Dictators Are Not Communists

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPoliticsSocial Issues

Not that Communism is the best system to have as the primary economic engine, but it’s important to note that no economic system exists in a vacuum. So when someone points to the failures of a particular country’s economy as “proof their system does not work,” it seems a bit misguided; especially when said country is in actuality a dictatorship.

When the dictators are doing right by the people, the country flourishes. When they are making bad decisions for their people, nothing can stop them and the country suffers. When the people attempt to rebel, they are squashed, imprisoned, executed.

Much of Cuba’s current economic crisis is being blamed on the US Trade Embargo. This obviously factors into the country’s current shortage of food and medical supplies, but at the heart of Cuba’s current misfortune is a government that values power more than its people.

A centralized economy (like a dictatorship) can function if it is making the right choices for its citizens. However, considering how susceptible a government-run economy is to corruption and favoritism, decisions aren’t always made in the best interests of the entire country. A free market is meant to mitigate the poor judgment of political leaders: the people know best what and who is needed so they sort out jobs, resources, supply, and demand on their own.

Vietnam found a way to maintain a Communist government, but embrace some free market enterprise in the mid 80s. It’s reported 30,000+ private businesses were created since then, their economy has flourished, and relations with the US started to normalize in the 90s.

So, where Vietnam succeeded, Cuba seems to be failing. The Castros have “good intentions” for their… people (is “subjects” too cynical?). But when they needed the foresight to understand how a global pandemic would damage their economy and possibly require some major changes, they maintained their status quo. This is why their people are protesting; they have no power to demand accountability from their government (dictators). They can’t vote to change their system. They can’t do anything except literally live and die by the whims of their leaders.

And so maybe Communism isn’t the enemy. Maybe trying to exist outside of the influence of Multi-National Corporations isn’t the enemy. Perhaps Malignant Narcissism is the enemy. Anyone that is not accountable to anyone and believes themselves to be infallible, that person is dangerous and whether they are the leader of a Communist Country, or the President of the United States, they can do serious damage to a multitude of people.

The economic system of the country matters not if the leader is self serving and uses their political position to consolidate power, destroy enemies, and enrich themselves and their allies. As more and more information comes to light, it seems this was happening in the very Capitalist United States of America under the Trump regime.

Now, perhaps Capitalism is the system least susceptible to corruption and so Trump is an anomaly, but to view the U.S. as purely Capitalist is a misconception.

Here’s why: 

-A large amount of our manufacturing and debt come from China (a Communist country). This means we are at least in that regard participating in a Communist system to some extent – we are x percent Communist.

-The entire concept of Insurance is communist in nature: “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.”

-Any tax-funded job is technically Socialism (army, police, fire, infrastructure, social work, etc.).

The point is: We should be very specific about what is working and what is not so we can create the best situation for everyone.

It is truly malignant narcissism in leadership that ruins countries and economies (as well as families and businesses).

The Free Market has proven to be an incredible mechanism when not being abused or corrupted. Communist and Socialist mechanisms can be implemented efficiently when overseen by Democratic institutions.

Dictatorships are never the best system as they prevent accountability and change for the better. Cuba’s current protests are happening for that reason.

Trump’s “New” Cuba Policy

by with No Comment Uncategorized

During a speech given in Miami’s Little Havana” on Friday, June 16th, 2017, President Donald Trump criticized his predecessor’s Cuba policy, saying it allowed the Castro regime to benefit from increased tourism. “Effectively immediately,” Trump said, “I am canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba.”

Technically, this is not the case. The real policy changes Trump is going to implement are less significant than he led everyone to believe they would be. Many of the Obama administration’s policy will remain in place. Under the new policy – Americans will no longer have the ability to plan their own private, individual “educational” trips to Cuba, and those who go as part of authorized educational group tours will be subject to stricter rules and guidelines. American companies and citizens will also be banned from doing business with companies controlled by the Cuban military or its intelligence or security services. But the relaxed rules that made it easier for US companies to do business in Cuba will stay in place. Cruises and direct flights between the US and Cuba will still be allowed, and Cuban Americans will still be able to travel freely to the island and send money to relatives there.  

These actions come at an inopportune time because, towards the end of his tenure, President Obama directed his attention on the thawing of relations between the two cold war enemies. Using his executive authority, Obama relaxed some of the trade and travel restrictions in the longstanding US economic embargo on the Cuban nation. In July 2016 – The U.S. officially restored diplomatic relations with Cuba and reopened its embassy in Havana. All of which makes Trump new initiative frustrating for growing businesses in Cuba, and travelers alike. In November, then-president-elect Trump tweeted that he would “terminate” the deal unless Cuba agreed to “make a better” one, but instead of terminating the deal, it seems that Trump is content with leaving most of the important policies in place.

So why do all this?

The main reason Trump cites for opposing the Obama Administration’s deal is that it didn’t go far enough in the right direction — Trump has so far shown little commitment to promoting such values elsewhere, especially if doing so comes at the expense of US economic interests. Part of the reason Trump’s new policy doesn’t go far enough as his rhetoric suggests is that it has to do with US economic interests. Consider the direct flights between the US and Cuba, as John Kavulich, the president of the US-Cuba trade and economic council mentioned back in November 2016. The administration would face major opposition, which would include lawsuits from the airline industry if Trump were to do terminate the deal. Why, because airlines have already made large financial investments in “good faith” based on the new regulations from the Obama administration.  And that’s just the airlines! A number of tourism and travel companies such as Airbnb, Carnival Cruise Line, and Starwood Hotels have also taken advantage of the Obama administration’s relaxed restrictions to expand into Cuba, hoping to cash in on what will become a hot new tourist haven. Airbnb alone (Cuba to Trump: US in no ‘condition to lecture us’ on human rights), over the past two years has been able to bring 40 million dollars back to the Cuban people who have rented out their homes for travelers.

Hilariously, this somewhat tougher stance with Cuba won’t get Trump the response he’s looking for. After all, 50 years of tough US policies toward Cuba failed to achieve the desired political, social, and economic reforms inside the island nation. The idea of what Trump wants and desires are totally out of par with what Americans want and desire. The world is continually evolving and changing, which makes decisions such as this all the more frustrating because of the impact it has on our countries relationships with our neighbors as well as with our ability to travel freely and learn from other cultures.