The Díaz-Canel executive approves a series of measures that include budget cuts, equal pricing policy and readjustments aimed at ‘correcting distortions’
Not one downvoter has explained how you can have privately and corporate-owned luxury resorts in a non-capitalist country. Can’t imagine why.
Oooh I love this false dichotomy because if every government that allows for any form of corporate owned private property to exist is capitalist then we can ascribe basically all evil to capitalism. Heck even the USSR was capitalist by your logic. Capitalists did the holodomor.
That is in no way the same. Have you even read Capital or the Communist Manifesto?
Getting pissed off at me that private ownership and profit are not things that belong in communism is silly. Based on that argument, the U.S. isn’t a socialist country, it’s a communist one.
I’m a different person. I’m not pissed, I’m just making casual conversation.
Communism and capitalism as they were described in the literature both died in 93 and 08 respectively.
Just like the current capitalist system in the US cannot function without massive subsidies and bailouts, I’d imagine the current communist systems require private enterprises to keep parts of their system functioning.
Every mode of production contains elements of its former, according to Marx, exactly because we have to understand human development and our current paradigm through historical materialism.
To say that a communist nation cannot contain capitalist components as its non fundamental mode of production is as stupid as saying Britain is not capitalist because they have a king.
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.
The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?
I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.
Pretty easily, actually. Socialist states don’t exist in a vacuum, they need money for trade and resources like every one else. This reality is why all actual socialist ideologies are globalist in ambition btw. It doesn’t do your socialized industry any good if you have to buy your materials from a slave mine.
Ideology alone won’t buy Cuba medicine, or industrial tools. The fact is that the hemisphere they’re in is dominated by America and capitalism is something you either work around or starve under.
It’d be nice if Cuba could have afforded to build the resorts as worker co-ops or whatever but it’s an economic miracle that they exist as a nation at all with the eternal enmity of America trying to choke them to death for seventy years.
Only a delusional purist won’t acknowledge that it takes money and resources to build things, and all the foreign investors want a, you know, investment. Socialism is almost always considered a goal to transition to, and not an absolute requirement to be enacted day one.
Unless you want to live on an anarcho-primitavist farm somewhere anyways, and, honestly, they’re the ones most likely to survive this coming collapse so I guess they’ll either get the last laugh or die to the raiders like everyone else.
And yet private industry which enriched corporations was not a feature of communist countries in the 20th century. They didn’t need to enrich individuals and create profit for private businesses.
Those aren’t nationalized resort hotels. Nationalized resort hotels could make lots of money from tourists too.
I tend to agree, but there’s a pretty large difference in the resources available to China, Russia, and even Vietnam and North Korea and those available to the island nation of Cuba.
I don’t like it, but I also don’t like dictatorships, so they’re going to do what they’re going to do. It’s not there isn’t plenty of socialist theory that revolves around the idea of transitionary states and regulated liberalization.
Well then they lost that war a long time ago, as the long line of beach resorts across the Cuban coastline would show you.
Just because Americans can’t (easily) go to them, doesn’t mean privately-owned places like this don’t exist there:
Edit: Not one downvoter has explained how you can have privately and corporate-owned luxury resorts in a non-capitalist country. Can’t imagine why.
Oooh I love this false dichotomy because if every government that allows for any form of corporate owned private property to exist is capitalist then we can ascribe basically all evil to capitalism. Heck even the USSR was capitalist by your logic. Capitalists did the holodomor.
How is this a dichotomy? How does private ownership and profit exist in a communist state? That’s pretty much the definition of capitalism.
I understand wanting Cuba to be a communist country, but it’s no more communist than China.
You tell me where Marx says private ownership and enriching corporate profits are features of communism.
Does the United States having food stamps and public education make it a socialist country?
That is in no way the same. Have you even read Capital or the Communist Manifesto?
Getting pissed off at me that private ownership and profit are not things that belong in communism is silly. Based on that argument, the U.S. isn’t a socialist country, it’s a communist one.
I’m a different person. I’m not pissed, I’m just making casual conversation.
Communism and capitalism as they were described in the literature both died in 93 and 08 respectively.
Just like the current capitalist system in the US cannot function without massive subsidies and bailouts, I’d imagine the current communist systems require private enterprises to keep parts of their system functioning.
Then I guess it isn’t right to call Cuba communist, as much as that pisses some people off.
If communism requires private enterprise, it isn’t communism. The word ‘communism’ comes from ‘communal’ That is not communal. Find another word.
I agree, and honestly a rebranding would go a long way to improving its appeal to the average person
Every mode of production contains elements of its former, according to Marx, exactly because we have to understand human development and our current paradigm through historical materialism.
To say that a communist nation cannot contain capitalist components as its non fundamental mode of production is as stupid as saying Britain is not capitalist because they have a king.
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
Were there really in accordance with the definition you are trying to enforce?
Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.
The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?
I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.
The USSR was evidently state capitalist.
Yeah, it was a giant company town.
deleted by creator
Pretty easily, actually. Socialist states don’t exist in a vacuum, they need money for trade and resources like every one else. This reality is why all actual socialist ideologies are globalist in ambition btw. It doesn’t do your socialized industry any good if you have to buy your materials from a slave mine.
Ideology alone won’t buy Cuba medicine, or industrial tools. The fact is that the hemisphere they’re in is dominated by America and capitalism is something you either work around or starve under.
It’d be nice if Cuba could have afforded to build the resorts as worker co-ops or whatever but it’s an economic miracle that they exist as a nation at all with the eternal enmity of America trying to choke them to death for seventy years.
Only a delusional purist won’t acknowledge that it takes money and resources to build things, and all the foreign investors want a, you know, investment. Socialism is almost always considered a goal to transition to, and not an absolute requirement to be enacted day one.
Unless you want to live on an anarcho-primitavist farm somewhere anyways, and, honestly, they’re the ones most likely to survive this coming collapse so I guess they’ll either get the last laugh or die to the raiders like everyone else.
And yet private industry which enriched corporations was not a feature of communist countries in the 20th century. They didn’t need to enrich individuals and create profit for private businesses.
Those aren’t nationalized resort hotels. Nationalized resort hotels could make lots of money from tourists too.
I tend to agree, but there’s a pretty large difference in the resources available to China, Russia, and even Vietnam and North Korea and those available to the island nation of Cuba.
I don’t like it, but I also don’t like dictatorships, so they’re going to do what they’re going to do. It’s not there isn’t plenty of socialist theory that revolves around the idea of transitionary states and regulated liberalization.