| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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?
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 America because the folks a few miles away in South Central
L.A. live no better than Cubans (and there's plenty of places worse than
Cuba in our own backyard).
> If not, what constitutes "success"?
I don't really know.
> > Cuba has several strong points:
>
> > * National health care
>
> But no medicine.
If this is so, why is that? Perhaps sanctions may have something to do with
it...
> > * Higher literacy rate than America
>
> That you know of.
Cute. By the way, Iraq has a higher literacy rate than America too...
> > * Lower national unemployment rate (only 6%) than America
>
> That you know of. And, we're at 4-5% or so last time I checked.
Sources vary but the average when I checked was 8.6%.
> 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).
And there are people living in dumpsters down my alley...
> > * Lower crime rate than America
>
> That you know of.
America leads the world in homicide...
> > 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.
Yes, that's the common assumption in our country. I think it's more sensible
to factor in harsh effects of the sanctions before drawing such conclusions.
> But if you want to get into its flaws as a form of government we can do that
> too.
You can if you wish, Larry.
> > Isn't it pretty obvious that the sanctions are a REASON, not "excuse," that
> > Cuba is not a prosperous nation?
>
> Restating the assertion isn't proof. It's not obvious to me.
Well, do you suppose your generic assertion to the contrary is any more
proof? As far as I'm concerned, your comments are nothing more than polished
CNN rhetoric. I'm not making a defense for Communism here, but how can
anyone say with a straight face that America's sanctions don't interfere
with Cuba's economic prosperity?
> 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?
You need to read more if all you think Cuba makes is sugar.
> > 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.
Not even on "Star Trek?"
> > 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.
Cute. Coming from a man who lives in his own world...
> 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?
Or maybe it just wasn't a successful attempt, that's all. You believe the
lines are hard and fast on this subject, I understand that. I just happen to
think it's not an open-and-shut-case. That doesn't mean I've taken a
departure from reality. I know that Castro is corrupt, but is he any more
corrupt than many of our former Presidents, or the other world "leaders" our
Presidents snuggled up to throughout the decades?
> A robust system needs to work even when things aren't ideal.
Well it "seems" like it's trying to work in Cuba and we're not letting it.
> Communism will only work in a utopia, and even then only under fallacious
> assumptions. There are no utopias, in case you hadn't noticed.
Only in our minds so far...
> 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.")
Interesting.
> 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).
Hmmm?
> What is your opinion, by the way, favorable or not?
Sounds pretty stupid. But that's what you get when a government is
scratching around for more money. I suppose as a farmer I wouldn't mind if
the money the government took somehow made it back to me and fellow farmers
in a directly beneficial way.
> 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 the Cuban's had their revolution for much the same reason as the latter.
They didn't wish to live as servants to the wealthy.
> 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.
Larry, your statements on the matter are every bit as throwaway as mine so
spare me the "onus" baloney and generalizing my statement. Of course Cuba
has it's problems, as does any nation, and I never said in a general way
that it's America's fault. It IS America's fault that there are sanctions
and the sanctions DO influence Cuba's ability to trade with other nations.
Therefore, it's a simple point of logic that Cuba's economy is made to
suffer from the sanctions, which it does according to most Cubans and Americans.
> (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!)
Okay, I think that as well...start falling please (or has the offer expired).
Dan
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| Addendum to my previous post: After comparing other sources on unemployment rates in America and Cuba, I see my figures are way off. America's unemployment rate is about 4.5%, NOT 8.6%, but Cuba's is still about 6%. I apologize for my error. Cuba (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Indeed. I understand that only ~8% of the Cuban GDP is agriculture based. (...) One could say the same about many political ideals. However, the fact is that some of the communist concepts do have a rather simple attractiveness to a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) If you can't define success, you can't define failure either. You asked me how I define failure, I answered. Remove "seems" if it bugs you that much and replace it with <null>. Doesn't change the definition at all. Communism has failed each (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-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
|
|
|
|
