Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

Of course ! I can smell a pinko liberal miles away.

Even after all those cigarettes you smoked all these years? I'm amazed if you can smell a slaughterhouse standing at the main gate.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

And they smell bad too most of them.

That is the foot in the grave.

[Roubignol]

Here is an analysis written between 1993~1995 by the Professor in genetics and humanist Albert Jacquard.

I google translated it, because the text is originally in French.
It takes 5 to 6 minutes to read it.

An economic experiment refused.

From his first voyage, in 1492, Christopher Columbus discovers the island of Cuba and makes it a Spanish colony, a status it keeps until the end of the 19th century. The economic activity is then essentially focused on the cultivation of sugar cane: in the huge properties employing thousands of slaves, Cuba produces one third of the world sugar.

It was not until 1886 that slavery was finally abolished, in 1899 that Cuba conquered its independence after a long struggle against the Spanish occupation troops. But this painful independence obtained remains a fiction. The United States is closely monitoring events in this neighboring country. It imposes corrupt presidents who defend the interests of large American corporations; these directly manage the main wealth of the country (sugar, tobacco, nickel).
From the beginning of this century, tourism is developing; the Americans come to Havana not to admire landscapes, but to find what the apparent rigorism of their manners officially forbids at home: the game and the girls. Cuba becomes the brothel of America.

The last dictator imposed in 1940, by the Americans, Fulgencio Batista, improves the economic "output" of the island by attracting American capital and developing tourism; but this return only benefits foreign investors and some politicians, first and foremost Batista himself, who accumulates a fabulous fortune. The popular revolt is organized by some barbudos, who end up prevailing over the governmental forces. In 1959, Fidel Castro replaces Batista and promises to restore his dignity to the Cuban people. A program of literacy, improvement of health, humanization of working conditions is implemented. The results are quickly spectacular. In 1988, the infant mortality rate was below 25 ‰, the lowest of all Latin American states. Both the education system and the health system are accessible to everyone for free.

Initially, the United States welcomed Castro rather favorably; it was clear that the earlier situation, so favorable to American enterprises, could not last against the will of an entire people. Better was the fire. Castro is received with sympathy in Washington. Things are spoiled however very quickly. To finance his program to improve the lot of Cubans, Castro confiscates the assets of American companies. The reaction is not long in coming: the CIA foments the attempt to invade the Bay of Pigs, which fails miserably; the United States establishes the blockade of the island.

The only solution for Castro is to turn to a power capable of helping him, the USSR. Driven by necessity rather than by ideological choice, it is gradually aligning itself with Soviet positions and even accepting the installation of rockets that threaten the territory of the United States. This major fault leads to a hardening of the American position; the CIA finances the anticastrist movements; to prevent a counter-revolution, Castro accentuates the dictatorial character of his regime. The classic spiral of the loss of freedoms unfolds.

Today, with the collapse of the Soviet empire, Cuba no longer has any support; the island is only a beleaguered stronghold at the end of its resources; hungry, those of its inhabitants who can desert it.

When a scientist proposes a new theory questioning the previous conceptions, the reaction of his peers is to propose experiments to him to observe that this theory is conform or not to the reality.
The means are proposed to him so that this experiment is carried out in the best conditions of reliability. For a "liberal" economist, the idea of organizing the economy of a country on the basis of a generalized collectivism is an absurdity; "It can not work." This is not, for him, a political choice but the culmination of a scientific reasoning. To check the validity of this reasoning, the best method is to do an experiment. Admittedly, it was attempted from 1917 in Russia with the results that we know: but the conditions of the experiment were such that rigorous conclusions can hardly be drawn from them. Initially, this country, remained feudal, was in a state of disorganization and poverty such that the concrete measures taken by the new power were very far from those which would have inspired their displayed doctrine. Subsequently, the slippage towards the dictatorship totally distorted the attempt.

In all good faith, this liberal economist should have welcomed with intense satisfaction the possibility of a new experiment on such a scale that the conditions could be controlled. A population of ten million people proposes, in the early sixties, to collectivize the economy, to withdraw from the commercial sector of whole areas of the activity, to make the happiness of the people forgetting the theorem of the maximization of the yield social. "Of course," said the liberal economist, "that will lead to disaster; so we have a way to clearly demonstrate that these iconoclastic theories are incompatible with the mechanisms imposed on men. Let us experiment to shatter the correctness of our doctrine and bring to reason those who would be tempted by these nonsense. "

Cuba could have been a laboratory where, under the eyes of the world, a full-scale economic experiment would have been conducted. American universities could have sent streams of professors and students to observe, measure, compare and argue among themselves; Cuba would have been an inexhaustible source of doctoral thesis and scholarly articles in scientific journals.
Alas, this laboratory was transformed, following initial errors of Castro and then by the often excessive reactions of the United States, in a besieged city. Many years have passed since the rocket business. The occasion could have been, on several occasions, to re-establish the dialogue. On the contrary, the blockade has been systematically reinforced, including in its most inhuman aspects: Cuban hospitals no longer have drugs, schoolchildren no more notebooks.

Cuba, which does not benefit, apart from the sun, from natural resources, lacks everything. The harvest of sugar cane had been mechanized; For lack of oil this crop can not be done with a very low yield.

For most commentators, current events are evidence of a failure of Castro's policy: he chose collectivism, he inevitably leads to disaster. The balseros trying to reach Florida are presented as fleeing the Castro regime. In reality, they are fleeing because they are hungry. The current state of the island is the result of the blockade imposed by America at least as much as management errors.

The experiment that might have been tried was deliberately distorted.

It is not excessive, in the face of these events, to make the assumption of a lack of confidence of the Americans in the value of their own doctrine. Had they had a really strong faith in the virtue of liberalism, they would have waited without fear for the result of collectivism. They did not dare.
Their attitude gives reason to those who doubt, who see in the so-called liberal economy the mask of the law of the strongest, who denounce this fundamentalism and who propose other ways.

Because the refusal of any argumentation or any experience likely to show that one is in error is it not the sign of fundamentalism?

Google translate from French to English from the book of Pr. Albert Jacquard (1995)

[Arturo2nd]

Professor Jacquard has made some false assumptions in his analysis. He has totally ignored the political dynamics in the United States that made embracing a Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba impossible.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Professor Jacquard has made some false assumptions in his analysis. He has totally ignored the political dynamics in the United States that made embracing a Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba impossible.

I would be very interested to know which ones.

It seems to me that he spoke about the problem between the Cuban and the American politicians of that time. Instead to negociate, they wanted to show who had the longest "dick". Sadly thanks to the history and manipulation of their American population, US politicians had the longest one.
But he doesn't say that Castro was totally correct.

He esplains that if the Cuban challenge would have been negociated with American scientists, it could have been quickly and fairly negociated. Sadly the challenge was negociated by arrogant politicians manipulated by liberal interests.

All the Jacquard's book is about showing the problems caused by the abuse of private property, speculation, destruction of general interests for private enrichment. This is the only chapter about USA and Cuba. All the rest is about France and worldwide.

He's probably one of the bravest French scientists of the last decades.
At the age of 73 years, when he was retired and could have spent the rest of his life enjoying of his pension. But no! Shocked by what he read in newspapers, he decided to fight against the absurdities of speculation.
He used his academic fame (he was Director of Research at the National Institute of Demographic Studies and Member of the National Advisory Ethics Committee) to sleep outside with immigrants and provoked lazy politicians to show their laxisms.
French President, ministers and senators had to rewrite laws and find solutions thanks to his actions.
He (with other humanists) won a lot of small battles.

Reading his books, we can understand why racists and nationalists have absolutely no arguments to defend their theories.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I would be very interested to know which ones.

It seems to me that he spoke about the problem between the Cuban and the American politicians of that time. Instead to negociate, they wanted to show who had the longest "dick". Sadly thanks to the history and manipulation of their American population, US politicians had the longest one.
But he doesn't say that Castro was totally correct.

He esplains that if the Cuban challenge would have been negociated with American scientists, it could have been quickly and fairly negociated. Sadly the challenge was negociated by arrogant politicians manipulated by liberal interests.

All the Jacquard's book is about showing the problems caused by the abuse of private property, speculation, destruction of general interests for private enrichment. This is the only chapter about USA and Cuba. All the rest is about France and worldwide.

"Money is the mother's milk of politics."

The banking and manufacturing concerns pour major amounts into the political process. Politicians rely of this funding to pay their campaign expenses. By 1960, weapons manufacturers were major players in the mix. The "military-industrial complex" has increased its dominance in American politics since 1960, but was already a major player.

The Republican party was the avowed enemy of international communism dating back to the 19th century. As the party of choice for the wealthy and privileged, those elected to national office under its banner only make deals with socialist regimes when it is expedient. Kennedy, as a Democrat, could not afford to be seen as "soft on Communism" without diminishing his power and that of the party. International communism would continue to be seen as an anti-capitalist movement directed by the Kremlin for decades after the Cuban revolution. Later, Castro would provide significant support to anti-U.S. revolutionary movements in Latin America and Africa.

Castro would soon embark on a program of "nationalizing" industries and properties in Cuba. This meant the seizure of assets owned by U.S. citizens and corporations. Claims for restitution and compensation remain open to this day. Organized crime had significant investments in Cuba that were seized by the Castro regime. Both Kennedy and Nixon had ties to organized crime figures. Opposition to the Castro regime was quite personal for both men. I, for one, believe that Kennedy was assassinated by an agent of Cuba and Moscow in retaliation for Kennedy's repeated efforts to have Castro assassinated.

Finally, those who fled the Castro regime and found asylum in the United States have formed a vocal and well-financed lobbying force whose power has only recently diminished.

The factors above are no doubt part of the political equation that made cooperation between the United States and Communist Cuba impossible. One can imagine a different world, but Jacquard's theories are as valid as saying the Civil War in the United States could have been avoided if the Southern planters had simply freed the slaves.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

but Jacquard's theories are as valid as saying the Civil War in the United States could have been avoided if the Southern planters had simply freed the slaves.

That's a great opportunity that you give me here.
I'm surely naiv, but wouldn't it be the fact?
I'm sure that if southern and northern negotiators would have been two guys like Jacquard at the table of the negociations, they would have been no Civil War.

And that's a point that we have, as citizen, to be very careful. We only have to vote for caring people, not people that want to divide through biased argumentations.

[haroldeye]

Sadly by the time politicians are in power the only thing they care for is themselves. Castro's regime was hardly known for it's benevolence to the Cuban people.

[Brecht]

It certainly wasn't benevolent to criminals and former plantation owners, also known as "gusanos" in Castro-speak. But they're hardly "the Cuban people". Despite being a very poor country prior to the revolution, despite all the terrorist acts of sabotage committed by the US on Cuban soil and despite an economic blockade still effective, the achievements of the Cuban Revolution are pretty remarkable. All remnants of slavery were abolished, the literacy rate is at 99%, the Cuban government spends 14% of its budget on education, all Cubans have access to universal healthcare (life expectancy is about 80 years), it has a lower infant mortality rate than the US or Canada (4.6 per thousand) and is the only Latin-American country where child malnutrition is no longer an issue. Cuba is also known for its humanitarian efforts in both Latin America and Africa. For decades they have been educating doctors from the Third World for free.

These are remarkable achievements for a Third World country with limited resources, a country met with extreme hostility from the most powerful countries in the (capitalist) world. Cuba managed to survive the illegally imposed economic sanctions even after the loss of its main trade partner, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block.

So yeah, I think from the viewpoint of the average Cuban citizen, the couple flaws that Castro may have had can be forgiven. Funny how flawless perfection is never expected from the leaders of the capitalist world. No matter how many lies they tell, how many billions of dollars they steal from tax-paying citizens for the benefit of the oligarchs, how many countries they invade and destroy, they're still celebrated as national icons who "make mistakes" sometimes.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Sadly by the time politicians are in power the only thing they care for is themselves. Castro's regime was hardly known for it's benevolence to the Cuban people.

Cuba is the country that get the most doctors per people in latin America.
He made a deal with Hugo Chavez: "Give us some petrol and we send you doctors."

I don't say that Castro was Jesus Christ, but how was the previous President?
And how good is the social life for the poorest American or European people today? Without suffering a blocus!
Did you read the text of Jacquard?