If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Geopolitics)   Fidel Castro pulls yet another shock confession out of his cold soul and admits his economic system failed, preference for smoked brains over pickled   (glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, Fidel Castro, economy, Jeffrey Goldberg, certitude, Ahmadinejad  
•       •       •

1637 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 1:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-09 04:44:48 PM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: Oh, I stand corrected. Then I guess that leaves only farklibs as dumb enough to defend communism.

As a Marxist, I have only one issue with you, and that's being called a lib.


Communism is anything but liberal, that's for sure.
 
2013-09-09 04:45:19 PM  

FarkedOver: The_Sponge: FarkedOver: Of course it fails when you're neighbors with a hostile capitalist giant.


It always fails, pal.

Yep, when you're constantly under the threat of invasion and sanctions by bourgeois regimes it will fail every time.



Fine....then show me a country where such a system has worked.
 
2013-09-09 04:46:08 PM  

jigger: FarkedOver: jigger: So if capitalism and liberal democracy had failed as miserably as communism has, would that be the excuse? We couldn't possible sustain such a robust economic model when those evil communist regimes kept being mean to us for so long!

Maybe, just maybe if the working class wasn't shut down at every turn in industrialized nations, socialist revolutions would have occurred there too, but as it is every socialist revolution has occurred in un-industrialized, poor, former imperialist nations.  THEN when workers of these nations assert themselves, capitalist nations start oppressing them.  It has happened every single time there has been a popular power worker movement throughout history.

So capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work? Communism will never work as long as capitalism exists? Is that what you're saying?

Let me ask you this. Does communism make people richer or poorer in general?


His argument is that Marx said that capitalism has to precede communism for communism to work. In other words, capitalists have to build and create industry and other stuff first for communists to steal in order for communism to work.
 
2013-09-09 04:46:10 PM  

FarkedOver: jigger: So capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work? Communism will never work as long as capitalism exists? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.  You are finally understanding Marxism. Good job man!


Ok, so the USSR and China both made the same HUGE mistake because they didn't allow capitalism to make them rich first. You have to do that before you use communism to bring you back to grinding, miserable poverty.
 
2013-09-09 04:47:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: In other words, capitalists have to build and create industry and other stuff first for communists to steal in order for communism to work.


....and they will still screw it up.
 
2013-09-09 04:49:15 PM  
Equal sharing of miseries (unless you work for the government) vs. unequal sharing of joys.

Communism's shiatty.  It doesn't work.  Neither does unfettered capitalism.

Most libs on Fark feel, however, that America should be more towards the communism side of the spectrum than the libertarian side.  Most of the debate on fark is over how dark the shade of gray should be.

No one's ready to give up their iPhones for the glory of the party.  At least directly.
 
2013-09-09 04:50:35 PM  

jigger: FarkedOver: jigger: So if capitalism and liberal democracy had failed as miserably as communism has, would that be the excuse? We couldn't possible sustain such a robust economic model when those evil communist regimes kept being mean to us for so long!

Maybe, just maybe if the working class wasn't shut down at every turn in industrialized nations, socialist revolutions would have occurred there too, but as it is every socialist revolution has occurred in un-industrialized, poor, former imperialist nations.  THEN when workers of these nations assert themselves, capitalist nations start oppressing them.  It has happened every single time there has been a popular power worker movement throughout history.

So capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work? Communism will never work as long as capitalism exists? Is that what you're saying?

Let me ask you this. Does communism make people richer or poorer in general?


"Capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work" is pretty much a core principle of Marxism.
 
2013-09-09 04:56:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: His argument is that Marx said that capitalism has to precede communism for communism to work. In other words, capitalists have to build and create industry and other stuff first for communists to steal in order for communism to work.


Oh come now, you know the capitalists didn't pick up the tools to build shiat.
 
2013-09-09 04:57:22 PM  

jigger: Ok, so the USSR and China both made the same HUGE mistake because they didn't allow capitalism to make them rich first. You have to do that before you use communism to bring you back to grinding, miserable poverty.


That is one of my criticism.  But they also did modernize their countries.  Ya take the good, ya take the bad, ya take 'em both and there you have the facts of life.

/the facts of life.
 
2013-09-09 05:01:48 PM  

Ned Stark: "Capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work" is pretty much a core principle of Marxism.


I know this. To most people this statement is retarded on its face. Just not to communists for some reason.

FarkedOver: jigger: Ok, so the USSR and China both made the same HUGE mistake because they didn't allow capitalism to make them rich first. You have to do that before you use communism to bring you back to grinding, miserable poverty.

That is one of my criticism.  But they also did modernize their countries.  Ya take the good, ya take the bad, ya take 'em both and there you have the facts of life.

/the facts of life.


China "modernized" and it only killed a few tens of millions of people.

What would have happened if those poor workers lived under capitalist oppression with with their fancy cars and blue jeans?
 
2013-09-09 05:02:22 PM  

jigger: FarkedOver: jigger: So capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work? Communism will never work as long as capitalism exists? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.  You are finally understanding Marxism. Good job man!

Ok, so the USSR and China both made the same HUGE mistake because they didn't allow capitalism to make them rich first. You have to do that before you use communism to bring you back to grinding, miserable poverty.


In he USSR and China commies went ahead and seized power with the intent of having the state act in the place of a capitalist class. Experimental evidence suggests this was a bad idea, yes.

Your assertion that communism causes poverty seems groundless though, both states ended up less poor than they were prerevolution even if they weren't keeping pace with the cappies.
 
2013-09-09 05:02:46 PM  

jigger: China "modernized" and it only killed a few tens of millions of people.

What would have happened if those poor workers lived under capitalist oppression with with their fancy cars and blue jeans?


Every economic model has its growing pains.  You think capitalism has been a shining beacon of hope throughout the ages? Here's a hint no, it hasn't and it really still isn't.
 
2013-09-09 05:05:29 PM  

FarkedOver: jigger: So if capitalism and liberal democracy had failed as miserably as communism has, would that be the excuse? We couldn't possible sustain such a robust economic model when those evil communist regimes kept being mean to us for so long!

Maybe, just maybe if the working class wasn't shut down at every turn in industrialized nations, socialist revolutions would have occurred there too, but as it is every socialist revolution has occurred in un-industrialized, poor, former imperialist nations.  THEN when workers of these nations assert themselves, capitalist nations start oppressing them.  It has happened every single time there has been a popular power worker movement throughout history.


I think you've got it backwards. The reason socialism failed in the US was because the workers got their way. Workers wanted better wages, better conditions, and fewer hours. In Russia and Cuba they didn't get that so a revolution occurred while in the US the factory owners caved and no revolution. The workers never really wanted to own the means of production, they just wanted modest pay increases.

I'd argue that socialist revolutions don't occur in industrialized nations because the workers have more power. Those in charge have to balance paying as little as they can with making sure their workers never get upset enough to revolt. Pay across the society never drops lower than the workers as a whole are willing to accept because a revolution, even a failed one, would destroy those who own the means of production. In non-industrial societies those who own the means are more willing to oppress because they have less capital invested and their workers unskilled. In an industrial society an individual or industry might have terrible pay or conditions but one man or even one group doesn't make a revolution. The workers across the whole of society have to be unhappy. Life for the working class might be shiat, but they never let it get bad enough to cause a revolt.
 
2013-09-09 05:08:36 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I think you've got it backwards. The reason socialism failed in the US was because the workers got their way. Workers wanted better wages, better conditions, and fewer hours. In Russia and Cuba they didn't get that so a revolution occurred while in the US the factory owners caved and no revolution. The workers never really wanted to own the means of production, they just wanted modest pay increases.


I don't think workers in the U.S. have ever gotten what they wanted.  They benefited from a post-war boom because there was no industrialized nation left to produce at the rate we could.  We got lucky.
 
2013-09-09 05:14:14 PM  
I know this. To most people this statement is retarded on its face. Just not to communists for some reason.

Lets study this shiat out.

1. To grow industry concentrations of capital are needed
2. We regard the creation of concentrations of capital by siphoning value from workers to owners as wrong
3. Therefore under our economic system, there will be fewer concentrations of capital
4. Therefore, under our economic system growth will be slower
5. Therefore, our economic system is only suitable for economies that have already achieved a certain minimum level of delelopment.

Which in particular is retarded on its face(and not merely wrong)?
 
2013-09-09 05:17:35 PM  
Communism works always*
*unless it doesn't work
 
2013-09-09 05:21:48 PM  

Fart_Machine: Much like Snake Plissken I thought Castro was dead.


"I don't give a fark about your war... or your president"
 
2013-09-09 05:24:34 PM  

jigger: So capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work? Communism will never work as long as capitalism exists? Is that what you're saying?


I think capitalism is needed to create proletariat which then destroys capitalism
 
2013-09-09 05:27:57 PM  

LewDux: jigger: So capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work? Communism will never work as long as capitalism exists? Is that what you're saying?

I think capitalism is needed to create proletariat which then destroys capitalism


Thats A seperate assertion from needing capitalism for development.

/Experimentally disproven when commies shot the czar's dog.
 
2013-09-09 05:48:47 PM  

LewDux: Communism works always*
*unless it doesn't work


For some definition of the word 'Work'

// Let's face it the party bosses always do well
 
2013-09-09 07:06:14 PM  

FarkedOver: jigger: Ok, so the USSR and China both made the same HUGE mistake because they didn't allow capitalism to make them rich first. You have to do that before you use communism to bring you back to grinding, miserable poverty.

That is one of my criticism.  But they also did modernize their countries.  Ya take the good, ya take the bad, ya take 'em both and there you have the facts of life.

/the facts of life.


A quote from a French movie I can't name has stuck with me: In 1917 Russia had a 16th-century economy. Just four decades later they launched the world's first satellite into space.
 
2013-09-09 07:55:59 PM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: Well, I guess that leaves Kim Jong Un and some farklibs as the only people still stupid enough to think communism isn't a complete disaster.

North Korea does not subscribe to Marxism or Communism.  They practice Juche.


Right on cue....
 
2013-09-09 08:50:04 PM  

phaseolus:

So he's more capable of critical self-reflection than Reagan ever could have been, then?

Let's see...

Reagan's policies rescued the world's largest economy from Carteritis, cutting inflation by nearly two thirds, and slashing interest rates.

He also set in motion the escalation which ended up bringing down the U.S.S.R. without a shot being fired.

Meanwhile in Cuba, from TFA: "With infrastructure crumbling, food shortages acute and an average monthly salary of just $25 (£16), it has become apparent that near-total state control of the economy does not work."  So, it would seem that Castro has a lot more material for "critical self-reflection" than Reagan ever did.

 
2013-09-09 08:59:26 PM  

ikanreed: neversubmit: Does this mean we will end the embargo?

But we still haven't gotten a satisfactory sense of revenge for perceived slights against America's imperial power.

private corporate economic interests.

Fixed for accuracy. Fidel's revolution stripped the casinos and resorts of their money and value which was being used to fuel corruption in the Battista regime.
Then when Fidel came crawling to America at the UN bldg in NY asking for official recognition and trade agreements, he was snubbed by then VP Dick Nixon (who didn't have the legal authority to snub Castro, just that Eisenhower was out of the country at the time).

Sure, the Cuban revolution was brutal and bloody. So was the American revolution. But snubbing Cuba turned into a terrible mistake, solely because of it's strategic location 90 miles from the US. Within a few years of Nixon's snubbing, the soviets were building secret ballistic missile installations.

Nixon should have been kicked out of government for making an enemy out of Cuba.
 
2013-09-09 09:58:20 PM  

Headso: I wouldn't get too down on yourself zombie Fidel, your nation has one of the highest GDPs of all those caribbean nations when  you account for population.


That's like being the smartest retard on the bus.
 
2013-09-09 09:59:44 PM  

way south: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: As soon as Castro dies, that island will be overrun with plasticine, soul-rending commercial capitalism out the wazzoo.  They won't know what hit them.

Doubtful.
His brother and the henchmen in charge aren't interested in reforming a state where they control everything.

I'd say its going to take a full rotation in heads of state, and the loss of Venezuelan life support, before anyone considers an alternative.


His brother has already allowed people to own their own businesses and property.
 
2013-09-09 10:01:32 PM  

I alone am best: Snatch Bandergrip: ikanreed: neversubmit: Does this mean we will end the embargo?

But we still haven't gotten a satisfactory sense of revenge for perceived slights against America's imperial power.

Who the hell was this Fidel guy to lead a popular uprising against a brutal dictator and corporate puppet, and survive over 200 assassination attempts from the country that economically pillaged it?  WTF is this guy's problem?

/Fidel is, obviously, far from perfect
//But our reaction to him was way over the line
//MONGOOSE

Yeah, who cares that he allowed the Soviet Union to place troops and nukes on his land which almost resulted in a nuclear war when they shot down an American U2.


Well, in that case one would think an embargo of the Soviet Union would also have been appropriate would one not?
 
2013-09-09 10:21:33 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo:

His argument is that Marx said that capitalism has to precede communism for communism to work. In other words, capitalists have to build and create industry and other stuff first for communists to steal in order for communism to work.

It also helps, as it did for the U.S.S.R., to have the West around to donate capital equipment.  When the Soviet Empire fell, Western businessmen flocked to Russia to help them get back on their feet, because the biggest country on Earth, filled with starving people and nuclear weapons, does NOT make for stability.  What they found shocked them: essentially ALL of the capital equipment (the equipment used to make other equipment) had been donated to the USSR by the West.  Factories and heavy machinery that had been donated, much of it from deals arranged by Armand Hammer, from as early as the 1920s.  There really isn't much evidence of the USSR producing anything that wasn't a more-or-less direct gift from the West.
 
2013-09-09 10:58:04 PM  

FLMountainMan: wildcardjack: I was musing over the non-annexation outcomes of the Mexican - American war and the Spanish - American war and the answer hit me like a dope slap: racism! Mexico was full of brown people and free blacks, and the Cuban revolution was dominated by blacks and no one in the south wanted more blacks in the united states. If Cuba had been annexed as a state they probably would have sent black men to congress, which no one wanted.

Of course, you'd also be crying racism if America had annexed those two countries, so it's all really irrelevant.


Hmm, probably, but they'd have changed the course of American development. The same progressive movement that improved things for American minorities might have applied to meso-america and the caribbean. Or there would have been a straight up genocidal move against the colored.
 
2013-09-09 11:03:39 PM  

FarkedOver:

jigger: So capitalism has to make a country rich before communism can work? Communism will never work as long as capitalism exists? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.  You are finally understanding Marxism. Good job man!

Yep.  Communism is like the flourish of mushrooms that live on a dead and decaying tree in the forest.  They continue to absorb the nutrients (wealth) accumulated by the tree during its life, and when they're done, there is nothing left but inedible refuse in a rather large pile.

As you say, given enough wealth (generated almost certainly by capitalism) in one spot, communism can get a foothold, and grow, and may in fact be what kills the capitalist society.  Then, communism can have its way, until all the wealth built up by the capitalists is gone.  Since it is a question of using wealth up, instead of creating it, the more slowly a communist society consumes wealth, the longer it can last.  That means a communist society has, as a fundamental principle, difficulty in distributing and obtaining the necessary supplies of life.  But, there was always a supply of bread and toilet paper, as long as you didn't mind waiting all afternoon to buy the ration of it you were allowed.

The best way to observe collectivism versus capitalism is to take one or more countries, arbitrarily divide them into collectivist and capitalist sides, and compare their results over time.  Fortunately for those studying, we have two examples of this: Germany after the war, and Korea.

Germany was split into West Germany and East Germany (the DDR) after WWII.  West Germany was capitalist, like other European countries, with more than a little of its structure obtained via the U.S.A.  It became a world industrial and financial power.  East Germany's government and economy were set up by the USSR, and it became a money-losing, grotesquely polluted, nearly-starving shiathole.  After reunification, almost the entire output of the West German economy was absorbed by the effort to clean up and restore East Germany into something it would be reasonable to call Germany.  Those efforts, while not as intense any more, continue to this day, and absorb a reasonable amount of the economic and industrial power Germany generates.

Korea was split, with North Korea being a communist Chinese vassal state with considerable autonomy.  South Korea was left on its own, with a capitalist economy and representative government.  South Korea went on to become a world power both industrially and financially, as West Germany had done.  North Korea slipped back a few centuries and is now another shiathole of starving, brainwashed peasants, all apparently compensating, as a country, for the exceptionally small penises of the ruling Kim family.

Given the two examples we have, and that of the USSR collapsing of its own weight, I find it utterly astonishing that someone with access to the Internets can be so uninformed, politically entrenched, delusional, or some combination of those factors as to think that us taking the path of North Korea and East Germany is the correct thing to do.  Instead of being productive, we should be a saprophytic economic organism, eking by through sucking the remaining life out of the corpse of the U.S.A?   Seriously?  That sounds WAY too much like some dystopia pictured in a crappy, preachy Kevin Kostner movie.   And THIS is what Marxists want?   WTF is wrong with you?

 
2013-09-09 11:28:14 PM  

kg2095: way south: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: As soon as Castro dies, that island will be overrun with plasticine, soul-rending commercial capitalism out the wazzoo.  They won't know what hit them.

Doubtful.
His brother and the henchmen in charge aren't interested in reforming a state where they control everything.

I'd say its going to take a full rotation in heads of state, and the loss of Venezuelan life support, before anyone considers an alternative.

His brother has already allowed people to own their own businesses and property.




A chosen few to create the appearance of reform. Most businesses, down to bars and hotels, are still state owned.
They aren't any closer to honest change now than they were in the Clinton era.
 
2013-09-09 11:32:03 PM  

FarkedOver: Of course it fails when you're neighbors with a hostile capitalist giant.


the DR is close to that "Hostile capitalist giant" and their economy is one of the best in the Caribbean.

Just admit that socialism doesn't work and that Cuba, rather than being run as a workers paradise is a crony state where the party controls everything and those with access are put to the front of the line for what little resources are left to distribute.

revrendjim: A quote from a French movie I can't name has stuck with me: In 1917 Russia had a 16th-century economy. Just four decades later they launched the world's first satellite into space.


after invading their neighbors, turning their citizens into slaves, seizing the bounty of their labor to run research, starving the populace, and conscripting the scientists into producing rockets and nukes while their own people marched around barefoot, yes...Go them.
 
2013-09-10 04:54:11 AM  

FarkedOver: Debeo Summa Credo: Oh, I stand corrected. Then I guess that leaves only farklibs as dumb enough to defend communism.

As a Marxist, I have only one issue with you, and that's being called a lib.


Can't set prices, can't reward ambission, can't get people to go into mines without violating a basic tenne of your philosiphy. Your system is perfect; perfectly dellusional.
 
2013-09-10 05:23:49 AM  

o5iiawah: revrendjim: A quote from a French movie I can't name has stuck with me: In 1917 Russia had a 16th-century economy. Just four decades later they launched the world's first satellite into space.

after invading their neighbors, turning their citizens into slaves, seizing the bounty of their labor to run research, starving the populace, and conscripting the scientists into producing rockets and nukes while their own people marched around barefoot, yes...Go them.


Hey, at least trains ran on time. Also, you can't build workers paradise without breaking few dozen millions skulls
 
2013-09-10 08:17:27 AM  

Fart_Machine: Much like Snake Plissken I thought

heard Castro was dead.
 
2013-09-10 11:05:06 AM  

FarkedOver: jigger: So if capitalism and liberal democracy had failed as miserably as communism has, would that be the excuse? We couldn't possible sustain such a robust economic model when those evil communist regimes kept being mean to us for so long!

Maybe, just maybe if the working class wasn't shut down at every turn in industrialized nations, socialist revolutions would have occurred there too, but as it is every socialist revolution has occurred in un-industrialized, poor, former imperialist nations.  THEN when workers of these nations assert themselves, capitalist nations start oppressing them.  It has happened every single time there has been a popular power worker movement throughout history.


2/10

No one could really be that naive.
 
2013-09-10 01:51:10 PM  

o5iiawah: FarkedOver: Of course it fails when you're neighbors with a hostile capitalist giant.

the DR is close to that "Hostile capitalist giant" and their economy is one of the best in the Caribbean.


Key word: "hostile." Since when has the USA been that hostile to the Dominican Republic, as it has been for ~½ a century to Cuba?
 
2013-09-10 08:51:58 PM  

way south: kg2095: way south: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: As soon as Castro dies, that island will be overrun with plasticine, soul-rending commercial capitalism out the wazzoo.  They won't know what hit them.

Doubtful.
His brother and the henchmen in charge aren't interested in reforming a state where they control everything.

I'd say its going to take a full rotation in heads of state, and the loss of Venezuelan life support, before anyone considers an alternative.

His brother has already allowed people to own their own businesses and property.

A chosen few to create the appearance of reform. Most businesses, down to bars and hotels, are still state owned.
They aren't any closer to honest change now than they were in the Clinton era.


I'm not so sure about that. What makes you think that is the case?

From the Financial Times...
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report