US to remove Cuba from sponsor of terror list

[Morphine Prince 109,926]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Tuesday is notifying Congress of its intent to lift the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, the White House announced, as part of a deal facilitated by the Catholic Church to free political prisoners on the island.

Senior U.S. administration officials, who previewed the announcement on the condition of anonymity, said ”many dozens” of political prisoners and others considered by the U.S. to be unjustly detained would be released by the end of the Biden administration at noon on Jan. 20. 

The U.S. would also ease some economic pressure on Cuba, as well as a 2017 memorandum issued by then-President Donald Trump toughening U.S. posture toward Cuba. 

The determination by the outgoing one-term Democrat is likely to be reversed as early as next week after Trump, the Republican who is now president-elect, takes office and Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio assumes the position of America’s top diplomat.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/biden-cuba-terrorism-designation-a0e2f003ce7100e6a845ef7ed6e96a1b

[Jill 31,812]

This is very good news! There was no reason to have it on that list to begin with. If socialism is as bad as the US says, why then is the US always directly or indirectly involved in policies that strangle, boycott, or attempt to limit the growth of socialist countries? Why do they always intervene in the internal affairs of these countries in one way or another? Let them be!

[Bronco 27,574]

What even is the point of doing this? 

Everyone knows the Democrats are just doing it for a last minute headline.

If the Democrats truly cared they'd have done it in Jan 2020. Not Jan 2024, 5 days before Trump comes in and appoints a leading anti-cuba politician to the office responsible for this...

[GagaTheExplorer 3,053]

This will last one week

[GagaTheExplorer 3,053]

22 minutes ago, Bronco said:

What even is the point of doing this? 

Everyone knows the Democrats are just doing it for a last minute headline.

If the Democrats truly cared they'd have done it in Jan 2020. Not Jan 2024, 5 days before Trump comes in and appoints a leading anti-cuba politician to the office responsible for this...

Anti cuban dictatorial regime you meant 

Most cubans support this, you clearly dont know many

[Bronco 27,574]

7 minutes ago, GagaTheExplorer said:

Anti cuban dictatorial regime you meant 

Most cubans support this, you clearly dont know many

I like how you assumed my political stance on Cuba having expressed none. 

I was just pointing out its a pathetic and pointless stunt by the Democrats given the timescale. Rather than developing outreach plans for the Latino population in the US, they're just going to try and plant an ineffective PR bomb for Trump.

Take your attitude to someone who cares about it because I don't.

[faysalaaa 5,380]

While illegally having Guantanamo in Cuba lol

[Economy 53,076]

5 hours ago, Jill said:

This is very good news! There was no reason to have it on that list to begin with. If socialism is as bad as the US says, why then is the US always directly or indirectly involved in policies that strangle, boycott, or attempt to limit the growth of socialist countries? Why do they always intervene in the internal affairs of these countries in one way or another? Let them be!

Are they socialist or communist? I thought they were communist

[Jill 31,812]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Are they socialist or communist? I thought they were communist

Short answer:

They're socialists, not communists, because being a "communist country" is an oxymoron.

Long answer:

The term "communist country" is often misused. It is commonly applied to the five countries officially governed under Marxist ideology (Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea, officially the DPRK). However, in Marxist terms, none of these nations refer to themselves as "communist countries" because such a designation is inherently contradictory. Communism, as defined by Marx, entails the absence of money, nations, states, classes, and unnecessary distinctions between individuals, apart from their inherent qualities. This is typically summarized as a "classless, stateless, moneyless society".

Achieving communism is impossible under current conditions, given the limitations of technology and economic development. Realizing such a society would require a post-scarcity reality and a radically different status quo. Lenin adopted socialism as the term for the transitional phase preceding communism. Some countries, such as China, have further subdivided socialism into various stages. According to the Communist Party of China's analysis, for instance, China is in the primary stage of socialism.

But what is socialism? 

Socialism, even within Marxist thought, evolved over time as a term. In general, it is defined as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means governance is conducted by a state composed of and acting in the interests of the working class (and allied classes such as peasants), in direct opposition to the interests of the bourgeoisie. Under this definition, the United States represents a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, acting in direct opposition to the interests of the workers, while nations like China or Cuba are described as dictatorships of the proletariat, sometimes termed "popular democratic dictatorships" (the Chinese government, for example, frequently uses this term).

Does this mean they're dictatorships in the traditional sense? No. The term, in a Marxist context, simply indicates that the governance of those countries is rooted in the proletarian class, making it resistant to attempts to displace that class from power, much like the resistance encountered when challenging bourgeois rule under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. For example, even in liberal democracies, voting for an opposing candidate does not dissolve the influence of billionaires, who continue to shape public opinion and policy. The ultimate resistance to this bourgeois rule becomes, then, the proletarian revolution, which seeks to create a dictatorship of the proletariat. 

In the case of China, they refer to its system as a "democratic dictatorship". So, although it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, it has cultivated a unique, homegrown democratic system, officially termed "whole-process people's democracy", that seeks to incorporate the people in an ongoing democratic process instead of only allowing them to vote on specific candidates or issues only within a certain timeframe.

So, in Marxist terms, dictatorship and democracy are not mutually exclusive but can coexist.

Chinese socialism, known officially as "socialism with Chinese characteristics", differs significantly from the USSR's model, which is now closer to that of Cuba or North Korea (DPRK). DPRK's system, for instance, is officially called "Juche", a doctrine with its own economic and social theories that, to me, is very interesting for reading and expanding into other perspectives of those issues.

There are two primary reasons for these differences between socialist countries:

First, socialist nations must adapt their models to national conditions. Universal models, like the USSR attempted, often fail because no single system fits all countries with their distinct histories and resources. This is a key point in China's critique of the US, which promotes liberal democracy universally. China argues that nations should develop independently according to their circumstances, and that more powerful and advanced countries should offer support when necessary, but without putting any conditions so as to how these countries should develop.

Second, because the USSR, while pioneering socialism, faced significant errors and ultimately failed. For this reason, the remaining socialist countries sought to address these shortcomings with a myriad of solutions. In China's case, they incorporated capitalist mechanisms into its socialist system, such as a socialist market economy, under the theory that, in order to create a socialist or communist society, one must first develop their productive forces and follow the historic path for this, which includes capitalist relations of production and/or private property. This approach is designed to build a "modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized, and harmonious" by 2049, the centenary of the PRC. The vision entails a society with lower inequality and greater solidarity.

Over time, centralized planning is expected to grow within China, gradually leading to a stateless society, as Lenin envisioned (Lenin said that, if the proletarian state grew big enough, and if it only existed in a society with one class, the proletarian class, then it would be so powerful and all-encompassing that, paradoxically, it would cease to have any meaning or reason for its existence. Thus, it would "wither away" on its own).

In short, socialism is a transitional stage aimed at preparing for a global communist society. Since communism entails the absence of nations, there cannot be a "communist country". Instead, there are nations working toward this goal, often referred to as "socialist countries" or AES (Actually Existing Socialism) countries.

Other nations, like Venezuela, are pursuing their own unique socialist paths. Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, for instance, incorporates socialist elements within a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, an approach pioneered by Chávez that was never successfully implemented before him. Similarly, Ba'athist socialism, espoused by figures like Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, represented a localized, pan-arabic variation of socialism.

This is all very interesting stuff that causes ongoing debate within Marxist circles. Quite fascinating to me.

[Economy 53,076]

8 hours ago, Jill said:

Short answer:

They're socialists, not communists, because being a "communist country" is an oxymoron.

Long answer:

The term "communist country" is often misused. It is commonly applied to the five countries officially governed under Marxist ideology (Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea, officially the DPRK). However, in Marxist terms, none of these nations refer to themselves as "communist countries" because such a designation is inherently contradictory. Communism, as defined by Marx, entails the absence of money, nations, states, classes, and unnecessary distinctions between individuals, apart from their inherent qualities. This is typically summarized as a "classless, stateless, moneyless society".

Achieving communism is impossible under current conditions, given the limitations of technology and economic development. Realizing such a society would require a post-scarcity reality and a radically different status quo. Lenin adopted socialism as the term for the transitional phase preceding communism. Some countries, such as China, have further subdivided socialism into various stages. According to the Communist Party of China's analysis, for instance, China is in the primary stage of socialism.

But what is socialism? 

Socialism, even within Marxist thought, evolved over time as a term. In general, it is defined as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means governance is conducted by a state composed of and acting in the interests of the working class (and allied classes such as peasants), in direct opposition to the interests of the bourgeoisie. Under this definition, the United States represents a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, acting in direct opposition to the interests of the workers, while nations like China or Cuba are described as dictatorships of the proletariat, sometimes termed "popular democratic dictatorships" (the Chinese government, for example, frequently uses this term).

Does this mean they're dictatorships in the traditional sense? No. The term, in a Marxist context, simply indicates that the governance of those countries is rooted in the proletarian class, making it resistant to attempts to displace that class from power, much like the resistance encountered when challenging bourgeois rule under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. For example, even in liberal democracies, voting for an opposing candidate does not dissolve the influence of billionaires, who continue to shape public opinion and policy. The ultimate resistance to this bourgeois rule becomes, then, the proletarian revolution, which seeks to create a dictatorship of the proletariat. 

In the case of China, they refer to its system as a "democratic dictatorship". So, although it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, it has cultivated a unique, homegrown democratic system, officially termed "whole-process people's democracy", that seeks to incorporate the people in an ongoing democratic process instead of only allowing them to vote on specific candidates or issues only within a certain timeframe.

So, in Marxist terms, dictatorship and democracy are not mutually exclusive but can coexist.

Chinese socialism, known officially as "socialism with Chinese characteristics", differs significantly from the USSR's model, which is now closer to that of Cuba or North Korea (DPRK). DPRK's system, for instance, is officially called "Juche", a doctrine with its own economic and social theories that, to me, is very interesting for reading and expanding into other perspectives of those issues.

There are two primary reasons for these differences between socialist countries:

First, socialist nations must adapt their models to national conditions. Universal models, like the USSR attempted, often fail because no single system fits all countries with their distinct histories and resources. This is a key point in China's critique of the US, which promotes liberal democracy universally. China argues that nations should develop independently according to their circumstances, and that more powerful and advanced countries should offer support when necessary, but without putting any conditions so as to how these countries should develop.

Second, because the USSR, while pioneering socialism, faced significant errors and ultimately failed. For this reason, the remaining socialist countries sought to address these shortcomings with a myriad of solutions. In China's case, they incorporated capitalist mechanisms into its socialist system, such as a socialist market economy, under the theory that, in order to create a socialist or communist society, one must first develop their productive forces and follow the historic path for this, which includes capitalist relations of production and/or private property. This approach is designed to build a "modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized, and harmonious" by 2049, the centenary of the PRC. The vision entails a society with lower inequality and greater solidarity.

Over time, centralized planning is expected to grow within China, gradually leading to a stateless society, as Lenin envisioned (Lenin said that, if the proletarian state grew big enough, and if it only existed in a society with one class, the proletarian class, then it would be so powerful and all-encompassing that, paradoxically, it would cease to have any meaning or reason for its existence. Thus, it would "wither away" on its own).

In short, socialism is a transitional stage aimed at preparing for a global communist society. Since communism entails the absence of nations, there cannot be a "communist country". Instead, there are nations working toward this goal, often referred to as "socialist countries" or AES (Actually Existing Socialism) countries.

Other nations, like Venezuela, are pursuing their own unique socialist paths. Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, for instance, incorporates socialist elements within a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, an approach pioneered by Chávez that was never successfully implemented before him. Similarly, Ba'athist socialism, espoused by figures like Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, represented a localized, pan-arabic variation of socialism.

This is all very interesting stuff that causes ongoing debate within Marxist circles. Quite fascinating to me.

So if were being technical then, communism is just an idea for something that doesnt even exist?

 

I always thought communism was a Country with a system where government owns a major share (or in more extreme cases most) of the economy and runs it. And people in different proffessions make the same or near the same as eachother.

 

My wife is from Poland and says that many older houses are nearly the same in look and size because in the "communist days" every family got given the same type of house and didnt own it.

 

At least I was under the impression that thats what communism was, a more extreme form of socialism

[Bronco 27,574]

58 minutes ago, Economy said:

So if were being technical then, communism is just an idea for something that doesnt even exist?

 

I always thought communism was a Country with a system where government owns a major share (or in more extreme cases most) of the economy and runs it. And people in different proffessions make the same or near the same as eachother.

 

My wife is from Poland and says that many older houses are nearly the same in look and size because in the "communist days" every family got given the same type of house and didnt own it.

 

At least I was under the impression that thats what communism was, a more extreme form of socialism

Political ideology names are often bandied about to describe political parties, nations etc with relatively little relation to the actual ideology they enact.

The Bolsheviks were a communist party when they formed, so historians typically characterised them as communist by label moving forward and applied it to the USSR.

Under strict terms. Communism is a system where both the means and the results of production are owned by the common person. So no market of goods and services, no private ownership. Everything produced is returned to everyone according to their need. Marx also talks about continuous revolution but essentially is saying at no point does an authority beyond that of common society emerge without being overthrown.

Socialism predates communism and limits itself to the ownership and management of the means of production. And depending on the form of socialism, doesn't oppose private ownership like housing etc. Its primarily against the concentration of wealth from production in the hands of a powerful minority elite instead of the larger worker base.

So communism is a more extreme version of socialism in the sense that it is a wholesale radical transformation of how we understand nation states & economies. 

[GagaTheExplorer 3,053]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

So if were being technical then, communism is just an idea for something that doesnt even exist?

 

I always thought communism was a Country with a system where government owns a major share (or in more extreme cases most) of the economy and runs it. And people in different proffessions make the same or near the same as eachother.

 

My wife is from Poland and says that many older houses are nearly the same in look and size because in the "communist days" every family got given the same type of house and didnt own it.

 

At least I was under the impression that thats what communism was, a more extreme form of socialism

It is indeed a comunist country

And as result and very opressive system

Don't let anyone fool you, your wife is very right as it is any person who has had the disgrace of suffering that ideology

[Jill 31,812]

3 hours ago, Economy said:

So if were being technical then, communism is just an idea for something that doesnt even exist?

 

I always thought communism was a Country with a system where government owns a major share (or in more extreme cases most) of the economy and runs it. And people in different proffessions make the same or near the same as eachother.

 

My wife is from Poland and says that many older houses are nearly the same in look and size because in the "communist days" every family got given the same type of house and didnt own it.

 

At least I was under the impression that thats what communism was, a more extreme form of socialism

 

2 hours ago, GagaTheExplorer said:

It is indeed a comunist country

And as result and very opressive system

Don't let anyone fool you, your wife is very right as it is any person who has had the disgrace of suffering that ideology

You're overthinking it. People call them communist countries as a short way of saying they are/were governed by a Communist Party or a related ideology/organization. The things I said still apply to them, as you won't hear a Communist Party calling their country a communist country. That's why theoretically they're an oxymoron. Communism, in Marxist terms, doesn't have a government and thus it can't have a government that owns a major share of the economy.

This can be the case under a period of socialist construction, yes, but even then some socialist countries don't have an economy that is majority publicly owned, and not all countries that have that are socialist (for example, Qatar has a VERY large and influential public sector, but it is not a socialist country, it is an absolute monarchy; Singapore has a very influential state too, but it isn't socialist either, it is a sort of liberal democracy; yet they have governments that control the economy with iron fists much like what is traditionally related with socialist countries).

It's not about saying all socialist countries are perfect, it's about actually making an effort to comprehend their ideology and using the terms correctly. But I find great importance in learning from these theories, since those countries were the only ones that managed to do away with rich people controlling the economy and the lives of millions. So, of course I'll pay attention. I'll have criticisms and different perspectives, but I'll learn about other people's and government's perspectives and ways of life as well. Otherwise I'm just misinformed.

[GagaTheExplorer 3,053]

5 hours ago, Jill said:

 

You're overthinking it. People call them communist countries as a short way of saying they are/were governed by a Communist Party or a related ideology/organization. The things I said still apply to them, as you won't hear a Communist Party calling their country a communist country. That's why theoretically they're an oxymoron. Communism, in Marxist terms, doesn't have a government and thus it can't have a government that owns a major share of the economy.

This can be the case under a period of socialist construction, yes, but even then some socialist countries don't have an economy that is majority publicly owned, and not all countries that have that are socialist (for example, Qatar has a VERY large and influential public sector, but it is not a socialist country, it is an absolute monarchy; Singapore has a very influential state too, but it isn't socialist either, it is a sort of liberal democracy; yet they have governments that control the economy with iron fists much like what is traditionally related with socialist countries).

It's not about saying all socialist countries are perfect, it's about actually making an effort to comprehend their ideology and using the terms correctly. But I find great importance in learning from these theories, since those countries were the only ones that managed to do away with rich people controlling the economy and the lives of millions. So, of course I'll pay attention. I'll have criticisms and different perspectives, but I'll learn about other people's and government's perspectives and ways of life as well. Otherwise I'm just misinformed.

Oh darl if I got a penny each time someone from a properous capitalist country who has never experienced communism tried to educate me (someone who all I know is socialism and how much of a failure it is) on how it works I would have enough money to fly away from this missery direct to their full of opportunities capitalist country 

[Jill 31,812]

29 minutes ago, GagaTheExplorer said:

Oh darl if I got a penny each time someone from a properous capitalist country who has never experienced communism tried to educate me (someone who all I know is socialism and how much of a failure it is) on how it works I would have enough money to fly away from this missery direct to their full of opportunities capitalist country 

What country are you from?