I think you'd be hard pressed to point to a country Che fought in that was better off for his efforts. Even Castro tired of him and made it plain he needed to go elsewhere. I'm also curious what "changes" you think he fought for that have come to pass. I can't see any... The CIA was deeply involved. The agency considered it a big a victory, and rightfully so... Yes, because communisms record on equality is so good!
That's true, everyone (except for the Communists in power) gets treated equally.....as an equal dirt poor peasant subservient to the Communists in power. That's what spooks me about these forums, some of the radical leftists on these forums KNOW this stuff and all the bull shit propoganda they spew out. To them the US is the "greedy" "right-wing" "bad guy", which is obvious propoganda, yet they openly support REAL bad guys. My thread on the Communist genocide of nearly 100,000,000 innocent civilians under Communist governments in the 20th century was a perfect example. Many of the radical leftists that are on these forums either "ignored" that thread, or even defended the acts of that great genocide. This thread confirms it as well, where some radical leftists defend Che's murderous actions "in the name of Communism". And at least 5 people voted him as a "good guy".....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hypothetically, if Communists ever overthrew the US government, it wouldn't surprise me if radical leftists like the ones we find in these forums would be sympathetic to a genocide in the US. The "philosophy" of the radical-left is based on jealousy, which generates their murderous revengeful attitude.
countezero, South America has become more socialist and populist then in Che day, unfortenetly he had little or nothing to do with that despite him trying.
Hence the Washington official (Dulles? I forget) pounding his fist into his palm and saying "We got him! We got him !". The Bolivians have not had as much cause to celebrate, in the years since. Being a citizen of a client state of the US without an insurrection to appease is not a bed of roses. With a bit more success at defiance, they might have risen to the Venezuela, Nicaragua for a while, Vietnam, maybe even Cuba ! category of childhood mortality and lifespan at birth. Instead, they are among the countries successfully protected from Che and his kind: Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, Grenada, Trinidad & Tobago, Haiti. Nobody defended any acts of genocide. As I recall, all attempts to actually compare excess deaths under Communist governments with extra deaths under Capitalist governments were met with simple denial by you - apparently there has been no such thing as large scale Capitalist genocide. So what happened in Haiti and the Congo, Cambodia and Vietnam and Laos, India and Indonesia and Turkey and Central Europe and Latin America and the Philippines, was not Capitalist genocide, and doesn't count. So the number, since it cannot be compared with anything, doesn't mean much.
I said it needs work for a reason, idealistically there's nothing wrong with the concept of everyone being equal, only it's implementation has so far been flawed. Capitalism on the other hand will always require a pyramid scheme with the poor at the bottom, and by far in the largest numbers.
See above; Also take note that evil dictators who in reality act more like capitalists than communists hardly represent an idealism adequately. Subjective. Sounds like they had good reason to. See both points above. Yeh because that makes sense.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because A: That communists is a very very bad way if you want to get somewhere at all B: the second part is just your opinion, see you own post down Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And you actually do got a way to get out of any of the right wing politics if you work and make good for yourself, while in the left it´s irrelevant as everyone should be oppressed or "equal" as you tell it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Iceaura: Well the denial was because of: that you can´t call Nazism right winged and is actually on it´s own scale with dictators and wired systems, which communism is on as they oppress there people.
I have a big problem with the ideal of everyone being equal. It sounds all warm and fuzzy, but in reality it's crock of shit. If you want to really consider what a world where everyone is equal looks like, hunt down the Vonnegut story where tall people are made to walk on their knees, short people get stilts, the beautiful cover up, the gifted don't sing and the idiot has as much responsibility as the educated. It's quite a funny story. I wish I remembered its name... Anyway, I think it's patently obvious people aren't equal in all sorts of ways. What's more, I don't want to be equal with everyone. I want to be better than most. I would like to lead a better life, make more money, go more places, read more books, etc. Equal under the law I'm OK with. Everything else is an unnecessary and disturbing pipe dream.
Harrison Bergeron. The story didn't involve stilts - people were downgraded, not upgraded, since they didn't have the means to upgrade. Personally, if we did discover such a means (gene therapy?) I wouldn't mind everyone being made equally smart and healthy. It's when everyone has to be pulled down to the lowest common denominator that you run into trouble - we humans are barely competent at surviving with our current level of ability.
Subjective opinion already covered. So according to you a government ruled by a dictator which has a communist economic system means that communism itself was responsible for all killings under that dictators rule and not the dictator himself? The same dictator who could equally well have employed the same tactics under a capitalist system. You need a reality check. The fact remains that in communism the theory is we are all equal, capitalism however requires poor masses to function correctly. Of course however you're on the rich side of things so you think it's a wonderful system. If everyone could work their way to the top of the capitalist system it would fail. It requires the poor to function. If everyone is equal this is no longer the case. You should again note if someone is an 'oppressor' then everyone is not equal are they? Take your time with this one.
I guess I find it hard to see exactly who should be considered 'better'. The rocket scientist with his brains but no strength? The guy who built your nice sturdy house? Perhaps a singer, they seem to be among the richest people in the world, they must be deserving of it right? Or perhaps it's the politicians who do so little but get paid so much more than doctors.:shrug: Better is quite a subjective phrase, and I think a great many people all have their role in society, without which it would crumble. Just because we each have different strengths and weaknesses it doesn't mean we shouldn't all work the same hours and be paid the same. Enough for us all to live on, as opposed to leaving the poorest out in the cold because we 'need' poor people. Sure you won't get that nice yacht you wanted to go cruising around the caribbean in, but at least thousands won't have to starve for your sake. Of course it's your choice, and if you don't mind there being millions who die in poverty then fine. Everything starts as someone's dream.
People have different strengths and weaknesses; they also have different work ethics. If everyone is paid the same, where is the incentive to do more than the barest minimum of work?
In my opinion this is one of the things to work out, and I personally think there should be set targets to keep people working hard, not unreasonable ones though, this allows for something people can achieve. Or perhaps pay could possibly be related to work ethic, however one shouldn't make the mistake of thinking capitalism works this way. In modern society the highest paid people are not necessarily the hardest working, in fact it seems to be quite the opposite, the higher up the ladder you go the less work you do for more money. Personally I think that's fundamentally wrong. These are just suggestions of course I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers but I think communism is a better system because it doesn't require poverty stricken people to function. I think it's wrong to allow people to starve when there's enough in the world for everyone to live on. Sure it won't be luxurious but survival for all should be more important than luxury for the few.
That's the beauty of humanity. Context. We all work to our strengths, and together, thanks to market forces, society should get better and benefit from the most talented people doing what they do best. In other words, we need the best rocket scientists and the best homebuilders. And while one may have more intrinsic value to the market than the other (homebuilders make much more money, look it up), society still attaches value to both and has use for them. A lot of brainy jobs don't pay all that well. Neither does the military. And your obsession with compensation is misguided. The market's demand and the material riches that demand rewards are not the ultimate sign of worth. Politicians don't get paid shit. Especially, the local ones. Look it up. Even he president only makes about 400K. Congressmen make less. And unless they are senior members their contributions and such barely cover their staff and travel. My congressman, for example, sleeps in his office because he can't afford an apartment in DC. This seems to contradict your earlier sentiments. Regardless, there will always be "poor" people. In fact, "poor," or whatever we understand as poverty is a relativistic term. Many poor people in the US, for example, have heating and AC and cable television. Poor people in Africa live in thatch huts and die from drinking the water out of rivers. I make very little money, and I have what is considered, to some degree, a white-collar, brainy job. I wasn't aware anyone was starving for me to live the way I do. In fact, I think you're just talking out of your ass. Yes, that's exactly what my last post said. Thomas Malthus I am! Your reading comprehension skills are amazing...
The fact is, communism needs a dictator to even begin with. And therefor it´s much more likely that he kills of 'non-believers' as it´s very efficient for the whole state. What you seem not to get that communism all around the world have shown that killing and oppressing there own population is an attribute not a rarity. For people to be equal you need to bring the other down to them. As previous system made the ones rich you can´t make everyone as rich. This is where communism fails again, to make a working communist society you need to take the people down to there were knees of survival. And what you doesn´t seem to get is that people will work less efficent and together with those plans you communism so like the poeple will really feel the efficency in producing things in your country. If person A earns 10$ /hour and B earns 8$/hour and you make them both earn 9$/hour you are oppressing the one who is earning 10$/hour. Dude get real, everyone being equall should really ring a bell if you look at history.
Communism failed for two reasons. 1# people are not like ants; people are motivated more by self interest or loyalty to the nuclear family. People are not likely to be energetic about doing what is best for the everyone in the nation. Many young men patriotically do want to serve this nation through the military but those ant like patriotic qualities don't seem to extend as much to other forms of service and they don't offset the overall basic selfishness of humans. 2# The more important reason why communism failed is that central planning is inferior to trial and error as tested by competitive markets. Nobody likes telling their organizational superiors when they are wrong because the boss (whether communist or corporate) is as almost as likely to punish you for making him look bad as he is to reward you for your intelligence. Why should anybody in authority have to know they are wrong when they could have clever yes men convincing them that they are brilliant. Small businesses are more willing to learn from their mistakes than big businesses and governments are because small business will fail quickly if they don't learn from their mistakes. Competition shows what is right and what is wrong. Central planners can only guess at what is right and what is wrong. Communism is inferior to competitive free market economies. Communism is not inferior to full blown oligarchic kleptocracy. The average Saudi would probably be wealthier under communism than they are under the rule of the thieving royal Saudi Princes. Cuba is a natural tourist mecca for the USA. Airline tickets cost too much for that to have been fully clear in the 1950s. Batista's government was an oligarchic kleptocracy and Castro was a communist. Either of them could have made Cuba the wealthiest Caribbean nation if their was not a US embargo. Both of them would have failed to make Cuba as wealthy as it could have been under better leadership. Both of them were flawed leaders but at least Castro was not a thief. On the other hand their would have been no U.S. embargo if thieves rather than communists ruled Cuba. If I had too choose one of them to be my dictator I slightly prefer Castro over Batista.
Apparently, you are unaware of the millions he has plundered and stashed in bank accounts around the world?
Hadn't heard that one. What is it, something that circulates at FreeRepublic.com? Any documentation? Was there ever any documentation for the more common similar claims about Arafat's private money stash?
Forbes ran the story about Castro's money-grab, which he vehemently denied. I think the particulars of the story were nebulous and never nailed down, but several former Cuban officials later corroborated the essential point — that Castro skimmed funds from various nationalized businesses.
