prisons, where
everybody has the exact same in everything, but in the
outside world, one's living condition is based on
one's own actions. As Thomas Jefferson noted in the US
"Declaration of Independence", government most
guarantee the right to "the pursuit of happiness."
Government must ensure that one individual does not
infringe on another individual's rights. Happiness,
however, must be achieved by a person's actions.
Should a person who dropped out of high school have
the same standard of living as a doctor or a
businessman who created 100 jobs by starting a
company? If yes, why would anybody botehr to become a
doctor or start a business? If no, who should decide
what each shoudl receive? The "people" (i.e. the
market) or government beurocrats?
Freedom can create a level of insecurity, as there are
no guarantees! The level of insecurity and need for
responsibility is what I believe subconsciously
attracts many young people to Communism - Communism
provides a safety blanked once stepping out into the
world, while freedom implies struggling to live on
one's own. The bear caged in the zoo is much more
secure than the tiger free in the wild, so I can
understand how, if it could decide, the young cub
might be tempted to surrender its freedom for the
security of the zoo!
The low pay that exist in Central/South America and
southeast Asia is appalling. When considering the
cause, I ask you to consider this: If a transnational
company offered you 10c per hour in Tartu, would you
accept it? Of course not! You have other
opportunities. Then, Why, in country XYZ, are workers
willing for work for 10c an hour? Unfortunately, the
answer is the poor political and economic situation in
many of those countries. If the political and economic
situations of country XYZ improved, market forces
would drive wages higher, so the company would be
force to either offer higher wages or have empty
factories! So, yes, I am horrified by people earning
10c per hour, but I see the "transnationals" as
symptoms of the problems and not the problem itself,
which is the lack of political and economic freedoms
and education i n many nations that prevent people
from finding anything better than 10c per hour! Fight
to eliminate them and the standard of living of those
people will improve. Banish the transnationals without
improving conditions in the nation, and you will just
have more people unemployed.
I did not mean to imply that the Soviet Union was
characterized by hunger. If you consider occupation by
the Soviets to have in any way good, however, I am
stunned. Given almost any measure of freedom and
prosperity to the West, there is no comparison!
Many thousands of people have fled Cuba, often in
unseaworthy boats with their families, and thousands
of them have died trying to escape to the US. Many
others succeeded, resulting in a huge population of
Cuban exiles near Miami, Florida. Millions of others
tried to escape Communism in other parts of the world,
some hampered by such barriers as the Berlin Wall,
with many losing their lives trying to flee.
On the other hand, millions of people have emigrated
to free nations (such as he US, Canada, and Britain)
to escape the oppression of dictators, Communists, and
theocracies. While East Germany built a wall to keep
people in, some in the US have suggested a wall across
the Mexican border to keep excessive number of
immigrants out - a striking comparison of the freedom
and quality of life of each! Many have died trying to
escape into the US, and large smuggling rings exist.
Unlike in Communist societies, the doors are always
open for Americans, Canadians Britains, etc. who wish
to "escape" "Capitalist oppression." They do not have
to try to escape in an unsafe boat with their family -
they merely need to buy a one-way airline ticket.
Virtually none ever do...
Everything I say below is my opinions on things, and,
everything between the stars, I addressing Marx and
Che, not you…
********
The more I have read (Che's speech and Marx), the more
I disagree with them.. Their justifications are based
on false assumptions and a lack of respect for
individual freedoms, and they exploit human weaknesses
and fears. Both Marx and Che treat humans controlling
their own lives and human controlled by "society" as
equal ends - which, to me, is a serous flaw in their
writings.
Castro seems different. I have not read about him yet,
but here does seem to have been a genuine desire on
his part to help the Cuban people (unlike dictators
such as Hussein).... I probably will disagree with his
methods of implementing his ideas, but he does seem an
interesting person, and I will be reading about him
fully!
The question you asked assumes that Communism and
Capitalism are competing political systems - they are
not. Communism is a system of government defined by
control by government of economic activity. Western
democracies are simply “limited governments” that do
not interfere excessively in economic activity.
Capitalism is not a system of government - it is
merely the economic system that develops when people
are free from government controlled require a system
for exchanging goods and services among each other.
To me, ands to the vast majority of free people,
Communism is characterized by violations of
fundamental human rights, greed, and insecurity. I
realize that it may seem more comforting to have
society take care of you, and treat you "equally" as
others, much like caged animals in a zoo, who do not
have to worry about food or shelter, than to live
free, like an animal in the wild, who must provide for
themselves. Yes, I believe Communism is about greed -
the greed of expecting others to provide for you.
Freedom is about self-reliance, about controlling your
own life and taking care of your own needs without
burdening others or having your life be imposed on by
others. When you have others take care of you, they
control you, much as parents both provide for and
control their children. Communism is about
surrendering economic control to that state, and
becoming children to the "state." Myself , and
millions of others, would rather fight to teh death
than surrender to that. My motto in life is that of an
early American solider, and also the motto of one of
the states: "Live Free or Die!"
The issue of human rights in free vs. Communist
countries is very striking. Free nations are
represented by "sovereign" individuals, where
individuals have all rights not expressly given to
the government, and every individual life matters. If,
for example, the United States government wanted to
"relocate" the Cuban population of Florida, it would
have no right to, and any government official who
tried to would face a lifetime in prison for violating
individuals' human rights. On the other hand, all
Communist nations have placed the good of the State
over the rights of the individuals (as in the mass
deportations of the Circassians and the restrictions
on leaving).
There is no such thing as "pure Communism",, "Pure
Democracy", or "pure Anything." In order to force a
controlling system of government on people, dissenters
must be oppressed and eliminated - resulting in the
mass deportations and murders by the Soviets, the
human rights violation of China, and the political
prisoners of Cuba. An institution must be created for
the government to assert its power. Communists have
killed many millions, and since Communism will never
arise after people are truly free, the argument you
presented (that Communism not arising after capitalism
is not real Communism) has the effect of guaranteeing
a false denial of reality and of the millions who have
been killed.
Equality is a word that sounds ideal, but that does
not have a solid meaning. Both Western and Communist
nations have “equality” in religious freedom - Western
nations provide religious *freedom equally* to all,
while Communist nations *equally oppress* all. With
standards of living, equality exists in prisons, where
everybody has the exact same in everything, but in the
outside world, one's living condition is based on
one's own actions. As Thomas Jefferson noted in the US
"Declaration of Independence", government most
guarantee the right to "the pursuit of happiness."
Government must ensure that one individual does not
infringe on another individual's rights. Happiness,
however, must be achieved by a person's actions.
Should a person who dropped out of high school have
the same standard of living as a doctor or a
businessman who created 100 jobs by starting a
company? If yes, why would anybody botehr to become a
doctor or start a business? If no, who should decide
what each shoudl receive? The "people" (i.e. the
market) or government beurocrats?
Freedom can create a level of insecurity, as there are
no guarantees! The level of insecurity and need for
responsibility is what I believe subconsciously
attracts many young people to Communism - Communism
provides a safety blanked once stepping out into the
world, while freedom implies struggling to live on
one's own. The bear caged in the zoo is much more
secure than the tiger free in the wild, so I can
understand how, if it could decide, the young cub
might be tempted to surrender its freedom for the
security of the zoo!
The low pay that exist in Central/South America and
southeast Asia is appalling. When considering the
cause, I ask you to consider this: If a transnational
company offered you 10c per hour in Tartu, would you
accept it? Of course not! You have other
opportunities. Then, Why, in country XYZ, are workers
willing for work for 10c an hour? Unfortunately, the
answer is the poor political and economic situation in
many of those countries. If the political and economic
situations of country XYZ improved, market forces
would drive wages higher, so the company would be
force to either offer higher wages or have empty
factories! So, yes, I am horrified by people earning
10c per hour, but I see the "transnationals" as
symptoms of the problems and not the problem itself,
which is the lack of political and economic freedoms
and education i n many nations that prevent people
from finding anything better than 10c per hour! Fight
to eliminate them and the standard of living of those
people will improve. Banish the transnationals without
improving conditions in the nation, and you will just
have more people unemployed.
I did not mean to imply that the Soviet Union was
characterized by hunger. If you consider occupation by
the Soviets to have in any way good, however, I am
stunned. Given almost any measure of freedom and
prosperity to the West, there is no comparison!
Many thousands of people have fled Cuba, often in
unseaworthy boats with their families, and thousands
of them have died trying to escape to the US. Many
others succeeded, resulting in a huge population of
Cuban exiles near Miami, Florida. Millions of others
tried to escape Communism in other parts of the world,
some hampered by such barriers as the Berlin Wall,
with many losing their lives trying to flee.
On the other hand, millions of people have emigrated
to free nations (such as he US, Canada, and Britain)
to escape the oppression of dictators, Communists, and
theocracies. While East Germany built a wall to keep
people in, some in the US have suggested a wall across
the Mexican border to keep excessive number of
immigrants out - a striking comparison of the freedom
and quality of life of each! Many have died trying to
escape into the US, and large smuggling rings exist.
Unlike in Communist societies, the doors are always
open for Americans, Canadians Britains, etc. who wish
to "escape" "Capitalist oppression." They do not have
to try to escape in an unsafe boat with their family -
they merely need to buy a one-way airline ticket.
Virtually none ever do...