Democracy in Cuba

[Sandman]

In other news, Haiti became a dictatorship again, and the Haitian standard of living is considerably worse than that of Cuba.

If Cuba were allowed to slowly adopt capitalism, using its commie strengths (education+healthcare), it would probably be quite successful. Too bad America is still going on about the nationalised stuff, and probably wouldn't let them emerge at a sensible pace.

[Ned]

Sava, then, I assume that you are viscerally opposed to state ownership of the means of production and single party control of the state -- at least because your family is a direct victim of just such a totalitarian state.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
It's philosophies like that that make Communism a fool's errand. Human beings have developed concepts of ownership. Any cultural or political system must be compatible with basic human concepts. Communism isn't.

No one wants your toothbrush to be community property. There's no point to it. But the private ownership of capital is no more a BASIC human concept than is slavery though.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, then, I assume that you are viscerally opposed to state ownership of the means of production and single party control of the state -- at least because your family is a direct victim of just such a totalitarian state.

absolutely

edit: but that doesn't necessarily mean I oppose to the government providing for the public welfare (as the pre-amble of the Constitution states this is one of the US government's purposes).

[Ned]

Sava, see. Read Kid's post. He equates state ownership of the means of production with Marxism.

[chequita guevara]

Single party dictatorship was a distortion of Marxism and socialism brought about by Stalinism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, see. Read Kid's post. He equates state ownership of the means of production with Marxism.

The state only owns the MoP if it doesn't represent the people. Otherwise the community owns it.

[Spiffor]

Che is right.

But I would go further than Che: single-party dictatorship came from the inability of revolutionary groups to peacefully turn into democratic rulers once the authoritarianism stopped being useful (i.e. once the revolutionary civil war ended).

This is actually the main reason why I don't believe in revolutions as an efficient transition.

[chequita guevara]

It's not the revolution that's the problem. It's the attempted coutner-revolution that mucks everything up.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But the private ownership of capital is no more a BASIC human concept than is slavery though.

You see, this is where Commies get it wrong. You can't compare the evils of slavery with someone retaining ownership of capital that they created, earned, or worked for.

What I have a problem with is institutionalized systems that generate wealth for people at the top. I think any system or government institution should benefit the least fortunate and most needy. The strong should protect the weak; and a free society should be institutionally compassionate...

An economic system should be fair. Those with wealth have an inherent advantage in creating more wealth. Progressive taxation is not only fair, it is practical. And in terms of maintaining healthy capitalist markets, you need a strong consumer base to support business. If the state keeps people healthy, education, and working; they can earn money and spend it, fueling the economy. This is where supply side economics fails. It is as flawed an ideology as communism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Single party dictatorship was a distortion of Marxism and socialism brought about by Stalinism.

I'd place the blame on Lenin but that's just me. Then again I wouldn't bother to post half the crap in this thread used to defend Castro and his actions.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, see. Read Kid's post. He equates state ownership of the means of production with Marxism.

that's not what kid said...

[Sprayber]

Castro is a ****ing ******* dictator. Worse than some but not as bad as others. You don't have to like Bush or hate Bush to determine that. Of course some here would like you to believe that it's not really Castro's fault. It's all the evil people that try couteract the revolution.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Che is right.

But I would go further than Che: single-party dictatorship came from the inability of revolutionary groups to peacefully turn into democratic rulers once the authoritarianism stopped being useful (i.e. once the revolutionary civil war ended).

This is actually the main reason why I don't believe in revolutions as an efficient transition.

The problem is that the revolution needs to be a world revolution. A significant number of nations need to revolt during the same time frame. That way authoritarian rulers can not justify their rule by national security.

[Sava]

Castro is a ****ing ******* dictator. Worse than some but not as bad as others. You don't have to like Bush or hate Bush to determine that.

absolutely... my point is that if you are going to hate dictators and oppressive regimes, you should hate them all. If not, yer a hypocrit.