NationStates Jolt Archive

Is Cuba starting to change?

Cuba reforms turn to state land
Workers unload bananas in Havana
Large areas of Cuba's farm land lie fallow and food imports are high

Cuba is to put more state-controlled farm land into private hands, in a move to increase the island's lagging food production.

Private farmers who do well will be able to increase their holdings by up to 99 acres (40 hectares) for a 10-year period that can be renewed.

Until now, private farmers have only been able to run small areas of land.

The BBC's Michael Voss, in Havana, says this is one of President Raul Castro's most significant reforms to date.

National security

President Castro, who took over from his ailing brother Fidel in February, considers reducing costly food imports as a matter of national security.


For various reasons there is a considerable percentage of state land sitting vacant, so it must be handed over to individuals or groups as owners or users...
Cuban decree

Since the 1959 revolution, some Cubans have been allowed to run small family farms. But most agriculture has been placed in the hands of large, state-owned enterprises.

Our correspondent says these have proved highly inefficient - half the land is unused and today Cuba imports more than half its needs. Rising world food prices will cost the country an extra $1bn this year.

The presidential decree was published in the country's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

In it, co-operatives are also allowed to add an unspecified amount of additional land for 25 years, with the possibility of renewing the lease.

Grants cannot be transferred or sold to third parties.

"The maximum to be handed over to individuals who do not hold land is 13.42 hectares (33 acres), and for those who hold lands, as owners or designated workers, the amount can rise as high as 40.26 hectares (99 acres)," the decree said.

"For various reasons there is a considerable percentage of state land sitting vacant, so it must be handed over to individuals or groups as owners or users, in an effort to increase production of food and reduce imports," it added.

The decree also said that farmers would have to pay taxes on their production, but it did not say how much.

The reform has been promised for some time by President Castro.

Since taking over the presidency, Raul Castro has signed the UN human rights accords and lifted restrictions on Cubans owning mobile phones and computers.

He has also announced that workers can earn productivity bonuses, doing away with the egalitarian concept that everyone must earn the same, our correspondent says.
It just MIGHT be the first step towards Capitalism (Finally). What do you NSGers think?

It just MIGHT be the first step towards Capitalism (Finally). What do you NSGers think?
If you're expecting a sudden change to free marketerism, I wouldn't hold your breath.

If you're expecting a sudden change to free marketerism, I wouldn't hold your breath.

On the other hand, please do. It'll be interesting to see who folds first ;)

If you're expecting a sudden change to free marketerism, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Sudden? Nah. But within my lifetime? Just maybe...

Yes Cuba is changing - Raul isn't his brother and isn't an installed puppet. However, whether or not it is changing for the better is an entirely different thing.

Oh, and the continuous praise of capitalism as the best thing ever is beyond stupid. If common sense hasn't proved that yet, one would think history had.

yeah cuba is changing.

i hope they keep the things that work so well for them and change the things that dont.

Yes Cuba is changing - Raul isn't his brother and isn't an installed puppet. However, whether or not it is changing for the better is an entirely different thing.

Oh, and the continuous praise of capitalism as the best thing ever is beyond stupid. If common sense hasn't proved that yet, one would think history had.
So you're saying Capitalism doesn't work? What have I been missing?

If you're expecting a sudden change to free marketerism, I wouldn't hold your breath.

They don't call China the People's Republic of Capitalism for nothing you know...

They don't call China the People's Republic of Capitalism for nothing you know...
Sure, but it's not a capitalistic state in the same way as the US or UK, for example. And Cuba ain't China, to state the obvious.

I don't doubt that Cuban citizens will have much more access now to goods on the market (indeed, this has already happened), but a complete reversal of any social democratic measures? I doubt it.

As long as a decent standard can be maintained, universal healthcare and education is hard to get rid of.

Sure, but it's not a capitalistic state in the same way as the US or UK, for example. And Cuba ain't China, to state the obvious.

I don't doubt that Cuban citizens will have much more access now to goods on the market (indeed, this has already happened), but a complete reversal of any social democratic measures? I doubt it.

As long as a decent standard can be maintained, universal healthcare and education is hard to get rid of.

The Chinese manage to do that, and actually make money. You don't have to get rid of those things - just allow private property, and end all restrictions on business, the way the Chinese have.

Let businesses pollute, bribe, lie, cheat, and steal - and make tons of money, some of which goes into government coffers, and some goes into the pockets of senior Party members.

They don't call China the People's Republic of Capitalism for nothing you know...

ya but mao died in '76. it took a long time for china to decide to loosen up.

ya but mao died in '76. it took a long time for china to decide to loosen up.

Cubans are not stupid. I'm sure they've learned by watching.

Cubans are not stupid. I'm sure they've learned by watching.

yes but they also have the example of the former ussr which is a bit of a hash.

Agricultural policy has long been a blight on an otherwise efficient and effective government in Cuba. I've no love for any dictatorship, but ANY government that's willing to try something new to solve a long term problem deserves a certain respect.

Agricultural policy has long been a blight on an otherwise efficient and effective government in Cuba. I've no love for any dictatorship, but ANY government that's willing to try something new to solve a long term problem deserves a certain respect.

It didn't help that the sugar beet replaced sugar cane as the primary source of sugar in the world.

So you're saying Capitalism doesn't work? What have I been missing?

Why, the shining example of the Glorious Peoples Worldwide Revolution which stands as a great beacon to the hopes of the proletariate and workers across the world, where men are real men, women are real women, and nobody starves or is ever imprisoned because they're all so happy all the time. They fucking export happiness, they've got so much.
I speak, of course, of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and its excellent and truely brilliant, magnanimous and kind leader, Kim Jong Il.
...
...
...
>_>
OK, I'm no Andaras, I admit.

It didn't help that the sugar beet replaced sugar cane as the primary source of sugar in the world.

Nor that Tobacco products are subject to hefty import duties in most of the world now. Unfortunately, Cuba's growing areas are unsuitable for most cash crops besides these.

Nor that Tobacco products are subject to hefty import duties in most of the world now. Unfortunately, Cuba's growing areas are unsuitable for most cash crops besides these.

Yes, and the anti-smoking campaigns really fuck Cuba, don't they? I love the irony that most of the people who vote for anti-smoking measures want to help Cuba.

Nice job.

I love the irony that most of the people who vote for anti-smoking measures want to help Cuba.
Danger! Danger! Alanis Morissette Warning!

There is no irony present here.

So you're saying Capitalism doesn't work? What have I been missing?

You seem to not understand the difference between "works" and "is good."
Guillotines worked perfectly well, but were they a good thing?

You seem to not understand the difference between "works" and "is good."
Guillotines worked perfectly well, but were they a good thing?

Compared to death by lynching and/or beheading with an axe? Or just in general?

You seem to not understand the difference between "works" and "is good."
Guillotines worked perfectly well, but were they a good thing?

Yes they were a good thing. Which would you rather have, an unskilled executioner chop a few times at your neck, or it done all at once by a guilitine? A quick death. Same with Capitalism and Communism. However, you cannot not have a economic system, so you'll have to choose whichever one works better. Okay? Okay.

[QUOTE=Conserative Morality;13847378]Is Cuba starting to change?

Is Cuba really Changing?

lol.

I would give Cuba some more time, let the leader settle in some more, and then we'll see. Yes, he's starting to make reforms, but not so tremendous.

This thread needs a Public Poll with some good questions on the issues.

lol.

I would give Cuba some more time, let the leader settle in some more, and then we'll see. Yes, he's starting to make reforms, but not so tremendous.

And many persons in the world still think Fidel is alive. If Fidel can talk, think, write, dictate and advice like the Cuban government claims he can, then Fidel should be well enough to govern, to address in public the 99 % of the Cuban people the government claims love and adore him.

Fidel's statements are read on cuban tv, his articles are published on Granma, only a few trusted foreigners are allowed to see him in public, Fidel is show on short quick videos with no sound. Something smells rotten in Cuba.

Raul officially governs, says he consults all major decisions with Fidel.

Something smells rotten in Cuba.

does cuba really NEED to chainge,

as much as america needs to chainge the lies its been telling itself for the past 60 years?

life isn't perfect anywhere, and i'm sure, cuba, like everyplace else has a lot of room for improvement. but so do a lot of other places, including those not often thought of in those terms.

does cuba have more 'room for improvement' then the u.s.?

probably,

but it's the u.s. that, if anything, appears to be on the decline, while cuba, to those of us in the u.s., we've for the most part been kept pretty thoroughly in the dark by our own government and those intrests which actually control it as to pretty much anything more real then those intrests own vested propiganda.

what has slipped through the cracks is that they've got a pretty decent health care system, and occasionally build new trains that they seem to be able to keep running.

other then its being too close to the too warm for me equator, that's as much as i believe myself to even begin to know about it. that and that it was virtually run by organized crime before the castro revolution.

before which america bought most of its sugar from there and since hasn't.

oh and cegar smokers still seem to value its products for some reason, though that's another area i neither know nor care really more about.

and like all people everywhere i wish them happiness, and safety from the tyrannical machination of international economic intrests.

=^^=
.../\...

Tipical post from those who defend, deny and excuse the dictatorship government for life. Now after 50 years of dictatorship Cubans are allowed to legally own cell phones, stay in tourist hotels, buy dvds. If they can afford it, which most cant. Mostly sent by Cuban American family remittances $.

The Cuban government has made it clear to the world, any changes, any reforms are ment to strengthen the government and revolution for life, forever, therefore the dictatorship for life.

That is the type of government our leftist friends on NS have supported for years for all of us and themselves to live under. While they live in nations where they can have everything, discuss, argue, debate and share thier different views with all of us.

does cuba really NEED to chainge,

as much as america needs to chainge the lies its been telling itself for the past 60 years?

life isn't perfect anywhere, and i'm sure, cuba, like everyplace else has a lot of room for improvement. but so do a lot of other places, including those not often thought of in those terms.

does cuba have more 'room for improvement' then the u.s.?

probably,

but it's the u.s. that, if anything, appears to be on the decline, while cuba, to those of us in the u.s., we've for the most part been kept pretty thoroughly in the dark by our own government and those intrests which actually control it as to pretty much anything more real then those intrests own vested propiganda.

what has slipped through the cracks is that they've got a pretty decent health care system, and occasionally build new trains that they seem to be able to keep running.

other then its being too close to the too warm for me equator, that's as much as i believe myself to even begin to know about it. that and that it was virtually run by organized crime before the castro revolution.

before which america bought most of its sugar from there and since hasn't.

oh and cegar smokers still seem to value its products for some reason, though that's another area i neither know nor care really more about.

and like all people everywhere i wish them happiness, and safety from the tyrannical machination of international economic intrests.

=^^=
.../\...

This is the tipical answer of those who support, deny and excuse the Cuban dictatorship for life.

Now after 50 years of dictatorship Cubans are allowed to stay in the tourist hotels if they can afford it $ which most cant, unless a Cuban American family member sends them family remmittances $ for it, or pays for it when on vacation in Cuba while visiting family members.

Now Raul has lifted the restrictions on sales of Cell Phones, Dvds, computers and other goods that used to be illegal. All they do is stock a few stores mostly in Havana with these goods, allow Cubans to buy in them, mostly the one's receiving Cuban American family remittances $. The world news media goes wild. I admit I did too for a while. While the illegal black market is still illegal for many goods, and the government clamps down on it whenever it feels like it and looks away whenever it feels like it.

They still monitor and block the political comments of those few that afford the computers usually with Cuban American family remittances $. Just ask me, I used to communicate with a family member from her office job computer. We never said anything bad or good about Fidel or the government. Just how are you, how is the family, ect, ect.

Until one day I admit I messed up. It was during the election of Sen Mel Martinez, the fist elected Cuban American Senator. All I said was, I am proud that we have elected the first Cuban American Senator to the US Senate. My computer screen came back with a message from the Cuban government, blocked for political reasons. I have never been able to communicate with my family member again through her office work computer. I am not the first person this has happend too, and I wont be the last. She has a job better than any job I have ever worked at in the USA, a job that would pay great anywhere else in the world, and she drives a bicycle to work. And depends on Cuban American family remittances $. The Cuban government trades with most nations of the world, even buys agricultural products from the USA on a COD basis, so the evil USA embargo argument is not at fault. Cubans in Cuba know all this.

That is the kind of government our leftist NS nation friends have been supporting all those years.
The kind of government they have been wishing for all of us including themselves to live under.
Perhaps without knowing what they have been really supporting all these years.

While posting from nations where they have the freedoms to aquire all those goods, and discuss, argue, debate and share thier different views with all of us.

The Cuban government has made it very clear to the Cuban people and the world. Any changes, any reforms are ment to strengthen the government, therefore the dictatorship for life, forever.
That is their policy, that is thier goal.

This article presupposes that in any stage of it's development Cuba was socialist, and not just a puppet of Soviet social-imperialism and Krushevite revisionism.

And yet both fail horrible, comrade. Communism only works when you remove humans from the equation.

And yet both fail horrible, comrade. Communism only works when you remove humans from the equation.
You mean socialism correct?

My grandfather owned two sugar plantations in Cuba before Castro came along. Someone should shoot that son of a bitch, and give my family our property back.

My grandfather owned two sugar plantations in Cuba before Castro came along. Someone should shoot that son of a bitch, and give my family our property back.
Considering how badly the sugar-cane farmers of Cuba were oppressed back in the Batista days, I'd say your grandfather deserved it for being such an exploiting scumbag.

Andaras, hasn't saying stuff like that gotten you banned in the past?

I guess he's immune to banishment.

Yes Cuba is changing - Raul isn't his brother and isn't an installed puppet. However, whether or not it is changing for the better is an entirely different thing.

Oh, and the continuous praise of capitalism as the best thing ever is beyond stupid. If common sense hasn't proved that yet, one would think history had.

Since when was Fidel an installed puppet?

I don't think he's saying that Fidel's an installed puppet, only that Raul isn't one.

It didn't help that the sugar beet replaced sugar cane as the primary source of sugar in the world.

This is just wrong. Plain old fashioned incorrect. You meant high fructose corn syrup, probably. Beet sugar has never been more widespread than cane sugar.

And many persons in the world still think Fidel is alive. ...Something smells rotten in Cuba.

You wouldn't know, as you've never been.

As for the OP,

Yes, Cuba is changing. So is every other country in the world. Since Cuba is a left-wing dictatorship, the best thing would be to introduce reforms in terms of both individual and economic freedoms, which is what Raul Castro is apparently doing. I doubt they'll get rid of healthcare, or the law that says that non-Cuban's can't own land in Cuba.

This is just wrong. Plain old fashioned incorrect. You meant high fructose corn syrup, probably. Beet sugar has never been more widespread than cane sugar.


The beet sugar went from zero to something at the start of the embargo.

That had to hurt - and I'm sure it did.

The corn syrup was the final stake in the heart of the sugar cane business.

Can it be that we had an embargo for purely economic reasons - to reward American farmers who needed a cash crop (beets) in an area not known for anything except potatoes? And to help the corn farmers?

Meanwhile, teaching Cuba the lesson of "a centrally directed economy run by people ignorant of markets is a mistake"?

The beet sugar went from zero to something at the start of the embargo.

That had to hurt - and I'm sure it did.

The corn syrup was the final stake in the heart of the sugar cane business.

Can it be that we had an embargo for purely economic reasons - to reward American farmers who needed a cash crop (beets) in an area not known for anything except potatoes? And to help the corn farmers?

Meanwhile, teaching Cuba the lesson of "a centrally directed economy run by people ignorant of markets is a mistake"?

The whole Helms-Burton blockade/embargo hurt them, as well as the collapse of most of their international trade when the evil Commies turned into mafia lords, I mean capitalists.

I like the way you defend economic intervention by a central commitee in one paragraph and then criticise it in the next.

The whole Helms-Burton blockade/embargo hurt them, as well as the collapse of most of their international trade when the evil Commies turned into mafia lords, I mean capitalists.

I like the way you defend economic intervention by a central commitee in one paragraph and then criticise it in the next.

It's meant to show you that a central committee that knows what it's doing (and has no illusions about capitalism) works, and one that has delusions about capitalism is bound to be fucked.

It's meant to show you that a central committee that knows what it's doing (and has no illusions about capitalism) works, and one that has delusions about capitalism is bound to be fucked.

Your comparison only works if we completely ignore things like the fact that Cuba has been a colony run by people who want to squeeze as much out of it as they can for the last 500 years, or the fact that they are a developing nation rather than one of the world's economic superpowers.

But if you want to compare two countries that have completely different histories, resources, international clout, priorities and cultures, at least admit that any comparison you will make is bound to be affected by these factors.

Your comparison only works if we completely ignore things like the fact that Cuba has been a colony run by people who want to squeeze as much out of it as they can for the last 500 years, or the fact that they are a developing nation rather than one of the world's economic superpowers.

But if you want to compare two countries that have completely different histories, resources, international clout, priorities and cultures, at least admit that any comparison you will make is bound to be affected by these factors.

Then compare Puerto Rico and Cuba.

See the difference?

The idea that Free Market reforms alone can cure Cuba's ills is disingenuous at best.

The idea that Free Market reforms alone can cure Cuba's ills is disingenuous at best.

They can certainly help.

isn't there something in the constitution of cuba that it will be always a communist state?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba

isn't there something in the constitution of cuba that it will be always a communist state?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba
The same was true of the Soviet Union and its successor states, as well as most other post-communist nations.

Then compare Puerto Rico and Cuba.

See the difference?
It would be interesting to compare the amount of internal trade and federal aid, and subsiquent earnings, between the USA proper and Puerto Rico and the amount of trade and dollars 'sent home' between the USA and Cuba. I simply can't see how one can compare a part of the country with the world's largest economy to it's neighbour with a half-century long blockade from it's natural export market. I'm not going to claim that, had the USA not embargoed Cuban exports, and pressured othe states and businesses to do the same, Cuba would be a shining example of the proletarian state. Only that Cuba's centrally planned economy is not the only factor explaining it's current economic situation.

Im looking forward to Global Warming. Instead of Cuba we will call it artificial reefs.

It would be interesting to compare the amount of internal trade and federal aid, and subsiquent earnings, between the USA proper and Puerto Rico and the amount of trade and dollars 'sent home' between the USA and Cuba. I simply can't see how one can compare a part of the country with the world's largest economy to it's neighbour with a half-century long blockade from it's natural export market. I'm not going to claim that, had the USA not embargoed Cuban exports, and pressured othe states and businesses to do the same, Cuba would be a shining example of the proletarian state. Only that Cuba's centrally planned economy is not the only factor explaining it's current economic situation.

Well, when the billions in yearly aid and cheap goods from the Soviet Union came to a halt, things went downhill in Cuba.

Well, when the billions in yearly aid and cheap goods from the Soviet Union came to a halt, things went downhill in Cuba.
Which is all well and good, but if Cuba, or for that matter, Puerto Rico had a capitalist economy in the same situation, how much different would it have been? Given the dominance of the US economy in the region, I find it unlikely that any country isolated from the regional (and world) economic superpower and export market for that length of time could survive a sudden withdrawal of foreign aid, regardless of whether the donor is the USA or USSR and whether the country is communist or capitalist.

As I said, I don't disagree that the Cuban economy is in any way better than the US economy, but I do disagree that Cuba's planned economy is the sole factor in determining this.

They can certainly help.

Perhaps, but it's not enough. There can be free-market dictatorships as well, not to mention that while "a rising tide raises all boats", a select few will benefit much more than most, and create the very problem that Communism purports (and fails) to correct.

Perhaps, but it's not enough. There can be free-market dictatorships as well, not to mention that while "a rising tide raises all boats", a select few will benefit much more than most, and create the very problem that Communism purports (and fails) to correct.

Doesn't stop China or Vietnam from raking it all in.

They can certainly help.

Yeah, Cuba should become free market democracy like Haiti.

No, wait...

Yeah, like they have done to Haiti.

No, wait...

More like Vietnam and China.

Haiti wasn't even Communist...

More like Vietnam and China.

Haiti wasn't even Communist...
I edited the post to clarify my point that capitalism does not equal salvation.

I edited the post to clarify my point that capitalism does not equal salvation.

And if you read my posts in this thread, you would realize that I mean that capitalism IS salvation if you know what you're doing.

If you're just looting the treasury, and letting people rape the land, then you get Haiti.

And if you read my posts in this thread, you would realize that I mean that capitalism IS salvation if you know what you're doing.
Yes, capitalism is salvation. That's why first world, capitalist nations are such flawless beacons of light, boasting flawless brilliant people. And any nation that isn't doing well only has to switch to capitalism to be saved.

What? That isn't the case? It's because they didn't know what they were doing, right?

Yes, capitalism is salvation. That's why first world, capitalist nations are such flawless beacons of light, boasting flawless brilliant people. And any nation that isn't doing well only has to switch to capitalism to be saved.

What? That isn't the case? It's because they didn't know what they were doing, right?

Certainly doing better than the Communist nations, eh?

Then compare Puerto Rico and Cuba.

See the difference?

One is a colony of the USA with no sovereignty. The other isn't. One has their economy supported by Uncle Sam. the other has it sabotaged. I see the differences. They do not support your view that Cuba would be in a better position if they had embraced free market capitalism.

Well, when the billions in yearly aid and cheap goods from the Soviet Union came to a halt, things went downhill in Cuba.

I would like to see a source for this claim of Soviet support.

And if you read my posts in this thread, you would realize that I mean that capitalism IS salvation if you know what you're doing.

If you're just looting the treasury, and letting people rape the land, then you get Haiti.

You seem to be completely ignorant of how free markets work in Latin America, or you would know that Haiti is a classic example of capitalism in Latin America.

You are basically arguing that if Cuba and other latin American nations followed the free market system, everything would be better. This is not true. Almost every experiment with free market economics has been by dictatorial rule. Pinochet in Chile, Leopoldo Galtieri in Argentina, Getulio Dornelles Vargas in Brazil, Fujimori in Peru, etc. When we look at the histroy of Latin America, we notice a continued relationship between free markets and brutal dictatorships. Cuba is the only leftist dictatorship in the history of Latin America, and many of Cuba's citizens fully support socialism even if they don't like Castro's tyranny.

I would like to see a source for this claim of Soviet support.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/cu/cu_overview.html

Figure you would want a non-Republican source, and PBS doesn't get any better.

1990-1993: The withdrawal of Soviet support (as much as US$6 billion annually) plunges Cuba into a severe recession that worsens when the USSR dissolves in 1991. Castro rations food and energy and cuts public services and employees. He also opens Cuba to tourism, legalizes the dollar, and sanctions self-employment for about 150 occupations, including restaurant owner.

Looks like you're not very knowledgeable about Cuba. Despite the aid, they couldn't make a go of it - and after the aid was cut, they were fucked.

Israel did better with similar levels of aid from the US, despite being attacked many more times, and not always enjoying good trade relations with their neighbors. Israel also has less arable land, and probably less natural resources. Both populations are supposedly well-educated, but it doesn't do the Cubans any good now, does it?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/cu/cu_overview.html

Figure you would want a non-Republican source, and PBS doesn't get any better.

Looks like you're not very knowledgeable about Cuba. Despite the aid, they couldn't make a go of it - and after the aid was cut, they were fucked.

Israel did better with similar levels of aid from the US, despite being attacked many more times, and not always enjoying good trade relations with their neighbors. Israel also has less arable land, and probably less natural resources. Both populations are supposedly well-educated, but it doesn't do the Cubans any good now, does it?

Wow. Was that an unsourced encyclopedia article? Don't you have anything better than that? It's just an estimate. That's why it says "as much as". They got that number from the NY Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDE113BF935A25750C0A96E948260) article I read earlier, only they actually revealed that it was an estimate on their part.

But since you know more about Cuba than I do, you would already know that.

And if they are doing such a poor job of making a go of it, how do they manage to continue despite the fact that the US government is deliberately attempting to undermine their economy, as they have been for decades?

Either the US government is incapable of undermining a poor, Caribbean nation, which history shows us they are not, or the Cuban government is capable of 'making a go of it'.

Certainly doing better than the Communist nations, eh?

Because dodging my point makes you right? You said that capitalism is salvation. You have yet to provide anything to back that up.

And if they are doing such a poor job of making a go of it, how do they manage to continue despite the fact that the US government is deliberately attempting to undermine their economy, as they have been for decades?
.

Cuba is hardly "undermined", they have the rest of the world to trade with, and a lot of uncompensated "nationalized" American assets to do it with. Sorry, Cuba, but you can't simply confiscate property without due process of law and expect the owners not to retaliate. Even Americans have rights.

Sure, without us, the distances to markets increase, but New Zealand is in a much tougher spot, and they do okay, even though most of forget they are down there, or consider them some sort of weird variant of Australian.

Are they changing? Of course. Cubans can finally use cell phones without risk of torture. That's change. Sooner or later, they will be allowed on the internet. Baby steps first.

Relations with the USA will be normalized, the next time we get a liberal president, or a conservative one with the "only Nixon could go to China" attitude. After all, baseball teams in the USA have suffered a shortage of good pitching, the trend will continue, and Venezuela and the Dominican Republic simply don't have enough to meet demand. Sooner or later, the economy will become more capitalist, because sooner or later, everyone realizes, That's how you make money.

If you don't believe me, go to a communist gathering and try to get a Che t-shirt for free. "To each according to his need" doesn't last very long when they're talking about their own incomes.

Cuba also has a range of services and resources they can offer to the US which WILL earn a lot of money, as soon as they iron things out. For example, they have a good medical infrastructure, and can provide many services cheaper than US competitors. And free of those annoying lawsuits, too. Don't be surprised if, in the years following a US-Cuba thaw, US HMO's and insurance companies look to Cuba to cut health care costs. "You want a thirty thousand dollar operation? Well, you're going to have it in Cuba, where it's only a ten thousand dollar operation, and you get a free week at a beach resort afterwards. Yes, it's all in the fine print of your health care contract."

The thing is, after Cuba, the world's second most Cuban nation is the United States. Cuba is one of the only nations to have ever requested American statehood. It's like a family spat- it looks ugly, but when it ends we will be back together very quickly.

Another thing to look for in the coming thaw: the whole issue of confiscated property could become a deal breaker. We know this. The Cubans know this. Neither side wants this to happen. But you can't simply unwind a half a century of history. So look for the issue to be dealt with very, very quietly- perhaps by unspecified buyers looking to pay off legal holders of Cuban property. They get some money, the claims get dropped, Cuba moves into the 21st century without thousands of complex court cases lined up against it. If such a thing were to by happening now, I mean, hypothetically, just for argument's sake, total speculation here, it would look something like this:

http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/cuban-property-claims-for-sale-whos-buying/

You seem to be completely ignorant of how free markets work in Latin America, or you would know that Haiti is a classic example of capitalism in Latin America.

You are basically arguing that if Cuba and other latin American nations followed the free market system, everything would be better. This is not true. Almost every experiment with free market economics has been by dictatorial rule. Pinochet in Chile, Leopoldo Galtieri in Argentina, Getulio Dornelles Vargas in Brazil, Fujimori in Peru, etc. When we look at the histroy of Latin America, we notice a continued relationship between free markets and brutal dictatorships. Cuba is the only leftist dictatorship in the history of Latin America, and many of Cuba's citizens fully support socialism even if they don't like Castro's tyranny.

You seem to be holding a very mistaken view of how capitalism works in Latin America. First, most nations here nowadays DO follow a capitalist system, or tend towards it, and life is better now than back then for most people of all origins lately. If Dictatorships existed, the fault goes to the society, not to the system. Dictatorships stop happening after a society creates a culture that upholds democracy and constitution, and that has nothing to do with capitalism. It takes time to purge corruption from a society's vices.

You are generalizing capitalism in Latin America by taking examples from a given period of time, and applying them to the entire history of the "continent". Most of those you mention are from the Cold War era (Fujimori excepted, though we might say that he acted under its shadow), and thus, represent an age when Latin America was not yet politically mature (and it's not quite there yet, despite the improvement). Oh, and Vargas was leftist, his support was based on the reform of the worker laws. He stood for capitalism because he needed to make ends meet to have continued support. As long as a society embraces democracy and the constitution ABOVE personal favoritism (which kept most of those above in power), people like him stay out. It's a matter of society, not of economy.

IF Free Market economics has been used by dictators, that doesn't imply it ALWAYS ends up in authoritarism. Now that the Civil Society has the power again in the former dictatorships, we see democratic governments with their flaws, but at least striving to correct them. So much that by popular vote most South American nations have elected leftist governments. And the same governments, at least the smart ones, keep the economic reforms that tone down government interference, deregulating economy and creating more opportunities and revenue. With the revenue, some begin successful social reforms, as it happens in Brasil for example, whose reforms have brought basic attendance of needs to the poorest regions, meanwhile those who are closer to the centers of economy have more opportunities. Chile has been doing great socially and economically under capitalism, so much that Bachellet has largely kept the reforms. Free market is but a tool in the making of countries, and can be used to keep a group in power just as much as to improve economy and life standards.

Cuba kept its system under a purely ideological, and none pragmatical, sense. That kept them enclosed to the foreign world. Meanwhile, other nations of Latin America begin to be what I call pragmatic leftists. They hold themselves to the welfare of people, but know that they need the rest of the world to maintain their system. They let the companies handle most services with minimal restriction (nothing too complicated as seen here), and keep the basic health/education/security agenda.

My point is, capitalism can and is being used for the betterment of life, and sure could be used in Cuba. What Cuba needs first, though, is democracy. Once that is given, cubans themselves will decide which is better, as most democracies do. If they take up on the recent trend of their neighbors, they'll modernize their economy and many opportunities will be available there.

The idea that Free Market reforms alone can cure Cuba's ills is disingenuous at best.

No, it's quite plainly correct.

No, it's quite plainly correct.

In what way?

Cuba is hardly "undermined", they have the rest of the world to trade with, and a lot of uncompensated "nationalized" American assets to do it with. Sorry, Cuba, but you can't simply confiscate property without due process of law and expect the owners not to retaliate. Even Americans have rights.

The way I hear it, those American assets were being constantly understated in value so they could get away with untaxed revenues. And when Cuba offered compensation for those assets, it was at the understated value they were scamming the government with. They refused. I suspect it was so they wouldn't have to acknowledge that tax evasion.

Is Cuba starting to change?
Yes.
It just MIGHT be the first step towards Capitalism (Finally).
Err what about all of the hotels, which are run on a capitalist basis, or the semi-legal restaurants some people set up in their homes?
What do you NSGers think?
I hope they don't change their economic system too quickly, look at what happened to Russia and eastern Europe as a result of that.

Cuba's fine as it is. Just get rid of the embargo.

Cuba will never be ruined by capitalism. It will stay strong in Socialism until the Second Revolution when capitalism is obliterated.

Cuba's fine as it is. Just get rid of the embargo.

Cuba will never be ruined by capitalism. It will stay strong in Socialism until the Second Revolution when capitalism is obliterated.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk294/Tombombadil9/laugh_up_one__s_sleeve_by_DavedeHaa.gif

You seem to be holding a very mistaken view of how capitalism works in Latin America....

My point is, capitalism can and is being used for the betterment of life, and sure could be used in Cuba. What Cuba needs first, though, is democracy. Once that is given, cubans themselves will decide which is better, as most democracies do. If they take up on the recent trend of their neighbors, they'll modernize their economy and many opportunities will be available there.

None of what you said invalidates my points. Just because many Latin American nations now have a mixed market, that does not mean that free markets were not associated with dictatorships.

And you are correct that the society has to change before the corruption and tyranny can be removed from the political process. But one of the reasons that such corruption is inherent in Latin American society is because of the colonial past where the land owners were people from a different continent who didn't care about the local community and just wanted to suck as much cash out of the place as they could. As capitalism in Latin America developed, it took over this feudal system, only now the money went to multinational corporations instead of Spanish aristocrats. So you can see how capitalism has supported and rewarded such corruption and greed in Latin American societies.

And just because some countries have mixed markets now, that does not mean that the dictatorships were not aligned with freemarket ideologies. Bachelet's move towards a "pragmatic leftist' economy does not negate Pinochet's dictatorship, which was unabashedly free market.

You are correct that Cuba needs democratic reforms more that they need economic reforms. I never suggested otherwise.

Certainly doing better than the Communist nations, eh?
Aye, that must be why USA has similar life expectancy as Cuba and Russian life expectancy is among the shortest on the planet.

No, wait.... ;)

Stop focussing in the economic aspect. What Cuba need is political reforms, and to an extent, social reforms, although several of Cuba's social policies are indeed advanced stuff.

Stop focussing in the economic aspect. What Cuba need is political reforms, and to an extent, social reforms, although several of Cuba's social policies are indeed advanced stuff.

Well political reform would help. I have a hard time with the idea that a Communist government (so many times in history) reverts to being a cult of personality, with a dictator in charge.

Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez - why is it that the "Party" actually devolves rapidly into one-man rule?

Well political reform would help. I have a hard time with the idea that a Communist government (so many times in history) reverts to being a cult of personality, with a dictator in charge.

Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez - why is it that the "Party" actually devolves rapidly into one-man rule?

Well, coming from one of such...Regimes? I could tell you one hundred reasons of why, but really...

Communists goverments? Perhaps, the normal trend is to devolve into personality cults, but socialist goverments tend to do well.

If so, then Hello Cojiba Cigars!!!

None of what you said invalidates my points. Just because many Latin American nations now have a mixed market, that does not mean that free markets were not associated with dictatorships.

And you are correct that the society has to change before the corruption and tyranny can be removed from the political process. But one of the reasons that such corruption is inherent in Latin American society is because of the colonial past where the land owners were people from a different continent who didn't care about the local community and just wanted to suck as much cash out of the place as they could. As capitalism in Latin America developed, it took over this feudal system, only now the money went to multinational corporations instead of Spanish aristocrats. So you can see how capitalism has supported and rewarded such corruption and greed in Latin American societies.

And just because some countries have mixed markets now, that does not mean that the dictatorships were not aligned with freemarket ideologies. Bachelet's move towards a "pragmatic leftist' economy does not negate Pinochet's dictatorship, which was unabashedly free market.

You are correct that Cuba needs democratic reforms more that they need economic reforms. I never suggested otherwise.

You seemingly place the blame of corruption and authoritarianism on Latin America in the free markets, which is where I disagree with you. The corruption comes first from the society, from its culture, from its very begginings.

Latin America was colonized because the powers wanted money. There and then the state would do anything to raise their coffers, even slavery, and this goal would be above innovation or anything else, and actually it happened because no one else had a say in where society was headed. The power of these monarchs, which was absolute, yet not fully able of intervening with the same effectiveness on the other side of the Atlantic, generated there a culture of law violating on all levels of society.

That happened first because the laws were too many and too harsh and controlling every aspect of life, second because they could not be enforced without compliance of the representatives of the king and this compliance was vulnerable to both inside and outside influence. This differed from other models of colonization where the colonies and their representatives had more autonomy in law making and therefore the institutions were more effective and true, while in Latin America, the informality prevailed, through contact-making, avoiding the law, secret agreements and such. And for the powers, as long as that didn't interfered with the shipments, it wouldn't bother them.

This corruption happens on all levels of society: a tyrant can emerge from a manor as well as from a shack; and even on everyday life a good portion of people live avoiding law and conventions, which explain the disregard to politics or to decent political conduct. There was a popular saying about a certain politician near where I live: "He steals but he does the job". This shows how much "doing the job" (a vague idea that most voters don't know what it truly means, making them easily deceivable) prevails over the law and conventions.

My point is that this kind of heavily regulated society created a corruptive culture which persists yet today, and for me this is where the corruption comes from, not from the capitalism. This culture persisted in the independent societies, where the new elite saw fit to continue. The Latin American republics were mostly flawed since their beggining, and when the Cold War came, the dictatorships came along, only this time they were not veiled and they curbed civil rights. The ending of the dictatorships made people wake from a nightmare, and for the first time in the history of most Latin American nations, they decided to compromise first with democracy, probably the first step in a better direction ever.



My point:
A fair free market economy is perfectly possible in a democratic Latin American nation that is politically mature already (educated people, organized laws, etc), if that is better it's up to the people to decide. Society must change and overcome its colonial heritage, embrace law-abiding, or rather, correct the law's flaws so it can be abided. When a society is not yet mature, corruption will arise regardless of the system, communism, capitalism, whateverism. Corrupt people use what means they can to reach their goals, and for a society to be immunized against it takes time, proper education, among other things.

That those dictatorships were associated with the free market proves nothing, only that free market was closer to this side of the world than "communism". The money could go as well to a Spanish aristocrat, to a multinational owner, or to a state-company manager, it will be the same regardless of system if the society isn't corrected. This begins in politics, in the law making. If the laws can be complied, they will. It's a matter of making the law easier to comply than easier to avoid. If that's done, the 'demon of capitalism' (again, could be any other system) won't 'corrupt society' (when it's actually the opposite) anymore. It's a matter of time until Latin American society is past its colonial heritage.

Question at hand:

1.- How many of you have lived for a substancial amount of time as to make such specific opinions about the socoilogic aspects of those societies?, I mean, Latin America is composed of more than one society, and it's pretty different from Argentina to Mexico, or the Caribbean.

I believe that was aimed at me too? If so, I'll answer. All my life so far, which really isn't much yet. And I speak what I learned through my studies mostly, personal experiences, which are not even far from complete and might even be wrong, but that's how I see things. Societies there may vary, but the tendencies seems to be the same amongst them. You see similar structures of permanence in most of these systems, some weaker, some stronger, but all with roughly the same roots, no? A society will take the most, after all, from the majoritarian and most powerful group, in this case the spanish.

Stop focussing in the economic aspect. What Cuba need is political reforms, and to an extent, social reforms, although several of Cuba's social policies are indeed advanced stuff.

^^ this 100 times over.

You seemingly place the blame of corruption and authoritarianism on Latin America in the free markets, which is where I disagree with you.

Well, I didn't say that. I was responding to Hotwife's assertion that capitalism will invariably help Cuba and other Latin American nations. Iasserted that history shows that free markets have been invariably associated with dictatorships. All of your subsequent points do not disprove any of my claims. All they do is clarify them.

The corruption comes first from the society, from its culture, from its very beginnings.

Corruption comes from many places. To blame it one thing, such as Latin American societies, is foolish. In the case of Latin America, the corruption endemic in many of their cultures is due to many different factors. One of the few they share in common is their colonial history.

Latin America was colonized because the powers wanted money...And for the powers, as long as that didn't interfered with the shipments, it wouldn't bother them.

So you're saying that the early history of Latin America was one where the wealthy and powerful could do what they want as long as it made lots of money, while everyone else had no civil rights. And how is that different from, let's say, Pinochet's Chile? It's not that different, which is why free market capitalism took the form it did in Latin America. Are you beginning to understand why free market capitalism is not going to work in Latin America?

This corruption happens on all levels of society: a tyrant can emerge from a manor as well as from a shack; and even on everyday life a good portion of people live avoiding law and conventions, which explain the disregard to politics or to decent political conduct. There was a popular saying about a certain politician near where I live: "He steals but he does the job". This shows how much "doing the job" (a vague idea that most voters don't know what it truly means, making them easily deceivable) prevails over the law and conventions.

How does this have anything to do with our discussion?

My point is that this kind of heavily regulated society created a corruptive culture which persists yet today, and for me this is where the corruption comes from, not from the capitalism. ....

Too bad you haven't shown how heavily regulated societies (plural, not singular as we are dealing with a variety of cultures and societies) create corruptive cultures. For me, it looks more like a legacy of colonialism and free market ideologies.

My point:
A fair free market economy is perfectly possible in a democratic Latin American nation that is politically mature already (educated people, organized laws, etc), if that is better it's up to the people to decide. Society must change and overcome its colonial heritage, embrace law-abiding, or rather, correct the law's flaws so it can be abided. When a society is not yet mature, corruption will arise regardless of the system, communism, capitalism, whateverism. Corrupt people use what means they can to reach their goals, and for a society to be immunized against it takes time, proper education, among other things.

Oh I see. It has nothing to do with foreign countries and corporations financing dictators for the sake of creating free market environments for their corporate interests. It's because Latinos are politically and socially immature and have yet to embrace the rule of law. Silly anarchic latinos, we should go down there and help them.:rolleyes:

That those dictatorships were associated with the free market proves nothing, only that free market was closer to this side of the world than "communism". The money could go as well to a Spanish aristocrat, to a multinational owner, or to a state-company manager, it will be the same regardless of system if the society isn't corrected. This begins in politics, in the law making. If the laws can be complied, they will. It's a matter of making the law easier to comply than easier to avoid. If that's done, the 'demon of capitalism' (again, could be any other system) won't 'corrupt society' (when it's actually the opposite) anymore. It's a matter of time until Latin American society is past its colonial heritage.

This is just a repeat of your previous claims. See above.

Question at hand:

1.- How many of you have lived for a substancial amount of time as to make such specific opinions about the socoilogic aspects of those societies?, I mean, Latin America is composed of more than one society, and it's pretty different from Argentina to Mexico, or the Caribbean.

No me vengas con esas huevadas, He vivido en suficientes culturas latinas que yo puedo decir lo que quiero. ;)

No me vengas con esas huevadas, He vivido en suficientes culturas latinas que yo puedo decir lo que quiero. ;)

Huevadas o no querido, sigues generalizando. Yo tengo tanto en común con un cubano o un argentino, como tienen en común un español con un francés, o un alemán con un yugoeslavo.

Even if we take the common ancestry, I deeply believe that after 200 years of independence, americans are quite different for a quite high number of reasons to the british, or to the australians, or to the welsh, for that matter. We are different from each other. Sociological factors as political regimes, inmigration received, economic conditions, shaped us differently.

Well, coming from one of such...Regimes? I could tell you one hundred reasons of why, but really...

Communists goverments? Perhaps, the normal trend is to devolve into personality cults, but socialist goverments tend to do well.

I've noticed that there's nothing really wrong about a socialist government, especially market socialist governments.

But this whole "Our Leader Is The Embodiment Of The Party" (Mugabe also comes to mind) really strikes me as "how in the fuck did they let this guy take over so completely?"

Really, I'd like to know why.

why is it that the "Party" actually devolves rapidly into one-man rule?
Because the Party is a perfect breeding ground for dictatorial rule. It, and it alone, has the power, intelligence and will to control the masses into bringing about Communistic Utopia; at least, that's what the Party likes to think.

Those against the party are automatically 'counter-revolutionaries', 'enemies of the people', 'lumpenproletariat' or some similar rhetorical bogeyman (see how viciously Party supporters, such as Andaras, attack those of us who support far less authoritarian communism; anarchists were often among the most brutally treated by the Party), and must be treated accordingly. The Party needs to keep control of how it sees the revolution should be progressing. That's why we see massive Party opposition to such actions as the '68 Parisian student riots, the setting up of anarchist communes during the Spanish Civil War, and, of course, to any attempt by people to push their society in a different direction; see the violent suppression of genuine people's movements in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland,, etc., in the last days of the USSR.

In such a breeding ground of hierarchy and blinkered vision, no wonder some men rise to positions of terrible power.

Well, I didn't say that. I was responding to Hotwife's assertion that capitalism will invariably help Cuba and other Latin American nations. Iasserted that history shows that free markets have been invariably associated with dictatorships. All of your subsequent points do not disprove any of my claims. All they do is clarify them.Right, nevertheless close to the accusation I did. First, Capitalism isn't equal to Free Market. One is the extreme of another, and capitalism as I call it is what you call Mixed Economy, one that is reasonably regulated. That free market would spawn authoritarianism in Cuba more than the current system does I think it unlikely. That free market by definition would do good to Cuban population also I am not sure. My point follows.

Corruption comes from many places. To blame it one thing, such as Latin American societies, is foolish. In the case of Latin America, the corruption endemic in many of their cultures is due to many different factors. One of the few they share in common is their colonial history. It's just as foolish as to blame on capitalism.Or think you that Cuba, Venezuela, among others, have no corruption, or even, less? Where's the free market in those? Also I said that the colonial heritage is where it comes from, and it comprises a lot more than one 'thing'.


So you're saying that the early history of Latin America was one where the wealthy and powerful could do what they want as long as it made lots of money, while everyone else had no civil rights. And how is that different from, let's say, Pinochet's Chile? It's not that different, which is why free market capitalism took the form it did in Latin America. Are you beginning to understand why free market capitalism is not going to work in Latin America?
All of your examples fit in the Cold War scenario, when the armed forces played their cards for the wrong reasons. I think they acted that way more out of fear and intolerance than out of bribery. That free market that took place is a consequence and not a cause in this. Things are not like that anymore though, because for the first time democracy is the main value of most subsequent societies. That is why I think a free market experiment under the eyes of a democratically elected government is possible in this era. My argument here is that your examples aren't enough to prove that free market here generates corruption and authoritarianism. If there was an association once, you can't imply the same would happen should the same economic system be applied under different conditions.



How does this have anything to do with our discussion?I was trying to exemplify corruption.



Too bad you haven't shown how heavily regulated societies (plural, not singular as we are dealing with a variety of cultures and societies) create corruptive cultures. For me, it looks more like a legacy of colonialism and free market ideologies.


That happened first because the laws were too many and too harsh and controlling every aspect of life, second because they could not be enforced without compliance of the representatives of the king and this compliance was vulnerable to both inside and outside influence. This differed from other models of colonization where the colonies and their representatives had more autonomy in law making and therefore the institutions were more effective and true, while in Latin America, the informality prevailed, through contact-making, avoiding the law, secret agreements and such. And for the powers, as long as that didn't interfered with the shipments, it wouldn't bother them.
I tried to explain how it happened in the above paragraph. Oh, I was and AM aware of the plural. And they do that because of the excess of regulations and lack of home rule makes it difficult for a distant colonial society comply with law of its suserain, hence it estimulates informality and law-dodging, which persists after the suserain has been removed. That's the whole issue here, those heavy handed monarchies left a heritage of corruption and informality in the independent latin american nations. Corruption is much more an internal than external factor. That IS a consequence of the colonialism, though not of free market.

Oh I see. It has nothing to do with foreign countries and corporations financing dictators for the sake of creating free market environments for their corporate interests. It's because Latinos are politically and socially immature and have yet to embrace the rule of law. Silly anarchic latinos, we should go down there and help them.:rolleyes:
You and your peers stay put where you are. Of course your light-hearted sarcastic anthics make it seem a lot more prejudicial than I meant, but your stunt apart I can say that the way society has formed here created a predominance of informality over formality in most cases, due to reasons I explained above. Before those Dictators, how do you think things were? Pratically the same. Violating the constitution was common for many early republics before free market even came along, and who of the populace would see a problem in it when bought with populist promises and measures? It takes a long time to value the instutions above the caudillo, something the first governments didn't help with. This is the political maturity I meant.

This is just a repeat of your previous claims. See above.

I just criticize your absolute anti-free market posture because it implies that free market is always fuel for corruption. I disagree, and stay by my idea that free market can work in a democracy. I am happy as it is though and wouldn't risk on such a direction so abruptly. Mixed is fine for now, but I wouldn't exclude free market from the future and that's what got me into this debate. Maybe it's because I've been reading articles from Alvaro Vargas Llosa lately (whatever that might mean to you).

To stay on topic, Cuba needs to handle its politics before it gets into its economy. But for me, as it is, it needs to improve both.

Oh but we are different, I never said otherwise. I just think that there are some vices that seem to be common to more than one nations around Latin America. At least that's what I meant to say.

It just MIGHT be the first step towards Capitalism (Finally). What do you NSGers think?

I think your worship of Capitalism is a bit distributing.

I think your worship of Capitalism is a bit distributing.
And what would you prefer? If you'd like, I'll buy ya a ticket to North korea if that's what suits ya.

And what would you prefer? If you'd like, I'll buy ya a ticket to North korea if that's what suits ya.

I'd prefer that you recognize that capitalism is hardly a solution to anything, and that, whether you like it or not, Communist governments are valid, and have as much of a right to exist as the United States does.

I'd prefer that you recognize that capitalism is hardly a solution to anything, and that, whether you like it or not, Communist governments are valid, and have as much of a right to exist as the United States does.
Did I ever say they didn't have a right to exist?

Did I ever say they didn't have a right to exist?

Actions speak louder then words, and the various proxy wars and economical sanctions put in place over the years by the United States government against such countries, and supported by people like you, clearly say as much.

Actions speak louder then words, and the various proxy wars and economical sanctions put in place over the years by the United States government against such countries, and supported by people like you, clearly say as much.

You're assuming I supported the Cold War.

You're assuming I supported the Cold War.

And you're assuming, just two posts ago, that I support North Korea.

And you're assuming, just two posts ago, that I support North Korea.

No, you said you supported Communism when compared to Capitalism. I OFFERED you an opportunity, by offering to send you to a Communist country. You failed to answer, opportunity lost.K?

No, you said you supported Communism when compared to Capitalism. I OFFERED you an opportunity, by offering to send you to a Communist country. You failed to answer, opportunity lost.K?

North Korea isn't really that much of a communist country, any more then Zimbabwe is a functioning democracy. North Korea is more like a xenophobic police state, which communist overtones.

Huevadas o no querido, sigues generalizando. Yo tengo tanto en común con un cubano o un argentino, como tienen en común un español con un francés, o un alemán con un yugoeslavo.

Even if we take the common ancestry, I deeply believe that after 200 years of independence, americans are quite different for a quite high number of reasons to the british, or to the australians, or to the welsh, for that matter. We are different from each other. Sociological factors as political regimes, inmigration received, economic conditions, shaped us differently.

Exactly. Each Latin American society and culture is different. Yet we seem to find a strong relationship between dictatorships and free market capitalism throughout most of Latin America. I think it is very odd that I can make a generalisation about such diverse cultures, but a look at the history of Latin America shows that my generalisation seems to be valid with few exceptions. So the question is: why is this so? Well, another thing all these countries have in common is a legacy of colonialism. So there seems to be a correlation between colonialism and the failure of free market systems in Latin America.

Right, nevertheless close to the accusation I did. First, Capitalism isn't equal to Free Market. One is the extreme of another, and capitalism as I call it is what you call Mixed Economy, one that is reasonably regulated. That free market would spawn authoritarianism in Cuba more than the current system does I think it unlikely. That free market by definition would do good to Cuban population also I am not sure. My point follows.

A reasonably well regulated market with intelligent checks and balances and a system of accountability for all the people involved in the economic transactions would be great for the Cubans. Now tell me, do you think capitalism has ever brought such a thing to a Caribbean nation with a history similar to Cuba's?

It's just as foolish as to blame on capitalism.Or think you that Cuba, Venezuela, among others, have no corruption, or even, less? Where's the free market in those? Also I said that the colonial heritage is where it comes from, and it comprises a lot more than one 'thing'.

First of all, I'm not blaming capitalism for all of Latin America's problems. I'm just showing that it is not a solution to those problems either.

All of your examples fit in the Cold War scenario, when the armed forces played their cards for the wrong reasons. I think they acted that way more out of fear and intolerance than out of bribery. That free market that took place is a consequence and not a cause in this. Things are not like that anymore though, because for the first time democracy is the main value of most subsequent societies. That is why I think a free market experiment under the eyes of a democratically elected government is possible in this era. My argument here is that your examples aren't enough to prove that free market here generates corruption and authoritarianism. If there was an association once, you can't imply the same would happen should the same economic system be applied under different conditions.

I'm so tired of hearing about the Cold war in relation to Latin America. The Soviets were rarely involved with anyone other than Cuba, and that was only after Castro took power. No one installed a free market because they were scared about the Global Red Menace. They did it to make money. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Things may be different now. That would depend on whether or not the conditions that caused the problem in the first place was still there or not. I think they still are.

I tried to explain how it happened in the above paragraph. Oh, I was and AM aware of the plural. And they do that because of the excess of regulations and lack of home rule makes it difficult for a distant colonial society comply with law of its suserain, hence it estimulates informality and law-dodging, which persists after the suserain has been removed. That's the whole issue here, those heavy handed monarchies left a heritage of corruption and informality in the independent latin american nations. Corruption is much more an internal than external factor. That IS a consequence of the colonialism, though not of free market.

Please show me the excessive regulation that you speak of. As far as I know, the Spanish crown let you buy and sell anything you wanted, like humans. Tell me, was the corruption of the slave trade a product of its over-regulation? If the Mexican viceroy had had a more hands off approach, less natives would have died in the mines of Potosi? I would think that the complete lack of laws protecting the rights of individuals would cause more corruption in a society than too many laws.

I can say that the way society has formed here created a predominance of informality over formality in most cases, due to reasons I explained above. Before those Dictators, how do you think things were? Pratically the same. Violating the constitution was common for many early republics before free market even came along, and who of the populace would see a problem in it when bought with populist promises and measures? It takes a long time to value the instutions above the caudillo, something the first governments didn't help with. This is the political maturity I meant.

Yes, this is the legacy of colonialism, which is why a free market system would invariably lead to a dictatorship wherever these conditions apply.

I just criticize your absolute anti-free market posture because it implies that free market is always fuel for corruption. I disagree, and stay by my idea that free market can work in a democracy. I am happy as it is though and wouldn't risk on such a direction so abruptly. Mixed is fine for now, but I wouldn't exclude free market from the future and that's what got me into this debate. Maybe it's because I've been reading articles from Alvaro Vargas Llosa lately (whatever that might mean to you).

I wouldn't say that free markets always and invariably lead to corruption. But before trying it out in one of my countries, I would like to know if it has ever worked in the Americas. As it is now, free market capitalism seems to have a pretty shitty track record.

See, many economic and political systems could work, but when we apply them to the real world, we see that they don't. Pure communism is a good example of this. I happen to think that free market capitalism is also a good example.

Maybe you should read some Galeano to balance you out.

To stay on topic, Cuba needs to handle its politics before it gets into its economy. But for me, as it is, it needs to improve both.

This is something I agree with, but what I would really like for Cuba is for the Cubans to get to decide what happens. Not some asshole from the State Department who wants to impose some sort of USian economic model on them and call it 'freedom'.

A reasonably well regulated market with intelligent checks and balances and a system of accountability for all the people involved in the economic transactions would be great for the Cubans. Now tell me, do you think capitalism has ever brought such a thing to a Caribbean nation with a history similar to Cuba's?
That's the point, history. I was about to cite Bermuda (despite it being in the atlantic, and mine not knowing it very well) as a better example. Thing is, history is what led to this situation, not capitalism alone. But seeing as you already said you don't think that, I'll spare further words on this point.


First of all, I'm not blaming capitalism for all of Latin America's problems. I'm just showing that it is not a solution to those problems either. That's good, since I only began this discussion thinking you were doing that.



I'm so tired of hearing about the Cold war in relation to Latin America. The Soviets were rarely involved with anyone other than Cuba, and that was only after Castro took power. No one installed a free market because they were scared about the Global Red Menace. They did it to make money. Why is this so difficult to understand? If they wanted the money they could have done it with much less blood, as they've been doing before the dictatorship. I think the military chose free market in most cases to gather American support, and to maintain the military. This happened in this way because of the Cold War, pushing the world to two sides, needing to gather the friendship of one. That was an ultimatum to the most conservative sectors of society, and they reacted this way.The soviets weren't the concern, the concern was the ideologies and the popularity of leftism. It was just plain intolerance.


Things may be different now. That would depend on whether or not the conditions that caused the problem in the first place was still there or not. I think they still are. I see many improvements here and there, a growing conscience in the bigger areas, but if you go to the more remote locations you'll see systems of corruption and exploitation surviving. Even slavery. However, the tendency is for such to be more and more pushed to the brink as they conflict with civil rule and the media.




Please show me the excessive regulation that you speak of. As far as I know, the Spanish crown let you buy and sell anything you wanted, like humans. Tell me, was the corruption of the slave trade a product of its over-regulation? If the Mexican viceroy had had a more hands off approach, less natives would have died in the mines of Potosi? I would think that the complete lack of laws protecting the rights of individuals would cause more corruption in a society than too many laws.
Well the Mexican viceroy never cared for Potosi, that was entitled to the Peruvian viceroy. Anyway, over-regulation might be an wrong way to express myself. Strong state interference is too vague. To be exact, I am speaking of the obligations of the subjects to the Crown rather than working laws as over-regulation. Taxation was too heavy, commerce was oriented only towards the mother country, industry was mostly forbidden. And being the supervising often weak, people will try to avoid the law, and that will become a habit. Because the laws are such that if they were complied it would suffocate the nation, they must be avoided. My opinion is if the regions were colonized differently and had home rule they could be a lot better today, but one can dream.

Yes, this is the legacy of colonialism, which is why a free market system would invariably lead to a dictatorship wherever these conditions apply. I still think it's too uncertain to say so. Many systems would lead to a corruption of power under the same conditions.


I wouldn't say that free markets always and invariably lead to corruption. But before trying it out in one of my countries, I would like to know if it has ever worked in the Americas. As it is now, free market capitalism seems to have a pretty shitty track record.
Until now. Yet you can't say it picked the Americas on their prime. Free market, and any economic changes for that matter, can only come gradually anyway. I'm gonna wait on this one before making my mind like you.

See, many economic and political systems could work, but when we apply them to the real world, we see that they don't. Pure communism is a good example of this. I happen to think that free market capitalism is also a good example.
I'll reserve my points in this. I see free market working very efficiently in some asian nations, at least something close to it. Fully free market is impossible (see Somalia), but free market may be used loosely to describe a capitalist economy like Hong Kong's, Malaysia's, etc. nyway, I think there's more to test on this matter and that's all.



This is something I agree with, but what I would really like for Cuba is for the Cubans to get to decide what happens. Not some asshole from the State Department who wants to impose some sort of USian economic model on them and call it 'freedom'.
Certainly something I wouldn't endorse. Given, this isn't even their business. i guess this point settles Cuba so I'm going to sleep.

I've noticed that there's nothing really wrong about a socialist government, especially market socialist governments.

But this whole "Our Leader Is The Embodiment Of The Party" (Mugabe also comes to mind) really strikes me as "how in the fuck did they let this guy take over so completely?"

Really, I'd like to know why.

You haven't heard the line of "We need a guy with an iron fist to fix this thing and make everyone walk the same path". Of course, everyone tend to agree on that as far as said guy with the iron fist do not apply the gauntlet to the one speaking. I have heard that argument from a brazilian, a colombian, a Peruvian, and like two hundreds of venezuelans.

Down here there is a political theory about it. "Political Messianism". Somehow, people tend to believe that the fate of the nation can be fixed only by one guy with the abilities, power and knowledge to make the change. That's why I advocate for parliamentary regimes here in Latin America, to avoid presidential systems getting out of scope.

If you check the 19th century history in Latin America, you can grasp another answer. We were ruled largely everywhere by "caudillos", who were just glorified warlords. Most of them formerly involved in the fight for independence against Spain. Basically, if you ask me, we changed one tyrant 4,000 miles away for 4,000 tyrants one mile away. It's not like I don't think we needed independence. We needed it, but the sucessors made a poor job. 100 years of authoritarian regimes for an entire continent, based around the idea of the glorified military hero returning to set things right and wipes the corrupted bureaucrats, creates a not so good historial reference and heritage in the collective minds of the South American countries.

North Korea isn't really that much of a communist country, any more then Zimbabwe is a functioning democracy. North Korea is more like a xenophobic police state, which communist overtones.


A few posts ago you were complaining that communist governments should have a right to exist, now you complain that the most obviously communist government on Earth isn't really communist enough for you.

Well, I believe that government by fairies and wizards should have a right to exist, too. But arguing a right to exist, and then admitting in non-existence, makes the argument pointless, doesn't it? Sure, if it floats your boat, if there was a communist nation that had the informed and voluntary support of its population, I'd have no issue with it. But there's a reason Cubans have no internet access. Or Zimbabwe, or north Korea. Somalia has internet access. Freakin SOMALIA! Pirates and warlords can get on line! But not Cubans. Guess why.

The fact is, we've all seen REAL communist governments, and the refugee traffic across the borders runs in only one direction.

Fantasy communist governments are not worthy of discussion- the only purpose they serve is to trick people, so that the REAL communist government can take over.

Or, take it this way. Since ALL communist revolutionary rhetoric has always been the same, and ALL communist revolutionary rhetoric has always resulted in a Tyranny once actually implemented, it is pointless to argue that NOW, unlike all the times before, the rhetoric aims towards something different.

If you think you have some great ideas about how a communist government should be run, go convince the north Koreans of your genius.

But stay clear of Eastern Europe. They would do nasty things to you for even making the suggestion.

You may have noticed that in curious counterpart to communism, Democracy does not imply an economic system. Nothing in the US constitution, or the consititions of similar nations, says "people will have the right to voluntary mutual exchange with other people, individually or collectively". This is because capitalism is what happens when you don't use government power to force a system. It is not, in itself, a system- it is the lack of one. That is the power.

North Korea isn't really that much of a communist country, any more then Zimbabwe is a functioning democracy. North Korea is more like a xenophobic police state, which communist overtones.
This is kind of a "No True Scotsman": you say you'd prefer a communist country, except that every example is "not really" a communist country. Why is it that communist governments always turn into "not real" communist countries, and so quickly? I would say that that says something about communism's lack of functionality; would you say otherwise?

Down here there is a political theory about it. "Political Messianism". Somehow, people tend to believe that the fate of the nation can be fixed only by one guy with the abilities, power and knowledge to make the change. That's why I advocate for parliamentary regimes here in Latin America, to avoid presidential systems getting out of scope.

Ah, like Bush wielding far more power than anyone anticipated, and why "everyone" thinks that if we only elect Obama (one man), everything will be fixed...

Maybe the parliamentary thing IS better...

But there's a reason Cubans have no internet access. Or Zimbabwe, or north Korea. Somalia has internet access. Freakin SOMALIA! Pirates and warlords can get on line! But not Cubans. Guess why.
Because America blocked the Cuban government from building a cable between their nation and Florida, the nearest landmass to Cuba?

I mean, you do realize Cuba is an island...right?

And it's not like they're not trying to get internet access (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Cuba_to_receive_high_speed_internet_connection_from_Venezuela)


The fact is, we've all seen REAL communist governments, and the refugee traffic across the borders runs in only one direction.

Yeah, because places like Cuba and China are just hemorrhaging people.

The 'fact' is, we've all seen REAL failed governments, and the refugee traffic across the border runs in only one direction.

While most people would likely agree that countries like Cuba have committed human rights violations, only a select few people would blame it on 'communism', as if it was the root of all their problems, and capitalism would solve everything.


Fantasy communist governments are not worthy of discussion- the only purpose they serve is to trick people, so that the REAL communist government can take over.

hahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh My God, are you serious? Are you really that stupid? That stuck in the Cold war? You don't honestly believe the Reds have secret agendas to over throw democracy and the American Way of Life (c) and force everyone into the salt mines?


If you think you have some great ideas about how a communist government should be run, go convince the north Koreans of your genius.

*sigh*

But stay clear of Eastern Europe. They would do nasty things to you for even making the suggestion.

I'm sure. :rolleyes:

You may have noticed that in curious counterpart to communism, Democracy does not imply an economic system.

How in the hell can a political system have a 'counterpart'. Democracy means you vote on issues, etc, the opposite of democracy would be not voting, which can be any number of political systems, including monarchies and obligarchies


Nothing in the US constitution, or the consititions of similar nations, says "people will have the right to voluntary mutual exchange with other people, individually or collectively". This is because capitalism is what happens when you don't use government power to force a system. It is not, in itself, a system- it is the lack of one. That is the power.

Don't make me laugh, the capitalism does not 'just happen', it's built on systems and openings created by the government. And, the lack of regulations and Government rules have led to the current economical crisis; not exactly what I'd say is the source of it's supposed power.

This is kind of a "No True Scotsman": you say you'd prefer a communist country, except that every example is "not really" a communist country. Why is it that communist governments always turn into "not real" communist countries, and so quickly? I would say that that says something about communism's lack of functionality; would you say otherwise?

Honestly? I think it's probably because most of the time, a lot of these governments tend to be modeled on Stalinist 'communism', rather then the communist manifesto.

But it's also probable that they don't work out because power corrupts, and it's very difficult to organize a leaderless revolution against governments who have leaders and are already organized. These leaders, rather then stepping down, just end up with power they're not suppose to have, and the poor saps who communism is suppose to help out, probably don't know enough about how communism to realize that their government is doing it wrong.

North Korea isn't really that much of a communist country, any more then Zimbabwe is a functioning democracy. North Korea is more like a xenophobic police state, which communist overtones.

Ah, no True Scotsman eh?

Ah, no True Scotsman eh?

Of course not CM, there are no Scotsman, I, and my fellow communist-space ninja-illegal aliens-abortionists-Muslim Comrades made them up.

Scotland? Not a real place.

Seriously, we made it up.

Arguing that North Korea isn't a Communist country isn't trying to assert that there are no true communist countries, but in all honestly, no country ever comes all that close to the philosophical ideologies they try to ally themselves with, and it's true with all nations, communist or not.

Xomic, you seem to be saying that you would rather live in a purely hypothetical country than in any country that actually exists on Planet Earth. Wouldn't we all?

Xomic, you seem to be saying that you would rather live in a purely hypothetical country than in any country that actually exists on Planet Earth. Wouldn't we all?

Might as well live in a benevolent dictatorship then. Oh wait - a benevolent dictatorship of the proletariat, I get it...

pardon me while I go outside to laugh...

Xomic, you seem to be saying that you would rather live in a purely hypothetical country than in any country that actually exists on Planet Earth. Wouldn't we all?

Well, technically, I never said I wanted to live in a communist country, this all started because I called CM out pn his dumb ass comment he made in the OP.

I'm happy living where I am.

Well, technically, I never said I wanted to live in a communist country, this all started because I called CM out pn his dumb ass comment he made in the OP.

I'm happy living where I am.

Ah, so your country is better than living in some ideal Communist shithole?

Ah, so your country is better than living in some ideal Communist shithole?

It was a good attempt, I'll give you 6/10, for effort and mixed messages.

It was a good attempt, I'll give you 6/10, for effort and mixed messages.

My proof is that you're not living in Communism.

My proof is that you're not living in Communism.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. We all live in some form of communism, typically referred to as Socialism. While most countries never adopted communism as a whole, they did accept that they should treat workers more a human beings, not tools.

So I suppose, MY proof is that we're all living in some form of communism, in some shape or form.

"Treating workers as human beings" =/= Communism. Not even "some form of communism." Communism - I hate to tell you - didn't exactly invent the idea of going easy on people.

And communist governments didn't even use that idea. Quite the opposite.

"Treating workers as human beings" =/= Communism. Not even "some form of communism." Communism - I hate to tell you - didn't exactly invent the idea of going easy on people.

And communist governments didn't even use that idea. Quite the opposite.

I suppose you could argue that, but it is difficult to ignore the common origin between socialism and communism.

There is a world of difference between communism and socialism, if you're defining socialism as prevalent in every modern nation.

And even socialism didn't exactly come up with the idea. It's the height of rhetorical arrogance to presume that, until Karl Sun Shines Out Of My Ass Marx came along, everyone on earth viewed laborers as dreck.

There is a world of difference between communism and socialism, if you're defining socialism as prevalent in every modern nation.

And even socialism didn't exactly come up with the idea. It's the height of rhetorical arrogance to presume that, until Karl Sun Shines Out Of My Ass Marx came along, everyone on earth viewed laborers as dreck.

Of course it is, but it's also arrogant to pretend that Karl Marx didn't make significant contributions to our modern way of thinking in regards to such matters.

And, of course, I'm sure there where many people who didn't view laborers as crap, but I'm sure there where some people who where opposed to slavery, even when everyone was doing it.

Ah, no True Scotsman eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajin-Sonbong_Economic_Special_Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaes%C5%8Fng_Industrial_Region

No, the DPRK like Cuba have 'export zones' and 'enterprise zones' which have come about because the governments are revisionist and are implementing capitalism.

Well, technically, I never said I wanted to live in a communist country, this all started because I called CM out pn his dumb ass comment he made in the OP.

I'm happy living where I am.

Would that be in a Capitalist country by any chance?

Well political reform would help. I have a hard time with the idea that a Communist government (so many times in history) reverts to being a cult of personality, with a dictator in charge.
This is true of every government given too long in power. Mussolini was no communist, and a cult of personality grew, the same is true of Hitler, Pinochet, Papa Doc and Saddam Hussein, amongst others.
Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez - why is it that the "Party" actually devolves rapidly into one-man rule?
For the same reason as it does in capitalist countries - when a party gets into power, the media starts to refer to the leader of that party as some kind of conduit for its actions, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy to an extent.

Whether good or bad, that person is linked to what goes on - see President Bush at the moment.

Stalin was never a dictator, his position as the General Secretary of the Party gave him very little power, certainly not as much as say the President in the US. Even his opponents concede Stalin's power came from the vast amount of working class people who supported him in the party, that's what democratic centralism is all about: majority rules.

Stalin fought against bureaucracy and for revolutionary democracy his entire life in office.

Revolutionary democracy? Oh, right. Mass murder is good for people, I keep forgetting. Thanks for correcting my misguided sense of human morality, Comrade.

Revolutionary democracy? Oh, right. Mass murder is good for people, I keep forgetting. Thanks for correcting my misguided sense of human morality, Comrade.
If you feel the need to condemn the peasants who defended themselves against kulak fascists who were slaughtering their children and starving their families by hording grain (on capitalist markets), then you have the right to do so.

I do think you have a misguided sense of morality if you defend the kulak murderers who were keeping tens of millions of Russian peasants in feudal slavery, ignorance and abject poverty.

It makes sense of you, a pro-capitalist like you would willingly condemn oppressed peasants from rising up against feudal tyranny in favor of equal socialist labor in the collective farms.

Class War

Kuromiya showed how Stalin presented industrialization as a class war of the oppressed against the old ruling classes.

This idea is correct. Nevertheless, through untold numbers of literary and historical works, we are told to sympathize with those who were repressed during the class wars of industrialization and collectivization. We are told that repression is `always inhuman' and that a civilized nation is not allowed to hurt a social group, even if it was exploiting.

What can be said against this so-called `humanist' argument?

How did the industrialization of the `civilized world' made? How did the London and Paris bankers and industries create their industrial base? Could their industrialization have been possible without the pillage of the India? Pillage accompanied by the extermination of more than sixty million American Indians? Would it have been possible without the slave trade in Africans, that monstrous bloodbath? UNESCO experts estimate the African losses at 210 million persons, killed during raids or on ships, or sold as slaves. Could our industrialization have been possible without colonization, which made entire peoples prisoners in their own native lands?

And those who industrialized this little corner of the world called Europe, at the cost of millions of `indigenous' deaths, tell us that the Bolshevik repression against the possessing classes was an abomination? Those who industrialized their countries by chasing peasants off the land with guns, who massacred women and children with working days of fourteen hours, who imposed slave wages, always with the threat of unemployment and famine, they dare go on at book length about the `forced' industrialization of the Soviet Union?

If Soviet industrialization could only take place by repressing the rich and reactionary five per cent, capitalist industrialization consisted of the terror exercised by the rich five per cent against the working masses, both in their own countries and in dominated ones.

Industrialization was a class war against the old exploiting classes, which did everything they possibly could to prevent the success of the socialist experience. It was often accomplished through bitter struggle within the working class itself: illiterate peasants were torn out of their traditional world and hurled into modern production, bringing with them all their prejudices and their retrograde concepts. The old reflexes of the working class itself, used to being exploited by a boss and used to resisting him, had to be replaced by a new attitude to work, now that the workers themselves were the masters of society.

On this subject, we have vivid testimony about the class struggle inside one of the Soviet factories, written by a U.S. engineer, John Scott, who worked long years at Magnitogorsk.

Scott was not Communist and often criticized the Bolshevik system. But when reporting what he experienced in the strategic complex of Magnitogorsk, he made us understand several essential problems that Stalin had to confront.

Scott described the ease with which a counter-revolutionary who served in the White Armies but showed himself to be dynamic and intelligent could pass as a proletarian element and climb the ranks of the Party. His work also showed that the majority of active counter-revolutionaries were potential spies for imperialist powers. It was not at all easy to distinguish conscious counter-revolutionaries from corrupted bureaucrats and `followers' who were just looking for an easy life.

Scott also explained that the 1937--1938 purge was not solely a `negative' undertaking, as it is presented in the West: it was mostly a massive political mobilization that reinforced the antifascist conscience of the workers, that made bureaucrats improve the quality of their work and that allowed a considerable development of industrial production. The purge was part of the great preparation of the popular masses for resisting the coming imperialist invasions. The facts refute Khrushchev's slanderous declaration that Stalin did not adequately prepare the country for war.

Here is John Scott's testimony about Magnitogorsk.

`Shevchenko ... was running (in 1936) the coke plant with its two thousand workers. He was a gruff man, exceedingly energetic, hard-hitting, and often rude and vulgar ....

`With certain limitations ..., Shevchenko was not a bad plant director. The workers respected him, and when he gave an order they jumped ....

`Shevchenko came from a little village in the Ukraine. In 1920, Denikin's White Army occupied the territory, and young Shevchenko, a youth of nineteen, was enlisted as a gendarme. Later Denikin was driven back into the Black Sea, and the Reds took over the country. In the interests of self-preservation Shevchenko lost his past, moved to another section of the country, and got a job in a mill. He was very energetic and active, and within a surprisingly short time had changed from the pogrom-inspiring gendarme into a promising trade-union functionary in a large factory. He was ultra-proletarian, worked well, and was not afraid to cut corners and push his way up at the expense of his fellows. Then he joined the party, and one thing led to another --- the Red Directors Institute, important trade-union work, and finally in 1931 he was sent to Magnitogorsk as assistant chief of construction work ....

`In 1935 ... a worker arrived from some town in the Ukraine and began to tell stories about Shevchenko's activities there in 1920. Shevchenko gave the man money and a good job, but still the story leaked out ....

`One night he threw a party which was unprecedented in Magnitogorsk .... Shevchenko and his pals were busy the rest of the night and most of the next consuming the remains ....

`One day ... Shevchenko was removed from his post, along with a half-dozen of his leading personnel .... Shevchenko was tried fifteen months later and got ten years.

`Shevchenko was at least fifty per cent bandit --- a dishonest and unscrupulous careerist. His personal aims and ideals differed completely from those of the founders of Socialism. However, in all probability, Shevchenko was not a Japanese spy, as his indictment stated, did not have terrorist intentions against the leaders of the party and the government, and did not deliberately bring about the explosion (that killed four workers in 1935).

`The `Shevchenko' band was composed of some twenty men, all of who received long sentences. Some, like Shevchenko, were crooks and careerists. Some were actual counter-revolutionaries who set out deliberately to do what they could to overthrow the Soviet power and were not particular with whom they cooperated. Others were just unfortunate in having worked under a chief who fell foul of the NKVD.

`Nicolai Mikhailovich Udkin, one of Shevchenko's colleagues, was the eldest son in a well-to-do Ukrainian family. He felt strongly that the Ukraine had been conquered, raped, and was now being exploited by a group of Bolsheviks ... who were ruining the country .... He felt, furthermore, that the capitalist system worked much better than the Socialist system ....

`Here was a man who was at least a potential menace to the Soviet power, a man who might have been willing to cooperate with the Germans for the `liberation of the Ukraine' in 1941. He, also, got ten years.'

.

Scott, op. cit. , pp. 175--180.

`During the course of the purge hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats shook in their boots. Officials and administrators who had formerly come to work at ten, gone home at four-thirty, and shrugged their shoulders at complaints, difficulties, and failures, began to stay at work from dawn till dark, to worry about the success or failure of their units, and to fight in a very real and earnest fashion for plan fulfillment, for economy, and for the well-being of their workers and employees, about whom they had previously lost not a wink of sleep.'

.

Ibid. , pp. 195--196.

`By and large, production increased from 1938 to 1941. By late 1938 the immediate negative effects of the purge had nearly disappeared. The industrial aggregates of Magnitogorsk were producing close to capacity, and every furnace, every mill, every worker, was being made to feel the pressure and the tension which spread through every phase of Soviet life after Munich. `The capitalist attack on the Soviet Union, prepared for years, is about to take place ...' boomed the Soviet press, the radio, schoolteachers, stump speakers, and party, trade-union, and Komsomol functionaries, at countless meetings.

`Russia's defence budget nearly doubled every year. Immense quantities of strategic materials, machines, fuels, foods, and spare parts were stored away. The Red Army increased in size from roughly two million in 1938 to six or seven million in the spring of 1941. Railroad and factory construction work in the Urals, in Central Asia, and in Siberia was pressed forward.

`All these enterprises consumed the small but growing surplus which the Magnitogorsk workers had begun to get back in the form of bicycles, wrist watches, radio sets, and good sausage and other manufactured food products from 1935 till 1938.'

If you feel the need to condemn the peasants who defended themselves against kulak fascists who were slaughtering their children and starving their families by hording grain (on capitalist markets), then you have the right to do so.

Why, thanks for allowing me the right to my own opinion! You're so generous.

And my opinion - by the way, a correct one, not that you'll ever, ever acknowledge or concede anything to anyone on this petty-bourgeois capitalist tyrannical forum - is that Stalin, his government, his military were not "peasants," nor were the mass murders in any way "defending" anyone.

I do think you have a misguided sense of morality if you defend the kulak murderers who were keeping tens of millions of Russian peasants in feudal slavery, ignorance and abject poverty.

Then what you think is wrong. See, my sense of morality is normal and healthy - I have an extreme distaste for slaughter and genocide. So my reaction of wanting to vomit at seeing someone like you casually and ineptly trying to justify those things is not at all misguided.

It makes sense of you, a pro-capitalist like you would willingly condemn oppressed peasants from rising up against feudal tyranny in favor of equal socialist labor in the collective farms.

You don't even know what my opinion on capitalism is, nor would you care. You blithely assume that anyone who disagrees with you is pro-capitalist, bourgeois scum etc etc, without bothering to read or learn or have a conversation or even to bloody THINK.

You can repeat your tired dogma all you like, just as people who defend the Holocaust can, and you can load up your tirades with repetitions of "oppressed peasants" and disgusting euphemisms for Stalin as "defending... socialist labor" all you want, but argument ad nauseam is a fallacy, and what you say is fallacious, unreasonable, and invalid.

THE TRUTH ABOUT STALIN (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html)

Ah PostScript… now that takes me back.