posted
Ahem. Now that we seem back in the grip of reason...
To answer your question with a couple 'choose one' options:
A.) Because under a Communist system, these are no classes allowed? That's why it's called Communist? Redistribution of "wealth"?
B.) Because all funds, under Communism, (or any other dictatorship) are property of the government, and must therefore go where the dictator feels they will do the most good (usually, his pocket)?
Incidentally, I was reading something (wish I could remember what, so I could cite it) in the regular media that showed that the so-called ban on trade with Cuba is an illusion, and how thousands of US citizens tour Cuba each year ANYWAY, and how that illegal trade accounts for millions of dollars, and a very significant percentage of Cuba's enonomy as it is.
I submit that if we'd been able to cut off this illegal trade as well, Castro would likely have fallen already.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Well, were Cuba a utopian communist state, your concerns might be valid, First. But it isn't. In order to compete with free market democracies, nations must adopt similar principles. Make a list of the wealthiest nations on the planet, along with a list of those with open democratic systems, and see what sort of corelation you get. It is, as they say, inevitable. If Cuba wants to be able to compete, they're going to have to play the game our way, and that means loosening state control on the economy.
If Cuba refuses, then their economy will be completely overwhelmed by ours. It would be so now, if they had any real interaction with it. But instead they get to remain isolated and pretend that their system is superior.
Now then, replace all those "will be"'s with "I believe it is likely", because the language is getting a bit strong and I don't believe in many absolutes...
But look at it this way. Where has the USA's policy of isolation worked? Has it overthrown Castro? Hussien? Milosevic? On the other hand, the case could be made that direct economic competition put an end to the Soviet Union. (Though one could argue that the mafia capitalism they got in exchange isn't much better.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
