International Politics Thread

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not really. There's a middle class, more people living in cities, higher general education. The structure is far different. You know, we get to vote now. We have a choice. No matter how much you like to trash it and say it's a lie, it's not really that much. The power has shifted and people have more power here.

You're mixing up classes. There are only two classes when it comes to power. The upper, and the lower. Those who own the means of production and those who work for them. The middle class is a classification of people by wealth, not by power. Furthermore it's vague. Middle class is the more well to do lower class.

Nothing has changed. A few people own the means of production of a whole country, while others produce surplus value which is converted to profits. The mode of production doesn't change with increasing living standards (which is natural seen to advances in technology) or higher education. Besides you could vote in many parts of Europe and the US in the 19th century. They called themselves democracies too. Just like the old athenians did. Things have improved, women can vote, and kings can't veto anything anymore. But the system is still exactly the same. It has just changed clothes. Things look different, but work in the same way as before.

There are no democracies, and there have never been any democratic states. Private property (of the means of production) implies that fundamental (economic) decisions that influence the whole society and all people are made by a few and not by the people or society as a whole. That's just one reason why a capitalist society can't be democratic.

Quote[/b] ]You still fail basic buisness. Share holders invest money in the company ensuring that it can actually exist, they pour money into it and they expect it back. Like a bank gives you a loan and there's intrest. Share holders keep a lot of companies afloat. Middle class citizens usually have some shares. Also share holders take a risk by investing in a company, because they can lose the money. Many people got rich and then went broke because they made bad decisions. So if they strike gold, great, the risk paid off. It's like gambling. Are you calling gamblers who can win a lot of money bad too because they earned it without working by your definition? What about people who won the lottery?

Again, owners are usually executives, in many cases they own 51% of the shares so that they can still make decisions. And I already told you how this part works.

Yes, that's correct, but they perform no work. They invest money and make other people make the profits for them. That's exploitation and theft. Money can only increase by someone performing work. Investors don't. Sure they, the parasites, are absolutely necessary to this system, but I'm no advocate of it or the parasitism. Gambling is quite equal, but there no new value is put into the process. There's no exploitation involved.

Risks don't produce profits or value. Work does.

CEOs can be worker class as well. In some cases they own large parts of a company but in many cases they are just simple employees who have a better wage than the average worker.

Quote[/b] ]How is a library or a musem ever going to make profit and bring back 10x as much money?

How is giving food ever going to make profit back? It won't. The thing is that you exploit the natural resources, you take the oil, the coal, the gold and diamonds. Say you gain 10X here. Then you take 1X and donate some food for the starving or build some libraries. And make media focus on that part, charity. The Africans on the other hand, live in misery because the means of productions are 1) Owned by foreigners 2) Owned by capitalists. If they had kept the 10X things would've been different. Even if workers and the country are exploited, practically nothing of the natural resources stay there.

In South America they had enough of that, and now they dare to oppose foreign companies (which in the past have staged coups, like United Fruit Company). Castro, Chavez, Morales, Correa and Ortega have made big advances in that area, but the capitalist press naturally miscredits them. Chavez is a "dictator", he got elected "just like Hitler" and so on. The US has never cared about democracy anywhere. It's all about economy, profit and gain. Simple business. But of course it sounds better if it's about freedom and democracy. They could never say it's about economy.

Quote[/b] ]So it's a bad thing all of the sudden to share money and help fund a school? Yes, they also donate to politicans who are on a campaign, so do regular people. Yes they put massive ammounts into the campaign of the one they support, but in the end they still have to get the votes.

Without capitalists there would be no profits like these. Individuals take risks and sometimes they work, many times they don't. There are far more failed buisnesses than successful ones.

And the state already decides where funds are needed or not. States make a shitload more money than capitalists ever do.

Very naive. Yes, capitalists fund their favourite (naturally pro-capitalist) candidates. And yes they pay others in order to protect their interests, they fund smear campaigns, advertising etc. An anti-capitalist party has no means to reach out and inform people about their politics. People are already loaded with liberal opinions, they know "everything" about "communists", as seen in Top Gun or similar. Small parties have no chance to fund any campaigns, they have no chance to voice their opinions or use the freedom of speech. Effectively it doesn't exist. The amount of money one has is proportional to the amount of freedom one has. What is democracy without freedom?

There are extremes. USA is not one of them, but if you look at Russia private and state media only echo the voice of the leadership who have the support of the capitalists. Without them Yeltsin never would've been able to fund his speed-campaign that made his support rise from one or two percent to like 40 and beat the communist candidate. Media was totally dominated by Yeltsin. Behind the scenes of the Yeltsin-puppet wealthy oligarchs (big capitalists) were running the state. Elections have to be fair. The only way, is through establishing an economic democracy. It's the pre-requisite of a political democracy. Today it's: One dollar one vote. That's plutocracy, not democracy.

States make a lot of money, but they have to enforce basic human rights. Like universal health care, education, work etc. That costs a lot. Any "profits" have to be reinvested in society. They don't fill the pockets of a few. And you also have the right, to some extent, to decide your government.

Quote[/b] ]If you're going to throw the term liberal around, know what it means. Also, for many of us liberal has a different meaing than it has to you. So if we had to adjust to calling your commie states socalist, you need to adjust to us and stop throwing the word liberal around.

The wikipedia definition of liberalism is ok. But what's individual liberty? Liberty to exploit other people -or- the freedom from exploitation? Every society and ideology has to decide. Liberalism is in favor of the first option, it's a proponent of free markets and the capitalist system. Socialism on the other hand is in favor of the latter option -freedom from exploitation. There's a class perspective involved there. The right to exploit, to earn money from other people's work, is exclusively used by the ruling class, while the right to be free from exploitation is in the interests of the working class.

Quote[/b] ]Gibberish and ignoring what I typed. North Korea tried to assassinate the South Korean president. The United States has nothing to do with the attempt. Furthermore, assassination as a political tool has been used for a long time. The United States didn't invent it.

So if the US does it, why would it be wrong if the North Koreans used it? Just theoretically.

[ralphwiggum 6]

And for the terrorist part; those organizations aren't terrorists they are combatants who fight for freedom and independence. That's one of those "facts" I was talking about.

So are Chechens. Look what murderous Russians did to them.

Quote[/b] ]Meaning it's illegal it doesn't mean it's impossible. Moore is currently subject to a civil investigation...

I wrote about this in an earlier post.

Yeah same thing - you wouldn't asnwer. Moore is not shot, not in jail. But you said dissidents get shot and killed in US. Moore is definitely a dissident yet after Bowling for Columbine, he is still alive.

Quote[/b] ]If it has the highest GDP/capita the people there are generally richer than anywhere else. (if the income is fairly distributed). So if you can afford one car, they can afford three. I think the standard of living plays an important role if a country is good or bad, but there are more important factors. Like what kind of mode of production there is.

You are saying that the higher GDP per capita is the richer they are in eneral. However, you mention that mode of production, which Lichtenstein does not have as good as US. US makes cars, planes, other goods that Lichtenstein makes, so it has better mode of production. So you are saying two things that are not compatible which each other.

Quote[/b] ]GDP is absolutely not as good as GDP/capita. I don't see why you don't understand that. As I said twice now, if you have a country with 100 people, who produce 1000. They will all have about 10 each. 1000 is your GDP. 10 is your GDP/capita.

Compare that to a country with 10 people who produce 1000. They will all have about 100 each. 1000 is GDP, and 100 is GDP/capita. So Liechtenstein might have a lower production, but people live better (seen to their material wealth). A high GDP doesn't mean much if you have a high population, yet you want to use it. There will be many mouths to feed. And sure, GDP will rise with the amount of people. More people who work gives a higher production. But there will also be more mouths to feed as I mentioned. GDP/capita eliminates that problem. Do you understand?

How about this. 10 people in a country who makes 100 each. That is 1000 in GDP. compare that to another country that has 5 people that makes 100 each. Does that means both countries are equal? Certainly not. nominal GDP says different. There is reason why nominal GDP is used. It shows which country has more overall production. When was last time Lichtenstein had much say in international politics?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]In practice, not really. But in your dreams, yes.

You have no clue about what you're talking about. You're full of wishful thinking. I think wikipedia must dream with me.

So you do admit that there are gulags in North Korea that kill dissidents, since Wiki says so....wait you said no.

Quote[/b] ]Wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]At present, the embargo, which limits American businesses from conducting business with Cuban interests, is still in effect, making it one of the few times in history that United States citizens have been restricted from doing business abroad, and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.

Quote[/b] ]International Sanctions against the Castro Government. Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market.

Helms-Burton Act.

And the reality says different. I don't see Cuba in any problem with international trading. Cuban cigars are abundant outside of US.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]contrary to your argument, USD is spent in Cuba. As you said Cuba is so great that their centralized planning by one leader system works, but now you are criticizing Qatar and all those backed by US?

USD is not spent in Cuba anymore. They briefly allowed it after the trade crisis after the USSR dissolution. Today they have two currencies, one peso convertible and one standard peso. You're naive if you think that Cuba is centrally planned by one leader. Cuba has a parliament and a government elected by it.

If Cuba really doesn't like USD, they woul not even have convertible pesos. It can be used for Euro, but at the same time, Cuba doesn't mind having USD in their pocket. In practice they are the same.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]LOL so dictatorship is better than democracy. Good grief, so you just admitted that other nations has to follow as Cuban system is better, especially with no choice of alternat party candidates.

There have never been any democracies, just dictatorships. Cuba is a proletarian dictatorship. The proletariat is the majority which means that Cuba per se is a democracy. The US is a bourgeois dictatorship of the capital, also known as "liberal democracy".

You contradict yourself right here. In the begining of this argument you claimed that Cuba is a real democracy, now you are saying it's majority dictatorship. Believe it or not US has same system.

Quote[/b] ]No choice of alternate party candidates?? People don't vote on parties in Cuba, party membership has no significance. Anybody over the age of 18 can be a candidate if he or she wants. Party as well as non-party members.

That suspicously sounds like US system. Unlike Cuba anyone can run.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Nice try. What makes S1 better than S2? This is NOT a mathematics question. is S1 > for all S2? Nope. then there is no superiority or 'better system' You can't even define S1 and S2, so your 'logic' goes no where.

I wrote:

Quote[/b] ]System S1 is better than system S2, lets say S1 means a 50% boost while S2 means a 30% boost.

So a 50% (say GDP increase for instance) is worse than a 30% boost? Well, if you think so then it isn't a question of mathematics, it's a question of sanity.

My point is that a better system does not automatically make a country richer. You asked how Cuba could be poorer when it had a better system.

And I showed you that your thought of reasonsing about better system is utterly broken.Let's talk about percentage. from 100 to 150 is 50%. From 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 is 10% which is larger?

Quote[/b] ]They do? You're just fabulating. You have no knowledge about this subject, yet you keep discussing it.

Sounds like you are describing yourself to me.

Quote[/b] ]He does? Who says that? Your granma? Or some US conservative funded documentary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....ursions

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Wait, isn't Kwangju(Gwangju) the one that you claimed as the uprising in the past? But how come the US led dictator pardoned them?

I wrote:

Quote[/b] ] South Korea was a military dictatorship backed by the US, until recently.

Did you intentionally stop at this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chun_Doo-hwan

And those before? You're promoting US backed fascism by ignoring it.

Did you skip Roh Taewoo? That's odd he was democratically elected. Since you know nothing about history of South Korea, here is what happend. Korean war happend during Rhie Syngman's presidency, and when ended, and there was a short lived parlametary system led by Chang Myun. Then Park chung hee took over via coup. After his assassination, Choi Kyu Ha was the president, then Chun Doo-hwan made another coup, then came the rest.

From your link regarding Chun doo hwan,

Quote[/b] ]In June 1987, Chun named Roh as the ruling party's candidate in the 1987 elections. The nationwide discontent boiled over, leading to nationwide protests. In the same month, U.S. President Ronald Reagan sent a letter to Chun in support of the establishment of "democratic institutions."

Yeah he is a puppet. So much for giving democracy to people.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Collapse of Soviet Union is about disintegration of the union.

yup. GDP fell, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia

1995 - 1,428,500

2000 - 7,305,600

2005 - 21,665,000

Funnier thing is there are hardly any reliable source for USSR's GDP as they refused to take note of it. If the figures to compare are missing, how can you claim it went down?

According to your source:

Quote[/b] ]Economic impact

As of mid-1996, four and one-half years after the launching of Russia's post-Soviet economic reform, experts found the results promising but mixed. The Russian economy has passed through a long and wrenching depression. Official Russian economic statistics indicate that from 1990 to the end of 1995, Russian GDP declined by roughly 50%, far greater than the decline that the United States experienced during the Great Depression.

Then there was the major http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis

After that the oil prices have went up.

Soviet production was and is public. But one has to do the maths oneself.

Soviet History Wiki:

Quote[/b] ]Market economists believed that the dismantling of the administrative command system in Russia would raise GDP and living standards by allocating resources more efficiently. They also thought the collapse would create new production possibilities by eliminating central planning, substituting a decentralized market system, eliminating huge macroeconomic and structural distortions through liberalization, and providing incentives through privatization.

Since the USSR's collapse, Russia has faced many problems that free market proponents in 1992 did not expect: among other things, 25% of the population now lives below the poverty line, life expectancy has fallen, birthrates are low, and the GDP has halved. These problems led to a series of crises in the 1990s, which nearly led to election of Yeltsin's Communist challenger, Gennady Zyuganov, in the 1996 presidential election. In the recent years, the economy of Russia has begun to improve greatly, due to major investments and business development and also due to high prices of natural resources.

Did you just say that GDP fell by 50% after USSR's collapse? Then that means USSR had GDP of 2,857,000 which is still far less than what they have right now. It's based off of your beloved Wiki and its authority.

Quote[/b] ]The turmoil in the early 1990s and the economic crisis in 1998 caused life expectancy in Russia to go down while it was steadily growing in the rest of the world.

Demographics of Russia Wiki

and what is the life expectancy compared to now? In about 20 years, you will be faced with the fact that although it took some hardhip in the initial phase, moving to capitalism was the right choice.

Quote[/b] ]Just because Angola and Namibia got independent it doesn't mean that things magically will be ok. Angola and Namibia are third world countries. You seem to think that that kind of countries can get as rich as western world countries just like that? And just so you know, the civil war ended in 2002.

According to you Cuba liberated them so I'm guessing they are sugin Cuban system, which is far superior than anyother, so it is expected that they can take care of themselves far better. However, corruption is non-existent in Cuba, so what happened?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]So? You do a trip to selected places and think you got the whole picutre.

And you get he whole picture by not going anywhere?

And you just walked into a world of hurt. I traveled to South East asis often, much more than you ever did. I read world affairs and keep up to date with it.

Quote[/b] ]

The economy is failing. Debts are growing. Trade-deficits as well. In a few years the value of the dollar has fallen by 50%. Things can't continue like that for a long time.

That sounds like US in early 90s when they all though Japan would surpass US. and US is still here.

Quote[/b] ]And so is fascism.

No, fascism is no science, it's an ideology. Liberalism and socialism are other ideologies. Marxism is no ideology.

Marxism is the political philosophy. No science involved in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]So far that weakest link has been fixed and is getting stronger. China is turning to capitalism and so is Vietnam and others. Even you didn't know a thing about proletariat until I corrected you. Now you just don't talk about it.

What has proletariat to do with that? You don't even know what it is. Have you ever read Marx? No?

Yes I have and he sucked. Proletariat has to do with a lot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Quote[/b] ]The proletariat: "those individuals who sell their labour power, (and therefore add value to the products), and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production". According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions that enable the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat due to the fact that the worker's labour power generates a surplus value greater than the worker's wages.

Just below regarding Marx's theory of history,

Quote[/b] ]Socialism ("Dictatorship of the proletariat"): workers gain class consciousness, overthrow the capitalists and take control over the state.

So it is about preletariats.

Quote[/b] ]Communist parties in poor undeveloped countries support capitalism as a progressive stage in history. Capitalism is a pre-requisite for creating socialism. Even Lenin and the USSR implemented the NEP for a couple of years. You can't build socialism successfully out of a feodal society. So for instance, the nepalese maoist guerilla supports free markets and capitalism for X amount of years until capitalism has played out its role there. That's completely marxist. However, some countries try to reach socialism by other means. Cuba had a rather developed capitalism when the revolution began. Same thing goes for Venezuela and the other countries in that region.

And yet now they go BACK to capitalism just like China, Russia, Vietnam and many other did.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And you can't prove it either. Keep blaming it on the propaganda.

Is it up to me to disprove the existance of them? You can claim there's a banana orbitting Saturnus. It's impossible for me to disprove such a thing. However, if you claim it you prove it. Same thing with the North Korean concentration camps. Where I mean concentration, and not labour.

Go to wiki and search. billybob already did the legwork though. You are just in denial.

[MehMan 0]

Things look different, but work in the same way as before.

There are no democracies, and there have never been any democratic states.

Indeed, it's all controlled by the five jew bankers. Watch it Sherlock Holmes, you're just two steps away from wearing a tinfoil hat so the goverment can't read your mind with a space laser.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, that's correct, but they perform no work. They invest money and make other people make the profits for them. That's exploitation and theft. Money can only increase by someone performing work. Investors don't. Sure they, the parasites, are absolutely necessary to this system, but I'm no advocate of it or the parasitism. Gambling is quite equal, but there no new value is put into the process. There's no exploitation involved.

Risks don't produce profits or value. Work does.

CEOs can be worker class as well. In some cases they own large parts of a company but in many cases they are just simple employees who have a better wage than the average worker.

Not exploitation, because they give them starting funds, they kind of ensure that the company doesn't go to hell.

Your definition of work is strange, unless somebody is banging a hammer it's not work?

Quote[/b] ]How is giving food ever going to make profit back? It won't. The thing is that you exploit the natural resources, you take the oil, the coal, the gold and diamonds. Say you gain 10X here. Then you take 1X and donate some food for the starving or build some libraries. And make media focus on that part, charity. The Africans on the other hand, live in misery because the means of productions are 1) Owned by foreigners 2) Owned by capitalists. If they had kept the 10X things would've been different. Even if workers and the country are exploited, practically nothing of the natural resources stay there.

In South America they had enough of that, and now they dare to oppose foreign companies (which in the past have staged coups, like United Fruit Company). Castro, Chavez, Morales, Correa and Ortega have made big advances in that area, but the capitalist press naturally miscredits them. Chavez is a "dictator", he got elected "just like Hitler" and so on. The US has never cared about democracy anywhere. It's all about economy, profit and gain. Simple business. But of course it sounds better if it's about freedom and democracy. They could never say it's about economy.

Still, how are musems in the US, where a US based company gives it money going to make a profit?

With the rest I pretty much agree, Africa is being exploited to hell, that's why there is no peace there. You can point fingers everywhere around the world here, there are so many that had their dirty fingers in there that it's amazing. I'm not calling Chavez a dictator, the Washington Post is. They do not reflect my opinion.

Quote[/b] ]Very naive. Yes, capitalists fund their favourite (naturally pro-capitalist) candidates. And yes they pay others in order to protect their interests, they fund smear campaigns, advertising etc. An anti-capitalist party has no means to reach out and inform people about their politics. People are already loaded with liberal opinions, they know "everything" about "communists", as seen in Top Gun or similar. Small parties have no chance to fund any campaigns, they have no chance to voice their opinions or use the freedom of speech. Effectively it doesn't exist. The amount of money one has is proportional to the amount of freedom one has. What is democracy without freedom?

There are extremes. USA is not one of them, but if you look at Russia private and state media only echo the voice of the leadership who have the support of the capitalists. Without them Yeltsin never would've been able to fund his speed-campaign that made his support rise from one or two percent to like 40 and beat the communist candidate. Media was totally dominated by Yeltsin. Behind the scenes of the Yeltsin-puppet wealthy oligarchs (big capitalists) were running the state. Elections have to be fair. The only way, is through establishing an economic democracy. It's the pre-requisite of a political democracy. Today it's: One dollar one vote. That's plutocracy, not democracy.

States make a lot of money, but they have to enforce basic human rights. Like universal health care, education, work etc. That costs a lot. Any "profits" have to be reinvested in society. They don't fill the pockets of a few. And you also have the right, to some extent, to decide your government.

Yes they fund a lot to ensure the victory of their chosen one. It is unfortunate that it is like that. That's how McDonnell Douglas gets a contract for a military plane later on. It's a mess what's going on in the US. Over here, we're so small and unimportant that you almost personally know every candidate and party.

I wouldn't say they enforce universal health care. You can be without it if you want to. And only basic education is enforced.

Yes, we can choose what goverment we want to have. Unfortunatley for me, most people chose a bunch of totalitarian conservatives who like to talk a lot about doing things.

Quote[/b] ]The wikipedia definition of liberalism is ok. But what's individual liberty? Liberty to exploit other people -or- the freedom from exploitation? Every society and ideology has to decide. Liberalism is in favor of the first option, it's a proponent of free markets and the capitalist system. Socialism on the other hand is in favor of the latter option -freedom from exploitation. There's a class perspective involved there. The right to exploit, to earn money from other people's work, is exclusively used by the ruling class, while the right to be free from exploitation is in the interests of the working class.

Freedom from exploitation in socialism? So far it doesn't really look like it.

[otk-member 0]

So are Chechens. Look what murderous Russians did to them.

You absolutely do NOT know, what you talking about!

You absolutely do NOT know, what was happened in Chechnya.

You even do not know where is Chechnya.

You even do not know a history of Chechnya.

You even do not know and even do not hear - whois native Chechens.

So, calm down and do not talk any kind of shit from you mind, ok? If you realy want a know - look for my messages. Somewhere here i write about Chechnya and Chechens.

P.S. Chechnya - today

http://www.tema.ru/travel/chechnya-1/

http://www.tema.ru/travel/chechnya-2/

[Mr_Tea 0]

1)The monuments of Stalin were removed a few years after he died. However, 2-3 new monuments are going to be errected now. Stalin has an enormous popular support in russia. People have lived in both a socialist and capitalist system. Many people didn't believe that capitalism was that bad. Now they have changed their opinions.

2)FARC was formed as a reaction to liberal and fascist volence.

1) Stalin is one of the worst criminal ever lived on earth. The people seems to forget that he killed everyone that was opposed to him, or stud in his way. I wonder what they might think, when one of the next rulers of Russia uses the same "tactics" on them.

2)For whatever the FARC was formed for, they dealing with drugs (tons of it), and making money with holding people hostage for 6 or more years.

An "Organization" like this has absolutely no right, to be seen as an political movement or something like that. All they deserve is to get wiped out completely. Those who think that would be wrong should give them self into the hands of the FARC for a few years.

[otk-member 0]

1) Stalin is one of the worst criminal ever lived on earth. The people seems to forget that he killed everyone that was opposed to him, or stud in his way. I wonder what they might think, when one of the next rulers of Russia uses the same "tactics" on them.

Really? Prove it!

Did you know - who is opposed him?

It was peoples who want to create a world communism-socialism revolutions. In whole world. Do you understand? In ever country! Thay think is Russia - its just spark for world fire. Stalin was stop them.

There was no democratical peoples. There was a fanatic communists.

Btw, what do you think about Lenin?

Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov (Lenin)

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]So are Chechens. Look what murderous Russians did to them.

Some chechens are religious extremists. Reactionaries. I support the removal of religious extremists by extreme means.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah same thing - you wouldn't asnwer. Moore is not shot, not in jail. But you said dissidents get shot and killed in US. Moore is definitely a dissident yet after Bowling for Columbine, he is still alive.

Don't be stupid. Did I say that all dissidents get shot? I said dissidents get shot. That means, it happens that dissidents are shot. Moore is subject to a civil investigation because he visited Cuba, no more no less.

Quote[/b] ]You are saying that the higher GDP per capita is the richer they are in eneral. However, you mention that mode of production, which Lichtenstein does not have as good as US. US makes cars, planes, other goods that Lichtenstein makes, so it has better mode of production. So you are saying two things that are not compatible which each other.

No, that's not what mode of production means. For instance, there's a capitalist and socialist mode of production. If you wat to know further what it means, check wikpedia, they should have a good description of it.

Quote[/b] ]You contradict yourself right here. In the begining of this argument you claimed that Cuba is a real democracy, now you are saying it's majority dictatorship. Believe it or not US has same system.

Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. But it has to work too. In the US elections aren't fair. Sure they are fairer than the Russian for instance, but they still aren't fair due to the capitalist system. Theoretically socialists and communist can win, but not in practice. And even if they do, no company of size in the world would accept that. There would be murders, coups, violence etc. Just like in all other countries that attempt or have attempted to build socialism. To every revolution there's a reaction, a counter-revolution. There are no exceptions to this. It happened with Chavez, Ortega, Castro and it happens in Morales' Bolivia right now. In Cuba they defeated that counter-revolution briefly. There you have no capitalists that can back or support certain people that act as their megaphones. There's a basic economic democracy that backs the political democracy. But the basic economic democracy can be improved even more.

That suspicously sounds like US system. Unlike Cuba anyone can run.

Anyone can run in the US, but only millionaries have a chance to win or those who support millionaries and the interests of big corporations.

Quote[/b] ]And I showed you that your thought of reasonsing about better system is utterly broken.Let's talk about percentage. from 100 to 150 is 50%. From 1,000,000 to 1,100,000 is 10% which is larger?

A 50% growth is better than a 10% growth. 1.000.000 to 1.100.000 just shows there are better starting conditions.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah he is a puppet. So much for giving democracy to people.

South Korea is still a US puppet. Why are they shining US boots in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or look at Denmark that sent a submarine to fight Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Did you just say that GDP fell by 50% after USSR's collapse? Then that means USSR had GDP of 2,857,000 which is still far less than what they have right now. It's based off of your beloved Wiki and its authority.

Well, if you provide the numbers we can discuss them. I think it's probable that the GDP is higher than back in 1990. That is usually what one would expect 20 years later.

Quote[/b] ]and what is the life expectancy compared to now? In about 20 years, you will be faced with the fact that although it took some hardhip in the initial phase, moving to capitalism was the right choice.

That's impossible to tell. Why wouldn't the USSR be able to raise the life expectancy even more than it had done until then? Cuba manages to have a life expectancy that's equal to the US one, today.

Quote[/b] ]According to you Cuba liberated them so I'm guessing they are sugin Cuban system, which is far superior than anyother, so it is expected that they can take care of themselves far better. However, corruption is non-existent in Cuba, so what happened?

No unlike the US, Cuba doesn't force any countries to copy its system. Angola and Namibia continued their pro-market direction. Cuba was there to help them beat apartheid and imperialism. Nothing else.

Quote[/b] ]And you just walked into a world of hurt. I traveled to South East asis often, much more than you ever did. I read world affairs and keep up to date with it.

What does it matter if you've been to some South East Asian beach when we're discussing the USSR? However, it doesn't matter anymore as we have a russian guy (that is old enough) in this discussion now.

Quote[/b] ]Marxism is the political philosophy. No science involved in it.

Marxism is a science. It meets all the requirements of one. It's one of its kind, but it contains economy, history, philosophy, and social science.

Quote[/b] ]And yet now they go BACK to capitalism just like China, Russia, Vietnam and many other did.

Capitalism has never existed in China, Russia or Vietnam before. Those countries were strict feodal before the revolutions.

Quote[/b] ]Still, how are musems in the US, where a US based company gives it money going to make a profit?

With the rest I pretty much agree, Africa is being exploited to hell, that's why there is no peace there. You can point fingers everywhere around the world here, there are so many that had their dirty fingers in there that it's amazing. I'm not calling Chavez a dictator, the Washington Post is. They do not reflect my opinion.

It probably won't. Advertising doesn't pay either. It's about good-will. Or someone has more money than one can spend and wants to do something that person considers meaningful with it. That person, the capitalist, takes 10X from the workers and spend 1X to build them a museum. Instead the workers could've built a hospital which they think they needed better, a museum, and a kindergarten. The workers produce the 10X, I think it's better if they can democratically decide what to do with it than letting some capitalist fill his pockets with their work. But, naturally that won't be possible within this economic system. It has to be changed. Such a big change is what we call a revolution.

Running a new kind of economy is far from a walk in the park. A lot of things can be improved and they are constantly. The USSR is by no means a final example of what socialism means, even if that what was accomplished in that time is impressive.

Quote[/b] ]Did you know - who is opposed him?

It was peoples who want to create a world communism-socialism revolutions. In whole world. Do you understand? In ever country! Thay think is Russia - its just spark for world fire. Stalin was stop them.

There was no democratical peoples. There was a fanatic communists.

Not all people were communists, but it's true.

[billybob2002 0]

So if the US does it, why would it be wrong if the North Koreans used it? Just theoretically.

What the North Korea tried to do would be the equivalent to the Soviet Union trying to assassinate an American president. If North Korea had seceded, World War 3 might of possibly happened.

[Commando84 0]

whats your guys opinions on the latest word about USA dollar going down slowly in value? Is it really that bad? Like c'mon sometimes it rains.. enlighten me guys

[Necromancer- 0]

whats your guys opinions on the latest word about USA dollar going down slowly in value? Is it really that bad? Like c'mon sometimes it rains..   enlighten me guys  

Imo in the long term, it won't work if the banks only "inject" money into the US economy. I believe (YES I DO NOT BASE THIS OPINION ON ECONOMIC RESEARCH) that the US economy will only permanently recover if foreign investors decide to invest in the US more than somewhere else (-> China).

[baddo 0]

Interesting comment made in the PROJECT'85 TOPIC:

Hi,

Yesterday, I talked with a friend who was in the polish army in the 80's and he told me that:

''If it was before 1980, the polish army would fight with the soviet army. But, after 1980, they would fight against the soviet army because of the new social/political/economical context. Solidarność was strong in the population and the power with Jaruzelski doesnt really have the support of the army. People were realy mad about the communism governement and system''

It was very interesting.

Good day,

-Soviet-

It's yet another witness statement practically saying that the communists/socialists/<whatever spokesperson wants to call them> messed up yet another country.

[Spokesperson 0]

There has never been a communist system anywhere, and there can be no communist government anywhere.

Yes, people didn't like that Poland was part of the Soviet sphere of influence and that their religion was surpressed. I personally don't see that as a problem as I don't respect religion when it works for the reaction.

In Poland politics is influenced by religion to a large extent which is a big problem for the EU. Even abortions are illegal for instance. Furthermore normal polish people don't like that the government shines US boots.

The voter turnout at elections is always around 50% which shows that people are disgruntled. They thought that they would live like people do in US-movies, but instead tens of thousands have lost their homes.

It's turned into a problem for the UK as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5308028.stm

If you want to witnesses look at South America where people were tortured by neo-liberalism. Now, there's only one neo-liberal country there, that's Colombia. The rest is either social democrat or left-wing radical. Nobody wants to shine US boots there anymore. Socialism leads the way.

And besides if you look at the ex-soviet states you'll find that a majority likes the USSR better. In Russia GDP/capita is slightly lower than the Soviet one, and that's 15 years later.

[baddo 0]

Another witness statement opposing communism/<insert here whatever you like to call it, spokesperson> came from Bohemia Interactive Studio.

It was a rather popular statement. People bought it a lot and made them Španěl boys become true capitalists! Having slaves etc.  should we report them to the Human Rights Watch.

[turms 0]

Another witness statement opposing communism/<insert here whatever you like to call it, spokesperson> came from Bohemia Interactive Studio.

It was a rather popular statement. People bought it a lot and made them Španěl boys become true capitalists! Having slaves etc. should we report them to the Human Rights Watch.

You are thinking that soviet union was a true communist state, which it was not.

Im not trying to take anyones side here but you will need to apprehend the facts, before making statements like these.

[baddo 0]

Another witness statement opposing communism/<insert here whatever you like to call it, spokesperson> came from Bohemia Interactive Studio.

It was a rather popular statement. People bought it a lot and made them Španěl boys become true capitalists! Having slaves etc.  should we report them to the Human Rights Watch.

You are thinking that soviet union was a true communist state, which it was not.

Im not trying to take anyones side here but you will need to apprehend the facts, before making statements like these.

I am thinking like that? Please do not assume anything about me.

Continuing my previous post.

From topic:

Do the Bis Team hate Russia?

- Fairy Tale Adventure: no

Good list - I would add Fairy Tale Adventure: not only no - it is quite the opposite  - all the good "guys and gals" in there are Russian.  and there are basically no enemies in there other than "your own pride is your enemy", which is the moral of the game.  

This game shows clearly there are things about Russia we love. The whole game is based on a Russian fairy tale which is very popular in our country.

We really are bashing "commies", and we have quite strong and rational reasons for that. We are bashing commies no matter what country them come from, and while Russia was a prominent communist country, I do not think bashing communism means being evil to Russia, as while Russia bears a lot of responsibility for spreading and enforcing communism in our area, it probably paid the biggest price for the communism from all countries.

These kinds of witness statements pop up here and there all the time.

It is really nitpicking if you start to argue "no true communist state has ever existed".  I remember Spokesperson him-/herself saying that USSR was trying to reach the "true" communism. While on their way there, they did an unbelievable amount of damage not only to their own country, but to many other countries too. I admit I have been lucky not to be born in one of those countries, it was a close call.

To me it is disgusting how people start to romanticize communism.

To me it is disgusting that some people here in Finland want me to be sorry for the fact that my great grandparents were among those who choked the red (socialist) rebels in 1918. I'm never going to apologize that to anyone. There is an overwhelming amount of heavy evidence around the world to support the stance my great grandparents took. They did the right thing, they can rest in peace.

Nitpicking about the word "communism" means to me that you need to start using straw man arguments. When the battle seems lost, you start to come up with nitpicking on meaningless things and not actually responding to what the other side is saying.

[Spokesperson 0]

It all depends on who you ask. Sure people who can afford a computer and an internet connection, and people who have time with gaming, are better off, at least the ones who live in the east. Their situation has improved. But for the rest, no.

If you ask an atheist worker you'll hear another witness opinion.

Communist states can't exist per definition. Communism is the class and state-less society. Socialism has contributed a lot to world development and the development in the east. You got to remember that they started out in the morass, fought back a dozen western powers and a civil war, then nazi-germany and after that the cold war, to end up in space. Despite of this the country was industrialized in record time, growth rates the highest in history and peak BNP/capita at the dissolution of the union. Almost nobody had electricity or knew how to read or count 1917. This was changed in a few years. The USSR turned into one of the leading countries in science in just a few decades.

Most ex-soviets think that the USSR was better. You can't change those facts. You have a witness in this thread, and he has internet.

The socialists paid BIS education, what did they get back? If they lived there now they would have to pay, but it's no problem for those who already have an education and own a company where people work for them.

The Czech communist party is quite big. At times bigger than the social democrats.

[kavoven 4]

I'm digging this thread out since I just read a quite interesting report about a possible war in the middle east.

The original article was in the German newspaper "Die Welt"

Further there is an english article by former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer about the same topic and with the same conclusions.

Both articles talk about a possible attack from Israel on the nuclear facilities of Iran. This attack shall take place at the end of this year or more precicly at the end of the Bush era.

Reasons quoted from the Fischer article:

Quote[/b] ]

First, "stop the appeasement!" is a demand raised across the political spectrum in Israel - and what is meant is the nuclear threat emanating from Iran.

Second, while Israel celebrated, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that a life-and-death military confrontation was a distinct possibility.

Third, the outgoing commander of the Israeli Air Force declared that the air force was capable of any mission, no matter how difficult, to protect the country's security. The destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility last year, and the lack of any international reaction to it, were viewed as an example for the coming action against Iran.

Fourth, the Israeli wish list for US arms deliveries, discussed with the American president, focused mainly on the improvement of the attack capabilities and precision of the Israeli Air Force.

Fifth, diplomatic initiatives and UN sanctions when it comes to Iran are seen as hopelessly ineffective.

And sixth, with the approaching end of the Bush presidency and uncertainty about his successor's policy, the window of opportunity for Israeli action is seen as potentially closing.

It's now time for Iran to take diplomatic action and stop trying to build the bomb, otherwise it has to face a war with Israel.

-----------

I think that all conclusions are logical and living in Europe I admit a "rather they then me" mentality because I don't expect Iran to change it's course. Under this circumstances I even would support a military strike.

One the other hand we have to think about our economy which strongly depends on the oil we get from this region. This leads to the thought that either Irans government has to be taken out (and the risk of another Iraq) or the west has to gain direct control of the ressources. But I'm afraid that Russia and China want their piece of the cake at the latest at this point which makes the whole situation even more complicated.

Edit

NY Times article about talks in Geneva

The Times article about the talks in Geneva

Most important quote:

Quote[/b] ]

“Any kind of suspension or freeze is out of the question,†an Iranian official said, rejecting the main condition set by the United States and other major powers for formal negotiations to end the dispute.

[Sennacherib 0]

that would be still an illegal attack from Israel. they don't have the right to attack a country only with suppositions (we have already USA for that).

And even if Iran get the nuclear bomb. Ahmadinejad and the mollahs won't use it. they are not stupid (not for that). if they want it, this is because China, Pakistan, India have already it. this is a geopolitics and strategic problem.

personally i don't want a war in Iran, we have lost in Irak a lost of treasures (stolen in museum (even by Us soldiers), destroyed by bombs ......), and too much lifes were/are destroyed for nothing only for the pleasure of one country. this is unacceptable.

if something must change in Iran, this is the Iranian people who will do it.

in fact the real problem is not Irak or Iran, but the imperialism lead by cupidity; and in the case of Israel this is the fear.

[kavoven 4]

I think that Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to risk his life and his country for the destruction of Isreal.

I never supported Israels politics and their way dealing with Hamas and Co, but Ahmadinejad makes quite clear that he wants to wipe out Israel. There is no other state in the World claiming something like that and I regard it as a real and existing threat! Munich Agreement anyone? Appeasement at all cost?

What would you do if your under such a threat?

[Baff1 0]

Lmao, Iran isn't threaterning Israel, Israel is threatening Iran.

Personally, I'm down with Israel, but Iranian's aren't anti Israel becuase they are barking mad suicide bombers. And arhmedinejad would be the worlds most irresponsable leader if he did not make threats when surrounded on all sides by people threatening to bomb or invader him.

They have very good reason to be. Every few year the Israeli's kill a load of Lebanese who are family members of the Iranians.

They don't recognise the state of Israel as a legitmate state and want it removed from the map.

If you are a mad banzai fanatic, you will of course interpret that to mean the genocide and nuclear destruction of Isreal, rather then the more obvious overthrow of the Jewish state and the return to it's former designation of Palestine.

Now if you like me felt it was in your intrests to have Iran bombed, I could see why you might wish to have them portayed as homicidal and lunatic fanatics, but then if I thought for a minute you actually believed that, I would instantly target you as being a dangerous lunatic fanatic and have to consider you the greater threat.

@ Dante, whats so illegal about it?

Is there some global legal system now then?

A world court?

With world judges and juries and laws and policemen?

Or did you just invent a criminal system in your mind and now expect everyone in the world to abide by your wishes?

Illegal. Lmao.

I think the Israeli's make their own laws in their own parliaments.

The problem for Iran is the same one as for Iraq, those suppositions have now been allowed to go too far. It's too late.

Even if Iran allowed unlimited inspections, and like Iraq had, has actually stopped trying to make an atomic bomb, no one would believe them any more either.

No one can afford to.

The risk is too large. It's too late.  

Even if Iran wanted to back down, it can't.

So either the west does, as it did with North Korea, or we go to war.

It's wrong to back down to people trying to usurp you. The Iranians have no more right to militarily dominate the Middle East than we do.

You may dislike our imperialism, but that's no reason to support Iran's imperialism in preference.

Since it's going to be some one, it should be us.

We have a lot at stake in that area of the world. It's important to us.

However bad we are, we are no worse than them and quite possibly a whole lot better, you never know.

[Spokesperson 0]

Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. They are constructing nuclear power plants (which can be used for nuke production). But that's a process that takes years.

I don't like Iran or Israel, but it's their right to construct nuclear power plants. The EU, US or Israel have no right to go in there and stop them just because they are western countries.

Iran isn't Iraq. Iran is a bigger country, with much more people. They are better armed and organized. In the event of war they might attack Iraq and its capital Washington DC, send rockets against Israel. But there will likely be no war, because nobody wants it and the US has no capacity for it.

Israel has nuclear arms but nobody complains about them. Especially not the US. There's a sad story about the engineer who leaked the information to the press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

(there are some photos of the devices in wiki)

He's a prisoner of conscience, but that's no problem for the west. They are much more concerned about the cuban "ditos" (who were funded by the west).

Yes, there is an international court. The US and Nazi-Germany are the only countries found guilty of terrorism for instance.

[kavoven 4]

Thats what I call naiv.

I just say one thing:

"Niemand hat die Absicht eine Mauer bauen"

-

"Nobody has the intention of building a wall"

Ever heard that?

[Spokesperson 0]

Nothing wrong with that wall. It protected the generous economy of east germany. Some deaths while passing a fatal border is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of deaths every day by starvation in Africa. Who cares? They didn't die of red bullets. But by blue. That's ok. Just like when the US fights for "democracy" while funding dictators and conducting terror against countries who want nuclear power.

[chops 111]

I think the Israeli's make their own laws in their own parliaments.

I read somewhere that Israel has defied about four times the number of UN security council resolutions than Saddam-era Iraq ever did. And it was enforcing resolution number 14-blah-blah that was quoted over and over again as reason to invade Iraq.

Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians is a railroad and a extermination camp short of what the Nazi did to the Jews in '40s. And this same government has nuclear weapons, it's frightening.

As fucked up as the situation in Israel is, I'm a world less worried about them having nukes than the fruitcakes in Iran.

No government ever represents all the people, even more so in the Allah-tatorship in Iran, but this is fundamentally fucked-up society...still stoning people to death. At least any nuke wielding Israeli government will have to answer to the US and to it's own people.

Israel's actions since the '67 war are the root of a lot of this shit. But I can't see how murdering them in a nuclear attack is less of a crime, or remotely justified.

It seems the nutters on both sides have hijacked foreign policy. The fiery spirit in the sky worshipping mullahs in Iran and the fundamentalist settler-types in Israel (don't tell me to stop killing children, you're an anti-semite).

All we need is to send Spokesperson over there and all the factions will unite in incredulous hilarity at his continuing arse-backwards view of the world.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]All we need is to send Spokesperson over there and all the factions will unite in incredulous hilarity at his continuing arse-backwards view of the world.

I don't really see eye to eye with you most of the time. But on this it seems we are in %100 agreement.