7 ms·

> After spending a couple weeks in Cuba it’s not hard to see why. Which is the consequence of being sanctioned into oblivion for decades by the global hegemon,

by mfru 2y ago

> After spending a couple weeks in Cuba it’s not hard to see why. Which is the consequence of being sanctioned into oblivion for decades by the global hegemon, much to the dislike of the entire rest of the world.

lr4444lr 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- brookst 2y ago
  Are you saying that the massive multi-decade US sanctions had no impact?
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - cardanome 2y ago
      Cuba is the only socialist country currently. Maybe North Korea if you close one and a half eyes. China has long gone capitalist.
      - kgwgk 2y ago
        China also self-identifies as a socialist state - like Laos and Vietnam. No need to hurt their feelings.
        cardanome 2y ago
        They don't. Official ideology is that they a going through a temporary capitalist phase and will switch to socialism once they developed enough to do so. Obviously they wont. It was just a tactic to avoid the chaos of the fall of the Soviet Union while still changing out the economic system. Keeping political stability while allowing the people in power in enrich themselves thanks to capitalism.
        kgwgk 2y ago
        Q: What does the CCP think about that? A: We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism Full quote: Some have called our road "Social Capitalism", others "State Capitalism", and yet others "Technocratic Capitalism". These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road – our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress. ... Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the dialectical unity of the theoretical logic of scientific socialism and the historical logic of China's social development. It's scientific socialism rooted in Chinese realities, reflecting the will of Chinese people, and adapted to the requirements of China and its circumstances. — Xi Jinping, speech to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, 5 January 2013[5] Q: What does the Constitution say? A: Article 1 The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited. From the preamble: After the founding of the People's Republic, China gradually achieved its transition from a New-Democratic to a socialist society. The socialist transformation of the private ownership of the means of production was completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished and the socialist system established. [...] China will be in the primary stage of socialism for a long time to come.
        cardanome 2y ago
        You have to read between the lines with those things. Note that "adhering to socialism" is not the same as having a socialist economy. Also being on the "socialist road" implies a process, not that they are already there. Also you left out an important part in your first quote > and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress. This includes building a socialist market economy;[..] You might as well translate "socialist market economy" as capitalism with red flags. There is no market economy under socialism, that is the whole point. No one in their right mind thinks China has a socialist economy. These people have decades of experience twisting ideology to whatever they want to do. Though Xi is whole bit less liberal than his predecessors. Some do argue that he plans to bring China back to a more socialist course but I am not sure about it. Personally, I think the growing socialist rhetoric is mostly a reaction to the growing wealth inequality and other problem in China.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    They are saying that if the many ways that socialist countries have failed, there is always a hundred different excuses for why that specific example of failure doesn't "count". If your system is incapable of dealing with any sort of adversity, then that is failure of the system. All countries around the world have problems. And yet, most countries are able to deal with them. Unlikely, apparently, every major socialist country.
    - grugagag 2y ago
      Most countries have an incredible amount of debt and have nothing to show for it. Moreover, the borrowed money accumulated in high proportion only in a handful of pockets, leaving behind a flimsy corrupted society.
    - cardanome 2y ago
      What capitalist country would be able to deal with this level of sanctions that Cuba experiences? People hoped that even such a huge capitalist country like Russia would fall after sanctions. Granted, did not work out because Russia found alternative allies in China and Iran but the idea that capitalist countries can just eat up sanctions like nothing is insane. Otherwise sanctions wouldn't be a political tool to begin with. Lots of capitalist African countries have people just starving on mass and that is despite having free access to markets and despite western countries not only not sabotaging them but on the contrary providing development aid. But you will tell me how that is "not real capitalism" and how they are doing it wrong. Real capitalism is just the few rich Western Nations, we don't talk about the losers. Communist revolutions tend to happen in the poorest countries on earth and they face adversity on every step of the way. That they even manage to survive shows how resilient socialism is.
      - stale2002 2y ago
        You didn't respond to anything that I said. What I said is that there is always an excuse for every single failed socialist country and that this is indicative of a problem with that system. It is every last one of them. There are zero real successes. > But you will tell me how that is "not real capitalism" At no point did I claim that capitalism always suceeds. I merely claim that some successes do exist. The same is not true for socialism. There are no successes anywhere, and there is always 100 excuses for why those failures don't count.
  - lr4444lr 2y ago
    No: that free trade, low tariffs, and low export restrictions - free market principles - are implicitly championed by the supporters of insular, low freedom regimes that receive plaudits just because they had revolutionaries who promised free health care, university and the like, and they think these free trade principles happen in a vacuum. I'm not pretending the USA doesn't meddle destructively or that Battista was some saint, but multidecade single party rule of Castro was an objective failure, along with the other Socialist regimes of the 20th century. The track record sucks. Time to face facts.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
I used to have more sympathy for this position, and my political biases are strongly left wing, but having spent time in Cuba on and off for the last 20 years... time has shown just how incompetent and malevolent the Cuban regime is. It would suck badly there without the sanctions, too. Though I think the sanctions give the regime an excuse. Obama was right to start to lift restrictions... a decade of continued stagnation even after the sanctions lifted would have undermined the regime's ability to continue to rule more than anything else.
- safety1st 2y ago
  Would it have really? I'm not particularly up to speed on the situation in Cuba, but there are a lot of awful regimes on this planet that remain in power simply because they have all the guns. These regimes are unpopular, they govern poorly, but no one can do anything about it, because the guns, tanks and soldiers are all under their control, and they've decided that a peaceful transition of power is not an option they wish to entertain. It's entirely possible for this to be a stable state that lasts for a lifetime.
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    The Cuban regime has been able to produce an aura of legitimacy around itself through its history of resistance to US imperialism, or that's how it's framed, whether you take that at face value or how you interpret it is up to you. If the brutal ugly side of US imperialism (in the form of military aggression or intense actually-illegal unitary sanctions etc) goes away, so does the legitimacy. People will be asking "why" they can't buy basic consumer goods, and the answer will not be believable in the slightest. Cuba is not North Korea. It's not isolated in that way. Nor does it have a Juche style cult of self-reliance. It is heavily dependent on tourism for its economy. Even its official communist ideology emphasizes internationalist linkages and outlook. The sanctions are counterproductive and unjust.
    - brigadier132 2y ago
      The only people who find the Cuban regime legitimate would find an excuse to promote its legitimacy with or without sanctions. Trade would benefit the government of Cuba as it did with China and helping nations with totalitarian dictatorships is a failed strategy. As the communists like to say "The capitalists will sell us our pitchforks". No, we don't have to.
ekianjo 2y ago
> Which is the consequence of being sanctioned into oblivion for decades by the global hegemon or the consequence of having a clueless communist regime, since most communist countries do very poorly economically. Sanctions rarely give the whole picture.
- alsetmusic 2y ago
  > since most communist countries do very poorly economically. It’s almost as though being brutally sanctioned by a superpower makes it nearly impossible to succeed. Do you not see the irony of your statement?
  - ekianjo 2y ago
    You don't seem to be aware that Cuba actually trades with many countries, including the US, and this for a long time. https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba/Trade https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba/Trade
  - kgwgk 2y ago
    Was the USSR brutally sanctioned by a superpower? It was a superpower itself - it was supposed to be even more of a superpower! "In the 1961 edition of his famous textbook of economic principles, Paul Samuelson wrote that GNP in the Soviet Union was about half that in the United States but the Soviet Union was growing faster. As a result, one could comfortably forecast that Soviet GNP would exceed that of the United States by as early as 1984 or perhaps by as late as 1997 and in any event Soviet GNP would greatly catch-up to U.S. GNP." https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/soviet-growth-american-textbooks.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/so...
- cced 2y ago
  Opinions like these are the reason why this “communism v capitalism” discussion never evolves beyond “them bad us good”. China is often the target of anti communist propaganda so how do you square that hole? 1# economy when looking at GDP(PPP) so your “analysis” falls short. Communist “regimes” often have to deal with outside interference from the “superior” capitalist system. OP’s point is extremely valid: Cuba does not have the right to self determination as other countries impose themselves on them and prevent their economic growth. The Cuba case is really quite interesting when you compare it to more recent cases of indivisibility of security. We all have short memories I guess, super heros and cartoon villains. Never change hn.
gosub100 2y ago
we criticize ourselves for sanctioning communist countries, but don't they necessarily have to be hostile to capitalist nations? I mean, assume their communism is working properly and "everyone gets the same" for all resources. Its pretty much a given that that level of resources will be less than a capitalist nation. If we accept the axiom that each person wants to maximize their resources, then we should expect a natural outflow from the communist nation to the capitalist one. In order to limit that, any ruler would be incentivized to pain the capitalist world as the enemy or make it a crime to affiliate/sympathize with them. this naturally leads to conflict between nations.
- aniviacat 2y ago
  > Its pretty much a given that that level of resources will be less than a capitalist nation. Why? > If we accept the axiom that each person wants to maximize their resources, then we should expect a natural outflow from the [poorer] nation to the [richer] one. In order to limit that, any ruler would be incentivized to pain the [rich] world as the enemy or make it a crime to affiliate/sympathize with them. this naturally leads to conflict between nations. (I replaced communist/capitalist with poor/rich since that's what your point is actually about.) Are you saying that the poor world is naturally the enemy of the rich world? That the rich world should utilize its power (e.g. using sanctions) to keep the poor world (which in your view is the enemy) weak?
Aunche 2y ago
The US has been the the only major country sanctioning Cuba for a decade and a half, but the economy has only gotten worse. Sanctions may explain why they has lagged behind in tech. It doesn't explain why Cuba needs to import 70-80% of their food despite being a fertile tropical paradise. https://www.wfpusa.org/countries/cuba/#:~:text=Cuba%20imports%2070%20to%2080,slated%20for%20social%20protection%20programs https://www.wfpusa.org/countries/cuba/#:~:text=Cuba%20import....
- cardanome 2y ago
  > It doesn't explain why Cuba needs to import 70-80% of their food despite being a fertile tropical paradise. There have been famine and starvation before the communists took power. I don't think Cuba has ever been fully food self-sufficient. Not many countries are. Not to mention agriculture needs access to fertilizers which the sanctions make harder to get. The more important part from your source: > The largest island in the Caribbean, Cuba is one of the most successful in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Food-based social safety nets include a monthly food basket for the entire population, school feeding programs, and mother-and-child health care programs. This is a big achievement. Also it doesn't make sense to compare Cuba with the richest Western Countries. Communist revolutions tend to happen in the poorest countries of the world. Saying they are poor because of communism is confusing cause and effect. If we compare Cuba to her peers in Latin America, especially Haiti, then Cuba is doing vastly, vastly better. Cuba is doing really well on the human development index, providing free health care and decent education for all.
  - krvajal 2y ago
    what food basket are you talking about? that thing only exists in the news. in reality why dystopian reality you live in? Cuba better than Haiti??? You are reading to many fake news. Cubans are travelling to Haiti to buy food and medicine. Cuban healthcare good? You are joking right? If you need surgery have to bring your own equipment, including chirurgical globes and syringes. You have to either buy it in the black market or have a relative in a capitalist country to send it to you. Dont even get me started on education. Happy to provide you more details and break the bubble you are leaving in.
stef25 2y ago
Ah yes, sanctions. That's what everyone said when I was in Venezuela toward the end of Chavez. Couldn't possibly be incompetence or corruption.
- philippejara 2y ago
  The sanctions in Venezuela are/were very different from the ones in Cuba, there is a prohibition of trade from any US company and its subsidiaries with Cuba with the exception of food, not some specific sectors aimed at supposedly weakening the government. With that being said it could also be incompetence and/or corruption, but ignoring the embargo completely is just working to weaken your argument.
- pydry 2y ago
  It wasnt sanctions but pretty much every extremely oil rich country that is fought over is a basket case, run by a vicious dictatorship or are the sole exception lucky enough to make it work - Norway. Like Cuba, Venezuela was a poverty stricken mess before the socialists took power.
apwell23 2y ago
they should try to become USAs bitch then. Leaders there would rather starve their population than give up their power.
easytiger 2y ago
Go to Cuba, you'll see why that take is absolutely silly.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  Going to Cuba and talking to the Cubans made me realize how ridiculous American opinions on Cuba are. They’re a wonderful people repressed by one of the world’s worst governments, and unlike, say, North Korea, they know it. They all have family in Florida. They are very aware of the outside world.
  - easytiger 2y ago
    Indeed, despite efforts to keep them there. There is a reason a passport was impossible (now just very difficult) to get. The place would be empty.
ChumpGPT 2y ago
[flagged]
- rambojohnson 2y ago
  typical uneducated american viewpoint.
  - ChumpGPT 2y ago
    Yeah, that's it...I'm Canadian hehehe..
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  I don’t think you understand the history of Cuba, communism, capitalism, democracy, poverty, slavery, free markets, sanctions, or the interactions between all these things. Nobody in Cuba “asked for”, what you call “poverty and slavery”. There are over 2 million tourists a year to Cuba. So saying “even the tourists aren’t going any more” is factually incorrect. I’m not sure if numbers going up or down is related to “bread in resorts”. I suspect it isn’t a leading consideration for most. The fastest growing economy of the last few decades is communist, and Vietnam and Laos just plod on, so while I might have sympathy that authoritarianism is a horrible system, I’m not sure I see the picture as bleak as you do. I realise what I am about to ask you will come across as flippant, but I actually sincerely mean it. Could you go and read some books on the topics you think you’re an expert on before posting utter turgid nonsense you read on another forum here? I don’t want to live in a communist state, but I’m not so arrogant as to blame the citizens of a sanctioned authoritarian system for their own misery. Neither should you.
ransom1538 2y ago
OR. They lost a gamble. They picked Russia over the US and lost, big.
- pajko 2y ago
  Khmmm... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose
  - ransom1538 2y ago
    From your link: "It (Operation_Mongoose) was officially authorized on November 30, 1961 by U.S. President John F. Kennedy." JFK was shot in the head (most likely Oswald visited Mexico City and the Cuban and Soviet consulates). So... even more bad gambles by Cuba.
daniel-s 2y ago
If Cuba were a free society instead of being run by communists they would have an economy that worked. This is the destruction caused by ~¾ of a century of central economic planning and Marxist ideology.

by mfru 2y ago

lr4444lr 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
brookst 2y ago
Are you saying that the massive multi-decade US sanctions had no impact?
- dingnuts 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cardanome 2y ago
    Cuba is the only socialist country currently. Maybe North Korea if you close one and a half eyes. China has long gone capitalist.
    - kgwgk 2y ago
      China also self-identifies as a socialist state - like Laos and Vietnam. No need to hurt their feelings.
      - cardanome 2y ago
        They don't. Official ideology is that they a going through a temporary capitalist phase and will switch to socialism once they developed enough to do so. Obviously they wont. It was just a tactic to avoid the chaos of the fall of the Soviet Union while still changing out the economic system. Keeping political stability while allowing the people in power in enrich themselves thanks to capitalism.
        kgwgk 2y ago
        Q: What does the CCP think about that? A: We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism Full quote: Some have called our road "Social Capitalism", others "State Capitalism", and yet others "Technocratic Capitalism". These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road – our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress. ... Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the dialectical unity of the theoretical logic of scientific socialism and the historical logic of China's social development. It's scientific socialism rooted in Chinese realities, reflecting the will of Chinese people, and adapted to the requirements of China and its circumstances. — Xi Jinping, speech to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, 5 January 2013[5] Q: What does the Constitution say? A: Article 1 The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited. From the preamble: After the founding of the People's Republic, China gradually achieved its transition from a New-Democratic to a socialist society. The socialist transformation of the private ownership of the means of production was completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished and the socialist system established. [...] China will be in the primary stage of socialism for a long time to come.
        cardanome 2y ago
        You have to read between the lines with those things. Note that "adhering to socialism" is not the same as having a socialist economy. Also being on the "socialist road" implies a process, not that they are already there. Also you left out an important part in your first quote > and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress. This includes building a socialist market economy;[..] You might as well translate "socialist market economy" as capitalism with red flags. There is no market economy under socialism, that is the whole point. No one in their right mind thinks China has a socialist economy. These people have decades of experience twisting ideology to whatever they want to do. Though Xi is whole bit less liberal than his predecessors. Some do argue that he plans to bring China back to a more socialist course but I am not sure about it. Personally, I think the growing socialist rhetoric is mostly a reaction to the growing wealth inequality and other problem in China.
- stale2002 2y ago
  They are saying that if the many ways that socialist countries have failed, there is always a hundred different excuses for why that specific example of failure doesn't "count". If your system is incapable of dealing with any sort of adversity, then that is failure of the system. All countries around the world have problems. And yet, most countries are able to deal with them. Unlikely, apparently, every major socialist country.
  - grugagag 2y ago
    Most countries have an incredible amount of debt and have nothing to show for it. Moreover, the borrowed money accumulated in high proportion only in a handful of pockets, leaving behind a flimsy corrupted society.
  - cardanome 2y ago
    What capitalist country would be able to deal with this level of sanctions that Cuba experiences? People hoped that even such a huge capitalist country like Russia would fall after sanctions. Granted, did not work out because Russia found alternative allies in China and Iran but the idea that capitalist countries can just eat up sanctions like nothing is insane. Otherwise sanctions wouldn't be a political tool to begin with. Lots of capitalist African countries have people just starving on mass and that is despite having free access to markets and despite western countries not only not sabotaging them but on the contrary providing development aid. But you will tell me how that is "not real capitalism" and how they are doing it wrong. Real capitalism is just the few rich Western Nations, we don't talk about the losers. Communist revolutions tend to happen in the poorest countries on earth and they face adversity on every step of the way. That they even manage to survive shows how resilient socialism is.
    - stale2002 2y ago
      You didn't respond to anything that I said. What I said is that there is always an excuse for every single failed socialist country and that this is indicative of a problem with that system. It is every last one of them. There are zero real successes. > But you will tell me how that is "not real capitalism" At no point did I claim that capitalism always suceeds. I merely claim that some successes do exist. The same is not true for socialism. There are no successes anywhere, and there is always 100 excuses for why those failures don't count.
- lr4444lr 2y ago
  No: that free trade, low tariffs, and low export restrictions - free market principles - are implicitly championed by the supporters of insular, low freedom regimes that receive plaudits just because they had revolutionaries who promised free health care, university and the like, and they think these free trade principles happen in a vacuum. I'm not pretending the USA doesn't meddle destructively or that Battista was some saint, but multidecade single party rule of Castro was an objective failure, along with the other Socialist regimes of the 20th century. The track record sucks. Time to face facts.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

I used to have more sympathy for this position, and my political biases are strongly left wing, but having spent time in Cuba on and off for the last 20 years... time has shown just how incompetent and malevolent the Cuban regime is. It would suck badly there without the sanctions, too. Though I think the sanctions give the regime an excuse. Obama was right to start to lift restrictions... a decade of continued stagnation even after the sanctions lifted would have undermined the regime's ability to continue to rule more than anything else.

safety1st 2y ago
Would it have really? I'm not particularly up to speed on the situation in Cuba, but there are a lot of awful regimes on this planet that remain in power simply because they have all the guns. These regimes are unpopular, they govern poorly, but no one can do anything about it, because the guns, tanks and soldiers are all under their control, and they've decided that a peaceful transition of power is not an option they wish to entertain. It's entirely possible for this to be a stable state that lasts for a lifetime.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  The Cuban regime has been able to produce an aura of legitimacy around itself through its history of resistance to US imperialism, or that's how it's framed, whether you take that at face value or how you interpret it is up to you. If the brutal ugly side of US imperialism (in the form of military aggression or intense actually-illegal unitary sanctions etc) goes away, so does the legitimacy. People will be asking "why" they can't buy basic consumer goods, and the answer will not be believable in the slightest. Cuba is not North Korea. It's not isolated in that way. Nor does it have a Juche style cult of self-reliance. It is heavily dependent on tourism for its economy. Even its official communist ideology emphasizes internationalist linkages and outlook. The sanctions are counterproductive and unjust.
  - brigadier132 2y ago
    The only people who find the Cuban regime legitimate would find an excuse to promote its legitimacy with or without sanctions. Trade would benefit the government of Cuba as it did with China and helping nations with totalitarian dictatorships is a failed strategy. As the communists like to say "The capitalists will sell us our pitchforks". No, we don't have to.

ekianjo 2y ago

> Which is the consequence of being sanctioned into oblivion for decades by the global hegemon or the consequence of having a clueless communist regime, since most communist countries do very poorly economically. Sanctions rarely give the whole picture.

alsetmusic 2y ago
> since most communist countries do very poorly economically. It’s almost as though being brutally sanctioned by a superpower makes it nearly impossible to succeed. Do you not see the irony of your statement?
- ekianjo 2y ago
  You don't seem to be aware that Cuba actually trades with many countries, including the US, and this for a long time. https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba/Trade https://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba/Trade
- kgwgk 2y ago
  Was the USSR brutally sanctioned by a superpower? It was a superpower itself - it was supposed to be even more of a superpower! "In the 1961 edition of his famous textbook of economic principles, Paul Samuelson wrote that GNP in the Soviet Union was about half that in the United States but the Soviet Union was growing faster. As a result, one could comfortably forecast that Soviet GNP would exceed that of the United States by as early as 1984 or perhaps by as late as 1997 and in any event Soviet GNP would greatly catch-up to U.S. GNP." https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/soviet-growth-american-textbooks.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/so...
cced 2y ago
Opinions like these are the reason why this “communism v capitalism” discussion never evolves beyond “them bad us good”. China is often the target of anti communist propaganda so how do you square that hole? 1# economy when looking at GDP(PPP) so your “analysis” falls short. Communist “regimes” often have to deal with outside interference from the “superior” capitalist system. OP’s point is extremely valid: Cuba does not have the right to self determination as other countries impose themselves on them and prevent their economic growth. The Cuba case is really quite interesting when you compare it to more recent cases of indivisibility of security. We all have short memories I guess, super heros and cartoon villains. Never change hn.

gosub100 2y ago

we criticize ourselves for sanctioning communist countries, but don't they necessarily have to be hostile to capitalist nations? I mean, assume their communism is working properly and "everyone gets the same" for all resources. Its pretty much a given that that level of resources will be less than a capitalist nation. If we accept the axiom that each person wants to maximize their resources, then we should expect a natural outflow from the communist nation to the capitalist one. In order to limit that, any ruler would be incentivized to pain the capitalist world as the enemy or make it a crime to affiliate/sympathize with them. this naturally leads to conflict between nations.

aniviacat 2y ago
> Its pretty much a given that that level of resources will be less than a capitalist nation. Why? > If we accept the axiom that each person wants to maximize their resources, then we should expect a natural outflow from the [poorer] nation to the [richer] one. In order to limit that, any ruler would be incentivized to pain the [rich] world as the enemy or make it a crime to affiliate/sympathize with them. this naturally leads to conflict between nations. (I replaced communist/capitalist with poor/rich since that's what your point is actually about.) Are you saying that the poor world is naturally the enemy of the rich world? That the rich world should utilize its power (e.g. using sanctions) to keep the poor world (which in your view is the enemy) weak?

Aunche 2y ago

The US has been the the only major country sanctioning Cuba for a decade and a half, but the economy has only gotten worse. Sanctions may explain why they has lagged behind in tech. It doesn't explain why Cuba needs to import 70-80% of their food despite being a fertile tropical paradise. https://www.wfpusa.org/countries/cuba/#:~:text=Cuba%20imports%2070%20to%2080,slated%20for%20social%20protection%20programs https://www.wfpusa.org/countries/cuba/#:~:text=Cuba%20import....

cardanome 2y ago
> It doesn't explain why Cuba needs to import 70-80% of their food despite being a fertile tropical paradise. There have been famine and starvation before the communists took power. I don't think Cuba has ever been fully food self-sufficient. Not many countries are. Not to mention agriculture needs access to fertilizers which the sanctions make harder to get. The more important part from your source: > The largest island in the Caribbean, Cuba is one of the most successful in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Food-based social safety nets include a monthly food basket for the entire population, school feeding programs, and mother-and-child health care programs. This is a big achievement. Also it doesn't make sense to compare Cuba with the richest Western Countries. Communist revolutions tend to happen in the poorest countries of the world. Saying they are poor because of communism is confusing cause and effect. If we compare Cuba to her peers in Latin America, especially Haiti, then Cuba is doing vastly, vastly better. Cuba is doing really well on the human development index, providing free health care and decent education for all.
- krvajal 2y ago
  what food basket are you talking about? that thing only exists in the news. in reality why dystopian reality you live in? Cuba better than Haiti??? You are reading to many fake news. Cubans are travelling to Haiti to buy food and medicine. Cuban healthcare good? You are joking right? If you need surgery have to bring your own equipment, including chirurgical globes and syringes. You have to either buy it in the black market or have a relative in a capitalist country to send it to you. Dont even get me started on education. Happy to provide you more details and break the bubble you are leaving in.

stef25 2y ago

Ah yes, sanctions. That's what everyone said when I was in Venezuela toward the end of Chavez. Couldn't possibly be incompetence or corruption.

philippejara 2y ago
The sanctions in Venezuela are/were very different from the ones in Cuba, there is a prohibition of trade from any US company and its subsidiaries with Cuba with the exception of food, not some specific sectors aimed at supposedly weakening the government. With that being said it could also be incompetence and/or corruption, but ignoring the embargo completely is just working to weaken your argument.
pydry 2y ago
It wasnt sanctions but pretty much every extremely oil rich country that is fought over is a basket case, run by a vicious dictatorship or are the sole exception lucky enough to make it work - Norway. Like Cuba, Venezuela was a poverty stricken mess before the socialists took power.

apwell23 2y ago

they should try to become USAs bitch then. Leaders there would rather starve their population than give up their power.

easytiger 2y ago

Go to Cuba, you'll see why that take is absolutely silly.

mattmaroon 2y ago
Going to Cuba and talking to the Cubans made me realize how ridiculous American opinions on Cuba are. They’re a wonderful people repressed by one of the world’s worst governments, and unlike, say, North Korea, they know it. They all have family in Florida. They are very aware of the outside world.
- easytiger 2y ago
  Indeed, despite efforts to keep them there. There is a reason a passport was impossible (now just very difficult) to get. The place would be empty.

ChumpGPT 2y ago

[flagged]

rambojohnson 2y ago
typical uneducated american viewpoint.
- ChumpGPT 2y ago
  Yeah, that's it...I'm Canadian hehehe..
PaulRobinson 2y ago
I don’t think you understand the history of Cuba, communism, capitalism, democracy, poverty, slavery, free markets, sanctions, or the interactions between all these things. Nobody in Cuba “asked for”, what you call “poverty and slavery”. There are over 2 million tourists a year to Cuba. So saying “even the tourists aren’t going any more” is factually incorrect. I’m not sure if numbers going up or down is related to “bread in resorts”. I suspect it isn’t a leading consideration for most. The fastest growing economy of the last few decades is communist, and Vietnam and Laos just plod on, so while I might have sympathy that authoritarianism is a horrible system, I’m not sure I see the picture as bleak as you do. I realise what I am about to ask you will come across as flippant, but I actually sincerely mean it. Could you go and read some books on the topics you think you’re an expert on before posting utter turgid nonsense you read on another forum here? I don’t want to live in a communist state, but I’m not so arrogant as to blame the citizens of a sanctioned authoritarian system for their own misery. Neither should you.

ransom1538 2y ago

OR. They lost a gamble. They picked Russia over the US and lost, big.

pajko 2y ago
Khmmm... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose
- ransom1538 2y ago
  From your link: "It (Operation_Mongoose) was officially authorized on November 30, 1961 by U.S. President John F. Kennedy." JFK was shot in the head (most likely Oswald visited Mexico City and the Cuban and Soviet consulates). So... even more bad gambles by Cuba.

daniel-s 2y ago

If Cuba were a free society instead of being run by communists they would have an economy that worked. This is the destruction caused by ~¾ of a century of central economic planning and Marxist ideology.