Why does the West tolerate Israeli crimes?

[absolutely]

west are more conscious about positive existence facts and superior ways of it

that is why west is based on property and powerful centralism pointing globalisation its ground

so of course the west would b with israel crimes then, since middleeast and asian cultures in general are too far of the west set minds, so israel represents their powers on those regions even if they are less refined, but for the west israel is governed too and would never rule the UN organisations

[Bells]

@Tiassa


Kenneth Shouler, Ph.D has a good explanation here: http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy/...ne-society.htm

And here lies wisdom:"In addition, many professional philosophers and lay readers think that Marx idealized human nature. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Marx insisted that excessive self-interest, over-weaning greed, and lust for power were manifest only in capitalist societies. But some of the same tendencies were observed in the upper-class members of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. On the other hand, not all capitalists are driven exclusively by greed. In short, one can say that some features of human nature can be the same in any economic system."

It was probably why Marx had stated that Russia was not ready for communism. There was no natural progression towards Communism in Russia. It went from a fuedal system directly into a Communist system and it failed. Miserably.

The Communist system is not without its faults. Far from it.

[absolutely]

communism and capitalism is the same system, they prone oness life and not free existence which mean truth realities

wether life is from what is shared or what is possessed, it is the same fact denying true life

each reality of existence belong to its own issue and facts while living is always out of it a right

[RedStar]

Yes. And it is annoying. Because he praises what we all know does not work.

See, that's an empty statement if you don't provide an actual empirical analysis of why it "doesn't work".

Because it is the ideal.

No. There is no such thing as "the ideal". Do you know what materialism is?

It is also a natural progression of society. It cannot be forced.. In Russia, it was forced, as it was in other Communist countries.

Now I know you don't know the history you are talking about. Communist movements were popular among the masses.

It is supposed to be a natural progression, in that society, of its own accord, moves from the feudal system, to a capitalist system and the natural progression from that is communism.

No, it's supposed to be a conscious effort at change. Again, have you ever even read Marx? That was one of his main points.

So what we have seen historically is not a natural progression, but a forced system, going from feudal and directly to a Communist system (as per Russia for example). The result of that is still very much a class based system where those in the upper echelons of society and those in power have enriched themselves and forced the "working and peasant class" into more poverty and serfdom. We saw it in the seizing of grain which led to the deaths of millions. We see it in North Korea today.

Quality of life for the Russian people improved tremendously under the Soviet Union. This is a fact, and if you want, I can provide you with sources for that. Furthermore, your point about the "seizing of grain" is erroneous. Famines occurred periodically before the Soviet Union; it's not like they started happening all of a sudden because of socialist policies. They happen in capitalist countries, too (Irish Potato Famine is a good example, and it was preventable). This is another one of those unfair criticisms of socialism while you completely and totally ignore that the same thing happens in non-socialist states.

RedStar is more concerned with the talking points. The 'ra ra ra' kind of thing, which is really annoying for someone like me, who actually is a communist at heart, or one who believes in the natural order of things.

First of all, don't insult me by telling me what I'm "concerned with". I've provided ample historical detail and evidence for my position. Secondly, your statement about the "natural order of things" is an explicitly anti-Marxist, hell, even right-wing statement. There is no "natural order"; that's the garbage people used to believe in the days of monarchy.

We have yet to see a single society do that without a military force pushing it onto an unwilling populace. So it has gotten a bad name.

Says you. And again...every "communist" movement so far has been popular. Do you even bother to look up the history you are talking about?

Why would we take it?
It should never need to be "taken".

Yes, it should. Again, I am suspecting you have never actually read Marx.

The irony of course is that RedStar is lecturing us about Communism and its benefits as per the USSR, but here he is, at home, on a computer enjoying the fruits of capitalism... Irony.. He hasn't even progressed naturally to that State. Hence why he would make a good "commie", because to him, it is about forcing it on others, not himself.

This is a typical argument levied against communists that supposes we are supposed to be hermit men living in the mountains, transcending the limits of capitalist production. No. Ernesto Guevara was famously seen drinking Coca Cola; does that make him a hypocrite? No. We do not transcend the capitalist mode of production until the revolution. Until then, we do, of course, live by it. And by the way, the internet and the software that made much of it possible was a public creation.

Which is why Cubans are killing themselves trying to escape Cuba and where Cubans are afraid to speak out against the leadership without fear of death...?

Do you have any actual evidence for these claims? Cubans are trying to escape because the good ol' United States has been starving Cuba for decades now. Considering the material reality, Cuba is far better off than, say, Haiti, which never did have a socialist revolution.

That's the thing, in Cuba, it was forced.

No, the 26 July Movement was popular. Please either provide sources or stop making unbacked statements.

It was never a natural progression and Castro has grossly enriched himself while 'his people' suffered.

And of course, you provide no sources to prove that Castro did any of this.

You are seeing Cuba through rose coloured glasses.

No, I am seeing the material conditions. The way a Marxist should.

Communism was forced on them, there was no natural and gradual transition.

First of all, Cuba is a socialist state; and if you can't see the obvious problem of why you can't have "gradual socialism" (reaction by the upper classes), you have not read or understood Marx.

And anyone who resisted or criticised, we murdered by those in power. So don't blame the US embagoes for Cuba's brand of communism failing. It failed because it was forced onto the populace and people were murdered by the Communist regime to either silence the others and to instill a culture of fear amongst the people, or to silence any opposition.

More assertions without sources.

If all wanted it. Communism is but one system and it is meant to be a gradual societal change to that system. And it is never meant to be forced to maintain either.

That is correct. Communism is the gradual change. Socialism is the revolutionary "dictatorship of the proletariat"

If an army is having to invade to force Communism upon the populace, then they are doing it wrong.

Get it yet?

Yes. Good thing the movements were largely popular.

It worked so well that they reverted to a Capitalist system?

Really?

Provide evidence? The former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba... Really, it's not that hard.

It can't be forced on a large scale. Understand?

Once again, you make broad statements like everybody else but provide no evidence. Russia reverted to a "capitalist" mode of production because of the political undoing of the Soviet Union by the Gorbachev administration and Boris Yeltsin's coup. The majority of Russians at the time of the dissolution voted against dissolving the Soviet Union.

Do you even understand the very basics of Marxism? Or did you just look up the more popular talking points and now just regurgitate it on this site as a talking point?

I'm not the one making broad, unbacked statements.

Marx saw communism as the utopia.. Hence why society as a whole would survive through each system and naturally progress onto the other system when the other failed or collapsed. Ergo, Communism was the ideal, but one that can only be reached when other systems have failed. Hence one reaches utopia. And that is what you do not "get".

No. Marxism does not deal with "utopia" or "ideals". It is a materialist philosophy that deals with material conditions. That is what you do not "get". Socialism is not about feeling or principles. It's about material reality.

And you just showed me at how badly you really do not understand communism and Marxism and instead, you are just focusing on the popular talking points and slogans.

No, I provided actual historical evidence. You, on the other hand, make broad statements about Marxism and how it "doesn't work", while pointing to states and not actually elaborating, as if your argument is supposed to be self-evident. It's not.

It was probably why Marx had stated that Russia was not ready for communism. There was no natural progression towards Communism in Russia. It went from a fuedal system directly into a Communist system and it failed. Miserably.

Once again, no actual elaboration. And you're kidding, right? Russia industrialized and became a world superpower in 30 years. I feel like I'm talking to a wall here.

The Communist system is not without its faults. Far from it.

Good thing we don't have to pretend that it is in order for it [or socialism] to work.

[RedStar]

Bells, or Lucy, if you want, I'm willing to formally debate, empirically and materially, the success of socialism with you. Such a debate would need to be material and not moral, however, because it is far more difficult to objectively argue moral principles.

As it is, this thread has become incredibly off-topic, so you may close it if you like.

[Bells]

Bells, or Lucy, if you want, I'm willing to formally debate, empirically and materially, the success of socialism with you. Such a debate would need to be material and not moral, however, because it is far more difficult to objectively argue moral principles.

As it is, this thread has become incredibly off-topic, so you may close it if you like.

No thank you.

Because you cannot discuss socialism and communism without discussing the moral implications of it on society as a whole.

See, that's an empty statement if you don't provide an actual empirical analysis of why it "doesn't work".

I have explained why it did not work. Marx himself had stated that 'Russia' was not ready to become a Communist State. Because they had not evolved to that point yet. The result is that it, and countries like China, for example, have gone backwards towards a more Capitalist State, not because it is better, but because you need to go through and experience Capitalism and have Capitalism fail before you can naturally progress to socialism and communism. That never happened in Russia before the revolution. At all. Do you understand now?

Marx stated, very clearly, that Communism and true Communism can only be successful if you go through the natural progression as a society - feudal.. capitalist.. communist.. It is meant to be a gradual move, over a long period of time. As one fails, the natural order of things automatically moves onto the next system, until that fails on its own and people want to again move onto the next step.. With Communism being the desired end.. The utopia.

We have yet to see a single State allow this natural order. What we have seen instead is a revolution from feudal systems, with communism being forced upon the populace against their will and the murder of thousands to millions. What we saw was that man was no longer free to make that decision for himself and to the working class and the peasant class, their situation and their suffering remained the same. Understand now?

No. There is no such thing as "the ideal". Do you know what materialism is?

Oh for God's sake.

Marx saw communism as being the ideal. The one thing that all societies would gradually work their way to, naturally. It is the ideal. And it can only be the ideal if society naturally moves towards it.

Now I know you don't know the history you are talking about. Communist movements were popular among the masses.

No, it wasn't. We know it wasn't popular because millions were killed and millions were allowed to starve to death when all of their grain was ceased by the State to distribute to the other classes. We know it failed because so many were murdered by the State for daring to question or criticise a system that was forced on them against their will. It was not popular among the masses. At all. And as Marx was correct. Russia was not ready to become a communist State.

No, it's supposed to be a conscious effort at change. Again, have you ever even read Marx? That was one of his main points.

Yes, I have read Marx. Extensively. And had you read it, you would have seen that the change to communism can only be successful when all other systems before it had failed naturally. So that society then makes that gradual movement towards socialism and communism.

It was the basic tenet of his works. The basic rules of communism.

Quality of life for the Russian people improved tremendously under the Soviet Union. This is a fact, and if you want, I can provide you with sources for that. Furthermore, your point about the "seizing of grain" is erroneous. Famines occurred periodically before the Soviet Union; it's not like they started happening all of a sudden because of socialist policies. They happen in capitalist countries, too (Irish Potato Famine is a good example, and it was preventable). This is another one of those unfair criticisms of socialism while you completely and totally ignore that the same thing happens in non-socialist states.

Ah yes, for the favoured people. Ignore the millions who were forced to starve to death when their food was seized to feed the "Russians". It was not a natural famine. But one caused by the State. That's murder.

As for the improvement.. Lets see, life expectancy went up towards the end of the communist regime, but infant mortality went up dramatically, especially towards the end. Health care was not provided equally, and it failed because it was not able to meet the needs of the people. Education.. Lets have a quick look at education, shall we?

The curriculum was changed radically. Independent subjects, such as reading, writing, arithmetic, the mother tongue, foreign languages, history, geography, literature or science were abolished. Instead school programmes were subdivided into "complex themes", such as "the life and labour of the family in village and town" for the first year or "scientific organization of labour" for the 7th year of education. Such a system was a complete failure, however, and in 1928 the new programme completely abandoned the complex themes and resumed instruction in individual subjects.

Since 1918 all Soviet schools were co-educational. In 1943, urban schools were separated into boys and girls schools. In 1954 the mixed-sex education system was restored.

Soviet education in 1930s–1950s was inflexible and suppressive. Research and education, especially in the social sciences, was dominated by Marxist-Leninist ideology and supervised by the CPSU. Such domination led to abolition of whole academic disciplines such as genetics.[6] Scholars were purged as they were proclaimed bourgeois and non-Marxist during that period. Most of the abolished branches were rehabilitated later in Soviet history, in the 1960s–1990s (e.g., genetics was in October 1964), although many purged scholars were rehabilitated only in post-Soviet times. In addition, many textbooks - such as history ones - were full of ideology and propaganda, and contained factually inaccurate information (see Soviet historiography).[

You consider this to be a success?

It was not a success because not only did they try and erase their history, they then tried to teach a new history which was based on lies, whilst killing artists, writers, teachers, and many many others. It was not an improvement because it was more repressive than it was before.

First of all, don't insult me by telling me what I'm "concerned with". I've provided ample historical detail and evidence for my position. Secondly, your statement about the "natural order of things" is an explicitly anti-Marxist, hell, even right-wing statement. There is no "natural order"; that's the garbage people used to believe in the days of monarchy.

No. You have only provided the positive talking points. A true communist would not be afraid to look at its failures to determine where things went wrong and to see how to fix it. Your version of that is to say 'well the west did it too!'..

Marx held that Communism could only come to be after the other systems had failed. To him, that was the natural order of progression in society... In other words, one must fail before the next system rises and society must go through all of the phases, from feudal to capitalism to communist to reach utopia.. Only in this way can the people actually want to reach this utopian ideal.

Forcing communism on a populace too early will fail and it will revert back to where it should naturally have been (as we saw in the Soviet Union and in China, which is gradually reverting back to where it should have been naturally, and that is to become a capitalist state).

Says you. And again...every "communist" movement so far has been popular. Do you even bother to look up the history you are talking about?

So popular that people die trying to escape it?

Every single communist movement has failed. Dismally. Because it was forced on the populace. They never got to go through the gradual change that Marx discussed. People being murdered, forced to live in abject poverty.. That is a failure. When you get to the point where free thinking is stifled and those thinkers are murdered by the State, and where the State teaches lies to try and prop its popularity, it is a failed system.

If it was popular, there would still have been a Soviet Union and China would not be the Capitalist haven it is today.

Yes, it should. Again, I am suspecting you have never actually read Marx.

Not like it was. What we saw was that the peasant class were even more exploited.

This is a typical argument levied against communists that supposes we are supposed to be hermit men living in the mountains, transcending the limits of capitalist production. No. Ernesto Guevara was famously seen drinking Coca Cola; does that make him a hypocrite? No. We do not transcend the capitalist mode of production until the revolution. Until then, we do, of course, live by it. And by the way, the internet and the software that made much of it possible was a public creation.

Actually, it was a military creation.

Private enterprise then took it and ran and what we see today is a result of that private enterprise.

And you should not just live by the capitalist mode of production and the goods and services you currently enjoy from that system. You should be thinking of ways it could be improved and made available to all equally. Get it yet?

Do you have any actual evidence for these claims? Cubans are trying to escape because the good ol' United States has been starving Cuba for decades now. Considering the material reality, Cuba is far better off than, say, Haiti, which never did have a socialist revolution.

Actually, they try to escape political persecution. Cuban refugees are political refugees. What does that tell you about the system in Cuba where the opposition is murdered?


I'll address the rest of your post later when I am up to it. Have to go to doctors for test results..

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Bells

Do you believe in utopias? I mean as a natural state for man and human society. Utopia's by definition are always fictional, always imagined, never materialized.

[youreyes]

Bells dear, your quotes of Soviet Educational history comes from what textbook? Who wrote it?

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Bells dear, your quotes of Soviet Educational history comes from what textbook? Who wrote it?

She got it from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati...e_Soviet_Union

[youreyes]

She got it from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati...e_Soviet_Union

Wikipedia cannot be a trusted source, anyone can write in there, especially on politically sensitive issue. And if anything educational system under Soviet Union was a clear example of success on all fronts. Up until Gorbachev managed to corrupt the system to likes of the West, that is.

[Bells]

@Bells

Do you believe in utopias? I mean as a natural state for man and human society. Utopia's by definition are always fictional, always imagined, never materialized.

Bingo..

I think Marx came to that realisation before he died.

There needs to be a balance. We know the benefits of a capitalist society. We enjoy it. And I can assure you, RedStar enjoys the benefits of such a system. He wouldn't be here if he did not. We enjoy the innovation and the competition. However a balance needs to be struck.

Presently, we are seeing some systems fail (Greece, Spain - prime examples).. So we need to watch and see where they go to next.

But we will never reach that 'utopia'. It is the goal that all should strive towards, but it will never be reached because we aren't from a sort of hive where we consider all of us to be the same and to think and believe the same. It is why communist regimes have failed. They have failed to acknowledge the individual and instead, set and determined classes and anyone who strove to move up was deemed almost an enemy of the State. Humans will always want the best out of life and not what is forced upon them by the State. And that is where it will fail. Because we are human beings who want to strive to be better..

And ugh, going to lie down. I'll address RedStar's other talking points later.

[Gustav]

....it will revert back to where it should naturally have been....

heh
the family unit? a hunter-gatherer society?

......we aren't from a sort of hive where we consider all of us to be the same and to think and believe the same.

the schisms and fractures that purport to divide humans tend to be hilariously superficial and utterly retarded.
still tho the bloodshed is really no laughing matter

[RedStar]

Bells, finally, you provided a source! We're making progress, and I whipped out the big guns myself

No thank you.

Because you cannot discuss socialism and communism without discussing the moral implications of it on society as a whole.

Yes, you can. Marxism is an amoral philosophy.

I have explained why it did not work. Marx himself had stated that 'Russia' was not ready to become a Communist State. Because they had not evolved to that point yet. The result is that it, and countries like China, for example, have gone backwards towards a more Capitalist State, not because it is better, but because you need to go through and experience Capitalism and have Capitalism fail before you can naturally progress to socialism and communism. That never happened in Russia before the revolution. At all. Do you understand now?

That makes the rapid industrialization and material achievement all the more incredible. Would you like some economic data on the Soviet Union from 1922-1953? I can provide, if you'd like, sources that explain the success of Soviet socialism. Nonetheless, Marxism has been adapted to underdeveloped situations, namely in the form of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Marxist thinkers adapt the ideas to their particular real material circumstances.

At any rate, your point is irrelevant, since all you are saying is that a country needs to first experience a period of capitalist development before socialism. I probably agree; but that was the case in England and Germany in 1917, and is the case in the West now. So now is the perfect time for socialism.

Marx stated, very clearly, that Communism and true Communism can only be successful if you go through the natural progression as a society - feudal.. capitalist.. communist.. It is meant to be a gradual move, over a long period of time. As one fails, the natural order of things automatically moves onto the next system, until that fails on its own and people want to again move onto the next step.. With Communism being the desired end.

No. The progression from slave society to capitalist society was gradual and unplanned; but the progression towards socialism is distinct precisely because of the rise of class consciousness. Marx specified that the move towards socialism will only occur when there is class consciousness, and intentional effort, among the proletariat. The achievement of socialism is not , and was never intended by Marx to be "gradual". It cannot be, because its premise is class consciousness - an active effort.

The utopia.

Utopia is not the right word to use here since it literally means "the society that cannot be". Use "goal" instead.

We have yet to see a single State allow this natural order. What we have seen instead is a revolution from feudal systems, with communism being forced upon the populace against their will and the murder of thousands to millions.

Examples? Citations?

Again with the same nonsense. No. The 26 July Movement was popular. The Russian revolution was a popular effort. The struggle of the Naxalites in India is a popular movement. It's a class effort. Lenin didn't just hijack political office and command the Czar's armies...he commanded the Soviets, the councils of workers and peasants. When Castro rode into Havana, he was greeted as a hero and a liberator. These were popular movements. What history have you been learning?

What we saw was that man was no longer free to make that decision for himself and to the working class and the peasant class, their situation and their suffering remained the same.

No, it didn't. Russians were vastly better off under the USSR. Cubans, too, have one of the best health care systems in the world. Illiteracy was cut in half and reduced to zero under the movements. Enver Hoxha's Albania ended the horrific mistreatment of women that had occurred before the revolution.

You are a liar if you deny the material and social accomplishments of the movements. There's really no other word other than liar.

Marx saw communism as being the ideal. The one thing that all societies would gradually work their way to, naturally. It is the ideal. And it can only be the ideal if society naturally moves towards it.

Oh for God's sake.

Are you forgetting the period of socialism that comes before communism? Socialism is not gradual, nor did Marx ever say it was.

No, it wasn't. We know it wasn't popular because millions were killed and millions were allowed to starve to death when all of their grain was ceased by the State to distribute to the other classes.

As usual, you don't actual provide examples. This is more of the rhetoric you hear in the classroom and on the television.

We know it failed because so many were murdered by the State for daring to question or criticise a system that was forced on them against their will.

Against whose will? Obviously the Soviets, Castro, Chavez, they all had popular support. What you are expecting is 100% support among everybody, which is unrealistic and un-Marxian.

It was not popular among the masses. At all.

Except, of course, that it was: hence the overthrow of the old order by the revolutionary efforts of peasants and workers. Or did Lenin just grab a rake and beat everyone into submission?

Ah yes, for the favoured people. Ignore the millions who were forced to starve to death when their food was seized to feed the "Russians". It was not a natural famine. But one caused by the State. That's murder.

Bells, you really need to provide examples or stop making these claims. If you're alluding to a specific historical event or occurrence, provide a source. Otherwise there is no discussion because you are just making unbacked claims.

Of course, the real insanity is that capitalism has murdered far more people during its lifetime, but nobody condemns it or says its a failure for it.

As for the improvement.. Lets see, life expectancy went up towards the end of the communist regime, but infant mortality went up dramatically, especially towards the end. Health care was not provided equally, and it failed because it was not able to meet the needs of the people. Education.. Lets have a quick look at education, shall we?

Untrue.

Narin province is the poorest region in a country which is now among the poorest of the former Soviet states. The population lives primarily from sheep farming. Tiny villages, at altitudes of 1,500m (4,900ft) and more above sea level, each with just a few hundred people, are spread out across a wide area.

Even in a rich country, health care would not be easy to deliver in such terrain. In Narin province, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the abrupt end of funds from Moscow led to an almost complete collapse of the health system. "In Soviet times there was a very extensive network of primary health services in each village," explains Tobias Schueth, of the Swiss Red Cross. "They even used to fly helicopters up to the high pastures to do vaccinations. "And they had a very extensive hospital system. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union that whole system broke down."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7318385.stm

In Russia, before the Revolution, there were approximately 26,000 physicians. In 1931, according to Dr. Roubakine, the total number of physicians was about 76,000.

The doubt was raised as to whether under the new regime enterprise and energy of work would not be lowered, now that the incentive of high professional earnings had disappeared. This, we were told, was actively debated among doctors "after the October Revolution," and most of the better physicians feared such a result. Now, after fifteen years of planning and execution of better medical work, it could be definitely said that the fears then entertained were groundless, and that the younger doctors in all respects display greater efficiency and zeal than was shown in the past. They now work in teams, in close cooperation with other doctors, and their work is scientific in character.

The doctors working in villages, in whom all-round competence is required, have their salaries increased after three years of work, and their children are entitled to all the privileges of workers' children. The rule of giving a three-months postgraduate course of instruction to all doctors after three years of clinical work is carried out for only half the doctors. The high tempo of medical changes has made it impossible to go further than this at present.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/news...icine/ch18.htm

This is during the early era. By 1970, there were approximately 7 times as many specialists graduating from medical training as in 1940.

In addition, I will now provide statistics for Cuba, a country which is well-known internationally for excellent doctors and good health care

http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/

These statistics are on-par with the First World

�We fought for the Declaration of Alma-Ata before it was official,� says Dr Cristina Luna, �and its message has guided and challenged us ever since.� At 43, Luna is Cuba�s national director of ambulatory care, and on her shoulders rests the country�s entire primary health care system, by many standards one of the world�s most effective and unique.

Cuban health authorities give large credit for the country�s impressive health indicators to the preventive, primary-care emphasis pursued for the last four decades. These indicators � which are close or equal to those in developed countries � speak for themselves. For example, in 2004, there were seven deaths for every 1000 children aged less than five years � a decrease from 46 such deaths 40 years earlier, according to WHO. Meanwhile Cubans have one of the world�s highest life expectancies of 77 years.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/.../en/index.html

Regarding child malnutrition,

Cuba has no such problems. It is the only country in Latin America and the Caribbean that eliminated severe malnutrition due to the government's efforts to improve people's diet, especially those most vulnerable.

http://english.pravda.ru/society/sto...5-cubaleads-0/

In addition, Cuba has a long history of providing medical humanitarian aid to the underprivileged in the world.

Every major famine, flood, hurricane or earthquake triggers international appeals for aid. In most peoples' minds it is the west that provides the bulk of the aid; the mainstream media focuses on the work of well-established NGOs such as Care, Oxfam and the International Red Cross. Few, though, have heard of Cuba's role as a major player in humanitarian operations.

Cuba has consistently responded to emergency appeals for humanitarian aid by dispatching plane-loads of doctors, medicine and equipment - despite the country's own economic problems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...thropcubandocs

The curriculum was changed radically. Independent subjects, such as reading, writing, arithmetic, the mother tongue, foreign languages, history, geography, literature or science were abolished. Instead school programmes were subdivided into "complex themes", such as "the life and labour of the family in village and town" for the first year or "scientific organization of labour" for the 7th year of education. Such a system was a complete failure, however, and in 1928 the new programme completely abandoned the complex themes and resumed instruction in individual subjects.

Since 1918 all Soviet schools were co-educational. In 1943, urban schools were separated into boys and girls schools. In 1954 the mixed-sex education system was restored.

Soviet education in 1930s�1950s was inflexible and suppressive. Research and education, especially in the social sciences, was dominated by Marxist-Leninist ideology and supervised by the CPSU. Such domination led to abolition of whole academic disciplines such as genetics.[6] Scholars were purged as they were proclaimed bourgeois and non-Marxist during that period. Most of the abolished branches were rehabilitated later in Soviet history, in the 1960s�1990s (e.g., genetics was in October 1964), although many purged scholars were rehabilitated only in post-Soviet times. In addition, many textbooks - such as history ones - were full of ideology and propaganda, and contained factually inaccurate information (see Soviet historiography).[

Several points. First, as if kids aren't being taught propaganda in America? Sheesh. Get real.
Secondly, of course children are going to be taught Marxism. It's honestly no different than teaching them civics according to any other political doctrine. I have first-hand experience of the garbage they teach in American schools, since I completed my high school education here.

Furthermore, it is also true that Soviet schools had excellent math and science curricula and produced brilliant scientists. Let's not forget that the Soviet Union won every contest of the space race except the moon landing.

It was not a success because not only did they try and erase their history, they then tried to teach a new history which was based on lies, whilst killing artists, writers, teachers, and many many others. It was not an improvement because it was more repressive than it was before.

More emotional arguments without citations.

No. You have only provided the positive talking points. A true communist would not be afraid to look at its failures to determine where things went wrong and to see how to fix it. Your version of that is to say 'well the west did it too!'..

On the contrary, I've been the one defending the accomplishments of the Soviet Union, whereas you are broadly characterizing all of these countries under one narrow umbrella. And I've provided sources.

Marx held that Communism could only come to be after the other systems had failed. To him, that was the natural order of progression in society... In other words, one must fail before the next system rises and society must go through all of the phases, from feudal to capitalism to communist to reach utopia.. Only in this way can the people actually want to reach this utopian ideal.

No, for reasons I already explained. And again, stop using the word "utopia". No real communist would use that word. We are not Marxists because we are idealists who believe in a magical world free of poverty or want. We are Marxists because of material analysis. I wouldn't be a Marxist if i didn't think, didn't see, the insanity of capitalism or the viability of socialism.

Forcing communism on a populace too early will fail and it will revert back to where it should naturally have been (as we saw in the Soviet Union and in China, which is gradually reverting back to where it should have been naturally, and that is to become a capitalist state).

I agree.

So popular that people die trying to escape it?

Some did. Some try to escape capitalist regimes, too. Who ever promised paradise?

Every single communist movement has failed. Dismally.

By what criteria?

Because it was forced on the populace. They never got to go through the gradual change that Marx discussed. People being murdered, forced to live in abject poverty.. That is a failure.

That's also more unbacked assertions. The people lived better after the revolutions than before them (with the exception of North Korea, which has deviated from Marxism explicitly now)

If it was popular, there would still have been a Soviet Union and China would not be the Capitalist haven it is today.

The Chinese are protesting the shift to capitalism and the growing inequality, just FYI. And when the Soviet Union held a referendum to discuss dissolution, the majority voted against it.

Not like it was. What we saw was that the peasant class were even more exploited.

I disagree vehemently.

And you should not just live by the capitalist mode of production and the goods and services you currently enjoy from that system. You should be thinking of ways it could be improved and made available to all equally. Get it yet?

Yes, it can be improved with socialism. I'm not a capitalist. Why would I want to "improve" capitalism if I'm not a capitalist?

Actually, they try to escape political persecution. Cuban refugees are political refugees. What does that tell you about the system in Cuba where the opposition is murdered?

You mean the way it occurs in capitalist states?

By the way, many people make this assertion about Cuba but never provide any sources. Cubans have a pretty open society, in fact. I can provide sources if you don't believe me.

[RedStar]

Bingo..

I think Marx came to that realisation before he died.

Garbage. Marx never believed in idealism to begin with; and this is akin to the morons who say Charles Darwin had a coming-to on his deathbed.

There needs to be a balance. We know the benefits of a capitalist society. We enjoy it.

There is literally nothing that happens in a capitalist society that couldn't be achieved under socialism. Capitalism is destructive.

When Marx criticized capitalism as being destructive and exploitative, he was not appealing to morals or emotions. He was examining capitalism from a material, objective point of view: it is destructive and unsustainable. The private ownership of capital is an inherently flawed concept.

Property, acting by exclusion and encroachment, while population was increasing, has been the life-principle and definitive cause of all revolutions. Religious wars, and wars of conquest, when they have stopped short of the extermination of races, have been only accidental disturbances, soon repaired by the mathematical progression of the life of nations. The downfall and death of societies are due to the power of accumulation possessed by property.

- Pierre Joseph Proudhon

And I can assure you, RedStar enjoys the benefits of such a system. He wouldn't be here if he did not.

I enjoy the labor of the working class. They produced all the wealth.

Presently, we are seeing some systems fail (Greece, Spain - prime examples).. So we need to watch and see where they go to next.

Hopefully towards socialism. Greece and Spain both have a very active radical left.

But we will never reach that 'utopia'. It is the goal that all should strive towards, but it will never be reached because we aren't from a sort of hive where we consider all of us to be the same and to think and believe the same. It is why communist regimes have failed. They have failed to acknowledge the individual and instead, set and determined classes and anyone who strove to move up was deemed almost an enemy of the State. Humans will always want the best out of life and not what is forced upon them by the State. And that is where it will fail. Because we are human beings who want to strive to be better..

Nobody is pretending to be aiming for utopia, Bells. Stop attacking strawmen.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Marxism is an amoral philosophy.

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something

Synonyms: without standards, without morals, without scruples, unscrupulous, Machiavellian, unethical.

If you say so Redstar. You should know

[RedStar]

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something

Why should material economic analysis be concerned with "rightness or wrongness"? That's unscientific. The whole point of Marxism was that it was distinct from the Utopian Socialism (an actual intellectual movement) that came before, in its provision of material analysis.

Edit:

Just to make sure, I provided several sources discrediting Bell's assertion that the Soviet or Cuban healthcare models were failures.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Redstar

If an economic analysis shouldn't be concerned with the "rightness or wrongness" of things then why are you going on day and night about the evils of capitalism? Its so unscientific

Amoral is synonymous with "without standards, without morals, without scruples, unscrupulous, Machiavellian, unethical" but don't let that dissuade you. I find it interesting that this is how you categorize your own theory and yet you wonder why the way you describe it comes across as so unappealing.

[RedStar]

@Redstar

If an economic analysis shouldn't be concerned with the "rightness or wrongness" of things then why are you going on day and night about the evils of capitalism? Its so unscientific

When I discuss the evils of capitalism, that is indeed an emotional and moral indignation at the utter desperation and imperialism of capitalism. But I do not base my material criticisms of capitalism, or socialism, on emotions or morals. Neither did Marx, or Lenin.

Lucy, there is a moral argument to be made against capitalism. But the primary argument, the objective argument, is the material argument.

Edit: I did.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Perhaps you should look up and read the rest of my last post

[RedStar]

Perhaps you should look up and read the rest of my last post

I did.

Also, Lucy, have you heard of Marinaleda, Spain?

Marinaleda is town in Spain,Andalusia which has 2700 people.
No poverty, no rich or poor people, 0 unemployment, 0 crime, no police (there is no need), maximum of a 15 euros monthly rent for a house. All houses have 3 bedrooms, a bathroom and a garden of 100 square meters.
Most of the people are Atheists but religious freedom exists and all of them are Left-Wing. They dont celebrate (officialy) the easter but they celebrate Peace for 5 days.
They took land (I think 12000 acres) from the local duke by "hunger strike" which lasted 13 days to the 1980s, and now that land belongs to everyone. Any profit that comes from agriculture or any other business goes for new jobs. Whoever goes there can get a job the next day. All of the people have 1200 euros per month (47 euros per day) for only 6 and a half hours of work. None of the people there wants to leave Marinaleda.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain

This is a good thing, and an excellent example of how we can overcome the capitalist mode of production as people in Spain get fed up with austerity and bullshit. Spain has a large radical leftist base, as does France, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany.

In the last French elections, the PCF (French communists) in the Left Front won 4 million votes. That's only 10%, but it's encouraging to say the least, and the party has numerous mayors and representatives in legislature. I suspect if Hollande had dropped out and not split the vote, they'd be right up there.

In Spain, the PCE is the third-largest party and I can only see it growing. In Cyprus, among the largest parties is a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist Party. And you said communism was dead!