ForumGarden

High Threshold;1473124 wrote: I was referring specifically to FP's praise of American (capitalist) “cars in those days with no praise of Cuban (Communist) ingenuity and mechanical genius to keep those cars of the 50's still purring like kittens.


I have seen the mechanical marvels. "Purring like kittens" may be a bit of an exaggeration.



When I was there, it was more like "rattle and clunk" for the most part.

Though, there were some that had been well maintained. Many after-market parts can be purchased from a company in Mexico.



High Threshold;1473124 wrote: Pardon me? I am from a traditionally forward stepping Socialist-Democratic nation. What do you think? I'm guessing I know the difference between the two ..... better than most.


Yeah, I think it is mostly Americans that can't tell the difference.

LarsMac;1473136 wrote: I have seen the mechanical marvels. "Purring like kittens" may be a bit of an exaggeration.



When I was there, it was more like "rattle and clunk" for the most part.

Though, there were some that had been well maintained. Many after-market parts can be purchased from a company in Mexico.
Converted to diesel are they? :wah:





LarsMac;1473136 wrote: Yeah, I think it is mostly Americans that can't tell the difference.
I'm pleased we got that cleared up.

Neither was intended to be inferred. Nor was it specifically in praise of American machanical ingenuity - more a general statement that things back then were built to last (not just cars, and not just American), whereas these days the market is controlled by Planned Obsolescence (an American invention) which specifically makes things with the intention of their having a very limited lifetime so as to further the sales of replacements.

Communism doesn't work in practice. Socialism does.

FourPart;1473147 wrote: Neither was intended to be inferred. Nor was it specifically in praise of American machanical ingenuity - more a general statement that things back then were built to last (not just cars, and not just American), whereas these days the market is controlled by Planned Obsolescence (an American invention) which specifically makes things with the intention of their having a very limited lifetime so as to further the sales of replacements.
I agree with you there. However, there are 2 points that need being said. One is that the use of plastic, or some derivative of glass fibre, is much safer as it absorbs impact during a crash, rather than bounce the passengers into jelly as the old school-built motorcars did. Good job! Second, Germany were producing long-lasting light bulbs before WW II (I believe it was) but sold them at two different prices, ostensibly by two different life-qualities .... but in actual fact identical but for a mechanism in the cheaper-priced one that self-destructed before its “natural life"! So .... we've been queued up at the knacker's for quite some time and so I'm not sure that Planned Obsolescence is truely an American invention at all.

FourPart;1473147 wrote: Communism doesn't work in practice. Socialism does.
I'd have to have a debate on that before I could be persuaded to agree, but I'm not in the mood for debate at the moment.

High Threshold;1473154 wrote: Second, Germany were producing long-lasting light bulbs before WW II (I believe it was) but sold them at two different prices, ostensibly by two different life-qualities .... but in actual fact identical but for a mechanism in the cheaper-priced one that self-destructed before its “natural life"! So .... we've been queued up at the knacker's for quite some time and so I'm not sure that Planned Obsolescence is truely an American invention at all.


Oh, I say, let's not be beastly to the Germans. I'd take The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy - IEEE Spectrum as authoritative, and you'll notice General Electric at the inaugural meeting.

FourPart;1473147 wrote: Neither was intended to be inferred. Nor was it specifically in praise of American machanical ingenuity - more a general statement that things back then were built to last (not just cars, and not just American), whereas these days the market is controlled by Planned Obsolescence (an American invention) which specifically makes things with the intention of their having a very limited lifetime so as to further the sales of replacements.

Communism doesn't work in practice. Socialism does.


Communism can work, in practice. but not on such a scale as most nations could muster.

It has been proven to work in small communities all over the world.

spot;1473159 wrote: Oh, I say, let's not be beastly to the Germans. I'd take The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy - IEEE Spectrum as authoritative, and you'll notice General Electric at the inaugural meeting.


Now that was sumpin' I dint already know! Ya see! That's what I git fur bleevin the proper gander. Damn them there Mercans! I shoulda know'd better n trust them savages an ioda.

LarsMac;1473182 wrote: Communism can work, in practice. but not on such a scale as most nations could muster.

It has been proven to work in small communities all over the world.
That's only in regions where 100% of the community wish it, such as with Kibbutz'es (is that the correct plural term?). Once the innate human yearning for power & wealth kick in, that's Communism out of the window.

FourPart;1473196 wrote: That's only in regions where 100% of the community wish it, such as with Kibbutz'es (is that the correct plural term?). Once the innate human yearning for power & wealth kick in, that's Communism out of the window.


Plural of Kibbutz is "Kibbutzim" ... the same that applies to "Cherubim".

FourPart;1473196 wrote: That's only in regions where 100% of the community wish it, such as with Kibbutz'es (is that the correct plural term?). Once the innate human yearning for power & wealth kick in, that's Communism out of the window.


WEll, yes, the only way such an organization really works is with 100% buy-in from the members of the community. That is really the only way any economic system can truly work for an extended period of time.

posted by high threshold

Pardon me? I am from a traditionally forward stepping Socialist-Democratic nation. What do you think? I'm guessing I know the difference between the two ..... better than most.


My apologies I forgot you were swedish. The comment was a bit misdirected - in my defence you get so used to posters from the other side of the pond using the words as if they are one and the same and as if it is an insult to call someone a socialist - mind you I know a few on this side that don't know what socialism is or was sadly they are mainly in the labour party. Then tell you how they support the constitution but have no time for liberal values, we are indeed divided by a common language.

Communism won't work for very long as an ideology because of human nature just as any of the main religions will never work sooner or later they start arguing about who has the right interpretation anyione dissenting is like of the faithful questioning the creed.

gmc;1473220 wrote: My apologies I forgot you were swedish. The comment was a bit misdirected - in my defence you get so used to posters from the other side of the pond using the words as if they are one and the same and as if it is an insult to call someone a socialist - mind you I know a few on this side that don't know what socialism is or was sadly they are mainly in the labour party. Then tell you how they support the constitution but have no time for liberal values, we are indeed divided by a common language.


No worries, mate. I share your observation.

gmc;1473220 wrote: Communism won't work for very long as an ideology because of human nature ...


I can't agree with that, not completely anyway. “Human nature can be used as evidence against, well ¦. anything at all.

gmc;1473220 wrote: ... just as any of the main religions will never work sooner or later they start arguing about who has the right interpretation anyione dissenting is like of the faithful questioning the creed.


Good point, but I'm still holding out hope. I've been to every Communist nation in Europe (but for BY) either during the Soviet era and/or afterwards. My wife is from the eastern half of CS, by the way. I admit to being naïve, but I do have some degree of experience on the subject - albeit non-academic – and my biggest criticism against Communism is “corruption and “Stalin. Otherwise, I think it might work rather well. I am still a Socialist-Democrat, mind, but ever since the murder of Olaf Palme ours is slipping away from us – regardless the lip sync - and I find myself looking further and further left for answers to the problem. Communism (as we knew it) desperately needed reform. No doubt about it. Yes. But you seem to have a good understanding for the subject so let me ask you your opinion of Alexander Dubcek. Communist? Socialist? Had Breznjev kept his nose out, what might have been? And then there was Mikael Gorbatjov.

I've always found it comical that Cuba's primary resource is its sugar based economy. Does this make it a Cuba Sugar?

Are you talking about a Cupa Sugar? I'm a bit short ... may I borrow one?

I think it would be great for Castro to live to see the day

New photos of Fidel Castro appear on Cuban media - CNN.com

along-for-the-ride;1472886 wrote: We've mended fences with Japan and Germany. Why not Cuba?


Not to mention the Cuba's $6B debt to Americans for seized properties

All along, there is no great benefit t for us.

tude dog;1473494 wrote: Not to mention the Cuba's $6B debt to Americans for seized properties

All along, there is no great benefit t for us.


That's not called seizure. That was property returned to its rightful owner.

High Threshold;1473495 wrote: That's not called seizure. That was property returned to its rightful owner.


Really?

tude dog;1473496 wrote: Really?


You ask "really?" as though it's a trap and you are well-prepared to prove me wrong. Is that the case?

What about all the property & land seized from the Native Americans?

FourPart;1473546 wrote: What about all the property & land seized from the Native Americans?


Same as all the native lands in all the countries and all the world for all time. The conquerors always take the land. America is always getting grief for taking native American lands but we never hear of the lands the British, French, and Spanish that took from native Americans. It didn't just start in 1776. Although I agree native Americans were treated like crap by the US government.

FourPart;1473546 wrote: What about all the property & land seized from the Native Americans?


That's the crux, ain't it. If you accept that “America took the land from the Indians (in the same way that the Boers took the land from the Africans and the English took Australia from the Aboriginals) and built “a nation from it and therefore is a fair deal ¦. then how can the same people say that the Cubans played foul by taking their nation back from those who acquired it by corrupt conquest? That's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

The difference is that nearly all of the lands taken by the British during the days of Empire has been given back. The Native Indians are still being treated like Crap, with the generosity of herding them into little 'Reservations', like keeping taking animals from their natural environment in the wild & putting them into a Safari Park.

FourPart;1473574 wrote: The difference is that nearly all of the lands taken by the British during the days of Empire has been given back. The Native Indians are still being treated like Crap, with the generosity of herding them into little 'Reservations', like keeping taking animals from their natural environment in the wild & putting them into a Safari Park.


Is this the motivated opinion of a man supporting the colonization of the Indian sub-continent and/or a memorandum to the Americans that their own destruction of the indigenous population was "wrong" ..... while yours was "right"?

High Threshold;1473580 wrote: Is this the motivated opinion of a man supporting the colonization of the Indian sub-continent and/or a memorandum to the Americans that their own destruction of the indigenous population was "wrong" ..... while yours was "right"?
Who said I supported it? I also said that most of those colonised countries had been given back. Come to that, I not so sure if there's any that haven't.

FourPart;1473581 wrote: Who said I supported it?


No one. It was a question. I even gave you a choice.



FourPart;1473581 wrote: I also said that most of those colonised countries had been given back. Come to that, I not so sure if there's any that haven't.


Well, Gibraltar and the Falklands for starters.

High Threshold;1473585 wrote: No one. It was a question. I even gave you a choice.





Well, Gibraltar and the Falklands for starters.


All you need to do is find some indigenous people to whom you can give them back.

Matter of fact, why not find some indigenous people to give the British isles back to. Or perhaps even Europe.

About the only places that still have indigenous people, if you really look back far enough, are the American continents, and Oz.

I suppose your neighbors to the north might be able to give the Nordic lands back to the Samis.

As for Cuba, the land there was long ago taken from the indigenous people by the Spaniels, who all but wiped out whoever lived their before they came along.

The land the Castros took, they took from the corporate raiders, who took it from the old Spanish families.

The way I see it, Cuba belongs to the people who live there, now.

Possession is 9/10 of the law, right?

LarsMac;1473596 wrote: All you need to do is find some indigenous people to whom you can give them back.

Matter of fact, why not find some indigenous people to give the British isles back to. Or perhaps even Europe.

About the only places that still have indigenous people, if you really look back far enough, are the American continents, and Oz.

I suppose your neighbors to the north might be able to give the Nordic lands back to the Samis.

As for Cuba, the land there was long ago taken from the indigenous people by the Spaniels, who all but wiped out whoever lived their before they came along.

The land the Castros took, they took from the corporate raiders, who took it from the old Spanish families.

The way I see it, Cuba belongs to the people who live there, now.

Possession is 9/10 of the law, right?


So Hawaii ought to belong to Japan (Pearl harbour anyway) and New York belongs to Al Quaida. Cuba belongs to the Cubans, even Guantanamo. Afghanistan belongs to the Afghanis, not the Americans. Irak belongs to the Irakis ¦. again goodbye Americans. The Panama canal belongs to the Panamanians, bugger off Americans. Grenada belongs to the Grenadians ¦. not the U.S. South Korean belongs to the Koreans ¦. Yankee Go Home.

High Threshold;1473604 wrote: So Hawaii ought to belong to Japan (Pearl harbour anyway) and New York belongs to Al Quaida. Cuba belongs to the Cubans, even Guantanamo. Afghanistan belongs to the Afghanis, not the Americans. Irak belongs to the Irakis ¦. again goodbye Americans. The Panama canal belongs to the Panamanians, bugger off Americans. Grenada belongs to the Grenadians ¦. not the U.S. South Korean belongs to the Koreans ¦. Yankee Go Home.


You've been in the Schnapps again, haven't you?

LarsMac;1473608 wrote: You've been in the Schnapps again, haven't you?


:wah: Naw. Only during kräftskiva!

High Threshold;1473585 wrote: Well, Gibraltar and the Falklands for starters.
Neither of which were previously occupied, as such, by removing indigenous native inhabitants. The Falklands was simply occupied by various settlers, while Gibralter was previously occupied by the Spanish & ceded to the British in 1713:

The treaty of 1713 stipulated that in the event of any change in sovereignty, Spain would have first claim to the territory.[4] With the treaty, Her Britannic Majesty promised the Catholic King of Spain that no Jews or Moors would be permitted to live in Gibraltar. However, Gibraltar was still open to commerce with Moors, and their ships would be permitted entry into the port. Furthermore, Roman Catholics would be granted the right to exercise their religion.
(History of nationality in Gibraltar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I wonder if the clause about the Jews & Moors is still valid. If the treaty is still in place, then I suppose it must be.

FourPart;1473574 wrote: The difference is that nearly all of the lands taken by the British during the days of Empire has been given back. The Native Indians are still being treated like Crap, with the generosity of herding them into little 'Reservations', like keeping taking animals from their natural environment in the wild & putting them into a Safari Park.


You do realize that they can leave the reservations and live wherever they please. The reservations are there for them if they choose to live in them. I realize that they had no choice in the 1800's but now it's totally up to them. We haven't herded them for awhile.

And I'm sure they must be very grateful. To have their land stolen from them & then given little patches of their own & granted the privilege of leaving those patches to live in the lands that are occupied by those that stole them.

The history of the world is about people coming in and taking the land away from the inhabitants and making it their own.

It's been going on since our ancestors all but wiped out the Neanderthals

FourPart;1473657 wrote: And I'm sure they must be very grateful. To have their land stolen from them & then given little patches of their own & granted the privilege of leaving those patches to live in the lands that are occupied by those that stole them.


You must not have heard about their casino's.

FourPart;1473657 wrote: And I'm sure they must be very grateful. To have their land stolen from them & then given little patches of their own & granted the privilege of leaving those patches to live in the lands that are occupied by those that stole them.


Besides, they never considered it THEIR land. They considered it THE land. We introduced ownership of land to them.