• Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Among the countries you could have picked, I could not think of one that better supports the idea that capitalism is terrorism the way Cuba has been harrassed for decades for essentially doing some pragmatic reforms - to the point they were forced to side with the USSR to prevent invasion by the US.

              • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 months ago

                Nobody called anyone a terrorist. OP identified an economic ideology as terrorism.

                And yeah, it’s middle-school-cringe-level edginess to simp for capitalism by telling someone else to move to a different country. Especially when that particular line of fallacious thinking was debunked decades ago.

                If you’re feeling targeted by that comment calling out capitalism, that’s your deal; you’re free to be a capitalism fanboy, but just know that the billionaires will never love you back.

                • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You are saying it as if it was a real suggestion. It was an attempt at equally ridiculous comment as calling our entire economic model terrorism.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Cuba makes a huge amount of money from the tourism industry and it doesn’t all get redistributed to the people according to their needs. Just because a country calls itself a communist country doesn’t mean it’s true. Believe it or not, the DPRK is not actually democratic or a republic.

        • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Cuba is absolutely a Socialist country. The vast majority of industry is centrally planned by the state. There have been some market reforms to help participate in the global economy after the dissolution of the USSR, but there isn’t a Borgeoisie class in power.

          This is ideological purity taken beyond rational extremes, if you believe any amount of Capitalism in a country is sufficient to call it Capitalist, then you would disagree with Marx, who advocated for gradually building up the productive forces so that Communism can be meaningfully achieved, and which also requires global Socialism.

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          2 months ago

          Let me tell you a little secret (that is a lie, it just basic logic). The reason every “communist country” is in name only is because a real one can’t exist. Not for any real length of time anyway. As long as the system requires humans to make decisions, they will make selfish decisions. And socialism just make it so much easier for few decision makers to take all the power.

            • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Both. It applies to both if they are at the extreme end. Socialism has extra steps.

              And to be absolutely clear, I mean socialism with no capitalistic elements. An in the middle system is what I am advocating from the start.

              • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                What are these “Capitalistic Elements” that mean you cannot have Socialism?

                • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The greedy motivations of decision makers being aligned with prosperity for the people and separated from lawmaking power.

                  How do you make a successful company? Sell good cheap things to the people. You get filthy rich, but people have good cheap products to buy that would not exist otherwise. And they get their share in form of wages.

                  Government needs to be separate to be able to legislate worker protections such as minimal wage, work safety, etc.

                  • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Are you under the impression that in Socialism, economic planning is done without the participation of the Proletariat? That’s nonsense.

                    Secondly, products do not need to be good to make a profit, hence the process of enshittification. Workers also get less than their share, they make all of the Value but the Capitalist entitles themselves to the bulk of that Value.

                    Government does not need to be separate. This is nothing but vibes based analysis.

          • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why would “making selfish decisions” be worse in a collectively owned system where industry is run by the public, than in a Capitalist system where the only decisions made are selfish ones?

            What kind of purely vibes-based analysis is this?

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        true, at least she wouldn’t be in jail for the crime of not being able to work with 93

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          True. Go move then. Or any other non capitalist country.

          No? Maybe those are worse than capitalism and we should try to fix it instead of calling everyone terrorists? Ok then.

            • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Fire is also no morals evil. Corporations are tools. Dangerous but powerful tools. You use them poorly and you end up with corporations murdering union leaders and poisoning communities. You don’t use them at all and you end up with breadlines and authoritarianism.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                nah, fire is just the propagation of exothermic reactions.

                Corporations require intent, they are designed to literally strip any moral consideration from their actions.

                PS: about that breadlines and authoritarianism, the US has had plenty of breadlines, and still does to this day, also authoritarians love corporations, after all corporations are inherently authoritarian.

                • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Corporations don’t do moral consideration by their nature, just like fire. You can say it was “by design” for corporations and coincidence for fire, but that is a distinction without difference. Irrelevant for the argument.

                  And funnily enough, having many authoritarians in a system surprisingly results in much less authoritarian system than having just one. That is why the 3 branches of government are split and it is why I don’t know of any true democracy that is not capitalistic. The authoritarians keep each other in check.

                  • orrk@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    you do realize that corporations aren’t some law of nature? corporations are a social construct in the most literal meaning of the phrase.

                    secondly, you must think the HRE must have been some free paradise by your understanding, also I don’t know of any fascist system that that wasn’t capitalist, but I do know plenty of pre-capitalist democratic societies

              • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Breadlines happened in the Great Depression. They happened because of Capitalism and Corporations.

          • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Do you believe history is a real thing that impacts where countries are development-wise, or do you believe colonialism, imperialism, and destructive geopolitical policies are fake and do not exist?

            Do you think that if Cuba turned Capitalist it would suddenly become a fully developed country like in Western Europe or America overnight? Why?

            • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Then take a look at China as an example. Its explosive growth started when it embraced capitalism (authoritarian flavor, but capitalism). Before that it more or less stagnated. Capitalism is obviously not the only requirement but it is a necessary one.

              • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                China grew steadily under Mao, but was not an industrialized economy. Under Deng, Capitalistic market reforms took place and foreign Capital was brought in to speed up development, but as you’ve said, the State still maintains dominance over the economy.

                Capitalism is not necessary for development. Humanity developed for thousands of years pre-Capitalism, which itself is only a few hundred years old. You do not require individual mini-dictators competing for higher and higher profits in order to develop, industry can be run by the collective.

                • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  It just can’t be at scale. Would be lovely if it could.

                  People who don’t own something have no incentive to improve it. A factory run by a collective will always prioritize wages over modernizing equipment etc.

                  People will not invest into new ventures if they don’t get profits, prioritizing luxuries/lifestyle instead.

                  • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Why can’t it be at scale?

                    People who share ownership can democratically decide how to invest in industry, and elect a representative if they so choose. Planning is careful and democratic, and the need to invest in industry is something that is easy to understand with a well-funded education system.

                    On top of that, you can just-as-nonsensically claim that Capitalists will always prioritize their own pockets over modernizing equipment, which is just as false.

                    People will invest in productivity so that they can work less, prioritizing their material conditions.

      • Kalysta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Cuba that is self sufficient and has the best healthcare in the world? As well as the most beautiful beaches? Yeah it’s on my list if countries to flee to when Trump wins my dude.

        Enjoy continuing to live in this shithole country.

      • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Cuba is doing well despite brutal Imperialist sanctions from the US, but is not a developed country yet. People are driven by their Material Conditions, and are products of their Material Conditions, so it does not make sense to move from a developed to a developing country purely out of ideological purity.

        Instead, people should try to shape the State they live in to be more equitable. Changing a Capitalist country to Socialist is a good thing.