Cuba reinserts 'communism' in draft of new constitution
Other urls found in this thread:
nationstates.net
twitter.com
how do they do it? how do they remain so sanctioned yet so based?
All power to the soviets!
communism is when you say it is communism and the more you say it the communister it is
brought to you by capitalism with red flags gang(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
t. Amerifat
Bourgeois media BTFO
The working class is the revolutionary subject. The party is necessary to get the ball rolling, but once bourgeois society has been suppressed and reaction exorcised, it’s actually fairly common for the working class to become more revolutionary than the party apparatchiks.
they never said “this is communism” they said “this is the pursuit of communism”
...
Fucking based!
wasn't aware that private property and same-sex marriage was socialist let alone communist(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Same-sex marriage isn't particularly socialist but it is generally left-wing. Homosexuals should be able to form families just like anyone else.
The private property thing is supposedly inserted to get a handle on economic activity currently inside of the black market. The logic is sound. You need to acknowledge the existence of capitalist property within your economy to effectively transition it into social property. Not sure if I trust it though.
neither is banning same-sex marriage, retard
REEEE WHY ARE REAL-LIFE CONDITIONS WRECKING MY THEORIES
FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM!!
reported for Zig Forums garbage, get fucked piece of shit
I wish them the best of luck, yet remain cynical.
Anti-gay sentiments used to be common in the far left because homosexuality was falsely believed to be bourgeois depravity. It is partially a remnant of the cultural influence of religion, especially Catholicism in Latin America. Psychiatric research shed doubt on this notion, and there is nothing bourgeois or spooked about acknowledging that.
Considering the strong demand to have communist ideas remain in Cuban law, I doubt this will be a gateway to liberalism.
Marriage is reactionary, same sex marriage is even more reactionary and completely spooked and fucktarded.
it's astonishing to me how few self-proclaimed "Marxists" don't realize this
Piling shitty causes that have no gain for us onto socialist movements is reactionary.
yes, that's why we should focus on abolishing marriage rather than being concerned with who the fuck is allowed to do it.
No, that's why you put the topic in the bin and leave it to the liberals to whine about.
ooh, spooky
read a motherfucking book you retard
Ah yes, love to spend a thread about Cuba discussing marriage. What a fool I am!
...
I think most Marxists take notes of events of the 20th century, and realize that such things should not be forced. Bolsheviks tried it, tbh.
Is calling you a colossal faggot spooked too?
So if i love a girl should i not marry her for good praxis or nah
even today marriage isn't relevant
if she is a shallow superficial whore who desperately needs a ring on her finger, go for it.
Exactly, but if you spend enough time calling it anti-Marxist then wreckers will spend their lives trying to abolish it before capitalism. Marriage as an institution doesn't threaten a socialist revolution or a post-capitalist world.
she don't want to diamond ring
*no diamond ring. i tried to make a cool reference but i failed
I find the idea of someone obsessed with destroying marriage funny. I guess there are Republicans who are genuinely spooked by that boogeyman tho.
Marriage is important if you’re going to have children.
Childless marriages are abusing the system and “cohabitations” with children are some mix of immature and retarded and probably shouldn’t have brought kids into the mix to begin with.
giving children the right to inheritance is how you end up with the messy, corrupt, aristocratic elite America suffers from today.
people who have to make sacrifices to gain power understand the concept of balance and stability.
The reading of children requires organization and resources, and some codified method of dealing with a situation where one or both of the parents fucks it up, hence legal marriage.
*rearing
Phoneposting
Children should be raised by the community with heavy involvement of trained professionals, not by totally unqualified couples alone.
so how about that cuba huh?
...
there's no chain of logic here.
Parenthood, itself, is a stupid concept which only emerged because of capital's demand for more cheap and disposable labor. When those demands are gone, we won't need to force unqualified gene donors to raise children anymore. They can instead be raised by professionals who know what they're doing. Once we've reached that point, the concept of parenthood will fade away because it won't be needed anymore. It will be purely cosmetic.
Sure. Marriage should be meaningless before the law. All the more reason to let anyone marry anyone they want. Make divorce easy as well.
Best way to abolish marriage is to trivialize it.
wait why is gay marriage "more" reactionary?
the same reason privatization is
I don't think I watch enough Rick & Morty to understand what the fuck you mean.
Convince me otherwise, cuba is the most based nation of the face of this slowly dying piece of dirt.
they’re both a positive reinforcement of capitalist contradictions which justify themselves by appealing to American virtues of freedom and inequality.
*equality
You have to be a troll. An extended family setting is the best way to raise a child. Don't turn childcare into a fucking profession. Do you have any idea how alienated orphanages are? It's fucked up.
I'm all about taking children away from incompetent parents. The quicker we can get them out of there, and into the hands of a loving foster family, the better. That procedure should be very streamlined, and young adults encouraged to apply for adoption instead of / in addition to having their own children.
Next to this, communitarian settings must always be favored for families with children. That socializes kids properly, and ensures there are a large number of adults ready to look out for them, check that they're being raised well, and able to take over when something happens to the parents.
My sympathetic reading is that it involves homosexuals spooking themselves into thinking marriage is something they need to have. It's not just a couple passively going along in the traditional family structure, but a couple insisting to do so, despite society nudging them in another direction.
gay privatization or all privatization?
Orphanages are run on donor and state taxpayer money so are going to be garbage by default. If children are qualitatively assessed and subsidized by an economy which actually functions on supply and demand then this isn’t a problem (Cockshott).
Relevant mega post in defence of Cuba
nationstates.net
Orphanages are not bad because of lack of funding. It plays a part, but the core problem is that you've turned childcare into a job. This implies worker alienation, even under the early stages of socialism.
Having kids live in specialized facilities is a bad idea. You want them to be a part of ordinary society, not an protected caste locked away in some institution until they grow up. They need to interact with everyday adults, and have a couple with the personal burden of raising them. That's a brilliant system.
Placing them into a communitarian setting will also be highly efficient. It means that we don't need any specialized childcare workers, the adults can just arrange that there's someone around to look after them. It also means kids get lots of diverse attention, which is wonderful for their development.
Besides all this, most adults will simply want to raise kids. It's a very basic instinct. Humans think kids are cute, want to care for them, teach them things, protect them. This instinct is so strong that we take useless animals into our homes to help get it out of our system. I highly doubt that any training can replace something that powerful. But that doesn't even matter, because people aren't even going to allow you to try. You will never get people so far as to give up raising kids. It can't happen.
enough with the not-cuba garbage already christ
I hope this is true. It would be a great insurance against capitalist restoration.
That quote reminds me of a nice anecdote. A Peruvian journalist, the type of leftist who sympathizes with socialism's goals "but not with its practices", wrote a quite good book on the Sendero Luminoso and its leader, Gonzalo, a good summary of their histories. It's called La Cuarta Espada, but I don't think it was translated into English.
He included some chapters narrating his investigation for the book, since he would deal directly with people affected by, or involved in, the Peruvian civil war. One of them was one of Gonzalo's brothers, an attorney who had been helping lower-profile senderistas while he built up the moxie to openly support his infamous brother. Their talks inevitably lead to red scare, and the attorney asks the writer if he agrees with the many problems of capitalism. Quoting from memory: "Of course not, I fully agree with what communism proposes, but not what with it delivered. In all countries which adopted it, it failed at ending poverty and attaining freedom as it promised". To which Gonzalo's brother replied something to the tune of: "Yes, I'm told it failed in foreign lands. But one thing I can tell you from first-hand experience, is that, here in Peru, capitalism has failed utterly, and only a fanatic can't see that". This reversal in the notion of who is fanatical really stuck with me.
What does it say.
Also sauce
Only for the lack of better options. Grandma doesn't know shit. She just has more experience in fucking up her kids. All an extended family setting does in ensure that she can pass on her fucked up lessons to her grandkids more directly. Extended families still can not raise children correctly because none of them actually know what they're doing.
Experience is NOT a substitute for education.
this is more case by case. sometimes the economic situation can be bad enough for the current working-class generation that the kid would be better off raised by a grandparent who has a pension, doesn't have to worry about unemployment and put that stress on the kid, doesn't distract the kid with divorce, etc.
She sure as hell doesn't. I'm utterly convinced that young people are better at raising kids. Grandparents have a much harder time connecting with them.
The point is that having more adults around means people can intervene when childcare goes wrong. That kids have more frames of reference to work with than just their idiot parents.
EVERYONE is incompetent. There's no diploma to teach someone how to care for children. It doesn't work. The task is much too subtle psychologically. You need a strong intuition for the kids you're working with. No professional can keep track of that. You need people with the time and motivation to form a bond and
Bureaucracies are shit at testing people's character. Most of the people I've met who are supposedly trained to work with children are horrible at it in their own ways. You can't avoid it.
You are nowhere near cynical enough about people's ability to raise children.
Here's the science: Kids need strong parental figures to grow up properly. They need lots of personal attention. Someone to personally come up to them and tell them stories, show them things.
EVERYONE needs to be educated. If parents don't have the knowledge needed to bring up a child this means the educational system failed them. That being said, raising a child requires basically no knowledge. It's all about emotional competence. Bad parents aren't bad parents because they don't have the knowledge, they're bad parents because of their psychology. Yeah, they are idiots, but training doesn't filter out idiots. There are plenty of idiots with university degrees.
Young people are great with kids.
It couldn't. There's no way it could. Caring for a child cannot be turned into a dumb profession. Social workers are idiots and they always will be idiots. They do not have the capacity to give children the personal attention they require to be happy and succeed. They do not have the capacity to provide children with the flexibility they require to succeed.
Neither is banning members, but you ain't gonna gun down the mods
Dumbass red lobster liberals
But are they actually communist though
Base and superstructure dude. The field of psychology under capitalism is just prole-control, so it's no wonder that social workers don't know shit about raising children. That doesn't mean it's impossible to raise children in a professional manner or that there is no training that could be given to make people better at raising children. That just means that capitalism can't produce it.
They have almost complete collective mop and very good democracy so I would say they are communist in the sense of "the movement of going towards communism", unlike other nations like china that just talk and don't do.
Can you explain how the PRCs system in terms of both goverment and economy is different then Cuba's?
Well Cuba doesn't have billionaires as members of its communist party for starters.
literally a boomer talking point, fuck off Zig Forums
...
China has a much higher percentage of their economy controlled by private capital. Cuba only has a few small scale enterprises and co-ops. China has massive multinational companies run by porkies exploiting people and resources globally.
>>>/wall/
Not what I said, re-read it again.
Cuba has a very small petit-bourgeois and to a degree a bureaucratic class (such as Trotsky or Djilas describes), but it has no national-capitalist bourgeoisie. If it does, name a member of it.
based
Cuba is genuinely wanting to move towards a higher stage of socialism, but what can they do on their small island while being sanctioned? I just hope other countries help them out, because Cuba could be an interesting social experiment in one or two decades.