General Election - Coming Soon - 11th September

[Strong Eagle]

From Wakeup Singapore FB page: https://www.facebook.com/wakeupSG?fref=nf

People tend to forget that the PAP was founded as a Left wing Socialist party. Many of its policies such as universal housing, meritocracy, racial and religious equality were considered progressive in the 1950s and 60s. Without the Leftists, the Trade Unionists and Socialists within the PAP, the party would never have won over the Chinese speaking majority and become the ruling party. However, it seems like the word "Socialism" has now become a dirty word in Singapore politics. Too often, Socialism is equated with Communism but what is the difference between the two? (YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE)

[Barnsley]

From Wakeup Singapore FB page: https://www.facebook.com/wakeupSG?fref=nf

People tend to forget that the PAP was founded as a Left wing Socialist party. Many of its policies such as universal housing, meritocracy, racial and religious equality were considered progressive in the 1950s and 60s. Without the Leftists, the Trade Unionists and Socialists within the PAP, the party would never have won over the Chinese speaking majority and become the ruling party. However, it seems like the word "Socialism" has now become a dirty word in Singapore politics. Too often, Socialism is equated with Communism but what is the difference between the two? (YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE)

It is interesting how the perceptions can change.

The Govt has run a very tight ship often associated with the opposite end to the political spectrum that it was founded upon.

[Barnsley]

Seems like quite a few "Big Hitters" are stepping down for the Govt.

Minister of Transport just announce they are not standing in election.

Pressure on?

[calugaruvaxile]

From Wakeup Singapore FB page: https://www.facebook.com/wakeupSG?fref=nf

People tend to forget that the PAP was founded as a Left wing Socialist party. Many of its policies such as universal housing, meritocracy, racial and religious equality were considered progressive in the 1950s and 60s. Without the Leftists, the Trade Unionists and Socialists within the PAP, the party would never have won over the Chinese speaking majority and become the ruling party. However, it seems like the word "Socialism" has now become a dirty word in Singapore politics. Too often, Socialism is equated with Communism but what is the difference between the two? (YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE)

don't forget that "the party of cadres" was lenin's idea of organizing the society. also, the "grassroot" organizations are organized the same way as the soviets ("soviet" means "council") were. NTUC is nothing but the general soviet union of labor unions. sg's economy is nowhere free market (how can it be free market when the govt controls the market of the most expensive goods, housing and vehicles). the startups are forcefully bought by temasek and co, if they start making real money (so you won't have a class of entrepreneurs competing with the cadres). even if the much-acclaimed "entitlement" of sg workforce is the govt-reliance.

i would daresay that sg is pretty communist, without knowing it. it has created a parallel "free" world for the MNCs, 'cause they needed money.

[JR8]

Ooh, reminds me of visiting Cuba back in the 90's. I found it hard to reconcile how Castro (et al), the original '''commie revolutionaries''' lived in... not humble abodes, not eff off huge villas, but marbled palaces.

--- Even Ho chi Minh lived in a palace, and maintained a timber cabin in the woods that he claimed was him home, and that tour guides will now beat a path to.

[JR8]

Ho Chi Minh was just as bad of course. Preaching the virtues of life as a pauper whilst living as a king.


.... continue with the rulers of E Germany, Romania, Albania, etc.

[Strong Eagle]

Reminds me of that old Jules Feiffer cartoon:

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.

[calugaruvaxile]

communism was just a way of replacing some elites with different ones within a short period of time. all the revolutions are doing the same things.

the "soviet" system is not bad in theory (in theory, it's a bottom-up system: every village has a soviet, and each soviet sends a delegate into the district soviet, all the story repeats until you reach the supreme soviet (the parliament). it's the representative system in its more basic form. it's supposed to push to the next level the problems which go beyond the powers/competencies of a community. but it never worked like this, it was a top-down system in which decisions from above cascaded to the smaller community. i believe this happened mostly due to the extreme poverty of the "revolutionaries". they were so poor that their standards were very low. as other places in other times, they were cash-poor and asset-rich .

[zzm9980]

Ho Chi Minh was just as bad of course. Preaching the virtues of life as a pauper whilst living as a king.


.... continue with the rulers of E Germany, Romania, Albania, etc.

Ho Chi Minh only embraced communism because the US rejected his engagement. He actually felt US style capitalism was a much better fit for Vietnamese culture. (given what we see today, I'd say that is true).

He wanted their help to establish an independent Vietnam and kick the French out. The US wanted to keep the French happy. The Soviets were much more willing to assist, so he embraced their ideology to get their money and support.

Source: Kissinger's book 'On China'.

[Strong Eagle]

^^^^^^^^^^
Bingo! Had the US not double crossed HCM in the Paris talks there would have been no Vietnam war. Even then, if they had left ole Ho alone, there would have been no war, but US war hawks, convinced that their communist "domino theory" was correct, decided they couldn't let Ho implement whatever it was he wanted to do.

[JR8]

Ho Chi Minh only embraced communism because the US rejected his engagement. He actually felt US style capitalism was a much better fit for Vietnamese culture. (given what we see today, I'd say that is true).

He wanted their help to establish an independent Vietnam and kick the French out. The US wanted to keep the French happy. The Soviets were much more willing to assist, so he embraced their ideology to get their money and support.

Source: Kissinger's book 'On China'.

But my point was he was a supposed 'noble communist', living in a cabin the woods outside Hanoi, when in fact he lived in what would popularly be regarded as a palace. The further point is that most socialists, and communists live the same lie.

HCM was a communist during his early years working in Europe and the US. He worked as a kitchen hand in London, Paris and NYC. [Something of an itinerant one!]. That was before he'd returned to Vietnam, prior to any position of influence, and long before he was in any position to begin petitioning the US government at an intra-national level.

Seems to me he picked up communism off the back of post-WW1, post Russian-revolution communist idealism.

You could also ask if HCM thought capitalism was an answer, and despite his long remaining an influential father-figure for the country, why were no green shoots of capitalism permitted until 1990+? Furthermore if capitalism was the way to go, why was tourism to the country on a par with the North Korea of today, right up until the early 1990s?

[zzm9980]

Ho Chi Minh only embraced communism because the US rejected his engagement. He actually felt US style capitalism was a much better fit for Vietnamese culture. (given what we see today, I'd say that is true).

He wanted their help to establish an independent Vietnam and kick the French out. The US wanted to keep the French happy. The Soviets were much more willing to assist, so he embraced their ideology to get their money and support.

Source: Kissinger's book 'On China'.

But my point was he was a supposed 'noble communist', living in a cabin the woods outside Hanoi, when in fact he lived in what would popularly be regarded as a palace. The further point is that most socialists, and communists live the same lie.

Show me more leaders who don't live the sweet life? Very very few.

HCM was a communist during his early years working in Europe and the US. He worked as a kitchen hand in London, Paris and NYC. [Something of an itinerant one!]. That was before he'd returned to Vietnam, prior to any position of influence, and long before he was in any position to begin petitioning the US government at an intra-national level.

Seems to me he picked up communism off the back of post-WW1, post Russian-revolution communist idealism.

You could also ask if HCM thought capitalism was an answer, and despite his long remaining an influential father-figure for the country, why were no green shoots of capitalism permitted until 1990+? Furthermore if capitalism was the way to go, why was tourism to the country on a par with the North Korea of today, right up until the early 1990s?

Sounds like you could study this for years and write a book on the subject. In fact, I've read books on the subject. It's a lot more to do with global realpolitik than HCM's personal ideals.

[bgd]

Show me more leaders who don't live the sweet life? Very very few.

Jose Mujica of Uruguay and the current Pope spring to mind. But as you say, very few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica

[rajagainstthemachine]

add to that pol pot lol

[JR8]

The pope? He lives in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican. 'Primo' real estate as they might say in Rome
Damn, he even has a private Swiss mercenary army. Hardly the life of a 'humble worker'.

When I said 'most socialists and communists live the lie', i.e. of pretending to be the former, whilst living like kings it's precisely because they are not genuinely the former. Rather it is a ruse to blind the little people who they then themselves exploit for personal gain. cf. Al Gore, Tony Blair etc.

So I exclude from that individuals who genuinely live the beliefs they preach. That seems to tie with those who have taken up arms, for right or wrong, to ram those beliefs through. That includes the likes of Mandela - though his wife certainly took the opportunity to live like a Queen, perhaps why he ultimately divorced her.
Pol Pot is hard to consider as he spent most of his life as a fugitive. (similar to Che Guevara?). I seem to recall walking past Castro's mansion in a very swanky neighbourhood in Havana, Bel-Mar or something*. Perhaps life as a 'revolutionary communist' needn't be so tough... meanwhile the people starved.

President Hollande of France; socialist, but lives in the Elysee Palace. And how about Mugabe? .... [etc etc, continues for 94 pages... ;;]




---
*
'Fidel Castro lived like a king with his own private yacht, a luxury Caribbean island getaway complete with dolphins and a turtle farm, and travelled with two personal blood donors, a new book claims.

In La Vie Cachée de Fidel Castro (Fidel Castro's Hidden Life), former bodyguard Juan Reinaldo Sánchez, a member of Castro's elite inner circle, says the Cuban leader ran the country as his personal fiefdom like a cross between a medieval overlord and Louis XV.

Sánchez, who was part of Castro's praetorian guard for 17 years, describes a charismatic and intelligent but manipulative, cold-blooded, egocentric Castro prone to foot-stamping temper tantrums. He claims the vast majority of Cubans were unaware their leader enjoyed a lifestyle beyond the dreams of many Cubans and at odds with the sacrifices he demanded of them.

"Contrary to what he has always said, Fidel has never renounced capitalist comforts or chosen to live in austerity. Au contraire, his mode de vie is that of a capitalist without any kind of limit," he writes. "He has never considered that he is obliged by his speech to follow the austere lifestyle of a good revolutionary."' [continues]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... -king-cuba