Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But what's the point of getting a PhD if you're destined to live in poverty like everyone else? Where does the motivation come from?
Poverty is never universal. Even in a Communist country, a person born at the bottom can rise up into a higher class and a much better life.
That's especially true in Cuba.
Fidel Castro was well-educated, and he always pushed higher education to his people as a way to rise above poverty.
He saw brainpower as the best resource his small poor island had, and he rewarded the smart people with advanced degrees accordingly.
But they got a lot of responsibility for the welfare of others that came with the reward.
Cuba and some of the abuses in Latin American countries are examples of why a dysfunctional system like communism can come to power.
Prior to the 1959 Revolution, Cuba was ruled by a dictator named Fulgencio Batista. There was nothing democratic about Batista and in addition to that he was a thief. Batista closed the university in Havana because students were protesting his rule. He allowed American organized crime into his country to run gambling casinos. Batista got weekly payoffs in cash from the casinos. If Batista ever made any effort to lift the 80% of his island that was in poverty out of poverty it would be hard to identify it. Worst of all, Batista suppressed dissent by murdering people and operating torture chambers. Thousands perished or were "disappeared" under Batista.
I don't claim Castro was better. However, except for aligning with the USSR and calling himself a communist he was no worse.
Communism and other extreme forms of government become an option when the the system in power is repressive, undemocratic, refuses to change, and is harsh with its opponents. No one should be surprised by that.
Batista was a dirty rat and we supported him. No wonder Castro hated us, but not sure he always did. I wonder if Castro may have asked us to replace Batista with someone less creepy -- IMO we'll never know if he did and if he did we'll almost certainly never know how we responded. I say all this because it parallels our experience with Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, which people can read about in post #55 in this thread. Ho Chi Minh came to our State Dept for help but we never replied to him, so he had nowhere to turn but to Moscow. Did Fidel come to us before turning to Moscow for help or did Moscow approach him first? I wish we could know for sure. I suspect that our history of installing tinhorn dictators in Banana Republics made Castro hate us from the start, and/or allowed Moscow to work that angle from the start by fomenting unrest in Central America. So much history, so little certainty.
To be on-topic I have to say that communism is dead, but fascism / military dictatorships are making a comeback.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 09-29-2022 at 09:47 PM..
Cuba and some of the abuses in Latin American countries are examples of why a dysfunctional system like communism can come to power.
Prior to the 1959 Revolution, Cuba was ruled by a dictator named Fulgencio Batista. There was nothing democratic about Batista and in addition to that he was a thief. Batista closed the university in Havana because students were protesting his rule. He allowed American organized crime into his country to run gambling casinos. Batista got weekly payoffs in cash from the casinos. If Batista ever made any effort to lift the 80% of his island that was in poverty out of poverty it would be hard to identify it. Worst of all, Batista suppressed dissent by murdering people and operating torture chambers. Thousands perished or were "disappeared" under Batista.
I don't claim Castro was better. However, except for aligning with the USSR and calling himself a communist he was no worse.
Communism and other extreme forms of government become an option when the the system in power is repressive, undemocratic, refuses to change, and is harsh with its opponents. No one should be surprised by that.
I agree mark.
A couple of things I had hoped to illustrate by my post were the pieces about communism missing from my children's education that would make them more vulnerable to not seeing Communism as a dangerous option.
And how the poverty-affected are encouraged to view the wealthy as people deserving of being stolen from. The idealistic Robin Hood effect.
I see both of those things as part of my Generation X's children's conditioning and of the succeeding generations. As such they are more vulnerable to seeing the handout part of Communism and not anticipating the harm.
North Korea and Cuba still seem to have Stalin-style Communism. How could leaders of those countries--or anyone--still think that Communism is a viable and desirable governmental and economic system?
I went to East Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1990 and was shocked at how run-down and devoid of modernity those countries were, by comparison to West Germany. Then I went to the Balkans in 1994 and was shocked at how impoverished Romania was (and less so Bulgaria). I've seen the results of Communism first-hand: poverty.
If leaders of North Korea and Cuba want to keep power, that's a separate issue; if they want to maintain an authoritarian dictatorship in each country, they could do that and ditch Communism, in practice or in name.
Yes, China is Communist, but it has allowed private businesses and some type of market economy, and that has played a role in its progress.
So: how could leaders of North Korea and Cuba--or anywhere--still think that Communism, in its Stalinist way, is at all desirable?
I am with you. A possible problem is that many people have not travelled to countries where such political/economic ideologies have been tried. In my Army career, I had the unique opportunity to see close to 30 countries and about 30 states of the Union.
Also, keep in mind that universities tend to have a socialist/communist inclination in their professors. Young minds are very susceptible to their promoting of such views.
Add to that the ugly side of capitalism and democracy. I am a believer that there is no perfect system, and our systems are not. From my point of view, we have more efficient and better systems, but people find loopholes conducive to abuse.
Then, look a human nature. From the poorest to the richest, all try to take advantage the system for their own advantage.
Also, the news media is a sensationalist system. Bad news sell. Even when they report true and real news, they still pick the ones the people like to hear, bad news. Think about it this way. How much would people watch the news if every day the news media give good news on weather, economy, on the good things people are doing out there, and on and on. I venture a guess that people would not watch the news anymore because it would be boring. Now, people love to watch the bad news as they are today because they evoke emotions without using much critical thinking and not exercising analytical skills.
Lastly, look at history. Social and economic ideas tend to change like pendulum. When people go too far on a social issue, eventually they change things to the other side of the spectrum. For a while, things look nice, but then the pendulum goes back when people start to see the negatives, so it goes back and forth.
You have a great day.
elamigo
A couple of things I had hoped to illustrate by my post were the pieces about communism missing from my children's education that would make them more vulnerable to not seeing Communism as a dangerous option.
And how the poverty-affected are encouraged to view the wealthy as people deserving of being stolen from. The idealistic Robin Hood effect.
I see both of those things as part of my Generation X's children's conditioning and of the succeeding generations. As such they are more vulnerable to seeing the handout part of Communism and not anticipating the harm.
Lodestar, I am surprised that your 41 year old had such a gap in his knowledge. There is so much information out there. Does he know about Che?
KERALA state on the tropical southern tip of India, is said to have a communist government, but it has the highest human development index in the country, the highest literacy rate, highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality, high acceptance for LGBTQs, the best birth control in all of India, a high womens status and education level, and universal health care.
Last edited by slowlane3; 10-07-2022 at 08:38 PM..
KERALA state on the tropical southern tip of India, is said to have a communist government, but it has the highest human development index in the country, the highest literacy rate, highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality, high acceptance for LGBTQs, the best birth control in all of India, a high womens status and education level, and universal health care.
My point is that in Kerala as in all of India, basic free speech and association rights have federal guarantees. The government in Kerala does not have the opportunity to behave as governments in Pyongyang do.
A couple of things I had hoped to illustrate by my post were the pieces about communism missing from my children's education that would make them more vulnerable to not seeing Communism as a dangerous option.
And how the poverty-affected are encouraged to view the wealthy as people deserving of being stolen from. The idealistic Robin Hood effect.
I see both of those things as part of my Generation X's children's conditioning and of the succeeding generations. As such they are more vulnerable to seeing the handout part of Communism and not anticipating the harm.
I would just like it if we had a justice system that treated equally with rich people who steal from others.
Look up the info about wage theft.
Honestly I often feel that in America for the most part, crime and criminal justice is only applicable to poorer people. Never to the rich or powerful. Or perhaps only rarely when someone more powerful still throws them under the bus, and even then--how often do they go to real prison, have the same prison experience that a poor person would?
Not to mention all of the aspects of the justice system that revolve around monetary restitution...fines, lawsuits, judgments, bail bonds...basically saying that if you have enough money, you can commit an act that might result in the complete destruction of a poorer person's life and irreparable damage to the lives of their family, and instead just have a bit of monetary inconvenience to show for it.
I do not have an issue with hard working, clever, or meritorious individuals rising in prosperity. I do have a huge problem with unchecked exploitation and the right to do harm protected and even rewarded for the privileged few.
And it sure seems to me, like there is a hazard of that implicit in just about every government system that operates at a certain scale, and many even that do not. It's a lot harder to get it right (as in, fair and beneficial to an entire society) than it is to let it go toxic and corrupt. As most Americans do, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that our foundational ideas, our essential philosophy of government by and for the people, is the best chance there could be to get it as close to right as possible...yet even still, we have yet to perfect in practice, what we preach as theory.
Seems to me, that no matter what labels a country slaps on its style of governance, the ultimate thing that will keep the leaders from abusing the population (which...is kinda what we want, yeah? It's what I consider when it comes to whether a government is good or bad...is it helping or harming its people?) is the question of how much power the people in the nation have to change the situation WHEN (not if) people with bad intentions get a hold of the reins of power and start abusing their position. It seems inevitable that there will always be leaders who try...to what extent are they able to succeed, and to get away with it? How much power is in the hands of the people, and how do you prevent it from being taken from them?
So: how could leaders of North Korea and Cuba--or anywhere--still think that Communism, in its Stalinist way, is at all desirable?
A Stalinist way? That would be an aggressive fascist dictatorship. What kind of true Communist would kill or jail half the population?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
