Hello. Criticising your own country doesn't make you a hater of it, just like criticising your own parents doesn't stop you loving them. Apart from an extreme minority who wish their motherland to be destroyed, everybody cares about it, surely.

@Naomi do you feel chanting “death to America” is just criticism?

To me it’s tribal and medieval. Isn’t calling for death the most extreme form of hatred?

I have criticized my parents many times, but never would I wish for their death. Antifa and much of the woke left are indeed working hard for the destruction of America and the West, and they hate everything it stands for.

@GeeMac Not sure why you put so much focus on what you call an "over-active minority". What the civilised majority, though they may be silent, think and do counts more.

@Naomi the emphasis is because the overactive minority is shooting people, burning down city blocks, looting, terrorizing and actually occupying territory. They hate their country. Estimates are now coming in saying the BLM protests, looting and destruction may be the costliest insurrection ever.

In many of the hardest hit cities, police are ordered to stand down. Your view is very optimistic, and I can only hope you are right.

Of course, I'm always right. I'm a woman, remember? Lol

@Naomi I am not going to test that theory. Especially not in 2020.

You forgot @WilyRickWiles.

@Naomi Yes, shame. Who could forget Our Wily?

I think we're going round and round in circles. It seems to me that you can't get the hard-core socialism image out of your head.

You are very proud of your country and you believe that your country is the most prosperous country in the world, which is nice. I realise, though, that being prosperous doesn't mean having lots of money. When you consider factors like economic opportunities and growth, business environment, effective government with political participation, access to education, quality health care, national security and personal safety, personal freedoms, social support and civic participation and investment in natural resources, unfortunately, America isn't great at sharing the wealth it has among its people.

According to the following link: the top 5 are Nordic countries and Switzerland. Top 20 include New Zealand, where @Hanno lives, Australia, where @Crikey lives, and the UK where @N0DD and I live. The US is No. 18. (As of Nov. 2019) [insider.com]
These countries are not hard-core socialists; they are free-market loving countries with social safety net programs in place. Because we've always had these programs, it's normal to us and we probably take them for granted. Of course, we have our own problems with these programs, which need addressing on our own terms, but I don't believe that our countries are turning into Venezuela any time soon. I really struggle to see what kind of civilised socialist country you are imagining in the current modern setting.

I think it's only natural that you are anxious about changes that could affect your life if the Dems manage to get in. I'm conservative/centrist in that I like to conserve good stuff that is working well and I will consider changes where need be and those changes should happen gradually, and not radically. From what I can gather, Biden isn't looking for radical changes; it sounds like he will conserve good parts of the status quo that are functioning well.

As I explained before, I don't live in America, so I cannot have insights to respond to your question properly. Sorry.

@Naomi thanks for the link.

The top countries have all one thing in common... it is not so much whether they are capitalist or socialist or whatever...

They all have a strong personal responsibility culture of working hard and doing the right thing.
They all have a strong law abiding culture and focus on education and merit. Corruption is very low.

If you look at less successful countries... this is absent or poorly developed.

@Hanno Yes, you're right. I dare say that all governments are corrupt but these most prosperous countries have the least corrupt governments.

@Naomi he never actually addressed me. He talked to you about me. That makes him your problem

You mean Wily being my problem? He's not my child. I'm not responsible for his actions. Lol

You can define Socialism in your very own special way, till the cows come home. At the end of the Day, None of your "NICE" ideas work. Every version has been tried by nicer people then yourself, and they all fail, in a Heap of bodies. Meaning our bodies. We object! Unless you are counting monks, or nuns and their version of socialism? That works, sometimes....with enough rich people giving them money. Enjoy!

"Obama Care" was a lovely example! Straight from the people who were Obama's brain. Socialism at it's finest. Poor people pay, and any one with money gets the hell out of the system!

@Machiavelliwar Even with Obamacare, the US would still have had the most privatised, least socialist health care system in the developed world. And would also have continued to have the most expensive health care by any measure and some of the worst health outcomes in the developed world.

See the problem is in taking an ideological approach ("socialism is bad and always ends in communism" ) vs an evidence based approach (which would involve looking at developed nations around the world and seeing which have the most cost-effective healthcare with the best outcomes). Obama tried to take the less ideological approach.

@Crikey To make statement, Socialism ends in Communism, is taking the words of Lenin. It is not ideology. It is history. We do not have lesser outcomes, with our expensive private Health care systems. In every study I have seen the comparisons made are Apples to Oranges. But the Socialized Countries, love to repeat it intil it has become an Ideological truth!

@Machiavelliwar Oh you have great outcome for those who can afford the most expensive medical care. But if you look at outcomes across your whole population in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality (for example) you are not doing so great compared to other developed nations. I'm more than happy to pull up stats if that would help.

Which isn't a great outcome considering that the US spends significantly more as a % of GDP and in outright per capita costs than ANY other nation on Earth.

@Machiavelliwar Re: "To make statement, Socialism ends in Communism, is taking the words of Marx. It is not ideology. It is history."

Marx was one ideologue. He was wrong about a lot of stuff. Socialism as an idea existed before Marx and it still exists after the failure of failed attempts to implement his ideology.

@Crikey Sorry, I corrected myself. It was the words of Lenin! A Historical fact. And the history of your socialist Democracies, has been moving into government rule, over more and more of your life. Did you have a say in China moving into your Country? did you vote on the "refugees".? Yes, The Religious have had socialist communes. there are socialist Businesses set up by a cult or two. The ideas of a type of Socialism, is tried again and again, all throughout history, with small, like minded groups. But a large modern State, needs more and more authority to impose on citizens, it is caring for. It is a devolving model. It takes a while, to happen. But it has only one direction. Authoritarian rule.

@Crikey
I really don’t care how you define Socialism. I leave it to the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks to hash out issues of ideological purity and identity designation. Currently, the Democratic Party would appear to have been taken over by a number of enthusiastic, self-described socialists, with myriad hard-core Marxists comprising their support network. I have no idea where they might place themselves on the Socialist spectrum, but I see no reason not to take them at their word. We can start there.

Definitions don’t win elections, details do. Details like “What have you done to make my life better?” or “What do you plan to do to make my life better?” The first question opens up a whole separate debate, which I’d love to have sometime, but for now, it is the second question to which I seek answers: What is your plan if you win? What will you do to make my life, and the country, better? I realize that our election doesn’t directly involve you, but as an interested observer you certainly have opinions.

I hear a lot of theory, a lot of abstractions, a lot of terms like equality and fairness. I hear talk of how socialism is superior to capitalism. What I want to know is, how do you avoid Venezuela? Surely a comprehensive plan has to allow for that possibility?

As I see it, all flavors of the left—what puts them on that side of the divide in the first place—is the belief that the greater good, however that is defined, takes precedence over individual rights. This really forms the basis of the whole agenda of the left, and apparently is viewed as morally and ethically self-evident.

But for those annoying individuals who tend to be possessive of their rights and their sovereignty, it can be a problem. That’s why Marx’s dream of the state withering away is a fantasy. Without the power of the state, the agenda is unenforceable. That strikes me as a serious drawback.

I initiated this discussion as an unabashed skeptic, and I remain one. I don’t think there is a plan; at least not one you can be honest about. But I really want to hear someone explain to me what animates them. What sustains them. The level of commitment that I see is formidable; is it simply faith based, like religion, or is there a body of evidence, a track record of results that I’m not attuned to?

@Edgework You keep asking what "the plan" is, by the Democratic Party I assume. I'm a little surprised that you don't know. In the UK, each political party discloses its manifesto; their principle, policies, "If we win the election, we will realise A, B, C and D", that sort of things. Doesn't the Democratic Party (or the Republican Party) disclose their manifesto? Maybe it's different in America.

@Naomi Bernie Sanders mapped out his agenda, his policies, his roadmap very clearly on his website. Far more clearly and in far more detail with a whole lot less empty rhetoric than any other mainstream politician I could name. That's a really good place to start if you have a genuine interest in "the plan".

If we are talking about democratic socialism, the big-picture "plan" is very simple. Convince enough people that you have a workable democratic socialist platform and roadmap and get them to vote for it. That's it. That's the nuts and bolts.

When most Americans talk about socialism they insist that it is essentially Cuba or the Soviet Union. Where you violently overthrow the government, and after that the government owns all the stuff and people work for the government. Which isn't socialism at all. Private corporations own most of the stuff and people work for (and are exploited by) private corporations without a democratic say in how their workplace is run = capitalism. Government owns most of the stuff and people work for (and are exploited by) the government without a democratic say in how their workplace or country is run = state capitalism.

@Naomi
I’ve read Biden’s web site and his “plans,” all 46 of them. They’re massive. I know what they claim their goals to be. Equality, fairness, sustainable thi and renewable that. Got it.

How do they propose the bring this about?

One example: no more fossil fuels. Nice goal. Neat. Concise. Realistic? I don’t think so, not for a second. But maybe if someone explained exactly how this is to be accomplished, aside from hysterically shouting, “We have to do SOMETHING! Because... science and stuff.”

Any plans (there’s that annoying word) for the effects on the economy when such a major industry grinds to a halt? Any remedy for turning us from the energy independence we sought for so long, back into energy beggars? Any plans (Damn, I just keep coming back to that word) for the workers who will suddenly be unemployed? Biden once said of them, “They can learn to code,” is that really his plan. And as for science, what about the science of rolling blackouts? Is that the plan (!!!) for the nation as a whole?

Yeah, I want to know the plan. Not the fuzzy, feel good pablum that always characterized the lofty goals of the left. And the reason no one has one, is they have no idea how to avoid Venezuela because that she’s the inevitable result.

And please don’t point to the Green New Deal and try to pass it off as Socialism light, or whatever the fraud du jour happens to be.

@Crikey Perhaps @WilyRickWiles was right; Edgework didn't open the discussion in good faith. Hey ho.
Whether communism or neoliberalism, extremism is not applicable in any context.

@Edgework I see what you mean. When politicians come up with big plans, "exactly how to implement" is often missing. I would suggest you tag some leftist members (Americans). Invite them to the discussion. That should be fun.

@Edgework The idea is a transition to green energy. We don't just stop using fossil fuel overnight.

As green energy becomes more practical and affordable we shift in that direction.

Issues with baseload power need to be addressed as and when we make that shift.

@Naomi In the case of Biden, he is light on details for how he is going to implement changes because what he will really do is to maintain the status quo of neoliberalism.

Also neoliberalism isn't extremism, neoliberalism is the default set of economic policies of the political centre on both sides of politics.

@Naomi Re: "Perhaps @WilyRickWiles was right; Edgework didn't open the discussion in good faith."

I don't think that's the right way to describe it. But really all I am seeing is some generalised ranting about socialism.

I will give one example of socialism vs capitalism: health care. Which developed country has the least amount of socialism in their healthcare system? That would be the United States. And what is the outcome of that? The United States has, by far, the most expensive healthcare in the world, both in terms of per capita cost and as a % of GDP. And the United States also has some of the worst healthcare outcomes in the developed world. So how's that "capitalism is better than socialism" working out for you there?

Where I live the government has privatised power supply over the past 2 decades. How has that worked out? We now have rundown power stations and soaring power costs but lots of rich investors. How has that worked out for most of us (people who use and pay for power)? Pretty badly. What did the governments of the day promise us? They promised that privatisation would deliver better service and cheaper prices because of the efficient market hypothesis or something. They were wrong.

@Crikey Oh, I thought neoliberalism was an exaggerated form of capitalism; it pushes further for more privatisation and much less government spending.

@Crikey In the region where I live, water supplies are privatised but practically monopolised because there is only one provider. When I went to Japan, eating out was really cheap; there are so many eating/drinking establishments that they all have to offer very competitive prices which is good news for customers. Where there is healthy competition, capitalism works well, I think.

@Naomi Yes. Neoliberalism exaggerates some aspects of capitalism.

Neoliberalism isn't something that conservatives are trying to implement. Neoliberalism has been the default set of policies of both sides of politics for decades now, in Australia, in the US, in the UK. Maybe we need a separate thread just on that? I can find some really good analysis and articles on the subject.

@Naomi Re "Where there is healthy competition, capitalism works well" absolutely. Most democratic socialists do not want to do away with private enterprise. An evidence based approach is called for.

@Crikey

ME: Any plans (there’s that annoying word) for the effects on the economy when such a major industry grinds to a halt? Any remedy for turning us from the energy independence we sought for so long, back into energy beggars? Any plans (Damn, I just keep coming back to that word) for the workers who will suddenly be unemployed? Biden once said of them, “They can learn to code.” Is that really his plan. And as for science, what about the science of rolling blackouts? Is that the plan (!!!) for the nation as a whole?

CRIKEY: The idea is a transition to green energy. We don't just stop using fossil fuel overnight.

That’s a statement of intention, not a plan. I’m willing to stipulate that your intentions are noble. I still see no evidence that you have any clue how to actually achieve this transition. Whether you boil the frog slowly, so he doesn’t realize he’s being killed, or just gig him, he still winds up dead.

@Crikey Great, We all gradually go dark. The numbers do not agree with you! With production it is effort in, product out. All "Greens" forms of energy are More energy used to produce less energy, form other forms of energy, which means greater costs, which means less and less for more. You end up with the rich having lovely Green Energy. Think of the effort of using wood to heat your house. Inefficient, localized to the fire source, and damn hard work producing the wood. Then their is the Amount and consistency of land, wind, wave, production. Batteries, have very definite limits. Maybe Musk can break that one, but the earth is not quite up to fulfilling your every blue sky idea. Might try praying!

@Edgework Dude, you only half quoted me.

The reality is that the transition is already happening in some countries. The UK already produces more energy from wind farms than it does from coal. Norway produces nearly all of its energy from renewable sources.

Like I said, the "plan" is already in action in countries where they want to make a transition. None of those countries have gone dark. And there are lots of jobs in renewable energy. If Biden suggested that the coal miners etc. could "learn to code" then he's a dolt.

@Edgework Re: "As I see it, all flavors of the left—what puts them on that side of the divide in the first place—is the belief that the greater good, however that is defined, takes precedence over individual rights."

No. I would say that most leftists simply do not believe in the just-world-fallacy and have a different take on individual rights.

I could type up a lengthy expansion on that if I thought anyone here would benefit. Likely those who have a bias in favour of socialism would agree with much of what I say and those who have a bias against socialism will cherry pick a sentence here and there that would support their preconceptions.

Re: "That’s why Marx’s dream of the state withering away is a fantasy."

It is strange that Marx still has such ardent followers, we know that much of Marx's economic analysis was insightful (based on his time) but we've seen how attempts to impose Marxism have worked out. With every other thinker/economist we adopt and adapt what was good about their ideas and we discard the stuff that isn't so good. Marx remains an exception to that.

Democratic socialism is not Marxism.

@WilyRickWiles? @JacksonNought?

@Naomi Hard to engage in a conversation with someone who isn't operating in good faith. He conflates the state socialism of Cuba with the social democracy advocated via the GND and with the neoliberalism of the DNC. Oddly, he draws a distinction between the social democracy of Scandanavian countries and all of the preceding.

Social democracy is what I advocate for. Seems like @Edgework needs to do some good faith homework before we can have a conversation.

@WilyRickWiles, @Naomi

Naomi, you will need to read Democratic Socialist of America website yourself to form an opinion.
My opinion is that Social Democracy (most of Northern Europe) is not the same as Democratic Socialism advocated by many here.
It is one of the big arguments I had with Wily.

However, that is my opinion. You need to study Scandinavian economic models and compare with the DSA plans and decide yourself.

I support many socialist ideas and ideals, however are not blind to the very large problems that brings...
Ditto for capitalism.

@Hanno DSA is a big tent socialist organization, so its advocacy runs the gamut, but most of what it and its preferred candidates advocate in national electoral politics is social democracy. "Democratic Socialism" reflects their big tent and efforts toward workplace democracy. And Scandinavian social democracy has been watered down by neoliberalism.

DSA also isn't much of a force in national politics. There, a handful of leftist donors and institutions (like Justice Democrats) are the main movers. Sometimes they are a bit "moderate" for some in DSA, but I believe they are working toward the same goal of social democracy. Their strategy: [plantogovern.us]

Hello Hanno. Yes, it's easy for me to find the stuff you mention and I know a little about it. However, simply because I don't live in America, it's hard for me to grasp, let alone have opinions on, what is really going on in certain context in America. It's like reading a lot about a foreign country as knowledge is very different from actually living in that country as a civilian, if you know what I mean. In other words, I don't have insights to respond to @Edgework question properly.

Thanks for the link WilyRickWiles. Interesting.

@WilyRickWiles . And your hero's, are all true to the English Style Social Democrat model? Not. How about the Von Bismarck model? You like that model? We are talking "IDEAS" of economic models, here, because none of you intends to talk reality. Reality is, You have humans voting, they tend to create a self-serving economy. Reality, a dictator, is the only one who can IMPOSE, any of your economic models, given floods and the locust thing sometime even Dictators are obstructed from serving your vision!

@Machiavelliwar I'm an MMTer, not a Marxist.

@WilyRickWiles An, the Letter thing, when you all get done slicing and dicing as you chose from the self serve window. I do not understand the letter thing. Please, take pity and give me a hint.

@Machiavelliwar
Modern monetary theory

@Hanno Thank you. One of the ideas, from this theory, claim Taxes drain, the "too much" money from the economy and "keep inflation in check". Is this Wily man' idea too?. Do you Hanno agree?

@Hanno, @WilyRickWiles So you believe in a fancy new name for Government controlled economy, Or Socialist, Communist, top down....Or "we want one of us, intelligent fellows to run the world!" Got it.

@Machiavelliwar
I have my own opinions on money theory that are too complex to discuss on a forum like this.

I am neither a socialist or a capitalist and is the opinion that we need key elements of capitalism to create wealth and need to employ some socialist elements to keep us from getting into a class war.

The Scandinavian countries have progressed a long way down this path.
They are of course all capitalist countries.

@Hanno The idea is That Jobs, create inflation, so you set a number of jobless, and tax to keep that number out of the job market! I disagree. Inflation is caused by multy factor control of the economy.or an Oil embargo....Or, a Green New Deal, etc. . The Left and Wimpy Right have really been pursuing policies that are against the working stiff, since FDR. Never stopped inflation, once! Right now, No One of the genius economists has any idea why we have not had any inflation with a booming tech revolution going on! they are Stumped, as you must be?

@Machiavelliwar "The idea is That Jobs, create inflation, so you set a number of jobless, and tax to keep that number out of the job market!"

That is what conservatives and neoliberals believe, and it has been policy for decades.

MMTers believe that is is complicated, like you said--it is a function of economic output. Meaning that you can deficit spend, especially in a time like now with very low inflation (and the threat of deflation) due to structural issues, as long as the economic output isn't so out of sync with increased wages (too much money chasing too few goods) that you create inflation that is too high. We have been using that fiscal power to capitalize and add liquidity to the financial system and big business (including the purchasing of corporate junk bonds), but we can also use it to provide public goods, ease state and local budgets, and provide a job guarantee like in the GND (employer of last resort which acts like an automatic stabilizer).

When inflation gets too high, yes, taxing more money back out of the economy is the emergency tool to use, but only then. Private equity interests like the Peter G. Peterson Foundation have been pushing deficit hawkery on both parties for years in order to keep wages down and maximize their profits. Deficits don't actually "crowd out" economic activity--it puts money in our pockets--and surpluses take money out!

Also, keep in mind, the reason this works is because we're not on a gold standard anymore and we are not experiencing a simultaneous monetary transition and supply shock like half a century ago.

@WilyRickWiles You are right. It has been the policy, of all Western Democ' arcies! And Is wrong, cruel, and this time has these beasts shaking their collective heads! Please, do not even hint, "wages" Cause inflation! same problem of your/The theory! Not having a gold standard, means you can have a middle class, based on Debt. No debt, or limit debt destroy the middle class, and all small business! Large deficits in a City, or State should mean less social programs, and retirement cost, but that does not happen in most Democrat run Cities and States. Is a cruelty, because the lowest pay.....ALL of the downside!

@WilyRickWiles Re: "And Scandinavian social democracy has been watered down by neoliberalism."

This. Neoliberalism has made sharp inroads into most social democracies.

Australia has shifted away from social democracy over the past 3 to 4 decades. As has the UK and plenty of other social democracies. I'd be happy to wind the clock (economically) back to 35 years ago, before the ravages of neoliberalism from both sides of the political fence. Before we thought sending many of our manufacturing and services jobs offshore was a good idea and would make us more prosperous.

You're funny. You have a sarcastic sense of humour. Lol

Incidentally, I'm not completely a socialist/leftist but I can sometimes appreciate socialist/leftist views. I think it's good that you are open-minded enough to ask this question.

Yes, I often hear the old slippery-slope argument that any socialist reform always ends in communism.

Universal health care? You're on the road to communism.

In reality many countries around the world practice some form of social democracy. But if you look at the countries that have actually gone to authoritarian state communism... they all started as some kind of authoritarian non-communist regime with gross levels of inequality and corruption and injustice, followed by a bloody revolution. Or they were invaded by an authoritarian state communist regime. I'd be interested in an example of a democratic country that went from functioning democracy/capitalism to social democracy (via election) to authoritarian state communism. Venezuela would be the closest thing I can think, but that was anything but a functioning capitalist democracy before socialism was tried.

That all sounds good in the realm of abstract theory. What’s it look like in the real world? How will you keep America from becoming Venezuela?

@Edgework There are two questions to answer to support my position, to which I don't have answers. The first is whether it's necessary for there to be the threat of privation to prevent mass laziness. The second is how to build a government that can redistribute wealth without being coopted by totalitarians or subverted by malevolence.

@SophiaPistis

Your first question sounds remarkably like straight up and down Calvinism: "He that does not work, neither let him eat." God helps those who help themselves, in other words. This has always been vilified by the left as a tacit justification for blaming the poor for their plight.

I think, in your second question, you are conflating contradictory ideas. Redistribution is simply a euphemistic away of saying taking other peoples' money. Once the state is able to effect such redistribution it has already moved into the realm of malevolent totalitarianism. Just because the process is encoded in tax law, say, with set limits on the degree of the theft doesn't alter that fact, which you will discover should you wish not to have your assets stolen.

What you seem to be asking: "Can't we all live together in peace, and take care of each other?" A nice thought. But when the state attempts to mandate the process, it becomes something else altogether. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," is probably the most vile con job ever perpetrated on the human race. It's a perfect formula for economic failure and societal misery. Just incidentally, it seems always to lead to mass murder. That's not just an opinion. At the moment the body count is at roughly 100,000,000, but there's always room for more. As Jordan Peterson says, "The experiment's been done. The data is in."

Two points: altruism is one thing. Empathy and concern for your fellow man is a quality to be desired. But when mandated by the state, it becomes coercion and theft.

I get the noble intentions. I still have to wonder how that translates into real-world policies. Why has no one ever had their life improve buy those intentions?

@Edgework however policies are mandated by the state depends on where sovereignty lies, failure is one of democracy, justice and accountability, or totalitarianism that fills the vacuum, nothing to do with the principles of socialism.

@N0DD The ultimate hedge. In other words, it does not work in the real world. But, believe us, it is the best idea, and we will all march solemnly to your grave site, declaring it so! Sorry you had to die for our perfect vision! We really really care!

It’s completely false to assert that socialism is philosophically aligned to the fundamental principle of altruism and the idea that it is better to do for others than oneself

That sounds more like philanthropy, which is freely donating your money to a worthwhile cause.

Socialism is seizing someone else’s money.

@Machiavelliwar just answering a simple question.

@GeeMac not everything is about money or charity, taxes are extorted by the state and spent to preserve the citizens so that more can be produced, taxes, alms, or tithes, civilizations answer to rape, pillage and slavery.

@N0DD Yep, you are right there. Rape, pillage, and slavery were not working too well. A heck of a lot is about money. It is only a means of exchange, so we can have more then subsistence. Are you for subsistence living? Are you mad a civil society is mostly about money? since you have the face of your beliefs on your photo, guess rape and murder and pillage just might be your preferred State? What are you mad about?

@Machiavelliwar Like most yankees you clearly know nothing about Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, other than what you've been fed by your media.

@N0DD How do you suggest we learn about your favorite leader? You have a special pipe line into the truth, that turns dead foreigners into Saints?

@N0DD taxes, extorted or not, are a feature of every government that’s every existed. That’s a pretty weak defence of socialism.

@Machiavelliwar read a book or watch a documentary, there's quite a few out there, Che has written a few himself which are very instructive. My Life by Fidel Castro with Ignacio Ramonet is a fascinating document for any yankee prepared to suspend their prejudice and animosity.

@N0DD The man himself and his "Life". Now there is a document one can trust! It is not prejudice, unless you have a large capacity for your hero's being murderous thugs. Educated Murderous thugs, who write a lovely book. I prefer the word of the people they tortured and jailed, and left for dead.

@Machiavelliwar ironically its the US blockade that created and maintained the difficult conditions for the Cuban people, I have actually been there in both Havana and Santiago de Cuba, and although thete are a lot of economic restrictions, the people are very open well informed and critical of their government, they are well aware of present corruption but also the achievements of the Revolution.

@N0DD Right! I first heard these lies right after, Cuba became Castro's playpen, in the 1960's, by people who knew better. It was in the hands of the Mob, and no one doubts that. But, the useful idiots have been helping with the sugar cane harvest and posing with their favorite Intellectual in Hollywood, every since. Nice you get to travel. They need those good "Yankee Dollars".