I also wonder if everyone who accidentally gently bumps into someone with their car deserves/needs to be shot to death as they try to drive away while saying 'I'm not mad at you, bro', or if this logic only applies to Good. If I was carrying a gun and someone accidentally bumped into me with their vehicle for then to apologize and say they weren't mad at me, should I shoot them in self-defense as they tried to drive away?
Also pretty incredible how they rail against the lack of freedom in Cuba while tying themselves into pretzels to defend all the abuses of power and deterioration of democracy happening in the USA. Imagine if it had been a Cuban police officer shooting a smiling Cuban women to death for the crime of accidentally bumping into them at walking speed with their car. You'd never have heard the end of it from the usual American suspects.
It's the same with the people on the far-right railing against islamism (read: muslims (read: brown people)). The things they say they detest and fear from Islam are always the same things they seek to impose on people themselves. Violence and threats of violence, authoritarianism, persecution of political opponents, religious fundamentalism, persecution of LGBTQ+ people, oppression and fear of women, propaganda that glorifies their leader figures... Need I go on?
What do you think I'm misinterpreting? dann is a communist. He says so, and I believe him. dann thinks Cuba is better than the US. He has said so, in this thread.
Or are you worried that I'll misinterpret you? I'm not sure what I would misinterpret you about, though. The question I posed seems pretty simple.
I asked Safe-Keeper (not you) about dann because Safe-Keeper claimed I was misinterpreting something. Given that Safe-Keeper has refused to express a position about communism vs. capitalism and I have therefore not interpreted his position at all, I can only conclude that Safe-Keeper thinks I misinterpreted dann.
You have likewise so far refused to express a position about communism vs. capitalism, though you did not so far claim I misinterpreted anyone's position on the topic.
This thread isn't about Good. It's about communism.
Do you think Cuba is better than the US? Do you think the Good case proves that? That's the only relevance, and I'm not going to wade into the details, it's not worth it. dann seems to think the case proves Cuba is better. I don't.
It's about communism, not about Cuba, or dann's opinions about Cuba. I am not a communist. I am quite content with a social democracy, which keeps capitalusm in check.
The part of the discussion i saw was about Pretti and Good. I commented on that. I have no interest in discussing communism with you, I am familiar with many of your opinions, and think it a waste of time.
It's about communism, not about Cuba, or dann's opinions about Cuba. I am not a communist. I am quite content with a social democracy, which keeps capitalusm in check.
The part of the discussion i saw was about Pretti and Good. I commented on that. I have no interest in discussing communism with you, I am familiar with many of your opinions, and think it a waste of time.
This. The thread is about what communism is. I've said my part there, and I don't feel like throwing out opinions or reflections for people to pick them apart in bad-faith replies.
Ziggurat painted himself into a corner with his idiotic story about Che Guevara being a racist and a homophobe.
Like I said: He actually was a racist when he was in his early 20s and only on his way to becoming a communist, but unlike Trump and the Republicans, he got better.
And he was a homophobe, and the Cuban revolutionaries were also homophobic, but they got better in this respect, too, but too late for Che to 'mend his ways' the same way the Castro brothers did.
If Ziggurat knew anything at all about Che Guevara and Cuba, he wouldn't have fallen into his own trap.
It's what happens when your head is full of the Republican delusions and you have no real knowledge.
Ziggurat painted himself into a corner with his idiotic story about Che Guevara being a racist and a homophobe.
Like I said: He actually was a racist when he was in his early 20s and only on his way to becoming a communist, but unlike Trump and the Republicans, he got better.
And he was a homophobe, and the Cuban revolutionaries were also homophobic, but they got better in this respect, too,
You are confusing Fidel Castro with Trump.
Trump is one of history's most ridiculous wannabe dictators, maybe even the most ridiculous. Like I've said before: I look forward to the movie The Death of Trump, preferably made by the team that made The Death of Stalin.
The reason why Castro didn't 'get better at being a dictator' is that he never tried.
Instead, he and his fellow revolutionaries turned Cuba into a participatory (unlike representative) democracy.
The reason why Castro didn't 'get better at being a dictator' is that he never tried.
Instead, he and his fellow revolutionaries turned Cuba into a participatory (unlike representative) democracy.
The news that Seattle is facing an even higher budget shortfall than expected, thus raising the spectre of an increased payroll tax to close the gap, got me thinking...
... and what it got me thinking is this: Payroll taxes are objectively Marxist.
We're not talking about prosperity through capital investment. We're not talking about fiscal health through responsible spending and careful regulation. No, a payroll tax is nothing more than skimming off the rewards of someone else's labor. It's pure "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." And Seattle is contemplating once again whether they're taking as much from each actual working person as that person is able to part with, in order to pay for all the other stuff the city wants to spend money on. So at least they've got the "from each according to their ability" part figured out. Like most Marxists (and crypto-Marxists), they're probably going to struggle with the "to each according to their need" part.
There's no corruption in letting laborers keep their entire paychecks, after all.
Is this really the best argument you have to offer? Pretending that the blockade isn't more than a somewhat restricted access to the capitalist markets of the west?
The blockade is a very recent development. Cuba had decades to thrive, without unrestricted access to capitalist markets, before the blockade came into effect.
The news that Seattle is facing an even higher budget shortfall than expected, thus raising the spectre of an increased payroll tax to close the gap, got me thinking...
... and what it got me thinking is this: Payroll taxes are objectively Marxist.
(...)
The blockade is a very recent development. Cuba had decades to thrive, without unrestricted access to capitalist markets, before the blockade came into effect.
No, it's not. The extreme exacerbation of the blockade may be new, but the previous versions of what theprestige would probably prefer to call restricted access to capitalist markets has been in place since 1960.
Yet again, one of theprestige's ramblings without the least bit of receipts. As always, he's making it up as he goes along.
Also pretty incredible how they rail against the lack of freedom in Cuba while tying themselves into pretzels to defend all the abuses of power and deterioration of democracy happening in the USA. Imagine if it had been a Cuban police officer shooting a smiling Cuban women to death for the crime of accidentally bumping into them at walking speed with their car. You'd never have heard the end of it from the usual American suspects.
And it's not just the comparisons with Cuba! This is how Free the USA is compared to the UK (YouTube short, June 24, 2026 – 1:14 min.)
Back in 2015, the Havana Times website, which is definitely not a Cuban-run site, had an article about an alleged case of police brutality in Havana. The accompanying video was supposed to "reveal how badly we’re doing in terms of human rights (while the country continues to shout from the rooftops that no citizen is mistreated)."
Unfortunately for the author, the video actually showed the exact opposite. It showed how the woman who ended up being arrested threw the much smaller policewoman to the ground, and not even then did the policewoman and policeman resort to using violence. Passers-by picked up the things that the policewoman dropped when she was attacked and handed them back to her.
Even when the woman was picked up by a police car, they let her get into the back seat on her own and unrestrained.
The only brutality was exerted by the woman being arrested, and it was against the police.
I have witnessed actual police brutality in Denmark, e.g. when police arrested a man – apparently a drug addict – who didn't pose any kind of danger to anybody other than himself.
And a few days ago, this happened in Denmark:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
