Fidel Castro on Forbes' Richest list

[IrishAndProud]

It took you how many hors to think of that? Did i say I'm a marxist?

Your an anarchist but you denounce Marx. Absolutely ridiculous.

Ah, so you don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise you'd know the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism. This is very amusing, since you accuse me of ignorance and stupidity, yet I have read all of your influences and you aren't even aware that mine exist. In fact, you haven't even read your own influences.

The end product of a true socialist state will be anarchy.

This is impossible. Creating an ever-bigger state does not lead to the abolition of the state. It creates a ruling elite whose power becomes ever greater and whose interests become inescapably intertwined with the health and vitality of the big, oppressive state. As it grows, those who have the power to abolish it will become fundamentally opposed to its abolition.

You take your thoughts from stalinist regimes. If you knew anything about Marx or socialism then we wouldnt be having this conversation.

I've given the argument. Respond to it if you will, but don't pretend you're so smart when you can't even come up with a semblance of a rebuttal.

You wanted me to tell you Marx's thoughts on Jews and wommen. OK, Marx's family were Jews. His father did change his religion but his grandfather and uncles were all Rabi's. I think Marx was certainly in a position were he could criticise Jews or say whatever he wanted on them.

That doesn't answer the question. I asked you what your interpretation was of Marx's views on Jews, not what your understanding of his family background was.

As for wommen well when Karls daughter and Wife died everybody who knew Marx said that was basically the nail in his own coffin. By your talk Marx would have been happy to see two women leave this earth.

OK, so you don't know anything about Marx's views on women either. So far you're 0 for 2, and the "ignorant" anarchist knows a lot more about Marx than the so-called Marxist.

In reply to your last statemnet: it does not constitute socialism simply when the goverment owns a large proportion of business.

Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. The US government controls a third of the US economy. This percentage has steadily grown since 1865. Therefore, the US is socialist, by Marxist logic, since Marx calls for the State to take control of more and more of the economy, both by taking control of business and by directing the economy with controls on prices, wages, labour and so forth.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't denounce anarchy because it is possible but only through Marx.

As I've demonstrated, Marxism makes anarchy impossible.

I will read of these people you speak of

I doubt it. You haven't even read Marx, and he's your hero.

I've met anarchists before and its just a simple case of they don't like this they don't like that but none can come up with a clear alternative.

Read Murray Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto before you start slinging insults against things you have absolutely no knowledge of.

You really are a joke. This is a serious forum. Come back in a few years when you're out of the sandbox and have actually read a few books. Marxism might sound like a great idea in your high-school, but please, learn at least a little about it before you start shouting that you're a Communist. You just embarrass yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Hugo]

Did i say I'm a marxist?

From the way you were shamelessly singing his praises and blathering on about him to the exception of anyone else (save Fidel Castro, who describes himself as a Marxist), yes, I assumed that.

[Cartman]

Irish, if the state ever does socialize the means of production, what makes you think that this will lead to communism/anarchy (i.e. the whithering away of the state)? If Marx were alive today, would he not say that it is time the Cuban state dissolve? Is Castro not betraying the revolution by retaining such massive control? Do you think he will declare as much before he dies? Why not? Is it not greed pure and simple? I would assume that most tyrants, to a varying extent, believe they are doing good by their people. Do you think Hitler hated Germans?

I have enjoyed reading Marx. I particularly enjoy his wit and arrogance at times (which explains why I can stomach August ). But Marx must be read in context and his emotional zeal be tempered by disciplined logic. Check out Hobbes, Smith, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham etc. as well (not as user friendly, but insightful).

[Sir Chauncy]

It is not personal wealth though that Castro has. He has that wealth as leader, in escro.

When he dies the next leader will have his wealth as leader and it passes to the next leader, etc.

Unlike Presidents in Washington, Castro actually cares about his country and people.

Sir Chauncy

[Hugo]

It is not personal wealth though that Castro has. He has that wealth as leader, in escro.

When he dies the next leader will have his wealth as leader and it passes to the next leader, etc.

This is indeed personal wealth. These assets are held in his name. When he dies, whoever succeeds him will probably be able to seize his assets, just as when any dictatorship changes hands. But this is just the way things are done in Cuba. The ruler can seize whatever he wants, no matter who it belongs to.

Unlike Presidents in Washington, Castro actually cares about his country and people.

Why, because he machineguns them? Because he puts them in jail for decades and tortures them for criticizing him? I think Castro cares about Castro and does whatever he thinks will best persuade the Cuban people not to rise up and shrug him off.

[Xployer]

It is not personal wealth though that Castro has. He has that wealth as leader, in escro.

When he dies the next leader will have his wealth as leader and it passes to the next leader, etc.

This is indeed personal wealth. These assets are held in his name. When he dies, whoever succeeds him will probably be able to seize his assets, just as when any dictatorship changes hands. But this is just the way things are done in Cuba. The ruler can seize whatever he wants, no matter who it belongs to.

Unlike Presidents in Washington, Castro actually cares about his country and people.

Why, because he machineguns them? Because he puts them in jail for decades and tortures them for criticizing him? I think Castro cares about Castro and does whatever he thinks will best persuade the Cuban people not to rise up and shrug him off.

And who exactly does George W. care about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Toro]

The fact that Castro wants his brother to succeed him pretty much says it all. So, the best person in the entire state of Cuba is - Castro's bother? Let Rauol stand for election - a real election - and if he wins, fair enough. But Castro is just another nepotistic despot.