• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fidel latest to say Cuba's communism doesn't work

Castro and all the others will realize that though equality has a very nice ring to it, human nature will never allow such a system to come to be, it is impossible and always doomed to failure.

Not so much human nature, which implies foibles, but nature in general. And to blame human nature for the failures of Communism really is just like wishing the sun would revolve around the Earth just to be in the right.

A basic example of the inherent inequalities in nature is the fact that some men are stronger whilst others can run faster. Training helps but nature defines.

In terms of brains, some men are capable of using their loaves to become super-successful businessmen whilst others only have the acumen just to do an ordinary day's work.


Not being a communist allows greater freedom of initiative and talent in whatever area you're good at.

Communism can only mean denuding people of free will and the right not to be managed like robots off a production line.

That's why Castro and all the others are absolutely wrong. Total equality can only ever be imposed if not undertaken by a few people who happen to all be the same anyway.
 
Last edited:
Shifting of words..... Conservative positions should logically be called liberal or libertarian as they generally favor the rights of the individual, personal responsibility and an aversion to authoritarian controls and interference.

"Liberals" hijacked the term because they wanted the perception of liberty when a more accurately descriptive label would be socialist, fascist, communist, etc.

It happens all the time.... "gay" use to mean being light hearted, happy, etc.

I strongly disagree with you here. The textbook definition of Fascism IS corporate control. The definition that calls Liberals Fascists is a made up one, designed only to bash and personally attack a group of people, namely Liberals. It is blatantly dishonest. If you have a beef with Liberals, then you should debate them like I do, that is, by explaining why you disagree with them.

And you are also wrong in dishonestly attempting to define what Liberalism is. There are actually 2 definitions: 1) Applies to those who would interpret the Constitution loosely, rather than strictly, and 2) What is known as Classical Liberalism, which applies to economics, and not politics.

Finally, in equating Libertarianism with Liberalism, you show that you have no grasp at all of what either term means.

Finally? Did I really say that? Because I am not done here. It is you who is redefining terms, making it all up as you go along, and of course, the motive for doing so is out of hatred for those who don't believe the same things you do, and nothing more. For crying out loud. Reagan and Tip O'Neil used to drink a beer together at the end of each day because they both recognized that the other was also American, and just as deserving of respect. Looks like all that mutual respect, and acknowledging each other as Americans and not scum has completely gone out the window. Your post is a classic symptom of what ails America.

OK, NOW I am done.
 
Last edited:
oops, now who will the liberals hold up as a shining example of how communism is such a wonderful system?

Where do you see liberals holding up Cuba as a shining example of communism or even advocating communism?
 
so the liberals who aren't liberals, the progressives who alternately apologize for and condemn, the folks from whom every word they utter is an excuse for ever more govt reach into and control over our lives, all for sake of some malthusian vision ala plato's searcher in his cave, now dig for distinctions of doctrine and delicate differences of dogma to divide them from all those flawed individuals who came before to completely muck up this perfect ideal simply by implementing it so incorrectly...

once more, as always, it all comes down to character
 
I strongly disagree with you here. The textbook definition of Fascism IS corporate control. The definition that calls Liberals Fascists is a made up one, designed only to bash and personally attack a group of people, namely Liberals. It is blatantly dishonest. If you have a beef with Liberals, then you should debate them like I do, that is, by explaining why you disagree with them.

Technically, Fascism came from the left.
And you are also wrong in dishonestly attempting to define what Liberalism is. There are actually 2 definitions: 1) Applies to those who would interpret the Constitution loosely, rather than strictly, and 2) What is known as Classical Liberalism, which applies to economics, and not politics.

Let me illustrate a difference in thinking...What is really ironic, is that conservative order promotes individual freedom, and liberal chaos reduces it.

The conservative mindset/philosophy is to seek an absolute that sets a standard. Something that is consistent across the board so that there is a defined guide from which policy, laws, etc. can be developed.

The liberal philosophy rejects a fixed, objective standard and rather goes with a flexible, floating, relativistic standard. Frequently, the law or policy is derived first and then the standard is created.

The classic example is interpretation of the Constitution. The liberal philosophy says it is a living document, i.e. the framers intent is not used to determine the meaning, rather the current desire is the interpretive factor.

Conservative philosophy goes back to what was written at the time, the debates, the rough drafts, the comments of the time to determine the original intent.

Chaos v. order, or flexibility v. rigidity. Liberal chaos/flexibility causes fluidity. What was legal yesterday is illegal today, but might be legal again tomorrow. The 2nd Amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Only the "people" really means the state and the founding fathers never envisioned semi-full-automatic firearms, so they aren't protected.

Versus the conservative thought that "people" means the people, not the state, and arms means arms. Not flintlocks.

The political left has also been very successful in associating the political right with nazism and fascism. If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it. Just look at how the NAZI machine conforms to the modern left. If you take out the uniforms, the German language and the genocide (for now, lol) and you get the American left. Control of industry, schools, indoctrination of the youth, class warfare, confiscation of the property of the targeted class, etc. And do it all for the people.

Finally, in equating Libertarianism with Liberalism, you show that you have no grasp at all of what either term means.

What I said Conservative positions should logically be called
 
Conservative philosophy goes back to what was written at the time, the debates, the rough drafts, the comments of the time to determine the original intent.

absolutely correct

american conservatism looks to the founding fathers, hardly to anything arising outta modern europe

the mere thought is laughably absurd

The political left has also been very successful in associating the political right with nazism and fascism.

no, not beyond 8th grade

your post is a masterpiece
 
Last edited:
Not that this bit is my argument, but it has to be said that you're right.

Apart from the likes of the Founding Fathers, American Conservatism indeed doesn't look to anything coming out of Europe!

Hmmm......
That doesn't sound right! Let me think on that awhile!
 
Last edited:
fascism is even more an economic model than it is political and social

it is a war economy geared to all out war production which amps growth

as such, it envisions a very strong central direction of production to ensure guns over butter, military over consumerism

fascism is as alien to american thought as conceivable

a bedrock american value, for example, such as 10th amendment states rights is largely beyond the comprehension of the totalitarians we defeated in the biggest war

fascism also pursues a radically aggressive foreign policy, again violently contrary to the character of america's conservative roots, 200 years of values, convictions and traditions

traditional america-firsters are strongly, even extremist, isolationists

neocons, a term many toss without understanding, in dramatic contrast to their more genghis con cohorts, envision a very activist foreign policy, especially in the mideast

but then, the kristols and cheneys are vigilantly activist and protective of that certain major player over there whom we are not at liberty to name on these pages

most fascists, you realize, hold a rather redly different view of those chosen

the ussr, that great and noble experiment which failed hundreds of millions of once free, happiness-pursuing humans, shared the fascists' fascination with guns over butter

but then that's only because you weren't running it
 
I heard about this on NPR and I think it's fantastic. It was interesting because they interviewed a Cuban who now lives in London. He agreed that the communist model had failed and the Cuban people were victims of Castro's system. But they asked him if it was worth trying and he said "absolutely." I think that's very, very interesting. I have to agree with him. It's not like Hitler, where his brand of socialism didn't resemble socialist principles one bit. What Castro did in Cuba is execute a pure brand of communism, let it play out, and it failed. It's a wonderful lesson for the world and political thinkers everywhere. It's just very sad that the Cuban people were the victims of this experiment.
 
Come on guys. Respond to the topic, which is about Castro saying that Communism doesn't work. No need to call people names here.
He said it's in need of change, not that it didnt work.
 
you could not meet the challenge
nowhere in your cites do we find that michel morre has advocated communist government as the one most appropriate for cuba

but keep trying
don't want those on the far right to insist that they were not given an opportunity to document their spurious claims

If opposing Communism, a system that cost the lives of over 100 million people, means "far right", I'd gladly wear that label.

It was the most evil movement in the history of mankind, and those who supported it, in any form, are as ignorant as dirt.

They have no excuse whatsoever.
 
"As mentioned in my Communists thread, half my family are Polish, with my grandmother and her friends refugees from both Nazi and Communist occupation. So we know a thing or two in our house".

The Left won't listen to anyone who experienced Communism first hand, Republic_Of_Public, because they claim they are "prejudiced".

So if you managed to escape from Hungary, Cuba, East Germany, etc. they just wouldn't believe you. This despite, in every other facet of life, experience counts. Communism was the lone exception.
 
Last edited:
Mustachio said:
I heard about this on NPR and I think it's fantastic. It was interesting because they interviewed a Cuban who now lives in London. He agreed that the communist model had failed and the Cuban people were victims of Castro's system. But they asked him if it was worth trying and he said "absolutely." I think that's very, very interesting. I have to agree with him. It's not like Hitler, where his brand of socialism didn't resemble socialist principles one bit. What Castro did in Cuba is execute a pure brand of communism, let it play out, and it failed. It's a wonderful lesson for the world and political thinkers everywhere. It's just very sad that the Cuban people were the victims of this experiment.

WTF is a "pure brand of communism" and how does one "execute" it?
 
He said it's in need of change, not that it didnt work.

His proposed change apparently is liberalization to an extent. Seems to me that it's basically a claim that communism doesn't work.
 
His proposed change apparently is liberalization to an extent. Seems to me that it's basically a claim that communism doesn't work.
Changing a system does not mean that system doesn't work. Changing it usually means you're trying to make it work better and adapt it to a more modern setting.

Stop trying to draw out something that isnt there.
 
Changing a system does not mean that system doesn't work. Changing it usually means you're trying to make it work better and adapt it to a more modern setting.

Stop trying to draw out something that isnt there.

Liberalization, the complete opposite of a control economy, seems like the course of action that someone would take if they don't believe that the system can work.
 
Liberalization, the complete opposite of a control economy, seems like the course of action that someone would take if they don't believe that the system can work.
It means one aspect of the system is changing. Communism is more than a control economy.
 
It means one aspect of the system is changing. Communism is more than a control economy.

If Communism works then why is it necessary to liberalize this industry?
 
If Communism works then why is it necessary to liberalize this industry?
I dont know. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the situation. My point is simply that making systemic changes does not indicate that the entire idea is now broken.

You are assuming that the entire ideology hinges on this one point
 
He said it's in need of change, not that it didnt work.

A leopard never changes his spots.


My point is simply that making systemic changes does not indicate that the entire idea is now broken.

If mass murder, oppression, poverty and curtailment of civil rights in a brutal brainwashing dictatorship doesn't indicate the system is 'broken', then there's no hope for the man. Nor, for that matter, anybody trying to rehabilitate, re-interpret or defend it.
 
The Left won't listen to anyone who experienced Communism first hand, Republic_Of_Public, because they claim they are "prejudiced".

Well, there was one of the politically-correct Polish 'intellectuals' on this board who also allegedly saw communism first hand saying it wasn't 'proper' communism. He was thrust in my face a couple of times, but only because he fitted the revisionist agenda.

Had he been trying to do the same with Nazism, the hypocritical Leftards would have torn him limb-from-limb. Shows how consistent these Red berks are.


'Communism was alright', say the Polish avant-garde, contrary to what the normal people say:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4932322,00.html



Still, the general attitude is consistent right across the social spectrum. When the deputy leader of the then-ruling Labour Party here, Harriet Harman, suggested the 'court of public opinion' affect lawmaking, she was torn apart by her fellow Left wing shysters.



"Crime victims and those scared of crime have had their perceptions coloured", they merely say. No wonder crime is up and people detest the politicians just as much as they fear the real crime threat, which hangs over us like a pall because our masters want criminals to have too many benefits of the doubt. (No doubt is actually there, so it was created.)


______________________________________________________

APPENDIX:

Murderous Communist turds and their apologists and blindsiders:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...nst-oppression-anybody-else-see-oxymoron.html


Killing and tyranny your bag? Then Cuba's the new Socialist Paradise! Get your Che t-shirts on and boogie on down to escape the chains of capitalism:
Thompson Says: Forget About Murder And Oppression, Castro Is A Great Guy! « Barbados Free Press

Don't worry, the glory continues relentlessly:
Cuban repression has continued under Raúl Castro, says watchdog | World news | The Guardian





Only because the liberal swine watered-down the system to near-unworkable jelly:
Tough on crime? Jail's not the answer | Chris Huhne | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

(The Guardian is the British liberal Establishment's number one propaganda-newspaper.)


Canal trips and the like are the answer! Much nicer for the poor criminal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...elp-rehabilitate-locked-years-burglaries.html


Mind, the Left crack down when they want to, on ordinary decent normal people:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orcers-police-powers-increase-fifth-year.html



They don't learn when even the Minister responsible is too frightened of the consequences which she herself helped unleash:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-509342/Home-Secretary-Jacqui-Smith-Im-scared-night.html
 
Last edited:
Changing a system does not mean that system doesn't work. Changing it usually means you're trying to make it work better and adapt it to a more modern setting.

Stop trying to draw out something that isnt there.

How could you possibly tweak communism to make it work?

Allow people to leave and have it on a voluntary basis?
 
phattonez said:
His proposed change apparently is liberalization to an extent. Seems to me that it's basically a claim that communism doesn't work.

"However, at the same time the government has announced that workers will be encouraged to take over the ownership of the companies in which they work. In a move that the government has actually called a deepening of socialism, the Cubans are about to launch what could potentially become the biggest co-operative project the world has ever seen.

...

The government is saying that the old centrally planned Soviet-style of socialism has finally hit the buffers – a new form of socialism is required, in which the state ceases to be the administrator of economic activity but the regulator. That's a different model of socialism – it may not work either – but it is not capitalism."
Guardian Source
 
However, at the same time the government has announced that workers will be encouraged to take over the ownership of the companies in which they work. In a move that the government has actually called a deepening of socialism, the Cubans are about to launch what could potentially become the biggest co-operative project the world has ever seen.

But wait a minute, I'm confuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuused!

Isn't that what every Communist regime ever promised yet not delivered? Castro and his killer crew lose more credibility the more you think about it!

No wonder they tend to prefer revolution over election! The Marxist conmen are just so untrustworthy!
 
Back
Top Bottom