Interpol: FARC files real

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Perhaps you forgot my profession,. . . .

Perhaps you forgot that you don't exist in a vacuum, and that the general prosperity of the American middle class is an effect of the union movement, which was built, by and large, by communists and socialists. In addition, radicals like myself are responsible for a lot of consumer safety, social benefits like social security and the minimum wage, which all help to increase the level of wealth that the average person has. Furthermore, many of the benefits soldiers have are for the purpose of keeping y'all from radicalizing. When the military grumbles, the republic trembles.

You are not a revolutionary Che, you have absolutely no connection to FARC or any other group of leftits failures around the globe you worship except, well, that worship.

Are you aware that the majority of Bolsheviks did not carry guns? At least not to make the revolution, they did during the civil war. All revolutionaries are not guerrillas.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Felch
Starvation is quite uncommon in capitalist countries.

Actually, starvation is quite common in the capitalist world, unless you define capitalism so narrowly that only the imperialist states are capitalist. That would be like saying that no one has to work under capitalism, and defining people as only capitalists.

With the exceptions of Cuba and North Korea, every country in the world is capitalist, even those led by Communist Parties.

Sorry, but this is bull****. It's like when kids are calling teams in basketball, except you're calling for both teams.

Not to mention the fact that the two countries you mentioned have completely basket-case economies; that North Korea is more of a Kleptocracy than anything else, full of people kept alive only by donations from the imperialists; and that Cubans have enough to eat, and a doctor to see, but generally not much else.

I'd make the argument that capitalism isn't "anything not communist." It's more specific than that. It requires rule of law, and free markets. No country is purely capitalist. Just as North Korea has its criminals at the top, and Cuba has its tourism industry, most capitalist countries have extensive socialism built in. You've brought up labor rights in the West yourself.

Most of the Third World doesn't have the rule of law, and free market system that capitalism requires. They're not capitalist, at least not predominantly. Most economies are a mix of capitalism, socialism, and local traditions.

I'm not saying that capitalism doesn't have its victims, just that you can't attribute every starving African to it. Some starve because they lack the rule of law and free markets that are essential to capitalism.

So when twelve million children a year in the Third World die from starvation and disease (much disease being a function of malnutrition, but not discounting other vectors), that's on capitalism's head. Those children are allowed to die when they could be saved, just as the Soviets and Chinese allowed millions to starve when they could have been saved. The main difference is the decision to let those people die is privatized in the capitalist system, whereas it was made by the government in the socialist system.

Many people in the Third World who die of starvation or malnutrition related disease are victims of war. A number of these wars are a result of unrealistic national boundries drawn by the colonial powers, but that has nothing to do with capitalism. Adam Smith was anti-colonial, and economic liberals always preferred to keep things about business when dealing with other countries. Wars and tribal conflicts, such as in Burma, Darfur, Congo, or Zimbabwe, are the principle reason for these sorts of famines. However, they have less to do with capitalism than with whose ancestors hated each other.

It's also important to note that although 1/3rd the world's population was at one time in the socialist system (albeit, a dictatorial and bureaucratically deformed version of such) there were only six noteworthy famines: the USSR 1922-3, the USSR 1932-4, the PRC 1959-61, Democratic Kampuchea 1979, Ethiopia 1984 (I would note here, however, that while Ethiopia was ruled by a communist party, it never abolished capitalism, but I include it anyway), and North Korea just recently. Maybe as many as thirty million human beings perished due to stupidity, bureaucracy, and malevolence, but 2/3rds of those were in China (we think, but there are no accurate figures--as the current government had every reason to fudge the numbers to discredit Mao).

Thirty millions is an unimaginable number, (it's all of California) but it's only three years of children's unnecessary death in the capitalist 3rd World. That doesn't even bring in all the other factors that caused unnecessary premature death.

Again, Third World deaths are a result of insufficient development. Capitalism, and even Marx would agree with this, causes economic development. Without the benefit of capitalist development, communist regimes in the USSR and China had to undergo violent surges in industrial capacity, which in the short term wound up killing a lot of people. Cambodia was just an evil slaughter of enemies of the state. Ethiopia was more about pre-imperial tribal conflicts than communism. North Korea is a result of natural disaster and the evil of Kim.

These sorts of things aren't really about economic systems as they are about the responsibility the government has to the people. The problem with communism is that it stops looking at people as individuals with personal dignity. It starts looking at things as social classes, and economic output numbers, and statistics in general. And when they stop thinking people, and start thinking in terms of just numbers, they become more willing to commit atrocities for the overall good.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch
Sorry, but this is bull****. It's like when kids are calling teams in basketball, except you're calling for both teams.

Hardly. Socialism and capitalism are not sets of policies you can implement and tinker with. They are total systems. You either are or are not capitalist or socialist.

Not to mention the fact that the two countries you mentioned have completely basket-case economies; that North Korea is more of a Kleptocracy than anything else, full of people kept alive only by donations from the imperialists; and that Cubans have enough to eat, and a doctor to see, but generally not much else.

Whether or not they are basket cases is not relevant to this discussion, which is who is or is not capitalist. Even if it were, your characterization of both economies is a bit overstated. North Korea is actually a heavily developed, industrialized country. The famine in the past decades was not caused by the country being a basket case, but by massive flooding. It's hardly fair to blame them for too much rain. It is completely fair to blame them for policies that mean they were completely incapable of dealing with the disaster, and I'm certainly not going to defend them.

I'd make the argument that capitalism isn't "anything not communist."

I wouldn't make that argument either, but feudalism doesn't exist except for a couple of Himalayan countries, and the Maoists are abolishing feudalism in Nepal (to build capitalism, ironically enough). That pretty much leave Bhutan, and I think that if we ignore both countries for this discussion, we aren't over exaggerating the scope and rule of the capitalist system.

It's more specific than that. It requires rule of law, and free markets.

It's never required either. In fact, for most of the history of capitalism, capitalists have tried to break free from both. Would you claim that Rockerfeller was no capitalist because he used illegal (even then) means to crush his competitors and create an oil monopoly (broke the law and got rid of a free market in oil)? Would you say that drug dealers aren't capitalist? Capitalists only car about the rule of law and free markets when it benefits them, and oppose it such as they can when it hurts them.

No country is purely capitalist.

Because there's no such thing as pure capitalism. There's just different models.

most capitalist countries have extensive socialism built in. You've brought up labor rights in the West yourself.

Socialism isn't a policy. It's a rationally planned society controlled by the working class or its representatives.

Many people in the Third World who die of starvation or malnutrition related disease are victims of war. A number of these wars are a result of unrealistic national boundries drawn by the colonial powers, but that has nothing to do with capitalism.

It does if the colonialism was for capitalist reasons, which the colonialism of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia were.

Adam Smith was anti-colonial,

Adam Smith didn't invent capitalism.

and economic liberals always preferred to keep things about business when dealing with other countries.

When economic interest meets ideology, ideology always gives way. The liberal, Gladstone, was also one of the chief imperialists.

Wars and tribal conflicts, such as in Burma, Darfur, Congo, or Zimbabwe, are the principle reason for these sorts of famines. However, they have less to do with capitalism than with whose ancestors hated each other.

It's significantly more complicated than that. If the economies of those countries weren't at the pointy end of imperialism's spear, they'd have more resources of their own to go around, and those "tribal hatreds" wouldn't be so important. They only matter when there isn't enough to go around, and there has to be a decision as to who gets what. When there's enough for everyone, those hatreds have disappeared.

Again, Third World deaths are a result of insufficient development. Capitalism, and even Marx would agree with this, causes economic development.

But capitalism in the Third World is developed not for the benefit of the locals, but for the benefit of the First World. While Marx did think that the entire world would follow England's path of development, he didn't live to see how colonialism and imperialism changed the equation. By the turn of the century, Marxists around the globe were trying to grapple with why capitalism in the colonies hadn't followed the same path.

Without the benefit of capitalist development, communist regimes in the USSR and China had to undergo violent surges in industrial capacity, which in the short term wound up killing a lot of people.

The fact that both countries were attacked by imperialists didn't have anything to do with their needing to industrialize by any means necessary? The Russian Revolution was attacked by 14 different countries, including the U.S. in the two years following the revolution. The United States intervened in the Chinese Civil war (as much as the American GIs would let them, as when they found out they were headed to China, they went on strike ) and provoked a war in Korea in order to bleed China's revolution.

Cambodia was just an evil slaughter of enemies of the state.

While that is the myth, the reality was that the majority of those executed in Cambodia were actually members of the Communist Party who had ties to the Vietnamese, and the majority of those who died in Cambodia were the result of famine caused by the government's hording of rice during a famine so that they could feed the troops their were planning to use to invade Vietnam. Interestingly enough, there was plenty of food in Cambodia, but Cambodians don't consider corn to be food for humans, and they refused to eat the stuff. :wtf:

Ethiopia was more about pre-imperial tribal conflicts than communism.

It was a combination of war plus drought. The wars were separatist movements, one of which was Eritrea, which was part of Ethiopia until the Italians conquered it. Hardly pre-imperial. I don't know what Tigre's fight was about.

North Korea is a result of natural disaster and the evil of Kim.

Well, you got one right.


edit: added missing word

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Fair enough - some people don't vote out of apathy, some people don't vote out of despair (or rejection).

I don't know how that breaks down in Columbia.

-Arrian

It's mostly the poor and the minorities who don't vote. It's the people who have the least reason to feel that their government works. It's the same in the US and it's the same in Colombia.

[Felch]

Chegitz and I are apparently speaking two different languages. So I'll just agree to disagree.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Felch
I figure whoever wins will be more or less competent

This is crazy

btw, all the candidates are rich. Is that why you think they are all competent?

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Felch
The problem with capitalism is that it stops looking at people as individuals with personal dignity. It starts looking at things as social classes, and economic output numbers, and statistics in general. And when they stop thinking people, and start thinking in terms of just numbers, they become more willing to commit atrocities for their personal good.

Fixed.

Though actually, I don't necessarily disagree with the original statement either.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Seedle
Fixed.

Though actually, I don't necessarily disagree with the original statement either.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is the lamest form of debate?

WOW, YOU'RE SO COOL BECAUSE YOU TOOK TWO WORDS OUT OF MY POST AND CHANGED THEM TO SOMETHING ELSE! I JUST HAD A LOLGASM!!!!!!!!!1!!1!!!!

What's funny is that capitalism doesn't look at people as social classes. It looks at them as willing, individual participants in an economy. So your correction was not only showed a lack of imagination, but it turned a valid (if opinionated) statement into gibberish.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This is crazy

btw, all the candidates are rich. Is that why you think they are all competent?

It's not crazy. I live in a reasonably well governed country. It's not perfect, but neither is anything else. It is acceptable.

I would say that the best evidence for my country being reasonably well governed is that millions of people have illegally snuck into the country. North Korea and Cuba don't have a problem with illegal immigration. Their problems are people illegally fleeing north, to China and Florida respectively.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch
What's funny is that capitalism doesn't look at people as social classes. It looks at them as willing, individual participants in an economy. So your correction was not only showed a lack of imagination, but it turned a valid (if opinionated) statement into gibberish.

Capitalism doesn't look at anything, because it's not alive. It's simply the way human beings go about doing things.

Capitalists, however, very much do look at social class. There is a reason you don't see many poor people rise to run Fortune 500 corporations. The whole, best man or woman for the job thing only goes to a certain point. Racism, sexism, and classism, very much play a role, and have played a role, and will continue to play a role, in a society in which one class rules over all the others.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch

North Korea and Cuba don't have a problem with illegal immigration. Their problems are people illegally fleeing north, to China and Florida respectively.

You think Cuba doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration? Have you ever actually checked? There are hundreds of thousands of Haitian refugees in Cuba. Not exactly illegal immigration per se, but then the U.S. doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration from Cuba either, since them moment they step foot on dry land, they're legal.

South Floridians who aren't of Cuba decent have a problem with it, because like migrants in the rest of the country, they are here to get a job, not because conditions in Cuba are so awful. If Cuba were a Mexican style democracy, and the U.S. didn't have the wet-foot/dry-foot policy, tens of thousands of Cubans would risk death every year just like they do now, just like Mexicans and Central Americans do in the South Western deserts, fleeing from capitalist countries.

As for people sneaking in to the U.S., if you had a choice of living in the house of Tony Soprano or the house of his victims, which would you chose?

East Germany had lots of immigrants, btw. So did the USSR. Tens of thousands of Africans and Asians would go there to work. Part of the rise of Neo-Naziism in the former East Germany was a response to so many foreigners in their area after the economy tanked after reunification.

North Korea has a problem, but we all agree it's a basket case.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Capitalism doesn't look at anything, because it's not alive. It's simply the way human beings go about doing things.

Nice nitpicking. Replace "Capitalism" with "Capitalists" if it makes you feel any better.

Capitalists, however, very much do look at social class. There is a reason you don't see many poor people rise to run Fortune 500 corporations. The whole, best man or woman for the job thing only goes to a certain point.

Like how Obama grew up on food stamps and is most likely going to be president next year?

Racism, sexism, and classism, very much play a role, and have played a role, and will continue to play a role, in a society in which one class rules over all the others.

Seriously, by breaking down the world into classes, you've proven my point. I don't think of people as being "proletarian" or "bourgeoisie." You do. That's the point I was making.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You think Cuba doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration? Have you ever actually checked? There are hundreds of thousands of Haitian refugees in Cuba. Not exactly illegal immigration per se, but then the U.S. doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration from Cuba either, since them moment they step foot on dry land, they're legal.

Haven't heard of Haitians in Cuba myself. Why wouldn't they just hop across the border to the DR?

Not that it matter. Haiti is an anarchic gangster society. Saying it's capitalist is like saying the PRC is communist. Oh, look at that, I can pick and choose who gets to be on my team also.

South Floridians who aren't of Cuba decent have a problem with it, because like migrants in the rest of the country, they are here to get a job, not because conditions in Cuba are so awful. If Cuba were a Mexican style democracy, and the U.S. didn't have the wet-foot/dry-foot policy, tens of thousands of Cubans would risk death every year just like they do now, just like Mexicans and Central Americans do in the South Western deserts, fleeing from capitalist countries.

Why would people who live in a worker's paradise leave? Why would they uproot their families and sacrifice free medical care unless, perhaps, the Cuban government was tyrannical, and conditions weren't nearly as nice as your sources indicate.

As for people sneaking in to the U.S., if you had a choice of living in the house of Tony Soprano or the house of his victims, which would you chose?

How do we victimize Cuba? We don't have anything to do with them. We have virtually no trade. We're certainly not exploiting them in some greedy evil capitalist way.

East Germany had lots of immigrants, btw. So did the USSR. Tens of thousands of Africans and Asians would go there to work. Part of the rise of Neo-Naziism in the former East Germany was a response to so many foreigners in their area after the economy tanked after reunification.

GDR* also had a policy of shooting Germans who tried to leave. Not exactly a beacon of liberty in the world.

*Sometimes I forget which Germany was the one that ran a massive secret police force and shot people who tried to emigrate. Then I remember it's the "Democratic" one.

While we're digressing to East Germany, have you seen Lives of Others? Or is it just a bunch of imperialist lies?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Felch


It's not crazy. I live in a reasonably well governed country.

I don't even know where to begin to despute that, but the War seems like a good place. But your statement is too obviously wrong to warrant a real response.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't even know where to begin to despute that, but the War seems like a good place. But your statement is too obviously wrong to warrant a real response.

Quit assuming that "reasonably well governed" and "more or less competent" mean that I believe the US is perfect. There are systemic flaws and venal people at the top (like Sen. Ted Stevens), but a few bad apples aren't enough to make the country unlivable for most people. If you want to dispute what I'm saying, the burden of proof is on you.