Why Dictators Can't Be Capitalist.

You are absolutely right motion, I wasn't judging people who look out for their self-interest, i was just simply stating that if a dictator turns his country into a communist country, so in turn he can make more money and have more power, that, to me, would make him a capitalist, even though the majority of the world would say he was a communist.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

The working class can never become capitalists themselves. A few workers may become capitalists, but the working class will always be the working class.

They are not "free" to become capitalists. Can I just wave around, and become a captialist? Can an illiterate, suffering from malnutrition and various diseases, without any education, suddenly become a capitalist?


And what is so great about being a member of the capitalist class? Being an exploiter? A parasite? A person who lives on other people's labor?



So what if some of them "can" become capitalist themselves? A lot of hard working workers are doing their best, selling their labor power throughout their lifetime, while only ending their lives in a meager shanty.

The working class will always be exploited under the capitalist system. Even if just a few workers manage to become capitalist, does not mean everyone can be a capitalist. Like in every class society, there is always a need to have someone to be exploited. Class society is all about that. The exploiter and the exploited.

Everyone can't be happy under capitalism. In the current society, a fairly large percentage of the population has to suffer, in order to keep the ruling class happy. Not because they want to see suffering in itself, but because they are a useful source for cheap labor power.


Now, we have a choice:

We can either establish a society that serves most people, where everyone are treated as equal, or continue on the current society (the capitalist society) that only serve a few people, while the rest will live poor and exploited. What's it going to be?

Life is not easy, why not make it best as possible?

Let's create a society that keeps everyone happy.

 

Why do you think so many immigrants keep coming to Capitalist America?

 

lol... They dont anymore... irish came becuz they didnt have enuf potatoes.

 

Where do you think almost 100% of America's population growth comes from?

 

Plus, emigration is on the rise in astronomical rates in the US right now.

immigration will be going down too...

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/chavez/hinojosa/chicano125/usmx441.gif

Population growth comes from a lot of things... immigration is a small sliver... the population growth problem is huge... plz show me where "immigration counts for almost 100% of us population growth"

plus you have to take into consideration, that nowndays our immigrants come almost entirely from Mexico...

http://www.amren.com/9111issue/graph5.GIF

1/3 of the world hates america, not many people are dying to get into the country

 

The chart you provided only goes up to 1980...and immigration was slightly INCREASING at the end, so I don't see what point you're trying to make with that chart.

Population growth can only come from two things: Births or immigration.

The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman...which is exactly what America's fertility rate is.

Since the increasing population in the United States doesn't come from births, the only other place it can come from is immigration.

 

Uhm, because living standards in for examples capitalist Mexico is lower than that of the capitalist U.S.?

The U.S. is not the only capitalist nation in the world. South America, Europe, Asia and Africa are all capitalist, with a very few exceptions. Poverty is everywhere in the everywhere. These "backyards" are used by U.S. imperialism to genereate easy profit.

Look at the difference and development of Cuba and Haiti, and you'll notice some difference.

The revolutionary government in Cuba managed to eradicate illiteracy just a few years after it's establishment, something hundreds of years of capitalism could not do. Among the third world countries, Cuba has the highest living standards, and under Fidel, things have been pretty stabile the last 45 years, despite U.S. bombing (including civilians), invasion, sabotage, blockade, countles threaths, terrorism (including biological attacks) and permanent hostility against the Island. The U.S. has not managed to crush Cuba. Quite the opposite. Cuba has resisted US agression against the nation in a brilliant way. But of course, this is just a coincidence. Every nation in Latin America is dependent on the US. What other Latin American country would be able to stay away from trading with the United States for decades?

If socialism "didn't work", why did the Soviet Union send the first satellite into space?

If socialism "didn't work", why did the Soviet Union manage to send the first man in history into space?


Is socialism "didn't work", why did the USSR manage to beat the world's most powerful army at the time (Germany), and Cuba defend itself against 45 years of American aggression?

Is socialism "didn't work", why have some of the most backward nations become socialist, and even managed to surpass the U.S. in forms of technology and living standards just after a few decades?

 

War-torn countries can't develop economically, regardless of the economic system in place. I'm not surprised that Haiti is still so impoverished.

You do realize that illiteracy hasn't been seen as a social problem for more than a few decades, right?

Haha. So excluding every country with higher living standards than Cuba, Cuba has the highest living standards.

By starving its citizens?

By starving its citizens?

You're joking, right?

After a few failed attempts on Castro's life, the United States simply got bored with trying to kill him. I'm sure he'd be dead by now if the CIA had actively continued trying to get rid of him for the last several decades.

I love how you brush aside the atrocities of the USSR and Cuba by saying that they aren't "real" communist states, but you're so eager to tout what you perceive as their successes.

There is not a single socialist nation in the world that has started from scratch and quickly beat the United States in terms of living standards. Examples, please.

 

There are a lot of countries who beat the US in terms of living standards... lots of them are most socialistic... norway, denmark, sweden, all are more socialistic than the US and have better living standards.

 

Those countries hardly fall into the previous poster's claim:

Those countries have all been on roughly equal footing as the United States in terms of standard of living for a long time...It's not like they were recently third-world pits that adopted socialism and their economy suddenly exploded, as the previous poster implies.

And those nations better abandon some of their socialism fast, or they'll be looking at economic collapse. Sweden in particular is on the verge of bankruptcy, due to its ridiculously high deficit spending.

Of course it's possible to finance a high standard of living through socialism...but only for a short time. Sweden does indeed provide its citizens with most of what they need, but taxes its citizens at a far lower rate than it actually needs to balance the budget. It has managed to get away with this so far because the REAL tax rate in Sweden would absolutely strangle the economy. Sooner or later, a day of reckoning will come, and Sweden will have to either raise its taxes to North-Korean-like rates or abandon some of its social programs.

Deficit spending is no different than having a spending spree on your credit card. In the short term you'll have everything you want for free, but you're going to have to pay for it eventually.

 

Well, well, well... Anyway, you cann't put the equal sign between Scandinavian and communist states! The Scandinavian socialism means higher taxation to support various social programs, but economy continues to be based on market rules and private property, so it's still capitalistic.

Communism, on the other hand, means elimination of most of the private property and centralised government controled economy, where the government is working on plans (year or five-years period plans), establishing what and howmuch should be produced. A great flaw of this system prouved to be the incapacity of the government to realy evaluate the needs and the future market evolution.

And Communism, your image about the rich exploiters and the poor exploited sounds like old stalinist propaganda at least... And based on realities which can be found in third world and former soviet countries.

Actualy, a capitalist who leads his bussiness and try to prosper, not to get into bankropsy, actualy works twice as hard as his employees. It's far from being a social parasite! On the other hand, well developped capitalism also means middle class: small bussinesses, independent farmers, free professionals (lawyers, brokers, physicians, other services providers) and so on, people who actualy have a great contribution in moving capitalist society.

And this absence of exploitation in communism, please! It exists only in theory. In real life someone must do the capitalist and manager's work, so communist states, after expropriating private bussinesses, created a large beaurocracy to do exactly that. This beaurocracy, representing the state as the true owner and the people as the colective formal owner, established a higher life standard for itself then the rest of the population, acting not so far as the real capitalists (most of them, after the 1989 revolutions and during the "perestroika" in USSR became capitalists; they had the knowledge, they were the system already in place and they had more money that the average people). So, if we admit your point of view about exploited and exploiters, communism only replaced an exploiter class to another.

And if one system truely created parasite categories, it was the communism: secret police aparatus was quite large and overpayed, without having any economical utility; there was also a group of persons (propagandists, some intelectuals) payed mostly to publicly kiss the dictator's ass, again with no real utility; the people who normaly should be unemployed were hired and receiving payments without working, because the needs were asured only by a part of the personal,- these ones weren't overpayed, but in a way, they were a parasitary category.

Now, about the capitalism and the dictators. Well, always a definition has its variations, so if a regim it's taking polithical freedom, but leave the economy to function on capitalist principals, then the two can coexist. And the range of dictatorships doesn't restrain only to communism and fascism, both state control freak regims. There were dictatorships (I would quote as an example who I know from my country's history the Antonescu military regim between 1940 and 1944; intialy the regim was fascist, but after four months the legionary mouvement- the main fascist party was eliminated; the only interventions of Antonescu in economy were the confiscation and repartition of Jewish fortunes and the transition to war production, but this one made with and not against the capitalists).