News Stability of Anarchy: Let's Continue Here, Smurf

[Smurf]

I'd think, many of them. If you're born in a rich family, you can do whatever pleases you. You could maybe first get a degree in management and economics, but nothing stops you to spend a few extra years at university studying other stuff, the time it takes to take over the company from daddy or mommy. I'd think that more rich people than poor people have many degrees.

In that scenario I'd expect the kid to get a BB and then join daddy's company to gain some experience. But let's stop hypothesizing, I'm going to see if I can find some statistics.

 

[Townsend]

In a communist society 90% of everything is collectively owned (as opposed to privately). So the difference between a "rich" person and a "poor" person would be massively tiny by comparison to today. Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

Just a quick question Smurf...are you saying this is a good thing?

 

[vanesch]

So vanesch. I still don't see how you can see stability in Anarchy.

Nor do I

You say that somebody could come along and start a state like structure and then conquer everybody. But to me that's like saying somebody can just come along in a Democracy and proclaim himself king. It just doesn't happen that often.

Well, if somebody comes along and proclaims himself king, after making some fun of him (at least, if he ISN'T the king ; there are some democracies who have one :-), he'd be asked, by the police, to gently get out of the way, and if not, he'd face more violent action.
The point is that in an anarchy, you don't have a police, judge, constitutional court etc... In those cases you cited where you HAVE such a structure (even if the judge is the people's assembly and the "police" is just a set of voluntary farmers with guns asked by the people's assembly to "do the thing"), I would hesitate to call it "anarchy", anarchy meaning the absence of any state structure using violence.
I don't see how a society in which certain rules are NOT imposed, eventually by the use of violence, can protect its structure, because there's no means for the occasional nutcase who wants to ruin the party, to stop him.

 

[Smurf]

Nor do I

Shut up!

 

[vanesch]

In a communist society 90% of everything is collectively owned (as opposed to privately). So the difference between a "rich" person and a "poor" person would be massively tiny by comparison to today. Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

Yes, but the point was not how rich people would behave in a communist society. The starting point of a communist society is to assume that people want, after all, the best for society. If we're allowed to make that hypothesis about people in a communist society, I don't see why we aren't allowed to make that hypothesis about rich people in a capitalist society.

 

[inha]

Just a quick question Smurf...are you saying this is a good thing?

Of course it's a good thing. To oppress a minority isn't comparable to oppressing a majority. Or is it...

 

[Townsend]

Of course it's a good thing. To oppress a minority isn't comparable to oppressing a majority. Or is it...

I can't figure out what you're saying...

 

[oldunion]

That's really nice, but those people were starving. That's a very strong incentive, that doesn't exist when all is well. What happened to that factory afterwards? Did they grow? How did they select the extra workers - there must have been quite a few people wanting to work there? Or did the original workers just become the bosses?

They were confronted by police after order had been re-established, some of the defiant ones were killed.

Because men always want more power, more wealth. With the lack of a strong central government there will be power struggles and those who emerge with more power will take control.

With a fully educated society, based upon non-partisan or indoctrinating education systems, and a lack of classism, there would be a very small possibility of a power elite taking form. there would be few means to do so, no one would stand for it immediately, and what would be their means for domination? If money was de-glamourized, and if the populous was trained in military, if they knew their rights as humans, if society was based on collective good, i don't see a power elite being able to take form.

And it is arguable that men want power, etc etc with social patterns. I won't get into this because it could be science or it could be societal cause.

So because there's an abundance of wealth the system should be changed? So you grant this industry has been established under capitalism.

yes. Industry has been established, its time to make it beneficial to all. This is part of marxist philosophy. Once there is industry, it can then be made public property and beneficial to the collective good.

There are stupid and smart people. People join into tribes. People obey charismatic leaders who make promises. That wealth will soon find its way into new centres of power, only there will be no central government to regulate them.

the central government is in close ties with the power elite, in fact i don't see a possibility of defining the central government or power elite, without exclusive interdependency- if not that a definite synergism exists and serves to benefit only those parties involved not its supporters, the people.

Everything that anyone wanted? What if I want to research the use of water as an alternative fuel, and my friend wants to research ultra-healing band-aids? Would we both get the same budget? What if I want to conduct an experiment into which chocolate tastes best? Would I be getting the same funds as my friend?
What makes you think people would be that way in anarchy? Money still buys chocolate in anarchy, doesn't it? I want lots of chocolate!

Let me make it clear that I am not the deity of modern anarchism, i have not read tons on anarchism either. I know more about communism, but anarchism has interested me as of late. However, i do know one thing Mao said which i will repeat because of its pertinence here. He said that a struggle will develop between the intellectual and the worker, a struggle to keep them in balance with each other. He made intellectuals work, and workers learn about being intellectuals. So i don't have all the answers on how anarchism works, but it is the little things that must exist for the society to debate, and learn from. this is progression. Problems are natural, when you start working a society around a system that does not have problems, that's when you truly get them.

But your point on wanting lots of chocolate; why not?

No laws? We'd all be wondering around naked trying to gain power and spread our seed.

suddenly without laws, you submit yourself to an utter lack of dignity. i wouldn't be doing that. but interesting you say so

Humans are predictable to an extent. We all seek the same things - shelter, food, company...

i agree, these are basic needs and predictability could be sprung off of them. but power structures present different criteria for studying behavior, and predictability could be variable.

How would such a chip be created? How would you organise so many people into researching and producing this chip, without a strong leadership, without development and production stalling due to different ideas? How do you keep the rapid rate of advance in chip performance in such a non-competitive society?

Ill point you to the post on linux, very good example. There are enough computers for everyone in the usa to have one, who knows how many could be given to everyone else in the world. This concept is a product of capitalism though.

Think of the tribal hunter. He spends more time sharpening his flint tip than would be required to just sharpening the stick. He does this because it is a more efficient way of producing a killing weapon, so he can eat.

Similarly, men would strive to make more efficient computer devices to transmit intellectual property faster, to share information more widely, to do anything more efficiently that a computer is used for. You may deduce that certain things, which go far beyond the boundaries of efficiancy would disappear. things such as ferraris, i think toyota got the job done right, and now the prius and hybrid cars will prove to be more efficient.

the wooden to mechanical pencil. these things would have happened without money as their sole motivation.

 

[Yonoz]

One question, Yonoz: who are the actual lawmakers?

Elected officials.

Aren't they the wealthy?

Not necessarily. Obviously it's harder for a poor person to gain political power than a rich one, but this is not limited to democracy - if anything, it is technically easier in democracy than other forms of government. IMO, cronyism and neputism - major causes of the inequality in class representation in governing bodies - have a much stronger foothold in other forms of government. In democracy, it's up to the legal system and the general public (the electorate) to counter this. The other major cause I see for this gap is the resemblance between the business arena to its political equivalent. It's not a coincidence that the same personality traits that contribute to a person's financial success also contribute to their chance of being elected - and this is, IMO, the main reason why the political and business worlds converge all too often. A wise electorate should seek to minimize this, as it allows concentrations of power.

Why on Earth would they pass legislation limiting their own ability to increase their profits? In reality, it is easy to prove that the opposite is the case: the lawmakers are the rich and represent the rich, and the laws they pass (and all laws they are ever likely to pass) benefit them and their masters.

If the electorate truly demanded this of their candidates, there would be a fairer class representation and even the wealthier officials would find it politicaly beneficial to pass such laws. Unfortunately, few members of the electorate are as interested in politics as they should.

There's no way to reform a system such as capitalism, which is inherently corrupt.

I disagree:
1) It is possible to reform capitalism. Proper legislation will only be passed if politicians are swayed by public opinion. To achieve this, the public needs to be more involved in politics. It is often the case that this public finds other things more interesting - the real challenge is to make the public interested. This is the problem I have no real solution for - but do not interpret this as admission of defeat - I think this problem will plague other forms of government. IMO Democracy doesn't handle this problem well, but it does handle it better than its alternatives.
2) Corruption plagues all forms of government. Again, I argue democracy has the best mechanisms to fight it, under today's circumstances.

I wonder if you've ever heard of the Linux community? You know, that worldwide internet community that works together (for no monetary reward) to create software which is distributed freely, with its source code, and which is better (eg. more stable, more secure) than Microsoft's software. I wonder why they do it? Is it perhaps because they are motivated by interest? You can get more information about Linux here: http://www.linux.org/

1) This is a unique group of individuals - they do not represent the general public. For every linux contributor, there are probably quite a few individuals who choose to spend their time in a less contributing, much more idle, fashion - such as watching television, playing video games or arguing the pros and cons of capitalism.
2) I'm quite sure you will find the overwhelming majority of Linux developers reside in capitalist countries. Perhaps it is capitalism that enabled these individuals to support themselves so easily so that they have enough worry-less spare time to contribute freely to others?

 

[Yonoz]

The rich may be 'well educated', but in what? In management and economics? In how to increase their profit margins? How many of the rich would study social science units like Sociology, Political Science, etc, do you think? After all, such disciplines are 'worthless' - they can't teach you how to make your money grow...

IMO the problem you are describing has nothing to do with capitalism - it is human behaviour. The same effects will be felt in other forms of government. The powerful will always seek, and have better ways, to become more powerful, be it financially or politically.

 

[Yonoz]

Yes, the communication revolution has allowed the most amazing examples of gift economics to spring up. Linux is competeing quite easily with Windows and is also usually regarded as being far superior to windows (just as dduardo) as well. Open Office, designed to compete directly with Microsoft office, is totally free and open source. It's also removed all the bugs that microsoft intentionally puts in it's products to force people to buy the newest versions. The wiki, blog and independant media revolutions have massively reduced the usefullness of large corporate news networks. The war blogs from Iraq are often far more vivid than anything news networks would ever put on TV, as they've established a precedent of "Video-game-izing" war and don't want real graphic stuff any more. They're also obsessed with "Live" coverage, and often completely fail to follow through with many stories, which independant media and war blogs do not.

The communication revolution you're describing is entirely due to the widespread use of the personal computer - a capitalist luxury if there ever was one, and the internet - a military project turned public due to the powerful pressure caused by common interests of the commercial and domestic sectors. The communication revolution is one of the good things to come out of that mix of capitalism and democracy.

 

[Smurf]

2) I'm quite sure you will find the overwhelming majority of Linux developers reside in capitalist countries. Perhaps it is capitalism that enabled these individuals to support themselves so easily so that they have enough worry-less spare time to contribute freely to others?

I think you'll find that that is completely true because oooooh 99% of the countries in the world are capitalist? (that constitutes an "overwhelming majority" too you know)

 

[Smurf]

The communication revolution you're describing is entirely due to the widespread use of the personal computer - a capitalist luxury if there ever was one, and the internet - a military project turned public due to the powerful pressure caused by common interests of the commercial and domestic sectors. The communication revolution is one of the good things to come out of that mix of capitalism and democracy.

Correlation is not causation. You are implying that the computer would not be produced or advanced under non-capitalist, non-democratic countries merely because they were produced in capitalist, democratic countries.

There is no reason for this assumption.

 

[Smurf]

Just a quick question Smurf...are you saying this is a good thing?

Not really, it's an interesting alternative that I think we should try without having the world invade and sanction the country that does try it. I'm not a communist though, ask Alexandra if it's a good thing, she'll tell you why.

 

[Yonoz]

In a communist society 90% of everything is collectively owned (as opposed to privately). So the difference between a "rich" person and a "poor" person would be massively tiny by comparison to today.

It doesn't matter that it is collectively owned. It still needs to be managed - and as time goes by the ones managing it will have incredible similarity to the capitalist "rich" they replaced. Pretty soon, they will eat better food and have better houses than their subjugates, and make decisions that influence whatever is "collectively owned" so that this difference will only become worse. Same old class system, only in this case there will be no regulation - power will be spread in a much more polarized manner.

Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

So does capitalism, so does democracy. No one doubts the good will of communism's creators. It's just human nature that gets in the way.

 

[Smurf]

So does capitalism,

Oh I can't wait to hear this one. Please, explain!

 

[Yonoz]

They were confronted by police after order had been re-established, some of the defiant ones were killed.

What reason did the police have? Wasn't that factory theirs?

With a fully educated society, based upon non-partisan or indoctrinating education systems, and a lack of classism, there would be a very small possibility of a power elite taking form. there would be few means to do so, no one would stand for it immediately, and what would be their means for domination? If money was de-glamourized, and if the populous was trained in military, if they knew their rights as humans, if society was based on collective good, i don't see a power elite being able to take form.

This is just as likely to happen in democracy as it is an anarchy, perhaps even moreso. How would you achieve this magnificent feat?

And it is arguable that men want power, etc etc with social patterns. I won't get into this because it could be science or it could be societal cause.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but you have to get into it - it's the exact reason I see why anarchy cannot be implemented! There's no magic wand to wave and turn us all into carebares...

yes. Industry has been established, its time to make it beneficial to all. This is part of marxist philosophy. Once there is industry, it can then be made public property and beneficial to the collective good.

How would it continue to exist? Without constant competition, progress will stagnate and corruption will spread.

the central government is in close ties with the power elite, in fact i don't see a possibility of defining the central government or power elite, without exclusive interdependency- if not that a definite synergism exists and serves to benefit only those parties involved not its supporters, the people.

Again, not unique to democracy. IMO it will be much worse under communism/anarchy. In democracy people still have the power of voting.

Let me make it clear that I am not the deity of modern anarchism, i have not read tons on anarchism either. I know more about communism, but anarchism has interested me as of late. However, i do know one thing Mao said which i will repeat because of its pertinence here. He said that a struggle will develop between the intellectual and the worker, a struggle to keep them in balance with each other. He made intellectuals work, and workers learn about being intellectuals.

Mao also killed millions
of Chinese. Pardon my disrespect.

So i don't have all the answers on how anarchism works, but it is the little things that must exist for the society to debate, and learn from. this is progression. Problems are natural, when you start working a society around a system that does not have problems, that's when you truly get them.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Reformism 1, revolutionarism 0.

But your point on wanting lots of chocolate; why not?

How would I be getting all this chocolate? I want more chocolate than what is given to me.

suddenly without laws, you submit yourself to an utter lack of dignity. i wouldn't be doing that. but interesting you say so

I was obviously exaggerating, but this returns us to the argument about people's motives. You have to convince me that somehow rapists, for example, will stop raping and alcoholists will stop drinking in a society with no "laws around the predictability of human nature" as you put it.

i agree, these are basic needs and predictability could be sprung off of them. but power structures present different criteria for studying behavior, and predictability could be variable.

Can you explain that please?

Ill point you to the post on linux, very good example.

I'll point you to my response.

There are enough computers for everyone in the usa to have one, who knows how many could be given to everyone else in the world.

I want to research MRI technology and need more computers than my friend who just plays video games all day. How do I get them?

This concept is a product of capitalism though.

Exactly.

Think of the tribal hunter. He spends more time sharpening his flint tip than would be required to just sharpening the stick. He does this because it is a more efficient way of producing a killing weapon, so he can eat.
Similarly, men would strive to make more efficient computer devices to transmit intellectual property faster, to share information more widely, to do anything more efficiently that a computer is used for. You may deduce that certain things, which go far beyond the boundaries of efficiancy would disappear. things such as ferraris, i think toyota got the job done right, and now the prius and hybrid cars will prove to be more efficient.

What you're saying is - "The sharp stick did the job right - it's 'efficient'. Instead of spending time 'inefficiently' sharpening the flint tip, the hunter should hunt for other tribe members - who will do anything they like during this time. Otherwise, the hunter will have more food than other, less creative hunters - and that's inequality"
What do you call inefficiency? Our current discussion could be easily considered inefficient, and so could be our use of the personal computer and the internet. It's highly inefficient for a family to own more than one car. It's inefficient to try and reach the moon. It's inefficient to deploy telephones instead of telegraphs. It's inefficient to make chocolate. And so on... Who decides what's inefficient in an anarchy?

the wooden to mechanical pencil. these things would have happened without money as their sole motivation.

I guess we have to take your word for it. So far, they have only happened in capitalism.

 

[Yonoz]

I think you'll find that that is completely true because oooooh 99% of the countries in the world are capitalist? (that constitutes an "overwhelming majority" too you know)

Right. What we should do is compare the ratio of contributers in the combined population of capitalist countries to that of non-capitalist countries. I think the result is still in favour of my argument.

 

[Yonoz]

Correlation is not causation. You are implying that the computer would not be produced or advanced under non-capitalist, non-democratic countries merely because they were produced in capitalist, democratic countries.

There is no reason for this assumption.

I have already described the resoning behind this in the segment about the Pentium chip. Such rapid advancement, such a variety of uses, such a widespread domestic and commercial use - could only happen in a capitalist market.
Correlation or causation, capitalism is responsible for us being able to communicate today. I think that's a major pro.

 

[Yonoz]

Oh I can't wait to hear this one. Please, explain!

I do not claim everyone is equal in capitalism. However, it is just as honest as the claim about communism having equality as its highest priority. It is all a matter of theory. In theory capitalism gives everyone an equal chance to succeed, just as in theory communism means all citizens are equal. We both know that does not happen in either case.
You criticize capitalism for problems that are not inherent in the capitalist theory but arise from its interpretations and implementations. When one wishes to confront communism the same way - using communist nations such as the Soviet Union as an example, the argument is debunked claiming it was not true communism. The same happens when arguing anarchy and marxism, as little attempts at them as there've been in history.
One of the measures of a system's success is its chances of being successfuly implemented. We must take this into consideration in our discussions. Approving the promise of equality in communism and ignoring the equivalent promise in capitalism, even though it is a completely different approach to equality, is one-sided reasoning.

 

[vanesch]

Communism puts equality as one of the top priorities.

That's maybe a difference then: I put "reasonable happiness for most" as one of the top priorities.
All equal but unhappy is way worse (to me) than people not equal but reasonably happy.

 

[Smurf]

I have already described the resoning behind this in the segment about the Pentium chip. Such rapid advancement, such a variety of uses, such a widespread domestic and commercial use - could only happen in a capitalist market.

Yes, you said that. But why? What reason do you have to believe that those could not have occurred equally quickly and efficiently in a non-capitalist society? In counter example I could just as easily cite any number of examples of scientific and technological advances that had nothing at all do with johnny capitalist.

 

[Smurf]

In theory capitalism gives everyone an equal chance to succeed, just as in theory communism means all citizens are equal. We both know that does not happen in either case.

A capitalist economy is one in which the government does not interfere and people are allowed to do what they want with what they own. The flaw in capitalism is that before it's wide spread establishment there was no markets with any really large forces other than states. Therefore it was thought that as long as the state did not interfere, a person would be perfectly capable of succeeding. Now there are. The state not preventing you from succeeding is not the same as giving you an opportunity to. This is a theoretical flaw in capitalism, not an implementation problem or a loose screw.

A person will inherent a large sum of money from their parents. Another person will not. This is not equal opportunity, the person with a larger sum of money will get a better education, have more money to invest with, and be able to start up his own business more easily than the person with less. If the government does not give you the opportunity, you will be prevented from having it by another market force. Any change to this system will restrict private property rights and/or free market economics and is thus non-capitalist.

Capitalism has nothing to do with "equality". Capitalism is about protecting private property rights and various freedoms related to free market economics.

"Equal opportunity" is mere political rhetoric.

The more I read this crap the more convinced I am that dualism is the route of all this flawed thinking in the world. God damn that stupid political spectrum, that's the source of it all I bet.

 

[Smurf]

That's maybe a difference then: I put "reasonable happiness for most" as one of the top priorities.
All equal but unhappy is way worse (to me) than people not equal but reasonably happy.

Okay fair enough. Communism, I think, is negative utilitarian in essense.

 

[Smurf]

Right. What we should do is compare the ratio of contributers in the combined population of capitalist countries to that of non-capitalist countries. I think the result is still in favour of my argument.

... duh. Aside from Cuba and North Korea there are exactly 0 (read: zero) countries in the world today with command economies. And Korean and Cuba both have sanctions on them and very few resources in their own borders. What do you expect them to do?

 

[oldunion]

What reason did the police have? Wasn't that factory theirs?

Yes. the bosses left and the workers took over by paying off debt.

This is just as likely to happen in democracy as it is an anarchy, perhaps even moreso. How would you achieve this magnificent feat?

What, education advancements? By using democracy. Democracy is communism, it is anarchy, in its purest form. Capitalism has nothing to do with democracy, and has very little to say about human rights as a doctrine in general. Its ideology is based upon money, almost exclusively.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but you have to get into it - it's the exact reason I see why anarchy cannot be implemented! There's no magic wand to wave and turn us all into carebares...

We don't need to be carebears. My point was that it could be argued as scientific fact or as societal effect. If you raised a man on another planet, where there was a government without leaders; he would be different than a man raised in the usa for example. You couldn't wage a neutral experiment on a man to decide if he wants power or other vices, because he has been raised to desire such things.

How would it continue to exist? Without constant competition, progress will stagnate and corruption will spread.

production could be toned down until it was sufficient to supply the populous with everything it needs, and maybe some on top of that. competition is not essential. what competition does a pioneer have? corruption is based on gains, there are no gains to be had without heirarchy or excessive wealth.

communism/anarchy. In democracy people still have the power of voting.

communism/anarchy is democracy.

Mao also killed millions
of Chinese. Pardon my disrespect.

he was a great tactician, writer, and was successful. He did what he thought he had to and i won't argue against it. Besides, every leader kills, even if they do it in a business suit and a phone call.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Reformism 1, revolutionarism 0.

No reformism moves to write into law the method of erradicating problems. This is a fundamental flaw of common thought. You must look at nature, yin and yang, poles of a magnet, matter-antimatter...everything has a converse. When you try to write a law forbidding one side of an issue from happening, you are giving free reign to the other. This will lead to some form of regimentation, and again, you cannot methodize life when it is by definition chaos. You must let life happen, without bounds.

How would I be getting all this chocolate? I want more chocolate than what is given to me.

You wouldn't need more, i look down on gluttony as a serious problem. People should be free to do what they want, but some freedoms are not necessary and infact detrimental to the rest of society. Then again, once the economy was functioning, you could probably have as much as you wanted.

I was obviously exaggerating, but this returns us to the argument about people's motives. You have to convince me that somehow rapists, for example, will stop raping and alcoholists will stop drinking in a society with no "laws around the predictability of human nature" as you put it.

Alcoholism is a personal problem, which i believe is caused by the stresses of this society, very much. Some people genuinely have a problem, but when you stop focusing on your own agony, there is less of a desire to sit in gluttony, wasting away and being a complete waste of space. I don't think there's room for that in anarchism or communism. If you wanted to be a wastoid, i would submit my vote to have you banished from my community. Either you would learn to carry your own, or you would be gone, either way it wouldn't be mine or anyone elses problem.

Rape, is psychological. But i do feel it would be lessened by the loss of the publicity based society where perfection is "the thing to seek." Some people arent perfect, some are ugly, some seem to be worthless; but in reality none of that matters as long as you can do what you need to for a community. If you can carry your own, nothing else matters.

i agree, these are basic needs and predictability could be sprung off of them. but power structures present different criteria for studying behavior, and predictability could be variable.

Can you explain that please?

People have basic needs so you could predict how they would act rather easily. However, when you get into power structures, like grouping people together and giving them a goal, the difficulty in predictability becomes exponentially more difficult to calculate.

I want to research MRI technology and need more computers than my friend who just plays video games all day. How do I get them?

present your case to the community, partake in a vote.


Quote:
Originally Posted by oldunion
Think of the tribal hunter. He spends more time sharpening his flint tip than would be required to just sharpening the stick. He does this because it is a more efficient way of producing a killing weapon, so he can eat.
Similarly, men would strive to make more efficient computer devices to transmit intellectual property faster, to share information more widely, to do anything more efficiently that a computer is used for. You may deduce that certain things, which go far beyond the boundaries of efficiancy would disappear. things such as ferraris, i think toyota got the job done right, and now the prius and hybrid cars will prove to be more efficient.

What you're saying is - "The sharp stick did the job right - it's 'efficient'. Instead of spending time 'inefficiently' sharpening the flint tip, the hunter should hunt for other tribe members - who will do anything they like during this time. Otherwise, the hunter will have more food than other, less creative hunters - and that's inequality"

No. I was illustrating that advancements in technology are the product of need, basically. After need has been met, it is a matter of increasing efficiency to preserve resources.

 

[oldunion]

... duh. Aside from Cuba and North Korea there are exactly 0 (read: zero) countries in the world today with command economies. And Korean and Cuba both have sanctions on them and very few resources in their own borders. What do you expect them to do?

Which is rather impressive considering cuba was getting aid from the ussr, and then that was cut off. Trade to the usa was cut off. They have very little resources. And yet not one child sleeps on the streets and in the usa 1 in 6 do, that's impressive.

 

[loseyourname]

Which is rather impressive considering cuba was getting aid from the ussr, and then that was cut off. Trade to the usa was cut off. They have very little resources. And yet not one child sleeps on the streets and in the usa 1 in 6 do, that's impressive.

Where did you get the information that 1 in 6 American children sleep on the streets?

 

[Smurf]

Which is rather impressive considering cuba was getting aid from the ussr, and then that was cut off. Trade to the usa was cut off. They have very little resources. And yet not one child sleeps on the streets and in the usa 1 in 6 do, that's impressive.

What's more impressive is their handling of the Katrina hurricane. They managed to evacuate 1.7 million people, over one tenth their population, in just as short notice as the US had. Everyone immediately had shelter, medical care and there are no fools refusing to stay behind because they evacuate pets too with veternarians and everyone knows the state will re-imburse them for lost property - there is no fear of looting.

 

[loseyourname]

What's more impressive is their handling of the Katrina hurricane. They managed to evacuate 1.7 million people, over one tenth their population, in just as short notice as the US had. Everyone immediately had shelter, medical care and there are no fools refusing to stay behind because they evacuate pets too with veternarians and everyone knows the state will re-imburse them for lost property - there is no fear of looting.

I've never been to Cuba, but you're making it sound like a pretty nice place. I wonder why so many people defect or smuggle themselves out and why the Cuban population of the US hates Castro so much.

Edit: I'm not being a dick either. I am honestly curious about why this happens. I genuinely don't know jack about Cuba outside of what little I learned from watching The Godfather II.