The REAL Truth in Iraq

[avowedly-agnostic]

" I have a good friend of mine who's Cuban (from the dance scene). He says the people are totally repressed. You can't criticize the government or you get thrown in jail. The economy is terrible and mismanaged and it's centrally controlled. "

You're right, there is no free press in Cuba, the right to criticise the government in Cuba is not as great as it is in America or Europe, and it should be liberalised. The Revolution will not only grow stronger on criticism, but, infact thrive on it.

But one must remember Cuba has been under attack from the US since the Revolution, small wonder then Castro and co are a little paranoid.

But the Cuban economy isn't mismanaged, it's experienced a recent growth in its economy thanks to favourable Venezuelan oil prices and trade. You speak as if you care about Cubans whilst you support the choking off the Cuban economy with an embargo.

The fundamental question to ask is, is Cuba a better off society now than it was during the rule of US backed Batista? The answer from speaking with any Cuban (who isn't a Miami exile) is without a shadow of a doubt. Cubans payed for healthcare, higher education and housing during Batista's rule. Cuba was a haven for US capitalists who owned large estates of land whilst most Cubans with the exception of a small powerful elite lived in destitute conditions.

Today Cubans enjoy a higher standard of living than their Latin American counterparts. Every Cuban has free medical care, for life, and the Cuban medical system is excellent. Every Cuban has free education, from kindergarten through graduate school. All this is guaranteed by law. As well as housing for everyone, and a retirement pension.

If Cubans wanted to overthrow Castro, they would've, they did so against Batista and his death squads, even though he was armed and supported by the US.

All in all, the Revolution can be judged a great success, and an inspiring story. We in Europe and the US have a lot more to gain from adopting CubaÂ’s ways than they have from adopting ours.

Down with Capitalism

Up with the rule of the people.

[Gedo_Boy]

MAD MAC,

I'm not saying the US is responsible for EVERYTHING.........ofcourse, corruption/work ethic/internal tensions play a role.

But one only need to look at things like the Somali warlords who were financed/bankrolled by WHO? Against the desires of the people were overlooked.

So why make all these human rights laws & sing swan songs about freedom & representative democracy?

[avowedly-agnostic]

"So why make all these human rights laws & sing swan songs about freedom & representative democracy?"

MAD has already stated he cares little for democracy. That's a secondary issue so far as him and this US administration is concerned. His principal concern is safeguarding US hegemony and global dominance in the Middle East and the Americas.

Human rights & democracy however don't belong to the US, they're universal concepts. That the US makes light of it (in practice) doesn't mean that we ought not to practice it. Representative government is the corner stone of all civilisation and its negligance will only lead to totalitarianism.

[Gedo_Boy]

First off, I have to give credit where credit is due. There are a lot of positive things about America & the West in general that I admire. I don't think they are 'exclusively evil'.


Having said that, the real challenge is how to find a way to end corruption, crimes, vices.

We've seen that democracy can, in practice, be infiltrated, manipulated, and have loopholes exploited for the benefit of the rich.

If we have a government that only works for an exclusive segment of society, or ignores the plight of the least fortunate, then we are back to tyranny whether we call it democracy or not.

Then we're back to square one again. Essentially, a move back to totalitarianism.

I don't care about all these terms. I would rather prefer a "benevolent dictator" than a corrupt "democracy".

I think what would be more important would be for societies to inculcate morality & ethics in individuals.

Someone who doesn't steal, lie, or cheat because it's against the law will do it if he can reasonably expect to get away with it.

Someone who doesn't do those things because they are wrong is above corruption.

Ofcourse we are all prone to error, but man would be regulated in his sin & transgression if he was aware that God sees him at all times.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"All in all, the Revolution can be judged a great success, and an inspiring story. We in Europe and the US have a lot more to gain from adopting CubaÂ’s ways than they have from adopting ours.

Down with Capitalism

Up with the rule of the people."

You crack me up here. If Cuba is such a great place and the US such a lousy place, then why do thousands of Cubans risk their lives, pay off authorities, and get on flimsy boats and try to cross to the states every year? Meanwhile, no Americans sell their houses and property and head to Cuba, which, while illegal, is painfully easy to do. Hmmmmmm.

Now I ain't saying the US system is perfect. I would like us to tackle the issue of national health care. I think that is a black eye for our society. I would like to see a public-private system like you see in Thailand where basic health care is available to everyone for a minimal fee. Personally I am an isolotionist (surprise, surprise) and think we would be better off economically if we reduced the size of our military and only used it to defend US territorial integrity. Of course, that would mean no US support to peacekeeping (not financial, not with troops - if savages want to kill each other, let them), very limited US support to the UN, we pay equal per capita dues and that's it. No US aide to any country in the world - let
em die or starve if they can't manage their affairs. Private enterprise can invest and import and export as it sees fit, but don't expect a lot of help from Uncle Sam.

I think we would be richer, freeer, stronger and safer is we did that.

But that isn't the policy, so I support the policy as it is, because I am not a policy maker. I get to make my opinion heard at the ballot box and that's good enough for me.

[avowedly-agnostic]

"We've seen that democracy can, in practice, be infiltrated, manipulated, and have loopholes exploited for the benefit of the rich."

I agree that the current system of democracy practiced in the US & UK is deficient and not as great as it ought to be. Rather than a system where the electorate have a vote every four years in which between the intervals they excercise minimum control over their elected governmnet, I would like to see a form of direct democracy where the electorate can hold politicians to account on their promises.

I also believe another flaw in the current system that we perhaps ought to tackle is funding of political parties by big business. This leads to government being dictated to by corporations and them compromising on key issues like climate change so as not to upset energy corporations. I believe political funding ought to be exclusively paid for through tax payer's money in order to combat bribery and corruption.

"If we have a government that only works for an exclusive segment of society, or ignores the plight of the least fortunate, then we are back to tyranny whether we call it democracy or not. "

This is attributable to the ills of capitalism and not democracy. That's why some people advocate socialism as a means of creating a truly just and classless society where no particular section of society is in control of all the key institutions of power.

"I think what would be more important would be for societies to inculcate morality & ethics in individuals...Someone who doesn't steal, lie, or cheat because it's against the law will do it if he can reasonably expect to get away with it...Someone who doesn't do those things because they are wrong is above corruption."

I concur. But this falsely assumes that from only religion can one find morals and ethics. That religion is the sole fountain from which good conduct is derived. This is needless to say absurd and unfounded. I'm just as honest, compassionate and (for want of a better word) "upright" than any believer. Again greed is directly attributable to capitalism which is essentially about me me me. Capitalism puts profit before people. This is evidenced by privatisation of essential services (which we all need) such as medical care and education.

This problem of greed can be overcome by adopting a socialist system which puts the need of people first. Just look at Cuba or Venezuela, relatively poor, developing countries, but such is the nature of their system that they place emphasis not on profits, as is the case in the US, but on the needs of people.

Direct democracy and socialism are what are needeed to create a just society in which people can excercise control over government policy and safeguard themselves against the ills of capitalist greed and corruption.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

I had a long answer to this post and the focking system deleted it when I applied it. God damn it. I'l have to rewrite the motherfocker latter.

[COOL-MAN]

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

“I agree that the current system of democracy practiced in the US & UK is deficient and not as great as it ought to be. Rather than a system where the electorate have a vote every four years in which between the intervals they excercise minimum control over their elected governmnet, I would like to see a form of direct democracy where the electorate can hold politicians to account on their promises.”

Direct democracy works well at the local level. It is impractical at the Federal level. How often are you going to organize some sort of validation election? What do you do when someone loses a validation election? Do we really want politicians who simply pander to the electorate? Do we really want politicians who focus on staying in office even more than they already do so now?

”I also believe another flaw in the current system that we perhaps ought to tackle is funding of political parties by big business. This leads to government being dictated to by corporations and them compromising on key issues like climate change so as not to upset energy corporations. I believe political funding ought to be exclusively paid for through tax payer's money in order to combat bribery and corruption.”

The problem with exclusive tax funding of campaigns is how do you determine who qualifies for it? How much of a burden do we put on the tax payer for it? And do we prevent individuals and groups from independent advertising (instead of contributing to a campaign?). Where does that stop? Only for paid advertisement? Would individuals and groups be able to pay people to lobby for a candidate? ItÂ’s a PandoraÂ’s box. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it is not manageable.

”This is attributable to the ills of capitalism and not democracy. That's why some people advocate socialism as a means of creating a truly just and classless society where no particular section of society is in control of all the key institutions of power.”

I would say this is attributable in the ills of human nature. People arenÂ’t equal, and the smart and dominant among us will always find ways to master their environment and improve their lot at the expense of others. Furthermore, many will simply EARN more than others by working harder, by being smarter, etc. IF you could find a way to prevent those who work harder or work smarter from reaping the benefits of their labor so that everyone is rewarded equally, then there is no reason for people to work harder or smarter and so they stop doing so.

In practical terms, ALL COUNTRIES have elements of capitalist and socialist systems within them. The real question becomes where one draws the line. What remains in the purview of the public and what remains in the purview of the private? Simply saying you support socialist policies doesnÂ’t mean much. The US is a socialist country in that context.

”I concur. But this falsely assumes that from only religion can one find morals and ethics. That religion is the sole fountain from which good conduct is derived. This is needless to say absurd and unfounded. I'm just as honest, compassionate and (for want of a better word) "upright" than any believer. Again greed is directly attributable to capitalism which is essentially about me me me. Capitalism puts profit before people. This is evidenced by privatisation of essential services (which we all need) such as medical care and education.”

Capitalism doesnÂ’t put anything before anything. Capitalism isnÂ’t really a system, but rather the lack of a system. Capitalism is simply another way of expressing a free market economy; that is, one that is not centrally controlled or directed by the state. The modern free market has developed a series of controls to moderate the excesses discovered in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

As for the “me, me” you are again confusing capitalism with human nature.

”This problem of greed can be overcome by adopting a socialist system which puts the need of people first. Just look at Cuba or Venezuela, relatively poor, developing countries, but such is the nature of their system that they place emphasis not on profits, as is the case in the US, but on the needs of people.”

No system is going to overcome human nature. The advantages of a free market, of free commerce and the freedom of people to develop buisiness ideas and exploit them for their own profit is that it offers enormous incentive for humans to grow. Remove the incentive, and you will severely impact on human productivity. This is not to say that that productivity doesnÂ’t at times need limits or that that creativity sometimes comes with a caution since it can also be destructive, but rather to say that in an effort to corral freedoms (whether they are freedom of expression, freedom of behaviour or freedom in the market place) excesses and negative outputs, we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

”Direct democracy and socialism are what are needeed to create a just society in which people can excercise control over government policy and safeguard themselves against the ills of capitalist greed and corruption.”

Again, direct democracy is not feasible for large societies. Furthermore, within the constraints of the modern world, it is neither realistic nor very desirable to see the Westphalian state system replaced at this point and replaced with some other more internationalist system. Even were that desirable, it would require the kind of compromise that the world is not ready for today.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Hey Gedo, Avowedly, you guys still out there?

[biko]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Hey Gedo, Avowedly, you guys still out there?[/quote]


gedo is but AA is missing. ask LH his where about

[avowedly-agnostic]

Forgive me MAD, just thought I'd have some fun with my friends for a little while. I'll get to demolishing your pro capitalism argument right away.

[avowedly-agnostic]

" Do we really want politicians who simply pander to the electorate? Do we really want politicians who focus on staying in office even more than they already do so now?"

Politicians are there to represent their constituency, so yes there must be a system of accountability whereby if an official follows a policy other than that of his constituency, they be subject to recall. Remember in a true democracy, government is there to serve the people, not vice versa, so it must naturally follow that if they don't, they be held accountable not three or four years later, but right then and there before they can adversely impact lives (at least in the electorate's eyes). How you do this is debateable, but there must if we truly live in a democracy be a system of accountability.

"the problem with exclusive tax funding of campaigns is how do you determine who qualifies for it?"

This is debateable. I haven't given too much thought to it. But I don't believe energy companies ought to be drafting international agreements for tackling climate change. They care little about the environment and reducing CO2 emmissions. For that reason when you have private business financing electoral campaigns, they do so with the intention to influencing government, and as we can see today neither Bush nor Blair are willing to put pressure on energy corporations that pollute our air.

"I would say this (i.e. greed ) is attributable in the ills of human nature (and not capitalism). People arenÂ’t equal, and the smart and dominant among us will always find ways to master their environment and improve their lot at the expense of others."

I completely disagree. In your world perhaps and the warped world of Bush people may be greedy, uncaring and vulture like, but in the real world people aren't naturally selfish. It's part of our animal nature (as can be observed in mammals) to cooperate and work with one another for our mutual benefit. People are moved when they see children starving of hunger, or homeless people freezing in the cold. Our instinctive human reaction is to want to alleviate their suffering and pain. All irrespective of political affiliation, philosophy or religion (at least those of us with compassion) want a world free from hunger, war and disease. So the notion that we're naturally greedy is false.

"In practical terms, ALL COUNTRIES have elements of capitalist and socialist systems within them. The real question becomes where one draws the line. "

I fully agree.

"Simply saying you support socialist policies doesnÂ’t mean much. The US is a socialist country in that context. "

The US is not socialist in any meaningful sense at all. I won't get into what a socialist society would look like (for you can read up on it yourself), but it'll suffice to say that its the socialisation of the means of production. Not even in the loosest interpretation is the US socialist. Basic services such as medical care are not freely available to all.

"Capitalism doesnÂ’t put anything before anything. Capitalism isnÂ’t really a system, but rather the lack of a system."

Capitalism puts profit before people. Take the US for example (and it's not the only country), in order that one receive medical cover for an operation, one must have a sufficient income to cover his health insurance. And the same is true for higher education. Now answer me this: why on earth should people be made to pay for healthcare? Everybody (in a truly caring society) is entitled to recieve medical treatment if they fall ill. And why must students pay for higher education? It ought to be also a right of every citizen that they be educated free of charge. The same is also true for housing, why must people pay huge amounts to rent a place to live? Why must wether one recieves medical treatment, education or housing depend on how fat one's wallet is? This is what happens with privatisation. People are forced to pay huge amounts for basic services they ought to be entitled to. This is a quintessential example of how capitalism puts profit before the needs of people.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"Politicians are there to represent their constituency, so yes there must be a system of accountability whereby if an official follows a policy other than that of his constituency, they be subject to recall. Remember in a true democracy, government is there to serve the people, not vice versa, so it must naturally follow that if they don't, they be held accountable not three or four years later, but right then and there before they can adversely impact lives (at least in the electorate's eyes). How you do this is debateable, but there must if we truly live in a democracy be a system of accountability."

Let me give you some reasons to reconsider. A politicians job is to REPRESENT their constinuencies. Not slaves to them. Not to pander them. Do you support the death penalty? Some 80% of the American electorate does, but not close to that number of politicians. A principaled politician would be quickly skewered by his political opposition and thrown out of office the day he stayed some controversial killer.

NO PRESIDENT OR POLITICIAN maintains over 50% popularity throughout his tenure. We would have the kind of political instability that Italy was famous for if we allowed politicians to be recalled at the drop of a dime.

"This is debateable. I haven't given too much thought to it. But I don't believe energy companies ought to be drafting international agreements for tackling climate change. They care little about the environment and reducing CO2 emmissions. For that reason when you have private business financing electoral campaigns, they do so with the intention to influencing government, and as we can see today neither Bush nor Blair are willing to put pressure on energy corporations that pollute our air."

Here you are mixing a specific with a general problem. The problem in the case you are citing is not campaign contributions, it is a special interest (and for good reason, one of the most powerful in the world) being empowered to self-govern.


"I completely disagree. In your world perhaps and the warped world of Bush people may be greedy, uncaring and vulture like, but in the real world people aren't naturally selfish. It's part of our animal nature (as can be observed in mammals) to cooperate and work with one another for our mutual benefit. People are moved when they see children starving of hunger, or homeless people freezing in the cold. Our instinctive human reaction is to want to alleviate their suffering and pain. All irrespective of political affiliation, philosophy or religion (at least those of us with compassion) want a world free from hunger, war and disease. So the notion that we're naturally greedy is false."

Say no to drugs. If you can show me any society or any era where people were not greedy and selfish, I am dying to hear about it. Cooperation and work do not change the fact that people are greedy and selfish. That doesn't mean that we don't work cooperatively at times, or even often. But don't allow that to convince you that we are all just naturally communists. Even in the works of Karl Marx he made it quite clear that human nature would have to transform itself in order for socialism to function. You are fooling yourself if you think that people are all going to give 100% for the good of society.

"The US is not socialist in any meaningful sense at all. I won't get into what a socialist society would look like (for you can read up on it yourself), but it'll suffice to say that its the socialisation of the means of production. Not even in the loosest interpretation is the US socialist. Basic services such as medical care are not freely available to all."

If you mean that means of production should be in the hands of government, take a look at the old eastern block and Soviet Union and Communist China to see how efficient, environmentally friendly and productive that is.

Also, basic services such as education, police, fire protection and incfrastructure are provided by the government in the US. And in NO country with a decent quality of life, does the government control prodution.

"Capitalism puts profit before people."

This is wrong. All capitalism means is that the market regulates itself. That people are free to conduct their buisiness affairs with minimal interference of government.

"Take the US for example (and it's not the only country), in order that one receive medical cover for an operation, one must have a sufficient income to cover his health insurance."

No, you may well work for a company that proides it. Like me.

"And the same is true for higher education."

No, if you work hard, you can earn a scholarship, like tens of thousands do eery year. Like I did. And look at the cost of a pure government higher education. That's how it is in Germany, so only the VERY, VERY best qualify. Cause it's too expensive for the government to fund more than for a few. The result, Germany is an elitist society with an elitist educational system. Almost NO German Turks attend university.

"Now answer me this: why on earth should people be made to pay for healthcare?"

Do you think if you have a national health care system that people don't pay. You're going to pay. Either through taxes or otherwise, but it's never free.

"Everybody (in a truly caring society) is entitled to recieve medical treatment if they fall ill."

Sonds good. But somebody is paying.

"And why must students pay for higher education? It ought to be also a right of every citizen that they be educated free of charge."

No society can afford that. It is indisputable that the US provides per capita more higher education than any country in the world. Care to explain that?

"The same is also true for housing, why must people pay huge amounts to rent a place to live?"

Again, you're going to pay. And you don't have to pa huge amounts. It's all relative. You want to live in downtown London, it's expensive. You want to live in Bisbee Arizona, it's cheap.

"Why must wether one recieves medical treatment, education or housing depend on how fat one's wallet is?"

Natures law. There has never been a society where in some way, shape or form this has not been true. Never. And there never will be.

"This is what happens with privatisation. People are forced to pay huge amounts for basic services they ought to be entitled to."

Nobody is entitled to shit. That ain't the way the world works. You have to provide for yourself. Houses don't just appear, they have to be built. Services don't just happen, they have to be paid. The more you want to provide for your citzenry, the higher your tax rate. The higher your ta rate, the more you will see a gold flow.

"This is a quintessential example of how capitalism puts profit before the needs of people."

Your entire argument is specious, as I have just demonstrated.

[avowedly-agnostic]

"Say no to drugs. If you can show me any society or any era where people were not greedy and selfish, I am dying to hear about it. Cooperation and work do not change the fact that people are greedy and selfish. That doesn't mean that we don't work cooperatively at times, or even often. But don't allow that to convince you that we are all just naturally communists. "

There are numerous examples of societies who worked (and continue to work in co-operatives) collectively (I'll need to spend some time looking for the relevant material however). But that was not the point I was making. My contention is humans are not - as you falsey allude- inherently greedy. Rather they're conscious about the welfare of their fellow men.

"Even in the works of Karl Marx he made it quite clear that human nature would have to transform itself in order for socialism to function."

You're going to have to back that up I'm afraid. Simply saying Marx said such and such won't suffice to convince. And I disagree with that. Socialism doesn't change human nature, on the contrary, it affirms human nature.

"If you mean that means of production should be in the hands of government, take a look at the old eastern block and Soviet Union and Communist China to see how efficient, environmentally friendly and productive that is. "

Alternatively you could look at Cuba with an excellent medical system, excellent education and miles ahead in enviromental conservation.

"Also, basic services such as education, police, fire protection and incfrastructure are provided by the government in the US..."

I'm sure they do, but it doesn't provide free medical care, or higher education.

"All capitalism means is that the market regulates itself. That people are free to conduct their buisiness affairs with minimal interference of government. "

In relation to privatising services this is wrong.

"No, you may well work for a company that provides it (i.e health insurance). Like me."

I'm afraid not all comapnies cover their employess, hence why it should be availabe free of charge to all workers.

" And look at the cost of a pure government higher education. That's how it is in Germany, so only the VERY, VERY best qualify. Cause it's too expensive for the government to fund more than for a few."

The US spends hundreds of billions of tax payer money to sustain an occupying army in Iraq, but it can't put average joe through school? Why isn't tax payer's money going to benefit the tax payer?

"Do you think if you have a national health care system that people don't pay."

They pay taxes don't they? And as such taxmoney ought to be spent not to wage war, but to improve education, the national health service, housing etc.

"No society can afford that (i.e. free higher education). It is indisputable that the US provides per capita more higher education than any country in the world. Care to explain that? "

No it's not "indisputable". Cuba has free education right through from kindergarten to graduate school. During the last twenty years education in Britain was free again from kindergarten to university. The idea that the US can't afford it is nonsense. Rather than putting taxpayer money to good use, the US administration throws literally billions of dollars down the drain on waging imperialist wars and sustaining occupations.

"Nobody is entitled to shit. That ain't the way the world works. "

When you pay taxes, I think you're more than entitled to be provided with a decent education, medical care, housing etc.

"Your entire argument is specious, as I have just demonstrated."

You haven't demonstrated anything, you've made an argument- and a weak one at that.