| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> I reposted here since this is the best thread for this topic:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > US embargoes, while bogus on their very face, and not something I
> > support in the general case, are not a sufficient excuse for Communism's
> > failure in Cuba in and of themselves.
>
> Perhaps it would help if you'd expalin what constitutes "failure" in your
> opinion?
I'd go with the utilitarian argument that people don't seem to have much in
the way of choices, material goods, freedom of expression, action, or
movement, and some desperately want to leave to the extent of risking their
lives to do so. Will that do?
If not, what constitutes "success"?
> Cuba has several strong points:
> * National health care
But no medicine.
> * Higher literacy rate than America
That you know of.
> * Lower national unemployment rate (only 6%) than America
That you know of. And, we're at 4-5% or so last time I checked. And we're
gainfully employed, not just working for subsistence wages in cane fields
(on the average, yes there are doctors who can't afford decent cars, and
suchlike but Cuba is basically agrarian).
> * Lower crime rate than America
That you know of.
> So far, I've looked at it from an economic position and I would agree that
> Cuba's economy is in poor condition. But why blame the form of government?
Communism is an economic system, not just a form of government. So I'm
pretty satisfied with blaming communism for economic conditions where it is
deployed.
But if you want to get into its flaws as a form of government we can do that
too.
> Isn't it pretty obvious that the sanctions are a REASON, not "excuse," that
> Cuba is not a properous nation?
Restating the assertion isn't proof. It's not obvious to me.
> How can any nation as small as Cuba thrive
> in the global market if they are not allowed to do business without
> restrictive sanctions imposed by a superpower like America?
Cuba could get along fine without trade with the US... if it had anything to
trade that was a good deal on the world market. Priced sugar lately? The
sanctions are mostly ignored by everyone else, even our allies. What seems
to have knocked the last few props out from under Cuba was the end of
heavily subsidised energy when the USSR imploded.
> If you really think about it, Cuba is a small enough country where Communism
> COULD be very successful.
I've *really* thought about it. All my life. Both my parents were escapees
from communist dictatorships, don't forget. I'm convinced Communism can't be
successful anywhere. Period.
> I guess in order to have a favorable opinion of
> "Communism," one must divorce it from the context of Marx, Lenin or Mao, and
> the former U.S.S.R.
And from reality, apparently.
If every time a real example is pointed out, the apologists say "well that
one wasn't really Ccommunism" or "well, this one can't work because of
outside agency X interfering" it isn't much of a system, is it? A robust
system needs to work even when things aren't ideal.
Communism will only work in a utopia, and even then only under fallacious
assumptions. There are no utopias, in case you hadn't noticed.
That's not an argument I originated, by the way. Austrian School addressed
it long long ago, and the reference to David Friedman that Scott probably
regrets giving me addresses it quite nicely as well. (Paraphrasing Friedman
in _Machinery of Freedom_ : ":Socialism would only work if *all* of us are
saints. Capitalism will always work as long as long as at least some of us
aren't devils.")
The closer we get to communism in a particular society, the worse things
get. Do you think things are going to somehow flipflop when it gets all the
way there? And if so, what keeps the system pinned there? Systems and
governments ossify. Even good ones. Paraphrasing Friedman again "It took
only 150 years to get from the bill of rights and "all powers not ... are
reserved to the people" to a supreme court willing to rule that growing corn
on your own farm to feed your own pigs is "interstate commerce" and thus
regulable).
What is your opinion, by the way, favorable or not?
Mine is unfavorable on both moral (no one else has the right to dispose of
my work and property as they see fit without recourse) and practical (doing
so inevitably results in dictatorships with the proletariat out in the cold
looking in at the fine china on the dictator's table).
But this is all plowed ground. The onus is actually on you to prove your
throwaway statement that Cuba's problems are our fault because of embargos
rather than the fault of a failed economic and political system.
(if you had *instead* said they were our fault because of our nasty habit of
incompetently meddling in the affairs of other nations in our hemisphere and
thus propping up a succession of tinpot rightwing dictators in Cuba (and
elsewhere) prior to Fidel, making the conditions ripe for revolution... why
then I would be falling all over myself to agree with you!)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: (snipped) (...) Wrong! Medicine is very good in Cuba. They invest heavily in Healthcare. Honest! A friend of my father went there for heart surgery and spoke wonders of the place! (...) It was the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I don't know--but if you take Cuba in comparison with the US pseudo-colonies in the Caribbean that masquerade as independent states, I'd much rather be Cuban. Compare Cuba with the Dominican Republic, Haiti, or even a place like Jamaica, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| in order to have a favorable opinion of (...) I'll add in here, that Libertopia is just as much of a separation from reality as a true communist nation. (hmm...and me in my Sun, Sea and Socalism t-shirt) :) I think that you need to see where the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I think the keyword here is "seem." Your previous statements were concrete (Communism has failed), now are you saying Communism "seems" to have failed? If that is the case, then I can also say Democracy and capitalism "seems" to have failed in (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) That's right. But it is partly due to the sanctions the US impose. If anyone is interested in the Cuban health care system, read here: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| I reposted here since this is the best thread for this topic: (...) Perhaps it would help if you'd expalin what constitutes "failure" in your opinion? Cuba has several strong points: * National health care * Higher literacy rate than America * Lower (...) (23 years ago, 27-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
