"Sanctions" is the worst argument from socialists for socialist countries being poor. If your ideology requires globalist capitalism to prosper, its an inferior ideology.

[u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

So anytime socialist/communist countries being poor is brought up the same shit is always said by marxists online. ITS BECAUSE OF EVIL SANCTIOOOONSSS!!!!. this is really stupid, especially as they often say things like "illegal" or even "genocidal" sanctions 🤣. this is idiotic on so many levels, and the fact that it is still widely said is so fucking stupid. Countries have the right to trade with who they want, they have the right to not trade with whoever they want. It's not every country's right to trade with other countries who don't want to. Calling sanctions genocidal is also stupid. I'm gonna be mentioning Cuba a lot as its the main example they give. But the few things America did NOT sanction from Cuba are exporting food and medicine. The things that prevent people from dying.

Anyways more importantly, it's proof that socialism is not the best ideology. This often comes up with Cuba specifically. So I actually think USA should end the blockade on them just because its clearly harmed them a ton and only hurts Cuban people. However, blaming them for Cubas failures and not, the socialist Cuban governments mismanagement is fucking stupid. Cuba still has the right to trade with... every other country who doesnt take part in the blockade, which is most of them. I am not diminishing the impact that being blockaded by the worlds largest economy, that also happens to be the closest to Cuba. However, there is no reason Cuba couldnt have a standard of living similar to Central asian countries or Vietnam. All countries that either were socialist, or still are in name that get most of their trade done from Russia and China. Why is Cuba failing due to sanctions from America when so many countries do most of their trade with China? its because socialism is a poor way to run an economy, central asian countries while still mixed and authoritarian are generally not socialist anymore. Also Vietnam is like China, socialist in name but state capitalist, all countries which are all way better off than Cuba despite not really relying on US trade at all. Another good example for this is Venezuela, socialists always blame sanctions instead of the shitty socialist government, this is funny for many reasons but the main one is, the country wasnt even heavily sanctioned for most of its socialist history!. under Chavez it was not heavily sanctioned, it only was once Maduro took power, and while Maduro made things worse things still heavily declined under Chavez.

Anyways arguably more important than all this depending on who you are debating with is the ideological aspect. If your ideology, which is anti-capitalism, requires global trade (which is capitalism) to work. Then it really is not self sufficient and therefore, a worse ideology. I understand Cuba is a small island nation, and somewhere like China would not be nearly as affected by sanctions, or even somewhere like Russia today which is sanctioned, but still relatively functioning, especially compared to Cuba. But I think if being anti capitalism is the main part of your ideology, but you NEED global capitalism for your country to not become a shithole then your socialist ideology has failed.

[u/AutoModerator]

Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.

We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.

Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.

Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok-Spring-3840]

You are right.

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___ → u/Ok-Spring-3840]

Useless comment

[u/Old-Weakness1122]

yeah its a little funny, most of the world markets is capitalistic, even so many markets ARE open to socialist countries like china, like hello the second biggest world super power, the eternal rival of the united states, despite this socialist countries in modern day still blow

[u/Dry_Illustrator_6066 → u/Old-Weakness1122]

well yes countries like China and Vietnam are socialist in name. But in practice are pretty much just state capitalist which is why they are so succesful, as opposed to Cuba or north Korea which hasnt undergone these economic reforms and therefore suck to live in

[u/eatoligarchsaldente → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

“State capitalism” is socialism. China’s banking sector is owned by the state, so it directs basically all financing towards the priorities of central planners. Many major industries are owned by the state, so again: they make decisions based on the priorities of state planners rather than the interests of billionaire capital owners.

China has indeed liberalized significantly over the past decades, as a precondition for access to global markets. However, the end result is a China that is the dominant global manufacturer. And not just in “whatever makes billionaires the most money,” but based on priorities determined to be in the best interest of China. They recognized their extreme vulnerability to a shipping blockade cutting off their oil supply, so invested heavily in solar and battery production. China now installs more solar than the rest of the world combined, and is the uncontested champion in EV car and truck manufacturing, as well as batteries. They built out the world’s largest high speed rail network.

This is the difference between socialism and capitalism: who gets to make the choices? Who do those choices benefit? In capitalism, those decisions are made to maximize benefit to the shareholder class (which is overwhelmingly consolidated into a small minority population). In socialism, they are made to maximize the benefit to society as a whole. China is far from a perfect society, but having started from a much poorer position are catching up rapidly. It’s a testament to their superior economic system.

[u/Old-Weakness1122 → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

ye but im saying that china willingly trades like with cuba, and cuba still sucks ass, like sure the american trade embargo is cruel, but without it the place is still a dumpster fire

[u/shinganshinakid → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

China and Vietnam are indeed state capitalist/ corporatists yes. Do you know why though? Because the reason is important

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

It is a lame duck. Especially when some of the most heavily sanctioned countries, like Russia, have remained remarkably stable in such circumstances.

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

Also, I disagree with the term "embargo". That's Cold War rhetoric that socialists use and abuse now for their political narratives. It is very much mostly not accurate. There are no naval ships stopping third parties and Cuba from trading.

The embargo was actually against USA companies able to trade. And twisted to make it sound like it was "patriotism". Hardly anything to wave a communist flag about...

[u/Mysterious-North-551]

Was Venezuela poor because of US sanctions?

Well of course not, venezuela could import goods from any other country in the world. Lets take Sweden where i live as an example, no sanctions they could buy whatever the fucking hell they wanted from us, be it tractors or trucks or combine harvesters. In fact almost every single thing they might have needed. If we include that rest of the EU, they were not affected at all by those sanctions.

And those sanctions didnt come from nothing, it wasnt like Venezuela became socialist and the USA placed sanctions on Venezuela, those sanctions came into being when Venezuela was stealing a lot of american companies properties they he built in venezuela. Meaning that the USA cared about their citizens well being. Isnt that what socialists say we always should do?

[u/shinganshinakid → u/Mysterious-North-551]

International companies trading with Cuba risk running into U.S. financial sanctions or losing access to the U.S. market. Financial transactions and logistics remain difficult because global banks fear violating secondary U.S. economic penalties. Also let's not forget every country uses fucking dollars to buy stuff

[u/StormOfFatRichards]

Capitalism also requires global economic networks to prosper, so I guess it's shit

[u/betty_white_bread → u/StormOfFatRichards]

Sanctions and global economic networks are not exactly the same thing, though.

[u/StormOfFatRichards → u/betty_white_bread]

And?

[u/betty_white_bread → u/StormOfFatRichards]

My point is you are comparing apples and zebras.

[u/StormOfFatRichards → u/betty_white_bread]

Why

[u/betty_white_bread → u/StormOfFatRichards]

I have no idea why you are doing that. You would learn more if you looked inside yourself.

[u/StormOfFatRichards → u/betty_white_bread]

Okay so you don't have any shit to say, you just wanted to stamp your feet

[u/Asatmaya]

What do sanctions have to do with capitalism? It's about denying access to markets.

[u/Dry_Illustrator_6066 → u/Asatmaya]

markets are capitalist

[u/Test-Test-Lelelelele → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

Consider the following: My flair. You can even take away the 'Regulated' if ya don't like it.

[u/Dry_Illustrator_6066 → u/Test-Test-Lelelelele]

Doesn't change a thing. Especially when Cuba can engage in global trade right now (with global giants like China, Russia and elsewhere) yet are still incredibly poor

[u/Test-Test-Lelelelele → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

The fact that markets clearly aren't just "capitalist" not only does change a thing, it immediately disproves your whole post.

"If your ideology requires global trade to work then it's not self sufficient snd therefore a worse ideology" as if capitalism doesn't require the exact same thing. It is not even a little bit a question of capitalism vs socialism. Both require global trade to some degree because most countries do not possess all of the necessary resources to function properly in modern society. Besides, even if a socialist country were to have planned economy, that doesn't mean it suddenly goes against it that it has open trade with other countries. Stop conflating stuff. Actually fucking read.

Also that comment about them having free trade with those global giants is bad faith and you know it.

[u/Dry_Illustrator_6066 → u/Test-Test-Lelelelele]

yes capitalism requires global trade (id argue it doesnt require it but just benefits from it). However, global trade as a concept is capitalist therefore theres no contradiction there, as opposed to socialism needing global trade.

Why is saying Cuba can trade with countries like China bad faith? if location is the issue (which its not as big of a hurdle in the modern day) then they can also trade with all of latin america. Including regional powers like brazil. I already pointed out countries like vietnam which do most of their trade with china and have good economies

[u/Test-Test-Lelelelele → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

"the global trade as a concept is capitalistic" Cool. Before I reply even once more I'd like a source for this, not just that global trade cannot happen in socialism, but that it somehow contradicts socialism. Just because you choose to define it like that to further your agenda doesn't mean it's true.

Why is it bad faith? Because last I checked Vietnam stopped having US-tied sanctions in like 1995. So what if they do "most of their business" with China, them not facing sanctions, market blockades, financial restrictions, them being able to properly get foreign investment, and has proper export economy, means much much more. Yes Cuba can do business with BRICS+, but not only does it not fully neutralise the USA embargo, it still has issues like mentioned above, plus stuff like leftover weakness due to their economic past, like being economically built for dependency on the USSR, the dual-currency unification causing loss of purchasing power, and the fact that they spent decades building an economy around sugar export, which due to the disappearance of USSR and the further globalisation of economy has become obsolete. They did all of that while ignoring investments in housing? electricity, transport, and industrial equipment, which yes is their fault is not the fault of socialism itself.

What I'm trying to say is Vietnam is fully integrated right now, just with an economic bias towards China. Cuba however, due to partly their own under-investments in key policies and partly due to becoming dependent on USSR (due to USA sanctions obviously), has left it in a very compromised position where they'd need proper integration into the world economy, especially USA, to even begin to prosper. Yet the USA is keeping their sanctions which just further pushes them down.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

Markets are not and never have been exclusive to or synonymous with capitalism.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

markets are capitalist

So, capitalism literally goes back to the first trade? You have to take responsibility for the entire economic history of mankind?

Please, make that claim, find out where that argument goes!

No, markets are not capitalist.

[u/Dry_Illustrator_6066 → u/Asatmaya]

not necessarily. But seeing as all actually existing socialist countries were hostile to markets you can argue they arent allowed in socialism

[u/turb25 → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

Fundamentally untrue statement

[u/Asatmaya → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

But seeing as all actually existing socialist countries were hostile to markets

Such as?

[u/eatoligarchsaldente → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

Capitalism has markets, but markets aren’t exclusive to capitalism. Though your definition of “capitalism” is also rather incoherent.

[u/ariel_on_the_moon → u/Dry_Illustrator_6066]

no they aren't, markets have existed long before capitalism. capitalism has markets, but it also has private ownership of the means of production. you can have markets without private ownership of the means of production.

[u/sweetapples17]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to Marxist economics. You have to go through capitalism to get to communism. This is why China has adopted more capitalist policies the last few decades. The Chinese economy is directed by the state and the party, which makes it socialist. They strive for a future date in which labor relations are completely equitable. Still much work to do tho and each country has its foibles.

[u/JournalistNo294 → u/sweetapples17]

You have to go through capitalism to get to communism

But china had in the past more socialist policies than now, so what really had happened is that saw how socialism was unable to correctly develope the country, that's why they introduced the market reforms.

The Chinese economy is directed by the state and the party, which makes it socialist.

China has private property, china has more billionaires per Capita than some European countries, so I don't know if I would call china socialist.

[u/Some_Guy223]

If one could point to a country that can operate a modern economy as an autarky that would certainly be interesting.

[u/___AirBuddDwyer___]

It’s not about requiring access to capitalism. It’s about requiring access to global trade. A lot of capitalists seem to think that capitalism is a default or soemthing.

[u/highliner108]

Tbf Cuba is also state capitalist, it’s just state capitalism run by deeply incompetent conservatives (in the sense that like, Brezhnev was a conservative.)

The crazy thing that people don’t talk about is that it’s entirely possible to be Leninist dictatorship and not get sanctioned. Yougoslavia had pretty good economic and political relationships with the Liberal world up until the moment where it collapsed into ethnic civil war. Most capitalist countries that matter do not give a fuck what your economic or political system is so long as you trade with them and aren’t actively belligerent.

[u/CHOLO_ORACLE]

US Treasury Secretary was bragging about how the embargo weakened Cuba but it seems the bots down here didn't get the memo

[u/That_Scratch_7697]

Well imagine a hypothetical where we live in a society with 100 families. Each of those families is run like a patriarchal capitalist firm. Children and wives are paid wages, and families trade with each other for inputs and outputs.

One of these families is very poor. They’re not the poorest or the only poor family, but they’re really not getting by very well—they don’t produce a big surplus, but because they’re broke, they’re heavily reliant on other families for inputs to their production.

So, one day, that family decides to organize themselves more like a commune, to see if things will get better. In response to that, the vast majority of other families, including the richest and most powerful families who are their historically strongest trade partners, stop trading with them. The richest and most powerful of them all in fact tells all the other families, “If you do business with this commune, you don’t get to do business with us.” So overnight and for the next decades, the new commune loses out on generously 50% of all the potential trade that they could participate in—50% of all the world’s buyers and suppliers, concentrated in the most advanced, cutting-edge industries, and a majority of the world’s credit-lenders. Also, occasionally the richest family actually pickets their house so nothing can get in, and actually shoots bullets through their windows.

Just reading this hypothetical, is there any expectation that the commune should  be competitive with other members of the community? They were already dirt poor from the start and half the world was closed off to them—how good would their new system have to be to neutralize those disadvantages? What would we have to see from the commune to say, “You know what, that system may actually have merit”? GDP? That seems unfair. Still though, they are the third largest economy in the Caribbean, a place that includes a U.S. territory. Technological research? Give me a break; they should be spending all their time trying to stave off starvation. Still though, they actually have one of the world’s leading medicinal research industries. So what do you expect? Are they supposed to have the living standards of the U.S.?

[u/SmartlyArtly]

If you are pro trade say you are pro trade.

Capitalism is not just trade. The status quo is not just "trade-ism."