I think that Cuba is simply the "Token Communist" for the US defense dept. They want to keep it Communist because nothing makes American tax payers so willing to contribute to its arsenal as the thought that there are Commies living less than 228 miles off the US border, OMG!!!111oneone, etc. I mean, Cuba is utterly harmless. The US even stores its considered-most-dangerous terrorist suspects there, ferchrissakes! If the US really wanted to overthrow the Commie government, all it would have to do is give it "Normal Trade Relations" (NTR) status (formerly known as Most Favored-Nation status) like they did China. Watch the American tourist dollars flow in, watch Communist ideals crumble in the face of healthy business opportunity. Within 10 years tops Havanna would be more American than Miami. At present, because of the Iraq war alone, American tax payers look like having to bear an additional tax burden of $1205,-- per family. Perhaps the government felt that they need a morale booster.
There's another element of this I think you're missing, Nexxo, though those are valid points. The ex-pat Cuban community in Florida is another of the few remaining groups that supports Bush and I think this is at least partly throwing them a bone. They're the ones who have kittens every time the suggestion of normalized relations with Cuba comes up. I think, though i've been wrong before, that most of America understands that Cuba is no threat to anyone and that thawing relations is in everyone's best interests, but when has the administration ever let the views of the people they alledgely represent steer their actions?
Well yes, there is that; although this is only a relatively small community (from a state-wide perspective), it is also generally a wealthy and influential one. It is also one that endorses the convervative religious values that inform Bush' political platform (interestingly, many illegal South American emigrants do too, and ironically Bush would find a lot of political support there).
I'm still trying to understand the rationale for the fear of communism. It does no more to prevent progress than our capitalist patent-state, and offers more theoretical equality than anything we've ever been able to offer. Just something left over from before my time I suppose, but even back then it seemed a bit illogical. Like you said, Nexxo, Cuba is quite harmless, and is even a fairly popular vacation spot for those who live near the Canadian border. Of course, with how easily Castro took power, I don't think it could be that hard to do something else incredibly stupid and pointless.
A lot of it is political history. At its birth in the 1900's, Communism was a threat to the status quo of the wealthy, priviliged classes who generally held all political and economical power. Those crazy commies were talking about the abolition of class, everybody being equal and deserving an equal share of the wealth and all that --it was a reaction against the political and economical inequality that was prevalent in the Western world. Traditionally, those in power were actually more worried about Communism than Fascism, because Fascism is quite comfy with class hierarchy, but Communism, in its true form, is not. In the 50's and 60's, Communism was just a marketing label, so to speak, for the totalitarian regimes that managed to work themselves into power through the disenchantment of people with their previous (usually capitalist) regimes. Now those were something to worry about. However people, as always, focussed on the name rather than the nature of the beast. Quite moderate, democratically elected governments have been sabotaged by Western powers because they professed Communist values, while totalitarian regimes that professed Capitalist values were left alone or even supported (e.g. Saddam Hussein). In the end, business is business, right? (note: this has not always been the policy: during President Carter, the US supported some Communist governments because they were democratically elected). Research shows that "real" Communism does not work in communities larger than about 150 people. After that you start losing an overview of who takes more out of the communal pool than they put in. Unless you have very strong social/psychological bonds with your tribe/community, personal self-interest and self-preservation will generally win out and spoil the party. Hence many tribal communities invest a massive ammount of effort in building a strong, cohesive sense of community which will make people forfeit their personal interests for those of the group as a whole: grooming, rituals, religion, culture, social events, in-group identity tokens, you name it. You see this particularly in Communist regimes also with their heavy explicit emphasis on group identity and breaking down of individuality and personal boundaries, community participation and cult-like father-figure heads of state (creating an illusion of all being "one big family"). Other totalitarian regimes may use a strong religious emphasis (e.g. Taliban) --whatever is culturally important to the people you try to control. However, in the end nothing beats personal incentive: what people want and what they are prepared to do to get it. Capitalism provides the closest fit to that.
In the end, no (or they did, but then took them back almost immediately). See Wikipedia: The Cuba Missile Crisis.
the problem with capitalism for me is that you have a comunity of 100, there is 1 person that holds 90% of the riches of that community and does nothing and pays no taxes and has friends in high places and there is 99 people that hold 10% of the riches of the community and normaly have a miserable life or die of starvation or die of desieses because they dont have money to go to the hospital or get health and work or give their money to the 1 person that controls 90% of the riches of the comunity. there is no chance any of the 99 people will ever get a peacefull and calm life.
The old "Mutually Assured Destruction" (aptly known as MAD) nuclear deterrent relied on both parties having time to shoot off lots of their missiles when the balloon went up. However, America sited some missile bases in Turkey, a country right on the Russian border, flight time just enough to kiss your ass goodbye. Consternation in Russia!!!111. Russia's countermove is to start building missile bases in Cuba, a short hop from US soil. Consternation in USA!!!111OMFG Offside Ref! Anyway, the military were over-ruled, intelligence prevailed, a deal was done. Cuban and Turkish bases both closed down, status quo restored, we're still here.
No, that's aristocracy. The thing with Communism is that it offers little personal incentive. Everybody shares and shares alike, so it does not really matter how hard you work: your share stays the same as that of others who may not have put in so much effort. This is all nice and altruistic if others simply cannot contribute more (due to old age and infirmity, illness or disability), but if they are just messing around, there is little incentive for you to work harder and pick up that slack --you're doing all the work but do not stand to profit from it much. On the other hand, if you slack around, you don't really pay the price --you still get your equal share. This is one of the reasons why Communist economies fail. There is no personal incentive to work harder. The upside of capitalism is that it offers really good incentive: everyone in principle gets to profit directly from their own labours, rather than having to share and share alike. The harder you work, the more you earn. If you slack, you and you alone pay the price. There seems a basic fairness to it. Of course, there is an unequal division of labour and reward, but the attractiveness of capitalism is that everyone, in principle, can get to the top --if they work hard enough. those who start further down have to work much harder, of course, and if you can't work you're stuffed. Those are the drawbacks of capitalism. The ideal system is to get a balance between the two. But that is a knife-edge of balancing necessary achievement incentives with a fair level of unconditional altruism.
