It's time to embrace Cuba

[DavidS]

I agree. The embargo has been an abject failure. All it does is allow Castro to use it as a stick to beat the Americans. It empowers the regime.

The more trade and the greater the free flow of goods, the more likely the regime will fall. Plus, there are great investment opportunities in Cuba.

Besides, it's inevitable.

ok i will bite.......what investment opportunities......

Cigars,sugar, tourism Hotel developments along the coast, we could open a market for GM perhaps, our agriculture products as opposed to China's.

The beaches on Cuba are GORGEOUS from what I hear.

 

[Agnapostate]

What do you mean behaved? What exactly is Cuba doing wrong? Being communist isn't something we punish for. Take China for example.

...which isn't communist, and hasn't even been conventionally state capitalist since the reign of Deng Xiaopang.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I don't see why not. Sanctions don't seem to make countries' governments "behave" anyway. They seem to make the people suffer mostly.

interesting statement.......if cuba behaved then there would not be sanctions.....seems it is cubas choice.....if they don't want our stuff so be it.......

why do you see it that the us should do what cuba wants.....

What do you mean behaved? What exactly is Cuba doing wrong? Being communist isn't something we punish for. Take China for example.

There's a reason I put it in quotes. I mean does what our government wants them to do.

I don't see why not. Sanctions don't seem to make countries' governments "behave" anyway. They seem to make the people suffer mostly.

interesting statement.......if cuba behaved then there would not be sanctions.....seems it is cubas choice.....if they don't want our stuff so be it.......

why do you see it that the us should do what cuba wants.....

I don't care what Cuba wants, I just don't see economic sanctions as productive in general. If it hurts their economy those who are rich or in power are still going to live just fine and it is lower/middle class that will suffer.

I guess I just don't see the point. I don't think we should require governments to be capitalist or democratic for us to trade with them. It's going to undermine our efforts to change them while it punishes the wrong people in the country. Every time I look at an example the embargos seem to have failed. Have embargos made North Korea "behave?" Did they make Hussein "behave?" If anything it makes them more defiant while their people suffer and they blame you for it.

 

[Toro]

The beaches on Cuba are GORGEOUS from what I hear.

They are. It is cheap too.

Canadians and Europeans have been going there for many years. The American tourist industry wants to get into Cuba because it is getting left behind in the greatest untapped gold mine left in the Caribbean.

 

[Diuretic]

The beaches on Cuba are GORGEOUS from what I hear.

They are. It is cheap too.

Canadians and Europeans have been going there for many years. The American tourist industry wants to get into Cuba because it is getting left behind in the greatest untapped gold mine left in the Caribbean.

The US tourist industry can certainly send tourists to Cuba but I wonder if the Cuban government will disappoint the US tourist industry, given the government controls the tourism industry in Cuba quite tightly. You're right about it being a gold mine though. Lots of UK tourists in the place I went to a while ago, one Brit bloke told me Europe was too expensive so many people were heading to Cuba to escape winter for a while. Heaps of Canadians too. Funny thing though, no yobbery, people were putting away a lot of booze but there was no aggro, pretty good I thought. Just as well it's a bit too far for many Australians

 

[Gunny]

The beaches on Cuba are GORGEOUS from what I hear.

They are. It is cheap too.

Canadians and Europeans have been going there for many years. The American tourist industry wants to get into Cuba because it is getting left behind in the greatest untapped gold mine left in the Caribbean.

That's what the mob thought in the 50s. Look how THAT turned out.

 

[Toro]

Eventually, communism will fall in Cuba, just like it has everywhere else. It is inevitable.

We might as well start the flow of goods, services, people and money now to hasten the process and have a toehold when it happens.

 

[Agnapostate]

Communism does not exist in Cuba, and has not "fallen" anywhere else as a result of internal failure. Communism existed in the anarchist communes of the Spanish Revolution, but collapsed as a result of a combination of fascist oppression and Leninist sabotage.

 

[Toro]

Communism does not exist in Cuba, and has not "fallen" anywhere else as a result of internal failure. Communism existed in the anarchist communes of the Spanish Revolution, but collapsed as a result of a combination of fascist oppression and Leninist sabotage.

Whatever.

But real-world communism has collapsed, and it will in Cuba too.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Eventually, communism will fall in Cuba, just like it has everywhere else. It is inevitable.

We might as well start the flow of goods, services, people and money now to hasten the process and have a toehold when it happens.

Cuba is a socialist and autocratic government in which the state owns the means of production. According to Marx socialism was supposed to be the last step in societal evolution before communism and after capitalism. Communism was supposed to be a utopian state after the people overthrew the government and the means of production are owned collectively without government. While it does not appear that Marx was correct in that regard, there is little reason to suspect that socialism fails inevitably. Socialism in the USSR, for example, fell partly because they felt the need to try to match America's military production for deterrence and this starved every other part of the economy.

 

[Toro]

Eventually, communism will fall in Cuba, just like it has everywhere else. It is inevitable.

We might as well start the flow of goods, services, people and money now to hasten the process and have a toehold when it happens.

Cuba is a socialist and autocratic government in which the state owns the means of production. According to Marx socialism was supposed to be the last step in societal evolution before communism and after capitalism. Communism was supposed to be a utopian state after the people overthrew the government and the means of production are owned collectively without government. While it does not appear that Marx was correct in that regard, there is little reason to suspect that socialism fails inevitably. Socialism in the USSR, for example, fell partly because they felt the need to try to match America's military production for deterrence and this starved every other part of the economy.

I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about whether or not a system is "true" communism. What matters to me is that dozens of countries called themselves "communist," had hundreds of millions of members in self-described communist parties, and all but two countries discarded their "communist" systems because they believed their systems failed.

And the only reason why the two have not capitulated is because the Cuban regime uses nationalism and history - with a great deal of justification - to keep a hold of power, while another - North Korea - earns hard currency by being a trans-shipment point for narcotics into Japan, and lives off foreign aid provided to the regime from blackmailing its neighbors with nuclear weapons and from when its own policies starved a million of its own people, threatening chaos and war with South Korea.

 

[Agnapostate]

Whatever.

But real-world communism has collapsed, and it will in Cuba too.

I understand your desire to describe authoritarian state capitalism as "socialist" inasmuch as this functions as a quick and easy way to discredit socialism. Kropotkin observed the ominous future that was in store for socialism if the Leninist state capitalist misappropriated that term. In a 1920 letter to Lenin, he wrote this:

At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization...If the present situation continues, the very word "socialism" will turn into a curse.

Of course, this prediction turned out to be correct, given your and other anti-socialists' constant, inaccurate reference to the USSR as an example of the inevitable failure of socialism. I'm not needlessly bitching about pointless terminology; there's a reason that I always point out that the authoritarian Soviet system was not legitimately socialist. Noam Chomsky summarizes it best:

Failure to understand the intense hostility to socialism on the part of the Leninist intelligentsia (with roots in Marx, no doubt), and corresponding misunderstanding of the Leninist model, has had a devastating impact on the struggle for a more decent society and a livable world in the West, and not only there. It is necessary to find a way to save the socialist ideal from its enemies in both of the world's major centres of power, from those who will always seek to be the State priests and social managers, destroying freedom in the name of liberation.

Hence, that is the nature of my objection to improperly used terminology.

Cuba is a socialist and autocratic government in which the state owns the means of production. According to Marx socialism was supposed to be the last step in societal evolution before communism and after capitalism. Communism was supposed to be a utopian state after the people overthrew the government and the means of production are owned collectively without government. While it does not appear that Marx was correct in that regard, there is little reason to suspect that socialism fails inevitably. Socialism in the USSR, for example, fell partly because they felt the need to try to match America's military production for deterrence and this starved every other part of the economy.

I wouldn't necessarily call Cuba "autocratic" since they do have some degree of grassroots participation in politics. Perhaps you would have preferred to say "authoritarian"? I have to disagree with you on the nature of socialism in the USSR. I don't believe that any authoritarian variety of Marxism (such as Leninism and Stalinism), can end in anything other than failure and eventual collapse. I believe that Mikhail Bakunin's observations about the inevitable failure of authoritarian varieties of Marxism have been vindicated by history.

Marx's Program of State Dictatorship

So-called popular representatives and rulers of the state elected by the entire nation on the basis of universal suffrage - the last word of the Marxists, as well as of the democratic school - is a lie behind which the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed, a lie all the more dangerous in that it represents itself as the expression of a sham popular will.

So, from whatever point of view we look at this question, it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will consist of workers. Yes, perhaps of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the heights of hte state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people.

There are obviously more libertarian varieties of Marxism that may not have these authoritarian inclinations (Luxemburgism, autonomism, and council communism) and thus would not suffer from the same problems as Leninism and Stalinism. It is again appropriate to quote Chomsky here.

Bakunin's warnings about the Red bureaucracy that would institute the worst of all despotic governments were long before Lenin, and were directed against the followers of Mr. Marx. There were, in fact, followers of many different kinds; Pannekoek, Luxembourg, Mattick and others are very far from Lenin, and their views often converge with elements of anarcho-syndicalism. Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain, in fact. There are continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities to Marxists who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism.

That's just my view, for what it's worth.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I have some familiarity with Marx because in sociology he is considered the father of Conflict Theory, though there were many people who built upon his ideas over the years outside of "mainstream" sociology. Today Conflict Theory is one one of many mechanisms thought to affect the dynamics of social worlds.

But why is it that the major socialist governments have been authoritarian, though? Is it really realistic to suppose that the concentrated, centralized power that typify socialist governments can lead to Communism?

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think Cubans will go for a complete shift to US-style capitalism. I think they may want the benefits of market socialism though. Besides I don't know if Cuba is capable of maintaining a full-on capitalist economy.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

But why is it that the major socialist governments have been authoritarian, though? Is it really realistic to suppose that the concentrated, centralized power that typify socialist governments can lead to Communism?

Not at all, as a matter of fact, that centralization of power is the root of both their failure as states and their failure as Socialism. The concentration of power is antithetic to Socialism.

As for the embargo on Cuba, it is absolutely ridiculous and has been since the beginning. As Toro pointed out, the embargo has been, if anything, one of the best things that have ever happened to Castro. What more proof do Cubans need that the US only seeks to sabotage their nation? What more proof is there of the enemy threat than an almost 50-year embargo meant to coerce the population to change its regime? The very fact that the embargo is an indiscriminate form of collective punishment not only causes Cuban hostility towards the US, but has heavily chocked Cuba's economic development, which is often a PREREQUISITE for political opening. As the people of any region become more affluent, they often seek and eventually accomplish greater rights and are able to extract more concessions from their state. The poverty produced by the embargo, thus, has a double effect on perpetuating the regime- an economic and a political one.

 

[Munin]

What do you mean behaved? What exactly is Cuba doing wrong? Being communist isn't something we punish for. Take China for example.

...which isn't communist, and hasn't even been conventionally state capitalist since the reign of Deng Xiaopang.

(flag of china)

(the flag of the only political party in china: Communist Party of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Despite the whole capitalist facade, china is still communist: never heard of the numerous companies in China that are owned by the chinese government? Never heard of the strict control of the chinese government over the chinese economy?

Surely they have capitalist behavior, but communism is still the main value of the Chinese government. I agree that the chinese people are probably capitalist, but you should never confuse that with China as a country.

 

[Diuretic]

If China was communist its totalitarian government wouldn't be shitting itself at the thought of rising unemployment and the ensuing public disorder that may eventuate.

Really, it's not communist. It's not even market socialist. It's state capitalism with a vicious tolitarian government running the show. I don't give a stuff if they do sell us cheap underpants, they are totalitarians in charge of a state capitalist economy.

 

[Xenophon]

Never happen while the Castro brothers live.

The embargo is the last gift to JFK, they won't revoke it until the Castros die.

 

[Munin]

If China was communist its totalitarian government wouldn't be shitting itself at the thought of rising unemployment and the ensuing public disorder that may eventuate.

Really, it's not communist. It's not even market socialist. It's state capitalism with a vicious tolitarian government running the show. I don't give a stuff if they do sell us cheap underpants, they are totalitarians in charge of a state capitalist economy.

That is not true, communist totalitarian leaders also shit themselves about unemployment. The higher unemployment the more dangerous the situation becomes for the government: in the case of China this has always been very sensitive (because of the large population), the chinese government is paranoid about their own people rising up against them.

Keep in mind that I m talking about "practical communist" (which is not 100% equal to the theoretical description of communism, but still compares much more with the theoretical communist description then theoretical capitalist description), like the Soviet Union was a communist regime.

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.

In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chinese government has still a very firm grip over the chinese economy and individual chinese companies, therefor it is certainly not capitalist like Western countries like Japan are.

Many big Chinese companies are state owned or government controlled.

 

[Diuretic]

If China was communist its totalitarian government wouldn't be shitting itself at the thought of rising unemployment and the ensuing public disorder that may eventuate.

Really, it's not communist. It's not even market socialist. It's state capitalism with a vicious tolitarian government running the show. I don't give a stuff if they do sell us cheap underpants, they are totalitarians in charge of a state capitalist economy.

That is not true, totalitarian leaders also shit themselves about unemployment. The higher unemployment the more dangerous the situation becomes for the government: in the case of China this has always been very sensitive (because of the large population), the chinese government is paranoid about their own people rising up against them.

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.

In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chinese government has still a very firm grip over the chinese economy and individual chinese companies, therefor it is certainly not capitalist like Western countries like Japan are.

Many big Chinese companies are state owned or government controlled.

I'm looking for points of disagreement. Can't find any.