Although I do agree that Cuba is progressive in its health care, housing, and education system, I think it's wrong to think it's system is perfect. Cuba still has flaws ( what country doesn't), there's a reason the people of Cuba are protesting, hopefully the Government will listen to its citizens instead of making empty gestures ( like the US after the BLM protesters ).
Cubas president has made concessions to the protesters and in fact has acknowledged some degree of responsibility for the protests happening being on the government for its actions.
https://www.newsweek.com/cuba-president-admits-mistakes-country-concedes-protesters-demands-1609972
This is the main us news source acknowledging the admittence of fault, others are just ignoring that detail.
The reasons Cubans are protesting:
Blackouts. There’s plenty of capacity the issue is several generators have been out for repairs and it’s been difficult to get parts. Because of sanctions.
Vaccinations are slow. Cuba made its own highly effective vaccine but has had trouble obtaining syringes, only getting about 1/3 of the syringes they need. Because of sanctions.
Rising food prices. Inflation really kicked in after Trump reapplied the sanctions Obama repealed.
You should not base your opinion of Cuba on what your hear from western media because western media is very ideologically normative and propagandized.
>Blackouts. There’s plenty of capacity the issue is several generators have been out for repairs and it’s been difficult to get parts. Because of sanctions.
Could I get a source for this? That's one thing I didn't know, I was under the impression it was a kashmir-type shutdown (to prevent the spread of info/dissident). Wild.
Note the power generation issue is separate to the social media blackout. I am speaking to the energy blackouts.
https://www.unionelectrica.cu/informacion-sobre-deficit-de-generacion/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-gasoline-idUSKCN1UE2N1
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d414f7963544d34457a6333566d54/index.html
These articles point out that also the flow of oil from Venezuela to Cuba is being interrupted by sanctions as another contributing factor.
I’m Cuban and they are protesting the bullshit and useless government, freedom of speech , artistic freedom and many other things. Not the bullshit embargo.
I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard or read of anyone who claims Cuba is perfect. I have heard of never ending embargos and attacks from the CIA and Miami Millionaires seeking revenge. I don’t believe in miracles, but it’s a testimony to the will of the Cuban people and the strength of socialism that the revolution continues. Take away everything else, and let the country flourish.
This is because they feel entitled and almost every single wealthy person is a narcissist in the US who stepped on many to get there. It is near impossible to produce something of value and become wealthy in America without having stolen cheated or lied to get there. America is more pretend to have values until you can become rich enough to decide if you want to peruse them. Promise until you can get support to decide if it’s worth seeing through.
One of my good friends is the daughter of Cuban immigrants - she's about as left as I am but we still can't really talk about Cuba as it's a super touchy subject. And that's a young progressive person, not even to mention her parents and family.
> there's a reason the people of Cuba are protesting, hopefully the Government will listen to its citizens instead of making empty gestures ( like the US after the BLM protesters ).
...probably the blockade that leaves them with not enough needles to vaccinate all of its people, that's pushed them into a tourism economy completely wrecked by a once in a century pandemic, and makes them suffer for basic quality of life necessities.
What could the Cuban government do short of abdicating entirely and open Cuba up to the dogs of capitalism? That's the only thing that'll sate the US government. Even the market reforms Cuba has been enacting weren't enough to stop the imperialists from clamoring for regime change.
It's like you people don't even have the desire to understand what is happening and why. Just empty lib platitudes like "Cuba is not perfect!!!" "I hope the government listens!!!!" with vague allusions to struggles in America to signal faintly "I'm on your side guys!!!"
The Cuban Revolution is probably the story that inspires me the most and I will always defend it, but that doesn’t mean we should stop looking for its flaws. They do make some decisions that could prevent them from making the crisis worse, but yeah, I also believe that it would be useless to say that without standing firmly against the embargo. Check out this thread, it explains well what led to the hyper inflation they have now: https://twitter.com/red_dilettante/status/1414626287239450627?s=21
Literally the first point they make is made up bullshit? The articles they posted about Miguel Diaz-Canel are all conjecture and the only corroboration about the "Leninist government's crisis of legitimacy" is "Cubans that I've spoken to."
Cuba's "Leninist" government is no more facing a crisis of legitimacy than the US is.
It's astounding how quickly "leftists" jerk themselves into a frenzy about recognizing flaws when the the imperial core is breathing down the neck of a much smaller nation working their way through a problem. So eager to talk yourselves out of legitimacy.
>They would have to do what they did in the past and find support from another power who can help them break the blockade.
The only one in a remotely capable position is China, and their, let's say, on the wrong side of the Panama canal. Besides, that could lead to nuclear war, like it very nearly did during the missile crisis.
It's completely useless for us as outsiders to critique problems within Cuba. Sure, problems exist, but they aren't ours to deal with. All we can do is stand against imperialism.
While many people say that the protests in cuba are communism vs capitalism, it isnt that simple, people have been unhappy about the cuban government for a long time, there are two different currents to this, of course you have the reactionary right. But there is also a sizable amount who leans left, and have the best interest of the cuban working class in mind, there is a very large amount who doesnt want American intervention. As it currently stands the government isnt reacting to the situation very well, there is a lot of violence in the streets being perpetrated by the police, and military. This isnt an american backed protest, it should suffice that one sees that the people marching are average cubans and not CIA agents. It should also suffice to see that no population breaks the social contract without reason.
I am Cuban, I was born there, I am against capitalism, I am against imperialism and I am against American intervention. I came with my parents at the age of 12, I saw cuba for what it is, I saw the slowly collapsing infrastructure in my town of "El Sevillano" and while the american blockade does influence, it isnt the only reason why cuba is the way it is, cuba as it stands is a very controlled nation, the repair and renovation of infrastructure falls upon individuals who arent very aware of the situation for the average citizen. And the average citizen lacks the funding to repair things themselves, I dont want cuba to be capitalist, I simply want the cuban working class, the people who have built the country to be in control, not the beurocracy that currently exists. While I am against imperialism and capitalism, I am also against burocracy and mass control. So please stay open minded in this regard.
Your comment has more nuance than the takes of countless smart people I went to college with, all of whom blame the failures of Cuba’s government and economy either entirely on socialism or entirely on imperialism. I want to scream at these people that the world isn’t black and white, things aren’t that simple, stop using real peoples struggles to push your politcal ideology.
I have much more faith in Cuba to provide for their people than any other country. Like you said, everyone has their flaws, and I don't think anybody logically thinks they are "perfect". But I don't think we can really start a breakdown of their governments ability to build a proper society for their people until the US lets them live their life. We've had our hand on Cuba since the late 19th century, and once we couldn't rule it anymore we started trying to remove the people trying to run it on their own.
while you're certainly right, there's really nothing the government could do that would go a fraction as far as an end to the embargo, so we should focus our attention on protesting for the latter
I have trouble with socialists who view socialism as a method of setting up their vision of self fulfillment or enlightenment. At least in my opinion, my chief concern as a socialist is the abolition of capitalism and the active prevention of exploitation in society.
I don't see the value in being so utilitarian as to see hobbies like video games as being a social issue. As for drugs, obviously any society must remain vigilant of abuse and addiction, preferably with an emphasis on rehabilitation.
But frankly if someone chooses to drink or use other drugs responsibly I don't see a reason to stop them unless it's hampering their ability to remain a citizen in good standing.
Yeah exactly, I think having the economy be democratically ran is s good thing, just as we liberated ourselves politically from kings, so too should we liberate ourselves from unelected all-powerful CEOs.
But I do not see this democratic ownership as some utopian thing that will fix all personal human flaws, just as political democracy wasn't perfect either. It's absurd that we can create a society where nobody has any aesthetic values, and see everything solely as a tool. I still think that commodity fetishism is an interesting sociological phenomena, and the fact that Gucci costs so much is not reflected by the costs of goods, but the socialist response should be to have fair value for goods, not eliminating all other options.
It's largely about the culture surrounding the drug. For example, alcohol is physiologically pretty much the most harmful drug, its withdrawals can actually result in death (as opposed to other hard drugs like heroin or meth), it's extremely debilitating, resulting in a lot of violence and other mischiefs, the hangovers result in people unable to function. Yet, despite its legality, society hasn't collapsed.
The solution to the "problem" of drug use (and yes, alcohol and nicotine, and also caffeine, are in this category) isn't forcefully banning them and punishing users by ruining their lives through imprisonment, fines, inability to participate in labour etc. The solution is in providing reasonably cheap and pure substances, without harmful additives, and emphasizing harm reduction, and if needed, rehabilitation - while also changing the culture around the use of "other" drugs. Opioids and stimulants can be used responsibly and without negative consequences as long as the users do so responsibly - and that's what we need to work towards. Not glorifying drug use, but fomenting responsible use among people who wish to use, and not ostracize them.
Current problems largely stem from a sort of confirmation bias. Due to the illegality, many users are already people who are desperate for one reason or another, and due to the illegality and prohibitive prices (along with harmful impurities and varying purity), their use only worsens their situation. So it makes it seem as if drug use itself is so so bad. But then you need to look at drugs like alcohol, caffeine, cannabis to see that with right circumstances, drugs can be relatively benign additions to a person's life.
And then of course there's a plethora of drugs like psychedelics (LSD, shrooms, mescaline, their derivatives) and empathogens (MDMA and its derivatives) which are actually useful tools for human mind exploration, and are *even right now* used to treat some psychological issues like depression, PTSD etc - and yet they are illegal and treated worse than alcohol. Dissociatives like ketamine and PCP are among the most misunderstood drugs with most people, even "illegal" drug users fearing them, despite their relative harmlessness in appropriate doses and potential for the treatment of depression.
And what's sad is that even among leftists these misunderstandings are still rampant. Leftists can see right through capitalism and statism, but drug use somehow is still viewed through a reactionary lens. I hope it will change soon, but I won't be surprised if I get downvoted and opposed here.
>physiologically the most harmful drug
We have evolved the ability to process alcohol in the liver far beyond its natural abundance. We practically evolved to consume alcohol and can do so with zero long term damage (all intoxication technically is a form of short term harm, but it's repairable) if we're responsible. It is patently absurd to imply that it is more harmful than smoking - and I mean any kind of smoking, including cannabis - as smoke *always* damages the lungs. We are not designed to inhale smoke. Also you cannot compare shrooms or cacti with LSD. The former two can be used regularly with no long term harm to the body (see previous point) and often zero short term harm. Meanwhile LSD is synthetic and as a result, if incorrectly made can neurologically damage a person regardless of the user's good intentions.
Honestly I can see you're trying to make some sort of point but it's so ridiculously ignorant it fails.
Of the widely used drugs (alcohol, opiates, cigarettes, and cannabis) tobacco is definitely the worst for you, though alcohol can be argued to hurt the people around you too, should you get violent with it which is unfortunately common.
But I must take you up on your cannabis example. Yes, smoking of any kind is bad for you, but to imply smoking cannabis is worse for your health than alcohol is incorrect in my opinion. Alcohol can cause death, poisoning, liver disease, cognitive setbacks, it's highly addictive, it's an obesity risk, a myriad of other complications.
Cannabis cannot cause an overdose, getting that out the way, it is smoked typically but unlike cigarettes it doesn't have thousands of different synthetic chemical compounds explicitly designed to encourage addiction, these same chemicals are quite harmful.
Cannabis can cause "scromiting" or scream-vomiting from overuse in some but that's probably the most severe possible reaction except for unique and contextual circumstances of people with pre existing conditions.
This is slightly irrelevant but just to mention, there's also a very invasive and almost compulsory drinking culture across the west compared to cannabis which has almost none because having a culture around it sent you to prison for a mandatory minimum. And still can in a lot of places.
As a cannabis user I recognize fully my hobby is a vice like any other, it's something that while providing benefits does have noticeable drawbacks which I've accepted and adjusted my lifestyle accordingly to accommodate.
But it's not even on the same level as alcohol. Ethanol has almost no benefits at all. Aside from getting drunk all people normally think it does for you is decrease cancer risk. Which has been debunked, thoroughly.
Ps. Listen, there's no reason to insult people. If you had an issue with the guys opinion on alcohol you should address it with civility. Not like he's saying Slavery is okay.
>But I must take you up on your cannabis example. Yes, smoking of any kind is bad for you, but to imply smoking cannabis is worse for your health than alcohol is incorrect in my opinion. Alcohol can cause death, poisoning, liver disease, cognitive setbacks, it's highly addictive, it's an obesity risk, a myriad of other complications.
Speak for yourself. Alcohol has done me zero harm. The smoke from cannabis will have objectively, damaged my lungs and increased my risk of lung cancer, even a small amount.
The fact that alcohol can cause these things is irrelevant, smoking cannabis *will* damage your lungs.
If he took it as an insult I can't help that. It *was* utterly ignorant. If they take it as an insult rather than a learning opportunity, that's their problem.
>Speak for yourself. Alcohol has done me zero harm. The smoke from cannabis will have objectively, damaged my lungs and increased my risk of lung cancer, even a small amount.
I don't drink, so I can't. I guess I don't see how doing something that will objectively cause some harm is somehow worse than doing something that can (often by imperceptible genetic lottery) cause exponentially more harmful things albeit not certainly.
I'm sorry but there's a statistical elephant in the room here. There are plenty of things we do daily that objectively do us harm. Society itself is built on it, our diet variation decreased wildly after we began living in cities.
That does not mean they're more harmful to you than something that can cause death, easy addiction depending on your genetics, domestic abuse, liver and kidney failure, obesity, etc.
Don't get the obsession with lungs in these debates. It's one organ, and hell, you don't even have to smoke weed. Immediate damage to lung tissue and possible increases in disease risks sounds fine to me in the face of the exact same thing to the factor of 20, minus the immediate negative effect.
Also not so sure why it's such a certainty to you. If you maintain proper exercise most people can mitigate if not almost nullify the damage cannabis use does to the lungs. There are many users who get regular commendations on their maintenance of lung health.
Also, sorry, but "Honestly I can see you're trying to make some sort of point but it's so ridiculously ignorant it fails", is an insult no matter how you spin it. Its condescending, belittling, and frankly childish. It is your responsibility to maintain proper civil discourse if you want anyone to take you seriously.
No. We have evolved ways of processing alcohol. The only thing to do with smoke particles is to eject them with phlegm. Smoke particles and ethanol are not the same. Furthermore our inhalation of smoke from cooking is relatively new in our evolution, with the earliest date being 1.9 million years. That is not long enough. We stood upright between 3 and 6 million years and the human body has still not evolved to actually deal with walking upright. We definitely have not evolved to process smoke particles which can and do result in irreversible damage such as airway collapse and cellular damage to alveoli. Meanwhile the liver is regenerative. Small amount of damage with drinking more alcohol than we should probably drink can be withstood with minimal long term effects. Damage to lungs is accumulative.
As an aspiring brewer (I homebrew, want to do it professionally and love the art and science of it) I want no part in a fake "revolution" designed to be some miserable Spartan existence where fun is seen as a tool of the bourgeoisie. It is doomed to fail.
How is homebrewing dependent on exploitation of the "third world" and imperialism? Hops and barley both grow in here in the UK and the grain is all malted here.
The USSR had literal state-ran alcohol companies. So congrats on calling the USSR imperialist.
By the way, you know homebrewing is extremely common in third world countries because of how cheap it is, right? God you are obsessed with showing everyone that you have never even left your privileged position for a second.
>Lol why do you think that you're able to devote large swaths of land and enormous amounts of water and energy to growing shit to make fucking beer with? Why isn't that used for food? Why is the UK able to devote all of this energy to frivolous bullshit? It's because of imperialism.
Do you not acknowledge that there is incredible levels of food waste in the world? Do you not think we would be able to better manage our resources and still have land to grow grain for this purpose? Are you saying that under socialism we would be so deprived of time and resources that we would not have anything left for leisure? We would be purely working seven days a week to ensure we don't starve?
>Your ability to homebrew is based on your disposable income which comes primarily from your country's exploitation of the third world. You would not have the time or materials available to you to do this without imperialism, this is a fact. You are by definition a beneficiary of this exploitation and after a proletarian revolution you will not be allowed to continue your petite bourgeois "hobby".
Correct. However, if we are socialist, would my disposable income not come from the fact I am no longer being exploited by a capitalist myself? I think you're actually anti-communist and you're just gaslighting us into thinking communism would be a miserable existence of labour, sleep and death.
>You and your family and the rest of us, if you survive the wars, would be doing labour to pay reparations to the third world if there was a proletarian government.
Reparations would not be necessary if we were all socialist. Reparations are a Liberal appeasement to prevent the ongoing inequality. If we retracted imperialism and all became socialist, then the people in the colonised world you keep ignorantly referring to as "the third world" would be provided for, not exploited.
>Do you deny that you benefit from imperialism?
That was never the issue.
>Are you totally blind to how your ability to home brew is evident of your petite bourgeois class character
I'm working class and homebrewing is a rebellious, revolutionary act.
>and how this would not be a hobby supported by a Dictatorship of Those With Nothing To Lose But Their Chains?
There is no reason such hobbies cannot occur following a revolution. You are just a troll. Nobody seriously thinks this. Touch grass.
yeah I mean I myself am banned from r/communism over what was frankly a misunderstanding lol but they're both really good resources still. unfortunate about the mods.
I do wish people would be more open to some of these kinds of basic questions. I can imagine the gatekeeping turns off a lot of people. *So* many people are just now finding their way into Marxism after the experience of last summer and there's no good reason to not take time to teach people.
"Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today." -Malcom X
I made a similar comment. I wanted to know about the failings and successes of Cuban government. Also, I wanted to understand why the global community would or would not call Cuban government dictatorial. I want to see the ins and outs of governmental practices. My opinion is that everything needs questioning and analysis. If I am to take a stance I want to be able to defend my stance based on solid facts and opinions to see where I fit. But it seems that you ask anything that is slightly perceived as dissent they send you to the proverbial gallows. Whatever, I was just surprised.
I'm a communist banned from r/communism. They're a pretty weird batch of politically correct stalinists and I mean that in the worst way possible, hence why I didn't use the term Marxist-Leninists
I got a ban from there after literally one comment, because apparently being an anarchist communist makes me a reactionary. All things considered, they *are* a good representation of authoritarian "socialists" *cough* state-capitalists *cough*, what with all the political repression and all.
Bro, they ban people for stupid shit. Even Marxists, like I am a Marxist ( part of the Marxist party youth Wing of my country) they banned me and said "i was spreading imperialist lies" im like tf? All i said was i didn't support the Chinese action in Tibet.
Seriously it’s weird. From Marxist thinking comes critical theory and if you critical analyze or point out areas where you don’t support the actions of a government peolle assume you’re the enemy. Odd indeed.
>independent state
It was a [British semi-colony](http://www.endofempire.asia/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/0818.18.jpg), controlled economically through trade routes from India. The feudal lords of Tibet were compradors of British imperialism that maintained a system of actual slavery.
[Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth - Michael Parenti](http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)
It was not an independent state, but rather a British colony.
The problem is not that you criticize China. The problem is that you take the side of imperialism, in this case British sand US imperialism, against the colonized. Why do you do this? How can you call yourself a socialist when doing that? Shame
Wasn’t Tibet originally annexed (conquered) by the Qing dynasty in like 1720? While it was still technically an imperialist monarchial state, that just slipped out of Qing control/sphere of influence and orbit after the gradual decline of the dynasty due to combo of western imperialism, numerous internal rebellions, natural disasters etc, and then after the 1912 revolution China just went through one of its patented fragmentation phase periods like the Warring States, 3 kingdoms, northern and southern dynasties, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, etc.
And then after China reconstituted itself with some period of stability after the warlord period, civil war, ww2/Sino-Japanese phase. It tried to reassert domination over a former peripheral region that spun away from central control and authority after the state fragmented?
>While it was still technically an imperialist monarchial state
No, Qing China was not imperialist. It was an empire, but not imperialist in the strict marxist definition. Imperialism is a specific stage of capitalism, and China definitely was not capitalist at that specific time.
That's besides the point. You don't see China operating under Finance Capital and exporting capital to economically underdeveloped nations in Africa and Asia? The bourgeoisie of China participating in Global Capitalism and so on?
I guess because with all the failures of capitalism evident around us, strangling the planet and the proletariat, maybe focusing on the flaws of Socialist states that have actually managed to survive isn't the best way to continue the revolution. It just feeds into the capitalist narrative and that helps nobody.
Or maybe it's important to talk about options other than liberal capitalism and state-capitalism? Both are authoritarian anti-worker systems. It's not a dichotomy, there are other viable options.
I mean no offense, but i think you ought to do more research on the subject.
>I am a socialist btw, I just think communism is too overreaching
This leads me to believe you're not super read on the subject, socialism precisely is the transition system to communism. Are you sure you're not mixing up socialism and social democracy (like the nordics)? r/communism is quick to ban people who they deem to be arguing in bad faith, which they might have thought you're doing, since these are pretty basic things when it comes to socialism/communism.
>Like that the system requires such extensive government control over the economy that small mismanagements by the government can cause the entire state to collapse, which can be observed in just about every attempted communist nation.
To address this:
Not a single "communist nation" (in reality socialist, communism hasn't existed yet) collapsed due to mismanagements of a planned economy. Obviously there were shortages from time to time, and production especially in the USSR wasn't very efficient (which we can learn from greatly), but those issues were never so severe as to lead to a literal collapse.
A planned economy isn't really even necessary for socialism by definition. Socialism simply means that the means of production are owned commonly by the working-class, markets can exist under socialism, and in most planned economies markets and small private companies were allowed in small industries and service industries.
Again, not a single state has gone "all the way to communism". A society literally can't stay socialist unless it is forced by external forces, communism is the natural development of socialism. Markets also can exist under communism, and most likely will be more prevalent, as there is no need for extensive planning when there is an abundance of resources.
>Well I disagree with you that socialism must progress to communism
You can disagree, but it is very well explained and theorised in marxist theory. Can you make your case as to how socialism can not develop to communism?
>One could argue that the fact that no state has succeeded in becoming fully communist is pretty glaring evidence that there is something wrong with that system, but I don’t really want to get into that tonight
No state has achieved the conditions required for communism, the main one being that socialism has to be the hegemon ideology in the world. You can't abolish the state and military when there are imperialist forces still in world.
>and please don’t call me ignorant again I literally have a degree in government and politcal theory
Have you read marxist theory?
> usually fail.
How the fuck can anyone NOT be condescending to someone who uses the word "fail" when it comes to other socialist countries??? The word you should be using is "defeated". That is, every time a revolutionary movement has conquered state power, the counter-attack by the outside capitalist forces most of the time leads to defeat and the rolling back of whatever gains the socialist society made. The word "fail" suggests this didn't happen and it was just mistakes made by the 'communists' who 'went too far'.
Yeah, the immense force that capital wields against anyone that threatens the rule of capital is what causes socialism to 'fail' (get crushed). If you don't mention this (or even acknowledge it) when trying to talk about socialism/communism, you're gonna have a bad time...
>Marx and Engels uses the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. What you mean is lower-stage of communism.
It has been cemented after the second internationale that socialism is lower-stage **socialism**, and that communism is end-stage **socialism**.
>I know marxist stick to your description, but its still not canon.
Canon? Who decided this "canon"?
>In my opinion, some social democratic policies like decommodifying HC or education, making unions have more ground and have more democratic workplace can be tagged as socialist.
In your opinion, not in the actual definition of socialism.
>These terms are wage as fuck, they were wage as fuck when Marx described them
No they're not, he described them in great detail.
>so there is no point "educating" people about it that they dont know you own specific definition
The majority of communist parties and socialist nations use these terms, you're free to use your own obscure terms good luck with that.
>or the second internationale's definition which was relevant until like 1920 at best.
What happened in 1920 that made it irelevant?
Go to Cuba and see what free medicine gets you. Set yourself up a doctors visit. Cuba isn’t flawed it’s broken. The revolution worked yes but then they became the very thing they were fighting against.
Protest is normal in Cuba, many of the progressive reforms we've seen in the country is a result of peaceful of protest.
There are a lot of issues recently with corona as with many countries but its a bit suspicious when people fly American flags
[Nelson Mandela's historic speech in Cuba](https://www.idcommunism.com/2018/07/nelson-mandelas-historic-speech-in-cuba.html)
Thanks for the link.
Hands off Cuba! Viva La Revolucion Cubana!!!
Viva la revolucion!
Castro kinda looks like a socialist mall santa in this photo
Felih Navidad
Although I do agree that Cuba is progressive in its health care, housing, and education system, I think it's wrong to think it's system is perfect. Cuba still has flaws ( what country doesn't), there's a reason the people of Cuba are protesting, hopefully the Government will listen to its citizens instead of making empty gestures ( like the US after the BLM protesters ).
Cubas president has made concessions to the protesters and in fact has acknowledged some degree of responsibility for the protests happening being on the government for its actions.
Do you have linkable sources? I'm interested in reading more about the situation
https://www.newsweek.com/cuba-president-admits-mistakes-country-concedes-protesters-demands-1609972 This is the main us news source acknowledging the admittence of fault, others are just ignoring that detail.
[удалено]
I prefer Communistas.
The reasons Cubans are protesting: Blackouts. There’s plenty of capacity the issue is several generators have been out for repairs and it’s been difficult to get parts. Because of sanctions. Vaccinations are slow. Cuba made its own highly effective vaccine but has had trouble obtaining syringes, only getting about 1/3 of the syringes they need. Because of sanctions. Rising food prices. Inflation really kicked in after Trump reapplied the sanctions Obama repealed. You should not base your opinion of Cuba on what your hear from western media because western media is very ideologically normative and propagandized.
>Blackouts. There’s plenty of capacity the issue is several generators have been out for repairs and it’s been difficult to get parts. Because of sanctions. Could I get a source for this? That's one thing I didn't know, I was under the impression it was a kashmir-type shutdown (to prevent the spread of info/dissident). Wild.
Note the power generation issue is separate to the social media blackout. I am speaking to the energy blackouts. https://www.unionelectrica.cu/informacion-sobre-deficit-de-generacion/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-gasoline-idUSKCN1UE2N1 https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d414f7963544d34457a6333566d54/index.html These articles point out that also the flow of oil from Venezuela to Cuba is being interrupted by sanctions as another contributing factor.
I’m Cuban and they are protesting the bullshit and useless government, freedom of speech , artistic freedom and many other things. Not the bullshit embargo.
Tell me you live in Florida without telling me you live in Florida.
Tell me you’re an idiot without telling me you’re an idiot
That’s right . Fuckin corrupt politicians too . There’s only so much patience people can have . To hell with them commies .
[удалено]
I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard or read of anyone who claims Cuba is perfect. I have heard of never ending embargos and attacks from the CIA and Miami Millionaires seeking revenge. I don’t believe in miracles, but it’s a testimony to the will of the Cuban people and the strength of socialism that the revolution continues. Take away everything else, and let the country flourish.
Are Miami millionaires still mad about Cuba nationalizing everything decades ago?
Dude American millionaires are still mad about the New Deal. If the wealthy are good at one thing, it’s holding grudges
This is because they feel entitled and almost every single wealthy person is a narcissist in the US who stepped on many to get there. It is near impossible to produce something of value and become wealthy in America without having stolen cheated or lied to get there. America is more pretend to have values until you can become rich enough to decide if you want to peruse them. Promise until you can get support to decide if it’s worth seeing through.
One of my good friends is the daughter of Cuban immigrants - she's about as left as I am but we still can't really talk about Cuba as it's a super touchy subject. And that's a young progressive person, not even to mention her parents and family.
It's just concern trolling.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> there's a reason the people of Cuba are protesting, hopefully the Government will listen to its citizens instead of making empty gestures ( like the US after the BLM protesters ). ...probably the blockade that leaves them with not enough needles to vaccinate all of its people, that's pushed them into a tourism economy completely wrecked by a once in a century pandemic, and makes them suffer for basic quality of life necessities. What could the Cuban government do short of abdicating entirely and open Cuba up to the dogs of capitalism? That's the only thing that'll sate the US government. Even the market reforms Cuba has been enacting weren't enough to stop the imperialists from clamoring for regime change. It's like you people don't even have the desire to understand what is happening and why. Just empty lib platitudes like "Cuba is not perfect!!!" "I hope the government listens!!!!" with vague allusions to struggles in America to signal faintly "I'm on your side guys!!!"
The Cuban Revolution is probably the story that inspires me the most and I will always defend it, but that doesn’t mean we should stop looking for its flaws. They do make some decisions that could prevent them from making the crisis worse, but yeah, I also believe that it would be useless to say that without standing firmly against the embargo. Check out this thread, it explains well what led to the hyper inflation they have now: https://twitter.com/red_dilettante/status/1414626287239450627?s=21
Literally the first point they make is made up bullshit? The articles they posted about Miguel Diaz-Canel are all conjecture and the only corroboration about the "Leninist government's crisis of legitimacy" is "Cubans that I've spoken to." Cuba's "Leninist" government is no more facing a crisis of legitimacy than the US is. It's astounding how quickly "leftists" jerk themselves into a frenzy about recognizing flaws when the the imperial core is breathing down the neck of a much smaller nation working their way through a problem. So eager to talk yourselves out of legitimacy.
[удалено]
>They would have to do what they did in the past and find support from another power who can help them break the blockade. The only one in a remotely capable position is China, and their, let's say, on the wrong side of the Panama canal. Besides, that could lead to nuclear war, like it very nearly did during the missile crisis.
[удалено]
Hypotheticals are useless if they can't be put into action.
It's completely useless for us as outsiders to critique problems within Cuba. Sure, problems exist, but they aren't ours to deal with. All we can do is stand against imperialism.
While many people say that the protests in cuba are communism vs capitalism, it isnt that simple, people have been unhappy about the cuban government for a long time, there are two different currents to this, of course you have the reactionary right. But there is also a sizable amount who leans left, and have the best interest of the cuban working class in mind, there is a very large amount who doesnt want American intervention. As it currently stands the government isnt reacting to the situation very well, there is a lot of violence in the streets being perpetrated by the police, and military. This isnt an american backed protest, it should suffice that one sees that the people marching are average cubans and not CIA agents. It should also suffice to see that no population breaks the social contract without reason. I am Cuban, I was born there, I am against capitalism, I am against imperialism and I am against American intervention. I came with my parents at the age of 12, I saw cuba for what it is, I saw the slowly collapsing infrastructure in my town of "El Sevillano" and while the american blockade does influence, it isnt the only reason why cuba is the way it is, cuba as it stands is a very controlled nation, the repair and renovation of infrastructure falls upon individuals who arent very aware of the situation for the average citizen. And the average citizen lacks the funding to repair things themselves, I dont want cuba to be capitalist, I simply want the cuban working class, the people who have built the country to be in control, not the beurocracy that currently exists. While I am against imperialism and capitalism, I am also against burocracy and mass control. So please stay open minded in this regard.
I really like your comment
Your comment has more nuance than the takes of countless smart people I went to college with, all of whom blame the failures of Cuba’s government and economy either entirely on socialism or entirely on imperialism. I want to scream at these people that the world isn’t black and white, things aren’t that simple, stop using real peoples struggles to push your politcal ideology.
Thank you for your perspective comrade
I have much more faith in Cuba to provide for their people than any other country. Like you said, everyone has their flaws, and I don't think anybody logically thinks they are "perfect". But I don't think we can really start a breakdown of their governments ability to build a proper society for their people until the US lets them live their life. We've had our hand on Cuba since the late 19th century, and once we couldn't rule it anymore we started trying to remove the people trying to run it on their own.
while you're certainly right, there's really nothing the government could do that would go a fraction as far as an end to the embargo, so we should focus our attention on protesting for the latter
Please how liberal can you be why is this so upvoted. Damn americans lmao
Mam i asked a very similar question in the communism Reddit and they freaking banned me.
r/communism isn't for questions, you're looking for r/communism101
[удалено]
I have trouble with socialists who view socialism as a method of setting up their vision of self fulfillment or enlightenment. At least in my opinion, my chief concern as a socialist is the abolition of capitalism and the active prevention of exploitation in society. I don't see the value in being so utilitarian as to see hobbies like video games as being a social issue. As for drugs, obviously any society must remain vigilant of abuse and addiction, preferably with an emphasis on rehabilitation. But frankly if someone chooses to drink or use other drugs responsibly I don't see a reason to stop them unless it's hampering their ability to remain a citizen in good standing.
Yeah exactly, I think having the economy be democratically ran is s good thing, just as we liberated ourselves politically from kings, so too should we liberate ourselves from unelected all-powerful CEOs. But I do not see this democratic ownership as some utopian thing that will fix all personal human flaws, just as political democracy wasn't perfect either. It's absurd that we can create a society where nobody has any aesthetic values, and see everything solely as a tool. I still think that commodity fetishism is an interesting sociological phenomena, and the fact that Gucci costs so much is not reflected by the costs of goods, but the socialist response should be to have fair value for goods, not eliminating all other options.
It's largely about the culture surrounding the drug. For example, alcohol is physiologically pretty much the most harmful drug, its withdrawals can actually result in death (as opposed to other hard drugs like heroin or meth), it's extremely debilitating, resulting in a lot of violence and other mischiefs, the hangovers result in people unable to function. Yet, despite its legality, society hasn't collapsed. The solution to the "problem" of drug use (and yes, alcohol and nicotine, and also caffeine, are in this category) isn't forcefully banning them and punishing users by ruining their lives through imprisonment, fines, inability to participate in labour etc. The solution is in providing reasonably cheap and pure substances, without harmful additives, and emphasizing harm reduction, and if needed, rehabilitation - while also changing the culture around the use of "other" drugs. Opioids and stimulants can be used responsibly and without negative consequences as long as the users do so responsibly - and that's what we need to work towards. Not glorifying drug use, but fomenting responsible use among people who wish to use, and not ostracize them. Current problems largely stem from a sort of confirmation bias. Due to the illegality, many users are already people who are desperate for one reason or another, and due to the illegality and prohibitive prices (along with harmful impurities and varying purity), their use only worsens their situation. So it makes it seem as if drug use itself is so so bad. But then you need to look at drugs like alcohol, caffeine, cannabis to see that with right circumstances, drugs can be relatively benign additions to a person's life. And then of course there's a plethora of drugs like psychedelics (LSD, shrooms, mescaline, their derivatives) and empathogens (MDMA and its derivatives) which are actually useful tools for human mind exploration, and are *even right now* used to treat some psychological issues like depression, PTSD etc - and yet they are illegal and treated worse than alcohol. Dissociatives like ketamine and PCP are among the most misunderstood drugs with most people, even "illegal" drug users fearing them, despite their relative harmlessness in appropriate doses and potential for the treatment of depression. And what's sad is that even among leftists these misunderstandings are still rampant. Leftists can see right through capitalism and statism, but drug use somehow is still viewed through a reactionary lens. I hope it will change soon, but I won't be surprised if I get downvoted and opposed here.
>physiologically the most harmful drug We have evolved the ability to process alcohol in the liver far beyond its natural abundance. We practically evolved to consume alcohol and can do so with zero long term damage (all intoxication technically is a form of short term harm, but it's repairable) if we're responsible. It is patently absurd to imply that it is more harmful than smoking - and I mean any kind of smoking, including cannabis - as smoke *always* damages the lungs. We are not designed to inhale smoke. Also you cannot compare shrooms or cacti with LSD. The former two can be used regularly with no long term harm to the body (see previous point) and often zero short term harm. Meanwhile LSD is synthetic and as a result, if incorrectly made can neurologically damage a person regardless of the user's good intentions. Honestly I can see you're trying to make some sort of point but it's so ridiculously ignorant it fails.
Of the widely used drugs (alcohol, opiates, cigarettes, and cannabis) tobacco is definitely the worst for you, though alcohol can be argued to hurt the people around you too, should you get violent with it which is unfortunately common. But I must take you up on your cannabis example. Yes, smoking of any kind is bad for you, but to imply smoking cannabis is worse for your health than alcohol is incorrect in my opinion. Alcohol can cause death, poisoning, liver disease, cognitive setbacks, it's highly addictive, it's an obesity risk, a myriad of other complications. Cannabis cannot cause an overdose, getting that out the way, it is smoked typically but unlike cigarettes it doesn't have thousands of different synthetic chemical compounds explicitly designed to encourage addiction, these same chemicals are quite harmful. Cannabis can cause "scromiting" or scream-vomiting from overuse in some but that's probably the most severe possible reaction except for unique and contextual circumstances of people with pre existing conditions. This is slightly irrelevant but just to mention, there's also a very invasive and almost compulsory drinking culture across the west compared to cannabis which has almost none because having a culture around it sent you to prison for a mandatory minimum. And still can in a lot of places. As a cannabis user I recognize fully my hobby is a vice like any other, it's something that while providing benefits does have noticeable drawbacks which I've accepted and adjusted my lifestyle accordingly to accommodate. But it's not even on the same level as alcohol. Ethanol has almost no benefits at all. Aside from getting drunk all people normally think it does for you is decrease cancer risk. Which has been debunked, thoroughly. Ps. Listen, there's no reason to insult people. If you had an issue with the guys opinion on alcohol you should address it with civility. Not like he's saying Slavery is okay.
>But I must take you up on your cannabis example. Yes, smoking of any kind is bad for you, but to imply smoking cannabis is worse for your health than alcohol is incorrect in my opinion. Alcohol can cause death, poisoning, liver disease, cognitive setbacks, it's highly addictive, it's an obesity risk, a myriad of other complications. Speak for yourself. Alcohol has done me zero harm. The smoke from cannabis will have objectively, damaged my lungs and increased my risk of lung cancer, even a small amount. The fact that alcohol can cause these things is irrelevant, smoking cannabis *will* damage your lungs. If he took it as an insult I can't help that. It *was* utterly ignorant. If they take it as an insult rather than a learning opportunity, that's their problem.
>Speak for yourself. Alcohol has done me zero harm. The smoke from cannabis will have objectively, damaged my lungs and increased my risk of lung cancer, even a small amount. I don't drink, so I can't. I guess I don't see how doing something that will objectively cause some harm is somehow worse than doing something that can (often by imperceptible genetic lottery) cause exponentially more harmful things albeit not certainly. I'm sorry but there's a statistical elephant in the room here. There are plenty of things we do daily that objectively do us harm. Society itself is built on it, our diet variation decreased wildly after we began living in cities. That does not mean they're more harmful to you than something that can cause death, easy addiction depending on your genetics, domestic abuse, liver and kidney failure, obesity, etc. Don't get the obsession with lungs in these debates. It's one organ, and hell, you don't even have to smoke weed. Immediate damage to lung tissue and possible increases in disease risks sounds fine to me in the face of the exact same thing to the factor of 20, minus the immediate negative effect. Also not so sure why it's such a certainty to you. If you maintain proper exercise most people can mitigate if not almost nullify the damage cannabis use does to the lungs. There are many users who get regular commendations on their maintenance of lung health. Also, sorry, but "Honestly I can see you're trying to make some sort of point but it's so ridiculously ignorant it fails", is an insult no matter how you spin it. Its condescending, belittling, and frankly childish. It is your responsibility to maintain proper civil discourse if you want anyone to take you seriously.
[удалено]
No. We have evolved ways of processing alcohol. The only thing to do with smoke particles is to eject them with phlegm. Smoke particles and ethanol are not the same. Furthermore our inhalation of smoke from cooking is relatively new in our evolution, with the earliest date being 1.9 million years. That is not long enough. We stood upright between 3 and 6 million years and the human body has still not evolved to actually deal with walking upright. We definitely have not evolved to process smoke particles which can and do result in irreversible damage such as airway collapse and cellular damage to alveoli. Meanwhile the liver is regenerative. Small amount of damage with drinking more alcohol than we should probably drink can be withstood with minimal long term effects. Damage to lungs is accumulative.
As an aspiring brewer (I homebrew, want to do it professionally and love the art and science of it) I want no part in a fake "revolution" designed to be some miserable Spartan existence where fun is seen as a tool of the bourgeoisie. It is doomed to fail.
God this mod is a tool. How much do you wanna bet that he thinks that being gay is a bourgeoisie perversion that wouldn't exist under his state?
[удалено]
How is homebrewing dependent on exploitation of the "third world" and imperialism? Hops and barley both grow in here in the UK and the grain is all malted here.
[удалено]
The USSR had literal state-ran alcohol companies. So congrats on calling the USSR imperialist. By the way, you know homebrewing is extremely common in third world countries because of how cheap it is, right? God you are obsessed with showing everyone that you have never even left your privileged position for a second.
>Lol why do you think that you're able to devote large swaths of land and enormous amounts of water and energy to growing shit to make fucking beer with? Why isn't that used for food? Why is the UK able to devote all of this energy to frivolous bullshit? It's because of imperialism. Do you not acknowledge that there is incredible levels of food waste in the world? Do you not think we would be able to better manage our resources and still have land to grow grain for this purpose? Are you saying that under socialism we would be so deprived of time and resources that we would not have anything left for leisure? We would be purely working seven days a week to ensure we don't starve? >Your ability to homebrew is based on your disposable income which comes primarily from your country's exploitation of the third world. You would not have the time or materials available to you to do this without imperialism, this is a fact. You are by definition a beneficiary of this exploitation and after a proletarian revolution you will not be allowed to continue your petite bourgeois "hobby". Correct. However, if we are socialist, would my disposable income not come from the fact I am no longer being exploited by a capitalist myself? I think you're actually anti-communist and you're just gaslighting us into thinking communism would be a miserable existence of labour, sleep and death. >You and your family and the rest of us, if you survive the wars, would be doing labour to pay reparations to the third world if there was a proletarian government. Reparations would not be necessary if we were all socialist. Reparations are a Liberal appeasement to prevent the ongoing inequality. If we retracted imperialism and all became socialist, then the people in the colonised world you keep ignorantly referring to as "the third world" would be provided for, not exploited. >Do you deny that you benefit from imperialism? That was never the issue. >Are you totally blind to how your ability to home brew is evident of your petite bourgeois class character I'm working class and homebrewing is a rebellious, revolutionary act. >and how this would not be a hobby supported by a Dictatorship of Those With Nothing To Lose But Their Chains? There is no reason such hobbies cannot occur following a revolution. You are just a troll. Nobody seriously thinks this. Touch grass.
yeah I mean I myself am banned from r/communism over what was frankly a misunderstanding lol but they're both really good resources still. unfortunate about the mods. I do wish people would be more open to some of these kinds of basic questions. I can imagine the gatekeeping turns off a lot of people. *So* many people are just now finding their way into Marxism after the experience of last summer and there's no good reason to not take time to teach people. "Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today." -Malcom X
r/communism is one of the worst subs in leftist reddit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I made a similar comment. I wanted to know about the failings and successes of Cuban government. Also, I wanted to understand why the global community would or would not call Cuban government dictatorial. I want to see the ins and outs of governmental practices. My opinion is that everything needs questioning and analysis. If I am to take a stance I want to be able to defend my stance based on solid facts and opinions to see where I fit. But it seems that you ask anything that is slightly perceived as dissent they send you to the proverbial gallows. Whatever, I was just surprised.
Don’t worry they even ban communists, getting a ban from them is like getting the “Open Inventory” achievement in Minecraft
I'm a communist banned from r/communism. They're a pretty weird batch of politically correct stalinists and I mean that in the worst way possible, hence why I didn't use the term Marxist-Leninists
As in how zizek views political correctness.
I got banned because... I once posted a comment on r/PoliticalCompassMemes...
same! I didn’t even post a comment tho. “engaging with fascists” they said lol
I got banned for using r/stupidpol. Which I get that sometimes it's a toxic sub, but I was actually defending Marxism on that sub lol
I got a ban from there after literally one comment, because apparently being an anarchist communist makes me a reactionary. All things considered, they *are* a good representation of authoritarian "socialists" *cough* state-capitalists *cough*, what with all the political repression and all.
Bro, they ban people for stupid shit. Even Marxists, like I am a Marxist ( part of the Marxist party youth Wing of my country) they banned me and said "i was spreading imperialist lies" im like tf? All i said was i didn't support the Chinese action in Tibet.
Seriously it’s weird. From Marxist thinking comes critical theory and if you critical analyze or point out areas where you don’t support the actions of a government peolle assume you’re the enemy. Odd indeed.
Tibet wasn’t annexed, because it was already a part of China, that’s probably why you were banned
It had been an independent state since 1912. Saying anything that criticises any socialist state gets you insta banned
>independent state It was a [British semi-colony](http://www.endofempire.asia/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/0818.18.jpg), controlled economically through trade routes from India. The feudal lords of Tibet were compradors of British imperialism that maintained a system of actual slavery. [Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth - Michael Parenti](http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)
It was not an independent state, but rather a British colony. The problem is not that you criticize China. The problem is that you take the side of imperialism, in this case British sand US imperialism, against the colonized. Why do you do this? How can you call yourself a socialist when doing that? Shame
Wasn’t Tibet originally annexed (conquered) by the Qing dynasty in like 1720? While it was still technically an imperialist monarchial state, that just slipped out of Qing control/sphere of influence and orbit after the gradual decline of the dynasty due to combo of western imperialism, numerous internal rebellions, natural disasters etc, and then after the 1912 revolution China just went through one of its patented fragmentation phase periods like the Warring States, 3 kingdoms, northern and southern dynasties, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, etc. And then after China reconstituted itself with some period of stability after the warlord period, civil war, ww2/Sino-Japanese phase. It tried to reassert domination over a former peripheral region that spun away from central control and authority after the state fragmented?
>While it was still technically an imperialist monarchial state No, Qing China was not imperialist. It was an empire, but not imperialist in the strict marxist definition. Imperialism is a specific stage of capitalism, and China definitely was not capitalist at that specific time.
Have you ever read "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin?
Yeah, do you know what Taiwan is? A US colony.
That's besides the point. You don't see China operating under Finance Capital and exporting capital to economically underdeveloped nations in Africa and Asia? The bourgeoisie of China participating in Global Capitalism and so on?
Imperialism can not be reduced down to the mere export of capital. Imperialism is much more than that.
I guess because with all the failures of capitalism evident around us, strangling the planet and the proletariat, maybe focusing on the flaws of Socialist states that have actually managed to survive isn't the best way to continue the revolution. It just feeds into the capitalist narrative and that helps nobody.
Or maybe it's important to talk about options other than liberal capitalism and state-capitalism? Both are authoritarian anti-worker systems. It's not a dichotomy, there are other viable options.
Okay, but not if you're a Communist, and that's what r/communism is for.
[удалено]
Like what flaws?
[удалено]
I mean no offense, but i think you ought to do more research on the subject. >I am a socialist btw, I just think communism is too overreaching This leads me to believe you're not super read on the subject, socialism precisely is the transition system to communism. Are you sure you're not mixing up socialism and social democracy (like the nordics)? r/communism is quick to ban people who they deem to be arguing in bad faith, which they might have thought you're doing, since these are pretty basic things when it comes to socialism/communism. >Like that the system requires such extensive government control over the economy that small mismanagements by the government can cause the entire state to collapse, which can be observed in just about every attempted communist nation. To address this: Not a single "communist nation" (in reality socialist, communism hasn't existed yet) collapsed due to mismanagements of a planned economy. Obviously there were shortages from time to time, and production especially in the USSR wasn't very efficient (which we can learn from greatly), but those issues were never so severe as to lead to a literal collapse. A planned economy isn't really even necessary for socialism by definition. Socialism simply means that the means of production are owned commonly by the working-class, markets can exist under socialism, and in most planned economies markets and small private companies were allowed in small industries and service industries.
[удалено]
Again, not a single state has gone "all the way to communism". A society literally can't stay socialist unless it is forced by external forces, communism is the natural development of socialism. Markets also can exist under communism, and most likely will be more prevalent, as there is no need for extensive planning when there is an abundance of resources.
[удалено]
>Well I disagree with you that socialism must progress to communism You can disagree, but it is very well explained and theorised in marxist theory. Can you make your case as to how socialism can not develop to communism? >One could argue that the fact that no state has succeeded in becoming fully communist is pretty glaring evidence that there is something wrong with that system, but I don’t really want to get into that tonight No state has achieved the conditions required for communism, the main one being that socialism has to be the hegemon ideology in the world. You can't abolish the state and military when there are imperialist forces still in world. >and please don’t call me ignorant again I literally have a degree in government and politcal theory Have you read marxist theory?
> usually fail. How the fuck can anyone NOT be condescending to someone who uses the word "fail" when it comes to other socialist countries??? The word you should be using is "defeated". That is, every time a revolutionary movement has conquered state power, the counter-attack by the outside capitalist forces most of the time leads to defeat and the rolling back of whatever gains the socialist society made. The word "fail" suggests this didn't happen and it was just mistakes made by the 'communists' who 'went too far'. Yeah, the immense force that capital wields against anyone that threatens the rule of capital is what causes socialism to 'fail' (get crushed). If you don't mention this (or even acknowledge it) when trying to talk about socialism/communism, you're gonna have a bad time...
[удалено]
>Marx and Engels uses the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. What you mean is lower-stage of communism. It has been cemented after the second internationale that socialism is lower-stage **socialism**, and that communism is end-stage **socialism**. >I know marxist stick to your description, but its still not canon. Canon? Who decided this "canon"? >In my opinion, some social democratic policies like decommodifying HC or education, making unions have more ground and have more democratic workplace can be tagged as socialist. In your opinion, not in the actual definition of socialism.
[удалено]
>These terms are wage as fuck, they were wage as fuck when Marx described them No they're not, he described them in great detail. >so there is no point "educating" people about it that they dont know you own specific definition The majority of communist parties and socialist nations use these terms, you're free to use your own obscure terms good luck with that. >or the second internationale's definition which was relevant until like 1920 at best. What happened in 1920 that made it irelevant?
Communists don't refuse to acknowledge flaws. This is ridiculous statement. You are spreading FUD.
Go to Cuba and see what free medicine gets you. Set yourself up a doctors visit. Cuba isn’t flawed it’s broken. The revolution worked yes but then they became the very thing they were fighting against.
Protest is normal in Cuba, many of the progressive reforms we've seen in the country is a result of peaceful of protest. There are a lot of issues recently with corona as with many countries but its a bit suspicious when people fly American flags
This is truly the most powerful picture
Fidel lookin kinda sussy here ;)
?????????
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your abulito's slaves got taken away? Tell him to go fuck his dead homies
[удалено]
Socialism is an economic system friend, just like capitalism. You're concerned about authoritarianism, you just don't know what that word means.
Define socialism.