Cuba's healthcare system has benefitted e.g. vis a vis affordability, from capitalism and the profits that companies have made in other (primarily the American) markets, so it's an oversimplification to attribute all of those gains to Cuba's economic structure. Here's a link I've posted here before, from an article by an old friend of mine:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and......ber.html

"Moore takes some neglected 9/11 workers to Cuba, and an inhaler that cost them $100 in the U.S. costs 5 cents there. The problem is that [Cuba] get[s] cheap drugs only because they are free-riding off the massive profits made in the American market."

The central bankers love Socialism because that is when the government really goes to the bankers all the time to borrow more money for their big spending and building projects. The central bankers then get the government themselves to be the collection agencies through the IRS. That's really the key to Socialism. It’s business, not personal, to the piggy bankers. There are only a dozen interrelated royal banking families. The Rothschild’s own hundreds of NGO groups related to CO2 to control the action as CO2 will be the new money in effect - an energy based economy. The con works only if people have confidence men. The believers have confidence in the 97% men, right?

97% of Climate Scientists are Stockbrokers

Oh yes, that's MUCH clearer!

Here is your first quote:

"Transitional demands differ from calls for revolution (a maximum programme) in that they call for primarily economic demands that could be achieved under capitalism. So "Rule by workers' councils" would not be a transitional demand, as it would imply the overthrow of capitalism."

This states quite clearly that "transitional demands" are demands that can be achieved under capitalism and that if it CANNOT be achieved by capitalism, then it is NOT a "transitional demand". i.e. "Rule by workers" is NOT a transitional demand because it cannot be achieved under capitalism.

Of course in the 2nd part of the quote you then throw this out by claiming that "Transitional demands" are practically impossible for capitalism to deliver on.

But at least you're honest with your comment about Trotsky. That being that you really need to lie to the masses if you want to get your programme through.

Coincidentally, I got an email today from a friend with whom I'm in a sports simulation league. He's a former Cuban. He was talking about using a Cuban baseball stadium in the league. Here's an excerpt:

"I would love to have Estadio del Cerro, (Fidel changed the name to Estadio Latinoamericano, but the only thing he ever did right was die and even that he took too **** long) which is where the Sugar Kings played."


The best man at my wedding is 1/2-Cuban, and through him, I have a few other friends who are either from Cuban, or first-generation Cuban-Americans. I freely admit that my sample may be too small or biased, but that being said, in my experience, if there's one thing Cubans or former Cubans seem to have in common, it's their opinion of Castro and life under him in the homeland. He seems to be most popular among those who have never lived in Cuba.

Probably much like Hugo Chavez I would bet.

I was trying to think of that name and am so stupid I drew a blank for 10 minutes! Thank you sir. I was going to write that but my brain cramped up and I was too proud to use Google.

Yeah, Sean Penn loves him, but I don't think you're going to hear, "If ______ gets elected, I'm moving to Venezuela?" anytime soon.

If you're honestly looking to understand what the concept of a transitional demand is, I'll be glad to explain further. If it's just to score some imagined hectoring points, I'm not really interested. If you'd rather actually argue about ideas rather than definitions, that would probably be a lot more interesting.

But since I have time, I'll assume that you are asking again about the definition in good faith, so I'll try to lay out the meaning of a transitional demand again.

There are certain things that some people think that capitalism could/should provide in a society. Reasonable things (maybe not reasonable for you, but for many), like housing for all, a guaranteed minimum income, effective anti-trust laws, effective anti-surveillance laws, and so on. Some, while recognizing the need for such programs in a just society, think that it can be achieved through capitalism. But, in fact those things cannot.

However, it is only by people trying to achieve those things through capitalism that they learn the bitter lesson, that it simply isn't within the capacity of capitalism to achieve those ends. It's about which is more persuasive--demanding something that initially seems outlandish to people or demanding something which they initially see as reasonable but which nevertheless, the system can't deliver? That is the difference between a maximum program and a transitional demand.

So, if you want to convince someone to move to a different system, they need to be convinced first that their goals are not achievable under their present system. That's not a very controversial strategy; it just makes sense. In fact it can be applied in just the opposite way, and often is, and has been: for example, if you wanted to convince someone who lived, say in the Soviet Union to support capitalism, then the transitional demands on Stalinist-style socialism might be something like "food for all." Certainly a goal that any Stalinist might support. But that goal is bound to fail under a Stalinist-type system that centralizes agricultural production because a centralized system will be terribly sensitive to a few bad years of growing seasons. It's inevitable. It's a demand that structurally Stalinism cannot deliver on. It is when the Stalinist sees that the basic reasonable demand of "food for all" is not being met, that another system can start to be considered. "Freedom of expression" would be another such transitional demand, since in a so-called worker's state, most workers would expect their opinions to be heard, but Stalinism cannot structurally deliver on that.

So a "transitional demand" can be a useful strategy regardless of one's ideology.

Anyway, I hope that is clear now, because there are much more interesting questions to discuss beyond the definition.

For example, 1) Do you think that housing for all, healthcare for all, or a guaranteed minimum income are in fact theoretically achievable under capitalism or are they outside capitalism's scope? And I ask this without reference to whether you agree or disagree with these ideas. I'm just asking if they are theoretically possible under capitalism.

2) And then of course the next questions have to do with the support of the above demands themselves--are they in fact reasonable demands, is this what we should want for ourselves as a society, or not?

With socialism what one has is a captive market. i.e. One has a car plant in Russia and one funds a communist revolution on the understanding that one gets to keep one's car plant and all the other car plants there are closed so everybody in the USSR can only buy cars from one's people's car plant comrade.

Moreover, all the workers then must be happy in their work or else.


Also, all the people there who have money in bank accounts and so on can all be killed and one gets to keep all that, because of the fact comrade they are just capitalists pigs.

1) Yes (unfortunately)

2) No

And I assume that by "guaranteed minimum income", you mean regardless of whether you decide to work or not.

But I understand that there are a lot of people who believe utopia is possible, it just hasn't had the right people to implement it yet. And they keep hoping and waiting.

Although 97% of climate scientists don’t agree with the global warming idea the people that believe fake news believe that they do. That is no coincidence.

If we kill 97% then will there be enough houses and stuff to go around for the greater good?

Guaranteed minimum income is an interesting one. There are some prominent capitalists who have come out in favor of some version of that, although the devil is in the details. IIRC, Richard Nixon almost got something like that passed. (Don't quote me on that--I'd have to go back and look that up. But I do seem to remember that.) Likewise the proposal to institute block medical spending accounts for people from various conservatives.

I'm not sure I understand the "whether you decide to work or not." How would you determine that? What would your criteria be? Should a person working a job say 40 hours a week be guaranteed a certain minimum income? Should someone who is unemployed be guaranteed a certain minimum income (not necessarily the same amount as someone employed)? Do you believe in any form of unemployment insurance? (All separate questions, I understand--I'm not trying to conflate them.)

“THE passion for play is probably as old, and will be as enduring, as the race of man. Some of us are too timid to risk a dollar, but the percentage of people in this feverish nation who would not enjoy winning one is very small. The passion culminates in the professional. He would rather play than eat. Winning is not his sole delight. Some one has remarked that there is but one pleasure in life greater than winning, that is, in making the hazard.” – SWE

Some of us are too timid to risk a dollar. Some of us would rather hide behind their nanny’s skirt than compete. Some of us are too timid to risk the weather. Some of us are too timid to work for ourselves and would rather have a guaranteed ration like slaves in the nanny state. Nanny, Nanny, Nanny, we all going to die, we are all going to die, we all going to die, save us please Nanny, save us! What a bunch of wincing wimps these lefties really are.

You speak as if working for yourself and having other people work for you are the same thing; they are not. There's a world of difference. But it serves the interest of the latter to make it seem as if they are doing the former. The structure of capitalism is very clear: it's not every person gets to work for themselves; it's some people are bosses who gain profit through the labor of the people who work for them. The class division of worker/capitalist is inherent in capitalism--there could be no capitalism if "everyone worked for themselves."

BTW tommy, just curious--do you think the British NHS should be dismantled?

Should there be a correlation to what a persons skills are and what they are paid in your Utopia?

What exactly "entitles" people to anything in Utopia? And what "entitles" you to take from one to give to another exactly?

Yes and no; some deserve charity some do not. If a drunk driver crashes into people do you think the people ought to help pay the drunk drivers medical bill?

Nor is it every person who *wants* to work for himself.

@tommy

"ALFRED P. DOOLITTLE (drinking reprobate dustman, putting the touch on his supposed betters) : What am I, Governors both? I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: 'You're undeserving; so you can't have it.' But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything. Therefore, I ask you, as two gentlemen, not to play that game on me. I'm playing straight with you. I ain't pretending to be deserving. I'm undeserving; and I mean to go on being undeserving. I like it; and that's the truth. Will you take advantage of a man's nature to do him out of the price of his own daughter what he's brought up and fed and clothed by the sweat of his brow until she's growed big enough to be interesting to you two gentlemen? Is five pounds unreasonable? I put it to you; and I leave it to you."

@Danny Yes, I think people should be compensated on their value to society, not on the amount of profit they can scare up for someone. So yes, I think a nurse should be paid more than a hedge fund trader.

As for taking things from one another, it ill behooves capitalists to ask that question.

It depends what the options are within the system.