It's basically people with good intentions volunteering themselves into poverty during the greatest time of abundance of food in human history.
Of course it comes with plenty of western/foreign capitalist sabotage conspiracies thrown in to justify why their grand economic experiment didn't work. Then it devolves into basically purposefully underfeeding your population because of a giant lingering sunk-cost fallacy and, most importantly, an ideology to defend - on which the current power structures were built on.
Most top Communist Party leaders didn't really care about ideology. That was just a lie they fed to the masses. All they really defended was their own power and privilege.
> Of course it comes with plenty of western/foreign capitalist sabotage conspiracies thrown in to justify why their grand economic experiment didn't work.
An economy cannot work without foreign trade, being blocked from that by a major player essentially does that.
If you look at communist countries that are small enough to be self-sufficient, it tells a different story. Take Cuba, it is blocked from trade with the US and a fair chunk of other countries, however, Cuba is self-sufficient enough that it has not only survived but it has flourished, with a ridiculously high literacy rate, and a universal public health system that puts much of the world to shame.
I have but two observations left to make.
1. If the communist system was inherently a fail-state, then the US would have to do nothing but sit back and wait until it collapses. Instead of that they try relentlessly to sabotage any form of it. They tried, for example, over 600 times to assasinate the leader of Cuba. It's a real shame because it forces the communist parties to be anti-free-press, and anti-free-speech because of the risk of foreign countries abusing that to seed a revolution (Indeed, it was admitted on record that the only reason the CIA hasn't done that in Cuba is because it lacks resources, and Cuba doesn't allow full internet access (as I understand it)).
2. It took over 800 years to establish a stable republic. That doesn't mean that it could not be done, or that the republic was an inherently broken system, but it took a number of 'failures' to make a success, and the right political and societal advancements to be made.
Cuba isn't flourishing, they're entering the first stages of food deprivation right now. They've required large state sponsorship, previously by the USSR, and more recently by Venezuela, to keep from system collapse. The average income in Cuba is still close to $20 per month.
May 2019 "Cuba launches widespread rationing in face of crisis"
Cuba's history of colonization included deforestation and overuse of its agricultural
land. Before the crisis, Cuba used more pesticides than the U.S. Lack of fertiliser
and agricultural machinery caused a shift towards organic farming and urban farming.
Cuba still has food rationing for basic staples. Approximately 69% of these rationed
basic staples (wheat, vegetable oils, rice, etc.) are imported.[18] Overall,
however, approximately 16% of food is imported from abroad.[18]
and
Diaz said importing food from U.S. producers had become more complicated under
Trump, forcing Cuba to search for products that were more expensive and difficult to
import.
it is pretty obvious that the US allowing Cuba to trade with the rest of the world would more or less 'solve' those problems.
As of 2018, the embargo, which limits American
businesses from conducting trade with Cuban interests,
remains in effect and is the most enduring trade embargo
in modern history
and
The UN General Assembly has, since 1992, passed a
resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of
the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter
of the United Nations and of international law. In 2014,
out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 countries voted for
the nonbinding resolution, the United States and Israel
voted against and the Pacific Island nations Palau,
Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. Human-rights
groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, and the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights have also been critical of the embargo.
Critics of the embargo say that the embargo laws are too
harsh, citing the fact that violations can result in up
to 10 years in prison.
and
In a 2005 interview, George P. Shultz, who served as
Secretary of State under Reagan, called the embargo
"insane". Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato
Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, criticized
the embargo in a June 2009 article:
The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has
not changed the course or nature of the Cuban
government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen.
In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit
more impoverished, without making them one bit more
free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of
their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and
other producers billions of dollars of potential exports.
>it is pretty obvious that the US allowing Cuba to trade with the rest of the world would more or less 'solve' those problems.
As you pointed out the US embargo prevents Americans from trading with Cuba. It affects no one else. Virtually the entire world apart from the US is against the embargo. They are all free to trade with Cuba. At the margins, the US embargo hurts Cubans, but the bulk of their economic woes are self inflicted.
I wasn't aware that state healthcare and state education works well.
A few examples of state healthcare systems in Soviet Union / Russia, UK, Hong Kong or Thailand seem to show that state healthcare is a miserable failure and those who are able to get access to private healthcare will always prefer it.
Similar with schools, it appears that people strongly prefer private schools to government schools, even in places where private schools are quite ordinary, not just for the elites, and don't require expensive tuition - competing with government schools for the same kids.
> seem to show that state healthcare is a miserable failure and those who are able to get access to private healthcare will always prefer it.
The reason why the healthcare system in the UK is failing, is because of a multi-fold problem that is too numerous to describe here, but boils down to political sabotage. Two other main reasons come to my mind:
One, privatization and outsourcing has caused mismanagement that expanded healthcare delays to an untenable point. Two, to 'repair' the 'failing' NHS, a 'target' system was set up. Hospitals that fail to meet targets have money taken from them, which causes a vicious circle whereby underperforming hospitals do not have the resources to perform better.
Also, as I understand it, the privatization of the USSR's state healthcare system made things _worse_.
The OECD reported[28] that unfortunately, none of this has worked out as planned and the
reforms have in many respects made the system worse. The population’s health has
deteriorated on virtually every measure. Though this is by no means all due to the
changes in health care structures, the reforms have proven to be woefully inadequate at
meeting the needs of the nation. Private health care delivery has not managed to make
many inroads and public provision of health care still predominates.
If someone is earnestly posting incorrect information, you should reply with a counter-argument, or upvote one that exists. Otherwise what you're doing is the exact opposite of being conductive to a dialogue, which is the entire point of the hacker news comment section. Sure, downvote people who are being disingenuous, or not being honest.
Also:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
So far, everyone has responded to my talking about Cuba, an example I picked off the top of my head as a simple demonstration (It's a shame that America cannot boast such scores in education and health, to be honest). The example was illustrative, something mentioned off-hand to solidify and strengthen a point. Nobody responded to the core of my argument, which was the more meatier part and harder to disagree with.
My central point, however "An economy cannot work without foreign trade, being blocked from that by a major player essentially does that" is supported by economists literally everywhere. In fact, it's one of the major reasons why a trade embargo is created in the first place, to suffocate a country and cause a regime change:
"By far, regime change is the most frequent foreign
policy objective of economic sanctions, accounting for
80 out of the 204 observations."
- Economic Sanctions Reconsidered (3 ed.) -- Hufbauer, Schott, Elliott, Oegg
Of course it comes with plenty of western/foreign capitalist sabotage conspiracies thrown in to justify why their grand economic experiment didn't work. Then it devolves into basically purposefully underfeeding your population because of a giant lingering sunk-cost fallacy and, most importantly, an ideology to defend - on which the current power structures were built on.