The Díaz-Canel executive approves a series of measures that include budget cuts, equal pricing policy and readjustments aimed at ‘correcting distortions’
Not one downvoter has explained how you can have privately and corporate-owned luxury resorts in a non-capitalist country. Can’t imagine why.
Oooh I love this false dichotomy because if every government that allows for any form of corporate owned private property to exist is capitalist then we can ascribe basically all evil to capitalism. Heck even the USSR was capitalist by your logic. Capitalists did the holodomor.
Every mode of production contains elements of its former, according to Marx, exactly because we have to understand human development and our current paradigm through historical materialism.
To say that a communist nation cannot contain capitalist components as its non fundamental mode of production is as stupid as saying Britain is not capitalist because they have a king.
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
That is in no way the same. Have you even read Capital or the Communist Manifesto?
Getting pissed off at me that private ownership and profit are not things that belong in communism is silly. Based on that argument, the U.S. isn’t a socialist country, it’s a communist one.
I’m a different person. I’m not pissed, I’m just making casual conversation.
Communism and capitalism as they were described in the literature both died in 93 and 08 respectively.
Just like the current capitalist system in the US cannot function without massive subsidies and bailouts, I’d imagine the current communist systems require private enterprises to keep parts of their system functioning.
Pretty easily, actually. Socialist states don’t exist in a vacuum, they need money for trade and resources like every one else. This reality is why all actual socialist ideologies are globalist in ambition btw. It doesn’t do your socialized industry any good if you have to buy your materials from a slave mine.
Ideology alone won’t buy Cuba medicine, or industrial tools. The fact is that the hemisphere they’re in is dominated by America and capitalism is something you either work around or starve under.
It’d be nice if Cuba could have afforded to build the resorts as worker co-ops or whatever but it’s an economic miracle that they exist as a nation at all with the eternal enmity of America trying to choke them to death for seventy years.
Only a delusional purist won’t acknowledge that it takes money and resources to build things, and all the foreign investors want a, you know, investment. Socialism is almost always considered a goal to transition to, and not an absolute requirement to be enacted day one.
Unless you want to live on an anarcho-primitavist farm somewhere anyways, and, honestly, they’re the ones most likely to survive this coming collapse so I guess they’ll either get the last laugh or die to the raiders like everyone else.
And yet private industry which enriched corporations was not a feature of communist countries in the 20th century. They didn’t need to enrich individuals and create profit for private businesses.
Those aren’t nationalized resort hotels. Nationalized resort hotels could make lots of money from tourists too.
I tend to agree, but there’s a pretty large difference in the resources available to China, Russia, and even Vietnam and North Korea and those available to the island nation of Cuba.
I don’t like it, but I also don’t like dictatorships, so they’re going to do what they’re going to do. It’s not there isn’t plenty of socialist theory that revolves around the idea of transitionary states and regulated liberalization.
Mmm… sort of, but that telling of the situation also skips over a ton of context.
US sanctions against Imperial Japan were the proximate casus belli for the IJN attack Pearl Harbor and causing the US to actually join the war, but the sanctions were absolutely precipitated by other things Japan was doing in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor. The trade sanctions were enacted in more or less direct response to Imperial Japanese military adventurism and rather flagrant violations of the Washington Naval Treaty (though it is definitely fair to say that the force limitations imposed by the treaty were somewhat onerous and biased towards established powers, if considered in a geopolitical vacuum).
The person said Cuba being under US sanctions is what caused the Pacific side of WWII. What they were TRYING to say is that Cuba has been under sanctions, and that OTHER, unrelated sanctions were the cause of the Pacific side of WWII; but they used indefinite pronouns and therefor had a confusing sentence.
The joke is about the unintended interpretation of the sentence.
Maynarkh said that Cuba has been under US sanctions, and also that US sanctions started the Japan-US conflict during WWII. Gravitas has misinterpreted it, intentionally or not, for it to mean that US sanctions on Cuba started the Japan-US war.
Who du they think they are at war with?
Capitalism
Well then they lost that war a long time ago, as the long line of beach resorts across the Cuban coastline would show you.
Just because Americans can’t (easily) go to them, doesn’t mean privately-owned places like this don’t exist there:
Edit: Not one downvoter has explained how you can have privately and corporate-owned luxury resorts in a non-capitalist country. Can’t imagine why.
Oooh I love this false dichotomy because if every government that allows for any form of corporate owned private property to exist is capitalist then we can ascribe basically all evil to capitalism. Heck even the USSR was capitalist by your logic. Capitalists did the holodomor.
The USSR was evidently state capitalist.
Yeah, it was a giant company town.
How is this a dichotomy? How does private ownership and profit exist in a communist state? That’s pretty much the definition of capitalism.
I understand wanting Cuba to be a communist country, but it’s no more communist than China.
You tell me where Marx says private ownership and enriching corporate profits are features of communism.
Every mode of production contains elements of its former, according to Marx, exactly because we have to understand human development and our current paradigm through historical materialism.
To say that a communist nation cannot contain capitalist components as its non fundamental mode of production is as stupid as saying Britain is not capitalist because they have a king.
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
Does the United States having food stamps and public education make it a socialist country?
That is in no way the same. Have you even read Capital or the Communist Manifesto?
Getting pissed off at me that private ownership and profit are not things that belong in communism is silly. Based on that argument, the U.S. isn’t a socialist country, it’s a communist one.
I’m a different person. I’m not pissed, I’m just making casual conversation.
Communism and capitalism as they were described in the literature both died in 93 and 08 respectively.
Just like the current capitalist system in the US cannot function without massive subsidies and bailouts, I’d imagine the current communist systems require private enterprises to keep parts of their system functioning.
Then I guess it isn’t right to call Cuba communist, as much as that pisses some people off.
If communism requires private enterprise, it isn’t communism. The word ‘communism’ comes from ‘communal’ That is not communal. Find another word.
deleted by creator
Pretty easily, actually. Socialist states don’t exist in a vacuum, they need money for trade and resources like every one else. This reality is why all actual socialist ideologies are globalist in ambition btw. It doesn’t do your socialized industry any good if you have to buy your materials from a slave mine.
Ideology alone won’t buy Cuba medicine, or industrial tools. The fact is that the hemisphere they’re in is dominated by America and capitalism is something you either work around or starve under.
It’d be nice if Cuba could have afforded to build the resorts as worker co-ops or whatever but it’s an economic miracle that they exist as a nation at all with the eternal enmity of America trying to choke them to death for seventy years.
Only a delusional purist won’t acknowledge that it takes money and resources to build things, and all the foreign investors want a, you know, investment. Socialism is almost always considered a goal to transition to, and not an absolute requirement to be enacted day one.
Unless you want to live on an anarcho-primitavist farm somewhere anyways, and, honestly, they’re the ones most likely to survive this coming collapse so I guess they’ll either get the last laugh or die to the raiders like everyone else.
And yet private industry which enriched corporations was not a feature of communist countries in the 20th century. They didn’t need to enrich individuals and create profit for private businesses.
Those aren’t nationalized resort hotels. Nationalized resort hotels could make lots of money from tourists too.
I tend to agree, but there’s a pretty large difference in the resources available to China, Russia, and even Vietnam and North Korea and those available to the island nation of Cuba.
I don’t like it, but I also don’t like dictatorships, so they’re going to do what they’re going to do. It’s not there isn’t plenty of socialist theory that revolves around the idea of transitionary states and regulated liberalization.
Anyone else read this in Cherdenko’s voice lol?
Well, they have been under US sanctions for a long time now. That’s what started the Pacific side of WWII.
Mmm… sort of, but that telling of the situation also skips over a ton of context.
US sanctions against Imperial Japan were the proximate casus belli for the IJN attack Pearl Harbor and causing the US to actually join the war, but the sanctions were absolutely precipitated by other things Japan was doing in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor. The trade sanctions were enacted in more or less direct response to Imperial Japanese military adventurism and rather flagrant violations of the Washington Naval Treaty (though it is definitely fair to say that the force limitations imposed by the treaty were somewhat onerous and biased towards established powers, if considered in a geopolitical vacuum).
The effects of the Communist revolution and the US response to it were so powerful that they went back in time by 20 years to start WW2?
I’ve read this like five times and I have no idea what the heck you’re trying to get at.
The person said Cuba being under US sanctions is what caused the Pacific side of WWII. What they were TRYING to say is that Cuba has been under sanctions, and that OTHER, unrelated sanctions were the cause of the Pacific side of WWII; but they used indefinite pronouns and therefor had a confusing sentence.
The joke is about the unintended interpretation of the sentence.
Ah. So the joke is he’s bad at reading.
Maynarkh said that Cuba has been under US sanctions, and also that US sanctions started the Japan-US conflict during WWII. Gravitas has misinterpreted it, intentionally or not, for it to mean that US sanctions on Cuba started the Japan-US war.
The user he responded to said the sanctions affected WW2 when the sanction happened much later.
Sanctions on Japan. That was extremely obvious in context. I thought they had a point beyond being unable to read.
Boy here is posting from all the way back in 1959….
Yes.