Maes, " The Cuban government has made organic farming a priority, since handing over 80% of state-owned land to private shareholder enterprises." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1409898.stm This is an example of the type of reforms Cuba may need more of. How successful would these organic farms be if the Cuban gov't hadn't handed over land to private shareholder enterprises?
Why would Stalin kill 20 million people? For what purpose, exactly? Labor was badly needed, so such killings would be pointless, barbaric, and extremely hurtful to the economy. According to your beloved fascist hero, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Stalin killed 60 million people. Another guy a few months ago, stated that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 300 million people, a number so big that it could not possibly be the USSR, considering (correct me if I am wrong) the USSR population figures never reached 300 million!!! Errr, wrong country
Motion; "Cuba is attempting to achieve food selfsufficiency by involving the entire populace in the effort. Central planning helps to determine research and education programs, disseminating the knowledge needed to employ alternative agricultural techniques. Economies of scale are exploited and scarce resources directed to where they are needed most. At the same time, the units of production are kept as small as possible, empowering individual growers and drawing upon their specialized knowledge of local agronomic conditions. Additionally, such small-scale units of management have created numerous small research centers, allowing farmers and scientists to interact more frequently and effectively." So, "private stakeholder enterprise" doesn't mean there are private companies. The state oriented (agricultural) scale programmes are abonded to minimize the costs and maximize the efficiency by encouraging the citizens to farm. Teenagers of military age are also encouraged to opt for farming, as a social service. If they settle down as farmers to the designated plots, they get some benefits, I dont remember what exactly there are. Since the country lacks petroleum, there is very limited cold storage space available. Therefore people living in cities have been granted the right to farm on the communal (civic) gardens, parks and at the sides of the roads where they harvest some of their daily vegetable diet. What would have happened if these farms were delivered to real capitalist enterprises? First of all, there would be a huge lobby against “organic food laws”. Both by Chemical Companies (like Lever, Bayer, Johnson and etc.) and by agricultural companies. Then local farmers would have been “enslaved” by huge transnational agricultural companies as it happens in the USA and France. In France McDonald’s is the second biggest livestock buyer. That’s how they enslave farmers, they dictate the prices (more or less) they dictate the way they feed the animals and the dates that the animals need to be slaughtered and etc. As you know, Mad Cow was first seen in Cows forced to eat meat for some smartass capitalist company’s Research and Development lab found out that fodder containing meat “just tastes better!”. The situtation is even worse in the USA where Bush recently received money for the past elections, from his fellow cattle raisers. Who ownes the largest kids’ playground in the USA as in kilometer squares? The Government? No, McDonald’s. Who dictates chicken growers? Kentucky Fried Chicken. Most chicken raisers have no say whatsoever in what they do. They are given the eggs by the KFC, they are given the feed and they are expected to slaughter the chikens and hand the meat to KFC on time, at the prices set by the KFC. How about the laws against monopoly? Well, that’s why they had helped Bush. Today millions of kids in the USA are malnourished, especially the african americans and people of other racial backgrounds. But in Cuba, children up to age 7 receive fresh milk and proper rations and they eat clean food. Maybe not much, maybe they dont have the chance to eat the half of a sandwich and throw away the rest as their Northern peers and become obese at the age of 13 but at least they eat decent food and I bet they would understand better what Thanksgiving Day is all about, if they haven’t already been “culture bombed”.
The actions of homicidal megalomaniacs are rarely rational. It was Stalin's idiotic (and cruel) economic policies that killed so many millions: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/stalin/ Well, he obviously should have been killed along with all the other "fascists" who dared to question official state dogma . . .
Maes, I predict that after Castro,Cuba will become more free market oriented, I don't know to what extent though. Capitalism is already in Cuba but on an underground level. Capitalism in Cuba: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec01/cuba_7-17.html
I think people usually admire Che for his polotics, not so much the story of his life, and the same could be said for george bush. Anti-drug people still vote for george bush despite his former use of pot and coke. Che is a hero to many pacifists, although he was a violent revolutionary. Im not sure what to believe about Che's life though, there are to many conflicting sources. I'll just respect him as a symbol of socialism. Peace, as always.
When you read or watch news about some radical anti-american revolutionaries, you need to be critical, in two ways. The biggest companies give a very one-sided picture about anyone against the pan-american world order, manytimes plain lies. From the news of these big companies you will not learn anything about reality, you just become a brainwashed tool for the capitalists. On the other hand, you need to be very critical, when you read alternative news, which may also be very one-sided and close eyes from the bad things happening in the name of some beloved ideology. That happened in the time of USSR. There was terrible things happening, but many socialist intellectuals were dreaming about socialism so hard they didn't see the reality. Anyway, if you live in USA and have only seen news on TV and read only mainstream american newspapers, you don't know much about the world around USA, especially about the truth of what's been going on in South and Middle America for the last century. USA-politicians and capitalists and the capitalist media are not pro-democracy or pro-liberty or pro-human-rights. What they want is a hegemony in the world, money, power, armies, governments on their knees. Take Rwanda for an example. There is not even half a million people in the ruling class and 8 million without any democratic rights. If you make a stand there, you get killed. Guess which country supports the rulers. USA. USA supports this oppression, why? Well, rwandan troops make these expeditions into Kongo and steal for example diamonds from the miners. Where do these plundered riches end up then? And what does the ruling elite get from it? These are things that any rwandan would know, but why don't we know it in the West with all the media available? Someone doesn't want these things to be talked about. You need to question!
Motion, Of course there are small capitalists under communism. Small manufacturers (plumbers, barbers, carpenters, musicians and farmers -on markets-) have always existed in communism. In fact, communism intrinsically has some mode of capitalism and it shall be so as long as there is waged labour, for waged labour means surplus and surplus means the exploitation and the alienation of the workers. Communism is just a system that aims to re-distribute the exploited surplus equally in accordance with the so called “mutually planned” social needs, which are often times dictated by a socialist bourgeous as Charles Bettleheim once stated in the beloved Monthly Review. www.peoplesmarch.com/archives/2004/june2k4/sweezy.htm Capitalism does the same. However in capitalism you are not forced to live that life but you are forced to buy that life and think you have choises. Who do you think rules the USA, Bush? Bush is “his masters' voice”.
Both Communism and Capitalism are about the distribution of wealth,but through different methods. Isn't one problem with communism is that it limits the earning potential of many? Isn't what people earn under communism largely determined by government planning? Suppose a person disagrees with that they're earning? How many choices do they have under communism to earn more? Capitalism on the other hand,has fewer limits on earnings. People are free to create as much wealth as their abilities allow. Workers are free to move to different jobs that suit their earning goals. This is how capitalism "distributes" wealth,by giving people economic freedom to do as they please as far as how,and how much wealth an individual can accumulate and do with as they please.
Motion, If we are to discuss the matter technically, I shall remind you some key points about the capitalist mode of production: Capitalism is bound to collapse because of its inner contradictions. These inner contradictions are: 1) The law of unproportionate production and demand This law, introduced by Marx, is the rejection of Jean Baptiste Say’s law: "Aggregate supply creates its own aggregate demand". Because of the chaotic structure of the free markets, supply and demand never offset. There is always over supply because 1) there’s tough competition 2) there aren’t any mechanisms to control overproduction 3) there’s a natural contradiction between capitalist’s profit rate and the wage workers get (with that wage, they buy consumer goods –over-produced by the capitalist, so it’s a vicious circle) This chaotic form of the so called “free markets” causes a decline in profits which leads to bankrupting capitalists, unemployment and thus systematic depressions which elevate the discontent among the worker class. For Marx, this is a reason for revolt. Another result is, world resources are exploited immensely and superfluously. The excessive goods are wasted although they could be distributed to people in need. Throwing the unsold hambugers to trash bin every 3 minutes at McDonald’s restaurants is a good example for this. This over exploitation also damages the nature irreversibly. We steal our offsprings’ future. Thus Donald Trump is justified when he uses water necessary for Ethiopian children for his golf courses. 2) The Law of Capital Accumulation Every capitalist acts to make profit. To make an investment more profitable you have to increase the “Variable capital”. Most often, it’s technological innovations. But to make those innovations you have to have large amounts of savings. Eventually, the company that has accumulated the larger amount of capital, invests further into technology and outprofits his competitor. This results in monopoly or oligopoly. 3) The Law of Decreasing Profit Rates An investment is most profitable when fresh. Afterwards other competitors arrive at the markets. Even if they dont, profit margins tend to retreat because markets saturate. This forces capitalist to increase efficiency a) either by innovations b) or by lowering the wages. A capitalist does both. As a result discontent rises among the working class, total demand for goods decreases and an army of unemployed heats up the competition for jobs, pulling wages further down. This results in a) Revolts b) Finding new markets. Now the crucial part: The first industrial revolution’s capitalist crisis was overcome by the forcibly opening up new markets in colonies. The second was overcome by liberating the former colonies and turning them into areas of cheap labour and raw materials. Now the third crisis is at hand and capitalists cannot find new markets to spread. After all, who will you force to buy your goods, the martians? Thus, V.I. Lenin added the 4th law of capitalist contradiction; 4) The law of unproportionate growth OR the Crisis of Imperialism.
When do you predict U.S capitalism collapsing for the reasons you gave? Isn't it more that communism is collapsing? Where is the Soviet Union? Why has China become more capitalist and less communist?
How likely do you think it is that would ever happen? And is the war the result of the depression, or the depression merely a convenient cause for war?
With the casual way Bush starts his wars these days, I think it's very unlikely indeed. A war in general is just a way out of a depression, quite clearly started only for that sake.
I highly doubt it. There is very little profit from a depression, and it's a natural part of the business cycle. You just can't have a capitalist society without it, war or no war.
It's a matrix of manifold interrelations. That's why there is a science field called Global Political Economy. So don't expect anyone to give a clear cut date for it. But a prediction would be: When "the triad" (britain, the EU and Japan) as Samir Amin calls it, quits financing USA's deficit by releasing their dollar stocks. That'll force Americans to 1) a cutback in social spendings (like education), 2) sell more goods to world (against tough competitors like the EU, Japan and China) 3) and eventually print more money which would cause inflation, rising interest rates and thus causing lack of investments and an economic stagnation. But before this happens, the USA may have to wage some more wars. Communism cannot survive in a capitalist environment. Imagine a table where everyone is fasting or waiting to start dining altogether. And imagine a guy walking up to the table, grabbing large chunks of food. Who would be full, the guys that fast or the guy that grabs the portions ? Capitalism is bad but America is the worst capitalist state. This is what's happening now with the Kyoto protocol. While even other capitalist states are "fasting" by not polluting the earth for more profits, the USA, responsible for the 54% of all carbondioxide emission on the planet alone, disregards the protol like a spoiled child. Now because America didnt ratify the protocol, Russia also resigned from it. Why? Because America turned "dining" into a race for grabbing the largest portions! America is the only country in the UN that blocks the ratification of article that says "Every human has the right to food". (This happened in Rome, where the US didn't send a delegate but only a member) America is the only country that insists on describing UN's poverty scale as "people living on 1 dollar a day", while other countries try to raise this standart so that bigger UN projects can be financed for the feeding of more people. America is cheating even in capitalist business. I wonder what Weber would have commented on his "Protestant Ethics" theory, had he seen the USA. Well, there was the British Empire at his time but anyway... So, that's why some people (including economists like Sweezy) believe that communism can only be established and kept through armed struggle. But then again the question remains the same: who guarantees that the "communist bourgeous" or the elites wont be corrupt when the whole world is communist?
Do you like him for him, or because it's suddently ~*~*~KEWLZZZ~*~*~ and all the cool kids are wearing shirts with his picture on it?
I have respect for what che did aside from the trials and killings during The Revolutions purges of the country after the victory. I really enjoy reading about the revolution because it is a kind of romantic idea. A bunch of Idealists trying to change a country. Its just too bad that it didn't turn out better.
he did seem like he was pretty violent. most of the people in these forums adore him, but didn't he use violence to reach political change. it's kind of strange to me.
