Castro says "Cuban model of Communism doesn't work"

[WildCat]

You should proof-read your links that you use as evidence of your point. That page states that Canada is ranked fifth in exports to Cuba (meaning selling stuff to Cuba) after Spain, Venezuela, the US, and China.

Ranked after the US in exports to Cuba.

Are you aware that Canada has 1/10 the population of the US? Do you think that might, just might, have something to do with it?

Now, consider the US embargoes on Cuba. Care to explain how the only nation that exports more stuff to Cuba than the US happens to also be a communist capitalist nation?

ftfy

 

[Virus]

I would remind everyone that in the heyday of the "Domino Effect" stupidity, even giving a nod to the commies as a legitimate regime could have funny consequences. Egypt's merely recognizing commie China as a state, well, that triggered some events and knee jerk reactions (granted, on both sides) that ultimately culminated in the Six Days War.

The Six Day War was not caused by Egypt recognizing China as a state. It was caused by Egypt blockading the Straits of Tiran, evicting the UN peacekeepers, massing troops on the border with Israel and goading the Arab states into war.

 

[Chris L]

My point is that Cuba has access to the rest of the world. If it wants oil, technology, or medical supplies, it can get them. During the Cold War, the Cubans had even easier access through their USSR allies. An embargo is not the same as a blockade.

One of the reasons I think the embargo should be lifted is because of this narrative. The Castro regime has used the excuse of the embargo to both cover their own economic incompetence and suppress opposition. I'd like to do the experiment of seeing how the regime does without an embargo.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's actually the standard of living in communist vs. capitalist nations that proves communism is a failure.

The US today, in the midst of a deep recession, is far healthier economically than Cuba is or ever was under Castro.

I agree completely, but that goes to my second point, which was that the capitalist nations with high-standards of living during the Cold War already had high standards of living.

We have a lot of really bad test cases. Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States all had high exceptionally high standards of living (based on world standards) for centuries, so it's hard to say that their success proves communism to be a failure.

The Communist nations (even Russia, which was far behind the rest of Europe before the Revolution) started at the bottom and stayed there.

And that's without dealing with countries that suffered because capitalist nations needed to exploit their labor or natural wealth (See East, Middle).

Japan might be the best example, although they had high standards of living and were aggressive capitalists before they were decimated, so a lot of the advantageous cultural, social, and political habits were already in place.

I'm not trying to argue that communism was a success, just that it's unfair to compare a government that began as a peasant revolt against an imperial power and was then carpet bombed by a superpower for a decade, Vietnam, to Australia in order to see which system works better.

The fact that every communist regime immediately crushes civil liberties is enough for me to oppose them, but in the grand battle of the "-isms" I think historical coincidence isn't given enough consideration.

 

[Chris L]

The Communist nations (even Russia, which was far behind the rest of Europe before the Revolution) started at the bottom and stayed there.

In Russia's case, an argument can be made that this is not quite true. Whatever they were before WW2, clearly they came out of it as a highly industrialized society capable of producing both nuclear weapons and space craft. They also had a large amount of natural resources at their disposal. They weren't considered a super power for nothing. Which leads me to believe that the failure was systematic, not just "bad luck".

 

[TraneWreck]

In Russia's case, an argument can be made that this is not quite true. Whatever they were before WW2, clearly they came out of it as a highly industrialized society capable of producing both nuclear weapons and space craft. They also had a large amount of natural resources at their disposal. They weren't considered a super power for nothing. Which leads me to believe that the failure was systematic, not just "bad luck".

Or it was Stalin's decision to kill everybody? The rapid industrialization of Russia took place under communist control, so their strength after WWII would be credited to the commies.

The problem is that we get into endless hypothetical discussions:

Would a better leader have been able to take advantage of Russia's resources? Would anyone less authoritarian have been able to lead?

It's impossible to say, but Marx never lays out a "mass culling" or "murder all artists" argument in his works. It just seems to always turn out that way, which is the strongest argument against communism itself.

 

[dudalb]

You know, it is just impossible for some on the left to admit that Communism is basically a bad idea.

 

[Spindrift]

You know, it is just impossible for some on the left to admit that Communism is basically a bad idea.

Because it's not 'basically' a bad idea. A classless society where everyone has equal influence on decisions. Totally impractical, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

Implementations of communism on the other hand have been bad ideas.

 

[Chris L]

The problem is that we get into endless hypothetical discussions

I wasn't proposing a hypothetical. The USSR coming out of WW2 was the second most powerful nation on Earth. They were (and still are) a technologically advanced country with an immense amount of natural resources. They are still capable of making both nuclear weapons and space craft.

You have to remember that it was the Russians who finally decided the system had failed. They chose to abandon it, because for them, it wasn't working. They didn't say to themselves "well we are a poor, backward, and stupid people who aren't smart enough to make this grand and glorious system work". Instead, they looked around and saw the flaws in the system and said enough is enough. The system changed, not the people.

 

[GreNME]

He didn't move the goalposts, he just pointed out that your goalposts weren't even on the playing field.

Cuba isn't like China and Vietnam, both of which embraced capitalism years ago while Cuba hasn't.

I ask because according to this page http://www.cubatourism.ca/cuba-faq/trade-relations-canada-cuba/, a number of technologically advanced nations seem to be doing business with Cuba.

There you go, letting facts get in the way of the histrionics and strawmen.

And now the "no true communist" games start. ZirconBlue called that one.

China is still essentially a communist state. Just because it's taken some lessons from the capitalist West doesn't change that. Hence my statement about moving goalpost.

Are you aware that Canada has 1/10 the population of the US? Do you think that might, just might, have something to do with it?

But Canada's population isn't at issue here. The amount of exports to Cuba is the issue. Since Canada was sending even less than the United States, who has had Cuba under embargo for most things, the link he cited was essentially saying that Canada was sending less to Cuba than the United States was.

Wave your hands all you want, but his own citation worked against the point he was trying to make.

-----

You know, it is just impossible for some on the left to admit that Communism is basically a bad idea.

Could you do me a favor and point out where I said or even implied that Communism was not a bad idea? Heck, I even made sure to include in my comments that the US had arguably good reasons-- arguable mostly in degree, in my opinion-- so I sincerely hope you're not trying to imply that I'm making any apologies for the USSR or other communist states. I'm simply pointing out that historical accuracy trumps the Cold War indoctrination rhetoric, and even a simple grasp of the actual flaws in the communist model would go a long way toward avoiding the insipid tautology of the indoctrination-inspired empty statements that I mentioned earlier.

You see, I can feel confident in saying that I feel communism isn't a good idea for reasons other than the circular "communism is bad because communist states have failed and they've failed because communism is bad" arguments. I'm sure others can as well, but the indoctrination I mentioned previously tends to lead otherwise smart people to take the stupid route on this topic, and the reason behind it is almost totally due to left-over indoctrination from the Cold War (which is over).

 

[GreNME]

I wasn't proposing a hypothetical. The USSR coming out of WW2 was the second most powerful nation on Earth. They were (and still are) a technologically advanced country with an immense amount of natural resources. They are still capable of making both nuclear weapons and space craft.

You have to remember that it was the Russians who finally decided the system had failed. They chose to abandon it, because for them, it wasn't working. They didn't say to themselves "well we are a poor, backward, and stupid people who aren't smart enough to make this grand and glorious system work". Instead, they looked around and saw the flaws in the system and said enough is enough. The system changed, not the people.

You're still making the circular argument, and you're presenting the assumption that there aren't a great deal of people in Eastern Bloc states and in Russia who don't look with nostalgia upon the days of communist rule. Income disparity isn't significantly better there now than it was in the communist days, so you're going to have to do better than the "we the people" claim for why the governments collapsed (because many of the people didn't want it to collapse).

 

[Chris L]

No circular argument being made. The people closest to the system walked away from it. Now maybe you are smarter than they are and maybe they will decide they made a mistake, but for the moment they seem to be sticking with the choice they made.

The original argument seemed to be that any apparent failure of communism was really a failure of circumstances. That revolution came to the poorest of the poor and that's why it looks like it failed. The USSR at the end of WW2 until about 1990 was the second most powerful nation on Earth. They were flying space craft to other planets and had the power to destroy the world several times over. That is not a poor, desperate, backward nation to me.

 

[WildCat]

But Canada's population isn't at issue here. The amount of exports to Cuba is the issue. Since Canada was sending even less than the United States, who has had Cuba under embargo for most things, the link he cited was essentially saying that Canada was sending less to Cuba than the United States was.

Oh, but Canada's size is an issue here. Why are you comparing raw numbers between a large country and a small one? Wouldn't per-capita numbers be more applicable for this purpose?

And apparently you don't realize we do not have a total embargo on Cuba, do you? We sell gobs of grain to Cuba. It seems the agriculture lobby has more influence than the Cuban ex-pat lobby does.

So explain again why you think this is so significant?

 

[GreNME]

Oh, but Canada's size is an issue here. Why are you comparing raw numbers between a large country and a small one? Wouldn't per-capita numbers be more applicable for this purpose?

And apparently you don't realize we do not have a total embargo on Cuba, do you? We sell gobs of grain to Cuba. It seems the agriculture lobby has more influence than the Cuban ex-pat lobby does.

You're really trying hard to find some way to shunt your red herrings into the argument.

Chris L claimed that despite the US embargo that other countries could have sent plenty of exports to Cuba. As proof of this he provided a link that actually stated outright that Canada was actually sending less to Cuba than the US (who had Cuba under embargo) was sending. I pointed this out as his own presented evidence contradicted the possibility that he presented of other nations making up the difference for the embargo-- the reality was that other nations (except the USSR, China, and a few others) reduced exports to Cuba as well.

I know full well we don't have a full embargo on Cuba. However, your attempt to present a red herring that has nothing to do with the point I was addressing from another poster makes no sense in the context of the conversation that was taking place before you inserted yourself. So if you'd like to make your own separate point then by all means do so. At this point, however, your contribution is equivalent to someone clipping into a conversation after having only paid attention to part of it and butting in on a completely different line of conversation for no good reason-- and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not intentionally trying to use a red herring to backpedal.

So explain again why you think this is so significant?

You really don't get it. Are you aware that I wasn't the one who posted that link, and that the person who did was trying to use it as proof of something that it did not prove? Please try to address what is actually being argued.

 

[GreNME]

No circular argument being made. The people closest to the system walked away from it. Now maybe you are smarter than they are and maybe they will decide they made a mistake, but for the moment they seem to be sticking with the choice they made.

The original argument seemed to be that any apparent failure of communism was really a failure of circumstances. That revolution came to the poorest of the poor and that's why it looks like it failed. The USSR at the end of WW2 until about 1990 was the second most powerful nation on Earth. They were flying space craft to other planets and had the power to destroy the world several times over. That is not a poor, desperate, backward nation to me.

Wow, you've really bought into the Cold War rhetoric.

At this point all I'm going to be doing is pointing out how circular your argument is and you're going to be insisting that it's not. You can't actually provide reasons behind the fall of the Soviet Union and you keep making references that assume its failure was self-evident (because it was communism). That's not actually giving reasons on your part, that's putting forth the failure itself as evidence of itself.

 

[Chris L]

I didn't know you were looking for actual reasons. OK, here is a start. Thanks to the oppression in the Soviet system, the economy of said system was having trouble competing with the West (BTW, that's not just my view it's, Gorbachev's), it was making the economy inefficient. So Gorbachev decided to loosen the reins a bit and allow more freedom. What Gorbachev didn't understand is that while the oppression made the system inefficient, it also made it possible. So the people now had the freedom to complain and a lot to complain about. This led to a degenerating power structure that climaxed with the failed military coup attempt in 1991. In the end, the system fell of its weight.

 

[Chris L]

Wow, you've really bought into the Cold War rhetoric.

If you are going to make a statement like that, you should back it up. Where in my narrative is the mistake? Was the USSR not a powerful, technologically advanced nation? Did it not have the ability for space flight and the manufacturing nuclear weapons? Did it not have the military power to threaten the West? Exactly what part is "rhetoric"?

 

[qayak]

Castro's last shot at relevence came under the Nixon administration. Nixon was actually interested in dealing with him while no one previous, or post, was. Castro made the mistake of over estimating his importance in the world, thinking there would be many more opportunities.

Canada remained friendly to Castro for one reason. It's leaders felt that there is more than one way to govern and that there is room in the world for all of them.

The only thing I can see having a significant impact on the situation is the death of Castro. Until then, any move by an American administration will be seen as a Castro victory by their opponents.

 

[qayak]

I didn't know you were looking for actual reasons. OK, here is a start. Thanks to the oppression in the Soviet system, the economy of said system was having trouble competing with the West (BTW, that's not just my view it's, Gorbachev's), it was making the economy inefficient. So Gorbachev decided to loosen the reins a bit and allow more freedom. What Gorbachev didn't understand is that while the oppression made the system inefficient, it also made it possible. So the people now had the freedom to complain and a lot to complain about. This led to a degenerating power structure that climaxed with the failed military coup attempt in 1991. In the end, the system fell of its weight.

Pretty much.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

China
Vietnam
Cuba

Try examples that aren't known for rampant genocide.