The Díaz-Canel executive approves a series of measures that include budget cuts, equal pricing policy and readjustments aimed at ‘correcting distortions’
Every mode of production contains elements of its former, according to Marx, exactly because we have to understand human development and our current paradigm through historical materialism.
To say that a communist nation cannot contain capitalist components as its non fundamental mode of production is as stupid as saying Britain is not capitalist because they have a king.
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.
The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?
I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.
I never said anything about Cuba specifically. I made a general remark that an analysis of whether a country is socialist or not has to concern itself with what is the primary mode of production. I also wanted to bring in historical materialism because you seemed to talk about Marx without (seemingly) understanding this very important part of his contributions.
To be clear, my position was, and still is, that I find your analysis faulty, regardless of what I think would be the right conclusion on Cuba being communist.
That is in no way the same. Have you even read Capital or the Communist Manifesto?
Getting pissed off at me that private ownership and profit are not things that belong in communism is silly. Based on that argument, the U.S. isn’t a socialist country, it’s a communist one.
I’m a different person. I’m not pissed, I’m just making casual conversation.
Communism and capitalism as they were described in the literature both died in 93 and 08 respectively.
Just like the current capitalist system in the US cannot function without massive subsidies and bailouts, I’d imagine the current communist systems require private enterprises to keep parts of their system functioning.
How is this a dichotomy? How does private ownership and profit exist in a communist state? That’s pretty much the definition of capitalism.
I understand wanting Cuba to be a communist country, but it’s no more communist than China.
You tell me where Marx says private ownership and enriching corporate profits are features of communism.
Every mode of production contains elements of its former, according to Marx, exactly because we have to understand human development and our current paradigm through historical materialism.
To say that a communist nation cannot contain capitalist components as its non fundamental mode of production is as stupid as saying Britain is not capitalist because they have a king.
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
Were there really in accordance with the definition you are trying to enforce?
Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.
The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?
I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.
I never said anything about Cuba specifically. I made a general remark that an analysis of whether a country is socialist or not has to concern itself with what is the primary mode of production. I also wanted to bring in historical materialism because you seemed to talk about Marx without (seemingly) understanding this very important part of his contributions.
To be clear, my position was, and still is, that I find your analysis faulty, regardless of what I think would be the right conclusion on Cuba being communist.
Does the United States having food stamps and public education make it a socialist country?
That is in no way the same. Have you even read Capital or the Communist Manifesto?
Getting pissed off at me that private ownership and profit are not things that belong in communism is silly. Based on that argument, the U.S. isn’t a socialist country, it’s a communist one.
I’m a different person. I’m not pissed, I’m just making casual conversation.
Communism and capitalism as they were described in the literature both died in 93 and 08 respectively.
Just like the current capitalist system in the US cannot function without massive subsidies and bailouts, I’d imagine the current communist systems require private enterprises to keep parts of their system functioning.
Then I guess it isn’t right to call Cuba communist, as much as that pisses some people off.
If communism requires private enterprise, it isn’t communism. The word ‘communism’ comes from ‘communal’ That is not communal. Find another word.
I agree, and honestly a rebranding would go a long way to improving its appeal to the average person