| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > I reposted here since this is the best thread for this topic:
> >
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > US embargoes, while bogus on their very face, and not something I
> > > support in the general case, are not a sufficient excuse for Communism's
> > > failure in Cuba in and of themselves.
> >
> > Perhaps it would help if you'd expalin what constitutes "failure" in your
> > opinion?
>
> 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 that do?
>
> If not, what constitutes "success"?
I don't know--but if you take Cuba in comparison with the
US pseudo-colonies in the Caribbean that masquerade as independent
states, I'd much rather be Cuban.
Compare Cuba with the Dominican Republic, Haiti, or even
a place like Jamaica, rather than comparing it with the US.
(Or, if you're feeling so inclined, look at pre-Castro and
post-Castro Cuba with respect to the lot of the average
citizen. If you think people were free under Batista, I'll
refute that as soon as I can stop laughing.)
> > Cuba has several strong points:
>
> > * National health care
>
> But no medicine.
Less medicine than us, yes.
> > * Higher literacy rate than America
>
> That you know of.
That's actually arguable. The UN places Cuban literacy c.
2000 at about 96.4-96.9% (male and female together); US
literacy is usually pegged at about the same level, provided
one assumes literacy to mean "literacy in any language."
If you eliminate that, to give a mean achievement by the
educational infrastructure, you also have to subtract out
the US immigrant population. That would likely actually
*lower* the literacy rate--you have to be literate somehow
in order to get in, while people born here have no such
restriction.
> > * 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).
You raise an interesting point. Are we really so overwhelmingly
gainfully employed? I'd argue that the pasty-faced teens and
immigrant underclass working in minimum-wage jobs--which *are*,
in almost every sense of the word, mere subsistence--are far
more numerous than you might like to believe. They may not be
picking tobacco and threshing cane, but the general position
is similar.
> > * Lower crime rate than America
>
> That you know of.
This one is a bit of a bankrupt comparison. Per capita
crime, in categories that we recognize as such, it's true
*statistically* (if not in reality). If we accept a similar
margin of error, and I don't see any justification why we
shouldn't, then it's lower. At least according to the UN,
anyways.
But the biggest problem with such a comparison is that it
conflates wildly varying regions within each state, and it
relies upon reportage as its source. This may not be
provable, therefore.
> > 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.
One can argue that just because the zebra can make a lion's roar,
it's still a zebra. Castro's Cuba is no more "Communist" than
Stalin's USSR, that is to say "not at all." The outer trappings
of the ideology are set into place, and the general priorities
set, but as long as there is *any* kind of government, it's not
true Communism viz. Marx/Engels or even Lenin.
But if you want to talk about the economics of "communism,"
we can just look at the large and rapidly-expanding red economy
in China and try to figure out what's going on there. Is it
Communist or isn't it? Fish or fowl?
> But if you want to get into its flaws as a form of government we can do that
> too.
Based on what as a standard of functionality, and from whose
viewpoint? I'd bet that for Castro it's pretty nearly flawless.
Look at the general will of the country. They definitely made
themselves heard before 1959 when Fulgencio Batista was pushing
them down, so why, if Castro's so bad, haven't Cubans revolted
again?
> > 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.
It's obvious to me, however, that Cuba *is* prosperous compared
to analogous countries that *haven't* defied the United States,
when considering the median quality of life for Joe Cuban.
(Note: Not the "mean," but the "median." Quality of life, of
course, is measured by other factors than GDP per capita.)
> > 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.
They're making a surprising amount of money as of late, actually--
most of it's coming from Europe and Canada. But they do still
take US displeasure into account when acting "officially"--
companies go in individually, but with the understanding that
their governments aren't out to help them if they go there.
> > 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.
"Communist dictatorship" is a complete oxymoron. It's not
Communist, it's a dictatorship.
> > 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.
>
> And from reality, apparently.
The big problem with ideologically dogmatic forms of
government is that they limit freedom of action. This
holds for any state that tries to set some operating
principle as nonnegotiable and inviolable--even the US.
Fortunately, we've been rather lucky in that it hasn't
led to our demise--mostly because of various efforts at
chicanery that hide the erosion of individual rights that's
going on.
As with Libertarianism, I find Communism in its theoretical
form to be a really nice idea, and one that I feel like I
personally could enjoy--but it's entirely unrealistic in
practice because human beings sui generis don't work
that way. If it were the natural order of human relations,
then it would already be the accepted standard of governance.
The truth, they say, lies somewhere in the middle.
> 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.
It's not apologetic--I contend that true Communism has never
existed, nor could it, without significant changes in the ways
humans behave. (Again, ditto Libertopia--but that's also
plowed ground on which we shall forever disagree.)
> 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.")
>
> 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).
I'm not going to argue with this, because I agree with it.
See above.
> 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.
I don't think it's the fault of the US because of embargoes,
I think it's because of the continuing imperial system of
the First World that led *to* this situation where the "only
way out" was Castro. Again, look at Cuba's analogues in the
Caribbean (and indeed around the world). Cuba's done quite
well by that measure.
> (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!)
Heh. This is what I get for starting a reply without checking
the last paragraph. ;) If anything, the US embargo has helped
to keep Castro in power.
best
LFB
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
