DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on June 19, 2010, 09:52:07 AM
-
"No matter how many state-owned companies we have,
modernization will happen, above all, through private business.
And only if there is competition"
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev - June 18, 2010
-
LOL. In another thread, CU4, you were complaining about "not getting the full picture."
Well for sure you and Medvedev don't get the full picture here either. Sure, "modernization" will best be achieved through private enterprise and competition. That's a no-brainer that even Communists will readily admit.
What comes along with private enterprise and competition are: unemployment; poverty; homelessness; exploitation of labour; inequality; crime.
The question that Medvedev and you never ask, of course, is how much modernization is required of any society and once a certain level of modernization is reached, which sector or sectors of the population exactly benefits from further increases in modernization.
IMHO, the benefits of modernization are already very unequally distributed. The benefits of further modernization will be even more unequally distributed. IMHO, we already have the technology to extend the benefits of a decent life to every human being on this planet. The problem is not to achieve further modernization, the problem is to achieve better (i.e., more equitable) distribution.
-
Competition encourages modernization. Competition is not, however, the sole product of private enterprise.
The US Postal Service has modernized due to competition. And the current problems that are having is because (a) they are forced by Congress to deliver junk mail at below cost, and (b) because in competing with internet banking and billing, they are competing with a free service.
I agree that wealth needs to be more equitably distributed and that this will benefit nearly everyone. But competition in efficiency and price is required for modernization.
-
but not always the case.
it also means cutting corners to the point a business may cause harm.
ex. peanut butter
-
I agree that wealth needs to be more equitably distributed and that this will benefit nearly everyone.
How?
-
<<How?>>
Communism
-
How does redistribution benefit everyone?
-
I don't think it benefits everyone. It wouldn't even benefit me. It would benefit the have-nots, who probably outnumber the haves by a margin of 1,000 to one.
-
I was not referring to Communism, I was referring to a greater equality such as one sees in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Even in the US, Hawaii and Utah have a higher degree of equality among their citizens than Mississippi, Alabama, or West Virginia, and people are better educated, less likely to be obese, and live longer.
-
It would benefit the have-nots, who probably outnumber the haves by a margin of 1,000 to one.
And this is good reason to introduce redistributive policy because......?
-
because I believe that governments should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number.
Why try to make everyone happy? No one can answer that. Why try to save a drowning child you don't even know? Why help up some stranger who stumbled in the street? There is no logical answer for that. If you don't give a shit, you don't give a shit. Period. End of story.
People like me like to see greater happiness and less misery in the world. People like you don't give a shit. I can't account for it, but personally I think it has something to do with the way you were brought up as a child. I think you can divide the world into two groups, those who give a shit and those who don't. I can't tell ya why I give a shit but I am glad I do and I feel sorry for anyone who does not. Let's just say I'm one of the good guys and you're one of the bad guys, and leave it at that.
-
if you want to make the world better for the greater good have at it. But what gives you the right to force me to go along with your generosity?
-
Competition encourages modernization. Competition is not, however, the sole product of private enterprise.
The US Postal Service has modernized due to competition. And the current problems that are having is because (a) they are forced by Congress to deliver junk mail at below cost, and (b) because in competing with internet banking and billing, they are competing with a free service.
Do you realize that you just said that the reason a government agency is in trouble is because it is receiving too much interference from the government and it can't compete with for-profit private concerns that are using a more modern business model?
So that's basically two good reasons to choose the private sector over the public.
Did I miss something or did the time-space continuum just shiver?
-
<<if you want to make the world better for the greater good have at it. But what gives you the right to force me to go along with your generosity?>>
Good question. It's the right thing to do. It's wrong for some people to live in mansions while others are homeless, to eat luxuriously while others starve. I don't know exactly why but I know that what I see just can't be right. It has to change. Ideally, voluntarily, but change by any means necessary.
-
I don't know exactly why
Me either. Thus my question.
-
Was the origional condition of all men wealth?
Quie the contrary, the origional condition of all mankind is poverty.
Innovation , hard work and ages of earning have produced wealth that never existed before .
Does this process have to halt untill all men have caught up?
To me Communism represents a subset of luddite , trying to harm the progress of the rapid , hobble and weight and handicap the fast untill the slow have the same position on the feild.
The total effect of such extreme leveling is to slow all advancement to the pace of the least able and shortchange the need of any who need more than the advradge.
In capitalist areas of the worlds economy there are many fortunes made , each fortune is an engine pulling a small train , in the communist areas of the worlds economy there is practicly only one fortune , this one fortune is in the controll of the government and no project that cannot be justified in comitties of civil servants will be funded.
There is so much advantage in capitalism that there is little danger that there will ever be a communist country able to outcompete in economy or develop superior tecnology. The emblematic problem of the poor in capitilism these days is obesity , th emblamatic problem for all communists is famine.
Is it really so comforting that we should all starve together , when if we could simply stop hobbleing our economy we could defeat famine itself?
-
but capitalism by doesn`t always help with poverty,look at brazil and notice the striking contrast between the poor and the rich.
the difference here is a greater effort to shorten that gap and the benefits to the economy by such actions.
-
but capitalism by doesn`t always help with poverty,look at brazil and notice the striking contrast between the poor and the rich.
the difference here is a greater effort to shorten that gap and the benefits to the economy by such actions.
Our country periodicly has periods in which the "gap" between the poor and the rich is narrowed .
We call these periods "recessions".
When the rich get richer does a gap really form?
The poor were poor to begin with , if there were no rich they would be no better off.
-
The poor were poor to begin with , if there were no rich they would be no better off.
actually the reverse is happening., meaning the poor effects the status of the rich. the more prosperious the poor gets the more money the rich gets. the introduction of the middle class has greatly effected the economy. not really a natural product of capitalist system remember it took effert of people to start the change. in the 40`s people would find increasing income to the poor not a positive idea. that kind of thinking is still difficult today.
-
.........meaning the poor effects the status of the rich. the more prosperious the poor gets the more money the rich gets.
Which causes the other?
Is it mutual?
-
Fedex and UPS are NOT using a "more modern business model". They are simply not required to deliver junk mail like the USPS. The USPS is the ONLY cost-effective way to deliver bills and statements: Fedex and UPS do not even try to do this.
The main function of a business is to make money. Fedex and UPS make money
The main function of a government is to provide service. The USPS gives really good service.
Fedex and UPS are making money most of the time. The USPS needs to raise rates on junk mail, because there are no longer enough people paying their bills by mail.
-
<<Me either. Thus my question. >>
One of a class of questions that tends not to edification
http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/201.html (http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/201.html)
Ask away, at the end of the day no one can answer your question; it will not tend to edify, but it will definitely stand in the way of efforts to enlist universal support for the healing of the sick, the feeding of the hungry, the comforting of the afflicted.
Communists roll up their sleeves and get to work on the problem. Guys like you asking questions like that just block the path of those who, like the Communists,want to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. While such questions are asked, pondered, debated endlessly and never finally answered, the sick and the weak go on suffering, the hungry go on starving and the true work of the world remains gridlocked. You need to stop asking questions like that and come to grips with the essential question: are you going to be a part of the solution or a part of the problem?
-
Fedex and UPS are NOT using a "more modern business model". They are simply not required to deliver junk mail like the USPS.
If they're "required" to deliver junk mail, then why do they actively solicit that type of mail and offer discounts for it? After all, if they're required to deliver it but don't really want to do it, they could just charge regular rates for it and watch the business go elsewhere.
-
I think they are required to solicit business. Maybe there is an economy of scale involved. especially in cities, where I notice my junk mail arrives all folded together.
The main cost is sending out postal workers to deliver mail every day: this would not change if there were NO junk mail: it would still cost the same to have the mailman cover that route, perhaps with fewer stops, but covering the same territory.
You would have to ask the USPS for their precise data. I know that this is what the USPS says, that junk mail costs more to deliver than the post office is allowed to charge.
I have no complaints with USPS, or FedEx or UPS, for that matter. I am pleased with the service all of them provide. When I mail a package, I use the USPS because the PO is three blocks away.
-
I have no complaints with USPS, or FedEx or UPS, for that matter. I am pleased with the service all of them provide. When I mail a package, I use the USPS because the PO is three blocks away.
All three will pickup at your door. Doesn't get any closer than that.
-
You need to stop asking questions like that and come to grips with the essential question: are you going to be a part of the solution or a part of the problem?
Who says i am not part of the solution.
I have rescued a drowning man, and i didn't need for a govt program to do it.
I don't even know if it was voluntary, i saw what was happening and reacted.
I have launched food campaigns that gathered enough canned and dry goods for the local charity that we had to enlist a caravan of pickup trucks to deliver it. And that local charities client base was mostly poor and we know what that is code for.
The point isn't whether helping the less fortunate, hungry or those in peril need that help.
The point is why is the govt and forceful redistribution of wealth, which i'm guessing is solely in the govt domain, the best policy to remedy these ills.
Give me a logical reason for this.
-
<<Who says i am not part of the solution.
<<I have rescued a drowning man . . . >>
My congratulations. I was trained to do so but never had the chance. I know it can be very difficult.
<<I have launched food campaigns that gathered enough canned and dry goods for the local charity that we had to enlist a caravan of pickup trucks to deliver it. And that local charities client base was mostly poor and we know what that is code for.>>
Let me clarify what I mean by "the problem" and "the solution." The problem is not the plight of a handful of individuals here or there or an occasional drowning man. Ad hoc relief of specific local distress is not addressing the problem and does not constitute any part of the solution. The problem is systemic - - for example, poverty and hunger will persist in spite of your food campaigns. The problem is systemic and the solution must therefore be systemic. Capitalism, poverty and charity have co-existed for hundreds of years; obviously the charity is not the solution to the poverty caused by the capitalist system. We have the technology presently available to make a good life available to everyone on this planet but systemic problems, mostly of capitalism, prevent the relief. The problem is capitalism, the solution is its abolition.
<<The point isn't whether helping the less fortunate, hungry or those in peril need that help.
<<The point is why is the govt and forceful redistribution of wealth, which i'm guessing is solely in the govt domain, the best policy to remedy these ills.
<<Give me a logical reason for this.>>
Historical example. The U.S.S.R. in the 1930s, China today, both lifting huge populations out of poverty and illiteracy in one or two generations after centuries of misery. The answer is communism. Capitalism by nature, almost by definition, inevitably results in the capture of all governments, even ostensibly "democratic" ones, by the capitalists. The system then works with capitalists to ensure their class interests, the protection and growth of wealth, the transfer of wealth from the lower to the higher socioeconomic strata and the competition for global resources, often at the expense of the masses of the countries in which the resources are found. Capitalists all over the world grow wealthier and wealthier, the poor go from bad to worse by the billions. The obvious answer is that capitalism and greed-driven policies must come to an end. It's time for humanitarian concerns to set the agendas.
-
So with communism the success it is in China, when can we expect the hunger of the masses worldwide to disappear?
And was hunger unknown worldwide during the Soviet heyday.
See you talk systemic and then you give examples of more topical applications, ad hoc if you will.
Earlier i was the bad guy and you were the good guy, yet in the example of the person drowning, apparently i was the good guy and you were just a talker from the bleachers.
How is communism prepared to handle famine? We have examples from the Soviets and the Chinese and they don't come out looking so rosy. My guess is the problem was with the management of the crisis.
In another thread you applaud Chavez for encouraging local communes, much like the council Marxists we spoke of earlier, yet you deride the local efforts of a municipal food drive as not being systemic enough.
See, i think you really aren't as concerned about the hungry as you are of manipulating their suffering to your ideological advantage.
Earlier you scoffed at my reference to an Army of one, totally misunderstanding my point.
The difference between my philosophy and yours is that you think a system has to be in place where everyone marches in lockstep and my philosophy is it doesn't take a politburo, or a village, it just takes one person to act and another human being or more's suffering might be eased.
-
The way that the problem is defined has a lot to do with the effectiveness of the solution and the solution methods used.
I will have to agree that Communism is very effec tive at getting rid of wealth , since the presence of the wealthy is defined as a problem Communism solves it well.
What Communism is very poor at doing is lifting the liveing condition of the population in general.
The wealthy , especially if there are plenty of them, are much more usefull in the advancement of the welfare of the poor than any amount of even the most perfect communists.
-
uhm china ain`t exactly turning away from wealth.note when hong kong got reaquired it never really change systems. it still a fairly decent economic engine. china`s main problem is getting it`s own people to buy it`s own product. which the majority cannot afford.
and to answer planes question I got no idea, it mighjt be niether since it sure wasn`t intentional by the majority of rich people then. ford and e.rosevelt are the only names I can think helped.
WW2 veterens help with the massive brain boost from the GI bill ,all that free education has to have some effect with the economy.talk about a radical change in the labor landscape
-
china`s main problem is getting it`s own people to buy
it`s own product. which the majority cannot afford.
that may be why China is about to reval their currency
i just hope when they do...that others will follow suit like Iraq
and/or Viet Nam because if they do I will be a multi-millionaire
that Michael Tee can fully demonize! :D
-
<<So with communism the success it is in China, when can we expect the hunger of the masses worldwide to disappear?>>
With an air freshener freshening my home in Toronto, when can we expect the rest of the world to smell nice too? The answer to your question is, when they too abolish capitalism and adopt communism.
<<And was hunger unknown worldwide during the Soviet heyday.>>
To the great panic of the capitalist powers, it appeared that the Soviet system was going to appeal to all of the hungry and the oppressed of the world, so they financed Hitler, sicced him on the U.S.S.R. and hoped for the best. Unfortunately their attack dog seemed to have a "mind" of its own and things did not work out as planned, but it did manage to wreak a lot of devastation on the U.S.S.R. anyway.
<<See you talk systemic and then you give examples of more topical applications, ad hoc if you will.>>
Not true. I talk systemic within the national framework of those countries that have adopted communism, not worldwide. Communism in China won't directly affect hunger in the Congo any more than an air freshener in my home will make yours smell any better.
<<Earlier i was the bad guy and you were the good guy, yet in the example of the person drowning, apparently i was the good guy and you were just a talker from the bleachers.>>
And yet thousands of people still drowned in that year.
<<How is communism prepared to handle famine? We have examples from the Soviets and the Chinese and they don't come out looking so rosy. My guess is the problem was with the management of the crisis.>>
You don't have to guess -- in both cases, any famine, if it existed, was caused by the sabotage of anti-communist small landholders ("kulaks") holding back their produce from the food commissars and murdering communist agents sent to collect the food. This in fact was what made the liquidation of the small landholder peasant class an essential in both China and the U.S.S.R. Their greed was starving the nation.
<<In another thread you applaud Chavez for encouraging local communes, much like the council Marxists we spoke of earlier, yet you deride the local efforts of a municipal food drive as not being systemic enough.>>
"Deride" is an unfair term. Hunger in the Third World is not going to be solved by food drives in Georgia. The same capitalist system that provides the bourgeoisie with the excess wealth that, as the spirit moves them, they can dispense on occasion in local "food drives" is exactly the system that keeps the Third World in poverty and deprivation for generation after generation.
<<See, i think you really aren't as concerned about the hungry as you are of manipulating their suffering to your ideological advantage.>>
LOL. The ideology was conceived as a response to the suffering of the hungry. It did not exist independently of the problems that it is designed to relieve. Without the suffering of the hungry and the oppressed, there would be no need for Communism in the first place.
<<Earlier you scoffed at my reference to an Army of one, totally misunderstanding my point.
<<The difference between my philosophy and yours is that you think a system has to be in place where everyone marches in lockstep and my philosophy is it doesn't take a politburo, or a village, it just takes one person to act and another human being or more's suffering might be eased.>>
The obvious answer to that is that individuals have been free to act charitably at all times and under all regimes, since the dawn of the human race and yet we have crushing problems of human misery growing as we speak and existing forever under the capitalist system. Surely nothing else can better demonstrate the total failure of "Armies of One" than that.
OTOH, the introduction of Communism in both Russia and China (and Cuba) had IMMEDIATE beneficial effects on literacy, health, general education, housing etc., effects which are still continuing in China and (despite the blockade) Cuba, whereas in Russia, the abolition of Communism had an immediate and continuing deleterious effect on health, longevity, education, etc. The Russian people are worse off under capitalism and the Chinese and Cuban people better off under communism. What more proof do you need?
-
china better off?
you didn`t see the side news of the olympics . it shows how extreme the conditions just 2 block from the games. capitalism,communism,religion thier all things people in charge who like to force on the regular folks . the news show people being very devout about whatever religion or system thier under,I`m willing to bet it`s not that way. a backseat christian is alot more common that a supposed devout christian.
same with economic system and political parties
-
china better off?
you didn`t see the side news of the olympics . it shows how extreme the conditions just 2 block from the games. capitalism,communism,religion thier all things people in charge who like to force on the regular folks . the news show people being very devout about whatever religion or system thier under,I`m willing to bet it`s not that way. a backseat christian is alot more common that a supposed devout christian.
same with economic system and political parties
Kimba gets a BINGO
-
you didn`t see the side news of the olympics . it shows how extreme the conditions just 2 block from the games.
Kimba, that's just western propaganda, it's nothing that you can believe!
Trust Mikey - he's always right!
-
The Russian people are worse off under capitalism and the
Chinese and Cuban people better off under communism.
What more proof do you need?
Thats like saying Blacks were worse off in 1866
being Free than they were under Slavery in 1860.
Without a doubt probably true in many ways,
but really hogwash in the big picture.
-
china better off?
you didn`t see the side news of the olympics . it shows how extreme the conditions just 2 block from the games. capitalism,communism,religion thier all things people in charge who like to force on the regular folks . the news show people being very devout about whatever religion or system thier under,I`m willing to bet it`s not that way. a backseat christian is alot more common that a supposed devout christian.
same with economic system and political parties
Kimba gets a BINGO
8)
-
that may be why China is about to reval their currency
i just hope when they do...that others will follow suit like Iraq
and/or Viet Nam because if they do I will be a multi-millionaire
that Michael Tee can fully demonize!
==========================================
How many yuan are you holding? How much to you think the yuan would be worth if it were revalued?
Iraq's currency is unlikely to be revaluated upwards, as Iraq has very few exports beside oil, and the price of oil is not determined by Iraqis.
How many Vietnamese dongs do you have?
-
LOL!!!
I have in my hand 100 yuan, a gift from my dad 10 years ago.
boy am i the wrong guy here.
-
"How many yuan are you holding?"
None
"How much to you think the yuan would be worth if it were revalued?"
X0 I have no idea....I have not followed it to even make an educated guess.
Although I am no expert in currency exchange....
I do think there is some truth in the reasoning behind China
doing an RV is because they have this booming economy but their
people can't afford to buy anything. In some ways Iraq...who by
the way just signed some huge, huge deals with China...is similar.
Iraq is unique in that they are very wealthy in resources, they are
rebuilding, getting lots of new infrastructure, setting up banking
and other industries, but the Iraqi people cant afford to buy anything.
"Iraq's currency is unlikely to be revaluated upwards"
That's your opinion...and I have no problem with you having it.
"as Iraq has very few exports beside oil"
Neither does Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates
but they are all quite wealthy and successful with
basically one export.
The Kuwaiti dinar fell drastically upon Saddam invading,
then after the rebuilding of the country and the oil was
up and running again, their currency regained it's original value.
An investor that spent $10 thousand dollars on Kuwaiti currency
a few years later...it was worth $3 million.
Of course no two scenarios are exactly 100% identical
but Iraq does have one of the largest oil deposits in the
world. Presently all oil-rich middle eastern currencies are
much much higher than the Iraqi Dinar. After a period of
stabilization, rebuilding, and ending of certain UN/IMF
sanctions that are still in place it is possible the
Iraqi dinar could return to valuations similar
to that which existed right before the first Gulf War.
Even if they return to half or a quarter of pre-Gulf War
values.....I have a huge return.
Iraq has at least 115 billion barrels of crude oil reserves.
Most of Iraq has not been geologically explored.
Crude oil in Iraq is "sweet light crude"..meaning it is very high quality.
Iraq is an extremely unique country because of it's resources.
Making a "ramp up" in many ways for Iraq a better possibility than other poor countries.
There is no doubt it is a long-shot, unconventional, not for
everybody investment, but it has very little risk and has
some home-run potential. Usually "home run" returns require
bigger type of risks...this one doesn't. Long term I have
confidence of a nice return, and a possibility of a huge return.
But ya never know...that's how investments work.
"and the price of oil is not determined by Iraqis"
It will be in part....and "oil price" is not set per-se by the Saudis or Kuwaitis either.
"How many Vietnamese dongs do you have?"
Wow XO...getting kind of personal no?
How much do you have in your savings account?
LOL
But ok I'll bite....
I have 10 million Vietnamese Dong and 12 million Iraqi Dinar.
-
I have no money invested in currency, other than maybe 40 Argentine pesos, €10.00, and 10,000 Paraguayan Guaraníes. Not so much an investment as pocket change. My Guaraníes are worth $2.00 US.
Have the Kuwaitis, Saudis, Emiris or Qataris ever revalued their currency? I don't think they have. Oil is not a blessing so much as it is a curse. Would Iraq be the bombed-out shambles it is today if it had only as much oil as Syria? I think not. I would not count on a revaluation.
China's case is specialand unique, because China has a nearly inexhaustable source of cheap labor. If there is demand, there will be money to build a factory and to import cheap labor from some poor place in the hinterland, and it requires no investment, as drilling for oil does. Nor is any foreign source needed to cause all those peasants to come to wherever the city is in which that new factory is located.
The value of the yuan has been deliberately kept low to make Chinese products cheap. China feeds itself, and food prices are very low. I am told that a good Chinese meal can cost something like 40¢ in Hong Kong, and certainly less in the backlands where the new factories are.
Vietnam, I know nothing about, but it is a lot poorer than China, and the economy is growing at a lower rate.
Good luck with your dongs and dinars, but I'd invest in something more like Matthews India Fund. Currency speculation is like commodities and options: most people lose money at it, and it requires a lot of expertise.
-
i have a relatively small amount of money invested in dong and dinar
i am not worried
I agree normal currency trading is high risk
but these particular investments are very low risk...with potential huge returns
it's like buying a lotto ticket but you can get almost all your money back if you don't win
yes kuwait has rv'd
saying oil is a curse...is like saying beauty is a curse
yeah hot chicks get bothered by men a lot
but i doubt they would prefer being ugly
-
China has a nearly inexhaustable source of cheap labor
that term is too broad.
in terms of getting unskilled workers,yes
but in terms of making ipohones,no.
you hear about the large amount of highly educated kids in china, but in terms of the needs of china thiers is simply not enough getting cranked out to meet the demands. the shortage is so huge that the existing workforce can handle the workload. it`s so overwelming they commit suicides despite the increased wages
-
<<Thats like saying Blacks were worse off in 1866
being Free than they were under Slavery in 1860.>>
Nobody would ever make that claim. Obviously any kind of freedom is better than any kind of slavery.
<<Without a doubt probably true in many ways,
but really hogwash in the big picture.>>
The big picture is that the Soviet economy was outperforming all capitalist economies until the German invasion of 1941, then the country was ravaged and then . . . then, post-war, I just don't know what happened to them. And I don't think you know either.
The big picture is that the Chinese people are infinitely better off under communism than they ever were under capitalism.
The big picture is that the Russian people are a hell of a lot worse off after the abolition of communism almost 20 years ago than they were under communism.
THAT is the big picture. Inventing absurd quotes about slavery that no black man would ever agree with does not get you out of the problem that the historical facts show the need for communism and the disadvantages of capitalism, maybe not in terms of innovation and technology, but where it really counts - - in the distribution of the basic necessities of life to the entire population.
-
<<Thats like saying Blacks were worse off in 1866
being Free than they were under Slavery in 1860.>>
Nobody would ever make that claim. Obviously any kind of freedom is better than any kind of slavery.
And yet there you go defending Communism as if it was not.
-
<<And yet there you go defending Communism as if it was not [slavery].>>
It is the height of absurdity, realized only in lunatic Cold War propaganda, to equate communism with slavery. The total abolition of all private property (Communism) is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from chattel slavery in which all means of production including the workers is private property.
-
"Do what the party requires or go up against the wall" is not any type of freedom I'm interested in...
-
<<"Do what the party requires or go up against the wall" is not any type of freedom I'm interested in...>>
"Up against the wall" is reserved only for real enemies of the people, i.e., enemies of the Revolution. There are less potent sanctions available for less dangerous people. It's true that there is not the same degree of intellectual freedom under communism as there is under capitalism. However, plane was attempting to make the absurd claim that the lack of freedom of citizens of a communist country was equivalent to the lack of freedom of chattel slaves. That is totally ridiculous. Anyone who has lived under communism, if he is honest, would laugh himself silly at the comparison with chattel slavery.
-
<<"Do what the party requires or go up against the wall" is not any type of freedom I'm interested in...>>
"Up against the wall" is reserved only for real enemies of the people, i.e., enemies of the Revolution. There are less potent sanctions available for less dangerous people. It's true that there is not the same degree of intellectual freedom under communism as there is under capitalism. However, plane was attempting to make the absurd claim that the lack of freedom of citizens of a communist country was equivalent to the lack of freedom of chattel slaves. That is totally ridiculous. Anyone who has lived under communism, if he is honest, would laugh himself silly at the comparison with chattel slavery.
I think that Communism would kill me .
Because I like to be free.
I do not mind compareing the ownership of my person in chattel by another.
To the ownership of all that I must have to live by the govenor.
Six of one
Square root of thirty six of the other.
-
<<I think that Communism would kill me .
<<Because I like to be free.>>
That's hilarious for a guy who grew up in the segregated South. Were you free to date anyone you liked regardless of skin colour? Were you free to tell the world what you thought of the KKK? Were you killed because you like to be free?
<<I do not mind compareing the ownership of my person in chattel by another.
<<To the ownership of all that I must have to live by the govenor.
<<Six of one
<<Square root of thirty six of the other.>>
The square root of your absurdity is that you equate ownership of property with ownership of a human being. In other words, human life and human dignity are worth no more than ownership of any chattel.
Which, of course, is pathetic.
-
uhm actually the south today is quite different then the days of old. true the n-words is said openly in many areas. but overall people there are very open to all races. as long as you understand not to let certain verbal ques upset you the south can be a very nice . it`s alot like being in paris and deal with being called a stupid. when you let it pass it becomers a pleasent stay.
but that method applies with most places of travel.
-
<<I think that Communism would kill me .
<<Because I like to be free.>>
That's hilarious for a guy who grew up in the segregated South. Were you free to date anyone you liked regardless of skin colour? Were you free to tell the world what you thought of the KKK? Were you killed because you like to be free?
<<I do not mind compareing the ownership of my person in chattel by another.
<<To the ownership of all that I must have to live by the govenor.
<<Six of one
<<Square root of thirty six of the other.>>
The square root of your absurdity is that you equate ownership of property with ownership of a human being. In other words, human life and human dignity are worth no more than ownership of any chattel.
Which, of course, is pathetic.
Everyone can be improved , but I am used to the freedom of being an American.
I remember , (because I am old) members of the KKK braging of it in public. That would be rare now , interracial couples have gone the other way, from scarce to common.
Lets say that I owned you as a slave , I would put you in the best most healthy circumstance I could , but you would reseent the unfairness of the whole arrangement and escape me at your first oppurtunity .
But replace "me" with a beneficient Communist government , and you would be as happy as a clam while I set you up in the best way I can .
Slave owners were obliged to look after their slaves and some of them were successfull in this respect , and in just this respect some Communist governmments are equilly successfull.
-
look at in terms of making a living.
a job or having your own business
both have advantages and disadvantages , also have certain sacrifices
to exactly different to the subject at hand
-
<<And yet there you go defending Communism as if it was not [slavery].>>
It is the height of absurdity, realized only in lunatic Cold War propaganda, to equate communism with slavery. The total abolition of all private property (Communism) is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from chattel slavery in which all means of production including the workers is private property.
Either way it is the individual that winds up as a dependant who owns so little that his dependancy is enforced.
The opposite end of this spectrum is self relyance and freedom.
-
"Up against the wall" is reserved only for real enemies of the people...
Musta been lots of people that were enemies of the people ::)
-
<<Lets say that I owned you as a slave , I would put you in the best most healthy circumstance I could . . . >>
That is simply not true. In fact, it's quite absurd. My best and most healthy circumstance would require regular medical attention, at times expensive medication, bed rest when required, regular and stress-free time off, ergonometric tools and dry, insulated cabins with plenty of fresh air and sunshine, kept cool in summer and warm in winter, plus a healthy and nutritious diet.
Assuming that you are sane and reasonable, your concern with me would begin and end at the concept of cost-benefit analysis. At the minimum possible outlay on your part, you need to get a good day's work out of me each and every day. When the cost of meeting my health and other needs approaches the cost of my replacement with another slave in better condition, that is the day I am thrown on the scrap heap. Since I was not paid any wages for my years of labour for you, I have no resources of my own to fall back on. I am now left to sink or swim by a master who doesn't really give a shit if I live or die, any more than he cares what happens to his old sofa or chest of drawers.
Moreover, even as a healthy and productive worker, if I don't feel like taking any more of your shit one day and mouth off at you, or if I should show any visible attraction to one of your womenfolk (or she to me) you can have me flogged or horsewhipped, probably even to death.
-
actually that`s just a percieved notion of slavery . I`m not sure it`s possible to dispose of elderly slaves without dealing with slave revolts. you can`t be treating slaves like the irish without some kind of backlash.
-
Well, kimba, when you find out where they had their rest homes for old slaves, let me know. My guess is that you wouldn't need too many of them because the longevity of the slaves was probably a hell of a lot shorter than that of their masters. Most of them paid the price for working too long under harsh, unsafe and unhealthy conditions, with poor food and medical care. There was probably an optimum ratio of dollars paid for the slave versus average working lifetime left. The American worker or farmer had no social security, why the hell would a slave?
-
The American worker or farmer had no social security,
you gotta be kidding?...well golly jee....how did they make it without the largest government
program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget?
-
<<....how did they make it without the largest government
program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget?>>
First of all it is not the largest or the greatest anything, because many countries - - most of Western Europe, for example - - take much better care of their sick, injured and retired workers than the U.S. has ever done. But in answer to your question, how did they ever make it, the answer in many cases is, that they did not make it. They succumbed to illness, poverty, desperation and tried to flesh out family income by putting children out to work in the mines and factories, took unsafe and unhealthy jobs for the few extra pennies they brought, etc. The American worker was much worse off before the New Deal than after.
-
First of all it is not the largest or the greatest anything
"By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest
government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure
in the federal budget..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States))
-
ouch
-
<<"By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest
government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure
in the federal budget...">>
By benefits delivered it is probably one of the most puny efforts in the civilized world. Of course, measured in absolute dollar amounts, the program would appear to be huge, since the U.S.A. is a country of over 300 million people. But in terms of dollars spent as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of total federal tax revenues, I am certain it must be a pathetic effort in comparison with, for example, most of the countries of Western Europe.
-
<<"By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest
government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure
in the federal budget...">>
By benefits delivered it is probably one of the most puny efforts in the civilized world. Of course, measured in absolute dollar amounts, the program would appear to be huge, since the U.S.A. is a country of over 300 million people. But in terms of dollars spent as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of total federal tax revenues, I am certain it must be a pathetic effort in comparison with, for example, most of the countries of Western Europe.
You may be certain , but we can tell you haven't looked.
The life expectancy of slaves was indeed short , that is hardly even the worst part .
Slaves were quite expensive , so giveing them a good diet and safe liveing quarters was good business.
Slave owners were harsh but had economic motive to preserve the strength of slaves , Communist heads of states lacked any profit motive to keep their population alive , mostly had the attitude that there were plenty more where those came from. So if they were not co-operative they could be starved into submission , if there was s fight to be fought they could be chased into the battle armed or not , if the casualties of mass punishment and battle are included I doubt that the people trapped by Communism would show much advantage to the expensive slave.
-
<<The life expectancy of slaves was indeed short , that is hardly even the worst part .>>
LOL. Looking at the brighter side of it, are we? I guess ten years of slave life aren't quite as valuable as ten years of plane life, are they?
<<Slaves were quite expensive , so giveing them a good diet and safe liveing quarters was good business.>>
As I said before, it was obviously not good business if the money expended on any slave's health and welfare threatened to exceed the cost of his or her replacement. Good business would demand that the slave be given exactly the diet and living quarters necessary to enable him to labour at the production of goods or services that would cover the cost of his food and housing and provide a decent profit over that as well. Any more than the bare minimum required would be a waste of good money. The manager of any slave labour camp would know the principles well enough - - what's the bare minimum required to keep these slaves/prisoners able to work their asses off under the lash? Slaves get the bare minimum required, unless the owner is a poor businessman, in which case they get either more or less than the minimum requirement.
<<Slave owners were harsh but had economic motive to preserve the strength of slaves >>
If they wanted to run a tight ship in which slaves would put out maximum effort for minimum food and housing, then examples must be made of some slaves and it would make economic sense to injure them in order to keep the rest working harder for less food and harsher accommodation.
<<Communist heads of states lacked any profit motive to keep their population alive . . . >>
How could their workers produce anything for the state if they were not "kept alive?" You are just talking nonsense. Profit motive or lack thereof is not an incentive to any ruler to kill off his subjects in large numbers.
<< mostly had the attitude that there were plenty more where those came from. >>
Astonishing. I'm sure that you have examples of socialist leaders who justified disregard for workers' lives on the grounds that there were plenty more. Please, just one example will suffice. Inquiring minds need to know.
<<So if they were not co-operative they could be starved into submission , if there was s fight to be fought they could be chased into the battle armed or not , if the casualties of mass punishment and battle are included I doubt that the people trapped by Communism would show much advantage to the expensive slave.>>
Give it up, plane, none of that ever happened. I don't know what particular sick fantasy of Cold War propaganda you are recycling but it doesn't really matter. It's nonsense and there's not even any point to debating it. If that's what you believe, then that's what you believe.
-
In Brazil and Haiti (and also in the other French colonies during the monarchy), the goal was to work the slaves to death. This was also done in the US, but when the Brits started capturing slave ships and the plantation owners considered that slaves could be a more valuable cash crop with no competition from abroad, the US decided to ban new importations, at least legally. Plus, the Plantation owners liked to say that the Plantations were much better for the darkies than the jungles of barbarous Africa, plus, the slaves got their souls saved as well, an added plus, with Biblical justification.The slave population increased in the South even more than it did no Brazil, where new slaves were imported all the time and legally.
Jefferson Davis' brother had a plantation on some legendary isle in the Mississippi where the massa rarely bothered to visit, and where everyone was a darkie, happily toiling away and singing and dancing and jumpin de broom jes' like in Uncle Remus.
This is the myth of slavery that Plane is quoting. Southerners believed that slavery wasn't all bad. It was, in many ways, a GOOD thing, and economics was on the side of decent treatment, because the market is always wise. The Northerners, they just didn't understand.
It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself.
The rightwing always wants to return to them good ol' days, when justice always came swiftly with a silver bullet and left with a hearty "Hi-yo Silver, awaaaaay!".
-
And people like XO pretend they give a rats ass about slavery....
all they wanna do is demonize the US and the South in particular while
around the world as we speak there are 10 of millions of people
living in slavery in the year 2010 and yet all they cry about is
something that happened over 150 years ago in the US and ended
when whites in the US fought and died in the hundreds of thousands
to free the slaves. Demonize, demonize, demonize the US....
thats all they know how to do!
-
well
you could look at it this way ,slavery made the africans and the various decendents what they are today. lets just say the after effects is not finished.
demonizing america will not help but ignoring the damage will not help also.
-
Southerners believed that slavery wasn't all bad. It was, in many ways, a GOOD thing, and economics was on the side of decent treatment, because the market is always wise. The Northerners, they just didn't understand.
It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself.
The rightwing always wants to return to them good ol' days, when justice always came swiftly with a silver bullet and left with a hearty "Hi-yo Silver, awaaaaay!".
You are just about to get my point, don't be distracted.
I would never say that slavery was anything like a good deal for the slaves, most especially in the form that Slavery took in the new world.
There was indeed a myth that slavery was good for the slaves , rescuing them from miserable lives in primitive Africa and giveing them a chance at slavation. The lie is put to this myth now just as then with the very strong contrary evidence , if you really wanted someone to thrive and do well , and or learn scripture , you would certainly not forbid them to learn to read . The strongest evidence of all that the myth of slavery being good for slaves was a false construction was the extrodinary lengths slaves owners had to use to ensure that the slaves would not escape.
When I compare the rationalisation of slave owners, that slave institutions were good for the slaves , to the rationalisations of Communist leaders that communism was good for the people roped in to it , I most certainly am not complementing slavery , I am pointing out a simularity in myths.
The myths even have very simular evidences that put them to the lie , that the ones in charge insisted on controlling what their subjects were allowed to learn, and that it required a lot of energy to prevent escape.
So we don't entirely disagree , when you say;"It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself." I am just applying it as a general principal more widely than you are.
-
Southerners believed that slavery wasn't all bad. It was, in many ways, a GOOD thing, and economics was on the side of decent treatment, because the market is always wise. The Northerners, they just didn't understand.
It is harder to kill a myth about barbarism than it is barbarism itself.
You are just about to get my point, don't be distracted.
I would never say that slavery was anything like a good deal for the slaves, most especially in the form that Slavery took in the new world....When I compare the rationalisation of slave owners, that slave institutions were good for the slaves , to the rationalisations of Communist leaders that communism was good for the people roped in to it , I most certainly am not complementing slavery , I am pointing out a simularity in myths.
Can't get much "plainer" than that. Well done, Plane 8)
-
how about this newer myth about the european slavers tricked african leader into selling thier political prisoners to them. that slavery in africa is nicer than european slavery. it`s thier justification that the majority of slaves were not captured but sold by other africans.
-
Africa was an assortment of tribal societies in the time of slavery. As a rule, tribes dominated or sought to dominate one another: there was no such thing as "political prisoners" in those times, though I am sure that many of those sold as slaves to the Europeans were members of tribes in the interior who had lost battles with the coastal tribes, who had better weapons and other items, such as chains and shackles that they had obtained from the Europeans.
-
how about this newer myth about the european slavers tricked african leader into selling thier political prisoners to them. that slavery in africa is nicer than european slavery. it`s thier justification that the majority of slaves were not captured but sold by other africans.
You should read up on this from reliable sorces rather than take my word for this , this is a huge subject.
Portugal started harvesting slaves from Africa before the New world was discovered , they remained big in the game as long as it remained profitable.
And it was very profitable once the new world was discovered. Spainish and English slavers dominated eaqch in turn as their national merchant marine waxed or waned in power.
IN the new world Indians exposed to European and Asian diseases for the first time were dieing in numbers that shall never be accounted for , abandoning large tracts of farmed land ,land that could support crops of Indigo , Sugar cane , Cotton and Tobacco.
but in return new world crops like the peanut supported a population boom in Western Africa.
Africans did indeed raid each other to sell captives to traders , but does this absolve the traders who offered the bountys of any fault?
There was a huge demand for disease resistant farm labor in the new world , and in Africa a large sorce of human strength poorly defended from this sort of exploitation.
The central mover was the profit , this was a lot of profit , it is a miracle that the system was ever shut down.The profit wasn't over .
-
As I said before, it was obviously not good business if the money expended on any slave's health and welfare threatened to exceed the cost of his or her replacement.
How long did it take Mao to replace his losses in Korea?
If there is a real diffrence in Communism and Slavery , it is primarily that the peoiple are cheaper to the Communists.
-
The central mover was the profit , this was a lot of profit , it is a miracle that the system was ever shut down.The profit wasn't over .
maybe thier are aspects about slavery that eventually makes it non-viable. A good guess is slavery throught the years would not stay the same. labor responsiblity/complexity will of course grow. eventually many will not be farm labor. but these factor may cause a counter-productive effect. look at haiti.
-
The central mover was the profit , this was a lot of profit , it is a miracle that the system was ever shut down.The profit wasn't over .
maybe thier are aspects about slavery that eventually makes it non-viable. A good guess is slavery throught the years would not stay the same. labor responsiblity/complexity will of course grow. eventually many will not be farm labor. but these factor may cause a counter-productive effect. look at haiti.
The profit was not even nearly over when Slavery started to falter against the Abolition movement. Mechanasation had no effect for lessening such profit in those days , if anything the invention of the Cotton gen created a much greater profit in cotton and a greater demand for planting and harvesting hands.
Hati is quite unique , there was a well led slave revolt , coincidental with an outbreak of disease that weakened the French .
The reaction in the US to Hati was mixed of course , some cheered the impulse to liberty , some feared the example of successfull slave revolt.
-
one of the curious aspect of slavery is the masters actually think slaves should be greatful. actually conquerers in general tend to believe their the rescuer. the rational of slavery is quite bizarre
-
Hati is quite unique , there was a well led slave revolt , coincidental with an outbreak of disease that weakened the French .
The reaction in the US to Hati was mixed of course , some cheered the impulse to liberty , some feared the example of successfull slave revolt.
=======================================
The slave revolt in Haiti did not start out as any sort of organized effort, but the French were not prepared for it at all, and malaria was the greatest ally of the rebellious slaves. After a while, the Haitians did organize quite well, and of course, they were more immune to malaria than the French troops. There is a great book (I am sure more than one, really) on this: Black Majesty; The Life of Christophe, King of Haiti (Pocket Books 857)
Isabel Allende recently released a translation of her novel on the Haitian rebellion. "Island beneath the Sea. The library still hasn't got a copy of it, but I am sure it will be great: I have enjoyed all her books, and read them in both languages.
http://www.microsoft.com/isapi/redir.dll?prd=ie&pver=6&ar=CLinks (http://www.microsoft.com/isapi/redir.dll?prd=ie&pver=6&ar=CLinks)
The Haitian revolution was celebrated by a few abolitionists and used as an example of why slavery was a bad idea by others, but it mostly scared the bejeezus out of White Americans, especially in the South, as most of the stories that came out of that war were of the "crazed savages killing and eating civilized White people." If you were to take a poll in the Dominican Republic today, I am pretty sure that most Dominicans, both White and Black, would agree that Haitians back then were cannibalistic barbarians. They used to teach this in public schools there, until Balaguer left office.
There is no question who won the Haitian rebellion: the US. It convinced Napoleon that there was no reason for France to keep any major colonies in the New World, and he sold Louisiana to the Americans for about three cents an acre, in order to conquer Europe, a continent that he deemed worth conquering. The French kept Martinique, Guadaloupe, St.Martin and a few other places because no one would buy them except the British and they were enemies. The US could have probably gotten Guiane and the Iles du Salut for a pittance.
Haiti eventually was forced to pay for the value of the plantation land and the cost of the slaves lost in order to establish relations with France and other European countries.
-
<<How long did it take Mao to replace his losses in Korea?>>
No longer than it took the U.S. to replace their losses in Korea.
What the hell was the point of the question?
-
<<How long did it take Mao to replace his losses in Korea?>>
No longer than it took the U.S. to replace their losses in Korea.
What the hell was the point of the question?
Mao didn't loose anything of value in Korea , what he lost, he figured he had plenty of.
-
<< . . . what he [Mao] lost [in Korea], he figured he had plenty of.>>
You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but how exactly was this attitude any different from that in the Pentagon and Washington regarding their own war losses? Mao at least was fighting on his own borders, remind me again where the Pentagon sent its men to die?
The blind self-righteousness of your condemnation of others is absolutely staggering. It's utterly amazing how ready and eager you are to point accusing, condemning fingers at people thousands of miles away from your shores, when much bigger criminals are so close at hand. Reminding me yet again of Jesus' observation of those so ready to point out the mite in their brother's eye while ignoring the mote in their own.
-
<< . . . what he [Mao] lost [in Korea], he figured he had plenty of.>>
You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but how exactly was this attitude any different from that in the Pentagon and Washington regarding their own war losses? Mao at least was fighting on his own borders, remind me again where the Pentagon sent its men to die?
The blind self-righteousness of your condemnation of others is absolutely staggering. It's utterly amazing how ready and eager you are to point accusing, condemning fingers at people thousands of miles away from your shores, when much bigger criminals are so close at hand. Reminding me yet again of Jesus' observation of those so ready to point out the mite in their brother's eye while ignoring the mote in their own.
IN that case you shall demonstrate much more charity when considering Natzis and Slave owners.
The talk of them all is the benefit of their system , the proof against them all is the struggle of the inmates to get out.
How many people have risked their lives to leave South Korea , South Vietnam , West Gernmany,to get into North Korea , North Vietnam and East Germany?
It is like asking how many people fought to get out of free territory and onto the plantations , it is the same thing.
-
that case you shall demonstrate much more charity when considering Natzis and Slave owners.
The talk of them all is the benefit of their system , the proof against them all is the struggle of the inmates to get out.
How many people have risked their lives to leave South Korea , South Vietnam , West Gernmany,to get into North Korea , North Vietnam and East Germany?
It is like asking how many people fought to get out of free territory and onto the plantations , it is the same thing.
OUCH, Plane slams Tee to the debate ground, yet again. No wonder he has nothing left in the tank in not responding to questions & POV I've posted 8)
-
<<IN that case you shall demonstrate much more charity when considering Natzis and Slave owners.>>
Nice switch of focus, but it still leaves you holding the bag - - you are still the guy that Jesus had in mind when he spoke of seeing the mite in your neighbour's eye while ignoring the mote in your own.
In any case, what kind of charity do you expect me to show towards racists and slave owners? Were they trying to end the exploitation of man by man, as the Communists were? Hell, they were the absolute epitome of that exploitation. Your suggestion is absurd.
<<The talk of them all is the benefit of their system . . . >>
So what? There were objective means of proving which systems worked and which did not. The Chinese are living proof of the benefits of Communism, the dozens of millions killed in the Second World War are proof of the horrors of fascism.
<< . . . the proof against them all is the struggle of the inmates to get out.>>
Bullshit. People always move from poor to rich countries. Most people try to escape poverty. You have no proof and you make it up - - the "millions" who flee are always counted from poor communist countries, comparable counts are never made of those who flee poor capitalist countries. Mexico, for example, probably sends many more refugees to the U.S. than Cuba, but you count only the Cubans as "proof" of the "inferiority" of Cuban communism, never the Mexicans as proof of the inferiority of Mexican capitalism. You just indulge in shabby reasoning and lazy, sloppy leaping to unwarranted conclusions, because the brainwashing you received from the capitalist society you live in has conditioned you to reject Communism without thinking.
<<How many people have risked their lives to leave South Korea , South Vietnam , West Gernmany,to get into North Korea , North Vietnam and East Germany?>>
Same bullshit. How many people leave capitalist Mexico, capitalist Nigeria, capitalist Russia, capitalist Brazil, capitalist El Salvador?
<<It is like asking how many people fought to get out of free territory and onto the plantations , it is the same thing.>>
No, it's like asking how many people leave poverty for wealthier countries, only when you ask it that way you see what a dumb question it really is.
-
What was the scale of the problem of people swimming ninety miles to escape the Batista government?
Yes there is proof , Mexican system is highly inferior , Cuban system even worse.
We ought to invade and slay every member of both those governments , but building something better, as it turns out ,is the hard part.
Castro did not build better , neither did we when we had the chance .
Some pretty good governments have evolved from not so good ones , such as South Korea or England , but there seems to be some threshold that some governments cannot pass , as in Cuba where the concept of improvement can get one killed.
-
Yes there is proof , Mexican system is highly inferior , Cuban system even worse.
We ought to invade and slay every member of both those governments , but building something better, as it turns out ,is the hard part.
=======================================================
No, we oughtn't.
We have taken over both countries and in both cases, it has been worse by far than anything they have ever devised for themselves.
Invading and slaying is for Ghenghis Khan. The days of invading and slaying are passed, and with good reason.
-
Yes there is proof , Mexican system is highly inferior , Cuban system even worse.
We ought to invade and slay every member of both those governments , but building something better, as it turns out ,is the hard part.
=======================================================
No, we oughtn't.
We have taken over both countries and in both cases, it has been worse by far than anything they have ever devised for themselves.
Invading and slaying is for Ghenghis Khan. The days of invading and slaying are passed, and with good reason.
It is out of fashion , but fashion is cyclical.
I know that we have invaded Cuba and Mexico, I know that we wound up not doing them much good.
Invadeing Mexico at least we didn't intend to do them much good , Polk was an expantionist , period.
In Cuba we were supposed to be on a rescue mission , Phillipines also. and truely we did them so clumsily that Mexico recovered better.
Nationbuilding is not really our best talent , but we have had some success, who elese is even going to try?
-
<<What was the scale of the problem of people swimming ninety miles to escape the Batista government?>>
The scale of the problem was that Batista was in bed with the U.S. State Department and if any Cuban ever got to the U.S., he'd be handed right back to Cuba. The U.S. had no reason to grant asylum to any Cuban who made it to their shores because they had no intention of embarrassing Batista. Why would any Cuban try to enter America illegally, knowing that the U.S. would return him anyway?
<<Yes there is proof , Mexican system is highly inferior , Cuban system even worse.>>
Well, I've been in both Mexico and Cuba, Mexico three times, Cuba twice, and it is obvious to me you don't know jack-shit about either one of them. Mexico is a helluva lot worse than Cuba, and it always was, even before the narcotraficantes took over the fucking country. Cuba is probably better than any other Latin American country except maybe Chile or Argentina and I don't really know either one of them - - I spent two or three days in BA two years ago and never been to Chile. I learned virtually nothing about Argentina in the short time I spent in BA other than they revalued their currency after going broke and you could stay in a five-star hotel for $60 a night. I've been in Brazil a couple of times and there's no comparison between the lives and opportunities of the Cubans compared to the Brazilians. Brazil's a great country and I love it there, but those people will need twenty or thirty years to catch up to the Cubans.
<<We ought to invade and slay every member of both those governments , but building something better, as it turns out ,is the hard part.>>
"Invade and Slay." Ought to be your national motto.
<<Castro did not build better , neither did we when we had the chance .>>
It's really too bad that instead of getting all your info on Cuba from self-exiled gusanos, you can't actually travel to Cuba, talk to some real Cuban people who can describe for you what their lives were like prior to the Revolution and how the Revolution changed their lives and their futures. You are talking absolute nonsense, from a perspective of pure ignorance.
<<Some pretty good governments have evolved from not so good ones , such as South Korea or England . . . >>
OK. So?
<< . . . but there seems to be some threshold that some governments cannot pass , as in Cuba where the concept of improvement can get one killed.>>
Really? And you know this, how? More to the point, can you tell me who got killed in Cuba for "the concept of improvement?" Inquiring minds need to know.
-
<<What was the scale of the problem of people swimming ninety miles to escape the Batista government?>>
The scale of the problem was that Batista was in bed with the U.S. State Department and
did not require half so much violence to maintain his regime as Fidel Castro needs.
I thought you were telling me that people always run from the poor country s to the welthy ones?
Is Cuba really that much more poor than it was?
-
<<[Batista] did not require half so much violence to maintain his regime as Fidel Castro needs.>>
What on earth are you talking about? Batista had torture chambers in every city and town in the country. Who the hell did you think were being executed against the walls of the Havana baseball stadium in the first days of the Triumph of the Revolution? Sunday school teachers?
<<I thought you were telling me that people always run from the poor country s to the welthy ones?
<<Is Cuba really that much more poor than it was?>>
Didn't I just deal with that point? Under Batista, they'd be sent back, so what was the point? Under Fidel, they'd be welcomed with open arms and never sent back, just to embarrass Fidel. Poverty motivates some people to flee the country, but when there's no place for them to go, they don't go. When a place suddenly opens up, they go. Is this really all that hard to understand?
-
Argentina and Uruguay are much better off than Mexico. Buenos Aires is a very elegant city, but it looks like it was maintained by Mexicans. The public buildings are after the Parisian/Madrid style, and are quite elegant. There are some really beautiful private buildings, but they are covered with some sort of black goo that seems to be mildew. They could use a good steam-cleaning. The provincial capitals of Corrientes and Misiones (Posadas) are very nice. Sidewalks tend to be made of tiles, and many are broken and need repair.
I spend about a week in Montevideo, and it is cleaner than most of Buenos Aires, and less congested. The main thing you notice is that Uruguayans drink huge, almost impossible amounts of mate. Nearly everyone is toting a mate pot as well as a thermos, there are lots of places where you can fill your thermos, and there are little piles of mate herb on all the major streets. Mate is not sold in restaurants, but they will bring you hot water for free if you order anything. Streets and sidewalks in downtown Montevideo are in better shape than in Buenos Aires.
I have not been to Cuba, but the society is different and the culture is different, and infrastructure maintenance does not seem to be a priority. Cuba is having a rice shortage at the moment, and this is as bad as a rice shortage would be in China: all meals include rice. The Revolution was quiet successful in making all the youth wanting to be like El Che. The unfortunate thing is that El Che was not a farmer, and no one seems to want to grow anything. Cuba should be able to be independent on basic staples like rice and beans, pork and chickens, but this is not the case.
-
You gotta talk to the Cuban people. The young ones obviously don't give a shit about the Revolution, all they care about is designer apparel and music, but even they know the difference that the Revolution made in the lives of their parents and grandparents. All the kids are in school, they have a pride and a dignity that I have never seen anywhere else in Latin America. Cuba was revolutionized by the Revolution. (I know, tautology time.) I agree there is a problem in that the current generation seems to be lacking in Revolutionary zeal. Perhaps they need a few years back under fascist rule in order to appreciate what they have now. The education of all citizens and the abolition of illiteracy is a miracle. So is the universal availability of medical care under revolutionary conditions (those patients who can, and their able-bodied visiting family members, contribute to the maintenance of the hospital, cleaning floors, making beds, etc.) The revolutionary spirit was inspiring and amazing.
The spirit of capitalism is competition, but the spirit of socialism is cooperation and communal effort. It is so clearly and obviously the better way.
I like Uruguay too, but only saw it on a cruise - - a day in Montevideo, a great city, and a day in Punta del Este, a great resort town ("the Miami Beach of South America," but I'll believe that when I see the equivalent of Ocean Drive in Punta.)
-
"the Miami Beach of South America," but I'll believe that when I see the equivalent of Ocean Drive in Punta.)
================================================
I preferred Ocean Drive back in the late 70's. You could find a place to park then, and there were some great used clothing shops on Lincoln Road.
I have several good friends who came here from Cuba in the last ten years, and who travel back every several months. The big problems there now is the lack of food. A fertile country like Cuba should not have food shortages, toilet paper shortages and even salt shortages. No island on the ocean should ever have salt shortages, face it. I am unimpressed with the education provided by the Revolution.
I'd prefer living in Argentina, Uruguay or most of Mexico to living in Cuba.
-
<<I am unimpressed with the education provided by the Revolution.>>
What do you think is wrong with it?
-
That the Cubans I know do not read or know much about anything. They believe pretty much any stupid thing that they hear on local TV, including obvious rumors. They cannot spell Spanish worth beans, which has to be one of the easiest languages in the world to spell.
-
<<[Batista] did not require half so much violence to maintain his regime as Fidel Castro needs.>>
What on earth are you talking about? Batista had torture chambers in every city and town in the country. Who the hell did you think were being executed against the walls of the Havana baseball stadium in the first days of the Triumph of the Revolution? Sunday school teachers?
<<I thought you were telling me that people always run from the poor country s to the welthy ones?
<<Is Cuba really that much more poor than it was?>>
Didn't I just deal with that point? Under Batista, they'd be sent back, so what was the point? Under Fidel, they'd be welcomed with open arms and never sent back, just to embarrass Fidel. Poverty motivates some people to flee the country, but when there's no place for them to go, they don't go. When a place suddenly opens up, they go. Is this really all that hard to understand?
Well yes it is hard to understand how this policy would stop Cubans when it won't stop Mexicans.
Cuba has less torture and repression now than under Batista?
Then why wasn't there an exodus nearly as large from Batista?
Got some examples of Cubans going on desperate 90 mile swims to get away from Batista?
All of the real evidence is one way.
On the other hand you have actually been to Cuba , where I only imagine the scene to be like this.
"Hola Comrade!"
"Buenos dias senior MT"
"How are things? Compadre."
" Eh, I can't complain"
" What do you mean you can't complain?"
" It is forbidden."
-
<<Well yes it is hard to understand how this policy would stop Cubans when it won't stop Mexicans.>>
Think about it. It's a lot easier for the Mexicans to get to the U.S. than it is for the Cubans. There's no open ocean to cross.
<<Cuba has less torture and repression now than under Batista?>>
Of course.
<<Then why wasn't there an exodus nearly as large from Batista?>>
Leave, get caught by the U.S. and sent back to Batista and you'll have a bigger problem than what you started with. You'd be returned to a country oversupplied with torture chambers and ruled by a dictator who knows you're pretty unhappy with him and his regime. Not a very happy ending to a voyage that began with such great hopes of streets paved with gold bricks.
OTOH, leave Cuba to escape Castro and you will NEVER NEVER NEVER be sent back. Big difference, even though for some unfathomable reason, you never seem to be able to grasp it.
I'll try to make it real simple for you. Hopefully, you'll agree with me that not too many young men from the Greater Los Angeles area leave their homes and jobs to try to break into the Playboy Mansion and live there. They know the gates will be closed to them and even if they sneak in, they'll be found and kicked out.
Now suppose Hef makes it known that anyone from Venice Beach who makes it onto the grounds of the Playboy Mansion can stay there for life and will never be kicked out. You're an imaginative guy. Try to imagine how many young men from Venice Beach had left everything behind and tried to break into the mansion before Hef made his generous offer. Try to imagine how many would do so after Hef's announcement became known. Think there'd be any noticeable before/after difference? Think the number of guys from Venice Beach trying to get into the Mansion would become any higher than the number of guys from Long Beach or Compton or Van Nuys or Santa Monica or El Segundo trying to get in? I dunno, plane, you tell me. Inquiring minds need to know.
<<Got some examples of Cubans going on desperate 90 mile swims to get away from Batista?>>
No, but then you don't have any examples of Cubans going on desperate 90 mile swims to get away from Castro, so we're even.
<<All of the real evidence is one way.>>
The problem is, you don't have any "real evidence," only MSM bullshit stories of people swimming 90 miles. You don't know how to interpret "real evidence" anyway, because you make heroic efforts never to try to put it into context, even when that context is never further away from you than the nightly TV news. "Real evidence" would probably show the flow of refugees from Mexico is dwarfing the flow from Cuba and is probably followed closely by the flow from El Salvador and Honduras as well, but since Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras are all capitalist countries, there is no reason to set up a giant lure in the form of free admission to all new arrivals and furthermore, there is no way that their flight can constitute "real evidence" of the failure of capitalism.
It seems that it is only the flight from Cuba that can constitute "real evidence" of the failure of communism. The flight of millions more from capitalist countries proves actually nothing at all. That is just plane logic. And it is hilarious.
However, since I see that you are a fellow who loves the truth and is very interested in "real evidence," try to imagine a scientific experiment. Try to imagine a six-month period in which the U.S., instead of granting free admission to all Cubans, warns them that all new Cuban immigrants will be rounded up and sent back to Cuba without exception and that in the same six-month period, all Mexicans who make it into the U.S.A. will be welcomed with open arms. IMHO, not only would Mexico suffer major depopulation, but the experiment would prove conclusively whether or not the Cubans are better off than the Mexicans.
<<On the other hand you have actually been to Cuba , where I only imagine the scene to be like this . . . >>
I think, when all the "real evidence" you have is as pathetically shitty and inconclusive as what you've shown us, you're better off sticking to lame anti-communist jokes dating back to the beginning of the Cold War and forgetting about evidence and "real evidence" completely.
-
<<Then why wasn't there an exodus nearly as large from Batista?>>
Leave, get caught by the U.S. and sent back to Batista and you'll have a bigger problem than what you started with. Now you're living in a country oversupplied with torture chambers and ruled by a dictator who knows you're pretty unhappy with him. Not a good result.
This is exactly what has gotten worse.
<<Well yes it is hard to understand how this policy would stop Cubans when it won't stop Mexicans.>>
Think about it. It's a lot easier for the Mexicans to get to the U.S. than it is for the Cubans.
You havent thought about it have you ?
It is a LOT harder for Cubans to get here and they get sent back if they are caught at sea , even by one inch.
Mexico is not exporting as many job seekers right now , there are fewer jobs right now , the tide is reversed a little bit.
But Cubans are escapeing starvation and dictitorial repression they still make the trip even if only on an inner tube.
Can you imagine the desparation that brings on such a nearly suicidal act? And the commoness of this extreme desparation?
If Cuba were not being heavily subsidised by cousins and uncles in the USA they would collapse quickly. Their economy is incredably weak this shineing example of communistic ideals is dependant on the much more profitable exile community.
I wonder what would have happened if the whole world had become Communist and there had been no capitolists to beg or borrow money from?
Human extinction perhaps?
-
<<This is exactly what has gotten worse.>>
Not following you, I'm afraid. WHAT is "exactly what has gotten worse?"
<<It is a LOT harder for Cubans to get here and they get sent back if they are caught at sea , even by one inch.>>
And how many get caught at sea? Who's looking for them anyway? They're a propaganda bonanza when they land, and a political hot potato when returned. It's a no-brainer - - America wants 'em to land, America doesn't want to return them.
<<Mexico is not exporting as many job seekers right now , there are fewer jobs right now , the tide is reversed a little bit.>>
Ha ha ha, you got any numbers on that little absurdity? I'm betting that even if the Mexican flow were cut to 25% of its usual volume, it would still dwarf the number of incoming Cubans.
<<But Cubans are escapeing starvation and dictitorial repression . . . >>
That is just pure bullshit.
<< . . . they still make the trip even if only on an inner tube.>>
Ever seen one of 'em come in on an inner tube? How many you think really come in on inner tubes? You're talking nonsense.
<<Can you imagine the desparation that brings on such a nearly suicidal act? >>
No but I can imagine the desperation of anyone who makes up bullshit stories like that.
<<And the commoness of this extreme desparation?>>
Common according to whom? Got anything to back that up? I didn't think so.
<<If Cuba were not being heavily subsidised by cousins and uncles in the USA they would collapse quickly. >>
And you know this because . . . ?
<<Their economy is incredably weak this shineing example of communistic ideals is dependant on the much more profitable exile community.>>
They're being blockaded by the most powerful country in the world, but I guess that has absolutely nothing to do with their economic problems, does it? The blockade isn't working, it has no effect on the Cuban economy, but it's maintained year after year after year by the U.S. because . . . ? Because it's NOT working? Does this make sense to anyone?
<<I wonder what would have happened if the whole world had become Communist and there had been no capitolists to beg or borrow money from?>>
We like to think it would be the end of the exploitation of man by man.
<<Human extinction perhaps?>>
No, I think you might have confused communism with U.S. imperialism, fascism, racism and militarism. Nice try, though.
-
<<That the Cubans I know do not read or know much about anything. >>
Is this any particular demographic that you are referring to?
Did you visit Ciudad Universidad, the KG-to-grad-school complex built on the site of a former Cuban Army barracks in the heart of Havana? We met a group of elementary school students there marching from one class to another, and they struck me as pretty sharp kids. At least they knew something about Canada, which is more than most Mexican kids will ever know.
<<They believe pretty much any stupid thing that they hear on local TV, including obvious rumors.>>
Were you thinking of any particular examples?
<< They cannot spell Spanish worth beans, which has to be one of the easiest languages in the world to spell. >>
Sorry to hear that, but you know how many secretarial applicants I had to turn down before Spell-Check because they couldn't spell English worth shit? I think that was a particular trend in educational circles in the Seventies, not to obsess over spelling because it would "stifle their creativity" or some such nonsense. In Ontario, there were a whole bunch of educational "reforms" based on something called the Hall-Baker Report, which as far as I could see was just a recipe for creating illiterate morons.
Did you meet any of the politically committed, the members of a CDR, for example?
Although your comments would certainly apply to some of the young kids we met in Cuba, I am finding it hard to reconcile them with what I know of the medical schools and scientific research in Cuba, including the surplus of medical doctors and their export to other Caribbean and Latin American countries. Any comment on that?
-
OTOH, leave Cuba to escape Castro and you will NEVER NEVER NEVER be sent back. Big difference, even though for some unfathomable reason, you never seem to be able to grasp it.
Funny, we send Cubans back nearly daily currently.
-
OTOH, leave Cuba to escape Castro and you will NEVER NEVER NEVER be sent back. Big difference, even though for some unfathomable reason, you never seem to be able to grasp it.
Funny, we send Cubans back nearly daily currently.
Yes this makes me feel sorry for the Coast Guard , to be tasked with enforceing the Wet foot dry foot policy.
I hate seeing really stupid policy being enforced, so must many enforcers.
-
The spirit of capitalism is competition, but the spirit of socialism is cooperation and communal effort. It is so clearly and obviously the better way.
In what capitalist country is co-operation and harmony discouraged?
-
<<I wonder what would have happened if the whole world had become Communist and there had been no capitolists to beg or borrow money from?>>
We like to think it would be the end of the exploitation of man by man.
<<Human extinction perhaps?>>
No, I think you might have confused communism with U.S. imperialism, fascism, racism and militarism. Nice try, though.
I guess human extinction would indeed end the exploitation of man by man , so .. good answer.
I am afraid that some people are so enamored of communism that they wouldn't mind human extinction if it was done with plenty of communism.
-
one of the curious aspect of slavery is the masters actually think slaves should be greatful. actually conquerers in general tend to believe their the rescuer. the rational of slavery is quite bizarre
Oh yes !
You got my point exactly !
Communists describe the ungratfull as worms , if they would rather be individually free than chained to a nation that is only nationally free.
-
The most recent U.S. Census population estimates show that in the first three months of this year migration from Mexico and Central American countries is down by about 2 percent compared with last year, said Aaron Terrazas, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank.
Since the start of the fiscal year Oct. 1, 3,702 Cubans have asked for asylum. Last year, 14,061 Cubans made their way into this country. Almost 90 percent of the ones arriving this year came across the Southwest border, according to DHS.
Fewer Cubans have been stopped on the water as well.
Coast Guard figures show they've intercepted 513 Cubans since October. In the same time frame the previous fiscal year, the Coast Guard picked up 1,308 Cuban migrants. DHS officials attribute the drop to better inter-agency coordination and stepped up prosecutions of smugglers.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-cuban-migrants-043009,0,3774895.story (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-cuban-migrants-043009,0,3774895.story)
-
Although your comments would certainly apply to some of the young kids we met in Cuba, I am finding it hard to reconcile them with what I know of the medical schools and scientific research in Cuba, including the surplus of medical doctors and their export to other Caribbean and Latin American countries. Any comment on that?
====================================
I do not doubt that there are great scholars in Cuba. It's just that the people I have met do not reflect any degree of scholarship or intellectual curiosity at all. If they hear that some guy shot three people in a restaurant in Hialeah (as happened a week ago), they are afraid to go to Hialeah, even though the reporter indicated that the guy shot himself dead after his murderous spree.
Telenovelas seem to have about 90% of the Cuban women (as well as other Latin women) in thrall. These things are written for a third grade mentality, but with a degree of sex that perhaps is unfit for third graders. Santeria spells and cures for ailments are actually taken seriously.