| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cuba/foodAndMeds/healthImpact.html
Scott A
>
> > * 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 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
|
|
|
|
