or "socialism"

which I say very loosely

Ok, what about it doesn't work. What about the state owning the means of production doesn't work.

its purpose doesnt work

to make sure everyone can live and not starve to death.

No purpose 'works', you either get to it or not. You mean it doesn't create prosperity?

basic shelter and food and such

ok

What about Cuba?

lots of purposes works

Everyone there seems to be not hungry.

cuba was largely funded by the ussr

>was

and they're not that populated

yes was

So your argument is against large scale communism

they;ll probably need to change systems soon

no

It doesn't work. end of story

my argument is against communism as a whole

What about Cuba makes you think it isn't sustainable

Large scale communism isnt the point, north korea even had a famine but cuba is the only one still surviving

its communism

North Korea is still in bad conditions

exactly

Venezuela too.

Cuba isn't.

exactly

not yet no

the ussr largely funded cuba

jesus

so many blocked messages

well they did

that's stupid

It's not despite almost no trade.
The US funded every major capitalist country to prove a point

no they didnt

they traded mostly

not funded

if they funded every major capitalist country and didnt become broke then that proves capitalism is far better

while thats not the same case with the ussr

The US funded Japanese Industrialization, South Korean and European. They very much funded by definition, funding is investment.