The "Che phenomenon"

k.p.h

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok - let's try socialism again. Have a look at the list of countries I listed earlier on page 12 and pick out a successful one we could model ourselves on.

I'm not really pushed on the out and out socialism right now TBH. I don't think we currently have or ever had the resources or technology to implement the it successfully. I just stating that capitalism is not sustainable. In about 25 years time or so we will be heading pretty franticly towards something a bit more socialist anyway.

alastair

Computer Sci wrote: »

Such as?

Once again - Scandinavian style Democratic Socialism with a mix of command economy and free-markets. It's worked pretty well for them.

Johro

Computer Sci wrote: »

Such as?



We already do - it's called the Law. Anybody who has made a living through the capitalist system, from the everyday worker to the wealthiest executives has made their living fair and square by using their assets/ wealth/ investments to buy and sell products and services. If anybody has been found to be gaining wealth illegally, they are brought to court and imprisoned, whether they are the everyday worker or the wealthiest executive.



Yet more nonsense. Governments often encourage businesses to profit and set up within their jurisdictions as those companies will create jobs and wealth, with all the knock-on effects such as reduced crime, and taxation raised from more incomes to pay for healthcare/ education/ infrastructure etc.



Who is "lording it over the rest of us". To be honest, you are starting to make no sense at this point and are beginning to sound like some begrudging old granny who can't stand to see other people doing well for themselves, just because you aren't.



Despite your persistent conspiracy mongering, most Western nations are open and democratic systems. Capitalists create jobs and make a wage for themselves through the simple mechanism of supply-vs-demand, and buying and selling a product/ service at a profit. There is no conspiracy to take over the governments within these societies, despite your suspicions.

It's also ironic given that Communistic governments have usually been in the pockets of the military or other large conglomerates. Not to mention, the corrupt and powerful few who do well for themselves, while the people under their rule starve.

While you seem to be trying to ridicule anything I've posted on the subject, you're actually pretty naive when it comes to the reality of how money makes the world go round. For some.
I am familiar with supply and demand, thank you very much. :rolleyes:
And for the last time, maybe someone put up Soviet Russia or any other communist government as a shining example of how it should be done, but it sure wasn't me. Not now, not ever.

Computer Sci

alastair wrote: »

Once again - Scandinavian style Democratic Socialism with a mix of command economy and free-markets. It's worked pretty well for them.

Scandinavia is capitalist, regardless of what's it's socio-political mores and systems are. It was the Capitalist ethos and philosophy which brought about Siemens of Sweden and Nokia of Finland for instance, not to mention many of Norway's oil industries. The correct way of putting it - is that capitalism allows these nations to support a social democratic political and social system.

k.p.h

Computer Sci wrote: »

most Western nations are open and democratic systems

Democracy has it issues too unfortunately, its just about as unrealistic as out and out socialism in my opinion.

k.p.h

Computer Sci wrote: »

Scandinavia is capitalist, regardless of what's it's socio-political mores and systems are. It was the Capitalist ethos and philosophy which brought about Siemens of Sweden and Nokia of Finland for instance, not to mention many of Norway's oil industries. The correct way of putting it - is that capitalism allows these nations to support a social democratic political and social system.

Reckon its a decent system they have going their myself ..

Tar.Aldarion

this thread has made you unemployable for life

Computer Sci

k.p.h wrote: »

Democracy has it issues too unfortunately, its just about as unrealistic as out and out socialism in my opinion.

Any system has it's issues, it's just that democracy and capitalism have proven themselves to be effective at delivering positive outcomes for over two centuries, whilst others have failed outright.

It's also important to remember that under a system of government such as Che's beloved communists - that a website like boards.ie would be shut down. It's ironic really, because the people who decry and demonise capitalism on a daily basis, not only gain from the benefits of capitalism, but also gain the benefits of the system of democracy which capitalism as a system bolsters. Under any other system, the people criticising capitalism would be silenced, including in Communist countries such as Cuba, China, Zimbabwe etc.

dsmythy

'Che' must be the only cool murderer and human rights violator from history going

Johro

Computer Sci wrote: »

To be honest, you are starting to make no sense at this point and are beginning to sound like some begrudging old granny who can't stand to see other people doing well for themselves, just because you aren't.

Yeah... Because we're all doing reeeeeeally well...
I'd love to see people doing well. Shame, that, coz there's not much evidence of this shared wealth.

Computer Sci

dsmythy wrote: »

'Che' must be the only cool murderer and human rights violator from history going

But he loike tried to overthrow the evil capitalists man, that's loike sooo totally cool.

Johro

Computer Sci wrote: »

But he loike tried to overthrow the evil capitalists man, that's loike sooo totally cool.

Yeah well.. with a name like Shay... gotta be like, Irish grandparents or summat..

Computer Sci

Johro wrote: »

Yeah well.. with a name like Shay... gotta be like, Irish grandparents or summat..

I’d prefer we associate ourselves with John F. Kennedy for instance, the man who managed to talk communists out of using Cuba to obliterate the Eastern United States and kill tens of millions of lives with nuclear weapons.

Johro

Shay O'Gara.

Greentopia

Computer Sci wrote: »

Scandinavia is capitalist, regardless of what's it's socio-political mores and systems are. It was the Capitalist ethos and philosophy which brought about Siemens of Sweden and Nokia of Finland for instance, not to mention many of Norway's oil industries. The correct way of putting it - is that capitalism allows these nations to support a social democratic political and social system.

True. They probably would not be able to maintain such huge all-encompassing Welfare States were it not for the high taxes the State takes in from Capitalist enterprises and their workers.

Their sucessful Social Democratic models were borne out of Democratic Socialism though which came from Marxism.

Oh and Siemens is a German company, not Swedish. I think perhaps you meant Ericsson.

k.p.h

Computer Sci wrote: »

Any system has it's issues, it's just that democracy and capitalism have proven themselves to be effective at delivering positive outcomes for over two centuries, whilst others have failed outright.

It's also important to remember that under a system of government such as Che's beloved communists - that a website like boards.ie would be shut down. It's ironic really, because the people who decry and demonise capitalism on a daily basis, not only gain from the benefits of capitalism, but also gain the benefits of the system of democracy which capitalism as a system bolsters. Under any other system, the people criticising capitalism would be silenced, including in Communist countries such as Cuba, China, Zimbabwe etc.

I do see you points and they are fair TBH. I just really hope we can continue trending to the left and still manage to keep the free markets going some how. I personally believe a balance can struck that will suit everyone. Not all of the ideology is useless.

Johro

Computer Sci wrote: »

I’d prefer we associate ourselves with John F. Kennedy for instance, the man who managed to talk communists out of using Cuba to obliterate the Eastern United States and kill tens of millions of lives with nuclear weapons.

I'd prefer we didn't idolise.

Computer Sci

Johro wrote: »

I'd prefer we didn't idolise.

Better to idolise a man who saved millions of lives and was democratically elected than some murderous communist thug.

Johro

Computer Sci wrote: »

Better to idolise a man who saved millions of lives and was democratically elected than some murderous communist thug.

I don't idolise either. Or anyone.

Greentopia

alastair wrote: »

Once again - Scandinavian style Democratic Socialism with a mix of command economy and free-markets. It's worked pretty well for them.

It's worked very well for them. Having lived there for many years I would much prefer Scandinavian style Social Democracy to what we have here.

I don't believe it's possible to directly transfer their systems to here (too many cultural and social differences), and neither should we, but I do think there's a lot we could take from them that is valuable and would enhance the living standards of our people if we did so and it was done properly. Which given the nature of politics in this country is a big if, I know :rolleyes:

It would mean a more egalitarian society with far lower levels of poverty for a start because high taxes fund the Swedish Model Welfare State that ensures that there is a cradle to grave safety net for all so that no-one's income falls below a certain level-edit-and the poorest and most vulnerable in society are protected, better access to higher education and life long educational opportunities for all, much enhanced public services including universal healthcare, much less wealth inequality with the gap between rich and poor becoming narrower so therefore less crime, and a whole range of other positive effects on society.

The problem is of course that Irish people would balk at paying such high personal taxes to bring about the transition to such a model because although we have some of the lowest rates of personal taxation in Europe and a far lower tax to GDP ratio than Sweden for example (46% in Sweden as opposed to 27% here), we have a whole rake of indirect taxes and more coming down the line.

If we could get rid of many of those and increase personal taxation I think that would be a start.

Computer Sci

Greentopia wrote: »

It's worked very well for them. Having lived there for many years I would much prefer Scandinavian style Social Democracy to what we have here.

I don't believe it's possible to directly transfer their systems to here (too many cultural and social differences), and neither should we, but I do think there's a lot we could take from them that is valuable and would enhance the living standards of our people if we did so and it was done properly. Which given the nature of politics in this country is a big if, I know :rolleyes:

It would mean a more egalitarian society with far lower levels of poverty for a start because high taxes fund the Swedish Model Welfare State that ensures that there is a cradle to grave safety net for all so that no-one's income falls below a certain level-edit-and the poorest and most vulnerable in society are protected, better access to higher education and life long educational opportunities for all, much enhanced public services including universal healthcare, much less wealth inequality with the gap between rich and poor becoming narrower so therefore less crime, and a whole range of other positive effects on society.

The problem is of course that Irish people would balk at paying such high personal taxes to bring about the transition to such a model because although we have some of the lowest rates of personal taxation in Europe and a far lower tax to GDP ratio than Sweden for example (46% in Sweden as opposed to 27% here), we have a whole rake of indirect taxes and more coming down the line.

If we could get rid of many of those and increase personal taxation I think that would be a start.

Weren't low corporate taxes one of the chief underlying sources of our economic prosperity, given that they incentivised companies to set up here as opposed to countries with higher taxes?

With more jobs (in part thanks to low taxes) comes more revenue raised anyway, given that there are more people in employment - so what exactly is the point of raising taxes for corporations, would we not be shooting ourselves in the foot as a country?

As for raising personal taxes to higher levels, that would be political suicide, and the majority of politicians are aware of that.

Monty Burnz

alastair wrote: »

Once again - Scandinavian style Democratic Socialism with a mix of command economy and free-markets. It's worked pretty well for them.

Command economy? Holy crap. Do you feel nostalgic about the famine? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

There's no command economy in Scandinavia by the way.

Monty Burnz

Greentopia wrote: »

True. They probably would not be able to maintain such huge all-encompassing Welfare States were it not for the high taxes the State takes in from Capitalist enterprises and their workers.

Their sucessful Social Democratic models were borne out of Democratic Socialism though which came from Marxism.

Will you please drop this ludicrous notion that Scandinavian countries base their economies on Marxism. Marx would be rolling in his grave.

Greentopia

Computer Sci wrote: »

Weren't low corporate taxes one of the chief underlying sources of our economic prosperity, given that they incentivised companies to set up here as opposed to countries with higher taxes?

Prosperity for some yes... it would be far better for us in the long term to develop our own natural resources and set up our own indigenous manufacturing companies and businesses instead of relying on foreign companies to come here and provide jobs.

If Scandinavia can do it why can't didn't we? didn't we just go through a period of so-called unprescedented growth and prosperity?

Swedes have given the world the world the safety match, dynamite, ball bearings, adjustable spanner, kerosene stove, heart pacemaker, Skype, GPS and a lot more besides.
Ok a lot of those inventions go back over 200 years but why haven't we started to catch up in the last 10/15 years with at least a few of our own inventions like that on a global scale?

Foreign companies can leave this country for lower cost ones at the drop of a hat leaving devastated workers on the dole-witness what's happened down in my own county-Waterford in the last week-over 500 workers in a profitable company told their jobs were gone to the Phillipines. They knew nothing about it until they were assembled one afternoon a few days ago and told all their jobs were gone, just like that.
And all because they wanted even greater profits and their share holders would get big increases by moving the company-Talk Talk- to a lower cost country. Not a thought given to the workers or their families.

We have huge natural resources like wind, wave energy and other renewables for example that could provide thousands of jobs, along with our dairy and food industries that could be expanded (especially in the rapidly growing organic sector).

Look at Denmark-almost 25% generation capacity from wind power because they had the foresight and the political will to invest in it as they were concerned about global warming in the 80's and also wanted to become more energy independent. And now they're world leaders in the manufacture of wind turbines for export as well as the domestic market.
And all with far lower wind speeds both onshore and offshore than here!

We're so far behind them in that market it's laughable.

Oh and companies don't just have the criteria of low corporate taxation in mind when choosing where to invest and set up-otherwise countries like Denmark, Sweden, Germany would have no foreign manufacturing plants.

They also of course look for an educated workforce with the skill set they require, high productivity, infrastructure like good road networks, high speed broadband-another joke here- when I was in Sweden in 2003 they had 25meg broadband rolled out nationwide because the Govt. prioritised it when we still had 2/4.

Computer Sci wrote: »

As for raising personal taxes to higher levels, that would be political suicide, and the majority of politicians are aware of that.

For the mainstream parties yes unfortunately. The only ones who would do so are the smaller left wing parties.

Greentopia

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Will you please drop this ludicrous notion that Scandinavian countries base their economies on Marxism. Marx would be rolling in his grave.

I didn't say they base them on Marxism, I said they base them on Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism in Scandinavia has taken the form of contempory Social Democracies which are yes of course a mixture of capitalism and socialism. One of the key founders of Social Democracy was a Marxist-Eduard Bernstein. Christ look it up if you don't believe me-wiki

I lived in Sweden for 8 and a half years, I know the kind of political system they have and the history of 20th century Social Democracy there.

czx

Greentopia wrote: »

Prosperity for some yes... it would be far better for us in the long term to develop our own natural resources and set up our own indigenous manufacturing companies and businesses instead of relying on foreign companies to come here and provide jobs.

If Scandinavia can do it why can't didn't we? didn't we just go through a period of so-called unprescedented growth and prosperity?

Swedes have given the world the world the safety match, dynamite, ball bearings, adjustable spanner, kerosene stove, heart pacemaker, Skype, GPS and a lot more besides.
Ok a lot of those inventions go back over 200 years but why haven't we started to catch up in the last 10/15 years with at least a few of our own inventions like that on a global scale?

Foreign companies can leave this country for lower cost ones at the drop of a hat leaving devastated workers on the dole-witness what's happened down in my own county-Waterford in the last week-over 500 workers in a profitable company told their jobs were gone to the Phillipines. They knew nothing about it until they were assembled one afternoon a few days ago and told all their jobs were gone, just like that.
And all because they wanted even greater profits and their share holders would get big increases by moving the company-Talk Talk- to a lower cost country. Not a thought given to the workers or their families.

We have huge natural resources like wind, wave energy and other renewables for example that could provide thousands of jobs, along with our dairy and food industries that could be expanded (especially in the rapidly growing organic sector).

Look at Denmark-almost 25% generation capacity from wind power because they had the foresight and the political will to invest in it as they were concerned about global warming in the 80's and also wanted to become more energy independent. And now they're world leaders in the manufacture of wind turbines for export as well as the domestic market.
And all with far lower wind speeds both onshore and offshore than here!

We're so far behind them in that market it's laughable.

Oh and companies don't just have the criteria of low corporate taxation in mind when choosing where to invest and set up-otherwise countries like Denmark, Sweden, Germany would have no foreign manufacturing plants.

They also of course look for an educated workforce with the skill set they require, high productivity, infrastructure like good road networks, high speed broadband-another joke here- when I was in Sweden in 2003 they had 25meg broadband rolled out nationwide because the Govt. prioritised it when we still had 2/4.



For the mainstream parties yes unfortunately. The only ones who would do so are the smaller left wing parties.

They are paying dearly for that generation capacity!

kieranfitz

cookies221 wrote: »

PLO scarves

Do you mean a shemag? Damn handy piece of kit I'll have you know.

Yahew

peasant wrote: »

I think people look up to him because he was like the Trinity student from the OP ...but he stuck to his guns (literally) and pulled it through.

He came from a well to do family and was a qualified physician ...he was also an asthmatic.

He could have opened a private practice in Argentinia, lived capitalism to the full and used his education to make bucketloads of easy money.

Instead he crept around in the jungles of Cuba, Africa and Latin America to fight opressive regimes ...he stood up in the United Nations and told the world what he thought of it, he was minister for Industry and Finance in post revolutionary Cuba before he went off to fight some more.

The man had his failings ...but you can't but admire him for sticking to his convictions 100% ..all the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cuban3Pesos.jpg

Hitler had convictions. Marxism is about creating slave states.

Yahew

Greentopia wrote: »

I didn't say they base them on Marxism, I said they base them on Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism in Scandinavia has taken the form of contempory Social Democracies which are yes of course a mixture of capitalism and socialism. One of the key founders of Social Democracy was a Marxist-Eduard Bernstein. Christ look it up if you don't believe me-wiki

I lived in Sweden for 8 and a half years, I know the kind of political system they have and the history of 20th century Social Democracy there.

The Swedish State, however, does not own the means of production, and has no interest in grabbing the personal businesses of it's citizens. The first thing the Marxists did in Russia was seize the property of the recently enfranchised serf class, or those amongst them who had managed to grab a few personal acres. The Kulaks. So much for worrying about whether workers were "alienated" from the means of production. This wasn't an attack on the "rich", it was the powerful Statists expropriating the small property of small holders.

Marxism is about power, pure and simple. It's about creating slave states, run by an "intellectual" elite. People are never equal in it, but even if they were a slave state can be equal ( in fact it always is for the enslaved).

This is nothing to do with social democracy. There were marxists within social democratic movements, in general they were turfed out to their own parties, however.

Computer Sci

One thing I think should be mentioned here, is that there are of course different variants of Capitalism. While I cannot see for instance the Nordic model of Capitalism coming to Ireland’s shores, I think it is debateable as to whether it is desirable. I also don’t see the problem in debating the merits of the Franco-German model of Capitalism, and how it differs from perhaps the Anglo-American model.

All nations in Europe and North America are based on capitalism, including nations like Sweden etc. However, I guess you could say that the European model values things like the safety net/ regulation etc. as opposed to the American model.

It is more than reasonable for people to have a debate as to whether we should go about living under an American style of capitalism, or a European style of capitalism in future. Nobody would doubt that Germany and France etc. are wealthy successful countries. Although, it would probably be (as I said before) political suicide for politicians to suggest raising taxes.

However this is not about American – vs. – European style capitalism, this is about stupid teenagers and people in their 20s, particularly on college campuses idolising a man who not only murdered countless people, but is associated with an economic system (Communism) which caused nothing but suffering and death during the 20th century. It’s particularly annoying when some of these people gain all the benefits from living in a capitalist society – including their parents success, and yet not only talk the system down, but insinuate that an economic order like communism would result in utopia, despite the hard evidence to the contrary.

Nodin

Computer Sci wrote: »

...........

However this is not about American – vs. – European style capitalism, this is about stupid teenagers and people in their 20s, particularly on college campuses idolising a man who not only murdered countless people, but is associated with an economic system (Communism) which caused nothing but suffering and death during the 20th century. It’s particularly annoying when some of these people gain all the benefits from living in a capitalist society – including their parents success, and yet not only talk the system down, but insinuate that an economic order like communism would result in utopia, despite the hard evidence to the contrary.

...so we're essentially talking about a tiny minority of people as if they were swamping the streets ...

If thats the case, we might address the far more serious problem of 'Twillight' fans, who seem to have sufficient numbers to keep their shite- forsaken book and movie franchise going until the sun burns out.

Yahew

Nodin wrote: »

...so we're essentially talking about a tiny minority of people as if they were swamping the streets ...

If thats the case, we might address the far more serious problem of 'Twillight' fans, who seem to have sufficient numbers to keep their shite- forsaken book and movie franchise going until the sun burns out.

we could, but that is a different thread.

RichieC

laoch na mona wrote: »

he was not involved in the government of Cuba
he was busy fighting for the poor else where
I agree Cuba is not a good country now but it is better than it was before there revolution
I'm not a Marxist but I believe in revolutions(when necessary )

wasn't he the head of the cuban bank before getting bored and hitting the minty to rabble rouse elsewhere?

alastair

Computer Sci wrote: »

One thing I think should be mentioned here, is that there are of course different variants of Capitalism. While I cannot see for instance the Nordic model of Capitalism coming to Ireland’s shores, I think it is debateable as to whether it is desirable. I also don’t see the problem in debating the merits of the Franco-German model of Capitalism, and how it differs from perhaps the Anglo-American model.

All nations in Europe and North America are based on capitalism, including nations like Sweden etc. However, I guess you could say that the European model values things like the safety net/ regulation etc. as opposed to the American model.

It is more than reasonable for people to have a debate as to whether we should go about living under an American style of capitalism, or a European style of capitalism in future. Nobody would doubt that Germany and France etc. are wealthy successful countries. Although, it would probably be (as I said before) political suicide for politicians to suggest raising taxes.

However this is not about American – vs. – European style capitalism, this is about stupid teenagers and people in their 20s, particularly on college campuses idolising a man who not only murdered countless people, but is associated with an economic system (Communism) which caused nothing but suffering and death during the 20th century. It’s particularly annoying when some of these people gain all the benefits from living in a capitalist society – including their parents success, and yet not only talk the system down, but insinuate that an economic order like communism would result in utopia, despite the hard evidence to the contrary.

I gotta say that you read an awful lot of assumptions into a teeshirt image. Che commands admiration for legitimate reasons, Just ask Nelson Mandela (who never went to trinners afaik). Let's look at another icon, from a different political ideology - Patrick Pearse might have had considerable flaws, but the inspiration of a man who was prepared to lay it all on the line for the notion of freedom is hard to argue with. Marxism offers much more than the totalitarianism you choose to focus on - and Che wasn't particularly aligned to any strand of communism, totalitarian or otherwise.

Greentopia

czx wrote: »

They are paying dearly for that generation capacity!

How so?

Nodin

Yahew wrote: »

we could, but that is a different thread.

You'll regret that remark when every fucker under 25 has a head on him like this...
http://www.alivenotdead.com/attachments/2008/09/54725_200809232119211.thumb.jpg

Monty Burnz

alastair wrote: »

Marxism offers much more than the totalitarianism you choose to focus on

Could you furnish us with a list of non-totalitarian states run on Marxist principles?

alastair

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Could you furnish us a list of non-totalitarian states run on Marxist principles?

Given that you refuse to accept the role that Marx played in the formulation of Socialist Democratic states/governments, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Those are non- totalitariast states with a definable legacy of Marx's work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Declaration

Greentopia

Yahew wrote: »

The Swedish State, however, does not own the means of production, and has no interest in grabbing the personal businesses of it's citizens.

This is true. They do have a number of State monopolies there though where other countries would have private enterprise running them like the Systembolaget-the State 'off-licences', which is the only place you can buy strong beer wine and spirits apart from pubs and restaurants and up til recently the Apoteket-State pharmacies, no private ones were allowed.

Yahew wrote: »

The first thing the Marxists did in Russia was seize the property of the recently enfranchised serf class, or those amongst them who had managed to grab a few personal acres. The Kulaks. So much for worrying about whether workers were "alienated" from the means of production. This wasn't an attack on the "rich", it was the powerful Statists expropriating the small property of small holders.

Indeed. They called themselves Marxists but what they practiced was not. As I stated earlier that's very far from the vision he had in mind for his ideology.

Yahew wrote: »

Marxism is about power, pure and simple. It's about creating slave states, run by an "intellectual" elite. People are never equal in it, but even if they were a slave state can be equal ( in fact it always is for the enslaved)

As practised in any country that had a so-called communist State in the last hundred years, yes absolutely abhorant.
I'm more interested in Marx's ideas on human nature, freedom and equality tbh than political theory and economics.

Monty Burnz

alastair wrote: »

Given that you refuse to accept the role that Marx played in the formulation of Socialist Democratic states/governments, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Those are non- totalitariast states with a definable legacy of Marx's work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Declaration

I'm sorry, that's just total nonsense. They are capitalist countries with high levels of taxation and high levels of social security and state services.

Of course I'm not going to accept you labelling a particular flavour of capitalist country as Marxist, any more than I'll accept your calling a small dog 'a cat'.

alastair

That's your perogative, but the history of social democracy, and Marx's theories are there for all to see. Is it 100% Marxist? No it's not, but then I'm not seeing 100% Hayek/Friedman/Smith capitalist states either.

Cynical Apathy

Someone claimed that communists were "using Cuba to obliterate the US and kill tens of millions of people"
The USA had nuclear weapons in Turkey as a constant threat to the USSR, the USSR tactically placed their weapons in Cuba and in the end a reasonable compromise was reached where both countries agreed to stop threatening each others boarders.

Those innocent people whom Che is accused of murdering were high ranking members of the brutal and corrupt, US backed Batista regime who killed tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians in the mid 50s alone.

Nothing in this world is, or ever was, as simple as black and white. Was Castro the vile and oppressive dictator he is painted to be? The US were the bullies of the world at the time planning coups and planting puppet governments all over the world. They had plans to make a lot of money from Cuba until Castro nationalised everything. Powerful, influential people in the US demanded action to which JFK admitted he was foolish to responded to. Castro exchanged or ransomed captured CIA agents for baby food and medicines (not guns). There were hundreds of failed assassination attempts so he spent his time living in a state of war. The US could not let socialism prosper so close, as it could infect their own population.

Cuba remains an extremely poor country due to the unfair embargo still enforced by the United States but it has one of the highest mortality rates in the world.

According to Marx, Communism could only happen after the worlds main power (the US) adopted socialism completely and spread it to the rest of the world. Anyway his theories were written in the 1800s, if he were alive today he might have very different ideas.

Even in America, early socialist movements influenced labour unions to get better pay and conditions for the ordinary worker. IMO, Marxism has had a positive effect on Capitalism.

fontanalis

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Someone claimed that communists were "using Cuba to obliterate the US and kill tens of millions of people"
The USA had nuclear weapons in Turkey as a constant threat to the USSR, the USSR tactically placed their weapons in Cuba and in the end a reasonable compromise was reached where both countries agreed to stop threatening each others boarders.

Those innocent people whom Che is accused of murdering were high ranking members of the brutal and corrupt, US backed Batista regime who killed tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians in the mid 50s alone.

Nothing in this world is, or ever was, as simple as black and white. Was Castro the vile and oppressive dictator he is painted to be? The US were the bullies of the world at the time planning coups and planting puppet governments all over the world. They had plans to make a lot of money from Cuba until Castro nationalised everything. Powerful, influential people in the US demanded action to which JFK admitted he was foolish to responded to. Castro exchanged or ransomed captured CIA agents for baby food and medicines (not guns). There were hundreds of failed assassination attempts so he spent his time living in a state of war. The US could not let socialism prosper so close, as it could infect their own population.

Cuba remains an extremely poor country due to the unfair embargo still enforced by the United States but it has one of the highest mortality rates in the world.

According to Marx, Communism could only happen after the worlds main power (the US) adopted socialism completely and spread it to the rest of the world. Anyway his theories were written in the 1800s, if he were alive today he might have very different ideas.

Even in America, early socialist movements influenced labour unions to get better pay and conditions for the ordinary worker. IMO, Marxism has had a positive effect on Capitalism.

Why does it need help from the capitalist pigs?

Monty Burnz

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Cuba remains an extremely poor country due to the unfair embargo still enforced by the United States but it has one of the highest mortality rates in the world.

High mortality rates are usually considered a bad thing.

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

According to Marx, Communism could only happen after the worlds main power (the US) adopted socialism completely and spread it to the rest of the world. Anyway his theories were written in the 1800s, if he were alive today he might have very different ideas.

The US was not 'the world's main power' in the 1800s.

alastair

fontanalis wrote: »

Why does it need help from the capitalist pigs?

You do know there's a distinction between hindering something, and not helping it?

Cynical Apathy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

High mortality rates are usually considered a bad thing.


The US was not 'the world's main power' in the 1800s.

Lol, one of the highest life expectancy rates.:o

It is now and has been throughout the last century.

Monty Burnz

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Lol, one of the highest life expectancy rates.:o

Fair enough!

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

It is now and has been throughout the last century.

Indeed, but not in the 19th century. Britain was surely the world's greatest power in the 1800s.

k.p.h

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Lol, one of the highest life expectancy rates.:o

It is now and has been throughout the last century.

I pulled a :eek: when I saw that. You have corrected yourself though

I see some people fighting the good fight here today anyway

Mike 1972

Computer Sci wrote: »

Anybody who has made a living through the capitalist system, from the everyday worker to the wealthiest executives has made their living fair and square by using their assets/ wealth/ investments to buy and sell products and services. If anybody has been found to be gaining wealth illegally, they are brought to court and imprisoned, whether they are the everyday worker or the wealthiest executive.

I take it you dont follow the news much ?

Dudess

I agree condemnation of capitalism by wealthy western kids is hypocrisy, but I find it's actually possible to object to that without pretending atrocities aren't being committed against Palestinian people by the Israeli state.