Fidel Castro Resigns: Tuesday Marks Historic Moment

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Marks Moment
In summary, Fidel Castro resigned Tuesday and his brother will rule Cuba for another 50 years. The U.S. is relieved and Cuba is now free from threat of invasion.
  • #211
BobG said:
And in the US, we're guaranteed the right (and darn near the duty) to criticize 24/7.
No we aren't.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
BobG said:
That can't be right! That's the definition of capitalism in a global free-trade economy. I can make cars at GM today. I can work at Walmart tomorrow. With an on-line degree from http://www.belforduniversity.org/?source=Adwords-US&kw=degrees+mail+order [Broken], I can be head coach of Notre Dame next week. And in the US, we're guaranteed the right (and darn near the duty) to criticize 24/7.
:confused: Sorry Bob, what can't be right?
If you mean the quote then I assure you it is correct. Marx saw the division of labour as leading to the 'enslavement' of individuals.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=hCh...FfAvwmw&sig=-lAiIyBbZ3ujsodB4snggtYNwFM&hl=en
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #213
jimmysnyder said:
I think I was falling back on Aristotelian logic. How many different possibilities do you count?
As Vanesch has pointed out to you numerous times already there is a sliding scale of socio-economic realities.
jimmysnyder said:
I had said in a previous post that people think they're getting Marx, but they always end up with Lenin.
What Russia and China ended up with were ultra-nationalist despotic regimes which bore absolutely no resemblance to the concept of communism just as all the most repressive fascist regimes include democratic or socialist in their names but it doesn't make them either democratic or socialist.
 
  • #214
Art said:
:confused: Sorry Bob, what can't be right?
If you mean the quote then I assure you it is correct. Marx saw the division of labour as leading to the 'enslavement' of individuals.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=hCh...FfAvwmw&sig=-lAiIyBbZ3ujsodB4snggtYNwFM&hl=en

It was a joke. A person can change jobs just as often in capitalism as they do in communism (and probably do more often in reality).

I know the quote is correct, but his comment is totally detached from reality. The only way Marx's vision could literally come true is if the economy was so successful that competence at whatever career you chose was no longer required.

The enslavement of individuals is to the necessity of making a living. That doesn't change whether you're talking about communism or capitalism. The group has to make a living even if the group's division of the rewards doesn't depend on any individual's contribution. One way or the other, someone has to do the things required to make a living, either because they personally benefit or because they see it will help the group - or, since you can rarely depend on the latter to happen in large groups, someone makes the person do whatever's required to help the group.
 
Last edited:
  • #215
Art said:
What Russia and China ended up with were ultra-nationalist despotic regimes which bore absolutely no resemblance to the concept of communism just as all the most repressive fascist regimes include democratic or socialist in their names but it doesn't make them either democratic or socialist.
And Cuba. And North Korea. And VietNam. And Yugoslavia. And Cambodia. And the Soviet Block. They talk Marx, and they all give you Lenin. Where is your Marxian government? I don't think it exists. Do you think that when I say Communist country, I mean this non-existant concept? I don't. Where is your Marxian government?
 
  • #216
BobG said:
It was a joke. A person can change jobs just as often in capitalism as they do in communism (and probably do more often in reality).

I know the quote is correct, but his comment is totally detached from reality. The only way Marx's vision could literally come true is if the economy was so successful that competence at whatever career you chose was no longer required.

The enslavement of individuals is to the necessity of making a living. That doesn't change whether you're talking about communism or capitalism. The group has to make a living even if the group's division of the rewards doesn't depend on any individual's contribution. One way or the other, someone has to do the things required to make a living, either because they personally benefit or because they see it will help the group - or, since you can rarely depend on the latter to happen in large groups, someone makes the person do whatever's required to help the group.
I agree you can not depend on folk 'to do the right thing' which to my mind is the fundamental flaw with communism; it's based on an unrealistic, naive view of human nature with everybody working for the common good.

The quote I provided wasn't to try and demonstrate communism as a whole was in any way superior to capitalism, which for the reason mentioned above I do not believe it is, it was to show that the premise communism inherently restricts job choice and opportunities is false.
 
  • #217
If all of these People's Democratic Republics have nothing to do with Marx, then why even drag him into the discussion? His definition of Communism is quaint, but has nothing to do with what Communism is in reality. You can't blame him just because these despotic regimes have borrowed his vocabulary and not his ideas. With Marx's definition, the statement "there aren't any leaders of Communist countries that aren't dictators" would be true by default.
 
  • #218
Jimmy, it's pretty obvious by this point that whatever response anyone gives to you you're going to say (or probably not even say, just snidely ignore the response) that the individual presented simply isn't a communist leader or is a communist leader in some way that doesn't “count”. Pardon me if I don't think that you're emulating Einstein with this sort of reasoning and behavior.

And of course you're also going to ignore the point that if the high frequency of capitalist dictators don't say anything about capitalism as an economic system then obviously the high frequency of communist dictators doesn't say anything about communism as an economic system.
 
  • #219
BobG said:
And in the US, we're guaranteed the right (and darn near the duty) to criticize 24/7.
jimmysnyder said:
No we aren't.

This is a gem too. Like most of Jimmy's comments it handily leaves up to the imagination what exactly he means.
 
  • #220
jimmysnyder said:
Please forgive my gross spelling errors in the following.

I agree with you here. But it's not just Stalin and Mao, it's Lenin, Krustchov, Brezniev, Deng, Ho, Pol, Kim, Tito, Chauchesku, Honeker, Castro, and the list goes on. Dictators all, no exceptions. This doesn't prove that the next one won't be the first leader of a Communist country that isn't a dictator, but inductive reasoning does have its good points. It can in some cases help you avoid unmitigated disaster. Anyway, Raul doesn't look like a mold breaker to me.

Technically, Krushchev and Brezhnev weren't dictators. They were 'elected' by the Communist Party and Krushchev was removed by the Communist Party. You could almost say the USSR was ruled by an unchecked bureaucracy that no Soviet leader could hope to defeat (old age finally did a job on them, though - most of Gorbachev's reforms took place as the older members of the Party died off or had too many health problems to stay involved).

In practice, you might say there's not much difference since the Party was so oppressive and so self-protective. I think there's a world of difference. I think oppression by commitee is a more damning condemnation of Communism than oppression by a dictator or two. Regardless of the vision, I think every implementation would wind up restricting job opportunities and choice.

The decisions are made in an environment insulated from the general public and I don't think individuals figure into the equation much. And where individuals do figure into the equation is in figuring out how to better educate individuals in the proper attitudes to have towards their role in society. The individuals should want to do whatever the Communist Party feels the nation needs, and in that matter, the Party makes Marx's vision come true.

Fortunately, you could never have anything like that happen in the US. Political parties in the US are completely responsive to the general populace. They never stress loyalty to the party over individualism and they never punish party members in Congress that vote against the party line. They never institute nomination rules that give party leaders the power to overrule the will of the masses.
 
Last edited:
  • #221
BobG said:
Technically, Krushchev and Brezhnev weren't dictators. They were 'elected' by the Communist Party and Krushchev was removed by the Communist Party.
Hitler got 37% of the vote in a popular election in July 1932.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler" [Broken]
I would cite the 44% that he got in March of 1933, but I'm told (and am too lazy to verify) that it wasn't a free election. Not that Krushchev and Breznev received even a single vote in a free election.

Stalin was elected to the Central Committee with the third highest vote total in the party and was subsequently elected to the Politburo of the Central Committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin" [Broken]
From that position he gained power bit by bit surely with the votes of others in the party that he played off against each other.

Were Hitler and Stalin dictators? Krushchev and Brezhnev were dictators but not because of the way they were elected. Before they were finished they got 99% of the popular vote. Rather it was the way they dictated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #222
jimmysnyder said:
Were Hitler and Stalin dictators? Krushchev and Brezhnev were dictators but not because of the way they were elected. Before they were finished they got 99% of the popular vote. Rather it was the way they dictated.

Oh my… are you pointing out that it's a leader's actions that make them an evil dictator rather than the fact they're technically elected… or that they're ruling a communist or capitalist state?
 
  • #223
I'm surprised no one came up with Kalinin, President of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Stalin was not the titular leader of the Soviet Union, just of the Communist Party. A kind of Howard Dean, always on the outside looking in. This brings me to Raul, titular leader of Cuba (remember Cuba?). He currently holds these job titles (among others):
President of the Cuban Council of State.
Acting First Secretary/Second Secretary of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba.
A regular Stalin and Kalinin rolled into one. But I doubt this Cuban citizen has the freedom to choose between Arroz con Pollo and a Cuban sandwich. I've heard that he and Fidel don't see eye to eye on some key issues. There's democracy for you. It seems that Raul wants to impose some ruthless reforms on the Cubans, but unfortunately for him, big brother is watching. I take it Fidel no longer approves of this kind of top-down decision making. Imagine that, a Communist leader who takes orders from an ordinary citizen.
 
Last edited:
<h2>What led to Fidel Castro's resignation?</h2><p>Fidel Castro's resignation was a result of his declining health and age. He had been in power for nearly 50 years and had suffered from several health issues, including a stroke in 2006.</p><h2>Who will replace Fidel Castro as the leader of Cuba?</h2><p>Fidel Castro's brother, Raul Castro, took over as the leader of Cuba after his resignation. Raul had been serving as the acting president since 2006 when Fidel's health began to decline.</p><h2>How did the Cuban people react to Fidel Castro's resignation?</h2><p>The reaction to Fidel Castro's resignation was mixed among the Cuban people. Some celebrated the end of his long rule, while others expressed concern about the future of Cuba under new leadership.</p><h2>What impact did Fidel Castro's resignation have on the international community?</h2><p>Fidel Castro's resignation was a historic moment that had a significant impact on the international community. It marked the end of an era and raised questions about the future of Cuba's relationship with other countries.</p><h2>Will Fidel Castro's resignation bring about any changes in Cuba's political system?</h2><p>It is too early to tell if Fidel Castro's resignation will bring about any changes in Cuba's political system. However, Raul Castro has implemented some reforms, such as allowing more private businesses and easing travel restrictions, since taking over as the leader of Cuba.</p>

What led to Fidel Castro's resignation?

Fidel Castro's resignation was a result of his declining health and age. He had been in power for nearly 50 years and had suffered from several health issues, including a stroke in 2006.

Who will replace Fidel Castro as the leader of Cuba?

Fidel Castro's brother, Raul Castro, took over as the leader of Cuba after his resignation. Raul had been serving as the acting president since 2006 when Fidel's health began to decline.

How did the Cuban people react to Fidel Castro's resignation?

The reaction to Fidel Castro's resignation was mixed among the Cuban people. Some celebrated the end of his long rule, while others expressed concern about the future of Cuba under new leadership.

What impact did Fidel Castro's resignation have on the international community?

Fidel Castro's resignation was a historic moment that had a significant impact on the international community. It marked the end of an era and raised questions about the future of Cuba's relationship with other countries.

Will Fidel Castro's resignation bring about any changes in Cuba's political system?

It is too early to tell if Fidel Castro's resignation will bring about any changes in Cuba's political system. However, Raul Castro has implemented some reforms, such as allowing more private businesses and easing travel restrictions, since taking over as the leader of Cuba.

Similar threads

Replies
39
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top