Simple question for any left-winger

I have a big problem with the leftist ideology. My mother fled from communist Cuba because, frankly, life was horrible there. My grandfather owned a bar in Havana under Batista, and Castro took over and gave him a job sweeping the street outside of it. Everyone (except Castro and his cronies) was dirt poor. The health and educational system was bad, too. The students were brainwashed into joining the communist regime, and whenever you went to the hospital you had to bring your own lightbulbs and water to flush the toilets. So, please, tell me why I should believe in communism, and, probably more importantly, why communism hasn't worked in Cuba or the Soviet Union, but capitalism is working fabulously in the U.S.

For starters we should distinguish between the Marxist-Leninist idea of Socialism, and Communism. Socialism in Marxist ideology is meant to be a transitionary state from Capitalism to Communism; Communism is stateless and classless, the Castro cronies would not be in power obviously because there would be no state or class.

Capitalism isn't working fabulously anywhere, in fact in the US we have the highest poverty level of the industrialized world. I suggest you explore anarchism.

Also, check out the Cuban Libertarian Movement, they have the same sentiments as thou.

Capitalism isn't working? I beg to differ. Why, then, has the U.S. been called the greatest country on earth? The United States may have the highest poverty rate of any industrialized nation, but why is it that communist countries never become industrialized?

What do you understand by 'communist country'?

Well as jack pointed out Cuba was influenced not by working class socialism, but by the cold war politics and the "socialism" of the USSR. In fact, Castro originally was not even a Stalinist, he later sided with the USSR after the US opposed his regime and he needed trading partners.

Second, although I am no fan of the USSR (which I would call state-capitalist), there were amazing strides in industrialization. The horrors of the USSR were more or less the horrors of hundreds of years of early capitalism (forced labor, displacement and so on) repeated in a much shorter amount of time.

So because the USSR went from a rural peasant country to a massive economy and superpower - that's an endorsement for Stalin according to your logic (the US is a massive superpower too)? The reason that both the USSR and the US were able to have such massive economies after WWII was because they essentially divided up the world between them. I don't think people in Prague getting shot at by Russian tanks would think that the USSR was "great" because of their economy and I don't think people in Vietnam thought that US dominance was great either.

Last, have you looked around - capitalism works great? That sounds like a Russian bureaucrat talking about the greatness of the USSR right after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Capitalism seems to failing most of the developing world. Indeed, most of them have embraced free markets and are open to foreign investment, but... They're all hellholes still. Capitalism kind of works in a few countries, and then heavily modified socialism works well in others. And then, you're left with just dictatorships.

1) go to Detroit

2) go to Latin America, or Africa or Southeast Asia, where the capitalist nations export their labor.

You need to understand true communism has yet to be tried.
Its meant to be global.
Its meant to be democratic, and its meant to be classless, if that is how you describe Cuba then its Communist, if thats not the Cuba you know then its not Communist.
Also the US trade embargo would cripple most countries communist or not, in effect the great capitalist US has caused much of you families misery.
Strange that you should thank them for that.:confused:

For any Castro fans im not sorry ive said this.

I just, fundamentally, have a problem with communism/socialism, and the idea of spreading the wealth into a classless society. In communism/socialism, you get paid the same for your job no matter how well you do, so there's no incentive to work. Nothing is produced, and the economy collapses. In capitalism, workers aren't exploited, there are labor unions and federal laws that prevent that. You also have the option of starting a small business. I know you guys have a problem with having to work to survive, but communism/socialism rewards sloth, giving birth to yet another generation of slothful bums.

One good reason: Cuba is not a Marxist state:

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/80-cucas.htm

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/83-cupop.htm

You have just made my head explode:lol:

Im not making fun, its just ive rarely seen such a huge range of topics confined into such a short piece of writing.

What you produce in a communist society is the incentive to work.
Doing the job to the best of your ability is the route to better work.

Jobs that produce nothing in the current world, be it a product needed or a service that improves quality of life will vanish, ie there will be more productive people.

How you can say workers are not exploited boggles my mind, are you saying a worker reaps the full value of what he sows in the current system?
The unions hands are tied, and the federal laws are made by men and women put in there jobs by the capitalists that fund there campaigns.
The rich get richer the poor get poorer, in britain if you live in the north your life expectancy can be six years less than if you live in the south how is that a fair society?, the capitalists give the worker a token portion that is all.

With over a billion hungry in the world, a hole that can be plugged very easily under communism, what will the capitalist system do?

The earth in ecological free fall, the Capitalist system is based on growth in profits based on finite resources, what will the capitalist system do?

In a true communist society, there will be no sloth, there will be full employment of all able to work, though there hours may be much shorter.
Will the Capitalist system ever acheive full employment?
The commune system will give true democracy to people, a return of community, and that community will be all the impotus needed for folks to work.

I understand given your background your dis-trust, but you need to read up more about what communism actually is, its not what you and your family have experienced.

I will not try and convert you, I suggest you read some of the works in this sites great reading lists, know exactly what Marx proposed and make your mind up then.
And this site will answer all your questions.:)

communism is somehow like religion, you got different interpretation, and you got fanatics who will never compromise.

you must be a religious man at some extent, will you abandon your faith beccause some assole blow up abortion clinics? are those murderer speak for you?

communism is the same, most of us are reasonable people, peaceful people (mostly), but we also got our bunch of creazy.

It's true that some people may treat "communism" as a religion, but some people treat professional sports as a religion and many more people treat capitalism as a religion.

But none of these things are a religion because religion is based on magical unprovable stuff whereas Communism, Sports, and Capitalism are all based in the real world.

Workers are exploited under capitalism, the result of this is called 'profit.'

What is profit?
Profit is surplus value withheld by the capitalist class from the working class.
Where does it come from?
Profit comes directly from the labor of the working class, it is the value which is accumulated over and above the wage of the worker. Given that the working class produces all products/services, profit is value produced by the working class but kept by the capitalist class.
Why is this exploitation?
Profit is a result of exploitation because the working class is not fully reimbursed for their labor. A segment of it is withheld by the capitalist class for their own gain.

- August

Cuba is and the ussr was capitalist.

I'm sorry but just because you say that they were/are capitalist, doesn't mean its true.

In Cuba/former USSR, the bourgeoisie had been abolished, and a socialist state was created in the advent of a worker's revolution. So you simply can't have capitalism, with out capitalists, or a capitalist state.

You could read The Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR (I think that's what it's called) for an idea. However what he meant was state capitalism, the state taking the role of the capitalist, and instead of workers being subservient to the traditional conception of the bourgeoisie, they were subservient to the state. The state owned the means of production in the same manner the bourgeoisie do, but just as a monopoly and alot of talk about Socialism.

This really depends on your point of view. If you were a poor, exploited peasant or worker, Batista's regime was horrible. You call isolated pockets of extreme wealth and decadence, awash in a sea of poverty, better than socialism in Cuba?

Ah, so your grandfather was petty-bourgeois. He probably catered to tourists. I'm sorry, but a tourist-based economy almost always leads to extremes of poverty and luxury, with the poverty hidden from "those that matter", the tourists (Jamaica anyone?).

Maintaining such an awful relationship is not something I believe most poor people in such situations are willing to do, just to keep people like your grandfather comfortable.

So now having family from Cuba at the time gives you magical insight into the lifestyle of Fidel Castro? There are certainly communist leaders who have/had a reputation of opulent living (Kim Jong Il comes to mind, if you'd call him communist). Fidel isn't exactly one of them.

Also, show me how that is much different from our own political system, where almost every politician of any consequence is a millionaire while the bottom 25% of Americans lay claim to literally none of the country's wealth, while the top 10% owns 80% of the wealth. Do you know what they called people with no major physical possessions, forced to work in order to pay rent, with little to no prospects of their labor actually bettering their own positions, back in the day? Serfs. The only difference today is that renter and employer are two different people. The economic relation, one of a treadmill that squeezes as much work as possible under threat of homelessness, remains the same.

The reality for most people is that aspirations of owning one's own business, having a few acres in the country, etc, are nothing but carrots to dangle in front of the faces of those that do the actual productive work.

From what you said, it seems your family left early. Cuba today has the best medical system in South America, and Cuban students typically score higher on comparative tests in South America. Cuba has 2% of South America's population and 20% of it's doctors, technicians, and specialists of various types.

Ah, typical right-wing spin and selective cynicism. In the United States, where patriotism and "American history" are drilled into people's heads from kindergarten to 12th, and well into adulthood, without any significant education on the history/politics of the rest of the world, I suppose you'd call it something other than brainwashing.

Every country teaches values that reinforce their political system. At least socialist values are based on cooperation and a love of humanity. Capitalist values are barbaric, and besides that the whole system is hypocritical (we teach the goodness of sharing early on and go on to teach that cooperation and egalitarianism are evil later on).

What the fuck are you even talking about? At any rate, you seem to be describing the time pretty immediately after the revolution. What do you expect? In case your family never told you this, in Cuba before Castro there were pockets of extreme wealth that corrupt gangsters and government officials ran, while the rest of the population was shat upon. You can imagine, then, that they didn't have much to work with at first.
Cuba today has the best doctor-to-patient ratio in the world (180:1), about twice as good as the United States' (360:1)

First of all, communism is not a monolithic ideology. It exists in different forms. Cuba's communism is not the USS-R's.

Considering where Cuba pulled itself up from, the fact that other Caribbean countries that follow our rough political/economic formula are in utter shambles compared to Cuba, and that they performed extremely admirably (preventing any starvation from taking place, converting to a low-energy economy) during an "artificial" peak oil crisis the likes of which would have shaken our own political system to the core, I'd say that they're doing quite well, thank you.

Also, what's your definition of "worked"? Thats very vague.

Have you been watching the news for say... the last couple of years? Especially this last year? I don't know what you could possibly be talking about here. Capitalism can be great in the short to mid term (provided you're a large, imperialist capitalist nation like the US, not a third-world capitalist nation being raped), but ultimately it isn't stable.








Here are two documentaries (that happen to be about peak oil, because I think they illustrate quite well why socialism is better able to handle both long-term economic issues as well as major, sudden crises than capitalism).


The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil
A great explanation of how Cuba saved itself from major catastrophe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJb7o...064EF2&index=0

The End of Suburbia
A great analysis of the US's less stellar prospects for the inevitable oil crisis. If you can't see from this documentary some of the major faults of our system in relation to managing social crises, I can't help you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

Thanks, though I already have a good picture for when/how capitalism was restored.

Great, so I see you think the 90 year history of revolutionary struggle all over the world was just "talk about socialism". Oh well, I guess they didn't talk enough did they.

This is not what 'state-capitalism' is, at least when were talking about the Soviet Union or any other socialist state. The only period where the USSR, economically speaking, could be called 'state-capitalist' was before the five-year plans, as even Lenin described how this 'state-capitalism' works and the context it is in (see Tax In Kind, in Lenin's selected works on MIA). I'm not sure about Cuba.

The problem with your version of state-capitalism is that you blatantly misunderstand the nature of the Soviet state, as well as the Cuban state. Worker's are not subservient to the state, as some separate entity that is beyond their control, that owns the means and tools of production and all of society at the expense and exploitation of workers; in fact that is the opposite of what we see in Cuba, and the USSR. I don't care what your standards for democratic control, or the organization of a worker's society should be like; because I'm not interested in judging worker's societies as if we were measuring them with yard sticks. Worker's states are created in worker's revolutions, both of which took place in Cuba and the USSR respectively, and thus have a fundamentally different nature than bourgeois states, which are based on defending the rule of the capitalist class. Both of these states were founded on the ownership of the means of production by the workers and peasants, in tune with the expropriation of their respective capitalists. If the worker's were so subservient to the state in the USSR or today in Cuba, then why are state positions democratically elected? Why was there a need for soviets in the first place? Why does Cuba, like the USSR did, focus on developing their economy and living standards while aiding other revolutionary struggles and impoverished third world communities without getting a dime in their pockets out of it? Doesn't sound like common capitalists to me.