It's the communism, stupid! Biden's White House finally identifies Cuba's true problem

"Thanks for proving my point!" means you accidentally proved my point in my behalf.

 

Whenever we have a chance to topple Cuba, we should do it just because they are dicks.

 

You are talking riddles to yourself - anything to avoid addressing the topic which is your lack of understanding of Socialism - and your nonsense claim that no liberal that you have ever met likes socialism.

Then you can tell us how US sanctions had nothing to do with Cuba's economic troubles.

 

Thanks for proving my point......AGAIN.

I stated the definition of socialism, and you stated you standard "argument", which is "you have no clue, you have no clue, you have no clue, you have no clue".

I never met one who likes it (as I defined it). Whether or not you believe it is 100% irrelevant to me, because all I ever hear you say is "you lie, you lie, you have no clue, you have no clue".

Have a nice day and say hi to the others when you hit the bottom of my ignore list. I am not in a market for a parrot.

 

To all those saying Cuba is in bad shape because of US sanctions, I thought it was just the USA who is sanctioning Cuba??

 

You don't have a clue .. obviously - as your standard definition of Socialism is Pure Socialism - does not exist in the real world - which was my argument .. and not the falsehood you just made up and attributed to me .. False accusations being your forte - as you have no ability to defend your nonsense claims.

Speaking of which - tell us how US Sanctions had nothing to do with Cuba's economic troubles.

 

People are quick to blame the US, but its not US fault they are that way. US is not making it impossible for other countries to do business with Cuba. For example people from EU countries visit Cuba all the time, except last year, when Covid killed tourism.

 

No, I don't think your idea is correct. At first glance, I thought maybe you were onto something but then I considered the Vikings. Now THEY were individuals who trusted no one. So OK, then came Christianity and that was the solidifying gel in the Viking world. But hey, the Mediterranean people are more Christian than anyone in the north. No, I am more inclined to believe that Scandinavians (for whatever reason) are more honest than the southern folk and for that reason, Socialist-Democracy works. You know, just the thought of that so-and-so Silvio Berlusconi gets my blood boiling that yeah so-and-so.

 

I blame Joseph McCarthy and the support he got from the government in the employ of false propaganda.

 

That would be correct if it was only us and we didn't force other nations to isolate them as well. I don't know that much about Cuba, but I do know that it's what we do to North Korea. This doesn't meant I'm an advocate of communism, only that nations like people should be left alone to determine their own future and in their own way. Nothing should be imposed on people.

Maybe if Cuba was left alone, they would decide that it's not the best system for them.

 

I'm with you 100%.

That's an odd thing to say. The system of Cuba today is NOT Cuba's plan. The United Snakes has forced Cuba to either bend over with their bums towards the north, or ......... do the best that they can to survive. Cuba has chosen to survive rather than to go back to the American mafia system they had before Castro and his band of merry men liberated the country. But what you say is true except that Cuba never would have ended up this way if:

1). The American mafia hadn't held the people hostage, and
2). Had the United Snakes not strangled the country once it was liberated from the mafia.

Between a rock and a hard place - neither of their own doing. You may rightly call Cuba a Communist country but Castro was not a Communist nor did he want Cuba to become one. The Cuban system of today is one of necessity, not of choice.

 

Let me try to explain your misunderstanding. There are ideas, and there are labels; and two do not automatically match. For example, being Conservative, is an idea. Does that mean that all, "Conservatives," are in favor of Conservation? Not at all (but, if they were being true to, "Conservative values," they would). You may respond that Conservativism is a philosophy that only applies to economics. While I could certainly argue that natural resources include much more than mining & drilling potentials, and that they have great, and tangible, value, I do not need to, to invalidate that argument. In 2016, we had united Republican control over both chambers of Congress, & the Presidency. Did "Conservatives," offer a balanced budget Amendment? Or, for that matter, even put through a single balanced budget? By your only counter-argument, that big tax breaks are more of a Conservative value than fiscal responsibility, you prove my case that the label of Conservative, is completely fluid and can be contorted to apply to people who have no true conservative spirit, whatsoever. I could very easily extend this argument to concepts like limited government, and personal liberty, trumpeted by those who simultaneously believe, even in what they will acknowledge as a legal medical procedure, that the government has a place in-between the doctor & patient, to mandate her treatment.

Likewise is the case with, "Communism." As the world has seen this political system, in practice, it has essentially always been authoritarian, in nature (even when there are, "elections"). The ruling class did not take an equal share as the proletariat. Leaders had the very Capitalist mentality, that they deserved better accommodations, and higher income, for the jobs they did-- hypocrisy, much? But among America's hundreds of communes (the most in the world), any that share resources among the group and make consensus decisions, are actually more truly Communist, in nature, than any so-called, "Communist," government that we have seen, at least in the modern world. Communist, or perhaps, more accurately, Socialist ideals were manifest in many Native American tribes, before those official doctrines were, "created."

Finally, the term, "Socialist," is used in a very fluid fashion, often inaccurately, as you demonstrate:

The U.K. is not a Socialist nation. Nor is Canada. You are applying the label of an entire system of government & economy, to merely certain social programs. By that standard, a more fundamentalist, "Capitalist," could claim that the U.S. already is a Socialist country. But that wouldn't make it any more true, or less arbitrary, than the way you are trying to use those two terms. As @Pro_Line_FL pointed out

You therefore delegitimize your own argument, by your misuse of the very terms that are central to it, despite the interesting cultural/racial element, you introduce to the topic.

 

Can't really say I would blame Joe for the increase in the use of Propaganda per say - although he used it with great effect and is certainly a candidate for propagandist of the Century - Was Edward Bernays - relative of Sigmund- who pioneered "The Science" .. his book "Crystalizing Public Opinion" in 1923 .. followed by "Propaganda" 1928.

After the WW2 - the term "Propaganda" was associated with Hitler - "Crystalizing Public Opinion" - and so the art was rebranded .. by Eddi - his book "Public Relations" in 1945 .. now a multi national and multi Billion dollar industry - and I am not including Advertizing in that figure

Thus fellow pioneered the Industry - its a science - well studied by our spooks - and those who spin the wheels.. its serious business.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
― Edward Bernays, Propaganda

of course others such as Adolf - and similar control freaks such as our friend Joe - put these teachings to good use.

Far more skilled have they become since Joe though mate

 

You do know the Norwegians and Danes didn't think very highly of the Swedes when it came to morality. (I had a Danish Tanta Betty).

Actually the Romans found that the Germanic tribes did have stronger morals, so it is cultural - and yet Saint Francis' monks said that of all the places they went to in the world, they found the Germans to be the cruelest. The cruelty probably stemmed from a black and white mentality which made them intolerant towards those who deviated from it. .

I think it has more to do with culture rather than religion, because the emphasis in Catholic Schools is on society and community. The Church even runs on a Communist system, and yet look at Italy, France and Spain?

I'm ethnically Greek, where tax evasion and creative accounting is a favorite pastime - and yet Athens before the migrants was considered the safest city in the world. Thievery didn't exist - that is except for Crete.

One of our friends told us that whenever there was something like a wedding in Crete, and they didn't have enough food for the guests, that they would resort to 'thievery'. One day they held a convention and decided to play a joke on one of their members, by going to his farm at night and stealing some produce. Suddenly the police spot lights were on them and their sirens were blasting away.

They all panicked, because all of them had very high positions and were respected members in their communities. Well it turned out that the Police captain was from Crete and had found out about their escapade and decided to play a joke back on them.

As for the churches, most of the people in the Latin countries are not practicing Christians. As for Greece, from what I noticed the immorality is rampant and shocking - yet at the same time there has been an amazing growth these past two decades of sincere and true Christianity. On a whole though, ethics though was never emphasized in the Orthodox Church, it has always been on the human heart and God's Grace. If one is sincerely devout, ethics will be part of their make up.

 

1. One needs not have even left their driveway, to recognize yours as a self-serving, "prediction."

2. 30% is not the, "other," remaining portion, after the 50% who, "are not going to respond..."
Anyone who is so loose, in an argument, with figures, is usually distracted with contriving prevarications, I have found in my time, around the block. What's certain is that their assertions, and conclusions, can be trusted no more than their mathematical calculations.

 

To claim that people from certain parts of the world-- so certain ethnicities-- are more honest than others, I'm sure you realize (as you are clearly a thinking person) demands substantial amounts of evidence. If it's just one's impression, it could just as likely be only that person's prejudice.

I agree that there are differences in Germanic perspective, regarding "community," compared to that of some other peoples. But that does not mean that Germans cannot be clannish: what delayed Germany's rise to European pre-eminence, was its fractured, tribal divisions, that kept it from uniting as a single nation, longer than others.

Also, this idea of communal loyalty, if that is an accurate description, would be a double-edged sword, when the society was being misled; e.g., one might cite it as a contributory factor in the rise of Nazism. But I am not sure if that is necessarily the case. Nationalistic sentiments have proven to exist in many nations, even outside the Germanic ones. As an aside, I wonder if it is a lack of this instinct that has made "nation-building," in Afganistan (& elsewhere) such a dismal failure*.

But, to get swiftly to my other suggestion, this pride in one's own nation, one's own people, could be attributable to anything from a greater distrust of those they see as different-- I had a brief encounter with a Norwegian backpacker, once, who told me that if I were to move to Norway, no one there would speak to me, for my first year; but if I stayed beyond that point, I would never find such good friends in all my life-- to a greater, ethnic hubris. This was the case, during the Roman slave rebellion, led by Spartacus, during which a tragically undermining factor was the Germans who, at two different times, after Spartacus had led them, undefeated, over the mighty, professional armies of the Empire, decided they were above being part of the multi-ethnic mob, so separated themselves, taking a great many thousands from the slave-army's ranks. Both times, those pure-German forces were swiftly decimated by the Romans, while the rag-tag "troops," under Spartacus, continued to be victorious.



* To pick up on the thread of my earlier speculation, about a nationalistic instinct being perhaps weaker in some groups: my uncle was a medic, during the Viet Namese war, and he told me that he just didn't think the people of South Viet Nam had the will to fight for their independence. But likely their are a host of factors, in addition to natural susceptibility to the pack-mentality, and perhaps conditions have since evolved to increase the nationalistic impulse, among those of the southern parts of Viet Nam; it is certainly curious that there would be such a distinction between those in the northern & southern parts of that, now one, nation. I beg the indulgence of any authorities on Viet Nam, for my speculation that perhaps the difference had more to do with conditions & wealth. It is a well-established, human pattern for successful societies to become more sedentary, and less aggressive, then to be overrun by the, comparatively beggarly, savage civilizations beyond their borders. Btw, I am not declaring this an absolutism, just a repeated pattern. Sure, Rome remained aggressive; they also relied more & more heavily, as time progressed, on foreign enlistees in their army (to whom they rewarded with citizenship). And, despite this, Rome was still overrun, by numerous Germanic tribes-- the Gauls, in 387 C.E.; the Visigoths, under Alaric, in 410; (also later ones, like the Vandals, etc.)-- but those tribes, which became Roman allies, were far too civilized to wish an extended war with the barbaric Huns, under Attila, who also had his way with Rome. So while, in today's world, brutality can only get you so far, because technology has advanced so well beyond horsemanship that, without it, an army's, and even a society's, disadvantage is too great, perhaps the sense of wanting, in the past, played a greater role than is generally attributed to it. I must, lastly, note, that it was the severely punitive reparations, demanded by the victorious European Allies, from Germany, which laid the true groundwork for the Nazi ascent.

 

Opposition between Governmental oppression and individual liberty of course.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

 

The irony here, for those who need it explained, is that Pro-line's post is a criticism of the clarity of my statement (addressed to kazenatsu)-- which he makes, in an utterly unclear way.

You excerpted a quote of mine which asserts TWO different things-- did you not notice? While you may assume it is obvious, to which your comment applies, does it never enter your calculus that I, most likely, believed that there was nothing obscure about either part of my statement? So how would I be able to know, which one you are, "not quite sure what (I had) meant?" If you are asking for the trouble of my reply-- and I explain this in the hope that it will benefit our future exchanges-- does it not seem only polite that you show the kind of specificity you would like to see from me, in your own request?

I am going to assume-- with nothing to go on but my gut, and a 50-50 chance-- that you were referring to the 2nd part of my sentence. I like to, when it is possible, note a post's positives, even in a critique of it. Though the comparison is not a straight-forward one, because the type of governments which administer large-scale social programs in Cuba & Venezuela, markedly differ from the political systems in the, "majority White English-speaking or Western European countries," which have similar, so-called, socialist programs, I think this, nonetheless, brings up an interesting dimension, worthy of thought and discourse (which I did not offer) about why there is such a difference between European governance, and that of its former colonial holdings, south of the U.S., in the New World. The same thing could probably be extended to former colonies in Africa, and Asia, as well. I think that, though there might be some generalizations offered, it would also be an area rich in distinctions, between both different regions, as well as different countries, within those regions (compare India and Pakistan). There are yet further comparisons that could be made but I do not see a point in going into them, in greater depth, as I take it I have now clarified my post's meaning, assuming that was the part, about which, you were asking.

 

Green Beret training perhaps can be moved from Pineland to Cuba.

 

Here's another thought (beside my previous reply). Maybe you hadn't read my entire post, but just went down to where you were quoted, then read what was underneath, assuming it was directed toward you? If so, no wonder you were confused. It would have been a more prudent step to actually go back & read the whole post, first, before shooting off your unclear reply. That entire reply is directed at Kazenatsu. You are quoted, only to give you credit for being the first to point out the fallacy of the analogy being presented, by equating a government having certain social policies as being therefore, "socialist," and then associating this with a full-on, Communist system.

 

Ok. Got it. Thanks

How does Cuba differ from Denmark? Cuba IS a socialist model where government owns and operates means of production. They do not have private companies. Denmark is NOT a socialist country, because their model relies on free market economy where private companies do exist. A government funded social service does not make Denmark a socialist country, and Bernie Sanders would do well if he stopped making it sound like it does. IMO he is being very dishonest trying to sell Cuban style socialism by trying to equate it to Denmark system.

 

So Communist Cuba would depend on a Capitalist America for prosperity? That seems to be what you are saying. I have one of three sons that buys into the lie of Communism. Do you think he will get one dime of his family inheritance? That would by hypocritical. His inheritance will have to come from government.

 

Instead of calling it Communism, let's simplify it and call it "Statism". We saw how The failed USSR made a temporary switch from Communism to Statism. Either way, individual liberty is denied. I call it "American Communism" because excuses are made as to why Communism fails every where it is tried, only the elite believes it can succeed with the right players.It is attempted through globalism and the concentration of power. Why else would Biden call in the U.N. to investigate and shame America for purported systematic racism? Has China, N.Korea, Japan, India, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, or many of those judging us ever had a Leader with black skin tones? We are the most diverse nation on the planet......they just hate our individual liberty.

 

If you want to call "American brand of communism" statism, then feel free to so do. I know for fact that US does not have any brand of communism, but I get it that some people need to think it exists. They need to believe in boogeymen.