Political Change

[MehMan 0]

That's seldom the case. CEOs who don't own any substantial parts of companies can be counted as worker class (but with a higher wage due to supply/demand).

So what if the company has bills. Bills can be paid and there's still a surplus. A profit, that's why the company is around and running still. If not it wouldn't exist (much longer).

No, B makes sure that the company has a fresh supply of deals and always looks for new contracts to sign and increase the company size. After a while B doesn't look for contracts as he has hired people to do that for him. He then takes over other companies and works with bigger and better deals.

Yes, bills have to be paid, then the company has profit and it invests the profit into further development. At least any sensible company does that. Otherwise the company is just barely keeping itself above water or it's just failing.

Quote[/b] ]That's also bullshit, the usual case is that B has the money and that B employs educated people to do the thinking for him. Risks don't produce value, only work does. Even if he risked a lot of money it doesn't mean that he earns money on other peoples work.

B has to start a company first, no? If one doesn't start a company, then one doesn't have anything. If B decides to start a company he takes a risk, a big one usually, he starts from zero and has a lot of deficit in the first couple of years of operating. In those couple of years the company can go bust or can prosper. If it goes bust, chances are that B can lose nearly everything.

Once the company picks up and enlarges he can hire extra staff. And that includes, capable smart people to help him expand with new ideas. More people know more, logical no? Why not hire people to help you if they can?

a) you give people a job

b) you have a good chance of your company being more prosperous

I don't see a problem with hiring more people. B usually doesn't just sit on his ass all day and do nothing. Successful buisnessmen are not lazy people. This is not the 1890s where buisnesses where handed down generation to generation and ruined.

Quote[/b] ]

Broader horizons? Don't you think I know the way you think and reason. I mean that's the basic thing to know before you can critize something. I think you're the one to broaden your horizons next.

Communism is nothing you get in 20 years. Socialism has barely existed for one hundred years in one country. Capitalism is a little more than 200 years old. Feodalism existed around 600 years. Slavery a few thousand years. Why would you expect that communism can be implemented that soon? The world is not ready for fulfilling the basic requirements of communism.

The idea that socialism has brought misery is part of the capitalist propaganda. One only has to look at Cuba to see how well they have progressed and their standards and compare it to some nearby free market countries. The development of the standards in the USSR was amazing. From having the feet in the mud, they fought off multiple invasions by capitalist countries and just decades later ended up with their feet in space. The development of Soviet industry and standard of living was enormous. Until the 1970ies it was clear that the USSR would get past the US some day in the future.

And if you look at Russia today, most people (70%) think the USSR was better. In east germany the former ruling party is one of the largest parties. In the czech republic the communists is one of the biggest parties. In Moldova they have a majority. People have had enough of capitalism. In 1991 the soviet union was dissolved peacefully. In 1993 the greatest riots since the revolution 1917 were seen on the streets of Moscow. The liberals sent out their tanks and killed hundreds of civilians. Compare that to 1991.

Sure, people went from East Germany to the much richer West Germany. West Germany, especially Ruhr, has always had the industrial, popular and commercial base of Germany while the east traditionally has relied on agriculture since the days of Prussia. People go from all over the world to the US. I don't know but probably tens of thousands go to the US every year from Mexico. The reason is that the US is richer. It isn't strange and it has nothing to do with the economic system as it's based on the same principles in both countries.

And you shouldn't forget that thousands of people went East as well. Not only west germans but americans, french and so on.

We don't live in the early 90ies anymore. You do. I think it's safer to ask what the Russians think than what you learnt at school in a liberal biased society.

A collection of polls for you:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTra....878

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....reforms

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....stroika

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._russia

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._russia

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....yeltsin

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....ourably

http://www.angus-reid.com/analysi....stroika

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....c_event

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....rezhnev

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....rbachev

Now I hope you have broadened your horizons.

No, you do not know how I think. I said some. Cuba is a fair bit better than most countries because it actually achieved something more than most other socialist countries.

The most successful socialist order country I think was Yugoslavia. At least in the serving the people. At least under Tito. Sure, he saw the threat that nationalistic ideas are a great threat to Yugoslavia and thus many nationalists ended up dead. He also saw the Soviet Union as a threat and that's why he rejected the Cominform. He then achieved a mix of free trade with a mix of soviet style market and it was fairly successful. Tito managed to get a prosperous Yugoslavia, people had money and were happy. I haven't met to this day a person who would deny it.

However I have met people who loathe the USSR. The reason why people think that the USSR was better for them is because Russia rushed into privatization too soon. It created a huge gap and denied the creation of a middle class.  Chubais should've went the path of a slower privatization instead of a rapid one that created the shithole that it did.

Also there were numerious rebelions against the socialist states, as I said and not small time rebelions, rebelions that caused military intervention. This means that things were not great.

Anyway:

[Baff1 0]

Cuba has a positively moronic government.

What has it achieved?

It's kept it's population poor by continually pissing off it's largest neighbour and traditional trading partner.

There maybe some examples of how it's political system has accomplished things better than others, but it's epic irresponsability of legendary proportions to it's people is not something that can ever be ignored.

Well done. They have a health service. Yay.

Oh dear everyone is dirt poor and trade with the worlds largest economy and closest neighbour is outlawed.

"Doctor, I have stomach ache".

"You are malnourished".

[MehMan 0]

Woah, calm down, what I meant is that Cuba is still better than North Korea.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, B makes sure that the company has a fresh supply of deals and always looks for new contracts to sign and increase the company size. After a while B doesn't look for contracts as he has hired people to do that for him. He then takes over other companies and works with bigger and better deals.

Yes, bills have to be paid, then the company has profit and it invests the profit into further development. At least any sensible company does that. Otherwise the company is just barely keeping itself above water or it's just failing.

B is seldom the one who started the company. And B is usually not the CEO. CEOs should naturally get paid for their work but the wage should be decided by the workers.

Further development isn't profit, it's further investments. Profit is what you get out of the carousel while doing what every company has to do in order to survive.

Quote[/b] ]B has to start a company first, no? If one doesn't start a company, then one doesn't have anything. If B decides to start a company he takes a risk, a big one usually, he starts from zero and has a lot of deficit in the first couple of years of operating. In those couple of years the company can go bust or can prosper. If it goes bust, chances are that B can lose nearly everything.

Yes, that's how it has to work within capitalism. It doesn't have to, in a different society, however. And since when are risks something that justifies cash? Work is the only source of wealth, not risks. I could be playing poker with all my money and still don't get any growth. Work is the only good that adds value. Risks in themselves don't. Risks don't justify exploitation.

Quote[/b] ]No, you do not know how I think. I said some. Cuba is a fair bit better than most countries because it actually achieved something more than most other socialist countries.

Agree.

Quote[/b] ]The reason why people think that the USSR was better for them is because Russia rushed into privatization too soon. It created a huge gap and denied the creation of a middle class.  Chubais should've went the path of a slower privatization instead of a rapid one that created the shithole that it did.

Well, what's happened has happened. Russia did it that way supported by the neoliberal ideology, the US and the rest of the west. Sure Russia could've been better off now. The soviet union could've existed (still) too. Can't base arguments on what could've been.

Quote[/b] ]Also there were numerious rebelions against the socialist states, as I said and not small time rebelions, rebelions that caused military intervention. This means that things were not great.

In some puppet states there have been nationalist rebellions yes. The rebellions in Russia came 1993, after the USSR was dissolved. There are still many anti-capitalist rebellions in many places both today and in the past. Usually the US or some US-packed dictator crushed them. In indonesia 2 millions were murdered. But nobody speaks about things not being great in those countries like Nepal, India, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico etc. Those are the weakest links in the chain of world-capitalism.

Quote[/b] ]Well done. They have a health service. Yay.

Not any health service. It's better than the US one.

Quote[/b] ]Oh dear everyone is dirt poor and trade with the worlds largest economy and closest neighbour is outlawed.

"Doctor, I have stomach ache".

"You are malnourished".

No, trade is not outlawed. It's the other way around. Cubans want to trade, but the US embargo prohibits them from it. Also, there's no malnourishment in Cuba thanks to socialism. That's unique to South America.