International Politics Thread

[Commando84 0]

About goverment vs capitalism I don't think there is a one perfect way, its just unrealistic to believe one system totally ownz the other....

There will always be compromises in a free democractic country and its just how much does the state intervine in Capitalist business and how much does Capitalists affect the state. There needs to be a balance, ying and yang, when one part of the system pushes the other to much then its time for people to remind the politicians who they work for.

Companies ask for incentives or tax reductions and people ask for decent healtcare options and schools for the children so that they at least can try to make sure they kids can have it as good as their parents or better.

[POTS 0]

There is no perfect way, but the concept of government is highly intrusive. People just want to be left alone. And if capitalism intrudes on the rights of individuals then it no longer is pure free market capitalism.

I'm not talking about anarchy, I'm simply stating that the ONLY function the government should have is to protect every individuals right to life, liberty, and property. Thats the best and most fair way a society can operate. Its hardly utopian, but at least you determine your future.

[Spokesperson 0]

But you haven't described a single reason that makes a government monopoly more efficient then market competition.

Private enterprise leads to unemployment (hands that are being unused), (if there's a competition about workers instead of workplaces you get increased inflation and collapse of the economy). There's also a need for advertising (time that be put into production), there's overproduction, and while there are crises factories stand still even though there's a huge need for the products. The capitalist systems has to conduct war from time to time to avoid collapse. That's also inefficient.

Government monopolies can offer the lowest prices (because there's no want for profits), while being able to plan the economy. If you plan something well enough it's a lot better than market anarchy. That's why companies do plans internally themselves. History also tells us that planned economies are more efficient. Planned economies can also be a lot more democratic.

I'm not talking about anarchy, I'm simply stating that the ONLY function the government should have is to protect every individuals right to life, liberty, and property.

Neoliberalism leads to huge social consequences, abuse of human rights, and allocates power in the hands of a few owners. That system is completely unstable socially. Sooner or later people revolt. All Latin American countries (except for Haiti and Colombia) are moving from libertarianism to socialism, because people had enough (apart from the rich owners though).

[Balschoiw 0]

History also tells us that planned economies are more efficient.

Where ?

[Baff1 0]

Non profit organisations don't necessarily provide anything cheaper or more efficiently, they just take higher wages personally. What's the difference in a company making a big profit for the owners, or a non-profit company with managers paying themselves massive wages.

Government or private there is no guarentee that those wages will be distributed equally or meritocratically. There is no guarentee that any efficiancies will be passed on. In fact with no profit on offer, there is no motivation for the workforce to make an efficiancies whatsoever.

They get paid just as well for doing a bad job as for doing a good one.

[POTS 0]

Private enterprise leads to unemployment (hands that are being unused), (if there's a competition about workers instead of workplaces you get increased inflation and collapse of the economy). There's also a need for advertising (time that be put into production), there's overproduction, and while there are crises factories stand still even though there's a huge need for the products. The capitalist systems has to conduct war from time to time to avoid collapse. That's also inefficient.

Government monopolies can offer the lowest prices (because there's no want for profits), while being able to plan the economy. If you plan something well enough it's a lot better than market anarchy. That's why companies do plans internally themselves. History also tells us that planned economies are more efficient. Planned economies can also be a lot more democratic.

Neoliberalism leads to huge social consequences, abuse of human rights, and allocates power in the hands of a few owners. That system is completely unstable socially. Sooner or later people revolt. All Latin American countries (except for Haiti and Colombia) are moving from libertarianism to socialism, because people had enough (apart from the rich owners though).

You seem to be a greater good kind of guy. How will guaranteed employment create happiness if you dont get any money from it, or are forced to do that job?

[baddo 0]

Word of advice based on experience: you are wasting your time with that person.

[POTS 0]

Word of advice based on experience: you are wasting your time with that person.

Nah, I'm having fun asking him questions. He's completely humiliating himself. His arguments lack any logic.

[baddo 0]

You did ask an excellent question. I did ask similar questions as well "on my turn". I just want to warn you that your discussion with that person is likely not leading anywhere. It is of course your choice if you want to try and see if you can get somewhere with this person on that subject.

I don't bother anymore because I noticed this person uses the same discussion strategies over and over again even when overwhelmingly most people in the discussion are clearly not agreeing with him or her. It makes me think this person is not able to see that the discussion style he or she is using is continuously failing - perhaps it would be reasonable to try different strategies (or stop) but this person is beating the same drum over and over again and not convincing anyone over and over again.

[Spokesperson 0]

Non profit organisations don't necessarily provide anything cheaper or more efficiently, they just take higher wages personally. What's the difference in a company making a big profit for the owners, or a non-profit company with managers paying themselves massive wages.

Government or private there is no guarentee that those wages will be distributed equally or meritocratically. There is no guarentee that any efficiancies will be passed on. In fact with no profit on offer, there is no motivation for the workforce to make an efficiancies whatsoever.

They get paid just as well for doing a bad job as for doing a good one.

Non-profit organizations have the -option- to increase their own wages or lower the prices. What the decision is depends on what the workers think or what the government planning agency thinks is best. This can all be controlled democratically. Private organisations are fully controlled by a few owners, and not democratically.

In South America a lot of companies have been taken over by the workers. And they show much better productivity than before, just because they own their own workplace, and not some capitalist. They switch the lights off, vote on wages etc. The companies were initially going bankrupt (with the capitalist owner) but changed that into a positive result when people owned the factories and controlled them democratically.

They made a documentary about it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8149373547373833649

Where ?

Everywhere. The USSR, DDR, Cuba anyplace. DDR had higher living standards than the UK, despite it being bombed to dust. The USSR has the world growth record.

You seem to be a greater good kind of guy. How will guaranteed employment create happiness if you dont get any money from it, or are forced to do that job?

No, I'm not a greater good guy. Those who are employed get money from working. Full employment is about solidarity, efficiency, and human rights. But you seem to be ok with unemployment, slavery, homelessness, just if it doesn't affect you. You're some kind of greater good-for-the-capitalist kind of guy, who doesn't care if someone who doesn't work (but owns) earns money on other people's labour. You gladly accept handig out money to share holders while working. I don't, I recognize that there is another type of society where no capitalists (parasites) are needed, and where the economy is planned democratically.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Spokesperson

[Baff1 0]

Non-profit organizations have the -option- to increase their own wages or lower the prices. What the decision is depends on what the workers think or what the government planning agency thinks is best. This can all be controlled democratically. Private organisations are fully controlled by a few owners, and not democratically.

In my personal experience of non-profit organisations, the only people who make any management decisions are the management.

Government organisation don't all get to vote on how they are run. They are top down from central government.

What the decision is only depends on what the bosses think.

Profit organisations where the workers are given profit share could also be run democratically as the workers themselves are the owners. But even the owners don' get to decide how their companies are run, that's what managers do. The only time they vote is when they wish to sack the management.

South America is hardly a great example of socialist worker efficiancy. More like an example of entire countries being unable to feed themselves despite being highly fertile.

Mass slums and poverty.

Private industry that gets nationalised and then collapses taking the entire governments and local economies with it.

Increased efficiancy? No example of any South American factory that has been taken over by it's workers becoming more efficient springs directly to my mind mate. Sorry.

It's not really a part of the world famed for it's industrial innovation.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Baff1

[POTS 0]

Non-profit organizations have the -option- to increase their own wages or lower the prices. What the decision is depends on what the workers think or what the government planning agency thinks is best. This can all be controlled democratically. Private organisations are fully controlled by a few owners, and not democratically.

In South America a lot of companies have been taken over by the workers. And they show much better productivity than before, just because they own their own workplace, and not some capitalist. They switch the lights off, vote on wages etc. The companies were initially going bankrupt (with the capitalist owner) but changed that into a positive result when people owned the factories and controlled them democratically.

They made a documentary about it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8149373547373833649

Everywhere. The USSR, DDR, Cuba anyplace. DDR had higher living standards than the UK, despite it being bombed to dust. The USSR has the world growth record.

No, I'm not a greater good guy. Those who are employed get money from working. Full employment is about solidarity, efficiency, and human rights. But you seem to be ok with unemployment, slavery, homelessness, just if it doesn't affect you. You're some kind of greater good-for-the-capitalist kind of guy, who doesn't care if someone who doesn't work (but owns) earns money on other people's labour. You gladly accept handig out money to share holders while working. I don't, I recognize that there is another type of society where no capitalists (parasites) are needed, and where the economy is planned democratically.

LOL! Who is a slave in a free market system? I'm assuming that mcdonalds forced you to buy their food and made you clean their kitchen?

[MehMan 0]

Here comes the wage slavery explanation!

[POTS 0]

Here comes the wage slavery explanation!

lol, so he thinks the government will pay him more?

[Spokesperson 0]

In my personal experience of non-profit organisations, the only people who make any management decisions are the management.

Government organisation don't all get to vote on how they are run. They are top down from central government.

That's how it works right now in this kind of society. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have if the system is the same.

South America is hardly a great example of socialist worker efficiancy. More like an example of entire countries being unable to feed themselves despite being highly fertile.

Mass slums and poverty.

Private industry that gets nationalised and then collapses taking the entire governments and local economies with it.

Yes, that's the case. But I wasn't praising South American industry in general. Just the few factories that have been able to break free. I provided a link with examples. The nationalisations done have only proved to benefit the countries performing them. In Venezuela they recently nationalised a cell-phone company, and now they are producing $10 cell phones for the 3rd world. Luxury items are no longer produced while people starve.

lol, so he thinks the government will pay him more?

The government in a socialist society is not similar to a government in a dictatorship of the capital. Rhetorically, as a citizen in a socialist system I'm part of the government and the government works for me, not for some capitalist and his laws. In socialism there are no share-holders and thus no work gets into the hands of a few parasites. Instead of putting money in the pockets of a few owners, I get back more as a worker, the prices get lower and more money can be put into non-producing sectors like education and healthcare.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Spokesperson

[POTS 0]

That's how it works right now in this kind of society. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have if the system is the same.

Yes, that's the case. But I wasn't praising South American industry in general. Just the few factories that have been able to break free. I provided a link with examples. The nationalisations done have only proved to benefit the countries performing them. In Venezuela they recently nationalised a cell-phone company, and now they are producing $10 cell phones for the 3rd world. Luxury items are no longer produced while people starve.

The government in a socialist society is not similar to a government in a dictatorship of the capital. Rhetorically, as a citizen in a socialist system I'm part of the government and the government works for me, not for some capitalist and his laws. In socialism there are no share-holders and thus no work gets into the hands of a few parasites. Instead of putting money in the pockets of a few owners, I get back more as a worker, the prices get lower and more money can be put into non-producing sectors like education and healthcare.

What laws do capitalists create? How do you know the government will serve you? How do you get people to fall in line with this system? Could you give examples of beneficial nationalization? So far, every nationalized industry in the US is far more inefficient and far more unfriendly then competing businesses.

So in your system you could vote on property and the economy? Cool, I could call a vote to strip you of all your property and money because I believe you are not smart enough to utilize them... lol

[Spokesperson 0]

Laws are always written in the interests of the current ruling class. Our current ruling class is the capitalist class. The government and state are here to enforce this capitalist dictatorship and make it look legit through phony and rigged elections where those who own/control the information monopoly win. The purpose of the state is to keep this capitalist system working, the police and army are just tools to maintain a status quo. They guarantee the system of wage slavery.

Those who control the economy (the means of production) also always control the politics, because they have the material resources to do so.

So far, every nationalized industry in the US is far more inefficient and far more unfriendly then competing businesses.

The US is not a socialist country. Nationalisations is only the first step, you can still have profit making state owned companies that act just like any other company on the market.

So in your system you could vote on property and the economy? Cool, I could call a vote to strip you of all your property and money because I believe you are not smart enough to utilize them... lol

Not all property, but all means of production. Factories, mines and similar. Socialism is about nationalising all means of production and bringing them under the democratic control of the workers. Democracy requires both economic and political democracy. Otherwise you have a system like the one we have today with a few plutocrats who control the economy and then also the politics.

[Baff1 0]

Mate, cell phones are luxury items. You can't eat them, and you can't shelter from the elements in them.

And while Venezuala charges $10 to the third world for cheap cellphones, it should not be lost on you that western nations send them free.

In America, workers breaking free is quite common. They buy their factories and become the owners themselves.

The government in a socialist system works for itself just as the government does in every other system. And just like governments in every other system, your rulers wish you to think they work for you, and not you for them.

In socialism there are a lot of parasites. Share holders put something in. Elected representatives put nothing in. They just take out. And they also take out a little more for anyone they think will vote for them too.

The prices get higher. The wages go up, the more the wages go up, the more the prices get higher, the more wages need to go up. Then we add in state education and healthcare so that puts the prices up and since we now need a political class to manage them all that adds extra too.

And as a worker you get back less because you added an extra layer of management to every sector of the economy that can set it's own wages and can't be sacked if it is inefficient, parasitic or corrupt.

The politician managing your factories and schools and hospitals is unlikely to be one with any experience of managing factories, schools or hospitals but is instead a friend of one of the other politicians or a party donor.

Making him utterly unqualified for the post and incapable of running it as well as the existing upper management who have achieved their ranks through directly related merit and a life time of experience and successes in the field.

And since you have made Education and Healthcare a state monopoly there is no other place you can go to get educated or healed. You can't decide for yourself what's the most economic service or how much you would like to pay. And you can't go elsewhere if it turns out to be mismanaged and a shit service.

And your leaders hang out in palaces and have servants and bodyguards.

Socialism is great for social cohesion and the kiss of death for economics. Countries must find a balance between the two.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Baff1

[POTS 0]

Laws are always written in the interests of the current ruling class. Our current ruling class is the capitalist class. The government and state are here to enforce this capitalist dictatorship and make it look legit through phony and rigged elections where those who own/control the information monopoly win. The purpose of the state is to keep this capitalist system working, the police and army are just tools to maintain a status quo. They guarantee the system of wage slavery.

Those who control the economy (the means of production) also always control the politics, because they have the material resources to do so.

The US is not a socialist country. Nationalisations is only the first step, you can still have profit making state owned companies that act just like any other company on the market.

Not all property, but all means of production. Factories, mines and similar. Socialism is about nationalising all means of production and bringing them under the democratic control of the workers. Democracy requires both economic and political democracy. Otherwise you have a system like the one we have today with a few plutocrats who control the economy and then also the politics.

But do you understand how capitalism became? It was a type of revolt against divine right monarchies and lords. It was a revolt against what you believe capitalism is. You seem to think that coercion, collectivism, and slavery is right. And that freedom and choices are wrong. Do you understand that you have more options in a free market? Name a single company that has entered your "dictatorship" status.

All you describe is the government as a company. NOTHING guarantees what you say in communism.

[Spokesperson 0]

And while Venezuala charges $10 to the third world for cheap cellphones, it should not be lost on you that western nations send them free.

Western countries send no cell phones for free. But that doesn't matter. The west takes 10 and gives back 3 "for free".

In America, workers breaking free is quite common. They buy their factories and become the owners themselves.

In South America, yes. In Veneuela, Argentina and all those countries moving towards socialism.

The government in a socialist system works for itself just as the government does in every other system. And just like governments in every other system, your rulers wish you to think they work for you, and not you for them.

In socialism there are a lot of parasites. Share holders put something in. Elected representatives put nothing in. They just take out. And they also take out a little more for anyone they think will vote for them too.

The prices get higher. The wages go up, the more the wages go up, the more the prices get higher, the more wages need to go up. Then we add in state education and healthcare so that puts the prices up and since we now need a political class to manage them all that adds extra too.

And as a worker you get back less because you added an extra layer of management to every sector of the economy that can set it's own wages and can't be sacked if it is inefficient, parasitic or corrupt.

The politician managing your factories and schools and hospitals is unlikely to be one with any experience of managing factories, schools or hospitals but is instead a friend of one of the other politicians or a party donor.

Making him utterly unqualified for the post and incapable of running it as well as the existing upper management who have achieved their ranks through directly related merit and a life time of experience and successes in the field.

And since you have made Education and Healthcare a state monopoly there is no other place you can go to get educated or healed. You can't decide for yourself what's the most economic service or how much you would like to pay. And you can't go elsewhere if it turns out to be mismanaged and a shit service.

And your leaders hang out in palaces and have servants and bodyguards.

Socialism is great for social cohesion and the kiss of death for economics. Countries must find a balance between the two.

Nice fairy tale abou the horrors of socialism you fantasized there. In a socialist system the people are the government. Prices are never a problem in any kind of socialist system. You can buy the same products 100 times cheaper in Cuba than in the US for example. Especially medicine. Now Cuba isn't building socialism under ideal conditions due to the military, economic and political terrorism performed by the US and the west. However, Cuba as one of the underdeveloped countries have got far and developed ahead of many industrialised western countries in many aspects.

But do you understand how capitalism became? It was a type of revolt against divine right monarchies and lords. It was a revolt against what you believe capitalism is. You seem to think that coercion, collectivism, and slavery is right. And that freedom and choices are wrong. Do you understand that you have more options in a free market? Name a single company that has entered your "dictatorship" status.

All you describe is the government as a company. NOTHING guarantees what you say in communism.

Yes, the actions of the bourgeoisie was good once, when its role was progressive. Like in the french revolution and similar. Just like slavery transformed into feodalism, feodalism transformed into capitalism. The next logical and historical step is that from capitalism to socialism, and then from socialism to communism.

You have to ask yourself, freedom for whom? Freedom for A to oppress B or freedom from oppression for B? In capitalism there's only freedom for those who own, not those who work. There's freedom for the capitalist to oppress the worker. And how free is an unemployed or homeless? The choice between death/starvation/bad health and work for bad conditions (as decided by the capitalist) is free? How many options are that? Only capital is free, not people. All private companies, and their owners are small decentralised private tyrannies, that together make up an oppressive oligarchy. That's dictatorship, not democracy. Socialism means freedom for the worker from all kinds of oppression, but oppression of those who want to reintroduce capitalism or make themselves kings.

[POTS 0]

Western countries send no cell phones for free. But that doesn't matter. The west takes 10 and gives back 3 "for free".

In South America, yes. In Veneuela, Argentina and all those countries moving towards socialism.

Nice fairy tale abou the horrors of socialism you fantasized there. In a socialist system the people are the government. Prices are never a problem in any kind of socialist system. You can buy the same products 100 times cheaper in Cuba than in the US for example. Especially medicine. Now Cuba isn't building socialism under ideal conditions due to the military, economic and political terrorism performed by the US and the west. However, Cuba as one of the underdeveloped countries have got far and developed ahead of many industrialised western countries in many aspects.

Yes, the actions of the bourgeoisie was good once, when its role was progressive. Like in the french revolution and similar. Just like slavery transformed into feodalism, feodalism transformed into capitalism. The next logical and historical step is that from capitalism to socialism, and then from socialism to communism.

You have to ask yourself, freedom for whom? Freedom for A to oppress B or freedom from oppression for B? In capitalism there's only freedom for those who own, not those who work. There's freedom for the capitalist to oppress the worker. And how free is an unemployed or homeless? The choice between death/starvation/bad health and work for bad conditions (as decided by the capitalist) is free? How many options are that? Only capital is free, not people. All private companies, and their owners are small decentralised private tyrannies, that together make up an oppressive oligarchy. That's dictatorship, not democracy. Socialism means freedom for the worker from all kinds of oppression, but oppression of those who want to reintroduce capitalism or make themselves kings.

No one is opressing you in a free market. NOBODY! The problem is, a free market does not exist right now. China, a "communist" country actualy has more free market principals then the United States.

In your democratic society, nobody is going to support you. People only want to support themselves, and will vote themselves as much as they can. Your logic is flawed and has no examples, no data, and no reasons to work and make people happy. Your idea is to simply fuel a collective that doesn't include you. It is interesting, but cannot create happiness. Only freedom, self reliance, and competition can create happiness.

[MehMan 0]

In any case, to more relevant issues, I think the recent protests over the re-election of Ahmadinejad shows that not all in Iran want to be giant dickheads to everybody else in the region.

[Baff1 0]

I disagree, many countries greatly benefit from those sort of systems.

Happiness is found in communist societies everyday. Communist societies prosper just as free market societies prosper. There is a time and a place in a nations development where communism can be a giant leap forward.

Somethings are more important than economic dynamism and the creation of an efficient economy.

Some ideals more important than personal freedom.

Specifically, the redistribution of wealth. In a top heavy society with a large divide between rich and poor, the disenfranchised poor will rise up and slay the rich for their posessions. This is bad for those slaine, and no great improvement for those who do the slaying. (cf Zimbabawe). The skills and knowledge base and discipline required to produce get murderered and the unbalanced economy becomes no economy at all. End result the rich become dead, the poor become poorer. (Almost no charity and pay is better than no charity and pay at all).

At this point Communism is a great compromise. In return for falling productivity social order and cohesion is maintained. Cuba, China, Russia, all examples of countries where Communism has done wonders for it's people.

It hasn't made them rich, it hasn't made them as a nation richer, but it has freed a lot of people from starvation, the threat of foreign invasion, repression, oppression, child mortality, planetary gravity, etc etc etc.

It has also allowed these countries to develop their infrastructure to be able to support rapid changes and further ecnonomic advancement on a scale never before seen in the history of man.

If we take China as our example, we can see that under communist rule more people have been brought out of poverty in the last 10 years than live in Africa in total. Communism has done more good in that society in a decade than capitalism has done worldwide in the last century.

My western country sends cell phones to 3rd world countries for free.

We gather them all up at supermarkets. I very much doubt we are the only ones to do it.

We also send free computers and office equipment and drugs and food and doctors and teachers and money and mosquito nets and military equipment and trainers. We also patrol their seas for pirates and slavers and send troops to stop mass rapes, mutilations and genocides.

Venezuala? I'm sure they are good and benevolant people and all, but they are in the little league. The really really little league. Their example is not one I recommend anyone else that isn't them should follow. I frankly think the vote is still out on whether or not it's working for them either. Time will tell.

I don't think any country in the world has more workers that own their own companies than America. It's the largest free market economy in the world.

South America? Argentina, Venezuala? We all applaud their progression, but once again you mistake entirely minor achievements for really world shaking ones. Wrong league mate.

America is about the closest society to the one you describe known to man. I'm sorry if that doesn't sound radical enough for your sensibilities, but it's true just the same.

You are rebelling against the best known example of what you seek.

You share the same goals but you are unwilling to learn from the lessons of those who have achieved more of them than almost any other society on earth.

As far as I know, the USA is the only western country with a trade embargo against Cuba. The rest of us are all happy to do business and have continually been doing so for hundreds of years.

You can buy some medecines cheaper in Cuba, but you can't buy food cheapily.

I'm not suggesting to you that countries with very unbalanced societies can't or don't benefit from socialism, I'm suggesting to you that their economies don't.

In every system, the people are the government. Except the one ruled by cows. In that society, under that system, the cows are the government.

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

In any case, to more relevant issues, I think the recent protests over the re-election of Ahmadinejad shows that not all in Iran want to be giant dickheads to everybody else in the region.

Just 2/3 of them.

The little old ladies trying to touch Ahmadinejad so that their illnesses would be cured had me laughing.

Hard to belive that sort fo stuff goes on in this day and age.

I notice that the losing party in Iran got a bigger democratic mandate to rule, than the elected party in Great Britain.

Must be very embarassing to be a democratic politician in the west when all the most repressive evil dictators around the world are approved by twice as many of their people as you.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Baff1

[Spokesperson 0]

No one is opressing you in a free market. NOBODY! The problem is, a free market does not exist right now. China, a "communist" country actualy has more free market principals then the United States.

In your democratic society, nobody is going to support you. People only want to support themselves, and will vote themselves as much as they can. Your logic is flawed and has no examples, no data, and no reasons to work and make people happy. Your idea is to simply fuel a collective that doesn't include you. It is interesting, but cannot create happiness. Only freedom, self reliance, and competition can create happiness.

So when a share holder takes half a days work away every day from a guy who works at some company, against the will of this worker, there's no oppression? What happens if this worker protests? Will the police help him or the share holder? Who's the police working for? In a socialist system this situation never occurs, because the worker is an owner himself. He works for himself and for society (those who don't produce, elderly, children, doctors teachers etc). No money gets into the hands of a few owners.

And what choice is there? Do you think that the workers in the 19th century, when the market was freer (but the people less free), voluntarily worked more than 12h a day for dirt wages. Did they choose to work from 6 years to their deaths at about 16 years (that's the mean life expectancy 1840 in Manchester). Thanks to regulations and worker struggle, revolutions etc, people have it a lot better today. But the oppression is still the same. At best you're only free to pick your oppressor.

Your logic is flawed and has no examples, no data, and no reasons to work and make people happy.

No, your logic is flawed. I have found that most neo-liberals (so called libertarians) either have no clue about what they are talking about or they are naive and can't see the world as it is and never thought about the consequences. Then there's a small minority of neoliberals who would gain on it themselves, because they are members of the owning class themselves (completely rational behaviour - which I like). And finally there's a group of psychopats who don't care about if others starve or get ill. They share a lot in common with nazis.

My western country sends cell phones to 3rd world countries for free.

We gather them all up at supermarkets. I very much doubt we are the only ones to do it.

Charity? There's a difference between charity (that only does marginal difference) and a complete production apparatus aimed for the third world.

And as I said, the west takes natural resources like oil and diamonds, and gives trash back. So sure west might give something equivalent to 3 diamonds worth, it all gets highlighted in media and people feel proud, but it takes 10 back.

I don't think any country in the world has more workers that own their own companies than America. It's the largest free market economy in the world.

So how many workers own their own companies then? 15 people? 50%?

In every system, the people are the government.

I haven't seen any apart from early USSR and Cuba.

You can buy some medecines cheaper in Cuba, but you can't buy food cheapily.

Depends on what food. Most non-imported things are extremely cheap, but prices are often different (higher) for tourists. You can get a good meal for half a dollar.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Spokesperson are you hired or are you really that indoctrinated?

In many former "socialist" countries from the Warsaw Pact the command economy was an economy of scarcity.

What are you thinking why the people demonstrated, why they were taking this risk against the government and secret police?

What about the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and human dignity in socialist or communist countries? There are enough examples how such governments are blinding and scaring their own people.

If you can take a ticket and travel around the world - only be sure that you put down your red glasses before. Practical experience vs. theories ;)