Printable View
What, you mean like Chavez, or the guy in Bolivia? How about Castro? He was "elected" in the typical Marxist manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
? Define "Eastern Democracies" If you mean Eastern Europe for example, most are healthy republics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“What, you mean like Chavez, or the guy in Bolivia? How about Castro? He was "elected" in the typical Marxist manner.” No, my reference was Allende, Chile, killed by Pinochet when he took power against an elected President with US money and logistic. Pinochet was elected in a typical capitalistic way…
And Chavez was elected, and the guy in Peru.
Can I remind you the conditions in which G. W. Bush was elected the first time? Because his brother declared the elections valid and a TV chanel told the US citizens so...:laugh4:
And Castro took power following a Revolution which expelled Batista, who by the way was elected in a the same way than Castro. Without the stupidity of Kennedy, not sure that Cuba would have turn to communism…
Let us admire Haiti and the very capitalist economy which led the first independent state in the Caribbean islands to grow to such wealth and prosperity, where laws and freedom are respected and cherished…:inquisitive:
Your problem is when dictatorships are “Marxist” you blame Marx.
When dictatorships are “capitalist” you deny the fact.
“Eastern Europe for example, most are healthy republics”: Republics, sure. Healthy? Go to visit and see by yourself… Live there few months/years, and perhaps you will stop to be the Tsarina watching Potenkim’s villages.
I don't think you have that correct. :shifty:Quote:
Can I remind you the conditions in which G. W. Bush was elected the first time? Because his brother declared the elections valid and a TV chanel told the US citizens so...
Tell us the truth, then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I didn't think you could be 'elected' to a Communist presidency, since you usually have to bribe, coerce, and threaten everyone else to get to the top...
At least that's how Stalin did it. :2thumbsup:
I knew what you meant, and I was proving your point wrong. Stop taking cheap shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Yes....Quote:
And Chavez was elected, and the guy in Peru.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions at hand. Once again, stop taking cheap shots.Quote:
Can I remind you the conditions in which G. W. Bush was elected the first time? Because his brother declared the elections valid and a TV chanel told the US citizens so...:laugh4:
Did I ever say pre revolutionary Cuba was a good democracy?Quote:
And Castro took power following a Revolution which expelled Batista, who by the way was elected in a the same way than Castro.
Oh, you are making this to easy. Just because a country is capitalistic does not mean they are wealthy.Quote:
Let us admire Haiti and the very capitalist economy which led the first independent state in the Caribbean islands to grow to such wealth and prosperity, where laws and freedom are respected and cherished…:inquisitive:
I'm not denying anything. I'm not sure where you are going with this. Both Marxist regimes and Capitalistic Regimes have dictatorships.Quote:
Your problem is when dictatorships are “Marxist” you blame Marx.
When dictatorships are “capitalist” you deny the fact.
That's a good one. Please, tell us first hand any inside information you have.Quote:
”: Republics, sure. Healthy? Go to visit and see by yourself… Live there few months/years, and perhaps you will stop to be the Tsarina watching Potenkim’s villages.
tristuskhan - the SCOTUS ruled in such a way as elected Bush. Not Bush's brother, not the media. It's also unrelated to the topic at hand.
“I was proving your point wrong”: How? In accepting than a “elected" in the typical Marxist manner” –your words- was valid for a very anti-Marxist coup? I like to be wrong like that…:beam:
“Stop taking cheap shots”: I fear you started this when you linked a system to analyse economy to political Regimes, and summarised to Dictatorship…
And to say that exonerate you to answer…:2thumbsup:
“Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions at hand.” See first remark. YOU started with your comments, like coup or manipulations were “typical Marxist manner”:beam:
“Oh, you are making this to easy. Just because a country is capitalistic does not mean they are wealthy” ; “Uh, try most of the Western Democracies in Europe and North America. I said it had its flaws. Every system has winners and losers, there is no perfect system that can make everyone happy, make everyone equal. That is a pipe dream.” Well you didn’t just downgrading to flaw favelas and poverty, killings and famines and all the rest…!!!!
“Both Marxist regimes and Capitalistic Regimes have dictatorships.” So we agree that nothing to do with Marxism, finally. You know now where I was going…:2thumbsup:
“That's a good one. Please, tell us first hand any inside information you have.” Too late I have to go to work, I a late. I will come back on this, stay tuned.:yes:
What? I was saying that there were socialist presidents that were elected that weren't killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Really? I thought it started when you said this, We won’t know, the only time a Socialist President was elected he was killed during a coup…Quote:
“Stop taking cheap shots”: I fear you started this when you linked a system to analyse economy to political Regimes, and summarised to Dictatorship…
And to say that exonerate you to answer…:2thumbsup:
Not to play the "you started it game", but see previous comment.Quote:
“Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions at hand.” See first remark. YOU started with your comments, like coup or manipulations were “typical Marxist manner”:beam:
Huh? It's pretty clear what I said.Quote:
“Oh, you are making this to easy. Just because a country is capitalistic does not mean they are wealthy” ; “Uh, try most of the Western Democracies in Europe and North America. I said it had its flaws. Every system has winners and losers, there is no perfect system that can make everyone happy, make everyone equal. That is a pipe dream.” Well you didn’t just downgrading to flaw favelas and poverty, killings and famines and all the rest…!!!!
In glorious theory, I'm sure no it doesn't. In reality? Who has been democratically elected more, a capitalistic government or a Marxist government?Quote:
“Both Marxist regimes and Capitalistic Regimes have dictatorships.” So we agree that nothing to do with Marxism, finally. You know now where I was going…:2thumbsup:
Whenever you are ready.Quote:
“That's a good one. Please, tell us first hand any inside information you have.” Too late I have to go to work, I a late. I will come back on this, stay tuned.:yes:
uh, actually if Fox News hadnt wrongly declared the election for bush, (followed by the other outlets minutes thereafter), the outcome of the election of 2000 would have been vastly different. That whole announcenment gave the impression that bush was the winner, when he was in fact not.
And he's right, any democratically elected, progressive leader in central america has usually been stifled or assassinated by the united states in the past 40 years.
“What? I was saying that there were socialist presidents that were elected that weren't killed.” … You are right. There are some Socialist Presidents who weren’t killed…
But not in the 70-80 in South America… And how many time the USA tried to kill Castro? Who is a dictator by the way…
“It's pretty clear what I said.” Yes it is. Bad things in capitalism are just due to flaws, bad thing in so-call Marxist states (following your definition of Marxism) is due to structural problems…
“Who has been democratically elected more, a capitalistic government or a Marxist government?” I don’t know, but considering the number of Prime Ministers and heads of State you probably consider as Marxist, I am not sure it is a real proof of the failure of Marxism… (Almost all European Countries had a Socialist or Social Democrat government in the past, and some still have…):beam:
Now, eastern Countries: Ultra-nationalism, aggravation of poverty, civil wars, separatism, homeless, degradation of all the health system… That is what happens actually in Eastern Countries. Don’t speak about the human Rights like Turkish Minorities expelled, Gypsies kids expelled from school because they are dirty, administrative ethnic cleansing, etc… They are healthy some of the Eastern Countries
If you are really interested, just go for human Rights, add the name of the countries, and you will find.
And you are right. I worked in these countries during 10 years, so it is an inside view… Not really first hand because it is quite known by people interested in the region but…
Do have anything to support these claims?Quote:
Now, eastern Countries: Ultra-nationalism, aggravation of poverty, civil wars, separatism, homeless, degradation of all the health system… That is what happens actually in Eastern Countries. Don’t speak about the human Rights like Turkish Minorities expelled, Gypsies kids expelled from school because they are dirty, administrative ethnic cleansing, etc
I know that these would only be in the Former Yugoslavia, 1 Marxist nation.
What about Poland? They are 'Eastern Europe' but there hasn't been any civil wars. Neither has East Germany had any civil wars. Nor Czechoslovakia. While every nation has poverty, I haven't heard about the slums of Krakow and Warsaw, Prague and Berlin being especially bad.
Uh, actually Fox called Florida for Gore at 8pm.
I can't believe some still cling to the "Bush stole the election" mantra. No recounts later conducted by any uniform standard by newspapers and third parties gave the election to Gore. It'd be much easier to argue that Gore tried to steal the election, but was stopped by the SCOTUS.
Of course you can believe it, what else do they have to cling too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Its not like Gore won his own home state had he done that Bush wouldnt have won.
Of course you dont hear liberals screaming about Gore's inability to win his own state.
Often when reality offers us a bitter pill, its easier to lash out in an illogical manner, which is the case here.
After all, Gore only had to win his home state and florida would have been moot.
Hey, Gore won his home state! He took DC with 90% of the vote. But those 2 electoral votes didn't help him at all. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Interesting. FoxNews declared Florida for Bush at 10:30PM, 2 1/2 hours after the Eastern timezone polls closed and 1 1/2 hours after the Central Timezone polls closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
CBS and Dan Rather on the other hand declared Florida for Gore at 8PM Eastern, 1 hour BEFORE the Central time zone (pro-Bush, btw) closed.
And you're going to argue that FoxNews was the ones trying to throw the election?
Nice to see how objective you can be on these things, Zak.
Wow, you never miss a trick when it comes to bad-mouthing the USA. Would you mind explaining to me how Daniel Ortega managed to stay in power if we 'assasinate or stifle' every democratically elected leader in Central America? (and saying he was democratically elected is a stretch)Quote:
And he's right, any democratically elected, progressive leader in central america has usually been stifled or assassinated by the united states in the past 40 years.
After 2 weeks, numerous recounts and every political trick the Gore camp could pull, the Supreme Court finally pulled the plug on the endless stream of challenges coming from Gore's campaign manager, Daley.
Among others:
-Gore's people sought to block absentee ballots by the armed services.
-Gore wanted any ballot with multiple names punched counted for him, even if his wasn't one of the multiples that got punched.
-Too many other crazy scenarios to count.
And by the way, USA Today was all over this one. They quite publicly sued for ballots under the FOI act, and performed their own recount. They concluded that there was no way Gore could have won Florida, the rules he sought would have only narrowed the margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
We are in agreement here. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.
I don't know if you'd call them "flaws". Like I said, every system has winners and losers.Quote:
“It's pretty clear what I said.” Yes it is. Bad things in capitalism are just due to flaws, bad thing in so-call Marxist states (following your definition of Marxism) is due to structural problems…
Bad things in Marxist states usually have to due with hierarchy oppressing the lower, uneducated classes (ironic isn't, it?)
I'll answer the question for you since you side stepped it. It is obvious more capitalistic regimes were elected rather than Marxist ones. Believe it or not, most of these socialist people you speak of run a capitalistic government simply with heavy regulation.Quote:
“Who has been democratically elected more, a capitalistic government or a Marxist government?” I don’t know, but considering the number of Prime Ministers and heads of State you probably consider as Marxist, I am not sure it is a real proof of the failure of Marxism… (Almost all European Countries had a Socialist or Social Democrat government in the past, and some still have…):beam:
Really? Which countries do you speak of?Quote:
Now, eastern Countries: Ultra-nationalism, aggravation of poverty, civil wars, separatism, homeless, degradation of all the health system… That is what happens actually in Eastern Countries. Don’t speak about the human Rights like Turkish Minorities expelled, Gypsies kids expelled from school because they are dirty, administrative ethnic cleansing, etc… They are healthy some of the Eastern Countries
If you are really interested, just go for human Rights, add the name of the countries, and you will find.
And you are right. I worked in these countries during 10 years, so it is an inside view… Not really first hand because it is quite known by people interested in the region but…
Edit: Wow, just realized I had broken 2000 posts by 10 :)
“Bad things in Marxist states usually have to due with hierarchy oppressing the lower, uneducated classes (ironic isn't, it?)” And the differences with capitalistic states are?:inquisitive:
“Really? Which countries do you speak of?” Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia and Kosovo, Bosnia, Monte Negro, Macedonia (FYROM), Hungary few year ago… Moldavia, Ukraine, Bella Russia, Poland to a certain extend, Former East Germany… List not exhautive, but these countries were in my centre of attention few years ago (some of).
I suppose you will tell me it is just flaws…:beam:
Maybe so, but do you think that Capitalists who are elected to office are the best candidates? Now then, lets think of all the things that every one of the serious candidates for President in '08 have in common. MONEY! Also, political analysts and writers who tell them how they can paraphrase everything into oversimplistic terms so they can please a bunch of the mindless public without ever addressing an actual issue. I have so far only seen a couple of candidates who actually offered some semblance of a specific plan to the problems and discussions brought up by debate folks. Care to know who? Not Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain. One was Dennis Kucinich. The other was Mike Gravel. Every other candidate I've seen has uttered the same nonsensical political BS. Now, who here thinks that either Kucinich or Gravel actually has a chance when it comes to election time? Yeah, that's what I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
At least I have a choice.
Brenus only poverty really applies to the former East Germany. The homelessness isn't all that bad, and though there are generally more neo-nazis in East Germany there are not very many, and the Links Partei actually has much more power than the NPD (the nazi party). I don't think East Germany really belongs on your list if poverty caused by the transformation to a capitalist system, and some widespread trashing of East German companies by West Germans to earn a quick buck is all that applies to it from a list containing ultra-nationalism, homelessness, degradation of the health care system, administrative ethnic cleansings, seperatism, civil wars, and massive human rights violations. Oh yeah and most of the human rights violations (or at least what I see as such, though the same things happen in the US and worse) in East Germany are signed off on by the largely West German national government and generally fall under the whole protection against terrorist attacks mania that is sweeping the western world.
It's possible to be mobile in society. Unless you are one of the elite few in Marxism, it isn't.Quote:
“Bad things in Marxist states usually have to due with hierarchy oppressing the lower, uneducated classes (ironic isn't, it?)” And the differences with capitalistic states are?:inquisitive:
Funny, what type of government ran in mostly all those countries you list before oh say, 15-20 years ago?Quote:
“Really? Which countries do you speak of?” Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia and Kosovo, Bosnia, Monte Negro, Macedonia (FYROM), Hungary few year ago… Moldavia, Ukraine, Bella Russia, Poland to a certain extend, Former East Germany… List not exhautive, but these countries were in my centre of attention few years ago (some of).
I suppose you will tell me it is just flaws…:beam:
“Funny, what type of government ran in mostly all those countries you list before oh say, 15-20 years ago?” Funny indeed… Who is running them now? You mentioned the “Eastern Europe for example, most are healthy republics”. And they are not so healthy. Of course, not all of them combine all what I mentioned, but most the people living there are quite disappointed by the so-called democratisation and the plunder by the former communist elite which became very easily capitalist of all what was valuable… This is the process that Marx describes by the way…
“It's possible to be mobile in society. Unless you are one of the elite few in Marxism, it isn't.” Well, if you born in the wrong part of what ever country you choose, with the wrong colour of skin and religion, wrong family it will be hard…:sweatdrop:
Now, it was possible to be mobile in the elite in Marxism. If you look at the origin of most of the leaders (after the war, not the one who took power by a coup) you will be surprised… Any way, your confusion comes from the fact that promotion will come from how to manoeuvre in politic, not on how to make money… It is a little bit like in religions…:beam:
See where many equate the studies of Marxism with those of Communism - though the Communists proposed some (few) Marxists ideas, they were generally employed to justify their dictatorial rule. Personally, I feel Marx supported democracy, but perceived capitalism as being not only a threat to real democracy - but, subverting it (through corporate greed) to serve the desires of the few to dominate the economic needs of the many.
Suggested for review (or ignoring):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
overview
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
definitive study of
At present corporate greed in America has slid us back into the era of the "Robber Barons", it is a matter that less than 0.18% of Americans control a disproportionate percentage of the nation's wealth (60-80%, depending on which figures one accepts or the methods employed determing them, regardless it requires that limitations be restored). That we have a minimum wage that is well below the poverty level, but no "maximum wage" speaks for itself - we now have CEO's making 1,-4,000X (times) the median wage of their employees (median norm is approx. $56,000 per year) - demonstrates the growing inequality and the creation/consolidation of the new imperial class . This unwillingness to share the wealth, congressional compliance in allowing/supporting it, and the idea that money equates to freedom of speach - is creating fissures that will inevitably create a class-war once the middle-class realizes it is under assault by those that want it all (and see no purpose for them to share their wealth and gaining powers).
For a democracy to be maintained, it must assure that the wealth under its control is distributed by equitable means. Controls to limit the ability of a significant minority to create corporated monopolies have been removed - slowly, almost imperceptively, in the name of the common good - when they were in fact displaced so that the few could extend their power and expand their wealth. So far it is working.
Don't believe it? AT&T's monopoly of telecommunications was busted up in the 70's - today all those laws governing the extent of ownership for specific areas of commerce have either been repealed or displaced, and AT&T now owns 70% of what they previously were disallowed.
In the names of free enterprise, cost efficiency, and the "good for all" - we have been led to believe that the less control our government has to influence or control the growth of business - the better off we will all be. When in fact such philosophies are directed only for the benefit of a very few individuals and corporations.
Americans can be a very lax group when it comes to protecting their freedom, but when someone starts messing with their wallets - beware. they will get upset (and they are armed).
A sharing of wealth is a necessity for the continuation of a true democracy. That is a Marxist concept. Marx didn't condemn democracy - he condemned corporate and the wealthy's fundemental philosophy that ignored the needs of the many to acquire all power, and all wealth.
:balloon2:
Err...Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
You get the order switched, my friend. Marxism is an off-shoot (some argue the main branch) of Communism. The Bolsheviks were a Marxist party. Among the many differences with other branches of communism includes the advocacy -- or at least the claim of the inevitability -- of a violent class struggle and the foundation of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (democracy without minority rights?) that must precede the stateless, classless "true communist" utopia, hence its central position in the red revolutions of the 20th century.
Healthy in sense that there are now elections and people can make decisions for themselves. Give it time, 40-50 years of a Marxist Dictatorship tends to do that to a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Lol, yes, I guess if you suck up to the right people and are shrewed enough, you can move up. I'm not denying that it is possible to do that here too, but I'm saying there are other ways such as intelligence, handwork, and a little bit of luck.Quote:
“It's possible to be mobile in society. Unless you are one of the elite few in Marxism, it isn't.” Well, if you born in the wrong part of what ever country you choose, with the wrong colour of skin and religion, wrong family it will be hard…:sweatdrop:
Now, it was possible to be mobile in the elite in Marxism. If you look at the origin of most of the leaders (after the war, not the one who took power by a coup) you will be surprised… Any way, your confusion comes from the fact that promotion will come from how to manoeuvre in politic, not on how to make money… It is a little bit like in religions…:beam:
Know what, you are right? I forget that Marx wrote his works (which Engle completed from his drafts after Marx's death) under a dictatorship - the Kaiser, and that prior to WWI only France claimed a democracy in Europe (major nations) while the others still had monarchys. Life for commoners in the 19th century was barely tolerable, closer to slavery than freedom. In America it was barely better until after 1933 - we tend to forget how close America came to its own Communist revolution under Hoover - it's simply one of those things we have swept under the rug (like the growth of unionization, etc.) to preserve the american dream fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
However, it remains that without a sharing of the wealth - a minority will rule and will enslave the remainder. Just on a matter of principle, and that they can.
:balloon2:
“I'm not denying that it is possible to do that here too, but I'm saying there are other ways such as intelligence, handwork, and a little bit of luck.” You mean like Serguei Kalashnikov, Mikoyan and Gurevich…
Again your ideology blinds you to the reality of human society. In each society you have the possibility to climb the ladder. You have just to find a way…
“Give it time, 40-50 years of a Marxist Dictatorship tends to do that to a country.” Again Ideology: Haiti never experiment the so-called Marxist dictatorship and look what happened… But Portugal was free from Salazar’s dictatorship by Marxists Revolution, and look what happened: Democracy and now this country in E.U. The problem is dictatorships, not the fact they are “Marxist” or “capitalist
Just a slight correction....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It is true that the revolutionary action that deposed Salazar was of Marxist inspiration...but it did not put Portugal in the path it is on now......not by itself it didn´t...
the period that followed the 25th of April of 74 revolution (that is normally called the PREC - "Processo Revolucionário em Curso" or " Ongoing Revolucionary Process ") was marked by violence, terrorist actions, private property apropriation, forced nationalizations and a rise of Communist influence through the Portuguese Communist Party that almost led this country to the brink of civil war and the possibility of a soviet inspired dictatorship.
This influence of extreme left leaning elements (specially in the armed forces) was only brought to an end with the military coup of 25th of November of 75..that allowed the moderate elements to regain control of the situation and lead the country to the stable situation it is in now, which allowed for free plural elections...the signing of a democratic constitution in 76...joining the EU...etc...etc....
This is not to say that the 25th of Abril revolution was not important....it was hugely important...but without the moderating action of the following year Portugal would just have jumped from one hot pan into another.