| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > I would revise that statement to say "The existence of US sanctions
> > against Cuba prevents us from determining with certainty whether Cuban
> > Communism would fail or succeed in the absence of those sanctions."
>
> Perfect! That's the main idea.
Maybe you should have said that in the first place instead of Standard Anti
US Diatribe # 8294, then.
However it's not a statement that I agree with, except inasmuch as it's not
possible to determine with certainty (from any real world example) that
Communism is a failure, because you can always identify some impurity, some
external influence, some situation that you can hang your explanation for
why it didn't work this time, if you're so inclined.
To be fair, the same is true of any real world application of any economic
theory. So I suppose I ought to trot it out whenever anyone says anything
bad about capitalism... the system you're referring to when you say bad
things (whatever system it happens to be) isn't a "perfect example" because
of "factors X Y and Z".
But I'm not looking for certainty to that level by examining real world
systems. I'm perfectly satisfied that Communism will never work purely on
theoretical grounds. There are a number of arguments that can be advanced.
Because I'm currently rereading Friedman, I currently prefer utilitarian
ones, but there are lots of flavors.
Further, I'm satisfied that this particular hybrid of Communism and whatever
else in Cuba has failed. Badly. Bandy statistics about all you like, but it
fails on utilitarian tests. The people don't like it, else they wouldn't be
trying to flee, and the government knows it, else it wouldn't be putting
them in mental institutions. I especially feel bad for those people who are
denied goods (medicine, transportation, good housing) so that they can be
sold to tourists instead.
Further I am satisfied that the sanctions have at best a minor impact on
this failure. I'd like to see them stopped. I agree that they'd remove a
prop from Castro. But I don't see them as the entire or even major reason
for anything failing or succeeding. You give the US too much credit here.
There has never been a pure Communist system ever. But the closer we get,
the worse the system seems to perform. There has never been a pure
capitalist system, ever. But the closer we get, the happier people seem to
be and the better off they seem to be and the more choices they seem to have
and the more they get to speak their mind and move from place to place and
hold whatever belief they choose. (oh, sorry, remove "seem". They ARE happier)
That's a good enough argument right there, pragmatically, against communism
and in favor of capitalism. One doesn't work, the other does.
Communism is based on the premise that some central mechanism can determine
the right quantities of everything for everyone, obviating the need for
individual choices. It's based on the premise that people should work hard
and not get the fruits of their labors, but rather suffer the consequences
of the central mechanism's mistakes.
Capitalism is based on the premise that no central mechanism can do as well
at determining the right quantities as well as individual choice. It's based
on the premise that people should work hard or not, as they choose, and
suffer the consequences individually.
That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
argument right there. Further, you can show from a utilitarian basis that
central mechanisms fail (and markets work) to maximise utility. That's a
good enough argument right there.
Finally, communist states seem to have the nasty habit of territorial
aggrandisement. That's a good enough argument right there.
Any one of these is good enough for me but they're all valid. Pragmatic,
utilitarian, moral, and national defense based reasons. What more do you need?
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| Larry let me say that I'm proud of you for standing up for yourself, and believing in your own ideologies. To all the rest, why do you really care about Larry's opinions? Honestly, he's not going to change his mind, so why haven't all of you given (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I can't agree--it only makes the "moral call" that way if your personal values are based on individualism instead of the common good. Those values are nurtured in a capitalist system, so it's a self-replicating system, IMHO. (...) No more so (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I'd like to see how you prove happier from someone who lives in the projects, or in South Central LA, in comparison to someone who lives in Cuba. (...) Perhaps you are mistaking the political and economic systems? A Democratic Communist (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Huge clarification to inflict on you-- it makes evidenced communism immoral and evidenced capitalism moral (by utilitarian standards). To judge any system using utilitarian morality, one needs evidence of the happiness/unhappiness of the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Moral or Immoral (was Re: Cuba)
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GIsxC4.C4A@lugnet.com... [snipped] (...) well (...) based (...) [snipped] I'm not just picking on Larry here, but I think this is a good time to ask: Moral or immoral according to who? (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
