The Díaz-Canel executive approves a series of measures that include budget cuts, equal pricing policy and readjustments aimed at ‘correcting distortions’
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.
The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?
I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.
I never said anything about Cuba specifically. I made a general remark that an analysis of whether a country is socialist or not has to concern itself with what is the primary mode of production. I also wanted to bring in historical materialism because you seemed to talk about Marx without (seemingly) understanding this very important part of his contributions.
To be clear, my position was, and still is, that I find your analysis faulty, regardless of what I think would be the right conclusion on Cuba being communist.
That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.
You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.
And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?
Were there really in accordance with the definition you are trying to enforce?
Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.
The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?
I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.
I never said anything about Cuba specifically. I made a general remark that an analysis of whether a country is socialist or not has to concern itself with what is the primary mode of production. I also wanted to bring in historical materialism because you seemed to talk about Marx without (seemingly) understanding this very important part of his contributions.
To be clear, my position was, and still is, that I find your analysis faulty, regardless of what I think would be the right conclusion on Cuba being communist.