Of course, intentionally starving entire countries is probably one of the worst crimes anyone can do. There is no way to justify that under Buddhist principles. But here's the thing: nobody has claimed that anyone else here supports it.
What has been shown however is that the following CIA-engineered talking point, which has sparkled this branch of the conversation, is a complete fallacy and should be abandoned once and for all by its proponents:
1. Because first of all this argument assumes that any criticism of Capitalism is the equivalent of an argument in favor of socialism
2. More importantly, because the "mass poverty and suffering" we can see for example in Cuba has been intentionally engineered so that people would blame the local government for the results of an international stranglehold:
fwiw wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:08 pm every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.
1. Here you can see the results of "a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government."DNS wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:29 pm Just found some interesting statistics.
About 1.3 million Cubans live in the U.S. Cuba's population is about 11.1 million.
That proportion is a whopping 11.7%
About 2,500 Americans live in Cuba. The population of the U.S. is about 328.2 million.
That proportion is a miniscule 0.000007%
And that 2,500 number of Americans living in Cuba is including Americans of Cuban descent.
2. The same observation can be made for a very large number of "Capitalist" nations. Is that also an indictment of Capitalism, the same way it is assumed elsewhere to be an indictment of alternatives to Capitalism?
The free market has one very significant downside: scarce resources are reserved only for the rich who can afford them. Anybody who needs such resources just to stay alive (for example a leukemia patient) will have them denied and will die as a result of it. Hence society needs some form of protection against these inhumane aspects of the free market, lest the free market becomes an instrument of tyranny. There are countless examples in USA of people dying because they couldn't afford to pay for their treatment. This doesn't happen in countries that have rejected the pure, undalturated free market model when it comes to healthcare.