Can Socialism Provide a Stable Political Framework?

[alexandra]

I think the point is that it cuts both ways. There were propaganda campaigns for both sides and quite a bit of that propaganda was questioning the policies of our government. Would that have happened in the Soviet Union, and if so would it have gotten very far? In the Soviet Union would the general populace have had access to dissenting view points? Could they just pick up a news paper, go to the library, or get on the net and look up information that may be contrary to what their government is telling them? If the people are too lazy to figure out whether or not they really agree with what their government is doing it's their own fault. There is nothing here in this country keeping that option from them.

Personally I would prefer that there weren't any propaganda, that politicians would just be honest, but I know that I can't really expect that from any major candidate no matter what their affiliation.

I do have an argument against what you write here - in the words of a famous politician (the most powerful man on earth, in fact): "You're either with us or against us". Dissenting views? Democracy? I don't know - you'd have to be pretty brave to speak up if you dissented! The amazing thing is that millions of people all over the world were actually that brave.

 

[SOS2008]

However, where the theory may be wrong, is that the proletariat also identifies with the capitalists, and therefore do not experience “alienation.”

Or maybe American workers are feeling alienation. Tonight on CNN:

Violence and the threat of violence are also rising in the American workplace. A new study finds the loss of millions of American jobs, millions of them, to cheap foreign labor markets is behind much of the rage.

Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Scenes like this from a shooting at Jeep's Toledo, Ohio, plant by a disgruntled employee earlier this year are all too familiar. An angry employee unleashes that wrath in the workplace.

Not every unhappy employee commits murder and suicide, but there is an alarming increase in violence in the workplace. A survey by more than 600 human resources and security executives found 82 percent reported an increase in workplace violence in the last two years. The reasons are basic.

DOUG KANE, RISK CONTROL STRATEGIES: We've seen a lot of companies being downsized over the last several years. As a result of that, they're turning to off-shoring and outsourcing a lot of their activities. As a result of that, some of the employees now are tasked with training their replacements, which, again, creates somewhat of a hostile work environment.

TUCKER: Fifty-eight percent of those responding to the survey by Risk Control Strategies say employees have threatened to assault or kill senior managers. It's the uncertainty of the job place, compounded with economic pressures, that often push employees over the edge. The new bankruptcy bill which allows wages to be garnished is expected to worsen the problem.

LARRY CHAVEZ, CRITICAL INCIDENT ASSOCIATES: With the downturn in the economy, and with the loss of jobs on a relatively massive scale, it's not going to take much more beyond that to have someone thinking negative thoughts about their organization.

TUCKER: Bottom line for employees, they take their work very personally, while their employers forget they're people and treat them as a line item in the budget.

(on camera): But a separate and soon to be released survey show a decline in outsourcing trends found that employee backlash is a major concern among companies considering outsourcing. Eighty-eight percent said they're more concerned about employee backlash than they are about severance costs or customer reaction.

Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do have an argument against what you write here - in the words of a famous politician (the most powerful man on earth, in fact): "You're either with us or against us". Dissenting views? Democracy? I don't know - you'd have to be pretty brave to speak up if you dissented! The amazing thing is that millions of people all over the world were actually that brave.

Your example is a piece or rhetoric though. It's not law.
This is what the law states, more specifically the first amendment of the constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People don't have to be brave either. You can read quite a few dissenting view points right here on PF. Not that I would say any of these people are not brave but that I don't believe they are exercising any particular amount of bravery in posting their opinions. I listen to a lot of talk radio, many of the hosts are quite conservative, and even they criticize Bush.

 

[Burnsys]

The more I think about this, the more it irritates me:


SOS, how can you even suggest such a thing? You do understand that the US is, in fact, one of the free-est countries in the world, right? And that that includes freedom of the press, right? You do understand that a large part of what kept the USSR and other pseudo-communist countries together was propaganda, right? Please tell me I misunderstood you, because the idea that democracy/capitalism work because of brainwashing is one of the most rediculous and offensive things I've ever heard in this forum.

There is somenthing simple about brainwashing and capitalism, if people where not brainwashing into beliving in private banking, the whole system would collapse.

It's not posible that the people and the government has to pay the bankers for their services of creating new money for the comunity...

I would like to know (if it's posible) of the total amount of money lent by private banks. how much goes to the top 1% of the population...

--------------------------------------------------
"The few who can understand the System (Cheque Money and Credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class. While on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (hostile, hurtful) to their interests.

 

[alexandra]

Your example is a piece or rhetoric though. It's not law.
This is what the law states, more specifically the first amendment of the constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You got me curious, TheStatutoryApe, so I did a google search and looked up the USSR Constitution. The 1936 Constitution is an interesting read in general (Article 10 and Article 12 may be surprising to some) – but Chapter 10 is the most pertinent to our discussion. All articles in Chapter 10 are interesting, but the most relevant are:

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10

By 1977, the USSR Constitution had been changed; nevertheless, Chapter 7 states:

Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations. Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

Article 51. In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests. Public organisations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.

Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2445/77cons02.htm#chap07

 

[alexandra]

Another perspective in matters discussed in the 'Anti-american' thread

It is so tedious when people discuss things from an uninformed position – it is then that ‘discussions’ degenerate into shouting matches. In case anyone is interested, here is an extract from a lengthy, serious analysis of why the 'war on Iraq' and why the French, German and Russian administrations opposed it:

The United States and the United Kingdom did not wage war on Iraq for the officially stated reasons. That much is obvious. The world’s superpower and its key ally were not acting because they feared the Iraqi government’s weapons of mass destruction or its ties with the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Nor were they fighting to bring democracy to the Middle East, a region where the two governments had long supported reactionary monarchs and odious dictators, including Iraqi president Saddam Hussein himself.

It is time, then, to set aside the sterile discussions about “intelligence failures” and to consider a deeper reason for the conflict. This paper will argue that the war was primarily a “war for oil” in which large, multinational oil companies and their host governments acted in secret concert to gain control of Iraq's fabulous oil reserves and to gain leverage over other national oil producers. In arguing for the primacy of oil, we do not imply that other factors were not at play. The imperial dreams of the neo-con advisors in Washington contributed to the final outcome, as did the re-election strategies of the political operatives in the White House. But the Iraq war did not emerge solely from the Bush administration. As we shall see, it involved both London and Washington, through the course of many governments. And it emerged from a decades-long effort by the world's largest companies to appropriate the planet's most lucrative natural resource deposits.

...

The big US-UK companies made no secret of their strong desire for Iraqi oil. BP and Shell conducted secret negotiations with Saddam Hussein, while Exxon and Chevron took a harder line and waited for Washington to eliminate Saddam covertly. In 1997, as the sanctions lost international support, Russia’s Lukoil, France’s Total, China National and other companies struck deals with the government of Iraq for production sharing in some of Iraq’s biggest and most lucrative fields. Lukoil reached an agreement for West Qurna, Total got Majnoun, while China National signed on for North Rumaila, near the Kuwaiti border.44 Paris, Moscow and Beijing, as Permanent Members in the UN Security Council pressed for an easing of the sanctions, with support from a growing number of other countries. Grassroots movements, concerned about Iraq’s humanitarian crisis, called on the UN Security Council to end the sanctions forthwith.

In 1997-98, the US companies saw the writing on the wall. With Iranian fields already slipping into the hands of competitors, such losses in Iraq threatened to reduce them to second rank and confront them with fierce international competition and downward profit pressure. The companies stepped up their lobbying in Washington and made their wishes for Iraq oil crystal clear. “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas – reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to,” enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco. More: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

 

[vanesch]

serious analysis of why the 'war on Iraq' and why the French, German and Russian administrations opposed it:

I think that's too simplistic. I don't know about the Russian side, but the people in the French and the German governments didn't have any strong ties to the oil industry and there were PLENTY of reasons to oppose Washington on that issue, without oil having to be a part of it. I would even think that if the oil industry had something to say, they'd rather go in. After all, not so many nations were jumping to go to war, so the cake would only have been split up in a few big, juicy pieces, to be divided between the few warmogers. If the French, after some initial hesitation, wanted to get oil on their hands, they would just have had to join Bush in the end - he'd be very happy and ready to concede some part of the cake in return for the favor... at least if they believed that his plan had any hope of working out.

 

[alexandra]

I think that's too simplistic. I don't know about the Russian side, but the people in the French and the German governments didn't have any strong ties to the oil industry and there were PLENTY of reasons to oppose Washington on that issue, without oil having to be a part of it.

I disagree that it's too simplistic, vanesch - that article (and other sources I have read, and the sources of information it refers to) provides plenty of evidence regarding French, German and Russian oil interests in the region. It is, in my opinion, when you leave oil out of the picture that the analysis gets simplistic. The question I always ask when I'm trying to understand something major happening in the world is: "Who would benefit (materially) from adopting such a policy?" - and (of course) "How would they benefit?". The reason I trust the answers to such questions is because of my beginning assumption that politicians govern on behalf of big business. My original assumption is based on what I find to be compelling evidence - but we may disagree about this. I never look for reasons in terms of 'psychology' or 'morality' or anything as intangible as that: I always look for the material causes of human actions. This just seems to make a heck of a lot more sense to me than anything else: who benefits? how do they benefit?

I would even think that if the oil industry had something to say, they'd rather go in. After all, not so many nations were jumping to go to war, so the cake would only have been split up in a few big, juicy pieces, to be divided between the few warmogers. If the French, after some initial hesitation, wanted to get oil on their hands, they would just have had to join Bush in the end - he'd be very happy and ready to concede some part of the cake in return for the favor... at least if they believed that his plan had any hope of working out.

I think your last sentence is the key - this is the gamble the French, German and Russian administrations were taking - that the US wouldn't proceed as planned without their support. I can't, of course, state this with any certainty - it is just the conclusion I have reached as a result of the reading I have done, and it makes logical sense to me. If the French had joined in, they would still not have gotten much out of the deal - as the article I linked to states:

Oil companies’ future profits – and their current share prices and market capitalization – depend to a large degree on their control of reserves. The 1972 oil nationalizations in Iraq pushed the US and UK companies completely out of the country. Before that date, they held a three-quarter share of the Iraq Petroleum Company, including Iraq’s entire national reserves. After 1972, all that oil disappeared from their balance sheets.

In the 1980s and 90s, their rivals in France, Russia and even Japan and China began to make deals that led towards lucrative production sharing agreements, allowing those competitors to gain a large potential share of Iraq’s oil reserves. The sanctions regime, enforced under the United Nations and maintained at the insistence of the US and UK from 1990 to 2003, prevented these deals from coming to fruition, thus protecting the future stake of the US-UK companies...

The big US-UK companies made no secret of their strong desire for Iraqi oil. BP and Shell conducted secret negotiations with Saddam Hussein, while Exxon and Chevron took a harder line and waited for Washington to eliminate Saddam covertly. In 1997, as the sanctions lost international support, Russia’s Lukoil, France’s Total, China National and other companies struck deals with the government of Iraq for production sharing in some of Iraq’s biggest and most lucrative fields. Lukoil reached an agreement for West Qurna, Total got Majnoun, while China National signed on for North Rumaila, near the Kuwaiti border.44 Paris, Moscow and Beijing, as Permanent Members in the UN Security Council pressed for an easing of the sanctions, with support from a growing number of other countries. Grassroots movements, concerned about Iraq’s humanitarian crisis, called on the UN Security Council to end the sanctions forthwith.

In 1997-98, the US companies saw the writing on the wall. With Iranian fields already slipping into the hands of competitors, such losses in Iraq threatened to reduce them to second rank and confront them with fierce international competition and downward profit pressure. The companies stepped up their lobbying in Washington and made their wishes for Iraq oil crystal clear. “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas – reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to,” enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

This analysis seems to me quite compelling given the supporting evidence that even if France, Germany and Russia had joined in the war, the European oil companies would have gotten 'breadcrumbs' (relatively speaking) in return. I think they gambled by withdrawing their support in order to prevent the whole thing from happening in the first place (so they - the European and Russian companies - could keep their contracts). I don't know, as I said earlier - but it seems to me to be a plausible theory...

 

[alexandra]

Just to add to my above post: none of this has anything at all to do with the American, French, German and Russian people - ordinary people will in no way benefit from the huge profits being made by the large oil coroporations. So it is not a 'nationalistic' fight, and to adopt defensive, patriotic stances on this issue seems to me a futile exercise. The 'war on Iraq' is a battle between corporate giants and, as far as I can see, all ordinary people lose out (especially the Iraqi people, but also the soldiers who are dying and being maimed for life and taxpayers who bear the brunt of the cost).

 

[Art]

The question I always ask when I'm trying to understand something major happening in the world is: "Who would benefit (materially) from adopting such a policy?" - and (of course) "How would they benefit?"

In this instance I suspect Tony Blair actually believed in the justice of the war in Iraq. I think he probably genuinely thought it was the best way to help the Iraqi people who were suffering under sanctions which would never be lifted as long as Saddam remained in power. I may stand open to correction but as far as I know in terms of material benefit Britain doesn't seem to have gained or even sought any advantage from it's actions. In fact the British press were screaming about all the post war rebuilding contracts going to US firms and even then the British government said nothing.
I may be wrong but I think the difference between the US and British adminstrations is that T. Blair might have done the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

 

[vanesch]

I may be wrong but I think the difference between the US and British adminstrations is that T. Blair might have done the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Well, strange as it may seem, I also have that impression. Probably Blair (rightly) assumed that the US - UK relations were of such quality that he could not imagine Bush LYING to him on purpose. So probably he was one of the few European leaders (probably blinded by his trust in his trans-atlantic friendship) who really believed Bush.

 

[alexandra]

I may stand open to correction but as far as I know in terms of material benefit Britain doesn't seem to have gained or even sought any advantage from it's actions. In fact the British press were screaming about all the post war rebuilding contracts going to US firms and even then the British government said nothing.

Here's the evidence, Art:

8 August 2003
...
In mid-July BP took possession of its reward -- one of the first tankers of oil from Southern Iraq, having won 25% of the initial sale of 8 million barrels of the existing stockpiles of Iraqi oil. The previous month California-based Chevron shipped back an equal quantity of oil from southern Iraq.
...
To the Victors Go the Spoils

Shell along with Chevron, BP and seven other oil giants, have won contracts to buy Iraq's new oil production of Basra Light crude. The contracts cover production from the Mina Al-Bakr port in southern Iraq from August to December of this year. Under the deal, Iraq will supply 645,000 barrels per day (bpd) for export, an increase on the 450,000 bpd produced in July but still just a third of pre-war levels.

BP and Shell will each send one very large tanker every month to Iraq to pick up their two million barrels. Among the other companies that have signed deals to buy the oil are ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and Marathon Oil, Total of France, Sinochem of China and a company from the Mitsubishi group, which is buying for Japanese refineries.
...
Working in Iraq has helped bolster Halliburton's finances. The company made a profit of $26 million, in contrast to a loss of $498 million over the same time period a year earlier. The company stated that 9 percent, or $324 million, of its second-quarter revenue of $3.6 billion came from its work in Iraq.

More (it's interesting): http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7989

I may be wrong but I think the difference between the US and British adminstrations is that T. Blair might have done the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Have you heard of/read the 'Downing Street Memos' yet, Art? Written a year before the invasion of Iraq, here are some extracts from one of them (each page is marked 'Secret UK Eyes Only'):

A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade illegally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam, and developing military plans. There is a lead time of about 6 months to a ground offensive….But there is no greater threat now that he [Hussein] will use WMD than there has been in recent years… More: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/iraqoptionspaper.pdf

 

[vanesch]

It is, in my opinion, when you leave oil out of the picture that the analysis gets simplistic. The question I always ask when I'm trying to understand something major happening in the world is: "Who would benefit (materially) from adopting such a policy?" - and (of course) "How would they benefit?".

Of course "oil" was a major factor, but not in the way you present it. CEO's of oil companies telling their political leaders what to do and not - I don't believe that. Politicians have other agendas, mainly: being re-elected.
But of course "oil" was a major factor in the bigger picture: if the plan (you know, blitzkrieg, Iraqi children waving American flags...) succeeded, the US would have gained an enormous influence in the region: not only would they have dominated of course the new Iraq, but the domino effect would have made them the "good daddy" of the whole oil-pumping region. That would then give an enormous political influence.

The problem is that that plan was so terribly naive that it was obvious from the start that it wouldn't work out. If it were realistic, I wouldn't even have minded - it would have been a good thing for the West in general ; it would have been good for the local people (no more local dictators etc...) and it would have been good for Israel ; also it would have undercut all reasons of existence for islamic terrorists. Great idea. But it was clearly bound to fail.

 

[alexandra]

Of course "oil" was a major factor, but not in the way you present it. CEO's of oil companies telling their political leaders what to do and not - I don't believe that.

We disagree then; I do believe this.

Politicians have other agendas, mainly: being re-elected.

Who decides whether or not they get re-elected, vanesch? 'The people'? Even if 'the people' decide - who influences the peoples' decisions? You should not be so inconsistent, vanesch - in other discussions you have admitted to being 'elitist'; you should be consistent about your views about whether or not 'the people' are capable of making informed decisions. In my view, very powerful business interests use the business-owned mass media to determine who will be elected.

But of course "oil" was a major factor in the bigger picture: if the plan (you know, blitzkrieg, Iraqi children waving American flags...) succeeded, the US would have gained an enormous influence in the region: not only would they have dominated of course the new Iraq, but the domino effect would have made them the "good daddy" of the whole oil-pumping region. That would then give an enormous political influence.

Quite.

The problem is that that plan was so terribly naive that it was obvious from the start that it wouldn't work out. If it were realistic, I wouldn't even have minded - it would have been a good thing for the West in general ; it would have been good for the local people (no more local dictators etc...) and it would have been good for Israel ; also it would have undercut all reasons of existence for islamic terrorists. Great idea. But it was clearly bound to fail.

It would have been good for some of the local people - a very small group: the puppets, who would (will?) be richly rewarded. It would have been good for Israel - I guess they could finally just walk into the rest of the Palestinian territories and wipe out the locals with total impunity. As for undercutting the reasons for the existence of 'islamic terrorists' - I'm not too sure about that. There seems to have been an upsurge in such activity, and I think this would have been the case even if the 'coalition victory' had been achieved. People generally don't like having their valuable resources stolen.

 

[vanesch]

Who decides whether or not they get re-elected, vanesch? 'The people'? Even if 'the people' decide - who influences the peoples' decisions? You should not be so inconsistent, vanesch - in other discussions you have admitted to being 'elitist'; you should be consistent about your views about whether or not 'the people' are capable of making informed decisions. In my view, very powerful business interests use the business-owned mass media to determine who will be elected.

I haven't seen that over here. To me, the answer to "who influences the people's decisions", is: populist politicians. I've seen it happening here with the EU constitution: all social-democrat, conservative,... politicians, all business organisations, many intellectuals etc... were in favor of it, nevertheless, who called for the no-vote ? Extreme right (nationalists - understandably) and extreme left (Trotskist revolutionaries) - together with labor unions: they managed, in 5 months time, to make it swing from 60-40 in favor to 57 - 43 against. It has to be said that the extreme-left is lead by a very media-savvy leader.


cheers,
Patrick.

 

[alexandra]

I haven't seen that over here. To me, the answer to "who influences the people's decisions", is: populist politicians. I've seen it happening here with the EU constitution: all social-democrat, conservative,... politicians, all business organisations, many intellectuals etc... were in favor of it, nevertheless, who called for the no-vote ? Extreme right (nationalists - understandably) and extreme left (Trotskist revolutionaries) - together with labor unions: they managed, in 5 months time, to make it swing from 60-40 in favor to 57 - 43 against. It has to be said that the extreme-left is lead by a very media-savvy leader.

Thanks for the information, vanesch - I shall have to do some reading on French politics when I get a chance. Who is the media-savvy leader? Does he/she claim to be Trotskyist?

 

[vanesch]

Who is the media-savvy leader? Does he/she claim to be Trotskyist?

Olivier Besancenot. I think he has a lawyer's degree, but he has a job as a simple postman ; nevertheless he's the leader of a political party, which is worth about 5 - 10% of the electorate.

EDIT: no, I was wrong, he's a historian.

http://www.radiofranceinternationale.fr/actuchaude/images/imagesActu/France_elections2002/elections/o_besancenot.htm

EDIT2: his party is LCR, Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire - I don't know all the details but yes I think he considers himself Trotksyist (didn't know one wrote it that way)

 

[vanesch]

I said:

I've seen it happening here with the EU constitution: all social-democrat, conservative,... politicians, all business organisations, many intellectuals etc... were in favor of it, nevertheless, who called for the no-vote ? Extreme right (nationalists - understandably) and extreme left (Trotskist revolutionaries)...

In fact I forgot to mention an important point: not ALL social-democrat politicians were in favor: there was ONE influencial person (Laurent Fabius) who went against the official party line and "adhered with extreme-left" because the constitution was too "right-wing". His "change of camps" made in fact the swing happen with the moderate left wing voters. Now, this change of camps is very incomprehensible, as Fabius has been former prime minister, minister of economy and so on, and usually took on rather "right wing" views within the social democrats, and was very favorable of all previous European treaties. His career got a sudden backlash when he was held responsable in some scandals (he was not found legally guilty, but he had the political responsability). Probably the better explanation was that he wanted to differentiate himself from the leader of the party, to become the presidential candidate in 2007 (and not the party leader), and took the extreme-left wave to propulse him on the foreground, so as not to appear as a follower.

 

[Smurf]

From here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=756904#post756904
I can't believe you ****tards hijacked me and Vanesch's thread. Bastards.

 

[Townsend]

From here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=756904#post756904
I can't believe you ****tards hijacked me and Vanesch's thread. Bastards.

I love it when people go around acting all innocent...

I wonder how many threads you've hijacked in your time Smurf...

 

[TRCSF]

Your "Is blank stable" threads aren't stable.

(Oh, and it's Mary Kaye)

 

[Townsend]

Your "Is blank stable" threads aren't stable.

The evidence we have seen so far would certainly seem to suggest this...

 

[Smurf]

RIIIIGHT Mary Kay. Thank you
http://www.marykay.com/home.aspx

These guys. okay Townsend. That's who I was talking to. These guys make previously calm mild-mannered house wives into fanatical sales persons all the bloody time (come on - didn't you see that "American Dad" episode?)

Now, I'm not suggesting we brain wash them like they do (because they have help from the entire capitalist system). But it just goes to show that people work for things other than salaries.

 

[Townsend]

RIIIIGHT Mary Kay. Thank you
http://www.marykay.com/home.aspx

These guys. okay Townsend. That's who I was talking to. These guys make previously calm mild-mannered house wives into fanatical sales persons all the bloody time (come on - didn't you see that "American Dad" episode?)

I don't watch television...sorry.

Now, I'm not suggesting we brain wash them like they do (because they have help from the entire capitalist system). But it just goes to show that people work for things other than salaries.

No doubt there would be the people who would just do it and the people would are actually altruistic enough to do so. I'm not saying it cannot be done. I agree that it can be done but the question is should it be done. What does this government have to offer to people who really don't want to work?

 

[Smurf]

Where did you get that quote about cuba's healthcare? Cuba is consistantly ranked as having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and one of the healthiest populations too. They're also reknown for sending healthcare professionals abroad to help other countries. like the 1600 they offered to new orleans that bush turned down (or ignored rather) and the thousands of others that were in sri lanka after the tsunami.

 

[Entropy]

Cuba is consistantly ranked as having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and one of the healthiest populations too

I did not know that. I always associated them with, like, Mexico or something.

 

[Smurf]

I did not know that. I always associated them with, like, Mexico or something.

Surprised? I'm not. No one hears anything good about cuba. No one hears anything bad about the west either.

today they have the highest ratio of doctors to patients in the world


edit: You know, mexico's not all that bad either.

 

[TRCSF]

I didn't know that Cuba had one of the best health care systems in the world.

I knew it was a lot better than the U.S.'s. But that's not saying much.

 

[Pengwuino]

*tosses a capitalism neutron into this thread*

Won't be stable for long!

 

[Townsend]

Where did you get that quote about cuba's healthcare? Cuba is consistantly ranked as having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and one of the healthiest populations too. They're also reknown for sending healthcare professionals abroad to help other countries. like the 1600 they offered to new orleans that bush turned down (or ignored rather) and the thousands of others that were in sri lanka after the tsunami.

Do you have to ask where I found that quote? Who's your friend Smurf? Who is it?

And I don't care how high they are ranked...clearly the healthcare for the average joe Cuban is utter crap as stated by your very best friend.

CUBA'S HEALTH CARE IS CRAP!

 

[Townsend]

I didn't know that Cuba had one of the best health care systems in the world.

I knew it was a lot better than the U.S.'s. But that's not saying much.

got proof?

 

[Smurf]

Oh... wikipedia. Right.

 

[Townsend]

Oh... wikipedia. Right.

You're starting to worry me Smurf...

 

[Smurf]

Townsend? Did you read that entire article? You picked the very last paragraph in an article that says things like this:

"More than 50 hospitals are currently being renovated, expanded and equipped to offer excellent services to both national and foreign patients. The program began in 2004 with an estimated cost of 835 million USD, which includes the latest equipment valued at approximately 400 million USD." (ibid)

Of over 130,000 healthcare professionals with a university education, 25,845 today serve in international missions in 66 different countries. They offer medical services to 85,154,748 people; 34,700,000 in Latin America and the Caribbean and 50,400,000 in Africa and Asia. Of these, 17,651 are doctors, 3,069 are dentists and 3,117 are healthcare technicians who work in optic services and other areas. [4]

Castro has long made the promise of free, universal health care an important part of the case for his government. The Cuban government maintains a hospital system for health tourists, widely recognized and well regarded, and also sends medicine, doctors and teachers all over third world. Today, Cuba has over 20,000 health workers in Venezuela, 600 in Honduras, 200 doctors in South Africa, and many more spread around the world.

By "Native-Cubans" I think they meant indigenous. It's curious that the CIA factbook doesn't even give a figure for the number of indigenous in Cuba (quite possibly they were all killed off - but then why did wikipedia say that)
This requires further investigation.

 

[Smurf]

Right. That's complete bull****. I'm editing it now. This all started on september 15th from a nationalist pig who even bragged about it on his blog http://www.babalublog.com/archives/002239.html . What a dumbass.

The great thing about wikipedia is you can check the history of any article really really far back.

Looking back I see "Universalspectator" has been making continuous changes of this bull**** nature ever since sept 15th while some more level-headed members continuously revert his changes. Several of his accounts are now deleted (and probably IPs banned), possibly by the wiki administration. You can check yourself.

Cuba's healthcare is still one of the best in the world and some mini-McCarthyist's attempting to edit a wiki article won't change that. Any number of sites here will tell you the same thing.