> This thread began as part of a debate about markets versus plans. In
order
> to sustain his doctrinal stonewalling of Chomsky, Luke wrote in and
> dismissed the Haiti v. Cuba comparison, as if it were completely
groundless.
> Michael P. then posted a bunch of good stuff on the problems with Cuban
> society, among which is the likely unsustainability of the good things
once
> Fidel dies and the lack of democracy gets exposed to forces that may throw
> out the baby with the bathwater.
>
> Anyhow, the original point is that Haiti, which has been fully immersed in
> our beloved "market" system, is hell on Earth.
Here's the Cliff Notes version of the debate thus far:
Luke: Here are a couple pairs of communist/capitalist countries that were once very much alike--SK/NK and WG/EG. Note that the capitalist countries are much closer to first world status than the communist nations I paired them with. Doug et al.: But you failed to account for some important circumstantial differences between the pairs. (Almost needless to say, I don't believe the differences are as important as Doug and others seem to think.) Michael: Luke doesn't want to talk about Cuba and Haiti. Luke: Apples and oranges, Michael. (On this point, I am doubtless correct. As Doug suggested, the question is how much credit the communists deserve for preserving Cuba's relatively high standing on several important measures of human well-being. I've never seen a convincing argument that they deserve very much of it.) (I also should've noted that the comparison was wrong-headed in another way. We were talking about the ability of communist countries to achieve first-world status (or something close to it). Doug claimed that none were ever well-positioned to make the leap. The two pairs I mentioned were meant to be counterexamples. Unless you think Cuba has achieved a level of development comparable to West Germany or South Korea, I don't see how it belongs in the conversation.)
-- Luke