Do you think the world will ever take a second look at Communism?

[LostInAnomie]

Now that the Cold War is over and the threat of the Red Menace has dissipated do you think that some countries will ever give Communism a second look? I'm speaking in particular of third world countries like those in Africa and South America that have seen the worst aspects of Capitalism.

Do you think that Communism could ever come back into mainstream political/economic thought?

[Wilms]

1. Which Communism?

There are a few, I've heard.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

96. Certainly not Soviet Style -- hope that's dead and gone

But there are some writers who make a good case for a democratic Marxist Socialism.

[Czolgosz]

97. Faulting communism for Stalinist USSR is like faulting capitalism for Pino

Pinochet's Chile. The real problem in the USSR (and Chile, for that matter) at was totalitarianism, which you can bet will ultimately rear it's ugly head again.

[Mme. Defarge]

2. No.

[ticapnews]

3. Let's ask China...

.

[LostInAnomie]

5. I'm not sure if "communism" even applies to China anymore.

They may identify themselves as such but it doesn't seem to jive.

[Deja Q]

68. Or if they ever had.

They've always been fascist.

And neocons have learned a lot from them.

[HamdenRice]

75. I worked with the Chinese government and they are serious about

communism. One of the biggest lies perpetrated by the MSM is that China is communist in name only. That's not true. They are the real deal.

They call in market socialism and it works pretty well. The idea is that there really is nothing inconsistent between socialism and having markets for output. But ownership of all land and the "commanding heights" of the economy, especially the financial sector, remain owned by the government. Moreover, the government "guides" the economy in ways that is unthinkable in a captalist society.

[enid602]

4. communism

As I recall, communism was sort of a post-industrial utopia in which machines did just about everything, and the profits would be equitably distributed among the masses. I don't think it would be suitable to the third world countries. Where has communism ever existed? Wasn't the Soviet Union a continuation of the corrupt czarist Russia? Many have said that communist China is just a slight modification of mandarin China.

[gordianot]

6. You can ask Fidel.

Don't ask Hugo he is basically a Capitalist.

[manic expression]

10. Not really

Chavez is giving land back to the people, where it belongs. He is also nationalizing industries, no?

[gordianot]

16. He is allowing ownership, taking profit, sharing the wealth.

How many Billions does one man or group of people need. Hugo is also making money make no mistake and is willing to share wealth. Venezuela is making some good investments, and projecting economic market power not exactly a Communist.

[manic expression]

21. True

but "sharing the wealth" is a socialist ideal. The main reason why money is being made can be summed up by three letters: O-I-L. Socialist societies can make a profit and trade, but it is the way in which the wealth is distributed and used that makes the real difference.

[gordianot]

26. I make a distinction between Socialism and Communism.

Even Hitler managed to establish a Socialist state "Fascist" appealing to popular themes of the German people.

Germany did not have oil but had a decent industrial capacity. Hugo has clearly struck a nerve with the masses in South America. I hope he remembers with this amount of power requires responsibility. Wars of liberation have a way of becoming messy.

[manic expression]

33. It's a superficial distinction, largely

"Communism" refers to Soviet-style government, while "socialism" refers to a liberalized government structure. However, these are somewhat misnomers.

Hitler joined the "National Socialist Party", but it was anything BUT socialist. His terrible clamp-downs on all things not far-RW is evidence of this. He is possibly the antithesis of socialism.

The only thing keeping Venezuela safe from Uncle Sam is their oil. We already tried to topple him, but only succeeded in emboldening him, as well as making him more popular. Note that Chavez has not even went after the figures behind the coup.

Germany has absolutely nothing to do with the socialist countries of Latin America. Their policies politically, socially and economically are opposites. The governments we supported in El Salvador, Guatemala (after the assassination), Chile (after the coup), Nicaragua (the Contras), Batista's Cuba (pre-revolution), Haiti (take your pick on era of tyranny) and elsewhere in Latin America were very similar to Nazi Germany in many respects, not the least of which were extreme racist policies.

What we see here is the fight against that injustice.

[gordianot]

43. Germans thought they were fighting injustice.

Hitler's Germany was Socialist if you were the right kind of Aryan "Volk", the State could be very generous distributing the wealth of Jews some industrialist and others who were supposed to be exploiting the German people. He played the German people well with themes they wanted to hear. Similar themes with variations would play well in South America. I make little or no distinction between Fascist authoritarians or Communist authoritarians.

I wish the people of South America well as they shake off gun boat diplomacy and Yankee meddling. Hugo speaks his mind (which I respect), is not advocating wars, and does not like Bush. If there was not a Hugo Chavez in South America there would be another alternative. Time, labor, natural resources, climate, new technology are all in favor of a real ascension in South America. Who knows the 21st Century may be the Century of South America who eclipse Asia, Europe and North America.

Added note. Hugo does have some teeth with his Sunburn missiles and Blue Mig-29. These kinetic missiles threaten the gunboats. So far they have not started an arms race in South America.

[manic expression]

46. The difference

They were fighting for it.

The fact that you have to be of the "Volk" to get that wealth is EXACTLY why it was fascist. Must I remind you much of the economic upswing was generated by slave labor?

Do I have to draw you a chart showing the differences between the socialist countries of Latin America and Nazi Germany?

Nazi Germany - favored the whites, racist
Socialist Latin A. - favored equality, which meant undoing almost 500 years of racism

NG - invaded countries with pitiful justification
s. LA - was invaded with pitiful justification

NG - suppressed civil liberties, used death squads
s. LA - fought against death squads, tolerates dissent

NG - used slave labor
s. LA - ended exploitation and virtual slave labor

Need I continue?

The leftists in Latin America have fought against countless fascist governments and movements for the longest time. They have brought hope where there was despair, truth where there was delusion, justice where there was exploitation. Chavez and Castro are speaking the truth to real fascists. That is what Europe needed and lacked.

The similarities between the Socialists of Latin America and the Nazis of Germany is about the same as the Falangists and the Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War...NIL.

You think they are "shaking off" Uncle Sam? Are you insane? Did that coup in Venezuela just escape you? How about that whole Haiti thing? And what about continued embargoes against Cuba? Gunboat diplomacy is alive and well. The oil in Venezuela is the only thing keeping Chavez alive.

Time, labor, resources, climate and technology were all there for Argentina, but that didn't stop them from crashing into recession a few years ago. In spite of over a decade and a half of recession, the Cuban people maintain their amazing standards of living and their equality.

[gordianot]

56. Thanks for the conversation.

I haven't had one like this in years very similar to a young man I knew in the early 1970's. He was a Black Panther in those days, today he is Journalist (I ran in to him several years ago). By the way I have seen Central and South America. I know what poverty looks like, it is an area I work with daily. I have lived through the Cold War. I have relatives who were Communist in the 60's-1980's, met them listened to their stories. I have also attended many classes over the years and have aquired several degrees. Sorry if I take a less traditional view regarding authoritarians and appear to challange your world view. That is no reason to call someone insane.

From what I have learned over the years there are huge differences between Socialist countries and Communist countries.

I guess the Cuban people have a better standard of living than North Korea. Cuba has better natural resources even though there is a similar leadership style.

[manic expression]

69. Sure thing

I have also been to Central America. I have seen poverty, not only in third world countries but in the US itself. My "world view" gets challenged daily, it's nothing new to me. Nevertheless, you take a mistaken view on Latin American countries, as the leftists have fought against fascism, authoritarianism and injustice, while America has been supporting fascism and injustice in the same region. The left fights against this, for the people.

Please address my arguments, for it ceases to be a conversation if you do not. The differences between the socialist countries in Latin America and Nazi Germany are as abundant as they are obvious. I have laid them out for you, so please give reasons if you wish to disagree with them.

That insane comment was a rhetorical question. I thought you would know I wasn't seriously asking if you were insane. My apologies if it was too subtle.

There is not a similar leadership style at all. The Cuban people are well represented, and Castro is mostly a figurehead.

There are huge differences between Socialist countries and Socialist countries. There are huge differences between Capitalist countries and Capitalist countries. If we're going to play the name-game with "socialist" and "communist", let us simply recognize which are authoritarian and oppressive and which are tolerant and equal. Cuba, along with other leftist governments and movements of Latin America are clearly of the latter.

[gordianot]

94. You can view governments in 4 polar paradigm.

For example planned economies (Communist - Socialist) to Free Market (Capitalist) on the X axis.

Also governments tend to vary between Libertarian (less controls) to Authoritarian (rigid police state).

Currently the United States under George Bush rests on extreme right Capitalist and very high on the Authoritarian Scale (much more to the right economically than Hitler but lower on the authoritarian scale). In many ways Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, have much in common other than economic systems. They were extreme authoritarians. In his time Hitler varied from an almost Kensyan Capitalist to Socialist planned economy (Speer made this possible).

To me the argument between authoritarians trumps the economic concepts between planned economies and so called free markets.

Yes there was an attempt to kill get rid of Chavez, it also failed. Chavez is still a capitalist with a conscience (very rare). Bush stated at one time he would pay attention to the American Hemisphere now he cannot get a trade agreement for something that was promoted and desired for years in South America. The gunboat will not work anymore. Brazil produces World class arms. Chavez cannot get spare F-16 parts so he goes to Israel. The United States is becoming less of a super power daily and with huge debt will become less relevant. There are forces at work in South America far beyond the musing of politicians.

[manic expression]

95. Chavez is a capitalist?

Right...all those state programs and land redistribution are sure-fire marks of a capitalist...or not.

Anyway, Cuba is very un-authoritarian. They have a better representative government than we do (NO cost to run for office, parties do not nominate candidates, etc...). It is very left-wing in both social and economic policies. To say Cuba is authoritarian is insane and mistaken.

The gunboat is still very much a threat. Did you miss the creation of an official post to topple the Cuban government? It may have misfired and taken on water, but it is not going away. Not by a long shot.

[gordianot]

100. Redistribution does not a Communist make.

I remember communes, sorry not for me.

Is China really a Communist State? Chavez is still selling that oil and gas and is making profit. He wheels and deals, (embarrass Bush at every opportunity) I'm sure he lives like a peasant. Castro has survived more decades of death attempts than Jason in the Halloween movies, he thrives on it. Governments tend to do that sort of thing one reason they have intelligence agencies that do more than gather information and provide elaborate protection.

George Bush has put all his eggs in the Middle East basket, I'm sure he can afford another war anywhere. The U.S Army still remembers jungle war, just what they want with all that desert camouflage and tank training. In spite of what they say they are watching the polls the price is getting much too high in human and material cost. Chavez is not without his own teeth.

The real revolution is technological, it is unstoppable and will be coming everywhere. Skilled labor is about to become easy. You can design and build your own microchips, fabricate anything from virtually anything. Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Capitalist, Police States, rich and poor are about to get a rude awakening.

[manic expression]

106. And....

the company that sells Venezuela's oil and gas is STATE-RUN. If you haven't the slightest idea of political science, that is a socialist policy. Redistribution of land is also a very socialist/Marxist action. This should be obvious.

Secondly, where does it say leftist countries are not allowed to trade with other countries? Communist countries trade all the time. The biggest difference is simply where the wealth goes to.

Did the jungle stop the conservatives in this country from screwing Nicaragua and El Salvador? No. The oil in Venezuela is the sole reason Chavez is alive.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. The internet was supposed to revolutionize politics, but I have yet to see a real effect, aside from the blogs (which is pretty minimal). Keep waiting for your little revolution that will never come, I'll fight for ones that will actually make a difference.

[gordianot]

111. Gee whiz

What's the difference in State owned corporations who make a profit, and Corporations who own States making a profit? Great Britain, France etc. all embraced Socialism to varying degrees. The United States has socialist programs that are very popular as Bush recently discovered. Both State Owned Corporations and Corporate owned States make enough money to throw crumbs to the masses. Somewhere there is a hierarchy, oligarchy that is doing a lot better than masses, it happens in worker paradise as well as capitalist states. Give them enough of what they want (both Communist-Socialist-Capitalist) to keep them happy, free medical care, cheap education, cheap cars, the baubles of consumables, sports etc., as long as the washed and unwashed masses do not take up pitch forks and torches.

In the meantime waste all the money you can on military expenditures, foreign adventures, wars of liberation, wars of aggression. Frankly I'm sick of it all. The 20th Century was a bloody mess and the 21st Century promises more of the same (even though I see some hope). We are still allowing children to starve in cities with great wealth.

I wasn't referring to the Internet on the technological revolution it is closely related. Computers have other applications in material fabrication, what was once done with multi million dollar equipment can be accomplished at a fraction of the cost. Nano technology, Genetic modification is also on the way. Much the same as we have seen Computers speed double, the ability of computer technology in fabrication is really dropping in price to the point of being individually affordable . Before long third world nations may be able to waste money building their own military hardware. There is also the possibility that people will return to cottage industries and creativity.

I've had more than a few political science courses, read extensively, done some traveling. Most of what you hear and read in Political Science is crap. Mix up hard core Communist, and Neo-Cons they are all egocentric assholes doing what they need to do to survive. I choose think for myself

[manic expression]

112. You don't know the difference?

The difference is that when a government owns the company, the people have a say in what happens to the profit and are able to hold the company accountable. Also, regulations and ethics can actually be enforced. When the corporation runs the state, it favors the greed and disgusting business policies of the corporation. It's the difference between private and public.

Please give me an example of the wars of aggression that Cuba or Venezuela have undertaken since their leftist governments have taken office. You won't find one. Secondly, there is VERY little inequity in socialist countries. Doctors, teachers, farmers, cab drivers and people of all proffessions have the same standard of living, a standard that is exceptional and equal for all. All you have to do is look at the rates of literacy, education, medicine, child mortality and other things in Cuba to see how successful leftist policies are in creating justice. Socialist countries MAKE SURE that there are NO starving children. Capitalist countries make sure that there are.

I know you weren't referring to the internet, but I was using an example, showing that technology may not make a dent in most political landscapes. We've seen computer speed increase by 100 fold (that's a guess but it's not too inaccurate, IMO) in the past few decades. So what REAL change has occurred? Not much. However, the real revolutions which change governments to help the people actually make a difference.

Good for you, think for yourself. However, there is something to be said for knowing the distinction between socialist and capitalist/laissez-faire policies and the very different results of those policies.

[bunyip]

113. Your idealism is commendable

when a government owns the company, the people have a say in what happens to the profit and are able to hold the company accountable

No. When government and corporation are one, the people get screwed. The profit is frittered away on private dachas for the nomenklatura, and management is stacked with incompetent cronies.

Under Capitalism, such a company collapses (Enron, WorldCom) and the crooks are unemployed (though seldom arrested). Under Socialism, such a company merely continues, vampiricly sucking the peoples' labor and goodwill.

Neoconservatism is Socialism for the Rich.

wars of aggression that Cuba or Venezuela have undertaken

Ask the people of Angola how much they enjoyed a Cuban army on their soil throughout the Cold War, propping up a corrupt and brutal oligarchy. Don't get me started on the Soviet Union.

Venezuela hasn't invaded anyone recently. It is also Capitalist. Democracy has come to Venezuela. Viva Chavez! He's a Liberal and a Patriot. Not a Commune or a Reeducation camp in sight.

Secondly, there is VERY little inequity in socialist countries

There is very little inequality in Capitalist countries where people give a damn. Sweden and Finland are immensely successful Capitalist societies whose products are household names (Nokia). They have an excellent standard of living with less inequality than most "Socialist" countries.

Socialist countries MAKE SURE that there are NO starving children

Pol Pot. North Korea. Who are you kidding?

I respect the strength of your convictions, but I feel it is democracy, accountability and justice people need. Socialism is just an economic system. It won't make people good or caring. Some problems cannot be solved with a Kalashnikov and a stirring speech.

Socialism in just and caring societies works okay. Capitalism in just and caring societies works better.

[manic expression]

122. You are mistaken, IMO

I would like to turn your attention to Cuba, Venezuela, El Salvador and other socialist countries. They operate (the last two less so, but with many socialist policies) under such a system to the GREAT benefit of the people. The profits go to programs which improve society.

Neoconservatism helps the rich over others through exploitation and injustice. Socialism fights this.

Cuban guerrillas fought in Angola, hoping to establish a leftist government. The same was done in Bolivia. A war of aggression? Not nearly. Armed action of insurgence? Of course.

If you think the Soviet Bloc is socialist, that is ridiculous.

There is very little inequality in Capitalist countries where there are socialist policies. Sweden and Finland are examples of countries using parts of capitalism with parts of socialism. It has worked well. However, the background of those countries and the backgrounds of most 3rd world countries could not be more different.

Pol Pot and NK are socialist? :rofl:

If you can follow, hear this. Democracy, in general, means that the people have either direct or indirect control over their governnment. It is rule by the people. In many socialist countries, not only do they have representation, but they recieve their fair share, what they deserve and what they need. Cuba has excellent representation, so does Kerala, so did Chile, and El Salvador does now beause of leftist reforms that people fought and died for. You will also find justice, equality and accountability in amazing abundance in those places mentioned, while there is little to none in most capitalist countries. Actually, aside from Western Europe, Canada (and there are many socialist policies in place in W Europe and Canada) and Japan, capitalism fails miserably.

America has pitiful democratic institutions. Winner-take-all districts and elections, a monopoly on dialogue and other factors all contribute to the truth that there is no voice for many in America. NONE. You have the audacity to speak of democracy when capitalism puts wealth and power squarely in the hands of the wealthy and the few?

Capitalism can somewhat work with regulations and certain specific conditions, but it largely contributes toward exploitation and injustice. Socialism creates just and caring societies, and improves those societies and creates justice for the people.

edited out an unnecessary comment

[gordianot]

127. Great post.

Welcome to DU!

Sweden is a good example. They have a blended eclectic economic system not entirely Capitalist or Socialist, not too authoritarian.

[rman]

117. Only if the government actually is an instrument of self-governance

...of the people. Which is what it is supposed to be (post-Renaissance concept of democracy - which is the foundation of the US constitution). But which is usually isn't.

It is entirely possible to have a "government" that essentially a front for rule by the business elites. It can be overtly totalitarian (ie Stalin) or it can be an exercise in advanced propaganda (the West, with the current US govt as the strongest manifestation yet).

All i'm saying is, a government owning corporations is no guarantee for public control over those corporations. Just look at the USSR under Stalin, where the government did own corporations (same with Mussolini and Hitler). Trotsky had reason to denounce what he called Stalins "capitalism" - the ruling elites got richer under Stalin, while the people were starving to death.

[manic expression]

123. Good points

The government that owns the businesses must represent the people. If not, it is simply fascism under a different name. Simply put, it MUST be for the people and by the people.

The difference is that those countries, USSR and Soviet Bloc, were authoritarian to the highest degree. The fact that Stalin purged countless revolutionaries of Russia is quite telling. The wealth in the USSR went to the wrong places and was directed by the oligarchy, whereas the little wealth Cuba has goes to its people in the form of schools, hospitals, aid, housing and other things that benefit society. You could say that there is almost no difference between the fascist, laissaz-faire governments and the Stalinist/Maoist regimes, as both governments were totalitarian and both favored the few over the many through exploitation and injustice.

Cuba, Kerala and other socialist states are leftist, they are very much opposed to the system of the USSR in every way.

[rman]

129. Right, to call Stalin's USSR "communist" is as inaccurate

as is it to call what we have "democracy" - it was/is such in name only.

In my view Stalin headed a "Big Stick Despotism", while we have "Big Lie Despotism".

Someone once said that the biggest feat of propaganda in the West is that the public thinks we have no propaganda.

At least in communist Russia and Hitler's Germany people -knew- they were being fed propaganda (which is why the Big Stick was needed to keep people in line).

[gordianot]

121. I know the difference as defined in text books.

Since you are living in America you are living in a Corporate owned State.

Guess I look at things too simplistically today. When political science was an educational pursuit I made "A's". I could pass those tests today but I would not be representing what I believe. Saying what you believe is always a risk. I've read your posts here and think you are worth that risk. Defying conventional thought in some society's (Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Capitalist) you can end up in prison/mental institution to be reeducated or get the 20 cent solution of a bullet in the head. (China has been known to charge about dollar to the the family of the accused returns the spent brass cartridge)

Internationale=New World Order (PNAC variant) similar goals different rhetoric and sales pitch.

Stalin with a little different rhetoric would have made a marvelous Neo-Con. Cheney and Stalin would have made good partners for a while but one would have emerged on top with the other one dead.

I don't care much who owns the store there is a always a small number who profits and lives large. (True I have heard Chavez is trying not to appear too ostentatious) Really there is no such thing as laissez-faire Capitalism, why do you think Cheney went ballistic withholding records from energy talks early in the Bush administration? Let's see could it have been the energy conglomerates made deals they did not want to share? Oops that make it a planned economy, those deals would have been illegal maybe even some price fixing Enron style. Wonder if Citgo was represented at those talks (OPEC) guess we will never know?

My motto is "Be skeptical", don't trust news media so called MSM, paid advertising, conventional wisdom or government propaganda. One of the few things Ronald Reagan was ever correct about, Communism is on the ash heap of history (Reagan's legacy needs to join them on the same ash heap). Hopefully PNAC New World Order Corporatism will join Communism and Reaganism oligarchy deficit spending, (Caveat: as usual someone will find a new name for the same old thing as ideas are given new tread).

Industrial production is becoming much easier "watch China" which is Communist in name only, who are embracing the new technology. How do you think tiny Israel is so productive and is able to thumb their noses at the United States? (By the way Israel is a good model for socialism they even have communes "Kibbutz".) South Korean Capitalist are working deals with China as I type. Watch out for that South Korean high tech as it transfers to China. New alliances are forming, I don't pretend to know what the new World Order will look like when it emerges. There will probably be a new Oceana, Europa,Greater Islam ,North America, Asian Alliance etc. etc.

I have enjoyed this conversation and wish you my best. It is good to have dialouge even when people do not agree. Remember there are different ways to look at the world.

[rman]

116. It's not either/or

You can have state programs and land redistribution *and* allow private entrepeneurship at the same time. Which is how it is in Venezuela.

It's just that not *everything* is a state program or state controlled, nor is *everything* left to the "forces of the free market".

In my view it is the Right that does want *everyting* to be left to the "market forces" - but it is not that the left does want *everyting* to be state controlled.

[manic expression]

124. True

but some things are being put in the hands of the state (Citgo, to my knowledge, is state run). This, IMO, makes it better for the people and for society, as the people can control the government and use the wealth for the right purposes.

Well, the left in this country is certainly that way. However, I think the right is close to achieving its goals, if it hasn't done so, through de-facto means, already.

[rfkrfk]

118. communism is detailed control of your daily life by the party

most people on this board have a resonable idea
of what socialism is.

in communism, the local communist party office -->

holds your internal passport, issues train tickets, etc
decides where you live
issues ration cards, and where they can be used
decides if you get a vacation
etc

[manic expression]

125. I do think

that the difference of those terms arose from common perception, not from their intended usage. Communism, Marxism, Socialism are synonyms, but they connote different meanings when used. That was what I was getting at.

However, there is no doubt over the differences between leftist socialism and authoritarian communism. They are very much opposites.

[rwheeler31]

7. Yes

nt

[PatrioticLeftie]

8. No, I think it's on a downhill slope n/t

[Pirate Smile]

9. I hope not. It ignores human nature.

[Kralizec]

11. And what exactly is "human nature" again? n/t

[bluedawg12]

54. Human nature that seeks to have a tier or hierarchy

living above the masses, a pseudo-aristocracy, with cars, dasha's, and special privileges.

Human nature s in communally own land was less productive than privately held land.

It failed miserably during the cold war with the satellite states which had a very poor quality of life.

Too each according his needs, to each according to his ability to steal.

[LostInAnomie]

61. I'm not sure that we aren't holding Communism to a higher standard...

... than we do Capitalism.

Capitalism is equally subject to corruption and abuse as Communism. The difference is that when people starve, go without medicine, or can't afford an education we just shrug our shoulders and say "Well that's the free market".

When a Communist/Socialist country has problems we jump to say that it is a sign that communism can't and never will work.

[bluedawg12]

64. Anarcho-capitalism will lead to the same

out come as communism, an oligarchy, a few at the top do well, the broad base of the bottom ...not so well.

But, at least with capitalism you have a chance to own a car, a house, your own business and maybe a chance at a better life.

The poorest people in NOLA were still better off than starving peasants in Russia.

With the soviet style and the Chinese style communusim the individual was submerged into mass behavior.

The far right and the far left share this evil, both sides want people to be robotic.

[wickerwoman]

88. Human nature is fundamentally irrational.

And communism is, in essence, the rationalization of labor. In a capitalist system there is a tremendous waste- many products are conceived, produced and distributed and many products are scrapped because there happened not to be a demand for them. In a communist system, the leadership tries to calculate supply and demand ahead of time and limit the waste so that the country produces only what is needed and the workers have more free time for self-fulfillment.

The problem is that supply and demand can't be worked out in a rational manner. There are far too many variables, not least of which is human perversity. If everyone else has the blue shirt, I want the yellow one. Maybe I don't feel like steak today, I feel like chicken.

While Marx was spot-on in his criticism of 19th century industrial capitalism, I don't think communism as an alternative is any better. The problem with 19th century factories is that they tried to rationalize labor but limiting each person's task and treating them like an expendable machine creating alienation. Rationalizing the production of an entire country just recreates the same problem on a larger scale.

Incidentally, I think communism is where we're going when the oil crisis hits. For all those people buying isolated farmland, watch how fast land and water supplies are nationalized when the famine starts.

[manic expression]

12. The same argument

was made against representative government.

Communism has worked in Cuba, Kerala and elsewhere.

[RagingInMiami]

37. Communism may have "worked" in Cuba because the only people

left are the poor people. Sure they may have doctors and free education, but what good is getting an education and becoming a doctor if you're going to be living hand to mouth like everybody else.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to advance yourself to be able to live more comfortable.

The problem with capitalism in this country is we let it go way too far with the corporations getting all the welfare and tax breaks at the expense of the working people.

[manic expression]

53. It worked

It works very well. What is there to argue?

However, doctors in Cuba get a free education and do their job. It is just like anyone else. There is also a feeling of worth and purpose. Greed and starvation are not nearly the only reasons a person can be driven to work.

The entire country lives quite comfortably in relation to their economic state. That is the point. Everyone advances, not just some people; doctors contribute to that in one way. Note that Cuban doctors also work overseas in numbers that rival any other country.

There is something wrong with denying other people their fair share.

[Mika]

71. Your expression reflects part of the "problem".

Posted by RagingInMiami--> ".. but what good is getting an education and becoming a doctor if you're going to be living hand to mouth like everybody else."


What good is it? Surely you jest.

Its called - for the betterment of one's community, country, and your fellow citizens. That is how one advances oneself along with the rest of one's community. No one is separate or isolated from their community.

One of the problems in this country (the US) is that concept, has all too often, been forgotten.


Cubans in Cuba might be materialistically poor, but they are wealthy in community & social values and infrastructure.



Been there. Seen it. Lived it.

Dr Mika

[BBradley]

90. Don't you know that the only real measure of your worth

is the amount of shiny things you own?

[Czolgosz]

98. Ignores human nature? Do you mean like sex offender laws and laws against

property crimes and drug laws? I'm unclear.

[Kralizec]

13. The label "Communism" will kill anything it touches it, which is

unfortunate because it is like defining "Republics" by the something like the current U.S. Administration.

Communism will always be clipped together with Stalin and the Cold War. If something like a communal government ever emerged it would be called something else.

(See Venezuela)

[Faygo Kid]

14. No. It had its chance.

Good esoteric theory. In reality, an abysmal, abominable failure. Like the neocons.

[manic expression]

19. Tell the Cubans

that it is an "abysmal, abominable failure". Such policies brought the average education from a 2nd grade level to the 8th grade level in a matter of years (it took Argentina almost half a century to accomplish the same feat using the best case capitalist scenario). The medical system is world-class, and statistics such as child mortality rates rival the US (sometimes beating them).

The list goes on and on....

Tell the Indians living in Kerala. Tell the people of El Salvador everything was much better before those "commie" policies gave them some decent living standards. Tell Chile it was better off after the coup.

Actually, don't. Because you'll be abysmally wrong.

[Faygo Kid]

25. I won't be a Communist. Much to admire. But no way.

You are talking about common decency, not a political system. And don't be so angry. We are ultimately on the same side. Or, bring it. Your choice. With best regards for a super weekend.

[manic expression]

30. Be what you want to be

but I think it's important to note that a lot of "communist" policies have been infinitely helpful to their people (to beat a dead horse, while capitalism, and neo-colonialism, pretty much rapes entire countries of their resources and potential, socialism improves the lives of the people and creates justice).

Socialism can be put in place by countries such as India, Sweden or other non-single party systems, or by countries with a much wider party selection and political discourse. Cuba doesn't even recognize party affiliation of public office-holders.

By the way, did you know that the life expectancy has gone down in the Soviet bloc since the fall of the USSR? That's just something most people will not tell you.

The term "communist" may be inaccurate, and "socialist" may be better, but it really doesn't matter.

Anyway, we are on the same side. And I'm not angry. Happy weekend! :hi:

[RagingInMiami]

38. I will tell the Cubans

Because they are constantly coming to Miami to escape Cuba. I meet them all the time down here working in the restaurants. They seem happy to be here.

[manic expression]

44. Wow

They are leaving Cuba because of economic hardships. That is because of the terrible US Embargoes. It is a wonder why a country with such a challenge would not have an extremely large emigration rate. Mexico and other "US-approved" Latin American countries completely eclipse Cuba in terms of emigration, and they are not even being embargoed.

Funny....

[RagingInMiami]

45. If I was born poor in a Latin American country

I would rather live in Cuba than any other Latin American country because I would be guaranteed basic necessities.

Fortunately, I was born to a working class family in the United States, which means I am not subjected to being poor my entire life, as it would be the case if I was born poor in Latin America.

The real problem is the Latin American class system, which goes back to the days of the European conquistadorers, where the ruling class is of European descent, and the lower class is either descendent from Indians or Slaves.

[manic expression]

48. If I was born anywhere

I would rather live in a society that had equality and justice rather than unfairness. Being relatively rich (when looking at the 3rd world), I would rather see wealth go to all equally. Not so many people are as economically fortunate as you are, and so it is important to encourage improvement for them, and improvement for all.

Many Americans are subjected to a life of poverty, and they recieve very little or no help from their government. Cubans, on the other hand, recieve what they need and deserve from their government.

The Latin American class system is not the only problem, but a lack of self-respect in mestizos. They see whiteness as being superior, and it is extremely sad. However, would you not agree that socialsm does help to remove these problems? I would say it does, and I would like your opinion on this subject.

[RagingInMiami]

50. I'm all for equality and justice

I'm all for a national healthcare plan in this country.

And I'm all for national education for those who want it.

But I rather look towards Canada instead of Cuba as the model.

[manic expression]

52. OK,

but the history, background and development of Cuba and Canada is quite different. Also, I'd rather have the more extensive programs of the Cuban government than those of the Canadian, but I would be satisfied with either.

[ck4829]

79. A lot of people are also escaping from Mexico

And Mexico's President is a firm believer in "Free Trade" and "Free Market" principles.

I just think it's valid to bring that up as well.

[RagingInMiami]

87. But in Mexico, you have a European ruling class

They might be Mexican but somewhere in their bloodline, they're European. You can't get anymore European than "Fox".

And they're used to what is basically a slave system. It's the same in Colombia, where I've lived and visit very frequently because I have family there.

My family is middle-class in Colombia because if you're lower class, you subjected to begging or selling cigarette or lottery tickers on the streets. Poverty in the United States, although it's very bad, does not compare to poverty in these countries.

Those Mexicans who come to this country need to be legitimized and paid a fair wage. They are, after all, a result of the "Free Trade" and "Free Market" principles.

[manic expression]

92. It used to be that way in Cuba

The point is that Mexico has been using the economic policies that Uncle Sam wants them to for a long time, and their illegal emigration rate far eclipses Cuba's. Cubans even have guaranteed amnesty upon reaching American shores. It is a wonder that so many Cubans stay, but it is not so much a wonder when you look at Cuba's policies.

Poverty in the US is pretty bad. The big difference is that we are a first-world country with third-world poverty. Saying that it is not quite as bad as Colombia's poverty is very much an indictment itself upon our system.

I strongly agree that Mexican/Latino immigrants MUST be treated fairly. However, I cannot help thinking that if their countries had fair policies, I doubt so many would be coming here in the first place.

[rman]

102. Same thing in the US....

There's probably zero native American blood in their bloodlines.

[RagingInMiami]

41. The other thing about Cuba is that there is no freedom of speech

You may be willing to give that up for free education and healthcare, but I have too much of a big mouth to live in a place like that.

It's bad enough here where we supposedly do have freedom of speech that people accuse me of being unpatriotric and try to tell me to shut up because I hate Bush and his fucking war, but I have not been jailed or shot at because of my beliefs. At least not yet.

At least here I can read what I want to read without fear of someone breaking down my door. And yes, I know all about the patriotric act and how they would like to do the same here, which is why we need to make a stand about that rather than immerse ourselves in some romantic notion at how much better it would be if we were living under a communist regime.

The bottom line is, Castro is a fucking dictator. He's been there more than forty years. Anyone who denounces him publicly is either jailed or executed.

And yes, the people do have shelter and food rations and healthcare, which makes them better off than the poor people in Colombia or Mexico or most other Latin American countries, but guess what, they do not have the Internet, something you and I take for granted.

Most of them have no idea about the world outside of Cuba.

If that is your idea of an ideal society, than give up your computer, don your Che shirt and defect to the Island. If you're a vegeterian, even better because meat rations are extremely rare.

[manic expression]

42. That's not true

There is freedom of speech. Please, show me suppression of free speech (and if you use those "dissenters", who were paid by the US government, I will laugh at you).

Were these people jailed or shot?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm

Yeah, didn't think so.

It's called the PATRIOT Act, not the "patriotic act", get your facts straight.

The bottom line is Castro is not a dictator and the Cuban people are well-represented. He's been there forty years and counting, yes, but the fact is that the Cuban people support him. This, along with my claim that there is freedom of speech, is backed up by people who have traveled there.

Guess what? You can get American news stations on radio in Cuba. The Cuban government CAN jam radio frequencies, but does not for American news, why is this? Think about that for awhile.

I would like to travel to Cuba, but my freedom-loving government makes it very hard to do so. I will try.

Ever wonder why meat rations are rare? Maybe it's because the ALMOST HALF A (FREAKING) CENTURY OF US EMBARGOES!!!!!!! That SIEGE that we've been laying upon Cuba is the REASON FOR ITS ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS! However, even in spite of such challenges, the Cuban people still maintain their very amazing standard of living, medicine, education and other conditions. If it was not for socialist policies, people would have been dying in the streets after the fall of the USSR.

[RagingInMiami]

49. So Castro is not a dictator

The people all love him there (of course that may have to do with the fact that anybody they talk to can be a government spy).

And they have complete freedom of speech (sure, as long as it is expressed in the state-run press).

You're the one that needs to get your facts straight.

"This, along with my claim that there is freedom of speech, is backed up by people who have traveled there."

So you've talked to people who have traveled there? So have I. My Colombian uncle honeymooned there. I have several friends that have been there.

The average Cuban person is not allowed in the luxurious hotels unless they work there.

http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/98.octnov/seaton3.htm

What are you, a teenager?

[manic expression]

51. No

To be a dictator, one needs absolute power.
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQDemocracy.html

He does not nearly possess it.

The people who I have talked to have held conversations with Cubans on politics, and they felt free to say whatever they pleased. Unlike Cuba before the revolution and unlike other "US-approved" Latin American countries, there are no death squads.

Again, give me an actual citation of a case of suppression of free-speech. I've already given you a citation of tolerance for it. Here's an additional one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4681021.stm

From your link....
"Who’s the enemy? It is us."

That's right. Taking money from the US is not only collaborating with an obvious enemy (if you deny this, consider the Bay of Pigs, the embargoes and the special post for toppling Cuba's government in the White House), but it is illegal in countries such as America (accepting foreign funds for political purposes).

Edward L. Seaton is the distinguished editor-in-chief of the Manhattan Mercury. What credentials...:eyes:

[Mika]

73. Sorry, RagingInMiami. You don't have correct information.

You seem to be dealing in black or white.

A large majority of Cubans in Cuba love and respect Mr. Castro as the living revolutionary hero that he is. As manic expression has posted, Cubans do have an elected representational parliamentary government, on local, provincial, and national levels. Mr. castro is not much more than the figurehead of Cuba's revolution, their public/international proponent, and a good one at that.

There are many small independent newspapers, magazines, petitions, etc. in Cuba that are non government, and some are anti establishment/anti communist/anti Castro. The only people who are harassed by the government are those on the payroll of US government organizations (FYI, the US gov has declared itself to be the enemy of Cuba and seeks to overthrow the SYSTEM of government in Cuba, and spends many millions of dollars a year to enact that), or funded by Miami based "exile" terrorist organizations with long histories of terrorist activities against Cuba and Cuban interests around the world. These same types of activities are illegal in this country also. What do you think the US gov would do if Al Queda opened up "independent libraries" in residential neighborhoods, or was funneling money to "independent journalists" who's purpose was to recruit for money.

As to your claim that Cubans aren't allowed in luxury hotels in Cuba unless they work there.. much the same as luxury hotels in the rest of the Caribbean, or on Miami Beach or other tourist luxury hotels most anywhere in the world. If you aren't there as a guest or to spend money, you can't just go in and hang out, use their facilities, or go swimming in the luxury pools or even on their private beaches (as is the case for many hotels in Miami) in any luxury hotel.

I have been to Cuba many times (legally), including for extended duration. I know many Cubans of all socioeconomic strata. Been there. Seen it. Lived it. Studied it.

Its just a damned shame that Americans are travel banned from Cuba by the dictate of the US government so that they cannot see the island and meet the Cuban people for themselves. Don't you wonder just why that is?


Regards,
Dr Mika

[RagingInMiami]

85. Hey Mika

I didn't want it to come across as a black and white issue because that is how I feel it is with all my Cuban neighbors. I was born and raised in Miami (Colombian descent), grew up in a Cuban neighborhood, and they always thought I was a commie.

But I'm just a liberal.

I never have agreed with the embargo, but it just goes to show how powerful the right-wing Cubans are in Miami. If it weren't for them, the embargo would not be in place. If it weren't for weak politicians (democrat and republican), the embargo would have been lifted a long time ago.

I wanted Elian sent home. The Cubans in Miami embarrassed themselves with their fanaticism.

I also want national healthcare and free college education for those want it, but I don't want to fall into anybody's marching orders. I don't like extremes.

I drive around with two "impeach Bush" stickers and one "Fuck bush" sticker on my car, expecting at any moment, one of the crazy fuckers with a Viva Bush sticker on his car is going to do something crazy.

But I don't think a doctor should be paid less than a bellhop, which is the case in Cuba. You can blame the embargo, but isn't that what the basic philosophy of communism is anyway? That a doctor gets paid the same as construction worker?

Not to disrespect the construction worker, but a doctor is much more of a priority than a construction worker, especially in a government system which makes healthcare a priority, which needs to be done in this country. I believe doctors should also be compensated.

And healthcare should be guaranteed to every U.S. citizen.

And Mika, I'm already planning a trip to Cuba for next year. I've always wanted to go there and now I'm going to do it. It's already in the works.

So I'm really have nothing more to add to this conversation. At least until I go there and experience it for myself.


And let me ask you a question, what do you think would happen if they actually lifted the embargo? Do you think Cuba would remain communism for long or do you think it would succumb to capitalism?

[Mika]

93. Thanks for the response

RagingInMiami, doctors and teachers are lauded and respected to the highest degree in Cuba. They are given all of the resources at their country's disposal to exercise their chosen profession - the professions they love. That love is returned in kind. Can one say that about doctors and teachers in the USA? US public school teachers have lower pay scales than most any other profession, including construction workers. Many doctors in the US are forced to repay six figure loans for their ed, so they are forced into specialty practices. GPs that perform house calls are a thing of the past in the USA, because there just isn't an affordable income to be had in such service. Cuba has one of the highest DR/patient ratios in the world. Do you think that they are forced to become doctors? They are not. Cubans want to become doctors and educators because they are well respected, honored, and perceived as inspiring role models and leaders. Can one say that about educators and Drs. in the USA?


Anyway, I hope that you do get to go to Cuba (legally), and I hope that you'll go with your eyes and heart untainted by some of your Americanized conceptions of wealth and values.

____


Posted by RagingInMiami--> "I never have agreed with the embargo, but it just goes to show how powerful the right-wing Cubans are in Miami. If it weren't for them, the embargo would not be in place. If it weren't for weak politicians (democrat and republican), the embargo would have been lifted a long time ago."



I wish that is was so easy. Unfortunately its not. There's political gain to be made (read: campaign contributions) in the US by representing both sides of the issue. That is another reason that there isn't really any real political interest to either side in ending sanctions on Cuba.

Consider this.. If there were to be no Castro, then there would be no VERY profitable taxpayer funded anti Castro foundations and programs. If there were to be no Castro, who the F would Ileana Ros and the Diaz Balart brothers run against? They need Castro. Everything these so called "anti Castro" factions do, from taunts to threats of war to sanctions to embargoes, only unites the Cuban people behind their fearless and successful leader. This is what the "anti Castro" politicians and "free Cuba" foundations need - in order to continue to profiteer on the backs of the US taxpayers.

Regrettably, it is not one sided profiteering. Perpetuating the embargo has a profit motive for US politicians representing both sides of the issue. No Castro = no anti Castro lobby (read campaign $$). No embargo = no pro trade w/Cuba lobby (read campaign $$). Hence, the embargo stays so the lobbying money pours in to both sides. Its a great example of why campaign financing reform is so needed.

Ex:
charts from opensecrets.org







Regards,
Mika

[Silverhair]

74. If Castro's economic system is so great, why are they still so poor?

Don't say the US embargo has anything to do with it. He can still trade with the whole rest of the world. If he had a good economic system, then in 40 years he should have made the island rich.

Is the US the only place that sells meat? Don't be stupid. He could buy from Argentina.

[Mika]

76. The US embargo is extra territorial

Without resorting to the ad hominem attack, I suggest that you do a little research on the US Torricelli Act and the US Helms-Burton Act lest you be accused of being uninformed.

Cuba cannot "still trade with the whole rest of the world".

Any company/business/corporation that does business with Cuba or any Cuban company/business/corporation is banned from doing business with the US or US company/business/corporation.

Now, think, which marketplace is the larger and more lucrative market for nearly all businesses - the US or Cuba?



This article on the US sanction on Cuba sums it up pretty well (if you are really interested)..

-End US blockade of Cuba-
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2005/10/30/fea20.html


--

Speaking of poor, did you know that the #1 cause of bankruptcy and loss of one's home in the US is medical costs? Not so in Cuba. Cuba has a world class universal medical system - from pre birth to death. If a medical emergency or chronic illness befalls someone in Cuba no debt is incurred, no mortgage or loan is needed, no devastating financial burden is incurred. Did you know that in order to get a higher education in the US high levels of debt are the norm? Not so in Cuba. In Cuba to become a highly educated professional no debt is incurred, no mortgage or loan is needed, no devastating financial burden is incurred, leaving one able to serve/perform at any level, to any community -rich or poor- without the stress of high financial income to pay off loans. In this way all Cubans are served by the systems that they all have helped to create.

Poverty/wealth is relative, a matter of perspective. Its not black nor white.

[Silverhair]

81. That still leaves a LOT of the world to trade with.

There are many companies that don't do business in the US. Further, any company that wanted to do business with Cuba and with the US could easily form a "front" company for dealing with Cuba that then internally "sells" the product to the USA dealing side - IF there was good business to be made in dealing with Cuba. The world is too big and there are too many companies for the US to be able to keep track of it all. The reason companies don't do that is that Cuba has little to offer.

Their economy is in the basement because communism has NEVER delivered on it's promises.

Also, the trade with the old USSR was not true trade. Russia propped up Castro, just as the US propped up some countries during the cold war.

[manic expression]

91. Give me a break

The embargoes wipe out virtually all major companies to trade with. If your business was given the choice of trading with either Cuba or the US, which would you choose? I thought so.

You're making up loopholes that don't exist. Cuban cigars are pretty desired in this country, but do you see any "front companies" selling them here? No, you don't.

Their economy is struggling because of the US. The socialist policies HAVE delivered on its promises, AND THEN SOME. Do the numbers on infant mortality, literacy, education level, equity, housing and otherwise completely go over your head? Even with a decade and a half of unjustified economic siege, Cuba has maintained amazing standards for their people. Compare that with non-embargoed "US-approved" Latin American countries.

The trade with the USSR was needed in the first place because of the embargoes. It was a policy which somewhat compensated for the US policies.

[manic expression]

80. It's the embargoes,

The US is the biggest potential buyer of Cuban products. It also happens to be the controller of the most wealth on the planet. The embargoes remain the sole reason for Cuba's economic troubles.

It is a testament to the Cuban system that it withstood the collapse of its biggest (and virtually sole) trading partner. If it was not for such socialist policies, people would have been dying in the streets. Even now, after so many challenges, Cuban medical service, education, literacy, parity and equity, housing and other things are easily among the best in the world. Just look at the stats for child mortality, literacy, education level and likewise and you will see how successful such policies have been for the people.

Don't be stupid, a struggling economy makes it difficult to buy from anywhere.

on edit...just look at what happened when the embargoes were first put in place. The Cuban economy was drastically hurt by it. Furthermore, it is a recognized fact that the embargoes greatly hinder the economy. This is more than obvious.

on another edit...I strongly suggest you read Mika's response.

[rfkrfk]

120. Cuba exports low priced commodities, the embargo is meaningless

{exception, Cigars}

The US has abundant potential supplies of
bananas and sugar.

Fidel could go worldwide, and buy anything he wants,
for the Cuban people.
exception might be,
brand NEW Boeing jet
NEW stuff from General Electric
a few others

I am in favor of ending the embargo,
if only to eliminate the BS about how much it
hurts Cubans.

I favor, retention on the travel ban.
but, if the ban is lifted,
is Havana really that much nicer
than Miami?
edit, for typo

[manic expression]

126. See post #76

from Mika:

Under the embargoes,

"Any company/business/corporation that does business with Cuba or any Cuban company/business/corporation is banned from doing business with the US or US company/business/corporation.

Now, think, which marketplace is the larger and more lucrative market for nearly all businesses - the US or Cuba?"

So, no. Cuba cannot trade with the rest of the world. And even with such a challenge, it provides excellent standards of living despite a decade and a half of recession. If it wasn't for such policies when the USSR collapsed, people would have been dying in the streets. All you have to do is look at history, because when the embargoes were first put in place, they greatly hurt the Cuban economy and the Cuban people, and have been doing so ever since. Cuba has helped its people regardless, and THAT is a true testament to how amazing the policies really are.

[ixion]

15. Nope. It's interesting in theory, but fails on large scale application

besides, everything is not equal. :-)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

17. The most succesful form of true commune-ism

was practiced by the early Christian Church, prior to the Council of Nicea. Even Paul (whom, incidentally, I wouldn't have pissed on were he on fire) mentions that the early followers of the message of Yeshua "held all things in common."

The whole "dicatatorship of the proletariat" thingy was intellectual masturbation. A little like reading something on Snopes and saying "Hey, that might really work!" It wasn't Marx and Engels' fault that Lenin, Mao etc. found it a convenient excuse for a power grab.

Communism can work only on a small scale, much as is the case with democracy. Separate subject areas, but each are susceptible to being destroyed in a short period of time by nothing more than growth.

[Selatius]

18. Not state socialism. It'll never work with that much concentration

Socialism, by true definition, means "the workers' democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production." If that is to be taken as the definition, then socialism implies an order that is radically democratic where individuals organize, cooperate directly, form a consensus as to a decision, and then act by carrying it out collectively.

If socialism is to emerge again as a movement, it will emerge from the grassroots, and power, instead of being vested in a centralized bureaucracy where it can easily fall into the hands of one or several wrong people, will be diffused where decision-making power is held close to the people, not far away at the top of the hierarchical pyramid where one can determine the fate of millions.

If by "communism" you mean Marxist state socialism, then that is something I disagree with as the state has historically been a tool of oppression, coercion, and terror.

[Hardrada]

60. Hurray, another anarcho-syndicalist

I think our approach is the best at avoiding the ills of both kinds of atate capitalism.

[dcfirefighter]

20. Marx: "Henry George is Capitalism's last stand"

I hope someone somewhere realizes the fundamental difference between property in land and property in man-made objects.

If they did, they'd realize that 1) there are no economic distortions caused by taxing land 2) all social and technological improvements increase the value of land 3) Everyone has a right to our natural commonwealth.

Chavez is on the right track on redistributing land, but it's at best a temporary solution - what happens when the next generation arrives? Do they divy it up again? Who gets the best lots?

Georgism, geoism, geolibertarianism, earth-sharing, whatever you call it would work wonderfully in a developing agrarian economy. (OK I'm biased, I think it would work wonderfully in a '1st' world superpower).

Henry George's remedy in a nutshell.


I am not sure that even the best economic system can survive without repudiating the debt burden on many developing nations.

[manic expression]

22. They are two separate things

That is correct. Therefore, societies which use the "socialist model" do different things with these possessions. Man-made objects can be distributed according to need, or through common use (a bunch of miners use the same pick-axes without owning them...this is theoretical), or other methods.

Land is re-distributed, which creates equality, and then is managed from there, perhaps with some changes according to shifts in population, etc. If a family recieves a plot of land through reforms, they own it and use it just like anything else, passing it on to the next generation. In so doing, parity and justice is continued as well.

Just my take on it.

[dcfirefighter]

32. By passing it on from generation to generation

you are perpetuating the haves & have nots. What about younger sons, or immigrants? In a few generations, you'll have to do another redistribution. How do you equally distribute land? By acreage? I want my 12 acres on madison ave in manhattan. By comittee? I want my brother on the committee.

With no incentive to make the pickaxe, who purchases it? Who makes it? Why? Who cares for it? Who cares if is broken, or poorly maintained?

Who determines need? Who provides for that need? Why?

This is why I don't think socialism works. It's goals are WONDERFUL, and that is why I'm a democrat. But look at france, look at germany, look at their unemployment. Planned economies ALWAYS fail to optimally utilize their resources - leaving shortages, often in employment.

At least their centrally planned economies are governed by some sort of democratic process - we are careening towards a centrally planned economy governed by plutocrats - and yes, I'd choose germany and risk unemployment over that.

Peoples wants and needs are unbounded. Given the means, they will attempt to satisfy their needs and wants.

It takes a combination of labor, capital, land, and materials to provide the things people need and want. Again, their wants are boundless.

There are only so many workers available. Raising wages can attract a few more, but we are essentially limited to the workforce we have. The laws of physics limit the land and materials we have to work with. There is no limit to the amount of capital we can build.
If we minimize our use of land and materials, we have to maximise our use of capital and labor. Labor builds capital, so an increase in demand for capital increases the demand for labor.

We want to use all the labor we can. As unused labor (unemployed) becomes scarce, labor can demand high wages and good working conditions.

[manic expression]

40. Must I write you a treatise

on a socialist government, with all the legal codes and specifics on the committees which rule them? You're asking for more than a senior thesis.

However, to answer your myriad of questions....

Since the land is distributed equally, the passing on to other generations will only keep that balance. This is not to say that boundaries cannot be redrawn with shifts in the population. There are different ways to do it, but ultimately equality can be continued.

You cannot have land of madison ave. because it is being used for something else entirely. Are you a farmer? Here, take this plot of usable land, which is very much equal to that of your peers. Are you a cab driver? Here, take this car, along with a house in the city, and a garage will be provided for you as well. Are you a doctor? Here, we will provide you with education, a house, a place of practice. See how it works?

The government CAN deal with this sort of thing. It can be done other ways, but government control is what has been done in the past (the other models are very utopian, but have worked in small situations).

The economy doesn't have to plan, it must utilize its wealth and resources to benefit the people instead of the few. The Cuban government didn't plan to make the economy based off of sugarcane, but it made sure its policies were for justice and equality. Argentina didn't become a wheat-based economy overnight, but it developed that way. The difference is that when Argentina fell into unemployment and recession, the people were screwed. The economy collapsed and so did the entire society. In Cuba, they have been facing a recession for the past decade and a half, but the people still get what they need and deserve (if it wasn't for socialist policies, people would have been dying in the streets after the collapse of the USSR), even if the rate of living declines.

People's needs are not unbounded. The definition of a decent lifestyle is not very unbounded. However, greed is, and therefore it must not be allowed to exploit others.

It is not about what people want. I want an Escalade with PSP's in the headrests, but only the few can afford that. I want a government that makes better policies, but only the powerful can allow that. It is all about what people need and deserve. You could argue that this is up for interpretation, but it is relative in regards to the present situation of the country in question. However, you cannot argue that there is a balance of equality that can be reached, as has been done.

There are so many workers available, and there are so many resources available. That means one must make sure that the country's wealth, derived from those resources, goes to the workers. That makes justice and parity. It is quite simple. When an economy tries to "maximise capital", that capital does not go to the workers but to the wealthy. This only creates injustice and exploitation. Furthermore, it does not improve society, as it is senseless production, made worse by the lack of helpful implementation (since it ends up in the hands of the few, creating more injustice). A government needs to take that capital and use it to help society and make sure the people are treated fairly. They are people, with families, dreams and hopes. Let us put our resources toward THAT.

Labor can only demand high wages by standing up against bad policies. Those came by long and bloody fights, mostly lost by labor. Is that a road you want all countries to take, if they are able to take it at all?

[dcfirefighter]

55. Socialism

If it's effective, it is easily dominated to benefit the few.
It it's ineffective, it's ineffective.

It seems to depend on the good will of all involved. It seems a few ruthless or greedy people could subvert it. It seems to have happened that way before. (I acknowledge that Henry George's remedy hasn't been tried).

In the 1880's, H. George was quite popular with the unions.

He advocated removing all taxes, direct and indirect, from labor. This ensures that the use of labor will be maximised - unemployment would be minimised. With low unemployment, employers must raise wages and improve working conditions in order to attract and retain workers.

He advocating raising public revenue by taxing land values. This means that the best lands get put to their optimal use - there is no benefit in holding land out of use, if someone has a use for it. This is not true now, when valuable urban lots are held vacant for years, and later sold for a great financial gain. Because the best lands are put to use, production is optimized.

Because capital - man made stuff - is relatively mobile, and can be substituted for other capital, it may not claim a monopoly on the surplus of production. The owner of the capital can, and does demand payment for the use of his equipment, but he doesn't receive a monopoly return. Think of a farmer renting a tractor.

He didn't just advocating raising revenues from land, but rather publicly collecting ALL or nearly all of the value of lands. As a practical matter, this would probably involve either periodic auctions, or some form of assessment, as is done now. Under such collection, lands take a net present value of close to zero, however, occupying lands would require paying the public its annual rental value. This money would be used for public goods and services.

The very public goods and services bought with the taxes would improve the productivity of surrounding lands. If the state built a rail line connecting my rural farm to a nearby city, I have to spend less of my effort getting my produce to the market, resulting in greater incomes for me. This increased productivity would result in higher land values, and still greater public revenue.

In the long run, such a scheme would result in the laborer receiving just enough wages to induce him to work, the capitalist would receive just enough interest to induce him to lend his capital, and the public would recieve the surplus rent. Because the best lands are already used, but none are held idle, there would likely be available land in the hinterlands. The presence of this land establishes the 'minimum wage'. Because he has access to this marginal land, he has an alternative to employment - the employer must give him a wage that is greater than he could receive on his own, working the marginal land.

Furthermore, if a portion of the public funds is spent on providing a basic income grant, or a citizen's dividend, the 'minimum' wage is raised further. This would also work if all lands were currently used. A potential laboror with a basic income grant is harder to induce to work than a potential laborer with no alternatives.

Various economists have calculated the 'rent' available in the modern United States. They have added modern forms of 'land': the electromagnetic spectrum, atmospheric rights, mineral rights, etc., and they generally include other government-created 'wealth' like patents, banking priveleges, and utility monopolies. If all of these were collected in the US, it would raise more than $4T, which is about what we currently spend at all levels of government.

However, this doesn't include the boon to productivity by improvements in employment and land use. A very conservative estimate of a 25% improvement nets another $1T. Changing foreign policy and military spending could easily net another $500B. A BIG from this $1.5T would equal $5,000 a person. Using SS funds to pay for this Basic Income Grant could give adults a $10,000 per annum BIG, and children a $5000/y BIG. $30,000 for a family of four just for showing up. This is on top of the current services government provides - except a massive foreign-deployed military. This is in addition to the likely access to cheap, cheap rural land. $30,000 a year, twenty acres for $10k a year or so, what else could you ask for? You'd have to pay me quite a hefty wage to induce me to leave my little homestead.

If the dollar figures offend you, feel free to substitute healthcare, potatoes, haircuts, indoctrination or any other service you feel that a committee could provide better than a competitive market.

[manic expression]

72. Please

show me how socialism in Cuba, El Salvador, Venezuela and Chile have went to benefit the few. They haven't.

On to your essay....

The best lands may be put to use, but for whom? If they are put to use for the few and BY the people, it is being minimised, for the capital gained by its production simply goes to the wealthy, exploiting the people further. This is why land must be given to all people in relation to their need, for society benefits.

A farmer may rent a tractor, but it may only help to hurt him. Do you think the sharecroppers appreciated your model? No, because they were raped by those who virtually owned them. A farmer may use a tractor, but it may belong to someone else - a corporation. How does this help the individual? It does not. Such man-made products should be provided to the people who need them, through use of other capital, to allow for parity. A community that is put in the hands of the owners of capital is a community that is exploited, a community that has what it needs and deserves is a community that has justice.

Even Argentina, which mechanized as a result of ideal situations, was not able to significantly improve its people's education for about half a century, in spite of so much capitalist "prosperity". Cuba, on the other hand, did the same in a matter of years. Which do you think is better for society and for the people?

It is only right that a government build a railroad from the farms to the city centers/ports of a country. However, a government should not put profit in front of people (as conservatives love to do), and should improve healthcare, education, literacy, housing and other conditions before trying to produce as much as possible. Such improvements will help the people and contribute to society, not to the pockets of business. If one takes the mentality of making profit over people, one will see that it will only lead to a lack of real gain and misuse of capital. It can also lead to neo-colonialism, as countries will develop for other companies and markets instead of for their people. Furthermore, one must only look at Argentina's dire prospects over the last few years to see the reality of capitalist policies in the best case scenario.

Wow. Getting just enough to get out of total slavery...in the long run? Great plan. Meanwhile, in the real world, the public would recieve very little, while the capitalist recieves what he always does: money, through exploiting his workers. And even the workers do get some small improvements, they will stay under the thumb of the person they work for. A system that requires a lot of time and work and effort to give workers a bit of freedom and opportunity is not only flawed but wrong. Even if workers, like in Argentina, begin to amass enough wealth and make a domestic market, this does not go directly to them and continues to make the rich get richer and the poor stay the same. Also, such a system leaves its people out in the cold if there is ever a problem with the economy, as there inevitably is (see Argentina). Meanwhile, there is no literacy, education, healthcare, decent housing and other things that there should be.

In most economies, there is limited fields where one can actually work, and so the people are then chained to working for terrible people in terrible conditions. Fair policies which improve the lives of the people can bring about true and needed change.

The thing that makes me chuckle is that this is the ideal situation, and even then it is very much negative for the people.

Feel free to inject some reason, logic, understanding, perspective and even the slightest idea of justice and equality into your little summary.

This competitive market only goes to help the few, when a system should go to helping all.

[TexasLefty]

128. socialism benefitting the few

Socialism hasn't benefitted the few ... in the long run, it's benefitted NOBODY.

[bunyip]

114. Excellent post.

I hadn't heard of Henry George before, but I'm reading his Progress & Poverty now. Thanks for your post! :toast:

[happyslug]

23. I compared it to the Gnostics, Arianisms and Catholics in Roman Times

Basically, the Gnostic's and than the Arianism out numbered Catholics but all failed for failing to provide an effective long-term world view. The Catholics were NOT as "fundamentalist" as either the Gnostics or Arianist and thus able to adapt to the Circumstances of the Late Roman Empire and than the Dark Ages.

I expect the same with the Communists. Something will come back, it will NOT be the Stalinist or Maoist Communism of Russia and China, it will be something else. I suspect more like the how Rosa Luxemburg saw Communists was to be but that is just a guess, I would not be surprised if it is more like the early days of the Church (i.e. Communal in nature but agreeing to some sort of hierarchy). The issue is how will Communism occur NOT that it will or not.

Through I always mention Grant's March on Richmond during the Civil War. McClellan had proposed the Peninsula campaign in 1862 and almost took Richmond until he was driven from Richmond by Lee in the Battle of the Seven Days. This defeat made any attack from the Peninsula of Virgina viewed as a bad strategy. The Problem is it is the best way to take Virginia. Thus when grant Marched south he did NOT call his proposal a Peninsula Campaign, but a Campaign to take Richmond. Within three months he had put his troops in the Same position McClellan had been in 1862. By NOT calling his campaign a Peninsula Campaign he avoided the problem of the NAME of Peninsula Campaign. The same may come with Communism i.e. under a different name but the same effect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yes, but it will not be done under that name

the short answer is yes though...

[trackfan]

47. I agree

I think it will be a democratic communism, under some different name.

[Thtwudbeme]

78. I agree but I haven't been able to come up with a catchy acronym yet.

But I do agree it will come most likely of necessity and once again we'll inherit a Lemon that needs massive fixing.

Hopefully however it will occur on a global scale because Socialism in One Country was a bad f'ing idea.

EDIT~ Whoops! This is Jan Michael not Stephanie...

[Cleita]

27. The problem with communism, beside the totalitarian aspect

of dictatorship that it seems to inspire is that everthing is run by the state. It's as bad as everything being run by business which is what we are suffering from now. We need both social democracy and capitalism to thrive.

[Ladyhawk]

36. Yep. Fascism and communism are both totalitarian. The only

difference is whether the businesses own the government or the government owns the businesses. In modern society, there has to be a mix.

[0rganism]

28. Remember this about communism: it is the end of class struggle

So an alternative way of asking your questions is, "Will the world ever take a second look at ending class struggle? Do you think the end of class struggle could ever come back into mainstream political/economic thought?"

I know this doesn't answer your question outright, but it's an interesting alternative way of looking at things.

[Kralizec]

29. Bravo! Much better way to phrase the question. U.S. citizens are

conditioned to react negatively anytime the word "Communism" comes into the conversation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Americans have been inoculated against it, but it could work elsewhere if

it didn't evolve into a tyrannical state monopoly, as the Soviet Union did, and concentrated on voluntary cooperatives and other types of businesses where the workers really do "own the means of production."

It might be interesting to see a really down and out country experiment with Marxism w/o the rigid central planning and political repression that marred Eastern European and Chinese Communism, like if Liberia or Haiti or Burma organized itself on the basis of cooperatives, family farms, and small businesses with a lot of political freedom.

[NNadir]

34. No. Nor should they.

Stalin and Mao were incredible beasts.

The scale of their criminality is largely unknown, but only because they weren't overthrown in their lifetimes.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

35. Lost in the fog of history...

The true and beautiful history of Communism has been lost in the fog of history. In the mid - 1800's the "Revolt of the Canuts" in Lyon, France became the first socialist movement for worker's rights. The Canuts formed a self-sustaining community that literally changed the course of French History. It is said that Marx developed his theories in part, by studying that period and the forces that made it inevitable.

25 years later came the establishment of the Paris Commune...

People confuse Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism with Communism. It is one of the really sad misinterpretations of history.

[Cleita]

39. Well, our Stone Age ancestral societies were communistic.

Those who were strong and healthy worked and hunted sharing their labor and goods among the young, old and disabled who couldn't contribute that much materialistically, but had other roles to fulfill. Now that we have money, property rights, industrialization, technology, and other complications I don't think we can practice pure communism anymore.

[ConsAreLiars]

62. Well said.

A quick read of "The Communist Manifesto" would make that clear, if people would take the time to check it out. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Also: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

The confusion of "Stalinism" with "commumism" was encouraged by both Stalin and US Corporatism. Many are still imprisoned by that kind of propaganda.

[applegrove]

57. No. It failed everywhere. Everywhere. What works is a mix of policies.

[dcfirefighter]

67. A mix isn't optimal

it rarely is. (It is however, the best thing going now).
For one, it's too easy to subvert the political process.

I mix of policies is usually the result of years of band-aid fixes to the wrong original policy.

Try this. It's short.

[applegrove]

77. Absolutely Wrong. In the West - we all live in "mixed market" economies.

Even the USA is still a "mixed market economy". Everyone in the world actually lives in a mixec market economy. That is what freedom is about... you use what works. And you do not limit yourself artificially by Utopian thinking.

Utopian thinking is why the neocons are wrong. Cause they are so desperate for their Utopia - that they lied to get a chance to turn Iraq into a "experiment" that would proove them all gloriously geniouslike and perhaps mean that their bodies would get pickled and gone into a crypt forever.

The only thing that really works is a mix of policies. Some regulations, some monopoly power in government's hands, some business opportunity via business & corporations, and some social programs.

Nothing else has ever worked.

[Zynx]

108. That is total BS. A mix is the best method.

The extremes don't work. They never have. Total free market capitalism opresses a vast majority of its people and communism creates stagnation and corruption in government on a huge scale. A well-regulated free market is the best method for improving the standard of living of the greatest number of people. The best solutions in economics are ALWAYS in the middle. They are never on the extremes. It's just a matter of finding where in the middle to go and that is the constant human experiment. However, the anarchy of true communism and the anarchy of true capitalism are not possible and will never be possible.

[rman]

115. What's that "large measure of social control" the Left supposedly entails?

And the Right supposedly doesn't?

I do see a lot of attempts (and some implementations) at social control coming from the Right: smoking ban in bars, ban of gay marriage, ban of certain kinds of sexual activities. Just a few of the top of my head.

It's amazing the Right can get away with claiming to be pro small government and opposed to government intervention in private lives, *while* they are invading our bed rooms (and spend more tax money then Dem governments).


referring to:

"Left-wing" proposals call for society to achieve equity by redistributing most of the wealth. No distinction is made between the sources of income (land, labor or capital), and individuals control only a small portion of the wealth. In most cases this entails a large measure of social control, and a "planned economy."
http://www.henrygeorge.org/isms.htm

[upi402]

58. no, it never did in the first place

power corrupts
even our constitution couldn't save America from money and power-corruption.

[LittleClarkie]

59. Oh, I think that socialistic bits might creep in

but full frontal communism, nah.

[Qibing Zero]

63. It's funny how adament people are about it not coming back at all. ;)

The thing about poorer and third-world countries is that these countries cannot handle the 'free trade, free market' bullshit that we try to peddle to them. Hell, the only reason why it works at all for some of us is because we have abundance in the first place. What kind of pathetic mind looks at a country with an already huge gap in income where the poor are dying of starvation and the rich are living in luxury and says 'lets free these markets up even more!'? The same kind that thinks it's right that companies can sell rainwater to those starving people, and own the water in the lakes and rivers perhaps?

It's always been so obvious to me that redistribution of wealth is the KEY for countries like this. How on earth can you expect to run a market with even a small hint of fairness when the richest of the rich are the only ones that can buy in, while the poor continue to starve at increasing rates? Trying to shove capitalism on societies like this is like trying to export democracy by force - it doesn't happen.

So yes, some form of wealth redistribution is needed to get these countries on their feet. Marx's ideas obviously play a large part in both the working class and measures of equality.

As for what happens after that... it's up to the people.



Again though, it's pretty silly how adament people are! Even sillier how many people think communism has 'had it's time to prove itself' or 'been tested out and proven a failure' or any of that mess. I guess I just missed that part about how communism was supposed to have a totalitarian leader and all. Hell, I'm sure that many parts of communism will surely become mainstream views in the future, provided humanity survives the nuclear age intact. Like everything it will evolve over time, though.

[laura888]

65. The first name "Lenin" is popular in southern India

Because of communism's popularity there. I heard that on NPR the other day.

[Dorian Gray]

66. It's unlikely,

though various forms of socialism will.

Those countries that call themselves "Communist" to this day, truly aren't. Cuba may be the closest to a true Communist ideological country, but it's still a dictatorship. China does not practice Communism anymore, despite calling itself Communist. It's a sort of Socialist/Laissez-Faire Capitalist mish-mosh that makes little sense. North Korea? I don't even know WHAT they are anymore. A dictatoral thugocracy?

[leftofthedial]

70. it never really took a first look

state capitalists subverted the Russian revolution almost immediately

totalitarianism or capitalism's backlash overwhelmed the Asian attempts.

[Silverhair]

82. No. Large scale state planning always fails. NT

[rman]

105. So does large scale corporate planning

(refering to the corporate dominated global capitalist state we seem to be gravitating towards - or should i say: we seem to be being pushed towards, by - guess who.)

[Zynx]

109. Which is why the best solution lies in the middle.

Economics is all about shades of gray. There are not black and white answers in economics.

[triguy46]

83. With what in mind?

Africa is another planet. Neither communism or capitalism is the answer. There may not be an answer.

Will it come back? IMHO, not likely.

[rug]

84. Yes.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Only if crony capitalist assholes continue to give REAL free markets

a bad name.

[bluedawg12]

89. What we need are fair laws governing corporations and trade.

Also stronger unions.

Also, get rid of treating corporation as if they were individuals, they are not.

Communism is associated with Stalins purges, Mao's purges, failed 5 year plans, and totalitarianism. Not a good PR image.

Why, do you think it will have a second chance somewhere?

[Czolgosz]

99. Real Question: will the world will ever take a second look at Capitalism?

Why does anyone assume Communism failed and Capitalism succeeded? Do we have debtor prisons?

Can non-land-holding Americans vote? Does the government not tax capital? Does the government or private wealth provide most of America's armies, schools, and indigent health care?

In truth, neither pure Communism nor pure Capitalism has prevailed. Perhaps that for the best.

The real risk is the return of unfettered Capitalism, not the bugaboo of pure Communism's return.

[Fenris]

101. Not on a worldwide level, but there might be localized resurgences.

I do not see a global shift toward communism, but rather a shift away from it. I think that China has shown the international community melding capitalism and authoritarianism works far better than Marxist economic policies and authoritarianism.

There could be a shift toward communism in some countries, but I think they would be isolated incidents.

[Loonman]

103. No

Communism doesn't work.

[rman]

104. Alternatively, we could just have a bit more socialism here and there.

Why go from one extreme to another?
There's a whole spectrum of posibilities out there, we hardly tried all of m.

[Zynx]

107. Hopefully not. It is as foolish a utopian idea as total free market

capitalism. Neither extreme works. The key is balance. A free market with controls to insure that no one person, group of persons, or group of corporations runs the country and opresses the people is the best method. Communism is simply not possible due to human nature and neither is the free market uptopian notion that if we just removed all regulations the market would provide the greatest possible good. Both are using assumptions of perfection that do not and cannot exist.

However, we always have utopian dreamers on both ends of the spectrum that will push for one extreme or the other without learning from history.

[camero]

110. No, I don't think so

The reason being in that, like capitalism, it does not eliminate privilige, but only transfers it from private interests to the state.

Stating that, I do see democratic socialism and progressive economic proposals such as maximum wage laws and minimum standards of living as the wave of the future (or I'm just dreaming). There will have to be proposals that constrain greed and limit poverty in order to obtain a lasting peace.

[thefloyd]

119. Hell no

Communism is evil in my opinion