Socialist states like Cuba and Venezuela are radical responses to rapacious capitalist systems. In both cases they gained popular support by offering the majority hope for a more equitable economic society at the cost of freedom. Of course this lack of freedom results in Dictatorships; without these dictatorships keeping the economy out of the hands of capitalists might not be possible. In the case of Cuba, exiles in the US are still pressing to remove Castro and many have staked claims on Cuba’ nationalized interests. Therefore, the day the US regains control of US the same capitalists bosses will be back in charge. However, without the right to consume via financial sustainability for the majority the result is a failed capitalist state; just as Communism has risen from the oppression of Monarchies. Could Communism and Socialist states be evolutionary steps of government? If so what comes after them? Democracy?
Democratic Capitalist states in the Scandinavian block enjoy the best social welfare and economic growth in Europe. At the same time their people enjoy very free and democratic societies. I would argue this form of socialism is sustainable because the majority of people see real tangible benefits from their high tax burden. Free Health care, Education, and a very good social safety net provide a tangible sense of return for paying their taxes. Perhaps this is why they don’t vote their politician out of office for not lowering the tax burden. It is also interesting to note these are some of the most secular governments in the world. Which raises a chicken or the egg question? Is it the fact that people have their minimum needs provided by the government that removes the need to have Faith in a higher power. Or is it another type of moral response evolved from their secular nature that drives them to insure that everyone in society is provided for.
On the contrary US citizens while enjoying lower tax rates, all loathe paying because they did not see an explicit benefit from their tax burden. Imperialism benefits the economic masters of a society and forces an enormous tax burden on the lower and middle class to pay for massive military and interest spent on deficits. On the contrary US citizens do not remove their politicians from office because the agents of the empire has the media towing the line that no other system is sustainable and America is a special place in the world blessed by God with a Moral duty to police the world. They also vote against social welfare because they believe it costs to much and people who use it are lazy. The evangelical right in America takes the moral high ground claiming that morality comes only through God. Yet, they oppose social welfare and call the meekest in America lazy; obviously a direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Chicken or the Egg again, is the US so theocratic because of the lack of Social welfare, or do they oppose it with the idea God will provide for what the state fails too? What happens to failed Democratic Capitalist Empires like the US?
Does third world growth in GDP after IMF & Co. intervention real and sustainable or just the reporting of resources being ripped out as GDP and therefore not sustainable? Likewise the reporting of lower GDP growth in Socialist states because rather then massive wealth transfer out, resources are now being turned inward.
These thoughts are an attempt to work out my support for Chavez and Castro despite their lack of Free societies. In the current global climate of pro-Globalization the US argues that the only way forward for the 3 rd world is to allow the rape of their economies by capitalists with limited benefit to their populations. The non-aligned block led by Chavez and Castro argue that countries have an option to pour their resources inward to protect, nurture and develop their economies without the rapacious policies of the IMF, WTO, and World Bank.
Failed Totalitarian>Anarchism
Failed Communists>Crony Capitalism
Failed Crony Capitalism>Socialist
Failed Monarchy>Communists/Democracy
These adds credibility to the argument many are making about Iraq and military intervention to install democracy. It is extremely difficult for a society to make the transition from rule from the barrel of a gun to rule from the ballot box. Without a securely controlled Civilian military sustainable democracy is not possible.
What is the ideal transition for a democratic government from a failed or defeated state? The US showed after WW2 with their success in Korea, Japan, and Germany that puppet governments must be established in order to create a secure society with a rule of law. With that in place at some point the populace will vote the puppet government from power and should be allowed to so they can master their own destiny from the ballot box and that should set a long lasting precedent.
