4 ms·

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

by 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.

cardanome 2y ago
There have been insanely huge successes in socialist countries. The Soviet Union started from one of the least developed places on earth torn by WW1 and a bloody civil war and foreign intervention and became a global super power that would sent the first man into space. As for Cuba, I will use the Western source someone else quoted here: > 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. Generally socialism has been quite successfully globally at providing high literacy rates and massive increases of life expectancy. Most capitalist countries are utter failure. Even the richest country in the world the US has a huge issue with systemic poverty and a prison system that has one of the highest incarnation rates in the world. So there is the success? Norway living off from oil and gas? [0] 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...
- stale2002 2y ago
  > There have been insanely huge successes in socialist countries. And yet those aren't the countries that people want to go live in. The evidence speaks for it self. The capitalist countries are the ones with all the wealth, that everyone wants to move to, and the socialist ones are the countries that people want to escape. If you will notice, we are right now talking on a thread about 10% of the population of cuba, leaving cuba. > The Soviet Union The thing that doesn't exist anymore? Some success that was. > Most capitalist countries are utter failure And yet, when a capitalist country fails, where do the people in that country want to leave to? Oh, thats right. They want to go to other capitalist countries. > the US has a huge issue And yet, it one of the most desirable places in the world to live in, empirically proven by immigration rates. > Generally socialism has been quite successfully And yet the people actually living there still flee. No matter what metric you give, apparently the people living there don't care, because they still want to leave those countries and to move to capitalist countries.
  - cardanome 2y ago
    Migration from poor countries to wealthier countries has always been a thing. Communist revolutions tend to happen in the poorest countries so you are mistaking cause and effect. The countries that communism took hold on have been poor to begin with. Yes, communism is not magic and can not make you the richest country on earth overnight but neither can capitalism.
- lr4444lr 2y ago
  At what expense did the Soviet Union do that? Millions imprisoned and killed by starvation and forced labor. Commandeering an empire's wealth into militarization and the space program sure made for great pageantry just like North Korean nukes and cyberweapons, but it doesn't mean anything like a holistic measure of well being was achieved.
  - cardanome 2y ago
    The space program used too much bread? How are these things related? The space program started after WW2. There was never any famine in the Soviet Union after WW2 except the one directly after the was for obvious reasons. And the militarization was necessary to survive against Nazi Germany and later to keep the balance of power intact against an empire that had proven two times that it was able and willing to use nuclear weapons. The space program proved the importance of science under socialism and the great education system while the US only managed compete by stealing Nazi scientists.

cardanome 2y ago

There have been insanely huge successes in socialist countries. The Soviet Union started from one of the least developed places on earth torn by WW1 and a bloody civil war and foreign intervention and became a global super power that would sent the first man into space. As for Cuba, I will use the Western source someone else quoted here: > 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. Generally socialism has been quite successfully globally at providing high literacy rates and massive increases of life expectancy. Most capitalist countries are utter failure. Even the richest country in the world the US has a huge issue with systemic poverty and a prison system that has one of the highest incarnation rates in the world. So there is the success? Norway living off from oil and gas? [0] 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...

stale2002 2y ago
> There have been insanely huge successes in socialist countries. And yet those aren't the countries that people want to go live in. The evidence speaks for it self. The capitalist countries are the ones with all the wealth, that everyone wants to move to, and the socialist ones are the countries that people want to escape. If you will notice, we are right now talking on a thread about 10% of the population of cuba, leaving cuba. > The Soviet Union The thing that doesn't exist anymore? Some success that was. > Most capitalist countries are utter failure And yet, when a capitalist country fails, where do the people in that country want to leave to? Oh, thats right. They want to go to other capitalist countries. > the US has a huge issue And yet, it one of the most desirable places in the world to live in, empirically proven by immigration rates. > Generally socialism has been quite successfully And yet the people actually living there still flee. No matter what metric you give, apparently the people living there don't care, because they still want to leave those countries and to move to capitalist countries.
- cardanome 2y ago
  Migration from poor countries to wealthier countries has always been a thing. Communist revolutions tend to happen in the poorest countries so you are mistaking cause and effect. The countries that communism took hold on have been poor to begin with. Yes, communism is not magic and can not make you the richest country on earth overnight but neither can capitalism.
lr4444lr 2y ago
At what expense did the Soviet Union do that? Millions imprisoned and killed by starvation and forced labor. Commandeering an empire's wealth into militarization and the space program sure made for great pageantry just like North Korean nukes and cyberweapons, but it doesn't mean anything like a holistic measure of well being was achieved.
- cardanome 2y ago
  The space program used too much bread? How are these things related? The space program started after WW2. There was never any famine in the Soviet Union after WW2 except the one directly after the was for obvious reasons. And the militarization was necessary to survive against Nazi Germany and later to keep the balance of power intact against an empire that had proven two times that it was able and willing to use nuclear weapons. The space program proved the importance of science under socialism and the great education system while the US only managed compete by stealing Nazi scientists.