Castro admits his economic model doesn't work for Cuba!

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_fidel_castro_5

Apparently Fidel's either lost his mind, or is letting down his guard and being truthful to someone for a change.

In his interview with a writer from the Atlantic Monthly, he admits Cuba's economic system doesn't work....

Now...Eki, pay close attention and read the article. And realize, that this man just admitted to an American journalist that his way doesn't work. Also note that in the article he admits he asked the Soviets to use nuclear weapons against America. Now again, tell me why you defend this cretin?

[Eki]

Now again, tell me why you defend this cretin?
Because nobody else does. Every story needs also the other side, a view from another angle.

[anthonyvop]

Because nobody else does. Every story needs also the other side, a view from another angle.

Really? Every story is gray?

So if somebody wrote a story how the sun rises in the east you would argue against it just to feel good about yourself?

[Eki]

Really? Every story is gray?

So if somebody wrote a story how the sun rises in the east you would argue against it just to feel good about yourself?
Not laws of nature. But I'm quite certain that Batista's model wouldn't have been any better for most Cubans than Castro's model.

[anthonyvop]

Not laws of nature. But I'm quite certain that Batista's model wouldn't have been any better for most Cubans than Castro's model.


Are you certain?

Were thousands executed under Batista?
Were tens of thousands jailed in political prisons?
Was travel banned within Cuba for the common people?
Were people killed for trying to flee?
Was opposition media forbidden?
Were free labor unions banned?

If Batista was as bad as Castro we wouldn't even have a Castro!

I am no fan of Batista. Never was. but the claim that the Cuban people are better under Castro is just plain ignorant.

[Eki]

Are you certain?
Yes. The revolution would have failed otherwise.



Were thousands executed under Batista?
Were tens of thousands jailed in political prisons?
Was travel banned within Cuba for the common people?
Were people killed for trying to flee?
Was opposition media forbidden?
Were free labor unions banned?


Most Cubans have never suffered from those, except maybe banning of free labor unions. BTW, I didn't know you and Batista were fans of free labor unions.

Did most Cubans live in poverty working for the rich in slave like conditions under Batista? Yes.

[anthonyvop]

Yes. The revolution would have failed otherwise..
You wright like that would have been a bad thing.


Most Cubans have never suffered from those.

Really? Most Cubans don't suffer from the banning of a free media or the right to travel within their own borders?
Most Cubans don't suffer from being forbidden from speaking out against their government?


except maybe banning of free labor unions. BTW, I didn't know you and Batista were fans of free labor unions..

I am not a big fan of US Labor unions. In a free society they really aren't needed but I defend their right to exist.
It was the Labor Unions who supported Batista


Did most Cubans live in poverty working for the rich in slave like conditions under Batista? Yes.

Nope. As a 3rd world nation most Cubans worked as agrarians. But under Batista Cuba was on of the richest countries in Latin America and had one of the highest standards of living.

[Eki]

But under Batista Cuba was on of the richest countries in Latin America and had one of the highest standards of living.
One of the richest countries in Latin America in the 1950s? That's like being the best football team in Alaska or the biggest banana farmer in Finland. Doesn't take much. Besides everybody knows that the gap between the rich the poor in Latin America was huge and often still is, so average figures don't tell how the majority lives. Very few are extremely rich and the rest are extremely poor, virtually no middle class.

[Firstgear]

But I'm quite certain that Batista's model wouldn't have been any better for most Cubans than Castro's model.

Why do you only look to 'the devil that was', and 'the devil that is'?

If you only consider what was and what is, you'll never advance or improve things.

[Eki]

advance or improve things.
That's what Cubans tried when they started the revolution. And I think they partly succeeded too, but they could of course have succeeded far better.

[Firstgear]

But you said you support Castro because he's better than Batista (and because nobody else supports him). Sounds like you are refusing to look beyond these two for a better option.

[Eki]

But you said you support Castro because he's better than Batista (and because nobody else supports him). Sounds like you are refusing to look beyond these two for a better option.
I have never said I support Castro. Read the first two posts again. We were talking about defending, not supporting. Different things, supporting and defending. For example, a lawyer who defends a criminal doesn't necessarily support him. Neither Castro nor Batista were good for Cuba, but Castro was the lesser evil IMO.

[anthonyvop]

One of the richest countries in Latin America in the 1950s? That's like being the best football team in Alaska or the biggest banana farmer in Finland. Doesn't take much. Besides everybody knows that the gap between the rich the poor in Latin America was huge and often still is, so average figures don't tell how the majority lives. Very few are extremely rich and the rest are extremely poor, virtually no middle class.

Now Cuba is one of the Poorest....So the rest of Latin America has improved economically while Cuba degenerated.

But I guess in your world that would be a success.

[anthonyvop]

Neither Castro nor Batista were good for Cuba, but Castro was the lesser evil IMO.


Prove it.

I have given ample justification proving your belief is wrong.

[Eki]

Now Cuba is one of the Poorest....So the rest of Latin America has improved economically while Cuba degenerated.

But I guess in your world that would be a success.
That's largely because the US has done its best to work against Cuba and not against other Latin American countries (except some with socialist governments like Chile before Pinochet, Venzuela and Bolivia).

And you're still looking at the average figure and not how wealth has been distributed. Instead you could also look at how many in those countries live under the poverty line. The poverty line is defined to the level of 2/3 of the average national income per capita, i.e. if you make less than 2/3 of what an average person in your country makes, you're considered poor.

[anthonyvop]

That's largely because the US has done its best to work against Cuba and not against other Latin American countries (except some with socialist governments like Chile before Pinochet, Venzuela and Bolivia).

There are over 200 countries on this planet and you are blaming the fact that one doesn't want to do business with it on their failures?

Well chew on this:

Though Cuba is subject to trade sanctions, the United States remains Cuba’s largest source of food and humanitarian aid.

So now what is your excuse?


And you're still looking at the average figure and not how wealth has been distributed. Instead you could also look at how many in those countries live under the poverty line. The poverty line is defined to the level of 2/3 of the average national income per capita, i.e. if you make less than 2/3 of what an average person in your country makes, you're considered poor.



If one were to believe the Castroist propaganda, one would have the impression that Cuba was a country with a 40% illiteracy rate, with the greedy hands of multi-national US conglomerates controlling every facet of the national economy; a country without doctors,where workers and farmers were horribly exploited, with a high level of unemployment, and with houses of prostitution and gambling casinos on each corner.

Of course, Cuba was not a fully developed country, nor were its resources distributed equally among all its people -nor have they been equitably distributed during Castroism-, but in 1958 only 14% of the capital invested in the island came from the US, and there were no more than 10 gambling casinos in the country. At the same time, 62% of sugar mills, the principal sites of sugar production -which itself was the most important component of the Cuban economy- were owned by Cubans.

In 1953, Cuba was 22nd among the world's nations in the number of doctors per capita, with 128.6 for each 100 thousand inhabitants.

The mortality rate was 5.8 -third lowest in the world-, while the mortality rate of the United States was 9.5 and that of Canada 7.6.

Towards the end of the 50s, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate of Latin America, with 3.76, followed by Argentina with 6.11, Venezuela with 6.56, and Uruguay with 7.30, as per data provided by the World Health Organization.

Cuba was number 33 among 112 nations in the world as far as the level of daily reading, with 101 newspaper copies published per 1,000 inhabitants, which also contradicts the argument that the country was inhabited by a great number of illiterates.

Even as far as so-called luxury items, in 1959 Cuba had one radio per each five inhabitants, one television set for each 28, one telephone for each 38, and one automobile for each 40 inhabitants, according to the Annual Statistical Report of the United Nations.

PUBLIC HEALTH: In 1958, Cuba had a population of six million, six hundred thirty one thousand inhabitants (6,630,921, to be exact). At that time, there were 35 thousand (35,000) hospital beds in the country, an average of one hospital bed per 190 inhabitants, a number which then exceeded the goal of developed countries, which was 200 inhabitants per hospital bed. In 1960, the United States had one hospital bed per 109 inhabitants.

Also in 1958, the Cuban nation had an average of one doctor per 980 inhabitants, a number that was surpassed in Latin America only by Argentina, with one doctor per 760 inhabitants, and Uruguay, with one per each 860. Cuba had one dentist per 2,978 inhabitants then.

This data is found in the archives of the World Health Organization.

LABOR RELATIONS: In 1958, an industrial worker in Cuba earned an average salary of the equivalent of $6 US dollars per each 8-hour work day, while an agricultural worker earned the equivalent of $3 US dollars. Cuba then ranked number eight (8) in the world as far as salaries paid to industrial workers, outperformed only by the following countries:

the United States ($16.80)

Canada ($11.73)

Sweden ($ 8.10)

Switzerland ($ 8.00)

New Zealand ($ 6.72)

Denmark ($ 6.46)

Norway ($ 6.10)

As far as salaries for agricultural workers, Cuba was number seven (7) in the world, outperformed only by the following countries:

Canada ($7.18)

the United States ($6.80)

New Zealand ($6.72)

Australia ($6.61)

Sweden ($5.47)

Norway ($4.38)

This data was published by the International Labor Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1960. In 1958, Cuba had a labor force of two million two hundred four thousand workers (2,204,000). The rate of unemployment at that time was 7.07%, the lowest in Latin America, as per data from the Cuban Labor Ministry.

EDUCATION: That same year, Cuba had three government financed universities and three others that were privately run. There were twenty thousand (20,000) students enrolled in the government run universities.

There were 900 officially recognized private schools, including the three private universities. The total number of students enrolled at these institutions was over one hundred thousand (100,000).

The public school system employed twenty five thousand (25,000) teachers, and the private school system counted with 3,500.

In the middle of the 1950s, there were 1,206 rural school houses in Cuba, as well as a mobile library system which boasted a total of 179,738 books.

Also in 1958, Cuba had 114 institutions of higher education, below the university level; among them were technical institutes, polytechnic and professional schools, which were financed by the government. Just in 1958, these institutions graduated 38,428 students. In 1958, the island's illiteracy rate was 18%.

This data is found in the archives of Cuba's Ministry of Education.

Cuba was the Latin American country with the highest budget for education in 1958, with 23% of the total budget earmarked for this expense. It was followed by Costa Rica (20%), and Guatemala and Chile, each with 16%. This data comes from America in Statistics, published by the Pan American Union.


http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/cubaprecastro21698.html

So under Castro Cuba got worse while the rest of Latin America improved.

[Eki]

http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/cubaprecastro21698.html

So under Castro Cuba got worse while the rest of Latin America improved.
That's not from World Health Organization or International Labor Organization, that's from Free Cuba Foundation, Batista propaganda:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/

[anthonyvop]

That's not from World Health Organization or International Labor Organization, that's from Free Cuba Foundation, Batista propaganda:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/

They use the WHO and the ILO for stats.....Not that either of those 2 organizations can be believed.

[race aficionado]

so what's the big deal.
He just said:
"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us any more."
And I stress the "any more" portion of the sentence that has been ignored by many by just flat saying that "it never ever worked. period."
To each his own but that's not what Fidel Castro said.

When did the Cuban model stop working?
I have no idea, I am no expert -
and of course vop will say that it never worked and again, to each his own.

But I will say that the US model doesn't work any more either.
Just look around . . . . .

It is time for a better combo between the capitalist and the socialist model.
So there!
:s mokin:

[Eki]

It is time for a better combo between the capitalist and the socialist model.
So there!
:s mokin:
Well said, race. It's not about either this or that. It's about getting the best of both worlds. In science they call it optimizing.

[glauistean]

They use the WHO and the ILO for stats.....Not that either of those 2 organizations can be believed.
why do you suggest that the WHO is not to be believed?

[glauistean]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_fidel_castro_5

Apparently Fidel's either lost his mind, or is letting down his guard and being truthful to someone for a change.

In his interview with a writer from the Atlantic Monthly, he admits Cuba's economic system doesn't work....

Now...Eki, pay close attention and read the article. And realize, that this man just admitted to an American journalist that his way doesn't work. Also note that in the article he admits he asked the Soviets to use nuclear weapons against America. Now again, tell me why you defend this cretin?

Is Cuba a communist or socilist country? There seems to be a huge disconnect between what people know what the difference is.

Just an example. Many extreme right wing Americans believe that the Nazi party was left wing because they were known as nationalist socialts. Ergo, they believe that Hitler was a left winger. How idiotic and asinine. From that logic East Germany would been a democracy sinceit's official name was the GDR. German Democratic Republic. Akin to today's Republic of North Korea.

[glauistean]

Because nobody else does. Every story needs also the other side, a view from another angle.
You may as well bang your head against a brick wall when talking to anyone that is of the right wing persuasion that thinks/believes that socialism is bad. Not knowing that basic elements such as police departments and fire departments as well as postal are all "social" services supplied to the citizens of the respectiv countries.

Are the people that pick up Social Welfare checks all lefties, or those picking up unemployment. My lord, there must be thousands of dollars available to those lefties that can pick up all that money that is available.

[Mark in Oshawa]

so what's the big deal.
He just said:
"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us any more."
And I stress the "any more" portion of the sentence that has been ignored by many by just flat saying that "it never ever worked. period."
To each his own but that's not what Fidel Castro said.

When did the Cuban model stop working?
I have no idea, I am no expert -
and of course vop will say that it never worked and again, to each his own.

But I will say that the US model doesn't work any more either.
Just look around . . . . .

It is time for a better combo between the capitalist and the socialist model.
So there!
:s mokin:

Capitalism doesn't work? Hey..it has had a rough 2 or 3 years...but it beats the 50 years of Cuba. If you think Cuba works, head on down...I am SURE the Castro's will welcome you!

[Mark in Oshawa]

You may as well bang your head against a brick wall when talking to anyone that is of the right wing persuasion that thinks/believes that socialism is bad. Not knowing that basic elements such as police departments and fire departments as well as postal are all "social" services supplied to the citizens of the respectiv countries.

Are the people that pick up Social Welfare checks all lefties, or those picking up unemployment. My lord, there must be thousands of dollars available to those lefties that can pick up all that money that is available.

Cuba is a Socialist country by it's own definition. However, Sweden is considered socialist by their own definition and France is as well. Neither oppresses people in the manner that Cuba has or does. Neither had had one man essentially run the nation under his iron first for the last 50 years.

Cuba is socialist by THEIR defnition. By anyone not with idealogical blinkers on, it is a dictatorship. AT that point, Left vs Right doesn't really matter....except for those trying to defend Cuba's shameful record.

Tony has WHO stats that point out where Cuba stood. Now I find them pretty interesting....and I find it VERY interesting that the average Cuban isn't living anywhere close to even HALF of that standard of living now....and people can still defend Castro.

We wont even get into the people in prison for merely disagreeing politically with Fidel, or the people who die every year trying to cross the straits to Florida either.

At some point, Eki and the rest of you guys who like Cuba can say what you like, since you are all gung ho to provide "balance" but is just being contrarian for the sake of being contrary. The facts don't lie.

Cuba has no free speech, it has no economic progress of any real note, and it is a land where you have no rights that the government doesn't want to give you period. All of you defending this crap live in nations where you have ALL those rights....and live in nations that don't put government run restrictions on your chance to make it economically. You are free to work, educate yourself, vote against the politician in power, create wealth and live your lives. All those are denied Cubans...and why? Because Fidel and his brother Raul thought they were better than Battista.

The record shows Battista was no saint, but he was a geniune democratic soul compared to the blood soaked record of Fidel Castro.

As for the USA, they still give Cuba more than people realize, and if Cuba cant cut with all the European investment and Canadian investment there now, then they need to look towards the Castro's and ask them where the money is going.

The USA should trade with Cuba...I think flooding the island with cheap blue jeans, and other consumer goods all proudly saying Made in the USA would be nice...but then again, The USA doesn't make that stuff either!!!

[Eki]

Tony has WHO stats that point out where Cuba stood.
Or figures that Free Cuba Foundation says are "WHO stats".

[anthonyvop]

Or figures that Free Cuba Foundation says are "WHO stats".


Actually it was a paper vetted and accepted by Florida International University.

You are more than welcome to look you the stats yourself and dispute them if you want.

[Eki]

Actually it was a paper vetted and accepted by Florida International University.

Just because it's on a university server doesn't mean it's vetted and accepted by the university. Students, students' clubs and staff in many if not in all universities keep keep all kinds of crap on their server accounts. I know, I have worked at a university.

[glauistean]

Cuba is a Socialist country by it's own definition. However, Sweden is considered socialist by their own definition and France is as well. Neither oppresses people in the manner that Cuba has or does. Neither had had one man essentially run the nation under his iron first for the last 50 years.

Cuba is socialist by THEIR definition. By anyone not with idealogical blinkers on, it is a dictatorship. AT that point, Left vs Right doesn't really matter....except for those trying to defend Cuba's shameful record.

Tony has WHO stats that point out where Cuba stood. Now I find them pretty interesting....and I find it VERY interesting that the average Cuban isn't living anywhere close to even HALF of that standard of living now....and people can still defend Castro.

We wont even get into the people in prison for merely disagreeing politically with Fidel, or the people who die every year trying to cross the straits to Florida either.

At some point, Eki and the rest of you guys who like Cuba can say what you like, since you are all gung ho to provide "balance" but is just being contrarian for the sake of being contrary. The facts don't lie.

Cuba has no free speech, it has no economic progress of any real note, and it is a land where you have no rights that the government doesn't want to give you period. All of you defending this crap live in nations where you have ALL those rights....and live in nations that don't put government run restrictions on your chance to make it economically. You are free to work, educate yourself, vote against the politician in power, create wealth and live your lives. All those are denied Cubans...and why? Because Fidel and his brother Raul thought they were better than Battista.

The record shows Battista was no saint, but he was a geniune democratic soul compared to the blood soaked record of Fidel Castro.

As for the USA, they still give Cuba more than people realize, and if Cuba cant cut with all the European investment and Canadian investment there now, then they need to look towards the Castro's and ask them where the money is going.

The USA should trade with Cuba...I think flooding the island with cheap blue jeans, and other consumer goods all proudly saying Made in the USA would be nice...but then again, The USA doesn't make that stuff either!!!

Mark, Sweden and France and almost every country in Europe is socialist or has socialist programs. These same programs also exist in the US and as your flag implies, your own country, Canada. They may elect conservative " faux capitalists) in many of these countries , but by and large they are socialist. Is there something wrong with socialism? What is wrong with the principles of socialism? Better than having 2% of the population controlling 60% of the wealth of the country.

You know Mark, most of the wars that the US has been involved in or has helped spark in the past half century has been done so by the right wing capitalist regimes.
Iraq, Iran, Iran and Iraq, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia,El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Peru,Venezuela, Argentina, Malvina's,Bolivia, Paraguay and many more.

Now Mark, what have any of these countries gained whilst under the thumb or should I say fist of capitalism. Say capitalism in the form of Britain's' throughout the centuries under the guise of an Empire? What have the uneducated gained? What have the poor gained? What have the common people of any of these countries gained? The answer you already know. Death by abduction or through "legitimate" means. No wealth to share and as "Tony" may say, "pull yourself up you liberals by the boot straps".
In these world and our world you get nothing if you have nothing even if you strive as hard as you can. You work all your life to pay for your home only to have it foreclosed on by banks that sell to the highest bidder because you lost your job in this great Friedman experiment that is nothing but a sham. A Bernie Maddof scam. An Abramof scam. A greedy capitalistic scam that has reeked nothing but chaos upon everyone.

Step back and you will see that few and far between believe in the absolute capitalist society that you propose. Socialism is here whther you like it or not and you are a participant.

[race aficionado]

Capitalism doesn't work? Hey..it has had a rough 2 or 3 years...but it beats the 50 years of Cuba. If you think Cuba works, head on down...I am SURE the Castro's will welcome you!

Yo Mark!
What's with the attitude.
You surprise me by being so defensive and implying that I move in with the Castro's.
:bandit:
I do admit it though, I've always wanted to visit Cuba.

By the way, where did I say that Capitalism doesn't work?
I said the current US of A's model is not working. and I am saying this by recognizing that the USA's model has a percentage of socialism in it, not only capitalism.

I attended a lecture in NYC two months ago where percentages were presented to show how these different combinations of capitalism and socialism are working on certain countries.

Take the source of this information as my experience of listening to others giving their opinions about our planets socio/economic situation. Just that.

The US of A, a country of which I am a citizen of, has about a 95% capitalism and 5% socialism ratio.
I live here and I can clearly see that it is not working so well and it is not the "rough 2 or 3 years . . ." that you mentioned in your post.

It is a proven fact that countries that have a more even ratio between capitalism and socialism in their economic model are more relatively stable.
Case in point: Norway, Sweden and Finland.
They are not the richest countries in the world but they don't have a group of very rich people and very poor people. It's more balanced.

These are the % presented to make this point:
USA 95%-5% Capitalist-Socialist
Britain, France, Germany an average of 80%-20%
Japan 90%-10%
Russia - changing every second: 90%-10% Capitalist-Socialist. There are now more billionaires in Russia than there are billionaires in North America.
Who would have thunk it!!
Norway, Sweden and Finland have an average of 60% capitalist and 40% Socialist.
And yes, these are smaller nations and it is probably easier to get to this balance but leadership and attitude do help.

The ideal % according to some - is 30% capitalism and %70 Socialism.

And before rocks start being thrown - these are opinions and please take them as such.

Relax!!!!
;)

Take them for what it's worth, question them, deny them . . . but you can't deny the facts of the relative economic stability of countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland as compared to that of US of A.

The USA does indeed have socialist implementations, like glauistean has reminded us, and some people are going to have to get rid of their fear that the word or concept of "socialism" brings upon them.
This fear has been ingrained in their brains through their history because of "the evil commies - the evil enemies" - all this while they have been enjoying it's social benefits for many years without even knowing it, or wanting to know it.

[anthonyvop]

Castro Apologizes to Gays, MSM More Than Happy to Accept
by Humberto Fontova Sep 10th 2010 at 5:45 am in Mainstream Media

The oldest gay-rights organization in Latin America is taking Fidel Castro to the International Court of justice in The Hague for “crimes against humanity.”

“What?!” snort the “enlightened.” You rubes got the news exactly bass-ackwards! In fact, last week Fidel Castro apologized graciously for his regime’s past mistreatment of gays. His graciousness has been accepted graciously by all enlightened parties. The AP, Reuters and CNN picked up the story and it went media-viral. Any Google search finds it in spades.

The “news” agencies to which Fidel Castro bestowed Havana “press” bureaus indeed ran with his “apology” regarding his historic jailing, torture and murder of gays. But true to their Cuba-“reporting” the MSM has completely “overlooked” the World Court complaint by Brazil’s Grupo Gay da Bahía, which is to say, what prompted the apology in the first place.

Again, true to form, the MSM pack—yipping, yapping, tails wagging, tongues hanging — followed the snickering Castro’s every cue as he led them off the trail of this damaging accusation in the World Court. Again, dutiful to their mission as outlined by Castro upon granting their Havana bureaus, they rushed to bark up every wrong tree and report bald misinformation.

“Castro, 84, said he was busy in those days fending off threats from the United States, including attempts on his life, and trying to maintain the revolution that put him in power in 1959,” dutifully reports (i.e. transcribes from Castro’s hand-outs) Reuters.

“What threats, Mr. Castro?” a genuine reporting agency might ask him. “The forced-labor camps and torture-chambers, for Cuban gays went up in 1965. Yet on Oct. 1962 the U.S. vowed to –not only refrain from molesting you—but to protect you. “We ended up getting exactly what we’d wanted all along,” snickered Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs regarding the Missile “Crisis” resolution: “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. After Kennedy’s death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba.”

Evading the massive U.S. dragnet ordered by JFK, intrepid Cuban exile freedom fighters moved their operations to the Bahamas. But JFK was quickly on the phone to Harold Macmillan, alerting the British Prime Minister to the presence of these pesky Cubans and requesting the solidarity of Her Majesty’s Navy in nabbing them. Macmillan was quick to comply.

So let’s step back and consider a key article of the MSM mantra on Castro, how this “valiant” and “plucky underdog defied ten U.S. presidents!”

In fact, as well known by the historically literate, far from “defying” anyone, Castro survived by hiding behind the skirts of the three most powerful nations in modern history: the U.S., the Soviet Union and the British Empire. The genuine “plucky underdogs” were the Cuban exile freedom-fighters defying these super-powers while trying to free their homeland with small arms and while persecuted by powerful “freedom-loving” nations allied (again) with the Soviet Union.

“Castro is responsible for the “persecution, imprisonment in forced labor concentration camps, torture, banishment, and death of thousands of gays, transvestites and lesbians,” reads the recent Grupo Gay da Bahía’s accusation.

But Reuter’s transcription of their Cuban propaganda ministry hand-out “reports” that the Castro regime decriminalized homosexual activity in 1979.

A better judge might be the Spanish Gay organization Fundación LGBT Reinaldo Arenas that reports tens of thousands of Cuba gays recently fined, imprisoned or forcibly deported from Havana to the countryside along with 600 HIV positive men in Cuban prisons for the crime of being HIV positive. (Castro’s regime is widely lauded in Hollywood , by the way, the Red-Ribbon capitol of the world.)

http://bigjournalism.com/hfontova/2010/09/10/castro-apologizes-to-gays-msm-more-than-happy-to-accept/

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yo Mark!
What's with the attitude.
You surprise me by being so defensive and implying that I move in with the Castro's.
:bandit:
I do admit it though, I've always wanted to visit Cuba.

By the way, where did I say that Capitalism doesn't work?
I said the current US of A's model is not working. and I am saying this by recognizing that the USA's model has a percentage of socialism in it, not only capitalism.

I attended a lecture in NYC two months ago where percentages were presented to show how these different combinations of capitalism and socialism are working on certain countries.

Take the source of this information as my experience of listening to others giving their opinions about our planets socio/economic situation. Just that.

The US of A, a country of which I am a citizen of, has about a 95% capitalism and 5% socialism ratio.
I live here and I can clearly see that it is not working so well and it is not the "rough 2 or 3 years . . ." that you mentioned in your post.

It is a proven fact that countries that have a more even ratio between capitalism and socialism in their economic model are more relatively stable.
Case in point: Norway, Sweden and Finland.
They are not the richest countries in the world but they don't have a group of very rich people and very poor people. It's more balanced.

These are the % presented to make this point:
USA 95%-5% Capitalist-Socialist
Britain, France, Germany an average of 80%-20%
Japan 90%-10%
Russia - changing every second: 90%-10% Capitalist-Socialist. There are now more billionaires in Russia than there are billionaires in North America.
Who would have thunk it!!
Norway, Sweden and Finland have an average of 60% capitalist and 40% Socialist.
And yes, these are smaller nations and it is probably easier to get to this balance but leadership and attitude do help.

The ideal % according to some - is 30% capitalism and %70 Socialism.

And before rocks start being thrown - these are opinions and please take them as such.

Relax!!!!
;)

Take them for what it's worth, question them, deny them . . . but you can't deny the facts of the relative economic stability of countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland as compared to that of US of A.

The USA does indeed have socialist implementations, like glauistean has reminded us, and some people are going to have to get rid of their fear that the word or concept of "socialism" brings upon them.
This fear has been ingrained in their brains through their history because of "the evil commies - the evil enemies" - all this while they have been enjoying it's social benefits for many years without even knowing it, or wanting to know it.

Ok Race, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you are not a raving socialist loon.

That said, your success stories you cite, the Scandinavian nations of Norway and the like are quite nice places, with high standards of living but also with a high tax burden. The Danes are as taxed as any nation on earth. So in the sense, you do pay for this "stability". The other issue is, these nations are small ones. As a nation gets larger, with it come greater issues. Infrastructure in a nation such as Canada or the US is a far bigger drain on the national treasury. In the USA's case, it has been proven over and over in the last 100 plus years that the world's stability has been better when the USA has been a bulwark against attacks on the modern democratic state. That cost isn't borne by the other NATO nations, or the Swedes, but you Americans pay for it. So that is another drain other small nations don't have.

It is a different political culture, and it is a different enviroment....apples and oranges.

[Rollo]

so what's the big deal.
He just said:
"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us any more."
And I stress the "any more" portion of the sentence that has been ignored by many by just flat saying that "it never ever worked. period."
To each his own but that's not what Fidel Castro said.

When did the Cuban model stop working?
I have no idea, I am no expert -
and of course vop will say that it never worked and again, to each his own.

But I will say that the US model doesn't work any more either.
Just look around . . . . .

It is time for a better combo between the capitalist and the socialist model.
So there!
:s mokin:

I agree with this sentiment entirely.

Truth be told, in principle there is very little difference between a totally communist state and a totaly capitalist state. The outcomes are that you have a small select group of people in control of and profiteering off of the work of normal citizenry.
Whether they be in government or in the board rooms of corporations, is of virtually zero consequence. Essentially the same sorts of people would be in charge in either case.

Whilst it is true, that I'm probably written off by a lot of people as some sort of socialist ratbag, I assure you that if someone was vociferous in arguing the case, I'd equally attack them as well.

I think that in practice so called "third way" politics seem to provide the most useful outcomes. This called also be called the "radical centre" which takes aspects from both the left and the right, but doesn't necessarily agree with centrism.

Germany's Soziale Marktwirtschaft is a classic example of this, and currently possibly the best working model of the mix of policies of how a country should run, but it isn't perfect and still deals with the regular problems of cost-overruns, market failures etc.

[Eki]

The other issue is, these nations are small ones. As a nation gets larger, with it come greater issues. Infrastructure in a nation such as Canada or the US is a far bigger drain on the national treasury.
People/square kilometer:

USA about 31 people/sq km
Canada about 3 people/sq km
Finland about 15 people/sq km

GDP/square kilometer:

USA about $1.4 million/sq km
Canada about $128,000/sq km
Finland about $529,000/sq km

You might be right about Canada, but explain me again why infrastructure is a far bigger drain on the national treasury in the US than in Finland.

[Eki]

That cost isn't borne by the other NATO nations, or the Swedes, but you Americans pay for it. So that is another drain other small nations don't have.

Wrong again. Finland and Sweden aren't members of NATO, so both have to pay their defense by themselves.

The American military spending is an overkill in a typical American way compared to what their potential enemies have and spend.

[Bob Riebe]

Is Cuba a communist or socilist country? There seems to be a huge disconnect between what people know what the difference is.

Just an example. Many extreme right wing Americans believe that the Nazi party was left wing because they were known as nationalist socialts. Ergo, they believe that Hitler was a left winger. How idiotic and asinine. From that logic East Germany would been a democracy sinceit's official name was the GDR. German Democratic Republic. Akin to today's Republic of North Korea.
Socialism in any form is to use your term, "left-wing", so what is your point?

[Rollo]

Socialism in any form is to use your term, "left-wing", so what is your point?

Communism applies to a whole range of collectivist politics. Socialism is a very broadly defined word that might have two definitions.
The Soviets were Authoritarian Collectivists as opposed to collectivism that a hippie-commune might employ. France even sometimes likes to call itself a socialist country, so that blurs the word further.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Cuba is an Authoritarian State-Collectivist country, which means that it sits in the top left corner of the Political Compass.

[Bob Riebe]

Wrong again. Finland and Sweden aren't members of NATO, so both have to pay their defense by themselves.

The American military spending is an overkill in a typical American way compared to what their potential enemies have and spend.
The Soviets greatest failure was they put quantity of defense items over quality of defense items.
their gear was better than anyone except the U.S. and if they had put more money into the quality of what they built, they would have been very close to being heads-up equal to the U.S. although our government system, at least through the eighties, gave us the advantage of being at least one-half step ahead in having the newest and bestest.

Their system put them at the mercy of being run by community organizers.

[Eki]

The Soviets greatest failure was they put quantity of defense items over quality of defense items.
their gear was better than anyone except the U.S. and if they had put more money into the quality of what they built, they would have been very close to being heads-up equal to the U.S. although our government system, at least through the eighties, gave us the advantage of being at least one-half step ahead in having the newest and bestest.

Their system put them at the mercy of being run by community organizers.
The US military spending was understandable during the Soviet times. There really was an arms race, but there isn't anymore, so they could easily cut back some military spending. Plus the threat is different now than it was back then. For example, an unmanned drone is far better in fighting terrorism than a stealth bomber, and much cheaper.

[race aficionado]

The US military spending was understandable during the Soviet times. There really was an arms race, but there isn't anymore, so they could easily cut back some military spending. Plus the threat is different now than it was back then. For example, an unmanned drone is far better in fighting terrorism than a stealth bomber, and much cheaper.

. . . . and they have soooo many nuclear bombs . . . .

When they need only a couple (or one really big one, which they have) to get us all killed.

It's really nuts.
:dozey:

[markabilly]

back to the subject of this thread :rolleyes:


500,000 government workers to get laid off in Cuba

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/cuba-to-cut-500000-government-workers/19632611

:eek:



sorry to have been quilty of hijacking this thread back to the original topic.......

[glauistean]

Socialism in any form is to use your term, "left-wing", so what is your point?
More to the point, what's yours? The boogeyman man of socialism is not out to get you and sneak in. It is already here.

[Bob Riebe]

More to the point, what's yours? The boogeyman man of socialism is not out to get you and sneak in. It is already here.
Ah you do not have a point, as you cannot back-up your rhetoric, or you are ignorant of facts.
You are simply trolling.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The US military spending was understandable during the Soviet times. There really was an arms race, but there isn't anymore, so they could easily cut back some military spending. Plus the threat is different now than it was back then. For example, an unmanned drone is far better in fighting terrorism than a stealth bomber, and much cheaper.

Shockingly, I will agree with you partially on this one Eki. I do think the US has not always spent wisely on military matters. That said, they also have more geo political commitments. Is South Korea still a free democracy without a tripwire of 50000 or so American soldiers on the 38th?

You take away the war with Iraq and you still had a logical operation to deal with in Afghanistan. I don't think their military could pare back that much when faced with the many weird and unique committments. I don't think the USA should have to be the policeman of the world in a sense, but in the face of the weak response and milquetoast actions of many of the nations in Europe towards terrorist threats, economic threats, and yes now something like Iran; I think it still may be too soon for the USA to back down.

Whether you like it or not Eki, without them, you would have been speaking Russian likely by now against your will. The threat of MAD kept major wars from flaring up; and the USSR's territorial ambitions wouldn't have been so careful if there was no major democracy able to take them on.

Underestimating the American's capacity to come back and find ways to finance their ambitions is also silly. They fought WW2 and still had the money to basically rebuild the economy of Western Europe. What they are facing now is more serious, but not irreversible...

[Eki]

Whether you like it or not Eki, without them, you would have been speaking Russian likely by now against your will. The threat of MAD kept major wars from flaring up; and the USSR's territorial ambitions wouldn't have been so careful if there was no major democracy able to take them on.

It's not about liking but about believing. I don't believe it. The US did nothing when Soviet tanks rolled to Hungary in 1956 and to Czechoslovakia in 1968. I believe they would have done nothing if Soviet tanks had rolled to Finland either.
It was the resistance that Finland put up in 1939-1944 together with our friendly relationship with the Soviet Union after the war that kept them away. They realized the benefits of invading Finland again wouldn't have been worth the costs. They simply benefited more from Finland as a friend as Finland as an enemy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's not about liking but about believing. I don't believe it. The US did nothing when Soviet tanks rolled to Hungary in 1956 and to Czechoslovakia in 1968. I believe they would have done nothing if Soviet tanks had rolled to Finland either.
It was the resistance that Finland put up in 1939-1944 together with our friendly relationship with the Soviet Union after the war that kept them away. They realized the benefits of invading Finland again wouldn't have been worth the costs. They simply benefited more from Finland as a friend as Finland as an enemy.

In otherwards, you had nothing they wanted....

The fact remains, The Russians "invaded" Hungary and the Czech's but they were already there and that part of the world was under their more or less control. Eki, that little thing Churchill called the "Iron Curtain" was a de facto line dividing Europe into their side and our side....and the Russians invading and attacking those people was an unpleasant reminder that they were there all along and that part of Europe was their domain as was drawn up at Yalta.

Finland was on the other hand, not part of that. Finland was the only democratic nation to border the USSR that wasn't invaded. It means two things. You guys gave them such a bloody nose that they didn't want to go back, or two, they felt keeping Finland out of the alliances one way or the other would serve as an example of the USSR's "friendly" ways.

This by the way Eki is the Same USSR that killed 10's of millions before WW2, during WW2 and after WW2...millions of their OWN CITIZENS. Believe me, if they wanted Finland and figured it wouldn't provoke a serious response from the USA and NATO, you would be speaking Russian.

The only thing The USSR feared was internal dissent, and American nuclear might....