China and Cuba

[CartCollector]

When China trades with capitalist countries, it's called 'Dengist' and hated for selling out and destroying the progress of Mao.
When Cuba is barred from trading with capitalist countries, all of a sudden it's the capitalists fault for trying to make them poor.
Why is trade bad for China but good for Cuba?

[khad]

This is why:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/china-supports-obama-iran-sanctions (http://anonym.to/?http://anonym.to/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/china-supports-obama-iran-sanctions)

[red cat]

When China trades with capitalist countries, it's called 'Dengist' and hated for selling out and destroying the progress of Mao.
When Cuba is barred from trading with capitalist countries, all of a sudden it's the capitalists fault for trying to make them poor.
Why is trade bad for China but good for Cuba?

Because China itself is an emerging imperialist country now, while Cuba is holding out against direct American imperialism.

[chegitz guevara]

Trade itself is not the problem. It's the basis on which trade is carried out and why. China engages in trade to make a profit. Cuba engages in trade to get the things it can't supply itself.

[flobdob]

When China trades with capitalist countries, it's called 'Dengist' and hated for selling out and destroying the progress of Mao.


This isn't why China is called "Dengist", and pointed out as selling out the gains of the Chinese revolution. The reason China is called Dengist is because ever since the death of Mao, the policies of gradual market reform have taken place that have opened up significant marketised zones of China, leading to a massive collapse in the resultant gains of the Chinese revolution. The marketisation process in China happened at a time when China was already growing economically; much of the foundations of economic growth in the Deng era were resultant of the large scale investment projects started under Mao. The Deng reforms were purely opportunistic and sought to reverse China from the socialist path. Meanwhile Cuba has not opened these marketised zones, and has always attempted to uphold the gains of the revolution, putting them even above economic concerns in some instances. This all occured in the context of the collapse of almost all it's former trading partners in what has been called the "Special Period"; as Cuba is slowly emerging out of this period now, these necessary evils which had to be adopted in the context are being slowly drawn to a close. In short, trading in the abstract sense has very little to do with designating one as socialist and the other as not socialist; rather, it has more to do with the extent of market reforms that have occured, the context in which these had occured, the attempts to revert away from the process of marketisation, and the intent behind reforms.

[Barry Lyndon]

There is nothing inherently capitalist about trading. Trading existed long before capitalism and would exist long after. Like others said, its the motivations behind the trading and the property relations the trading represents that is the issue.

[Ismail]

Albania traded with plenty of states, and it is widely regarded as having been the most isolationist state in modern Europe. Capitalist states investing en masse, however (as in the case of China), is something different. As is being dependent upon foreign aid to survive.

As Enver Hoxha noted in 1976: "No country whatsoever, big or small, can build socialism by taking credits and aid from the bourgeoisie and the revisionists or by integrating its economy into the world system of capitalist economies. Any such linking of the economy of a socialist country with the economy of bourgeois or revisionist countries opens the doors to the actions of the economic laws of capitalism and the degeneration of the socialist order. This is the road of betrayal and the restoration of capitalism, which the revisionist cliques have pursued and are pursuing."

Furthermore from the same year: "US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism and their lackeys express 'concern' about how socialist Albania will live and develop relying on its own forces without taking credits from the capitalists. We shall advance on the basis of our own strength... We have different concepts about aid in the form of credits that a state receives from abroad. On one hand, there is the aid granted by a fraternal socialist state and, on the other, the credits provided by the imperialists, social-imperialists and capitalists. The former is fraternal disinterested aid, free of political pressure, not linked with passing circumstances, whereas the aim of credits provided by imperialism, social-imperialism and world capitalism, in whatever form they are given, is to violate the freedom, independence and sovereignty of the peoples of different countries, by putting them under continuous political pressure. Our country has never accepted and never will accept such enslaving credits which are nothing else but forms of neo-colonialism."

[Vendetta]

This is why:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/china-supports-obama-iran-sanctions (http://anonym.to/?http://anonym.to/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/china-supports-obama-iran-sanctions)

China supports Barack Obama's call for new Iran sanctions

Why does Obama and Sarkozy look like they're about to pull off some action-movie slow-mo moves?

[sunfarstar]

Perhaps China can aid the Cuban economy through trade growth, although China is not rich.
也许，中国可以通过贸易援助古巴经济的成长，虽然中国还不是很富有。

[InuyashaKnight]

China can help Cuba out. China will hold more power in the future!

[AK]

China can help Cuba out. China will hold more power in the future!
China is blatantly capitalist :laugh:

The Bourgeoisie of capitalists and the ruling cliche is what will hold more power.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's a difference between a large, resource rich country having its workers turned into cheap, overworked labour to produce export goods, and a small, threatened nation trading to get the goods it has been denied by the US trade embargo.

As has been said, trade itself is not a problem - it is natural that goods do not always originate at the point of need. Oil, for instance, will need to be traded for the duration of its existence, simply because it does not exist everywhere - it is mainly found, in the ground, in the Middle East and off the coast of Alaska, as well as one or two other hotspots. Therefore, if we want oil in Europe, we must trade. The evil comes when trade is used as a tool of exploitation and profit, as is often the case in this so-called 'globalised' world.