Bolivia nationalizes the gas industry.

[Spokesperson 0]

Bolivia nationalized the telecom as well as the natural gas industry the first of may. Simultaneously Venezuela made the steel industry fall into the hands of the people. April 21th another pro-chavist was elected, this time in Paraguay.

In Venezuela the US, the bourgeoisie and Colombia staged a coup 2002. One day later millions took to the streets and made the military realize they had no chance. In Bolivia a US backed civil war is approaching as a reaction to the socialist president Morales. Paraguay will face the same fate. There can be no revolution without a counter-revolution.

In Chile the US managed to install Pinochet many years ago, but this time the US will have no chance to do anything as practically all south american countries support Morales.

So if South America replaces neo-liberalism with something else. When is it time to kick the conservatives and the liberals out of US office? Neo-liberalism has failed.

When will there be changes in the US? Before the collapse of capitalism or after?

Good blog about the situation in South America:

http://lanr.blogspot.com/

[Mr_Tea 0]

From this days on, big companies will think twice before they put millions of dollars into projects, that one day might be lost because the local government claims all rights on that investment.

In short time we will have cars that don`t need fuel to burn.

The oil rich countries may than take a bath in their oil, and fill balloons with their gas.

I don`t own a car atm., and the next one i buy will be powered by electricity.

[Dwarden 1125]

Chavez revolution is already fiasco ...

all his promises were false and the poor are still poor or even poorer

only who gained is (guess what) military again ...

and ofcourse Russians who sold them tons of hitec toys

i think they only way to learn the hard lesson about communism or similar is eat the result ...

yeah it's sad and cruel to such country but there is CHANCE they learn that there must be sort of balance between capitalism, democracy, socialism etc...

[shinRaiden 0]

[im...]http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/1231/altocq8.jpg[/im...]

Bolivia imperialized the telecom as well as the natural gas industry the International Day Of Oppression. Simultaneously Venezuela made the steel industry fall into oblivion. April 21th another pro-chauvinist was bought, this time in Paraguay.

In Venezuela the US, the people who work for their food and Colombia supported a democratic recall in2002. One day later millions were bussed to the streets and made the military realize they had no chance of peaceful freedom. In Bolivia a US backed civil liberation war is approaching as a reaction to the socialist president Morales who has run the country into the ground on the backs of the 'liberated'. Paraguay will face the same fate (how ironic). There can be no revolution without consequences.

In Chile the US with the collusion of other European nations (in retrospect unfortunately) managed to install Pinochet many years ago, but this time the US will have no chance to do anything as practically all south american countries support Morales via Chavez's oily checkbook. (This is due to the failure of US policy to properly clean its administrative house over the past 30 years of ungrateful communists and consequently to support rather than correct the communist oppressors now wrecking havoc across what otherwise ought to be a free continent.)

So if South America replaces post-revolutionarism with totalitarianism. When is it time to kick the institutional staffers out of US office? Blame-game vocabulary re-branding has failed.

When will there be changes in the jealous US-haters? Before the exoneration of capitalism or after the butchery of neo-progressivism?

Good blow-hard moonbat's personal ranting opinion about the situation in South America:

http://lanr.blogspot.com/

Fixed a couple typo's for you.

[Commando84 0]

Ok what good is it that the state ownz the oil company? C'mon its ok that the state ownz hospitals and some of the really good to have stuff for people that really doesnt have to make a profit but can state really run a oil company??

Hmm when you need to nationalize your industry is it cause the original owners need help to run it or is it something else behind?

[Spokesperson 0]

Both Chaves and Morales are very popular. Chavez has made education and healthcare available for all people at no cost. The literacy rates have risen dramatically and so on. The situation is better for the worker class now. Foreign companies no longer control the government either.

In Bolivia there's been big progress. The economy has turned and most of Morales' promises have been implemented. The first thing he did when he got into office was to cut his salary.

Quote[/b] ]Ok what good is it that the state ownz the oil company? C'mon its ok that the state ownz hospitals and some of the really good to have stuff for people that really doesnt have to make a profit but can state really run a oil company??  

Hmm when you need to nationalize your industry is it cause the original owners need help to run it or is it something else behind?

If the state owns something you as a citizen control it through democratic elections. In this case all who are employed will be able to vote upon things. If done right nationalization brings economic democracy. All profits from trade etc goes back to the state, for healthcare, education, roads etc. It goes back to you (in countries where the state represents the people). Sometimes the original owners have problems with their economy, sometimes it's because the workers and the people in general want to control the companies in order to serve their interests rather than some far-off capitalist who only wants profits. The companies will now be controlled by the people in the interests of the people.

Earlier those companies were owned by foreign multi-national corporations. The natural resources of the countries went into other countries without those countries getting any benefits (apart from US support).

Naturally, the state consists of people, companies do too. States run companies and do it with successs. The main difference is the ownership. The company is still a company even if it's state-owned. At the same time they can do what's beneficial for its citizens rather than profitable.

There are many self-managed factories in those countries too. Old companies that went bankrupt were taken over by the employees who democratically managed to run the companies better than the old owners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_self-management

[Mr_Tea 0]

If the state owns something you as a citizen control it through democratic elections. In this case all who are employed will be able to vote upon things. If done right nationalization brings economic democracy. All profits from trade etc goes back to the state, for healthcare, education, roads etc. It goes back to you (in countries where the state represents the people).

Unfortunately, that is nothing more than a nice theory.

The money goes directly into the leaders purse, and in fundings to the military.

The theory show how it should be, but to be honest, who thinks that is the way how things work for real?

[chops 111]

I once saw a doco, I think it was called "The Corporation", in which it was revealed that Bectel (a subsidiary of Haliburton) bought Boliva's water company. Privatisation was a condition of Bolivia getting help from the World Bank or IMF.

Anyway, the bastards at Bectel raised the price of water astronomically, plunging the poorest of the poor into even more pathetic povertutionality. They even made it ILLEGAL for people to collect the rainwater that fell on their own shitty little shacks.

The peasants didn't stand for it though, they (the entire town) gathered in the town square, held a vote, and declared the water re-nationalised!

Viva la revolucion!

[scubaman3D 0]

Communist and socialist policies are in a state of perpetual failure because people are inherently selfish.

Also, communist economies cannot compete in the world markets, which is why the largest vestiges of "communism" in the world (China) have adopted more capitalist-like economies, with dictator-like governments...

In addition, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The money is not going to the people, it is making those in power rich. Why is it that all the sons and daughters of Chinese party officials can afford to come to the US and attend schools, rent apartments, and buy cars all on their parents tab? I sit next to a Chinese girl at work who owns a house, has a husband in college and a daughter and owns 2x2008 Honda Accords ($25000+ models).

Does the average person in China have such a life?

[Spokesperson 0]

If the state owns something you as a citizen control it through democratic elections. In this case all who are employed will be able to vote upon things. If done right nationalization brings economic democracy. All profits from trade etc goes back to the state, for healthcare, education, roads etc. It goes back to you (in countries where the state represents the people).

Unfortunately, that is nothing more than a nice theory.

The money goes directly into the leaders purse, and in fundings to the military.

The theory show how it should be, but to be honest, who thinks that is the way how things work for real?

It worked in the USSR and it works in Cuba. Corruption is a very serious crime there.

Quote[/b] ]Communist and socialist policies are in a state of perpetual failure because people are inherently selfish.

Socialism and communism are based on self-interests. In socialism the working-class rules as opposed to capitalism where the bourgeoisie rules. In communism there are no classes. Socialists and communists are not automatically altruists. Socialism isn't based on altruism. But there's nothing wrong with it.

Quote[/b] ]Also, communist economies cannot compete in the world markets, which is why the largest vestiges of "communism" in the world (China) have adopted more capitalist-like economies, with dictator-like governments...

Of course they can, but most socialist countries are countries that aren't developed. China has adpoted a market economy because they were doing things too fast. There has to be capitalism before there can be socialism. You can't skip a stage, because every stage is important to the development of society. Slavery, serfdom etc all helped to develop capitalism. Capitalism has to be developed before the transition to socialism. It's the marxist stage-theory. That's also why the Nepalese maoists who recently won the elections by a big margin, support market economy and free trade. Their first goal has to be to abolish feodalism.

Quote[/b] ]In addition, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The money is not going to the people, it is making those in power rich. Why is it that all the sons and daughters of Chinese party officials can afford to come to the US and attend schools, rent apartments, and buy cars all on their parents tab? I sit next to a Chinese girl at work who owns a house, has a husband in college and a daughter and owns 2x2008 Honda Accords ($25000+ models).

There are loads of chinese people who study abroad, not just children of party officials. But then China isn't based on socialism anymore.

[baddo 0]

Once again someone is here spreading an utopistic ideology, which:

- Didn't work in USSR, well where is the country now. The USSR was basically a giant war machine which failed economically in a big way into its own impossibility. Started by the socialist revolution, destroyed a lot of basic rights of people along the way in a totalitaristic way while using socialism/communism/"worker owns, rules" bullshit as a mask to fool people, and then collapsed in a big way. Some people like to be romantical about USSR; "Things were better back then. USSR was great, equal or even bigger superpower than the USA, but since then things have gone downhill!" etc. romanticization which has nothing to do with wanting the socialism(/communism) back, it is all to do with wanting totalitarism and a giant war machine back, and I think that has nothing to do with socialism(/communism) being "succesful" as someone here tries to claim.

- Didn't work in Cuba. It seems that the new "democratically elected president" is changing things now to be a little bit more sane, but Cuba is still very far from what can be called an example of how "working class" rules, owns, etc. succesfully. It's a failier and not admitting this is sticking your head into the sand and nothing else. What kind of place Cuba would be today if no socialist revolution ever took place? Think about it! My bet is that Cuba would be much richer, its people would have things much better as they would have been able to freely use their innovativeness and creativeness to create new businesses and to bring more wealth into their country. But it was suppressed by Castro and his friends. And someone still thanks him?

- Didn't work in China, as you said, they are not using it, in fact they are using capitalism, because they noticed that it is better for the development of their country. Now, why in the hell would they change away from a working economy model which brings them loads of cash, practically forced the U.S. to take huge loans from them (= more political power to China), etc... China is today's economical winner but they can destroy their success by moving away from capitalism and into "true" communism. Let's see if they do that. No they won't, they are not so stupid.

Businesses owned and run by a state are normally less efficient than privately-owned businesses. This isn't hard to see if you actually look around instead of sticking your head into the sand. This isn't just hear-say or something I read from a blog - it is what I have seen, experienced first-hand. It does not need to be written in Wikipedia or some blog for it to be true. When states decide to "nationalize" private property, such as succesful businesses, they are in fact making sure that the businesses eventually become inefficient monsters in which decisions are more political in nature instead of being rational and following the "spirit of the time", keeping at the leading edge of their field by actively and enthusiastically pursuing better ways to do things, instead of just thinking "I've got this safe job, I will never be fired if I keep on doing it like I always have, and I hope things stay this way". There is a significant lack of drive among workers in such workplaces, one only needs to have eyes open to see it. By the way this is what someone who visited a factory in the USSR in the 1980's told: workers didn't really work; they came to work but they had no real reason to be effective in their job. They were breaking the machines in the factory so that they could not do anything, and they had no worries of getting fired even though they destroyed machinery (and should've made to pay instead of getting a salary, and obviously should've been fired immediately).

I think I have stated it before, but I can say it once again here, the ideology someone here seems to be very much in love with, is against the nature of human beings. It is irrational to try and change normal ways how human beings behave. The farther you get from the normal ways a human being behaves, the more likely you will fail. I'm talking about basic emotions of human beings, what drives people, what makes them do things instead of just waiting for things to happen, what keeps people pushing forward, what keeps them pushing the human race forward in all areas imaginable. The ideology advertized by the topic starter is against basic human nature. Thus, it will always fail.

[Spokesperson 0]

How is it utopian? Utopian socialism is different from marxian.

Socialism worked well in the USSR. Most russians (67%) think the USSR was better than current Russia. The GDP/capita 15 years later is still lower too. There was no unemployment or homelessness before. Now there's loads. Diseases that were eradicated during soviet times have begun to spread again like Tuberculosis. It's worse than in the 50ies now. The USSR guaranteed these human rights. Now there are none, only the rich are free. But you say that's human nature. I don't think it is and that's why people revolt all around the world. People dont want to be exploited, they dont want to be slaves and they dont want to be masters.

Socialism works in Cuba right now. The things that have changed change because the economic crisis after the dissolution of the USSR is over. The annual growth rates are two digit. Computers and similar things were naturally allowed, but generally not available in the stores because of problems with power. Now there's no lack of electricity any longer.

Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in the world. Education and health care is free for all, even US citizens. The country has one of the highest doctors/capita and has the highest amount of university graduates/capita. In a region where malaria is common, malaria is erradicated. Cuba is the only country in the world that has sustainable development according to the WWF. While the blacks in New Orleans were abandoned, Cuba evacuated all people up in the mountains. The result was clear. In Cuba you have no capitalism, no exploitation and work in your own pace. Cuba has higher standards than most south american countries despite of the blockade that makes key imported goods with a certain % of US patents three times more expensive. IN Cuba less people live in slums than in the US. Futhermore Cuba is a leader in biomedicine. And all this in an underdeveloped country. What if all underdeveloped countries were like Cuba? Things would change for the better just like in Nicaragua, Nepal, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia. Those countries have realized that the cuban way is the right way. They refuse to follow the US-business neo-liberal agenda that caused the current situation in South America. The Cuban government is supported by its people apart from the US one.

Socialism worked in China, but the country was too underdeveloped. Acording to econmic theory a country has to have been capitalist before it can advance into socialism. China is going back to basics. Different times in history requires different kind of governments. Slavery played a part, serfdom did, capitalism does and socialism will do.

Efficiency of state run companies don't tend to be bad if there are people who work for an improvement of it. But generally a higher efficiency means stress and more work for the workers. In state owned companies in a planned economy you only have to fulfill the plans, no more no less.

The self-managed companies that I linked to changed a loss into a net profit because they knew they were the owners. They wouldn't let lights be on when no light was needed and so on. The efficiency got higher. If you have a planned economy you need no advertising, you have no recessions, ie no factories stand still because it isn't profitable enough to produce something (some things aren't supposed to be profitable), and there's no unemployment. A lot of machines and hands can be used for production instead. The main problem with the plans (even if they were working well), however, was that there only was computer power to compute 10 000 wares when there were hundred times that amount. Today that would be no problem at all. Any big company is a plan economy in itself, and there are big computers that compute that kind of things all the time.

And naturally there's drive. If you want more money, you can produce more, the more you produce the more you get. But people tend to like a slower pace instead.

[scubaman3D 0]

Socialism worked well in the USSR. Most russians (67%) think the USSR was better than current Russia. The GDP/capita 15 years later is still lower too. There was no unemployment or homelessness before. Now there's loads. Diseases that were eradicated during soviet times have begun to spread again like Tuberculosis. It's worse than in the 50ies now. The USSR guaranteed these human rights. Now there are none, only the rich are free. But you say that's human nature. I don't think it is and that's why people revolt all around the world. People dont want to be exploited, they dont want to be slaves and they dont want to be masters.

In which one of these countries do you live?

Why do people who live under these oppressive regimes cry for freedom but those who live in free society march towards tyranny?

My wife is Russian and only yesterday did I return from there. I've been there three times and have spoken to hundreds of Russian people and not one of them told me they want to go back to communism.

Her cousin is a director of Yukos oil, which is in the process of being nationalized. He tells me that their production has decreased 10-fold since the government seizure and that he too will lose his job when the nationalization is complete.

Classic example of why government is less efficient at running business.

Also, why do Moscow and St. Petersburg have one of the highest amounts of millionaires per capita in the world - higher than American cities like NY and LA?

Why is it that in my wife's home town in Russia, the economy is booming and new apartments, restaurants, and stores are poping up everywhere?

Why has her mother's pay doubled and the amount of cars on the road will quadruple in the next several years?

Unfortunately, facts are not on your side - only your pre-conceived ideas support your claims. I will agree with you that there are still a lot of problems there...God knows I was glad to be back in the US but they are making good progress and are better off now than they were before.

And your statistics...right. Guess what, only 3% of people polled believe your rhetoric.

Don't even get me started on Cuba. You're on crack if you think the people there are happy. Ever been to Miami?

[chops 111]

Obviously there were some benefits to people under the Soviet system. I wouldn't put being jailed for not agreeing with it very high up the list though.

And the one point that I feel discounts all arguments for the Soviet system... it collapsed into a stinking heap.

Chavez, Morales, Lula, Bachelet (sp ?) and even Ortega in Nicaragua are not communists. They are leftists of course, and some further left than others. They are not trying to ban private property or anything like that, they're just trying to implement economic policies that many Western countries do. And they have all been democratically elected.

Considering the appalling record the US has in it's treatment of Latin America, it's no surprise that people are voting for a economic model different to that found in the US.

Don't forget that it was only since Regan and Thatcher that state assets had to be flogged off and 'market forces' became a mantra for every action governments take.

Ever since the end of WWII, economies have been going back and forth from a Keynesian, state managed model, to the free markets promoted by Hayek.

There's a very interesting documentary series (based on the book) called 'Commanding Heights' which details all of this.

[scubaman3D 0]

And the one point that I feel discounts all arguments for the Soviet system... it collapsed into a stinking heap.

True

Still, I don't agree that the US is pushing Latin America towards "leftist-ism"...but hell, these days its fashionable to blame all the worlds problems on the US, so have at it...

[Dwarden 1125]

obviously You don't realize the 'economy' thrilling of early socialistic states is from confiscated $ (political oponents and 'firms'

not to mention 'evil' empire like USSR forage 'surrounding' states resources to not touch own (like any other superpower but in nearly extreme way)

but after some years even with 'work camps' full of people who don't fit the 'scheme' the economy goes to halt and start lags behind the 'inferior democracy/capitalism combo'

socialistic / communism states so far only promised 'utopic' all are equal scenario but reality shows it far from it ...

[chops 111]

Still, I don't agree that the US is pushing Latin America towards "leftist-ism"...but hell, these days its fashionable to blame all the worlds problems on the US, so have at it...

Well, you see my opinion is based on events in that region, rather than on "fashion", as you put it.

Besides I don't think anybody in Latin America is planning to introduce a Soviet model economic or political system. They're probably more similar to systems in Scandinavia, with highly unionised work forces and comparatively strong state industries.

Quote[/b] ]obviously You don't realize the 'economy' thrilling of early socialistic states is from confiscated $ (political oponents and 'firms'

not to mention 'evil' empire like USSR forage 'surrounding' states resources to not touch own (like any other superpower but in nearly extreme way)

Do you really think Bolivia is going to invade, loot and pillage it's neighbours? This is a very complex and indeed interesting topic, lessened by simplistic statements like that.

Again, many elements of the Scandinavian countries' social, political and economic systems could/could have been considered socialist.

Anything other than the "neo-liberal" economic model does not automatically equal Soviet style repression.

[Commando84 0]

Scandinavia rulez! I feel sorry for the Us, only thing good is that games and hollywood movies are released first there usually

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why do people who live under these oppressive regimes cry for freedom but those who live in free society march towards tyranny?

That's what you see in liberal newspapers, TV, movies etc. That isn't the whole picture. Most people support socialism, but on TV we only get to see a few and only dissenters with pro-western liberal opinions are interviewed. The people who own media are no socialists, they are liberals who profit from antisocialism and an increased amount of markets. Socialism is a threat to their existence. Most people in those "oppressive" regimes support their government, in reality the only oppressive regimes are the western capitalist ones and their supporters. What's the silence about Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Quwait, non-antiwestern or anti-market african countries, philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Colombia etc.

Russians who live abroad, and who know people who live in the west are a huge minority. Especially those who have Yukos directors as cousins. A majority of the Russian people are no members of the bourgeoisie and have completely different interests. Still the economic situation has improved, but it is by no means as good as in the USSR. Mostly thanks to the oil prices that are more than 50 times higher than 1991. Despite of this the GDP/capita (PPP) isn't as high as before. So, right now people aren't content but they see things improving, but when things stop improving there will be uprisings just like the years after the USSR was dissolved, when liberals rolled out the tanks, burned the parliament and killed up to 2000 people including MPs. Despite of this we still hear about some Soviet dissident who spent 10 years (about 1% spent longer time) in a rehabilitation camp and who survived (99% or more did), when the crimes against human rights Russia conducts right now and just a few years ago are of no importance.

The current Russian government is pretty conservative (liberal) but sees some companies as vital for national interest. However the whole political scene reflects an emerging fascist state.

Naturally there is a high amount of millionaires in Russia. More than in many other places. But there were many millionaires before the world war 1 in Russia too. It makes no difference, the millionaires are those who own the country and those who rule it by the principle of one dollar - one vote.

It isn't just one poll:

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  

And what about those in Miami? Liberals, capitalists, crime and gamblelords, petty criminals, who know the impact of a social revolution where they as oppressors lose power to the oppressed. Those are no ordinary people, they supported Batista and they have usually owned land, or real estate. Now the land is owned by all, and the homes owned by those who live there.

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't put being jailed for not agreeing with it very high up the list though.

That's a myth. People are never arrested for not agreeing.

Quote[/b] ]Chavez, Morales, Lula, Bachelet (sp ?) and even Ortega in Nicaragua are not communists. They are leftists of course, and some further left than others. They are not trying to ban private property or anything like that, they're just trying to implement economic policies that many Western countries do. And they have all been democratically elected.

They are no communists, especially not Lula or Bachelet (who are social-democrats (left liberals)). But Chavez, Morales, Ortega, Correa, Lugo, Castro are marxists, left-wing radicals who support and are supported by the communists. Socialism for the 21th century includes a ban of private property, but it has to be done in stages. Venezuela estimates that there's socialism in 2020. Right now nationalizations are steps on the road there, that way the economy can be controlled by the elected governments and not by a few oligarchs or foreigners. Many communists have been "democratically" elected, ie they have won elections. The maoists in Nepal did that a few weeks ago. In Cyprus the communists won a few months ago.

Communists aren't against election, they participate in them, but they don't think they are free enough. And when elections are too corrupt there's no reason for the slaves not to take to arms against their masters. If there will be blood is up to the masters to decide. All revolutions have been followed by counter-revolution. Nobody, no class, wants to lose power without a fight.

Scandinavia has taken the neo-liberal road lately as well. And what the Latin American countries are trying to build has nothing to do with scandinavian social-democracy.

[Commando84 0]

the scandinavian model is good until you get to many people coming in the country that needs welfare cash or to many old age people that need pensions paid out to them by the state..

I heard that there is so many people going old that their pensions could risc making the state go bankrupt

So there is word about retirement age should be rised from 60 to 70.

[scubaman3D 0]

Spokesperson ,I think your whole argument about the greatness of the USSR is moot. As Chops said, the simple fact that it crashed under its own weight would indicate to me that it was a fundamentally flawed system.

My wife's mother told me that they used to have to wait in lines for items such as toilet paper. Dosn't seem so great to me. Also, the USSR govt was so awesome, that they didn't let her fly passenger aircraft because she is a woman - even though she is fully trained as a pilot and worked as a pilot instructor. Awesome!

In which one of these glorious countries did you say you live in?

Many of the ex-communist party leaders are some of the richest men in Russia, who made their money by privatizing public companies. Right, they really "believed".

Anyways, we're not going to convince each other so I don't really see a point to further arguing.

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't put being jailed for not agreeing with it very high up the list though.

That's a myth. People are never arrested for not agreeing.

Now that is pure first grade bullshit. And I can confirm this. My father and my aunt were imprisoned because of disagreeing with the system you hold so highly.

[scubaman3D 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't put being jailed for not agreeing with it very high up the list though.

That's a myth. People are never arrested for not agreeing.

Now that is pure first grade bullshit. And I can confirm this. My father and my aunt were imprisoned because of disagreeing with the system you hold so highly.

I talked to a pastor in Russia who was arrested and placed in jail for giving a sermon at his church during the Soviet era that had nothing to do with politics.

[Spokesperson 0]

The scandinavian model is just another flavour of capitalism, based on charity through taxes. Instead of eliminating the classes money is redistributed. Slavery doesn't disappear just because there's redistribution. If slavery is abolished no redistrubtion is needed.

USSR didn't crash. It was dissolved. 78% wanted to keep the union in a referendum, but the liberals (those you call communists, the rich ones) wanted otherwise. Yeltsin and Gorbachev were no communists, but they were in the party, it's called political infiltration.

People have to wait in lines in the west too. In most capitalist countries people dont even have enough money for food anymore.

The pilot story is bullshit. Women were pilots, officers, cosmonauts earlier than anywhere else.

Quote[/b] ]Now that is pure first grade bullshit. And I can confirm this. My father and my aunt were imprisoned because of disagreeing with the system you hold so highly.

I guess there's more to that tale than what they're saying. It was never against the law to dissent in the USSR.

Quote[/b] ]I talked to a pastor in Russia who was arrested and placed in jail for giving a sermon at his church during the Soviet era that had nothing to do with politics.

"His" church? The clergy is the enemy of the working class and the revolution. It's anti-scientific and priests don't contribute to society by work. If priests are actively supporting the counter-revolution they have to be imprisoned. There's no reason for the working class to support their own slayers. Religion is a mild mental disease in my opinion.

[chops 111]

Well another point about Scandinavia is that it has to date provided it's citizens with the highest quality of life in history to date. If you look at any international survey for things like freedom of the press, education, and other standards of living, the Scandinavian countries are always at the top. Why not aspire to their systems?

Quote[/b] ] I guess there's more to that tale than what they're saying. It was never against the law to dissent in the USSR.

Maybe not technically, but surely, surely Spokesperson you cannot tell us that nobody was punished for speaking out against the Soviets? You seem to have taken a step from zealous to delusional.

I have been through parts of Central and Eastern Europe and people there told me of what happened in Hungary in the '56, what happened in '68 in Czechoslovakia.