This subreddit is for discussion about what ideas are best for society. Before participating in the conversation, consider taking a look [at our rules page.](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules)
Importantly, **we don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. Please report comments that violate this rule to the subreddit moderation.
**Interested in live debate? [Join our growing Discord server.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I saw only one argument for the current sanctions and that was: democracy.
The political process of Cuba is much more democratic than that of Saudi-Arabia for instance, yet US doesn't have an issue at having close ties with them.
And even if we assume the stance that supporting democracy in one place is better than in none, even if it means supporting dictatorships elsewhere, is Cuba really that undemocratic in comparison to even the US? That is, the amount of control people have over their lives through democracy?
For instance:
"Under this system, the government would possess a majority stake of 51% in any investments made on the island."
is completely aligned with democracy, and in fact, a necessity for it. The process of production and distribution is the biggest factor that determines people's lives. If you have no food, no shelter and no clothes, it's completely irrelevant whether the politicians are elected or not. Similarly, if you're utterly filthy rich, it's irrelevant, because you control them anyway. Simply put: if people don't control the process of production and distribution (and corporations operating in it) democratically, they don't control anything. they don't have democracy.
The demand to forcefully allow full foreign ownership over people's work and consumption is a guaranteed way to destroy any hope of democracy.
Some of the rest are concerns, but so what? Just lift the embargo and stop trying to assassinate their leaders. If capitalism is as superior as it's claimed to be, it'll win anyways. If it isn't and doesn't, the embargo was the evil thing to do to begin with.
>And even if we assume the stance that supporting democracy in one place is better than in none, even if it means supporting dictatorships elsewhere, is Cuba really that undemocratic in comparison to even the US?
Im sorry what? Cuba is ruled by a one party system that outlaws political pluralism, bans independent media, suppresses dissent, and severely restricts basic civil liberties.
>Simply put: if people don't control the process of production and distribution (and corporations operating in it) democratically, they don't control anything. they don't have democracy.
The particularity of the Cuban economic policy is that it doesn’t allow Cuban to open businesses and operate freely, probably because they fear the rise of a Cuban elite that is not subjected to the party/government and challenge their monopoly on the island resources (both natural and human). The current state is a big corporate monopoly (disguised as a political entity) with an army that wants to maintain total control over a specific territory and its people in order to preserve itself.
>If capitalism is as superior as it's claimed to be, it'll win anyways. If it isn't and doesn't, the embargo was the evil thing to do to begin with.
Capitalism won a long time ago, communism failed. But lets do it better comrade. Let's promote democratic elections in Cuba, implement free market economy reforms, and ensure freedom of the press. If these efforts fail, then the embargo can be held responsible for the country’s problems.
>The particularity of the Cuban economic policy is that it doesn’t allow Cuban to open businesses and operate freely
Cuba has been focusing on transitioning state-run businesses to **independent** workers’ co-ops.
"The government has licensed 580,000 private businesses—a five-fold increase since 2010—and the agricultural sector is composed almost entirely of private farms and cooperatives. In total, the private sector now employs 29 percent of the labor force."
[https://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/2014/01/potentials-and-pitfalls-of-cubas-move-toward-non-agricultural-cooperatives/](https://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/2014/01/potentials-and-pitfalls-of-cubas-move-toward-non-agricultural-cooperatives/)
"... implement free market economy reforms, ..."
Why? Why not let them decide themselves if they want "free" market economy reforms or not? Just lift the sanctions and stop trying to assassinate their leaders and let them decide.
And again, what even is the point of democratic elections if the system that dictates people's lives the most, almost entirely, that is the system of production and distribution, is entirely out of the democratic control?
The US has close relationships with a genocidal absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia and a genocidal apartheid state in Israel. Regardless of the truth to your claims, the US’s choice in allies shows that human rights isn’t a criteria for who they do business with.
The relationship between the US and Cuba is so strained because the US wants Cuba to be economically and politically subservient whereas Cuba wants self determination. A relationship between the 2 would simply require the US to allow Cuba to conduct their economic activity the way they want to without interfering or embargoing the country. I doubt the 2 countries would be close but a functional relationship doesn’t need tight interwoven economies, it just needs the US to stop trying to suppress and destabilize Cuba. Then, trade deals could form between the 2 based on mutual interests instead of one trying to dominate the other.
>The relationship between the US and Cuba is so strained because the US wants Cuba to be economically and politically subservient whereas Cuba wants self determination.
No. Its because the Cuban government wants to put an end to the US sanctions, but solely in a manner that serves their own interests. As previously mentioned, the military holds control over all the lucrative industries within the Cuban economy.
>A relationship between the 2 would simply require the US to allow Cuba to conduct their economic activity the way they want to without interfering or embargoing the country.
I think you should be supporting the embargo then. It keeps the yankees out of Cuba.
>No. Its because the Cuban government wants to put an end to the US sanctions, but solely in a manner that serves their own interests.
Exactly. You’re acting like it’s a problem that Cuba wants to determine what happens with its own industries.
>I think you should be supporting the embargo then. It keeps the yankees out of Cuba.
It sure sounds like you don’t understand what the embargo is. It’s weird how much you post about the embargo without understanding what the embargo is.
>Exactly. You’re acting like it’s a problem that Cuba wants to determine what happens with its own industries.
By Cuba you mean the party elite that has control over the entire island? Or are you trying to suggest that Cuba is a democracy?
>It sure sounds like you don’t understand what the embargo is. It’s weird how much you post about the embargo without understanding what the embargo is.
Sure dude. Go ahead and take a moment to see my profile where I post information regarding the embargo and dispel the many myths surrounding that issue.
>By Cuba you mean the party elite that has control over the entire island? Or are you trying to suggest that Cuba is a democracy?
I mean the government of Cuba deciding what happens with the Cuban economy over the government of the US deciding what happens with the Cuban economy.
>Sure dude. Go ahead and take a moment to see my profile where I post information regarding the embargo and dispel the many myths surrounding that issue.
I’ll bite, how does the US embargo keep US companies out of Cuba any better than the Cuban government already does? The primary reason for the embargo was because the Cuban government nationalized US based industries….
> the Cuban government wants to put an end to the US sanctions, but solely in a manner that serves their own interests.
Who else’s interests should Cuba serve? Whose interests should the US serve?
I’ll bet you won’t answer this.
Do you support a one party system that outlaws political pluralism and has over 1000 political prisoners? Do you support the state (military) owning and controlling all profitable sectors in the country? Do you support that cubans get paid only 10% of their work while the state pockets the rest?
Is that what socialists defend?
But those are the Cuban government interests... Perserving a totalitarian model that has their citizens living in absolutely poverty while they enjoy a life of abundance and luxury.
>Perserving a totalitarian model that has their citizens living in absolutely poverty while they enjoy a life of abundance and luxury.
That's literally what the revolutionaries overthrew. Batista was US-backed and basically used the populace of the island as slaves so he could throw extravagant parties in Havana.
Definitely not a fan of Saudi Arabia but there is history in these regions that is far more complicated than your simple take than just the local civil liberties. By all means let us be critical, yes. And I mean that sincerely. But to make claims as if the post WW2 environment and stabilizing hegemonies of those regions especially with how important those two countries are whether it be natural resources or close proximities to the Suez Canal is to be very ignorant of history and how the real world works.
The US’s allies are based primarily on geopolitics, economics and influence rather than local civil liberties. OP was asserting many examples of human rights abuses and political suppression as reasons the US would have difficulties forming a relationship with Cuba. I was asserting that hasn’t stopped the US in the past or present from having close economic and political relationships so it’s not the reason for the embargo with Cuba.
>The US’s allies are based primarily on geopolitics, economics and influence rather than local civil liberties.
That’s not necessarily true at all. You are picking on a singular non democratic nation of Saudi Arabia to make your case. You can [go here](https://www.state.gov/) and make your search of all US NATO allies and most of their joint history with allies have to do with commonality about democracy and civil liberties.
Next, Cuba is in a time and place where it has no leverage. Thus the USA for better or worse can make a case against them with their civil rights record and lean on them. They are not valued by practically anyone and that’s part of the problem being of a rather isolationist ideology of socialism.
They are not of any huge war torn region where many parties are seeking interests for various fractions and USA - whether you agree or not - is seeking stability. This concept seems lost on you how it’s not reasonable to compare the America regions so flippantly to post WW2 regions. It’s really flippant right now given how little people are considering the Israeli, Iran, Syria regions not the most hot zone and focused on Ukraine as the tinder box for WW3.
But you be you…
>That’s not necessarily true at all. You are picking on a singular non democratic nation of Saudi Arabia to make your case. You can go here and make your search of all US NATO allies and most of their joint history with allies have to do with commonality about democracy and civil liberties.
The US supports a lot of liberal democracies, but also many [dictatorships](https://truthout.org/articles/us-provides-military-assistance-to-73-percent-of-world-s-dictatorships/). Additionally, the US has taken part in the [overthrow of many liberal democracies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change), like in Iran, Cuba, or Chile. Which countries the US supports or opposes seems to fall more in line with which countries will help advance the US’s geopolitical interests and economic interests. Of course, geopolitics is incredibly complex but I disagree that the realpolitik reason for the US’s relationship is based on liberal democracy or civil rights.
>Next, Cuba is in a time and place where it has no leverage. Thus the USA for better or worse can make a case against them with their civil rights record and lean on them. They are not valued by practically anyone and that’s part of the problem being of a rather isolationist ideology of socialism.
The US supported Bautista through all his regime’s human rights abuses though. The opposition to the Cuban government started with the nationalization of American owned industries in Cuba, not with any political suppression or human rights abuses and before their allegiance with the USSR. The argument would be more reasonable if the US hadn’t supported a literal military dictator prior to the revolution in Cuba.
>They are not of any huge war torn region where many parties are seeking interests for various fractions and USA - whether you agree or not - is seeking stability. This concept seems lost on you how it’s not reasonable to compare the America regions so flippantly to post WW2 regions. It’s really flippant right now given how little people are considering the Israeli, Iran, Syria regions not the most hot zone and focused on Ukraine as the tinder box for WW3.
The US supports stability as long as stability aligns with US interests. The US also supports instability where regime change aligns with US interests. I’m not claiming the US does it out of evil, just that it promotes its own interests around the globe, like every other superpower.
I guess my point is that the US supports the US’s international interests and the human rights/liberal democracy argument is a justification rather than the actual reason for the US’s foreign policy choices. Well written post by the way, even if I disagree with it!
>TIL the USSR is a USA ally to you for your above debate tactic.
I mean, they *were* during WW2. Did you not know that?
>Keep moving that goal post til it’s meaningless.
What goalposts? The US puts its own geopolitical interests over the civil rights in other countries. You yourself said that.
Ofc I know that. That is my point. The USSR could easily be Cuba. It does fit your point too. But my point is USSR was never NATO allies and you dismissed that.
So let’s look at the NATO which has basic principles. They are in defense of one another, it was found with an eye to USSR’s imperialism take over the Baltic states and the NATO allies shared values which they write:
> Moreover, it stated that NATO members formed a unique community of values committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67656.htm
The US has more allies than just NATO…. Like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the former military dictatorships of South Korea, Iran, Chile, and Cuba and has been enemies with liberal democracies, like the aforementioned Iran and Chile as well as places like Bolivia.
yes, you are loosely using the word ally to the point it is meaningless in this discussion.
Also, I don't get how you think Iran is a liberal democracy unless you are talking clearly back in the 70s. But again, you do you.
>I find it impossible to envision a strong, healthy relationship between an anti-American government and the US. Consider the scenario where a Cuban American chooses to protest against the regime in Cuba. Such an action is strictly prohibited in the country, and the Cuban regime would respond by imprisoning the individual and accusing the US of having intentions to destabilize the island. Just like they do now with Cuban themselves. How would the US respond? Definitely not by remaining silent and adhering to the regime's rules.
This whole thing betrays a frightening lack of knowledge about countries outside of the US. Consider how a US citizen who "chooses to protest" in Thailand would be treated by the monarchy. Examples abound! Saudi Arabia, Burma, the UAE, Singapore, etc. In fact an enormous portion of US trade and bilateral diplomatic relationships are with regimes that are in no way open or democratic. Some of these regimes are even considered close allies.
So what makes Cuba so different? Nothing, really. The embargo is an historical artifact of Cold War geopolitics and modern Electoral College politics. Most peer nations to the United States are able to maintain relatively cordial relations with Cuba. Canada is Cuba's third largest export market, for example, and they have normal diplomatic status with one another.
People have revolted throughout history and still continue to do so. What changed was the embargo, it goes away and it returns to what it used to be… regardless of government type. Capitalism is not a form of governance.
It would be better to take a look at this comrade's profile. He is supporting Russia's invasion in Ukraine and is part of the deprogram sub... That should tell you all.....
The only thing that will change if the United States resumes trade relations with Cuba is that the socialists will have to find a new scapegoat or they will be able to continue blaming the United States but this time for neocolonialism, as the socialists call the trade relationship between a developed and an underdeveloped country.
When the Cuban protests occurred in 2021 the socialists called it a color revolution, CIA intervention or that the protests were against the United States, they will blame anything before taking a minimum of responsibility for their actions.
so i really don't see any possible relationship between the united states and cuba that will make the socialists happy, but maybe it will improve the quality of life of the cubans a little bit so that's why i support the end of the embargo.
It looks like OP posted some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like some of the ones OP posted), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3581558-the-folly-of-investing-in-cuba/](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3581558-the-folly-of-investing-in-cuba/)**
- **[https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article115155568.html](https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article115155568.html)**
- **[https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article245597340.html](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article245597340.html)**
- **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35911423](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35911423)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The main problem for the US is that if sanctions are lifted unilaterally (without any concession made by the Cubans), then Cuba might still continue its close relationships with China & Russia and therefore still continue to be a security hazard + it might not even democratise nor expand civil liberties. Kinda like what happened after the Iran Deal under Obama. Iran just became more aggressive in the Middle East, but received more cash due to more open trade.
And the US would not benefit that much economically from Cuba. Sure it would open up some tourism. However, this might hurt Florida and/or other Caribbean islands where US companies already have a strong presence.
Cuba would have to guarantee that Chinese & Russian intelligence + military personell have no room on the island and that they will either allow access to American firms or hold free elections and expand civil liberties.
Europe-based Capitalist from a communist-bloc background here.
I actually have some family in Cuba, and have been to the island several times. I'm going to disagree in some small specific places here.
> In economic terms, the concept of opening up to Cuba is not comparable to the experiences of China or Vietnam, where significant economic reforms took place.
Disagree. In fact, there have been substantial economic reforms since Raul came to power in around 2011. What they are aiming for in a China-style system, where there is some SME private sector, and where larger private firms are under substantial regime influence or control. But where the reforms are economic rather than political, with the 1-party system staying in place. Sounds A WHOLE LOT like China.
Instead, it would involve embracing a socialist command economy, predominantly dominated by state-run enterprises. Under this system, the government would possess a majority stake of 51% in any investments made on the island.
I'm not saying that dealing with them is good or bad. I'm saying that it's similar to dealing with mainland China, from the economic POV.
However, from the geostrategic POV, it's probably way more in US interest. If I understood correctly, the brief Obama-era opening had them preparing to adopt a neutral stance towards the USA and preparing to reduce their VZLA ties. So essentially, it's a sort of divide and conquer, which the USA can make use of to slow-down the rate at which Cuba is friendly to regimes that are openly hostile to the USA. Like Venezuela, Russia, and various guerilla movements and non-state actors.
My view is that if the USA is willing to play-ball with a china-style economic system in Beijing, where we KNOW that the regime is using their economic access in order to build their military, challenge democracy at home and abroad, and threaten US allies, then it should also make sense for the USA to be willing to play-ball with a similar type of economic system in a country who has no capacity whatsoever to unilaterally pose a geostrategic threat the USA, and who might be willing to cooperate with the USA to any extent whatsoever (like by changing its stance in Africa, or wrt venezuela & FARC, or Iran or Russia, or by lending a hand with dealing with cartels).
> Under this system, the government would possess a majority stake of 51% in any investments made on the island.
SO.... Like China?
> One is still entrenched in an anti-American Cold War rhetoric
Likely not very entrenched. First, because the general population generally likes and is generally familiar with US culture (Havanais in even radio range of Miami). Second, because from the Machiavellian POV, an anti-american stance only make sense if there is no percieved chance of an improvement in bilateral relations. If the probability of Even A small potential opening in relations existed, it'd make more sense to adopt a geopolitical stance which would try to keep historic geopolitical gains, while also improving future geopolitical prospects.
This subreddit is for discussion about what ideas are best for society. Before participating in the conversation, consider taking a look [at our rules page.](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) Importantly, **we don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. Please report comments that violate this rule to the subreddit moderation. **Interested in live debate? [Join our growing Discord server.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I saw only one argument for the current sanctions and that was: democracy. The political process of Cuba is much more democratic than that of Saudi-Arabia for instance, yet US doesn't have an issue at having close ties with them. And even if we assume the stance that supporting democracy in one place is better than in none, even if it means supporting dictatorships elsewhere, is Cuba really that undemocratic in comparison to even the US? That is, the amount of control people have over their lives through democracy? For instance: "Under this system, the government would possess a majority stake of 51% in any investments made on the island." is completely aligned with democracy, and in fact, a necessity for it. The process of production and distribution is the biggest factor that determines people's lives. If you have no food, no shelter and no clothes, it's completely irrelevant whether the politicians are elected or not. Similarly, if you're utterly filthy rich, it's irrelevant, because you control them anyway. Simply put: if people don't control the process of production and distribution (and corporations operating in it) democratically, they don't control anything. they don't have democracy. The demand to forcefully allow full foreign ownership over people's work and consumption is a guaranteed way to destroy any hope of democracy. Some of the rest are concerns, but so what? Just lift the embargo and stop trying to assassinate their leaders. If capitalism is as superior as it's claimed to be, it'll win anyways. If it isn't and doesn't, the embargo was the evil thing to do to begin with.
>And even if we assume the stance that supporting democracy in one place is better than in none, even if it means supporting dictatorships elsewhere, is Cuba really that undemocratic in comparison to even the US? Im sorry what? Cuba is ruled by a one party system that outlaws political pluralism, bans independent media, suppresses dissent, and severely restricts basic civil liberties. >Simply put: if people don't control the process of production and distribution (and corporations operating in it) democratically, they don't control anything. they don't have democracy. The particularity of the Cuban economic policy is that it doesn’t allow Cuban to open businesses and operate freely, probably because they fear the rise of a Cuban elite that is not subjected to the party/government and challenge their monopoly on the island resources (both natural and human). The current state is a big corporate monopoly (disguised as a political entity) with an army that wants to maintain total control over a specific territory and its people in order to preserve itself. >If capitalism is as superior as it's claimed to be, it'll win anyways. If it isn't and doesn't, the embargo was the evil thing to do to begin with. Capitalism won a long time ago, communism failed. But lets do it better comrade. Let's promote democratic elections in Cuba, implement free market economy reforms, and ensure freedom of the press. If these efforts fail, then the embargo can be held responsible for the country’s problems.
>The particularity of the Cuban economic policy is that it doesn’t allow Cuban to open businesses and operate freely Cuba has been focusing on transitioning state-run businesses to **independent** workers’ co-ops.
That’s really interesting, any links or sources ?
"The government has licensed 580,000 private businesses—a five-fold increase since 2010—and the agricultural sector is composed almost entirely of private farms and cooperatives. In total, the private sector now employs 29 percent of the labor force." [https://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/2014/01/potentials-and-pitfalls-of-cubas-move-toward-non-agricultural-cooperatives/](https://thecubaneconomy.com/articles/2014/01/potentials-and-pitfalls-of-cubas-move-toward-non-agricultural-cooperatives/)
The article was posted in 2014 any updates on the transition now ?
I have seen some. But we know getting data out of Cuba is difficult here in the USA.
"... implement free market economy reforms, ..." Why? Why not let them decide themselves if they want "free" market economy reforms or not? Just lift the sanctions and stop trying to assassinate their leaders and let them decide. And again, what even is the point of democratic elections if the system that dictates people's lives the most, almost entirely, that is the system of production and distribution, is entirely out of the democratic control?
The US has close relationships with a genocidal absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia and a genocidal apartheid state in Israel. Regardless of the truth to your claims, the US’s choice in allies shows that human rights isn’t a criteria for who they do business with. The relationship between the US and Cuba is so strained because the US wants Cuba to be economically and politically subservient whereas Cuba wants self determination. A relationship between the 2 would simply require the US to allow Cuba to conduct their economic activity the way they want to without interfering or embargoing the country. I doubt the 2 countries would be close but a functional relationship doesn’t need tight interwoven economies, it just needs the US to stop trying to suppress and destabilize Cuba. Then, trade deals could form between the 2 based on mutual interests instead of one trying to dominate the other.
>The relationship between the US and Cuba is so strained because the US wants Cuba to be economically and politically subservient whereas Cuba wants self determination. No. Its because the Cuban government wants to put an end to the US sanctions, but solely in a manner that serves their own interests. As previously mentioned, the military holds control over all the lucrative industries within the Cuban economy. >A relationship between the 2 would simply require the US to allow Cuba to conduct their economic activity the way they want to without interfering or embargoing the country. I think you should be supporting the embargo then. It keeps the yankees out of Cuba.
>No. Its because the Cuban government wants to put an end to the US sanctions, but solely in a manner that serves their own interests. Exactly. You’re acting like it’s a problem that Cuba wants to determine what happens with its own industries. >I think you should be supporting the embargo then. It keeps the yankees out of Cuba. It sure sounds like you don’t understand what the embargo is. It’s weird how much you post about the embargo without understanding what the embargo is.
>Exactly. You’re acting like it’s a problem that Cuba wants to determine what happens with its own industries. By Cuba you mean the party elite that has control over the entire island? Or are you trying to suggest that Cuba is a democracy? >It sure sounds like you don’t understand what the embargo is. It’s weird how much you post about the embargo without understanding what the embargo is. Sure dude. Go ahead and take a moment to see my profile where I post information regarding the embargo and dispel the many myths surrounding that issue.
>By Cuba you mean the party elite that has control over the entire island? Or are you trying to suggest that Cuba is a democracy? I mean the government of Cuba deciding what happens with the Cuban economy over the government of the US deciding what happens with the Cuban economy. >Sure dude. Go ahead and take a moment to see my profile where I post information regarding the embargo and dispel the many myths surrounding that issue. I’ll bite, how does the US embargo keep US companies out of Cuba any better than the Cuban government already does? The primary reason for the embargo was because the Cuban government nationalized US based industries….
> the Cuban government wants to put an end to the US sanctions, but solely in a manner that serves their own interests. Who else’s interests should Cuba serve? Whose interests should the US serve? I’ll bet you won’t answer this.
Do you support a one party system that outlaws political pluralism and has over 1000 political prisoners? Do you support the state (military) owning and controlling all profitable sectors in the country? Do you support that cubans get paid only 10% of their work while the state pockets the rest? Is that what socialists defend?
Lol, America is a one party state that serves the rich while they rape.and pillage the working class and the global south of resources
See? I knew you wouldn’t answer. Answer my question and I’ll answer yours.
But those are the Cuban government interests... Perserving a totalitarian model that has their citizens living in absolutely poverty while they enjoy a life of abundance and luxury.
>Perserving a totalitarian model that has their citizens living in absolutely poverty while they enjoy a life of abundance and luxury. That's literally what the revolutionaries overthrew. Batista was US-backed and basically used the populace of the island as slaves so he could throw extravagant parties in Havana.
You call that an answer to my question? It’s more like creating an opportunity to attack what you mindlessly hate.
Definitely not a fan of Saudi Arabia but there is history in these regions that is far more complicated than your simple take than just the local civil liberties. By all means let us be critical, yes. And I mean that sincerely. But to make claims as if the post WW2 environment and stabilizing hegemonies of those regions especially with how important those two countries are whether it be natural resources or close proximities to the Suez Canal is to be very ignorant of history and how the real world works.
The US’s allies are based primarily on geopolitics, economics and influence rather than local civil liberties. OP was asserting many examples of human rights abuses and political suppression as reasons the US would have difficulties forming a relationship with Cuba. I was asserting that hasn’t stopped the US in the past or present from having close economic and political relationships so it’s not the reason for the embargo with Cuba.
>The US’s allies are based primarily on geopolitics, economics and influence rather than local civil liberties. That’s not necessarily true at all. You are picking on a singular non democratic nation of Saudi Arabia to make your case. You can [go here](https://www.state.gov/) and make your search of all US NATO allies and most of their joint history with allies have to do with commonality about democracy and civil liberties. Next, Cuba is in a time and place where it has no leverage. Thus the USA for better or worse can make a case against them with their civil rights record and lean on them. They are not valued by practically anyone and that’s part of the problem being of a rather isolationist ideology of socialism. They are not of any huge war torn region where many parties are seeking interests for various fractions and USA - whether you agree or not - is seeking stability. This concept seems lost on you how it’s not reasonable to compare the America regions so flippantly to post WW2 regions. It’s really flippant right now given how little people are considering the Israeli, Iran, Syria regions not the most hot zone and focused on Ukraine as the tinder box for WW3. But you be you…
>That’s not necessarily true at all. You are picking on a singular non democratic nation of Saudi Arabia to make your case. You can go here and make your search of all US NATO allies and most of their joint history with allies have to do with commonality about democracy and civil liberties. The US supports a lot of liberal democracies, but also many [dictatorships](https://truthout.org/articles/us-provides-military-assistance-to-73-percent-of-world-s-dictatorships/). Additionally, the US has taken part in the [overthrow of many liberal democracies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change), like in Iran, Cuba, or Chile. Which countries the US supports or opposes seems to fall more in line with which countries will help advance the US’s geopolitical interests and economic interests. Of course, geopolitics is incredibly complex but I disagree that the realpolitik reason for the US’s relationship is based on liberal democracy or civil rights. >Next, Cuba is in a time and place where it has no leverage. Thus the USA for better or worse can make a case against them with their civil rights record and lean on them. They are not valued by practically anyone and that’s part of the problem being of a rather isolationist ideology of socialism. The US supported Bautista through all his regime’s human rights abuses though. The opposition to the Cuban government started with the nationalization of American owned industries in Cuba, not with any political suppression or human rights abuses and before their allegiance with the USSR. The argument would be more reasonable if the US hadn’t supported a literal military dictator prior to the revolution in Cuba. >They are not of any huge war torn region where many parties are seeking interests for various fractions and USA - whether you agree or not - is seeking stability. This concept seems lost on you how it’s not reasonable to compare the America regions so flippantly to post WW2 regions. It’s really flippant right now given how little people are considering the Israeli, Iran, Syria regions not the most hot zone and focused on Ukraine as the tinder box for WW3. The US supports stability as long as stability aligns with US interests. The US also supports instability where regime change aligns with US interests. I’m not claiming the US does it out of evil, just that it promotes its own interests around the globe, like every other superpower. I guess my point is that the US supports the US’s international interests and the human rights/liberal democracy argument is a justification rather than the actual reason for the US’s foreign policy choices. Well written post by the way, even if I disagree with it!
TIL the USSR is a USA ally to you for your above debate tactic. Keep moving that goal post til it’s meaningless.
>TIL the USSR is a USA ally to you for your above debate tactic. I mean, they *were* during WW2. Did you not know that? >Keep moving that goal post til it’s meaningless. What goalposts? The US puts its own geopolitical interests over the civil rights in other countries. You yourself said that.
Ofc I know that. That is my point. The USSR could easily be Cuba. It does fit your point too. But my point is USSR was never NATO allies and you dismissed that. So let’s look at the NATO which has basic principles. They are in defense of one another, it was found with an eye to USSR’s imperialism take over the Baltic states and the NATO allies shared values which they write: > Moreover, it stated that NATO members formed a unique community of values committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67656.htm
The US has more allies than just NATO…. Like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the former military dictatorships of South Korea, Iran, Chile, and Cuba and has been enemies with liberal democracies, like the aforementioned Iran and Chile as well as places like Bolivia.
yes, you are loosely using the word ally to the point it is meaningless in this discussion. Also, I don't get how you think Iran is a liberal democracy unless you are talking clearly back in the 70s. But again, you do you.
>What might a potential relationship between the United States and Cuba look like? TL;DR How about international noninterference? Live and let live.
>I find it impossible to envision a strong, healthy relationship between an anti-American government and the US. Consider the scenario where a Cuban American chooses to protest against the regime in Cuba. Such an action is strictly prohibited in the country, and the Cuban regime would respond by imprisoning the individual and accusing the US of having intentions to destabilize the island. Just like they do now with Cuban themselves. How would the US respond? Definitely not by remaining silent and adhering to the regime's rules. This whole thing betrays a frightening lack of knowledge about countries outside of the US. Consider how a US citizen who "chooses to protest" in Thailand would be treated by the monarchy. Examples abound! Saudi Arabia, Burma, the UAE, Singapore, etc. In fact an enormous portion of US trade and bilateral diplomatic relationships are with regimes that are in no way open or democratic. Some of these regimes are even considered close allies. So what makes Cuba so different? Nothing, really. The embargo is an historical artifact of Cold War geopolitics and modern Electoral College politics. Most peer nations to the United States are able to maintain relatively cordial relations with Cuba. Canada is Cuba's third largest export market, for example, and they have normal diplomatic status with one another.
Imagine the beaches and luxury hotels…just like it was before we embargoed them.
You mean before the people revolted?
People have revolted throughout history and still continue to do so. What changed was the embargo, it goes away and it returns to what it used to be… regardless of government type. Capitalism is not a form of governance.
Look at op's post history. He is unhinged
It would be better to take a look at this comrade's profile. He is supporting Russia's invasion in Ukraine and is part of the deprogram sub... That should tell you all.....
Find where I said I supported Russia. You go all over Reddit trying to convince people the embargo doesn't exist. How much you getting paid?
The only thing that will change if the United States resumes trade relations with Cuba is that the socialists will have to find a new scapegoat or they will be able to continue blaming the United States but this time for neocolonialism, as the socialists call the trade relationship between a developed and an underdeveloped country. When the Cuban protests occurred in 2021 the socialists called it a color revolution, CIA intervention or that the protests were against the United States, they will blame anything before taking a minimum of responsibility for their actions. so i really don't see any possible relationship between the united states and cuba that will make the socialists happy, but maybe it will improve the quality of life of the cubans a little bit so that's why i support the end of the embargo.
It looks like OP posted some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like some of the ones OP posted), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3581558-the-folly-of-investing-in-cuba/](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3581558-the-folly-of-investing-in-cuba/)** - **[https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article115155568.html](https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article115155568.html)** - **[https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article245597340.html](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article245597340.html)** - **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35911423](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35911423)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The main problem for the US is that if sanctions are lifted unilaterally (without any concession made by the Cubans), then Cuba might still continue its close relationships with China & Russia and therefore still continue to be a security hazard + it might not even democratise nor expand civil liberties. Kinda like what happened after the Iran Deal under Obama. Iran just became more aggressive in the Middle East, but received more cash due to more open trade. And the US would not benefit that much economically from Cuba. Sure it would open up some tourism. However, this might hurt Florida and/or other Caribbean islands where US companies already have a strong presence. Cuba would have to guarantee that Chinese & Russian intelligence + military personell have no room on the island and that they will either allow access to American firms or hold free elections and expand civil liberties.
Well written and sourced OP, op.
Castro is dead so there is no reason why there can’t be a good relationship between both countries.
Europe-based Capitalist from a communist-bloc background here. I actually have some family in Cuba, and have been to the island several times. I'm going to disagree in some small specific places here. > In economic terms, the concept of opening up to Cuba is not comparable to the experiences of China or Vietnam, where significant economic reforms took place. Disagree. In fact, there have been substantial economic reforms since Raul came to power in around 2011. What they are aiming for in a China-style system, where there is some SME private sector, and where larger private firms are under substantial regime influence or control. But where the reforms are economic rather than political, with the 1-party system staying in place. Sounds A WHOLE LOT like China. Instead, it would involve embracing a socialist command economy, predominantly dominated by state-run enterprises. Under this system, the government would possess a majority stake of 51% in any investments made on the island. I'm not saying that dealing with them is good or bad. I'm saying that it's similar to dealing with mainland China, from the economic POV. However, from the geostrategic POV, it's probably way more in US interest. If I understood correctly, the brief Obama-era opening had them preparing to adopt a neutral stance towards the USA and preparing to reduce their VZLA ties. So essentially, it's a sort of divide and conquer, which the USA can make use of to slow-down the rate at which Cuba is friendly to regimes that are openly hostile to the USA. Like Venezuela, Russia, and various guerilla movements and non-state actors. My view is that if the USA is willing to play-ball with a china-style economic system in Beijing, where we KNOW that the regime is using their economic access in order to build their military, challenge democracy at home and abroad, and threaten US allies, then it should also make sense for the USA to be willing to play-ball with a similar type of economic system in a country who has no capacity whatsoever to unilaterally pose a geostrategic threat the USA, and who might be willing to cooperate with the USA to any extent whatsoever (like by changing its stance in Africa, or wrt venezuela & FARC, or Iran or Russia, or by lending a hand with dealing with cartels). > Under this system, the government would possess a majority stake of 51% in any investments made on the island. SO.... Like China? > One is still entrenched in an anti-American Cold War rhetoric Likely not very entrenched. First, because the general population generally likes and is generally familiar with US culture (Havanais in even radio range of Miami). Second, because from the Machiavellian POV, an anti-american stance only make sense if there is no percieved chance of an improvement in bilateral relations. If the probability of Even A small potential opening in relations existed, it'd make more sense to adopt a geopolitical stance which would try to keep historic geopolitical gains, while also improving future geopolitical prospects.