Richard Stallman, founder of the FSF, robbed in Argentina

[sesamosinsal]

To anyone who thinks the communists are nothing to worry about, you should study up on something called the Holodormor where upwards of 60 MILLION persons living in Ukraine we starved to death and systematically murdered or put in gulags to be worked to death by the nice commies in that country.

You could say the same things about the "American capitalists" who, through placing sanctions on Iraq, directly caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Secretary of State Albright was asked in 1996 if she thought that the "price" was worth it, and she said, "We think the price is worth it."

Evil can manifest itself in any economic theory.

 

[Adios_USA]

Absolutely, though I would question the true origin of these so called americans who go off making decisions to murder slews of innocent people for their banker/weapons manufacturing buddies. I personally consider Albright and her cronies to be a bunch of filthy commies too. I suspect their loyalties are to another country that exercises WAY too much power in the middle east.

 

[el_expatriado]

You could say the same things about the "American capitalists" who, through placing sanctions on Iraq, directly caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Secretary of State Albright was asked in 1996 if she thought that the "price" was worth it, and she said, "We think the price is worth it."

Evil can manifest itself in any economic theory.

I'm sorry, but this is BS. If a country can't organize itself to feed its own citizens without relying on foreign exchange the leaders of that country are 100% at fault for what happens and criminally responsable in my view. Even the most ardent free market purist would agree that securing your food supply is a national security issue and relying on foreigners for securing your food supply is tantamount to surrendering your sovereignty.

Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, (hmm... all socialist/communist countries) all have problems feeding their people.

Sorry buddy, but capitalism has nothing to do with it. This is a total failure of Iraq's economic policies at home.

 

[camberiu]

You could say the same things about the "American capitalists" who, through placing sanctions on Iraq, directly caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Secretary of State Albright was asked in 1996 if she thought that the "price" was worth it, and she said, "We think the price is worth it."

Evil can manifest itself in any economic theory.

I'd hardly call Albright a "capitalist".
Also, it is very interesting to note that the Neocon movement, which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the middle east, has some very strong Marxist origins. The founders of the movement, such as Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer and Irving Howe were all former Trotskytes who later abandoned the egalitarian principles of communism but continued to subscribe to many marxists/trostkysts principles, including a strong central state, government interventionism, engaged foreign policy and the continued export of the revolution. The idea of the neocons to conquer Iraq and use it to "spread western democracy across the middle east" is entirely based on the principles set by Trotsky. Neocons are not supporters of the free market in any way shape or form. They believe in massive government spending, police control, limited civil liberties, strong nationalism and government secrecy. This is a clear contrast when compared with the principles of the paleo-conservatives, who always believed in non-interventionism, small military, little government spending, free markets and complete civil liberties. Paleo-conservatives are even against mandated national IDs card, as they see this as a violation of individual freedoms.

Remember that "war is the health of the state" and true capitalist abhor big state.

 

[camberiu]

Sorry buddy, but capitalism has nothing to do with it. This is a total failure of Iraq's economic policies at home.

I'll disagree with you here. Capitalism had nothing to do with it, but the US government did have everything to do with it. The US guns prevented the free market flow of goods and services into Iraq. The force of the US guns alone prevented Iraq from selling what they had to buy what they needed. That was criminal and it was done by government scumbags from both administrations.

 

[el_expatriado]

I'll disagree with you here. Capitalism had nothing to do with it, but the US government did have everything to do with it. The US guns prevented the free market flow of goods and services into Iraq. The force of the US guns alone prevented Iraq from selling what they had to buy what they needed. That was criminal and it was done by government scumbags from both administrations.

I am not a fan of economic sanctions (for this very reason, they usually end up hurting the people and not the dictator), but I disagree that you can blame deaths on economic sanctions. The only thing economic sanctions do is prevent foreign trade. And in the case of the Iraq sanctions, they had the food for oil program that allowed them to keep exporting oil, but they could only get food and medicine in return.

Let's look at the situation, though. Say these same sanctions were applied to Argentina or Brazil. It would have almost no effect because these countries are self sufficient in terms of food. If you allow your country to be dependent on foreigners for basic necessities such as food and energy, that's a quick ticket to becoming a fourth rate country and being dominated by another world power.

 

[sesamosinsal]

Capitalism had nothing to do with it, but the US government did have everything to do with it.

To be clear, I never meant to imply that capitalism itself is what caused the deaths. What I wanted to imply was how easy it is for people to take the decisions of a maniac and somehow equate those decisions to an economic theory.

There are positive aspects of communism, socialism, and capitalism. It's irrational to say that they are all bad or all good.

 

[camberiu]

And in the case of the Iraq sanctions, they had the food for oil program that allowed them to keep exporting oil, but they could only get food and medicine in return.

This program was run by whom again? The UN, that massive bureaucratic body. How agile do you think the UN bureaucrats were to approve transactions? Take the current process of legally buying dollars in Argentina and multiply it by 10 and you might have an idea of how agile the "oil for food" program was.

Let's look at the situation, though. Say these same sanctions were applied to Argentina or Brazil. It would have almost no effect because these countries are self sufficient in terms of food. If you allow your country to be dependent on foreigners for basic necessities such as food and energy, that's a quick ticket to becoming a fourth rate country and being dominated by another world power.

Well, Iraq is not Brazil or Argentina. Iraq is mostly a desert. It had been an oil exporter for decades, so the population grew based on the excess food that the oil exports allowed for. Also, the population migrated from the countryside to the cities. So, when the sanctions took place, it generated mass famine.
This idea of countries being self-sufficient on food is not practical or viable on a world in which the division of labor happens on a global scale. Certain countries specialize in certain things. Under a trade embargo, the populations of China, Japan and much of northern europe would starve. Is China a fourth rate country? They are certainly not self sufficient on food by a long shot. Nor is Japan.

Also, a trade embargo would have severe effects in both Brazil, Argentina and even the USA. Yes, they are both self-sufficient in food. But without imported oil(from Iraq), there would be no energy to power harvesters or to move the food from the country to the cities by truck. There would be no pesticides, parts to repair powerplants, coppertto replace wiring, etc... So the end result would be the same, massive starvation.

 

[el_expatriado]

Under a trade embargo, the populations of China, Japan and much of northern europe would starve. Is China a fourth rate country? They are certainly not self sufficient on food by a long shot. Nor is Japan.

I'd like to see any country try to impose a trade embargo on China. If you have a million man army, you don't need to grow your own food. You either buy it or you take it by force.

If you are planning on invading your neighbors, running WMD programs, or generally upsetting the the powers that be, then its probably a good idea to be self sufficient.

Let's take two countries... Morocco and Iraq are on the same latitude and have about the same amount of arable land (8-10 million hectares). The difference is that government policy in Morocco resulted in 100% self sufficiency with respect to food, while more than half of Iraq's land sits fallow.

If half of your arable land sits fallow, you cannot blame any foreign power for starvation in your country. That is my point.

I am an ardent supporter of free markets, but there are limits. A nation must secure its food and energy supply.

 

[demokritos]

Wow, you've got to love this forum. Stallman gets robbed in June 2012 after giving a lecture at UBA and... we're talking about the 1990s trade embargo of Iraq.