Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Stealth3

Venezuela distributing wealth from rich to poor

Recommended Posts

Quote[/b] ]I believe in a strong governement ,that tells the industries what the country needs and not the contrary.

Even in the most capitalist countries, industries don't tell countries what they need, they just provide countries with items that the people want. People buy items because they want those items, not because they're told to purchase them.

Quote[/b] ]I do see skulls on your pic , where is it from

Communist purges in Cambodia.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know where are your millions russian dead slave coming from

A basic high school history class, I'd assume.

Quote[/b] ]you know comunism isn't Mao , Stalin or Lenin

This is where theory and reality collide violently. Socialism/Communism both depend on a tremendously powerful central authority to change the system. The naive assumption is that this almost all-powerful central authority will step aside once a stable state is achieved. In practice, of course, the kind of iron-willed, power-obsessed people who aspire to positions of such power are never willing to give that power up. In theory, men like Stalin and Mao would never be at the head of a Communist government. In reality, ruthless men like them naturally bubble to the surface and land in positions of central authority. As usual, human nature puts a major crimp in idealistic political theory.

Quote[/b] ]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

No, humans aspire to gain items/power because of basic, hardwired instincts. Humans want food, shelter, and sex, and it is in their basic biological programming to get as much of these things as possible, through whatever means necessary. Power gets people food, it gets them shelter, and it gets them sex. Therefore, people will seek power, whether it is financial, politicial, aesthetic, or in some other form.

Quote[/b] ]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.

How is this an improvement? Bill Gates may be millions of times richer than me, but he can't get one of his Party friends to throw me in a gulag if he doesn't like me. The USSR probably had around the same power differences as the US did at the time, the power was just in different forms.

Quote[/b] ]List me what you buy in one year , and let's talk about " basic survival " .

Why? I wasn't the one claiming that consumption is a "cancer", so why should I be held up to some ridiculous notion of moral purity through minimal spending?

Quote[/b] ]so you are really convinced pretty much everything you buy , you need it ?

Now you're just making up arguments and putting them in my mouth. I never claimed that I need what I buy, but then again I wasn't the one claiming that consumption was cancerous. You on the other hand, claimed that consumption was cancerous, so you should have a clean life free of all unnecessary consumption. Either that, or you're extremely hypocritical.

Quote[/b] ]of course it is , this is for petrol right ?

No, it's because neoconservatives believe that the way to eliminate negative feelings towards America is to invade and replace governments with democracies. Odd in theory, and definitely not all that effective in practice.

Quote[/b] ]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 think it's an understatement to say that sentiments like this border on imperialism.

Quote[/b] ]you should show some respect my friend towards the poor that share compared to the reach that always want more.

Last time I checked, the US and Europe donate many billions of dollars every year through state-run foreign aid and private charities.

Quote[/b] ]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

It requires a great deal of technology and experience to produce those items with enough quantity and quality to compete on the world market. You can't just set up an oil well and start selling oil, you need to have equipment that can pull up that oil just as quickly and cheaply as your competitors in other nations. To afford that equipment, you need someone to invest a great deal of money.

Quote[/b] ]Same for the officers purge , what would happen in the middle of a war with traitors everywhere.

Are you actually defending Stalin's purges? That would imply an almost staggering level of historical ignorance. He wasn't killing traitors, he was replacing the command structure with idiotic yes-men.

Quote[/b] ]medical care : medical care is a basic right

Since when? Sure, it's nice to not have to worry about your own health care, but that doesn't make free advanced procedures a "right". I'm even going to go into the sheer economic ridiculousness of "guaranteeing" advanced care. Just for starters, it would cost around $2,000,000,000,000,000 to guarantee everyone on the planet a heart transplant. Last time I checked, nobody has the budget to pay for multi-quadrillion dollar programs.

Quote[/b] ]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 ,...

You're right, people will be too busy trying to keep their crops from dying and their animals from starving to worry about their jobs.

Quote[/b] ]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 ?)

You know, most hand-crafter goods are much more expensive/rare than mass produced items. Downgrading to a craft-based economy would make items that we consider necessities become rare luxuries. If medicine was produced individually by Amazonian medicine men, toilet paper was hand-woven, and clothes were hand made, then we'd have a world with very little medicine, no toilet paper, and a few semi-clothed people. Ah, the march of progress...

Quote[/b] ]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 .

Well, the sudden drop in food production would probably cause an itty-bitty little famine and maybe a few billion deaths through starvation. Nope, no problem here, moving along...

By the way, I've worked on a farm, and modern technology has not made the work a joyful, liberating experience. It is still hard, hot, and boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Do you anything about what happened in Cambodia and China? This cute little idea is probably responsible for more deaths than any other in modern human history.

And yeah, using human labour for something that can be done more efficiently with technology is a pretty shitty idea too, it was one of those things that ensured that Soviet Union fell behind in technology compared to the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communism is once again about to shoot itself in its shoeless foot. I was born in 1988, so I couldn't have known much, if anything about the mistakes it made untill the USSR fell from grace. This time, however, I will be sitting here, watching a failed ideology fail again under the supervision of an anti-Semitic tyrant, whose name is Chavez. Hugo Chavez. Let the shooting begin, Mr Chavez! thumbs-up.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply need a balance between socialism and capitalism. That's the formula of a consistent whealthy state. However during hard times, you need to constantly adjust the balance to maintain it over a long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Communism is once again about to shoot itself in its shoeless foot. I was born in 1988, so I couldn't have known much, if anything about the mistakes it made untill the USSR fell from grace. This time, however, I will be sitting here, watching a failed ideology fail again under the supervision of an anti-Semitic tyrant, whose name is Chavez. Hugo Chavez. Let the shooting begin, Mr Chavez!  thumbs-up.gif

im 100% sure that more people in the world would rather see George Bush shot for his crimes against humanity than Chavez shot for nothing more than americans dont like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]im 100% sure that more people in the world would rather see George Bush shot for his crimes against humanity than Chavez shot for nothing more than americans dont like him.

Er, that's completely irrelevant in a thread about Venezuelan politics. It doesn't matter if that's true, as the discussion was about Chavez's politics, not his moral position next to George Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]im 100% sure that more people in the world would rather see George Bush shot for his crimes against humanity than Chavez shot for nothing more than americans dont like him.

Er, that's completely irrelevant in a thread about Venezuelan politics. It doesn't matter if that's true, as the discussion was about Chavez's politics, not his moral position next to George Bush.

right, and the only reason we talk about there policies is becuase of the fuss geroge bush brings up about them. I dont see anyone here discussing policies of Uganda or Zimbawa which are far worse than Venuzala.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]right, and the only reason we talk about there policies is becuase of the fuss geroge bush brings up about them.

No, we were talking about them because Chavez appears to be leading his country into an economic pit. It would still be an interesting matter if Bush ignored the country totally.

Quote[/b] ]I dont see anyone here discussing policies of Uganda or Zimbawa which are far worse than Venuzala.

Well, you'll notice that "Venezuela" is in the title of the thread. That might (I think) imply that the subject of the thread has something to do with Venezuela. Since Uganda (genocide) and Zimbabwe (authoritarian capitalism) aren't carrying out similar policies, I don't see why they'd be mentioned in this thread. Start a new thread about one of them if you're itching to talk about those problems.

Edit - As far as I know, discussion in this thread has mostly been about Chavez's apparent desire to turn Venezuela into a socialist state, and the reasons why that change could be good or bad. But since, to my knowledge, Uganda and Zimbabwe aren't ruled by men who want to make them socialist states, I don't see why they'd be discussed in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think the ttiming of this thread is linked to the fact that

Quote[/b] ]The China Development Bank is finalizing details for $10-million (U.S.) in credits to build housing in Venezuela, Gao Jian, the bank's vice-governor, said yesterday during a visit to Caracas.

Speaking on President Hugo Chavez's weekly television program, Mr. Gao said a preliminary agreement on the financing with the Venezuelan finance ministry could be finalized by Sept. 20.

Mr. Chavez cheered the visit as building "a firm strategic China-Venezuela foundation for boosting a series of very important projects."

Late last month, after a meeting in Beijing, Mr. Chavez pledged that Venezuela would dramatically increase oil exports to China. He also said China would invest over $2-billion in Venezuela's oil and petrochemical industry in the coming years and $9-billion in a rail line.

The fact is china is a big player and the U.S dont like it , its got nothing to do with venezuela. People simply dont like the fact that china is a superpower and it just sealed a deal for its future energy source and never dropped a single bomb smile_o.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think the ttiming of this thread is linked to the fact that
Quote[/b] ]The China Development Bank is finalizing details for $10-million (U.S.) in credits to build housing in Venezuela, Gao Jian, the bank's vice-governor, said yesterday during a visit to Caracas.

Speaking on President Hugo Chavez's weekly television program, Mr. Gao said a preliminary agreement on the financing with the Venezuelan finance ministry could be finalized by Sept. 20.

Mr. Chavez cheered the visit as building "a firm strategic China-Venezuela foundation for boosting a series of very important projects."

Late last month, after a meeting in Beijing, Mr. Chavez pledged that Venezuela would dramatically increase oil exports to China. He also said China would invest over $2-billion in Venezuela's oil and petrochemical industry in the coming years and $9-billion in a rail line.

The fact is china is a big player and the U.S dont like it , its got nothing to do with venezuela. People simply dont like the fact that china is a superpower and it just sealed a deal for its future energy source and never dropped a single bomb smile_o.gif.

Interesting. I wonder whether the China-Venezuela relationship will resemble, say, the old USSR-Cuba relationship. There's definitely more than a whiff of a "big brother" to "little brother" relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Chavez appears to be leading his country into an economic pit

In theory, but in reality the majority of people in Venezuala disagree. In fact they are doing better than they did before.

And thats all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Chavez appears to be leading his country into an economic pit

In theory, but in reality the majority of people in Venezuala disagree. In fact they are doing better than they did before.

And thats all that matters.

Well, I'm not proposing that Venezuela's government be changed, but we can still debate whether Chavez's changes will be good in the long term.

I don't doubt that Chavez's policies are popular and have some short-term benefits. One question is whether Venezuela's economy has the power to sustain Chavez's programs over the long term, or whether it will implode under their weight. It's easy for a government to hand out money, but the economy must keep up with the bill or the system will fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well its got massive oil reserves, i think that anwsers that questsion. Any money with oil reserverves is going to do well, especially with the rising prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well its got massive oil reserves, i think that anwsers that questsion.  Any money with oil reserverves is going to do well, especially with the rising prices.

But venezuela's oil is also pretty expensive to extract compared to.. say middle-eastern oil, their national oil company has been going downhill since Chavez took over as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Actually capitalism isn't even free market; fascism is a heavily regulated market but it's still capitalism. Capitalism is merely the private ownership of the means of production, no more no less. It's interesting that many communists of the anarchist or libertarian variety (like myself) believe that all the socialist states (these never even claimed to be communist btw cos communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society; socialism is supposedly the transitionary state, but...) would actually be better defined as state-capitalist as being state owned is still private ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Do you anything about what happened in Cambodia and China? This cute little idea is probably responsible for more deaths than any other in modern human history.

And yeah, using human labour for something that can be done more efficiently with technology is a pretty shitty idea too, it was one of those things that ensured that Soviet Union fell behind in technology compared to the west.

Sorry but I get really annoyed when people criticise communism by talking about China and Cambodia. I've read a lot of communist and anarchist theory recently, and I'm also moving to China in febuary and I'm doing a degree in Chinese studies so, I can talk about this in some detail and I really mean no offense but reading your post my reaction was.... banghead.gif

(although you are right about it's bad to use human labour instead of technology; but the trouble is technology cannot be used properly under capitalism, we should use GM foods and hydroponics to create an enormous surplus but as long as production is privately owned by an elite who need profit we would never really get the benefits as we'd still pay high prices due to capitalist need for profit, but this is tangential...)

I've just recently been talking about this in another forum actually, and I'm lazy so I'm going to copy/paste what I said in a topic on a leftist forum asking communists "Why will the next revolution be different?"

Quote[/b] ]I think if the Communist Manifesto had never been written, we would actually be pretty likely to be genuinely socialist or communist by now. The communist movements were all in third world countries and the aim was often anti-Imperialist more than revolutionary but the popularity of progressive ideals that were imported from the west meant that communism became an ideal mixed in with liberation from the west; it is also interesting to note that before trying to emulate the Russian revolution China had tried in 1905 with the Wuchang Uprising to emulate the French revolution; the consequences were disastrous mostly because the rural population was still too large for a market system to work and there wasn't the industry to really trade much commodities; as a consequence warlords began to rule various provinces and a brutal dictatorship under Chiang Kai Shek came about before being defeated by Communist rebels under Mao.

But communism failed in China for much the same reason; there was a severe lack of industry other than farming which meant that no worker's institutions that could create a completely democratic and temporary working class vanguard had been set up. In communist jargon that means that there was no class consciousness; in short it was a conventional rebellion with confused revolutionary ideas thrown in, but prior to the necassary conditions that were beginning to exist in the west. This means that an entity seperate to the workers had to be in charge of government, which could only be the state and could only lead to the creation of a seperate and priveledged bureaucratic class.

As I said about the Communist Manifesto being a historical liability to communists, the ideas within were adopted prematurely in countries that were unstable due to imperialism or other factors making it highly discredited.

Hope this has answered your question adequately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No better way to scare the investors away than see the goverment seizing property everywhere.

Chavez's success is very important to the future of the world and it depends not on his building socialism but on him succeeding in building a Latin American trade block independant from NAFTA precisely so he won't need to worry about millionaire investors in USA and Europe.

There is something very wrong with the world when the countries that produce everything are the poorest while the countries where everyone is employed in pointless service jobs where nothing is actually produced are the richest based entirely on their having lots of pieces of paper that entitle them to own production in places like South America.

If South America can make itself not socialist but independant of foreign investors (why should something so abstract as capital allow western capitalists to control the globe when they don't actually have anything physical to give?) then it would be the start of a more equitable and developed world.

Also, as a western communist an end to exploitation of the third world is very good for me as it means industry will return to my country, which gives my class some leverage and power again. wink_o.gif

I am an ardent anti-state anarchist but people like Chavez are needed to create revolutionary potential in the west, however much I don't care for the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]As I said about the Communist Manifesto being a historical liability to communists, the ideas within were adopted prematurely in countries that were unstable due to imperialism or other factors making it highly discredited.

The Communist Manifesto wasn't just "implemented incorrectly", it has deep internal flaws that can't be glossed over. Socialism requires a huge government in order to be implemented, and there is an enormous amount of historical evidence concerning what happens when a government is given that much power. If you don't want to look at recent attempts at socialism, you could perhaps look at the example of Rome. Rome wasn't socialist, but it's an excellent example of the consequences of power. It offered men enormous power, and look at the men who were attracted by that power. For every man who served the Roman people loyally, there was one nutcase, one politically-capable-but-militarily-incompetant man, and, of course, one who took his army and marched on Rome.

My point is that any system that offers people huge amounts of consolidated power is going to draw out some of the ugliest examples of humanity. In order to reach Communism (By definition an unreachable goal, as one cannot build a classless society out of aggressive, strongly tribal animals) an all-powerful socialist state must be constructed, and such power will eventually attract the vicious, the evil, and the power-mad.

Edit: One of my favorite Abraham Lincoln excerpts. It's far more eloquent than I'd ever be:

Quote[/b] ]It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would inspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon?--Never! Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.--It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]As I said about the Communist Manifesto being a historical liability to communists, the ideas within were adopted prematurely in countries that were unstable due to imperialism or other factors making it highly discredited.

The Communist Manifesto wasn't just "implemented incorrectly", it has deep internal flaws that can't be glossed over. Socialism requires a huge government in order to be implemented, and there is an enormous amount of historical evidence concerning what happens when a government is given that much power. If you don't want to look at recent attempts at socialism, you could perhaps look at the example of Rome. Rome wasn't socialist, but it's an excellent example of the consequences of power. It offered men enormous power, and look at the men who were attracted by that power. For every man who served the Roman people loyally, there was one nutcase, one politically-capable-but-militarily-incompetant man, and, of course, one who took his army and marched on Rome.

My point is that any system that offers people huge amounts of consolidated power is going to draw out some of the ugliest examples of humanity. In order to reach Communism (By definition an unreachable goal, as one cannot build a classless society out of aggressive, strongly tribal animals) an all-powerful socialist state must be constructed, and such power will eventually attract the vicious, the evil, and the power-mad.

Edit: One of my favorite Abraham Lincoln excerpts. It's far more eloquent than I'd ever be:

Quote[/b] ]It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would inspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle.  What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon?--Never! Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.--It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen.

I remember that this place is quite strict on going off topic, and I sense a big debate so perhaps we should split this into a new topic?

First the issue about it requiring a huge government-communism itself has no government at all, although socialism does, however there are many different interpretations on socialist government. The Stalinist model alone (unfortunately the most historically widespread for reasons I'm about to go into) has the government all powerful and owning everything; this is in actuality a capitalist state of affairs, as everything is privately owned albeit by the state. Socialism is where the workers run production themselves democratically, so how can it be socialist if it is as undemocratic as the Stalinist model...? It is state capitalist, no more.

I'm aware saying "oh it's not REAL socialist" doesn't do much for my credibility but bear with me. The reason why it failed, the reason why it HAD to fail from the start I have already said from my example in China but i'll reiterate; socialism must be attempted with an organised and powerful working class organised into militant trade unions or workers councils. In socialism these are the institutions that form the government; the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is very misused, as it does not mean a literal dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat it means that the workers who control production distribute wealth to people, and every different industry forms a part of the government rather than having a centralised state. There are no industry bosses and organisation at work is carried out collectively in councils, delegating different tasks; for example the jobs that the boss usually does are shared as with other tasks. People who chair council meetings would be rotated according to who is willing or experienced to do it...really, you cannot say what people will decide to do. A government is formed through each industry meeting in a council whenever some form of co-operation is required. Think of socialist government as a federation of industries.

In the absence of this political apparatus, a seperate unified entity-the state-is necassary to take it's place, which inevitably creates an elitist class of burueacrats.

The workers are then in charge of schools, prisons, courts, police, as a temporary government to prevent a counter-revolution.

At least, that is my interpretation of socialism but I'm more libertarian than most and you can't come up with a universal blueprint on how it would be organised because it depends entirely on how the working class decide it would work.

Anyway that's my counter-argument for your point that an all-powerful socialist state is needed.

Your other main point is that classless society is impossible because we are tribal and aggressive; true enough, and that is why we will always be competitive-reproduction is the hidden motive behind all competition and personal property is only an extension of that when society makes it a measure of a person. If you are judged instead on your skill and contribution to society, then that's how you compete; class is not necassarily based upon private property it's based on social status-go down to a pub and you will see that the dominant characters are those most successful with the opposite sex. A boring, unintelligent, neurotic but wealthy banker or investor is definitely not naturally a higher class than a clever, talented, sexy, but poor rock star but he becomes a higher class based on a social construct stemming from property.

And in case you're wondering, the classless, stateless and moneyless society of communism that comes after the aforementioned socialism would be organised in a fairly similar way-but control of industrial unions over schools, courts, police, prisons etc eventually disappears. It is again impossible to predict exactly what communism would look like, but in my mind different non-industrial professions like teaching, journalism, and other jobs that don't produce form their own independant unions whereas before industrial workers would have taken the old role of the state. All co-operation is voluntary; again think federalism. Small localities then form their own councils in which everyone is a part if they wish and deal with local issues like distribution of wealth, criminal trials etc. There is no bureaucracy because everything is done on a face to face level. People choose careers in certain industries and professions which have a co-operative relationship with relevant local councils (remember councils are not elitest but as they are on a small level every single person can be part of it; most likely government would be done on public message boards such as this) who are in charge of ensuring industries are properly staffed.

As for police force, there is none and that is a shared task amongst communities. This is how it has always been done before capitalism and the true aim of the police force (only 206 years old) is to protect the property of the bourgoisie. For example banks need police if people don't pay back debt, landlords need police to defend their legal property if they are not there, and of course the poor steal from the rich, so a wider regular police force was required rather than just guards for a nobles country house.

That was rather long-winded, but it's amazing how little people really understand communism. As a side-note, if your press is so free you should ask why you and most people don't really understand communism? The press is controlled dictatorially by the bourgoisie, and it is in their interest to spread propaganda helpful to the continuing existence of capitalism.

EDIT: And that's a brilliant quote by Abe by the way. I agree entirely with it and this is why communism would not bring about social stagnation as some predict; if political power is impossible then you must find innovation in new areas, and the thirst for innovation in humans with high self esteems is enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

yes, but if these predatorial companies are not nationalised, they will keep stealing the resources that belong to Venezoleño people, keeping them in poverty forever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you checked when the last post was made here? In 2006! - That was 4 years ago!

Edited by W0lle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×