But Putin33, Europe is not running to the left after the financial crisis. Not at all. If what you said were true, wouldn't the communist or even the actual socialist parties be having more success at the ballot box? Almost the exact opposite is true, which the partial exception of the Greens winning Baden-Wuerttemberg.

Like I said earlier, while I don't like it I don't really mind if people want to be communists and run their country like that. The thing is, there needs to be a way for the people to decide to not have communists run their country anymore and vote the party out of office. That couldn't happen in the Soviet Union. That cannot happen in Cuba. It cannot happen in China. They wouldn't even understand the concept in North Korea. You can have a communist government and the world won't fall apart, as Indian states, the Kurds, and Cyprus have shown, among other examples. But in the overwhelming majority of cases communism = authoritarianism and the imposition of a dictatorial regime which oppresses its people far worse and more direct way than what happens in democracies.

Unfortunately, with someone who can justify the obscene behavior of the North Korean regime to themselves no truly serious dialogue on this is possible. It's OK for the North to starve its people and run a gulag system? Give me a break.

You really think North Korea intentionally starves people? Give me a break. And what about the famines in the capitalist developing world? They don't count?

"But Putin33, Europe is not running to the left after the financial crisis. Not at all. If what you said were true, wouldn't the communist or even the actual socialist parties be having more success at the ballot box"

What you're saying doesn't logically follow. Because welfare-states are not sustainable that means social democratic parties should do better during the crisis? How does that make sense? It makes perfect sense that Europe is moving to the right, slashing and burning their welfare states along the way. Of course these policies will only intensify the problem, but they'll figure out that eventually. Welfare-state capitalism will experience crisis after crisis with increasing intensity, moving from a situation where they're trying to buy off their own populations with benefits so they don't riot, and then slashing and burning these same benefits when they have debt problems.

"The thing is, there needs to be a way for the people to decide to not have communists run their country anymore and vote the party out of office."

Where in capitalist countries can people "vote" to implement an actual socialist command economy? In many countries such parties are banned or their operations are repressed.The examples you're giving are simply social democratic parties who want to keep the whole edifice of the market economy in tact. Cyprus is part of the EU. The EU mandates that all of its members be market economies and imposes neoliberal policies from on high. Akel are social democrats, they're affiliated with the "European United Left" group in Europe - which is a social democratic group.

@Putin33, Communist countries have hardly left a history of success behind them either. No system is perfect... and all are subject to periodic failures, business cycles, famines, etc. It is more about the people running the system - and things like culture and independent press and checks and balances and a strong constitution (in regards to rights) - than it is about the specific system... in my opinion.

Successes take many forms:
Monarchy? UK (and Monaco, I guess)
Communism? Cuba (and that's it)
Social Democracy? France, Sweden, etc.
Democratic Socialism? (is there an example?)


As to the market economy... well, if the alternative is a completely centrally planned economy then there is no contest - market economy wins (see: Cold War and long list of enormous Communist failures - from Mao to Pol Pot to Stalin to Albania to E. Germany). Thankfully we are not restricted to just the two ends of the spectrum.
Are things screwed up in the EU currently? Yes, definitely. Is it because of the failures of social democracy in individual countries? Eh... maybe not so much... it is due, best I can tell, to the very poor economic structure of the EU (and many of the member states) which, as is also the case in America, ensuring that losses are socialized and profits are not... and that "austerity" always takes the form of restricting/eliminating social programs so that corporations can better profit. ...rather than putting a yoke on the strongest ox in the field (the corporations and the rich) so that we can plow the field that needs plowing. I'm sure someone will come back with something about starving/over-working the ox and how that's a bad idea... but, whatever.

And we know exactly what happens when ever some authentic socialist party tries to make serious economic changes to their country. They're slaughtered wholesale after a reactionary coup. What happened to the Indonesian communists? You like bringing up the 'authoritarianism' of socialist countries. You leave out the fact that attempts to implement socialism "democratically" have been met with extermination. The whole reason we had fascism in Europe was to stave off "democratic" socialist takeovers.

"Where in capitalist countries can people "vote" to implement an actual socialist command economy?"

They elect a party which has those polices. Like in Venezuela. You are dodging my point, though. There's no way for the people of a communist state to throw the bums out of office when they don't want those policies any more. You have a permanent government elite without any kind of public accountability at all. That's not to say the situation in democratic societies is perfect, fat from it, but at least there's some level of popular legitimacy which is totally lacking in a communist state. And without that kind of democratic accountability it's much easier to slip into authoritarianism. But I suppose you just don't care much for liberal democracy or the legacy of the Enlightenment, Putin33.

As for North Korea, it does intentionally starve its people. Ever heard of the military first policy? In literally ever instance the Korean People's Army gets the first go at all the resources, even if that means that millions of peasants will starve. Through sheer incompetence they built a damn which has covered up most of the best farmland and further increased the country's food instability. No moral person can defend the clique of rogues which runs that unfortunate land. The fact that you pour out apologetics for such a truly evil government is despicable.

The problem with North Korea is two fold - to my mind: 1) it puts all the power in one person's hands, 2) that person is a stubborn, ruthless, egomaniacal idiot. Putting the power in more hands than one (checks and balances, elections, free press) is a good measure - but it still doesn't guarantee that bad decisions won't be made. Is Communism directly the cause of North Korea's problem - perhaps not - but they have all their eggs in that basket and no way to undo their problems short of a revolution. This is not unlike monarchy. You can have a good monarch or a bad monarch... better hope you have a good one, because there's not much you can do about a bad one.

Again - checks and balances and alternatives are key. Once a ruler or a system is unaccountable to the people it ceases to care about the people (or cares but has no idea of the reality - e.g. "let them eat cake"). i.e. Feedback is key... leadership needs to stay in touch with the wants and needs of the people. North Korea's leadership is completely out of touch... this is not a left-wing only problem... clearly there are many examples of right-wing dictatorships similarly out of touch and dysfunctional. The problem is not left vs. right as much as it is power disconnected from reality and accountability. Centralize the power to stamp out the abuses of corporations - fine... until the centralized power becomes the problem. Libertarians and anarchists, on the other hand, favor little to no government... but they forget that power is not limited to government... that corporations and private armies will become de facto governments (with no constitutional restraints).

@Putin33, "You like bringing up the 'authoritarianism' of socialist countries. You leave out the fact that attempts to implement socialism "democratically" have been met with extermination. The whole reason we had fascism in Europe was to stave off "democratic" socialist takeovers. "

Agreed - the spread of socialism in the early 20th century inspired a fascist response. Though - interestingly enough, some socialist changes such as the NIH in the UK and Social Security in the US came about during the same time frame. ...of course the battle against those still rages...

Do you propose/support violent take over by socialist systems? The best test cases for those (based on long time frame, many resources, unrestricted power by Communist party) were the Soviet Union and China. The Soviets, of course, failed, and both Russia and China now slide into capitalism... particularly nasty autocratic and corrupt versions of capitalism. This sort of crap (and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact) tends to give this approach of forcing socialism down our throats a bad name... and, at the same time, tarnishing the very idea of socialism (which doesn't have to be undemocratic - but is now often viewed as so).

"They elect a party which has those polices. Like in Venezuela"

Like in Venezuela, which is a market economy. But Chavez's efforts at reform have been met with coup attempts and economic sabotage. Thanks for making my point.

"There's no way for the people of a communist state to throw the bums out of office when they don't want those policies any more."

I'm not dodging your point. I'm pointing out that you can't "throw the bums out" in capitalist countries. You have no real choice, only choices between variants of capitalism. Genuine communist parties are banned or restricted. The best you can hope for is some capitalist party that wants to throw the workers a few crumbs, only to be taken away later. You hypocritically ignore that. You completely ignore the fact that "democratic" attempts to implement even reformist economic policies in Europe, Latin America, and Asia have been met with coups and extermination campaigns. 500,000 Indonesian communists were killed. Thousands were killed in Chile. Thousands were killed in Guatemala. Thousands were killed in Argentina. Communist peasants are being slaughtered in Colombia and the Philippines. In Colombia they tried to form the UP party, they were all assassinated by the narco-paramilitary government. But it's all ok because in some countries they let you vote for an Akel or some other social democratic party that happily follows the marching orders of the EU. That's "choice" and "accountability".

"Through sheer incompetence they built a damn which has covered up most of the best farmland and further increased the country's food instability"

What on earth are you talking about? The Nampho dam has made irrigation of larger amounts of farmland with fresh water possible, and prevented floods in the Pyongyang area. The government has committed a huge amount of resources into irrigating land for agricultural production, as well as water conservation and terracing. Hardly the sign of a government that wants to "starve its people".

"The fact that you pour out apologetics for such a truly evil government is despicable"

Yeah I'm still waiting for your condemnations of "truly evil" governments that exterminated communists the world over any time they got close to power. I won't hold my breath on that. Nor will I hold my breath until you acknowledge the fact that the North Korea was bombed to rubble and millions were slaughtered in the Korean war, a war which hasn't ended. Nor will I hold my breath until you acknowledge that South Korea had a brutal military regime, which slaughtered demonstrators at Kwangju, and is only considered a "success" now thanks to massive US military and economic support.
Despicable indeed. You're the biggest apologist for US empire on this forum, a US empire that does nothing but commit crimes against humanity, and you want to take the self-righteous tone here. Hilarious.

Reality check - Socialism and communism cannot be forced on the people. The people must embrace it. That's why the concepts of true and full communism can work at the small community level with like-minded people, but fail in larger populations where the outliers start to have a real voice and organize rather than being lone wolves who keep their mouths shut and don't rock the boat.

@Putin33, government will always be about striking a balance between giving various interest groups what they want (and occasionally doing something that benefits all)... too often listening more to the rich and powerful than to the poor (but having to balance them in some manner or other). You might, as a communist, say: "easy - put the workers in charge - put the poor in charge"... first of all, how do you do that? When has that actually been done and worked. Pol Pot tried to empower the poor and the uneducated and take power away from the elites... through mass murder and ill-conceived relocation programs. In what case does the worker run things? People who want to run things generally become managers or union bosses and, eventually, become part of the power structure... meet the new boss... same as the old boss. Communist countries take power from corporations and the existing elite... and what? What do they do with that power? Do they distribute it to the people like a utility distributes water? Not so much. Ideally they should, but how do we do that? What does political power look like in the hands of a worker that is uneducated and overworked and couldn't care less? What does political power look like in the hands of a middle manager who believes they are the engine of the economy and wish to keep the status quo? What does power look like to the rich who believe they are entitled and earned every cent they made and will ever make no matter how they "make" it. How does it look? Well, pretty much like it does right now in countries around the world. Do we get to a socialist utopia at some point? Perhaps. (I like what was envisioned in say, Star Trek, for example). This requires a lot to change - and simply installing a particular group as our supreme leaders isn't our solution. We have met the enemy... and the enemy is us. Move us from role to role and, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, the Pigs will start to look like Farmers after a bit. By the way, I'm also not saying that achieving Socialism purely through democratic means is necessarily how things will go. But, so far, trying that has resulted in bitter failure. There are times for revolution (American, French... though the road was pretty rocky for the French) - but revolution can also precipitate even deeper disaster (Russia, China). I suggest that if there was a more gradual transition to democracy in Russia and China (say if the initial revolutions were followed by constitutions and elections rather than purges and hare-brained collectivist agricultural initiatives) we might be in a better place than we are now (not to mention a few million less dead).

Reality check - every economic system is "forced on people". Stop doing lectures about 'true communism'. Unless you're content with me lecturing you about what the Bible *really* says.

agreed, Draugnar. Communism and central planning works beautifully in my home. Democratic socialism works great in various clubs, co-ops, and unions and extended families that I am either a member of or know of. Small countries like Cuba and Denmark being socialized - yeah - that can work - some hiccups but pretty good. Centrally planning a vast country that takes up 11 time zones like the USSR, not so much. ...at least not at our current levels of organization and technology. Maybe that is key - interconnectedness... and thus, technology can be key for the future.

I was lecturing on true communism. I meant as opposed to the "communist" countries today which even you will admit (I would imagine) aren't really communist or even socialist, but dictatorships where a "party" is the dictator and the people oppresed.

*wasn't lecturing

Putin33, in brief, what do you propose?

I still find it ironic that the best thing ever happened to Cuba was the US trade sanctions. Make something harder to come by and people will pay a premium. Captialism has been their salvation because capitalism drives that urge to have that which someone else says you can't have.

"aren't really communist or even socialist, but dictatorships where a "party" is the dictator and the people oppresed."

Yes, this would be lecturing about 'true communism'.

"Make something harder to come by and people will pay a premium. Captialism has been their salvation because capitalism drives that urge to have that which someone else says you can't have."

This is one of the stupidest things you've said in a long time. Sanctions have been horrible and inhumane, costing the Cuban economy billions and decreasing the availability of foodstuffs and medical equipment, among other necessities. It is economic warfare through and through.

"Putin33, in brief, what do you propose?"

Propose about what?

Draugnar said: "Make something harder to come by [...] has been their salvation"
This is right-wing idealism at its best. It is the boot-camp, school of hard knocks philosophy. Knock a people/an economy down and they will rise to the occasion. Pain results in gain. Warfare (economic, in this case) is good for a country. At least you find it ironic. That does suggest you still have some sense of the absurd.

@Putin33, How do we get to the Socialist utopia? If Cuba and East Germany and (laughably) North Korea get a buy simply because of outside pressures then at what point do we reach the socialism that gets judged on its own merits?

...as in, seriously, I wouldn't mind getting there too... but I just think it's too early in our social evolution for it to work (and that's why it hasn't yet, in my opinion)

The irony is in the fact that a capitalist economy (the demand for Cuban cigars is a luxury of capitalism) results in the communist society making more than it would have without the sanctions.

Socialism is a process. It's a long hard road. You can laugh all you want about external pressures, but millions being killed by capitalist counterrevolution is nothing to laugh at.
I'm not a 'utopian'. We have to work with the hand being dealt. In practical terms, the proletariat can be put in command of the means of production. However, the idea that this is all going to be sunshine and rainbows in the face of hostile threats is ridiculous. We might be able to relax our guard once the most powerful enemies of the working class have been overthrown, but until that time the gains made must be defended. This is class war with an enemy that has demonstrated its ruthlessness in trying to destroy anything that gets in its way. I'm not showing up to a swordfight with a plastic spoon. I'll accept co-existence with the bourgeoisie the minute they accept co-existence with the rest of us. That day, however, is not likely to come. In the meantime, while they're rounding up and terrorizing my comrades I'm not going to be sitting here crying tears about how they don't have "equal rights" in a proletarian controlled government.

"The irony is in the fact that a capitalist economy (the demand for Cuban cigars is a luxury of capitalism) results in the communist society making more than it would have without the sanctions."

Because slight inflation in cigar prices overcomes the billions lost elsewhere. Stop making a fool of yourself.

Slight inflation?! Try triple their actual value makes it to the country and you'll pay $50-$60 for a $8-10 cigar outside the US and it's blackmarket only inside.

And Putin - I don't think you know what "bourgeoisie" means. It is the "social middle class" that gets their cut from the ruling class and does their bidding. Yet you seem to refer to the ruling class as the bourgeoisie.

What percentage of GDP is the cigar industry in Cuba? Either provide evidence for your claim that "sanctions are the salvation of Cuba because of cigar prices" or shut up.

" I don't think you know what "bourgeoisie" means. It is the "social middle class" that gets their cut from the ruling class and does their bidding. Yet you seem to refer to the ruling class as the bourgeoisie."

I see words, but they make no sense. None of that makes a shred of sense whatsoever. It is convoluted, contradictory and it hurts my brain trying to sort it out.

Define working class? I am a software developer, I work 5 days a week and I am compensated for that labour. I think I am working class as I am making very little investment income.

Cubas GDP is just over 60 billion. Cigar sales made 350 million of it in 2005 or roughly .6%