Freethought & Rationalism Archive

echidna · 02-05-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moon
But, several socialist states have had a very free press: Yugoslavia and Nicaragua for example. In fact, when the U.S. started bombing Serbia in 1999, one of the first targets was the state media.

On Yugoslavia you�re mixing era�s.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~pressnow/dossier/donors.html

Quote:

Although the media may not be responsible for starting the war in former Yugoslavia, they were certainly crucial in the run-up to the war. A most succinct description of their role appears in Mark Thompson's book 'Forging War' (Article XIX, 1994). Thompson reveals how Milosevic manipulated the media. He could never have started the war without the active support of the state media, which blindly adopted his nationalist rhetoric. The book also relates the Croatian regime's use of the media to present itself as the final bastion of "Western" democratic values and Sarajevo's Muslim-dominated government's depiction in the media as the helpless victim of a war of conquest. By 1992 the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Tadeuz Mazowiecki had already observed the media's disastrous role in the war in former Yugoslavia1.

Quote:

Under Tito, Yugoslavia's press was reasonably varied by Central-European standards. The administration's decentralization in the 1960s and 1970s turned Yugoslavia into an alliance of regional oligarchies. Following Tito's death the media became an essential tool in the struggle for power between the republican elites. They used Atheir@ state media to recruit support for their nationalist policy and rapidly replaced the communist rhetoric with nationalist propaganda, replete with hatred (and fear) of the other population groups. Motivated by conviction or need, many journalists made the transition from one political regime to the other.

Once again, you�re left defending the exceptions rather than the rule.

echidna · 02-05-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moon
I have to say that this is one point we can agree on. You are correct that true communists are dedicated to smashing world capitalism. Not through military aggression, but through internal revolution. Therefore, the U.S. ruling class should try to crush socialism, for this reason. Real communism is, indeed, a threat to U.S. imperialism because real communism is internationalist, and stands in solidarity with the workers of the world who wish to liberate themselves from capitalist exploitation and oppression.

Actually I suspect that the main reason many western governments are currently moving away from welfare states, is exactly for this reason. That by slashing unemployment benefits they can cut off the major source of funding to the International Socialist Movement.

echidna · 02-05-2003, 02:24 PM

Excellent article on Cuba�s low infant mortality rate :

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000022.html

Quote:

Recently released statistics on the infant mortality rate in the Western hemisphere yielded an odd conclusions -- Cuba's infant mortality rate, 16 6.0 per 1,000, is now lower than the U.S. infant mortality rate, at 7.2 per 1,000. Given Cuba's poverty level, its 6.0 rate is very impressive, but is it accurate to say that Cuba now has an infant mortality rate lower than the United States? No.

The problem is that international statistics on infant mortality are helpful in revealing large differences, but when it comes to small differences such as that between Cuba and the United States, often other factors are really behind the numbers.

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

Nope, as Vork says, the direct comparison is invalid, in fact this indicates that the U.S. figures are dramatically inflated by the consideration of premature births.

thefugitivesaint · 02-05-2003, 02:27 PM

lamma

Quote:

I'm not trying to be facetious, but this is something that I just don't get. If socialism is such a great system-if it were simply better than capitalism, then shouldn't capitalism have collapsed in western Europe and North America? Shouldn't a superior system be able to carry the day?

Well, this is inaccurate. The social systems set up in eastern europe were never a threat to capitalism nor did they compete with capitalism in any real way.

As August has stated (and this is not a mere side-stepping of the issue at all) the economic models laid out for many eastern european countries controlled by the USSR were state-capitalist in nature. The actual transition to "real communism" never took place (and probably never would have...i mean it is an 'ideal' and ideals are by their very nature unrealizable).

Why they failed miserably is the same reason why it (state-capitalism or "actually existing socialism" as it is often called) it will continue to fail: Capitalism is not going to let it grow nor can it allow it to grow even as an idea!

This whole thread fails to acknowledge that we are comparing to different systems as if they were equals. They aren't, haven't been and will never be. Capitalism has had a strength that Socialism has never truly had even in primitive societies. To compare the two is like comparing to runners, one from a wealthy background, with all the right training, access to highly nutritional food and a great deal of support while the other is from a poorer background, had little to no training, little access to its nutritional needs and had little to no support. To say that the one racer beat the other racer isn't saying much.

But, i know i'm wasting my time here with this. The lines are drawn here and conversation is merely dogmatic semantic games for those with a vested interest in coming out on top. Oh well.
-theSaint

August Spies · 02-05-2003, 02:38 PM

I agree with fugative saint but let me point out again "Lamma, if it helps you you can think of my destinction in terms of libertarian socialism (really a repetative phrase but...) and Authoritarian socialism. Where both are understood in a broad sense. "

this is to say, socialism is a BROAD term that contains a lot of ideas. Many types of socialism have not been tried OR have been tried but ruthless repressed by stronger capitalist powers. Basically, the term socialism is being used to broadly here.

echidna · 02-05-2003, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thefugitivesaint
This whole thread fails to acknowledge that we are comparing to different systems as if they were equals. They aren't, haven't been and will never be. Capitalism has had a strength that Socialism has never truly had even in primitive societies. To compare the two is like comparing to runners, one from a wealthy background, with all the right training, access to highly nutritional food and a great deal of support while the other is from a poorer background, had little to no training, little access to its nutritional needs and had little to no support. To say that the one racer beat the other racer isn't saying much.

Now this is bizarre. How then do you explain that every wealthy modern country originated poor and grew its wealth through capitalism. Was every country born rich ? What about the ones which have developed at lightning pace over just the last 2 generations throughout S.E.Asia ? What about the ones which are just beginning to accelerate their growth rates such as the Baltic states which I posted earlier ? What about the startling growth rates over the last decade in the countries retaining their communist title (China, Vietnam, et al) who are suddenly freeing their markets along the capitalist model ?

Truth is, historically there are dozens of racers born slow who take just a few decades to compete with the top racers. Truth is, they can only do it by inserting capitalism into their system.

moon · 02-05-2003, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Selsaral
I guess you just don't accept any western history of any kind? This isn't meant as an accusation or dismissal, simply a question. Everything I have learned shows essentially the exact opposite to pretty much everything you've stated in this thread, and particularly in regards to the press. Even during the gulf war, or the vietnam war, American publications could openly criticize the governments actions, speculate on current affairs etc.

Theoretically they could. So why didn't they?

During the Vietnam War and the Gulf War, and every other war, the mainstream mass media has been 100% behind the state in its war mongering. But, the way this is done is very sophisticated. I would recommend reading Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent for the details. Essentially, what they do is constrain the limits of debate within narrow bounds. So, for example, during the Vietnam War, the only thing debatable was tactics, the issue of the morality of the war was literally never discussed in the main media. Likewise, during the entire war, not one single main media commentator ever referred to the U.S. invasion of Vietnam as an invasion. That term, the only accurate term, was literally never used. Conformity to acceptable dogma was 100%. There has never been anything like that degree of conformity in the Soviet press.

By allowing debate within certain bounds, the press gives the appearance of being open. It succeeded in fooling you, for instance. But, the main media is anything but free; it is tightly controlled and highly concentrated into a small number of rightwing fanatics.

As for what you are reading being opposed to what you have learned previously, this is a good sign. You see, everything you have been taught is a lie. Your teachers, the media, the state, your authority figures--they have all been lying to you. Now, what you should do is seek out alternative sources of information, and use your brain to come to rational conclusions.

Loren Pechtel · 02-05-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moon
What do you mean by a free press? Free for whom? Time Warner? Under what conditions?

Your statement was too broad. It is factually untrue that all socialist states have cracked down on the freedom of the press, although some have, mostly in response to threats to their existence. Keep in mind that that during wartime, capitalist states are equally as oppressive.

But, several socialist states have had a very free press: Yugoslavia and Nicaragua for example. In fact, when the U.S. started bombing Serbia in 1999, one of the first targets was the state media.

Nobody's threatening China's existence. Just from reading the paper over there I can see the hand of government censorship even without knowing anything of the events on which they are reporting.

I've also seen other very obvious examples of the press being just a government mouthpiece. How about an article on why a one-party system gives you a better choice? (Answer: Since the candidates have been approved by the party you know you're voting for someone qualified.)

As for Serbia, you've got some memory problems there. It was *NOT* one of the first targets. It was finally hit because we were tired of Milosivek (sp?) using it as a propaganda tool--in other words it was *NOT* free!

Loren Pechtel · 02-05-2003, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna
Excellent article on Cuba�s low infant mortality rate :

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000022.html

Nope, as Vork says, the direct comparison is invalid, in fact this indicates that the U.S. figures are dramatically inflated by the consideration of premature births.

While I agree with the concept, there's something *VERY* wrong here:

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Since when do 30 to 40 percent of infants die, period?

I think what it's supposed to say is that 30-40% of infants who die do so on the day they are born.

moon · 02-05-2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
As for Serbia, you've got some memory problems there. It was *NOT* one of the first targets. It was finally hit because we were tired of Milosivek (sp?) using it as a propaganda tool--in other words it was *NOT* free!

Fucking hilarious.

When other people put out information that contradicts what the NATO lie machine has to say, that is "propaganda," and therefore justifies the U.S. bombing the media. One must ask, though, if the U.S./NATO was justified in bombing, why it was so threatened by Serb radio that it had to bomb the radio stations.

Also of interest is your use of the word "we" as in "we were tired." Were you? Were you, specifically, tired of Milosevic (I don't think Milosevic had much to do with the running of the radio station) using the radio as a propaganda tool? God forbid anybody use the radio as a propaganda tool!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2003, 02:38 PM	#155
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	I agree with fugative saint but let me point out again "Lamma, if it helps you you can think of my destinction in terms of libertarian socialism (really a repetative phrase but...) and Authoritarian socialism. Where both are understood in a broad sense. " this is to say, socialism is a BROAD term that contains a lot of ideas. Many types of socialism have not been tried OR have been tried but ruthless repressed by stronger capitalist powers. Basically, the term socialism is being used to broadly here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.