US, Cuba seek to normalize relations

[Bomb#20]

$15 per month may seem like it's a cheap and exploitive wage but it's not because socialism!

Plus those cigars for Wall Street fat cats aren't going to roll themselves.

It is socialism because the guy you always believe told you it was.

Socialism is not dictatorship.

That is capitalism.

If you object to using the word "socialism" to describe Cuba et al., what's your word for "What you get when you give power to people who tell you they'll give you socialism"?

 

[ksen]

dumbass

 

[dismal]

What's your definition of socialism?

What's yours? You're the one that brought it up so I'm assuming you had something in mind when you posted it.

I'm OK with the one in the dictionary. When the state/collective controls the means of production. Like in Cuba.

Now, what's yours?

 

[Bomb#20]

Yep...about 2 decades overdue. But for internal US politics this farce would have ended years ago.

^^^ This ^^^. Human rights?!? We have diplomatic relations with Saudi friggin' Arabia!

 

[ksen]

What's yours? You're the one that brought it up so I'm assuming you had something in mind when you posted it.

I'm OK with the one in the dictionary. When the state/collective controls the means of production. Like in Cuba.

Now, what's yours?

collective ownership of the means of production

 

[dismal]

I'm OK with the one in the dictionary. When the state/collective controls the means of production. Like in Cuba.

Now, what's yours?

collective ownership of the means of production

And the state is not a collective in your mind?

 

[ksen]

the state is a collective for sure but it's not the entirety of potential collectives

 

[dismal]

Yep...about 2 decades overdue. But for internal US politics this farce would have ended years ago.

^^^ This ^^^. Human rights?!? We have diplomatic relations with Saudi friggin' Arabia!

We've had trade relations with Vietnam for years and we fought a war with them in which 50,000 Americans were killed in the interim.

The reason there have not been trade relations with Cuba (across 9 presidents, including Jimmy Carter) is because Cuba made no effort to have them. Castro preferred having someone to blame over having a trade partner.

Remember, no where in his little book does it say you need free trade with bougie capitalists to prosper. His book says they come in and pillage your resources.

- - - Updated - - -

the state is a collective for sure but it's not the entirety of potential collectives

OK, then what is your objection to Cuba being called socialist? Do you not feel the state has taken sufficient control of the means of production?

You object to the people selling fruit by the side of the road or something?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

^^^ This ^^^. Human rights?!? We have diplomatic relations with Saudi friggin' Arabia!

We've had trade relations with Vietnam for years and we fought a war with them in which 50,000 Americans were killed in the interim.

The reason there have not been trade relations with Cuba (across 9 presidents, including Jimmy Carter) is because Cuba made no effort to have them. Castro preferred having someone to blame over having a trade partner.

Remember, no where in his little book does it say you need free trade with bougie capitalists to prosper. His book says they come in and pillage your resources.

And it was done on Obama's watch so it is automatically a bad decision.

 

[dismal]

We've had trade relations with Vietnam for years and we fought a war with them in which 50,000 Americans were killed in the interim.

The reason there have not been trade relations with Cuba (across 9 presidents, including Jimmy Carter) is because Cuba made no effort to have them. Castro preferred having someone to blame over having a trade partner.

Remember, no where in his little book does it say you need free trade with bougie capitalists to prosper. His book says they come in and pillage your resources.

And it was done on Obama's watch so it is automatically a bad decision.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[ksen]

the state is a collective for sure but it's not the entirety of potential collectives

OK, then what is your objection to Cuba being called socialist?

Call it whatever you want. What I object to is blaming "socialism" for workers only making $15/month. That's more of a symptom of having a powerful person, or group of people, having the power to keep wages artificially low. That can occur in any kind of system when sufficient safeguards aren't put into place to prevent the concentration of power into too few hands.

 

[dismal]

OK, then what is your objection to Cuba being called socialist?

Call it whatever you want. What I object to is blaming "socialism" for workers only making $15/month. That's more of a symptom of having a powerful person, or group of people, having the power to keep wages artificially low. That can occur in any kind of system when sufficient safeguards aren't put into place to prevent the concentration of power into too few hands.

Ok, so your position is that it is Cuba is socialism, but that the collective that controls the means of production pays people $15 per month is some sort of unrelated phenomenon?

And when you say wages in Cuba are "kept artificially low" my question is "versus what?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

^^^ This ^^^. Human rights?!? We have diplomatic relations with Saudi friggin' Arabia!

We've had trade relations with Vietnam for years and we fought a war with them in which 50,000 Americans were killed in the interim.

The reason there have not been trade relations with Cuba (across 9 presidents, including Jimmy Carter) is because Cuba made no effort to have them.

Was that before or after the assassination attempts and/or the destabilization attempts of Cuba?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And it was done on Obama's watch so it is automatically a bad decision.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

So you agree it is a good decision.

 

[ksen]

Call it whatever you want. What I object to is blaming "socialism" for workers only making $15/month. That's more of a symptom of having a powerful person, or group of people, having the power to keep wages artificially low. That can occur in any kind of system when sufficient safeguards aren't put into place to prevent the concentration of power into too few hands.

Ok, so your position is that it is Cuba is socialism,

My position was that you can call Cuba whatever you want.

but that the collective that controls the means of production pays people $15 per month is some sort of unrelated phenomenon?

Well, since forces to keep wages as low as possible exists across many different types of economic systems I'd say that "socialism" isn't the pertinent factor.

Norway is much more socialist than the united states and workers there have higher wages than workers in the US. Would you also blame that on socialism?

What matters are the controls in place to keep the powerful from exploiting the weak.

And when you say wages in Cuba are "kept artificially low" my question is "versus what?"

Versus what the wages would be if they had been allowed to naturally evolve.

 

[dismal]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

So you agree it is a good decision.

I believe free trade is a good thing, and Cuba would be good to adopt it both internally and externally. Internally probably being the more serious issue.

I don't think it matters much for the US one way or the other. We'll survive either way. But on principle I favor free trade. Even if it mostly benefits cigar smoking Wall Street fat cats and pervy sex tourists.

The only question is whether this is the right tactic to bring about the desired end state. I haven't followed it close enough to know.

 

[Derec]

pervy sex tourists.

Which raises the obvious question: are the hookers all state employees or do they form the most capitalistic segment of the Cuban economy?

 

[dismal]

Ok, so your position is that it is Cuba is socialism,

My position was that you can call Cuba whatever you want.

But it clearly falls within your definition of socialism, no? So we both call it a socialist country.

Norway is much more socialist than the united states and workers there have higher wages than workers in the US.

What collective owns the means of production in Norway?

And when you say wages in Cuba are "kept artificially low" my question is "versus what?"

Versus what the wages would be if they had been allowed to naturally evolve.

Wages naturally evolve if they are allowed to? How?

 

[ksen]

I believe free trade is a good thing, and Cuba would be good to adopt it both internally and externally.

Cuba has trade agreements with many countries already.

- - - Updated - - -

My position was that you can call Cuba whatever you want.

But it clearly falls within your definition of socialism, no? So we both call it a socialist country.

The Castro brothers controlling the means of productions is not socialism. So no, I wouldn't call it a socialist country.

 

[dismal]

I believe free trade is a good thing, and Cuba would be good to adopt it both internally and externally.

Cuba has trade agreements with many countries already.

OK. Doesn't help that much if you don't produce stuff does it? Hence my comment that it probably matters more that they adopt free trade internally.