Re: Cuba puts others' healthcare systems to shame .....

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the history of socialism. Following
the Russian Revolution in 1917, socialism took two separate and
distinct pathways. The first, revolutionary in character, became
communism. The second, more evolutionary in nature, became democratic
socialism. The conflict between the two philosophies had been
developing since the 1860s. And anyone who believes the far Left
uniformly represents only communist ideals is just plain ignorant in
the same way that believing Barry Goldwater was a fascist because he
represented the far Right. The Scandinavian countries are pretty far
to the Left but are hardly communist. In other words, communism and
democratic socialism are parallel to each other, not part of a
continuum. You can have communists all along the Left spectrum and you
can have social democrats all along the Left spectrum.

The ignorance displayed by most Americans in lumping together everyone
on the Left is obvious and amusing to most of the world. Yes, Stalin
was a pure communist. But, Chavez thus far appears to be a social
democrat. I think a fair analogy is Chavez is to Stalin as Bush is to
Hitler. Moderate vs extremist. Chavez is not a communist and Bush is
not a fascist, but the correlations are fairly easy to see.

Regardless, democratic socialism is an especially compelling force in
the western world today. Most of Europe and the Americas, excluding
the US, practice some advanced form of democratic socialism. The only
reason that the American version of neoliberal capitalism is of any
significance is because of America's economic and military clout. It
is also abundantly clear to those of us who don't live in the US and
who haven't been indoctrinated by America's isolationist information
systems, that outside the US, most people have little use for the
unique fusion of economics and politics that characterize the Bush
administration.


Rhino wrote:
> "Sanders Kaufman" <sanderskaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:RB6Ve.213$Op3.76@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Rhino" <rhino1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:GQ2Ve.903$1G4.82272@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > "Sanders Kaufman" <sanderskaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >
> > >> "Live" is the operative word here.
> > >> I'd rather live under Chavez's rule than die under Bush's.
> > >> But I'm a socialist.
> > >>
> > > And apparently not the kind that likes democracy.
> >
> > Clearly, you are ignorant of both socialism AND democracy.
> > Here's a clue, dumbass... Democracy is a socialist ideal.
>
> No, it is an ideal espoused by *some* socialists but not by others. Lenin,
> Stalin, Mao, and a host of other dictators described themselves as
> socialists but certainly didn't support democracy in the sense that we mean
> it in the West. Some of them, briefly and grudgingly, tolerated some room
> for dissent within the highest ranks of "The Party", but frequently reneged
> on that when they felt threatened by possible rivals to their own
> dictatorship.
>
> It's a common tactic of the far left to refer to themselves as "socialists"
> to make readers think they are democratic socialists like the NDP in Canada
> or the Labour Party in the UK when they are actually hardcore Marxists.
>
> > It's based on the concept that people should be FREE to choose their
> leaders
> > and their way of life.
> >
> Stalin described himself as a socialist too; he ruled his country for more
> than 20 years without ever running in an election. Lenin, Mao, Castro, and
> many others ran their countries for many years without ever participating in
> anything we would call a genuine democratic election.
>
> > Considering the kind of "Democracy" you've imposed on the Iraqi people,
> it's
> > no wonder that you are such an idiot.
> >
>
> > --
> > It's no wonder you chicken-*** Bush-Loyalists post anonymously.
> > You guys would *never* say this crap under your own names.
> >
> >
>
> I haven't imposed anything on Iraq. I'm a Canadian.
>
> Rhino

.