neverfail wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:31 pm
cassowary wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:44 pm
neverfail wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:31 pm
cassowary wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:50 am
Don't you find it hypocritical for a Socialist like Castro to redistribute wealth to himself?
No Cassowary: beasuse Fidel Castro was a classic revolutionary socialist; in thrall to Marx's thesis of the working poor and oppressed rising up to take that which was/is rightfully theirs.
Classic revolutionary socialism has absolutely nothing to do with then orderly redistribution of wealth and everything to do with the seizure of the means of production: interpreted by some as the seizure of all private property.
There is nothing I can see in their creed to say that a socialist cannot be wealthy.
My understanding is that Socialism is about taking from the rich and giving the seized assets to the poor. In the case of Castro, it means the state will own the assets on behalf of the people who were mostly poor. Thus everybody has an equal share of the country’s wealth. That’s the theory of Socialism.
But Castro has redistributed much of the properties for his family which is against his professed aims. An entrepreneur, like my Grandfather, makes no bones about wanting to provide for his family and perhaps even grow rich. He does not pretend to be doing his work for the poor unlike a Socialist like Castro or Fatty Kim or Chavez or Mugabe.
But along the way, he provided jobs for others and created goods and services that enriched society. Castro claimed to be helping the people by seizing assets belonging to the rich and redistributing to the people. But along the way, he impoverished his people and redistributed much of his country’s wealth to his family.
You still miss the point Cassowary.
When did Castro ever claim that his (or his movement's) mission was to help the poor? I do not even recall this as a consideration in any of the classic Marxist literature that I have ever read.
Marx promised nothing! He merely prophesied that which he believed was due to come. In our time he probably would have been described as a futurologist
Fidel Castro appears to have been very much like Marx in his thinking that way. His ambition was to move his native Cuba forward in the next stage in the evolution of human civilisation - regardless of the cost to others.
To be on the right side of history
that way appealed to the egoistic pride of many highly intelligent men throughout the course of the 20th century (and even earlier). It seems to have been the enticement of the devil for a generation of intellectuals who had lost faith in all else.
The thing that with hindsight strikes me (and now allalls me) about Marx along with his latter-day true believers is this: Marx, having studied the course of the French revolution would have understood that revolutionary upheavals are usually nasty, violent affairs in which people are killed. Yet Marx makes no acknowledgement of the great human cost and seems to have been oblivious to it. So was Lenin. That were all men who considered that the end justifies the means.
Sorry Cass. I can only conclude that as far as it pertains to militant, revolutionary socialism; your view of socialism is dead wrong.
You may be closer to the mark re. the socialist heresy of Fabian (or British Labour Party style) socialism; but that bears about as much resemblance to classic Marxist socialism as does Wesleyism does to Russian Orthodox Christianity. Both may pay homage to the Holy Trinity but apart from that they have virtually nothing in common.
Castro was a Socialist. Implicit is that they follow Marx's dictum - "To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability." This implies a redistribution of wealth. Those with more ebility will earn more money than those with less ability. So a Society aiming for this is really aiming for equality.
This means that the intention of Marx and his followers is to raise the income of the poor.
Castro failed to achieve this and is the case of all nations. There is a top 1% in Socialist countries comprising of those in power. Thus I find it ironical that people who claim to be following Socialism always end up to be rich.
The capitalist does not make such claims. A businessman makes no bones that he wants to make money for himself. At the least, he hopes to support his family and himself - not an ignoble objective. At best, he hopes to get rich. But in the process, he helps society. He needs to employ workers and pay them. So they benefit too. To be able to earn a living and pay his workers, he has to deliver a product or service to the market. Facing competition, he has to make sure that his product is good or nobody will buy. So he benefits more people.
On the other hand, Socialists in power claim to want to help the poor. But the practical result is that the people are impoverished while they grow rich. Just look at Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Rich Socialists like Mugabe and former Venezuelan treasurer, Alejandro Andrade
put their billions in capitalist countries like Singapore and the US.
In nutshell, a successful capitalist businessman and a successful Socialist politician both end up rich - the top 1%. The difference is that the entrepreneur never makes a claim of helping others but ended up doing so by creating jobs and giving the consumers good products or services while a successful Socialist political leader like Castro, Chavez or Mugabe all ended up impoverishing their people.