Venezuela distributing wealth from rich to poor

[Stealth3 0]

Venezuela to seize golf courses

A golfer and caddy at Caracas Country Club

Venezuela's golf courses are seen as havens for the rich

The mayor of Venezuela's capital Caracas says he plans to expropriate two exclusive golf courses and use the land for homes for the city's poor.

Mayor Juan Barreto has said playing golf on lavish courses within sight of the city's slums is "shameful".

Mr Barreto, an ally of President Hugo Chavez, has been trying to address a dramatic housing shortage in Caracas.

But critics say property rights are being eroded in Venezuela, where farms and ranches have also been seized.

Three years ago Mr Chavez's left-wing government started redistributing agricultural land that it said was underused to help landless peasants.

But this is the first time officials have announced plans to expropriate privately-owned urban land to make way for public housing, says the BBC's Greg Morsbach in Caracas.

Affluent suburbs

Mr Barreto had ordered the "forced acquisition" of the golf courses, city attorney Juan Manuel Vadell told the Associated Press.

He said compensation would be paid, at a level decided by an appraisal commission.

The golf courses - the Country Club and Valle Arriba club - are in the city's most affluent suburbs, home to millionaires, foreign diplomats and celebrities, and are seen by some as a haven for the rich.

Venezuelan farm

Venezuela has seized "idle" farm land for redistribution

They are also in districts run by the opposition.

Mr Chavez has not yet said whether he supports the move.

But opposition city council member Carlos Ciordia called the plans "electoral demagoguery" by Mr Chavez, who is hoping for re-election in December.

Fernando Zozaya, president of the Caracas Country Club, said "this has created great concern" among his club's members.

But Mr Barreto said: "It's shameful to see people playing golf and just right there in front of them is a shantytown."

"We are following the policies laid out by President Chavez... to give a new social direction to the city, so the city can be enjoyed by everyone," he said in a television interview.

Mr Barreto has said 5,000 people could be housed in the space taken up by a single golf course.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297246.stm

I think its a good idea. Poor people shouldn't live in rat infested, boxed in buildings just because some millionares decided to built a golf course for their entertainment, taking all the space.

Entertainment for the rich shouldn't come as an expense for social living condition, no matter how rich the person is.

I wish more countries will do this. In the US, they are doing this by conserving space, and not allowing people to built anywhere.

But in most 3rd world countries, if you have the money you can buy whatever you want, and the hell with the consequences. I think that needs to change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297246.stm

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

well i think its a good move, if it was in a modernised western country , no.  but in a poor country, itleast he is trying to improve the lives of the working class often completely negelcted in countries with similar financial status

[EiZei 0]

No better way to scare the investors away than see the goverment seizing property everywhere.

[Supah 0]

No better way to scare the investors away than see the goverment seizing property everywhere.

No better way to scare investors away then tales of human rights abuses leading to consumer boycots. Nationalising companies is a bad idea but there have to be agreements made that also allow for money to flow to the local people who's living enviroment is often heavily changed by activities to extract minerals or oil.

Hugo Chavez is a lesser evil then Pinochet was. Succesive US administrations have encouraged, propped up and supported governments in southern america that were in their own best interests but were completely opposite to the interests of the people they governed over. The US is now seeing the fruits of decades of short sighted, undemocratic, unfair and egocentric foreign policy in southern america. When the venezuelan people elected Chavez to lead them there was a US backed coup to overthrow him. A US Navy hercules had allready arrived at the island he was held to take him out of the country. Luckily popular support causing the coup to fail stopped this. If you want to export democracy all over the world you are going to accept that the will of the people is not always to please the US interests but rather their own. You can not continue to fuck over other peoples governments and expect them to remain full of good will towards yourself.

[EiZei 0]

No better way to scare investors away then tales of human rights abuses leading to consumer boycots.

I think they amount of crap made in china proves that people and especially corporations just dont care.

Quote[/b] ]

Nationalising companies is a bad idea but there have to be agreements made that also allow for money to flow to the local people who's living enviroment is often heavily changed by activities to extract minerals or oil.

Certainly more reasonable than seizing assets left and right.

Quote[/b] ]

Hugo Chavez is a lesser evil then Pinochet was. Succesive US administrations have encouraged, propped up and supported  governments in southern america that were in their own best interests but were completely opposite to the interests of the people they governed over.

No disagreement there, I just think Chavez is going to screw his country's economy in the long run.

[JdB 151]

Quote[/b] ]

Hugo Chavez is a lesser evil then Pinochet was. Succesive US administrations have encouraged, propped up and supported governments in southern america that were in their own best interests but were completely opposite to the interests of the people they governed over.

No disagreement there, I just think Chavez is going to screw his country's economy in the long run.

Redistributing wealth, everyone being equal (except for the party bosses of courses), now where have I seen that before? USSR, Cuba to name a few.

Where hasn't it worked? USSR, Cuba

What are now some of the poorest "civilised" countries in the world? ....go figure.

Communism/socialism has proven to be more damaging to a country in the long run then most other ideologies. This whole idea of redistributing wealth is all nice, goverment control, oh yeah!

The problem in the long run is that no one with any sane mind will want to invest in a country where the goverment cracks down on anyone trying to make a buck, and the entire burdon of the economy has to be carried by the state itself. That may go well for 5 years, it may go well for 10 years, but sooner or later the economy is going to collapse: enter civilwar, genocide etc.

Large corporations don't give a sh*t about the people that they exploit, they want countries where they can manipulate the goverment, and have them working for them. Not some leftist extremists that go lynching everyone with aspirations and enterpreneurship (like in Zimbabwe, but without the "equal for all", but with the "equal for race"). As long as they can dump their toxic waste and get cheap (child)labor, then they are more then happy to unintentionally contribute in some way to the countries economy or infrastructure.

[EiZei 0]

Redistributing wealth, everyone being equal (except for the party bosses of courses), now where have I seen that before? USSR, Cuba to name a few.

Where hasn't it worked? USSR, Cuba

What are now some of the poorest "civilised" countries in the world? ....go figure.

Communism/socialism has proven to be more damaging to a country in the long run then most other ideologies. This whole idea of redistributing wealth is all nice, goverment control, oh yeah!

Of course other nations do redistribution of wealth, most first world nations have progressive taxation you know.

The major difference of course is that progressive taxation is predictable and adheres to the principles of rule of law as opposed to randomly seizing property.

[JdB 151]

The major difference of course is that progressive taxation is predictable and adheres to the principles of rule of law as opposed to randomly seizing property.

But how randomly is it really?

Any smart wannabe dictator like Chavez would take action against the people that worked against him in the elections first, and get them out of the way, and never near power again. I see this as just another consolidation of power in a South American country. South America is poor already, but when everyone with sufficient education and guts starts leaving the country, it will go down even further in the long run, when friends of the leader get jobs they are no where near qualified for.

Edit:typo

[Supah 0]

The major difference of course is that progressive taxation is predictable and adheres to the principles of rule of law as opposed to randomly seizing property.

But how randomly is it really?

Any smart wannabe dictator like Chavez would take action against the people that worked against him in the elections first, and get them out of the way, and never near power again. I see this as just another consolidation of power in a South American country. South America is poor already, but when everyone with sufficient education and guts starts leaving the country, it will go down even further in the long run, when friends of the leader get jobs they are no where near qualified for.

Edit:typo

Where on gods green earth do you get the idea Chavez is a dictator? He is a democratically elected President who almost was overthrown in a coup which his people thwarted. He will be subject to another electoral cycle soon. Chavez is not now nor has he ever been a dictator. Furthermore you claims of nepotisme are absurd. You think this only happens under left oriented regimes? Ofcourse not. Check out the Fidela regime. Think that was a big fat meritocracy?

Quote[/b] ]Large corporations don't give a sh*t about the people that they exploit, they want countries where they can manipulate the goverment, and have them working for them. Not some leftist extremists that go lynching everyone with aspirations and enterpreneurship (like in Zimbabwe, but without the "equal for all", but with the "equal for race"). As long as they can dump their toxic waste and get cheap (child)labor, then they are more then happy to unintentionally contribute in some way to the countries economy or infrastructure.

You have to be kidding or being sarcastic. You honestly think a spineless government that allows toxic waste dumping with all its detremental health issues it causes on the long run, Child labour is good because it benefits the happy few in the host countries and makes the already rich corporate fat cats even richer is better then a socialist government? Nobody is being lynched for entrepeneural aspirations in Venezuala. Robert Mugabe and Hugo Chavez are two very different people.

[denoir 0]

While Chavez at some levels indeed intends to reform the country to improve the living conditions of the poor, he also has some very strong populist tendencies. G

Giving the golf courses of the rich to the poor to grow food on is a typical populist policy: it sounds good in theory (isn't feeding a bunch of people more important than a few rich people having private golf courses?). It is however in fact very short sighted and damaging to the country in the long run. While defending property rights may not sound as exciting or righteous as defending the poor masses, it is in fact an extremely important issue.

Somebody mentioned foreign investors, and that's certainly true, but it goes deeper than that. To the best of our knowledge and experience from history, capitalism is the only way to sustain economic growth. And this relates not only to the current well-being of the population, but to the overall economic, social and technological development of the society as a whole.

To take an example from history, compare China to Europe. China had a stable political system and they invented stuff like printing, the compass and gunpowder centuries before the Europeans did. Yet it was Europe that conquered the world and whose population experienced an exponential growth in living standards. Why was that?

The answer is that in China the rigid political system and the extensive beuracracy had a firm policy that change was bad. You stayed in your social class -  climbing up in the world by making profit was not an option. In the politically instable and economically broken Europe after the dark ages, capitalism (and with it the bourgeois class) grew. You could climb the social ladder by making money - and this created an incentive for production and practical use of technology. The Chinese used the compass as a child's toy and gunpowder for fireworks. The Europeans built ships and cannons and conquered the world, ultimately in a hunt for profit. Now, it is not necessarily all good, but the elements needed for change and progress are there. Today America continues that tradition fairly close to the original (while Europe is still capitalist at the core many socialist policies have been adopted).

At the core of capitalism are property rights. If you don't have the guarantee that you'll consistently keep at least a part of what you have worked for, there is no incentive for change and progress. Why should you bother if there is a good chance that the state will take it away from you anyway?

Socialism is good in many ways, but as far as economics goes it is generally disastrous. It is a luxury that we can afford in the form of various social protections, but having it at the core of the system is ludicrous - and that's what Chavez is flirting with. If he wants a long-term prosperity for Venezuela, it is not the way to go.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]While Chavez at some levels indeed intends to reform the country to improve the living conditions of the poor, he also has some very strong populist tendencies. G

Chavez wants to please the audience he has and the people who are going to vote for him , what's the difference between getting big money from companies in order to make a huge electoral campain and making some populism to attract votes ?

Quote[/b] ]Giving the golf courses of the rich to the poor to grow food on is a typical populist policy: it sounds good in theory (isn't feeding a bunch of people more important than a few rich people having private golf courses?). It is however in fact very short sighted and damaging to the country in the long run. While defending property rights may not sound as exciting or righteous as defending the poor masses, it is in fact an extremely important issue.

rich people playing on golf courses can go , since a tiny minority enjoy their company.

Quote[/b] ]Somebody mentioned foreign investors, and that's certainly true, but it goes deeper than that. To the best of our knowledge and experience from history, capitalism is the only way to sustain economic growth. And this relates not only to the current well-being of the population, but to the overall economic, social and technological development of the society as a whole.

economic growth , purchasing power ,that's the only thing we hear about , are we going to produce every year even more , what will happen at the end ? are the ressources infinte ?

south american coutries have way enough good land to produce what they need and sell a part to the coutries that can't produce what they do , what is going to do saudi arabia when we will quit petrol , return to the desert or start making high tech stuff

what's the point of having a strong economy , many poeple can argue about Cuba , but since 1959 , the conditions for people has greatly improved , and are MUCH better for most of people than before ,you are thinking :

" god I wouldn't want to live in cuba , what a crappy country , they cook everyday in the same oil the same stuffs , and everything looks soo old "

but what would think a bunch of people that live on a pile of garbage every day, do you think because you walk in clean streets that you belong to some kind of superior political system.

you are totally obsessed with those " capitalism is the only way to do , that's the only thing wish works " that's BS , pure egoism

Think that your style of life is good not only because (enventually) you worked hard for it , but also because others worked "for you" , money is never coming from nowhere (like energy), if you make profit thanks to stock options or whatever it's called , you didn't work for this money , WHO DID THEN ?

OH and BTW remember the Orange revoltion in ukraine ,

READ THIS sorry in french

in english (for what it worth not so bad though)

Quote[/b] ] Fractured Mexico

A massive fraud. And indisputable. Mr. Jose Handbook Barroso, president of the European Commission admitted. The twenty-five Foreign Ministers of the European Union expressed their “serious concernâ€. “It is important that we transmit in way the clearest possible concern of the European Union and that of all the Member States on the result of the presidential electionâ€, declared the Minister Dutch for the Affairs Foreign.

Reporters without borders recalls that “this election intervenes after four years of a continuous degradation and without precedent of the press in the countryâ€.

In Washington, personalities like Misters Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski affirmed that the United States could not recognize the official results. The National Democratic Institute (NDI), chaired by Mrs. Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Freedom House, directed by Mr. James Woolsey, former owner of the CIA; American Undertaken Institute, impelled by the Gerald Ford former president; or Open Society Institute, controlled by Mr. George Soros, denounced “massive handling†and claim “economic sanctionsâ€.

The senator Richard Lugar, president of the commission of the Foreign Affairs of the Senate and envoy of president

George W. Bush, did not hesitate to speak openly, him also, of “fraudsâ€: “It is clear that there was a program vast and concerted frauds the day of the election, either under the direction of the authorities, or with their complicity. â€

You rub the eyes? You ask for yourselves how such declarations in connection with the recent presidential election Mexico could escape to you? you are right to be perplex. None the personalities or institutions quoted above denounced what has just occurred to Mexico. All the reported comments - authentic -, relate to the presidential election of November 23, 2004… in Ukraine .

The “international community†and usual “the organizations of defense of freedomsâ€, that one knew so active in Serbia, in Georgia, in Ukraine and still recently in Bielorussia, remain so to speak dumb in front of the “electoral coup d'etat†which is made under our eyes in Mexico . The planetary outcry is imagined if, on the other hand, this same election had proceeded, for example, in Venezuela and if the winner - by a difference thus from hardly 0,56% of the votes - had been… president Hugo Chávez. The Mexican poll of July 2 opposed two principal candidates: Mr. Felipe Calderón, of the Party of national action (SIDE, catholic right-hand side, with the capacity), declared victorious (provisional) of the poll by the electoral federal Institute (IFE), and Mr. Manual Andrés López Obrador, of the Party of the democratic revolution (PRD, moderate left). Well before the beginning of the countryside, it was clear for president Vicente Fox (SIDE) and the authorities with the capacity that Mr. López Obrador with his campaign against poverty was the candidate to be cut down. By all the means. Since 2004, an operation, containing clandestine videotapes obligingly diffused by the chains Televised and TV Azteca, acquired with the capacity, tried to discredit Mr. López Obrador. Vainly. The following year, under the eccentric pretext of non-observance of the legal standards of construction of an access road to a hospital, it was condemned, écroué, and deposed of the right to present itself at the election. Massive demonstrations of support ended up forcing the authorities to restore it in its rights. Since, the demolition contractor continued. And reached a delirious degree during the election campaign (3). More especially as a wind of panic blows on Latin-American oligarchies (and on the administration of the United States) since the left carries it everywhere (almost): in Venezuela, in Brazil, in Uruguay, in Argentina, in Chile, in Bolivia… And that new alliances do not exclude any more Cuba (4). In such a context, the victory of Mr. López Obrador (the electoral court will slice next on September 6) would have too important geopolitical consequences. Whose neither employers nor the great Mexican media want. Nor Washington. No price. Even if it means to sacrifice the democracy. But Mr. López Obrador and the Mexican people did not say their last word.

Ignacio Ramonet.

C'mon denoir you are a wise man , time to forget capitalism BS , I know it's hard to achieve , but this is the only way to go, you or your offspring will understand it soon or later .

P.S sorry for the rough english I certainly don't don't speak as well as some of you.

[echo1 0]

Redistributing wealth, everyone being equal (except for the party bosses of courses), now where have I seen that before? USSR, Cuba to name a few.

Where hasn't it worked? USSR, Cuba

What are now some of the poorest "civilised" countries in the world? ....go figure.

Communism/socialism has proven to be more damaging to a country in the long run then most other ideologies. This whole idea of redistributing wealth is all nice, goverment control, oh yeah!

The problem in the long run is that no one with any sane mind will want to invest in a country where the goverment cracks down on anyone trying to make a buck, and the entire burdon of the economy has to be carried by the state itself. That may go well for 5 years, it may go well for 10 years, but sooner or later the economy is going to collapse: enter civilwar, genocide etc.

Large corporations don't give a sh*t about the people that they exploit, they want countries where they can manipulate the goverment, and have them working for them. Not some leftist extremists that go lynching everyone with aspirations and enterpreneurship (like in Zimbabwe, but without the "equal for all", but with the "equal for race"). As long as they can dump their toxic waste and get cheap (child)labor, then they are more then happy to unintentionally contribute in some way to the countries economy or infrastructure.

Soviet Communism had nothing to do with benefitting people or spreading the wealth. Just because a country is communist doesnt meant that the leaders set out to spread the wealth around; I dont believe that the Soviet leaders ever made any serious effort to benefit the average working class man save a few half-arsed industrialization plans to give people jobs, but ultimately resulted in a horribly innefficient system.

As for Cuba, in comparison to many other south and central American states; the enjoy one of the best Health and Educational systems. The only reason their economy doesnt work is because the Americans f**k them over because they dont like the idea of a communist state suceeding in their locality. I dont agree with communism at all, but you cant say that communism has been an abysmal failure in Cuba.

As for Venezuala, yes, the Government should really try and solve the problems with their own people before they worry about Foreign investment. For a country that has a poverty rate of 47% with 15% of the population earning less than $1/day the government has a responsibility to look after them before they concern themselves with rich people buying out all the land and turning it into hotels or golf courses or whatnot. Once again, I dont believe in communism as a long term system of economy, but providing basic needs is much more important that allowing rich minorities or foreign investors to indulge in Capatilism at poor people's expense. Which is more important? Golf courses for a few, or housing and facilities for many?

If the government is paying compensation for the land they are taking, does it really count as communism? I dont think any land owners in any of the communist countries ever saw a penny for the land they lost

[Stealth3 0]

We need to look at some things here. Poperty rights vs living conditions. That what it looks like, but is it really?

In most 3rd world countries, people can aquire property through bribes and other things that they would never have in countries like the United States.

For example, in Romania if you have the money, and know how to bribe the right people, you can buy your own lake. Or your own forrest. Then you usually chopping the forrest into pieces, and in the long run you have a huge ecological disaster. But what do you care, you already have a few mansions in another country, you won't suffer. The people there will, and they are usually poor.

That my friend is based on true events that happen in Romania as we speak.

Now if the state would try to take things away, you will have a batlte where there is always "discrimination against private property". But is it really?

In the US, you enjoy having parks in every neighborhood, but thats because of certain laws. But in 3rd world countries, usually rich people buy the land, built restaurants and get richer. While your kids live in a boxed in neighborhood without an inch of green space.

Venezuala isn't the US, and thats why it shouldn't be runned like the US. In terms of economy and even social standards, Romania is doing way worst than it ever did during the communist era.

Back then if you did something illegal, no matter how much money you had, they would have taken you and you family and erase you off the face of the earth.

Now if you have money you can own the whole place and pretty much rule it like your own without caring of the consequences.

When the corruption is huge, to work things like in the US, will allow even more corruption.

You have to look at each individual country than try to compare it with the US.

Plus its not like the steal the gold courses. They will pay for them.

Even in the US, if the government finds a necessity to built something where your property is, they will pay you, demolish your property and built there. You can cry and argue all you want, but nothing will change.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Chavez wants to please the audience he has and the people who are going to vote for him , what's the difference between getting big money from companies in order to make a huge electoral campain and making some populism to attract votes ?

One is borderline corruption and the other is shortsighted stupidity. Ideally there should be neither.

Quote[/b] ]

rich people playing on golf courses can go , since a tiny minority enjoy their company.

I really do not see how that justifies seizing honestly acquired  private property assuming there is no major common good involved.

Quote[/b] ]

economic growth ,  purchasing power ,that's the only thing we hear about , are we going to produce every year even more , what will happen at the end ? are the ressources infinte ?

We will find new resources, recycle the old ones and invent new ways of making things as always.

Quote[/b] ]

what's the point of having a strong economy , many poeple can argue about Cuba , but since 1959 , the conditions for people has greatly improved , and are MUCH better for most of people than before ,you are thinking :

" god I wouldn't want to live in cuba , what a crappy country , they cook everyday in the same oil the same stuffs , and everything looks soo old "

but what would think a bunch of people that live on a pile of garbage every day, do you think because you walk in clean streets that you belong to some kind of superior political system.

Or maybe people do not like cuba because it is an authoritian state that does not tolerate dissent?

Quote[/b] ]

you are totally obsessed with those " capitalism is the only way to do , that's the only thing wish works " that's BS , pure egoism  

Unlike the alternatives, it has somehow worked for quite a time.

Quote[/b] ]

Even in the US, if the government finds a necessity to built something where your property is, they will pay you, demolish your property and built there. You can cry and argue all you want, but nothing will change.

If you are talking about eminent domain that thing is quite overreaching even by european standards.

Also I noticed this little interesting article a while back:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR....F91.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Winning Arab hearts and minds

Billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of hours of televised speeches and press conferences, extensive diplomatic efforts, political and military plans, years in Iraq, and much more.

None of this helped the US to achieve its president's announced goal of "winning the hearts and minds of the Arab people". Instead, George Bush seems to have lost the hearts and minds of many who had been supportive of US plans for the Middle East.

Someone else in the Americas seems to have the secret formula for achieving that goal; much more quickly and cheaply.

Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, found himself at the centre of Middle Eastern politics when he announced that he was withdrawing his most senior diplomat from Israel, the Venezuelan charge d'affaires in Tel Aviv. Not for something Israel did to his country, but for what it does to Palestinians and Lebanese thousands of miles away.

Chavez is certainly becoming popular among some circles.

[denoir 0]

Chavez wants to please the audience he has and the people who are going to vote for him , what's the difference between getting big money from companies in order to make a huge electoral campain and making some populism to attract votes ?

Nothing, both are short-term solutions, bad in the long runt. That being the point - it's not good.

Quote[/b] ]rich people playing on golf courses can go , since a tiny minority enjoy their company.

Yes, with the problem being that they are the captains of industry which employ people and generally finance the country. For a good historical comparison, take a look at  Stalin's elimination of the equivalent layer in the Soviet Union in the 1930's, and the disastrous consequences of that.

Quote[/b] ]economic growth ,  purchasing power ,that's the only thing we hear about , are we going to produce every year even more , what will happen at the end ? are the ressources infinte ?

The economy is central to maintaining and increasing the quality of life - something we humans have strived to do throughout history. It is certainly not the only thing of consequence - the environment, as you mention, is also important. But economic growth, or at least stability is central. Without it, you're screwed - and especially today where global trade is alpha and omega. Nobody is self-sustaining, so you have to import stuff, everything from food to computers. And if you can't pay for it, well, that's pretty bad for you.

Quote[/b] ] what is going to do saudi arabia when we will quit petrol , return to the desert or start making high tech stuff    

As Saudi Arabia et al are spending very little on infrastructure, my guess would be that they will go back to goat herding once the oil runs out.

Quote[/b] ]what's the point of having a strong economy , many poeple can argue about Cuba , but since 1959 , the conditions for people has greatly improved , and are MUCH better for most of people than before

..and Cuba is as interested in economic growth as anybody else. Sure the conditions have improved, but they have improved far less than in capitalist countries. For a communism->capitalism shift, just take a look at modern China and the massive progress they are making in a short time.

Quote[/b] ],you are thinking :

" god I wouldn't want to live in cuba , what a crappy country , they cook everyday in the same oil the same stuffs , and everything looks soo old "

but what would think a bunch of people that live on a pile of garbage every day, do you think because you walk in clean streets that you belong to some kind of superior political system.

Um, yes of course I do. We live longer, have far higher material standards, better communications, democracy, freedom of speech etc etc

The only reason why Cuba isn't as disastrous as say North Korea, is because they do have a market economy to a certain extent.

Quote[/b] ]

C'mon denoir you are a wise man , time to forget capitalism BS  , I know it's hard to achieve , but this is the only way to go,  you or your offspring will understand it soon or later   .

On the contrary, if anything can be shown from modern European history is that capitalism is far from dead and that many countries went to much socialist than they could pay for. Just take a look at the economic mess France is in today and compare it to the more capitalist UK. While the quality of life may have been temporarily better in France (more social protection, shorter work hours etc), they are now realizing that they have actually no way of paying for all that. Same thing in Germany - look at the much needed reforms that Merkel is currently doing. The socialist (social liberal) ideas may in theory be noble, but they are not feasible in the current world which is industry and service driven.

Perhaps one day when we have fully automated production and unlimited energy supplies, something else can work, but as things are now, you need cash, and capitalism is at least as far as we know today the only real way of fulfilling that need.

I'm not saying that capitalism is something beautiful, but it is something that works. And of course we can afford relatively high levels of social protection - I'm not saying that we should become like America - but the economic reality has shown that the current levels as they are in some EU states can't be maintained.

In Venezuela the situation is far more extreme where you have population that consists of a majority of uneducated peasants. If you make the industry owners and the foreign investors leave, do you really think these peasants are capable of maintaining, not to say further developing, an industrial nation? Without the clique of experts that are de-facto running the economy of the country, what chance does Venezuela have? In the future with improved local education and a social evolution they'll have many options, but hardly today. These things take time and the focus should be on long-term change of the social landscape rather than some short-term actions to appease the lower classes while risking the future of the country.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]take a look at Stalin's elimination of the equivalent layer in the Soviet Union in the 1930's, and the disastrous consequences of that.

never wondered how a country , pretty much leaving middel age , defeated one of the most advanced country in term of technology.

Stalin (trough millions of workers ) in 20 years transformed russia in a powerfull industrial nation , wish only several year after the american had the atomic bomb , and they did this with all the sabotages of the anti communists and the pressure from USA.

Quote[/b] ]The economy is central to maintaining and increasing the quality of life - something we humans have strived to do throughout history. It is certainly not the only thing of consequence - the environment, as you mention, is also important. But economic growth, or at least stability is central. Without it, you're screwed - and especially today where global trade is alpha and omega. Nobody is self-sustaining, so you have to import stuff, everything from food to computers. And if you can't pay for it, well, that's pretty bad for you.

sorry mate pretty bad for you , I didn't want decrease my lifestyle for you , you'll be dead anyway in 2 month , look at you , you don't have a nail to scratch your ass.

I wouldn't cry if I had no computers but food is a other problem and you right that's pretty bad for them , but if I understand correctly you don't care , in the name of progress and economical stability you are ready to sacrify entire nations , millions of people .

What's happening in africa and a bit averywhere is not enterily the fault of europe and US , but they certailny did a lot to make the situations as unstable as it is and didn't do much to improve the situation.

Quote[/b] ]..and Cuba is as interested in economic growth as anybody else. Sure the conditions have improved, but they have improved far less than in capitalist countries. For a communism->capitalism shift, just take a look at modern China and the massive progress they are making in a short time.

tell me about progress in china , everyone can do that , china has money only because their workers are under paid , that's the only reason , give me 10 years and 100 000 troops I 'll make the country of your choice the most competitive and advanced country in the world , in China most of people are working like cows , they are just using the principles of communism to make them feel they are equal , the way it's done in europe too in a softer way , a big illusion.

And Cuba ? what about cuba , of course they want economic growth like all poor countries , they live with nothing compared to us , our country don't need economical growth because our populations are pretty much stable and we are allready too rich.

cuba wish is also the big example of the communist total failure wherever it is , did you ever tried to find the advantages instead of trying to persuade yourself that this simply doesn't work.

Cuba has tons of things you won't find in much places

free medical care yes (totally)

drugs no

criminality not much

discriminality not much

cheap rhum yes

university free

take Cuba , cancel the embargo , encourage europ to make some buisness with them , and you will see what a communist country can do , and those aren't big "if" , and you know what this will probably never happen as long as Cuba is communist because capitalists coutries are too afraid to see it succeed , they are allready doing well in many area like biology , what would it be if they had help from other nations and a bit more money to buy equipment.

how would evolve sweden if suddenly I raise of 50% the import/ export taxes ? you would just go mad.

Quote[/b] ]Um, yes of course I do. We live longer, have far higher material standards, better communications, democracy, freedom of speech etc etc

have far higher material standards : like you said this is material , this does not bring happiness , consumption is the cancer of this planet , always buying things we don't need , is like hunting bizon for fun , indians disappearded because of this.

communications : with todays technology it isn't even a big investissement to connect everybody with mobile phone , fast communication is an induced need .

democracy : yeah we got a sort of democracy , situation is very different depending on what country , in Cuba I know they don't vote every 4 years for fidel castro , but they do have some sort of neigborhood commity , wish is a very participative little scale democracy.

each time I vote for me is like praying , I just don't espect nothing , I rather spend some time trying to convince you

freedom of speech saw my sig ? yes we have freedom of speech , but like I posted before , we are totally ininformed by huge media company , and entertained enough to not worry too much about politics.

and let's not forget too that a lot of desease appearded because of us , like lots of cancer , allergia , mad cow disease ,... I'm not sure life expectancy is much shorter in Cuba than in Sweden , however they don't have hospitals like yours .

Quote[/b] ]In Venezuela the situation is far more extreme where you have population that consists of a majority of uneducated peasants. If you make the industry owners and the foreign investors leave, do you really think these peasants are capable of maintaining, not to say further developing, an industrial nation? Without the clique of experts that are de-facto running the economy of the country, what chance does Venezuela have? In the future with improved local education and a social evolution they'll have many options, but hardly today. These things take time and the focus should be on long-term change of the social landscape rather than some short-term actions to appease the lower classes while risking the future of the country.

this is true but the contrary is too , many countries builded well workind industries or even service companies , and those were sold for nothing from governements that needed quick cash (see argentinian petrol ,...)

of course venezuela is in a crappy situation , but in several years they could gain enough experience to be able to run everithing without the help of other nations , as far as I know Chavez didn't nationalize much , he knows he is in a dangerous situation .

Quote[/b] ]Just take a look at the economic mess France is in today and compare it to the more capitalist UK

maybe we should take a walk in france and in GB , see what cost their pseudo better economy , let's have a look in Irak too.

as far as I know the very liberal reign of Thatcher isn't the golden period for most of brits .

That's really really strange your are saying this because where I live , people want us to take example on sweden , norway , Finland , and it seems that in Sweden they are showing Uk as a example , our transition to scandinavian system is only a first step to british and then US economy hhahahahah .

Quote[/b] ] The socialist (social liberal) ideas may in theory be noble, but they are not feasible in the current world which is industry and service driven.

If we were in 19th century I would be talking like you , and you would be talking like a bourgeois of the time , ideas evolve , you should too.

You know slavery was considered as a fair thing by people we would respect or even admire , but today nobody would not even dare to say that , if you look at history the evolution tends to make everybody more equal , I suppose capitalism is an other limitation we will break , in 10 ou 1000 years.

What's the big deal after all , your entire argumentation turns around the greatness BS , if you tell me : " For my own benefit and/or the greatness of my country I don't care what's happening in other countries or in the lower working classes of my region "

I'll say at least you are a frank person , ... this would stop a useless conversation , if you don't say so , it's time to face your contradictions.

[RedLion 0]

Hi Simba,

Denoir's post holds a substantial view into the current scenario of what Venezuela is. He gave you more than enough information for a greater view of what our capitalistic system is at the moment. We cannot dispute that this system is perfect but judging from History and from what is available at this very moment, I am glad there is Starbucks around the corner of my apt.

But in any case, what would you suggest to improve the livelihood of us humans on our planet, given our current economical portrait. Do you believe in a collective or an individualistic way of life? OR maybe both?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]..and Cuba is as interested in economic growth as anybody else. Sure the conditions have improved, but they have improved far less than in capitalist countries. For a communism->capitalism shift, just take a look at modern China and the massive progress they are making in a short time.

no, no and no.  You absolutly have to make a key distingtion here.  China isnt moving from a communist to a capitalist state.  Its opening its markets, whilst maitaining a strong closed government with total rule.  It is not switching at all, that just wouldnt work, and the economy would dramaticly fail.  A good example of that happening is with the collapse of the USSR.  Which wasnt to do anything with the USA, but was collapsed single handidly by Gorbochov.  He opened the markets and opened political freedom at the same time.  BIG mistake, and it made people say "why should i work for low pay, for a government i dont like? If i quit my job in protest then condition will get better, and my standard of living will increase", which lead to collapse of industry.  China however have been smart.  By letting in foreign investiors money is streaming in, whilst the workers are still thinking , "i work in this low paying job becuase i have to support my family, and if i object to the goverment i will end up in trouble, i better jut keep my head down and work hard, maybe i can increase my standard of living by working harder".

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]but if I understand correctly you don't care

I'm sure he cares, he just understands that if you want to distribute wealth, then you need an economy to generate some wealth. That is, after all, how European pseudo-socialism functions: The mostly capitalist economy pumps money into government coffers, and from those coffers it is distributed in a semi-socialist manner.

Quote[/b] ]did you ever tried to find the advantages instead of trying to persuade yourself that this simply doesn't work.

Er, a better question would be "Do you ever acknowledge that the Cuban system is dysfunctional at best, instead of trying to persuade yourself that a state that provides taxpayer-funded, crappy medical care must therefore be functioning well?"

Quote[/b] ]this is true but the contrary is too

Well, this is an interesting example of logic at work. "The couch is totally black, but it's totally white too!"

A country with little to no skilled labor cannot conjure up a functional industrial economy without either:

A. A sudden wave of well-educated immigrants.

B. A well-funded, smoothly operating educational system turning out qualified workers.

Venezuela has neither. Driving out businessmen who could invest in businesses is not a winning tactic for the country.

Quote[/b] ]I suppose capitalism is an other limitation we will break , in 10 ou 1000 years.

Capitalism will only lose its power when we can create individuals that don't have the basic instincts to gain power.

Quote[/b] ]let's have a look in Irak too.

Why? That's neoconservatism run amok, not bad capitalism.

Quote[/b] ]consumption is the cancer of this planet

What? If that's true, then every organic lifeform on the planet is a cancer. Everything consumes, and most lifeforms consume more than is essential for basic survival.

Quote[/b] ]always buying things we don't need

Guess what, you do the same thing. Unless you live naked in the jungle, living a pure hunter-gatherer lifestyle, you buy items that you don't need. Clothes, porn, booze, condoms, books, computers, cars, and soon-to-be-released copies of ArmA are all items that are completely unnecessary for life.

Quote[/b] ]is like hunting bizon for fun , indians disappearded because of this.

They did not "disappear" because wicked white men killed off their food source. They were driven off their land and onto reservations because of westward expansion, driven by American desire for land and backed up with racism. If you're going to talk about the cruel excesses of capitalism, then at least get your facts straight.

Quote[/b] ]If we were in 19th century I would be talking like you , and you would be talking like a bourgeois of the time , ideas evolve , you should too.

You should start listening to your own advice and start paying attention to evolving ideas. Marxism is a centuries-old, woefully outdated system based on an incredibly naive and inaccurate view of human nature.

Edit: If you're going to try to make an emotional argument against capitalism by showing pictures of a starving child, then I may as well make an emotion argument against Communism:

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]take a look at  Stalin's elimination of the equivalent layer in the Soviet Union in the 1930's, and the disastrous consequences of that.

never wondered how a country , pretty much leaving middel age , defeated one of the most advanced country in term of technology.

Stalin (trough millions of workers ) in 20 years transformed russia  in a powerfull industrial nation , wish only several year after the american had the atomic bomb , and they did this with all the sabotages of the anti communists and the pressure from USA.

Stalin accomplished that by using slave labour, starving millions and murdering tens of millions. Funny how you should preach about humanitarian issues while defending one of the worst killers in human history directly responsible for over 20,000,000 deaths. Stalin was only surpassed by another communist, Mao Tse-Tung, who through his "Great Leap" and "Cultural Revolution" was responsible for around 50,000,000 deaths,

How was the Soviet union industrialized? By starving to death 3,200,000 people between 1932-33 by confiscating all grain production to be burned as fuel in the steel industry. By 10,000,000 slave workers of which more than half died.

As for defending itself against Germany, it was no thanks to Stalin who had just before the war "purged" the military leaving it an empty shell. The reason why they prevailed in WW2 was because of the weather, the nearly unlimited supply of cannon fodder and because of Gregory Zhukov. Tens of millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians died needlessly because of the complete military incompetence of Stalin and his apparatchniks.

Quote[/b] ]really strange your are saying this because where I live , people want us to take example on sweden , norway , Finland , and it seems that in Sweden they are showing Uk as a example , our transition to scandinavian system is only a first step to british and then US economy hhahahahah

Those that idealize the Scandinavian system are out of touch with reality. The so called Swedish Model died in the early nineties after the inevitable economic collapse of the system. Their basic idea was to through high level of taxes maintain a high level of social protection. That sort of works when the economy is good, but does not work when the economy is in a weak phase. As a result every time they ran out of money, they borrowed it. Inevitably it resulted in a huge national debt and a run-away inflation. In the 80's the system was in really bad trouble and in the early 90's it completely collapsed. Unemployment went up to nearly 20% (from a state-driven policy of 0%) and interest rates were completely absurd. The whole economy crashed and the rest of the 90's was spent rebuilding the system to get a semi-stable currency and to be able to pay off the interest rates of the extreme debt. As a result today we have extremely high taxes and a weak social system by European standards.

If anything, the Swedish Model should be a cautionary tale of something that should be obvious to a 10-year old: social benefits cost money and that money must come from somewhere.

Funny how some people still have a 19th century view of capitalism and socialism. Try looking a bit at 20th century history and you won't be so disappointed when you realize how naive your suppositions are.

Quote[/b] ]

tell me about progress in china , everyone can do that , china has money only because their workers are under paid , that's the only reason , give me 10 years and 100 000 troops I 'll make the country of your choice the most competitive and advanced country in the world , in China most of people are working like cows , they are just using the principles of communism to make them feel they are equal , the way it's done in europe too in a softer way , a big illusion.

On the contrary, for the average Chinese the quality of life is improving very fast. You don't seem to realize that a free market economy that generates more money than any other known system helps everybody. More profits = higher wages = more tax income = strong social protection.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]..and Cuba is as interested in economic growth as anybody else. Sure the conditions have improved, but they have improved far less than in capitalist countries. For a communism->capitalism shift, just take a look at modern China and the massive progress they are making in a short time.

no, no and no.  You absolutly have to make a key distingtion here.  China isnt moving from a communist to a capitalist state.  Its opening its markets, whilst maitaining a strong closed government with total rule.  It is not switching at all, that just wouldnt work, and the economy would dramaticly fail.  A good example of that happening is with the collapse of the USSR.  Which wasnt to do anything with the USA, but was collapsed single handidly by Gorbochov.  He opened the markets and opened political freedom at the same time.  BIG mistake, and it made people say "why should i work for low pay, for a government i dont like? If i quit my job in protest then condition will get better, and my standard of living will increase", which lead to collapse of industry.  China however have been smart.  By letting in foreign investiors money is streaming in, whilst the workers are still thinking , "i work in this low paying job becuase i have to support my family, and if i object to the goverment i will end up in trouble, i better jut keep my head down and work hard, maybe i can increase my standard of living by working harder".

You are confusing capitalism with democracy. Capitalism is nothing more or less than free market economy. There's no problem maintaining capitalism in a dictatorship and as the Chinese have demonstrated you can do it within the realms of Marxism-Leninism as well.

As Deng Xiaoping said when they in the mid 80's started the conversion into what they call "socialist market economy":

"One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism"

With those reforms, free enterprise was encouraged and subsequently a standard free market economy was established. Since then their economy has been growing exponentially.

As things are today, China is more capitalist than the EU as the markets are more free in terms of external restrictions. They don't have the environmental laws or worker protection laws that we do. Ultimately they will have to find a balance there, but right now they are too busy improving their general material well-being to care about much else.

[ran 0]

*scratches his head and grunts*

Hmmm yeah ... I didn't get more than 20% of the discussion

That's me being old and illiterate.

Nothing to contribute here really, just wanted to say that it's nice to see a civilised yet enriching discussion here coming out of a controversial subject, changes from the Middle East thread. Thanks for coming back Denoir btw.

To add a bit to the discussion now ...

Someone mentionned Romania earlier as a 3rd world country, I'd tend to disagree there, might be geographical bias as it's close to us but it's developping lately it seems, isn't it and shall enter the European Union next, am I wrong ?

As for France, can't really judge as I'm in a pretty priviledged position. Everything would be made simpler would union leaders see a bit farther than the tip of their nose. The old "those are the rights we earned with our blood" argument doesn't fly too well in my ears as we're not in the 30's anymore and times have changed drastically. The french work code and working rights should be heavily simplified as it's all a real hinderance to progress, I mean we have 11 and more work contracts types (the french work code in its physical book form is around 2500 pages long and is in its 68th edition for god's sake).

This should be done while keeping our "basic" (in the french sense of the term) aquired rights. People around here are looking for peace and safety in their worklife but they have a hard time computing the fact that you can't work in the same trade all your life anymore and nothing can help that.

I don't want to see a complete deregulation though as some of those things are part of our culture, but a little cleaning of that mess wouldn't hurt along with some people opening their eyes to what's around them.

(and the solution to healthcare problems would be to turn up the heaters in retirement houses in july and august for a couple of years, but that's just me j/k)

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Someone mentionned Romania earlier as a 3rd world country, I'd tend to disagree there, might be geographical bias as it's close to us but it's developping lately it seems, isn't it and shall enter the European Union next, am I wrong ?

Romania is anything but a third world country,the poster who is Romanian himself created confusion by using the term in the same sentence.And yes we are well on our way to admission in UE having covered every aspect required.

[vektorboson 8]

I'm still pretty undecided about Chavez; I really liked how he called Bush a donkey and "Mr. Danger".

But in the other case I don't liked the redrawal of the diplomat in Israel.

Nevertheless, there's a reason, why the South American countries are going to the Left: The foreign investors and the Elite in this countries have destroyed the landscape and taken their profits to the US.

The inhabitants of Venezuela and Bolivia didn't see anything of the money, that was made with their natural resources. Instead they were left with a ecologic mess.

So, turbo-capitalism has only destroyed those countries; now those people are turning against US-style capitalism and elected people like Chavez.

Now, since Chavez is in command, the economy is growing, and the poor people will now see something from the profits which are kept in Venezuela.

No wonder, the US supported (or initiated?) the coup d'etat of the anti-democratic opposition against Chavez, who was elected by the people (yay for democracy...).

As for Cuba: How should their economy work, when there is an embargo for no reason?

But it's clear that the US prefers to support far-right despotic countries than commies...

EDIT:

Here's an interview with Evo Morales:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache....00.html

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]But in any case, what would you suggest to improve the livelihood of us humans on our planet, given our current economical portrait. Do you believe in a collective or an individualistic way of life? OR maybe both?

Hi RedLion ,yes I believe we can improve the of humanity , the thing is that everybody wants to make max of profit in this scenario , most of people on this planet will allways be fucked.

I think I see things in a different way than most of people , i'm no programmer but this seems to be a good example :

you are a programmer , you noticed that your program isn't working properly , you got 2 choices , improve the old one or start a brand new one , everyone will agree to say that making a new one will lead to something better , but it is gonna take more time .

We can try to improve to death our economical system , with a huge amount a lawlets , that try to protect at the same time the investissors and the workers .

Now let's take some distance , we can produce more for our country than we can use , there is a huge amount of total waste , only because of our means of production.

Look at the medical industry , they can produce drugs at a price you wouldn't even dream of (except if you live in NZ or similar where the gov manage to get the lowest prices) , however they are still selling these drugs at very high price to third world countries because otherwise everybody would notice how deep they f...k us.

I believe in a strong governement ,that tells the industries what the country needs and not the contrary.

I believe in a very particaipative democraty , where everyone is almost forced to participate and everyone is as well informed as possible.

I believe huge technological progresses may be hidden to us for obvious energetical reasons.

I believe capitalism is only serving the intersts of a few , those who reign , who can you believe in a system where the knowledge can be private , and sometimes hidden to serve other people interests.

let's say I'm a biologist , I discover a vaccine that can cure aids , I'm working in the company that is also producing the tri therapy drugs and all , I tell my boss about my discovery , If they are just a little badly disposed and on the papers it is said that they are going to lose money because of my new drug , what ensure me that it is going to be made public ?

Hi sertorius ,

Quote[/b] ]Er, a better question would be "Do you ever acknowledge that the Cuban system is dysfunctional at best, instead of trying to persuade yourself that a state that provides taxpayer-funded, crappy medical care must therefore be functioning well?"

first I said that to Denoir , because we hear a lot of bad points about Cuba , your ideas about Cuba are mainstream , I know your points i've thought about them , I agree with some of them but certainly not all .

I listed several reasons why cuba has difficulties , but you wouldn't talk about that , can I remind you that Cuba is probably one of the most succesfull south american country , they have good medical care , they are sending doctors in other parts of the world and this despite the fact that they don't even have stethoscopes for all of them , if in your country you were in desperate need of help , I can tell you that Cuba would help you but your country isn't helping them much I suppose...

venezuela offered cheap petrol/gaz to american poor people to help them during winter , Cuba proposed to help americans after the last Tornado in Louisana ,...

you should show some respect my friend towards the poor that share compared to the reach that always want more.

Quote[/b] ]Well, this is an interesting example of logic at work. "The couch is totally black, but it's totally white too!"

A country with little to no skilled labor cannot conjure up a functional industrial economy without either:

A. A sudden wave of well-educated immigrants.

B. A well-funded, smoothly operating educational system turning out qualified workers.

Venezuela has neither. Driving out businessmen who could invest in businesses is not a winning tactic for the country

so , I suppose the investissors brings all the workers with them when they come in a country , they are not building a fusion powerplant , we are talking about is petrol , mining and textiles don't you thing that in 10 years they could gain enough experience to do it themself , and they aren't starting from the zero.

Quote[/b] ]Capitalism will only lose its power when we can create individuals that don't have the basic instincts to gain power.

Let's say human is obssessed with gaining power , but I must say I'm doubtfull because the gaining power obession probably comes a lot from our huge social differences and our very success orientated society , but let's say...

you know power isn't especially money , you could gain power in URSS too , be a project manager , politician , even be richer than others , but 2 or 3 times more than the basic salary , not 1000.

Quote[/b] ]Why? That's neoconservatism run amok, not bad capitalism.

of course it is , this is for petrol right ?

Quote[/b] ]What? If that's true, then every organic lifeform on the planet is a cancer. Everything consumes, and most lifeforms consume more than is essential for basic survival.

that's easy mate , we understand both what I ment .

List me what you buy in one year , and let's talk about " basic survival " .

Quote[/b] ]Guess what, you do the same thing. Unless you live naked in the jungle, living a pure hunter-gatherer lifestyle, you buy items that you don't need. Clothes, porn, booze, condoms, books, computers, cars, and soon-to-be-released copies of ArmA are all items that are completely unnecessary for life.

I'm saint simba , I eat roots and peas all the time and only travel by foot, and I stink so much that women can't stand my company.

so you are really convinced pretty much everything you buy , you need it ?

Quote[/b] ]You should start listening to your own advice and start paying attention to evolving ideas. Marxism is a centuries-old, woefully outdated system based on an incredibly naive and inaccurate view of human nature.

First I would be very curious to see how much you know about marxism , and BTW marxism is born as a consequence of industrial revolution so saying it's old is a bit silly , considering capitalism is even much older .

Quote[/b] ]If you're going to try to make an emotional argument against capitalism by showing pictures of a starving child, then I may as well make an emotion argument against Communism:

I do see skulls on your pic , where is it from ? white house collection of leftists leaders killed , on the right Lumumba , then che guevarra,...

I was expecting a reaction on this ,the reason why I posted the picture was that we rarely see such misery , it is hard to judge something when it is so far from your eyes , watch right in the eyes of this child and tell him we can't do anything for him !

you know comunism isn't Mao , Stalin or Lenin

like capitalism isn't Hitler , Mussolini , Franco

If you wanna start counting the bodies , let's do it .

hi denoir ,

Quote[/b] ]Stalin accomplished that by using slave labour, starving millions and murdering tens of millions. Funny how you should preach about humanitarian issues while defending one of the worst killers in human history directly responsible for over 20,000,000 deaths. Stalin was only surpassed by another communist, Mao Tse-Tung, who through his "Great Leap" and "Cultural Revolution" was responsible for around 50,000,000 deaths,

I won't defend Stalin and even less Mao , they were paranoid people, megalomaniacs and plain dictators.

when communists took power in Russia , it was aextremely critical situation , WWI was ending , they had to organise everything , later germany was threatening , the only goal was to protect the new regime and they did it the hard way.

Same for the officers purge , what would happen in the middle of a war with traitors everywhere.

i'm not saying you are wrong , but this must be taken into consideration too.

Quote[/b] ]If anything, the Swedish Model should be a cautionary tale of something that should be obvious to a 10-year old: social benefits cost money and that money must come from somewhere.

Funny how some people still have a 19th century view of capitalism and socialism. Try looking a bit at 20th century history and you won't be so disappointed when you realize how naive your suppositions are.

Your current political system is the one I'm talking about , and my country isn't from the last rain either ( to translate a french expression).

Social system does cost a lot of money , and I'm not thinking about capitalism like in 19th .

look , the money goes for the biggest part where ? why is it so expensive ?

medical care : medical care is a basic right , with a basic salary you can't hardly pay for important diseases like surgery ,long term treatment,...medicare is expensive but there are a lot of ways to reduce the bill.

IN OUR SYSTEM !!!!

1° the drugs price is determined by making the companies enter in competition until the lowest price is reached (appel d'offre).

pharmaceutical corporations are as present in our gov than boing in US gov , their goal is obviously not to lower the prices .

2° no more crappy food , no hormones , no pesticide , no animal flour for cattle , no advertising for tobacco or alcohol , less pollution ,less stress from work ,...

3° no systematic use of drugs to cure , doctors are much more stimulated than you think to treat you with drugs that you don't need , there even are situations where the country is paying for new drugs that are less efficient than the previous version.

4° everyone can screw his body if he likes , but proper information is very important too , and must be present not only in sporadic campaign but also in the way advertising is done , a little in the way children are protected against aggresive advertising using their weaknesses.

welfare/unemployment: in communist country there is no unemployment , but I don't want such system ,neither do you and it isn't necessary.

1° you must know that unemployment is a necessary harm for some employers , because workers feel threatened to lose their job , so the boss can lower the salary easily .

if there was no unemployment , the worker would be like a rare merchandise , his price would quickly raise because everybody would need them.

you must understand that all workers are a merchandise , nothing else , they sell their time for a price , so if you like the merchandise is the time of the worker and not the worker himself.

to be more practical , I think we are screwed anyway with globalistion , because there will always be parts of the world where people can do everthings for a fraction of your salary , or even people coming in your country to take your job ( see polish workers ) , but since I consider that a polish deserve as much as me to have a decent life I'm in away happy for him , but I'm totally against exploiting people on the other side of the globe.

2° The industrial means of production fit very well to the production of high tech stuff , or large quantities(steel ,...).

But we totally left behind craft industry , wish was very rewarding for the worker since he was making something from the piece of wood to the furniture .

this is no economical miracle , but things that use to keep a worker busy for 1 hour , would take several days to be done , in much better quality (it is going to last so you don't have to buy a new one each year IKEA anyone ?)

3° There should also be a rebirth of the countryside , no more huge farms producing tons of meat a day , but smaller farms where animals would be raised and killed properly , this would also greatly improve the quality of our food , and with new technology farmers life can be less hard than it use to be .

This is just something I've been thinking about lately , so please give your opinion , we have no goal , no motivations, no global projects making our country enter in common dynamic , I don't know where are your millions russian dead slave coming from , this is maybe true I don't wanna argue about it , but Russia was at the time in a very powerfull dynamic of progress.

Africa is today in a horrible situation ,they have what we don't cheap manpower , ressources , ...

but we have technology , advanced medecine ,...

could'nt each country of europ establish strong partnership with one african (asian,..) country , we would devellop these regions and they would bring us a lot too ?

I must say a last thing Denoir , you seem to avoid many of my arguments , while I try to answer your hardest arguments and never try to escape , it is easy to comment on 10% of the others speach , while you don't answer direct questions.

regards , simba.