Reply #270: US tourism would probably increase their tourism revenues

[GirlinContempt]

I'm not saying it wouldn't, I'm saying that just because Americans can't go there doesn't mean they don't have a booming tourism industry as it is. They do. And, part of it's popularity is because there are no Americans.

I'm sorry, but you really don't seem to understand the situation at all.
Unionism can be important, however, when you look at a dictator like Batista, unionization could not fix the problems inherent in the US dominated island. Throughout latin america, unions have served the elites. That is where the money is. In fact, US unions work with other corporately controlled unions AGAINST the average worker. The situations (Cuba and the US) are so different, they just are not comparable. The united states grew out of one of the most unique set of circumstances ever seen. You couldn't possibly reproduce it, and I don't know why anyone would *want* to, frankly. It's unsustainable, and at present, does so much harm to the world and it's people, it's not a system to emulate.

However, latin america has toiled under the boot of North American and European systems and oppression for hundreds of years. The most HONESTLY successful nations, as in successful for their people not just the GDP, are those which forge their own path, based on their own history, and their own needs.

You say unions work, but then go on to say only in specific circumstances. And you admit to knowing little about the specific circumstances in Cuba. Latin american history is riddled with despots, coups, shitty treatment of the indigenous people and economic disasters, just to name a few. Unions can not undo the world situation, they cannot undo years of brutal oppression, and they can not repair a failed system.

To ignore the unique needs and situations of different countries shows a complete lack of understanding, or at least a very strong degree of nationalist self-absorption. Trade agreements like NAFTA fail to actually improve the lives of people because a country always dominates, because they are too different to be on equal footing.

This is like saying that if they'd unionized in Russia, the Czar would have seen reason. It doesn't work that way. Unions, again, serve a purpose. But their purpose is not to route out and change hundreds of years of economic disparity, slavery and poverty.

The poor of the world are just as entitled to make their own decisions, good or bad, as the middle class and rich. And those decisions may be different than wealthy people would make. But they are valid, and they are meaningful, and they deserve to be treated as such.