I woke up a long time ago thanks very much. Woke up from the illusion that
capitalism is still a progressive system.
>Free markets can function locally (see: Hong Kong). Why can't socialism?
>
>So if free-markets fail, the effects are local.
Free markets function locally? Perleeease!!! Capitalism is a global
system and, as such, it's failures are felt the world over. Socialism
tried locally? Socialism is a totally different way of organising
production in society. It is the necessary progression from the outmoded
capitalist system. As a capitalism is a global system, so must Socialism
be. You clearly have no comprehension of what socialism is (despite the
explanation provided in my previous email) or you would not have suggested
that Socialism be "experimented" with in Cuba!?!
>As for myself, I'm a realist who would rather take something that has been
>demonstrated to work sufficiently well, even if less than perfect in the
>eyes of utopian dreamers.
Am I not a realist then? I recognise the advances capitalism has brought
people. However, I contend that it has now outlived its usefulness. There
is no longer any need for the problems caused by capitalism to plague the
people of the world. Why defend a system that leaves millions of people in
poverty, starving, leading desperate lives? Why defend a system that leads
to wars where people kill each other in their thousands? Why defend a
system that harms the environment we live in, the pursuit of profits being
put before the protection of our fragile eco-system? I do not want to pick
an argument with you for the sake of arguing. I am, as I am sure you are,
concerned to make the world a place free from unnecessary suffering.
Socialism is not a utopian dream, it is the result of a logical,
scientific approach to society, based on the study of the world's history.
As a Socialist, I contend that the utopian dreamer is the person who
believes capitalism is the answer to society's problems.
If you want to continue being a "realist" then fine. But put the news on
tonight, see what's happening in Sierre Leone, and see where "realism" gets
you:
A suffering that knows no end
A generation of children have known nothing but war
In Sierra Leone, fear stalks a land devastated by military coups, an
eight-year civil war and the consequent mass displacement of civilians.
In the past year levels of brutality have brought comparisons with recent
events in Rwanda as well as with Cambodia in the 1970's.
Child amputees are a common sight
The United Nations refugee agency and human rights groups have
painstakingly gathered testimony of atrocities committed by rebel forces
and former military officers overthrown by a Nigerian-led force in February.
Refugees have told consistent stories of rape, mutilation and murder by
elements of the former government.
Aid workers and government officials told a meeting in the capital
Freetown, that 1000 people had had their limbs amputated and thousands more
had been mutilated or executed since last spring.
Most of Sierra Leone's five million people live off the fruits of the land,
growing vegetables, nuts, casava or rice. Chopping off the hands or limbs
of peasant farmers has a devastating effect on their ability to feed
themselves and their families.
Aid workers report that despite a rebel offensive, the number of people
displaced is much less than last year when hundreds of thousands fled the
country.
This is largely because the rebels appear to have changed their tactics.
Doctors report that the large-scale mutilation has stopped and that the
rebels appear to be trying to convince people to stay in the areas they
control.
Exact figures of the numbers of refugees are impossible to come by as the
rebel offensive cut off the country's capital, Freetown, from parts of the
provinces.
According to the UNHCR, Sierra Leone has produced more than half a million
refugees this decade.
What are the roots of the war?
The conflict began in complex circumstances that involved both internal and
external pressures.
Rebels emerged amid bitterness over years of misrule by what they saw as a
corrupt elite which took over following the end of British rule in 1961.
Poor rural people increasingly resented the richer ruling class of Freetown
while battles to control the wealth of the diamond mines further fanned the
flames of conflict.
Foday Sankoh, trained by the British army, formed an alliance with Liberian
rebel militia leader Charles Taylor - now president - and launched the war.
As the war dragged on, successive attempts to restore peace failed.
Sierra Leone governments brought in mercenaries, most notably UK military
consultants Sandline International, an event which sparked a full-scale
inquiry into the role of the British Foreign Office in the affair.
South African mercenaries, attracted by the potential wealth held in the
diamond mines, joined the government side while it is believed that
Ukrainians fought with the rebels.
Blame capitalism for food on your table and a car in your driveway, blame socialism for your taxes. Yes under capitalism there are rich people and there are poor, under socialism you only have poor. Have no doubt that bread lines are in our futues.
I have not heard anything quite so nonsensical in a very long time. To try to associate a free market economic system with blinding violence in Africa is really a stretch, even for devote socialists.
Anyone who knows the history of Africa, knows that conflicts there have been ongoing as far back as recorded history. These conflicts center primarily on territorial conflicts over scarce resources. And, many of these conflicts involve less than capitalistic societies.
In fact, much of the blinding violence in Africa has been attributed to communist coups. But, certainly dictatorships and monarchies have played a part as well. Sierra Leone's conflict does not center around the issues of capitalism and socialism. It centers around the issue of greed. Greed: A human emotion which exists irregardless of political system.
To say that capitalism is no longer relevent is to ignore reality. The Chinese have begun adopting a number of capitalist ideas to increase production and exports to foreign countries. Russia also has been working towards similar economic reforms. Why? Because it is in their own best interests to do so.
And, in so doing, these nations have proven that it is not capitalism that is redundant, but rather socialism. And despite the might of a socialist giant like the U.N., conflicts, like the one in Sierra Leone, continue to boil over.
I find the remarks made concerning the environment to be equally ludicrous. Communist China will soon overtake the rest of the world in greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, communist countries are most often the biggest contributers of greenhouse gases, utilizing outdated power techniques such as coal to fuel their government- ravaged economies.
Moreover, disasters like the one involving a Russian nuclear plant in Chernobyl, are far more likely to be commonplace under communist government - doing more damage to the environment in one week than nations around the world could accomplish in one year. This is because the technologies which could lead to safer and more environmentally friendly power, lag well behind in communist (socialist) societies where individual thought and free enterprise are repressed.
And lastly, western democracies, or should I say, CAPITALISTIC, western democracies, have been the biggest supporters of nations suffering from hunger and starvation. Communist nations, on the other hand, have traditionally only lent aid to other communist countries, or to factions whose goal is to establish a communist system.
Socialism or "Communism", promises a lot of things, but empty promises mean very little to people who have lost everything to a utopian sham.
