4 ms·

Every other country in the world was free to trade with Cuba. Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Communism failed everywhere else, why

Every other country in the world was free to trade with Cuba. Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Communism failed everywhere else, why would Cuba have been any different but for the embargo?

apalmer 11y ago
Communism failed everywhere... BUT most of those countries have started down the path to a more market driven economy primarily through external trade... its weird to have trade with USSR and China but not allow trade with Cuba at this time.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The embargo was never about communism itself, it was a response to the seizure of assets owned by Americans without compensation. I think these other countries either didn't do this, or at least didn't do it as much.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  You're drawing a false dichotomy. Capitalism is good for a country regardless of trade arrangements. It's even better when you have trading partners, but you don't need them to reap massive benefits from a free market system. Capitalism is really bad if you're trying to hold onto your dictatorship. Cuba "opened up" economically before, in the 90s. They were under a lot of internal pressure after the collapse of their sponsor, the USSR. As soon as the economy recovered enough to secure the stability of Castro's ruling mafia (party officials, military, etc.), he reversed the market reforms and ratcheted up repression.
davidw 11y ago
> Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Lifting the embargo will make that even more obvious to those who still don't get it.
the_af 11y ago
Cuba is a bit more complex than that. - It's true Cuba is a disaster in some aspects, regardless of the embargo. You have a point there. - On the other hand, it's hard to argue some disasters were made even worse by the embargo. - Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education. Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This too is part of the lesson.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This is just completely false. Cuba was by no means a democratic or rich country, but there was a growing middle class and plenty of economic success. It was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. Here's a good article from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro... >Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education. This is another myth that's been debunked. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm . It's a National Review article, so they obviously have their own biases, but most of the pro-Cuban pieces rely almost exclusively on Cuba's self-reported WHO statistics, which are obviously unreliable.
  - the_af 11y ago
    Um, the PBS link you posted states Cuba had a very troubled history, with a complex history of assassinated leaders, repression, inequality, illiteracy, and widespread corruption. Finally there's Batista, who after an initially progressive government, ended up conducting a coup d'etat which "destroyed the democratic republic he had brought into existence" [sic]. Whether the right next step was Communism or not, the country at that point was an unmitigated disaster. The article from the conservative National Review is, like you say, biased. There is truth to it and there is opinion.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
kuschku 11y ago
Every other country was free to trade with them? lol? You do realize the US banned any companies from trading with the US if they had traded with Cuba before? And used this against Iran, too?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  That's very deceptive. That restriction was applied to US companies' foreign subsidiaries in 1992, and to all foreign companies in 1995. Castro came to power in 1959. Thirty-three years of economic catastrophe is enough to make my point.
reis4g 11y ago
What's that communism thing you talk about anyway? Doesn't sound like the Marx I read. Also, please, define "disaster". Since by my knowledge, Cuba is neither a disaster, nor a communist country...
- oblio 11y ago
  Nobody has implemented Communism or Capitalism exactly as they are defined in their textbooks. The difference between the two systems is that one of them, even when implemented incorrectly, still works in practice. The other one is an intellectual's dream that caused pain and suffering for millions of people. We should drop the "no true Scotsman" for Communism, at this point.
  - reis4g 11y ago
    >The difference between the two systems is that one of them, even when implemented incorrectly, still works in practice. No, the difference between them is everything but that. IMHO Communism is more just, intelligent and advanced way of doing things... Saying that Capitalism "works" is just untrue, though it would be good to know what are your reasons to think that, and what news do you read? What's a socio-economic system that "works" for you? >The other one is an intellectual's dream that caused pain and suffering for millions of people. "An intellectual's dream", seriously? For starters it is not just one intellectual but lots of the brightest sociological minds on history, and also, it's not a dream, the idea of communism has all the backing of centuries of sociological development and science, and it's a very plausible evolution to the non-ever-working capitalism. >We should drop the "no true Scotsman" for Communism, at this point. Agree. My point though, is that we can't keep stigmatizing communism and misusing the term because of poor knowledge or out-of-space-time implementations.

apalmer 11y ago

Communism failed everywhere... BUT most of those countries have started down the path to a more market driven economy primarily through external trade... its weird to have trade with USSR and China but not allow trade with Cuba at this time.

mikeash 11y ago
The embargo was never about communism itself, it was a response to the seizure of assets owned by Americans without compensation. I think these other countries either didn't do this, or at least didn't do it as much.
marcoperaza 11y ago
You're drawing a false dichotomy. Capitalism is good for a country regardless of trade arrangements. It's even better when you have trading partners, but you don't need them to reap massive benefits from a free market system. Capitalism is really bad if you're trying to hold onto your dictatorship. Cuba "opened up" economically before, in the 90s. They were under a lot of internal pressure after the collapse of their sponsor, the USSR. As soon as the economy recovered enough to secure the stability of Castro's ruling mafia (party officials, military, etc.), he reversed the market reforms and ratcheted up repression.

davidw 11y ago

> Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Lifting the embargo will make that even more obvious to those who still don't get it.

the_af 11y ago

Cuba is a bit more complex than that. - It's true Cuba is a disaster in some aspects, regardless of the embargo. You have a point there. - On the other hand, it's hard to argue some disasters were made even worse by the embargo. - Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education. Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This too is part of the lesson.

marcoperaza 11y ago
>Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This is just completely false. Cuba was by no means a democratic or rich country, but there was a growing middle class and plenty of economic success. It was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. Here's a good article from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro... >Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education. This is another myth that's been debunked. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm . It's a National Review article, so they obviously have their own biases, but most of the pro-Cuban pieces rely almost exclusively on Cuba's self-reported WHO statistics, which are obviously unreliable.
- the_af 11y ago
  Um, the PBS link you posted states Cuba had a very troubled history, with a complex history of assassinated leaders, repression, inequality, illiteracy, and widespread corruption. Finally there's Batista, who after an initially progressive government, ended up conducting a coup d'etat which "destroyed the democratic republic he had brought into existence" [sic]. Whether the right next step was Communism or not, the country at that point was an unmitigated disaster. The article from the conservative National Review is, like you say, biased. There is truth to it and there is opinion.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago

kuschku 11y ago

Every other country was free to trade with them? lol? You do realize the US banned any companies from trading with the US if they had traded with Cuba before? And used this against Iran, too?

marcoperaza 11y ago
That's very deceptive. That restriction was applied to US companies' foreign subsidiaries in 1992, and to all foreign companies in 1995. Castro came to power in 1959. Thirty-three years of economic catastrophe is enough to make my point.

reis4g 11y ago

What's that communism thing you talk about anyway? Doesn't sound like the Marx I read. Also, please, define "disaster". Since by my knowledge, Cuba is neither a disaster, nor a communist country...

oblio 11y ago
Nobody has implemented Communism or Capitalism exactly as they are defined in their textbooks. The difference between the two systems is that one of them, even when implemented incorrectly, still works in practice. The other one is an intellectual's dream that caused pain and suffering for millions of people. We should drop the "no true Scotsman" for Communism, at this point.
- reis4g 11y ago
  >The difference between the two systems is that one of them, even when implemented incorrectly, still works in practice. No, the difference between them is everything but that. IMHO Communism is more just, intelligent and advanced way of doing things... Saying that Capitalism "works" is just untrue, though it would be good to know what are your reasons to think that, and what news do you read? What's a socio-economic system that "works" for you? >The other one is an intellectual's dream that caused pain and suffering for millions of people. "An intellectual's dream", seriously? For starters it is not just one intellectual but lots of the brightest sociological minds on history, and also, it's not a dream, the idea of communism has all the backing of centuries of sociological development and science, and it's a very plausible evolution to the non-ever-working capitalism. >We should drop the "no true Scotsman" for Communism, at this point. Agree. My point though, is that we can't keep stigmatizing communism and misusing the term because of poor knowledge or out-of-space-time implementations.