First of all I am very pleased with the calm tempers in this discussion. Most threads of this nature quickly devolve into name calling.
One of the major issues with Cuba right now is not necessarily the fault of Fidel, but a result of the fall of the Soviet Union. Cuba lost something like 75% of their trade during the 1990s, and the US embargo continued. Don't you think it's evil that the US Foreign policy blocks prosperity to another nation? This blockade is absolutely pointless.
Basic info on what life in Cuba is like:
http://library.think...daily_life.html
The situation in Cuba right now is only tangentially related to the fall of the Soviet Union. Their problems are much more related to the trade embargo maintained by the United States and the countless attempts the U.S. has made to overthrow or weaken their government. And that considered, Cuba is holding up quite well. There have been no major food shortages, poverty is far lower than would be reasonably expected, and so on. Not to say that I support the current Cuban regime, because I don't. I have a number of problems with command economies and with the limited (although still somewhat present) freedoms of expression.
Wakka,
Let’s get something straight.
You said:
Then you said in the shoutbox:
I answered:
Then I said:
You answered:
My response:
No joke young man. Capitalism in the USA makes possible a new product call Quietus for tinnitus, a Communist country would not make a product like that.
Would you have been allowed to ask for Prayer publicly in a Communist country? You could in the USA.
I have a couple of diseases as well. I'm not a medical expert, but with the two diseases I have (which aren't exactly rare), the U.S. is lagging far, far behind the rest of the First World's medical systems with respects to prices, support, even care provided and medicines. Once again I would remind you that I am just speaking on personal experience, but for me, the more socialized the medical system the better. For me.
YEAH ...RIGHT!!!!!! THEN WHY ARE THE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND WE
LFARE PROGRAMS BEING CUT.
Right now this so called capitalist country is being took down the communist path by the powers that be in DC. if we don't do something we will be in the same shape or worse than russia or cuba or even china.
Don't kid yourself. Ron Paul himself came out recently and said that Obama wasn't a socialist. He's so much more of a corporatist, something that almost every president since FDR at the least has been.
Foreigner: Most of the things you just said are reasons why the USSR should not be considered a socialist state in the slightest. You too Wakka. There have been very few regions in the world that have ever followed much from the Communist Manifesto, or Das Kapital, or any other of Marx's works. The nations pay lip service to him, of course, because that allows them to be supported by the lower classes instead of having to hold down each and every peasant. China is almost full capitalist now, North Korea is essentially fascist. The USSR was more a state capitalist system, where the nation itself controlled the means of production. True communism is a system that relies on the democratic control of the means of production, so the only way a nation could possibly attain this would be if they were fully democratic. Leon Trotsky was s big supporter of democracy, which was why he was kicked out by Stalin. Which brings me to the next point: Communism can only truly be achieved with an internationalist perspective. Another integral part of the system is that communists believe that class ties bind people together more than national ties. Therefore, it should be as ludicrous to hear the term "Socialism in One Nation" as it should be to hear "Libertarian Dictatorships": or something of that ilk.
Noam Chomsky also had a few words on the supposed "Communism" of the USSR:
"One can debate the meaning of the term 'socialism,' but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state.
"To refer to the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control - and to convert the workforce into what they called a 'labor army' under the command of the leader.
"In any meaningful sense of the term 'socialism,' the Bolsheviks moved at once to destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted since. ...
"The world's two major propaganda systems (the United States and the Soviet Union) did not agree on much, but they did agree on using the term socialism to refer to the immediate destruction of every element of socialism by the Bolsheviks. That's not too surprising. The Bolsheviks called their system socialist so as to exploit the moral prestige of socialism.
"The West adopted the same usage for the opposite reason: to defame the feared libertarian ideals by associating them with the Bolshevik dungeon, to undermine the popular belief that there really might be progress towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic institutions and concern for human needs and rights.
"If socialism is the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, then sane people will say: not for me. And if that's the only alternative to corporate state capitalism, then many will submit to its authoritarian structures as the only reasonable choice. ...
"Why should workers agree to be slaves in a basically authoritarian structure? They should have control over it themselves. Why shouldn't communities have a dominant voice in running the institutions that affect their lives?"
Wakka
Lets put your Marxist theory to the test. We will start a commune using pure communist doctrines .
I only have one stipulation , I am to be in charge , and you are to be the peasant.
As you can tell , I have already grasped the fundamental reason people want communism , and I have only been one for 5 minutes.
See above.
The only way communism could succeed would require 100% participation by the people.
Because then 100% of the people would be in control.
At that point you have created the free enterprise capitalist system.
Think deep my friends , think deep.
Hope you get it.
Martin W.
That would be true if you believed that in our free enterprise system everyone had access to enough means of production to provide for themselves and their family. Clearly, this is not the case.
The only way capitalism can run as it was truly intended is with no national borders, no immigration restrictions, with 100% of people knowing 100% of the options and prices for 100% of goods and services. Is this reflected in reality? No. Have we thrown away capitalism because it's unrealistic? No.
I could go on about British Guyana, Chile and the other Latin American nations and the strides they were making until the U.S. backed coups of the 70s and 80s. I could talk about Italy, where a coalition of Communists and Christian Democrats were governing until the U.S. government backed the assassination of the communists and nationwide repression, or about Nepal and Cyprus which are both led by democratically elected Communist parties. I could talk about Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Egypt, and Bangladesh which all have references to socialism in their constitution. I could talk about capitalist dictatorships (What? Who ever heard of such a thing?) such as Franquist Spain, Indonesia, nearly all of Latin America at some point or another. The list goes on and on.
Or I could talk about the 10th Commandment, and the Book of Acts. I could talk about Liberation Theology, Christian Anarchists, Christian Communists, Ammon Hennacy, Dorothy Day, The Catholic Workers, and Leo Tolstoy.
I could talk about a lot of things. And believe me, I like to talk.