Sanders' Paradise: Cuba

[Sparko]

Maybe they should have filmed that then.

google it.



https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/01/...ailed-america/

You don't see anyone trying to escape the USA on homemade rafts to get to Cuba, do you?

[Soul Anchor]

Everyone knows that people have escaped Cuba in rafts. You're missing my point. I'm not saying Cuba is a terrible place, I'm saying that the video you posted doesn't make a compelling case. Maybe if they'd filmed raft survivors, it would have been more convincing.

[Soul Anchor]

That should have read 'I'm not saying Cuba *isn't* a terrible place.'

[simplicio]

Democratic socialists and communists have been viciously opposed since the invention of 20th century communism.

They literally fought each other in the Spanish Civil War, and George Orwell who fought on the side of the democratic socialists against the communists, went on to write Animal Farm which is generally regarded as the great critique of communism.

The two are very, very, very different, to the point where there is arguably no overlap at all between the two.

Communism (usually):
One party rule
Dictatorship
Authoritarianism
No human rights
Very limited personal freedoms
Government owns all businesses
Poor working conditions
Little to no incentive to work hard (worker pay isn't reflective of effort)
Government controls the distribution of goods
No free market - government manages supply and demand of goods directly

Democratic socialism (usually):
Democracy
Many political parties
Emphasis on strong human rights
Emphasis on promoting personal freedoms
Most businesses are co-operatives (worker-owned)
Government does not own most businesses
Emphasis on good working conditions
Good incentives to work hard (worker pay is determined by the business performance and its owners)
Government doesn't control the distribution of goods
Free market (with occasional regulation)

Pretty much point for point, democratic socialism and communism are opposites.

Bernie's been consistent in that he always condemned them for being dictators and always condemned their anti-democratic nature. He's been consistent in being a democratic socialist not a communist.

And I note the flotilla of rafts fleeing Denmark and Norway fleeing the oppression of socialism, I feel the those poor Danes hiding in their basements fearing the knock on the door of police at night, the economic hardships of the poor souls struggling under the yoke of socialism, yearning to be free.

We should start a grass roots movement in the USA to liberate the poor Finns from the burdens of raking those forests.

[Sparko]

And I note the flotilla of rafts fleeing Denmark and Norway fleeing the oppression of socialism, I feel the those poor Danes hiding in their basements fearing the knock on the door of police at night, the economic hardships of the poor souls struggling under the yoke of socialism, yearning to be free.

We should start a grass roots movement in the USA to liberate the poor Finns from the burdens of raking those forests.

Please leave my thread, Simplicio.

[Sparko]

Hey Star, serious question...

You say socialism is about the people owning the businesses, right?

So how is that different than public companies in a capitalist economy? Where you can buy shares in a company and become part owner of the company? Public companies are collectively owned by the people. They receive a share of the profits commensurate with the percentage of the company they own. Most stocks are voting stocks so they have a voice in the business.

How would actual socialism be different?

[JimL]

This is the country Sanders has been praising... Take the time to watch the video (14 min)

Everything You Think You Know About Cuba Is A Lie
Here is the side of socialist Cuba we saw that the American media refuses to show you: Bread lines, gas lines, food shortages, crumbling infrastructure, crippling poverty, and an oppressed people.

...Do a quick social media search for “Cuba.” You will see some beautiful images, of men in suits smoking cigars and driving vintage cars, turn-of-the-century brightly colored Spanish architecture buildings, paparazzi snaps of Jay-Z and Beyonce walking the streets of Havana, and pictures of President Obama inexplicably and peacefully enjoying a baseball game with communist dictator Raúl Castro.

We found these images spin a carefully crafted narrative. They are intended to deceive us and hide the real Cuba. Here is the side of Cuba we saw that the American media refuses to show you: Bread lines, gas lines, food shortages, crumbling infrastructure, crippling poverty, and an oppressed people suffering under the jackboot of socialism.

What many do not realize is that 90 percent of the Cuban economy is controlled by their government. Resource scarcity, poverty, horrific living conditions, and oppressive government plague this once beautiful nation.

Citizens rush the open gates of an open grocery store only to find that there are no fresh fruits, meats, nor vegetables in stock. Food is rationed and provided to establishments by the government. Cuban citizens are unable to access the necessities they need to feed their families.

Furthermore, government-provided housing is less than ideal. Socialism has so diminished the standard of living that crumbling infrastructure and filthy living conditions are commonplace. Citizens live in what were once beautiful mansions that have fallen into complete desolation because there are no private funds to maintain them. For many, this is a haunting illustration of the prosperity of a Cuba long gone, destroyed in a single generation by communism and socialism.

Despite its obvious failures in countries like Cuba, Americans still contemplate adopting socialist policies. This ideology has been especially well-received by the youth and millennial generations. But this begs the question: Why? Why do Americans idealize this form of government?

Most millennials have no concept of what socialism actually looks like when applied to an active governmental structure. This is largely because many of them were not even alive during, or even in the aftermath of, the tyrannical rules of 20th-century socialist leaders like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. The American millennial’s lack of understanding creates no repulsion to Marxist constructs like “free health care, housing, education” because they have never witnessed the consequences that historically follow these ideas.

However, young socialism activists fail to realize the fatal problem associated with these governmentally regulated freedoms: quality control. Following the basic concept of supply and demand, it can be predicted that the quality of free government handouts will begin to crumble as the demand increases. The more free handouts the government gives, the poorer they will be in quality. Citizens will notoriously cover the cost of these “free” handouts with taxpayer dollars. Thus, making what was once considered free a burden to the people.

Such is the case in socialist Cuba. Citizens live in the ruin of a promised utopia and lack the basic “free” necessities the government agreed to provide. The very government handouts that offered such promise are what holds the society back from growth and prosperity.

Sanders never praised Castro or Cuba per se, he praises particular social policies such as their health care system. He praises the same policies in democratic Europe and Canada, oh my!. How is it you so easily fall for the propaganda?

[Sparko]

Sanders never praised Castro or Cuba per se, he praises particular social policies such as their health care system. He praises the same policies in democratic Europe and Canada, oh my!. How is it you so easily fall for the propaganda?

LOL.

[rogue06]

Sanders never praised Castro or Cuba per se, he praises particular social policies such as their health care system. He praises the same policies in democratic Europe and Canada, oh my!. How is it you so easily fall for the propaganda?

Riiiiiiight. Which explains why Florida Democrats have lambasted him for his support of Castro.

[Starlight]

Hey Star, serious question...

You say socialism is about the people owning the businesses, right?

Yes, that's the primary definition of the difference between socialism and capitalism. You get different varieties of socialism depending on which people own the businesses and how (employees, community, government etc).

So how is that different than public companies in a capitalist economy? Where you can buy shares in a company and become part owner of the company? Public companies are collectively owned by the people. They receive a share of the profits commensurate with the percentage of the company they own. Most stocks are voting stocks so they have a voice in the business.

There's definitely some overlap there.

Usually in a capitalist system, 1. Only rich people have any significant ownership in public companies, (i.e. a very small number of people own basically all the stuff and make basically all the decisions) and 2. Insofar as the average person buys into them, e.g. as part of a diversified stock portfolio, they don't / can't vote.

But if there was a vaguely balanced distribution of share ownership of a public company (i.e. it wasn't just a small number of rich people owning all the stock), and people in general did vote on company decisions, that absolutely would be a socialist system.

We also have other socialistic forms of company ownership in our 'capitalist' societies, e.g. cooperatives where the employees or customers are the shareholders, and State Owned Enterprises (SoEs) where the government is the primary shareholder. But because none of these forms individually or together are the majority or anything close to it in our societies, we call our economies 'captialist'.

[Sparko]

Yes, that's the primary definition of the difference between socialism and capitalism. You get different varieties of socialism depending on which people own the businesses and how (employees, community, government etc).

There's definitely some overlap there.

Usually in a capitalist system, 1. Only rich people have any significant ownership in public companies, (i.e. a very small number of people own basically all the stuff and make basically all the decisions) and 2. Insofar as the average person buys into them, e.g. as part of a diversified stock portfolio, they don't / can't vote.

I have a 401K with various stocks in them, and I get notices of stockholder's voting meetings all the time, asking me to vote. I am certainly not rich.

But even in a socialist company, wouldn't the people at the top have more ownership than the ones at the bottom?

Oh and what about wages? Does everyone in a socialist company get the same pay?

But if there was a vaguely balanced distribution of share ownership of a public company (i.e. it wasn't just a small number of rich people owning all the stock), and people in general did vote on company decisions, that absolutely would be a socialist system.

But isn't it better for someone to be able to choose which companies they wanted to own stock in, rather than just the people who work there? Or am I misunderstanding again? Who owns company XYZ in a socialist economy? The workers at XYZ or the whole "public" which is really the government elected by the people?

We also have other socialistic forms of company ownership in our 'capitalist' societies, e.g. cooperatives where the employees or customers are the shareholders, and State Owned Enterprises (SoEs) where the government is the primary shareholder. But because none of these forms individually or together are the majority or anything close to it in our societies, we call our economies 'captialist'.

Capitalist I think in this case refers to the free market to buy and sell the goods made by the companies, where you have competition among the various manufacturers. In a socialist economy, the government decides what products are needed and which companies can make it. That limits the variety of products available, and fixes the price of the products, rather than letting the market determine the price. How companies are owned. Partnerships, sole proprietor, co-op, etc, can be anything you want in a capitalist economy. But in a socialist, it is all controlled by the government. Isn't that correct?

[JimL]

Riiiiiiight. Which explains why Florida Democrats have lambasted him for his support of Castro.

Sanders can't help it if people are naive and fall for the ridiculous propaganda like you do. Elizabeth Warren, as well as all of the democrat candidates, do agree with Sanders policies in the long run, they only differ in the way to go about getting there. Btw, Trump praises Putin as well as other dictators around the world. Somehow that doesn't seem to outrage you Trumpsters. I don't think it's the praise of dictators that concern you.

[Starlight]

I have a 401K with various stocks in them, and I get notices of stockholder's voting meetings all the time, asking me to vote.

Insofar as you are participating in a meaningful way, that is socialism. My guess is your vote is irrelevant because there will be majority shareholders whose vote overrides you and the 100,000 others like you who own an irrelevant number of shares.

But even in a socialist company, wouldn't the people at the top have more ownership than the ones at the bottom?

It can vary depending on the details. Often the top positions would be subject to yearly voting by the rest of the employees, so the people at the 'top' would have less job security than the rest because they might be voted out. Another way of doing it might indeed be to give people ownership relative to their position in the company, so the CEO might have 5x the voting power of the lowest paid worker (as opposed to say the 1000x earnings and infinitely more control that is commonly seen in a capitalist framework that has a purely top-down management hierarchy).

Oh and what about wages? Does everyone in a socialist company get the same pay?

No. Commonly a socialist cooperative would vote to set a wage ratio for CEO vs lowest earning worker, and then the other wages of people in the company would fall within that range. In cooperatives I've seen numbers for, those ranges tend to be 3x through to 9x.

But isn't it better for someone to be able to choose which companies they wanted to own stock in, rather than just the people who work there? Or am I misunderstanding again? Who owns company XYZ in a socialist economy? The workers at XYZ or the whole "public" which is really the government elected by the people?

Any of the options you list are different types of socialist economies. There isn't only one type of socialism.

Capitalist I think in this case refers to the free market to buy and sell the goods made by the companies

No, the word capitalism refers to the presence of people called 'capitalists' in the economy, who are individuals with lots of $$$ which they use to buy and control companies in order to make profits for themselves. The 'free market' or lack of it is a independent thing, and you can have free or unfree markets in both socialism and capitalism.

In a socialist economy, the government decides what products are needed and which companies can make it.

Only in a few types of socialism that are no longer particularly popular. The lack of a free market, or the government controlling the economy, are not part of the definition of socialism. Neither was advocated by Marx. Neither is advocated by most socialists today.

How companies are owned. Partnerships, sole proprietor, co-op, etc, can be anything you want in a capitalist economy.

No, how the companies are owned, by definition, tells you whether the economy is socialist or capitalist. That is literally what the words 'capitalist' and 'socialist' refer to - whether the companies are owned by rich individuals who are profiting from that ownership (capitalist) or whether the ownership is distributed in some way (e.g. among employees, among the wider community, etc) amongst people the society (socialist). If, as you note, in current society, some companies are privately owned and some are cooperatives, then that tells you that the US economy is currently a mix of socialism and capitalism. Because it is more one than the other, we would generally call it capitalism, but it's not a purely capitalist economy.

But in a socialist, it is all controlled by the government. Isn't that correct?

No. In many views of socialism the government does very little and largely isn't involved in anything 'socialist'. Karl Marx had no interest in the government and wrote all about which people owned the companies. His goals were more democracy and more empowerment to the average worker in having a say about how their workplace was run. It was Lenin/Stalin in Russia who decided in the 20th century that it was a really great idea for the government to run everything (and, in Stalin's case, for the government to become a dictatorship), which became known as 'bolshevism' or 'communism' in contrast to the previous / western "democratic socialist" tradition. Most socialists in the West were and are against bolshevism/communism/Stalinism because it doesn't empower the average employee, it doesn't bring more freedom or democracy, and it just replaces one set of bosses with another. George Orwell's Animal Farm, a critique of Stalinism written by a Democratic Socialist, ends with the line that the new bosses were identical to the old, effectively arguing that there was no meaningful difference for the average worker between Western capitalism and Stalin's communism. Most western democratic socialists continue to reject the ideas of bolshevism/communism. The democratic socialist tradition continues to emphasize the goals of 1. More democracy, 2. More human rights and freedoms, 3. More employee influence in how the businesses they work for are run and ownership of them. Any idea that the government control the economy is neither common nor popular.

[demi-conservative]

Democratic socialism (usually):
Democracy
Many political parties
Emphasis on strong human rights
Emphasis on promoting personal freedoms
Most businesses are co-operatives (worker-owned)
Government does not own most businesses
Emphasis on good working conditions
Good incentives to work hard (worker pay is determined by the business performance and its owners)
Government doesn't control the distribution of goods
Free market (with occasional regulation)

No mention of welfare?

[Starlight]

No mention of welfare?

True. A strong welfare system should be added to the list.