Please tell us where are they trying to escape to. If they are as you say suffering under capitalism why do they then try to escape to the biggest capitalist country in the world? I believe that it would be more appropriate to say that they are running away from poverty and to a in their eyes better situation.
There are plenty of people who drown trying to escape from your Socialistic Paradise of Cuba. But for some strange reason you do not mention that in your post.
Want to know a secret? Sweden is not a socialist country (even though it feels like that sometimes :)). Sweden has had Social democratic governments for about 60 out of the last 70 years, but that does not make Sweden a socialis country. Sweden may be the prime example of the welfare state (with a lot of problems as well as merits) but we are very very far from the likes of pre-1989 Eastern Europe or Cuba. Sweden is a capitalistic welfare state!
Want to know another thing? People were moving out of Yugoslavia already in the 60s and seventies. They didn´t go to Greece though since Greece was run by a Military Junta up until 1973 (IIRC) and by a social democratic/socialist party after that. So when Greece was run by the junta they obviously did not want to go there (not that the junta would have let them). Greece was and to some extent still is a relatively poor country (it has taken large steps forward since democratization though, especially since joining the EC/EU) which is another reason they didn´t go there.
Instead they migrated to the capitalistic western democracies where the industry desperately needed skilled workers. Countries like Germany and also Sweden received a lot of immigrants from Yugoslavia.
As The Gaspode has mentioned earlier Sweden did at least 8 or 9 of the things on your list earlier with results that we are still suffering from. We´ve had marginal tax rates at 80 percent and even over 100 percent in some cases. We´ve socialized close to 100 % of the healthcare (which coincidentally capitalistic Britain has done as well with similar problems) and we´ve got massive problems with long waiting times and quality problems.
Has it occured to anyone else that, if Chumpsky were taking a class in political theory, we would have just done all his work for him? He could C&P large tracts of this thread and be done with it.
Until he has shown that he has some education on capitalism/communism/how to walk other than just being able to go to (note I did not say “find”) the CIA World Fact Book, why bother entertaining his drivel any more than to say “present a cogent argument and we will address it”? Gary Kumquat needn’t have posted anything more than “Your arguments are far from convincing. Let’s try a level playing field here. Please provide your case for the least flawed, most succesful socialist state - and I will provide an example that to me represents the most succesful capitalist state, not just financially but in terms of life expectancy, schooling, etc.” because Chumpsky, unless something drastic has changed, has yet to “show you mine”.
But of course that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong:)
Chumpsky, I must say I admire your moxy and the fact you have presented your worldview and attempted to support it. The veracity and reasonableness of your arguments can, at least in part, now be judged. I, for one, have a better understanding of your views now, although we are far from agreement. This is a much better approach you’ve taken in this thread than a lot of others where you spout only venom and hatred, including name calling and faulty rhetoric. Keep it up. Although I ain’t holding my breath, but it is a nice change of pace for you.
Horse apples. The border between the United States of America and Los Estado Unidas Mexicanos is not militarized. Now if you can prove that it is, first realizing (which I doubt you do) that the Border Patrol is not a military force, then I just might give some credence to what you have to say. As it is, the sole purpose of the Border Patrol is to enforce United States immigration laws. You know, kind of like Mexico also does for its southern border.
Odd then, isn’t it, that they’re trying to escape to another capitalist country, hey? Actually, Mexico is far from being a democratic country, although I understand there is some progress on that issue.
That’s because they make the choice to commit an illegal act and during the commission of that act they make the ill-advised choice to go through some rather unforgiving terrain without the equipment needed to survive that terrain. That is the fault of the individual committing the illegal act.
[qutoe]Not to mention the thousands who risk life and limb trying to escape from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, where, unlike Cubans who are granted automatic amnesty when they reach U.S. soil, are sent straight back to their capitalist hell-holes if they do get here.
[/quote]
Ah, more economic refugees escaping one capitalist hell hole for another. Wonder why they’re not trying for one of those workers’ paradises.
There’s that whole ocean thing going on. It’s kind of hard to walk directly from Sweden to the United Kingdom. Plus that ocean’s not always as forgiving as you might want it to be.
Another important thing is that Sweden wasn’t socialist: it was a socialist democracy, complete with actual elections where the people actually got to make a choice, unlike your workers’ paradises.
Greece wasn’t and isn’t all that prepared to accept a tide of people. Think about that for a moment.
Uh, for those who find Chumpsky’s politics to be so moral and all, yer man is currently claiming that Stalin wasn’t responsible for any deaths in the former Soviet Union (well, sorry, only a million or so).
The point that I was making is that living in the land of the free, as it were, I have a far greater change (percentage wise) of winding up in jail. The Meta point that I am making here is that there are obvious big problems with our (USA) current system. Chumpsky is one of the few posters that I encounter on theses boards that seems willing to talk about them.
Again, his politics specifically I find to be a bit naive but I still applaud his willingness to talk about the elephant in the living room.
We’re all willing to discuss changes to the system. We’d all like to see it improved. But when the best example you can give for your cause is Cuba, you really should question if your alternative has much going for it.
You are acting like those people who point out inconsistancies in the bible out of smug pride, and then expect people to give up their religions because of it. There are a lot of good, well thought out points that can be made in defense of Communism. But your “neener-neener” attitude and habit of simplifying everything into black and white doesn’t do much for your credibility. I know it can be frusterating when people refuse to even try to see things another way, and inist on spouting off blatant falsehoods. But getting defensive and nitpicky only hurts the cause.
Spare me. Those detainees were combatants in Afghanistan; while there are admittedly serious concerns over their detainment, they simply aren’t political prisoners. They were carrying guns shooting at US troops, not pamphleteering against the current regime. Nor are they being subjected to political indoctrination.
Not sure Dewey - if they were combatants, why aren’t they being treated as POW’s? If they’re not POW’s, what’s the crime? I hate to say it, but they look detained to me.
OK sure, I am willing to admit that by your definition that they are not political prisoners (although to be fair, I have a little trouble seeing the distinction between a prisoner of war and a political prisoner insofar as war seems to me to inherently be of form of political conflict.That said I can see how others would differ in opinion). However, I think that you are deliberately focusing on minutia in order to avoid the big issue.
So here it is: The big point: The fact that a country (i.e. the good old USA) with 5% of the global population has 25% of the world’s prison population is a very alarming statistic and one which (to my eye) is a strong indication that there is something very dysfunctional with our system.
The fact that more than 30 Million people live below our stated poverty level (which is unrealistically low IMHO) is also an indication that there is a big problem here.
So, perhaps you can just spell something out for me here, rather than continuing your bullshit nitpicking. Are you actually content with things in this country the way that they are? Do you actually believe that there is not a need for some drastic and sweeping reform?
What, if anything, does the number of criminals incarcerated have to do with the political structure of the current governmental system? Why are the rates of criminal incarceration so much lower in some European countries with similar political systems? What specific reforms to this structure would you suggest be made to reduce the number of criminals incarcerated here? What examples of other countries can you point to where these reforms have been enacted and successfully reduced the number of criminal incarcerations?
I’m not trying to pick a fight here; I just don’t see the correlation you seem to find so blindingly obvious.
Let me make sure that I understand your point here. Are you proposing that a government that finds it necessary to deprive its citizens of their freedom at a rate that is radically out of proportion with the rest of the planet is not in need of reform?
But to try to answer your question as I understand it; in that (as far as I can see) the reason that prisons exist is so that we can remove people from society so that the group as a whole can be safe, we can then assume that if in order for this society to function a large proportion of its citizens must be incarcerated than there is something wrong with the system as a whole. Is that wildly off base?
Probably a fairer comparision would be some of the near-laboratory examples provided by Marxism.
Compare, for instance, North and South Korea. Which of these two not-at-all-ethnicly diverse countries does a better job with what has been given them?
Of course the comparison is somewhat unfair - to South Korea. North Korea originally had more heavy industry, and South Korea was the invaded country. But how have each done over the last few decades?
North Korea - GDP purchasing power parity - $21.8 billion
GDP real growth rate - -3%
“…faces desperate economic conditions. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair…Despite a good harvest in 2001, the nation faces its eighth year of food shortages… Massive international aid deliveries have allowed the regime to escape mass starvation since 1995-1996, but the population remains vulnerable to prolonged malnutrition…Large scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian development…”
South Korea - GDP purchasing power parity - $865 billion
GDP real growth rate - +3.3%
“As one of the Four Tigers of East Asia, South Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth. Three decades ago GDP per capita was comparable with levels in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia. Today its GDP per capita is seven times India’s, 17 times North Korea’s, and comparable to the lesser economies of the European Union.”
The CIA World Factbook, 2002.
Shall I trot out the infant mortality, life expectancy, and other figures, or can we take it as proven that randomly dividing a country in half, running one as a Marxist dictatorship and the other as a capitalist economy, will show that all other things being equal, Marxism fails miserably?
Perhaps we should do the same with East and West Germany? Is it necessary?
No…I’m asking you what those reforms should be. Please reread my previous post.
You’re welcome to bounce rhetorical questions off me till the cows come home, but until you explain what reforms are needed to reduce the number of persons in prison in the US (which is, after all, your assertion), I’m done.
You know, the more I read about socialism, the more it seems to me that it’s primary reason for being/cure for said reason is:
Hey…you make more money than I do!! Give it to me!! (because it’s so unfair, you see…)
Also “The fact that more than 30 Million people live below our stated poverty level (which is unrealistically low IMHO) is also an indication that there is a big problem here.”
You realize, of course, that if we were to raise the “poverty level” to (say) $100K, there would be lots of people “living in poverty” at $80K/year?? I know there are lots of people who do live in dire poverty in this country…I lived for years just 30 miles away from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation…but there are tons of people living in countries around the world who would give anything to live in that poverty, because it’s so much better than what they are living in now. In other words, while there are lots of things wrong with this country, it’s still better than anything else out there, and what IS wrong has a much better chance of getting fixed than with any socialistic plan you can name.
I did read your post, in which you seem to ask two questions. One of which I answered in my last post.
You asked:
[ul]
[li]What, if anything, does the number of criminals incarcerated have to do with the political structure of the current governmental system?…[/li][/ul]
to which I responded:
**…But to try to answer your question as I understand it; in that (as far as I can see) the reason that prisons exist is so that we can remove people from society so that the group as a whole can be safe, we can then assume that if in order for this society to function a large proportion of its citizens must be incarcerated than there is something wrong with the system as a whole. Is that wildly off base? **
You also asked what reforms I propose. I am not trying to avoid this issue; rather it is one that I am still thinking about. One thing that comes to mind immediately is that we end the war on drugs at once and release all prisoners that have been jailed as a result of said war 21% of the prison population as of the year 2000 by the way.
I also firmly believe that something has to be done about the huge gap between the rich and the poor. I understand (and share) the reservations that a lot of people have about just redistributing wealth (basically taking money away from folks that feel that they have earned it), but that does not mean that I am unwilling to admit that this is a problem (as so many posters here seem to be).
See, the thing is this, I am not (like the poster to whom this pit thread is directed) a socialist. I am also not a politician or policy maker. By demanding that I come up with solutions, you are missing the point (and doing it in a pretty hostile way, I might add). If in my earlier posts I was not clear, allow me to extend my apologies. What I am trying to say is that I believe that there are some serious flaws with the current system in the USA. Further, I think that these problems are worth talking about.
[quote]
**Binarydrone[/]: Are you proposing that a government that finds it necessary to deprive its citizens of their freedom at a rate that is radically out of proportion with the rest of the planet is not in need of reform?
[quote]
Actually, we’re behind Russia.(PDF file)
And are you saying that there are too many people wrongly in prison, or that Americans are much more likely to commit crime?
(on preview I see you’ve sort of addressed this)