Communism has starved more people than Fascism

[Fighter_For_Democracy]

Try to disprove this statement "Communism has starved more people than Fascism". There is so much evidence that Communism has caused more famine than any other system.... But I would like to see the other side of the argument.

[Gleb]

That argument, while I certainly am not in agreement with Stalinist policies, can be debunked with three simple words:

"Capitalist third world."

There you go!

[revolution inaction]

Communism has never staved any one, capitalism on the other hand has cause millions of people to starve to death

[Demogorgon]

Well if we are going to play the numbers game, capitalism has starved more people than communism.

[danyboy27]

i suggest you guy to ignore him, beccause no matter how good our arguments would be he will continue, its a troll a self hating monster

[Dr Mindbender]

load the bancannon

[Bud Struggle]

That argument, while I certainly am not in agreement with Stalinist policies, can be debunked with three simple words:

"Capitalist third world."

There you go!

Actually, whilest I'm not in agreement with the OP--there is no such thing as the Capitalist third world. Just petty war lords that seek to benefit from the enslavemnt of their people.

The third world calls itself more "Socalist" than anything else.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

load the bancannon

Tis broken after fireing at baconators sockpupets.

We will have to be brutal and use the banhammer

http://files.xboxic.com/general/banhammer.jpg

[Plagueround]

Actually, whilest I'm not in agreement with the OP--there is no such thing as the Capitalist third world. Just petty war lords that seek to benefit from the enslavemnt of their people.

Yes, but who is buying from them and/or put them in power? The first world is.


The third world calls itself more "Socalist" than anything else.Now you've got me quoting people again...but I think this is appropriate:

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'" - Mikhail Bakunin

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, but who is buying from them and/or put them in power? The first world is.



And it's Socialist.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

That argument, while I certainly am not in agreement with Stalinist policies, can be debunked with three simple words:

"Capitalist third world."

There you go!

can you point to one pure capitalist third world countries?

[revolution inaction]

can you point to one pure capitalist third world countries?

All the ones I can think of are capitalist, maybe there's somewhere obscure that's still feudalist though.
Capitalism is as system where a minority owns the means of production and pays the majority wages to operate them, and produce commodities.
The majority are forced to comply because they do not own the means of production and so can not obtain what they need to live any other way.

Edit to add

The parse pure capitalism is meaningless, capitalism is the dominate system of production throughout the world.

[Bud Struggle]

The parse pure capitalism is meaningless,

The same might be said about pure Communism. :(

:lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

can you point to one pure capitalist third world countries?

Er, the Phillipines? South Africa? Argentina?

The only socialistic countries i can think of are perhaps Venezuela, and arguably Cuba but even these have capitalistic tendencies within them thanks to foreign and big business pressure.

Wherever you look the free market is a lot more prominent in these states than the collective power of it's citizens.

I think when you say 'pure' captalism you really mean 'anarcho' capitalism which is a very different concept (and thankfully one that has never been realised in the real world).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And it's Socialist.

The first world is socialist? Wow; socialism has brought exceedingly high wealth. Go socialism. :cool:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Er, the Phillipines? South Africa? Argentina?

The only socialistic countries i can think of are perhaps Venezuela, and arguably Cuba but even these have capitalistic tendencies within them thanks to foreign and big business pressure.

Wherever you look the free market is a lot more prominent in these states than the collective power of it's citizens.

I think when you say 'pure' captalism you really mean 'anarcho' capitalism which is a very different concept (and thankfully one that has never been realised in the real world).

Why do you say that? Anarcho-capitalists love Somalia. :rolleyes:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Actually, whilest I'm not in agreement with the OP--there is no such thing as the Capitalist third world. Just petty war lords that seek to benefit from the enslavemnt of their people.

The third world calls itself more "Socalist" than anything else.

This is absolute bullshit. Most undeveloped countries are battalions of neo-liberalism. Even if we accept your name fallacy as true, countries which identify as socialist (China, India, Venezuela) are the ones growing. Radical capitalist markets have been terrible for development. South Korea didn't surpass the North until the late 70s/80s because it had one of the "freest" markets in the world. Westerners were disgusted with Seoul being run by sweatshop labor. So Japan and America matched SK's exports by 800% in aid, half of the economy was turned into a planned government sector, and institutions like public school and public pensions were introduced. Coupled with the North's aid being cut in half and the World Bank putting it into debt, the South grew at phenomenal rates.

Of course all those who died from unregulated working conditions will never be counted by capitalist apologists, but if someone contracted syphilis in the Soviet Union between 1918-1991 Stalin's "death count" somehow goes up.

You arguing that the system of government is what creates poverty and not capitalism is absolutely hysterical in light of OIers pointing to extremely authoritarian systems of "socialist" governments as proof socialism failed. When looking at libertarian socialism in Spain and the Free Territory, socialism has always outperformed capitalism.

And for having all of its main trading partners crash, Cuba still remains better than most Latin American economies.

[revolution inaction]

The same might be said about pure Communism. :(

:lol:

i never use the phrase pure communism so what is your point?

[Gleb]

can you point to one pure capitalist third world countries?

Who said anything about purity? Expect for you, I mean. Capitalism is still pretty much doing lots of shit in third world, by local oligarchic governments and international corporations. While it's not modeled after teachings of Ayn the Redeemer or Milton the Messiah, social order down there is of capitalist nature, and many capitalists actually are in support of all that shit; cheap labour, sweatshops et cetera.

[Bud Struggle]

The first world is socialist? Wow; socialism has brought exceedingly high wealth. Go socialism. :cool:

You don't think most of Europe isn't Socialist to a good extent? You don't think America is headed in that direction?

Yea, there's some Capitalism but that's tempered greatly by the goverment controling businesses and redistribution both the wealth of the Coroprations and the Borgeoise.

Personally, I think China's slide toward Capitalism and Europe and America's slide toward Communism will meet somewhere in the middle and we'll all be Socialists.

It looks that way to me--you still betting on some sort of Revolution?

[Elliot_R]

most of Europe isnt socialist. Socialism is like what Cuba is. Europe is a social democracy.

[Bud Struggle]

most of Europe isnt socialist. Socialism is like what Cuba is. Europe is a social democracy.

Well, technically, but anything that redistributes wealth is Socialism. That they have a democratic form of government is nice and all, but the all in all they are far from being Capitalist countries.

[Elliot_R]

i wouldn't consider them capitalist, but isn't most of the economy not controlled by the government? I mean they have universal healthcare and all that and a ton of social programs.The US redistributes wealth to some degree, like welfare and that. They also have social programs like public school and such.

[Bud Struggle]

i wouldn't consider them capitalist, but isn't most of the economy not controlled by the government? I mean they have universal healthcare and all that and a ton of social programs.The US redistributes wealth to some degree, like welfare and that. They also have social programs like public school and such.

That's what I'm saying. We (europe and America) are sliding towards Socialism and China is sliding towards Capitalism--in the not too distant future we'll all be the same.

On the other hand there won't be any Revolution--you can't have a Communist revolution against a socialist country--now can you?

Maybe they'll turn Revleft into a dating service. (It would have to be a "Gay" one considering there's no women on this Forum. :lol:)

[Gleb]

European model doesn't really represent socialism while it certainly isn't of very capitalist nature, it's solution between these two extremes - a genuine mixed economy. I have first hand experience only on Scandinavian model, where business is mainly not controlled by government, but where there are some major government monopolies in businesses like railroads, transportation, post system et cetera, and it also has large participation in energy business and media, too.

Wealth is redistributed to some degree and there indeed is lots of social programs, and healthcare and education are universal.

[Bud Struggle]

European model doesn't really represent socialism while it certainly isn't of very capitalist nature, it's solution between these two extremes - a genuine mixed economy. I have first hand experience only on Scandinavian model, where business is mainly not controlled by government, but where there are some major government monopolies in businesses like railroads, transportation, post system et cetera, and it also has large participation in energy business and media, too.

Wealth is redistributed to some degree and there indeed is lots of social programs, and healthcare and education are universal.

You are what the rest of the world is going to be.

[revolution inaction]

most of Europe isnt socialist. Socialism is like what Cuba is. Europe is a social democracy.

no cuba is state capitalist, with elements of normal capitalism.


Well, technically, but anything that redistributes wealth is Socialism. That they have a democratic form of government is nice and all, but the all in all they are far from being Capitalist countries.

this is total untrue, capitalism redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Socialism is when the worker own and control the means of production. I think you know this already, you've been here long enough, if you don't know you must be unusually thick.

[revolution inaction]

European model doesn't really represent socialism while it certainly isn't of very capitalist nature, it's solution between these two extremes - a genuine mixed economy.

the European system is capitalist, social welfare programmes is not equal to socialism, it is not socialism unless the workers control the economy.

[Bud Struggle]

Socialism is when the worker own and control the means of production.

That's what I would consider Communism. I take it that socialism is where the government controls how the profits from the means of production are distributed.

In Capitalism I control the profits from my means of production.

FYI: I very much could be off base here. :)

[revolution inaction]

That's what I would consider Communism. I take it that socialism is where the government controls how the profits from the means of production are distributed.

In Capitalism I control the profits from my means of production.

FYI: I very much could be off base here. :)

in a socialist system workers control the means of production, in a communist system there is no money, people work for free and goods are free.
In capitalism a minority control the means of production and hire other people to operate it for them.
they then pay the people who actual carry out the production less than what they sell the thing produced for, this is the source of profits.

[JimmyJazz]

There is so much evidence that Communism has caused more famine than any other system....

...except Western imperialist capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1859843824).

Good try, though. I particularly like how you picked "fascism", a political system corresponding with merely an infinitesimal fraction of the land area and time over which capitalism has been the predominant economic system, to compare to "communism". I will give you a solid B- in bullshit scenario setting. Keep up the good work!

[Gleb]

the European system is capitalist, social welfare programmes is not equal to socialism, it is not socialism unless the workers control the economy.

Capitalism, yes, but watered down version of it.

[revolution inaction]

Capitalism, yes, but watered down version of it.

not watered down it just has added sugar :)

[Lost In Translation]

Try to disprove this statement "Communism has starved more people than Fascism". There is so much evidence that Communism has caused more famine than any other system.... But I would like to see the other side of the argument.

Interesting Username 'Fighter For Democracy'. Are you a defender of western democracy, full of lies and slander, or are you a crusader of pure democracy, as we are? Please, do share.

[Gleb]

not watered down it just has added sugar :)

Then it's like wet sugar when "orthodox" capitalism is water.

It's certainly not socialist but it seriously doesn't represent "orthodox" capitalism or traditional capitalist ideals, as especially in Scandinavian states state and trade unions have quite strong presence in economic sector (plenty of state-run monopolies and e.g. the Finnish Comprehensive Income Policy Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Income_Policy_Agreement)), taxation is quite strong and there are lots of very handy and working social programs.

It's just basically replacing capitalism with pesky bureaucracy but without a doubt, it's better system than traditional capitalist systems. On a less positive note, most European countries are still quite lazy when it comes to direct democracy, especially on questions like European Union, because those silly people just don't know what's best for them! [/sarcasm]

[Schrödinger's Cat]

All this wishy-washyness is to be expected. Political terminology, like reality, isn't absolute.

By my definitions not one country is socialist, although they are heavily influenced by some ideals of socialism - or more precisely, concessions have been made after realizing straight-up capitalism doesn't work. I would also state freeware and cooperatives are limited reflections of socialism as well. Socialism doesn't come about just by the actions of the state; anyone who believes that is conforming to neo-liberal terms.

I view the trials of capitalism being similar to what you saw in European feudalism. The state and church, like the state and the capitalists, work together, but they sometimes have different interests. The state oftentimes needs to be more receptive of people's demands, which benefits the capitalists - the 70s and 80s, for example, could be compared to the period following the collapse of the West Roman Empire when the Church strengthened itself. Scandals rocked the political landscape and the economy was tanking due to government politics. This ushered in a rat race for capital.

And the capitalists also receives criticism, which strengthens the state - the Progressive Era and New Deal. This can be compared to the Protestant Reformation when states started kicking the Church to the sideline.

However at the end of the day the State and capitalists will unite against "lower" interests when they demand "too much." The peasant uprisings in Germany following the Protestant Revolution can be drawn as a comparison.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Actually, whilest I'm not in agreement with the OP--there is no such thing as the Capitalist third world. Just petty war lords that seek to benefit from the enslavemnt of their people.
I can't stop laughing when people who criticize us for saying that the Soviet Union wasn't really communist come around and say "but all those poor capitalist countries aren't REALLY capitalist!"


The third world calls itself more "Socalist" than anything else.
That was during the Cold War when they were trying to get guns from the Soviets. Now they call themselves liberal democratic and capitalist in order to get guns from the Americans. No doubt many of them will soon start calling themselves something that sounds good to the Chinese.

Try to keep up here.


That's what I would consider Communism. I take it that socialism is where the government controls how the profits from the means of production are distributed.

In Capitalism I control the profits from my means of production.

FYI: I very much could be off base here. :)
The difference between communism and socialism is basically the difference between direct and indirect (representative) democracy.

Socialism is when the workers own the means of production and elect a government or some other kind of representative body to oversee those means of production on a daily basis.

Communism is when the workers own the means of production and oversee them by themselves through direct democracy on a daily basis.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What's especially (un)amusing about your statement, Tom, is that most of the "third" world is a hub for neo-liberal experiments. Whereas strongly mixed economies like Venezuela, China, and India are doing exceptional.

Egypt is a prime example. It's fastest growth occurred under a mostly state-planned economy with rates exceeding 10%. In the course of only a few years standard of living jumped 30%. When the Soviet bloc started to disintegrated neo-liberals came in and snatched up investment opportunities. In recent years GDP growth shrunk to 4-5% growth, and the standard of living hasn't increased.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/egyp-m05.shtml

[Rascolnikova]

I understand the usefulness of specific examples, but it strikes me that which ideology individual countries use is less important here than what ideology/s hold global dominance, and how that dominance is exercised.

For example, supposing Cuba were some sort of communist utopia. . . under embargo, it could only possibly be as much of a utopia as is feasible without international trade. Various third world countries face even greater encroachment from capitalism than this, as they are often in enormous debt--and, as condition to that debt, are required to administer their markets and even restrict domestic programs however the (ostensibly market-freeing) WTO and worldbank tell them to.

When we consider what ideology starves the most people, for accuracy we must examine ideologies as forces in a global system.

[Djehuti]

Try to disprove this statement "Communism has starved more people than Fascism". There is so much evidence that Communism has caused more famine than any other system.... But I would like to see the other side of the argument.

Capitalism is starving millions right now.

http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-4/starvation-politics-from-ancient-egypt-to-the-present/

[Ken]

can you point to one pure capitalist third world countries?

they are all moneyalist, (utopian) communism is moneyless.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

can you point to one pure capitalist third world countries?
Can you point to one pure communist country anywhere?

[Demogorgon]

That was during the Cold War when they were trying to get guns from the Soviets. Now they call themselves liberal democratic and capitalist in order to get guns from the Americans. No doubt many of them will soon start calling themselves something that sounds good to the Chinese.

Indeed it is already beginning. Many Governments in Africa are sucking up heavily to China now. In Zimbabwe for instance every movement of Mugabe is more or less decided in Beijing now. The power sharing agreement earlier this month effectively finally came about because China was willing for Mugabe to decide it.

The third world is really a pretty good indicator of the way the international climate is blowing. Countries looking for Chinese assistance and hence aligning with China are greatly increasing.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

All I have to say is that I made a right choice studying Chinese. Good job opportunities in the future. :laugh:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Actually, whilest I'm not in agreement with the OP--there is no such thing as the Capitalist third world. Just petty war lords that seek to benefit from the enslavemnt of their people.

What?!


The third world calls itself more "Socalist" than anything else.

Do we really?

[Black Dagger]

I'm impressed that people were able to create a meaningful discussion out of such a trollish topic post - good stuff!

[TheRedRevolutionary]

Capitalism starves people for fun and for practice! It is its MO, modus operandi. Communists regimes may have made mistakes or mismanaged the situation but we are not moralists, the overall effect of Marxist Leninist governments have been a great increase in their productivity and the industralization from the "idiocy" of farmwork as Marx put it to urban proleteriat!

[bretty]

You are what the rest of the world is going to be.

You're crazy. Read up on Development studies and then tell me you still believe that.

[Rascolnikova]

You know, I tacked this on to a thread in the "learning" section, and nobody answered. . . and it seems terribly germane here, so hopefully you all will help me out.

Clearly there is not standard agreement about what is communist, what is socialist, and what is capitalist. What are the most usual versions of distinguishing these, and what ideologies are they associated with?

[Dr Mindbender]

You know, I tacked this on to a thread in the "learning" section, and nobody answered. . . and it seems terribly germane here, so hopefully you all will help me out.

Clearly there is not standard agreement about what is communist, what is socialist, and what is capitalist. What are the most usual versions of distinguishing these, and what ideologies are they associated with?

i think there is a standard agreement about what communism is between communists, the problem is anti-communists want everyone else to beleive that the cold war era negative synomities are ideological and part and parcel of communism rather than being symptoms of de facto wartime and scarcity material conditioning.

They say ''look at north korea and cuba to see how it has failed'' while at the same time ignoring the fact that these countries are effectively beseiged by their opposing peer economies.

[revolution inaction]

Capitalism starves people for fun and for practice! It is its MO, modus operandi. Communists regimes may have made mistakes or mismanaged the situation but we are not moralists, the overall effect of Marxist Leninist governments have been a great increase in their productivity and the industralization from the "idiocy" of farmwork as Marx put it to urban proleteriat!

Capitalism results in people starving because it is more profitable not for fun
There's never been a communist regime, and stalinism is in no way communist, all it has ever achieved is state capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Capitalism results in people starving because it is more profitable not for fun
There's never been a communist regime, and stalinism is in no way communist, all it has ever achieved is state capitalism.
try telling that to the hoxhaist union.

[LOLseph Stalin]

You say Communism starves people? Look at Africa. There are millions of people there starving all as a result of evil Capitalist policies. Even in North America there are families who can't even afford enough food for their families. It's sad. :(

[Dr Mindbender]

You say Communism starves people? Look at Africa. There are millions of people there starving all as a result of evil Capitalist policies. Even in North America there are families who can't even afford enough food for their families. It's sad. :(

ah, but you see thats not capitalism at work, its the fault of those 'evil statists' for daring to allow governments to operate public affairs.

Obviously if unelected, private companies were in charge they would operate things with a much greater level of transparency, fairness and accountability.

:rolleyes: *cough!*bullshit!*cough!*

[LOLseph Stalin]

*cough!*bullshit!*cough!*

My post was bullshit? :confused:

wow, i'm a n00b. XD

[Dr Mindbender]

My post was bullshit? :confused:

wow, i'm a n00b. XD

no, i said bullshit in reference to my own post after parodying the attypical anarcho-cappie line.

Sorry for the confusion.

[LOLseph Stalin]

no, i said bullshit in reference to my own post after parodying the attypical anarcho-cappie line.

Sorry for the confusion.

Oh ok.lol anyway, it's sad that people would even come here to argue these things. The commies will always win... :P

[Rascolnikova]

i think there is a standard agreement about what communism is between communists, the problem is anti-communists want everyone else to beleive that the cold war era negative synomities are ideological and part and parcel of communism rather than being symptoms of de facto wartime and scarcity material conditioning.

They say ''look at north korea and cuba to see how it has failed'' while at the same time ignoring the fact that these countries are effectively beseiged by their opposing peer economies.

Perhaps this my experience has been unusual, but this has not been my experience.

Within the mainstream, it seems that all the places you've listed are considered communist. Occasionally what here tends to be called "welfare capitalism," as in Europe, is referred to as socialism.

To my eyes, China seems increasingly capitalist, the US and the places in the third world it consistently screws over are clearly capitalist, and most of the rest of the world I'm not sure about. I'm not sure most places in Africa can even be said to have an economic system.

There seems to be some disagreement in the left as to whether to own those countries who have experienced failure from exterior pressure--especially since those same countries tend to have severe reduction of civil liberties and individual rights, which doesn't make for a convincing claim that they're being governed by "the people."

Could someone please indulge me, and explain or at least link me to something that can help concisely sort this out?

-What is commonly considered to define socialism by the left and right respectively
-What countries are commonly considered, by the left and right respectively, to practise these things
-The same questions for communism and capitalis

I'm not completely uneducated, but it seems useful to be more precise about what current understandings of these are. . .

Edit: You know, sorry--if anyone wants to answer here, that's fine, but I'm just going to post this over in the learning forum. It just seemed like most of this argument was about what socialism, communism, and capitalism actually are, so if someone does answer this, it would certainly fit.

I don't know what the ettiquite is here about multi-posting the same stuff, but if I need to delete this, please let me know.

[spice756]

You say Communism starves people? Look at Africa. There are millions of people there starving all as a result of evil Capitalist policies. Even in North America there are families who can't even afford enough food for their families. It's sad. :(


No it just under capitalism food ,house ,job ,education and healthcare is a privilege not a right.Under capitalism you have a right to starve or be homeless ,be poor or have no job ,no education and no healthcare .

Under capitalism the rich have right to have millions of money and homeless people 4 blocks away.

Dam capitalism sounds so moral.:rolleyes:

[spice756]

Actually, whilest I'm not in agreement with the OP--there is no such thing as the Capitalist third world. Just petty war lords that seek to benefit from the enslavemnt of their people.


Not all the world is like this.I would say less 5% of the world.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That argument, while I certainly am not in agreement with Stalinist policies, can be debunked with three simple words:

"Capitalist third world."

There you go!

And why the fuck is that capitalism's sole responsibility?

I don't remember the USSR sending anywere near the amount of aid overseas the US has. And since the USSR was the other superpower, I'd argue that the USSR was just as responsible for all the cannabalism in Africa as America is.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Not all the world is like this.I would say less 5% of the world.

I would say less than 5% of the world employs 100% capitalism.

Most of the third world, especially in Africa, is divided by intra-ethnic struggles which significantly hinder the growth of market capitalism.

[Rascolnikova]

And why the fuck is that capitalism's sole responsibility?

I don't remember the USSR sending anywere near the amount of aid overseas the US has. And since the USSR was the other superpower, I'd argue that the USSR was just as responsible for all the cannabalism in Africa as America is.

Dollars spent in capitalist economies are only as valuable as they are because the goods they buy are produced via slave/sweatshop labor.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And why the fuck is that capitalism's sole responsibility?

I don't remember the USSR sending anywere near the amount of aid overseas the US has. And since the USSR was the other superpower, I'd argue that the USSR was just as responsible for all the cannabalism in Africa as America is.

Money meant to be spent on ballistic missiles and luxury jets does not constitute aid. I wouldn't try to fight this dollar war argument, either: Cuba has been very generous with its foreign aid.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would say less than 5% of the world employs 100% capitalism.


What is 100% capitalism? Selling air to a kid as you strangle him? :lol:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Dollars spent in capitalist economies are only as valuable as they are because the goods they buy are produced via slave/sweatshop labor.

If you work in a sweatshop, you should probably quit. Your economic analysis on the worth of the dollar is flawed.



Money meant to be spent on ballistic missiles and luxury jets does not constitute aid. I wouldn't try to fight this dollar war argument, either: Cuba has been very generous with its foreign aid.


I agree, for it's size, Cuba has been very generous.

Of course, that entire nations charity is trumped by just several Americans.

[Psy]

If you work in a sweatshop, you should probably quit. Your economic analysis on the worth of the dollar is flawed.

You are forgetting that the capitalist class owns the means of production and it is in their class interest to exploit workers as possible. Meaning workers only improve their position through class struggle against the capitalist class to make it impossible for the capitalist class to exploit as much surplus value from them. Thus why all factories in the USA was sweatshops before the USA had a real labor movement and American capitalists had to deal with labor unions.




I agree, for it's size, Cuba has been very generous.

Of course, that entire nations charity is trumped by just several Americans.
The USA's foreign aid is not charity it is a imperialist tool. The coup in Venezuela showed American foreign aid is used to defend US imperialism not to help the needy, unless you actually think that rich Venezuelans are needy as that is were all US foreign aid goes to in Venezuela. Or the fact US aid to Iraq goes to build a Iraqi ruling class loyal to the US ruling class.

[spice756]

Dollars spent in capitalist economies are only as valuable as they are because the goods they buy are produced via slave/sweatshop labor


sorry come agin ?




What is 100% capitalism? Selling air to a kid as you strangle him?


I think he wants 100 free-market .And no country has that , it was tired in the past and does not work.It lead to a monoply.

[Rascolnikova]

If you work in a sweatshop, you should probably quit. Your economic analysis on the worth of the dollar is flawed.
If the family farm is competing with subsidized, imported first world agri-business goods, and working 60-70 hours a week at the local sweatshop is the only way to get cash for a tractor. . . /, the only way to get medicine for your children, the only way to get running water when the hook-up costs a third of a year's salary (e. g. bolivia) and the local groundwater is not available because it's all in pipes. . .

A lot of these people don't have any good choices.

[Rascolnikova]

sorry come agin ?

When I buy things that have been shipped around the world twice at the dollar store, the only reason I can do that is that someone is only getting 60 cents a day from their labor.


on 100% capitalism:

to enforce some notion of private property, there must be some notion of what property is justly acquired. Because of this, I find the notion of a "free market" to be almost a contradition in terms..

So, for example, if we were to say that it was not possible for a firm to justly acquire property if it's highest paid employees or contractors made more than 5x what it's least paid ones, or even if we were just to institute a living wage as a price floor for labor, that would be decried as a radical overthrow of the free market. . . but we've accepted other restrictions, like "no chattel slavery" and "no highway robbery" and still call the market "free". . .

[spice756]

When I buy things that have been shipped around the world twice at the dollar store, the only reason I can do that is that someone is only getting 60 cents a day from their labor.



The reason things are so cheap at Walmart or the dollar store is it is made in sweatshop like China or India so on.The workers getting very little pay and long work hours .And no compensation.They are lucky if they get sick pay or weak holiday in a year.

Yap brutal exploitation that no American will work.

[Rascolnikova]

The reason things are so cheap at Walmart or the dollar store is it is made in sweatshop like China or India so on.The workers getting very little pay and long work hours .And no compensation.They are lucky if they get sick pay or weak holiday in a year.

Yap brutal exploitation that no American will work.

Um. . . right. Hence, American/first world dollars only being worth what they're worth because they're propped up by slave labour.

[danyboy27]

Um. . . right. Hence, American/first world dollars only being worth what they're worth because they're propped up by slave labour.

still, long ago before north america made deal with china, the north america living standard was relatively decent. I have to admit that now its completly ridiculous how its jumped like that.

anf for all the foreign aid, well lets say they where given to governement in good intention but that at the end it did jack shit beccause the corrupted leader spent it all wrong.
Also, has some U.N guys told recently, the problem is not the amount of money but the way they are spent.
If you dump 100 ton of rice for a village it do shit if at the end you are forced to do this over again, you have to help them to get their food by themselve, help them to change.

Unfortunatly, one of the thing we should do to help them would be to send gun and shit to overthrow their corrupted governements, and its never gonna happen.

I cant wait until the U.N got balls.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You are forgetting that the capitalist class owns the means of production and it is in their class interest to exploit workers as possible. Meaning workers only improve their position through class struggle against the capitalist class to make it impossible for the capitalist class to exploit as much surplus value from them. Thus why all factories in the USA was sweatshops before the USA had a real labor movement and American capitalists had to deal with labor unions.

So people should unionize. I agree.


The USA's foreign aid is not charity it is a imperialist tool. The coup in Venezuela showed American foreign aid is used to defend US imperialism not to help the needy, unless you actually think that rich Venezuelans are needy as that is were all US foreign aid goes to in Venezuela. Or the fact US aid to Iraq goes to build a Iraqi ruling class loyal to the US ruling class.

Lol what does the fact that the American people (though the govt also gives off huge amounts) give by far the most amount of aid have to do with the 2002 coup?


If the family farm is competing with subsidized, imported first world agri-business goods, and working 60-70 hours a week at the local sweatshop is the only way to get cash for a tractor. . . /, the only way to get medicine for your children, the only way to get running water when the hook-up costs a third of a year's salary (e. g. bolivia) and the local groundwater is not available because it's all in pipes. . .

A lot of these people don't have any good choices.

You're right, America and it's capitalist system run laps around just about every other group of farmers in the world.

Secondly, if you lived in a developed capitalist country you could get a loan for that tractor, though I wouldn't recommend it.

Countries eg Bolivia/Latin America made the mistake of either listening to the US or allowed themselves to get bullied around, instead of imitating the US.



Um. . . right. Hence, American/first world dollars only being worth what they're worth because they're propped up by slave labour.


America doesn't need sweat-shop made sneakers to survive. Those workers need our dollars, however.

[Rascolnikova]

You're right, America and it's capitalist system run laps around just about every other group of farmers in the world.

If by "run laps around" you mean "fuck the shit out of."



America doesn't need sweat-shop made sneakers to survive. Those workers need our dollars, however.


Not to survive, but we certainly need them to be America As We Know It. . .

As to whether they need our dollars, that depends on what for. If they're going for increased class inequality within their countries and highly subsidized competition against undeveloped local industries from without, they certainly do need our dollars. . .

but really, why should they bother when they could just re-instate chattel slavery? It would be so much more efficient. . .

[Psy]

Lol what does the fact that the American people (though the govt also gives off huge amounts) give by far the most amount of aid have to do with the 2002 coup?

That Chavez actually put a dent on poverty in Venezuela (not totally but made far more progress then all the aid by the USA). Looking at the coup we can see why, the aid didn't go to the needy but to the bourgeoisie of Venezuela so they finance their coup, the money mostly goes for bribes, guns and drugs (that doesn't help the people) so the CIA can establish their rule. It is just like when the mafia says they are helping the community with their "protection service".

[spice756]

still, long ago before north america made deal with china, the north america living standard was relatively decent. I have to admit that now its completly ridiculous how its jumped like that.



The US living standard is not that high today like it was before.



America doesn't need sweat-shop made sneakers to survive. Those workers need our dollars, however.


Or go for bankruptcy? Has it is the US businesses cannot compete.

[PRC-UTE]

Actually, whilest I'm not in agreement with the OP--there is no such thing as the Capitalist third world. Just petty war lords that seek to benefit from the enslavemnt of their people.

The third world calls itself more "Socalist" than anything else.

I could call myself the Pope, doesn't mean much. self-identified labels are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

right now the third world, even the areas ruled by warlords are capitalist. unless these economies are not dominated by wage labour for commodity production.

the only possible exceptions are Cuba and the DPRK, but to read that too literally is redundant. Cuba may be striving for socialism but it can't escape its place within the tyranny of the capitalist economy until there are more revolutions to break its isolation.

[PRC-UTE]

Try to disprove this statement "Communism has starved more people than Fascism". There is so much evidence that Communism has caused more famine than any other system.... But I would like to see the other side of the argument.

It's not true, just check out the latest stats from the WHO. they demonstrate that capitalism is starving people all the time, whereas outside of industrialisation drives, civil war, people didn't in the USSR. they still don't in Cuba, whereas they do in capitalist countries of comparable economic development.

a lot of peasants did starve during the industrialisation of the USSR and China. sadly that seems to be typical in the process of industrialisation itself.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If by "run laps around" you mean "fuck the shit out of."

I wasn't aware you were a primitivist.

So, should we just dump all our tractors and fertilizers into the ocean and go back to horse-drawn plows so the third world can compete?




Not to survive, but we certainly need them to be America As We Know It. . .


No, we don't.



but really, why should they bother when they could just re-instate chattel slavery? It would be so much more efficient. . .


I was mistaken, thinking you were a communist.



That Chavez actually put a dent on poverty in Venezuela (not totally but made far more progress then all the aid by the USA). Looking at the coup we can see why, the aid didn't go to the needy but to the bourgeoisie of Venezuela so they finance their coup, the money mostly goes for bribes, guns and drugs (that doesn't help the people) so the CIA can establish their rule. It is just like when the mafia says they are helping the community with their "protection service".


Uggh I mention the massive amounts of aid we give out each year and you blaze a trail about a coup attempt that has nopthing to do with the subject.

Do I need to point you towards Soviet repression? Fidel Castro locking up homosexuals, perhaps? Do those disqualify any aid given by those nations?


Or go for bankruptcy? Has it is the US businesses cannot compete.

LoL what universe are you from? :laugh:

Just a joke. I would say American businesses are doing quite well, despite this minor hiccup.

[Rascolnikova]

I wasn't aware you were a primitivist.

So, should we just dump all our tractors and fertilizers into the ocean and go back to horse-drawn plows so the third world can compete?

No; we should

a) focus on sustainable development here, particularly permiculture

and

b) permit impoverished third world countries to practise protectionism until they've had the chance to develop their industries locally--at least to the point where those industries can compete locally with any subsidized foreign goods that are allowed in.

This is the only chance they have of self determination and decent local jobs.



No, we don't.If we don't need sweatshop labor, what's our justification for using the current system instead of paying people more?



I was mistaken, thinking you were a communist.But, apparently, not as mistaken as I was in behaving as though you'd the wit to follow sarcasm.

[spice756]

I wasn't aware you were a primitivist.

So, should we just dump all our tractors and fertilizers into the ocean and go back to horse-drawn plows so the third world can compete?



I don't think you will find anyone here who supports primitivist.What those countries need is advance tools to help them with food shortage and manufactoring.



LoL what universe are you from?

Just a joke. I would say American businesses are doing quite well, despite this minor hiccup.


Check the high stage of capitalism.I had thread on it way back I posted here.

[JimmyJazz]

b) permit impoverished third world countries to practise protectionism until they've had the chance to develop their industries locally--at least to the point where those industries can compete locally with any subsidized foreign goods that are allowed in.

This is the only chance they have of self determination and decent local jobs.

I am gonna go ahead and quote this and take yet another opportunity to plug Ha-Joon Chang's books Bad Samaritans and Kicking Away The Ladder.

Or Erik Reinert's How Rich Countries Got Rich..and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor, which makes the same argument.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No; we should

a) focus on sustainable development here, particularly permiculture

First, what is permiculture again?

Second, the US produces huge amounts of food. We need not be worried.


b) permit impoverished third world countries to practise protectionism until they've had the chance to develop their industries locally--at least to the point where those industries can compete locally with any subsidized foreign goods that are allowed in.

That's just dumb. Though it's basically what happens in a lot of the third world. Foreign Goods are kept out or used by the govt/warlords to control the populace.

In poor areas which allowed competition growth has come much quicker. Africa hasn't changed much. Hong Kong has.


This is the only chance they have of self determination and decent local jobs.

Like working on a rice paddy?


If we don't need sweatshop labor, what's our justification for using the current system instead of paying people more?

Finding the cheapest means to produce a good or service. The government over these "slaves" has failed to provide them with basic labor regulations that have been considered commonplace in America since the Square Deal, over a century ago, they choose to work these jobs.

[Rascolnikova]

First, what is permiculture again?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Zmq&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Permaculture&spell=1



Second, the US produces huge amounts of food. We need not be worried.Pollution, topsoil degradation, salination, a fossil fuel dependent mode of agriculture. .. ring any bells? Did I ever say we didn't produce a lot of food?



That's just dumb. Why thank you; I will always remember your unique and heartwarming eloquence. In fact, maybe I should just trash the rest of this post, because with that you have me completely convinced. . .



Though it's basically what happens in a lot of the third world. Foreign Goods are kept out or used by the govt/warlords to control the populace.

In poor areas which allowed competition growth has come much quicker. Africa hasn't changed much. Hong Kong has.Where do you get the information that Africa has been closed to competition from foreign goods?

With some exceptions (I don't know about western asia, for example), the largest block to international competition isn't local governments or warlords, but rather, having the infrastructure to facilitate trade. That infrastructure comes with factories or sometimes oil wells--and so do the goods, generally unopposed. At this point, highly subsidized American farm goods enter the scene, driving local farmers--who might have been, for example, doing well enough to consider buying that first tractor--out of business. If the workers or government ever try to agitate for better labor rights, the factories simply relocate, leaving the local economy without an agricultural sector. I'm sure you can see how things go from there.

Hong Kong is one of the noted "tiger economies" that form a glaring exception from the usual patterns of third world economics.

I'm aware that this is a biased film, and that you may not have 86 minutes that you want to spend on it, but it is very beautifully made and full of footage of IMF and Worldbank officials making arguments on why screwing over the third world really is the right thing to do. . . which arguments are then countered very clearly and logically. I'd really love to hear some commentary on it from someone who is really dedicated to our current model of globalization, which you seem to be; I do not see any problems with their arguments.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5277094596195828118&hl=en




Like working on a rice paddy?If there is to be domesticated rice, someone has to work in a rice paddy; whether or not that's a good job to have depends on a wide variety of things. What was this question intended to imply?



Finding the cheapest means to produce a good or service. The government over these "slaves" has failed to provide them with basic labor regulations that have been considered commonplace in America since the Square Deal, over a century ago, they choose to work these jobs.When the Square Deal happened, most of these countries were still under very heavy colonial influence--which pretty uniformly leaves local governments a mess. It's hardly fair to fault them for failing to get around to workers rights while they were occupied. . . Since we, the first world, were the ones occupying them, wouldn't it be a fair shake to just decide workers deserve those rights everywhere, and make it illegal to buy poorly supported labor that takes place somewhere else?

Edit: I forgot to mention--when one party in a contract is under threat of livelyhood and the other is not, the whether we should call the less powerful party's decision a "choice" is dubious. Under chattel slavery, people had the choice to run away or not. . .

[JimmyJazz]

That's just dumb.

Read the books I posted about, they fully make the case for Raskolnikova's point.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Zmq&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Permaculture&spell=1


Thank you.

I have one simple question about it. It's says agriculture methods should mimic the natural ecosystems. What about a place like California, which has a climate in which plants from all over the world an be grown?


Pollution, topsoil degradation, salination, a fossil fuel dependent mode of agriculture. .. ring any bells? Did I ever say we didn't produce a lot of food?

Right right go green.



Why thank you; I will always remember your unique and heartwarming eloquence. In fact, maybe I should just trash the rest of this post, because with that you have me completely convinced. . .


Perhaps you should.


Where do you get the information that Africa has been closed to competition from foreign goods?

Huge amounts of aid do go to Africa, were, in places like Somalia and much of sub-Saharan Africa it is used by warlords or Presidents or whoever has the most guns to control the populace.



With some exceptions (I don't know about western asia, for example), the largest block to international competition isn't local governments or warlords, but rather, having the infrastructure to facilitate trade. That infrastructure comes with factories or sometimes oil wells--and so do the goods, generally unopposed. At this point, highly subsidized American farm goods enter the scene, driving local farmers--who might have been, for example, doing well enough to consider buying that first tractor--out of business. If the workers or government ever try to agitate for better labor rights, the factories simply relocate, leaving the local economy without an agricultural sector. I'm sure you can see how things go from there.


First, trade is often dettered by conflict. Nigeria has lots of oil wells and pipelines, but their semi-fascist government and adjacent liberation movement(s) certainly impede economic growth.

Second, food prices are extremely high. Farmers with arable land and a government open to trade and foreign investment can most likely get some kind of cash flow to increase production.

Third, many of the infrastructure projects in the third world, ie railroads, ports, and other hard assets, are built with first-world capital. Naturally, after providing millions of dollars and thousands of jobs, those sources of capital are going to demand a share of profits/products.


Hong Kong is one of the noted "tiger economies" that form a glaring exception from the usual patterns of third world economics.

Hong Kong is an exception because they didn't use protectionist policies while being a developing area. And no, they're not perfect.



I'm aware that this is a biased film, and that you may not have 86 minutes that you want to spend on it, but it is very beautifully made and full of footage of IMF and Worldbank officials making arguments on why screwing over the third world really is the right thing to do. . . which arguments are then countered very clearly and logically. I'd really love to hear some commentary on it from someone who is really dedicated to our current model of globalization, which you seem to be; I do not see any problems with their arguments.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5277094596195828118&hl=en


I'm off work tomorrow, I might have a chance to watch it.



If there is to be domesticated rice, someone has to work in a rice paddy; whether or not that's a good job to have depends on a wide variety of things. What was this question intended to imply?


That if a nation adopts protectionist policies, how can the expect foreign investment? In a rapidly developing world, protectionism will result in little progress on the efficiency of that rice paddy.



When the Square Deal happened, most of these countries were still under very heavy colonial influence--which pretty uniformly leaves local governments a mess. It's hardly fair to fault them for failing to get around to workers rights while they were occupied. . . Since we, the first world, were the ones occupying them, wouldn't it be a fair shake to just decide workers deserve those rights everywhere, and make it illegal to buy poorly supported labor that takes place somewhere else?


True, and that's a very valid response.

However, once these peoples left colonial rule they, well, joined the adult table. The actions of their goverment are their responsibility, in my opinion, and colonial rule should not be blamed for post-colonial turmoil. Does the fight over Kashmir, for instance, show that Britain is to blame or that they should have never left?

Also, legnth of time under colonial rule does not affect post-colonial success. Most of Latin America and Africa, for instance, were liberated in the 19th century (latin america) or in the immediate post-WWII era (Africa). Places like Belize, Hong Kong, and Signapore received their independence much later and have done significantly better in delievering economic wealth to its citizens.


Edit: I forgot to mention--when one party in a contract is under threat of livelyhood and the other is not, the whether we should call the less powerful party's decision a "choice" is dubious. Under chattel slavery, people had the choice to run away or not. . .

Millions of people choose to go to cities and find these jobs because the don't want to farm.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Read the books I posted about, they fully make the case for Raskolnikova's point.

I'm afraid I live in a very conservative area and don't have any good political bookstores or university libraries around. But anyway, i'll keep my eyes open. I'm reading Trotskys book and having trouble staying awake.