4 ms·

Romania was an extremely poor country, and that has nothing to do with socialism. It was poor before socialism, and slightly less poor under socialism. Comparin

by door4 8y ago

Romania was an extremely poor country, and that has nothing to do with socialism. It was poor before socialism, and slightly less poor under socialism. Comparing it to living conditions in the U.S. is disingenuous. If this is what Bernie Sanders wants, is Bernie Sanders also planning on somehow destroying 95% of America's wealth, establishing a secret police force and enforcing one-party rule before attempting universal healthcare? Then maybe it'd look like Romania under Ceaușescu. We have more than enough resources to provide a good living for everyone in this country. Capitalism does not do that, and never will. Only socialism will.

thecolorblue 8y ago
This was my understanding of Cuba as well, that it was a poor country when it started. I am having trouble finding Cuba's GDP before, or arround, the revolution in 1953. So take this comment with a grain of salt.
- door4 8y ago
  GDP growth under socialism was always comparable with capitalist countries. And even despite being a relatively poor country and being under embargo from the US for nearly 70 years, Cuba has a higher literacy rate and life expectancy than the United States. Compare the development of China, which is responsible for nearly all of the poverty reduction of the last 30 years, and India, a similarly situated but more market-oriented economy victim to western Imperialism. It's night and day. I'm not defending any of these regimes (they all certainly had problems), but the argument that socialism "doesn't work" in terms of creating a functional, growing economy is simply not consistent with the historical record. Again, despite controlling most of the global economy and being the wealthiest country in the world, the U.S still doesn't have affordable housing, livable infrastructure, reasonable work environments, and enough food for all its people. Because capitalism never has and never will provide those things.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Cuba's literacy rate apparently went from ~70% to 96% [1] after the revolution due to a concerted push for literacy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign

by door4 8y ago

thecolorblue 8y ago

This was my understanding of Cuba as well, that it was a poor country when it started. I am having trouble finding Cuba's GDP before, or arround, the revolution in 1953. So take this comment with a grain of salt.

door4 8y ago
GDP growth under socialism was always comparable with capitalist countries. And even despite being a relatively poor country and being under embargo from the US for nearly 70 years, Cuba has a higher literacy rate and life expectancy than the United States. Compare the development of China, which is responsible for nearly all of the poverty reduction of the last 30 years, and India, a similarly situated but more market-oriented economy victim to western Imperialism. It's night and day. I'm not defending any of these regimes (they all certainly had problems), but the argument that socialism "doesn't work" in terms of creating a functional, growing economy is simply not consistent with the historical record. Again, despite controlling most of the global economy and being the wealthiest country in the world, the U.S still doesn't have affordable housing, livable infrastructure, reasonable work environments, and enough food for all its people. Because capitalism never has and never will provide those things.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
Cuba's literacy rate apparently went from ~70% to 96% [1] after the revolution due to a concerted push for literacy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign