Materialistic desires.

[j-mak]

In Fidel Castro's spoken autobiography: My Life, He claims that the large scale emigration was due to Cubans seeing the enormous attraction in American automobiles, resources and salaries. How could a true communist or true socialist nation deter such materialistic desires. I'm sure there would be no comparison between the latest Apple iphone and 'the people's phone' (if ever produced in the perfect worker's state) or Nike's latest sneaker to 'The people's runner'. Competitive innovation on the businesses' side and individual wealth of the people would make these products much superior.

Sorry if this is a stupid question: how could Socialism/Communism seem attractive to the general mass when competition between corporations is removed?

[Black Sheep]

I highly doubt that the people who left because of fancy automobiles were working class...How would they buy them?Where would they live?

Also,when did this happen exactly?

[thesadmafioso]

You are comparing an illusion of wealth and prosperity, one created by one of the worlds wealthiest nations, to the material reality of a socialist state which has been under constant siege since its conception. Is it not surprising that one of these has been able to maintain a better image than the other, given the pertinent circumstances?

Socialism is attractive to the general masses as it provides them with a guide of liberation, one which shows them the road to a society free of wage slavery and the commodification of their labor. Emancipation from the horrors of capitalistic oppression is what makes socialism appealing to the proletarian, we need not rely on the perpetuation of a pathetically weak delusion of offering the masses an excess of decadence in technology and other assorted fields of consumer goods.

[Reznov]

You are comparing an illusion of wealth and prosperity, one created by one of the worlds wealthiest nations, to the material reality of a socialist state which has been under constant siege since its conception. Is it not surprising that one of these has been able to maintain a better image than the other, given the pertinent circumstances?

Socialism is attractive to the general masses as it provides them with a guide of liberation, one which shows them the road to a society free of wage slavery and the commodification of their labor. Emancipation from the horrors of capitalistic oppression is what makes socialism appealing to the proletarian, we need not rely on the perpetuation of a pathetically weak delusion of offering the masses an excess of decadence in technology and other assorted fields of consumer goods.

But that is what a lot of Americans want, in almost every debate I have had (Americans) its always about "Well if you work hard you can have a car, lots of food, enough money to buy anything you want etc..."

This argument is what always causes people to reject Socialism and Communism.

We have to prove that you can get these things easily, and not have to work like a slave and not even be able to enjoy it, under Socialism and Communism.

[thesadmafioso]

But that is what a lot of Americans want, in almost every debate I have had (Americans) its always about "Well if you work hard you can have a car, lots of food, enough money to buy anything you want etc..."

This argument is what always causes people to reject Socialism and Communism.

We have to prove that you can get these things easily, and not have to work like a slave and not even be able to enjoy it, under Socialism and Communism.

That is the exact sort of thought which I was referring to when I mentioned the illusion of wealth as extorted by the American bourgeoisie. This sort of false consciousness demands a retort which focuses on the nature of this deception and upon the material circumstances which lead to the proliferation of this sort of cognitive pollution. It must be shown that this primarily fictitious image of the self made man exists only to serve the purpose of placating the masses and their capacity for action on the grounds of their actual class interests. These divisive tactics fulfill the inherently bourgeois intent of preventing mass organization within the lower classes of society through dividing its members with unobtainable notions of unlimited wealth.

In brief, many people desire these things, but they have been lead to this conclusion by the dominance of capitalistic hegemony over culture. This is a false state of mind, and it is one which can be shattered with the proper application of material analysis and thought.

[#FF0000]

I'm sure there would be no comparison between the latest Apple iphone and 'the people's phone' (if ever produced in the perfect worker's state) or Nike's latest sneaker to 'The people's runner'. Competitive innovation on the businesses' side and individual wealth of the people would make these products much superior.

I don't think this is necessarily true. With everything controlled in common and with workers planning and producing for themselves, there's no reason to think that there wouldn't be a variety of phones or whatever available or that they'd necessarily be of poor quality.

[JustMovement]

Heres the thing, the first world is always (for the immediate future) going to exert tremendous attraction to the third world becaues its so much richer.A lot of these people would have emigrated anyways even if cuba stayed capitalist, if not more! I mean how many people do you see emigrating from cuba to capitalist mexico for example?

If a revolution happens think about the enormous gains that will be made in the things that matter, education, housing, healthcare, workplace place safety and democracy. What does it matter if we lose a couple of high end luxury goods? Whats more important being able to send your child to university or an iphone? And thats just assuming these things are mutually exclusive.