| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
(snipped)
> > Cuba has several strong points:
>
> > * National health care
>
> But no medicine.
Wrong! Medicine is very good in Cuba. They invest heavily in Healthcare.
Honest! A friend of my father went there for heart surgery and spoke wonders
of the place!
>
> > * Higher literacy rate than America
>
> That you know of.
It was the barman at the hotel who asked me if I had read Saramago, who is a
countryman of mine. I discovered a Nobel Prize winner's work thanks to a
menial worker. Surprising. Even more surprising was the conversation he kept
afterwards with our touristic guide, who had a degree in Philosophy, about
some forbidden authors in Cuba... they seemed pretty well informed.
>
> > * Lower national unemployment rate (only 6%) than America
>
> That you know of. And, we're at 4-5% or so last time I checked. And we're
> gainfully employed, not just working for subsistence wages in cane fields
> (on the average, yes there are doctors who can't afford decent cars, and
> suchlike but Cuba is basically agrarian).
Cuba isn't that dependant on agriculture these days - tourism and mining are
gaining a place in post-USSR economy. Cuban beaches are great! But it is
true that wages are too low, and sub-employment is a real problem.
>
> > * Lower crime rate than America
>
> That you know of.
If the American statistics are accurate, he's right. Or else crime on the
island is invisible. I walked on the street alone at night, being a kid with
that tourist look, and noone harassed me. I got mugged on my first day in
London, though.
> > So far, I've looked at it from an economic position and I would agree that
> > Cuba's economy is in poor condition. But why blame the form of government?
>
> Communism is an economic system, not just a form of government. So I'm
> pretty satisfied with blaming communism for economic conditions where it is
> deployed.
>
> But if you want to get into its flaws as a form of government we can do that
> too.
Then it is a surprise to see that Cuba is now recovering from the blow that
followed USSR's collapse. Cuba will not fall *the same way* because Cubans
are aware of their limitations - they won't *compete* with US, just "resist"
while they can (notice quote).
> > Isn't it pretty obvious that the sanctions are a REASON, not "excuse," that
> > Cuba is not a properous nation?
>
> Restating the assertion isn't proof. It's not obvious to me.
Sanctions are not the single, and perhaps not even the most important
reason. But they are ONE reason that cannot be overlooked.
> > How can any nation as small as Cuba thrive
> > in the global market if they are not allowed to do business without
> > restrictive sanctions imposed by a superpower like America?
>
> Cuba could get along fine without trade with the US... if it had anything to
> trade that was a good deal on the world market. Priced sugar lately? The
> sanctions are mostly ignored by everyone else, even our allies. What seems
> to have knocked the last few props out from under Cuba was the end of
> heavily subsidised energy when the USSR imploded.
Fidel Castro has made a world tour one year ago, and he stopped in
Algeria... I guess he's trying to solve that energy problem... ;)
And Cuba HAS things to trade that are worth the deal. My country is
currently richer and produces less... the secret is tourism. Spanish
companies are investing heavily there... and you know that Spain is now a
rich country thanks to tourism.
> > If you really think about it, Cuba is a small enough country where Communism
> > COULD be very successful.
>
> I've *really* thought about it. All my life. Both my parents were escapees
> from communist dictatorships, don't forget. I'm convinced Communism can't be
> successful anywhere. Period.
Because it was never something everyone was willing to accept. It is a form
of government that relies on theory and idealism to work - an utopia, like
you say below. So, it just doesn't work. I have to agree with you on this,
at least to a certain extent. But I certainly would not add "Period", one
never knows...
And you are not the only one to have parents who fled from a dictatorship.
My country had a fascist dictatorship until 1974 and many had to flee as
well. The problem is not communism "per se", it is the "dictatorship" part.
I guess some dictatorships are just more spoken of than others.
> > I guess in order to have a favorable opinion of
> > "Communism," one must divorce it from the context of Marx, Lenin or Mao, and
> > the former U.S.S.R.
A dictatorship is a dictatorship. A dictator is a dictator. The cover he
adopts does not make him better or worse. So I don't *fully* agree with what
you say below:
> And from reality, apparently.
>
> If every time a real example is pointed out, the apologists say "well that
> one wasn't really Ccommunism" or "well, this one can't work because of
> outside agency X interfering" it isn't much of a system, is it? A robust
> system needs to work even when things aren't ideal.
>
> Communism will only work in a utopia, and even then only under fallacious
> assumptions. There are no utopias, in case you hadn't noticed.
>
> That's not an argument I originated, by the way. Austrian School addressed
> it long long ago, and the reference to David Friedman that Scott probably
> regrets giving me addresses it quite nicely as well. (Paraphrasing Friedman
> in _Machinery of Freedom_ : ":Socialism would only work if *all* of us are
> saints. Capitalism will always work as long as long as at least some of us
> aren't devils.")
Friedman sounds right.
>
> The closer we get to communism in a particular society, the worse things
> get. Do you think things are going to somehow flipflop when it gets all the
> way there? And if so, what keeps the system pinned there? Systems and
> governments ossify. Even good ones. Paraphrasing Friedman again "It took
> only 150 years to get from the bill of rights and "all powers not ... are
> reserved to the people" to a supreme court willing to rule that growing corn
> on your own farm to feed your own pigs is "interstate commerce" and thus
> regulable).
>
> What is your opinion, by the way, favorable or not?
>
> Mine is unfavorable on both moral (no one else has the right to dispose of
> my work and property as they see fit without recourse) and practical (doing
> so inevitably results in dictatorships with the proletariat out in the cold
> looking in at the fine china on the dictator's table).
Unfortunately, you are very right on this paragraph. It is inevitable. It
shouldn't be. Human nature is not perfect. :(
> But this is all plowed ground. The onus is actually on you to prove your
> throwaway statement that Cuba's problems are our fault because of embargos
> rather than the fault of a failed economic and political system.
Prove otherwise! I agree it is not *the single cause*, but you will
recognise its effect is felt negatively - and not in the intended way.
> (if you had *instead* said they were our fault because of our nasty habit of
> incompetently meddling in the affairs of other nations in our hemisphere and
> thus propping up a succession of tinpot rightwing dictators in Cuba (and
> elsewhere) prior to Fidel, making the conditions ripe for revolution... why
> then I would be falling all over myself to agree with you!)
:)
Would that explain why some of my parent's friends had to die on an absurd
colonial war that was sustained by a rightwing dictatorship? Was it the
american indulgence that allowed such regime, hence such war?
I mean, I have nothing against the USA. You have prevented a communist
takeover in 1975, here. Most people thank you for that, not because such
coup was communist, but because it would have placed us in a dictatorship
*again*.
I have nothing against communism. There are interesting facts about the
portuguese communist party even... it is the only profitable party, and
their controlled municipaliies are the ones with the best overall living
quality...
Funny, ain't it?
Pedro <== no communist, but no anti-communist as well - just "non-aligned"...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I'd go with the utilitarian argument that people don't seem to have much in the way of choices, material goods, freedom of expression, action, or movement, and some desperately want to leave to the extent of risking their lives to do so. Will (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
