*gasp!* Cuban Model might not be working?

[XT]

I know...shocking. It seems that the Cuban Model (Cuban Communist system I presume) isn't working 'anymore'...even for the Cuban's. Well, if you can believe the source, which is the notorious right wing conservative and anti-Communist firebrand, Fidel Castro (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/09/08/cuba.castro.communism/index.html?hpt=T2).

Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that the "Cuban model" no longer works, an apparent admission of failings in the communist economic model introduced by his revolution more than 50 years ago.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," Castro told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic in an interview last week. Goldberg published parts of the exchange on a blog Tuesday and Wednesday.

The debate isn't really about whether or not Communism (Cuban or otherwise) 'works'....but more about whether or not this will finally make the die hard element ADMIT that it doesn't work 'anymore'.

Thoughts?

-XT

[GIGObuster]

Even before the fall of the wall it was clear that nations that did not adopt market economics were headed towards a dead end.

This and the lack of democracy were the items that convinced me a long time ago that Castro was not going to be absolved by history.

[pkbites]

Castro's younger brother and successor, President Raul Castro, has said as much in numerous speeches since taking the reins of power in 2006.


Castros other brother, Dennis, was silenced years ago for making similar remarks.

[John Mace]

Yeah, when I saw that article, I was tempted to start a thread: "Castro: Oops!".

But it was just an off the cuff comment to one reporter. Nothing official.

[Magiver]

Once you've acquired a rice cooker, is there anything else anyone really needs?

[FuzzyOgre]

Once you've acquired a rice cooker, is there anything else anyone really needs?

A pickle slicer of course.

But dont try to impregnate either one.

[Magiver]

Once you've acquired a rice cooker, is there anything else anyone really needs?

A pickle slicer of course.

But dont try to impregnate either one. Well that's certainly food for thought.

[gonzomax]

The American model is not working so well either. Same for the Dubai model.

[Cisco]

Communism and capitalism are both too idealistic. We need something in-between that works.

-A free but well-regulated consumer market
-Free and lightly-regulated press
-Partially or fully subsidized higher education and healthcare
-Major campaign finance reforms to give more non-career politicians and "outsiders" a chance to hold elected offices
-Reasonable/practical protections for jobs and manufacturing (example: if it's illegal to pay someone $4 per day here, a company should not be able to just move overseas and pay that wage in some country where it's legal.)

[elucidator]

Well, it was pretty much over when Reagan boldly blocked their attempt to seize Grenada, their plans for world domination pretty much ended.

So, can we stop pretending these poor bastards were some sort of big hairy-ass threat?

[XT]

Certainly. Just as soon as we can stop pretending that their fucked up system ever worked at all, or had any redeeming qualities to it.

Now, if Fidel et al will just hop into the dust bin, we can be about it. You are buyin the first round, yes?

-XT

[Cisco]

we can stop pretending that their fucked up system ever worked at all, or had any redeeming qualities to it.
Whoa, whoa, let's not go overboard. Their cars become really cool again every 10 years or so (or whenever Brian Setzer puts out a new record).

[Little Nemo]

I've thought the Cuban model hasn't been working for years.

But why should it be automatically proven because Castro said so? Presumedly a lot of the people who think Cuba isn't working are also people who distrust Castro. Why should you cite him as a trustworthy authority now just because he's saying something you happen to agree with?

My assumption is that Castro has his own ulterior motives for saying the Cuban model isn't working and his statement is no more trustworthy on its own than anything he has said in the past.

[Little Nemo]

Certainly. Just as soon as we can stop pretending that their fucked up system ever worked at all, or had any redeeming qualities to it.No redeeming qualities? Have you compared the cost of sixteen year old Cuban prostitutes to those in other Caribbean countries?

[XT]

No redeeming qualities? Have you compared the cost of sixteen year old Cuban prostitutes to those in other Caribbean countries?

No, I can't say I have. For one thing, I like my women a bit older. For another, I like my women to be, um, more rounded, which probably lets out most Cuban prostitutes. I am, however, willing to do some extensive testing, if grant money can be obtained. I'm also willing to sample (in the name of science of course) a selection of fine Cuban cigars from around the country as well.

(Of course, what you quoted there was talking about the 'fucked up system' which has no redeeming qualities to it...not the Cuban people or things made in Cuba. I LOVE Cuban cigars, and could probably find a nice 30-40 something prostitute that meets my exacting standards as well :p)

-XT

[Wesley Clark]

My understanding is all the other communist nations (except north korea) abandoned economic communism decades ago. Laos, Vietnam & China are all more free market economies operating under the heading of communism.

However that isn't to say that regulation against abuses is a bad thing. Or that social safety nets are a bad thing. However in the west communism is used as an umbrella term to criticize nearly everything (labor laws, environmental laws, universal health care).

[lalenin]

I've thought the Cuban model hasn't been working for years.

But why should it be automatically proven because Castro said so? Presumedly a lot of the people who think Cuba isn't working are also people who distrust Castro. Why should you cite him as a trustworthy authority now just because he's saying something you happen to agree with?

My assumption is that Castro has his own ulterior motives for saying the Cuban model isn't working and his statement is no more trustworthy on its own than anything he has said in the past.

I think what makes it newsworthy is that this kind of statement has never been made by any Cuban official, least of all the father of the Cuban revolution. Yes, he's just confirming what everyone, in Cuba and abroad, already knows, but now this truth is spoken. It should also be remembered that in Cuba it is illegal to criticize the Cuban government, this is the crime of 'desacato', or disrespect. However now that Castro himself has paved the way, it might become more accepted to do so in Cuba.

Then again, this might also be Fidel's way to insert himself back into the government. His younger (79 years old), brother has been running the country since 2006, so maybe all Fidel is saying is that Raul's government is not working.

[BrainGlutton]

Certainly. Just as soon as we can stop pretending that their fucked up system ever worked at all, or had any redeeming qualities to it.

From "Waiting for the Next Revolution," (http://www.thenation.com/article/waiting-next-revolution) by Jordana Timerman, who visited Cuba in 2008 in search of on-the-ground speculation about a post-Castro future:

"The worst problems we have are food, transportation and housing," said a blue-shirted clerk at a rations store just outside of Havana. As he spoke he also measured out the week's ration of crackers for neighborhood women coming in one afternoon. He deftly put the plastic bags they brought with them on a scale and scooped in the appropriate portion of hard, round crackers, later checking off the appropriate slot on their ration booklets.

He explained very carefully the economic conundrum faced by most Cubans: "We get a basic food basket, and that's very subsidized. It's supposed to last a month, but it can't, it lasts two weeks. So people have to get a little more, like at a farmers market or elsewhere. But that's more expensive. You have to find a way, invent something."

Behind the clerk, samples of items covered by the ration booklet, labeled with the negligible cost and how often families are entitled to each item, sat forlornly on the shelf: a cup of rice, one of beans, a carton of cigarettes, a bar of soap.

Asked about Castro's eventual death, the clerk furrowed his brow. "I'm 42, I've never had another leader. I don't know what happens," he said with a shrug. And it is difficult for anybody to really know, he said. "There's no free press here, you know." And there can be no opposition "because there is only one party, and you have to do what they say, or else they make you disappear." But one of the shriveled old women buying her rations interjects. "I saw what it was like before," she said, showing her toothless gums and shaking her scarf-covered head. "I don't want anything to change."

So, at least to one old woman who remembers the Batista days, the system must have some redeeming qualities. FWIW.

[godix]

Then again, this might also be Fidel's way to insert himself back into the government. His younger (79 years old), brother has been running the country since 2006, so maybe all Fidel is saying is that Raul's government is not working.
Personally, I read it as the reverse. Raul has been experimenting with some reforms to the system (granted, reasonably minor reforms). To me, when Fidel acknowledged the old style system wasn't working, he was implying reforms were needed. Which is a nice way to try and make sure the most die hard elements of Cubans stay off Raul's back.

[athelas]

The American model is not working so well either. Same for the Dubai model.Which way are the refugees going?

[BrainGlutton]

The American model is not working so well either. Same for the Dubai model.Which way are the refugees going?

I dunno about refugees, but a lot of undocumented immigrants are going back to Mexico. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409221,00.html) All on their own. Because they can't find work here.

[Wallenstein]

Would the Cuban model have fared better without the US economic blockade?

If the rest of the world refused to trade with America, I imagine you'd be pretty well f*cked economically, no?

[BrainGlutton]

Would the Cuban model have fared better without the US economic blockade?

If the rest of the world refused to trade with America, I imagine you'd be pretty well f*cked economically, no?

Nitpick: It's an embargo. A blockade would be if American ships patrolled Cuban waters and tried to stop any country's ships from entering or leaving. We haven't done that since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[gonzomax]

The American model is not working so well either. Same for the Dubai model.Which way are the refugees going?

We have access closed off, so it has to be one way. Apparently we fear allowing our people to go there.

[John Mace]

Would the Cuban model have fared better without the US economic blockade?

If the rest of the world refused to trade with America, I imagine you'd be pretty well f*cked economically, no?

Nitpick: It's an embargo. A blockade would be if American ships patrolled Cuban waters and tried to stop any country's ships from entering or leaving. We haven't done that since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Not only that, but the rest of the world does trade with Cuba. Most of it, anyway. The US has nothing to do with the failure of the Cuban economic system.

[kelly5078]

Would the Cuban model have fared better without the US economic blockade?

If the rest of the world refused to trade with America, I imagine you'd be pretty well f*cked economically, no?The rest of the world is not refusing to trade with Cuba. It's mostly, if not entirely, the US that won't have anything to do with Cuba.

[Little Nemo]

I think what makes it newsworthy is that this kind of statement has never been made by any Cuban official, least of all the father of the Cuban revolution. Yes, he's just confirming what everyone, in Cuba and abroad, already knows, but now this truth is spoken. It should also be remembered that in Cuba it is illegal to criticize the Cuban government, this is the crime of 'desacato', or disrespect. However now that Castro himself has paved the way, it might become more accepted to do so in Cuba.

Then again, this might also be Fidel's way to insert himself back into the government. His younger (79 years old), brother has been running the country since 2006, so maybe all Fidel is saying is that Raul's government is not working.My guess is that the Castros are trying to buy some more time. If they announce they have seen the error of their ways and will now institute reforms that will take the heat off of any calls to replace them - they'll become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. They can probably string that out for another ten years in power.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's a bit misleading. The US was Cuba's major trade partner prior to 1962, as you might expect. The fact that the Cubans have been able to trade with others doesn't mean they haven't lost out by being unable to trade with the US.

[gonzomax]

When a hurricane hits Cuba, and they do, they clear out cities with all kinds of mass transportation.
Cuba has a good medical system.
They don't have manufacturing of any significance. When we there ,Dole Pineapple and other companies ruled them, things were worse.

[flickster]

Cuba has a good medical system.

As compared to....?

[kidchameleon]

When a hurricane hits Cuba, and they do, they clear out cities with all kinds of mass transportation.
Cuba has a good medical system.
They don't have manufacturing of any significance. When we there ,Dole Pineapple and other companies ruled them, things were worse.

Why don't you head on down?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Cuba has a good medical system.

As compared to....?
By some measures, the US. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate and nearly twice as many physicians per capita.

[XT]

That's a bit misleading. The US was Cuba's major trade partner prior to 1962, as you might expect. The fact that the Cubans have been able to trade with others doesn't mean they haven't lost out by being unable to trade with the US.

They lost trade with the US and gained trade with the USSR. It's not our fault they relied on the Soviets to fill their bowl, instead of rebuilding a foreign trade system. They have had over 40 years, after all, to build some kind of alternative to trading with the US.

So...it's not a bit misleading at all.

We have access closed off, so it has to be one way. Apparently we fear allowing our people to go there.

Yeah, 'cause if we didn't close off access then there would probably be a mass exodus from the US to Cuba! We really need to keep folks under our thumb or they would flee in a heart beat...

:p

-XT

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Soviet Union was 6,000 miles away and its economy was half the size of the US', at best. It's not that they relied on the Soviets; it's that their most suitable trading partner was cut off.

[foolsguinea]

Communism and capitalism are both too idealistic. We need something in-between that works.

-A free but well-regulated consumer market
-Free and lightly-regulated press
-Partially or fully subsidized higher education and healthcare
-Major campaign finance reforms to give more non-career politicians and "outsiders" a chance to hold elected offices
-Reasonable/practical protections for jobs and manufacturing (example: if it's illegal to pay someone $4 per day here, a company should not be able to just move overseas and pay that wage in some country where it's legal.)But, but, that would be COMPROMISE with EVIL!!! Only extremism is legitimate & safe!!! [/sarcasm]

[BrainGlutton]

Certainly. Just as soon as we can stop pretending that their fucked up system ever worked at all, or had any redeeming qualities to it.No redeeming qualities? Have you compared the cost of sixteen year old Cuban prostitutes to those in other Caribbean countries?

Look, you get what you pay for. You want genuine Cuban cigars, you pay black-market prices. You want the pure, original HIV strain, you go to Haiti and hang the expense!

[BrainGlutton]

I think what makes it newsworthy is that this kind of statement has never been made by any Cuban official, least of all the father of the Cuban revolution. Yes, he's just confirming what everyone, in Cuba and abroad, already knows, but now this truth is spoken. It should also be remembered that in Cuba it is illegal to criticize the Cuban government, this is the crime of 'desacato', or disrespect. However now that Castro himself has paved the way, it might become more accepted to do so in Cuba.

Then again, this might also be Fidel's way to insert himself back into the government. His younger (79 years old), brother has been running the country since 2006, so maybe all Fidel is saying is that Raul's government is not working.My guess is that the Castros are trying to buy some more time. If they announce they have seen the error of their ways and will now institute reforms that will take the heat off of any calls to replace them - they'll become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. They can probably string that out for another ten years in power.

Hypothetical: Suppose the Castro brothers decided, to hell with the risk, we're gonna pull a Gorbachev: Free speech, free press, free elections with non-Communist parties included. How would that play out?

[XT]

The Soviet Union was 6,000 miles away and its economy was half the size of the US', at best. It's not that they relied on the Soviets; it's that their most suitable trading partner was cut off.

Hilarious!

Two things: First off, there is the 'got to hate that factor'. IOW, they should have thought of that BEFORE pissing us off, no? Secondly, trade is not an indelible right, granted for all time...it's a mutual exchange. So, the US isn't bound to provide Cuba with the right to trade with us, nor is it our responsibility to ensure that their fucked up economy works. If they lose a major trading partner, it's up to THEM to rebuild their markets. They chose (CHOSE) not to do so, and instead they relied on the Soviets to make up the difference. That was a huge mistake, both at the time and in retrospect.

Which gets back to the first point...got to hate dat. Poor choices.

-XT

[flickster]

As compared to....?
By some measures, the US. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate and nearly twice as many physicians per capita.

Guess that would depend on whose standards are being used and what equipment & facilities those "physicians" have at their access.

Did not Castro go to Spain recently for medical treatment?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Hypothetical: Suppose the Castro brothers decided, to hell with the risk, we're gonna pull a Gorbachev: Free speech, free press, free elections with non-Communist parties included. How would that play out?
Two words: bachelor party.

[elucidator]

They should have asked us, instead of this messy revolution stuff. "Please, USA, could you remove this monstrous dictator, Batista, and, while you're about it, free us from the tentacles of the American Mafia?" We would have sent the Marines, toot sweet, to bring them the same liberation that we brought to so many, many countries in Central and South America! Uguarte, Trujillo, Arenas, Pinochet...why, the list of freedom loving patriots we supported goes on and on!

But noooooo!

[XT]

They should have asked us, instead of this messy revolution stuff. "Please, USA, could you remove this monstrous dictator, Batista, and, while you're about it, free us from the tentacles of the American Mafia?" We would have sent the Marines, toot sweet, to bring them the same liberation that we brought to so many, many countries in Central and South America! Uguarte, Trujillo, Arenas, Pinochet...why, the list of freedom loving patriots we supported goes on and on!

So, they picked the other side. Want a list of THEIR 'freedom loving patriots'? Think it will be much improved? :p

Even conceding the point to you, Cuba COULD have changed it's spots at a later date...say, after the Soviets went for the long drop. In the spirit of new understanding and friendship, they could have thrown off their communist trappings and made at least a token effort to re-establish closer relations with the US. All it would have really taken was for anyone with 'Castro' in their name to step down, and set up an interim (non-Communist/non-Fucked Up) government appointed to allow the Cuban people the chance to vote in a new government. Assuming that new government wanted to trade and have closer relations with the US I'm pretty confident that even the rabid anti-Castro faction in the US would have been overjoyed by such developments, especially if it let them go home.

'But noooooo!', as you so succinctly put it.

-XT

[kidchameleon]

What? Our glorious communist economy would have worked if only we'd had a rich capitalist economy to support it?

[Little Nemo]

Hypothetical: Suppose the Castro brothers decided, to hell with the risk, we're gonna pull a Gorbachev: Free speech, free press, free elections with non-Communist parties included. How would that play out?I suppose it could work. The Castros are in power so they'd be able to get reform moving. Whether they could survive the process is an open question - most reformers (including Gorbachev) end up getting thrown out of office as part of the reform process.

But I think it's an unlikely hypothetical. Gorbachev said that past premiers had made mistakes that needed to be fixed. The Castros would be saying that they themselves had made mistakes that needed to be fixed. Self-reform is a lot rarer and more difficult than reform by a "new broom". Maybe back in 1990 they could have done it as part of the spirit of that time. But at this point, I think it's just what I said above - a couple of old men trying to hang on to power long enough so they can die in bed.

[BrainGlutton]

They should have asked us, instead of this messy revolution stuff. "Please, USA, could you remove this monstrous dictator, Batista, and, while you're about it, free us from the tentacles of the American Mafia?" We would have sent the Marines, toot sweet, to bring them the same liberation that we brought to so many, many countries in Central and South America! Uguarte, Trujillo, Arenas, Pinochet...why, the list of freedom loving patriots we supported goes on and on!

So, they picked the other side. Want a list of THEIR 'freedom loving patriots'? Think it will be much improved? :p

Better Allende than Pinochet, at any rate. Better pro-Soviet Republican Spain than Franco's Spain. Better Hugo Chavez than whatever that failed coup would have replaced him with. Etc. Some of these are close calls, but none of them are difficult calls.

[XT]

Better Allende than Pinochet, at any rate. Better pro-Soviet Republican Spain than Franco's Spain. Better Hugo Chavez than whatever that failed coup would have replaced him with. Etc. Some of these are close calls, but none of them are difficult calls.

Leaving aside the fantasy about Spain, or that Chavez is better than who ever would be there (again, fantasy, since he's the guy there...I know you like him so let's just move on), I was thinking about guys like Pol Pot. You know, communist dictators supported by the Soviets with oceans of blood on their hands. Not just that passe suppression of peasants, or the odd murder or two (or even 10's or 100's of thousands), but folks like...well, like that Castro guy, for instance.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Better Allende than Pinochet, at any rate. Better pro-Soviet Republican Spain than Franco's Spain. Better Hugo Chavez than whatever that failed coup would have replaced him with. Etc. Some of these are close calls, but none of them are difficult calls.

Leaving aside the fantasy about Spain, or that Chavez is better than who ever would be there (again, fantasy, since he's the guy there...I know you like him so let's just move on), I was thinking about guys like Pol Pot. You know, communist dictators supported by the Soviets with oceans of blood on their hands. Not just that passe suppression of peasants, or the odd murder or two (or even 10's or 100's of thousands), but folks like...well, like that Castro guy, for instance.

-XT

Come now, you really can't be suggesting any equivalence between Castro and Pol Pot. It's like comparing Franco to Hitler.

[XT]

Come now, you really can't be suggesting any equivalence between Castro and Pol Pot. It's like comparing Franco to Hitler.

I'm suggesting that, while the rogues gallery of fuckups the US has supported over time haven't exactly been nice guys, they pale compared to a similar list supported (or, hell, representative of...let's not forget Stalin, Lenin or Mao) by the Communists. Which was my original point.

-XT

[lalenin]

By some measures, the US. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate and nearly twice as many physicians per capita.Did not Castro go to Spain recently for medical treatment?

Even better, after being nearly killed by Cuban doctors a team of Spanish doctors, with their own equipment and medicines, were flown in to save the day (and by day I mean Fidel).

[BrainGlutton]

Did not Castro go to Spain recently for medical treatment?

Even better, after being nearly killed by Cuban doctors a team of Spanish doctors, with their own equipment and medicines, were flown in to save the day (and by day I mean Fidel).

Still, by WHO ranking (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) (2000), Cuba's medical system is the 39th-best in the world (only 2 behind the U.S.), which puts it ahead of all the rest of the Caribbean except Dominica (and Puerto Rico? not sure), and ahead of all Latin America except for Colombia and Costa Rica. (Spain ranks 7, BTW.)

[The Tao's Revenge]

The Soviet Union was 6,000 miles away and its economy was half the size of the US', at best. It's not that they relied on the Soviets; it's that their most suitable trading partner was cut off.

Hilarious!

Two things: First off, there is the 'got to hate that factor'. IOW, they should have thought of that BEFORE pissing us off, no? Secondly, trade is not an indelible right, granted for all time...it's a mutual exchange. So, the US isn't bound to provide Cuba with the right to trade with us, nor is it our responsibility to ensure that their fucked up economy works. If they lose a major trading partner, it's up to THEM to rebuild their markets. They chose (CHOSE) not to do so, and instead they relied on the Soviets to make up the difference. That was a huge mistake, both at the time and in retrospect.

Which gets back to the first point...got to hate dat. Poor choices.

-XT



So basically they should have been content to be ass fucked by the pineapple companies, with pineapples, is what you're saying? Why should the US meddle in another country's government?

OPEC has us over an oil barrel. If they decided that to sell us oil why had to get rid of that pesky freedom of speech thing, would your words equally apply to us?

[XT]

So basically they should have been content to be ass fucked by the pineapple companies, with pineapples, is what you're saying? Why should the US meddle in another country's government?

Where did you read that in what I said?

OPEC has us over an oil barrel. If they decided that to sell us oil why had to get rid of that pesky freedom of speech thing, would your words equally apply to us?

If pink elephants with long tusks flew out of your ass, would it hurt? (IOW...huh?)

-XT

[elucidator]

Funny thing is, the Soviet power elites found the Cuban revolutionaries kind of an embarrassment. They were all survivors/veterans of the Stalinist experiment in absolute cynicism, if they had a political ideal amongst them, they would have to pass it around so that each of them could see what it looked like. A bit like our own founding fuckups thought Tom Paine was a pain in the butt with all his egalitarian ideals when they were busy setting up a government that favored the white, the wealthy and the landed.

Rumor has it that Kruschev became something of a "born again" Communist, enamored of the idea that maybe they were right all along, that Communism was the wave of the future, as represented by these vigorous young revolutionaries.

But they couldn't stand Che. Che didn't bathe, and called them a bunch of wimps who wouldn't have lasted a week in the Sierra Maestra mountains with the real revolutionaries.

And, of course, Cuba was a poor candidate according to classic Marxist theory, having no industrial base to speak of, hence no industrial bourgeoisie, never mind an industrial proletariat. Especially when you got an apostate like Mao running around claiming that a Marxist revolution could be founded in an entirely agricultural base. It would be like Moses having a ham and cheese sandwhich, with a shmeer and a nice glass milk.

Funny, isn't it, how nations born of liberating revolutions can become oppressive, in their turn.

[lalenin]

Even better, after being nearly killed by Cuban doctors a team of Spanish doctors, with their own equipment and medicines, were flown in to save the day (and by day I mean Fidel).

Still, by WHO ranking (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) (2000), Cuba's medical system is the 39th-best in the world (only 2 behind the U.S.), which puts it ahead of all the rest of the Caribbean except Dominica (and Puerto Rico? not sure), and ahead of all Latin America except for Colombia and Costa Rica. (Spain ranks 7, BTW.)

I've learned that when it comes to communist countries statistics are used as a propaganda tool, and are massaged and made up to be the best little propaganda tools they can be.

I notice in that that list Canada is ranked 30th. I've experienced both the Canadian and the Cuban medical systems, and the only way those two are separated by 9 places is if they ranking is exponential.

[gonzomax]

That's a bit misleading. The US was Cuba's major trade partner prior to 1962, as you might expect. The fact that the Cubans have been able to trade with others doesn't mean they haven't lost out by being unable to trade with the US.

They lost trade with the US and gained trade with the USSR. It's not our fault they relied on the Soviets to fill their bowl, instead of rebuilding a foreign trade system. They have had over 40 years, after all, to build some kind of alternative to trading with the US.

So...it's not a bit misleading at all.

We have access closed off, so it has to be one way. Apparently we fear allowing our people to go there.

Yeah, 'cause if we didn't close off access then there would probably be a mass exodus from the US to Cuba! We really need to keep folks under our thumb or they would flee in a heart beat...

:p

-XT

Then what is the fear? Why do we not want Americans to go there? For many years you could go to jail for visiting Cuba.
Could it be we did not want American tourist dollars helping out the dirty commies? Perhaps we feared it might wok out for them if we did go there?
Nobody suggests a max exodus of Americans to Cuba. Don't argue with yourself.

[XT]

Then what is the fear? Why do we not want Americans to go there? For many years you could go to jail for visiting Cuba.

A couple of things here. First off, American's can go to Cuba. I've been there myself without any long jail time associated with it (I was unable to sneak back any large quantities of fine Cuban cigars, sadly). Secondly, it's not 'fear' that curtails trips to and from Cuba, but the fact that the country is under embargo by the US. Since the embargo is the law of the land until it's repealed (something I'm all for, btw), it effects US citizens. It's really as simple as that...no fear necessary.

Could it be we did not want American tourist dollars helping out the dirty commies?

Well, leaving aside the snide aspects...yeah. You do know what an embargo is, right?

Perhaps we feared it might wok out for them if we did go there?

Um, no. We simply have the country under embargo (I'm beginning to suspect you DON'T know what this means, though you should...even I was alive when it was originally imposed, though, granted I was only a baby at the time). We are blocking a flow of goods and services from the US to Cuba (and vice versa)...that includes tourist dollars.

Nobody suggests a max exodus of Americans to Cuba. Don't argue with yourself.

For the humor impaired, this was a 'joke'. I was riffing off your own comment. Next time I'll try and use pictures.

-XT

[elucidator]

Soviet style Communism is gone, and good riddance, the Movement goes foward. But you just keep on dancing on the grave, it'll keep you out of our hair for a while.

[The Tao's Revenge]

So basically they should have been content to be ass fucked by the pineapple companies, with pineapples, is what you're saying? Why should the US meddle in another country's government?

Where did you read that in what I said?

OPEC has us over an oil barrel. If they decided that to sell us oil why had to get rid of that pesky freedom of speech thing, would your words equally apply to us?

If pink elephants with long tusks flew out of your ass, would it hurt? (IOW...huh?)

-XT

Dangers of late night posting. Although your post was about as clear as mud, too.

Here's what I meant to say. If the US was in a similar boat with another country or group that didn't like it's form of government. Let's say a hypothetical OPEC that just hates our freedom of religion and can do just fine not selling us oil would Americans (after not giving up the freedom of religion thing and dealing with the fallout of suddenly losing a good chunk of our energy supply) say "there is the 'got to hate that factor'. IOW, we should have thought of that BEFORE pissing them off, no?", or would we probably go to war?

Considering the first Iraqi war where the main interest in getting involved was Kuwait having oil (not Iraq using biological weapons in the 80s, that was okay apparently) and the second Iraqi war most of the mealy mouthed street justifications I heard were about oil supply. Cuba wasn't as powerful as the US, and didn't have many options to fight back. You appear to believe because of this Cuba should have bent over and asked the US for another pineapple up the ass.

In short it appears to me all the embargo was was a bully causing misery because the brute didn't get his way. How much suffering did that embargo cause?

[Musicat]

So Fidel says it isn't working "anymore." When did it ever work?

[XT]

Dangers of late night posting. Although your post was about as clear as mud, too.

Yeah, but I put a lot of effort into deliberately making them less than clear. :p

Here's what I meant to say. If the US was in a similar boat with another country or group that didn't like it's form of government. Let's say a hypothetical OPEC that just hates our freedom of religion and can do just fine not selling us oil would Americans (after not giving up the freedom of religion thing and dealing with the fallout of suddenly losing a good chunk of our energy supply) say "there is the 'got to hate that factor'. IOW, we should have thought of that BEFORE pissing them off, no?", or would we probably go to war?

Certainly we should have. It would be a choice...conform to the demands of this theoretical trading partner, or deal with the consequences of such an embargo and find other trading partners to fill in the gaps.

The point is that Cuba chose it's path...it chose to throw away it's history with the US (the good and the bad), and ally itself with a nation that was clearly at odds with the US, and tie it's future economic prosperity (or lack their of) to said other country. It was their choice, and if they made it out of principal then that's all well and good...but it was their choice. And ours, of course.

Considering the first Iraqi war where the main interest in getting involved was Kuwait having oil (not Iraq using biological weapons in the 80s, that was okay apparently) and the second Iraqi war most of the mealy mouthed street justifications I heard were about oil supply. Cuba wasn't as powerful as the US, and didn't have many options to fight back. You appear to believe because of this Cuba should have bent over and asked the US for another pineapple up the ass.


Or, they could have sought to reform (or depose and replace with something else that wasn't hostile to the US) the own government, reform the regulations and restrictions on US companies operating in Cuba, instead of seizing them all and nationalizing the assets (which was the thing that really provoked the bitterness and counter hostility by the US against Cuba...and remains one of the big sticking points to this day). They could have worked with the US for reform, and while we might have kicked and screamed, we probably wouldn't have embargoed them the same way.

You seem to be operating under the impression that there were only two solutions...either things continued on exactly as they had been under earlier, corrupt Cuban governments (i.e. 'pineapple up the ass') or it had to be a complete and radical chance where the Cuban's seized everything and allied themselves with the Soviets. There were plenty of solutions between those two that would have kept the US and Cuba trading. They CHOSE to do the most radical and deliberately provocative, and ally themselves and tie their economy to the Soviets instead of maintaining their relations with the US.

How did that work out for them?

In short it appears to me all the embargo was was a bully causing misery because the brute didn't get his way. How much suffering did that embargo cause?

It appears to me that you have a rather one sided and skewed view of the history and events that lead to the current situation.

(And, the funny thing is, I've been a big advocate of getting rid of or at least lightening up on the embargo for years now)

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Hypothetical: Suppose the Castro brothers decided, to hell with the risk, we're gonna pull a Gorbachev: Free speech, free press, free elections with non-Communist parties included. How would that play out?I suppose it could work. The Castros are in power so they'd be able to get reform moving. Whether they could survive the process is an open question - most reformers (including Gorbachev) end up getting thrown out of office as part of the reform process.

But I think it's an unlikely hypothetical. Gorbachev said that past premiers had made mistakes that needed to be fixed. The Castros would be saying that they themselves had made mistakes that needed to be fixed. Self-reform is a lot rarer and more difficult than reform by a "new broom". Maybe back in 1990 they could have done it as part of the spirit of that time. But at this point, I think it's just what I said above - a couple of old men trying to hang on to power long enough so they can die in bed.

But the important question is, what would come after? Would Cuban Communism fall all the way and all at once, as it did in Eastern Europe in 1989-90? Or would the people, given a free choice, want some sort of democratic socialism?

[lalenin]

But the important question is, what would come after? Would Cuban Communism fall all the way and all at once, as it did in Eastern Europe in 1989-90? Or would the people, given a free choice, want some sort of democratic socialism?

It is an important question, but one not easily answered. I can tell you that when I left Cuba I had very little idea of what a democracy or a representative government was like, or how it worked. It has taken me a lot of years to understand, at more than an intellectual level, that I can choose those who make the laws, and by extension choose what laws are made.

If you had asked me when I was in Cuba what kind of government I would like, I would probably have chosen something similar to the existing government but with more political and economic freedom.

So I guess the answer to the first part of your question is that no, the Cuban government will not fall and become something completely different, just something more open.

[BrainGlutton]

But the important question is, what would come after? Would Cuban Communism fall all the way and all at once, as it did in Eastern Europe in 1989-90? Or would the people, given a free choice, want some sort of democratic socialism?

It is an important question, but one not easily answered. I can tell you that when I left Cuba I had very little idea of what a democracy or a representative government was like, or how it worked. It has taken me a lot of years to understand, at more than an intellectual level, that I can choose those who make the laws, and by extension choose what laws are made.

If you had asked me when I was in Cuba what kind of government I would like, I would probably have chosen something similar to the existing government but with more political and economic freedom.

So I guess the answer to the first part of your question is that no, the Cuban government will not fall and become something completely different, just something more open.

If you grew up in Cuba: What, generally, do the Cuban people know, and not know, about the outside world?

[Martini Enfield]

What? Our glorious communist economy would have worked if only we'd had a rich capitalist economy to support it?

The major problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

[Little Nemo]

But the important question is, what would come after? Would Cuban Communism fall all the way and all at once, as it did in Eastern Europe in 1989-90? Or would the people, given a free choice, want some sort of democratic socialism?My guess is that communism would crash all the way past socialism into a free market capitalist economy.

I'm not somebody who thinks socialism is the anti-christ and I understand that communism and socialism are two different things. But people who are getting out from under a communist regime are likely to reject any form of government control of the economy so socialism would be judged guilty by association. Which I think is unfortunate - I think the formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union would have been better off under a transitional socialist system for a couple of decades rather than jumping directly from communism to wide-open capitalism.

[Little Nemo]

In an update, Castro has said that the journalist misinterpreted his intent and he meant his remark to be ironic not factual.

[elucidator]

Suppose the UN made Haiti a protectorate, and assigned free market absolutists free reign over its economy. How long before it becomes an economic powerhouse? Never, because they got nothing to sell but their labor. They don't have anything to sell each other, much less the world.

Cuba at the time of the revolution was an agriculture based nation. How many agriculture based nations thrive in the world economy? Especially those whose agricultural resources are owned by foreigners who take their profits out of the country?

The question isn't so much whether socialistic economics worked or failed. The question is whether any economic system would have succeeded any better.

[John Mace]

Suppose the UN made Haiti a protectorate, and assigned free market absolutists free reign over its economy. How long before it becomes an economic powerhouse?

If they followed the example of Singapore, about 10 or 20 years.

Never, because they got nothing to sell but their labor. They don't have anything to sell each other, much less the world.
We live in a knowledge based economy. Raw materials are sooooo 19th century.

[Little Nemo]

Cuba at the time of the revolution was an agriculture based nation. How many agriculture based nations thrive in the world economy?The Republic of Korea was an agricultural country in 1948. The Republic of China was an agricultural country in 1949.

[John Mace]

The "world economy" has been around for centuries. Even the US was an agricultural economy during that time. Making the transition to a technological economy isn't rocket science. Or, in a sense, it is rocket science. But rocket science isn't rocket science, if you take my meaning.

[elucidator]

I see. The power that transforms illiterate sugar cane choppers into Ph.D.'s, would that be the unyielding will of the proletariat or the magic of the free market?

In terms of benefit to the people, I suggest that a free market based autocracy with power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy is no improvement over a socialist based autocracy with power concentrated in the hands of the commissars.

Castro and Co made huge mistakes, first and foremost adopting such a rigid and doctrinaire ideology that hindered growth. But simply replacing Batista with a more benign martinet while leaving the wealth and power of Cuba in precisely the same hands would have done nothing to resolve the problems that made the revolution necessary.

And any "redistribution of wealth" would have meant ferocious resistance from the US investors (and the Gambino family), tighty righty rectums slam shut when such concepts are bandied about lightly. As well, the USA of the fifties was very keen on the value of stability and continuity in the Spanish speaking countries of our hemisphere. Yeah, ours. Wanna make something of it? Tell it to the Marines.

Did the US give Castro assistance in overthrowing Batista, who so richly deserved it? OF course not, if anything, we gave aid and comfort to Batista. So why should he trust us? He expected our opposition, and we did not disappoint.

We should have stopped glowering at Cuba and started sweet talking at least twenty years ago, everybody be a damned sight better off.

[John Mace]

I see. The power that transforms illiterate sugar cane choppers into Ph.D.'s, would that be the unyielding will of the proletariat or the magic of the free market?
It's not magic. If you want a thriving economy, you ditch communism and adopt a free market. You don't even need to free up the political system, as Chinese have shown us.

In terms of benefit to the people, I suggest that a free market based autocracy with power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy is no improvement over a socialist based autocracy with power concentrated in the hands of the commissars.
No argument there.

Castro and Co made huge mistakes, first and foremost adopting such a rigid and doctrinaire ideology that hindered growth. But simply replacing Batista with a more benign martinet while leaving the wealth and power of Cuba in precisely the same hands would have done nothing to resolve the problems that made the revolution necessary.

And any "redistribution of wealth" would have meant ferocious resistance from the US investors (and the Gambino family), tighty righty rectums slam shut when such concepts are bandied about lightly. As well, the USA of the fifties was very keen on the value of stability and continuity in the Spanish speaking countries of our hemisphere. Yeah, ours. Wanna make something of it? Tell it to the Marines.

Did the US give Castro assistance in overthrowing Batista, who so richly deserved it? OF course not, if anything, we gave aid and comfort to Batista. So why should he trust us? He expected our opposition, and we did not disappoint.

We should have stopped glowering at Cuba and started sweet talking at least twenty years ago, everybody be a damned sight better off.
I'm not following this. I, at least, was responding to your post where you said:

The question isn't so much whether socialistic economics worked or failed. The question is whether any economic system would have succeeded any better.
The answer is, yes, a free market economy would have succeeded better, as evidenced by countries in similar, or worse circumstances than Cuba. No one in this thread is suggesting a return to a crony capitalist economy, so I don't see why we can't just state the truth: Castro's system failed (whether you call it socialism or communism or Castroism).