For those wondering why the U.S has a different trade policy as it relates to Cuban vs Chinese trade, here's one view on the differences: [And there are some differences. Fidel Castro has not made anywhere close to the kind of economic reforms in allowing of contracts and private ownership and stock markets of the kind that have broken out in China and that have the sanction of the government in China. So you really are dealing purely as a business person with a government entity in Cuba. You are not doing that right now with everybody in China. So it's a different... I mean, if Castro made more attempts to open his society economically, he would have a better argument in this country.] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&gigot/may00/go_5-26.html
I think the main difference is the size of the economy. Cuba is a little third-world pit. China is industrializing very quickly, and as the third largest economy in the world, it would be devastating for the United States to just pretend it didn't exist. With that said, I think we should trade with both Cuba and China. And I absolutely agree with you that economic freedom begats free trade.
Before I looked into this I figured the difference btwn these trade policies was related to China being more free market oriented than Cuba. China has been moving towards capitalism since the 70's. The way Cuba is now, the U.S feels that trade with Cuba will only empower and benefit the Cuban gov't and not the people.
Yeah, that's a pretty accurate description of how the US government views Cuba. Personally I think free trade with Cuba would have just the opposite effect: Cubans would see more American products and ideas, and demand more from their government. Despite Cuba's communism, I think at least SOME of the money they made from trade with America would find it's way back to the Cuban people, since it's not a particularly militant country.
The ironic thing is that many people who protest the trade embargo are pro-Castro types,who also lean towards Communism. I wonder if they've considered the possibility that trade with the U.S could end up making Cuba less Communist? It has for China.
China became less communist because Deng Xiaoping realised communist economy is doomed to failure. Not because the US trade with it. The US would trade with China anyway, because it's a huge market of 1,2 billion consumers. About Cuba, lifelevel inprouvement will only consolidate Castro's regim. But it's clear, because Castro is old, most Cubans just wait his death to start changing, instead of risking to oppose him now.
A state (in this case, the Cuban government) is not a neutral entity. It is a tool of one class to supress another. In this case, the Cuban government protects the peasentry and the working class, while supressing elements who wants to restore capitalism. If the U.S. wanted to benefit the people, the US would not have been capitalist. Capitalism only serve the capitalist class (the minority), not the working class (the vast majority of people). The US blockade only hurts the Cuban economy. It hurts the people. If it wasn't for the blockade, Cuba would be a powerful industrialized socialist nation by now, but the U.S. did not want to see this, and so the embargo will go on until Cuba allow capitalism into the country.
False, Communism. The Cuban government, like every totalitarian communist government, protects the state and party beaurocracy who is the actual leading class, hiding behind marxist ideology. In all communist, or fi you prefere, socialist states, the state and party beaurocracy, the members of the secret police and the leading militaries enjoy privileges unallowed to the majority of the population. The way communism was built in the "socialist countries" created a neofeudal system, very resembling to the old Inca Empire.
Do not socialist countries provide(d) the following: -free education -free healthcare -free housing -full employement -pensions -other free social services? How's that then not protecting the workers? (dont mention efficiency. Just tell me; do you think they dont care about ordinary people at all?) just my 2 cents..
Companiero, aren't most European countries offering free education, free healthcare or pensions? Without taking freedom and generating a suffocating and mostly parasitary beaurocracy? And why do you think it's better to mentain a low lifestandard, but to asure by government control free housing or full employment, instead of developping a free market generating real jobs and a higher lifestandard, making the aquiring of things like houses easier? And do you realy think the social services in communism weren't based on taxation and actualy they were responsable for mentaining a lower lifestandard? People around here are talking much about the Swedish model. And you have there a rich society, working on capitalistic principals, which actualy generates the wealth. Then this wealth is redistributed after a higher taxation then usual, supporting all those social services. What communists did and are doing even now in Cuba is to redistribute poverty. Now, about what you asked about the care about ordinary people... I don't consider communist beaurocracy something inhuman. They are people, no doubt about that. But I think they care about ordinary people as much as every state aparatus in the world does. The problem there is the dictatorship and the economical system, unable to generate wealth (and this is a prouven thing in all communist states excepting today China, but you how realy communist this country is, and, in some degree, old Yugoslavia, but who actualy wasn't enterily communist and anyway, because of its opposition to USSR had Western support; the same thing happened in Romania after the april 1964 declaration which claimed the country's independence from USSR and the 1968 Ceausescu's opposition to the invasion of Czechoslovakia- this asured with Western support a somewhat higher lifestandard in the '60s and the '70s; but in time the system showed its flaws).
I really dont have the time to argue so many things on the net. I only wanted to point out that what you said about communist regimes: "False, Communism. The Cuban government, like every totalitarian communist government, protects the state and party beaurocracy who is the actual leading class, hiding behind marxist ideology." ..is false, and that they do want to protect the people. They are not elitist in character.
How so? Every government is authoritarian. Government is authoritarian. The state is not a neutral entity. It serve spesific class interests. The government in Cuba is not a class. It does not extract profit from the means of production. The term "communist government", I believe, is improper because Cuba is a more of a socialist nation than antyhing else. If you mean a government run by marxists, then we agree. Like... Exactly what? Do you know that Che, among others was a heavy advocate of volentary labor. The government officials were encouraged to join volentary labor, setting an example, working with the people. Sure, government officials have official cars, but these are not to be used for private use. A bulletproof car can come in handy, especially when the U.S. tries to assisinate the leaders of Cuba. Could you go a little moe indepth? The Chinese who helped the Tibetian people to liberate themselves, got rid of feudalism. People received wages for the first time. Common people, for the first time ever, saw telephones, radio etc., something that was restricted to only the elite during the religious feudal rule under Tenzin Gyatso. Even Marx "praised" the capitalist class for getting rid of feudalism. Most capitalist nations don't. The government is not parasitic. A common misunderstanding is that socialism is about government control. The capitalist class, however, live on by exploiting the labor of the working class. It cannot possibly survive on it's own. Socialism is not about government. It's about proletarian control of society. The establishment of the revolutionary socialist government in Cuba created jobs, higher living standards etc. without capitalism. Capitalism simply means "power to the rich, power to the few". How can such a society create higher living standards for the people, when the elite is the priority, not the people? There's no such thing as taxation in a communist society. Money won't exist, either. No kidding! There's a huge difference between socialism and communism. Communism is often confused with socialism, and most people have never heard of the idea of communism. Communism is a classless, stateteless society, where people work according to ability, and receive according to need. It's in essence, the freest society possible. But at the same time you refuse to look at South America, Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, were poverty is everywhere! Most people in this world are poor, if you didn't know. Sweden is a little country in the world. What good has capitalism done for the Bolivian people? For the Sudanese people? False. Cuba is doing everything it can to create higher living standards in Cuba. In some areas, it is even more succesful than the U.S. It is said that a few years after the revolution, the people had 7 times higher purchasing power than before. The rich last all their economic power, and the Working Class got it. If Cuba is distributing poverty, how did they manage to eradicate illiteracy? If capitalism is so great, why are the people in most capitalist nations suffering from hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, lack of clean water and basic medicine? What is wrong with conservatives, liberals etc. is that you believe that if one person in a capitalist society manage to exploit the hell out of everyone, and get rich, then everyone is rich. This is a common misconception. The fact is that, in a capitalist nation, a few dozin are rich, while millions are poor. This is the reality of the world.
What privilegies, Communism? Higher quality housing, special shops with merchendise absent on the general market, more freedom to travel, higher payments... isnt't enough? And when I say communist government I mean formed of marxists. You should know the difference between communist party and socilaist state lead by a communist party. I also don't have now the time to argue to all your post, just read the debate between Companiero and me, also between Syntax and me on "Why capitalism" ad you'll see what I should reply now to you. But your vision about Tibet is just disgusting and shows that you're full of propaganda crap! The Chinese liberated Tibetans by invading the country, turning it into a Chinese province and killing thousands of Tibetans. This is imperialism in its purest form. They didn't help some Tibetan revolutionaries to modernise Tibet, they turned it into a colony, based on a 17th century treaty between the Dalai Lama and the emperor of China. This is no liberation, and a peacefull nation shoud be allowed to evolve without being invaded by greedy dictators, whatever their ideology might be.
Non of these things are actually free. Instead they should be said to be "government provided". Sweden has to finance it's "free" services with very high taxes that some Swedes are begining to question.
Correct. The same in communism. They control complitly the revenues of the population, so most of the money are in state hands.
