• Urist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Were there really in accordance with the definition you are trying to enforce?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well I sure as hell know that corporations and profit don’t belong with whatever definition of communism you seem to be suggestion.

      The very idea that allowing corporate profits are still communist as long as it’s not the primary mode of production is nonsense. If every single thing in Cuba was privatized apart from its tobacco industry, its largest export, would you say it was still a communist country?

      I’m also curious how you’ll defend Cuba’s three largest exports being addictive, carcinogenic substances. And yes, to pre-empt the whataboutism, I know the U.S. exports a whole lot of toxic shit, but we’re not talking about the U.S.

      • Urist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I never said anything about Cuba specifically. I made a general remark that an analysis of whether a country is socialist or not has to concern itself with what is the primary mode of production. I also wanted to bring in historical materialism because you seemed to talk about Marx without (seemingly) understanding this very important part of his contributions.

        To be clear, my position was, and still is, that I find your analysis faulty, regardless of what I think would be the right conclusion on Cuba being communist.