Fidel's Change of Heart?

PuroFreak

Has Fidel Castro had a change of heart and economic philosophy? Thought this was an interesting comment from him and wish he would have elaborated on it a bit more. Of course we all know the communist model is not sustainable in the long term, but to hear it come from the man behind Cuba's communist revolution it is a bit surprising. Anyone else have any thoughts on this or anything else he said?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_fidel_castro

Hayblet

Say what you will about how recent Communism Governments have been ran, but when done right Communism is the most stable forms of government around, but it has to be stair-stepped to get there,you can't just jump into pure Communism and expect it to work.

PuroFreak

Hayblet:

Say what you will about how recent Communism Governments have been ran, but when done right Communism is the most stable forms of government around, but it has to be stair-stepped to get there,you can't just jump into pure Communism and expect it to work.

I would like to see some kind of evidence to back that statement... Throughout history communism has been an utter failure time after time and is one of the most mid-guided ideologies ever to have been put to use. Trying to figure out if you're being extremely sarcastic (hard to tell when reading typed words) or have some proof to back this statement.

fla-gypsy

PuroFreak:

Hayblet:

Say what you will about how recent Communism Governments have been ran, but when done right Communism is the most stable forms of government around, but it has to be stair-stepped to get there,you can't just jump into pure Communism and expect it to work.

I would like to see some kind of evidence to back that statement... Throughout history communism has been an utter failure time after time and is one of the most mid-guided ideologies ever to have been put to use. Trying to figure out if you're being extremely sarcastic (hard to tell when reading typed words) or have some proof to back this statement.

I am with Puro on this one, when has it ever been successful. How many times in the past 30 years have we seen communist/socialist systems interject capitalism into their economy to save it? Plenty! Even the Chicoms have embraced it, the Russians have exceeded our capitalist system in corruption already while the N Koreans hold out and slowly starve themselves to death

One2gofst

In theory, Communism is great. However, the problem comes in its practice by the fact that you have people involved in implementing it. IMO, there will always be people who want more and strive to achieve it in any way possible. There will also be people who want to do as little as possible to survive. So you have people who are doing things to get more than they are supposed to and those who don't do anything and get as much as the regular guy doing an honest day's work. That guy gets disenfranchised and the gulf between the haves and have nots widens as more honest workers decide it isn't worth the effort. IMO again, Communism's failure as a system comes from human nature and not the idea. A bad analogy off the top of my head would be a race car. It has everything it needs to win races, but a few of the crew are doing side stuff to make more and others are sleeping rather than maintaining the vehicles. This is going to cause problems with the rest of the team and it wouldn't be a surprise if the car broke down. Doesn't mean that car couldn't win the race, it means the team was flawed because of the human nature of the people on it.

I believe Communist theory can work on a very small scale, provided you have a group of people each equally committed and tied to the success of the community. You also need a mechanism for removing those who would damage the community from said community. I personally would want no part of it, as I believe in achieving what I am able to and maintaining my freedom, but that is neither here nor there with regards to whether the Communist principle is sound.

PuroFreak

One2gofst:

In theory, Communism is great. However, the problem comes in its practice by the fact that you have people involved in implementing it. IMO, there will always be people who want more and strive to achieve it in any way possible. There will also be people who want to do as little as possible to survive. So you have people who are doing things to get more than they are supposed to and those who don't do anything and get as much as the regular guy doing an honest day's work. That guy gets disenfranchised and the gulf between the haves and have nots widens as more honest workers decide it isn't worth the effort. IMO again, Communism's failure as a system comes from human nature and not the idea. A bad analogy off the top of my head would be a race car. It has everything it needs to win races, but a few of the crew are doing side stuff to make more and others are sleeping rather than maintaining the vehicles. This is going to cause problems with the rest of the team and it wouldn't be a surprise if the car broke down. Doesn't mean that car couldn't win the race, it means the team was flawed because of the human nature of the people on it.

I believe Communist theory can work on a very small scale, provided you have a group of people each equally committed and tied to the success of the community. You also need a mechanism for removing those who would damage the community from said community. I personally would want no part of it, as I believe in achieving what I am able to and maintaining my freedom, but that is neither here nor there with regards to whether the Communist principle is sound.

I don't believe the idea of communism as a successful form of government is even possible because you can't remove "people" from the equation. Communism depends on people, and they are a major part of the entire idea. If you remove them from the system there is no system. Now if you removed people's free will from the equation you might have a government that could temporarily function, but the economics of it still don't work. Another point is, to have a successful government is about a lot more than just the economic side of things.

fla-gypsy

Communism already has a way to remove persons that screw it up, they are called Gulags, re-education camps, etc

xmacro

One2gofst:

In theory, Communism is great. However, the problem comes in its practice by the fact that you have people involved in implementing it. IMO, there will always be people who want more and strive to achieve it in any way possible. There will also be people who want to do as little as possible to survive. So you have people who are doing things to get more than they are supposed to and those who don't do anything and get as much as the regular guy doing an honest day's work. That guy gets disenfranchised and the gulf between the haves and have nots widens as more honest workers decide it isn't worth the effort. IMO again, Communism's failure as a system comes from human nature and not the idea. A bad analogy off the top of my head would be a race car. It has everything it needs to win races, but a few of the crew are doing side stuff to make more and others are sleeping rather than maintaining the vehicles. This is going to cause problems with the rest of the team and it wouldn't be a surprise if the car broke down. Doesn't mean that car couldn't win the race, it means the team was flawed because of the human nature of the people on it.

I believe Communist theory can work on a very small scale, provided you have a group of people each equally committed and tied to the success of the community. You also need a mechanism for removing those who would damage the community from said community. I personally would want no part of it, as I believe in achieving what I am able to and maintaining my freedom, but that is neither here nor there with regards to whether the Communist principle is sound.

This is pretty accurate, from what I understand of history. Human nature is the problem, and no matter how much eugenics a society attempts, it's impossible to breed out what you've described in your first paragraph.

Also, your second paragraph is also correct; from what I understand of history, early civilization (read: small villages of 20 or so people) can be defined as communism - everyone had an assigned task, and it was that persons responsibility to provide for the entire village. The system only works with a very small number of people; once you get beyond the low single/double digits, you have problems. If there's only one person who sews in the entire village, that person can't slack off or else they'll be tossed out of the village - if there's 2 or 3 sewers, it becomes easier to slack off; it becomes easier still when there's 10, 50 or 100 sewers.

So I agree with ONe2gofst - communism only works on an extremely small scale; any bigger, and Capitalism is the only system that's been proven to pull people out of poverty. Say what you will about the US style - we Americans still enjoy the highest standard of living in the entire world. In America, even the poor have cellphones, a car, and cable TV - can't say that about other countries

Lasabar

In Soviet Russia, Cigar Smokes YOU

Amos_Umwhat

I reckon I'm with the majority here. Communism is great, at about the tribal level, when you're related to everyone, and you know good and well that if you let the family down, well, you're 'fredo. And that's all for you, 'fredo.

Hayblet

One2gofst:

In theory, Communism is great. However, the problem comes in its practice by the fact that you have people involved in implementing it. IMO, there will always be people who want more and strive to achieve it in any way possible. There will also be people who want to do as little as possible to survive. So you have people who are doing things to get more than they are supposed to and those who don't do anything and get as much as the regular guy doing an honest day's work. That guy gets disenfranchised and the gulf between the haves and have nots widens as more honest workers decide it isn't worth the effort. IMO again, Communism's failure as a system comes from human nature and not the idea. A bad analogy off the top of my head would be a race car. It has everything it needs to win races, but a few of the crew are doing side stuff to make more and others are sleeping rather than maintaining the vehicles. This is going to cause problems with the rest of the team and it wouldn't be a surprise if the car broke down. Doesn't mean that car couldn't win the race, it means the team was flawed because of the human nature of the people on it.

I believe Communist theory can work on a very small scale, provided you have a group of people each equally committed and tied to the success of the community. You also need a mechanism for removing those who would damage the community from said community. I personally would want no part of it, as I believe in achieving what I am able to and maintaining my freedom, but that is neither here nor there with regards to whether the Communist principle is sound.

Mostly covered what I would have tried to put to text. Human nature/greed/power trips is what corrupts the Communism system

Vulchor

I think saying communism is great if worked properly, or in small groups, ect. is incorrect. Not saying it doesntg appear that way----but the tenents of communism have indeed never worked (to my knowledge) on any scale, and what is being reffered to here as communism is actually more of a commune of small village system and not a true form of the governing style.

In response to Puros post/question---I did find it somewhat interesting and odd for him to do this. My best guess is this is the latest in a continuing effort by Cuba to "modernize" thinking and their image as a way to soften issues with the U.S. as proceeding toward normalizing relations. He appears rational enough (and hell, maybe even man or sane enough) to aknowledge that the system is failing and cannot continue if his country is to grow and become any sort of financial success again. Time helping to heal all wounds perhaps.

dennisking

communism works in a utopian society where everyone is selfless and giving. when people have greed (which we all have some form of) it doesn't work. there were "bible communists" in the 1890's before Marx had ever written the Communist Manifesto. I think that Communism gets a bad rap because of all the people that have used it as a way for ultimate dictatorship control

Lasabar

Selfish
I must say, I've heard stories of how the ANTI-Communist scrolling signs on the U.S. Embassy were turned off and the LoudSpeakers damning the U.S. were turned off to ease tensions...
Now Fidel is turning a leaf...

My only thought is selfish... I understand the lives that would be impacted and improved if the trade embargo would be lifted, I understand the Vacation potential and the beauty in CUBA....

But deep down I know that the popularity of Cuban Cigars have already stretched them thin in terms of production and quality. Quite a few Cuban cigars have gotten a black ash over the past years due to a Magnesium depletion in the soil for they do not rotate their crops and do a year of alternate growth to reclaim the soil...
I cringe at the quality of Cuban tobacco if the U.S. with it's uninformed and pocket book heavy consumers deplete the cigars even more and drive up price....

"Shudders"

mrpillow

dennisking:

communism works in a utopian society where everyone is selfless and giving. w

Selflessness will be the downfall of humanity. No man has the right to claim a minute of another's time as his own, a cent of another's rightful earnings as his own, or an acre of another's rightfully owned land as his own. The idea that selfishness is a terrible thing will stop the advancement of the world as we know it. Those who produce, those who create wealth, those who deliver knowledge, these are the people that make the universe go round. Money and desire are not the root of all evil, they are the only thing that gives a proper man reason to do good.


In short, *** communism.

Jetmech_63

EDIT: nevermind, misread something.

Lasabar

Jetmech_63:

EDIT: nevermind, misread something.

My Heart?






Why don't you call?

dhall6

Communism always gets a bad rep due to the dictatorial nature that tends to arise within it. One2gofst definitely got it right, it is one of those things that just looks good on paper but differs largely in practice. The whole point of communism is the destruction of government; the government is merely a tool to be used (ideally) until the Utopian society is finally reached, wherein it would then be abolished as government is no longer needed to regulate the people. Much of our outlook on communism was shaped by the Cold War and because of that many people look at communism in a negative connotation and write it off immediately when in theory it really isnt that bad. During the Cold War everyone thought that the U.S.S.R. was controlling other communist nations, spreading communism around the world, and this has been proven to not be the case. Am I a communist? No. Not by a long shot. lol But things things like this tend to become misconstrued and not looked at past the surface. Usually in capitalistic societies close to 1% of the people control the majority of the wealth; is that fair? Personally I don't think it is..but that also doesn't make me want to be a communist. lol All systems have their pros and cons, and people just have to decide what they wish to pursue.

kuzi16

dhall6:

Usually in capitalistic societies close to 1% of the people control the majority of the wealth; is that fair?

it is 100% fair so long as the rights of others are not being violated and everyone has the same inherent natural rights (upheld, not created, by the government). As soon as rights are being violated, then it is unfair.

is it fair in the US? that is a different question.

Krieg

I think it was Margaret Thatcher that said once "The problem with Communism/Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money". Communism looks appealing in theory, but in reality has always failed....and will continue to fail. No other economic system has raised the standard of living as high and for so many people than Capitalism.

One2gofst

Lasabar:

Selfish
I must say, I've heard stories of how the ANTI-Communist scrolling signs on the U.S. Embassy were turned off and the LoudSpeakers damning the U.S. were turned off to ease tensions...
Now Fidel is turning a leaf...

My only thought is selfish... I understand the lives that would be impacted and improved if the trade embargo would be lifted, I understand the Vacation potential and the beauty in CUBA....

But deep down I know that the popularity of Cuban Cigars have already stretched them thin in terms of production and quality. Quite a few Cuban cigars have gotten a black ash over the past years due to a Magnesium depletion in the soil for they do not rotate their crops and do a year of alternate growth to reclaim the soil...
I cringe at the quality of Cuban tobacco if the U.S. with it's uninformed and pocket book heavy consumers deplete the cigars even more and drive up price....

"Shudders"

I disagree slightly. Without a free market, I don't think Cuba opening up would have a huge effect on tourism. People in Cuba are poor. In order to make Cuba attractive once again as a vacation destination, I believe you would need outside capital. No one is going to invest if the govt. would control all the profits. I believe the U.S. could effectively open up Cuba to its citizens tomorrow and there will be no great wave of people climbing over each other to visit.

I agree with you on what would happen from the standpoint of Cuban Cigars. I do think that would die down rather quickly though. What I would be really excited about are all the wonderful growers and blenders who know how to get it right who would have access to Cuban soil and tobacco possibly if the current regime was overthrown. I believe that if Cuba went to a form of government that allowed private enterprise, Cuban cigars would actually improve as no one would buy the "original" Cuban brands when master blenders were making better "Cubans". It would no doubt make them less expensive as you are no longer paying for someone's heightened risk and spillage.

Vulchor

mrpillow:

dennisking:

communism works in a utopian society where everyone is selfless and giving. w

Money and desire are not the root of all evil, they are the only thing that gives a proper man reason to do good.


.

Well stated, very sad, and a reason we are little better than our ape grandparents.

xmacro

dhall6:

Communism always gets a bad rep due to the dictatorial nature that always arises within it.

Fixed.

With the sole exception of extremely small villages, there's never been a single communist gov't that's ever been anything other than a dictatorship. It's a theory that looks good on paper, has never worked, and has intentionally murdered over 100 million people in pursuit of Utopia (oddly enough, how many people know that the word "Utopia", derived from the original Greek, actually means "nowhere"?)

Oddly enough, most "communists" you find today are typically teenagers on the internet who think they're being "kind hearted and caring for the poor" by calling themselves communists. When you tell them that communisms killed over 100 million people and always results in a dictatorship, they respond in one of two ways: 1) communisms never really been tried, it's been corrupted by greedy party officials every time it's attempted, or 2) Communism is really a bunch of communes living together with no gov't in charge, so it's never really been attempted. Both, of course, are false, as evidenced by over 100 years of history and bloodshed

Anyway, it seems like the oldest communist country is finally starting to crack up; seems like communism may finally die like it should've 50 years ago. The next fight, as I see it, is Communism-lite - aka, Socialism. It seems a lot of ideologues are regrouping and using the reasoning that "ok, so pure communism doesn't work, but we can still use parts of it and make utopia work out"

PuroFreak

xmacro:

dhall6:

Communism always gets a bad rep due to the dictatorial nature that always arises within it.

Fixed.

With the sole exception of extremely small villages, there's never been a single communist gov't that's ever been anything other than a dictatorship. It's a theory that looks good on paper, has never worked, and has intentionally murdered over 100 million people in pursuit of Utopia (oddly enough, how many people know that the word "Utopia", derived from the original Greek, actually means "nowhere"?)

Oddly enough, most "communists" you find today are typically teenagers on the internet who think they're being "kind hearted and caring for the poor" by calling themselves communists. When you tell them that communisms killed over 100 million people and always results in a dictatorship, they respond in one of two ways: 1) communisms never really been tried, it's been corrupted by greedy party officials every time it's attempted, or 2) Communism is really a bunch of communes living together with no gov't in charge, so it's never really been attempted. Both, of course, are false, as evidenced by over 100 years of history and bloodshed

Anyway, it seems like the oldest communist country is finally starting to crack up; seems like communism may finally die like it should've 50 years ago. The next fight, as I see it, is Communism-lite - aka, Socialism. It seems a lot of ideologues are regrouping and using the reasoning that "ok, so pure communism doesn't work, but we can still use parts of it and make utopia work out"

According to Marx, Socialism is a step in the transition from capitalism to communism.

Vulchor

Here we goooooooooooooooooooo

cabinetmaker

Vulchor:

Here we goooooooooooooooooooo

Yep, that's where we are heading. So, Here we goooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....

Vulchor

Yes, the sky is falling I know------getting a bit old that all posts with any news or current events have to degernate into this.

mrpillow

Opinions are like ****. The internet is the best place to find everyone's.

PuroFreak

Vulchor:

Here we goooooooooooooooooooo

No no no, that's actually not where I was going with this at all. I was simply pointing out that socialist countries with dictators aka Hugo Chavez and people like this, will eventually transition into a communist state. If Cuba had gone through a slow transition their decline would have been much slower than it has been, but plunging into communism by way of a revolution just sped up the decline in their economy. I wish the reporter doing the interview could have discussed this issue with him further. I thought it was interesting.

Vulchor

Could be on that issue, doomed for failure no matter what the way it is done however. Sorry if I may have misinterpreted or intimated where I thought you were going.

TatuajeVI

dhall6:

Communism always gets a bad rep due to the dictatorial nature that tends to arise within it. One2gofst definitely got it right, it is one of those things that just looks good on paper but differs largely in practice. The whole point of communism is the destruction of government; the government is merely a tool to be used (ideally) until the Utopian society is finally reached, wherein it would then be abolished as government is no longer needed to regulate the people.

Communism got it's bad rep due to them murdering hundreds of millions of people while trying to put on a nice face for the rest of the world attempting to reach this "Utopian Society." Every communist government to date has not only failed economically, they have been by far the worst of the worst when it comes to terrorizing/torturing/spying on/murdering their own people. Stalin makes Hitler look like a 6 year old bully, and Mao is/was just as bad. Between the USSR and China we can CONSERVATIVELY estimate they killed 120 milliion of their own citizens in the name of creating a "Utopian Society." Laos/Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge took things to a whole new level by murdering 1/3 of their entire population in only a couple years (2 million or so) and if you want to look at Communism gone bat-***-crazy look no further than North Korea.

Communism has been tried many, many times and has been by far the worst political system ever attempted. The loss of human life due to Communism is unfathomable. Easily in the range of 150-200 million people from a combination of work camps, political assassinations/executions, purges, and you can't forget bad economic policy that lead to the starvation of millions upon millions. (read about "deep plowing" under Mao and the Ukraine farming disasters in the Soviet Union) It is a fools dream to think it can work simply because humans are not "cogs in a machine" and in all styles of government: "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

dhall6:

Much of our outlook on communism was shaped by the Cold War and because of that many people look at communism in a negative connotation and write it off immediately when in theory it really isnt that bad. During the Cold War everyone thought that the U.S.S.R. was controlling other communist nations, spreading communism around the world, and this has been proven to not be the case.

What? Proven that they didn't attempt to spread communism? The Soviet Union was supporting North Vietnam - they did so militarily, even flying in secret in order to prevent the US from nuking the *** out of them during the Vietnam war, and of course supported with military equipment every single communist government, to include East Germany, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc. etc. The entire premise of Marx and Communism was to create a world-wide revolution of Communism. Oh, and after WWII the countries they "liberated" on the way to Berlin somehow magically became satellite states of the USSR. Poland, East Germany, etc. Not to sound like a jerk, but you really need to do a bit more reading about the Soviet Union.