International Politics Thread

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lying? Mariel Boatlift was a mass movement of Cubans who departed from Cuba's Mariel Harbor for the United States between April 15 and October 31, 1980. I typed in 1990 because I was using numbers above alphabets and pressed one 9 instead of 8. But the simple truth that there were more Cubans leaving Cuba to get to US then Americans trying to Cuba still stands.

While compared to population of Cuba of 11 miliion(2007), 125,000 is 1%. 1% of population trying to leave their country is not insignificant. On the contrary, the number of Americans in Cuba is far less, especially compared to population of US which is about 300 million.

They were all offered to get off the island. Many of them were criminals. 1% of a population is quite normal seen to the rest of the world.

Quote[/b] ]Here's a recap of what happened.

1. You used GDP per capita to show that Cuba had better system.

2. I showed you that it is susceptible to number of population. I suggested that nominal GDP is the one to look at if you want to compare countries.

3. You claimed that Luxemburg has higher GDP per capita, so nominal GDP is not a good measure. You also claimed that higher GDP is result of having higher number of population.

4. To illustrate that population is not the most significant factor, I came up with India's example. As India has 1 billion people, your logic would indicate that India would have bigger nominal GDP than US. However US has more GDP than India. So your argument that

1. No I didn't. I talked about GDP/Capita because you wanted to use GDP.

2. GDP/Capita gives a better measurement because total production/people. You can have a total production of 1 billion of something but have more than a billion inhabitants. Those are 1000 times poorer than those in a country that has 1000k production and 1000 inhabitants.

3. Yes

4. No, that's a false conclusion. GDP is directly dependent on population just as I said. Remember the formula? More population gives a higher GDP, partly because of increased consumption. But there are other factors. It does not mean that a country with a higher population has higher GDP than some country with less population. Smaller countries generally have lower GDPs. But then you have to compare developed countries to developed ones, and undeveloped to undeveloped ones.

Quote[/b] ]Embargo on Cuba is effective for US citizens and companies only. All other nations are free to deal with Cuba. That's why Cuban cigars are illegla in Us, but you can get them from Mexico or Canada. So US embargo is only affecting relationship between Cuba and US. Cuba is free to make trades with rest of the world.

Not entirely true. All products that are in part american, patents, materials etc, they are many, can't be traded to Cuba without reprisals for that company/country. Once you've anchored in a cuban harbor you're not allowed to anchor in an american harbor for many months. Just a few examples.

Quote[/b] ]So you just admitted that having good infrastructure, good education increases productivity, not just population alone. This is why US has a large GDP and China has smaller GDP. US has GDP of 13 trillion USD while China has 10.17 trillion USD. According to your previous logic, more population=higher GDP. China has 1.3 billion people, which is about 3-4 times more than US. However, US has more GDP because the other factors such as infrastructure and good education. So once again, your argument that nominal GDP should not be used because it is susceptible to population fails.

Yes, more population gives a higher GDP. But as I stated in the last few posts there are other factors that increase GDP.

Quote[/b] ]While Cuban history in 20th century is not a happy one it was NOT a US colony. No matter how you want to depict it, Cubans were not annexed into US territory, and US troops withdrew from Cuba in 1902 exept for lease of Guantanamo bay, and even the Platt Amendment was repealed in 1934. On top of that here's something for you. When US took over in 1902, the infrastructure of Cuba was vastly improved and public health program begin. So US, even though being a big influence on Cuba, was for the interst of Cuban people(and US too). In case of Taiwan and South Korea both were colonies of Japan, and before that under the influence of Chinese. Korea went through a war and that devastated their economy. When you compare economy of South Korea at 1950s and Cuba in the same era Cuba had more than South Korea. Yet 50 years later it turned around. El Salvador, which is usually considered as a thrid-wrold country was not a "US colony" but it has harder time bringing its GDP up.

Cuba was a US colony after the indepencence from Spain. A puppet nation in other words. The Cuban revolution changed this. South Korea, then a facist dictatorship, recieved massive support from west. US shipped factories there. Strikers and protesters were shot. If you don't have to pay your workers (the reason why it was profitable to move some production South Korea), you can have cheap goods and a lot of investments.

Quote[/b] ]There might be some aspects that US would be lagginf behind, but overall picture suggests that US is still better off than Cuba. If you try to argue that just because Cuba is better than US becuase of a few things, here is some list of things that US excells compared to Cuba.

-internet/computer

-economy

-healthcare options/treatment/development

-science

-arts

-food safety

-automobiles

-planes

-military

and there are more that I can go on.

Those points doesn't make a country better. Cuba is better because it isn't ruled by a bunch of capitalists. Cuba is ruled by the people, the working class. That shows in Cubas accomplishments.

Quote[/b] ]While US still lacks universal health care most people still have access to hospitals, and in case of ER, it is still required that patients be treated. The price for service may be too high, but it is not as bad as you'd think. This is someone who has been to an ER, and seen doctors a few times since then. And believe it or not, I paid every bills that came along.

In Cuba all have health care. One of the best in the Americas. In the US people a lot of people die because they can't pay. Have you seen "Sicko"?

Quote[/b] ]Public schools are integral part of US system, and it's free. You are trying to claim that it only goes to elemetary level, but in fact it goes all the way to highschool, and only thing that is not free is college and above. Even so there are thousands of community colleges which are practically free due to low costs, and there are government assistance to students.

Yes, you have to pay for education. You don't in Cuba. That's a big difference. Knowledge goes first. Not money.

Quote[/b] ]Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald on his OWN decision. However you want to believe the simple fact is that it was not a political hit, but Oswald's own search for grandeur. Malcolm X was shot by same blacks that were told that Malcolm Shabazz(Malcolm X's new name by then) was a traitor to blacks. Keep grasping for straws. Cuba doesn't have any other dissidents because the result is death or prison. Here in US you can oppose as much as you want and voice your opinions. Cuba doesn't even allow other political parties.

That's your opinion. It's likely that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the CIA. There are dissidents in Cuba and they walk freely on the streets.  Sometimes they have rallies. Everything in a peaceful way. Protestors have never been shot in Cuba. In the US you can get shot if you protest. Here the national guard shoots students:

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

Quote[/b] ]So did Taiwan and South Korea which still exists, unlike USSR. USSR accomplished so much that they abandoned their system and endedup taking capitalism in, right?

Taiwan and South Korea were located strategically. US support for those countries was essential. Or do you think all those electronics/computers were designed in those countries? They had cheap labour because they were right-wing capitalist dictatorships. The workers are held at bay. The south korean people revolted and wanted to join north, so north invaded. 600 000 left-wing southern civilians were removed by US and South Korean troops. After that there have been a lot of uprisings in South Korea. Strikes are still very common.

Quote[/b] ]Infant mortality rate is a part of healthcare system, but not the complete picture. Just because you are good at typing things doesn't mean you are good at all things. The criticism of Cuba's infant mortality rate is that it was not different from pre-Castro years. Also,

It's a common measure of the standards of a health care system. That's why it's imporant. Infant mortality was a lot different in the pre-Castro years.  If not the US rates have dropped or not improved and I think they have.

Quote[/b] ]Central planning has a major problem. It cannot account for every thing. Also it is NOT democratic. Being democratic means that people decide, not central agency. The "miracle" of USSR is now over. It does not exists anymore. While forcing many resources to one sector will achieve some gains, it is offset by the fact that others will suffer. You are constantly bringing up USSR as the miracle that happened, as as such centralized planning is the way to go. So you are comfortable with using USSR as a point to compare how effective centralized planning is, but you don't think that is a fair way to compare with other develpoed nation? By the way USSR and its miracle is gone.

Central Planning is highly democratic as it takes the needs of all voters into account. Not the ones who can afford something. Most Russians want the USSR and central planning back. Free market capitalism was a catastrophe for Russia.

Quote[/b] ]The reason why Cuba's GDP data is not available is because Cuban government doesn't release it and is not allowing others to look at it. Cuba had no problems with giving information to UN about how "sustainable" it is but it does not provide actual GDP data to UN. See the problem? They are withholding it. According to you centralized economy knows everything. How come if they know everything, they don't report it to UN, while most other nations do? Health care system also incurs costs. So it is part of overall calculation. Look at your own post

So why did I give you a link to a cuban newspaper where the GDP is mentioned?

Quote[/b] ]No communist party is the only party allowed. No alternatives. Those seats yo umentioned are for communist party only, not by different political parties. Capitalism is compatible with democracy. Communism is NOT compatible with democracy because it has the giant centralied planning.

You don't have to be a member of the party to get elected and vote. All people (above 18 and 16) can. Communism is democracy. Socialism is a sort of democracy. The working class rules, the ex-proletariat is the majority and they get to vote.

Quote[/b] ]I looked at each source that  you provided and I provided my own. Go back to links I provided, and I can show you where in wiki I got my data from. The PDF file above does not go anywhere, and the closest I can find is about their publication which you can buy from the internet, not the actual PDF file. I bet you did not even looked at the link. It's broken. I already fixed the link and looked for PDF file, which you clearly did not. You probably got the link from somewhere and decided to just copy and paste. I'm putting some time and effort to prove my side, but you are clearly not doing it.

You didn't even read my post. I was well aware of the link being broken, so I gave you another link to the publication right below. So much for your "effort". Now continue bragging about it.

Quote[/b] ]From teh same government that selectively gives out information. While in US they are free to do the tabulation.

There is no difference. The numbers are computed in the same way. UN has to rely on official US and Cuban statistics.

Quote[/b] ]In other words, all the nations without oil will not work with Cuban system either, since no system matters, right? Then how come Singapore, France, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and many more who does not have oil make their system work?

No, you don't have oil if you don't have any. Doesn't matter what system you have. That's what I wrote.

Quote[/b] ]Haiti and South American countries don't have oil, so according to yor above statement, no system works for them. So Cuban system is not going to work. (notice that I'm using your logic. So if you disagree with my conclusion you are killing your own logic). As for moving away from Cuba, 1% of population is NOT an insignificant number. Us definitely has more people coming in. And yes they can make fortune in US, but not in Cuba where the nation owns everything.

South American countries have a lot of oil. Haiti doesn't (have any to speak of). It won't get any oil no matter their system. But they can make the best of their situation like Cuba. They don't. In Cuba the people owns all means of production. That's economic democracy. The whole people decides, not some capitalists.

Quote[/b] ]Your original argument was that USD and Euros are useless in Cuba. I showed you that USD is used in Cuba. Converted peso is converted from USD and Euro. The money system of Cuba doesn't have two different pesos.

USD could be used around 1994. Not any longer. Cuba has two different pesos. You're wrong again.

Quote[/b] ]Keep putting your head in sand. As stated above, they have capitalism. Tourism money is capitalism. any action to make money and have profit is capitalism.

No you don't know what capitalism means. Make money to have "profit" is what business (trade) is all about. The difference is that the people is the owner and not some capitalists. Capitalism lies in the ownership of the means of production.

Quote[/b] ]So are you saying that corporates buy the vote from people, or they select who the president will be? Guess upcoming presidential election is useless. Here's a hint to you. You don't know what you are talking about. You are just spewing regurgitated garbage that you have no idea of.

Yeah it is I who talk garbage that I "have no idea of".

In order to have a chance in US elections you have to have a lot of money for your campaigns. That money mainly comes from huge companies, capitalists. Sure, I can start a party and be a presidential candidate. But what can I do if I can't reach out and make myself heard? Freedom of speech means that the voiceless are free to talk, in their bathrooms. If you are against the capitalist system, you won't have any money. The presidential candidates only differ in details. They are all backed by the interests of the wealthy. The one who has the most money in his campaigns has always won the elections.

Quote[/b] ]uh huh. I guess cuba has been sending money to fight AIDS in Africa more than US?

Cuba sends doctors to Africa among other things. The difference is that Cuba doesn't take anything back from Africa. The US gives say, 10 billions, and takes 100 billions through exploitation of people and natural resources. That US help means nothing, it's only there to look good.

Baff1,

yes Cuba was poor when it traded with the US before. Cuba was a puppet nation and trade was not fair. After the revolution it was the other way around when the USSR was about. Part strategic help, like with South Korea and Taiwan (seen from the US side) and part solidarity. Trade is better than no trade, it's usually a win win situation. So if trade with the US is made possible the standards or living will rise a lot, seen as US products/patents are many and wide-spread. Imports will be a lot cheaper. And the supply of goods better.

[AfrographX 0]

Quote[/b] ]In order to have a chance in US elections you have to have a lot of money for your campaigns. That money mainly comes from huge companies, capitalists. Sure, I can start a party and be a presidential candidate. But what can I do if I can't reach out and make myself heard? Freedom of speech means that the voiceless are free to talk, in their bathrooms. If you are against the capitalist system, you won't have any money. The presidential candidates only differ in details. They are all backed by the interests of the wealthy. The one who has the most money in his campaigns has always won the elections.

The aspect you're mentioing is the cost of political participation. The US is a country with a complex political and economic situation, where many different interest groups have to be considered. In addition the media, as arena to express and gather support for your political agenda, requires a high level of entry costs. Those are the conditions of a Democracy in a capitalistic system.

In Cuba too, there are costs connected to political participation. Any Cuban who wants to push through some agenda, still has to put a lot of effort/time into organising support for his idea and fighting for its implementation. The cost are of course not as high as in the US because the preconditions are different.

Probably the main difference is, that in the US interest groups, such as economic actors, have more importance in the political process. This however is legitimate in a capitalistic system because those actors represent important/valuable interests of the whole system.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]In Cuba too, there are costs connected to political participation. Any Cuban who wants to push through some agenda, still has to put a lot of effort/time into organising support for his idea and fighting for its implementation. The cost are of course not as high as in the US because the preconditions are different.

Probably the main difference is, that in the US interest groups, such as economic actors, have more importance in the political process. This however is legitimate in a capitalistic system because those actors represent important/valuable interests of the whole system.

Yes, you'll need time, but as most cubans work between 6-8 hours a day, in humane conditions, all who want to candidate should be able to do so. That's primarily done locally first.

You need no extra money or similar. No millions.

Yes, in a capitalist system the economic actors have the biggest influence on voters and on the political process. I don't think it's legitimate, because it's non-democratic. Earlier in most countries democracy was when you had an amount of votes that reflected your wealth. That system was abolished. Democracy is meant for all. There's no democracy without economic and political democracy.

[billybob2002 0]

The south korean people revolted and wanted to join north, so north invaded.

Learn about what happened before the Korean War. There were a number of border clashes before the war happened. The South couldn't invade the North because the United States purposely supplied the South with weapons that couldn't sustain an offensive war. When the war began, North Korea claimed that South Korea invaded them first and they were counter invading. North Korea didn't claimed that they were "liberating" the South.

Quote[/b] ]

After the revolution it was the other way around when the USSR was about.

Castro only went to the USSR after the United States rejected him. Shocking isn't it?

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]You need no extra money or similar. No millions.

Millions? Funny. In the UK an 18 year old girl got elected as a councillor. She wasn't rich.

Oh wait, your Spokesperson: "I've only ever been wrong once and thats when I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken."

God forbid your ever wrong about anything. 'Communism is 100% great and can no bad or evil while Capitalism is just the opposite'.

Do you live in a cell with padded walls?

[MehMan 0]

And he knows exactly how we think.

[Spokesperson 0]

Yes, North Korea tried to reunite Korea and liberate south. People in south revolted and supported the North Korean initiative. Later 700 000 "disappeared", and about 100 000 have been found in mass graves since.

Quote[/b] ]Castro only went to the USSR after the United States rejected him. Shocking isn't it?

Castro never seeked US assistance. He expropriated the capitalists and socialized their companies. There are many different types of socialists. After the US response it was evident that he had to actively cooperate with the Soviets. Which was natural. Socialists cooperate, and non-socialists do. That's class war.

Quote[/b] ]Millions? Funny. In the UK an 18 year old girl got elected as a councillor. She wasn't rich.

Oh wait, your Spokesperson: "I've only ever been wrong once and thats when I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken."

God forbid your ever wrong about anything. 'Communism is 100% great and can no bad or evil while Capitalism is just the opposite'.

Do you live in a cell with padded walls?

We're talking about the US here. Not other countries. In a parliamentary liberal-democracy it is easier to get a seat without having lots of money. But advertising and propaganda is a big part of the system. Small parties usually have no chance to compete with the big. Especially in the UK which is a 2-3 party system more or less.

I'm a member of the working class, therefore socialism is the better option for me.

Quote[/b] ]And he knows exactly how we think.

Yes, I know how society works and you're what they call sheep.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]Millions? Funny. In the UK an 18 year old girl got elected as a councillor. She wasn't rich.

Oh wait, your Spokesperson: "I've only ever been wrong once and thats when I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken."

God forbid your ever wrong about anything. 'Communism is 100% great and can no bad or evil while Capitalism is just the opposite'.

Do you live in a cell with padded walls?

We're talking about the US here. Not other countries. In a parliamentary liberal-democracy it is easier to get a seat without having lots of money. But advertising and propaganda is a big part of the system. Small parties usually have no chance to compete with the big. Especially in the UK which is a 2-3 party system more or less.

I'm a member of the working class, therefore socialism is the better option for me.

Yes, I know how society works and you're what they call sheep.

It's a general statement you make time and time again. I challenged it and proved you wrong.

What you on about parliament for? I'm talking about councillors. So the rest of your statement is utter nonsense. Yet again you have proved to everyone that you know fcuk all about what your talking about. Here is a free tip: don't talk about the things you do not know.

How are you a member of the working class? I bet you work in an office or something like that. You are a working class walt. I was brought up in a true working class family and work in a proper working class job.

And your what we call a numpty. Humans have minds of their own and can make their own decisons. We are not robots. People aren't stupid. Another weakness of marxism.

Your just a middle class guy with too much time on his hands.

You claim you don't go to Cuba because you want to spread the revolution where your at. More like your too embarrased to admit that you love the lifestyle capitalism has given you. You love all of these material possessions. You are a fraud.

[billybob2002 0]

Yes, North Korea tried to reunite Korea and liberate south. People in south revolted and supported the North Korean initiative. Later 700 000 "disappeared", and about 100 000 have been found in mass graves since.

Nuts. The people in the South didn't revolt against the South Korean government and supported the North Korean invasion. Sure a portion of the population did but it was a minority. I'm not going to deny the South Korean government killed civilians suspected to be supporters of the North Koreans. However, it is ridiculous to think the majority of the people in the South supported the North Korean invasion.

Furthermore, the North Koreans weren't saints. People disappeared and people were shot. For example, during the North Korean occupation of Seoul, tens of thousands of civilians magically disappeared. North Koreans claimed they captured 70,000 South Korean soldiers but returned 8,000 of them.

[Supah 0]

Yes, North Korea tried to reunite Korea and liberate south. People in south revolted and supported the North Korean initiative. Later 700 000 "disappeared", and about 100 000 have been found in mass graves since.

Quote[/b] ]Castro only went to the USSR after the United States rejected him. Shocking isn't it?

Castro never seeked US assistance. He expropriated the capitalists and socialized their companies. There are many different types of socialists. After the US response it was evident that he had to actively cooperate with the Soviets. Which was natural. Socialists cooperate, and non-socialists do. That's class war.

Quote[/b] ]Millions? Funny. In the UK an 18 year old girl got elected as a councillor. She wasn't rich.

Oh wait, your Spokesperson: "I've only ever been wrong once and thats when I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken."

God forbid your ever wrong about anything. 'Communism is 100% great and can no bad or evil while Capitalism is just the opposite'.

Do you live in a cell with padded walls?

We're talking about the US here. Not other countries. In a parliamentary liberal-democracy it is easier to get a seat without having lots of money. But advertising and propaganda is a big part of the system. Small parties usually have no chance to compete with the big. Especially in the UK which is a 2-3 party system more or less.

I'm a member of the working class, therefore socialism is the better option for me.

Quote[/b] ]And he knows exactly how we think.

Yes, I know how society works and you're what they call sheep.

You my friend are either a great comedian or someone who has been locked up since the 1920's and never saw the horrors that came to light after all the eastern european communist states fell. The people didn't like communisme, ceauceascu got that hint in first person. If you really think that Cuba is ruled by the working people perhaps we should have a collection on this forum on paypall to send you to this workers paradise for good, too bad for you the great commander just quit his job and his brother is allready reforming his fataly flawed policy.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's a general statement you make time and time again. I challenged it and proved you wrong.

What you on about parliament for? I'm talking about councillors. So the rest of your statement is utter nonsense. Yet again you have proved to everyone that you know fcuk all about what your talking about. Here is a free tip: don't talk about the things you do not know.

A councillor, that's absurd. Those have no influence on national politics. Build a kindergarten there, put a flower here, add another bus line. We're speaking about the highest decisionmaking levels here. It's there everything is at stake.

In the US system you have to be a millionaire and support the current system and the big corporations to win an election.

I'm sure political campaigns aren't free in the UK either.

Quote[/b] ]How are you a member of the working class? I bet you work in an office or something like that. You are a working class walt. I was brought up in a true working class family and work in a proper working class job.

And your what we call a numpty. Humans have minds of their own and can make their own decisons. We are not robots. People aren't stupid. Another weakness of marxism.

Your just a middle class guy with too much time on his hands.

You claim you don't go to Cuba because you want to spread the revolution where your at. More like your too embarrased to admit that you love the lifestyle capitalism has given you. You love all of these material possessions. You are a fraud.

I'm a member of the proletariat because I don't have ownership of any means of production. I don't earn money on the work of other people.

Either you earn money because you own, or because you work. There's no middle class in those terms. The middle class is just a privileged part of the worker class. Ie it earns more because of the supply/demand of their skills. There's only upper and lower class in terms of power. In terms of standards of living there are as many classes as you want.

There's no free will. Everything you do and think is based on prior events. The chemical reactions that happen in your brain follow the laws of nature. Ie they are all deterministic processes.

Again you show that you don't have any idea of what socialism is. "Material possessions", there's nothing wrong with that, that's why we produce goods, to improve our standards of living. When marxists talk about property, we mean private property, ie the means of production. Not your TV-set, toothbrush or bed.

Quote[/b] ]Nuts. The people in the South didn't revolt against the South Korean government and supported the North Korean invasion. Sure a portion of the population did but it was a minority. I'm not going to deny the South Korean government killed civilians suspected to be supporters of the North Koreans. However, it is ridiculous to think the majority of the people in the South supported the North Korean invasion.

Furthermore, the North Koreans weren't saints. People disappeared and people were shot. For example, during the North Korean occupation of Seoul, tens of thousands of civilians magically disappeared. North Koreans claimed they captured 70,000 South Korean soldiers but returned 8,000 of them.

There were a lot of revolts in south korea at that time. One of them made North Korea intervene. From that point and on South Korea massacred almost 3% (if not more) of their population at that time.

Quote[/b] ]You my friend are either a great comedian or someone who has been locked up since the 1920's and never saw the horrors that came to light after all the eastern european communist states fell. The people didn't like communisme, ceauceascu got that hint in first person. If you really think that Cuba is ruled by the working people perhaps we should have a collection on this forum on paypall to send you to this workers paradise for good, too bad for you the great commander just quit his job and his brother is allready reforming his fataly flawed policy.

So, why do a huge majority of Russians and people in other ex-soviet republics regret the collapse of the USSR? What communism? There has never been any communism there.

[Baff1 0]

I'm a member of the proletariat because I don't have ownership of any means of production. I don't earn money on the work of other people.

Either you earn money because you own, or because you work. There's no middle class in those terms. The middle class is just a privileged part of the worker class. Ie it earns more because of the supply/demand of their skills. There's only upper and lower class in terms of power. In terms of standards of living there are as many classes as you want.

Horse manure.

Most working people have pensions. Making them both owners and producers, almost zero % of western people are either owners or producers. They are all both.

And even if you don't own any means of production, you still earn money off the work of other people. The factory you work at prospers from it's road links.

Paid for by other people through taxation.

There are any number of ways in which you directly prosper in this society from the work of other people.

To help you understand a little closer how much you prosper from the work of other people, think about this....

95% of government services are funded by the top 5% of the nations earners.

This means that the bottom 95% don't pay their way. The contributions a "working class" man makes, don't cover the cost of his health care, or his road maintenace or his rubbish collection or policing or old aged pension.

From the moment you were born in a hospital you did not build, you have been benefiting from the work of others.

If you think you are self sufficient, you are either a member of the rich elite or you are just trying to make your self feel better about something other people have achieved and you want to.

"Society" is communal. We all earn money on the work of other people.

Russia is the birth place of Communism. Of course they had communism there.

I also think Cuba is ruled by the working people, even facist dictators require common assent to get anything done. Even Saddam had a majority. Hitler won referendum after referendum.

Kim Jong il and Putin have public support ratings of almost double that of Western democratic leaders, as did Castro.

(Jealous western leaders would have you believe this is out of mortal fear, but it isn't. Talk to people who live there).

All governments are political. No one has absolute rule because no one can do everything themselves. As long as other peoople are required to do things. Their assent is required.

The essential difference between modern democracies and communist states, is that modern democracies have evolved out of monarchies and dictatorships and oligarchies over a period of centuries, the rule of single powerful individuals has gradually been watered down again and again and again.

Communist states on the other hand are the products of revolution. They have been designed for equality to begin with. And although all systems corrupt back to this kind of individualistic powerbase given enough time, the communist states are amongst the newest governments on the planet.

They have been designed from the ground upwards on the principle of man's equality.

Many countries have greatly prospered from communism. Poor countries in particular seem to benefit most.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]It's a general statement you make time and time again. I challenged it and proved you wrong.

What you on about parliament for? I'm talking about councillors. So the rest of your statement is utter nonsense. Yet again you have proved to everyone that you know fcuk all about what your talking about. Here is a free tip: don't talk about the things you do not know.

A councillor, that's absurd. Those have no influence on national politics. Build a kindergarten there, put a flower here, add another bus line. We're speaking about the highest decisionmaking levels here. It's there everything is at stake.

In the US system you have to be a millionaire and support the current system and the big corporations to win an election.

I'm sure political campaigns aren't free in the UK either.

Quote[/b] ]How are you a member of the working class? I bet you work in an office or something like that. You are a working class walt. I was brought up in a true working class family and work in a proper working class job.

And your what we call a numpty. Humans have minds of their own and can make their own decisons. We are not robots. People aren't stupid. Another weakness of marxism.

Your just a middle class guy with too much time on his hands.

You claim you don't go to Cuba because you want to spread the revolution where your at. More like your too embarrased to admit that you love the lifestyle capitalism has given you. You love all of these material possessions. You are a fraud.

I'm a member of the proletariat because I don't have ownership of any means of production. I don't earn money on the work of other people.

Either you earn money because you own, or because you work. There's no middle class in those terms. The middle class is just a privileged part of the worker class. Ie it earns more because of the supply/demand of their skills. There's only upper and lower class in terms of power. In terms of standards of living there are as many classes as you want.

There's no free will. Everything you do and think is based on prior events. The chemical reactions that happen in your brain follow the laws of nature. Ie they are all deterministic processes.

Again you show that you don't have any idea of what socialism is. "Material possessions", there's nothing wrong with that, that's why we produce goods, to improve our standards of living. When marxists talk about property, we mean private property, ie the means of production. Not your TV-set, toothbrush or bed.

So what if they don't decide things at the top level? I still proved you wrong. Oh and we don't have kindergartens and they have a bigger impact than bus lines as well. Yet again you show you know nothing of the UK.

In the UK anyone can be an MP. Doesn't matter what gender you are, ethnicity etc. An individual does not need to be rich.

Middle class is more than just what you earn. The vast majority of people on the west have middle class views and a middle class lifestyle. Even if they are working class. That is partly why it is incredibly hard to define class nowadays.

There is a free will. I mean here you are talking like a scientist about biological determinations when sociologists have shown time and time again that biological determinations in our lives have a minor role (and scientists have a hard time proving otherwise). There are no real 'laws of nature'. This means that you think criminals are criminals because of thier biology. That women are more suited to the home because of their biology. Studies have shown that this is just not true and thus you are wrong. Our minds have allowed us to go beyond biological determinations. People have a free will. We have emotions. We are not computers.

Socialism? Never mentioned it. Of course there is nothing wrong with material possessions. But you don't get all of it in Cuba.

[Baff1 0]

In the UK, anyone "can be" an MP.

But "anyone" isn't.

You have to join a party so that you can get funding for your campaign.

Even independants like Gorgeous George needed sponsorship (from Saddam lol).

[-Snafu- 77]

You have to join a party so that you can get funding for your campaign.

Yip. That's what I'm on about.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Most working people have pensions. Making them both owners and producers, almost zero % of western people are either owners or producers. They are all both.

And even if you don't own any means of production, you still earn money off the work of other people. The factory you work at prospers from it's road links.

Paid for by other people through taxation.

There are any number of ways in which you directly prosper in this society from the work of other people.

To help you understand a little closer how much you prosper from the work of other people, think about this....

95% of government services are funded by the top 5% of the nations earners.

This means that the bottom 95% don't pay their way. The contributions a "working class" man makes, don't cover the cost of his health care, or his road maintenace or his rubbish collection or policing or old aged pension.

From the moment you were born in a hospital you did not build, you have been benefiting from the work of others.

If you think you are self sufficient, you are either a member of the rich elite or you are just trying to make your self feel better about something other people have achieved and you want to.

"Society" is communal. We all earn money on the work of other people.

Pensions? You store away some money for the time you can't work? That is no ownership of any means of production. Either you earn a living from working or from owning. There is nothing in between. Naturally, you can do both, but as long as you don't have to work, and can live from what you own you're a capitalist.

Using roads, is not equal to earning money on other people's work. Because their existence does not give you money. You don't profit from people working on roads. Their employer does.

The 5% you talk about usually own the most of the wealth in society.  They are owners and the working class works for them. The working class pays for everything. The upper class doesn't pay for anything. They aren't producers. And without production there is no wealth. The workers are the only ones that create wealth. They pay for everything.

So, in what way did I get money from the fact that I was born? Off other people's work? Sure I benefit from the fact that health care exists, if it's universal, the producers/workers of a nation pay for it. Because it's in the interest of society that more people are born, and that people show solidarity towards eachother. But I still didn't gain any money from it.

Quote[/b] ]Russia is the birth place of Communism. Of course they had communism there.

You are ignorant. Communism has never existed. The USSR was socialist, just as the name tells.

Quote[/b] ]The essential difference between modern democracies and communist states, is that modern democracies have evolved out of monarchies and dictatorships and oligarchies over a period of centuries, the rule of single powerful individuals has gradually been watered down again and again and again.

Communist states on the other hand are the products of revolution. They have been designed for equality to begin with. And although all systems corrupt back to this kind of individualistic powerbase given enough time, the communist states are amongst the newest governments on the planet.

They have been designed from the ground upwards on the principle of man's equality.

Many countries have greatly prospered from communism. Poor countries in particular seem to benefit most.

The word "communist state" has no meaning per definition. And there are no democracies. Just liberal-democracies, ie bourgeois dictatorships of the capital. I agree with the rest of what you write.

Quote[/b] ]So what if they don't decide things at the top level? I still proved you wrong. Oh and we don't have kindergartens and they have a bigger impact than bus lines as well. Yet again you show you know nothing of the UK.

Where did you prove me wrong? It's possible I wasn't precise enough. Sure you can get elected, without having much funds, like on a local level, where your personal presence can be noticed, like knocking doors, speaking in some park, that reaches a fair amount of the voters. Or in a chess club for instance. That has no effect on society. And what I mean by saying "get elected" (if I did) was on a national level where your politics affect the principles of society. When I wrote about kindergartens, which you surely have somewhere, it was an example. Litter ordinances, schools or anything like that would work too. It has no impact on the argumentation.

Quote[/b] ]In the UK anyone can be an MP. Doesn't matter what gender you are, ethnicity etc. An individual does not need to be rich.

Middle class is more than just what you earn. The vast majority of people on the west have middle class views and a middle class lifestyle. Even if they are working class. That is partly why it is incredibly hard to define class nowadays.

There is a free will. I mean here you are talking like a scientist about biological determinations when sociologists have shown time and time again that biological determinations in our lives have a minor role (and scientists have a hard time proving otherwise). There are no real 'laws of nature'. This means that you think criminals are criminals because of thier biology. That women are more suited to the home because of their biology. Studies have shown that this is just not true and thus you are wrong. Our minds have allowed us to go beyond biological determinations. People have a free will. We have emotions. We are not computers.

Socialism? Never mentioned it. Of course there is nothing wrong with material possessions. But you don't get all of it in Cuba.

You don't have to be rich to be an MP. But the party you work for has to have huge resources in order to win. If a party is against capitalism it has no chance to win, because the whole system will do everything to stop it. The exploitation and earning by owning-system will be threatened and capitalists will do everything to maintain it and block change. That party won't have as much money to play around with as the pro-capitalism parties, because it won't be funded by the rich. Small anti-capitalist parties have no ability to reach out to the masses. Without reaching out you have no chance to get any votes. Furthermore, everything you know about communism and socialism is what you've heard from enemies of those systems, in the press or in movies for instance, so you can help them maintain their standard of living by arguing against socialists.

Class is very easy to define. There are two of them, mainly. Owners and those who work for them. Employers and employees. It's all about power. Middle class on the other hand is no own class but a measurement of the standard of living, which is hard to define.

Modern science has shown that there is no free will. I think it's common sense. Our actions are based on everything that's happened before, chemically. If you throw a dice the same way twice it will show the same result. Same with people. That doesn't mean we are computers. We are much more complex. Input is enormous. But, the same input will give the same output, as with computers.

Criminals are not criminals because of their biology, same with housewifes. It's all about society.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Pensions? You store away some money for the time you can't work?

No.

People are a little more productive than just tucking away some of their notes under their matresses.

A pension. An investment.

You buy part of a company and in return for your investment you take a share of the profits.

You invest your money in a bank and in return the bank pays you intrest for the use of your money.

And no, the working class doesn't work for everything and pay for everything.

A bottom income earner pouring pints in the pub isn't producing anything that a satelitte technician uses. But they guy pulling pints watches TV and makes international calls.

A person washing dishes in a restaurent does not produce as much as an architect.

If you wash dishes for living, you didn't build that bridge you walk over, your tax doesn't cover it's maintenance. You made no effort or contribution to it at all.Your net production towards society is in negative figures. Most peoples are.

No one is living off the work of bottom income earners. Not even themselves.

Haven't you noticed that low income earners can't afford to build or buy houses, yet they all still live in one? How when they grow old, despite not being able to afford a house, despite not having built a house, a barman still lives in one. Gets 30 years of drugs and housing and a pension all free.

He didn't earn it. He is a charity case. The more productive members of society are supporting him.

The top 5%.

Sir Alan Sugar has been working 20 hour days for 40 years. He works longer than you, he works harder than you, and he produces much more than you.

You spend his money and rather than feel guilty about it, you demonise him so that you can live with yourself better.

You tell yourself you are paying your way, but the truth is, you aren't.

Rich people are carrying you. They aren't richer because they are upper class, they are richer becuase they work harder than you, they are smarter than you and they have been lucky.

They are more productive. They are the most productive.

All men are not created equal.

When you were born, you were born in an expensive hospital not paid for or built by you.

You recieved "free" heath care and schooling. In schools you did not build, by teachers you did not pay.

You didn't gain money from it.

But someone else paid money for it.

Your gain was their loss.

Someone had to pay for it, just not you.

Of course you gained money. You just didn't take it in cash.

You profit from the existance of roads. You gain money from it.

Because you have roads, you get to work  quicker, allowing you to be there longer and earn more pay.

Your food is delivered to your retail outlet cheaper. It costs you less to buy.

Your company has more customers, it is better off so it pays you more money.

You didn't make those roads, you have gained money from other peoples work.

Quote[/b] ]The word "communist state" has no meaning per definition.

That's two words.

A little advice, don't argue semantics until you've learnt how to use them.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, a pension.

You buy part of a company and in return for your investment you take a share of the profits.

That isn't how pensions normally work. Most companies don't survive 50 years. But if they do, that doesn't make you a capitalist unless you can live on that money. Which would mean that you would have to have bought up a significant part of that company when you're retired. So the company would be controlled by retired workers. But that can't happen. Because the combined salaries of the workers can never exceed that of the company value.

Quote[/b] ]And no, the working class doesn't work for everything and pay for everything.

A bottom income earner pouring pints in the pub isn't producing anything that a satelitte technician uses. But they guy pulling pints watches TV and makes international calls.

Yes it does. Without production there would be nothing. Bottom income earner? Still he works. The satellite technician is also a worker. What's the problem?

Quote[/b] ]A person washing dishes in a restaurent does not produce as much as an architect.

If you wash dishes for living, you didn't build that bridge you walk over, your tax doesn't cover it's maintenance. Your net production towards society is in negative figures. Most peoples are.

A regular architect is also worker class. Production contra dishwasher depends. Not all architects come up with something. Architects don't build bridges, they design them, engineers and construction workers build them.

Quote[/b] ]No one is living off the work of bottom income earners. Not even themselves.

Of course they are. If you produce surplus value for anybody, that somebody is making money off you.

Quote[/b] ]When you were born, you were born in an expensive hospital not paid for or built by you.

You recieved "free" heath care and schooling. In schools you did not build, by teachers you did not pay.

You didn't gain money from it.

But someone else paid money for it.

Your gain was their loss.

Yes, I didn't gain money from it. And if I didn't I don't live on their work. The doctors, and teachers however, live on the work done by the workers. For their services they get products produced by workers.

Births aren't losses. They are investments with very good security. I didn't gain money from it.

Quote[/b] ]You profit from the existance of roads. You gain money from it.

Because you have roads, you get to work  quicker, allowing you to be there longer and earn more pay.

Your food is delivered to your retail outlet cheaper. It costs you less to buy.

Your company has more customers, it is better off so it pays you more money.

You didn't make those roads, you have gained money from other peoples work.

No, I don't profit from the existence of roads. Then I could lean back and get my money.

Yes, I get to work quicker, but that in itself doesn't produce value. The reason I can earn more is that I can work more for the owner. The road has made it possible for me and the owner to produce more. That's the difference. The road doesn't pay me anything. The road has on the other hand been funded either by the society as a whole or the company itself because a good infrastructure is in the interests of the industry.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's two words.

A little advice, don't argue semantics until you've learnt how to use them.

Oh, is it so?

Ok, then I'll rephrase.

The two words "communist state" combined that way build up a phrase that has no meaning. It's a contradiction.

But it's good that you focus on semantics. Because that's what we're talking about. What about learning what the words mean before using them?

[Baff1 0]

Of course it's how pensions normally work.

You invest in multiple companies. You have a portfolio. So if one company does not survive for 50 years and you or your pension manager didn't sell your shares in time, you haven't lost everything.

There is no problem, the satellite technician is in the top 5%, he does enough work for both himself and the barman.

An architect is also in the top 5%. He also does enough work to support the dishwasher.

The dishwasher is not producing surplus money for anyone. The amount of money he gains his employer by washing dishes is outweighed by the amount of extra taxation he costs his employer.

He is a net loss on both the employer and society.

He could be a bigger net loss. He could be unemployed or worse a student.

But he is a net loss nevertheless.

Being able to travel quicker is value. It allows you to be more productive.

And even if you are unwilling to be more productive. If you personally are not prepared to capitalise on that investment of money that has been made for you by others, you still benefit from the endeavours of those around you who can and do.

Even if you personally can't be arsed to get out of your living room chair. You are still profitting from roads.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's two words.

A little advice, don't argue semantics until you've learnt how to use them.

Oh, is it so?

Ok, then I'll rephrase.

The two words "communist state" combined that way build up a phrase that has no meaning. It's a contradiction.

But it's good that you focus on semantics. Because that's what we're talking about. What about learning what the words mean before using them?

No mate, that's what you are talking about.

You are attempting to assert your views of a political system using semantics.

Only your language skills are letting you down.

Russia was a communist state.

This is an indisputable fact.

To say that Russia isn't a communist state is quite simply incorrect. Russia was the mother of all communist states.

Russia not only was a communist state, it was the first communist state. The originator of the political system of government.

Choosing to dispute this historical fact, you have chosen semantics as your arguing point.

The only problem with this is, the phrase "communist state" only exists because people wanted a phrase to describe the Russian system of government.

The phrase "communist state" is defined by what the Russian system of government was.

Not by what your personal ideals of what communism, is isn't and could have been.

[AfrographX 0]

I'm a member of the working class, therefore socialism is the better option for me.

What country do you live in or better what century? There isn't much left of the traditional working class in western societies.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Hey Spokesperson, how come if the USSR was a socialist state, that it was the Communist Party was in power?

But hey, I applaud your logic - let's ban all socialist parties of all western democracies because their socialism will turn any country into a soviet model state of corruption!

[billybob2002 0]

There were a lot of revolts in south korea at that time. One of them made North Korea intervene. From that point and on South Korea massacred almost 3% (if not more) of their population at that time.

A number of those revolts were sparked by communists and leftists. For example, the Cheju and Yosu-Sunch'on revolts. The South Koreans responded with brutality. Again, it was a minority that wanted unification under North Korean rule.

None of those revolts made North Korea invade South Korea. Before the invasion, North Korea was conducting guerrilla operations in South Korea trying to destabilize South Korea. North Korea had to buildup its military before it could invade the South.

North Korea wanted war like the South Korean government. However, the South Korean government didn't have the means for fighting a successful war. By 1950, the North Koreans did have the means.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

BUZZARD @ Feb. 28 2008,00:36)]Hey Spokesperson, how come if the USSR was a socialist state, that it was the Communist Party was in power?

But hey, I applaud your logic - let's ban all socialist parties of all western democracies because their socialism will turn any country into a soviet model state of corruption!

It could have been calld the Extreme Democratic Party but it wouldn't ahve changed their ideology.