Socialism Is the Only Way
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Isn't Socialization by definition an impediment to the free exchange of goods. Here are more facts for you:
http://thepeacearch.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3291&page=3
I see now why you compared Cuba to war torn Haiti.
Competition is fine when it promote a fair deal all arround and sound business practices which ensure the continuity and long term stability of the enterprise. This is not capitalism however this enterprise. The ethic of competition in our age has been morphed into a rush to crush and dominate entire national and regional markets. That is and has been the most destructive to those same small and medium businesses that we all understand as the foundation of enterprise in our communitys, they used to prevail at one time in our lives, they were destroyed for the most part by rampant capitalism, merger after merger did not provide the quality or service we were led to believe it would, indeed we have become almost entirely dependent on forigne production of most consumer goods, for christ sake guys we don't build shoes, clothes, furniture, industrial capacity is below 6% for the continent jobs have been lost by the millions waaages have fallen drastically, almost every aspect of our lives have been adversly affected by transnational capitalism, and that's a fatal mistake. Of course you don't have to take my word for it just wait a short while and you'll be standing in it up to your necks.:smile:
Creating an impediment to the free exchange of goods is one of the first things done in unregulated capitalism.
To get that kind of wealth you need to be smart, the first thing anyone with half a brain and the opportunity does with wealth is ensure others don't take it from them. The easiest way to do that is break the very system you rose to power on.
To get that kind of wealth you need to be smart, the first thing anyone with half a brain and the opportunity does with wealth is ensure others don't take it from them. The easiest way to do that is break the very system you rose to power on.
As a car carrying communist I resent the comparison of Cuba to Haiti, Cuba to the United States, Cuba to Canada, Cuba to Japan and Cuba to hell. What price can be put upon a good cigar?
Castro was prepared to participate in a nuclear exchange with the United States of America. This is criminally insane. This is how he loves his people. But while he is criminally insane, he remains the idol of my good comrades here in Canada, who admire his other qualities, and let's face it, it's the personal tastes of the dictator that determines what communism means, and Fidel likes a good cigar.
Castro was prepared to participate in a nuclear exchange with the United States of America. This is criminally insane. This is how he loves his people. But while he is criminally insane, he remains the idol of my good comrades here in Canada, who admire his other qualities, and let's face it, it's the personal tastes of the dictator that determines what communism means, and Fidel likes a good cigar.
And America was willing to enter into a Nuclear Exchange with Russia. Pakistan with India, China with Russia and China with America, Israel with Iran, etc etc.
Seriously, say what you will about the strong man, he is damn effective at keeping a country from falling to pieces. With its location and resources, Cuba should have either been absorbed by the US or fallen into utter anarchy (like haiti) long ago.
If you like poverty and jail time for political opnion then I suppose Cuba is for you. To bad all that education is wasted in a country where entreprenuers are banned.
Interesting how socialists hate democracy.
I personally look at Capitalism and Socialism as the opposite head of the same coin....
Both are predicated on the assumption that centralized managemnt / control is superior to decentralized methods...Neither have proven effective in commercializing innovation when and where it occurs and both are infested with their own particular "vested interests"....
As for Canada and the discussions regarding 'socialized services", there is a large difference between socialism ala Marx and a Commonwealth system properly run....
Commonwealth by its nature and construct will lead to the establishment of public trust, then from public trust to national vision and then to national will....
Don't believe me???
Just watch this whole Green Industry movement play its way out as it starts with off oil strategies....
For me, my money is on a modified version of the commonwealth system....
Both are predicated on the assumption that centralized managemnt / control is superior to decentralized methods...Neither have proven effective in commercializing innovation when and where it occurs and both are infested with their own particular "vested interests"....
As for Canada and the discussions regarding 'socialized services", there is a large difference between socialism ala Marx and a Commonwealth system properly run....
Commonwealth by its nature and construct will lead to the establishment of public trust, then from public trust to national vision and then to national will....
Don't believe me???
Just watch this whole Green Industry movement play its way out as it starts with off oil strategies....
For me, my money is on a modified version of the commonwealth system....
If you could possibly proove what you wrote you'd have a point but as it is you're just repeating tired old propaganda.
Avro:
What a foolish statement "Interesting how socialists hate democracy" is.
First, that is an awfully wide brush you're using there, Avro. Generalizations are the Burmese tiger traps of the rhetorical world. Gotta watch out for them.
Second, ever hear of a Social Democrat?
Thought not.
Pangloss
What a foolish statement "Interesting how socialists hate democracy" is.
First, that is an awfully wide brush you're using there, Avro. Generalizations are the Burmese tiger traps of the rhetorical world. Gotta watch out for them.
Second, ever hear of a Social Democrat?
Thought not.
Pangloss
I agree,
We've got to get this "Capitalism vs. Socialism" paradigm out of our heads....The whole argument always leads to thought reduced to the absurd in practical terms....
Magna Carta provided a good base, particularly the rights related to livelihood and the quiet pursuit thereof.... Jefferson expanded on these precepts nicely in the context of the artisan society....What we all want at the end of the day is the right of the public to intervene in the marketplace where "the People" decide it is in their best interests to do so....The fundamental requirement to make that a reality is Decentralized Control wherein "Community, in all its constiteunts", can exert a "say" in how things are done....If that ultimately is the vision, neither of the "choices" provided to us as "People" are particularly palitable....Because we know that neither really provides the mechanisms and failsafes to ensure we don't end up exactly where we are....A total global ideological stalemate....
Getting past border issues, etc.
How do we move forward???
Zzarchov, old comrade! America shot the nuclear bullet first, was prepared to fire it at Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. All the followers you mention stalk their own neighbours. Perhaps you can fail to see the difference between Canada with nuclear weapons and Cuba, North Korea and Pakistan. If so, you are maladjusted.
I,like Zzarchov, fail to see the difference, primarily because there isn't one. Uncle Sam was shooting fish in a barrel, as a threat.
If you;re suggesting that Canada has moral superiority, or intelligence beyond your other examples. You're are incorrect I think.
The very worst condition for nuclear supremacy has existed since day one, nobody forgets when they pulled the trigger on Japan.
I suppose when they get arround to using the tacticle nukes you'll be able to see some moral superiority in those acts, which I'm personally convinced they'll do, and worse,for exactly the same reasons they first committed the great crime.
Basically I agree with all you've said, decentralization, community, stronger grassroots democracy. But I'll disagree on one small point capitalism and socialism are not two sides of the same coin. Capitalism and enterprise are not the same thing. Capitalism services capital, and nothing else, commerce and capitalism are not the same thing, commerce is all about bussiness and people and stable communitys, capitalism is about accumulation of capital, it does not care what commerce it has to monopolize and concentrate to meet that definition. Enterprise and capitalism are not the same thing, socialism easily embraces free enterprise and commerce, capitalism, through investment of capital seekd to concentrate and dominate and finaly monopolize and there is no way to turn it off once it's turned on untill the capital has eaten everything in it's path. That's why it is rightly considered the most destructive system ever put in place. The first thing capitalism destroys is regional and local commerce and enterprise, in other words it feeds directly on those hosts untill they are pale imitations of what they were and eventually dead, capitalism is a viral parasiticle system of wealth accumulation.
So poverty in Cuba isn't the norm? Private buissnes flourishes does it?
Grab a clue buddy.
Jim, Perhaps you can fail to see the difference between Canada with nuclear weapons and Cuba, North Korea and Pakistan. If so, you are maladjusted.
---End Quote---
Dark Beaver, "I,like Zzarchov, fail to see the difference, primarily because there isn't one."
But Canada had nuclear weapons. We were a tactical nuclear power. We were ready to meet the Bears in the air, with our speedy nuclear Voodoos, nuclear being the warhead on the air-to-air missliles slung under the wings. The Bears were big and slow, but very long range, not like they expected them to come back or anything. If I recall the instruction manual correctly we were to turn around and leave after firing the missile.
The difference was that if the missile didn't work, Ottawa and Washington were ghost dumps, and if it did, Zzarchov was history.
---End Quote---
Dark Beaver, "I,like Zzarchov, fail to see the difference, primarily because there isn't one."
But Canada had nuclear weapons. We were a tactical nuclear power. We were ready to meet the Bears in the air, with our speedy nuclear Voodoos, nuclear being the warhead on the air-to-air missliles slung under the wings. The Bears were big and slow, but very long range, not like they expected them to come back or anything. If I recall the instruction manual correctly we were to turn around and leave after firing the missile.
The difference was that if the missile didn't work, Ottawa and Washington were ghost dumps, and if it did, Zzarchov was history.
Northboy, "How do we move forward???"
Do you mean that we are moving backward, standing still, or moving forward in some unsatisfactory way? Where is forward? Are we slow, retrograde or off course?
Do you mean that we are moving backward, standing still, or moving forward in some unsatisfactory way? Where is forward? Are we slow, retrograde or off course?
Of course I see the difference, different wants and goals. I mean you can complain and whine all you want about which is better , and you are probably even right (If we didn't think this way we would be in the wrong country). But everyone over there thinks the same way about their lifestyle, and in the end it doesn't matter when the bombs go flying.
Nuclear madness is something everyone with them has, but its better to have them than not.
Edit:
You know what Jim Short, You are right.
I don't lie about history, so I am a communist.
I support a capitalist economy, so I m a communist.
I don't support a strong centralized government with massive taxation,
So I am a communist (somehow)
You want to lie and rewrite history to suit your own personal thought police
You don't support a capitalist economy
You do support a strong centralized, infallible government without accountability.
Therefore in your mind you are not a communist (somehow)
Last edited: