Cuba is extremely poor and most people would flee to any more advanced economy regardless of it's moral values for the opportunity to have a better life.
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2023
-1 points (40.0% liked)
World News
31536 readers
662 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Nobody said that the struggle against a despotic empire would be easy.
The Cuban people are smart. Even cursory investigation reveals that Cubas centrally planned economy is a failure and the people are sick of it. The whole 'Communism vs Capitalism' debate is immaterial and a luxury for academics.
A cursory investigation reveals the opposite to be true. Cuba managed to thrive despite all the efforts of US to topple communism there, and the government is broadly supported by the people. Thinking that the debate regarding who should own the means of production and whose interest they should be operated in is immaterial is an incredibly idiotic statement.
Please spend sometime to educate yourself on the subject you're attempting to debate instead of making a fool of yourself in public.
Lol you and I have very different definitions of 'thrive'. I assume you're talking about living off of subsidies from other countries while miserably failing to produce and distribute goods at a level that anyway equates with the rest of the modern world?
making a fool of myself in public
No worries. I can take a 'shaming' from you I'll survive. I can't say the same for Cuban refugees trying to escape on john boats and other improvised watercrafts. I assume they are trying to reach the US to tell us how awesome Cuba is.
In the real world people of Cuba are more satisfied with their government than Americans.
And it's not hard to understand why given that a quarter of the population is starving in US. 64% of Americans live hand to mouth. 37% work two full time jobs, and an average person has around 100k debt. If that's your idea of a functioning economy you should get your head checked.
If you're looking for a Western apologist look elsewhere. That being said 'food insecurity' is in no way comparable to starving. We have the fattest poor people on the planet. There are a million and one ways to get food in the United States regardless of how broke you are. Also the inflation driving the 'hand to mouth' argument in the article is driven primarily by financial irresponsibility by the central planners in the US. Money printer go brrr.
The "overemployment" article is referring specifically to remote workers. That's not to keep up with inflation. That's free money. A ton of people started doing that during covid. Ive been at companies where they had to fire people because they weren't doing anything and just collecting a check. It was a huge joke online for over a year. I'm not denying that there are people that work two jobs but a lot of that is because they are competing with an endless deluge of low skilled labor pouring into the country everyday.
The problem with American debt is most of it is unsecured student debt. 300k mortgage debt is healthy if you have collateral. The solution is simple. Don't give 18 year olds 100k loans. When the government guarantees a loan for anything the price for that thing will increase dramatically in an economy driven by greed.
I'm the first one to say that the US should be more protective of the worker and stymie limitless immigration that undercuts the value of work but Communism or whatever term you feel like using to justify a centrally planned economy is equally wrong in the opposite direction. The answer is unsatisfying but it's a mix. How that mix is proportioned will depend on the culture of the people and what they value. Then as a people they can decide what to incentivize. At some point though you have to give individuals the ability to reap what they personally have sowed even if it is more (or less) than their neighbor.
You can spin it however you like, but the reality is that a quarter of people in US don't have enough food to eat. There are tent cities all across the country due to rampant homelessness. Healthcare in inaccessible and regularly bankrupts people. Cuba has none of these problems. In fact, Cuba ranks as world’s most sustainable developed country.
Communism works while capitalism creates failed states like the US. That's the reality of the world.
You have to specify for whom US or Cuba is a better place to live. Millions of people in US have far worse lives than people in Cuba despite the fact that US has an incomparable amount of wealth. Given the resources that Cuba has available to it, there is no question that Cuba does a much better job than US ensuring that they're used to improve the lives of the majority.
Why are they calling this an election when the people have only one choice? It looks like nothing more than a farce.
I think you are the most comittrd troll I've ever encountered.
I just think it's weird to call it an election when it sounds like the only option available is ever "yes".
It's amazing how you can't wrap your head around the concept of elections within a single party.
That comment shows such an infantile understanding of democracy. Having a single party simply means that Cuba decided on the approach how to do things, which is communism. There are lots of different approaches you can take towards achieving the goals within that scope.
Elections with one party have exact same purpose as elections with multiple parties. The citizens select candidates based on their ideas and proposals. The main difference in a multiparty system is that people still haven't figured out what the right way to run the economy is, and each time a different party gets elected they pull things in a different direction. This is why it's practically impossible to do any large scale projects in the west.
So if they wanted a different approach, how would voting express that?
Go read up on Deng reforms in China which introduced aspects of capitalism into the system. It's worth noting that nothing equivalent would be possible in a western style democracy. It's absolutely unthinkable for any western country to integrate aspects of Marxism into the system.
Bob's Red Mill is owned by its employees. Providing shares as part of compensation is fairly common. Does that not qualify as integrating aspects of Marxism (workers owning the means of production), albeit implemented in a different way?
It would really help for you to actually learn the basics of what Marxism is.
The main difference in a multiparty system is that people still haven’t figured out what the right way to run the economy is, and each time a different party gets elected they pull things in a different direction
If the party dictates "the right way to run the economy" as you say, then doesn't that blunt people's ability to reform the direction of their leader's policies because of the framework enforced by the party?
I'm not arguing that Western democracy provides superior remedies to public disatisfaction or that socialism is not the correct path for prosperity but, if the argument is about allowing people to meaningfully oppose the policies of their elected representatives, then, in a one party system, changing those policies also requires reforming the ideology of the party, which is an additional barrier. Multi-party systems are by no means perfect but at least they provide some alternative path where an outside party can be formed with radically different ideas that can challenge the larger parties and try to pick off support.
And, yes, there is always the threat of smaller parties being squashed using political/financial power, but that, to me, seems like more a product of corruption than an inherent aspect of a democratic system. Not to mention, the same could be done to factions within a party trying to facilitate similar reforms, no?
The only principle is that the economy should be publicly owned and work in the interests of the majority. I think that's a pretty reasonable framework to start with.
I really don't see what multiple parties actually add in practice. You can handle all the disagreements and arguments within a single party. The argument that a single party approach somehow restricts development isn't really supported by any real world evidence I'm aware of.
The only principle is that the economy should be publicly owned and work in the interests of the majority.
I think it's reasonable to argue that the almost every democratic party has this principle. Even those that argue for unfettered capitalism can see that as working in the interest of the majority and the only way the economy can be truly "publicly owned". You can argue that they are wrong but that doesn't mean they don't believe they are following those principles just as faithfully.
If the single party's ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses "don't be evil" then I'm not sure I even understand the distinction between having one party and having a "partiless" state (which would effectively make factions within the party defacto parties in and of themselves).
I think it’s reasonable to argue that the almost every democratic party has this principle.
Then the question is why multiple parties are necessary?
You can argue that they are wrong but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe they are following those principles just as faithfully.
We have concrete real world evidence backed by theory that this is in fact a fallacious idea.
If the single party’s ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses “don’t be evil” then I’m not sure I even understand the distinction between having one party and having a “partiless” state (which would effectively make factions within the party defacto parties in and of themselves).
The ideology, once again, is that the means of production should be publicly owned. This is not nearly as broad as what you wrote here.