9 Jan 2024 8:19 am
(ADDENDUM)Zeets2 » 07 Jan 2024, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Well, Harvey, I think it's time you took off those rose-colored glasses with which you envision Castro's revolution, where you apparently see non-existent "enormous social gains" that you think were a "good example" that the US should follow. And you seem to believe that the US did not have just cause to cease diplomatic relations with Cuba, regardless of their kidnapping of Americans, their confiscation of foreign assets, his refusal to allow Cuba to hold new elections as he promised, and despite his torture and executions of 600 people from the Batista regime. Yet you still think the US wasn't justified by our response despite our being one of the first to publicly recognize the Castro government as legitimate, which gave them every opportunity to follow the path of the free market and capitalism, and you can't understand why we broke diplomatic ties with him.
Funniest of all, you see no comparison whatsoever to the devastating condition of cities like San Francisco, Chicago, LA, Philly, Newark, Detroit, and Baltimore, all who have held a stranglehold on state and local governments that continually promote every radical socialist policy that comes down the pike.
You may not support the DNC, but you can't deny that their policies are far more socialistic than any the GOP ever supports, AND that they've failed miserably in every one of those cities. One day I may provide you with the socialist reasons that they became deindustrialized, and it was NOT due to their following of capitalism, and were NOT incapable of counteracting those socialist pathologies.
And a good day to you too, sir.
In this thread's parent post, I wrote, "The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers. Reforms including homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc." It may be accurately stated that reforms implemented by capitalist governments are like the defensive fortifications erected by armies in battle, but they are not manifestations of socialism. While wishing to - indeed needing to thwart any widespread demand for the establishment of a socialist society, bourgeois governments have enacted nominal reforms as, again, defensive fortifications. But, as also mentioned in this thread's parent post, with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and, therefore, the elimination of a countervailing system, the U.S. capitalist state began to claw back New Deal programs and other social reforms. Capitalism is, again, free to be as mean as it needs to be.
And it must be pointed out that few pieces of reform legislation have been passed into law without the support of both Democratic and Republican legislators. Ergo, if Democratic politicians who introduce and vote for reform legislation are socialists, then so, too, are their Republican "counterparts" who also tend to support such laws.
Zeets2: " One day, I may provide you with the socialist reasons that they became deindustrialized, and it was NOT due to their following of capitalism."
I look forward to it.
Be well.
Good day.
"Harvey Mushman"