Cuba and China.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Obviously, the folks who had problems with the government in China - dissidents, Falun Gong, Dalai Lama followers, etc. - don't feel much loyalty to the the place. But they are a very tiny minority.

they are a tiny minority because they have high attrition rate

Communism is bad, mmkay.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Tobra

they are a tiny minority because they have high attrition rate

Communism is bad, mmkay.

No argument here. China has an authoritarian government. Communist they most certainly are not.

[Hard-Deck]

Several years ago while doing research for my PhD in Cultural Anthropology I talked to an older Chinese man who told me his grandfather once asked him, "Do you know why we don't have much hair on our arms, chest, face?" To which he replied, "Because we're farthest evolved from the apes compared to all other societies."

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by MRM

WWB, that's the kind of thinking we in the hinterlands always suspected came out of Madison and Milwaukee

Seriously, Communism was one of the greatest evils ever foisted upon mankind. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a usefull idiot (to use a Soviet term) or horribly naive and uneducated. It's not a subject that is open to debate. Count the bodies.

Rick and I have had this discussion before, but when you meet any mainland Chinese 40 years old or older, he or she survived the Cultural Revolution. Except they don't call it that there. They call it The Ten Years of Upheaval, or, more commonly, they just refer to the date. Nothing more needs to be said. You know how many millions of people died of starvation during the Cultural Revolution? Neither does anyone else. You know how many millions of people died of starvation under Stalin - in the 20s and 30s? Nope, that number is lost to history too. Too many to count accurately. And then the Terror came in the 50s and the blood really ran. 10 million? 12? 20?

Say what you want about Nixon and Reagan, but one quarter of the world's population lives an infinitely better life today because Nixon went to China. Talk to anyone who was there during the time and they will tell you things started to get better the day Nixon arrived. And the day Mao died things got even better.

And because Reagan had the balls to tell Gorby to tear down the wall, another quarter of the world's population lives better. I just heard a lecture by Allan Greenspan. He credited the success of the 1990s to the fall of the wall, not the tech boom. He said the utter failure of the planned economy lead to the fall. We in the west had assumed that the East lived at about 80 the standard of living as Western Europe. It turned out to be more like 30-40%. That's right, because of Communism all of Eastern Europe lived a standard of living that was one third the level of what it should have been. And that's just the standard of living, to say nothing of the lack of freedom.

That's why your hosts had such a wicked sarcastic sense of humor. They had to laugh at the absurdities of life or die. By the way, of Eastern Europe, Hungary was the most free, independent and western. You'd have loved East Berlin or Beijing.

MRM, I think that you may have came to an incorrect conclusion per what I meant in that post. I totally agree with your assessment of the USSR's version of communism. My grandparents came from far Eastern Europe (actually right on the Russian border) so I have a quite intimate appreciation of what you said. What I meant was that communism/socialism per se is not bad...it's the way it's applied...and that's really not much different than what can evolve in a democracy...if you know what I mean.

The monstrous human devastation you mentioned was of such a scale that it is still etched in the minds of many of those people. Few Americans realize this and they often cannot understand the attitude and fears of the people who went thru that horrific period.

The "communism" thing is exactly my point per China. Our government had no problem demonizing "communism" as it applied to the USSR but with China it is almost never mentioned. This omission becomes glaring when you start to pay attnetion whenever they speak about China. It was always "Communist" Russia or USSR but how often do you see any USA offical refer to "Communist" China?

Also, you and I may have a difference of opinion on exactly how much of an impact Reagan had on the fall of the USSR. During a trip to Germany I had a very interesting talk with a stranger when I was visiting Saxen-Hausen (sp) park in Frankfort. This was around 1982 and he told me that there was no doubt that "the wall" would be gone because in his opinion it already was mostly symbolic. He explained that he was a trader who regularly did business with both sides and that "the wall" was a farce. As things turned out, it was a quite remarkable conversation since his predictions turned out to be totally correct the way things developed.

That's why I always smile when people pretend it was a Reagan thing.

[Zef]

$$$$$$$$$$.....Our God...!

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

MRM, I think that you may have came to an incorrect conclusion per what I meant in that post. I totally agree with your assessment of the USSR's version of communism. My grandparents came from far Eastern Europe (actually right on the Russian border) so I have a quite intimate appreciation of what you said. What I meant was that communism/socialism per se is not bad...it's the way it's applied...and that's really not much different than what can evolve in a democracy...if you know what I mean.

The monstrous human devastation you mentioned was of such a scale that it is still etched in the minds of many of those people. Few Americans realize this and they often cannot understand the attitude and fears of the people who went thru that horrific period.

The "communism" thing is exactly my point per China. Our government had no problem demonizing "communism" as it applied to the USSR but with China it is almost never mentioned. This omission becomes glaring when you start to pay attnetion whenever they speak about China. It was always "Communist" Russia or USSR but how often do you see any USA offical refer to "Communist" China?

Also, you and I may have a difference of opinion on exactly how much of an impact Reagan had on the fall of the USSR. During a trip to Germany I had a very interesting talk with a stranger when I was visiting Saxen-Hausen (sp) park in Frankfort. This was around 1982 and he told me that there was no doubt that "the wall" would be gone because in his opinion it already was mostly symbolic. He explained that he was a trader who regularly did business with both sides and that "the wall" was a farce. As things turned out, it was a quite remarkable conversation since his predictions turned out to be totally correct the way things developed.

That's why I always smile when people pretend it was a Reagan thing.

The Wall may have been symbolic for western businessmen and tourists who could come and go as they pleased. But for those on the other side of it, it was very much a prison perimeter, which could get you killed for trying to cross it. Yes, I guess it really was symbolic....symbolic of what was needed for communist gov't. to stay in power and not let greener pastures deplete their captive population. No real communist country can allow free travel because the well-heeled party bosses and generals who run such states would have no serfs left producing for them if those serfs were allowed to travel. China even requires visas for its Mainland citizens to visit Hong Kong, yet I, as a U.S. Citizen, don't need one to visit Hong Kong.

[MRM]

WWB, with all due respect, the American left has been preaching the matra that Communism isn't bad, per se, but the governments that have adopted it were corrupted. This view doesn't pass serious examination. Communism is unique for requiring the death of its oponents as well as anyone who gets in the way. I reccomend some reading on communism from post-soviet era writers, including the execclent (if dry) biogrophy of Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore. The universal opinion of serious scholars is that the death and privation that occurred under every communist government to exist was not a matter of perverting communism but came about as the nature of communism itself.

As for the wall falling on its own, you should not put much faith in the glib comments of a trader you met on the street. I would have said something similar to impress you had I met you in East Berlin or Beijing in 1986. The fact of the matter is that The Wall was built to keep the people from escaping and the second it failed at that task the regime collapsed. People were being killed trying to escape just weeks before The Wall fell. Whether traders who could pay off border officails with hard currency would pass at will is irrelevant, and only makes my point, if anything.

The fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union was funding world revolution as far flung as the IRA, Castro, Daniel Ortega, the ANC, Yasir Arafat, and the various Eurpean revolutionary groups until Ronald Reagan challenged Gorby to tear down The Wall. And within months of the challenge, the Soviet Union wasn't funding anything.

What happend? The end of Apartheid in South Africa because the communist outside influence of the ANC was not longer an issue. The IRA was forced to enter into peace talks. Yasir Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, South and Central America turned to democracy, Daniel Ortega lost an election and his country became a home to investment. And you and I lived better lives spending the peace dividend.

[Wickd89]

China did not seize US assets as Fidel did in Cuba. America had tons of $ invested in Cuba, and (similar to what Chavez wants to do) Fidel took it and made it state property. You do not do this to the Duponts and Rockefellers of the world.

[WI wide body]

["What happend? The end of Apartheid in South Africa because the communist outside influence of the ANC was not longer an issue. The IRA was forced to enter into peace talks. Yasir Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, South and Central America turned to democracy, Daniel Ortega lost an election and his country became a home to investment. And you and I lived better lives spending the peace dividend.[/QUOTE]


That is huge simplification of some quite complex situations and how they developed. In South Africa the ANC, SWAPO, UDF, UNIP, ZANU, and probably others all played roles...often convoluted. Mugabe's role and the eventual ANC/SACP alliance was never simple and often not even clearly defined. Mandela himself repeatedly affirmed the ANC’s close cooperation with the South African Communist Party. This is conveniently overlooked by those who want to pretend that Apartheid died because communism went away.

I fail to see your connection between the IRA, communism, and the peace talks or the Arafat connection with communism.

As for Ortega, surely you jest. Ortega may have lost the 1990 election but he never lost influence. Who is the current president of Nicaragua?

[alf]

China is a one party dictatorship
Cuba is a one dictator dictatorship
We are a 2 party dictatorship

[trap]

I have been to Cuba - there are no horned people there, either - none that I saw anyway. Nor was there anyone controlling what I could and could not see - but then again, we didn't try to find secret bases/prisons/etc. We traveled freely in Havana - although I could believe someone was around to occasionally to keep an eye on things. But no horned devils were seen.

Poverty - yes, very much so. In some places dirt floors, exposed wires, etc. Some of the peso shops are in pretty bad shape - not much there. The dollar stores, however, were a different story. Walking around downtown Havana, however, is much like walking around any other world city. It has a distinct European feel. Other countries are investing - and, of course, the U.S. has an extremely nice building there in a extremely nice location. As opposed to many of the buildings on the embassy row, the U.S. building is fairly new (90s, I think) - it's also huge in comparison.

I met some of the nicest people imaginable there. The whole thing - from communism to the embargo - is extremely unfortunate, in my opinion.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by dd74

If you want real worries, look to Russia. That country is quickly turning rogue starting first with Putin.

Which is why Time's choice of Putin for "Person of the Year" is spot on! I'm dumbfounded why, apparently, so little concern is shown over the potential rise of Russia.

Their geographical proximity to the ME and their dealings with Iran should cause us very real worries.

Why our government is not alerted to this to the extent that it be diplomatically engaging with the Russians on a daily basis is puzzling and scary to me. Putin is a very scary thug.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Wickd89

China did not seize US assets as Fidel did in Cuba. America had tons of $ invested in Cuba, and (similar to what Chavez wants to do) Fidel took it and made it state property. You do not do this to the Duponts and Rockefellers of the world.

The USA was not exactly lilly white in the demise of Cuba/USA relations. The USA granted Cuba independence in 1902 but often interferred in their internal affairs. We do that dumb ***** in foreign nations and then wonder why they don't like us.

Probably it was at the behest of those cute corporations you mentioned. Actually that's not true since the biggest business players in Cuba at that time were a huge fruit company that became Chiquita Banana and the American mob!

By the 1930's USA companies owned or controlled about 60 percent of Cuba's total crops. That tends to piss off the home folks! Maybe that's why Castro was able to overthrow the American and mob backed Batista regime.

I think that Fidel offered compensation that was rejected before he took over the American holdings. That coupled with him getting in bed with the Soviets (what else was he to do at that point) led to our screwed up policy per Cuba that has lasted for almost 50 years now.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by trap

I have been to Cuba - there are no horned people there, either - none that I saw anyway. Nor was there anyone controlling what I could and could not see - but then again, we didn't try to find secret bases/prisons/etc. We traveled freely in Havana - although I could believe someone was around to occasionally to keep an eye on things. But no horned devils were seen.

Poverty - yes, very much so. In some places dirt floors, exposed wires, etc. Some of the peso shops are in pretty bad shape - not much there. The dollar stores, however, were a different story. Walking around downtown Havana, however, is much like walking around any other world city. It has a distinct European feel. Other countries are investing - and, of course, the U.S. has an extremely nice building there in a extremely nice location. As opposed to many of the buildings on the embassy row, the U.S. building is fairly new (90s, I think) - it's also huge in comparison.

I met some of the nicest people imaginable there. The whole thing - from communism to the embargo - is extremely unfortunate, in my opinion.

I have never been to Cuba but you are correct. Cuba should have been "Canada South" but instead our stupid government seemed more willing to assist greedy, corrupt businesses that resulted in the situation we have today.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Which is why Time's choice of Putin for "Person of the Year" is spot on! I'm dumbfounded why, apparently, so little concern is shown over the potential rise of Russia.

Their geographical proximity to the ME and their dealings with Iran should cause us very real worries.

Why our government is not alerted to this to the extent that it be diplomatically engaging with the Russians on a daily basis is puzzling and scary to me. Putin is a very scary thug.

Everything you have said is true. Washington is full of clods who have convinced themselves (probably because they said it so often to convince us!) that terrorism is our biggest threat.

Bush and the spineless Dems in Congress seem to have no problem playing tough guy with Iran (for something they don't even have) or with Afghanistan or Iraq while ignoring what Turkey, Pakistan, Israel, China, and Russia are doing. If you pay attention it looks like a classic case of the schoolyard bully: we seem ready to jump and fight the weak guys but play it cool with the true tough guys. Maybe that's why the axxholes of Team Bush who beat the drums for war are called chickenhawks. No wait a minute, that's because they never served in the military but love war.

[trap]

It IS Canada South - at least some parts anyway. Lots of Canadian tourists at the time. To make it better for them, everything is in dollars.

[john70t]

It could be argued that the US is quickly moving towards a "Communist" model- that being complete governmental control over ever thought and action of individuals.

Ok, mabye facism would be a better discription (because it doesn't incorporate the direct seizing and distribution of personal wealth), but the trend towards a credit, cash-less society where assets(which can be seized at the push of a button) are indirectly sourced from the government through restricted lending and distributing laws.
This senario, I believe, leaves the American public vulnerable to a centralized seizure and abuse of power should it ever occur.

Nowadays, everyone wants to know your business:
-The NSA tracks and records all citizens communications without warrent or just cause-isp, cell phone location,etc...(even though statistically you're more likely to die in a hospital from incompetance, or flattened by an SUV, than from some deranged suicidal foreigner).
-Corporate chains want to track your every spending habit through radio frequency chips, facial recognition software, etc.- all of which could be incorporated into a governmental program at the drop of a hat.
-Etc...etc... the list goes on.

[john70t]

The capitalist-democratic system still has elements of centralized(communist) control in the way of laws, but they are mostly lax/flexible enough to allow for changing economic conditions, and allow for a degree of expansion of personal wealth/upward mobiity through non-centralized channels. That's key.

[DARISC]

[QUOTE=WI wide body;3660361]Everything you have said is true. Washington is full of clods who have convinced themselves (probably because they said it so often to convince us!) that terrorism is our biggest threat.

EXACTLY what enrages me. To say "headaches are our greatest threat" exhibits abject stupidity! The CAUSE of our headaches is our greatest threat!!! Yeah, terrorism is a lethal SYMPTOM of our greatest threat; the CAUSE of terrorism!

"The War on Terrorism!" hue and cry has driven me crazy since the first I heard it uttered because it has always been completely uncoupled from the source of the problem. Gee, kinda like "The War on Drugs!" about which I have drawn similar conclusions.

Bush and the spineless Dems in Congress seem to have no problem playing tough guy with Iran (for something they don't even have) or with Afghanistan or Iraq while ignoring what Turkey, Pakistan, Israel, China, and Russia are doing. If you pay attention it looks like a classic case of the schoolyard bully: we seem ready to jump and fight the weak guys but play it cool with the true tough guys. Maybe that's why the axxholes of Team Bush who beat the drums for war are called chickenhawks. No wait a minute, that's because they never served in the military but love war.

Which further infuriates me because I'm a veteran of our filthy little war in Viet Nam, in which I served HONORABLY, then protested VEHEMENTLY when I was back in college.....because I love my country and am PATRIOTIC, not a closed minded chicken hawk right winger who thinks he loves war but has NO FUKKING IDEA WHAT IT IS ABOUT IF HE HASN'T BEEN UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL WITH THE BLOOD AND GUTS, BE IT THE ENEMY'S OR HIS BUD'S!

I am particularly disgusted by those who accuse those who criticise our foreign policy as aiding and abetting the enemy, putting our troops at risk and being an unpatriotic commie socialist. That behaviour shows the ultimate disrespect for our brave men and women on the ground who are valiantly and courageously performing as they have sworn to do and should NOT be used as TOOLS to further ANYone's political arguement - that is ABHORRENT because, guaranteed, there are many of our military on the ground who feel as opposed to our policies, and it is cruel to use them in such a manner because they are fighting for their lives every minute of every day and don't have the luxury to ponder and pontificate - they just want to do their job and return home alive to their loved one's.

Welcome to the melee here - hope to read more of your posts.[/QUOTE]
..

[tabs]

Poor working conditions..try Ford in 1920.

Stalin became the poster boy for communism...Stalin was not an internationalist he was about agrandizing his own power. Stalin was an aberation of history, along with AH. He imprinted the Soviet and Eastern Bloc system which lasted till the last of the ole boyz who served under him passed from the scene.

Castro to get rid of the corrupting influence of the US and US Mob had only one choich to kick out the USA. Those forces and their Cuban allies didn't take kindly to that.

Iran...ditto

China. The government in China to stay in power has to develope the country to give a better life to it's people. To accomplish that they have allowed capitalism to florish. Everything the Chinese do is based upon the premise of internal development. No foreign persuasion will move the Chinese, change will only take place on a Chinese time table. The Chinese exert power by intertwining themselves with other nations, thus the interests of the US become the interests of China.