Tips to grow your North Korean Startup
mrsteinberg.com
mrsteinberg.com
- you may get shot but police may simply take some of the goods;
- remove any labels of origin to reduce potential charges;
- contemplate various smuggling strategies;
- don't work with people you care about (friends and family);
- be careful where you store your money;
Banned economic activity is similar everywhere, it seems.
In NK you have to worry about those closest to you monitoring you, you also have to worry about if being caught your entire family being labeled as bad blood. Some punishments go multiple generations deep.
Conducting 'illicit activity' in an authoritarian country vs a judicial one is a very different experience, in both the activities banned (almost everything in NK, even thinking), the risks, the punishments, and the enemies.
Doesn't really set in until you hear stories from NK defectors:
I imagine this isn't a common problem, even for North Korean startups, but was funny to read nevertheless.
Interestingly, there's a whole generation of startups that help startups store their free cash better than normal bank accounts in the US nowadays. The markets!
The only way to save up money for their ages (16-23) was to become "entrepreneurial"
EDIT:
If you are interested in North Korea, check out the stories by some friends of mine:
Charles - North Korean refugee turned programmer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziqq5gUXu8g
North Korean Spy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9rLqYXTaFI
Girl with parents who worked in the government whose whole family escaped https://www.youtube.com/c/Pyonghattan/videos
Unfortunately, it also seems to consistently produce an entrenched, corrupt power class that persists long after the regime is overthrown.
See also the former Soviet Bloc.
Some of them speak English, others we had a translator.
They are a nonprofit that helps people escape from North Korea
This sometimes involves providing the bribes that you speak of.
* Often times for women, there is a second level of escape. "Brokers" help them cross the border into China, where they are then forced into prostitution, sexual slavery, or "sold" as brides. This organization also bribes the various peoples/groups (often times gangsters, pimps, etc.) holding these North Koreans in bondage in China into letting them go.
They were all insanely nice.
I wish the CIA would’ve let democratically elected communist regimes alone, like Vietnam or certain Latin American countries. It just grinds my gears I guess. We claim to support democracy, except when we say that they’re holding it wrong, or doing it wrong. Who are we to say that?
It's meaningfully a socialist economy, just an insanely corrupt mixed-market economy with a government pretending to be socialist to keep power.
Is that supposed to reflect well on Venezuela or be a slight at France? Because Venezuela isn't exactly doing to hot in the economics department right now.
Here is a source:
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/venezuela/private-cons...
Compared to:
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/france/private-consump...
As well as
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/venezuela/public-consu...
Compared to:
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/france/public-consumpt...
I thought you were claiming that the overall dollar amount was larger.
"When I arrived in North Korea for the first time on a sunny day in September 1984, I felt perplexed. I came to study at the Kim 11 Sung University, as a participant in an exchange program between the then-USSR and North Korea. It was the first overseas trip of my life, and I was thrilled, but I also had some preconceived ideas - and in the first hours and days it became clear that the situation did not feel like I thought it should.
At that time I was fully aware that I was in what in 1984 was arguably the world's most brutal dictatorship. The Soviet Union was not exactly a democracy itself, but even for us, the people from Moscow and Leningrad, North Korea stood for the embodiment of inefficiency, brutality and, above all, repressive dictatorship. Even the official Soviet media sometimes allowed some subtle hints at what was going on there."
--
"Quite often the inflated tributes to the Great Leader and to the Dear Leader, delivered in a badly edited foreign version, produce the opposite of the intended effect on the audience, making the North into a laughingstock. I still remember how in the 1970s, when I was a teenager in the then Soviet Union in my native Leningrad, many barbershops stocked copies of Korea magazine, a lavishly illustrated North Korean propaganda monthly. What was such a publication doing in the barbershops? The answer, I suspect, would be quite embarrassing for its editors: it was subscribed to in order to amuse the patrons who were waiting for a haircut. The North Korean propaganda appeared very weird to the Russians - not least because it looked like a grossly exaggerated version of their own official propaganda. The grotesquely bad Russian translation of the texts also provided unintended comical effects."
* - Andrei Lankov is a Russian born in the Soviet Union and now lives in Seoul. His books and articles on North Korea are very interesting and worthwhile.
I remember some high-profile expats immigrating to China in the 1950s and 60s, and writing about their experiences publicly to acclaim and disdain. Do you know if any of these are critically well-received?
On a related note, one oddity I often see online (and, once, in person) are the die-hard groups of westerners who insist that North Korea is actually a paradise on earth and any claim to the contrary is some kind of evil capitalist propaganda. Utterly baffling, when there are so many sources like this article indicating otherwise.
What gives?
I can understand different countries have different pros and cons, different people value different things, and something an American might find unpalatable might not be considered so bad somewhere else.
But North Korea seems to stand out as being one of very few countries that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Odd that anyone who wasn't born there would willingly and voluntarily pledge their allegiance to such a regime.
This is very different from the DPRK.
> conventional wisdom
Talk about unclear referents! I question the existence of a universal "conventional wisdom" on political issues like these.
It is actually very hard to characterize a reliable source in a way that does not exhibit any sort of cultural or political bias.
I'm sure that, unsurprisingly, if you live in a majority white country, most Cuban supporters would be white and left-leaning. If you were a Cuban that supported the Cuban regime and were happy, why would you leave, taking on so much risk and expense?
I met a Cuban like that. Simply put, to make more money. He knew the nuances of their system and was thankful for the good parts and the opportunities he had, but at the end of the day knew that for him individually it was more convenient to leave when he had the chance. It's just something that doesn't work for everybody by necessity.
I think he had a relative abroad that sponsored some sort of student visa, and he just never went back.
They've always existed, just have microphones now.
And if you think about it, how much of American culture in the 20th century was a result of things that came out of corporate boards?
Wait, are you saying equity ownership and therefore control, of “US style corporations” isn't inheritable?
Schumpeter said something in the lines of "it's ironic that in democratic free-market countries most economic activity happens under hierarchical top-down organizations".
It’s only even slightly ironic if you ignore that “free-market” is the capitalist euphemism for a society whose structure is top-to-bottom regulated (largely, through the exact shape of the imposed definition of “property rights”) around principals engineered and fought for tooth-and-nail over centuries by the capitalist (née mercantile) class to allow their heirarchical top-down organizations to replace those of the feudal aristocracy as the main driving force in society.
Nazi Germany (fascist far right) -> totalitarian dictatorship that invades its neighbors and executes dissidents
Soviet Union (communist far left) -> totalitarian dictatorship that invades its neighbors and executes dissidents
In the meantime, what happens is that the market is not and invention, but it "is". That is why there are black markets. And they are illegal. So what now? Easy: you have to brive all the public workers to get what you want. This is not only sad, this is attacking the dignity of the normal people who deserve a life.
Cuba does not have a major hunger problem at all and has a higher life expectancy than the US.
Lumping Cuba and North Korea together is silly & misguided.
That is plainly false. There are lots of cheating in how they count that, for example, if a kid is going to have any kind of problem, they suggest and try to abort it and it does not appear in the count, to give you just one single example about how they count life expectation. There is lots more that is only make up, such as the health care myth and others.
They do have lots of doctors they send abroad and the regime gets 70% of their income. When you land abroad, if you work like that, they take away your passport so that you cannot escape. They do campaigns to donate blood and they sell that blood (over 21 million dollars in sales for blood that was supposed to be, most of it, an altruist action by cuban people in one year). They are literally treated as slaves.
Did you see what happened last July? There were riots in the streets. They did not have even medicines or food and they (the regime and its propaganda) started to talk about the embargo (incorrectly called blockage) as the problem, when the problem is that those people in that odious regime do not let even the food or medicines go through without taking a part.
I mean, they take advantage of the anguish of relatives that are outside and they smash them. After that I saw president Diaz Canel promoting violence against people for the protests from his very own words, not a translation or similar (I can speak spanish).
They have basically the same system: more repression and strictness in North Korea. But same base: corruption, repression, intervention and treating their citizens as animals with no dignity.
The first "manipulation" identified would not impact Cuba's position as 1st in life expectancy in Latin America, as they concede in their article.
It is because if you cannot take care of a kid with some kind of problem and dies young, it lowers the life expectancy. So they encourage abortion and remove it from the count.
Unfortunately it's myths like this that are shown as evidence of the /entire/ narrative around NK being false, by those who treat NK as a socialist paradise. There is a lot of poor journalism on the topic (see: myth that NK claimed to fire a rocket into the sun, myth that NK claimed to have found a unicorn, claims that KJU doesn't poop, etc) and as such it's easy to simply say that it's all made up.
Certainly not justifying those arguments at all; this just shows how easy it is for the less-critical on any side of an issue to believe whatever they want because of a few counterexamples.
This is also a myth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Jap...
I wonder what they would not do to a local if they do that to foreigners.
How about this? https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/19/north-korea-horrific-pre...
The hair cut stuff is irrelevant, and sorry if it was not accurate. But the level of freedom there amounts to zero. I do not trust westerner media either all the time like a kid. I am not this silly. But hey, there is way more than that...
I can tell you, that is a hell, but what really makes me more angry about all this is how a leading class spoils people mercilessly and treat them as animals with no dignity. I am talking about North Korea for what I see in articles lately. But in Cuba there are similar patterns where everything is forbidden and corruption reigns with people trying to survive because some others decided they have to live like animals.
Vietnam is way waaaay better than NK and Cuba, even if it has its downsides, since its economy has been steadily opened to investment.
Kinda funny is that it really just means they are irrelevant as a competitor or market, and that none of us really care about governing systems or really care about imagining everyone is a victim because they lack self determination for their country, only competitors.
However, it has been developing steadily. I am not american, btw. (I say so bc you say "we lost to").
That said, there is essentially no information in this article that makes me believe that they actually talked to this person as opposed to making up a caricature of how they imagine life in NK to be.
This was an event held by LINK (https://www.libertyinnorthkorea.org/) which I already wrote in both the article and this thread. You can go to their site or the several talks I linked in this thread to hear their stories directly.
The US killed 20% of Koreans on the peninsula and reduced it all to rubble. Forgive my skepticism at the "humanitarian intentions". Especially when there are financial incentives to become a defector [0]
There are also documentaries produced locally [1] and you can very well go on Weibo yourself and speak to North Koreans.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39170614 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0
Feel free to look at the differences in health and life outcomes for North vs South Koreans, while entirely obscuring the systems of government, and you will see why the North Koreans are reviled throughout most of the rational/non-psychopathic world.
etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
>South Korean universities were shut down, newspaper offices were closed, and any political activity that went against the policies of General Chun Doo-hwan were strictly banned. In further details, all public gatherings that included more than three party were forbidden with an only exception for funerals. With the Korean news media muzzled by martial law, only the handful of foreign correspondents present could publish reports on what was happening in Gwangju — no easy task, given the army cordon. Telephone lines had been cut by the military; some reporters walked miles to villages to line up at the nearest phones still working. Soon after, General Chun Doo-hwan broadened the terms of martial law into the entire country of South Korea and rigorously kept in check with suspicious activities that seemed to be promoting democracy. Thus all pro-democracy leaders including students were considered as traitors or anti-government criminals. In consequence, the charges that met those of who were considered as convicts were in reality as cruel as any major prisoners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_of_May_Seve...
If North Korea suddenly decided to stop being oppressive I'd be 100% in favor.
None of those things should be illegal. It is really annoying to see how a leader class kills people of hunger and make everything illegal so that now everyone is a criminal for trying to survive.
That system you define there just exists in your head. It is not possible. It is like pretending the existence of unicorns. The real one every time ends up in an authoritarian regime.
How does someone dream of things that are better? How can you have faith in anything at all? Is not the love you feel towards your friends and family kind of like the unicorn you are describing? Do you even really feel love, if its just in your "head"?
Do you think that all those books people have written about it, both for and critically against, are just filled nonsense, and the writers and thinkers just had to count on the fact that nobody would actually read them? And that I, who have read a small portion, am somehow hypnotized into delusion by them, thinking I have gained knowledge, when in fact there was no knowledge to be gained at all?
I can't of course argue against this, as I am implicitly deluded in general, but I would still question your overall rhetorical strategy here.
I think one of the worst contributions of marxism (as in incorrect) is the theory of objective value (translating from spanish, I hope I am doing it right), which basically says how much you are being stolen. In fact, there is no such thing as objective value and this is very easy to demonstrate in the experience of any of us. It is just absurd.
Yet there are people that still seem to believe it but I do not think they really think it is correct. This theory is the foundation of how much the employer steals to the worker. And that sets up a very conflictive mindset instead of a cooperative one. I believe more in cooperation. I do not deny an employer and an employee, both parts always want more. But both win together.
The best thing to pick at, if you are arguing with Marxists, is the general "labor theory of value" and whether that ultimately is correct. The labor theory of value has to do with how we assign economic value to things on the market, and that it ultimately is from the labor of those who produce the product.
When Marx came up with his "modes of production", one of those was what he called the "Asiatic mode of production" (because it was ostensibly widespread in Asia). The idea is that it's basically a society where all property is collectively owned by the ruling class, which uses violence or threat thereof to directly extract surplus from the rest of the population. Whether this accurately describes any historical society in Asia or elsewhere is debatable, but it does seem to very accurately describe the USSR. Which is probably why Stalin personally cracked down on that definition, and had it purged from the Soviet interpretation of Marxism.
It's unfortunate that such a sensible idea only becomes justification for kleptocratic oligarchies which is what the other poster was going on about.
It's why delegations and councils make sense on paper but are, even at the best of times, not perfect in practice. I understand that we may not strive for perfection in our social systems, but this does go against the distribution of power intent behind communal living in the first place. I actually like the idea of communal ownership of means of production, but I don't think it's possible to implement successfully with humans as a species (or likely any species, even ants have hierarchical importance). It might be possible with "sentient" machines at some point in the distant future, but the rest is biologically encoded in our nature.
That seems to be the major problem with communism - it works on a small scale communities but for anything larger you get the relationships and conflicts of interest between the many actual (small-scale) communities and/or between communities and de-facto outsiders, and there this fundamental basis stops working well; the effectiveness of trust-based relationships are different for different sizes of communities and persistence of identity/reputation/etc.
This also has a theoretical basis in decision theory, e.g. even simplified models like the iterated prisoner's dilemma clearly have different optimal cooperate/defect strategies depending on whether you're dealing with someone with whom you expect many more interactions (i.e. someone you know from your mini-community) or someone who's either anonymous with no persistent reputation, or known to be of a transitory nature.
A community of a hundred humans will have emotional ties that allow them to cooperate in a way that a community of a hundred sub-communities and their delegates simply does not.
If your delegates emotionally treat the other delegates as "their community" then you get essentially a bureaucrat/administrator class that exploits the communities for their own gain and results in the usual scenario a reality where your local rep doesn't mean anything. The observed dynamics in the early Soviet structure is relevant, where smaller soviets/worker councils were sending their delegates to larger soviets of soviets and so on in multiple levels, which had your exact plans and expectations, but quickly started to get poor results as these representatives (the process of which continued pretty much forever) become less relevant, and got effectively turned into an 'apparatchik' class for the opposite top-down control - which quite well matched the incentives of these individual representatives, who formed a "community" with their fellow representatives and generally benefited from the structure.
And if your delegates are actually faithful to their communities and properly represent for their interests, then (in the absence of some authority forcing communities to do things) the relationships between the communities become effectively a market economy, based on objective trade instead of altruistic cooperation (they agree to win-win cooperation, but disagree on any extensive resource transfers from richer communities to poorer ones, caring about their community and ensuring their advantage) and the large scale economy of the country effectively becomes equivalent to free market only with the basic participants in the economy being slightly larger, not households but these communities - this is also a historical observation of how the relations between kibbutz communities turned out.
There is no "maybe" that you suggest, these things have been tried out, we know the results, and (sadly!) your expectations do not match what happens. I fully agree with your "should", in a perfect world it really should work, but in the one we live in it does not. Perhaps it would work with some post-homo-sapiens which are better than us, but that would be a substantial change in fundamental behavior and response to incentives which IMHO can't happen with purely cultural or social change, it would require change in us as a species.
Even if a delegate system does devolve into essentially communal trading, that would still be an improvement to capitalism because atomisation at the level of a functional community is less destructive to the human spirit, and more mutually sustainable than atomisation at the individual level.
I'm just talking about ideas I've read about here, and things that seem worth trying - it's not like I've personally experienced an anarchist commune, especially one that has scaled beyond a single personal community. My main point of orientation is that the problems inherent to capitalism are pretty glaring (including, importantly, climate collapse through over-extraction, which will eventually cost us our biosphere) and alternatives need to be investigated. I'm well aware that self-organising systems are hard to build, systems theory and cybernetics are one of my main interests and they're all about self-organisation in nature and technology. But doing nothing is not an option. If I had a magic wand to implement any system I wanted I certainly wouldn't be so clumsy as to assume that something that "sounds reasonable" would work as I assume; experiments would have to be tried with many, many different models. Some experiments have and continue to be undertaken in communes and revolutionary communities around the globe, but nothing on the scale of a whole country outside of state socialism, which was just a red dictatorship. But at the end of the day, we really need to make the switch from competitive, exploitation-based coordination to cooperative coordination that can be more firmly rooted in human values.
The current system has many drawbacks, but it can easily be much worse, and most (all?) attempts of "tear everything down and rebuild" will be much worse at least for a non-trivial time - and there needs to be a very good, reliable argument the expected long-term result is really going to work in order to justify that certain harm in the face of uncertainty that there's going to be any improvement and quite some evidence that the long-term result often is not only not better, but clearly worse. "Doing nothing is not an option" is not an ethical justification if your "doing" harms someone, and making random radical changes to status quo without properly evaluating the realistically expected consequences (without wishful thinking and unrealistically optimistic assumptions) is simply irresponsible and unethical even if the current system has severe flaws.
Free markets allow people to organize the way they like. Other systems don't.
Cooperatives are cool and I have nothing against them but there's a reason for them being so few. They go bankrupt more often than other business.
> I don't engage in negotiations with my wife or my friends, we cooperate
Me neither but trust isn't scalable. On a large ethnically and culturally diverse population it's impossible to have trust.
It's good to have choice. Engaging in negotiations can be boring but it's preferred over the tragedy of the commons or attempts social control that always end up being an euphemism for privileges for friends or authoritarian policy.
Free markets are not absolute freedom, and private property still restricts the action of people without money. Poor people can barely do anything because they're too busy trying not to become homeless. The wealthy, on the other hand, can do what they want. That's not a very free system. More free than some Soviet dictatorship, 100%, but I like to think that we can do better. Plenty of coercion occurs under the banner of free market trade - just look at rare metal extraction in Africa, that powers our electronic devices.
> Cooperatives are cool and I have nothing against them but there's a reason for them being so few. They go bankrupt more often than other business.
They actually don't, they have greater staying power than corporations [1]. There's not many because investors don't want to invest in them due to the nature of their structure, and workers don't typically have the resources to fund their own business. Plus, they're a pretty niche concept, many people haven't heard of them. So once again, people can't organise the way they like because the way people can organise in the market is controlled by capital.
> Me neither but trust isn't scalable. On a large ethnically and culturally diverse population it's impossible to have trust.
That's a pretty weird thing to say. I hadn't even brought up race. I grew up going to a racially diverse school, had friends of various backgrounds, many of my neighbours and people I've worked with have been of different backgrounds, no issue. Maybe that's just you that doesn't trust people of other backgrounds.
> It's good to have choice. Engaging in negotiations can be boring but it's preferred over the tragedy of the commons or attempts social control that always end up being an euphemism for privileges for friends or authoritarian policy.
Do you not think that the ultra-wealthy are engaging in privileges for friends or authoritarian policy? They write the laws you must obey!
Any system where the primary incentive is in opposition to moral value is less than ideal. If I am incentivised by the profit motive to withhold resources to the needy (see for example: US medical industry, the military-industrial complex withholding "being alive" to foreign citizens) then that's not a particularly moral system because the people least affected by morality will rise to the top.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative#Longevity_a...
With that in mind, consider what would happen today if you were to claim some random empty house as your own, posted a sign to that effect outside, and started to shoot any "trespassers". That would be murder - and the law would come down on you. Same thing would happen in this hypothetical society if someone tried to do what you describe.
(The issue of how a fully anarchist society would deal with murder in the first place is a separate and complicated one. I can't really speak for them; my own take is that anarchism is a kind of political asymptote - an unachievable utopia that the realistically-possible ideal society would trend towards as its cultural underpinnings evolve to make it more viable. In this day and age, something like Bookchin's libertarian municipalism appears to be empirically viable.)
You don't need an all-powerful totalitarian government to enforce that kind of ownership; the people can do it on their own. Owners of steel mills need workers to work the steel mills. Without workers, their steel mill is worthless. Without private ownership of a steel mill, the still mill is still valuable as long as it has workers. Under communist philosophy, the government doesn't need to use authoritarian powers to enforce communal ownership of steel mills, because no one wants to own a steel mill that has no steel workers. Therefore, workers have the ultimate power under this philosophy.
Let's investigate this claim a little bit. First of all, when I think about heavy handed government intervention, I think about the use of lethal force. Labor history in the United States is replete with instances of the US government using lethal force to quash labor movements. For example:
[0] The Battle of Blair Mountain was the first aerial attack on US soil, when the US Airforce attacked striking workers with leftover bombs from WWI.
[1] The Homestead Strike, where the PA State Militia was brought in to put down a steel worker uprising.
[2] The Great Railroad Strike, where national guard troops and police killed over 100 workers in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Michigan, and Illinois.
[3] The Lattimer massacre, where almost 20 unarmed striking workers were slaughtered by county police.
[4] The Memorial Day massacre when police opened fire into an unsuspecting crowd of assembled striking mill workers and their families, killing 10, maiming 9, wounding dozens more.
I could go on but I think I've made my point. I could literally list at least 10 more incidents of state-sanctioned violence being used to quell worker uprising, and if you haven't heard of the above events, I encourage you to do a deep dive into the history of labor movements in the US. (It's worth noting that it's not surprising that you may not have heard about these events, because they are not taught in schools. I wonder why?)
My charge to you: can you find a single instance of the state using this kind of violence against the owners of corporations? Of the police shooting plant owners and their families in the back? Of the US air force raining explosives down upon mine owners? Of the national guard being deployed to stop worker exploitation and wage theft? It seems to me that the exact opposite of what you claimed is true: heavy handed government intervention is done at the behest of owners against workers movements.
"[O]nce emotions had died down, [PA Governor] Pattison felt the need to act. He had been elected with the backing of a Carnegie-supported political machine, and he could no longer refuse to protect Carnegie interests. [1]"
This is why you see today that Amazon is even using the same firm [5] that Andrew Carnegie and Henry Frick used against their workers last century! That's not an accident!
Just as a final point, private property does not ever "spring up and thrive" on its own. Private property as a concept only exists as long as that property is defended by the state using its monopoly on violence. When someone trespasses upon your property, you call the state to forcibly remove, arrest, and imprison that person. If the state doesn't show up, you can only own as much property as you can personally defend.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike#Arrival_of_th...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattimer_massacre
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Memorial_Day_massacre
[5] https://www.npr.org/2020/11/30/940196997/amazon-reportedly-h...
History is also replete with unions beating 'scabs' to death, like Caesar Chavez's union members beating immigrants in the desert as they tried to cross the border.
The RLA was passed in response to the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, which I mentioned in my previous post. This was an uprising that spanned multiple states, and resulted in over 100 deaths.
These laws which you regard as heavy handed were paid for with literal blood at the hands of the federal government and corporations. I think it's important to point out the scope and scale of these things. On one hand you have the federal government mobilizing the machines of war at the behest of, and in coordination with corporations, to slaughter workers and their families for having the audacity to ask for better working conditions. That's heavy handed.
On the other side you have laws passed in response to this bloodshed that were intended to help tilt the scales in the other direction just a bit. That's not heavy handed. Maybe you feel that these kinds of restrictions are heavy and onerous, but really I don't think it's fair to draw an equivalency.
As for Caesar Chavez, I don't think that's an example of heavy handed government intervention. It seems more like interclass violence, and it's sad. I will be the first to say that no one really comes out of the labor rights movement squeaky clean. But I think it's the government and corporations who have the highest body count and deserve most of the blame, because they had most of the money and power at the time. They could have chosen and afforded to not resort to violence, others in more precarious situations felt that violence was the only choice.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_o...
That's where the name comes from, in fact.
Why it takes a significant deviation from that base to permit alternative forms to operate on a level playing field should be obvious.
And people keep saying that communism hasn't been tried. But it has. It starts with the state trying to be socialist and then "withering away" to full on communism (according to the ideology's author). Only we never get past that part. We usually go straight to concentration camps, murdering those who disagree with the revolution, relative poverty, and a extremely uncompetitive economy.
We have evidence in America that the right/democratic quadrant kind of works -- it can produce great prosperity, but there can be a lot of sadness still (Jim Crow). At least there are mechanisms to fix it internally. It can get better (Civil Rights Act) but it can also get worse; we are finding now that if the Overton window moves too far to the right, there seems to be a tendency for America to become more authoritarian. We don't really know what going too far left looks like in America (probably the same IMO) because it's never even come close to happening; despite all the hysteric labeling of Democrats as Communists, they are really more liberal than left. There is no mainstream leftist representation in the US Federal Government, not even Bernie or AOC (the Green New Deal is written squarely within the framework of capitalism).
There are a lot of people out there saying that the left/democratic quadrant looks attractive, but they are shouted down by people who say that we can't ever try that, because look at what the left/authoritarian quadrant did in the past. People who are here in this thread right now. They are very vigorous about this claim, possibly because they lived under such left/authoritarian regimes. But I think that's a big mistake to conflate left/authoritarian with left/democratic, and it leaves us at a suboptimal local maxima as a society.
People often argue that it's a short trip from left/democratic to left/authoritarian, and that may be true. But it's also a short trip from right/democratic to right/authoritarian, and that's where we are right now as a nation. On this day, January 6, we as Americans should be more aware of that than ever. But that doesn't mean we can't try new things, and we shouldn't be held back from improving the future by the failures of the past.
It's true that democracies are hard to set up and maintain. We are learning that here in America right now. It seems like authoritarianism is the natural order of governments, so maybe left/authoritarianism is like a local minima: it's easy to fall into that well, hard to get out of it, but there are much better things out there if you can avoid it.
For example, a person with ten titles to ten houses can only live in one of them at a time; their control of the other nine comes from the ability to call the police who'd evict any squatters - which then makes it possible to rent them out. But suppose the police wouldn't show up?
This is too simplified to mean anything. The USSR had many socialist branches, where the bolsheviks ultimately won out in a power struggle. The bolsheviks wanted state control, the citizen working for the state, while others were into having actual soviets where the citizens would've taken control of their means of production. Having a parliament and democracy was important to many of these groups (and the liberals who were also politically active). I wouldn't recommend a dictatorship, regardless if it has "of the proletariat" as a suffix.
Even according to the communists, that's not true. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. Communism is the hypothetical post-scarcity classless society into which socialism is supposed to evolve eventually.
No "communist" country that ever existed actually claimed to be communist; they claimed to be building communism. Which, as the popular Soviet joke went, is always on the horizon - which is an imaginary line that recedes as you try to advance to it.
Regulation is an assertion of authority over the property of others - I'd never tell you what colour to paint your roof, but if I could do it, it would be a dilution of your ownership.
Not saying we need 0% taxes and 0 regulations, but less is more here.
The former has access to foreign currency with a real value. The later can hope to maybe get an exit visa (the government will loan it's "doctors" to foreign regimes in exchange for real currencies).
It was always my understanding that while Cuba lacks a lot of things that many other countries take for granted, that the quality of its doctors was outstanding. I even remember seeing this mentioned in the newspaper at the beginning of the pandemic.
Is this not true, or no longer true? Have I been under a false impression for all this time?
Annecdotal evidence, but an acquintance of mine (who is an MD) encountered Cuban "doctors" in South America and wasn't impressed at all.
> I even remember seeing this mentioned in the newspaper at the beginning of the pandemic.
The thing is that Cuba made a lot of claims about their handling of the pandemic, but as with every communist country out there it's hard to really know what's really going on.
Also, assuming we have perfect faith in Chinese government statistics and Cuban government statistics...
Nevertheless, the wild variations in Covid experiences between countries and controversy over why it happened, make me think it is a useless yardstick.
I think nothing. Cuban is an authoritarian government that uses it's healthcare for propaganda. It has all the incentives to lie and AFAIK none of these claims are verified by independent parties parties. Regardless of political system it's a poor embargoed island and it's easier to believe that they are gaming the metrics than really providing better health outcomes.
What I've seen is this: Those who have access to tourists or to the government are rich. Corruption is rampant as I've seen people bribing police right at the airport to have their things sorted out.
The mainstream corruption in society revolves around casa particulars and taxis. Essentially, you have right to rent a room and you have right to ride a taxi but there are strict limits on how much you can do it. So what more entrepreneurial people do? Simply distribute the business ownership to their friends and relatives on paper and keep growing and running their enterprises.
Also, there are two different types of shops and businesses: Locals only shops, locals only restaurants, locals only buses that are at very poor quality and I believe they are free or heavily subsidised and there are better quality versions that have prices similar to the European countries(prices way beyond a person with a salary can afford). So who do you think eats at these expensive restaurants? Yes, tourists - but also people who have access to tourists and people who work for the government.
One day a wandered around my casa particular in Havana and ended up in a place with very nice houses quite close to governmental buildings. I took some photos, enjoyed the place and ate at a restaurant. Then I noticed that the restaurant got very busy with military personel and well dressed people. Those were definitely not tourists, those were people from the nearby governmental buildings having a dinner after work.
Very interesting experience overall. Almost completely positive, full of life lessons about so many things including classes in the society where they are not supposed to exists. I'm also convinced that consumerism is not the only way to a happy life and abundance and excess are not necessarily the answer. The first week was hard, the second week I was completely happy to have only 2 options for beer and 1 option for chocolate.
I also went to local restaurants, they were extremely cheap but way too basic IMHO(However I think there was a special kind of a restaurant that is intended to be fancy but also for the locals. I was having a proper fish meal and a beer for about equivalent of 5$ in CUP at one of those). However I was told that I can't take any other bus than Viazul(the fancy tourist buses) for travelling between cities. Not that I would want to travel in one of those anyway, definitely not comfortable or safe to travel.
Here is one of the buses that the regular Cubans were traveling: https://imgur.com/a/jIynZMZ
For some reason, communists suck at automobile making.
OH! By the way, apparently CUC was discontinued a year ago in 1st of January 2021.[0]
Do you not think that embargoes have some degree of impact on this?
However, that 'bus' seems to be a locally modified truck, probably a Soviet-built ZiL-164. There is definitely an argument to be made that the cars and trucks produced under Communism, both in the USSR itself and in client states like East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland, weren't as good as their contemporary Western equivalents for all sorts of reasons.
A lot of Americans haven't owned American cars since the 70s.
Other Caribbean islands import vehicles that are neither American nor even available in the US.
I know nothing about the auto industry, but South America is not that far away, and apart from tariffs, isn't it demonstrably economically viable to ship things long distances over the ocean? Because people do it, that's where all the consumerism comes from.
And Cuba does have some new cars. People focus on the old cars because it's so visually striking (and those cars are so beautiful!) but it's more a marker of poverty than America somehow threatening to torpedo any ship that brings new cars to Cuba, or convincing all the global auto manufacturers to never sell any cars to Cuba. There are modern BMWs, Toyotas, etc in Cuba right now. Just not many of them. Expectedly, BMW is doing brisk business selling much cheaper motorcycles and scooters in Cuba, which is also true of other Latin American nations.
It doesn't directly. It just makes it harder for Cuba to obtain hard currency to buy new cars.
Now, you can argue they were a joint-venture with Fiat and not an entirely original idea (though the Soviets made improvements in ruggedness and ease of self-service), but whatever: cars made by the Soviets didn't suck.
--
[1] from Wikipedia:
> The rugged Lada was popular in Europe, Canada and South America for customers looking for more affordable alternatives to local brands, and sales of the new cars were extremely successful, reaching as far as New Zealand. In the West, their construction was frequently described as cheap and that inspired jokes at the car's expense; nonetheless, Lada "gained a reputation as a maker of solid, unpretentious and reliable cars for motorists who wanted to drive on a budget."
Wikipedia uses as reference Andy Thompson. Cars of the Soviet Union, Haynes Publishing, 2008.
They are terrible cars. Some of their aspects, like being very basic is considered a plus by some people and that's about the only positive thing that can be said about these cars. The affordability for the Westerners came from the income difference, these cars were not affordable for for the locals as they had to save money for years to buy one.
Very bad, very unreliable, very inefficient, very uncomfortable cars can be popular only when they are extremely cheep or the only option.
So, on my first week it was hard. I was working in very central London and I had access to peak consumers options. I like it, I was used to have anything that crossed my mind being readily accessible for me. Except for shorts that week, apparently. My order from Amazon did not arrive and I was trusting Amazon enough to skip going to a high street shop to buy one up until the last day.
So I flew to Cuba with no short pants. Turns out its very hard to buy clothes in Cuba, I didn't know how locals manage to do it and I was out of luck. If you stay at a resort, there are shops in the hotel but I wasn't going to stay in a resort. I found out that there's a shopping mall in Havana and you can even use your credit card to do purchases(I went there with very little cash as my research indicated that ATMs work fine. In reality, not that fine). The mall was nothing like the ones I was used to and the shops sell knock offs at original prices.
Anyway, I was for a rough start so I was forced to improvise and not follow my initial plan. Later the things stabilised, I was able to find an ATM that will let me withdraw cash from my HSBC account but by the time I already befriended a few local people who would give me a glimpse into the actual daily life in Cuba. I went to the places I was planing to go, great beaches and everything but my mind got occupied with the way everything works in Cuba, so I kept paying attention.
First week, I was missing my routine in London. The snacks, the entertainment, even the food. I was feeling like missing out and I had no idea how to enjoy life without those things.
Then I realised that I was feeling bad because I was expecting to spend my time the way I spend it in London but I was not in London. The consumerist lifestyle in London has defined my expectation and I was annoyed because those expectations are not met by Cuba. A nice restaurant would take the edge of it but the core problem persisted.
Then I started looking inside. Do I really need to spend money for enjoyment? Do I really need to taste a different beer every time and judge it? Does my pizza needs to be proper Italian? Do I need advertisements to give me ideas to do or buy something? I found out that no, I don't need ads and I don't need to occupy my mind with the decision making of the kind if lager I should drink tonight. Instead of riding the amusement park of consumerism, I can simply be curios and explore!
My second week was much more chill. I knew which beer I like, I like Cristal and I have no interest in Bucanero or Presidente. Big deal, it's a nice beer and available pretty much everywhere. Maybe Heineken is better but I don't care anymore, that's not something that I would spend time on.
I need something sugary? Well, it's not available on every corner so I will just not have it now and If I still want it I will buy one of the few snacks that are available. It is alright not to have it now.
I found myself to consume much less and be quite content with it and I found out that I was enjoying the stuff I consumed much more. My actions were no longer guided by the consumer infrastructure and the simplest things were giving me more joy than the speciality stuff that I had to buy to out do the regular things I buy. A fish at a local restourant tastes much better when I'm hungry than the fish I would eat at the restaurant that is highly rated and endorsed by influencers.
Don't get me wrong, I do value and enjoy the variety of food, items and entertainment in the western societies however I no longer believe that these things are the main ingredients for a happy life or society. It's nice to have those things, it brings so much culture too but if you think that your life will be less fulfilling without those you will be wrong. These are nice to have but there is a danger to give up on actually fulfilling stuff in order to live a consumerist life. Let's not try to optimize for having ever more food and gadgets and things.
It’s just that the western lifestyle is not without its own faults. There’s lessons to be learned about being happy without being full blown consumerists.
You're being coy, in not describing the things you find so tiresome.
Before Brexit, I worked for a company that opened a branch near London, in order to access the European market. I didn't make it my overriding goal to go there, but I probably could've, and a co-worker went there and subsequently got married and stayed.
My point is that, happiness and life satisfaction are not tied to the abundance of consumer goods. When you are sad you don't have to buy something, it's alright to have a few options and your happiness level doesn't need to change by your next purchase. You can experience that in Cuba.
I've been to NYC a couple of times.
Things I got there (in more than one trip):
a terrible pretzel from a street vendor (cold and *wet*)
a *fantastic* cup of coffee at a cafe where I was meeting someone
a bowl of lentil soup (surprisingly very cheap)
some chicken lo mein, about the same price and exactly the same generic dish as anywhere I've been in the US, except perfectly executed, really fresh and hot
a chicken souvlaki pita, one of the best, although the place (in Queens) smelled kinda like urine
Some, but definitely not most. Step out of the touristic areas sometime and you will see. Poverty, poor healthcare, slow, overpriced internet, blackouts, food shortages, very low wages and very high prices, some places only get tap water for a few hours a day (sometimes every few days)... Such good lives they have.
Because I didn't know and maybe I should. I spent half my life unaware of the origin of "capitalism".
In the early 20th century, "consumerism" was supposedly used to mean something like "consumer protection".
But in the mid 20th century, it was apparently adopted as a preferred term to "capitalism" in order to contrast Western economies with communism.
Then, by the 60s or so, it morphed into something like the modern sense of "a policy of encouraging consumption".
In order to raise our lives level there were previous savings that were reinvested in process improvement, which eventually kept raising our life standards. Capitalism is exactly about that: same product at better price or higher quality products.
We humans always try (yes, left wing people also!) to buy at the lowest price and sell at the highest price (in general terms). That is why competition is good, because it does not let business abuse a monopolistic position and the prices drop.
People try to associate excessive consumption to capitalism. I do not think it is a trait of capitalism per se.
I'd rather use my money in ways that make a more positive impact. Though I am not rich enough for that I guess.
From what I read, consumerism did not have the negative connotation mid-century, whereas capitalism did.
I don't know how it happened, but seemingly "consumerism" acquired a similarly negative connotation, which is a Sisyphean cycle with euphemisms.
As I understand it, "capitalism" was an invention of the writers of the Communist Manifesto, while ironically "communism" was not. When a concept is developed purely for oppositional purposes, it can and often does attract people to defend it.
But in some sense, I feel like it doesn't really exist due to its origin. It amounts to the status quo, plus a word that lets people feel like they are opposing (or supporting) some one or thing rather than fog.
Cuba is not really in abject poverty so much as they have a command-control economy (so some things are subsidized to be much cheaper than in our economic system, and others aren’t) that is pretty corrupt. They are definitely not a rich country on average or at p50, just not in abject poverty. According to some sources I found on Google their nominal/PPP GDP is actually pretty middling, which is likely due to what I mentioned about a lot of high-standard-of-living services being available despite low availability of goods.
The shortages of things are definitely bad. But the lack of variety in consumer goods really isn’t, and is probably what the parent comment was pointing out. There are not a million different things to buy as seen on TV/Instagram, but that in itself doesn’t appear to have a huge impact on life.
No way for their wealth, to begin with, and why you should choose how people choose? They are animals?
Everything that is cheaper than its possible price is literally being paid by someone, with their labour or by others. Free things, literally, do not exist. And things below real price, do not exist. For that to exist someone along the way has to pay it with time or money or forced by slavery. Please keep in mind this every time someone talks about free. Free means "someone else pays". And someone else pays is as selfish and inconsiderate as if I went to you and I demanded from you an arbitrary effort on the basis that you owe me something for nothing.
I am just describing the structure of the Cuban economy where market forces are less involved in how many of something gets produced for consumption. I don’t think it’s great either because it leads to food shortages. Just pointing out (having been to Cuba myself) they aren’t in abject poverty and in some ways punch above their weight for their economic reality (and what someone might think knowing how often they have goods shortages) due to some activites being prioritized over others.
The problem with mainstream economic right is that it ignores that, or assumes that markets will eventually equalize naturally somehow. The problem with mainstream economic left is that it wants to strangle the market instead of freeing it from oligarchy.
Socialism is a word that can be defined in absolute terms. But left/right is defined relative to society as a whole. Whoever is left of center in political mainstream is the economic left, by definition.
No matter if all leftists are removed from society, leftism must still be said to be half of what remains.
Nothing in mainstream USA politics should be described as "economic left."
So the problem you see there is mostly a regulation problem, not a wealth inequality problem.
The only difference is that Cuba doesn't have the opportunity to exploit foreign nations to enrich itself (and get even fatter on taxes).
Exploiting is what Cuba does with its doctors when they send them abroad and take 70% and kidnap their passports as if they were animals, or when you are assigned an arbitrary government salary for the sake of it without any possibility of alternatives.
Please explain to me what exploiting is: paying less than what you think they deserve? Note that those exploited foreign countries get investment from outside to improve lives of people there, not to worsen them, otherwise those people would not take a foreigner company job in the first play.They usually pay more than local companies except a few exceptions FYI. At least in Vietnam. In Vietnam working for an american, korean, japanese company means you are mostly blessed.
I know the factories topic well from Vietnam. If you want we can talk about why that is not exploiting but what Cuba does to its citizens is indeed. There is a big difference.
Cuba's exploitation of its doctor is a piece (one I do not have a full-understanding of, nor the care) of a greater whole.
Slavery and exerting power on a select group of people is obvious, and clear to see -- but the boundaries are clear and isolated.
Colonialism and exerting power on a whole peoples is less obvious, and harder to see -- because its boundaries are muddy and the things it affects are innumerable.
We can go even more high-level, but I do not know yet how to describe it.
I am uninterested in isolated "pieces" of the greater puzzle. In my view, they are ever-changing and indicative of greater causes; ones that are systemic, all-encroaching, and much more valuable to identify and root out---if I want the isolated incidents to stop fractaling, and reappearing.
Isolated injustices, like Cuba's, are of little concern to me. This is not my battle; it is the battle of the Cuban peoples. My battle is against the Rube Goldberg machine of my humanity, and the rest.
Give me examples of colonialism nowadays. Or what you consider colonialism.
For me exploiting is only one thing: forcing the other part to do something under threat or coaction.
Namely: "we should pay more to x, y, z" is not exploiting. Going to them and forcing them to work for us, it is. When someone does not have alternative and you have something to offer, that is not exploiting, even if it looks like little to us. The solution for these people to get more is to have more people trying to employ them, then salaries get higher. This is a relatively slow process, but it happens (it happened in history).
We go to less developed nations because it is cheaper. True. And they benefit from it. Are they worse than us? No, it is just their countries did not reach the same conditions yet. But you would say: hey, we should pay them more, give them a better place to live, blabla, which I get, it is ok, I am with you in part, but there is a problem: people buy the products that are cheaper for the same kind of product. And it makes sense: you will not pay more than you need for something (I mean a meaningful extra amount that limits what you can do, not one cent more or less, of course), since you have a limited amount of money, which is resources.
So at the end you have a chain of supply where if you raise the prices much, people will stop buying. If people stop buying, people in developing countries go unemployed. It is all a chain. So now you would ask: how do you raise the salaries for these people? Letting many employers, I mean as many as possible, enter the country, because that means that employers start competing for the employees and the salaries get higher. They cut on their profits if they cannot find workers.
This is how it works. Many people do not understand it. I have been there, working there, living there in places where this happens. And the difference between some of these people having an employment that is probably three times and health care insurance (I talk about Vietnam, but this happens in many developing countries in similar ways) is that the sister of one of those guys does not end up doing what you are thinking and instead goes to university with the help of the family.
This is the reason why I cannot call that exploiting. They improve their lives, eventually they will learn and compete with us (they already do in some areas or are starting to).
I find very hypocrite people complaining about better conditions for others (we all want that I guess) when it is not them who pay the bill.
There is no replacement for this way of developing IMHO, and it has been the model of success, with all its problems.
Forced redistribution is awful to make people wealthy, even if it looks counter-intuitive, because we all have a tendency to think that if someone has a lot and someone has too little, then we take away from one and give to another.
But what many people do not take into account is that doing that kills the incentive to create the wealth in the first place.
If free things don't exist, what are for-sale things made of?
Someone works on them, someone gets the material (if it is a product). Someone spends time.
If a machine does it, someone created the machine (it is usually many people for a single industrial machine) and someone bought it.
There is literally always, someone, at some point in time that paid with time and/or money to trade something. Even if someone gives away something for free from her effort, it is the person who did the effort who"paid" in that case.
There is no such thing as free and coming from nowhwere. Someone pays the price. Voluntarily or not is another matter.
That is why I criticize a lot when someone says that we can get xyz for free. No. There will still be work involved. The manufacturing, the delivery, the service... whatever. So if we want something for free we should think who is paying that. I guess most of us do not want to work for free. In general terms, I do not want, I could do an exception... but not in general. So when we ask for others to do things for free what we are saying is that someone should not get its part of reward or that someone else has to pay it for us, making those people a means to our ends. I would not call that social cooperation.
But how did the trade get started?
Does it go back into an infinite past? An infinite series of trades, with neither an end, nor even beginning?
Otherwise it would seem something must be free.
I do not think it is difficult to see the beginning of these patterns, they seem relatively natural to me: if I can plant a big field of potatoes and you can hunt well, we assess the cost of each activity and x kg of potatoes equal y kg of meat.
I think you are mixing the fact of something being free as in "no money involved" with the fact that time is "money" or that spending time doing something is also money: it is consuming time, which is also a kind of capital.
So you could pay in coins, in sheep, in yarn, with your time or in whatever. That is not important, it is still an exchange and equivalent to trading.
This is Adam Smith's just-so story, but he was wrong - no society has ever been shown to survive on a barter economy. Anthropologists have shown that what existed before trade was the same as what exists today when trade collapses: informally held debt. Alice knows how to work leather, Bob knows how to work wood; Bob needs a pair of shoes; Alice gives Bob a pair of shoes to satisfy his need and both Alice and Bob remember that; later, when Alice's house needs repairs she knows whose shoulder to tap on.
This is "barter" in the sense that Alice's and Bob's services have been transacted through time, but you'd be moving the goalposts since you just defined barter as Alice and Bob sitting down and determining precisely how much wood-labour equates to a fixed quantity of leather-labour at the point of purchase.
If you'd like to learn more, then David Graeber's book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, is something of a standard reference on the subject. It's on the Internet Archive.
However, I think bartering has always existed for a reason, and when it did not or trading was forbidden, what you end up is with poorer or more violent societies.
This is the same reason why we specialize our labour and we do not do all things: shoes, food, blankets, bridges, roads, trains, planes, computers. Because if we had to self-supply fully, our lives would be much more miserable. From there it follows that trading is a natural choice: I can give something valuable and someone else can give me something valuable in exchange. Of course that gets mixed with debt and other stuff (I did not read your reference yet so I cannot assess how true it is in my very limited opinion) but the alternative to bartering, trading, etc. is violence. Every time.
There is an analysis from a well-known spanish philosopher that died short ago, his name is Antonio Escohotado, well-known for having written a book about the history of drugs that was translated to many languages.
He wrote a 3-volumes book that is called "Los enemigos del comercio" (The enemies of trade).
He researched the topic with unusual passion, since when he was young he used to be a communist. He wanted to explain to himself why he was so communist at some point. He spend around 15 years writing that. One of his main conclusion is that the alternative to trading is trading people (slaves) and the conquer of the other (violence). I really think it is true. He establishes some relationships between the amount of trading and the violence in societies (military vs trade societies). I think it is a nice read, but I am not sure it is translated to other languages as of now. The one for the drugs it is.
Greetings.
But how do coins, sheep, yarn, or whatever, originally come to be? If nothing is free, there must be an infinite chain of trade, leading back to an infinite past. But cosmology and evolution suggest otherwise.
How better? No economic data here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_and_Car.... I can say there were riots last July due to a lack of medicines and food.
There were some protests in Cuba, of course as usual presented in the western media as anti-government. Unsurprisingly, they were dwarfed by pro-government counter-protests.
Inside we got the lobsters as promised, maybe the only good food we had apart from the resorts. It came with some extremely stringy mangoes that I don't want to try again.
They also had friends come over to offer cigars and those peculiar Cuban shirts, I think taken from a factory. At least that was their story.
On the other side, they seemed to have a desire to buy clothes, in particular sports clothes like basketball tops. We didn't have that with us but we were told they'd swap the cigars for a top easily. Even just a shirt like you might wear for working in the City would fetch a lot of cigars, apparently.
You want to do something by yourself? Brive me, because it is illegal or you will have trouble. And anyway, if I want, you can have trouble any day, because you did something illegal. Also, the brived people are also in trouble, because receiving a brive is illegal also. Now you have a system where anyone, at any time can be arbitrarily accused of criminal actions. Criminal actions that the government allows to happen depending on their interests.
They do not allow the right to have dignity for the people there. It is really sad. The only truth is that the system imposed there works because of corruption, literally. It is the way it works: I do not let you eat bread, but you need bread. So I give you whatever I want, if there is scarcity you can do nothing, except illegal things to survive, such as trading.
Try to send dollars: the regime will keep them and will give CUPs to relatives of cubans.
I have heard (not confirmed data) that in the customs they can take as much as half of what you send. But yes, the embargo is the problem. Thieves.
I tell you from the point of view of a person that knows what happens there.
You are welcome.
I tell you if you are not aware of the original reason. The original reason makes sense.
I understand that normal people is who suffer. That is true and sad.
(The same, of course, applies to the post-revolution government - I'm not trying to claim that it's somehow better.)
Blockade seems appropriate.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
“In 1999, President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo by also disallowing foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to trade with Cuba.“
“The United States has threatened to stop financial aid to other countries if they trade non-food items with Cuba.”
I was there in the brief time when U.S. citizens were permitted by the U.S. government to visit on cruises. During my stay, I was constantly reminded that I was disallowed to spend money there on unsanctioned activities.
This reminds me of the first MacDonald’s in Moscow near Pushkinskaya Square. I remember there being a separate section downstairs for tourists/people from away. However this is a childhood memory, and perhaps I’m not remembering correctly?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29827641.
I will avoid the political comments, though I tried to keep the discussion reasonable at all times.
It was not my intention to start any flamewar, less ideological. You can see in my comments rebuttals or exchange of opinions.