03-06-2014, 06:05 PM
I'm not trying to throw fuel on the fire here, but isn't the "struggle between capitalism and communism" by definition a "struggle of economics and power"? It doesn't add anything to argue the distinction (if there is one).
Naturally individuals who own property and wealth will favor capitalism, and freed serfs will favor communism, because both of those choices maximize their access to resources. The alternative system threatens to deprive them. There is a "tragedy of the commons" in both systems.
As far as the Bay of Pigs goes, it appears to me that, whether or not it was "designed" to fail, that it actually came fairly close to a "military success" (I'm not saying that the overall political system in Cuba would have changed). If the Cuban footsoldiers on the ground had secured the radio stations like they were supposed to, there wouldn't have been a coordinated dawn airstrike the next morning, that disabled the Barbara and deprived the surviving soldiers of much of thier supplies. If the 30 Cuban footsoldiers that were parachuted into the jungle had been able to find thier supplies and secure the road to the plantation, the Cuban response wouldn't have had a convenient staging area. The greatest visible single deficit of the military plan was failing to account for the coral reefs and the tides, so that the fiberglass landing boats were damaged. Ask any soldier: a military "plan" doesn't survive contact with the enemy.
I feel quite certain that the real "plan" at the policy level allowed for both success or failure, and the planners would derive some benefit from either possibility.
Naturally individuals who own property and wealth will favor capitalism, and freed serfs will favor communism, because both of those choices maximize their access to resources. The alternative system threatens to deprive them. There is a "tragedy of the commons" in both systems.
As far as the Bay of Pigs goes, it appears to me that, whether or not it was "designed" to fail, that it actually came fairly close to a "military success" (I'm not saying that the overall political system in Cuba would have changed). If the Cuban footsoldiers on the ground had secured the radio stations like they were supposed to, there wouldn't have been a coordinated dawn airstrike the next morning, that disabled the Barbara and deprived the surviving soldiers of much of thier supplies. If the 30 Cuban footsoldiers that were parachuted into the jungle had been able to find thier supplies and secure the road to the plantation, the Cuban response wouldn't have had a convenient staging area. The greatest visible single deficit of the military plan was failing to account for the coral reefs and the tides, so that the fiberglass landing boats were damaged. Ask any soldier: a military "plan" doesn't survive contact with the enemy.
I feel quite certain that the real "plan" at the policy level allowed for both success or failure, and the planners would derive some benefit from either possibility.