General Election 2010

No, I argue that Cuba's problems are mainly a result of communism. Will argues that it's all down to the US embargo. I would argue that whoever you choose to blame, had Cuba not been communist there would either have been no embargo, or only a short-lived one. America's disproportionate reaction was probably disproportionate because of Cuba's communist status.

To explain further, first of all the expropriation was not only a nationalisation of American companies but the seizing of American owned private property. This private property was typically owned by the sorts of people who had far too much influence on American politics. Nevertheless the initial embargo imposed as a reaction to this was much much smaller in scale than that which exists today.

Unfortunately Cuba's reaction to this was to become a satellite of, and missile base for, the Soviet Union. If they had not been communist this would never have been their reaction.

America's reaction was, and remains ridiculous. Whoever we blame, if the revolutionary government had not been socialist there would have been no seizing of American property in the first place, and if it had not then decided to become a Soviet outpost whatever embargo there was would probably remained small-scale and have ended decades ago.

So you are basically saying you get what you deserve? Had Cuba not been socialist America would not have upheld their embargo?If you do somethign to deserve a bully then it is your fault for annoying them?

Fucking hell, a lot of posting today!

Going back a few pages, I've been picked up on saying Blair was 'genuine' by a couple of folk. And quite rightly picked up on it too, because it's not quite what I meant. What I meant was that at least (I get the impression anyway) that he believed his own bullshit. In this context I was comparing him to Cameron, who strikes me as far more cynical than that.

That'll do. The sun shines and I have a bike to build.

Enjoy! :-)

I don't think the majority of the british public are all that left wing.... There is a consensus that a middle path is essential. That which I suppose we call social or liberal democracy.
He (J Hari) has a point, even if he does make it crudely. Newspapers and politicians collude to push certain issues into the fringes - so to be opposed to Britain's membership is now painted as a right-wing extremist position, whereas in 1973 it was mainstream Labour policy.

I'm a natural conservative I suppose, but I think it would be awesome if the Lib Dems took a majority and changed this country's politics forever.

I agree, 'cept I'm a natural Lab/Lib/Green.

Didn't the American embargo prolong the current Cuban régime's longevity?

Hi Guys

Sorry if this is a repost, this link will link to your local authority and enable you to see what the results were in 2005. So for example it might show whether a vote for the Lib Dems could win the seat or would just be a waste.

I just found it after checking for my mum who is a tactical voter.

Do anything to keep the tories out!

http://local.direct.gov.uk/LDGRedirect/index.jsp?LGSL=721&LGIL=8

So you are basically saying you get what you deserve? Had Cuba not been socialist America would not have upheld their embargo?If you do somethign to deserve a bully then it is your fault for annoying them?

Erm, no (although that second question is a tautology). it's all gone a bit wrong :-)

All I was originally saying was to Horatio that Communism has failed to lift Cuba's population out of poverty or make them substantially more free than they were 50 years ago. And to Will that you can't isolate the embargo from Cuba's communism as the two are interlinked.

Didn't the American embargo prolong the current Cuban régime's longevity?

A substantial argument can be made to support that theory, yes.

Do anything to kick Labour out!

Fixed.

[QUOTE=BlueQuinn;1354168 And to Will that you can't isolate the embargo from Cuba's communism as the two are interlinked.[/QUOTE]

Except that I didn't say all of Cuba's problems are caused by the embargo; I pointed out your fairly startling failure even to mention it. Well, actually, not startling at all, not even surprising. That's how idealogues work; conveniently forgetting to mention the actions of the people you support even when they are the most germane. A bit like talking about the current economic status of black Americans without mentioning slavery and the its consequent effects.

but before you do just clarify your sentence because it could be read that the communists might have habitually murdered, raped and tortured their opponents (and their opponents' children) but they didn't use techniques and weapons provided by the U.S.

or it could mean that they did murder , rape etc etc but not habitually.

or do you mean that communists don't do those things but the U.S. sponsored right wing latin american governments that did and then the right wing capitalist media failed to report it to us , rather preferring to tell us lies about communist states?

It was really a point about perspective. The horrible tribulations and injustices suffered by the people of East Europe are well known to us and the figures who led the resistance to Soviet domination are well known. But the even more - and by a wide margin - horrible tribulations and injustices suffered by the people of central America are not. In the 60s, 70s and 80s thens of thousands of people 'disappeared' or were murdered and tortured in those countries. This did not happen in the Eastern Bloc. That is not in any way to defend the Soviet Union (though the way these discussions always go it is sadly necessary to point that out). It is simply to ask why one set of crimes are less well known? Perhaps because one set of crimes were carried out by our official enemies and the other by the US?
Reagan's responsibility, for example, for the horrors inflicted upon Latin America is every bit as great and direct as any Soviet leader's responsibility for what happened in Poland or Hungary or Czechoslovakia. The difference is those Soviet leaders are now regarded, rightly, as criminals and Reagan has an airport named after him.

i agree with that. i'd add though that in the west we do have access to information about what happened in latin america and mainly because we do live in an open and free society. It is unsurprising that those behind it would want to keep it out of the news. I suppose every civilisation takes steps to protect itself from its enemies. The skill is in th balance because you can pay for being too heavy handed in the future when it all comes to bite you on the bum. I can see why america would get upset about Cuba in the 50's but are guilty of some heavy handed petty bullying to put it mildly.

Except that I didn't say all of Cuba's problems are caused by the embargo; I pointed out your fairly startling failure even to mention it. Well, actually, not startling at all, not even surprising. That's how idealogues work; conveniently forgetting to mention the actions of the people you support even when they are the most germane. A bit like talking about the current economic status of black Americans without mentioning slavery and the its consequent effects.

I don't support the USA. Especially not in regard to its relations with Cuba or any other part of the rest of its continent.

Reagan's responsibility, for example, for the horrors inflicted upon Latin America is every bit as great and direct as any Soviet leader's responsibility for what happened in Poland or Hungary or Czechoslovakia. The difference is those Soviet leaders are now regarded, rightly, as criminals and Reagan has an airport named after him.

Could it be that we are less aware of these things because we are European - do they learn more about them in America? All of the politics of that time, so much of which we are still suffering the consequences of, did get subsumed by the cold war bigger picture (which is understandable as they were all part of it in some way)

Reagan has an airport named after him in America. At the moment. Stalin, Lenin, Marx etc had whole cities named after them once. Give it time... :-)

To be fair to Reagan he did, apparently out of personal conviction, instigate the reduction in nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union. I'm not going to credit him with ending the cold war as the Americans like to, cos I'm pretty sure nobody ever intended that to happen!

qatar petroleum, ADNOC, HPCL, kuwait petroleum etc etc, are all state owned oil companies, and with the exception of gazprom i don't think would be described as socialist.

Missing the point much? You named some nationalized oil companies. Bravo.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/dont-panic-post/post/dont_panic/14/should-everyone-be-allowed-to-vote/

You leave my future son-in-law alone you big bully. Why don't you go and nationalise a seal cub with your polo mallet if you're so clever? Huh?

I really don't want to try to define Socialism, but I would argue socialism has more to do with having a planned economy (and this goes beyond simply the welfare state; we're talking about the nationalization of companies and goods which the state dictates are too important to be in the hands of private companies [or if they are, these companies need to be owned, and therefore accountable, to the government/public] like oil and other natural resources, transport, financial companies, communication companies, etc.) rather than the method of exchange (cash).

And these are the simple reasons why it didn't work.
You see, in Eastern Europe farmers had their land taken away by the Soviets to create huge nationalised "food factories". That's fucking bullshit, stealing from struggling poor people and make them work for shitty wages. Nationalised factories, mines, shops... There was a saying "if something is nationalised it belongs to nobody". There were no owners to the businesses, just appointed directors. Nobody gave a shit about the performance nor customers - "you stay up, you lay down, the wages are expected nevertheless".
Everything around you was a sham. Show put up to please the party secretary.
People were stealing from their places of work to sell off on the black market. Builders were openly selling building materials and compensate with poor craftsmanship (the roads and pavements would crumble after a year or so, because they use less cement which was stolen and sold to private people to build their own houses).
Traditional socialism juts doesn't work and people will never be ready to take the plunge and do it properly. The only solution is modern democracy with welfare support.

Where the fuck is Marxist Fixie when you need him?

Entertainment whore. :)

He's fulfilled his posting plan, he can rest from his labours now.

I don't support the USA.

Niall, we know you don't.

Where the ................fuck.............. is Marxist Fixie when you.................... need .............him?

Entertainment whore. :................)

He's................... fulfilled his posting................. plan,,,,,,,,,,,,.........,,,,,,,,,,, he can rest from his labours..................... now.

More punctuation will have him back, just like the bat sign.

It was really a point about perspective. The horrible tribulations and injustices suffered by the people of East Europe are well known to us and the figures who led the resistance to Soviet domination are well known. But the even more - and by a wide margin - horrible tribulations and injustices suffered by the people of central America are not. In the 60s, 70s and 80s thens of thousands of people 'disappeared' or were murdered and tortured in those countries. This did not happen in the Eastern Bloc. That is not in any way to defend the Soviet Union (though the way these discussions always go it is sadly necessary to point that out). It is simply to ask why one set of crimes are less well known? Perhaps because one set of crimes were carried out by our official enemies and the other by the US?
Reagan's responsibility, for example, for the horrors inflicted upon Latin America is every bit as great and direct as any Soviet leader's responsibility for what happened in Poland or Hungary or Czechoslovakia. The difference is those Soviet leaders are now regarded, rightly, as criminals and Reagan has an airport named after him.

By people in the West. (apart from the dickhead 'communist' types who idolise that sort of shit [because they haven't lived through it])

But in the East and especially Russia, although its widely recognised that those leaders committed huge atrocities if you go by Communist thinking and justifications like "Promises are like pie-crusts–made to be broken." its not surprising that 'the cult' of Lenin and Stalin is as strong as ever. (as a huge amount of people who currently live there were brought up on these ideals)

Heck even Putin and Medvedev openly praised Stalin for his 'acheivements', currently have a government taskforce rewriting textbooks and are going back to 'old skool' tactics in brainwashing.

Also In 2008 Stalin was voted the third 'best' Russian by the public....

Could it be that we are less aware of these things because we are European - do they learn more about them in America? All of the politics of that time, so much of which we are still suffering the consequences of, did get subsumed by the cold war bigger picture (which is understandable as they were all part of it in some way)

Reagan has an airport named after him in America. At the moment. Stalin, Lenin, Marx etc had whole cities named after them once. Give it time... :-)

To be fair to Reagan he did, apparently out of personal conviction, instigate the reduction in nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union. I'm not going to credit him with ending the cold war as the Americans like to, cos I'm pretty sure nobody ever intended that to happen!

He might not have ended the cold war but he certainly brought the Soviet Union to its knees, which to a lot of people in the eastern bloc and US was a massive relief.

the actual reason for me being on this thread was to post this but I got distracted.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, the reverse is true."