|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Fidel Castro | from AndyH - Thursday, July 26, 2007
accessed 1110 times Today is the 54th anniversary of the attack on the Moncada Barracks that launched the Cuban Revolution. Today's Celebration was the first that Fidel did not attend, due to his health. I thought it would be interesting to see what some us think about Castro vs. Batista & US. We were pro-Castro in The Family, and those of in the states now find ourselves surrounded by the opposite sentiment. I'm totally open to both right and left opinions, as I'm sure I'll get both.
Let's try to keep it clean. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Baxter
Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 15:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I somehow remember that he is actually responsible for inflicting quite irrepairable damage on the Cuban economy. His Stalinist approach to collectivisation decided to concentrate on the production of sugar, which then effectively destroyed a lot of other comestible exports which would otherwise have given the country a more durable and resourceful economy. His treatment of social 'undesirables', especially gays, has been completely unaccepable and unjustified. Beyond this, what the hell was he thinking allowing the Russians to import ICBMs into Cuba? I mean, there really was no way that was gonna turn out positive for Cuba.
Of course, I think he is a bit of an anti-hero; his conduct of Guerrilla Warfare was classic stuff, although his competition was less than impressive at the best of times. However, if anyone or anything has made him into the iconic symbol that he is, I think it is the ridiculous number of incompetant attempts to assassinate him. Some of the incidents were kinda freaky, but some were downright Marx brothers stupid.
(reply to this comment)
| from Phoenixkidd
Friday, July 27, 2007 - 15:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am still Pro-Castro, I think he did his best to free his people from American Colonialism. I think his country would be just fine if they didn't have a trade embargo last so long. I think he is too old though to rule, he needs to step down.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from cheeks
Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think when we close off dialog with a country or impose sanctions against them it makes them less able to change. It blocks the citizens from being able to rise up and oppose their government. Just like in the Family when we had little outside influence while we managed to leave it made it that much harder when we got out. Imagine how quickly the Family would have fallen had they been allowed an alternative thought process through reading or viewing of other materials. Berg was very smart to close them off so they had little else to compare their beliefs with.
(reply to this comment)
|  From figaro
Friday, July 27, 2007, 16:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree. I do have to hand it to Berg for the incredible way he made it just about impossible for him to lose his power over his cult. I really don't think that TF will ever have any sort of take over, hostile or otherwise. First off, how do you over throw someone who you can't find? Had she really wanted to, I'm sure Zerby could have never revealed Bergs death to the cult and everyone would continue to blindly follow, no one being the wiser. Much like the movie "equilibrium". (Very good movie, I highly recommend it for those who have never seen it)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from rainy
Friday, July 27, 2007 - 02:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
To give a more honest answer to your question, that's one of the things I haven't thought about at all since leaving, so my views are still: Castro, good, brave, defender of the underdog. Honestly, I don't know any more about it that what I read in the True Komix.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 19:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think the thing we all have to bear in mind when debating NeO on the topic of government-slash-civic-services is that he lives under one of the more idiotic systems of governance conceived by civilised humans, namely, the United Kingdom's. Bloody intrusive lot of money-grubbing nanny-state voyeurs if you ask me. No wonder he's cheesed off, I wouldn't want to be obligated to pay out the nose for that society either.
And, yes, we ARE so much better than all that up here in Canada, I thank you so much. Just a touch of post-colonial snobbery peeking through there. :)
Also, would everyone kindly stop referring to communism as if it were only ever tried in the former USSR, please? Such a position borders on a strawman argument. Just because communism didn't work in the former Soviet Union largely on account of hosting the eastern theatre for 2 debilitating world wars, followed closely by a 40 year bankruptcy-inducing "defence" spending race with the US that we all know as the Cold War doesn't mean that the entire idea should be discounted as worthless. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 01:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Indeed, we are in a crazy state at the moment - although calling it a 'system of government' is wildly inaccurate, but lets not get into all the whys and wherefores just now - that said, I would hardly classify it as one of the worst. What I do think it shows is that (building on your last paragraph) socialism/communism intrinsically don't work.
The past 10 years have seen socialism enforced, quietly through the back door, and subsidised by a combination of the generally positive economic situation globally, and the changes and legislation implemented by previous governments. However we are now seeing first-hand how incredibly unsustainalbe it is, and how record levels and increases in funding have - if anything - caused our public services to deteriorate, drastically if measured on a value-for-money basis. Incidentally, this is not a new place for the UK to be, and is eerily reminiscent of the mid-70's before Thatcher.
So seeing that now, combined with what we all know about the former Soviet Republics, China, and pretty much every other country that has tried Communism, only makes my case all the stronger. And it adds to the sense of disbelief that anyone would still be promoting socialism &/or communism as a viable option - regardless of the current economic state of their country. As Thomas Sowell said, “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From figaro
Friday, July 27, 2007, 03:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, but he also transformed Cuba into a one-party socialist republic, where there is no other alternative then to simply accept whoever is in power as the one who will be in power for as long as he wants, regardless of what the people want, or is in their best interest. So even though HE may be for the people, the next guy may not be. (His little brother is now running the show since Fedels health is fading) There is no democracy, no choice for the people, and if someone really bad takes power, there will be no hope for them either!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 27, 2007, 04:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Even that is incidental to my reasons for opposing socialism - and what so annoys me when people think that socialism can ever be 'benevolent' or respect individual liberties - which is that socialism is one of the worst infringements on freedom. Its very premise is that someone, somewhere determines what is 'right' for everyone - whether that is a popular or unpopular view is irrelevant.
I think it is excellently crystalised in the old joke about the Communist revolutionary promising a crowd that 'come the revolution' everyone will eat cake and ice cream. When some poor chap pipes in with "But what if we don't like cake and ice cream?" the revolutionary replies, "Come the revolution, everyone will eat cake and ice cream... and LIKE it!"(reply to this comment) |
| | From Aita
Friday, July 27, 2007, 05:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yep, that's exactly what Venezuela is becoming now. I currently live here and I am desperate to get out before it is impossible. Of course, the difference here is that Chavez was elected by the people, but I don't think most knew what he was really up to.
Where I work I cannot voice any criticism against the goverment or I can get fired. Socialist Training is a mandatory requirement for eveyone. And now they are changing the school curriculum to make it socialist.
Fidel and Chavez are best buddies..... enough said!(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Friday, July 27, 2007, 05:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey neo, are you saying that socialism can only come with a dictatorship?
Socialist societies do devalue certain liberties that are valued in capitalist societies, but the same is true vice versa. What you prefer depends on what freedoms/liberties you value more. Everybody wants "freedom" or "liberty" and politicians, revolutionaries, etc love to act in the name of freedom. It doesn't mean much. Freedom is not absolute and each freedom comes at the expense of another. Whether you prefer socialism or capitalism or something in between depends simply on what value you place on various freedoms, not whether or not you value "freedom".(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 27, 2007, 11:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Andy, you are making the classic mistake of confusing the political ideology with the governmental structure and approach. The 'oppression' which they suffered under the Batistas was due to the heavy-handed style of government, not a capitalist or free-market ideology. Similarly, the benefits they have gained are due to the poulist nature of the Castro government, rather than socialism. Thus, while the change may appear to the uninformed as being attributable to capitalism vs. communism, the actual effects which are being compared are not in fact anything to do with either.
It is another common misconception that a free market economy justifies an underpaid workforce - quite the opposite! In a free market labour is a commodity just like any other, and as such it is the responsibility of those selling it (the workers) to negotiate the price with the buyers (employers). Socialism and communism try to interfere in this process by legislating - to varying degrees - what is and is not "fair", however this only skews reality, and is therefore unsustainable in the long term, as both Russia and China have discovered in their own ways.
Ultimately, value is dynamic, constantly changing and even differs from individual to individual. Therefore, attmepting to legislate it will always be a retro-fit to past reality, and more importantly will always be a compromise to suit (theoretically) a majority of the population at that time, and so will over time simply come apart at the seams as society recognises that "one-size-fits-all" inevitably means "one-size-fits-none".(reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Friday, July 27, 2007, 11:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know what poulist means and I can't find it in the dictionary or wikipedia. So I'll have to give you that one.
I understand what you're saying about the sale of labor. It seems so simple, but why is it that it just doesn't seem to work out that way? Probably because bottom level earners aren't very good negotiators. And they can't threaten to not work, because there will always be more desperate people to do it. Minimum wage sounds like such a good idea, but all it does is make our labor overpriced and other countries get the contracts.
I don't want you to take me the wrong way and think I'm proposing that I have some kind of solution to this. This is pretty much the ultimate dilemma, and both extremes tend to be real assholes. Excluding you of course :)
Always a pleasure(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 27, 2007, 12:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
My bad - meant to type 'populist'.
Regarding why it doesn't "work", I would have a few comments. First of all, I can't think of a single example throughout history where there has been a truly free market. Labour in particular has always been controlled to varying extents by some party or another, be they tribal leaders, religious leaders, or political leaders of whatever ideological affiliation. Therefore there has never been a tradition of enabling the whole population self-determination in that respect.
Additionally, there is the human instict of fear - any negotiation involves a degree of risk, and the majority of people will avoid that risk if possible (do you make do with your crappy job for fear of giving it up and not getting anything better?).
Unions were formed in an attempt to address these issues - and in principle I have nothing against collaborating with likeminded individuals to achieve a common goal - however they were entirely hijacked by the left for their own political and social engineering purposes.
Finally, I would say that you are entirely right not to be proposing a 'solution'. In fact, the libertarian approach is that there isn't in fact a 'solution' and that the search for one is generally a large part of the problem. Liberty means the freedom to choose, and that includes the freedom to choose "wrong" - ie: the ability to "fail" - in which case the individual will bear individual responsibility for that failure, in the same way that they would enjoy the benefits of a success.
It is logically impossible to allow people to benefit from success, but not suffer from failure. And if you conversely remove the reward of success, then you disincentivise the population, and end up with under-achievement and general laziness so that the inflated 'minimum' becomes unsustainable.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 11:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
In a purely capitalist society people would starve if they can't get work. The educational system and free health care also don't tie in to well with capitalism. Perhaps you consider that price a fair exchange for the freedom to negotiate what pay you get if you get work, or to pay employees as you like, I think it would undesirable. I also think that you would be running the risk of revolution should you allow those with economic power to oppress, to whatever degree they choose, those without.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
In any society people will starve if not enough work is done to produce/secure that food. The only place that giving people free basic necessities works in the long term is in the heads of socialists. In the real world - as we are seeing more and more in this country, and have already seen in the former Soviet republics - what happens is that people become lazy and non-productive, producing over time a growing underclass which is carried along by the rest - building resentment on both sides of the divide and making revolution an even more likely outcome.
As for the education, health care and other free services, another thing which history proves is that individuals and private organisations do far more of this when governments aren't busy controlling this sector. In fact, if you look at this country for example, most of our public service sector was originally established and funded entirely privately, and it was only around the time of the war that they were nationalised.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 02:32
 (Agree/Disagree?)
What there is now in the UK may not be working very well, but that may be simply that the model isn't working. Where minimum wages come to the same as dole payments, one is hardly given an incentive to get back into work. Too much is given, in my opinion, to unemployed people who are able to work. Also, if you have certain skills you are legitimately able to wait for a job requiring those skills, say if you are a qualified doctor, you are not expected to take a job as a cleaner. There are definately problems with the system in the UK, but I think that's cus they are handing out too much and too easily in some cases. Its hardly a fair example of providing a minimum.
As far as the class divide, there has always been one. As far as I know there is less of such a divide nw than there was 30, 100, or 500 years ago.
As far as education, health care, and other necessary free services (i.e.legal aid). I'm not saying that it should be controlled by the government, but that it should be funded by taxes. With legal aid, the representing firm bills the Legal Services Commission where their client is elligible for legal aid. The government does not have controll over the case. The cases are dealt with by individual firms, but those that are elligible for legal aid are subsidised.
You are free to send your children to a private school or see a private practitioner should you choose to do so. The state provided institutions are meant to provide a minimum. This was not available to many people before the NHS, and state schools were set up. In any case, I'm not suggesting that these services should be run by the state, but that the state should pay to enable all those to receive a minimum level of health care, education, etc.,(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 06:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just because there never has been a proper 'free market' doesn't mean that there never could - or indeed should - be one.
My view on the size of government is that government should only do what only government can do. Currently I would broadly list that as: foreign policy, armed forces/defence, legislature, judiciary, law enforcement, and some sort of economic ombudsman to promote competition in the marketplace.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From rainy
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Basically, you don't think the government is there to look after those who can't look after themselves? What do you suggest we do about them?
I personally define the success of a country's economic structure by the quality of life of its poorest. Australia according to that definition is doing pretty well as even the poorest have access to free emergency housing, healthcare, education, money, help with finding work, libraries, and a clean and safe country to live in.
I might be dead now if we didn't have women's refuges and the like.
Do you really think survival of the fittest is logical and ethical?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 08:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Absolutely not - government should have no business "looking after those who can't look after themselves". For the simple reason that this would require set criteria to quantify something which is a far more subjective issue, and which can never be properly addressed from a central, statist position.
Your measure for a country's 'economic structure' sounds sweet and fuzzy, but is ultimately meaningless to anyone but a socialist ideologue.
As far as how it should be done - that is what families, local communities and charitable organisations are for.
'Survival of the fittest'... doesn't matter whether it's logical or ethical, it just is.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
One would have thought that as a law student you would have a better grasp of the legislative process in this country, sar!
Parliament is the legislative body in this country, while the Prime Minister represents the largest party within the House of Commons, to say that he 'effecually (sic) controls the legislature' is not accurate. The way you refer to 'government' also suggests a lack of understanding of the distinction between the legislative and executive branches of the central government - not to mention all the regional and local authorities - and their respective powers.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 15:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmm, I guess I shall need to explain things for you, Neo. I'm guessing you like to think that we have a separation of power between the three branches of government under Montesquieu's theory into executive, legislative and judiciary, but we don't. The first past the post system means that the party in power almost always has an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. A whip system is used so that a member of parliament wishing to go against their party line commits political suicide should they go against it. Thus the head of cabinet can control the House of Commons. I used the word "effectually" as in theory Parliament is meant to control the cabinet.
The Parliament Acts shifted power from the House of Lords to the House of Commons, so that now any Bill can be forced through the House after a year. Whoever controls the House of Commons controls the House of Lords. The Monarch has not refused to give assent in a very long time. The Monarch could probably only refuse to give assent once and thus holds little real power. This is why I say the Prime Minister controlls the legislature.
I assume you know the meaning of most of the terms used above. If in doubt, I intend the term in its legal meaning. My reference to the House of Lords is obviously intended as meaning the House of Lords in its legislative capacity rather than the court.
Government is a word I would normally avoid as it causes confusion. It can be used to refer either to the three branches of governance collectively or simply to the executive branch. It is also used for local government. I would prefer to refer to the executive, legislature and judicature respectively, but it wasn't necessary to draw distinction for the sake of the argument. I will not explain the relationship between local and central government at the moment as I'm bored of rehashing A level work. We don't have regional authorities. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hear you filthy poms like it bottom-up. :D
Of all the "governments", (at least in this country) "local" government is far and away the most in-your-face, persnickety, petty, incompetent, snail's-paced (unless they're collecting!), stupid and greedy bunch of busybodies you'd ever (not!) want to meet. Like a bad parent really, so I guess your analogy is apt after all.
Bear in mind that I'm basically a misanthrope, so government of for and by "the people" doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy like you might imagine. Personally, I'd love it if
everyone could live independently from interference in peace and harmony with their fellow persons in the perfect Libertarian manner, with a society based on mutual respect for each other's freedoms, but sadly, it doesn't seem that humans are capable of this. (To be fair, no other animals really manage it either, so no need to feel too bad.)
So long as money creates status and we are not born fiscally equal, somebody is going to be getting the shaft (metaphorically speaking). If that is so, then frankly, the best-equipped to survive economic exploitation (oppression if you will), namely, the wealthy, should be wrung for every last dollar/pound by we, the people. To take it a step further, if I were in charge I'd exile and strip the citizenship of the wealthy who evade paying too. Any other arrangement has to be discounted as unjust prima facie on account of the massive disparity between haves and have-nots, and the accompanying hardship associated with the life of the latter. In layman's terms, my taxes are proportionally an order of magnitude higher than my wealthy neighbours, solely on account of what I have left to spend on myself after my societal obligations are paid. If they have enough left over for a Porsche, and I have just enough for food and shelter, I fail to see how they're so horribly mistreated by the "government" even if they pay a lot more than me.
And please kindly stop with the rags-to-riches drag-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps "anyone can improve themselves" Dale Carnegie boolshit. You might as well advocate financial planning based on the expectation of winning the lottery next week. You are of course aware that for every made-it-and-got-rich story there are a hundred thousand tried-harder-yet-still-failed. I'm not religious at all, but Ecclesiastes 9:11 sums up the situation pretty well: ...the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Why should a society that we consciously (presumably) create cater solely to the very fortunate few to the detriment of the rest? Is that just? Or even wise really? I'd ask Marie "let them eat cake" Antoinette if her cavalier attitude toward her social inferiors' welfare was that good an idea long-run, but she's off her head somewhat, along with practically the entire French Nobility. Ditto for the Czar of Russia and his line. What you don't seem to realise is that the "bread and circuses" social system that your tax dollars pay for is the one and only thing keeping the unwashed hoi polloi from coming by and taking by force what's yours. In short, you can't keep it all, no matter how you slice it, ya miser. Either you pay for a system where the baseline is reasonably high, or you deal with the massive social unrest that comes as a result of (justifiable!) class struggle. (Or, everyone could just live in a cave, miles from anyone else. Come to think of it, that's not such a bad idea.) Neither option is really nice, but the system you've got now is far more pleasant to live in than one in which an entire class of people are effectively closed off from society due to cash-flow issues. People just aren't content to go quietly starving into the night like they used to, you know.
So yeah, by all means lobby and petition to fund or de-fund what you deem worthy or unworthy, but please. please. please, nigga-PLEASE stop with the free-market-solves-everything wet dream already. It's busted, it doesn't work any more than pure communism does, and for much the same reasons. What's needed is a balance, at least that's what I think. Free-market, laissez-faire for the non-necessities, and tight, collective, "governmental" (if you must) control over the things that are vital to society. A balance between what's best for the individual, and the compromises an individual has to make for his/her fellow. Frankly, I think the UK is a little (a lot. In fact, "way") overboard with the whole "you will pay out the nose to do what we think is best for everyone all the time and we're watching to see that you do" thing, but that's a fine-tuning, housecleaning issue in the grand scheme.
For what it's worth, though, I think Property Tax on a primary residence is bull. I think it's antithetical to the concept of "freedom" to be obligated under threat of seizure to continuously pay for what you already own outright. I reckon the state's welcome to tax the crap out of additional "luxury" properties owned but for them to be able to seize your home because you didn't pay for what you already own is quite simply ludicrous, IMO.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 14:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Now that I've had the chance to read it properly, let me just say - What a lot of envious bile! Not to mention fundamental misunderstanding of the key ideologies. So, I'll just cherry-pick a couple points to respond to.
First of all, the 'nature' of local government representatives. I would say there are a number of factors at play here: for one, it is their remit to focus on the minor, fiddly, issues - giving you a hard time is really just a basic human reaction, attempting to exert their authority in whatever ways they can. It can also be attributed in part to the balance between local and central governments, where the electorate don't give the same attention to selecting their local representatives as they would to a national election - because it's just not as 'sexy' voting for your councillor as your MP. But all of that said, I would ask you how many central governmental representatives you have interacted with to the same extent as local authorities?
You also talk disdainfully about "the rags-to-riches drag-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps 'anyone can improve themselves' Dale Carnegie boolshit". I'm the last person to endorse the 'self-help' industry, but that doesn't stop me from knowing that everyone does have the ability to make choices that can improve the quality of their lives - even drastically.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 15:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Envious? You're damn skippy I'm envious of people who have the best in life all but handed to them on a silver platter and then insist that much, much less, the dregs really, is only befitting the lazy, dirty, unwashed, what-have-you peasantry.
But what really gets my dander up is when working peons like you deliberately work against your own interests in the mistaken belief that if you vote for the fat cats, they'll cut you in on the pie. Sorry, it's not going to happen that way.
Now, you're white, reasonably young, healthy and educated. Of course you feel that the world is your oyster and that anyone can improve quality of their lives by dint of a little elbow-grease. But it just ain't so, NeO. Yeah, sure a lot of people squander what chances at success they have, but the number of people who never get any opportunity at all far outstrips both the successful and could-have-been. Your political philosophy seems strangely blind to this for some reason. And yet you wonder why they call you heartless. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Friday, July 27, 2007, 08:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, of course I'm not saying that - socialism, communism, etc are political ideologies, and are entirely separate from how the government is selected.
Communism and socialism, however, ARE ultimately oppressive ideologies. You say that "Socialist societies do devalue certain liberties that are valued in capitalist societies, but the same is true vice versa. What you prefer depends on what freedoms/liberties you value more." I would ask you to elaborate on what 'liberties' capitalism devalues in comparison to socialism. In doing so, I would ask that you distinguish between the ideology and the governmental structure.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 11:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'll start from the beginning. There can be no absolute freedom. If people are free to do whatever they like, the freedoms of some would be taking from the freedoms of others. If people are free to kill, they would be free to take the freedom to live from others.
Those with guns would be able to completely subjugate other members of the population under fear of death. Whoever gets to the gun first would be free, others would be less so. On an economic level, without regulation those that are better placed economic can subjugate those that are worse placed. The freedoms of some are allowed to detract from the freedoms of others.
The aspect is that it depends on which freedom you value more, the freedom to kill or the freedom to live; the freedom to acquire property, or freedom from economic subjugation (which can be complete subjugation as you need money to live, buy food, etc). To answer your question, I think that socialist ideologies protect the latter and capitalist the former.
We have a mixture of ideologies, so that the full potential effects cannot be felt, though they have done so to a greater extent previously. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 13:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
You have indeed mixed up ideologies here - by continually talking about the 'freedom to kill or the freedom to live' you are obscuring the issue, as that is something which is neither a socialist or capitalist argument. So that leaves the only relevant issue you raise to be what you describe as a choice between "the freedom to acquire property, or freedom from economic subjugation".
The only way what you've phrased could make any sense as a choice would be in the sense of "the freedom to benefit from your own choices vs. the freedom not to suffer from your own choices". What is 'economic subjugation' if not a structure in which your economic standing is controlled by a centralised power? Being poor is not being subjugated, just as being wealthy is not subjugating.
I will therefore return to a social vs. economic liberties comparison, and I would argue that ultimately economic freedoms are the more important. Consider for example, a socially conservative society, yet which allows a free market economy, typically you will find that this then enables those who are able and willing to pay for something to do so essentially undermining the social oppression.
Conversely, in a society which is socially liberal, but tightly controls the economy, it will very quickly become apparent that social liberties become curbed in order to regulate the economy. Therefore, if I had to choose between social or economic freedoms - economic would win every time!(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 03:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
By talking about the freedom to kill, freedom to live, I was pointing out that there are two sides to freedom. I used it as it is, I think, the extreme of one sense of liberty as well as to show that constraints are not necessarily detrimental to freedom, but can, in fact, protect freedom.
"the freedom to benefit from your own choices vs. the freedom not to suffer from your own choices" is not the two sides of economic nonintervention. If one person is allowed to take as much as they want, they are allowed to depriving others. Being poor is not subjugated, unless one is forced into poverty or born into poverty and at the mercy of those who are better placed financially in order to get food and other necessities.
I'm not sure what you mean by social liberties, so I won't comment on that.
You are also perfectly entitled to prefer a fully free market, I personally don't think that would work very well, it would lead to oppresion and eventually open conflict. I don't like the idea of having very stringent controlls either. I think some controlls are needed, i.e. to prevent monopolies, and to even the playing field for those who start off at a disadvantage.
I'm not sure what you mean by "social liberties" and I don't see why "social liberties" would need to be curbed in order to regulate the economy.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 11:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
There's a part of me that is incredibly flattered by people taking my argument, re-dressing it, and then claiming it as their own. But then I remember what NuLab have been doing for the past decade and it's suddenly not so appealing.
Having already discussed the rights/freedoms/responsibilities issue, I won't rehash it just now. But I will say that economics is not a zero-sum equation, value is - and can be - created, therefore accumulating wealth does not mean depriving others.
The social vs. economic liberties is a basic set of axes which have been developed to plot political ideologies along a 2-D rather than linear chart. They form two 'groups' of liberties which although frequently considered to be interwoven, are actually not at all. On the one end of the economic axis would be an absolutely free and unregulated market, and on the other would be a communist-style entirely controlled market.
Socially, on the one end would be an entirely authoritarian state, controlling every aspect of our lives, and the other end would be an entirely uncontrolled society where everyone did exactly what they wished.
The two can, and do, operate independent of each other, however as I've already said, I consider the economic scale to be far more significant, and ultimately more important.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From rainy
Saturday, July 28, 2007, 16:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
You seem to think that a person born into poverty or horrible situations, such as growing up with drug-addicted or abusive parents and having five younger brothers and sisters, is making choices to have it tough.
Don't you think in a situation like the above there should be a support network so all the children get care, proper food, medical, education, and the parents get rehab and parental training? They most likely grew up in similar situations. Switzerland has free university for all its citizens. The countries that provide more for their people seem to be doing much better and have much less poverty than America, which provides so little. And even America has less poverty than places like India and Africa, which provide almost nothing, and depend on NGOs, as you seem to be suggesting we all do.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, July 29, 2007, 03:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
And you seem to think that people in those horrible situations are the result of oppression. Yes, ultimately it was choices that brought them to that state (whether their own or others') but what EVERYone has is the ability to choose to improve their situation, regardless of how bad it is. There are numerous examples of people who have overcome backgrounds such as that and become incredibly wealthy - and those are just the extreme ones, so think about the exponentially greater amount of examples of people who have overcome that to live a normal, 'middle-class' lifestyle.
You talk about a 'support network', and I don't object to that in the least - I just don't consider that something government should, or is even best suited to do.
As far as comparing countries, there are really so many more dynamics which need to be evaluated in order make any sort of meaningful comparison - although it is notable that for all the 'socialist' properties you try to highlight, the countries you are holding up as good examples are those with a much stronger capitalist inclination, so if anything proving my point.
You talk about 'free' this and that - but that is a misnomer. Nothing is free! It is being paid for by someone, somewhere - and in the case of socialism, being paid for well over the odds, and probably even disproportionately by those who can little afford it.
Another thing is that studies of historical patterns have shown that the more social services a government centralises under their control, the less individuals do. So it ends up being at best a 'zero-sum' trade-off financially, but when considering the massive change that this brings about by way of public attitudes - both towards the less fortunate, and their own sense of entitlement to the services on offer - and the bureaucracy and box-ticking mentality which a 'universal' public services system requires, I would say that the result is an unequivocal and significant negative by every measure. Of course, this doesn't mean that no good is ever achieved by it - there is no shortage of examples of 'good' - but that the good achieved is neither commensurate to the investment, nor is the outcome universally positive.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AndyH
Friday, July 27, 2007, 08:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that those on the lower end of the totem pole in extreme capitalist situations such as Batista's regime, don't have much freedom at all. Also, giving someone the choice between near-slave labor and starvation is technically freedom, but not necessarily desirable.
I don't believe in communism. I don't like being told what to do, and I like the opportunity to pursue wealth. However, I don't think a free market solves it's own problem. I believe that the rich will maximize their profits to the point that they starve their own people.
If a slave owner gives his stock bread and water, and an employer gives his employees just enough money to buy just enough bread and water to live, what is the difference between them?
In any case, I don't take either side, but I think that the US policy with Cuba is despicable, like many of their policies. Despite whomever is right or wrong, trade would benefit both nations. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Ne Oublie
Friday, July 27, 2007 - 01:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
He's a Communist - 'nuf said!
(reply to this comment)
| from Shaka
Friday, July 27, 2007 - 01:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Much as I would like to get him in a sniper scope for the hefty bounty I'm sure I'd get from some shady-looking government employee named Smith, I'd have to say from a military point of view that the guy was a damned worthy adversary for all these decades. He has balls the size of watermelons. Fidel, I salute your old Commie ass.
(reply to this comment)
| from A Cuban exile told me this joke:
Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 15:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
What looks like sex, but isn't?
Castro eating a banana.
(reply to this comment)
| from rainy
Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 13:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
eh...too much facial hair.
(reply to this comment)
| from Baxter
Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 12:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think you have to be pro-Batista to be anti-Castro. Dunno that much about it, except that the Cuban people apparently still support him.
(reply to this comment)
| From Aita
Friday, July 27, 2007, 05:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Have you watched the movie "Lost City"? It came out last year or in 2005....
Excellent historical description of the cuban revolution. It makes you realize what when wrong with Batista and his goverment, but it also shows how wrong Fidel's take over turned out to be. Even people who were pro-fidel at first suddently realized when he took over that it wasn't what they had bargained for.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]