Curious about rationalizing Communistic webpages - Questions

[GCC comrade]

I'm curious how you all feel about the fact that almost all of you are from capitalistic nations and not many (if any) are from Communist nations.

The most obvious reason would be that a capitalist economy has enabled 1. you to have enough money for internet access (the average Cuban makes about $140 per year except Fidel who is worth $110 million) and 2. the technology to be available and affordable for you.

But another reason might be that Communist peoples are heavily censored in their internet use.

[Guest1]

Or maybe it just could have something to do with the US policy of immediate extermination of any threat to its interests, especially the rise of socialism. The cia has consistently sought to disrupt any attempts at a more just society, going so far as mass murder to block equality.

Remember Pinochet?

[sc4r]

Quote: from GCC comrade on 6:12 am on Mar. 12, 2003
I'm curious how you all feel about the fact that almost all of you are from capitalistic nations and not many (if any) are from Communist nations.



First of all probably no-one here is from a capitalist nation. There are none in existence; the closest approximations to capitalist countries are a few very unsuccessful African nations and several south east asian nations.

Almost certainly most of us live in Liberal democracies which contain a mixture of Socialist and Capitalist ideas. Cappies love to forget that and claim that all the success stems from Capitalism but any dispassionate analysis shows that the correlation between wealth and degree of socialism is very high. Extend the analysis to cover a correlation with low income disparities too (i.e. wealth which is not just concentrated in a very few hands) and it is almost perfect.

Communism and socialism are in Global terms pretty new ideas (150 years 'ish) and for full implementation involve a much more radical change in law and ownership principles than the change from feudalism to liberalism did. So there is plenty of inertia particularly in established or developed nations to be overcome.

But of course it is, with very few exceptions, exactly the same nations (those with high inertia) that were wealthy and powerful when they were feudalist and imperialist that are wealthy now as liberal democracies. Liberalism (what u probably call capitalism) did not create wealth out of nothing, the base was already there and we have inherrited it.

So - Why are there no really rich socialist countries yet ? Because within really rich established countries there has not been time for socialsm to develop. In a few smaller countries which showed signs of becoming wealthy with a predominantly socialist ethos these same powerful countries have stomped then good to eliminate competition.

I dont think many of us fool ourselves into thinking that an existing power and wealth base is not an advantage in competition, particularly when the nature of the system used in those places tends to act as a positive feedback system for grabbing (not creating) what wealth there is.

If you doubt this try getting a job paying just a little over subsistence wage and then paying out 30% of what income you do get in loan repayments. Every time you find yourself struggling for truly urgent needs borrow a little more but put as much as you feel you can afford each week into an investment plan. After a few years you will find that the people you have borrowed money from are fairly wealthy while (amazingly) you are yourself still totally potless.

[GCC comrade]

Well, of course I don't mean that all of us live in completely capitalist nations. That is silly. What can be inferred by my statement is that we live in free-market economies where their are limited economic restrictions established by the government, but they are reasonably restrictive. And I need not further expound on that since I think you know what I mean by "reasonably."

What I do not understand, though, is how you can condemn wage disparities in free-market countries, but not see it in countries where they have experienced redistribution of wealth and farmland, such as Cuba. Here we see not only a huge disparity in wealth (let's be ridiculous and say that Fidel only is worth $1 million and the layperson is worth $5000) but that the person with the most money is the leader of the nation. Tony Blair and George Bush are not the richest people in their countries. There is something strikingly wrong with this picture. Yeltzin saw a problem with this while he was in power in Moscow in the 80s when he pointed out in the "Perks of the Dacha" speach in 1987 this hypocrisy of Communism. Putting the power into the hands of few who think they know a lot is dangerous, and history has witnessed to us that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You also mentioned that socialism has not had enough time to do its thing. Perhaps I'm crossing terms here and you are only speaking of socialism and therefore you'll throw out my Cuba references. But how do you explain how former USSR countries (now under free-market economies) have made significant progress in less than 15 years after the fall of Communism in the USSR. But Cuba has been under it for 45 years and they are nowhere near the per capita of these former-Commie nations. The "time" argument doesn't hold.

Let me make one last statement of significance before I go to lunch. Note that there is not one person on this website who lives in a Communist nation or who is not in their government. Putting aside all economic reasons for this, the majority of people under Communism do not like Communism.

[redstar2000]

Gee, how come there's nobody on the board from Japan? or Taiwan? or Indonesia? or Thailand? or the Union of South Africa? Aren't they good capitalist countries?

Did you ever think, "Gcc Comrade", that a little thing like language barriers would keep people away?

Maybe the Cubans are all surfing the net in Spain. And maybe the Vietnamese are all surfing the net in France. I mean...how would you know?

Oh yes, about Fidel's personal fortune of $110,000,000...you got it from Forbes magazine. I saw it...they present no evidence for their figure or any figure. Just blowing smoke out of their ass, that's all.

If you want to argue that most people under capitalism don't "like" communism, that's ok. No one will disagree with you on that one. And there are reasons--good, not-so-good, and just plain stupid.

I don't think the internet has anything to do with the question.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 1:00 pm on Mar. 13, 2003)

[suffianr]

I'm curious how you all feel about the fact that almost all of you are from capitalistic nations and not many (if any) are from Communist nations.

Not another You-should-be-feeling-guilty-for using-the Internet-just-because-you're-all-commies thread, I hope.

[Som]

But how do you explain how former USSR countries (now under free-market economies) have made significant progress in less than 15 years after the fall of Communism in the USSR. But Cuba has been under it for 45 years and they are nowhere near the per capita of these former-Commie nations.

Because they had a much higher per capita to begin with, a larger bucket thats not being refilled.

The fact is that Eastern europe is at 30% of what it was before the fall of the the soviet union, while Cuba is at about 70%.

Putting aside all economic reasons for this, the majority of people under Communism do not like Communism.

Not true. Thats why the communist party is the largest party in Russia, and why Moldova has elected a communist president.
The vast majority of people voted to preserve the Soviet union before it fell.