Another South American Nations falls to Socialism - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
May 8th, 2006  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Communism took over Eastern Europe because of WWII and the retreat of German forces.

The nations before WWII weren't poor and nor were they communist. But both the Soviet Union and Germany invaded these nations, destoryed their economies, and their nations burned to the ground due to warfare. Also the Soviet Union hunted down those that were anti-comunist and destroyed any political opposition.

Poverty is a major factor is socialism and communism because of the simple fact that it tells the poor what they want to hear.

Communsim promises that the wealth and power of the rich will be divided among the poor. That all will be fair and equal. It's not just poverty that causes communism to flurish in places, it's also the politcal leaders behind the communist movement in that certain place. For thr Coup to occur, you need a army. And mostly communist leaders get into power by using the poor masses to fuel and feed that army.

The Soviet Union was created because the peasants were tired of their position is the social class of Russia. Samething in Red China and many other nations.

As long as there is poverty, there will be a breeding ground for communist ideals to take shape and grow.
May 8th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Italy's Red Brigades, the communist group that has been killing hundreds for decades and until recently, are not poor or starving people. their members are part of middle or high-class, very educated.
Nowaday's Italian Communist Party is supported by a large part of extremely rich movie directors, actors, intellectuals, comedians etc. I am perfectly aware that using the word "communism" may sound ridiculous or exaggerated, but those hammer and sickle just don't leave much room for doubt.
May 8th, 2006  
5.56X45mm
 
 
That is the communist movement in a well rounded economic nation like Italy. The United States of America is the same.

Our communist and socialist are all upper class society types. Hollywood actors and directors, intellectuals, and rich liberals.

The poor is the USA is either conservative or liberals. Most that are rural and conservative because they understand the meaning of hard work. Those from the urban city are liberal because they expect government handouts for their every want and need.
--
Boots
May 8th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Aye, very same here.
May 8th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Noam Chomsky anyone? IG, I did not know the RB came from such high socio-economic positions. It makes their bloody acts all the more disturbing. It was in fact stories about the RB that took the lustre off anything communist when I was young and impressionable.
May 9th, 2006  
WarMachine
 
 
I don't think it's communism that latin american is heading for. The rich stomp on the poor there and that makes a lot of people fed up. I don't approve of the aggressive actions taking place in Bolivia, but they gave their president the vote because he might just do something about it. If the USA didn't neglect Latin America so much, there would be non of this non sense and more trust between us.

Remember, Castro sprung up because Americans ignored the problems in Cuba, we don't need another Castro.
May 9th, 2006  
boris116
 
 
The problem here is that the other Latin American countries, especially, Brazil have a big stake in the Bolivian oil fields, much more than the US or UK.
So, the neighbors will be pissed of, or are already...
May 9th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
I agree with IG prior statement that it isn't poverty that causes communism. I mean the Indian tribes in the amazone are poor, but not exactly communist. (However they do share most things, so maybe...) It is the clear and present divide between the have's and have -not's. It weren't the peasant that started the Octobre revolution, it were the city poor that saw all that wealth going to a certain elite!
Marx claims that any communist revolution should start in a industrialized society, and in his time these societies had very destinct social classes.

With regards to Bolivia and Venezuela, it is easy to say that the nationalization of the major industry is a communist move. I personally think it is a nationalistic move. They need to make money, so they claim back what is rightfully theirs.
May 10th, 2006  
WarMachine
 
 
It could have been done in a less brazen way though. Would you march soldiers into refiniries and declare that no one owns the country's gas anymore? The president of Bolivia should have done this diplomaticly and not have started a crisis with neighbors.
May 11th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
True warMachine, I agree that it will not win a beauty contest, but I recjkon he did it for a reason. He'll gain face with some now they see he is willing to flex his muscles. It gives him more leeway internally, but his position internationally has worsened. But that is of minor importance at this moment. He has more to fear from the people of his own country at this stage of his power struggle.