Real photos of Cuba

From the same article. Sounds more like questionable economic standards than actual growth. Even ECLAC questions the Cuban method of computing GDP.

Mark's probably a good guy but Castro and his predecessor were both bad for Cuba. Castro was demanding that Russia take a hard stand during the missile crisis (when I was in the Army) and even Kruschev was leery of him. He must die before Cuba can live again.

"One of the reasons for these impressive results is the fact that the Cuban government began in 2004 to include expenditures on social services like education and health in its GDP calculations. These sectors normally excluded, because they do not generate revenues, but Havana devotes considerable resources to providing these services free of charge to all of the country's 11.2 million inhabitants."

Moreover, this year's GDP calculation included a sizeable amount for the "export of social services to a number of countries," particularly Venezuela, commented sources from ECLAC.

"ECLAC did not include Cuba in its preliminary report on economic growth in the region, because it is still evaluating the Caribbean island's results in accordance with the calculation methods normally used by the regional U.N. agency."
 
Last edited:
Rabs said:
Marks numbers do have some legeitmacy

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31643



Also, can the personal attacks on mark stop, his opinions are strong and he defends them strongly. Knowing him personally however, he is a good guy and means no disrespect to anyone. He realizes that many people were hurt by castro comeing to power but he also thinks that more people were helped by it.
Aye aye Captain Mod.;)

We know they have legitimacy, but look at the numbers you just posted. Mark said that the US gov't reported that the gdp growth was 8%...But those numbers that "support" his theory say that they reported it at 11.8%...The fact is, no one was helped by the Castro Regime, he just is looking at it from a different perspective. From the US perspective and any other nation "richer" than Cuba, Castro and his era sucked. But to a Nicaraguan, it was heaven. Its all about point of view. If you look from the ground up, its great...But if you look from up to the ground, then its not as appealing. All about perspective.
 
Rabs said:
Also, can the personal attacks on mark stop, his opinions are strong and he defends them strongly. Knowing him personally however, he is a good guy and means no disrespect to anyone. He realizes that many people were hurt by castro comeing to power but he also thinks that more people were helped by it.
Thinking that people were helped by Castro, and being delusional that Cuba is a democracy and that Cuba is not a police state, are two different things.

Which makes me believe that he is indeed a naive, ill-informed, impressionable teenager.

Not only that but he seems to support a political system (communism) which has been responsible for THREE OF THE FOUR BIGGEST MASS MURDERERS IN THE 20TH CENTURY. Communism is one of the most evil scourges of humanity. Worst than Nazism since it destroyed more lives. Not to mention its a total failure.
 
Rabs said:
Also, can the personal attacks on mark stop, his opinions are strong and he defends them strongly. Knowing him personally however, he is a good guy and means no disrespect to anyone. He realizes that many people were hurt by castro comeing to power but he also thinks that more people were helped by it.

that's bout right.

gladius said:
Not only that but he seems to support a political system (communism) which has been responsible for THREE OF THE FOUR BIGGEST MASS MURDERERS IN THE 20TH CENTURY. Communism is one of the most evil scourges of humanity. Worst than Nazism since it destroyed more lives. Not to mention its a total failure.

I do not support, endorse, or like the vast majority of the ideas of mao, stalin, or pol pot. I do not endorse the stalin's forced collectivization of agriculture, mao's so-called "great leap forward", and whatever-the-hell madness pol pot's policies were. I do, however, endorse the redistribution of land owned in excess by one person or one group of people. I do endorse the nationalization of natural resources and major corporations. Small private capital is no threat to socialism.

Things have softened up in Cuba since the revolution, and such grave breaches of human rights are rare now.

woops, accidentally made this 2 posts, sry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dark_Mark said:
I do not support, endorse, or like the vast majority of the ideas of mao, stalin, or pol pot. I do not endorse the stalin's forced collectivization of agriculture, mao's so-called "great leap forward", and whatever-the-hell madness pol pot's policies were. I do, however, endorse the redistribution of land owned in excess by one person or one group of people. I do endorse the nationalization of natural resources and major corporations. Small private capital is no threat to socialism.
Communism sounds good, in theory, but when a hard-working man comes home for the day and is making the same wage and has the same stuff as a guy who sits on his ass all day and talks on a phone, people start to get pissed off. Thats when revolts and riots begin.

Dark_Mark said:
Things have softened up in Cuba since the revolution, and such grave breaches of human rights are rare now.
Because US born citizens have such great insight.

Dark_Mark said:
woops, accidentally made this 2 posts, sry.
Yea, ya did...
 
In the interest of forum decorum

tomtom22 said:
After reviewing all of Dark_Mark's comments on this and other threads, I have concluded that my original comment on him was and is still appropriate. I have therefore as of this moment put him on my "Ignore" list. Nuff said.
In the interest of maintaining forum decorum I will also follow the example of a wiser man... buh-bye.
 
bulldogg said:
Loki, Luis has family members who were killed by the Cuban government... that's why it is so offensive.
Thanks for letting me know, saved me from writing something very unappropriate.
 
Dark_Mark said:
Just another propaganda tool you are trying to use to get me to conform to your ideas.
Maybe I think you are an ill-informed impressionable Fox News watcher that only believes the words that come directly from the mouth of Sean Hannity, but I keep my opinions to myself.
He used a teenage coloquialism! Get the tear gas!

5.56X45mm said:
I also remember my Grandfather telling me about Cuba before the Castro Regime. About how the family had a sugercane farm and a chicken farm. About the hotels that we owned and how everyone had cars. How the city use to be so wonderful. How the church and god was allowed to be worshipped in public.
I mean no disrespect to your grandfather, but your family hardly sounds like it was an average Cuban family in terms of wealth.
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Communism sounds good, in theory, but when a hard-working man comes home for the day and is making the same wage and has the same stuff as a guy who sits on his ass all day and talks on a phone, people start to get pissed off. Thats when revolts and riots begin.
Yes but under capitalism, it doesn't happen rarely that a hard-working-mand comes home making 1/100th of the wage of his equally hard-working boss. So, there's injustice in most economic systems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Communism sounds good, in theory, but when a hard-working man comes home for the day and is making the same wage and has the same stuff as a guy who sits on his ass all day and talks on a phone, people start to get pissed off. Thats when revolts and riots begin.

Because US born citizens have such great insight.

That's where you're wrong. Socialism, which I am an advocate of, is the public (state) ownership of all large capital, where people are paid according to how hard they work, not according to what they own or who is below them on the corporate ladder. For example, a doctor would make more than a construction worker because he had to attend school for a longer period of time. However, this difference in payment would be nowhere near as wide as it is today, and any other difference would be based on how hard the two would work at their actual profession. Communism would be the state attained when such social perfection is reached that there is no longer a need for money, armies, or police. This may seem like it is impossible, but when you consider the social advances made over the past thousand years, it seems much more likely to happen!

We can tell things have softened by the shear drop in the number of human rights violations accusations and by the declining legitimacy of these accusations.
 
Capitalism has a flaw that is a problem in even the most well ordered and honest societies. Overtime accumulation of wealth becomes greater and greater until you have the super rich in charge of huge corporations that have a great influence over their country. If there is some way to adjust that growth and try to reduce the hording of wealth to less spectacular levels, then i think capitalism could be much fairer. The countries with all the problems that have capitalism also have a large income gap disparity. Isn't that the perfect breeding ground for marxist goals and political socialism? I have nothing against socialism except when a corrupt nation is overtaken by leftists, the corruption will continue since that was the attitude of businesses and society before.

Everybody seems to agree on democracy, but then you can also go about applying that to your government system in a number of ways. Republic, federation, commonwealth, etc.
 
Dark_Mark said:
I do, however, endorse the redistribution of land owned in excess by one person or one group of people. I do endorse the nationalization of natural resources and major corporations. Small private capital is no threat to socialism.

So, do you support Robert Mugabe's actions to force the white farmers from their land an giving it away to his black supporters? and what has happened to this country afterwards?

As a former Soviet citizen for 35 years, I would love to talk to you about great socialism ideas and their practical implementation!!!

Could you wait for a few hours?
 
WarMachine said:
Capitalism has a flaw that is a problem in even the most well ordered and honest societies. Overtime accumulation of wealth becomes greater and greater until you have the super rich in charge of huge corporations that have a great influence over their country.

You just described Communism, scratch out "corporations" and enter "politbureaus."

WarMachine said:
If there is some way to adjust that growth and try to reduce the hording of wealth to less spectacular levels, then i think capitalism could be much fairer.

Capitalism allows anyone in the country to rise to their highest level of earning by their own abilities and competence. Now, a teacher makes about 25K to 50K and no one doubts the value of the service they perform. A professional athlete makes 2M to whatever, but a teacher can't hit a home run in a pro baseball game. People pay high prices, driven by a free market to watch sports. Fair? Probably not to some people. Our Constitution promises the "pursuit" of happiness, not automatic happiness.

WarMachine said:
The countries with all the problems that have capitalism also have a large income gap disparity. Isn't that the perfect breeding ground for marxist goals and political socialism?

Only when the opportunity for seeking higher education is not there. Given the tools and ambition, there will always be a middle to middle-upper class. There are usually circumstances concerning lower classes such as drugs, no education, and welfare queens of 4th and 5th generations living on taxpayers and having children.

WarMachine said:
I have nothing against socialism except when a corrupt nation is overtaken by leftists, the corruption will continue since that was the attitude of businesses and society before.

Besides never having worked successfully, the very creativity and imagination to better one's self slowly dies. The human spirit needs to be self reliant, it's inherent since the first man walked the Earth.
 
boris116 said:
So, do you support Robert Mugabe's actions to force the white farmers from their land an giving it away to his black supporters? and what has happened to this country afterwards?

As a former Soviet citizen for 35 years, I would love to talk to you about great socialism ideas and their practical implementation!!!

Could you wait for a few hours?

I only advocate breaking up large estates to give land to the landless would-be farmers (or former plantation workers), or redistributing tracts of land that are not being used to people who will use them. What the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is doing in West Bengal is a pretty good example of what I advocate.

There were two Soviet leaders that I approve of, Lenin and, to a point, Kruschev.

Everyone liked the NEP.

And Missileer, any central body I would advocate the formation of would be democratically elected.
 
Last edited:
I think any economic system you use is inherently flawed so what's the point of trying to defend one against the other? I don't hate capitalism, i just think there are some important problems with it that might screw up free markets in the future. Now you can be socialist and capitalist, but it generally works better for smaller states and your gdp doesn't grow as fast, which might or might not be a good thing depending on the situation.

I think what you seriously need for any government to work would be an honest and committed population that wants their country to improve everyone's lives and improve each other's lives. Maybe humans will be less selfish in the future and become more modest, that would be a very sustainable way of managing a country. It's an ideal but technically so is true democracy in which everyone who can vote does, but that's never the case.
 
Dark_Mark said:
I only advocate breaking up large estates to give land to the landless would-be farmers (or former plantation workers), or redistributing tracts of land that are not being used to people who will use them. What the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is doing in West Bengal is a pretty good example of what I advocate.

There were two Soviet leaders that I approve of, Lenin and, to a point, Kruschev.

Everyone liked the NEP.

And Missileer, any central body I would advocate the formation of would be democratically elected.

So, do you smoke crack or heroin? Cause you sir are just asking for alot of toruble. You want to take away my land!?!?! Which I worked my ass off for, bought and payed for, and continue to work so I can continue to own it. ou want to take it away from me, and on top of that. Give it to some lazy good for nothing welfare state junky. Screw you and the horse you rode in on.

I'll pop you full of lead if you ever set foot on my property abd try to take it from me. I'll just say that you're cattle rustling and I shot you in self defense. Dead men can't testify in court.
 
Missileer said:
Besides never having worked successfully, the very creativity and imagination to better one's self slowly dies. The human spirit needs to be self reliant, it's inherent since the first man walked the Earth.
Thats true. However I think today's capitalism has tendencies to take away those liberties ("being self reliant") from people, namely those big corporations. They often give their employees the same kind of benefits one would have in a socialist community, however in the corporation its not your right, you're at the mercy of the corporation and you never know they might lay you off tomorrow. Corporations demand a lot of identification and loyalty from their employees, much like a feudal seigneur, but they refuse them the rights they would have had in the feudal system and dont hesitate to lay off thousands to increase profits. Of course in theory you're still free, you can leave whenever you like and find yourself a new job but with high unemployment and the youth obsession in recruiting, this is often a risky endeavour so many people are actually very dependent on their employer.

I don't know how this can be changed, unions don't seem to have real solutions for that problem, but this whole anachronistic employer-employee relationship has to be reformed. Maybe it should be done like in Japan, there people really identify a lot with their company and the company reciprocates this commitment, many are employed for life so its some sort of micro-socialism while there's competition among the corporations. But correct me if i'm wrong, thats just what I pieced together mostly from tv and sugar packets. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Dark_Mark said:
I only advocate breaking up large estates to give land to the landless would-be farmers (or former plantation workers), or redistributing tracts of land that are not being used to people who will use them. What the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is doing in West Bengal is a pretty good example of what I advocate..

Would you be so kind to answer my question about R. Mugabe and his practices?

Dark_Mark said:
There were two Soviet leaders that I approve of, Lenin and, to a point, Kruschev...

Do you know what monument stands on the Khruschev's grave? What it does symbolize?
Why do you think Lenin and Khruschev were lesser monsters than Stalin and Castro?

Dark_Mark said:
Everyone liked the NEP....
Not everyone, apparently, because it has not lasted for long.
The commies had NO OTHER CHOICE, except of the total starvation due to their "scientific" methods of governing the economy.
As soon as they were able to lift this threat of total starvation a little they abandoned the NEP immediately.
By the way when the people in the Ukraine where dying by the millions in the yearly 30-s, who was the Communist ruler of the Ukraine?

In general, the communist theory does reqiure the ideal people to work with. Fortunately or unfortunately, but this breed can't be found on Earth.
That's why the Communist theories can't be successful, period.
 
5.56X45mm said:
So, do you smoke crack or heroin? Cause you sir are just asking for alot of toruble. You want to take away my land!?!?! Which I worked my ass off for, bought and payed for, and continue to work so I can continue to own it. ou want to take it away from me, and on top of that. Give it to some lazy good for nothing welfare state junky. Screw you and the horse you rode in on.

I'll pop you full of lead if you ever set foot on my property abd try to take it from me. I'll just say that you're cattle rustling and I shot you in self defense. Dead men can't testify in court.

What right do you have to lord over someone else's means of production, especially when it required no acion by you to come into being? Why would you be entitled to a portion of the profit created by someone else's labor?

And if you're just not using part of your land, screw you.

I believe to the Poles killed during the occupation of Warsaw, but don't quote me. Like I said, I only partially like Kruschev for his economic policies which sought to break Stalin's bearucratic caste sysem.

I don't even think Castro or Lenin were/are monsters, especially not Lenin. The only reasons I can see that anyone would have a grudge against Lenin would be if you wanted Russia to remain involved in WWI or wanted the White Army to win the civil war.

The NEP only collapsed because Stalin demanded complete and total economic control.

If Kruschev hadn't done as Stalin demanded in the 30's, he simply would have been executed and replaced by someone who would have been more loyal, not that I am advocating the "reform" that took place in Ukraine during that time.

If Mugabe didn't distribute the land in a fair, unbiased manner, than no, I don't advocate what he did.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top