| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > I'd go with the utilitarian argument that people don't seem to have much in
> > the way of choices, material goods, freedom of expression, action, or
> > movement, and some desperately want to leave to the extent of risking their
> > lives to do so. Will that do?
>
> I think the keyword here is "seem." Your previous statements were concrete
> (Communism has failed), now are you saying Communism "seems" to have failed?
> If that is the case, then I can also say Democracy and capitalism "seems" to
> have failed in America because the folks a few miles away in South Central
> L.A. live no better than Cubans (and there's plenty of places worse than
> Cuba in our own backyard).
>
> > If not, what constitutes "success"?
>
> I don't really know.
If you can't define success, you can't define failure either.
You asked me how I define failure, I answered. Remove "seems" if it bugs you
that much and replace it with <null>. Doesn't change the definition at all.
Communism has failed each and every time it or anything like it was tried.
> Larry, your statements on the matter are every bit as throwaway as mine so
> spare me the "onus" baloney and generalizing my statement. Of course Cuba
> has it's problems, as does any nation, and I never said in a general way
> that it's America's fault.
Quoting you:
"Communism has not
been ALLOWED to work in Cuba due to the crippling sanctions (embargo,
boycott, whatever you wish to call it) imposed by America. "
If that isn't saying it's America's fault, what is it saying? You're evading.
> It IS America's fault that there are sanctions
> and the sanctions DO influence Cuba's ability to trade with other nations.
This is watered down from above. Are you backpedaling?
> Therefore, it's a simple point of logic that Cuba's economy is made to
> suffer from the sanctions, which it does according to most Cubans and Americans.
This is watered down from above. Are you backpedaling?
> > (if you had *instead* said they were our fault because of our nasty habit of
> > incompetently meddling in the affairs of other nations in our hemisphere and
> > thus propping up a succession of tinpot rightwing dictators in Cuba (and
> > elsewhere) prior to Fidel, making the conditions ripe for revolution... why
> > then I would be falling all over myself to agree with you!)
>
> Okay, I think that as well...start falling please (or has the offer expired).
Sorry, you can't choose both. If you choose that, well, then you're half
right but still wrong about your original assertion.
American sanctions in this case, as in so many others, have little effect,
and certainly cannot be used as the only or even a primary excuse for
Communism's failure in Cuba.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| Larry, I'm not back-pedaling on any of my statements or trying to water them down. The sanctions have a PROFOUND effect on Cuba's economy. By imposing sanctions, America is not ALLOWING Communism to work in the country. Example: Imagine if Hawaii (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Show me a case where the baseline statement of communism has failed (or been followed either!) `From each according to Ability, To Each According to Need' The closest to what I view of communism is either kibitz's (if I can spell that (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I think the keyword here is "seem." Your previous statements were concrete (Communism has failed), now are you saying Communism "seems" to have failed? If that is the case, then I can also say Democracy and capitalism "seems" to have failed in (...) (23 years ago, 28-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
