• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Well then they lost that war a long time ago, as the long line of beach resorts across the Cuban coastline would show you.

    Just because Americans can’t (easily) go to them, doesn’t mean privately-owned places like this don’t exist there:

    Edit: Not one downvoter has explained how you can have privately and corporate-owned luxury resorts in a non-capitalist country. Can’t imagine why.

    • nixcamic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Not one downvoter has explained how you can have privately and corporate-owned luxury resorts in a non-capitalist country. Can’t imagine why.

      Oooh I love this false dichotomy because if every government that allows for any form of corporate owned private property to exist is capitalist then we can ascribe basically all evil to capitalism. Heck even the USSR was capitalist by your logic. Capitalists did the holodomor.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        How is this a dichotomy? How does private ownership and profit exist in a communist state? That’s pretty much the definition of capitalism.

        I understand wanting Cuba to be a communist country, but it’s no more communist than China.

        You tell me where Marx says private ownership and enriching corporate profits are features of communism.

        • Urist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Every mode of production contains elements of its former, according to Marx, exactly because we have to understand human development and our current paradigm through historical materialism.

          To say that a communist nation cannot contain capitalist components as its non fundamental mode of production is as stupid as saying Britain is not capitalist because they have a king.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            That is not in any way the same. Either there are hierarchies of power and the people at the top get rich and corporations make profits or it’s a communist country. You can’t have it both ways no matter how much you want to take the concept of communality from communism.

            • Urist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              You need to be able to distinguish between a country’s primary mode of production versus the scope of its total. A “perfect” capitalist or communist one will likely never exist, at least not any time soon. You cannot ignore the aspects of the basis on which development happens.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                And yet there were plenty of other communist countries in the 20th century that did not have any corporations making profits. Why is Cuba special in this regard?