| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Okay, here's a new thread just for this topic...
>
> As I said before, I don't think it's valid to argue that Communism doesn't
> work in Cuba because of some inherent flaw in Communism itself.
I don't really know the details of the situation, but I think you certainly
could argue that fact-- you'd just have less evidence to present. It depends
on how you define failure of a system-- both in quality and extremity.
Hence, we can argue all we want-- we just can't necessarily test the
validity of the claim, unless Communism's failure is defined on a
low-extremity test.
> Therefore, I think it's more of an issue of Communism NOT BEING
> ALLOWED TO WORK rather that Communism not working at all.
It's not really a useful query, but it occurred to me anyway-- does the fact
that Cuba is communist contribute to USA interfering? Hence, could a failing
of communism be the company it keeps? Maybe the reason it fails is because
it's competing with "superior" (notice quotes!) government types? Perhaps
communism would be "successful" if it were the only thing out there? Again,
we need to define "success" in order to rate "successful" or "superior", but
you get the idea.
> The best example of a failed attempt at Communism is the former U.S.S.R.
Did it also fail because it was in competition with other "superior"
government types? If the US had the power to subdue the USSR back in its
heyday, would it have? Would we count that against communism?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Cuba
|
| Okay, here's a new thread just for this topic... As I said before, I don't think it's valid to argue that Communism doesn't work in Cuba because of some inherent flaw in Communism itself. Cuba is under the yolk of heavy sanctions that have prevented (...) (23 years ago, 27-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
