Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[axi]

Just because something works on paper, doesn't mean it'll work in the real world. And so shouldn't we TEST the theory on a small scale, rather than implement it on the ENTIRE WORLD? Wouldn't that be a lot less risky?

Communism can't compete with capitalism. Not when the latter uses sweatshops and is raping the world's environment for resources. If it tries to compete, it will end up where the USSR ended up.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by axi


Communism can't compete with capitalism. Not when the latter uses sweatshops and is raping the world's environment for resources. If it tries to compete, it will end up where the USSR ended up.

Yes, because the governments of E. Europe and the USSR were just so benign to the environment.

[Velociryx]

Hey John T, wanna go fishing in the...what is it...the Aral Sea?

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

Isn't there a lovely river right downstream from the Chernobyl reactor?

[Velociryx]

Guarded by nine foot tall chickens who glow, from my understanding....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Nope...

We were never at war with China or Russia. Yes, we fought wars through their proxies, but those wars were INITIATED BY THEM. We didn't start them. Moreover, the tyrants came to power BEFORE external aggression started.

Let me tell you about a little thing called the foreign intervention. In 1918, Britain, France, Japan, the U.S. and others (a total of 14 different countries) invaded the fledgling revolution. Now, we couldn't send much in the way of troops, and the allies always liked to pretend they were only securing war materialis, but the truth is, they executed Blosheviks and fought Bolshevik troops where they could. They also gave a lot of aid to the White armies, which cost Russian three years of civl war and nine million lives. Twenty years later, the Nazis invade and kill between twenty and thirty million Soviets. After that war, the U.S. began infiltrating the U.S.S.R. with terrorists. The only break the U.S.S.R. had was during the 1930s, and at that time their economy was doing gangbusters hile the rest of the world lay in a quivering heap.

Then comes China. I'll wager you were unaware that the U.S. directly intervened on the side of Chiang Kai-Shek after Japan was defeated (ignoring the Flying Tigers, which was a merc unit). The U.S. would do things like secure cities the Nationalists were about to lose to the Reds, transport Nationalist troops around, etc. After the Reds came to power, the U.S. financed ChiNat terrorists in China for more than ten years.

As for proxy wars, most of those "proxy" wars took place in countries which had attempted socialist revolitions, such as Angola, Mozambique, etc. In these cases, its hard to argue that the USSR initiated a "proxy" war on its own allies. In other cases, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, those countries' dictatorships were plenty horrible enough with the need of rhe USSR starting anything. It's an insult to those people who were fighting to overthrow those murderous dictatorships that they wouldn't have bothered if some KGB sppok hadn't come along and paid them to do it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Yes, because the governments of E. Europe and the USSR were just so benign to the environment.

True 'nuff. But how many of the USSR's rivers caught fire (*cough* Cayahuga *cough*) and wasn't Lake Erie declared a dead lake in the 1970s? We've had our own share of environmental nightmares too. Just look at New Jersey, Times Beach, the Love Canal, and on and on. Neither side really has a moral high ground on environmental devestation.

Hey Vel, wanna go fishing in the Colorado Estuary?

[MrFun]

I see people have missed my point that you cannot set socio-economic changes in a controlled, experiment setting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by axi
Communism can't compete with capitalism. Not when the latter uses sweatshops and is raping the world's environment for resources.

Actually we can. It's not the sweatshops and environmental pillaging that hurt us, it's the sabotage and warfare that gets us.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
I see people have missed my point that you cannot set socio-economic changes in a controlled, experiment setting.

Oh why let reality intrude on an argument? You make a very valid point, but if I were to have suggested it, it would have gotten me nowhere. Furthermore, the point about capitalist interference is a valid one. Who can we be measured fairly when they won't keep their thumb off the scales.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Oh why let reality intrude on an argument? You make a very valid point, but if I were to have suggested it, it would have gotten me nowhere. Furthermore, the point about capitalist interference is a valid one. Who can we be measured fairly when they won't keep their thumb off the scales.

Why would it have gotten nowhere if you suggested it?

[chequita guevara]

Because the counterargument would have run thus, "If you can't prove it works in one spot, why should we let you try it on a macroscale ..." blah blah blah.

[axi]

Actually we can.

This reminds me of Soviet theorists who claimed that by keeping a large portion of the world out of the reach of the west, imperialism would collapse, by lack of new markets. That argument failed.

One reason is that the places which were kept out of the reach of the west were the ones least crucial to them. If only Guevara had succeeded in his focismo, I would like to see the US of A prosper without all those resources and labor it gets out of Latin America.

However it would be more helpful if revolutionary forces inside the west were given more help (mostly ideological help that is) at that time.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because the counterargument would have run thus, "If you can't prove it works in one spot, why should we let you try it on a macroscale ..." blah blah blah.

Well I argue that just because something has not been proven YET, does not mean it's impossible or incoceivable.

[axi]

Capitalism is working fine though...

The Independent
22-10-2003

Global trade keeps a billion children in poverty, says Unicef
By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent
22 October 2003


International targets to reduce child poverty are going to be missed because globalised trade and cuts to aid budgets are creating an ever-greater chasm between the richest and poorest countries.

More than one billion young people in the developing world are now living in conditions of severe deprivation, according to a report for the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef). Tens of millions of children in developing countries still do not have access to basic human needs such as food, water and sanitation, the study found.

The report is the first attempt to scientifically measure world poverty, and paints a grim picture of how little the lives of the world's poorest people have improved in the last few years.

A UN declaration in 2000 pledged that by 2015, it would halve the proportion of people whose income was less than one dollar a day and achieve a similar reduction in the number of people suffering from hunger. The declaration also pledged to cut the death rate among the under-fives by two thirds and ensure that all children could complete primary school.

Shailen Nandy, a co-author of the report, said: "At this rate, the goals are unlikely to be met, given declining international commitment to development aid. The results of cutting public spending on basic social services have been an increase in poverty and inequality, a fact which organisations like the World Bank need to acknowledge."

Campaigners warned that globalisation, and pressure on developing countries to liberalise trade, were adding to poverty.

Judith Melby, spokeswoman for the charity Christian Aid, said: "In many countries, poverty is increasing rather than decreasing, particularly in relation to things like malnutrition among the under-fives.

"We have to look at how globalisation has affected these countries. There is a real link between that and poverty levels. They are put under enormous pressure to liberalise their markets, then they lose their indigenous trade to subsidised markets in the EU and the US; and the poorest people, such as subsistence farmers, are left with absolutely nothing."

The report was prepared for Unicef by the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research at the University of Bristol.

It is the first time child poverty in the developing world has been scientifically measured. The lives of more than 1.2 million children from 46 of the world's poorest countries were analysed for the study.

The report defines children who lack one basic human need, such as food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter and education are defined as living in severe deprivation, while those without two basic needs are said to be in absolute poverty.

The report found that more than half of all children living in the developing world are living in severe deprivation, while 674 million are in absolute poverty. A third of all children in the survey lived in a dwelling with more than five people to a room, or with only a mud floor.

A similar proportion had no kind of toilet facility and one in five had no access to safe drinking water. More than one in ten children aged seven to eighteen had never been to school, and one in seven was severely malnourished.

Ms Melby said: "We need to make sure that money is carefully targeted and gets to the people who need it most, such as women and children. Health and education are the most important factors, and are closely linked to globalisation.

"If these countries lose income from their own markets, they cut social services and people are forced to pay for health and education. This has a huge impact on the future health and prospects for children."

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa have the highest rates of deprivation, according to the report. In some countries, 90 per cent of children in rural areas were assessed as living in absolute poverty.

Professor Dave Gordon from the University of Bristol and another of the report's authors, said: "Many of the children surveyed who were living in absolute poverty will have died or had their health profoundly damaged by the time this report is published, as a direct consequence of their appalling living conditions.

"Many others will have had their development so severely impaired that they will be unable to escape from a lifetime of grinding poverty. The UN targets were quite modest anyway and yet we are still not going to hit them.

"The Romans managed to provide sanitation for people thousands of years ago, and yet millions of people today still do not have access to a toilet."

[JohnT]

"The Romans managed to provide sanitation for people thousands of years ago, and yet millions of people today still do not have access to a toilet."

The Romans managed to provide sanitation for people living only within the Roman Empire (and nowhere near all of them at that) for a short amount of time - we're trying to do so globally on a permament basis: something the Romans could never have dreamed of, much less attempted, much less succeeded.

Perhaps if the Left would stop being such a hinderance and get with the freakin' program, actual progress could be made on these very, very important issues. But as long as you do your damndest to limit the amount of wealth earned you are going to limit the amount of wealth you can distribute.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Who can we be measured fairly when they won't keep their thumb off the scales.

The world doesn't exist in a theoretical vaccum. If the theory can not work in a real world setting, whining about it won't help.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"We have to look at how globalisation has affected these countries. There is a real link between that and poverty levels. They are put under enormous pressure to liberalise their markets, then they lose their indigenous trade to subsidised markets in the EU and the US; and the poorest people, such as subsistence farmers, are left with absolutely nothing."

What a bunch of bull, and shows the article is nothing but crap .

Subsistence farmers don't care anything about global trade. It doesn't matter if food prices rise or fall, because they don't use them.

The only way to improve the lot of the poor in the developing world are increases in trade. All aid given should not be given to governments, but rather perhaps a UN development program which would invest all of it in infrastructure improvements. Trade makes people better off, now if the (vocal) left could simply realize that and work with it instead of closing off borders, it may be taken a bit more serious.

[NeOmega]

Interesting thread.

The biggest reason why there will never be a violent communist revolution, hence no marxist revolution, is that most communists like gun control for some reason... mostly just because the republicans don't. They try to threaten capitalaism with leaflet campaigns. They ignore Mao when he says power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Electoral revolution? No way. It would have to be bloody to get to a one party government. Any other way, and it would just be the powerful getting more powerful.... (as always).

BTW, I may not have said this before, but if I were born in Communist America, I would have no problem with being a communist. But I was born in "Capitalist" America, except with burdensome taxes on the working class, so government workers can have armchair jobs, act lousy towards their "customers", and funnel money and power to the rich. So really I don't consider America capitalist, I consider it a democracy.

[MrFun]

NeOmega -- capitalism is an economic system that can exist in different forms of government, from republics, to dictatorships.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MrFun
NeOmega -- capitalism is an economic system that can exist in different forms of government, from republics, to dictatorships.

Well I coouldn't think of any other way to describe the American economic system... it is far from pure capitalism. Democracy seems to fit it nicer. The economy is run as the majority of the people want it to be.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
The biggest reason why there will never be a violent communist revolution, hence no marxist revolution, is that most communists like gun control for some reason

You, like most other conservatives, mak the mistake of confusing radicals and liberals. I assure you, communists very much support the 2nd amendment. Sure, we think there should be reasonable limits to what a civilian should have access (no David Floyd's with nukes, okay), but we do not believe in a disarmed public.

On the flip side, we're also aware that an armed public really makes no damned difference. The people of Iraq had the ability to buy and own automatic weapons under Hussein, for all the good it did them. We will only succeed if we can win substantial portions of the military over to ourside. This is obviously not something that's gonna happen anytime soon, but only in the event that socialists and communists have won enough support for electoral power.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
The economy is run as the majority of the people want it to be.

Oh no it isn't. It's run as the majorioty of capitalists want it to be. And by capitalist I mean the owners of industry and fianance, not simple capitalist boosters ike yourself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by axi
This reminds me of Soviet theorists who claimed that by keeping a large portion of the world out of the reach of the west, imperialism would collapse, by lack of new markets. That argument failed.

One reason is that the places which were kept out of the reach of the west were the ones least crucial to them.

You make the point against your own argument.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Trade makes people better off, now if the (vocal) left could simply realize that and work with it instead of closing off borders, it may be taken a bit more serious.

I knew it. Bush is a leftie

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by JohnT
"The Romans managed to provide sanitation for people thousands of years ago, and yet millions of people today still do not have access to a toilet."

The Romans managed to provide sanitation for people living only within the Roman Empire (and nowhere near all of them at that) for a short amount of time - we're trying to do so globally on a permament basis: something the Romans could never have dreamed of, much less attempted, much less succeeded.

Another confirmation. US grand ambition is to install toilets on a world scale. I knew that as well.

[Bereta_Eder]

On the thread subject, I think communism is wishful thinking in every society with a significant amount of GDP and a sensible distribution of it.

For Axi a book reccomendation: "Pote min pas sto tachydromio monos", tou Kouloglou. Autou pou kanei to reportag xoris synora. http://www.greekbooks.gr/books/showb...?BookID=165076

[Velociryx]

Isn't it amazing tho, that capitalism *doesn't* preclude or disallow the workers to own the means of production.

Capitalism is an inclusive system. The workers can own the plant, either direct or by proxy. Absentees can, trusts could...all sorts of things.

But oh no. Not the big Red Machine. It's our way or the re-education camps! Don't like it, you MUST be one of those elitest capitalist pigdogs.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

I've got a question for che about how communism would handle a certain situation...

Let's say all of the airline pilots in the country get together and decide they aren't being paid enough money. What would you do? If you don't pay them more, and they strike, what would you do? Put down the strike and bring in scabs (if you can; being a pilot requires training)?

[Kuciwalker]

... silence ...

How about this: I'll let not only che, but UR, monkspider, or any of the resident commies answer that one