...and communism is an ideal?

Clive, your examples of the USSR, China and Cuba as successful examples of the COMMUNIST system working is laughable.

If you are an expert on Cuba then I am surprised that you were not aware of the widely known gulf that has existed between Fidel in his later years and the ruling communist party. He wanted to reduce state intervention whilst the Communist's obviously didn't. Maybe, you only hear what you want to. It was subject to huge debate at the time. I have found one Reuters link for you. www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/08/us-cuba-castro-idUSTRE6874LC20100908

Unlike you, I shall not ask for links to much of the opinion you have given. The links you have already provided as "proof" are worthless, being from a Chinese newspaper and from a YouTube video channel run by someone who has no credibility whatsoever. The first 12 seconds was obviously recorded at a completely different era to the majority of the video that it was meant to be referring to, and then they've been stuck together. It's a joke!!!!!! You must think I'm stupid! (eerrr, don't answer that)

But, everybody knows that the US didn't like a communist state close to it's borders, a country that invited and encouraged the USSR to launch nuclear missiles from its soil, targeting US cities. The same nation that nationalised the western businesses. They would be stupid to have taken any other stance, certainly in the earlier years.

Batista was supported by the US, but you fail to mention that he was originally backed by the communists in his early years in power. He obviously went the same way as your other communist power crazy egomaniacs, Stalin and Mao, who presided over your other examples of communist success.

The funniest thing is that you are blaming the failure of the Cuban economy on the fact that it's capitalist enemy stopped or wouldn't encourage trade with them (they took their ball in). Even when it had the support of your "superpower" the USSR, the economy failed. If the communist system works, it shouldn't need to depend on capitalist nations helping them out!

Strangely, despite massive poverty in their homeland, Cuba still found enough money to send hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of miles to fight the Africans in Angola over many years - many times what the USSR & South Africa sent combined. Something that you seem immensely proud of.

Regarding the payment of compensation after the nationalisation, I don't know why you are being so coy, as if you are disclosing some secrets that no-one else knows. It is public knowledge. Whilst many countries did receive compensation generally at around 20% to 35% of the correct valuations, it was paid only after many years. 30 yrs to Spain, for example. The US were offered the vast majority of the compensation in Bonds, which would have been worthless if the Castro government was overthrown, meaning that the original owners would have been uncompensated, yet would have lost the assets. As the CIA was planning to overthrow Castro, it made no sense to accept the offer as they thought that the property could more easily be returned to their lawful owners.

Watching you cherry picking little snippets of information, backed up by pro communist propaganda to support your view that Cuba is the beacon of communist success is quite amusing, and I find it quite cute and endearing in a way.

Keep it up!

 

Can Godfather, Clive and ZZ have a private section of the forum where they can have this weekly thread over and over again?

 

We are just using one thread, out of about 30,000 threads on the entire forum. Just don't read this one!

Behave.

 

But you said, and I quote "Castro admitted in 2010 that the soviet type of centralist system was clearly unsustainable and therefore sought investment from businesses outside of Cuba." The link you posted claims that when Fidel was asked whether the Cuban model was still worth exporting to other countries he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore." A wry comment on the changes Raul has introduced I reckon. Your claim that he said the centralist system was "clearly unsustainable" was pure invention. Your claim that he spoke about the necessity of external investment also came from the voices inside your head.

It's the first I've ever heard about a supposed gulf between Fidel and the Communist Party. The huge debate about this that you mention must also have been between you and those voices. It's the one thing of which that nobody could accuse Fidel - changing his mind. He had the same principles, ideas and beliefs in 1959 as when he retired in 2008.

I'm not sure why you consider Chinese media 'worthless'. I would have provided a link to Alpha 66's very own website, with a proud list of the attacks they've made, but it appears to have been taken down recently. Are you really disputing that paramilitary anti-Cuban groups exist in Florida to which the US authorities turn a blind eye? Here's a University of Miami link that notes they're still operating as of 2010 (http://proust.library.miami.edu/findingaids/?p=creators/creator&id=430) Here's a link from Tracking Terrorism.org which notes their tactics are "Assassinations as a Terrorist Tactic, Bombings, Armed Assault" (http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/alpha-66). Alpha 66 has been only one such group. There have been many. They bombed Cuban tourism installations including a hotel where they killed an Italian tourist (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/tourist-killed-as-bombs-hit-cuba-hotels-1237491.html), they bombed a Cuban civilian airliner over Barbados killing everyone on board (http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=13185).

Erm, neither Cuba nor the USSR has ever launched nuclear missiles at US cities. You're making it up again. The only country to have ever carried out the mass slaughter of civilians through dropping a nuke on a city was the USA. Twice.

Obviously.

No it didn't. When Cuba was part of Comecon, the country was quite well off. It was very much subsidised by the USSR because of its geographical position and there was a fair amount of inward investment. Nobody is asking for the capitalists to help Cuba out. All they're asking for is the normal international trade which every country needs. The entire world thinks that the blockade of Cuba by the USA is wrong and should be stopped - the UN has voted overwhelmingly (188-2 on this year's vote) on the USA to end the blockade. Even polls of the US population show that by a 2:1 majority they favour stopping the blockade. So that leaves you, some mouth-foaming lunatics in Miami and Gloria Estefan who think it's a good idea.

No. There's no massive poverty. Nobody dies of starvation. Nobody is homeless. Nobody lacks a school or a doctor. Yes, Cuba was the only country to respond to the Angolan's desperate appeal for help in resisting the US-backed UNITA and apartheid SA troops invasion. Yes Cuba is the only country to have left Africa again with no gold or diamonds, only the bodies of its dead comrades. That's why Cuba was invited to speak at Mandela's funeral. That Cuban intervention hastened the fall of apartheid by probably 25 years.

I already explained to you that Batista took ALL the money. The lot. It went into US banks and Cuba has never seen a penny again. They couldn't pay all the compensation at once and immediately. How could they? Yes, they paid over many years. The reason for the US not accepting govt bonds - we're planning to overthrow you - is not really a valid or ethical argument is it? When you think about it like.

I'm hardly cherry picking. I'm simply comprehensively disproving your crazy right wing untruths about the island. It's not difficult. They're so nonsensical they'd make the most fanatical Miami exile maggot shuffle his feet, wring his hands and suggest toning it down a bit.

 

one thread? hahaha.

every single thread with the remotest link to politics goes the same way.

 

I was in a debate that was, basically, "...why do "our boys" go to war with substandard equipment unlike the Americans". A squaddie pointed out that governments had to make a choice whether they wanted a "first world military". If they wanted a "first world military", like the US, they would have to pay for it by providing a "third world" standard of social care, a "third world" criminal justice system and a "third world" public health system.

 

I really don't know what your problem is. I started the thread in a non-football section to discuss communism. That is what everyone (apart from you) are discussing. Why on earth does it bother you? just ignore it and join in with the 6 identical threads that are discussing Zola.

 

Clive, the link I provided shows Castro referring to the Cuban model - which was the Soviet style of communism, (look at the sixth line of the article). I can't be held responsibility for your lack of knowledge on the subject. It was even reported by the Guardian on 9/9/10 www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/9257416 . It is not in my mind, and you can deny the truth as much as you like, that doesn't fool me.

Further down in the same article, there is reference to Castro admitting that asking the USSR to nuke the USA in 1962 was a mistake, "it wasn't worth it at all." he said.

There was also the Soviet Staff Officer called General Andrian A. Danilevich who (as head of the unit that wrote the Soviet strategic planning guide) admitted that Castro tried to persuade the USSR to bomb the USA in the early 80's, but was dissuaded by the Soviets by the realisation that the radioactive fall out cloud would be likely to affect Cuba itself. You may want to ignore all these references, that is up to you. You can airbrush history if you like, (take North Korea's example) but it fools no-one.

I havn't said that I agree with the embargo continuing, as you say. Where did you get that from? I said it was an understandable move in the early years. Any nation that urges a nuclear attack on the US, is backed by the USSR (which was obviously the great enemy of the US), hardly deserves equal treatment. But things are changing, and maybe the US should stop the embargo.

You are wrong, Cuba were not alone in Angola, the USSR were also involved by supplying arms and troops. get your facts right. Your re-writing of history would be comical, if it wasn't so sad. The Angola war was little more than the extension of the cold war. You say that the Angolans made a "desperate" plea for help, yet Cuban troops flattened villages, destroying all before them, killing males over the age of 10 (to prevent them from joining UNITA). Is that helping a desperate people? The war basically started after independence from Portugal. The communists wanted to change the country from the prevailing free political state to one of communism, that is why the superpowers became involved. It was certainly little to do with Cuba. All sides acted disgracefully, for you to herald the Cubans as "saints" is just a further example of your delusion.

It is strange that you call the USA's intention of overthrowing Castro (the enemy) as unethical, but you are quite comfortable with the Cuba's offer of a launch pad for nuclear weapons and even encouraged nuclear attack on the USA. A strange set of values!

You are "disproving" nothing. Your links merely quote Cuban officials opinions, there is no evidence at all. But, I accept that there are Cuban dissidents in the Miami area. Everybody knows that, as that is where they fled. The US has arrested and charged many of them over offences involving weapons, immigration, etc. I am sure they could do more. It is not so black and white as you try to make out.

I continue to laugh at your assertion that a successful communist regime relies on the capitalists playing the game. They want other nations to indulge in free trade, but don't believe in free trade inside their own borders. Hilarious.

 

I'll be honest, this is making for a fantastic read at work; killed off 15 minutes alone reading through these comments. Keep it up!

 

an under-cooked kebab from an iranian restaurant once gave me the squirts. islam is an workable religion

 

I am happy to partake, but this thread already exists, multiple times, with the same topic hammered beyond death by the same people.

 

There are differing degrees of socialism, as there are differing degrees of capitalism.

The evidence (standard of living indices, health, education, happiness, wages, suicide rates, wealth distribution e.t.c) indicate that North European democratic socialism works best.

The fact that powerful neo-liberals own so much of the media, to dissuade the ignorant masses of its benefits also proves this.

 

But it wasn't capitalism that was destroying Russia, pre Revolution. It was the fact that total control had been in the hands of a succession of inept Zsars, (and Rasputin) who had little or no real talent for running a country or any true leadership qualities. Revolutions had been frequent and inevitable, it is just a shame that it was in the name of communism rather than democracy.

This argument around the "haves" and "have nots" is a daft argument. In any population there is a natural tendency for a proportion of the population to continually want to improve themselves when compared with the average. It is a natural phenomenon, no more no less. This manifests itself in them succeeding in being stronger, or faster, or higher jumpers, or mountaineers, or explorers, etc, etc. Or, they want to be better off and provide for their families in ways that the majority would like but do not have the ability, the drive and determination, or luck to enable them to succeed. Communism strives to stifle this natural phenomenon, but is unable to do so - demonstrated by their leaders feathering their nests before their inevitable downfall as their deception becomes clearer.

This natural phenomenon of some of the population striving to improve means, for example, that the time gap between the average walking speed and Olympic sprinters gets larger, or explains why the average strength of people stays pretty constant whilst weight lifting records keeps creeping up - and why the gap between the less well-off and better-off will inevitably get larger over time.

As others have said, the "have-nots" of today, have a lot more than they did in previous generations and far more than the "have nots" in North Korea or the USSR.

...I enjoyed that!

 

If anyone has been to the Madarin Chinese restaurant in Northwood Hills, They have an article on the wall in the gents loo that illustrates communism using cows as an example. A quick internet search provided this more comprehensive illustration.


http://www.cyberclass.net/ref2cows.htm

World Ideologies as Explained by Reference to Cows

[HR][/HR] Feudalism
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
Pure Socialism
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you all the milk you need.
Bureaucratic Socialism
Your cows are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.
Fascism
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
Pure Communism
You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
Real World Communism
You share two cows with your neighbours. You and your neighbours bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.
Russian Communism
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.
Perestroika
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the "free" market.
Cambodian Communism
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
Militarianism
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
Totalitarianism
You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
Pure Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.
Representative Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
British Democracy
You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.
Bureaucracy
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
Pure Anarchy
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you.
Pure Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Capitalism
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.
Environmentalism
You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.
Political Correctness
You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently - aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.
Surrealism
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
Enron Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank. He then executes a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by your CFO who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on six more.
Now do you see why a company with $62 billion in assets is declaring bankruptcy?

 

The reason communism can never work is because of human nature. Humans are selfish and cannot generally be motivated by a concept of "the greater good". Under communism the workers that are motivated are driven purely by fear, while the rest simply go through the motions. The leaders in positions of power use their influence to enjoy trappings which are certainly not consistent with the ideology of their economy.

I am not advocating our current useless quasi capitalist system by the way, where the businesses get the upside and the taxpayer gets the downside.

 

I agree with most of your post but I don't agree that humans are basically selfish. I think that many people genuinely think that they can do more "greater good" by using their money to build successful businesses and that the wealth will filter down. They will often be mistaken, but I think often they will be right.

Using a very simplistic example. If I was left or I won £5m I could choose to give (say) 1,000,000 poorer people £5 each or 200 people £25,000 each.

Or, I could use it to start a business that will hopefully grow to give employment to (say) 200 workers where they all earn a good wage over say 30 years (they each earn £750,000 over that time) so that they can provide for their own family. This latter option will mean that £150,000,000 in wages would be generated over 30 years, plus about £20m in income taxes and more in business taxes.

Personally, I genuine think this latter option is preferable. I think there is a significant proportion of the population that would agree with my genuine belief. I don't think that would make us selfish.

 

Jumbo – Are humans really innately greedy and selfish? Do you really think that’s an integral part of our condition? It’s a sad and precarious outlook for future of the human race if you’re right.

That there’s plenty of greed and selfishness on very prominent display all around us is beyond dispute. However, I think you’re mistaken to think that it’s a natural human quality. For me, it’s a completely unnatural phenomenon and arises from people’s natural humanity becoming twisted by exposure to the cruel brutality of “devil take the hindmost” capitalism.

Do you believe that a baby would be inspired to grab, accumulate and stockpile all the milk he/she could get their hands on because of their natural inbuilt greed and selfishness? I believe those impulses come later through nurture rather than nature.
I believe we’re monkeys – social animals. I think our natural (and most fulfilling) state is to live as part of a large community, helping one another out and looking after the smallest and weakest.

How would your theory of “natural” greed and selfishness tie in with all of the altruism and charity giving that we also see? Surely every natural sense ought to scream against putting a pound in the collection box for some stranger’s benefit if that were the case? That’s evidently not the case.

I think we’re on a march towards sophistication as a species. We’ve advanced from being savages, gone through plenty of senseless wars, slaughter and cruelty. We’re young as a species and ought to have a long way to go and develop ourselves. Unfortunately we’re never going to do it whilst we’re competing with one another and allowing the foolish waste of accumulative and speculative capitalism.

The only way we’re going to do it is by sharing and cooperation.

 

You miss the point by a mile Zizi. £5 million represents access to resources - correct? The money itself is no good to you. You can't eat it or wear it or drink it. It is worth what it will buy for you in goods and services.

Nobody should have such a sum accumulated. It's completely immoral. It represents far more than you could ever hope to consume in your lifetime.

Why start up a business with it? What if it's a stupid, wasteful business that nobody needs? Surely we'd be better off sensibly planning our needs and how we're going to meet them rather than some over-monied wild cannon wasting work and materials producing what HE thinks we ought to want. Surely that path (which is pretty much the one we follow now) leads to waste, duplication and inevitable chaos?

 

Taking your model to it's logical conclusion we should all farm our own plot of land and provide for ourselves only. Good luck to the disabled, elderly or infirm.

This is a third world mentality which whilst environmentally agreeable does not improve our quality of life or further scientific research. Surely it's best to let a skilled farmer produce our food, skilled engineers provide shelter and warmth, trained medical staff look after our health and trained soldiers defend our interests?

Whilst I'm pretty handy in the garden and know one end of a hammer from another, I'm not sure I could cure myself of a serious illness and I'm sure a hammer couldn't stop my next-door neighbour stealing my parsnips.

 

No, you are completely missing the point yourself. I am not insisting that my preference in the example is the "right one" (although I think it is). What I am saying, is that, if my belief is genuine (that I could do more with the money in this way), then that does not mean that I am being "selfish" by spending the money in that way. Maybe I couldn't consume £5m in my lifetime, but that would be the point of making it work for the 200 employees. Is that so difficult for you to grasp?

The rest of your post is somewhat daft s well...
Those amounts of money are accumulated - that is a fact.
If it is a stupid and wasteful business that nobody wants then it would fail anyway! What is your point?
How do you know that I couldn't plan things myself. Why would I believe you or some other socialist can plan better?

Clive, I am not looking at systems that can start from some sort of Utopia that can happily start from a neutral position (maybe back in Adam and Eves day), I am looking at it from a present day perspective - from where we are now. Reality matters, not idealistic ffaff!

 

In your example, the business wouldn't fail for at least 30 years - no matter how foolish and unwanted it was - because you'd have £5 million backing you.

I know for an absolute certainty that an all-encompassing analysis of people's needs and then meeting those needs through production of appropriate resources, simply must be better than one man's judgement of what he thinks he can sell and make a profit from. That surely has to be common sense.

I'd agree with you that we're not living (yet) in that utopia where everyone's needs are met and everyone can live with sufficient food, clean water, housing, sanitation, health care and education. Starting a wee business won't get us any nearer that state either. Nor will arguing in the defence of foolish capitalism and advocating its continuance.

 

It is just as well you have your views, because you obviously have no concept of running a business if you think that a business isn't failing if it continues to eat up a £5m backing fund. That is not how business works. If it wasn't paying it's own way after a relatively short period of time (say 2 years or sooner) then serious questions would be asked, no matter how much money is there in the kitty. I think you are mistakenly thinking of the majority of nationalised industries!!!:naughty:

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as it is so daft. I'll leave you to force a revolution in your idealistic search for utopia.

 

"How would your theory of “natural” greed and selfishness tie in with all of the altruism and charity giving that we also see? Surely every natural sense ought to scream against putting a pound in the collection box for some stranger’s benefit if that were the case? That’s evidently not the case."

I'm not much a charitable giver myself, but this isn't because I don't want to give to good causes. It's more because I see large charities being run for the people that work there with self centred CEOs on hundreds of thousands a year creaming off all the donations in operating expenses.

However I will concede that it is quite possible that the awful selfish behaviour I see is as a result of modern conditioning as opposed to something the human race is born with.

 

I'd agree entirely with your analysis of the hopeless charidee "industry", Jumbo. I'm sure everyone's seen the adverts for so-called "senior officers" on huge salaries with first class travel and private health care. Many will be aware that many charidees also seem to be far more interested in posing for the TV cameras and publicity snaps round the airport in Toyota Land Cruisers rather than actually doing anything useful.

That gross failure doesn't however detract from the spirit of those noble people (poorer people in the main according to what I've read) who empathise with the suffering of others and give generously to try to help them.

The question of whether greed and selfishness are caused by "nature or nurture" has a long history of debate. Personally I'm firmly convinced it's through nurture and people's characters becoming twisted and corrupted by the "me me me" message of capitalism.

 

Sounds like Union leaders :naughty:

 

There are many websites you can research where your money goes. such as http://www.smallcharitydirectory.co.uk
I don't tend to donate to chuggers and would rather choose online and choose a caharity. Not that I donate much.

I'd still rather donate a a charity where my tenner could save a life and the top CEO (of a multi billion charity mind) takes a nice wage, than one ran by pasionate people who will take 20 quid to save a life.

 

Agreed.

Even actions that initially appear altruistic often aren't.

 

Haven't read whole thread, but for clarity.my wife is deputy ceo of a major young peoples charity in the east of England, sadly she doesn't earn mega bucks/travel first class etc. what she does do is work a zillion hours a week(as do her colleagues) and makes a very real difference to young people who have had a wretched start to life. Of course she goes to work to earn money but it really isn't the be all and end all. What she and many like her get is fantastic job satisfaction.

For many years we have both done voluntary work as samaritans and working on the soup kitchen with the sally army. I've often asked myself if i do it to geniunely help or if it's to make me feel good. The conclusion I've come to, is it really doesn't matter why. Voluntary work and charities(imho) are the back bone and fabric of our democratic country

 

Greed is nature or else predators would share their prey with other packs. They have no capitalist system to manipulate their mindset, and never have done. Therefore, packs are a natural separation in order to fend for their own survival. The only reason animals don't act independently all the time is because it is more efficient to hunt in groups, and therefore it works in their individual interests.

A biologist may correct this theory as I am no specialist, being a Physics&Maths graduate.

 

I'm not disparaging the rank and file charity workers. But the fact is I think of David Miliband on his £295k salary and wonder how much of my donation is actually going to get to the good cause. On that basis I decline to donate. If Miliband really wants to be charitable then do it for 50k ffs. Surely that is enough on top of his earnings from "The Office of David Miliband" or whatever his company is.

However, if a family is raising money for their kid's specialist medical treatment then I'm happy to put £20 in.

 

It is a good point about how much of a donation actually goes to help the cause.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4288#.Us0gLyf-gwo Is a US site it shows that 79% of Oxfam donations do. I'm sure there's other sites out ther that offer similar services.

I donated the old meistermobile to charity. It raised £49 through giveacar.com to Marie Curie. Considering it had a collection scrap value of £120, next time I'll manage it myself and donate the full £120 to charity.
I was a bit annoyed really as the reason I used them is they promised if it was viable they'd get the car roadworthy and sell it. As it had only got 18,000 on the clock I'm sure they could have raised more, even if they'd sold off parts. It felt to me like they just wanted their "processing & handling fees" and didn't really care about the charitable aspect.

 

We're not lone predators though Carlos are we?

We're social monkeys used to living together in a communal troupe. You can commonly see members of a monkey troupe helping one another out, even when they're not related.

I think. I'm sure I saw something on the telly once.

(Maths & Computing)