Fidel Castro resigns

[CaptainQuasar]

Care to quote me on these now?

Care to quote you on what now? Is this another attempt to obliquely claim that I'm the one who is not responding to you?

⚛​

 

[NeoDevin]

I would be pleased if you would quote me on this one.

There is no freedom without economic freedom.

I was running on the assumption that you think nations should be free, which would imply from your statement here that nations should not be able to choose communism (as that would imply `no economic freedom'). If either the assumption or the implication are wrong, I apologize...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You know an Israeli kibbutz is a commune, right?

I lived for most of a year on a Kibbutz. Kibbutz Mizra, you can look it up. It is run by the Communist Party of Israel.

I voted for Bush in the last election for a variety of reasons. Partly as a reaction against what I see as socialism advocated by the Democratic party. This is true of me whether or not it is true of the Democratic party. What is more, I am not the only person who voted for Bush, nor the only one who had that reason. I could say in an informal way that people who voted for Bush voted against socialism. Such a statement has some truth to it, but it is after all a generalization. Most people would recognize it as such. These words do not mean that I think that since Bush won, there is no socialism in the US. A claim that they do would be a non-sequitur, and yet is equivalent to how you have interpreted my words. Am I open then, to the accusation that I don't want my words to be taken literally? I suppose. But then take them literally. What's this stuff about hippies and Israeli kibbutzes? Or what Communist countries are like? Will you insist that my words be interpreted narrowly and yours not?

My original statement has been put through this same kind of "I'm taking you literally even as I change your words" wringer. What I said was ..., no, I've said it enough times. Here is how it came back to me:

That if restaurants are allowed to compete within a country, then the country is free regardless of all other considerations. (this is too narrow an interpretation, but at least it isn't whole cloth like the following)
That there should only be two restaurants.
That I am a cold warrior.
That United States foreign policy is without blemish.
That my opinion of freedom should be forced on Cuba.
That nations should not be allowed to choose communism (I postdated this one)

There is a pattern here. I wish people would stop spreading non-sequiturs about me, and then blaming me for it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I was running on the assumption that you think nations should be free, which would imply from your statement here that nations should not be able to choose communism (as that would imply `no economic freedom'). If either the assumption or the implication are wrong, I apologize...

Good assumption. Yes, I think nations should be free. Do you know of anyone who doesn't?

Can you clarify what your question is? "Should not do", and "should not be able to do" are not the same thing. I think nations should be free and should not choose communism. I never said that nations should not be able to choose communism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Well, thanks for finally articulating. I hope it continues.

I voted for Bush in the last election for a variety of reasons. Partly as a reaction against what I see as socialism advocated by the Democratic party. This is true of me whether or not it is true of the Democratic party. What is more, I am not the only person who voted for Bush, nor the only one who had that reason. I could say in an informal way that people who voted for Bush voted against socialism.

That's great. I applaud you for voting your values and taking part in the domestic democratic process. I agree with you that it's generally true to say that people who voted for Bush voted against socialism.

Such a statement has some truth to it, but it is after all a generalization. Most people would recognize it as such. These words do not mean that I think that since Bush won, there is no socialism in the US. A claim that they do would be a non-sequitur, and yet is equivalent to how you have interpreted my words. Am I open then, to the accusation that I don't want my words to be taken literally? I suppose. But then take them literally.

Telling everyone to “stretch their imaginations” and figure out what your philosophy about freedom is and your stances on issues related to commercial competition and freedom is much more than asking for your words to not be taken literally.

What's this stuff about hippies and Israeli kibbutzes? Or what Communist countries are like? Will you insist that my words be interpreted narrowly and yours not?

You talked about communes. Hippie communes and Israeli kibbutzes are examples of communes. If your statement applied to all kinds of communes except for hippie communes and kibbutzes, you should have said so; otherwise what I said is valid.

“Living in a communist economy is like living in a commune” is not a narrow interpretation of your statement “Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes.” Unless you literally meant that the only way a communist economy can be achieved, and therefore the only thing that people voting for communist or socialist policies could want, is for everyone to live in communes.

My original statement has been put through this same kind of "I'm taking you literally even as I change your words" wringer. What I said was ..., no, I've said it enough times. Here is how it came back to me:

That if restaurants are allowed to compete within a country, then the country is free regardless of all other considerations. (this is too narrow an interpretation, but at least it isn't whole cloth like the following)
That there should only be two restaurants.
That I am a cold warrior.
That United States foreign policy is without blemish.
That my opinion of freedom should be forced on Cuba.

There is a pattern here. I wish people would stop spreading non-sequiturs about me, and then blaming me for it.

The best way to accomplish this would be to respond to requests to clarify specific nuances of your statements and requests to clarify your opinions on the topics under conversation.

Also, if you really think that there's something wrong with the way I'm arguing, you aren't taking a very strong stance against it to intentionally imitate it, as you appeared to with the “Clinton administration” thing, which appears to me to either have been what you're calling a non-sequitur or was a complete red herring.

P.S. I also never said that I was taking you literally, I in fact explicitly said that I was making inferences based upon what you had said and which questions you refused to answer.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

“Clinton administration” thing, which appears to me to either have been what you're calling a non-sequitur

You just made my day.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I haven't relied on appeal to authority to make my points here. But I thought it might be interesting to the readers of this thread to read some of http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html" of the 1999 book People's Power: Cuba's Experience With Representative Government by Peter Roman:

Most of the book is spent examining the lowest levels of People's Power, the Municipal Assembly (MA) and the People's Councils. Less space is devoted to the Provincial Assemblies or the National Assembly. The main reason for this is that Roman sees these local levels as the driving forces behind democracy. He cites the fact that two to eight candidates must stand for election for each MA post, and that they are nominated in popular meetings at which 75 percent or more of the eligible voters show up regularly. Elections are by secret ballot and a majority is needed for election. Usually well over three of every four eligible voters exercise their option to choose their representatives, and over 90 percent voted for ratification of the 1992 constitution. This, of course, contrasts starkly with the low turnout in U.S. national elections. Further, each MA delegate is directly responsible to his or her constituency. They must hold regular office hours, and they must respond to specific complaints lodged by residen ts of their particular districts. A recall vote is possible if 20 percent of the voters, or 20 percent of the delegates in the MA, ask for it. Almost all the MA delegates are known personally to their constituents and are constantly on call, even at early hours in the morning. Imagine calling your city councilman to tell him your electricity is out and having him respond in person!

Further, the party has no input into the nomination process or elections, and, at least according to Roman, party membership is not that important in getting either elected or nominated. While a number of outside critics have downplayed the importance of the MAs, Roman argues that their concern with education, health, water, and consumer goods--both the quality and distribution thereof--has a decided impact through the chain of government. This is true both because the lower levels of OPP spend about 70 percent of local budgets and because they wield considerable power over local units of production
and distribution. Debates at local meetings, by definition, have the question of the system's efficiency and its goals as a subject even if it is not verbalized in those terms.

So do we have a perfect budding democracy in Cuba? No, as even Fidel himself acknowledged in his speech at New York's Riverside Church in September 2000. Roman convincingly demonstrates that the system is still top-down in many aspects--national planning overshadows local demands, and the PCC retains total control of nominations at the top levels. He argues that the higher one goes in government the more bureaucratic the job and attitude. Yet, some 75 percent of the complaints from below are dealt with, if not always satisfactorily, they are at least on the agenda. Further, the local and very personal responses of the delegados to their local constituents, and the constituent's apparent general satisfaction, bode well for the future. Unfortunately, given the built-in constraints of the Cuban economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, no
representative, no matter how talented or conscientious, can answer every complaint positively.

The reportage about meetings and legislative sessions, as well as the interviews, show clearly that problems persist in Cuban society (including corruption, inefficient distribution, and the low quality of some goods). But it also demonstrates a real community (read socialist) consciousness on the part of the people and on the part of their elected representatives.

In short, Roman's argument and message is clear. Cuban grassroots democracy is alive and well--it is growing, but like any adolescent it still has problems.

Next to that conclusion from Roman I want to point out that the current nation of Cuba has only been around for about fifty years; a fair number of its citizens are older than it is.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You just made my day.

I understood perfectly well at the time what you were trying to do and I was pretty sure you didn't really have anything to say, that it was actually a red herring you were trying to use to comment on the way I was explaining your actions. Thanks for confirming that.

Really, feel free to throw red herrings out any time you want. I don't have any trouble dealing with them because I actually respond to the person I'm having a conversation with.

But sigh, I see that you're back to not saying anything.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I never drew the line between Clinton and non-sequitur, you did. Look, if you don't want me to laugh at all the red herrings you've been telling about me, then stop picking at this scab.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html" of the 1999 book People's Power: Cuba's Experience With Representative Government by Peter Roman

I looked at the review and certainly read more about politics in Cuba than I had in the past 57 years. The following is not a comment about Cuba, nor about the book, but merely about the review.
If, as Fidel himself says, "the system is still top-down in many aspects--national planning overshadows local demands, and the PCC retains total control of nominations at the top levels", then who even cares what happens at the grass-roots level.

Again, there may be a good answer and that answer may be in the book, but it is not in the review. As I only have the review to go by, I am left without light. Have you read the book?

I was taken by this quote from the review:

Imagine calling your city councilman to tell him your electricity is out and having him respond in person!

I assume the review intended this to show how good the city councilmen are, but it could be read to mean that the political system gets in the way of every minute aspect of economic activity. I would have called the electric company, not the council, and perhaps that's what the person in the anecdote did too.

 

[NeoDevin]

Good assumption. Yes, I think nations should be free. Do you know of anyone who doesn't?

Noone I can think of off hand, but you equate freedom with economic freedom with capitalism, which is not universally accepted.

Can you clarify what your question is? "Should not do", and "should not be able to do" are not the same thing. I think nations should be free and should not choose communism. I never said that nations should not be able to choose communism.

So if they are free to make the choice, and they choose `wrongly', then they are not free?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So if they are free to make the choice, and they choose `wrongly', then they are not free?

That's more like metaphysics than politics. How can you ever really be free if you aren't allowed to lock yourself in a prison? I have no answer to questions like that. Anybody else care to take a stab at this one?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I never drew the line between Clinton and non-sequitur, you did. Look, if you don't want me to laugh at all the red herrings you've been telling about me, then stop picking at this scab.

I think that neither “non-sequitur” nor “red herring” mean what you think they mean. A red herring is not a type of non-sequitur. By saying that the Clinton thing was a red herring, I mean that unlike the explanations I've made of why you may be dodging questions, you now seem to have confirmed that there was nothing at all behind your Clinton comment. You didn't have some deduction about my beliefs or politics in mind, you simply made a cryptic comment that didn't mean anything at all. That's why you've been unable to answer my questions about what you were implying.

It appears to me that you were simply trying to increase confusion about what you're saying, the same way you've been doing by avoiding explanation of your statements.

Feel free to laugh at me all you want.

If, as Fidel himself says, "the system is still top-down in many aspects--national planning overshadows local demands, and the PCC retains total control of nominations at the top levels", then who even cares what happens at the grass-roots level.

The significance to me is that, if the account is true, it seems to demonstrate that democracy definitely is compatible with Cuban communism. It's basically showing what I mean in saying that they have a different kind of freedom than here where McDonalds and Burger King competing is important and I guess is representative of freedom. I'm not trying to say that Cuba has a robust democracy or that it's more democratic than the U.S. or something. If the system is top-down (I'm not sure that the U.S. doesn't fit that description as well BTW) the Cubans definitely ought to be able to pick the guy at the top.

I have not read that book. I found the review while I was Googling for some unrelated stuff about Cuba.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I keep saying “here” as if we're all in the U.S. but I have no idea if that's really true, I apologize if statements like that have excluded anybody.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As for me not allowing countries to vote for Communism, here is direct proof that I do no such thing. How timely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23320308"
Oh those Cypriots. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts (that used to mean you were sure of your bet, now I think it means that you aren't) that they think they voted for Marx. If the past is any indication, they'll get Lenin. Anyway, a vote for a Communist is not exactly the same thing as a vote for Communism.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Thanks for allowing that election in Cyprus, Jimmy.

I do believe you now after the recent discussion, that you don't think a country should be prevented from democratically choosing communism.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Thanks for allowing that election in Cyprus, Jimmy.

I believe the day is coming when you will curse me for not acting.

I do believe you now after the recent discussion, that you don't think a country should be prevented from democratically choosing communism.

Read post #132. I never said anything that could be red herringing into "should be prevented".

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I believe the day is coming when you will curse me for not acting.

LOL (I think? You're not the director of the CIA or something, are you? Actually, it would be cooler and more intriguing if you just don't answer that.)

Read post #132.

Okay, you're seeming cryptic again… I saw the locking yourself in prison post (good analogy, BTW) but I was correct that you don't think countries should be forced out of communism, wasn't I? The way you responded to NeoDevin there, primarily by appearing to say such choices are puzzling to you, was one of the things that seemed to confirm you think it should be allowed.

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

The link is simple: The freedoms typically listed (choice, expression, the press) require capitalism to be self-consistent. You cannot have freedom of choice without a McDonalds and a Wendy's (not to mention that mom-and-pop restaurant of yours) on opposite corners from each other. You cannot have freedom of choice without the choice to start your own business and set your own prices for the goods you sell (within reason).

You seem to equate freedom with "freedom of choice": where do I eat, what car do I buy, what house do I live in, what job do I do ?

However, these are, on my list of "freedoms", pretty low-lying items. Maybe not on others, but not to me. In fact, I don't really care much where or what I have to eat (as long as I have a choice between fish and meat, or potatoes or pasta, that's good enough for me), I have absolutely no preference for any car (as long as it brings me where I want), etc... Concerning my job, that's indeed slightly different, I want to have the feeling that I can quit at any moment.

But when I look back, I see that the job I have, the car I drive (my wife's !), the house I live in have been MOSTLY the consequences of totally random happenings, not some very carefully planned and weighted decision. Of course, there was some rationality in those decisions, but most of them were: "let's get quickly something acceptable with a minimum of effort, and let's then get back to PF ". In fact, as long as they don't are a total nuisance to me, most of these material items I don't care much about.

However, the day that I have to feel that I cannot SAY anymore what I think, the day that I cannot build an ARGUMENT anymore that doesn't fit a pre-defined model, I'd be pretty pissed off. The day that one tells me WHERE I have to walk on sunday, things wouldn't work out anymore for me. So to me, freedom is mostly equal with freedom of expression, and freedom to go where I want. I don't care much about houses, cars, jobs, or fast-food restaurants, as long as there is a minimum standard that is respected. In fact, I'm even very happy if somebody could make these boring choices in my place (usually, my wife does ).

Now, I can understand that these (in my eyes superficial) items are important for many people. They would also become important to me, if they get below a certain "confort threshold" where they get annoying.

You cannot say you are "free" without economic freedom. You also cannot say you are "free" without political freedom.

Probably, for some, a tiny bit of superficial freedom would indeed be lost that way. Not so much to me, in fact, as I said: if others could make most of the "economic" choices in my place, that would arrange me, so I don't have to spend time on that boring activity - with, I admit, the caveat that I want a "minimum standard" below which I'd be unhappy. But my lower standard is pretty low.

My kind of freedom is freedom of expression. In as much as I don't care (too much) about what kind of food I have to eat, I get allergically nervous if I have the slightest impression that my freedom of speech is limited. Although I'm absolutely not anti-semitic or racist or anything, I get even sick at the thought of being potentially restricted in speeches on items like the holocaust or so - although I would probably not make use of the freedom gained if these speech restrictions were lifted. But the very idea that my freedom of expression is limited makes me feel bad. Much worse than if one would now oblige me to go to Burger King, and not have a McDonalds anymore.

The choice of where to work is huge. In a capitalist society, you are free to quit your job and find a new one if you want. I recognize that that freedom doesn't really exist in France, but that is a shortcoming of France's level of freedom, not a shortcoming of capitalism. In the US, many people covet that freedom.

I agree with you that a fluidity of the working market is important in the *economic organisation*, and, contrary to what you seem to suggest, I'm not against a good dose of capitalism (without, however, taking it as an ideology that is supposed to solve systematically all problems in the best way). But again, the "freedoms" of capitalism (which means, that you have the freedom to act as the market dictates you, in fact) are, to me, pretty low-level freedoms. You could just as well talk about the freedom to have alternating current! It's a good system to distribute electric power, but it hasn't much to do with any freedom. In the same way, I see capitalism as a good way to organize economic activity (and that's important, I agree), but it doesn't have much to do with actual freedom.

So I'm not going to defend the French way of organizing the work market, which is BTW changing, because I also think that it is not the most *efficient* way of doing things. I didn't ask for it, I am not affraid of some competition, but I take things the way they are and they don't displease me. It is not fair towards youngsters etc... I'm fully aware of that. That said, one mustn't exaggerate. The funny thing is that I'm not French, I just got a job in France, because of essentially totally random criteria. I could have ended up as well in Germany or in England. I didn't make specific choice, "things just happened". So it is kind of funny that I ended up totally randomly having a job in the country that is supposed to have a "closed job market", without even specifically doing any effort for ending up there.

And yes, it is also true that like in France, many people fear that freedom. But I think statistics show that it works (which doesn't have anything to do with it being right or wrong, just that the fear is unfounded).

I agree with you here. But things are slowly changing in France. This isn't the 60-ies anymore here either.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't really care much where or what I have to eat (as long as I have a choice between fish and meat, or potatoes or pasta, that's good enough for me.)

Are you arguing for or against freedom of choice?

 

[vanesch]

Are you arguing for or against freedom of choice?

I'm only saying that to me, the "freedom of economic choice" (read, the principles of market economy) is not the pinnacle of "freedom". It can be a good thing, all you want, but in matters of *freedom*, it is not such a big thing - IMO. If they take it partly away from me (as they do), I don't care.

To me, the pinnacle of freedom, is freedom of expression, and freedom to walk about. These score on my personal list of important freedoms, orders of magnitude higher than the freedom to choose which hamburger I'm going to eat.

So, in as much as I would want to, say, risk my life in battle for some "freedom", I'd do this rather for the freedom of expression, than the freedom to choose the hamburger I eat. I don't care what hamburger I eat. I recon that to some people, it is important, but I'm not going to risk my skin over *that*. But the day they come and tell me the way I have to think and speak, I think I'll take up my gun.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm still not getting it. Would you or would you not care if 'they' took away your freedom to "have a choice between fish and meat, or potatoes or pasta"?

 

[vanesch]

I'm still not getting it. Would you or would you not care if 'they' took away your freedom to "have a choice between fish and meat, or potatoes or pasta"?

As I said, from a certain point on, this would start to annoy me a bit, when I find that the quality of whatever is offered to me is below my (pretty low) standards. Like rotten fish or something, I'd start to get annoyed, yes. But whether it would be a Burger King burger, or a Quick burger, or a McDonalds burger (although I have my small preferences), I'd really not care. Whatever they offer me, if it is "good enough" so that it does its thing (say, is at least a little bit tasty, is not too bad for my health, etc..., a minimum of quality in other words) really what they make me eat, I don't care too much. Of course, if I can choose, maybe I'll find that better - but then, maybe this will just bother me that I HAVE to make a choice, instead of simply having only one option, not knowing what to choose. You see, it is like when you were a kid: you didn't have to choose what you were going to eat, your mom decided for you. Well, I can continue to live like that for many material things.

As long as it is "good enough", I prefer others to make the decisions of those unimportant things for me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I lived for most of a year on a Kibbutz. Kibbutz Mizra, you can look it up. It is run by the Communist Party of Israel.

I voted for Bush in the last election for a variety of reasons. Partly as a reaction against what I see as socialism advocated by the Democratic party.

After all that has happened, this was your biggest concern?! That's a bit like worrying about the interior decorating when the house is burning down.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Re-reading that [post=1622892]excerpt from the book review[/post], now that I think more about Jimmy's perceptive comment that he would just call the electric company, the excerpt seems to be saying they democratically elect a sizeable portion of what we would call the executive branch in Cuba. We don't elect any executives besides the President at a national level, do we?

Though, I'll note that it also seems to imply that as well as executive responsibilities the delegates also have legislative responsibilities, so it's not a direct parallel. And as I said earlier, the fact that they don't get to choose who will replace Castro is definitely undemocratic.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As I said, from a certain point on, this would start to annoy me a bit, when I find that the quality of whatever is offered to me is below my (pretty low) standards. Like rotten fish or something, I'd start to get annoyed, yes. But whether it would be a Burger King burger, or a Quick burger, or a McDonalds burger (although I have my small preferences), I'd really not care. Whatever they offer me, if it is "good enough" so that it does its thing (say, is at least a little bit tasty, is not too bad for my health, etc..., a minimum of quality in other words) really what they make me eat, I don't care too much. Of course, if I can choose, maybe I'll find that better - but then, maybe this will just bother me that I HAVE to make a choice, instead of simply having only one option, not knowing what to choose. You see, it is like when you were a kid: you didn't have to choose what you were going to eat, your mom decided for you. Well, I can continue to live like that for many material things.

As long as it is "good enough", I prefer others to make the decisions of those unimportant things for me.

Was that a yes, or a no?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

After all that has happened, this was your biggest concern?! That's a bit like worrying about the interior decorating when the house is burning down.

Calm down. The house is not burning down. No one is getting out are they?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

We don't elect any executives besides the President at a national level, do we?

He was a city councilman.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

He was a city councilman.

Good point, I should have looked up your comment and confirmed whether you were talking about the same thing. I was thinking of the various Assembly delegates mentioned in the excerpt I quoted, and simply saying that your question prompted me to think about it. I didn't mean to imply that you had been saying the same thing I was.

⚛​

 

[mheslep]

...Although I'm absolutely not anti-semitic or racist or anything, I get even sick at the thought of being potentially restricted in speeches on items like the holocaust or so - although I would probably not make use of the freedom gained if these speech restrictions were lifted. But the very idea that my freedom of expression is limited makes me feel bad.

I could have ended up as well in Germany or in England. I didn't make specific choice, "things just happened". So it is kind of funny that I ended up totally randomly having a job in the country that is supposed to have a "closed job market", without even specifically doing any effort for ending up there.

As you allude to there, some countries like Germany are not compatible with completely free speech. Better make that next job change a little less random.