Agreed to an extent, and in the climate of the Cold War I certainly wouldn't have been supportive of the Soviet bloc. In today's climate, however, I think any threat to US interests from Cuba is negligible, the embargo simply doesn't make any sense. Moreover, if you're suggesting that because the US can bankrupt a communist Cuba it should become capitalist to please the US and have the embargo lifted, that's like saying to a black kid he should bleach his skin white to stop the bullies stealing his milk money. It comes down to the bullying of the Western powers, which has a long and bloody history. Why shouldn't third world countries stand up for themselves? Also, one must recognise that whilst free market policies have created a lot of (albeit unevenly distributed) wealth in the first world, neo-liberalism has had a devastating impact on third world countries which have been drained of their natural resources and have severely lost out on the bargain. In short, just as capitalism benefits the rich in society over the poor, so too does it benefit rich nations at the expense of poor nations....
I never said I was pro-Cuba becoming capitalistic. I never said that it should bow down to America... no sir. I said communism doesn't work in some scenarios, and some countries are better off without adopting it. Today's Cuba is almost capitalistic, with lots of open trade boarders with Europe. They shouldn't have closed themselves down to the world and should have accepted a socialistic form of government instead of fanatic communism, they would have been much better off then.
Uhhum, I would like Venezuela better if Chavez wasn't a wanker. He owns all of Citgo, yet his people are still starving.
I'm sure Chavez is a wanker. Any man who said he wasn't a wanker, I'd call a liar. But Chavez has done more for the poor of Venezuela than any president in the country's history. Just have a look at the numerous missions and reforms he's carried out and the material benefits they've had. You can find plenty of information on them at www.venezuelaanalysis.com or even on Wikipedia. Actually very few people are starving now thanks to the subsidised food programmes his government has carried out. Also, Chavez does not own Citgo, the Venezuelan state owns it and has used their oil wealth to great effect, not only to channel it into anti-poverty programmes in Venezuela, but to provide cheap heating oil for the poor in several American cities and to those worst affected by Hurrican Katrina. Of course he could do more, and I think he should do more. But it's hard for him to win. If he did do that much more, you'd be branding him a communist no doubt....
communism is a broad church of political ideal, theorically, according to doctines of karl marx, he himself probably strongly aganist those communist states which claimed they were students of marx. even fomer soviet union never claimed their state was on the stage of communism, instead, it was socialism. it is a misunderstanding to those people who regard those communist states as real practise of communism.
it is not easy to start a good discussion. first, there are different notion of communism from different authors. second, communist states are not intrinsic communists. third, political ideals are never been perfectly practised. even widely accepted liberalism, it is a broad church, freedom has at least three notions, positive and negative and republician. i just hope people have less stereotypings on communism and karl marx.
http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm I think this is enough of a flaw to consider Chávez a poor example of Communism. True enough, he has done a hell of alot for Venezuelan poverty; decreasing the percentage of people below the poverty line by a huge number of 17.24 points, since 1997.
i have a friend who came from former ussr, he likes the past very much, somtimes, it is difficult for us to imagine such
he told me at the past, no beggars or prosititues were on streets. now, they are everywhere. after the collapse of communist regime, there were civil wars and revolutions. he himself is a refugee in hong kong, china. what the fuck has the new system in former ussr brought to ordinary people, politically, it is the same in form. economically, people are getting poor. life expectency of people has been shapely decreased, it is the only case in europe. yet, there are people gain benefits from the new system, but how did they do that, it is because many national properties were sold to them in fucking low price because they have connections with government officials. i had lived in mainland china before i was 7 years old. i still remeber live in my hometown was not that harsh as people generally imagined. although it was not rich in material. the neighbourhood was friendly, your neighours next door to u would setup to your rooftop from their rooftop, and there were broken wooden doors. for a capitalist society, except more goods for consumptions, actually it is nothing special. the more the products they produced and sold, the more the GDP. however, it is highly ineffective according to ecology. at once, the head of hong kong observatory claimed human civilization will be end within 50 years in my college. i am not defender of former ussr, but before we try to make judgement, it is better to look at facts from different sources.
Which is a tremendous achievement I'd say. The press is relatively free in Venezuela. There has been a backlash since 2002, but for a very good reason - several of the anti-Chavez media networks were directly responsible for inciting and supporting a coup which briefly overthrew him. If the media in Britain, or any other country, were supporting a coup, what do you think the state would or should do? They would be immediately cracked down upon, because the preservation of the institutions of the state are the primary concern. That said, the backlash since the coup has been remarkably restrained considering. No one's been killed, Venezuela was the world's first state to abolish the death penalty, even the coup plotters themselves are walking about free thanks to their supporters in the courts. Also, I'm not sure Chavez really fits the profile of dictator of the month, that's a slightly ridiculous source. Chavez is not a dictator, and Venezuelan elections have been recognised by international observers, even by the opposition, as remarkably free and fair, with only minor incidences of local corruption. Opposition groups make the claim of dictatorship, but the real issue is that the Venezuelan citizens voted en masse to reject the two parties of the oligarchy whose acceptance of neo-liberal packages brought the poorest sections of society into abject poverty. That they cannot face up to their own mistakes is their problem. Democracies must recognise the needs of their citizens, and the citizens have asked for redistribution. If the opposition parties do not provide that, they will continue to fare poorly in elections. Those who oppose Chavez should be honest and admit that their opposition is based on his socialism and his redistributive policies. That, I think, would be a fair criticism for those whose interests are affected by such policies....
I believe communism is far better than capitalism. With capitalism, everyone wants money. everyone keeps going on about the colour of money. Obviously prices go up and new skyscrapers made of chrome and glass dominate the London skyline like monoliths of a capitalist shrine.
Okay, having researched Chávez, I must admit he's done a hell of alot for Venezuela. Although he does seem to have built a cult of persona on himself; that, you can't deny. I'm still slightly confused as to how the system works though, and if it really is a communist country? Care to explain, Sal?
What exactly do skyscrapers have to do with capitalism? Also, London has always been a 'Capitalist shrine'. It's one of the most shrine-iest places in the world, in terms of money.
i can explain to u, according to marx, there is no communist state has ever existed on the earth. for the communist stage of history, there is no government exists, the organization of society is according to to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.
skyscrapers are sadly the capatalists way of saying were bigger than you man ......fuckin eyesores if yer ask me .
It's definitely not a communist country, nor does it claim to be. When Chavez was first elected, his reform movement was centred around what he called the Bolivarian revolution, evoking the image of Bolivar as the liberator of the Latin American people. Nevertheless, it was explicitly a reformist programme that tinkered within the confines of capitalism, much like the Labour government of 1945 did in establishing the British welfare state. More recently, and since the coup, Chavez has swung to the left. He now argues that capitalism cannot be reformed, and explicitly calls himself a socialist of the 21st century. What this means is, as yet, not entirely clear and whilst he now refers to Marx and Trotsky in his speeches alongside Bolivar, neither Chavez nor the Venezuelan government can be called communist under any definition of the term. As for the cult of personality, I will agree. Chavez is part of a very long tradition in Latin American countries of populism. It might seem slightly alien to modern Europeans, but populism is a significant force in almost every Latin American country and is a factor that exists outside of socialist politics. It's a style of rallying and electioneering. However populists are very rarely dictators, indeed under most populist leaders on the continent democratic rights were significantly expanded and universal suffrage introduced. But I think it would be safe to conclude that Chavez is not a strict populist in the tradition of Peron. I just finished a coursework piece comparing the two leaders, and from everything I've read, I'd have to say that Chavez is first and foremost an ideologically principled socialist, with populist leanings.
