Lord Thrappleper The 49th
Member
Have you been to cuba? Spoke with its people? Experienced its culture?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What are your political leanings?
- Thread starter ghostwritingduck
- Start date
Have you been to cuba? Spoke with its people? Experienced its culture?
JordanN
Banned
Nope.
My rule of travel/tourism is democratic countries only.
That's how much socialism sucks. If the people aren't free to speak, why would I be if I went there?
The history of Castro throwing dissidents in jail, stealing land from farmers, and never giving up power till the day he literally dies means any happiness is fake or forced.
Lord Thrappleper The 49th
Member
Ok well thats pretty stupid of you but your american so I understand.
I have been to cuba. They were quite happy. Thing that surprised me was most people had degrees and were generally well educated. A few people i met disagree with castros policies, but they still viewed him as a father figure.
The general vibe was that they had a lot of hope for the future, and were quite patriotic that despite americas efforts for decades, they were standing strong.
Also nobody was starving on the streets. People didnt look over their shoulders for the thought police. Everyone was basically normal.
They were happy because they were making do with what they have. Some people are simply patriotic too. Some do enjoy the rule under Castro. But for the vast majority, they would probably leave given the first chance. A lot wont because theyre afraid if they cant make it through the trip, and a lot just dont want to be separated from their family so they endure.
I would never say no to visiting Cuba, but i am also not blind to the realities of it.
Blood Borne
Member
Lol. Just finished that shitty video you posted as PROOF that there's institutional racism, and I didn't see any proof. Just your typical leftist trite.
Now I know why most of you have this sort of ideology and thinking, y'all watch and listen to garbage.
Blood Borne
Member
I've been to poverty stricken parts of Africa, they were also happy too
sans_pants
avec_pénis
Yeah none of that stuff happened
Holy fuck at your ignorance. I highly suggest you actually read some history books about Cuba and get at least a basic understanding of Capitalism and Socialism. Your level of ignorance is anti vaxer and flat earther tier.
I'm not saying you have to like Socialism, you can hate it as much as you want. Just at least have good reasons.
JordanN
Banned
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/
Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life.
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data for 123 countries (97 per cent of the world's population). PQL variables included: indicators of health, health services, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and a composite PQL index. Capitalist countries fell across the entire range of economic development (measured by gross national product per capita), while the socialist countries appeared at the low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income levels. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes.
Capitalism is a primitive system and it has reached far past the point of it's usefulness. Socialism is far superior.
Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life.
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data for 123 countries (97 per cent of the world's population). PQL variables included: indicators of health, health services, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and a composite PQL index. Capitalist countries fell across the entire range of economic development (measured by gross national product per capita), while the socialist countries appeared at the low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income levels. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes.
Capitalism is a primitive system and it has reached far past the point of it's usefulness. Socialism is far superior.
So? What's your point? If I copy something it makes it not true?
Yellow is the color between green and orange on the spectrum of visible light. It is evoked by light with a dominant wavelength of roughly 570590 nm.
I copied the above from Wikipedia, I guess it's false because I plagiarized it on NeoGAF without citing my source.
Just seriously fucking lol at your alt right piece of trash critical thinking abilities.
JordanN
Banned
Plagiarism is stealing. You're passing off someone else's work as your own.
And if you can't argue truthfully, you lack any credibility going forward.
One extreme wants to kill all Jews, the other extreme doesn't want to kill any Jews. I guess the sensible thing would be to kill half the Jews.
Capitalism is far more murderous than Communism. So if we are going by lesser evil Communism is better.
I'm gonna plagiarize this Reddit post.
"The typical claim is that "socialist"* regimes have killed "100 million" people. This always includes famines and other things that are blamed on socialism and its supposed inefficiency, for instance, the 36 million people that died during the Chinese famine.
Well, let's see how better and how efficient capitalism is then.
(*Note: To be rigorous, many would agree that calling those regimes "socialist" is not accurate. But this post is about capitalism, not socialism, so let's not get into that.)
UNICEF, RESULTS, and Bread for the World estimate that 15 million people die each year from preventable poverty, of whom 11 million are children under the age of five. (source)
So in 10 years, capitalism kills more children under the age of 5 than socialism did in 150 years.
"But that's not capitalism's fault! That's just scarcity/underdevelopment!"
So why are you blaming 36 million deaths of the Chinese famine on socialism and its inefficiency?
We have enough food to feed 10 billion people. Even assuming 20% of it is lost, we could still feed the entire population of the world. But we don't, because the logistics of it is expensive and inefficient. Because developing poor countries is too expensive, and sending them food "disrupts the local markets".
If these people didn't need to operate under capitalism to survive, sending them food wouldn't be an issue. If we prioritized things properly, we could develop self-sustainable agriculture projects everywhere in the world.
But we don't. Because of capitalism.
Or something closer to us in the west:
In the US alone, 20,000 to 40,000 deaths every yearbecause of lack of health insurance. On average, that's 300,000 over the last decade.
"But who's going to pay for it?"
All major developed countries on Earth offer universal healthcare. The US doesn't, and blames it on costs and making sure the "markets" are open for insurance companies, so that citizens "have options". All these claims are demonstrably false, and universal healthcare is known to be cheaper and more efficient.
We could be preventing all those deaths. But we don't, because of capitalism.
In the US, "approximately 245,000 deaths in the United States in the year 2000 were attributable to low levels of education, 176,000 to racial segregation, 162,000 to low social support, 133,000 to individual-level poverty, 119,000 to income inequality, and 39,000 to area-level poverty" (sources). So that's about 2 million people every 10 years in the US alone.
Many of these factors are related, and they are all connected to problems with capitalism. We could offer high quality education and social support for these people. We could have programs that are more inclusive to minorities. But we don't, because that's too expensive, and that gives us a reason to not take these problems seriously.
5.5 million people died in the 1876-1878 famine in India because the British performed a laissez faire experiment with grain trade.
You can't NOT blame this one on capitalism and the belief in free markets as perfect systems for managing resources.
10 million died in the Great Bengal famine of 1770, also because of profit-seeking British involvement.500,000 Iraqis died in the Iraq war, all because of oil and US imperialism.
"But you can't blame war for resources on capitalism!"
Then why does socialism gets blamed for even less involvement?
Many wars were motivated by imperialism and lack of large-scale cooperation and fight for resources, and these can be partially or fully blamed on capitalism and the need for expansion and profit. Any remotely conservative estimate will already put capitalism's death toll over half a BILLION people from these wars alone.
These motivations are something socialism and communism actively fight against. This is exactly the kind of problem that we are trying to solve by getting rid of capitalism.
Other things:
In the UK, there are 10 more empty houses than homeless families. In the US, it's almost 6 houses for every homeless person. We could give everybody a home, but we don't, because the "market is the most efficient way of allocating resources".
"But we can't just give people houses! Who's going to pay for it?"
"That's not fair. I'm stuck with my mortgage and a homeless dude gets a free house!?"
Worldwide, 100 million people are homeless and as many as 1.6 billion lack adequate housing. We could build housing for everyone, but we don't, because who's going to pay for it? Who's going to do all the work?
Because of capitalism, we find ourselves in ridiculous situations like this, and everyone thinks it's NORMAL AND OK.
Capitalism discourages us from helping others because that is seen as "unfair". What's the point of having good intentions under capitalism?
And this is just the things I bothered searching in 10 minutes. There are many more things I could tie to capitalism.
From this alone we can already see that, even excluding the wars, capitalism has easily killed more than three times the amount that is attributed to socialism in a fifth of the time, due to the same sort of "inefficiency and incompetence" as it is attributed to socialism.
Excluding the wars, a rough UNDERestimate using the above figures adjusting for global population size every 25 years, puts capitalism death toll at 400-700 million people in the last century alone.
That makes capitalism AT LEAST 8 TIMES more efficient at killing people than socialist and "communist" regimes.
If you OVERestimate, capitalism has killed over 1.3 BILLION people in the last 100 years, making it 19x more efficient at killing people because of inefficiency and incompetence.
Now imagine including the wars.
These statistics are rough and not at all rigorous, but that doesn't matter. The same criticism can be made for a lot of the statistics used against socialism and communism even as ideas, instead of specific historic attempts plagued by many other issues. But nobody who claims to be striving for accuracy makes that argument, and instead, the "100 million" figure is perfectly reasonable and undeserving of a careful, critical look.
Even if I'm 80% off with all of these figures, capitalism stillcomes out with a worst death toll in the last century than what is attribute to socialism. You can also argue for a per capita analysis, but then you should not be talking about socialist regimes being worse than capitalism before you also do the same detailed analysis for capitalism as well, which nobody will bother doing before defending capitalism. The fact everyone simply assumes capitalism fares better shows how easy capitalism has it in the minds of people.
Finally, the fact so many people look at this and simply refuse to even acknowledge capitalism is to blame for anyof these deaths, not even a fraction of them, shows exactly the kind of hypocrisy and lack of perspective defenders of capitalism have, and the immense lack of accountability of capitalism.
And if after looking at all of this the best counterargument you have for this criticism of capitalism is defending the "100 million" figure against socialism, then you are completely oblivious to that lack of accountability."
My intention wasn't to deceive you and you know that, you just want to change the subject because you suck.
NintendoGal
Member
I am very aware that the two are completely different things, yet there are alt-righters who think otherwise. It truly baffles me.
New Year. New Me
Member
http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83
The border wall is racist because it targets and demonizes a racial minority. The travel ban is racist because it operates on a racially prejudiced assumption, rather than enacting a ban based on actual terror statistics (https://www.snopes.com/terrorist-attacks-entry-restriction/).
Yeah and the other side spreads lies about the extreme left too. Both sides are pathetic.
FMbarbarian
Member
As someone whos been on the ancap train for about a decade it seems like the Alt-Right guys moved in on us a couple of years ago with Chris Cantwell. I think they found refuge in anarcho capitalism when they were banned from all corners of the internet for saying dumb shit and found a group of people that wouldnt ban them. They are no different from all the other collectivist. They just like a different flavor.
Lord Thrappleper The 49th
Member
Just want to say that ide88 has made some excellent contributions to this thread.
Have you been to cuba?
Yeah but thats more of a capitalism issue than a government but not by much. Also africa isnt communist, most of them are run by murderous despots and warlords. Which makes them bad dictatorships.
Have you been to cuba?
Yeah but thats more of a capitalism issue than a government but not by much. Also africa isnt communist, most of them are run by murderous despots and warlords. Which makes them bad dictatorships.
Schnozberry
Member
The economic systems of countries aren't responsible for most of the deaths attributed to them. In all cases, state violence is a function of a tyrannical state, which can exist under any economic system. Fascist states exist when states direct the economy, even though property remains in private hands. Communist/Socialist regimes generally see the state seize control of as much private property and productive capacity as they can find. Regimes in the last century that claimed to be contributing towards the goals of international socialism and Marxist style planned economies actually did suffer under worse conditions than states that have market economies and private ownership, and still do. Venezuela and Zimbabwe are both countries in 2017 that suffer because of heavy state intervention into the economy, which has led to hyperinflation, famine, staggering unemployment, and accelerated mortality rates among citizens.
The historical example that is often used to illustrate the inefficiency of planned economies is when Boris Yeltsin visited a US Grocery store in Texas in 1989 and was taken aback at the variety, quality, and ready availability of products sold to US Consumers. This was at a time when the Soviets were undergoing social upheaval due to declining quality of life, food shortages, and genuine dissatisfaction with their government. At one time, Gorbachev had actually appointed a special counsel of Soviet Women to oversee an increase of production in women's support garments, due to a long standing problem of women having trouble getting bras, underwear, and especially panty hose.
I guess my point is that the economic argument is pretty much settled. Markets work. They work better than having bureaucrats plan the economy. The failures of the US Government to provide an adequate healthcare system and stable employment have more to do with bureaucratic corruption and the US government's own fascist tendencies than it does free markets. Most of the deaths linked to communist states are unfairly tabulated, but also had more to do with corruption and murderous political ideology than they did with class struggle and the organization of capital and labor.
Capitalists and Communists should be able to disagree about what they disagree on, but also agree that State Power and coercive violence are the real enemy here. In a society with free association, communists who wish to pool their resources and work collectively to make better lives for each other should be able to do so without coercive influence from the state. The same could be said for people who wish to pursue more capitalistic desires as individuals. The hard part comes when you have to create a power structure that settles disputes and enumerates people's rights. There has yet to be a system devised in which people don't attempt to use the power vested in these institutions to punish their perceived enemies and live at one another's expense.
I'm a believer in free markets and capitalism in general, but I also acknowledge that it isn't perfect, and people do suffer as a result of it's shortcomings. I also believe that the shortcomings of other economics systems are worse, and lead to a lower quality of life for everyone. There aren't any magic formulas for fixing the economic mess the US Government has wrought through it's monetary and fiscal irresponsibility and fascistic corruption of Congress and Regulatory Bodies, but it's going to get worse before it gets better.
OniBarubary
Banned
*looks around*
...what...what a good post. What the fuck? What is this doing here? Where did this good post come from?
Holy Order Sol
Member
deze nuts
NintendoGal
Member
Agreed, I've seen what you describe. And it's just how others took over the libertarian party (read - statists). I get tired of being an "extremist" in left-leaning libertarian circles or too short sighted and naive by the conservative leaning ones.
Can't we all just have an opinion and it not be evil, simply different? Sigh I know better, but I just wish that's the way it could be out in the world.
///PATRIOT
Banned
Can you point out any first world country which its government has the monopoly of means of production?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/
Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life.
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data for 123 countries (97 per cent of the world's population). PQL variables included: indicators of health, health services, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and a composite PQL index. Capitalist countries fell across the entire range of economic development (measured by gross national product per capita), while the socialist countries appeared at the low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income levels. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes.
Capitalism is a primitive system and it has reached far past the point of it's usefulness. Socialism is far superior.
Careful with your response because I happen to live in Socialist Venezuela and my bullshit detector is very fine-tuned.
Gray Rentable
Member
just chiming in. Left in policy, but democrats came out with a crap candidate last election.
I didn't want hillary to win because she is the establishment in government. Trump may be bungling things but having a savvy politician with a history of obfuscation seems like a bigger problem -- the amount of corruption a Clinton can pull off would be greater while being much less detectable.
Imagine: another Clinton in office. I know, she would've been the first female president, but there are better leaders out there. *cough* sanders *cough*
I didn't want hillary to win because she is the establishment in government. Trump may be bungling things but having a savvy politician with a history of obfuscation seems like a bigger problem -- the amount of corruption a Clinton can pull off would be greater while being much less detectable.
Imagine: another Clinton in office. I know, she would've been the first female president, but there are better leaders out there. *cough* sanders *cough*
JordanN
Banned
But that's what makes Socialism so great! Comrade Castro has banned the internet and prevents people from leaving the island because that's obviously how freedom works and it's Capitalism that's dangerous!
CampbellzSoup
Member
No one who is even moderately successful advocates for socialism.
Are you kidding? He only condemned David Duke after pressure. And he only condemned Nazis after saying the issue was on "both sides." You know that's bullshit.
But, no, it's not up for debate. Trump being racist is an unarguable fact. Here's a great example:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/
He specifically tweeted out COMPLETELY FAKE crime stats that were literally designed to make white people think black people were murderous animals who targeted white people.
And just in case his scared white followers didn't understand what he was trying to get at, the image included a scary black man holding a gun sideways.
Another poster has already pointed out you're wrong about the wall and the travel ban. But you don't even need that. All you need is what I just replied to you with because it is factually racist.
If you can look at that image and tell me that Trump isn't a racist, you're a god damn liar.
Blood Borne
Member
Absolutely. It's an ideology based on envy under the guise of fairness.
JordanN
Banned
Trump is definitely racist, or has been caught doing more racist things than not.
Taking it out on his supporters though goes into some uncharted territory.
Do we call Hillary supporters murderers because she was in favor of invading Iraq? Or hell, just about any President who bombed another country. Is the population to blame for that?
I really find it unlikely 62 million people voted for Trump because they saw or agreed with that image.
Taking it out on his supporters though goes into some uncharted territory.
Do we call Hillary supporters murderers because she was in favor of invading Iraq? Or hell, just about any President who bombed another country. Is the population to blame for that?
I really find it unlikely 62 million people voted for Trump because they saw or agreed with that image.
Dude Abides
Banned
Hillary wasnt tweeting about how great the Iraq invasion was in 2016.
62 million people voted for trump because (1) they dont like Mexicans, black people, and women not knowing their place anymore ( this is the large plurality of Trumpies); (2) they want a tax cut; (3) boo scary Muslims.
See look how sad Trumpies are. They cant defend Trump so they attack Hillary. Shes living in their heads rent free.
62 million people voted for trump because (1) they dont like Mexicans, black people, and women not knowing their place anymore ( this is the large plurality of Trumpies); (2) they want a tax cut; (3) boo scary Muslims.
See look how sad Trumpies are. They cant defend Trump so they attack Hillary. Shes living in their heads rent free.
Blood Borne
Member
Hillary is also a racist. She said black kids are "super predators". Her mentor was an actual KKK member. Telling black people that she carries "hot sauce in my bag wherever I go".
Trump has done more for black people than Hillary. He has employed lots of black people. What exactly has Hillary done for black people?
Ultimately, a person's character is somewhat irrelevant in this context, it's all about the policies. Judge the food and not the chef.
No.
She did not say "black kids are super predators." She was referring to specific people. And yes, it came off as racist and she apologized for it.
Are you fucking kidding me? How can you look at what I posted above and try to spin this bullshit?
JordanN
Banned
I don't think Trump would like Centrist/Libertarians like me. 😂
Just because I'm not willing to call him Orange Nazi Russian, doesn't mean I don't heavily oppose him for sucking up tax dollars and using it for his own personal gain.
He would probably find more comfort with Hillary than me. 😂
Dude Abides
Banned
Trump hates immigrants, muslims, and money going to people he thinks are undeserving. He sucks Netanyahu off every chance he gets. Hed love you.
JordanN
Banned
I fully believe in immigrants. I've even defied other users when I say government control of borders is authoritarian.
Centrist Libertarians - 1
Drumpf - 0
Religion is none of my business, and Trump himself is a Christian who I find more troubling. I only care that people have mutual respect for each other and don't use their religion to hurt or hold back others.Dude Abides said:
Centrist Libertarians - 2
Drumpf - 0
At best, the only thing we could agree on. More free market trade and less taxes on the rich.Dude Abides said:
However, he is still corrupt as he clearly stacked the cabinet that's only relevant to his business interests and no one else. And again, he clearly abuses and wastes tax dollars. I hate all wasteful spending in government.
Centrist Libertarians - 2.75
Drumpf - 0.25
Dude Abides said:
*Checks the tally.*
Still very incompatible.
Schnozberry
Member
People in wealthy western countries don't have a great grasp on socialism. They think social democracy and the political goals of wealth redistribution and "socialism" in an economic sense are the same thing, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
The former still relies on wealth to be generated by a private economy for it to be possible. If more people understood how economics and politics intertwined, they'd recognize the current left and right leaning authoritarianism present in all Western Democracies, and how they both contribute to negative outcomes all over the world.
Vicetrailia
Member
Nope, Trump has big history with racism. He's a racist in every single way imagineable except for wearing a KKK hood, but hey he does nazi salutes. Don't you?
Hillary has big faults but she has done far more for every American than Trump ever will. But hey, it's actually her career to do so, so it's not exactly a fair comparison.
wait what? And please do not tell me its this ok sign some journlaists called alt right sign because that shit was ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the article who made milk a alt right symbol.
Vicetrailia
Member
"Ok" was a signature alt-right sign, but there are many of them. It's probably not that relevant any more.
michaelius
Banned
That will certainly give you true picture when normal people in socialist dictatorships are conditioned to fear that someone hears them especially when they are talking with outsiders.
Socialist constructs can coexist with capitalism.
Eg. A national health service. Prices are reduced due to collective bargaining. I.e. aggregates tax pool pays for all health care. As opposed to nickel and diming people with insurance companies.
Housing indeed should be a human right, and social housing programs like council housing is a good way forward.
Capitalism is great, markets are great. But you can't let in run rampant when it comes to basic human services.
As quality of life grows, as do the requirements of what justifies basic human services.
Trying to point to Cuba and Venezuela and saying "socialism was the problem ergo let's not use socialism" is so fucking ignorant of history, of the nature of oversight justice and accountability in those regions too.
Most of the Nordic countries have a load of socialist policy and quality of life takes a steaming heaving shit on Americas.
Eg. A national health service. Prices are reduced due to collective bargaining. I.e. aggregates tax pool pays for all health care. As opposed to nickel and diming people with insurance companies.
Housing indeed should be a human right, and social housing programs like council housing is a good way forward.
Capitalism is great, markets are great. But you can't let in run rampant when it comes to basic human services.
As quality of life grows, as do the requirements of what justifies basic human services.
Trying to point to Cuba and Venezuela and saying "socialism was the problem ergo let's not use socialism" is so fucking ignorant of history, of the nature of oversight justice and accountability in those regions too.
Most of the Nordic countries have a load of socialist policy and quality of life takes a steaming heaving shit on Americas.
JordanN
Banned
I saw a documentary on the Soviet Union's Khrushchyovka or communal apartments.
They were shoddily built hellpits that stuffed 7 separate families together into the room the size of a small kitchen. They all ate, slept and pissed there.
Considering that's the best the Soviet Union could afford before going bankrupt, I'm not paying for someone to live in a luxurious detached house.
You can keep using the word "socialist policy" but fact is, as long the money originates or is taken from private businesses via taxes, it's Capitalism that guarantees a better standard of life, not the government.Mr_Black said:
Capitalism only works with a decent functioning government. Same with socialist policy.
A republican would see a national health service and yell "socialism!"
My point being there are some services that can be co-opted by free markets or capitalism and the quality will vastly drop as profit motive takes precedent over quality of service.
This can even create compounding issues that cost us all in the long run.
Social housing obviously does work, look to the nordic countries, the prisons there have better quality of life than some shit holes in capitalist utopia.
Blood Borne
Member
Please give me an example where capitalism made the quality drop and government made the quality increase.
Also, please give examples of capitalist utopia that are shit holes?