Castro Was Not A Great Leader, and Communism/Socialism is Not Great Either.

a reply to: Kettu

socialism cannot be implemented into capitalism because socialism would destroy capitalism... Under socialism people can't have private property.

In fact the socialist website "www.workers.org" states that their goal, the goal of socialists, is to destroy capitalism...

...
This article is not about reforming capitalism. It’s an economic system, not just a policy that can be changed by putting in new CEOs or changing politicians and laws. Capitalism is driven by profits. The search for profits drives it to expand; the need to make profits also drives it to overproduce and implode into crisis. These cycles have been recurring for more than two centuries and no one has ever figured out a way to fix the system. When there’s a really major contraction of markets, capitalism “fixes” itself by destroying productive capacity—often in major wars, snuffing out the lives of millions of people and decimating their lands.

So this isn’t about trying to fix capitalism. It’s about getting rid of it entirely. But the next question is, what can replace it? What can get production going again, but this time on a rational basis, where everyone can get jobs making what society needs? Where the real wealth they create working together benefits everyone, not just a small class of super-rich?

The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.

Here’s where there is the most confusion about socialism. Those who really do benefit from capitalism will lie and tell you that under socialism you can’t have your own PERSONAL property. You can’t own your own home or your own boat, etc.
...

www.workers.org...

Well, that is the website of the communist party. But here is a pamphlet from 1911 from the socialist newspaper "Daily People". Even though the socialist Daniel De Leon wrote a lot of BS, the only truth he wrote in that pamphlet is

...
International Socialism demands the collective ownership of all the necessariesfor production.
...

www.slp.org...


Quite an oxymoron you made by claiming socialism can exist in a capitalist society... It can't because under a true socialist system there can be no private property... Socialists and communists LOVE to claim that under socialism or communism "the people own the means of production", which is BS because people cannot own private property under socialism or communism... The state controls all infrastructure and all means of production under socialism/communism.

a reply to: projectvxn

The distinction is that under communism, no one owns anything at all -- not even personal possessions. Everything is property of the community, the "commune" that makes up "communism".

You don't own your house, your car or even bike under communism.

As far as I know, people in Sweden can buy and own their own cars.

a reply to: Kettu

You are STILL confusing government services with socialism.

I can wait until you catch up.

a reply to: Kettu

Venezuela seems pretty Comunist, you don't own your house, your land or your car you just occupy it, of course the redistribution is not complete and that is just what the government has assign, let then work more and all will be redistributed.

a reply to: Kettu

Sweden is NOT a socialist country...

...
To begin with, explains Swedish scholar Nima Sanandaji, the affluence and cultural norms upon which Scandinavia’s social-democratic policies rest are not the product of socialism. In “Scandinavian Unexceptionalism,” a penetrating new book published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, Sanandaji shows that the Nordic nations’ prosperity “developed during periods characterized by free-market policies, low or moderate taxes, and limited state involvement in the economy.”
...

www.bostonglobe.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

*ahem*

Socialists, however, typically see capitalism as a steppingstone toward the ideal state and believe that socialism can develop out of a capitalistic society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.

Link

You are confusing socialism and communism. Private property ownership exists under socialism, not under communism.

*sigh*

Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.

There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.

-Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review

Link

a reply to: projectvxn

Economic regulations that benefit the society by taking back power from a few and giving it to the people? That's socialism and a form of government service.

a reply to: Kettu

Economic regulations that benefit the society by taking back power from a few and giving it to the people? That's socialism and a form of government service.

That's a cute little quip you'd find on occupy democrats facebook page. But it doesn't match reality.

a reply to: Kettu

Land is part of "property in the means of production"... You can produce harvests in land, hence under socialism you cannot own land...

Socialists/communists LOVE to dress in rhetoric nonsense their ideology which has caused more death and suffering than any other regime in the 20th and 21st century.

a reply to: Kettu

Socialism doesn't take power from a few... It takes power from the people, and takes all property from EVERYONE. No one can own anything that can produce, only the state/government can own it claiming it does it "for the people"...

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: Kettu

Venezuela seems pretty Comunist, you don't own your house, your land or your car you just occupy it, of course the redistribution is not complete and that is just what the government has assign, let then work more and all will be redistributed.

There aren't any true examples today of true communism OR true socialism.

In practice, communism borders totalitarianism.

In practice, socialism is expressed as democratic socialism (see Western Europe).

And to confuse matters more, the term socialism existed long before Marx (Plato even used it in The Republic) -- and he used his personal definition of it. He even disagreed with others that came before him about the term.

People can call their country whatever the hell they want, but it doesn't make it so. China might call itself communist, but its anything but communist. Cuba wasn't an example of socialism or communism either. The same with Venezuela.

Also, America isn't truly pure capitalist either.

That's the thing, the world isn't absolutes and black/white. Every single sociopolitical organization in history has been an amalgamation, a jumble of disparate systems making up a whole.

You can even go one step beyond communism and take it all the way to pure anarchy. That's the most extreme version of "no property" as anarchists view property as theft. You aren't a true anarchist unless you believe that property is theft.

a reply to: Kettu

Cuba is not a Marxist/Leninist communist regime because "it just wanted to call itself that"... Neither was the U.S.S.R. a socialist/communist regime under Lenin and Stalin simply because they wanted to call it that... Neither is China a socislist/communist regime "simply because they want to call it that"... Those regimes are socialist/communist because they implemented socialist and communist policies and enforced socialism and communism...

a reply to: Kettu

There aren't any examples because none that claim to be Comunist works, and people that believe in it are not willing to call a failure communism.

My family had land in Venezuela since the 60s after Chavez the land titles changed from propertary to occupants, the state is the owner of the land; anyone with more than 3000 hectares was expropriated and the land redistributed, but the new occupants are not owners either.

After expropriating all construction companies only the estate build houses, you pay for a house but you are not the owner, the estate is and your family can't inhererit the house.

There is no longer a local car production, the government imports and sells but again they have said they can remove the car and give it to someone in the best interest of the nation.

All but one mayor food industry was expropriated and controlled by the government, none produce now and the estate has to import all.

According to the government they are the people so the commune owns all, if that is not your definition of communism I don't know what is.

If you don't believe me, they have said millions times there is not private property

Despite all the negatives, Cuba still makes the best cigars and, Americans regularly avail themselves of the health care.

Castro wasn't all bad, just as he wasn't all good.

a reply to: Kettu

The 10 Planks of Communism according to Karl Marx...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

www.gutenberg.org...

BTW, as for the "claim" that there is free education in communism...BS, you have to work as a CHILD for the state which is how "education is paid"... Obama and democrats have wanted to implement this by making mandatory service requirements.

...
Section 6104 of The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act requires that a commission be established to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
...

www.govtrack.us...

It's the same type of Combination of education with industrial production that Karl Marx envisioned socialists and communists do to their children.

I know this thread is an offshoot from the one saying Fidel was great, not in the good/bad sense but in the grandiose, which the OP missed but, I will say this; I don't trust the word of Cubans from families that had the escape Cuba. They are biased.

I will take the words of the man who said “The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore".

That, for a leader, takes a certain amount of honesty.

It says the same thing but for very different reasons.

All I can say is that many Cubans and many non-Cubans who lived there seem to speak and feel very fondly of Castro. Ever consider that the US wants you to believe he is a bad guy? I personally don't know much about the guy myself, but just some observations from the news.

a reply to: daskakik

I don't trust the word of Cubans from families that had the escape Cuba. They are biased.

If you have to escape a place then you are a prisoner.

a reply to: daskakik

Wow...so you "don't trust the words of Chinese people who have escaped or tried to escape China?" You "don't trust the word from holocaust survivors that escaped either?"...

You have to seriously reconsider your "compassion" for your fellow man when you want to claim " you don't want to trust people who have escaped dictatorships because you think they are biased"... Are you insane?...

The only biased view comes from someone like you who didn't experience what people have suffered and don't want to believe us...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

A dictator is never a leader. A dictator is a master and everyone else, slaves. Saying a dictator is "good" is like saying there is a nice cancer, a "good" cancer.

Communism can only exist under a dictatorship.

When Castro achieved room temp, the world became a better place.