Autonemesis

Imagine what kind of civil liberty crackdowns there'd be if al Qaeda or Iraq were as proportionately powerful with respect to the US, as the US is to Cuba.

Of course, we don't have to imagine what kind of civil liberties would be lost of the US faced a puny enemy. We're living that one today.

Grad Student Humanist

It's laughable to suggest that the reason that Cuba persecutes homosexuals, confines people with AIDS, jails dissidents and prohibits the free exercise of religion is because they're "under attack." How does harassing gay people and religionists help to ward off attacks by invading powers?

Autonemesis

So on the one hand, communism fans deflect criticism of communist countries by pleading that no country has really been fully communist, therefore strawman.

On the other hand, capitalism fans deflect criticism of capitalist countries with crushing poverty by invoking the possibility of growth under capitalist regimes, therefore strawman. Never mind that in the period of time during which no true communist country has arisen, no poverty-sticken capitalist country has raised its citizens from destitution.

I'd say the score is about even.

Autonemesis

I know, that's why I didn't suggest it.

cjack

Ahh...now we bring out pure ad hominem attacks when we can't answer a few questions!


Where is the freedom to dissent in Cuba? If it exists, why do so many work so hard to flee the island, then speak out against the repression of this freedom when they are able?

How can you say the press is free in Cuba when criticism of the system is all but silenced?


And would you please provide a list of people who have challenged Castro's leadership in a free, democratic election? You can't, of course, because there haven't been any.


Rather than address these issues, you resort to ad homs and repeating state propaganda from Castro.

Grad Student Humanist

You're right. Sorry for implying that you did.

B. H. Manners

Loren,


Thank you for your reply.

I have been reading where critics of capitalism are repeatedly told "If you don't like working for ----- go and start your own business, go back to school, ect. and do something different. The capitalist does not owe you anything......."

That's looks like a cure to the problem at first glance and it is not bad advice per see. However, suppsed if every worker opened his own business, went back to school and got a PhD in whatever field, ect. the nature of the business cycle would re-proleitarianize the great many of the new business owners and educated members of society.

Instead of the few businesses there are now there would be ten fold, and the vast majority of them would go under simply due to not enough money going around to keep them in business. Those who are now highly educated (due to going back to school) would still have to take unskilled and more "humbler" positions due to a lack of job availability in whatever field they became experts in.

If anyone objects that those businesses that failed did so because they were not "good enough" and those new well educated people did not get the highly paid jobs in their field of study because they were not "as qualified as the one who did" will have to show me this is true in an objective absolute manner.

The great majority of people will never be rich or high middle class, so what is in their self interest to support the system?
If they can get a better or equal standard of living under socialism as well as free health care, job security, ect why should they not just go for that instead of taking a chance that they might wind up rich under capitalism?

B. H. Manners

Please re-read my post above. I cannot freely criticize my boss like I can GWB . I still maintain the reason I cited above:GWB has little direct influence on my life whereas my boss, company, and work do. If I criticized my boss, company, ect. in the name of free speech and everyone else did as well, it would lead to disputes, worse productivity, ect. This is probably what the communists were trying to avoid, since the government is the employer. The soviets, despite their drawbacks, did have elections where you could vote "yes" or "no" to candidates and fill in on the ballot things you felt needed to ba taken care of. There were also times where things could be discussed and disputed as far as policy goes. But when a decision was made, it was expected to be followed. This is the same over here in the US.

B. H. Manners

Please expand on this idea some more.

elwoodblues

And you COULD criticize your local party officials, the people upon whom your livelihood depend? Not likely.

And you are perfectly free to criticize your boss. It's probably not a terribly smart thing to do, unless you have a good personal relationship with him or her. In the same way, I'm perfectly free to criticize my professor. It'd be stupid to do so in front of 20 undergraduates, because that puts the prof into a corner. It'd be silly to criticize him or her on personal grounds, but it'd be legitimate to do so on professional grounds, as long as I could defend my case.

You can't criticize with impunity those who have authority over you. That's going to be true of any system, unless you're trying to overturn the whole idea of people having authority over one another. The great thing about this country is that you can question and criticize your government to your heart's content (up to threatening the life of the president, which is a fairly reasonable constraint) without fear of retribution from the gov't. You can even make good money doing so.