The war affects Laos to this day as they’re still extracting unexploded ordinance in their territory that was supposed to be dropped on the Viet Kong.
Vietnam trading with China means nothing. Trade is part of life beyond any specific economic system. What held them back is the bloody war that destabilized the region and its infrastructure. The same issues affecting their neighbor because the US was so intent on crushing attempts at communism.
Speaking of trade, the Cuban embargo is only limited if you purposely narrow your scope for looking at effects. Ships that dock in Cuba are by and large forbidden from landing at an American port for six months. This means that it’s more profitable to skip them and stick to non embargoed ports. When the USSR collapsed there were no more ports available that weren’t subject to Americas soft power, why do you think they have such solid home grown medical education? Because for a good while America made it near impossible to get otherwise.
And I wonder why a country strangled by soft power would revive after the grip loosened? Is it because there wasn’t an attempt to forcibly isolate them from the world at large?
These nations need trade to survive, and capitalists will strangle any nation whose ideas undermine their bottom line. You remember that time Elon musk said the equivalent of “well coup who we want” in relation to lithium mines in Africa? Trade is a part of human existence and has been done since before markets formed. It’s not capitalism that helped them. It’s that they weren’t being actively hindered as hard by capitalists.
Again, i dont know much about Laos or Vietnam. How I understand is that this region fell under the umbrella of the soviet union so its difficult for me to say that they were too destabalized. As for Cuba, I still think how trading goods is a key factor for why it didnt collapse completely… which I know you agree with.
And I wonder why a country strangled by soft power would revive after the grip loosened? Is it because there wasn’t an attempt to forcibly isolate them from the world at large? These nations need trade to survive, and capitalists will strangle any nation whose ideas undermine their bottom line.
I think this is sort of counterintuitive. I believe that idea of having any rivalrous commodities takes away from the intent of being socialistic. Trading goods even on a national scale is still rivalrous. If there is opportunity for classes to form based on enterprise I think that itself is capitalism. It kind of doesnt make sense to me so maybe i am just not understanding.
Your position is based on lack of knowledge and curiosity.
The Vietnam war happened because the native Vietnamese tried to remove French colonial power and when the USSR supported them America went in and dropped bombs and chemical weapons that cause cancer indiscriminately.
Socialism does not preclude competition. That’s you arguing from ignorance again. A socialist system is one where industry is run by the workers participating in said industry. Coops can compete with each other and so can socialist nations.
And you also have to consider what is being competed for in this rivalrous scenario. In capitalism the competition is to build the biggest nest of wealth and power but that’s not the case otherwise. In a socialist system you are simply incentivized to succeed which is distinct from the incentive to build a dragons hoard. More of a sportsman-like rivalry as opposed to a cutthroat one where someone lives and someone dies.
It sounds like most of your understanding of this subject comes from people unwilling to steelman the belief system. You shouldn’t discount what you’ve seen but you should look into supplementing it with arguments from people that want to convince you to complement the arguments you’ve seen that were crafted to dissuade you.
I am always open to critical thinking. If you have suggestions i am open to seeing where you get your info. I am going off the seat of my pants here so feel free to tear me apart, i dont care.
I am trying to flesh out the difference between something like democratic socialism and social democracy. My understanding of capitalism itself is the idea of being able to invest in goods within a laissez faire market. My understanding of socialism is the opposite… the people are not persuaded to invest nor compete because they dont need to. In a social democracy you accept capitalism and all its facets with the difference that non excludable/rivalrous goods gets widened to include more rivalrous options. In a democratic socialist state, exludable goods move to non excludable so commodities like personal wealth gets shifted to governed wealth. So in a democratic socialist notion, they would not want to be rivalrous and give less power to the free market but that just means they are capable of not requiring capitalism.
Now we get to Cuba and their issues with money. It seems that they need capitalism in this sense that they can trade. I am ignorant here but i dont think the wealth of these trades is not trickling down to the people. They still have a caste system. They still have more profitable job positions. It makes me think that the term socialism is a term that doesnt even work here either. Again, assume I dont know anything.
Mind you, i know that China calls itself a social democracy rather than socialist or democratic socialist. Wonder on your opinion on that.
Edit: rereading the chain i am seeing this is diverging a bit. It may be that Laos or Vietnam may have war time problems that have lingered for generations but I dont see how Cuba is still effected. The only problem they had was a trade embargo to my understanding.
The war affects Laos to this day as they’re still extracting unexploded ordinance in their territory that was supposed to be dropped on the Viet Kong.
Vietnam trading with China means nothing. Trade is part of life beyond any specific economic system. What held them back is the bloody war that destabilized the region and its infrastructure. The same issues affecting their neighbor because the US was so intent on crushing attempts at communism.
Speaking of trade, the Cuban embargo is only limited if you purposely narrow your scope for looking at effects. Ships that dock in Cuba are by and large forbidden from landing at an American port for six months. This means that it’s more profitable to skip them and stick to non embargoed ports. When the USSR collapsed there were no more ports available that weren’t subject to Americas soft power, why do you think they have such solid home grown medical education? Because for a good while America made it near impossible to get otherwise.
And I wonder why a country strangled by soft power would revive after the grip loosened? Is it because there wasn’t an attempt to forcibly isolate them from the world at large?
These nations need trade to survive, and capitalists will strangle any nation whose ideas undermine their bottom line. You remember that time Elon musk said the equivalent of “well coup who we want” in relation to lithium mines in Africa? Trade is a part of human existence and has been done since before markets formed. It’s not capitalism that helped them. It’s that they weren’t being actively hindered as hard by capitalists.
Again, i dont know much about Laos or Vietnam. How I understand is that this region fell under the umbrella of the soviet union so its difficult for me to say that they were too destabalized. As for Cuba, I still think how trading goods is a key factor for why it didnt collapse completely… which I know you agree with.
I think this is sort of counterintuitive. I believe that idea of having any rivalrous commodities takes away from the intent of being socialistic. Trading goods even on a national scale is still rivalrous. If there is opportunity for classes to form based on enterprise I think that itself is capitalism. It kind of doesnt make sense to me so maybe i am just not understanding.
Your position is based on lack of knowledge and curiosity.
The Vietnam war happened because the native Vietnamese tried to remove French colonial power and when the USSR supported them America went in and dropped bombs and chemical weapons that cause cancer indiscriminately.
Socialism does not preclude competition. That’s you arguing from ignorance again. A socialist system is one where industry is run by the workers participating in said industry. Coops can compete with each other and so can socialist nations.
And you also have to consider what is being competed for in this rivalrous scenario. In capitalism the competition is to build the biggest nest of wealth and power but that’s not the case otherwise. In a socialist system you are simply incentivized to succeed which is distinct from the incentive to build a dragons hoard. More of a sportsman-like rivalry as opposed to a cutthroat one where someone lives and someone dies.
It sounds like most of your understanding of this subject comes from people unwilling to steelman the belief system. You shouldn’t discount what you’ve seen but you should look into supplementing it with arguments from people that want to convince you to complement the arguments you’ve seen that were crafted to dissuade you.
I am always open to critical thinking. If you have suggestions i am open to seeing where you get your info. I am going off the seat of my pants here so feel free to tear me apart, i dont care.
I am trying to flesh out the difference between something like democratic socialism and social democracy. My understanding of capitalism itself is the idea of being able to invest in goods within a laissez faire market. My understanding of socialism is the opposite… the people are not persuaded to invest nor compete because they dont need to. In a social democracy you accept capitalism and all its facets with the difference that non excludable/rivalrous goods gets widened to include more rivalrous options. In a democratic socialist state, exludable goods move to non excludable so commodities like personal wealth gets shifted to governed wealth. So in a democratic socialist notion, they would not want to be rivalrous and give less power to the free market but that just means they are capable of not requiring capitalism.
Now we get to Cuba and their issues with money. It seems that they need capitalism in this sense that they can trade. I am ignorant here but i dont think the wealth of these trades is not trickling down to the people. They still have a caste system. They still have more profitable job positions. It makes me think that the term socialism is a term that doesnt even work here either. Again, assume I dont know anything.
Mind you, i know that China calls itself a social democracy rather than socialist or democratic socialist. Wonder on your opinion on that.
Edit: rereading the chain i am seeing this is diverging a bit. It may be that Laos or Vietnam may have war time problems that have lingered for generations but I dont see how Cuba is still effected. The only problem they had was a trade embargo to my understanding.