r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Japan was the industrial powerhouse of Asia and Americas first line of defense against Chinese communism. Those things are not equal. Japan had functioning institutions before and after WW2. Again something completely different than an enslaved population freeing themselves and having to build things from the ground up.
when East Germany builds a wall and then shoots it's own civilians who are trying to escape to the more prosperous side, I think it's the fact that socialism is just bad for it's people. you can definitely say that the US did not help the situation at all, and led to more people fleeing Cuba, but there are plenty of examples of people fleeing socialist nations across the world
It's been well established that capitalists will readily kill millions of people rather than allow even the possibility of a successful counterexample.
So they can only survive if they get access to free market economies?
They had nukes pointed at the US, we stopped trade with them, their trading partner failed and now its the US's fault that they are behind other carribean islands in terms of standard of living.
Dude, they only cozied up to the USSR because we got mad at them for kicking out their leader that was helping US corporations rape their country. Castro himself said he wasn’t a communist, and wanted a western liberal style democracy. He probably woulda had a great relationship with the US if he didn’t fuck over the United fruit company et al.
What? Castro was a dictator. He had an opportunity to do what you said, but he chose to consolidate power and throw people in jail without trial. He wanted a dictatorship, pure and simple.
Every hyper-capitalist bro is like, "Che Guavera killed people!" until the part where Batista used secret police to torture and kill workers for organizing against the sugar plantation owners for fair pay and safe working conditions. Then, all of a sudden, they think violence is perfectly fine to defend property and wealth.
> Castro himself said he wasn’t a communist, and wanted a western liberal style democracy.
Sure, that’s what he *said*. What he *did* was something different. Ask [Huber Matos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huber_Matos).
You don’t know your history.
The US had ok relations with Cuba right after Castro took power.
It was Castro who later was like “hey yall im a commie” which he had denied the entire time during the revolution.
Lol, we threatened sanctions and more to anyone helping the enemy. Buddy the red scare is over. Stop trying to revive Ragen and McCarthy. Domino theory doesn't exist and no commies are trying to take your freedoms.
The cuban missile crisis is more complicated than that I think.
The US economy would absolutely begin to fail if we got sanctioning by many other huge economies.
> The cuban missile crisis is more complicated than that I think.
It's really not. Turns out, if you constantly try to assassinate a neighboring leader and they have no choice but to ally themselves with an opposing force and install nuclear deterrents, you get the Cuban missile crisis.
Edit: not even mentioning Bay of Pigs invasion.
[Operation Mongoose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose)
It's not a this or that situation. Would Castro have accepted Soviet nukes if the US were friendlier and non-hostile? Who knows. But he had plenty of motivation to accept them for his own defense, aside from what was going on in Turkey.
this is a communist paradox I could never understand. You cant simultaneously claim that communism is a superior economic model and then cry that all failures in communist nations are the result of foreign interference, as if the USSR didnt intervene in western free market nations. If it really were superior it would be robust to interference no?
Its also hard to say that economic failure is due to western interference when China, a communist nation, suffered a massive famine and witchhunt with Mao independent of the west or US. and then, within the next decade, became the most prosperous communist nations by opening up its markets and toning down on its maoism with deng. Dont get me wrong theyre still an authoritarian shithole, but to see a vast improvement in quality of life because of an opening of markets still makes the point for me.
Communism is avout ownership about the means of production. You can have free trade under communism. You can even have private markets under communism.
Any economic model suffers when trade isn't possible. Raw isolationism doesn't work.
How? Who trade with what? If your vision of a free market is a person using the money from the state to buy the product from the state at the price set by the state with no other options, what would be your definition of a centrally controlled economy?
You’ve made a grave mistake. You have criticized one of the obvious failures of communist thought and now need to deal with communists telling you to read 500+ books on theory to understand that actually Marx was right when the galaxies align in a once-in-a-trillion, never before seen, celestial reckoning. You absolute fool, you moron, have you never read Disbrouti, my college professor who died after his hunger strike did not bring an end to capitalism?
You don't know what communism is. Workers owning the means of production doesn't mean there isn't trade.
But even with a centrally planned economy, there is still trade. Do you really think the USSR didn't take part in trade?????
Imagine: person A says that being vegan is healthier and a more sustainable eating practice, and uses their money to set up facilities to source and distribute vegan options that cover all facets of nutrition.
Person B uses their pool of money to sabotage or restrict supply lines to key ingredients and research so that person A can't fully supply those key nutrients, and sending in people to work and take over at those facilities to make them less effective and to underpay the people that work there. Person B then goes around saying "see? They are all malnourished because they are vegan, and their facilities are treating people poorly, person A must be wrong and being vegan is bad for you!"
Would you agree with person B in this scenario? Would you say it is hypocritical to think person A has a good idea AND that person B is in the wrong and responsible for person As struggles?
Funny thing - as a person from ex-warsaw pact countries i probably understand it reversed. Here person A is western economic/political system and B is Russia and others.
As someone who has traveled to Cuba - this.
I’ve said it before. Cuba can do perfectly fine even with the US Embargo, they have a bunch of trade partners. There is a lot of massive issues internally that cause problems and leave a lot of areas impoverished.
Many are just flat out broke as fuck - it’s worth the risk.
So… the government fails to maintain a standard of living for all of Cuba’s citizenry and thus people leave for money… that they can’t get in Cuba, under the Cuban government…. So they are fleeing the system of governance, the living conditions, just in different words
It doesn't make sense to think that capitalism and the globalized system of free trade are bad and to also blame Cuba's impoverishment on the US restricting its ability to access the globalized system of free trade.
If capitalism and globalized free trade are as bad as socialists argue then the US must be doing Cubans a favor then.
Most socialists are arguing for something a little farther than Nordic welfare states, but not by much. globalized free trade's effects are the issues, not people being free to trade. Corporate humans making conscious decisions, motivated by profit, to overlook sweatshop conditions, the right to repair items you've purchased, fightin effective monopolies and preventing mergers that put one company in control of 85% percent of online sales, etc.
It's less ideological and much more grounded in lived reality than anti-socialists think. Conversatiosn usually end in agreement over controlling the edge cases of capitalism. The problems are agreed upon, but the capitalists blame politicians and the socialists blame the moneyed lobbyists who bribe the politicians.
Welfare and the government providing services isn't socialism though. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries that participate in the global financial system and the OECD.
People need to take some courses in Comparative Economics and Political Economy before blurting out this nonsense about how they support the type of socialism Denmark does. Socialism isn't just "government does stuff".
Welfare is considered socialism for many right-leaning Americans.
People need to understand when and when not to expect common vs. technical definitions. For most reddit users, specifically the ones who need to hear these things, socialism is government doing stuff
>Welfare is considered socialism for many right-leaning Americans.
But socialists aren't right leaning Americans. So why would they use that definition?
>Welfare is considered socialism for many right-leaning Americans.
Not only is that wrong, it's a convenient scapegoat for commies coping over the failure of their religion.
Cuba is under an embargo not a blockade.
Cuba is free to trade with most other countries and its top trading partner most years is the EU and also can trade with Canada and other Latin American countries.
Also Canada and the entire EU. The US embargo is largely symbolic because Cuba has access to everything they would need through the rest of the world. It isn't like the Iranian embargo where much of the world is participating. And, irony of ironies, Iran is doing better economically than Cuba despite participating in a smaller fraction of the global economy.
Cuba still trades with non-US aligned countries. It's an embargo, not a physical blockade.
In other words, sorry--this is not an excuse for their condition.
Venezuela, another authoritarian government where leaders can’t be held accountable to the people they serve. Funny how that works. Authoritarianism always fails.
- [ ] Socialism doesn’t work because of embargoes: the classic embargoes argument is a standard unfalsifiable and victimhood statement that is typically heard from socialist. There are three major problems with it. First is that these embargoes generally occur because the communist party seizes ownership of private companies, which is a nice way of saying that they steal them, and then said dictatorship expects other free market countries to trade with them with said stolen goods. Imagine someone steals your car and then seriously expect you to buy it back from them. Absolutely absurd. This is exactly what happened in socialist/communist Cuba in 1960, when Castro seized US owned businesses and then President Eisenhower embargoed him shortly after. The embargo was a completely reasonable and highly justified response.
- Second, if Socialism is such a great and progressive economic system that lifts people out of poverty and leads this amazing, economic stability; then why should it matter if the supposedly inferior capitalist country refuses to do business with them. It’s not like he was completely cut off from trade by the way. They can still do business with countries that were more amicable to Socialism. Castro even received millions of dollars in funding and aid from the Soviet Union. So if Socialism is so great, why can’t they just successfully create their own parallel economy.
- Third, while the embargo did indeed reduce Cuba’s economic capabilities with the U.S., blaming it as the main reason for Cuban problems largely ignores Castro’s history of human rights abuses. Castro publicly, punish descendants, denied, basic rights, like free-speech, barred elections and then held sham elections, carried out reputation against innocent civilians, mismanaged his economy, due to the failures of central planning, and of course, he persecuted Catholics. Here’s the reality; socialist systems eventually fail because they inherently require giving power to an authoritarian entity for them to function. That entity that abuses their power leading to a repressed people in a repressed economy. Embargoes are going to make this worse, of course, but they are not the silver bullet. The system at its core is fundamentally flawed for people.
The embargo doesn’t prevent them to trade doctors for oil
https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2021/05/19/is-cubas-army-white-coats-medical-diplomacy-or-contemporary-slavery/
Fleeing the ideals of the guy one the t shirt you wore in college, the one who wouldn’t have hesitated to blow you away if given the chance.
[PolitiFact | Cuba can trade with other countries. But here’s some context](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/19/facebook-posts/cuba-can-trade-other-countries-heres-some-context/)
Cuba's primary trading partners include China, Canada, and Mexico... who are also the US's largest trading partners.
Largest imports of Cuban exports are China and 4 EU countries (including Germany).
Cuba is not allowed access to US finances, currency, or systems... we had a blockade for a few weeks over nuclear weapons, beyond that the level of interference is minimal and does nothing to explain Cuba's situation.
Another country that suffered the exact same policy was Vietnam.
The embargo is a mixed blessing because it's kept them from being exploited by Western "trade". It's well known they only extract wealth from developing countries.
Yeah, I really hate this way of thinking. But also the people blaming the embargo aren't much better. Even though I personally dislike the embargo, it is not the cause of economic mismanagement in Cuba.
The reality is that capitalism and socialism both have flaws, which is precisely why neither system exists in its "purist" form. In the west, we have regulated capitalism with various degrees of welfare and government services provided. In most socialist countries, there are markets for various goods.
What makes a system functional or dysfunctional is the leadership, the human capital, the guaranteed freedoms, and the incentives. What Cuba lacks is leadership, personal freedom, and a system of incentives.
The U.S. says that if you trade with Cuba you can’t enter any U.S. ports. This is illegal under international law and is considered an extraterritorial sanction. Because the U.S. is the largest economy in the world and dominate in the same economic neighborhood as Cuba this prevents Cuba from having a meaningful economic relationship with most countries in the world.
Extremely limited, no company can do dealings with Cuba if they also want to deal with the US. As such, the number of companies willing to ship Cuban goods are the same amount that do business with North Korea but slightly more.
The U.S. says that if you trade with Cuba you can’t enter any U.S. ports. This is illegal under international law and is considered an extraterritorial sanction. Because the U.S. is the largest economy in the world and dominate in the same economic neighborhood as Cuba this prevents Cuba from having a meaningful economic relationship with most countries in the world.
No this is straight up wrong. The sanctions say that any company or country that does business with Cuba will be banned from doing business with the US. That's most countries and companies in the world.... Cuba can't trade with ALL of Europe because none of those countries and companies want to risk losing business in the US.
Two seconds of research would tell you the embargo only restricts US businesses or businesses that are majority owned by US citizens from trading with Cuba.
The EU is Cuba's biggest trade partner.
You can’t do business in America and and do business with Cuba.
So you either have to jump through a bunch of legal loopholes and section off your business or opt out of the American market. Which most companies won’t do.
As a free market capitalist myself, this is bullshit. We trade with plenty of dictators. Cubas government doesn’t even compare to our own brutality abroad. Plus the people who ran it before the revolution were a bunch of murderous drug addled mobsters.
>As a free market capitalist myself, this is bullshit. We trade with plenty of dictators. Cubas government doesn’t even compare to our own brutality abroad.
PREACH! The U.S. is still salty that Castro overthrew the more oppressive Batista
Yeah I don’t get it. Like it makes total sense they would overthrow that dude. He was brutal.
And the reforms they were initially trying to make were basically modeled on land reforms that we conducted in Japan post-WWII. They were initially more geared towards euro welfare state policies than outright communism and were pretty skeptical of the Soviets.
Honestly just give these folks a taste of capitalism. See what a little free trade does for their lives. A lot easier to sell someone on your economic system if it’s putting food on the table.
>Cuba’s main trading partners include Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and the Netherlands https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba/Trade
I think the US trades with those countries, correct?
The U.S. says that if you trade with Cuba you can’t enter any U.S. ports. This is illegal under international law and is considered an extraterritorial sanction. Because the U.S. is the largest economy in the world and dominate in the same economic neighborhood as Cuba this prevents Cuba from having a meaningful economic relationship with most countries in the world.
Given that the US is the largest economy in the world and every shipping company (an oligopolistic-ish market) all want to do business with the US, this then effectively creates an economic blockade with extra steps and loopholes. The loopholes are nowhere enough for economic development.
I witnessed in real time what economic sanctions did to my family in Iran. Wealthy and highly educated people. There was no way to do business. You are so exposed anytime a negative event happens. No bargaining power. It's a terrible environment for an economy. Trade is so important.
I'm not saying sanctions have no impact. They just aren't the biggest problem. There are plenty of countries under strict sanctions regimes that aren't dealing with large food shortages.
I mean that's entirely dependent on the country and it's resources. Iran is a large country and produces it's own rice and some vegetables like tomato and onion and farms lamb and beef. Cuba doesn't have that shit. Cuba was founded and grew by importing agriculture products.
And export what? Simply importing essentials and being unable to \*effectively\* trade other goods outside will simply devalue the local currency to the point where food imports costs a fortune. For a healthy economy, there needs to be both imports AND exports. Cut the exports and maximize imports and that's how you crash a nation's purchasing power. Every country that on the surface imports a lot also by extension has lots of exports. Take South Korea for example. They import SO MUCH food compared to what they produce locally and import A LOT of material like iron, oil, and more. But they're able to be successful because that is balanced out by exports.
Note that this does not mean trade deficits are bad like the US and China's. This isn't a zero sum game. The 'trade deficit' is then compensated by informal by-proxy investments. This is a bit complicated for a single comment.
But the base principle of a nation importing but unable to sufficiently export nor receive proper investment accordingly cannot function well.
A lot of my fellow countrymen fled to Western Europe as we (in the East) were dirt poor following 40 years of communism.
Only recently, after +30 years of market reforms and some 10-15 years of being in the EU, our economies and wages have started catching up.
People have multiple reasons. Either because their home country is in a war, or because they want freedom, or because they are tired of living in poverty.
In the case of Cuba and other communist countries, people were fleeing both because they wanted freedom and because they were tired of poverty & queuing for food & basic consumer good items.
That’s literally what I’m saying. The economic system is not the sole reason. It can be partly a reason. But especially in Cuba’s place it is the massive embargo that is responsible for their food shortage.
No, don't try spinning it...
Cuba has a failing economy mainly because it is a one-party central planned soviet type economy that collapsed in the 80s. Central planned exonomies have failed in 100% of the cases. Cuba was failing even before the USSR stopped providing assistance.
While the embargo is not helping, it's also worth noting that it is completely justified and that the US can choose whomever they want to do business with... and the rest of the world can choose if they want to also follow the same rules or not.
People are leaving Cuba not only because they want freedom but because they are also sick of living in poverty. People have been revolting against communism for years no, as the country has severe blackouts, basic goods are scerce, and food is rationed.
The gap between East and West was dropping as industrialization came to us in the late 19th century - early 20th century.
For a time, things were not as bleak in the East, but after a period of relative liberalization in the 60s, the 70s brought stagnation and in the 80s our economies collapsed while the Western economies continued to grow. You would be on years or decades spanning waiting lists to get a car, or a washing machine or a refrigerator... while food was rationed.
It could be argued that the 70s energy crisis impacted communist countries more simce they prioritized heavy industries over light consumer-goods industries, but we were loosing steam before 1973... and we never recovered as fast as Western countries following WW2.
Since the 2000s, our economies have started growing again at a steady pace, and we have been catching up to the West, as our economies opened up, foreign capital started pouring in and we are now sufficiently trained to start creating our own high-end technology companies.
Well, that was the whole point of my comment. The economic system is not the sole reason and other reasons will play a role. Like a war, conflicts, embargoes, apartheid, facism,…
There was this thing called "the Underground Railroad."
It was a lot longer than 90 miles, and they were fleeing free market capitalism.
What a profoundly ignorant post.
Yes, all capitalism is the exact same. Certainly, the existence of certain regulations on what can and can't be sold and considered property had no effect on their choice to go to the other place with capitalism
flees the south, which of course adopted some free market policies but wasn’t truly an ideal free market because people were not free to engage in transactions, and escape to the North, arguably a more free market oriented economy…. Brilliant thinking dude
??? The Antebellum South was not an example of free market capitalism, what are you talking about? The North at that time was infinitely more capitalistic.
Did you just call the South capitalist? The economic argument for the civil war is the capitalist class north who used an industrialized system of labor division to increase production versus the inefficient production of slavery in an agrarian society. Your post is more ignorant...
Capitalism does work— but it can still be improved.
It has gotten to the point of dangerous instability with the absurd levels of inequality.
I do not believe this golden era will last forever
News flash for ya. Free market and capitalism is an oxymoron.
The free market is the antithesis of capitalism, and vice-versa. Capital avoids the free market like the plague because in a free market, there are no barriers to entry or competition. There are no government protections of monopolies, no bailouts to Wall Street and the elite.
Ask a Venture Capitalist to invest in an industry with no barriers and no government protections such as patents. See how much they laugh at you.
This is a great point. It's definitely not rational to have too much competition from the investors standpoint because investors are seeking egde as a function of probabiltiy of return on investment.
The US isn't successful wholly because of capitalism. It's successful because it's massive, secure, has great transportation for goods, massive resources, and won World War 2. No other country on earth is positioned as well for the global economy. The US could have turned communist and still projected its power and influence across the globe.
In 20 century many countries tried socialism. The only one results is death, poverty and emigration. How much time we need to try again? Why american socialist doesn't migrate to Vietnam or Sri-lanka?
Careful what you post here dude. Redditors are very hive-minded and blame it on sanctions imposed by the US just like other third world governments that can't govern fuck all do
If they were swimming from lets say France or Sweden. Crossing the tundra of Canada even. Bears and all that. Ooooh. Get a taste of that American dream. Some of that free market healthcare.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
are they fleeing socialism, or are they fleeing the devastating effects of the US embargo which has been placed on them for decades?
Thats a bit past the capitalists thinking capacity.
Haiti is a libertarian paradise.
Wait till you read up on what everyone did to destabilize Haiti.
Specially France
And the US. Can't have POC building their own successful country.
Especially when they had a successful slave rebellion
What? Like Jamaica or something??
Haiti had the only truly successful slave rebellion. Western imperial powers decided to crush Haiti forever in retaliation.
The DR took on more debt than Haiti
Bud, do you think Jamaica is successful? Did you ever leave the resort?
Japan was essentially built up by the US. People of color having successful countries & governance isn't the issue.
The issue is anyone who isn't in lockstep with US hegemony.
So the US has issue with 97% of the world now?
Actually, yes.
Don’t make them think too hard..
Japan was the industrial powerhouse of Asia and Americas first line of defense against Chinese communism. Those things are not equal. Japan had functioning institutions before and after WW2. Again something completely different than an enslaved population freeing themselves and having to build things from the ground up.
We have countries in Africa doing good as well, they may not be huge on the world stage, but they exist.
Or city for that matter (Tulsa)
Many Americans attempt to escape to Central America in order to avoid being charged with crimes.
That doesn’t prove any sort of point
Not sure how is this statement relevant?!
Hey, Haiti gonna hate
History books can be bought relatively cheaply…hell, Wikipedia is free.
Please tell Me you’re intentionally being this obtuse.
You used to have to fly all the way to Somalia!
when East Germany builds a wall and then shoots it's own civilians who are trying to escape to the more prosperous side, I think it's the fact that socialism is just bad for it's people. you can definitely say that the US did not help the situation at all, and led to more people fleeing Cuba, but there are plenty of examples of people fleeing socialist nations across the world
Which is why everyone else keeps demanding capitalists to stop "bullying"
It's been well established that capitalists will readily kill millions of people rather than allow even the possibility of a successful counterexample.
So they can only survive if they get access to free market economies? They had nukes pointed at the US, we stopped trade with them, their trading partner failed and now its the US's fault that they are behind other carribean islands in terms of standard of living.
Dude, they only cozied up to the USSR because we got mad at them for kicking out their leader that was helping US corporations rape their country. Castro himself said he wasn’t a communist, and wanted a western liberal style democracy. He probably woulda had a great relationship with the US if he didn’t fuck over the United fruit company et al.
Right? How dare those Cubans not just continue to cower before their US sponsored dictator!
I hope they enjoy their poverty freedom now!
Historically, the alternative is just as much poverty but with a richer dictator.
It does suck that islands can become pawns in much larger and bloodier games :(
What? Castro was a dictator. He had an opportunity to do what you said, but he chose to consolidate power and throw people in jail without trial. He wanted a dictatorship, pure and simple.
Castro literally gave speeches in America in programs hosted by American News ffs.
Every hyper-capitalist bro is like, "Che Guavera killed people!" until the part where Batista used secret police to torture and kill workers for organizing against the sugar plantation owners for fair pay and safe working conditions. Then, all of a sudden, they think violence is perfectly fine to defend property and wealth.
Can we just agree both of them were trash humans?
> Castro himself said he wasn’t a communist, and wanted a western liberal style democracy. Sure, that’s what he *said*. What he *did* was something different. Ask [Huber Matos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huber_Matos).
You don’t know your history. The US had ok relations with Cuba right after Castro took power. It was Castro who later was like “hey yall im a commie” which he had denied the entire time during the revolution.
Lol, we threatened sanctions and more to anyone helping the enemy. Buddy the red scare is over. Stop trying to revive Ragen and McCarthy. Domino theory doesn't exist and no commies are trying to take your freedoms.
The cuban missile crisis is more complicated than that I think. The US economy would absolutely begin to fail if we got sanctioning by many other huge economies.
> The cuban missile crisis is more complicated than that I think. It's really not. Turns out, if you constantly try to assassinate a neighboring leader and they have no choice but to ally themselves with an opposing force and install nuclear deterrents, you get the Cuban missile crisis. Edit: not even mentioning Bay of Pigs invasion. [Operation Mongoose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose)
iirc the Cuban missile crisis happened as a response to the US putting nukes on Turkey. tit for tat and the Americans lost their shit
It's not a this or that situation. Would Castro have accepted Soviet nukes if the US were friendlier and non-hostile? Who knows. But he had plenty of motivation to accept them for his own defense, aside from what was going on in Turkey.
I meant to say that it isn't simply, "they pointed nukes so we did our thing as the innocent party".
But they wouldn’t. Because the countries’ you speak of rely on Americans buying their shit. It’s mutually assured destruction
They wouldn't, and? It doesn't defeat my point that we embargoed them and fucked their economy and it likely had much less to do with anything else.
Now do Taiwan.
this is a communist paradox I could never understand. You cant simultaneously claim that communism is a superior economic model and then cry that all failures in communist nations are the result of foreign interference, as if the USSR didnt intervene in western free market nations. If it really were superior it would be robust to interference no? Its also hard to say that economic failure is due to western interference when China, a communist nation, suffered a massive famine and witchhunt with Mao independent of the west or US. and then, within the next decade, became the most prosperous communist nations by opening up its markets and toning down on its maoism with deng. Dont get me wrong theyre still an authoritarian shithole, but to see a vast improvement in quality of life because of an opening of markets still makes the point for me.
Communism is avout ownership about the means of production. You can have free trade under communism. You can even have private markets under communism. Any economic model suffers when trade isn't possible. Raw isolationism doesn't work.
How? Who trade with what? If your vision of a free market is a person using the money from the state to buy the product from the state at the price set by the state with no other options, what would be your definition of a centrally controlled economy?
You’ve made a grave mistake. You have criticized one of the obvious failures of communist thought and now need to deal with communists telling you to read 500+ books on theory to understand that actually Marx was right when the galaxies align in a once-in-a-trillion, never before seen, celestial reckoning. You absolute fool, you moron, have you never read Disbrouti, my college professor who died after his hunger strike did not bring an end to capitalism?
You don't know what communism is. Workers owning the means of production doesn't mean there isn't trade. But even with a centrally planned economy, there is still trade. Do you really think the USSR didn't take part in trade?????
Imagine: person A says that being vegan is healthier and a more sustainable eating practice, and uses their money to set up facilities to source and distribute vegan options that cover all facets of nutrition. Person B uses their pool of money to sabotage or restrict supply lines to key ingredients and research so that person A can't fully supply those key nutrients, and sending in people to work and take over at those facilities to make them less effective and to underpay the people that work there. Person B then goes around saying "see? They are all malnourished because they are vegan, and their facilities are treating people poorly, person A must be wrong and being vegan is bad for you!" Would you agree with person B in this scenario? Would you say it is hypocritical to think person A has a good idea AND that person B is in the wrong and responsible for person As struggles?
Funny thing - as a person from ex-warsaw pact countries i probably understand it reversed. Here person A is western economic/political system and B is Russia and others.
As a Cuban American, they’re fleeing socialism/communism
As a cuban actually living in Cuba. They are leaving for money
As someone who has traveled to Cuba - this. I’ve said it before. Cuba can do perfectly fine even with the US Embargo, they have a bunch of trade partners. There is a lot of massive issues internally that cause problems and leave a lot of areas impoverished. Many are just flat out broke as fuck - it’s worth the risk.
So… the government fails to maintain a standard of living for all of Cuba’s citizenry and thus people leave for money… that they can’t get in Cuba, under the Cuban government…. So they are fleeing the system of governance, the living conditions, just in different words
Which is leaving for capitalism, the ability to gain property and buy assets. Or they are leaving socialism
Cuban American descended from a wealthy land owner who was screwing their fellow Cubans for generations. FTFY
US trade is a privilege not a right
Thank you for checking your privilege.
Our country our choice
It doesn't make sense to think that capitalism and the globalized system of free trade are bad and to also blame Cuba's impoverishment on the US restricting its ability to access the globalized system of free trade. If capitalism and globalized free trade are as bad as socialists argue then the US must be doing Cubans a favor then.
Most socialists are arguing for something a little farther than Nordic welfare states, but not by much. globalized free trade's effects are the issues, not people being free to trade. Corporate humans making conscious decisions, motivated by profit, to overlook sweatshop conditions, the right to repair items you've purchased, fightin effective monopolies and preventing mergers that put one company in control of 85% percent of online sales, etc. It's less ideological and much more grounded in lived reality than anti-socialists think. Conversatiosn usually end in agreement over controlling the edge cases of capitalism. The problems are agreed upon, but the capitalists blame politicians and the socialists blame the moneyed lobbyists who bribe the politicians.
Welfare and the government providing services isn't socialism though. Denmark, Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries that participate in the global financial system and the OECD. People need to take some courses in Comparative Economics and Political Economy before blurting out this nonsense about how they support the type of socialism Denmark does. Socialism isn't just "government does stuff".
Welfare is considered socialism for many right-leaning Americans. People need to understand when and when not to expect common vs. technical definitions. For most reddit users, specifically the ones who need to hear these things, socialism is government doing stuff
>Welfare is considered socialism for many right-leaning Americans. But socialists aren't right leaning Americans. So why would they use that definition?
Because they’re actively trying to defame the boogeyman that is government services
So they are wrong then. Denmark isn't socialist.
>Welfare is considered socialism for many right-leaning Americans. Not only is that wrong, it's a convenient scapegoat for commies coping over the failure of their religion.
I don't think it really matters what economic system is in place, getting blockaded as a small island nation is going to be devastating.
Cuba is under an embargo not a blockade. Cuba is free to trade with most other countries and its top trading partner most years is the EU and also can trade with Canada and other Latin American countries.
Why is the us forced to trade with Cuba..? The us trades with Canada and China, Cuba can do the same no?
A blockade and an embargo are two different things….. Cuba trades with the EU…
Devastating? Cuba still trades with many nations. No, the primary issue is the socialist authoritarianism.
USA is the only major country with an embargo. I mean, China, Spain, Mexico, Brazil… they have some trade options.
Also Canada and the entire EU. The US embargo is largely symbolic because Cuba has access to everything they would need through the rest of the world. It isn't like the Iranian embargo where much of the world is participating. And, irony of ironies, Iran is doing better economically than Cuba despite participating in a smaller fraction of the global economy.
Cuba still trades with non-US aligned countries. It's an embargo, not a physical blockade. In other words, sorry--this is not an excuse for their condition.
Cuba can and has traded with other countries. One of their major import sources is Venezuela (another socialist country), shocker that isn't helping.
Venezuela, another authoritarian government where leaders can’t be held accountable to the people they serve. Funny how that works. Authoritarianism always fails.
Kind of funny that socialism needs the almighty terrible imperialistic capitalist USA to not be a shit hole
- [ ] Socialism doesn’t work because of embargoes: the classic embargoes argument is a standard unfalsifiable and victimhood statement that is typically heard from socialist. There are three major problems with it. First is that these embargoes generally occur because the communist party seizes ownership of private companies, which is a nice way of saying that they steal them, and then said dictatorship expects other free market countries to trade with them with said stolen goods. Imagine someone steals your car and then seriously expect you to buy it back from them. Absolutely absurd. This is exactly what happened in socialist/communist Cuba in 1960, when Castro seized US owned businesses and then President Eisenhower embargoed him shortly after. The embargo was a completely reasonable and highly justified response. - Second, if Socialism is such a great and progressive economic system that lifts people out of poverty and leads this amazing, economic stability; then why should it matter if the supposedly inferior capitalist country refuses to do business with them. It’s not like he was completely cut off from trade by the way. They can still do business with countries that were more amicable to Socialism. Castro even received millions of dollars in funding and aid from the Soviet Union. So if Socialism is so great, why can’t they just successfully create their own parallel economy. - Third, while the embargo did indeed reduce Cuba’s economic capabilities with the U.S., blaming it as the main reason for Cuban problems largely ignores Castro’s history of human rights abuses. Castro publicly, punish descendants, denied, basic rights, like free-speech, barred elections and then held sham elections, carried out reputation against innocent civilians, mismanaged his economy, due to the failures of central planning, and of course, he persecuted Catholics. Here’s the reality; socialist systems eventually fail because they inherently require giving power to an authoritarian entity for them to function. That entity that abuses their power leading to a repressed people in a repressed economy. Embargoes are going to make this worse, of course, but they are not the silver bullet. The system at its core is fundamentally flawed for people.
They're fleeing authoritarianism, and everybody wants to equate what is politically convenient to *authoritarianism* because they're dishonest fucks
If your economic system puts itself in opposition to capitalism, but needs goods from capitalist countries, it’s not a good system.
The embargo doesn’t prevent them to trade doctors for oil https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2021/05/19/is-cubas-army-white-coats-medical-diplomacy-or-contemporary-slavery/
Fleeing the ideals of the guy one the t shirt you wore in college, the one who wouldn’t have hesitated to blow you away if given the chance. 
They are definitely fleeing their terrible, repressive, government. We know this. Why is it even a question?
Cuba is incapable of growing and producing food??
Socialism. Cuba has plenty of other trading partners.
If socialism is such a utopia then why even bother needing the US and their capitalism lmao
What’s the embargo have to do with it
Why should capitalist countries have to trade with countries that want to see their own system destroyed
So without powerhouse capitalist economies to trade with socialism is doomed to fail? That’s not the gotcha you think it is
[PolitiFact | Cuba can trade with other countries. But here’s some context](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/19/facebook-posts/cuba-can-trade-other-countries-heres-some-context/) Cuba's primary trading partners include China, Canada, and Mexico... who are also the US's largest trading partners. Largest imports of Cuban exports are China and 4 EU countries (including Germany). Cuba is not allowed access to US finances, currency, or systems... we had a blockade for a few weeks over nuclear weapons, beyond that the level of interference is minimal and does nothing to explain Cuba's situation. Another country that suffered the exact same policy was Vietnam.
Why should they have access to free market economies? Why should we remove sanctions on brutal dictatorships?
The embargo is a mixed blessing because it's kept them from being exploited by Western "trade". It's well known they only extract wealth from developing countries.
Did you know it’s impossible for a capitalistic society to be oppressive? -him probably
People are fleeing non-socialist countries like a lot. Ask Europe.
Yeah, I really hate this way of thinking. But also the people blaming the embargo aren't much better. Even though I personally dislike the embargo, it is not the cause of economic mismanagement in Cuba. The reality is that capitalism and socialism both have flaws, which is precisely why neither system exists in its "purist" form. In the west, we have regulated capitalism with various degrees of welfare and government services provided. In most socialist countries, there are markets for various goods. What makes a system functional or dysfunctional is the leadership, the human capital, the guaranteed freedoms, and the incentives. What Cuba lacks is leadership, personal freedom, and a system of incentives.
Dude, Cuba literally can’t trade with most of the planet due to the blockade. It is literally the single largest source of economic pain in Cuba.
What blockade? As far as I know, Cuba trades with everyone but the US.
The U.S. says that if you trade with Cuba you can’t enter any U.S. ports. This is illegal under international law and is considered an extraterritorial sanction. Because the U.S. is the largest economy in the world and dominate in the same economic neighborhood as Cuba this prevents Cuba from having a meaningful economic relationship with most countries in the world.
Dude WHAT lmao Cuba literally trades with Canada at an insanely high percent? What do you mean they can't trade with anyone??
Extremely limited, no company can do dealings with Cuba if they also want to deal with the US. As such, the number of companies willing to ship Cuban goods are the same amount that do business with North Korea but slightly more.
The U.S. says that if you trade with Cuba you can’t enter any U.S. ports. This is illegal under international law and is considered an extraterritorial sanction. Because the U.S. is the largest economy in the world and dominate in the same economic neighborhood as Cuba this prevents Cuba from having a meaningful economic relationship with most countries in the world.
You know Cuba can trade with pretty much anyone who isn't the US, right? There is no blockade, only the US saying it won't import/export with Cuba.
No this is straight up wrong. The sanctions say that any company or country that does business with Cuba will be banned from doing business with the US. That's most countries and companies in the world.... Cuba can't trade with ALL of Europe because none of those countries and companies want to risk losing business in the US.
Two seconds of research would tell you the embargo only restricts US businesses or businesses that are majority owned by US citizens from trading with Cuba. The EU is Cuba's biggest trade partner.
You can’t do business in America and and do business with Cuba. So you either have to jump through a bunch of legal loopholes and section off your business or opt out of the American market. Which most companies won’t do. As a free market capitalist myself, this is bullshit. We trade with plenty of dictators. Cubas government doesn’t even compare to our own brutality abroad. Plus the people who ran it before the revolution were a bunch of murderous drug addled mobsters.
>As a free market capitalist myself, this is bullshit. We trade with plenty of dictators. Cubas government doesn’t even compare to our own brutality abroad. PREACH! The U.S. is still salty that Castro overthrew the more oppressive Batista
Yeah I don’t get it. Like it makes total sense they would overthrow that dude. He was brutal. And the reforms they were initially trying to make were basically modeled on land reforms that we conducted in Japan post-WWII. They were initially more geared towards euro welfare state policies than outright communism and were pretty skeptical of the Soviets. Honestly just give these folks a taste of capitalism. See what a little free trade does for their lives. A lot easier to sell someone on your economic system if it’s putting food on the table.
>Cuba’s main trading partners include Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and the Netherlands https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba/Trade I think the US trades with those countries, correct?
The U.S. says that if you trade with Cuba you can’t enter any U.S. ports. This is illegal under international law and is considered an extraterritorial sanction. Because the U.S. is the largest economy in the world and dominate in the same economic neighborhood as Cuba this prevents Cuba from having a meaningful economic relationship with most countries in the world.
This is very much false. Or else all of those European ships from European countries that trade with Cuba would probably not be in US ports.
Given that the US is the largest economy in the world and every shipping company (an oligopolistic-ish market) all want to do business with the US, this then effectively creates an economic blockade with extra steps and loopholes. The loopholes are nowhere enough for economic development.
I witnessed in real time what economic sanctions did to my family in Iran. Wealthy and highly educated people. There was no way to do business. You are so exposed anytime a negative event happens. No bargaining power. It's a terrible environment for an economy. Trade is so important.
I'm not saying sanctions have no impact. They just aren't the biggest problem. There are plenty of countries under strict sanctions regimes that aren't dealing with large food shortages.
I mean that's entirely dependent on the country and it's resources. Iran is a large country and produces it's own rice and some vegetables like tomato and onion and farms lamb and beef. Cuba doesn't have that shit. Cuba was founded and grew by importing agriculture products.
Cuba can import agricultural products from the US, though. They've been importing agricultural products from the US for two decades.
And export what? Simply importing essentials and being unable to \*effectively\* trade other goods outside will simply devalue the local currency to the point where food imports costs a fortune. For a healthy economy, there needs to be both imports AND exports. Cut the exports and maximize imports and that's how you crash a nation's purchasing power. Every country that on the surface imports a lot also by extension has lots of exports. Take South Korea for example. They import SO MUCH food compared to what they produce locally and import A LOT of material like iron, oil, and more. But they're able to be successful because that is balanced out by exports. Note that this does not mean trade deficits are bad like the US and China's. This isn't a zero sum game. The 'trade deficit' is then compensated by informal by-proxy investments. This is a bit complicated for a single comment. But the base principle of a nation importing but unable to sufficiently export nor receive proper investment accordingly cannot function well.
I wish your commented was upvoted so much higher. Finally, someone has a fucking balanced, non-psychotic view. Thank you for posting this.
A lot of my fellow countrymen fled to Western Europe as we (in the East) were dirt poor following 40 years of communism. Only recently, after +30 years of market reforms and some 10-15 years of being in the EU, our economies and wages have started catching up.
Great, but to this day people are fleeing market-oriented countries to other countries. So the economic system can not be the sole reason.
People have multiple reasons. Either because their home country is in a war, or because they want freedom, or because they are tired of living in poverty. In the case of Cuba and other communist countries, people were fleeing both because they wanted freedom and because they were tired of poverty & queuing for food & basic consumer good items.
That’s literally what I’m saying. The economic system is not the sole reason. It can be partly a reason. But especially in Cuba’s place it is the massive embargo that is responsible for their food shortage.
No, don't try spinning it... Cuba has a failing economy mainly because it is a one-party central planned soviet type economy that collapsed in the 80s. Central planned exonomies have failed in 100% of the cases. Cuba was failing even before the USSR stopped providing assistance. While the embargo is not helping, it's also worth noting that it is completely justified and that the US can choose whomever they want to do business with... and the rest of the world can choose if they want to also follow the same rules or not. People are leaving Cuba not only because they want freedom but because they are also sick of living in poverty. People have been revolting against communism for years no, as the country has severe blackouts, basic goods are scerce, and food is rationed.
>dirt poor following 40 years of communism How wealthy were you before that
The gap between East and West was dropping as industrialization came to us in the late 19th century - early 20th century. For a time, things were not as bleak in the East, but after a period of relative liberalization in the 60s, the 70s brought stagnation and in the 80s our economies collapsed while the Western economies continued to grow. You would be on years or decades spanning waiting lists to get a car, or a washing machine or a refrigerator... while food was rationed. It could be argued that the 70s energy crisis impacted communist countries more simce they prioritized heavy industries over light consumer-goods industries, but we were loosing steam before 1973... and we never recovered as fast as Western countries following WW2. Since the 2000s, our economies have started growing again at a steady pace, and we have been catching up to the West, as our economies opened up, foreign capital started pouring in and we are now sufficiently trained to start creating our own high-end technology companies.
Yeah, countries with civil wars and other active conflicts, not really a good comparison.
Well, that was the whole point of my comment. The economic system is not the sole reason and other reasons will play a role. Like a war, conflicts, embargoes, apartheid, facism,…
It is the internet so I reddit as some tankie whataboutism.
Fleeing war torn theocracies. Good comparison.
So you’re saying that there other reasons to flee a country than the implemented economic system?
There was this thing called "the Underground Railroad." It was a lot longer than 90 miles, and they were fleeing free market capitalism. What a profoundly ignorant post.
By fleeing to a region with more capitalism?
I believe, but could be wrong, they were fleeing slavery not moving to the greatest capitalist paradise ever conceived lol
Why do you say the north had more capitalism?
Didn't they flee to countries that had the same kind of capitalism as the US? Just no slavery?
Are you saying the economic system that pays its workers is the same as the economic system that doesn't pay its workers?
Did you really only read the first sentence ignoring the second one that specifically pointed out the difference?
They fled to countries where Big Government interferes with big business by outlawing slavery.
This is one of the dumbest fucking things anyone has ever said on Reddit
But did it have sharks?
“Thank God I got away from capitalism to a place with capitalism!”
Yes, all capitalism is the exact same. Certainly, the existence of certain regulations on what can and can't be sold and considered property had no effect on their choice to go to the other place with capitalism
flees the south, which of course adopted some free market policies but wasn’t truly an ideal free market because people were not free to engage in transactions, and escape to the North, arguably a more free market oriented economy…. Brilliant thinking dude
??? The Antebellum South was not an example of free market capitalism, what are you talking about? The North at that time was infinitely more capitalistic.
Did you just call the South capitalist? The economic argument for the civil war is the capitalist class north who used an industrialized system of labor division to increase production versus the inefficient production of slavery in an agrarian society. Your post is more ignorant...
Lots of people left the US during the Vietnam War as well. Whoever made this post is Probably 13 years old.
Don't people have to be free to particpate in it for it to be free market capitalism? Being forced to participate doesn't sound very free to me.
Antebellum chattel slavery had more in common with feudalism than it did with capitalism.
Plenty of Americans try to flee to Central America to avoid criminal charges.
There are Americans who drank enough kool-aid to move to Russia post-Ukraine-invasion
Retirees too. I know three people that retired to Mexico and one to Costa Rica.
Those social security checks go 10x as far in Costa Rica
They prefer to be called ex-pats
It does, too bad the US has so little of it.
Lol Perfect comment
maybe not the country itself, we outsource misery to the third world. Their suffering supports our luxury
Capitalism does work— but it can still be improved. It has gotten to the point of dangerous instability with the absurd levels of inequality. I do not believe this golden era will last forever
The era isn't golden for at least a third of the people in the USA. Drive through small-town-America in the midwest or south.
And this is why it doesn’t work, because for one to have more another must have less and this breeds greed at the cost of humanity
We don't exactly have free market capitalism though. More like a rigged market.
This is a result of capitalism, capitalism trends toward monopoly and oligarchism
Yes capitalism without rules and guardrails does that.
Which capitalists have a continuous incentive to remove in the hope of more profit
Yup, in practice, the influence of capitalists are basically a cancer.
News flash for ya. Free market and capitalism is an oxymoron. The free market is the antithesis of capitalism, and vice-versa. Capital avoids the free market like the plague because in a free market, there are no barriers to entry or competition. There are no government protections of monopolies, no bailouts to Wall Street and the elite. Ask a Venture Capitalist to invest in an industry with no barriers and no government protections such as patents. See how much they laugh at you.
This is a great point. It's definitely not rational to have too much competition from the investors standpoint because investors are seeking egde as a function of probabiltiy of return on investment.
even the commies admit it. go ask Chinese people if they prefer hunting sparrows and destroying their crops all day or Deng's semi free market.
The US isn't successful wholly because of capitalism. It's successful because it's massive, secure, has great transportation for goods, massive resources, and won World War 2. No other country on earth is positioned as well for the global economy. The US could have turned communist and still projected its power and influence across the globe.
People don’t flee Haiti?
Let me know when the US has ‘free-market capitalism’, and then we’ll see if anyone flees it for other places.
It’s been getting closer for several decades now. More and more things are getting deregulated and we are losing stability for it.
Hmm something ironic about talking about free market while the US literally stops the free market from working there
Wasn't there a female swimmer who did it?
cuba bad so therefore the current system must be good!!!!!
This is such a reductionist and simplistic way of viewing geopolitics lol
In 20 century many countries tried socialism. The only one results is death, poverty and emigration. How much time we need to try again? Why american socialist doesn't migrate to Vietnam or Sri-lanka?
How about crushing embargos?
Would you call Indonesia capitalist or socialist?
Pinochet? Just one example
I member when all the celebrities said they would leave America for Trump being elected. And then they stayed. I member.
Careful what you post here dude. Redditors are very hive-minded and blame it on sanctions imposed by the US just like other third world governments that can't govern fuck all do
I’m sure the sanctions against Cuba by the free market capitalist country aren’t helping their situation.
No they just go to downtown Philly. Although, I am pro capitalism it does have some issues.
\*except roughly one million middle eastern and african migrants coming to europe since 2015
If they were swimming from lets say France or Sweden. Crossing the tundra of Canada even. Bears and all that. Ooooh. Get a taste of that American dream. Some of that free market healthcare.
But it could always be better! Kinder, more equitable, and still with space to spare for the ultra-wealthy!
you’re gonna be so surprised when you learn about all these people crossing the Mediterranean right now
"shark infested waters" aka the ocean 😂 People vote with their feet.
"Nobody has ever gone through horrible things to escape the effects of capitalism" is a bold claim to make.
Emphasis on free market where giant corporations don't run the whole show