Kevin Rudd is perhaps Australia's most unfortunate politician since Gough Whitlam. However, Whitlam was taken down by people outside of his own party, whereas the unfortunate Mr Rudd suffered the ignominy of betrayal from his own party.
This was a massive fall from grace after Rudd led a resounding Labor victory in 2007 against 12 years of John Howard's Liberal government. The victory was so comprehensive that Howard himself lost his seat to political newcomer, Maxine McKew; a seat which Howard had held for 33 years!
In 2010, Rudd resigned as Prime Minister after a leadership challenge from Deputy Leader, Julia Gillard. A challenge which was driven by the so-called "faceless men" of the Labor party, including Bill Shorten, Bill Ludwig, Paul Howes, Mark Arbib and David Feeney.
Rudd's resignation was a matter of jumping before he was pushed and it may have included a deal that he would be given a front-bench position if the ALP won the upcoming election. Following the 2010 federal election, Rudd was handed the Foreign Affairs portfolio.
On 22 February 2012, after months of intense media speculation and public criticism by ALP members, Rudd resigned as Foreign Affairs Minister. He stated that he did not have the confidence of the Prime Minister and other senior ministers and that the leadership crisis had descended into soap opera. He singled out Simon Crean and referred again to Labor's "faceless men".
Labor's infighting is destroying it. Labor factions are more interested in their own agendas then in ensuring stable leadership and maintaining a united front against the Liberal and National parties. Over the years, the Labor party has suffered crises serious enough to split the party. In 1916, Prime Minister Billy Hughes left Labor and formed the Nationalist Party of Australia. In 1931, Joseph Lyons left Labor over policy issues and formed the United Australia Party. In 1954, after years of intense public debate over communism, a number of Labor members were expelled and formed the Democratic Labor Party, headed by B.A. Santamaria. The DLP directed preferences to the Liberal Party, effectively keeping them in power until Whitlam won the election in 1972 for the ALP.
Modern Labor is still a very divided party, with membership aligned to factions and sub-factions. This factional allegiance is often controlled and influenced by the powerful union secretaries. This in itself should not be an issue. However, these factional allegiances and power-plays seem to be more important to Labor than actually defeating opposition parties.
The betrayal of 2010 resulted from the ALP's right wing faction installing a left wing factional member as leader. However, there has been speculation that Gillard's membership of the left wing faction was more a matter of convenience to support her political ambitions than a genuine commitment to the left. The left wing faction supports Rudd over Gillard and Gillard's position has moved more to the right.
Factions are not the sole domain of the Labor Party. Most large parties will have some form of factional differences. The Liberal Party for instance, have their own factional in-fighting. Liberal front-bencher, Andrew Robb blamed the Liberal factions for the devastating 2007 federal election loss in an interview with ABC Radio's PM program: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2118506.htm
The Labor Party's factions however, seem to spend far more time arguing in public than the Liberal Party's. This public bickering and infighting is detracting from the ALP's achievements under both Rudd and Gillard, since it won office in 2007. Additionally, the ALP membership base has been deteriorating and these public brawls amongst members and factions do not portray a harmonious party united by a common, over-arching ideology. Who would want to join, or remain in, a party in which there is so much mud-slinging and back-stabbing between its own members?
Debate along factional lines is healthy, however, at some point there needs to be negotiation and compromise in order to develop policies and establish a cohesive party position. This united position must be shown to the public in order to rebuild trust and faith in Labor and to prove that the ALP can both govern itself and the nation.
Regardless of the outcome of the leadership challenge on 27 February 2012, all Labor members must accept it by supporting the leader and working together in harmony if the ALP is to successfully challenge the next election and to be a viable political force in the future.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood!
Armchair politicians often pass an overarching assessment of politics in the Middle East, declaring that there will never be peace because "they are always fighting".
Always fighting?
It is true that there have been a number of wars in the Middle East. However, if such judgement is to be passed then it may be prudent to remember that the most violent continent for centuries has been Europe, which has suffered more wars and more casualties as the result of war than any other continent as the following charts show.
Between 1500 and 1800AD there were 66 wars or battles of significance fought on European soil, while only 3 wars or battles of significance were fought in the Middle East. That is 22 times the number of battles in Europe than in the Middle East.
In the 19th century, Europe experienced almost 3 times the number of wars and deaths than the Middle East experienced.
In the 20th century, deaths from war in the Middle East paled in comparison to the violence in Europe. Whilst Europe had almost twice the number of wars than the Middle East, the death toll from those wars was 25 times worse than the death toll from wars in the Middle East during that period.
Throughout the western world, racist rhetoric argues that multiculturalism doesn't work, that Asians and Arabs don't know how to integrate and that Western nations are peaceful. This rhetoric expects that people from other countries will just give up their culture, rather than retain their culture and embrace the new one. The rhetoric often includes allegations that these "foreigners" come from violent cultures while ignoring our own violent history.
At some stage, each Middle Eastern despot has been encouraged and supported by the West for strategic political interests while the local population suffers. The last century has been punctuated with global conflict exported by western nations in the name of "liberty". A liberty that we believe should be thrust on other nations regardless of their wishes or needs. A liberty delivered by hands dabbled in blood!
Additionally, during the Cold War, both the USA and the USSR used the world as their own violent playgrounds, waging wars and massacres in the name of their own political ideologies, whether it was dressed up as Socialism, Democracy or Liberty. The war between Iran and Iraq would most likely not have occurred had it not been for the influence of Moscow and Washington. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR in the 1980s would not have occurred had it not been for the agitation by the USA in encouraging Afghan insurgents to wage terrorist attacks on USSR territories. This war resulted in the creation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda; both of which received impetus through the USA funding of the Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
If we are to see a reduction in war, we should not be waging more war. A war on terror will only beget more war and more terrorism. We judge the Middle East as being a violent place and use that to justify invasions, attacks and wars. Yet looking at the above charts, it is the war-faring nations of Europe which are the most violent.
George W. Bush once stated that "They hate our freedoms" when referring to Islamic terrorists. It isn't our freedom they hate, but the violence and injustices that have been manifested in countries across the globe as powerful European and American nations forcibly deliver blood-soaked Democracy and Liberty to the world. Yet as Oscar Wilde once said "When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood, it is difficult to shake hands with her".
Acknowledging our history and choosing not to relive it will ensure that we can have a future free from war, a future of peace. Rather than passing asinine and ill-informed judgement on people from the Middle East or other areas, we should understand their history, the impact that western nations have on them and then work together to build a better world.
The following statement is reportedly from a German Muslim scholar when asked about terrorism and Islam, "Who started the First World War? Muslims? Who started the Second World War? Muslims? Who killed about 20 millions of aborigines in Australia? Muslims? Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Muslims? Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Muslims? Who killed nearly 50 millions of Indians in South America? Muslims? Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in the Atlantic Ocean? Muslims?? No, they weren't Muslims!!! First of all, you have to define terrorism properly ... if a non-Muslim do something bad, it is crime. If a Muslim commit same, he is a terrorist. So first remove this double standard ... then come to the point!!!"
This comment and the message you should take from this blog is:
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye."
Always fighting?
It is true that there have been a number of wars in the Middle East. However, if such judgement is to be passed then it may be prudent to remember that the most violent continent for centuries has been Europe, which has suffered more wars and more casualties as the result of war than any other continent as the following charts show.
Between 1500 and 1800AD there were 66 wars or battles of significance fought on European soil, while only 3 wars or battles of significance were fought in the Middle East. That is 22 times the number of battles in Europe than in the Middle East.
In the 19th century, Europe experienced almost 3 times the number of wars and deaths than the Middle East experienced.
In the 20th century, deaths from war in the Middle East paled in comparison to the violence in Europe. Whilst Europe had almost twice the number of wars than the Middle East, the death toll from those wars was 25 times worse than the death toll from wars in the Middle East during that period.
World War II was the worst war that the world has seen and was the result of European nationalism.
Following this, the European dominated United Nations, with heavy influence from Britain, enabled the creation of Israel. A conflict borne of violence and which continues to this day in violence as a direct result of European interference in the region.
Prior to that, there was the attack on the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, not because of its threat to Europe, but because of British interest in middle eastern oil. This lust for oil drove British and US corporate and military activities throughout the Middle East for most of the 20th century.
At some stage, each Middle Eastern despot has been encouraged and supported by the West for strategic political interests while the local population suffers. The last century has been punctuated with global conflict exported by western nations in the name of "liberty". A liberty that we believe should be thrust on other nations regardless of their wishes or needs. A liberty delivered by hands dabbled in blood!
Additionally, during the Cold War, both the USA and the USSR used the world as their own violent playgrounds, waging wars and massacres in the name of their own political ideologies, whether it was dressed up as Socialism, Democracy or Liberty. The war between Iran and Iraq would most likely not have occurred had it not been for the influence of Moscow and Washington. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR in the 1980s would not have occurred had it not been for the agitation by the USA in encouraging Afghan insurgents to wage terrorist attacks on USSR territories. This war resulted in the creation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda; both of which received impetus through the USA funding of the Mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
If we are to see a reduction in war, we should not be waging more war. A war on terror will only beget more war and more terrorism. We judge the Middle East as being a violent place and use that to justify invasions, attacks and wars. Yet looking at the above charts, it is the war-faring nations of Europe which are the most violent.
George W. Bush once stated that "They hate our freedoms" when referring to Islamic terrorists. It isn't our freedom they hate, but the violence and injustices that have been manifested in countries across the globe as powerful European and American nations forcibly deliver blood-soaked Democracy and Liberty to the world. Yet as Oscar Wilde once said "When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood, it is difficult to shake hands with her".
Acknowledging our history and choosing not to relive it will ensure that we can have a future free from war, a future of peace. Rather than passing asinine and ill-informed judgement on people from the Middle East or other areas, we should understand their history, the impact that western nations have on them and then work together to build a better world.
The following statement is reportedly from a German Muslim scholar when asked about terrorism and Islam, "Who started the First World War? Muslims? Who started the Second World War? Muslims? Who killed about 20 millions of aborigines in Australia? Muslims? Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Muslims? Who killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America? Muslims? Who killed nearly 50 millions of Indians in South America? Muslims? Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and was thrown in the Atlantic Ocean? Muslims?? No, they weren't Muslims!!! First of all, you have to define terrorism properly ... if a non-Muslim do something bad, it is crime. If a Muslim commit same, he is a terrorist. So first remove this double standard ... then come to the point!!!"
This comment and the message you should take from this blog is:
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye."
Monday, January 30, 2012
Aboriginal Embassy - Ancient history or current affairs?
The recent "so-called" riot by Aboriginal Tent Embassy supporters in front of a restaurant in which Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott were dining has been milked by the media and politicians. Yet again, the voices calling for justice for indigenous people have been overwhelmed by the clamour for political point scoring.
Firstly, it was not a "riot". It was a protest. People clap hands, shout and generally make a noise at a protest rally. That was all that this was. The security staff over-reacted by dragging the Prime Minister and practically frog-marching Abbott to the Prime Minister's car. The "riot" did not break any laws. The media staffer who gave a heads-up to a representative of the Tent Embassy has also not done anything wrong. He reported to her what was said on the radio - a public medium. The PM and Abbott were in a public restaurant not far from the Tent Embassy.
So let's "move on" from the political posturing and look at the reason why there is an Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Abbott claims that it is time for the tent embassy to move on. That would be fine, if the issues that prompted it to be established in the first place, had actually been resolved.
How many Australians know of, or care about, the injustice that was forced onto Aborigines for nearly two centuries and which continues to this day?
During Australia Day there was the usual "patriotic" claims such as "This is Australia, we eat meat, we drink beer, we speak English". Of course, we speak English. What else would we speak? After all, the original languages of this land were deemed illegal. In fact, throughout the 19th and most of the 20th century it was illegal for aborigines to practice their culture and to speak their language; they couldn't even marry without the permission of the government.
The Australian government forced aborigines from their tribal lands and into settlements where they were forced to mix with dozens of tribes, some of whom were not from their area, in fact, some were Pacific or Torres Strait Islanders. It should be pointed out at this stage, that aborigines have very complex kinship laws. Traditionally, aboriginal tribes tended to mix with 2 or 3 other tribes in their neighbouring areas. In order to maintain the purity of the blood-line they had complex laws governing who could marry whom. The forced removal literally destroyed the kinship customs that had been practiced for millenia and destroyed the very essence, the very spirit of these tribes.
To complete the destruction of aboriginal culture and to further the humiliation, aborigines were classified under the Flora and Fauna Act. In the 19th century they were equated, by law, with animals and were not counted in the census until 1967. At the turn of the 20th century, it was an accepted practice to hunt and shoot aborigines, with little or no repercussions. Do you still wonder why there is a Tent Embassy? Do you wonder why they burnt the Australian flag on Australia Day? A flag which symbolises ethnic and cultural cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing? Is that too harsh? In the 1930s, under the Aborigine Act, aborigines could apply to "cease being aboriginal" so that they could claim the same rights as white people. Culturally banned, equated with animals, considered unable to care for themselves; thousands of years of history ignored and erased. Many of them were subject to rape by white land-owners. And then came the stolen generation. The forced removal of children from their parents in the name of protecting the aborigines from immoral influences in tribal communities. However, A.O. Neville, the Western Australian Chief Protector of Aborigines, stated the real reason for the removal of the children, when he wrote in the West Australian in 1930: "eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white".
Aborigines were forced to abide by British and then Australian law, whilst being unable to practice their own laws or culture. The Tent Embassy has been wanting a treaty with the Australian government in order to move on from the ethnic & cultural cleansing that aborigines suffered.
In the 1980's a number of people from Palm Island successfully sued the Queensland government for wages that had been held in trust for decades. This case took over 10 years to be resolved and each complainant was offered $7,000. It wasn't until 1999, that the Queensland government introduced the "Underpayment of Award Wages Process" to address the underpayment of indigenous wages and then in 2002 the Queensland government introduced the "Indigenous Wages and Savings Reparations Offer" which provided between $2,000 and $4,000 to workers depending on the age. How many white Australians would work in order for their wages to be held by the government for 70 years and to be reimbursed $7,000?
In the 1990's two landmark decisions were handed down which finally over-turned the concept of terra nullius, the idea that the land had been uninhabited when European settlers arrived. These two cases resulted in the Mabo and Wik decisions granting land rights for indigenous peoples.
The apology from the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2007 was a momentous occasion and the first time that the Australian government had publicly acknowledged the damage that was done to an entire race of people.
The apology is just words. Without action it is almost meaningless. The subsequent speech by the Opposition reiterated why the Tent Embassy is still relevant. The Opposition's speech in response to Rudd's apology merely continued blaming aborigines for their own plight and refusing to accept the impact that the government has had and in many ways, continues to have, on aboriginal people.
Many indigenous people are still living in abject poverty, with poor health, low levels of education and limited job opportunities. Indigenous people are over-represented in jails and have sadly constituted the largest percentage of deaths in custody. Aborigines are often arrested or jailed for crimes that white people would never be charged for, particularly issues related to behaviour or misdemeanors.
There have been some gains made in reconciliation, but there is still a long way to go. There is a need for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. It is refreshing that the national school curriculum will now include aboriginal history. There is a need for people to speak up and educate Australians in aboriginal history and affairs. Most importantly, Australians need to understand that these issues are not ancient history, they are still being played out in the courts and in the lives of thousands of aborigines throughout Australia.
It isn't time for aborigines to move on. It's time for white Australia to let go - to let go of the prejudices, the racism, the ignorance that many have towards aborigines and aboriginal current affairs.
Rather than making mileage for personal or political agendas over the Australia Day protest, we need to listen, understand and be part of the reconciliation process.
Firstly, it was not a "riot". It was a protest. People clap hands, shout and generally make a noise at a protest rally. That was all that this was. The security staff over-reacted by dragging the Prime Minister and practically frog-marching Abbott to the Prime Minister's car. The "riot" did not break any laws. The media staffer who gave a heads-up to a representative of the Tent Embassy has also not done anything wrong. He reported to her what was said on the radio - a public medium. The PM and Abbott were in a public restaurant not far from the Tent Embassy.
So let's "move on" from the political posturing and look at the reason why there is an Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Abbott claims that it is time for the tent embassy to move on. That would be fine, if the issues that prompted it to be established in the first place, had actually been resolved.
How many Australians know of, or care about, the injustice that was forced onto Aborigines for nearly two centuries and which continues to this day?
During Australia Day there was the usual "patriotic" claims such as "This is Australia, we eat meat, we drink beer, we speak English". Of course, we speak English. What else would we speak? After all, the original languages of this land were deemed illegal. In fact, throughout the 19th and most of the 20th century it was illegal for aborigines to practice their culture and to speak their language; they couldn't even marry without the permission of the government.
The Australian government forced aborigines from their tribal lands and into settlements where they were forced to mix with dozens of tribes, some of whom were not from their area, in fact, some were Pacific or Torres Strait Islanders. It should be pointed out at this stage, that aborigines have very complex kinship laws. Traditionally, aboriginal tribes tended to mix with 2 or 3 other tribes in their neighbouring areas. In order to maintain the purity of the blood-line they had complex laws governing who could marry whom. The forced removal literally destroyed the kinship customs that had been practiced for millenia and destroyed the very essence, the very spirit of these tribes.
To complete the destruction of aboriginal culture and to further the humiliation, aborigines were classified under the Flora and Fauna Act. In the 19th century they were equated, by law, with animals and were not counted in the census until 1967. At the turn of the 20th century, it was an accepted practice to hunt and shoot aborigines, with little or no repercussions. Do you still wonder why there is a Tent Embassy? Do you wonder why they burnt the Australian flag on Australia Day? A flag which symbolises ethnic and cultural cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing? Is that too harsh? In the 1930s, under the Aborigine Act, aborigines could apply to "cease being aboriginal" so that they could claim the same rights as white people. Culturally banned, equated with animals, considered unable to care for themselves; thousands of years of history ignored and erased. Many of them were subject to rape by white land-owners. And then came the stolen generation. The forced removal of children from their parents in the name of protecting the aborigines from immoral influences in tribal communities. However, A.O. Neville, the Western Australian Chief Protector of Aborigines, stated the real reason for the removal of the children, when he wrote in the West Australian in 1930: "eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white".
Aborigines were forced to abide by British and then Australian law, whilst being unable to practice their own laws or culture. The Tent Embassy has been wanting a treaty with the Australian government in order to move on from the ethnic & cultural cleansing that aborigines suffered.
In the 1980's a number of people from Palm Island successfully sued the Queensland government for wages that had been held in trust for decades. This case took over 10 years to be resolved and each complainant was offered $7,000. It wasn't until 1999, that the Queensland government introduced the "Underpayment of Award Wages Process" to address the underpayment of indigenous wages and then in 2002 the Queensland government introduced the "Indigenous Wages and Savings Reparations Offer" which provided between $2,000 and $4,000 to workers depending on the age. How many white Australians would work in order for their wages to be held by the government for 70 years and to be reimbursed $7,000?
In the 1990's two landmark decisions were handed down which finally over-turned the concept of terra nullius, the idea that the land had been uninhabited when European settlers arrived. These two cases resulted in the Mabo and Wik decisions granting land rights for indigenous peoples.
The apology from the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2007 was a momentous occasion and the first time that the Australian government had publicly acknowledged the damage that was done to an entire race of people.
The apology is just words. Without action it is almost meaningless. The subsequent speech by the Opposition reiterated why the Tent Embassy is still relevant. The Opposition's speech in response to Rudd's apology merely continued blaming aborigines for their own plight and refusing to accept the impact that the government has had and in many ways, continues to have, on aboriginal people.
Many indigenous people are still living in abject poverty, with poor health, low levels of education and limited job opportunities. Indigenous people are over-represented in jails and have sadly constituted the largest percentage of deaths in custody. Aborigines are often arrested or jailed for crimes that white people would never be charged for, particularly issues related to behaviour or misdemeanors.
There have been some gains made in reconciliation, but there is still a long way to go. There is a need for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. It is refreshing that the national school curriculum will now include aboriginal history. There is a need for people to speak up and educate Australians in aboriginal history and affairs. Most importantly, Australians need to understand that these issues are not ancient history, they are still being played out in the courts and in the lives of thousands of aborigines throughout Australia.
It isn't time for aborigines to move on. It's time for white Australia to let go - to let go of the prejudices, the racism, the ignorance that many have towards aborigines and aboriginal current affairs.
Rather than making mileage for personal or political agendas over the Australia Day protest, we need to listen, understand and be part of the reconciliation process.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Colonisation Karma
It is ironic that refugees are now heading from the lands that were colonised to the lands of their colonisers.
The nations of Europe, which colonised the world, are now in fear of being colonised by their former colonies. European citizens complain that they are being "over-run", or colonised, by Africans, Arabs, Indians - people of their former colonies.
In the United States, there are similar complaints as migrants (legal and illegal) enter from Latin American countries which were first colonised by Europe and then exploited by the US government and many of its corporations.
In Australia, citizens (predominantly of European heritage) complain about being colonised by hordes of migrants. Ironically, this is exactly what their ancestors, European settlers, did to the indigenous peoples of Australia.
Those who complain about being colonised, who fear that their way of life is under threat, fail to see the irony. In fact, rarely do they have sympathy or understanding of what indigenous people lost because of European settlement.
No wonder, people of European descent are so paranoid about colonisation. They effected it for centuries. They know the sinister motives of the colonisers, namely their ancestors, and fear that migrants will have the same sinister motives.
During colonisation, the "host" country is exploited for the benefit of the foreign country. India for instance, suffered significantly under the British. Instead of the local Indian population reaping the benefits of foreign trade, their market economies were raided by the British, their earnings sent back to Britain. The British East India Company exploited and effectively demolished India's robust steel and fabric industries. As a result, India was unable to embrace the industrial revolution as many European countries did and so the Indian economy regressed to relying on on agrarian markets, well behind the rest of the "civilised" world. By the time Britain left, India was a shell of its former self. Bangladesh, formerly the rich area of Bengal, was ridden with poverty, as were many other areas of India and Pakistan, partitioned as a parting gesture by Britain.
Similar stories, following the same script, occurred throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas: subjugate and enslave the local population for cheap labour, ensure they have no political or economic power, pillage their resources and production and send the profits back to the mother country.
Colonisation, whether at the hands of Great Britain, Holland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and so on, left countries and their people brutalised, their resources plundered, their economies destroyed. Then the Colonisers left. Following this, many of the colonised countries had independence thrust upon them suddenly, with little time to prepare as the colonisers rapidly withdrew. A lot of these countries have never recovered. Rather than paying for their sins and providing funding to rebuild the countries, the Colonisers offered minimal aid and large loans. Many of these nations have no chance of paying back the loans as most can barely meet the interest repayments.
The extortion waged on these nations by their former Colonisers amounts to a second pillaging and is responsible for the deaths of millions of children who are unable to be fed as their governments struggle to pay the interest owed to Western nations.
It is genocide by usury.
Are the Colonisers actually being colonised by the large number of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees?
No.
That would require a coordinated, government sponsored program aimed at taking over western countries. This is not happening. What is happening, is that centuries of decadent colonialism destroyed these countries, leaving them poverty-stricken, resulting in citizens fighting for land and food. At times there were ethnic or religious differences, however, these rivalries have been inflamed by poverty.
Centuries of pillaging have resulted in the colonised leaving their plundered lands and migrating to richer and safer nations of their Colonisers. These nations are richer and safer for one reason: they were built on the wealth of the colonies and they are not poverty-stricken. Safety has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or politics, but quite simply because of less poverty - most of their citizens do not need to fight for food.
The fear of being colonised by the colonies is driven by the guilt of having raped these nations of their riches. The argument that the migrants are "economic" refugees implies that the migrants have no claim on the wealth of the country they are moving to. However, as most of those countries in Europe were built on the wealth of the colonies, then the citizens of the former colonies have a claim on that wealth.
Is it bad to be colonised?
Just ask a former colony.
The West expects their former colonies to pay their debts.
With such a large increase in migration, perhaps, now the former colonies expect the West to pay their debt. A debt earned through the blood of the colonised.
The nations of Europe, which colonised the world, are now in fear of being colonised by their former colonies. European citizens complain that they are being "over-run", or colonised, by Africans, Arabs, Indians - people of their former colonies.
In the United States, there are similar complaints as migrants (legal and illegal) enter from Latin American countries which were first colonised by Europe and then exploited by the US government and many of its corporations.
In Australia, citizens (predominantly of European heritage) complain about being colonised by hordes of migrants. Ironically, this is exactly what their ancestors, European settlers, did to the indigenous peoples of Australia.
Those who complain about being colonised, who fear that their way of life is under threat, fail to see the irony. In fact, rarely do they have sympathy or understanding of what indigenous people lost because of European settlement.
No wonder, people of European descent are so paranoid about colonisation. They effected it for centuries. They know the sinister motives of the colonisers, namely their ancestors, and fear that migrants will have the same sinister motives.
During colonisation, the "host" country is exploited for the benefit of the foreign country. India for instance, suffered significantly under the British. Instead of the local Indian population reaping the benefits of foreign trade, their market economies were raided by the British, their earnings sent back to Britain. The British East India Company exploited and effectively demolished India's robust steel and fabric industries. As a result, India was unable to embrace the industrial revolution as many European countries did and so the Indian economy regressed to relying on on agrarian markets, well behind the rest of the "civilised" world. By the time Britain left, India was a shell of its former self. Bangladesh, formerly the rich area of Bengal, was ridden with poverty, as were many other areas of India and Pakistan, partitioned as a parting gesture by Britain.
Similar stories, following the same script, occurred throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas: subjugate and enslave the local population for cheap labour, ensure they have no political or economic power, pillage their resources and production and send the profits back to the mother country.
Colonisation, whether at the hands of Great Britain, Holland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany and so on, left countries and their people brutalised, their resources plundered, their economies destroyed. Then the Colonisers left. Following this, many of the colonised countries had independence thrust upon them suddenly, with little time to prepare as the colonisers rapidly withdrew. A lot of these countries have never recovered. Rather than paying for their sins and providing funding to rebuild the countries, the Colonisers offered minimal aid and large loans. Many of these nations have no chance of paying back the loans as most can barely meet the interest repayments.
The extortion waged on these nations by their former Colonisers amounts to a second pillaging and is responsible for the deaths of millions of children who are unable to be fed as their governments struggle to pay the interest owed to Western nations.
It is genocide by usury.
Are the Colonisers actually being colonised by the large number of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees?
No.
That would require a coordinated, government sponsored program aimed at taking over western countries. This is not happening. What is happening, is that centuries of decadent colonialism destroyed these countries, leaving them poverty-stricken, resulting in citizens fighting for land and food. At times there were ethnic or religious differences, however, these rivalries have been inflamed by poverty.
Centuries of pillaging have resulted in the colonised leaving their plundered lands and migrating to richer and safer nations of their Colonisers. These nations are richer and safer for one reason: they were built on the wealth of the colonies and they are not poverty-stricken. Safety has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity or politics, but quite simply because of less poverty - most of their citizens do not need to fight for food.
The fear of being colonised by the colonies is driven by the guilt of having raped these nations of their riches. The argument that the migrants are "economic" refugees implies that the migrants have no claim on the wealth of the country they are moving to. However, as most of those countries in Europe were built on the wealth of the colonies, then the citizens of the former colonies have a claim on that wealth.
Is it bad to be colonised?
Just ask a former colony.
The West expects their former colonies to pay their debts.
With such a large increase in migration, perhaps, now the former colonies expect the West to pay their debt. A debt earned through the blood of the colonised.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Name a successful socialist country!
One question that every Socialist will be asked at some point in time is "name one successful Socialist country". The question will be smugly asked as though the answer "none" is a fait accompli.
Of course, rather than being the nail in the coffin of any pro-Socialist argument, it merely shows the sheer lack of knowledge of the person posing the question. The question displays the ignorant arrogance of the "talk-show" educated right wing.
The answer is a comprehensive list of Socialist successes and a testimony to the malevolent and genocidal policies of capitalism. Many Socialist countries, whilst economically successful, were overthrown, not because of the failure of Socialism, but because the bastion of freedom and democracy, the United States, ensured that even democratically elected Socialists would fail through one right wing coup after another. Coups which often installed blood-thirsty tyrants, such as Pinochet or Suharto. At times it wasn't a coup that was sponsored, but an existing tyrant to ensure that Socialism or Communism would not take over, such as the US sponsoring of Pol Pot and his killing fields.
This article is not just constrained to answering the question regarding successful socialist countries. It also provides a critique of the effectiveness of "Democracy" as implemented by the United States. The reason for this is that the USA had a systematic and deliberate policy of undermining Socialism. That coupled with the exploitation of Socialism by despots who were anything but Socialist, ensured that Socialism would not operate to the extent that it should have. Sadly, most people believe the mass media reports regarding the munificence of the United States and the evil of Socialism. The truth is that both the USA and the USSR were evil and their "Cold War" resulted in the deaths of millions of people, not in the name of Democracy or Socialism, but for the purposes of Power, Hegemony and Capitalism. Both nations were determined to suppress dissidents, exploit workers, keep wages low and profits high - not for the benefit of their citizens, but the benefit of their leaders and, particularly in the case of the USA, their own corporations.
What is Socialism?
Socialism places responsibility for production in the hands of workers and it ensures that wealth is not accumulated in isolated pockets but is distributed for the benefit of all members of society. For instance, it may be distributed through public health, education, security.
For Socialism to succeed, it requires that ALL members work for the benefit of ALL.
Socialism is not about creating a welfare state.
Socialism is not about placing power in the hands of the FEW to exploit ALL, which is what Leninism and Stalinism did. The Soviet Union may have called itself Socialist. However, it was anything but Socialist. It opposed the true virtues of Marxism. Lenin, Stalin and the rest of the Soviet exploited the workers uprising to introduce a repressive regime that benefited no citizen, let alone the workers.
What is Capitalism?
Capitalism requires government control over the market - even in a so called "free" market. For instance, if it wasn't for "Free Trade Agreements" and the "General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs", most USA corporations would actually have to compete fairly with smaller traders in weaker economies. Instead, the US government has ensured that strength and growth of their corporations whilst allowing them to exploit weaker economies and markets.
Essentially, Capitalism is redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.
For Capitalism to succeed, it requires that ALL members of society work for the benefit of the FEW. It places power in the hands of the FEW to exploit ALL.
Note, the rhetoric by the right wing, in which they will accuse left wing parties of being Socialist when a government funds health, education, police, defence and so on. They will accuse the left of creating a welfare state. Yet, when the government funds big business that is called democracy, free trade - capitalism!
Measuring Success
But first, how do we measure success? As the United States has established itself as the bastion of democracy and capitalism, it should be used to compare to Socialist states. The USA certainly has been a strong economy and has dominated the world militarily. In fact, the USA has spent far more on its military and military interventions in other countries, than it has on the welfare of its own people. Any suggestion of government being responsible for the welfare of its citizens is met with derision and accusations of socialism or communism. As a measure of success, the USA's GDP certainly exceeded that of any other country, whether capitalist, socialist or other. This wealth was built on a series of violent, international interventions which established US corporations in many countries and ensured that the wealth of those countries was redistributed to the USA. However, compared to Socialist states, USA levels of unemployment were much higher and it lacked any ability to provide health care for its poorest citizens.
Is success having wealth in the hands of the few whilst the majority earn minimum wage? Is success having the strongest military and no public health system? Is success having the biggest house and a mortgage that can't be serviced? Is success measured by "he who has the most toys wins"? Yet, this is the mentality of the United States.
To achieve this "success", the government has marketed an unattainable dream to the populace whilst exploiting fears that the dream will not be realised if "Socialism" undermines the power of corporations to sell this dream.
Failure(?)
Socialism did not fail. It was overthrown through aggressive, extremist Capitalism, implemented through genocide and economic blackmail, which destroyed lives, economies, political systems and democracy in many countries. Socialist states in Europe suffered the ignominy of the betrayal of Marxism by those who claimed to represent it, in particular Stalin and his legacy of aggression, suppression and oppression enforced by the Soviet Union. For instance, the operation of Gulags, human rights abuses targetting loosely defined "enemies of the State", and the invasions of nations, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia. None of these actions are compatible with Socialism and they undermined the benefits of Marxism.
The USA's strong capitalistic stance has resulted in it's citizens being responsible for obtaining their own private health care, and without a welfare safety net, many unemployed do not have the means to house or feed themselves. No economy is perfect. Every nation can be criticised for failures in various areas. These failures do not mean that the dominant political preference is a failure. Often it is the politicians who fail, not the politics.
In his book, "How the World Works", Noam Chomsky points out that one of the reasons that Eastern European nations have higher health and educational standards than Latin American nations is because of the differing economic policies in the region. Chomsky cites US intelligence figures, which indicate that during the 1970s, the Soviet Union injected around $80 billion dollars into Eastern Europe, while between 1982 and 1988 the USA and other western nations extracted around $150 billion from Latin America.
Interventions
The USA is without doubt the world's most powerful nation; but power should not be abused. Since the Second World War, the USA has intervened in the sovereignty of over 70 nations, not for the benefit of those nations, but for the benefit of US corporations. Capitalism was the religion that defined the extremist, foreign relations policies of the United States.
The USA has claimed these interventions were for democracy, freedom and human rights. Yet, USA interventions have resulted in democratic elections being corrupted, democratically elected governments overthrown, tyrants with no respect for human rights installed and millions of people massacred as a result.
The western media demonised the Soviet Union yet the USSR never intervened as often or as violently as the USA in the sovereignty of other nations. Instead of criticising USA foreign policy, the media glorified it. The USA has constantly portrayed socialism or communism as being incompatible with democracy. Yet, this is not the case. There have been instances of democratically elected Socialist leaders. There is nothing in Socialism that prevents democracy. Further, is democracy the pinnacle of politics? Democracy itself has its failings. Rule by the majority often means that the minority is left out. This was recognised by the founding fathers of the United States, who did not found America as a democracy because of this very threat; to avoid the "tyranny of majority".
Politicians should govern for the benefit of the entire nation, not to simply meet the wishes of the majority or the wealthiest.
Is Socialism incompatible with Human Rights?
Not all countries which have been labelled "Socialist" are truly that. The USSR could hardly have been called "Socialist". It was not run by the workers and the redistribution of wealth did not benefit its citizens. It was run by despots who were only interested in bolstering their own power and wealth. This is a perverted form of Capitalism. Stalin did not conduct pogroms, gulags and violent suppression of free speech in order to protect Soviet citizens or Socialism, but in order to protect himself. Karl Marx never called for genocide. Marxism is not Stalinism.
Similarly, brutality in China was not about Communism, but about power.
The brutality and oppression of the USSR was generally confined to its own borders and at times to countries behind the Iron Curtain. China's brutality was confined to its own borders and on the occasion it extended beyond that, was usually because of its interpretation of what was Chinese territory, for example, Tibet and Taiwan.
Whilst the USA never waged such brutality against its own citizens, it did directly sponsor brutal despots and provided material support, training and supervision of death squads in order to suppress political dissent throughout the globe. The USA's brutality was global with no respect for borders, democracy or human rights; it was all about money and hegemony.
Modern capitalists will demonise Socialism by saying it is undemocratic and that it opposes free speech, however, the examples that they use are not exemplary of socialism. Free speech, democracy, liberty are compatible with socialism. Despotism and brutality are not the sole bastion of left-wing tyrants, but have been used by many capitalist nations over the years, most often by the United States, either directly or by material support, resulting in the deaths of millions of people across the globe. Stalin also sponsored massacres of people he did not like.
Noam Chomsky (How the World Works) reports that a journalist who worked for the Guatemalan newspaper La Epoca (which had been forced to close as a result of US pressure) stated, "while the Moscow-imposed government in Prague would degrade and humiliate reformers, the Washington-made government in Guatemala would kill them. It still does, in a virtual genocide that has taken more than 150,000 victims (in what Amnesty International) calls a 'government program of political murder' ".
As with any political system "nationalism" is the danger (refer to my blog "Nationalism Rising"). Coupled with Nationalism is fear - fear of different cultural, ethnic or religious groups and this is used to justify violence, racism, jingoism.
"Name one successful Socialist country"
Now, to answer the question "name one successful Socialist country".
The following is a list of a few of the successes of socialism, in no particular order:
China (apart from the unnecessary human rights violations of course). Certainly Mao Tse Tung is not the poster boy of tolerance and understanding, however, economically China has prospered under Communism and now has one of the strongest economies in the world.
Chile under the democratically elected Marxist, President Allende, had successfully implemented public health schemes and reduced food and housing shortages and increased housing standards. He nationalised more than 90 industries, including the copper industry, banking and credit, which assisted in redistributing wealth equitably. His land reforms saw previously unused land used for food production, greatly assisting in reducing malnutrition. These Socialist measures were of course, unacceptable to the United States so the Chilean economy was blatantly sabotaged through USA interference and withholding of aid, manipulation of media through fear campaigns and false propaganda, and influencing the military. This interference culminated in Allende being murdered in a bloody CIA backed coup on 11 September 1973 in order to install a right-wing, pro-American military dictator in the form of General Pinochet, who then went on to massacre thousands of his own people. Of course, the massacres were for the Chileans own benefit in order to protect them from the evils of Socialism and allow them to enjoy economic rape by American corporations.
Indonesia under President Sukarno had proven Socialist reform to be so successful that their economy was booming, there were greater job prospects, people were better educated than ever before. Sukarno founded the Republic of Indonesia after centuries of Dutch colonial rule and Japanese occupation. He peacefully united the multitude of cultures and religions. Sukarno had shown that not only was his pro-Socialist policies effective, but that he was not going to kowtow to United States imperialism. This was unacceptable to the United States, who then backed a bloody coup in 1965 to install the blood-thirsty dictator, President Suharto who then went on to massacre over 1 million of his own country-men - but at least they weren't ruled by a Socialist. The USA was so involved in the massacres that US embassy officers in Jakarta were handing out lists to the Indonesian Army which detailed the names of left wing suspects, many of whom were members of unions, peasant groups, political parties (such as the PKI - Communist Party of Indonesia) and even student organisations. The USA knowingly provided material support to facilitate the massacres through the supply of military equipment, including jeeps, aircraft, radios, weapons and ammunition. The USA's pro-democracy, pro-human rights policies strike again. Suharto went on to invade East Timor after Portugal withdrew and it appeared a Socialist government could come to power if East Timor gained independence. The invasion and occupation took place with the benefit of financial and military aid from the UK, USA and Australia, resulting in the deaths of approximately one third of the population (more than 200,000 people) - but at least the country wasn't socialist. Margaret Thatcher even lauded Suharto as 'one of our very best and most valuable friends'.
Cuba under Fidel Castro, who introduced universal health care (something which the USA still does not have), literacy programs and nationalised industry to better the lives of his people. Castro constantly resisted US influence and survived numerous assassination attempts by the CIA, many of which would have been comical had they not actually occurred (including the infamous exploding cigars and deadly flowers). The USA waged chemical and biological warfare against Cuba through the spraying of crops with pesticides and releasing millions of mosquitoes containing dengue fever. The economy of Cuba was undermined through these criminal actions along with US sponsored trade embargoes and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, which resulted in Cuba losing a significant source of aid.
Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, a Marxist group who finally overthrew the US sponsored despotic regime of Somoza and introduced educational, health, agrarian and other industrial reform and signnificantly, they introduced political reform through the installation of democratic processes. The Sandinistas increased the living standards, improved agriculture, education, health, housing and employment, benefitting all Nicaraguans. Again the US was not happy about a successful, democratic Socialist economy so they exerted their considerable influence to ensure that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ceased all aid to Nicaragua. The USA also collaborated with former Nazis operating in Argentina to establish the "Contras" who unleashed a rein of terror and violence against the Sandanistas. This violence employed similar techniques that the Nazis had used during their reign under Hitler. President Reagan was responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal in which the USA sold weapons illegally through Israel to Iran (an officially declared terrorist nation which western countries were banned from selling weapons to) and then used the profits to fund the Contras savage insurgency activity in Nicaragua, Honduras and other Central and South American countries. Under Reagan, US government agencies assisted Columbian drug cartels to transport drugs into the United States with the profits being used to fund the Contras brutal attacks on Nicaragua, which included destroying schools, hospitals, crops and massacring civilians. But that was ok, because the Contras were fighting Marxists who had the temerity to govern with the welfare of their own people as a priority, rather than giving priority to US corporations.
Venezuela
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected as the President of Venezuela in 1998. He was a socialist, initially a proponent of Bolivarianism, later democratic socialism. Chavez inherited an economy racked with corruption and poverty. Through his presidency, Chavez improved the human rights issues in Venezuela and managed to reduce poverty. (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7513). While there is much to be done to further reduce poverty, the gains made by Chavez wouldn't have happened had it not been him nationalising the oil industry, which helped ensure that money earnt from Venezualan resources was kept in and used for Venezuela. He also spent significant sums on repair government buildings, schools, churches and so on. Millions of people were finally treated in public hospitals, millions of children were vaccinations. Under Chavez, Venezuela's 'human development index' increased significantly.
Vietnam has improved economically since the end of the Vietnam War. Initially it had problems with its government giving priority to military supremacy in the region for some years which negatively impacted its citizens. It has since focussed more on production and trade, making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Eastern Europe
Eastern European countries including Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia suffered at the hands of brutal despots who, like the Soviets abused their own citizens. Interestingly, there were brief flirtations with Marxism in the politics of these nations. At those times, their economies improved. Whilst they focussed on power and genocide, their economies suffered. The below precis does not seek to glorify the murderous rule of tyrants, it seeks to show that when the tyrants actually focussed on Marxist reform there were significant improvements. These countries would have benefitted from Socialism - had it actually been implemented properly.
Yugoslavia under Tito saw significant industrial reform which increased productivity and employment. Tito broke away from the Soviet Union and was subject to various attempts to subvert his leadership and to undermine the Yugoslav economy. For a brief period, Tito even relinquished some of the central control of the population, allowing citizens greater say and rights. Tito was able to unite the many fractured groups within Yugoslavia. Tito's government had held the fragile, nationalistic fabric of Yugoslavian society together, but following his death, the country splintered into ancient rivalries, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Romania under Ceauşescu saw an increase in industrialisation and production, improvements in housing, education and infrastructure, such as public transport.
Czechoslovakia from 1948 to 1968 was run effectively by a Communist government, however, in 1968 the government became increasingly capitalist and so the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries invaded, reverting it back to a communist state.
Kibbutzim - whilst not a nation, the socialist operation of the Israeli kibbutz gives an ideal model for socialism, in which all residents worked for the betterment of each other and society in general.
Social democracies
Many successful modern economies combine a blend of socialism and capitalism through Social Democracy, which has been far more effective than the extreme capitalism of the United States. These countries include:
Australia
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Denmark
Sweden
Germany
Finland
France
Switzerland
Portugal
Italy
"Which country would you prefer to live in?"
Another question, that will often be asked of any defence of Socialism, or any criticism of the United States, is "which country would you prefer to live in?" Another smug question, yet this is one which assumes that the answer will be the United States. When asking this question, is the person asking the question imagining life in a white and wealthy neighbourhood, with a good job and health care paid by the employer, or imagining life in a lower class suburb, with high unemployment, high illiteracy, low school attendance and no health cover.
If one imagines the USA pictured in sit-coms and Hollywood, then certainly it all looks rosy. However, for a significant number of Americans, the reality is vastly different from this idealistic image. Their reality is not much different to the average citizen in many developing nations.
The answer is that I'd be happy to live in any of the above countries when being run by Socialists, as long as they weren't being attacked by either their leaders or insurgents. Sadly many of the insurgents (and some of the despotic leaders) were funded by the United States.
The question that should be asked is "would you live in Nicaragua or Guatemala as they are being subjected to massacre after massacre at the hands of US funded Contras? Would you like to live in Indonesia, as your family is being massacred at the hands of the capitalist, US funded Suharto? Would you like to live in Chile under the capitalist, US funded Pinochet?" Perhaps another question that could be asked is, "would you like to live in a country that the USA has 'brought democracy' to?"
Perhaps, people don't wish to live in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Indonesia regardless of the political system. So would you like to live in the USA in a neighbourhood that is not white and wealthy?
Personally, I would not like to live in the United States. I would chose to live in a Social Democracy because most do not have human rights violations and most provide a better form of wealth redistribution to ensure that the poor have the opportunity for education, health and employment. The USA economy is a basket case, the politicians are more interested in power than their own poor. Social Democracies, whilst not necessarily Marxist, have at least embraced the best of Socialism without the perversion of Stalinism or Capitalistic greed.
Socialism in its purest form is egalitarian, fairer and provides the best chance for all citizens to participate in and contribute to their nation, than the selfish, exploitative policies of Capitalism.
--0--
Related articles on RantingPanda.com:
1. Name a successful Communist country - Marxism didn't fail, but it was betrayed!
https://thepandarant.blogspot.com/2019/11/name-successful-communist-country.html
2. Animal Farm - an allegory of greed, power and exploitation
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/animal-farm-allegory-of-greed-power-and.html
3. The fruit of capitalism - rotten to the core
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/the-fruit-of-capitalism-rotten-to-core.html
4. Socialism versus Capitalism
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/socialism-versus-capitalism.html
Of course, rather than being the nail in the coffin of any pro-Socialist argument, it merely shows the sheer lack of knowledge of the person posing the question. The question displays the ignorant arrogance of the "talk-show" educated right wing.
The answer is a comprehensive list of Socialist successes and a testimony to the malevolent and genocidal policies of capitalism. Many Socialist countries, whilst economically successful, were overthrown, not because of the failure of Socialism, but because the bastion of freedom and democracy, the United States, ensured that even democratically elected Socialists would fail through one right wing coup after another. Coups which often installed blood-thirsty tyrants, such as Pinochet or Suharto. At times it wasn't a coup that was sponsored, but an existing tyrant to ensure that Socialism or Communism would not take over, such as the US sponsoring of Pol Pot and his killing fields.
This article is not just constrained to answering the question regarding successful socialist countries. It also provides a critique of the effectiveness of "Democracy" as implemented by the United States. The reason for this is that the USA had a systematic and deliberate policy of undermining Socialism. That coupled with the exploitation of Socialism by despots who were anything but Socialist, ensured that Socialism would not operate to the extent that it should have. Sadly, most people believe the mass media reports regarding the munificence of the United States and the evil of Socialism. The truth is that both the USA and the USSR were evil and their "Cold War" resulted in the deaths of millions of people, not in the name of Democracy or Socialism, but for the purposes of Power, Hegemony and Capitalism. Both nations were determined to suppress dissidents, exploit workers, keep wages low and profits high - not for the benefit of their citizens, but the benefit of their leaders and, particularly in the case of the USA, their own corporations.
What is Socialism?
Socialism places responsibility for production in the hands of workers and it ensures that wealth is not accumulated in isolated pockets but is distributed for the benefit of all members of society. For instance, it may be distributed through public health, education, security.
For Socialism to succeed, it requires that ALL members work for the benefit of ALL.
Socialism is not about creating a welfare state.
Socialism is not about placing power in the hands of the FEW to exploit ALL, which is what Leninism and Stalinism did. The Soviet Union may have called itself Socialist. However, it was anything but Socialist. It opposed the true virtues of Marxism. Lenin, Stalin and the rest of the Soviet exploited the workers uprising to introduce a repressive regime that benefited no citizen, let alone the workers.
What is Capitalism?
Capitalism requires government control over the market - even in a so called "free" market. For instance, if it wasn't for "Free Trade Agreements" and the "General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs", most USA corporations would actually have to compete fairly with smaller traders in weaker economies. Instead, the US government has ensured that strength and growth of their corporations whilst allowing them to exploit weaker economies and markets.
Essentially, Capitalism is redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.
For Capitalism to succeed, it requires that ALL members of society work for the benefit of the FEW. It places power in the hands of the FEW to exploit ALL.
Note, the rhetoric by the right wing, in which they will accuse left wing parties of being Socialist when a government funds health, education, police, defence and so on. They will accuse the left of creating a welfare state. Yet, when the government funds big business that is called democracy, free trade - capitalism!
Measuring Success
But first, how do we measure success? As the United States has established itself as the bastion of democracy and capitalism, it should be used to compare to Socialist states. The USA certainly has been a strong economy and has dominated the world militarily. In fact, the USA has spent far more on its military and military interventions in other countries, than it has on the welfare of its own people. Any suggestion of government being responsible for the welfare of its citizens is met with derision and accusations of socialism or communism. As a measure of success, the USA's GDP certainly exceeded that of any other country, whether capitalist, socialist or other. This wealth was built on a series of violent, international interventions which established US corporations in many countries and ensured that the wealth of those countries was redistributed to the USA. However, compared to Socialist states, USA levels of unemployment were much higher and it lacked any ability to provide health care for its poorest citizens.
Is success having wealth in the hands of the few whilst the majority earn minimum wage? Is success having the strongest military and no public health system? Is success having the biggest house and a mortgage that can't be serviced? Is success measured by "he who has the most toys wins"? Yet, this is the mentality of the United States.
To achieve this "success", the government has marketed an unattainable dream to the populace whilst exploiting fears that the dream will not be realised if "Socialism" undermines the power of corporations to sell this dream.
Failure(?)
Socialism did not fail. It was overthrown through aggressive, extremist Capitalism, implemented through genocide and economic blackmail, which destroyed lives, economies, political systems and democracy in many countries. Socialist states in Europe suffered the ignominy of the betrayal of Marxism by those who claimed to represent it, in particular Stalin and his legacy of aggression, suppression and oppression enforced by the Soviet Union. For instance, the operation of Gulags, human rights abuses targetting loosely defined "enemies of the State", and the invasions of nations, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia. None of these actions are compatible with Socialism and they undermined the benefits of Marxism.
The USA's strong capitalistic stance has resulted in it's citizens being responsible for obtaining their own private health care, and without a welfare safety net, many unemployed do not have the means to house or feed themselves. No economy is perfect. Every nation can be criticised for failures in various areas. These failures do not mean that the dominant political preference is a failure. Often it is the politicians who fail, not the politics.
In his book, "How the World Works", Noam Chomsky points out that one of the reasons that Eastern European nations have higher health and educational standards than Latin American nations is because of the differing economic policies in the region. Chomsky cites US intelligence figures, which indicate that during the 1970s, the Soviet Union injected around $80 billion dollars into Eastern Europe, while between 1982 and 1988 the USA and other western nations extracted around $150 billion from Latin America.
Interventions
The USA is without doubt the world's most powerful nation; but power should not be abused. Since the Second World War, the USA has intervened in the sovereignty of over 70 nations, not for the benefit of those nations, but for the benefit of US corporations. Capitalism was the religion that defined the extremist, foreign relations policies of the United States.
The USA has claimed these interventions were for democracy, freedom and human rights. Yet, USA interventions have resulted in democratic elections being corrupted, democratically elected governments overthrown, tyrants with no respect for human rights installed and millions of people massacred as a result.
The western media demonised the Soviet Union yet the USSR never intervened as often or as violently as the USA in the sovereignty of other nations. Instead of criticising USA foreign policy, the media glorified it. The USA has constantly portrayed socialism or communism as being incompatible with democracy. Yet, this is not the case. There have been instances of democratically elected Socialist leaders. There is nothing in Socialism that prevents democracy. Further, is democracy the pinnacle of politics? Democracy itself has its failings. Rule by the majority often means that the minority is left out. This was recognised by the founding fathers of the United States, who did not found America as a democracy because of this very threat; to avoid the "tyranny of majority".
Politicians should govern for the benefit of the entire nation, not to simply meet the wishes of the majority or the wealthiest.
Is Socialism incompatible with Human Rights?
Not all countries which have been labelled "Socialist" are truly that. The USSR could hardly have been called "Socialist". It was not run by the workers and the redistribution of wealth did not benefit its citizens. It was run by despots who were only interested in bolstering their own power and wealth. This is a perverted form of Capitalism. Stalin did not conduct pogroms, gulags and violent suppression of free speech in order to protect Soviet citizens or Socialism, but in order to protect himself. Karl Marx never called for genocide. Marxism is not Stalinism.
Similarly, brutality in China was not about Communism, but about power.
The brutality and oppression of the USSR was generally confined to its own borders and at times to countries behind the Iron Curtain. China's brutality was confined to its own borders and on the occasion it extended beyond that, was usually because of its interpretation of what was Chinese territory, for example, Tibet and Taiwan.
Whilst the USA never waged such brutality against its own citizens, it did directly sponsor brutal despots and provided material support, training and supervision of death squads in order to suppress political dissent throughout the globe. The USA's brutality was global with no respect for borders, democracy or human rights; it was all about money and hegemony.
Modern capitalists will demonise Socialism by saying it is undemocratic and that it opposes free speech, however, the examples that they use are not exemplary of socialism. Free speech, democracy, liberty are compatible with socialism. Despotism and brutality are not the sole bastion of left-wing tyrants, but have been used by many capitalist nations over the years, most often by the United States, either directly or by material support, resulting in the deaths of millions of people across the globe. Stalin also sponsored massacres of people he did not like.
Noam Chomsky (How the World Works) reports that a journalist who worked for the Guatemalan newspaper La Epoca (which had been forced to close as a result of US pressure) stated, "while the Moscow-imposed government in Prague would degrade and humiliate reformers, the Washington-made government in Guatemala would kill them. It still does, in a virtual genocide that has taken more than 150,000 victims (in what Amnesty International) calls a 'government program of political murder' ".
As with any political system "nationalism" is the danger (refer to my blog "Nationalism Rising"). Coupled with Nationalism is fear - fear of different cultural, ethnic or religious groups and this is used to justify violence, racism, jingoism.
"Name one successful Socialist country"
Now, to answer the question "name one successful Socialist country".
The following is a list of a few of the successes of socialism, in no particular order:
China (apart from the unnecessary human rights violations of course). Certainly Mao Tse Tung is not the poster boy of tolerance and understanding, however, economically China has prospered under Communism and now has one of the strongest economies in the world.
Chile under the democratically elected Marxist, President Allende, had successfully implemented public health schemes and reduced food and housing shortages and increased housing standards. He nationalised more than 90 industries, including the copper industry, banking and credit, which assisted in redistributing wealth equitably. His land reforms saw previously unused land used for food production, greatly assisting in reducing malnutrition. These Socialist measures were of course, unacceptable to the United States so the Chilean economy was blatantly sabotaged through USA interference and withholding of aid, manipulation of media through fear campaigns and false propaganda, and influencing the military. This interference culminated in Allende being murdered in a bloody CIA backed coup on 11 September 1973 in order to install a right-wing, pro-American military dictator in the form of General Pinochet, who then went on to massacre thousands of his own people. Of course, the massacres were for the Chileans own benefit in order to protect them from the evils of Socialism and allow them to enjoy economic rape by American corporations.
Indonesia under President Sukarno had proven Socialist reform to be so successful that their economy was booming, there were greater job prospects, people were better educated than ever before. Sukarno founded the Republic of Indonesia after centuries of Dutch colonial rule and Japanese occupation. He peacefully united the multitude of cultures and religions. Sukarno had shown that not only was his pro-Socialist policies effective, but that he was not going to kowtow to United States imperialism. This was unacceptable to the United States, who then backed a bloody coup in 1965 to install the blood-thirsty dictator, President Suharto who then went on to massacre over 1 million of his own country-men - but at least they weren't ruled by a Socialist. The USA was so involved in the massacres that US embassy officers in Jakarta were handing out lists to the Indonesian Army which detailed the names of left wing suspects, many of whom were members of unions, peasant groups, political parties (such as the PKI - Communist Party of Indonesia) and even student organisations. The USA knowingly provided material support to facilitate the massacres through the supply of military equipment, including jeeps, aircraft, radios, weapons and ammunition. The USA's pro-democracy, pro-human rights policies strike again. Suharto went on to invade East Timor after Portugal withdrew and it appeared a Socialist government could come to power if East Timor gained independence. The invasion and occupation took place with the benefit of financial and military aid from the UK, USA and Australia, resulting in the deaths of approximately one third of the population (more than 200,000 people) - but at least the country wasn't socialist. Margaret Thatcher even lauded Suharto as 'one of our very best and most valuable friends'.
Cuba under Fidel Castro, who introduced universal health care (something which the USA still does not have), literacy programs and nationalised industry to better the lives of his people. Castro constantly resisted US influence and survived numerous assassination attempts by the CIA, many of which would have been comical had they not actually occurred (including the infamous exploding cigars and deadly flowers). The USA waged chemical and biological warfare against Cuba through the spraying of crops with pesticides and releasing millions of mosquitoes containing dengue fever. The economy of Cuba was undermined through these criminal actions along with US sponsored trade embargoes and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, which resulted in Cuba losing a significant source of aid.
Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, a Marxist group who finally overthrew the US sponsored despotic regime of Somoza and introduced educational, health, agrarian and other industrial reform and signnificantly, they introduced political reform through the installation of democratic processes. The Sandinistas increased the living standards, improved agriculture, education, health, housing and employment, benefitting all Nicaraguans. Again the US was not happy about a successful, democratic Socialist economy so they exerted their considerable influence to ensure that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ceased all aid to Nicaragua. The USA also collaborated with former Nazis operating in Argentina to establish the "Contras" who unleashed a rein of terror and violence against the Sandanistas. This violence employed similar techniques that the Nazis had used during their reign under Hitler. President Reagan was responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal in which the USA sold weapons illegally through Israel to Iran (an officially declared terrorist nation which western countries were banned from selling weapons to) and then used the profits to fund the Contras savage insurgency activity in Nicaragua, Honduras and other Central and South American countries. Under Reagan, US government agencies assisted Columbian drug cartels to transport drugs into the United States with the profits being used to fund the Contras brutal attacks on Nicaragua, which included destroying schools, hospitals, crops and massacring civilians. But that was ok, because the Contras were fighting Marxists who had the temerity to govern with the welfare of their own people as a priority, rather than giving priority to US corporations.
Venezuela
Hugo Chavez was democratically elected as the President of Venezuela in 1998. He was a socialist, initially a proponent of Bolivarianism, later democratic socialism. Chavez inherited an economy racked with corruption and poverty. Through his presidency, Chavez improved the human rights issues in Venezuela and managed to reduce poverty. (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7513). While there is much to be done to further reduce poverty, the gains made by Chavez wouldn't have happened had it not been him nationalising the oil industry, which helped ensure that money earnt from Venezualan resources was kept in and used for Venezuela. He also spent significant sums on repair government buildings, schools, churches and so on. Millions of people were finally treated in public hospitals, millions of children were vaccinations. Under Chavez, Venezuela's 'human development index' increased significantly.
Vietnam has improved economically since the end of the Vietnam War. Initially it had problems with its government giving priority to military supremacy in the region for some years which negatively impacted its citizens. It has since focussed more on production and trade, making it one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Eastern Europe
Eastern European countries including Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia suffered at the hands of brutal despots who, like the Soviets abused their own citizens. Interestingly, there were brief flirtations with Marxism in the politics of these nations. At those times, their economies improved. Whilst they focussed on power and genocide, their economies suffered. The below precis does not seek to glorify the murderous rule of tyrants, it seeks to show that when the tyrants actually focussed on Marxist reform there were significant improvements. These countries would have benefitted from Socialism - had it actually been implemented properly.
Yugoslavia under Tito saw significant industrial reform which increased productivity and employment. Tito broke away from the Soviet Union and was subject to various attempts to subvert his leadership and to undermine the Yugoslav economy. For a brief period, Tito even relinquished some of the central control of the population, allowing citizens greater say and rights. Tito was able to unite the many fractured groups within Yugoslavia. Tito's government had held the fragile, nationalistic fabric of Yugoslavian society together, but following his death, the country splintered into ancient rivalries, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Romania under Ceauşescu saw an increase in industrialisation and production, improvements in housing, education and infrastructure, such as public transport.
Czechoslovakia from 1948 to 1968 was run effectively by a Communist government, however, in 1968 the government became increasingly capitalist and so the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries invaded, reverting it back to a communist state.
Kibbutzim - whilst not a nation, the socialist operation of the Israeli kibbutz gives an ideal model for socialism, in which all residents worked for the betterment of each other and society in general.
Social democracies
Many successful modern economies combine a blend of socialism and capitalism through Social Democracy, which has been far more effective than the extreme capitalism of the United States. These countries include:
Australia
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Denmark
Sweden
Germany
Finland
France
Switzerland
Portugal
Italy
"Which country would you prefer to live in?"
Another question, that will often be asked of any defence of Socialism, or any criticism of the United States, is "which country would you prefer to live in?" Another smug question, yet this is one which assumes that the answer will be the United States. When asking this question, is the person asking the question imagining life in a white and wealthy neighbourhood, with a good job and health care paid by the employer, or imagining life in a lower class suburb, with high unemployment, high illiteracy, low school attendance and no health cover.
If one imagines the USA pictured in sit-coms and Hollywood, then certainly it all looks rosy. However, for a significant number of Americans, the reality is vastly different from this idealistic image. Their reality is not much different to the average citizen in many developing nations.
The answer is that I'd be happy to live in any of the above countries when being run by Socialists, as long as they weren't being attacked by either their leaders or insurgents. Sadly many of the insurgents (and some of the despotic leaders) were funded by the United States.
The question that should be asked is "would you live in Nicaragua or Guatemala as they are being subjected to massacre after massacre at the hands of US funded Contras? Would you like to live in Indonesia, as your family is being massacred at the hands of the capitalist, US funded Suharto? Would you like to live in Chile under the capitalist, US funded Pinochet?" Perhaps another question that could be asked is, "would you like to live in a country that the USA has 'brought democracy' to?"
Perhaps, people don't wish to live in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Indonesia regardless of the political system. So would you like to live in the USA in a neighbourhood that is not white and wealthy?
Personally, I would not like to live in the United States. I would chose to live in a Social Democracy because most do not have human rights violations and most provide a better form of wealth redistribution to ensure that the poor have the opportunity for education, health and employment. The USA economy is a basket case, the politicians are more interested in power than their own poor. Social Democracies, whilst not necessarily Marxist, have at least embraced the best of Socialism without the perversion of Stalinism or Capitalistic greed.
Socialism in its purest form is egalitarian, fairer and provides the best chance for all citizens to participate in and contribute to their nation, than the selfish, exploitative policies of Capitalism.
--0--
Related articles on RantingPanda.com:
1. Name a successful Communist country - Marxism didn't fail, but it was betrayed!
https://thepandarant.blogspot.com/2019/11/name-successful-communist-country.html
2. Animal Farm - an allegory of greed, power and exploitation
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/animal-farm-allegory-of-greed-power-and.html
3. The fruit of capitalism - rotten to the core
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/the-fruit-of-capitalism-rotten-to-core.html
4. Socialism versus Capitalism
http://thepandarant.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/socialism-versus-capitalism.html
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
RIP Victims of Operation Cast Lead - 27 December 2008
RIP Victims of Operation Cast Lead - 27 December 2008.
On this day in 2008, Israel commenced its massacre of the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 1400 Palestinians, including at least 318 children. A further 5,000 were injured, 400,000 left without running water, 4,000 homes destroyed and tens of thousands of people left homeless.
Israel's justification for the massacre was that the bombings were in retaliation for rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel. What they don't mention is that the rockets were fired in retaliation for Israel breaking a cease fire and bombing Gaza. This cease-fire had been honoured by Hamas, yet Israel claims it was Hamas who broke the cease-fire. Israel, as usual, misrepresents the facts and rewrites history.
The 22 day Operation Cast Lead was a war-crime, in which no-one has been punished or held accountable. Israel used nuclear and chemical weapons on densely populated civilian areas. The weapons included missiles with depleted uranium, phosphorous bombs, and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive). DIME is a carbon shell which splinters and shoots out tungsten dust, burning and destroying everyone and everything within its radius.
Doctors treating victims of Operation Cast Lead have found people with injuries that they have never seen before and which they do not know how to treat. This has raised the question of what other unconventional and unknown weapons are being used by Israel on civilians. Refer to this article published by the UK's The Independent : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tungsten-bombs-leave-israels-victims-with-mystery-wounds-1418910.html
Human Rights Watch released a report in March 2009 which cited the indiscriminate and repeated use of white phosphorous as evidence Israeli war crimes. White phosphorous is traditionally used in open areas to screen troop movements, however, during Operation Cast Lead it was used in areas in which Israel had no troops. It wasn't used as a screen, it was used to deliberately maim and kill.
A United Nations review of Operation Cast Lead was headed by Jewish Justice Richard Goldstone (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32057). He handed down a 575 page report which accused both Israel and Hamas of war-crimes. In a press conference, Justice Goldstone said "the mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israeli Defence Force". Goldstone found that the use of rockets by Hamas was deliberately aimed at killing Israeli civilians and so also constituted a war crime. However, Hamas's weapons are primitive and certainly are not Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Whilst a crime, Hamas was not aiming to obliterate an entire civilian area or trying to destroy their infrastructure. Hamas killed 13 Israelis. If Israel wants to punish Hamas, and Palestinians collectively, then who punishes Israel? Israel killed over 1,400 Palestinians and many are suffering permanent injury from the use of WMD.
There is no excuse for use of these weapons in Gaza.
Israel has consistently used WMD in Palestine. When accusing Palestinians of crimes, Israel will use military aircraft to bomb the residential area in which the suspect lives, often killing the suspect and their family members. Israel does not make an effort to simply arrest and charge their suspect. Even in the cases where they do arrest suspects, they rarely charge them with any crime, but instead hold them indefinitely. Israel's definition of crime is very loose. Simply being Palestinian is enough for Israel to suspect a person of a crime and to hold them indefinitely.
Where was the international uproar when Israel massacred the 1400 people in Gaza? Where was the uproar over Israel's use of WMD on civilians? Who will be held accountable? Israel has done such a good public relations job of demonising Palestinians that no-one cares for them or pleads their case. Yet, how many of us would stand by as our country was invaded and we are forced from the land at gun-point, as many of our people are murdered or raped. Would we fight back? As the world condemns Palestinian aggression, it then wages illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on "pre-emptive" strikes; a policy which has been responsible for massacring hundreds of thousands of people who never committed a crime, and never would commit a crime, against the invading nations. The last country invaded for its alleged use of WMD was Iraq. A charge which was shown to be false. Yet there is ample evidence of Israel's possession and use of WMD on civilians and no country is speaking up against it. Why not?
The hypocrisy shown towards Israel is disgraceful. It is time that the world stood up against Israel's decades of propaganda, rewriting of history and it's ethnic cleansing of Arab identity and presence in Palestine. It is time that Israel was held accountable.
RIP the victims of Operation Cast Lead and victims of all other war-crimes committed by Israel.
On this day in 2008, Israel commenced its massacre of the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 1400 Palestinians, including at least 318 children. A further 5,000 were injured, 400,000 left without running water, 4,000 homes destroyed and tens of thousands of people left homeless.
Israel's justification for the massacre was that the bombings were in retaliation for rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel. What they don't mention is that the rockets were fired in retaliation for Israel breaking a cease fire and bombing Gaza. This cease-fire had been honoured by Hamas, yet Israel claims it was Hamas who broke the cease-fire. Israel, as usual, misrepresents the facts and rewrites history.
The 22 day Operation Cast Lead was a war-crime, in which no-one has been punished or held accountable. Israel used nuclear and chemical weapons on densely populated civilian areas. The weapons included missiles with depleted uranium, phosphorous bombs, and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive). DIME is a carbon shell which splinters and shoots out tungsten dust, burning and destroying everyone and everything within its radius.
Doctors treating victims of Operation Cast Lead have found people with injuries that they have never seen before and which they do not know how to treat. This has raised the question of what other unconventional and unknown weapons are being used by Israel on civilians. Refer to this article published by the UK's The Independent : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tungsten-bombs-leave-israels-victims-with-mystery-wounds-1418910.html
Human Rights Watch released a report in March 2009 which cited the indiscriminate and repeated use of white phosphorous as evidence Israeli war crimes. White phosphorous is traditionally used in open areas to screen troop movements, however, during Operation Cast Lead it was used in areas in which Israel had no troops. It wasn't used as a screen, it was used to deliberately maim and kill.
A United Nations review of Operation Cast Lead was headed by Jewish Justice Richard Goldstone (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32057). He handed down a 575 page report which accused both Israel and Hamas of war-crimes. In a press conference, Justice Goldstone said "the mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israeli Defence Force". Goldstone found that the use of rockets by Hamas was deliberately aimed at killing Israeli civilians and so also constituted a war crime. However, Hamas's weapons are primitive and certainly are not Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Whilst a crime, Hamas was not aiming to obliterate an entire civilian area or trying to destroy their infrastructure. Hamas killed 13 Israelis. If Israel wants to punish Hamas, and Palestinians collectively, then who punishes Israel? Israel killed over 1,400 Palestinians and many are suffering permanent injury from the use of WMD.
There is no excuse for use of these weapons in Gaza.
Israel has consistently used WMD in Palestine. When accusing Palestinians of crimes, Israel will use military aircraft to bomb the residential area in which the suspect lives, often killing the suspect and their family members. Israel does not make an effort to simply arrest and charge their suspect. Even in the cases where they do arrest suspects, they rarely charge them with any crime, but instead hold them indefinitely. Israel's definition of crime is very loose. Simply being Palestinian is enough for Israel to suspect a person of a crime and to hold them indefinitely.
Where was the international uproar when Israel massacred the 1400 people in Gaza? Where was the uproar over Israel's use of WMD on civilians? Who will be held accountable? Israel has done such a good public relations job of demonising Palestinians that no-one cares for them or pleads their case. Yet, how many of us would stand by as our country was invaded and we are forced from the land at gun-point, as many of our people are murdered or raped. Would we fight back? As the world condemns Palestinian aggression, it then wages illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on "pre-emptive" strikes; a policy which has been responsible for massacring hundreds of thousands of people who never committed a crime, and never would commit a crime, against the invading nations. The last country invaded for its alleged use of WMD was Iraq. A charge which was shown to be false. Yet there is ample evidence of Israel's possession and use of WMD on civilians and no country is speaking up against it. Why not?
The hypocrisy shown towards Israel is disgraceful. It is time that the world stood up against Israel's decades of propaganda, rewriting of history and it's ethnic cleansing of Arab identity and presence in Palestine. It is time that Israel was held accountable.
RIP the victims of Operation Cast Lead and victims of all other war-crimes committed by Israel.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
F*** the Poor!
Okay, that is FEED THE POOR. FEED, people! What did you think it meant?
Sadly, far too many conservatives don't believe in FEED THE POOR, they generally have the attitude of F**K THE POOR. Ironically, many of those conservatives also claim to be Christian, to worship the very God who told them to FEED THE POOR - THE LEAST OF THESE!
The church cannot possibly feed all of the world's poor, so it is imperative that all people who are capable and all businesses, facilitated by all governments, contribute a portion of their income to feeding the poor, to assisting them to achieve a better life, to have health care, education and accommodation.
Yet Conservatives will scream "SOCIALISM" or "COMMUNISM" at the thought of Government daring to not only tax them, but also spend some of those taxes on the Poor; decreeing the nation a "welfare state".
Socialism was never about a welfare state, it was about equalising the excesses of unfettered capitalism and ensuring that all people contributed to the betterment of the nation.
However, all governments regardless of political ideology should be caring for the poor. We have seen the basket case that is now the United States which has resulted from unadulterated greed, coupled with failure to care for the poor, failure to provide a free, public health system, or a decent unemployment scheme.
The Poor are people. They are citizens. They deserve to live a life of dignity, live a life without hunger, live in reasonable accommodation sheltered from the weather and which they can personalise.
Our society is affected by all who live in it. It isn't just the "movers and shakers" who make a nation. The Poor also contribute.
They must be looked after.
FEED THE POOR!
Sadly, far too many conservatives don't believe in FEED THE POOR, they generally have the attitude of F**K THE POOR. Ironically, many of those conservatives also claim to be Christian, to worship the very God who told them to FEED THE POOR - THE LEAST OF THESE!
The church cannot possibly feed all of the world's poor, so it is imperative that all people who are capable and all businesses, facilitated by all governments, contribute a portion of their income to feeding the poor, to assisting them to achieve a better life, to have health care, education and accommodation.
Yet Conservatives will scream "SOCIALISM" or "COMMUNISM" at the thought of Government daring to not only tax them, but also spend some of those taxes on the Poor; decreeing the nation a "welfare state".
Socialism was never about a welfare state, it was about equalising the excesses of unfettered capitalism and ensuring that all people contributed to the betterment of the nation.
However, all governments regardless of political ideology should be caring for the poor. We have seen the basket case that is now the United States which has resulted from unadulterated greed, coupled with failure to care for the poor, failure to provide a free, public health system, or a decent unemployment scheme.
The Poor are people. They are citizens. They deserve to live a life of dignity, live a life without hunger, live in reasonable accommodation sheltered from the weather and which they can personalise.
Our society is affected by all who live in it. It isn't just the "movers and shakers" who make a nation. The Poor also contribute.
They must be looked after.
FEED THE POOR!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)