In 1958 Cubans had the 3rd highest protein consumption in the hemisphere. But in 1962 Castro's government introduced ration cards that persist to this day. While comparing a Cubans' daily rations as mandated by Castro's government to the daily rations of Cubans slaves as mandated by the Spanish King in 1842, an intrepid Cuban exile uncovered this fascinating info:

Food Ration in 1842 for slaves in Cuba: Castro Gov. Ration since 1962

meat, chicken, fish--8 oz 2 oz.

Rice-- 4 oz. 3 oz

Starches-- 16 oz. 6.5 oz

Beans 4 oz. 1 oz.

The half-starved slaves on the ship Amistad ate better than Elian Gonzalez does now. Yet Eleanor Cliff told us on in her column and again on the McLaughlin Group that: "To be a poor child in Cuba may be better than being a poor child in the U.S."

The Soviets ended up pumping some $130 billion into Cuba. That's ten Marshall plans, and pumped-- not into a war-ravaged continent of 300 million-- but into an island of 7-9 million. Yet the ration cards persist to this day

*****

Promptly upon entering Havana on January 8, 1959 Fidel Castro abolished Habeas Corpus and appointed Che Guevara his main executioner. "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary," The Argentine Ernesto "Che" Guevara declared. "These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredon (the execution wall)"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Jesus Christ, Humberto. There are only 9 million people in Cuba. The Yanks have more than half that many locked down in private and state funded gulags, on probation or on parole. HA HA

---

Why has there been decades of massive immigration to western Europe, Canada and, yes, even the US?

I just love the way that someone will make an arguement here in regards to the nature of economy, which is then rebutted with an economic arguement, which is then parried by some stupid rhetorical anecdote about someone doing something outrageous to escape Cuba... as if that has any bearing on the economic argument just made.

For instance, in the last thread where this issue came up Magoo made a comparison between East germany and West Germany, which I tried to analyze in the historical context of the creation of East and west germany:

quote:

---

And also of course your west germany east germany cmparison sucks as well. First of all the division came about as a result of world war 2. During WW2 the Soviet Union and all of eastern europe was completely destoryed. The indusrial base had been blown to snot, and there was a huge refugee problem. This was not the case for the US, which survived the war not only inheriting most of Englands empire, but with very littl damage to its own mainland.

Because of this the US was able to make substantial investments into europe under the Marshall, unlike eastern Europe, which basicly had to build up from scratch.

---

Magoo's respone:

quote:

---

Yes, for anyone whose support of communism puts them in the untenable position of having to explain all those East Germans getting murdered for trying to leave East Germany.

Communism is awesome, if you want to get shot in the back for disagreeing.

---

What the fuck does this repsonse have to do with anything relating to the West German and East German economy? Does it even qualify as a rebuttle to my arguement. Not at all.

These are stupid an unproductive exchanges, that do nothing to allieviate the internal (and external) problems of the Cuban economy, or improve civil rights there, or in any way better the lives of people, by developing a analysis of what is going on beyond saying "oh my god they killed some people how terrible. I am outraged"

Yes they killed some people, and yes Cuba has many many problems, some integral to the nature of the command economy and some which are the direct result of the US trade embargo. Some discussion of the actual dynamics of economy, and civil rights might be helpful, but none seem to be forthcoming.

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The idea that one can establish the quality of a society based on the migratory paterns of indivduals...

---

You're honest about where you stand. I've said that before.

The command economies were failures in the final analysis. They did produce some real accomplishments, and I hope you'll be honest enough to acknowledge those, and they faced some horrendous difficulties, but I think we'd both agree that they failed on their own account.

But this tiresome return to Cuba, Cuba, Cuba. "People are leaving Cuba." They're also leaving Mexico, Guatamala, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, etc., etc.,.

People are still fleeing the Eastern European countries. Living standards have fallen in Russia since the fall of communism. This after 15 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Giant Gopher:
quote:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18739
How does Castro measure up in the number of people killed per capita sweepstakes? Did he beat Hitler? Did he tie with Stalin? Did Pol Pot edge him out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:

People are still fleeing the Eastern European countries. Living standards have fallen in Russia since the fall of communism. This after 15 years.

---

Besides, the source of the lies contained in the article is a U.S. State Department "fact sheet" published in December 2003 as part of the ongoing disinformation campaign against Cuba, designed to make the Batista dictatorship sound like a Caribbean paradise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Giant Gopher:

Nice dodge. How about explaining the need to modify these migratory patterns with walls and machine guns and land mines?
'Gee Ivan, there seems to be something odd about these peoples migratory patterns, we keep shooting them and they keep trying to get out of the pen'.

---

• Do you acknowledge the possibility that migratory paterns are at least in part determined by financial opporunities?

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

What the fuck does this repsonse have to do with anything relating to the West German and East German economy? Does it even qualify as a rebuttle to my arguement. Not at all.

---

My assertions about the economy were primarily tongue in cheek. Proponents of communism love to describe communism in glowing, no-less-than-perfect terms, and conversely describe capitalism as a flawed system of worker exploitation and nothing more. So I asked (for, like, the zillionth time) why it is, if communism is so awesome and capitalism so hellish, that so many former communists would risk their lives to leave the supposedly good for the supposedly worse.

This marches hand in hand with my other question, also asked a zillion times, as to why it is that a citizen trying to leave would be shot.

Your response may count as a partial answer to the first, but I think it's also insufficient to explain why these crossing attempts (and shootings) would still be taking place long after the end of the war. East Germany and the Soviet Union seemed like they were doing OK, economically, in our lifetime, no? They certainly seemed to have enough money for big parades of military vehicles, the space race, statues of Glorious Leaders, etc., etc., so I don't really see how someone from the communist side would "have to" climb the wall for economic reasons. Maybe in 1949, but why in 1979?

And of course it still doesn't explain shooting them when they do.

The policy was well advertized. Everyone knew that jumping the wall was punishable by summary execution. It was a shoot to kill policy.

My point is to determine two things:

1) Why people would want to leave.

2) And why the government would shoot them.

I am not interested in determining the superiority of one system over another, simply for the sake of fulfilling a predetermined ideological disposition.

I have hypothesized an economic causual relationship for both, including the imposition of repressive state measures. Perhaps you would deign to respond to the thesis directly, as opposed to insisting on rhetorical tongie in cheek declamations.

Since you made a coparison, I thought it worthwhile to add to that comparison by noting the comparative differences between Eastern Europe and Western Europe after the war, and sited specific factors relating to economic desparity of the twain.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Do you acknowledge the possibility that migratory paterns are at least in part determined by financial opporunities?

---

I don't know about the other guys, but I will gladly acknowledge that.

And, the migratory patterns "are at least in part determined by" many other good things in the Western capitalist countries (free speech, free association, etc., etc.).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I don't know about the other guys, but I will gladly acknowledge that.

And, the migratory patterns "are at least in part determined by" many other good things in the Western capitalist countries (free speech, free association, etc., etc.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...the raw wealth of the societies...

---

In my view, resources are not the only means of fueling an economy. Certainly the USA was an excelent fermenting ground for a strong economy, and achieved its intitial growth largely as a result of expansion into resource rich territory. Likewise the country was able to erect a system largely free of old mechanism of business and government and able to capitalize on the indutrial revolution without the intereference of vested interests like the landed gentry or the old trade guilds. It as able to custom make a society for the industrial revolution.

But that explains its rise as the foremost economic power in the world, only.

It was WW2 that established it as the dominant power in the world, and through a combination of its inherent wealth, its relative technological advancement, its military power and its respectable reputation was able, both throughaccident and design, to make itself the center of the world economy, bringing raw materials in, and then selling those domestically or exporting them internationally.

It also took possession of many of the British Empire's colonial assetts. For instance, England's Caribean possession were traded in the early going of the war for 50 US built destroyers, then employes in ASW convoy escort.

On the other hand its only real competitor, the USSR, was hampered by the major infrastructural shock of WW2, and was less able to project its economic power despite its immense military power, since it had to spend the post war period rebuilding as opposed to opening up new markets. On the other hand the USA, unscathed by the war, was able to generously donate and invest in the rebuilding of western europe.

And I think therin are some pretty critical differences that should be taken into account when trying to explain migratory paterns, And evaluating the the merits of different government and economic systems.

You make an interesting point about the size of coporations, and new ideas.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Why has there been decades of massive immigration to western Europe, Canada and, yes, even the US?

It's much like the free market. People vote with their feet.

---

How many people from social democracies Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Germany or Singapore have moved in to your neighborhood lately ?. Some of the poorest people in the world are rummaging through garbage for a living and sleeping in corrugated tin shacks, and that's if they're lucky, in Dominican Republic, Haiti and just a few days drive south of Texas. I think you have to look at what kinds of third world countries people are wanting leave from and which countries want them. It's always politically expedient to announce the arrival of Cuban's wanting to experience the world off the island. Human beings are a curious species and have been known for our adventuresome spirit. On the other hand, tens of millions of Canadian and American working poor couldn't afford a Greyhound bus ticket to the next province or state, never mind another country only 90 miles from any shoreline. What survey was ever taken asking who of the social welfare recipients made poorer by Mike Harris' revolution wanted to leave for anywhere other than their roach motels or their curbside addresses in Toronto and Ottawa ?. Ralph Nader says a third of American workers don't earn a living wage. And Canada owns the second largest low wage, non-unionized workforce among richest nations, next to the Yanks. Are the GTA poor, homeless Calgarian's and poverty-stricken natives in Northern Ontario supposed to launch dingies in the North Atlantic or Pacific blue ?. What is le joi de vivre index for one in two black males in NYC who are currently unemployed ?. Where can they flee to besides a cardboard hotel in any one of the square blocks of abandoned buildings in the big apple ?. Why is it that over two million black males in the US, about a fifth the population of Cuba, can't vote in elections ?. Voting is considered a basic human right in about 80 other countries around the world no matter what your skin colour is or economic status or time spent in American gulags for smoking pot.

The capitalist third world allows anywhere from 6 million to 13 million children to starve to death each and every year as those same countries export cash crops to "the market." It's planned and enforced genocide, a holocaust every year. As Fidel is quoted as saying during his UN speech acknowledging recognition of Cuba's reducing infant mortality on the island to below the USA's own rate, "Capitalism is a monumental failure."

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Besides, the source of the lies contained in the article is a U.S. State Department "fact sheet" published in December 2003 as part of the ongoing disinformation campaign against Cuba, designed to make the Batista dictatorship sound like a Caribbean paradise.

---

I wasn't impressed with mouth-breather David Horowitz's site being the source for that, but I'm willing to believe that even a broken clock can occasionally show the correct time. But this claim is important.

quote:

---

They shot them in order to prevent an exodus of the well trained university graduates

---

Interesting. So I guess the shootings only began 4 years after Germany was divided then. Otherwise, "The State" wouldn't have, and couldn't have, paid for anyone's education yet.

And of course I can't resist asking "So... it was only the smart ones who wanted to leave?"

quote:

---

The policy was well advertized. Everyone knew that jumping the wall was punishable by summary execution. It was a shoot to kill policy.

---

They couldn't have tried incentives if they want to stop "Brain Drain"? Lots of countries have this problem, but only the Communist countries seem to feel it's appropriate to use murder as a disincentive.

quote:

---

I am not interested in determining the superiority of one system over another, simply for the sake of fulfilling a predetermined ideological disposition.

---

Well, I'm going to go on record as suggesting — and you're free to disagree — that murdering your citizens for wanting to live somewhere else is never on. I know, it's judgemental of me to say that, but murder is bad. That's what I believe.

quote:

---

I have hypothesized an economic causual relationship for both, including the imposition of repressive state measures. Perhaps you would deign to respond to the thesis directly, as opposed to insisting on rhetorical tongie in cheek declamations.

---

I'm sorry, but I have a very, very hard time believing that people would risk their lives to emigrate solely because the neighbouring country has more stuff. Especially when the country you're leaving has enough stuff to support you. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'm not going to simply say "OK, that makes sense" if it doesn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
As Fidel is quoted as saying during his UN speech acknowledging recognition of Cuba's reducing infant mortality on the island to below the USA's own rate, "Capitalism is a monumental failure."[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

Of the many measurements of "quality of life", the infant mortality rate is one such measurement. Can you name a mere ten such measurements where Cuba ranks better than the US?

I think the problem here is certain people look at things in an exclusively economic sense. This to me has been one of the weaknesses of Marxist discourse. My life and yours is about alot more then economics.
Life is both material and ideal at the end of the day. Both play a part in why people might flee a country.

quote:

---

According to some records, the average caloric intake for Cubans in the 1950’s was between 2700-2900 calories per day, which is very high even by today’s standards in developing countries (Forster & Handelman 1985: 176). However, as noted by Forster and Handelman (1985), these numbers are misleading and represent the high end of the social stratification of food energy consumption. As a result, the high malnutrition levels of the rural poor were not noticed or acknowledged and the high caloric intakes were falsely assumed to be representative of the entire population. Another indication of a major class divide in food security is that 44 percent of public school children were underweight compared to only 10 percent of private school children (Forster & Handelman 1985: 176). Furthermore, rural youth were more likely to have calcium, vitamin A, thiamine and riboflavin deficiencies. On average the rural sector was more undernourished than the urban centres at 60 percent and 30-40 percent, respectively (Forster & Handelman 1985: 177).

---

The paper points to a very mixed record for Cuba's food production. It's actually a pretty respectable-looking paper.

Table 13: Caloric Intake In Cuba From 1950-1996
Year Caloric intake per day
1950’s 2,700-2,900†
1959 1,200-1,300*
1962 2,200-2300†
1964 2,300†
1965 2,552†
1970 2,565†
1975 2,645†
1979 2,759†
1985 2,929•
1990 2,728•
1993 1,863•
1996 1,996•
† Forster & Handelman 1985: 176, 191• Cruz & Sánchez Medina 2003: 4* Benjamin & Rosset 1994: 23

But what's tiresome about right-wing Cuba bashers, is that they're generally dishonest, one-trick ponyies. Yeah, Che was a scary guy in many respects. I'd read that his prisoners would shit themselves at the mere sight of him coming into the cell block.

But what do we about a guy like this:

quote:

---

"If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetary in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so." --President Carlos Arana Osorio

---

Report on state violence in Guatemala

What about Reagan's support for the Nicaraguan contras?

images from Nicaragua

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
They couldn't have tried incentives if they want to stop "Brain Drain"? Lots of countries have this problem, but only the Communist countries seem to feel it's appropriate to use murder as a disincentive.

---

Yes, they could have. But it didn't agree with their ideology, which was not 'communist', despite you wanting to call it that. I have always disagreed with state violence against its citizens, and still do.

quote:

---

Well, I'm going to go on record as suggesting — and you're free to disagree — that murdering your citizens for wanting to live somewhere else is never on.

---

I completely agree. But this applies not only to people wanting to leave, and it is not unique to despotic countries. The US has also murdered many thousands of people for disagreeing with capitalist ideology. The pendulum swings both ways.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but I have a very, very hard time believing that people would risk their lives to emigrate solely because the neighbouring country has more stuff. Especially when the country you're leaving has enough stuff to support you. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'm not going to simply say "OK, that makes sense" if it doesn't.

---

The vast majority of people do NOT want to leave. But no matter what country, some people just won't be happy, like my parents who left Germany for Canada.

quote:

---

The "economic disparity" you speak of seems to have rectified itself quickly enough (note the militaria, the space race, the parades, the olympic teams, etc. for proof that they were no longer starving or living in boxes) and yet the shootings continued until the wall was torn down.

---

I would think the ideology considered them 'traitors'.

quote:

---

Yes, they could have. But it didn't agree with their ideology, which was not 'communist', despite you wanting to call it that.

---

Well, it's not just me.

We do, however, get the odd person who'll insist that neither China nor the USSR, nor Vietnam, Korea, or even Cuba are Communist. This usually coincides with their belief that "Communism can work", and seems an attempt to distance "Communism" from the dismal failures that the entire world held to be Communism.

It's a variation on the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Proponent of Communism: "Communism is good"

Normal Person: "Uh, no, it failed spectacularly"

I think that small-scale communes can be viable, mostly because they're "opt in". Nobody shows up one day and says "Now you're communist. Viva la revolucion!"

My guess is that they're also "opt out" in the sense that if you decide you don't want to live communally any more you gather up your goodies and split.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: A Giant Gopher ]

So then what word do we use to describe those people who believe that this sort of arrangement can and should be applied to entire nations?

If "Communist" merely meant someone who desires to live off the grid with others who think as he does, I'd say "Go Communists!", because their choice wouldn't really affect me. But it seems to me that most of what the world calls "Communists" (or Marxists, or Leninists, or Marxist-Leninists, or Leninist-Marxists, or...) are of the variety who want whole countries converted.

quote:

---

Is it because if you want the state to confiscate all the fruits of peoples labours you have to use a stick, and when you use a stick, people leave, when they leave you have to put up walls to keep them from leaving and when they try to climb the walls you have to shoot them?

---

Sadly, your grandchildren's grandchildren might not see the day when proponents of communism can admit to this.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
What's the question?

I think that small-scale communes can be viable, mostly because they're "opt in". Nobody shows up one day and says "Now you're communist. Viva la revolucion!"

My guess is that they're also "opt out" in the sense that if you decide you don't want to live communally any more you gather up your goodies and split.

I have no axe to grind with someone who wants to live in a commune, so long as it's not required that I join them.

---

quote:

---

Or if it has been tried, why does it always decay into the disasters like North Korea or the USSR? Is it because if you want the state to confiscate all the fruits of peoples labours you have to use a stick, and when you use a stick, people leave, when they leave you have to put up walls to keep them from leaving and when they try to climb the walls you have to shoot them?

---

The reason why it fucked up is because some people thought that the state was a neutral tool to get there. In these revolutions capital and state must both go no questions asked. This is what happened in Chiapas. When the government and ranchers were kicked off there was no Mao or Lenin doing this. It was done on a decentralized level.

Humberto refuses to acknowledge why Cuban's said yes to Fidel and joined the revolution against a corrupt Batista regime and his secret police. Like the rest of Latin America, Africa and third world capitalist shithole nations, the capitalists blew their opportunity to spread prosperity and good times. Cuban's were working sunup to sundown in the cane fields for American produce companies while well-heeled tourists bought their children.

Santos Trafficante was one such member of organised crime in Havana. Castro gave him and his friends a one-way ticket to Miami and even tipped off the FBI as to a large mafia pow wow to take place in the Appalachian's. Of course, the FBI looked the other way and dropped the ball on Fidel's tip. Santos would involveme himself with friends of Jeb Bush in defrauding Floridian's of over a $100 million dollars worth of health care at a cancer hospital in Miami. Apparently the patients weren't receiving cancer and pain medications. Yes, the scum of the earth were entirely free to get the fuck out of Cuba at the same time.

But let's think about caloric intake in Cuba in 1959 compared to today. Anybody who's done actual physical labour in their lives knows you either eat or you get sick over time. Cuban's did back-breaking work from sunup to sundown in the cane fields for very little pay in Batista's free trading Cuba. Of course, with infant mortality being almost five times then what it is today, and adult longevity being a tad shy of real social democracy while Cuba's youth succumbed to tuberculosis, it's likely that the lowly paid field workers were sucking cane sticks and expending the high calory sugar while busting a hump for the sake of big business profits under the tropical sun.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

Finally we are in agreement on something. I have a question for you though: How do I "opt out" of Capitalism in Canada, because I really do NOT want to pay for Capitalis Adventures around the world (Haiti, Afghanistan, etc)?

---

quote:

---

How do I "opt out" of Capitalism in Canada, because I really do NOT want to pay for Capitalis Adventures around the world (Haiti, Afghanistan, etc)?

---

And this is where the entire capitalist plan for Latin America doesn't make sense for worker's. The workers are so lowly paid that they can barely afford Doritos and a coke as a main meal, and yet the capitalists want Latinos to be able to afford to buy more of their refined, de-vitaminized crappy food and plastic widgets they assemble for our cultural benefit and immediate "needs." They're counting on other capitalists to eventually pay them a living wage so that the poor bastards wearing out their eyes and joints doing the mindless work can afford more crap and make the rich richer with the least amount of contribution to Latino society. So far though, no capitalists are stepping forward to pay them a living wage.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

Move to Cuba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Giant Gopher:
There are apologists here who ignore Castro's brutality and who in fact defend his policies of murder and oppression. I don't find pointing out his abuses to be boring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

The same way citizens of communist countries tried to opt out: move.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
In fact, this is what Coca Cola and other US-based companies were accused of doing in the Maquiladoras region when Mexican's had jobs before NAFTA was signed. The companies found that worker's were falling asleep and or injuring themselves while doing their repetetive, low skilled, mind-numbing jobs for a pittance. They found that worker's still couldn't afford the calories it took to be productive during eleven to sixteen hour shifts with no union representation. So they supplemented the worker's diets with the eight T spoons of sugar a can refreshment. And Coca Cola Colombia has been known to recruit right wing death squads to ensure that worker's there barely earn a subsistence wage and guaranteeing maximum profits for those who lead lives of leisure. Perfect harmony!.

And this is where the entire capitalist plan for Latin America doesn't make sense for worker's. The workers are so lowly paid that they can barely afford Doritos and a coke as a main meal, and yet the capitalists want Latinos to be able to afford to buy more of their refined, de-vitaminized crappy food and plastic widgets they assemble for our cultural benefit and immediate "needs." They're counting on other capitalists to eventually pay them a living wage so that the poor bastards wearing out their eyes and joints doing the mindless work can afford more crap and make the rich richer with the least amount of contribution to Latino society. So far though, no capitalists are stepping forward to pay them a living wage.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

Castro's brutality... well, where it happens, it's not acceptable. But more people are imprisoned in the US, more people are tortured by American soldiers, more people don't even get charged with a crime and still may never see the light of day again, in your capitalist-fascist USofA. Castro is a minor irritant when compared to the US, which has imprisoned tens of thousands of people around the globe in such fashion.

---

So per capita, where does Castro end up in the brutality sweepstakes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Giant Gopher:

So per capita, where does Castro end up in the brutality sweepstakes?

Tens of thousands? Might need a few sources on that one.

---

Who is the largest threat to human rights on the island of Cuba with its "Camp X-Ray" and at least one other gulag for torture at Gitmo ?.

quote:

---

The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category -- the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality -- the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight -- less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams. This is despite the fact that the United States and Cuba have very similar low birth rates (births where the infant weighs less than 2500g). The United States actually has a much better low birth rate than Cuba if you control for multiple births -- i.e. the growing number of multiple births in the United States due to technological interventions has resulted in a marked increase in the number of births under 2,500 g.

It is odd if both Cuba and the U.S. have similar birth weight distributions that the U.S. has more than 3 times the number of births under 1,500g, unless there is a marked discrepancy in the way that very low birth weight births are recorded. Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included.

The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba's infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States', but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

---

The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba's infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States', but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.

Perhaps we shouldn't believe everything a butcher like Castro tells us.
Are you suggesting that playing Britney Spears music to the inmates at Gitmo is the same as the gulags of the Soviet Union or the killing fields of Cambodia? Because if you are that is one hell of an insult to the memories of the people who died in them.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: A Giant Gopher ]

quote:

---

But what will you do about the capitalist governments overthrowing non-capitalist governments by force, as has happened many times? Will you simply ignore that fact? What about the (failed) US invasion of Cuba to force a change the majority of the people do not want? What about Venezuela, where the US has unsuccessfully tried to overthrow the government twice? What about Guatemala, where the US overthrew the government? What about Chile, where the US overthrew the government? What about Haiti, where the US, Canada and France overthrew the government? Will you simply ignore that? What's the point of moving to a country whose government will in time be violently overthrown by capitalist thug-governments?

---

You're asking me to guarantee some kind of stability in world politics?

Yes, actually, I will simply ignore it. It's not like "Communism" is some kind of victim in all this. The Soviet Union had its own empire in its day. The fact that it eventually tanked does not, to me, put any extra special emphasis on what Capitalism is doing around the world.

Ed'd to add: this is not an endorsement of shady politics around the world. Just an acknowledgement that it's not limited to capitalist countries, nor to the U.S.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
The Soviet Union had its own empire in its day.

---

I hereby charge you with intellectual dishonesty. :-)

What happened to the Eastern Block was the direct result of WWII and the fight against Nazism. The Soviet Union did not continue - like the US - to attack and overthrow foreign governments. In fact, the only (perhaps then) communist/socialist government which could be charged with such crime would be China and its attack and occupation of Tibet. Yet hardly a year goes by where the US is not involved in some intrigue to overthrow a government or invade another country.

quote:

---

Ed'd to add: this is not an endorsement of shady politics around the world. Just an acknowledgement that it's not limited to capitalist countries, nor to the U.S.

---

Since you are a defender of the US and Capitalism, the 'more honest' acknowledgement on your part would have been "that it's not limited to communist/socialist and despotic countries". What you said is no acknowledgment at all, only a reiteration of what you have long claimed.

quote:

---

The Soviet Union did not continue - like the US - to attack and overthrow foreign governments.

---

What was Afghanistan then?

quote:

---

Still, if you insist on claiming that such "shady politics" are not limited to the capitalist countries or the US, I would like you to list serveral examples where the USSR, China, or any eastern block country, could be accused of similar meddling in 'non-conforming' foreign nations.

---

See above. And add any countries that clearly did not wish to remain part of the USSR but were forced to (example: Estonia).

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Giant Gopher:

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla...

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: A Giant Gopher ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
What was Afghanistan then?

---

Oh right. Wow. You did find the one country they actually attacked and occupied since WWII. I had forgotten about it, but it's well noted.

quote:

---

See above. And add any countries that clearly did not wish to remain part of the USSR but were forced to (example: Estonia).

---

No, this is not a valid point. Estonia fell into the Eastern Block as a result of WWII, and they were previously supporters of the Nazis. I am talking about invasions and coups after and outside of the realm of the WW.

For your information, western countries were forced by the US the same way, as the Communist Party and the Nazi Party were both forbidden to be on the ballot at the forming of the FRG (West Germany), so how is that for allowing choice?

quote:

---

And now we're getting far from any original point. This is just a tangent from your question of how to opt out. I think the salient point of you opting out of Capitalism by moving is that you will not be shot in the back while trying to do so.

---

That's semantics. The options are shot in the back or having bombs dropped on me later. What difference does it make? Obviously it doesn't mean anything to you that the Latin American Death Squads receive their 'training' from the US military and CIA. Why would you defend the death squads for suppressing the people, when people choose socialism instead of capitalism? Why would you support the overthrow of Salvador Allende on 9-11?

quote:

---

Whether there's a country you can opt into to your satisfaction is hardly anyone's problem but yours.

---

Thanks. I choose to support people who want to bring a change for the better for everybody rather than the few.

quote:

---

And if you find a country you like and the U.S. invades it in the name of freedom, we'll talk about it then.

---

Because I already agreed with you that the totalitarian command economies were failures (on the whole -- i have some qualifications on a blanket condemnation). But I'm a semi-anarchist/semi-social democrat, who believes in political freedom and economic rights. And I personally find most right-wingers who bash Cuba to be disgusting hypocrites, who bemoan Castro's tyranny, but support US policy in Central America, with all its death squads, malnutrition, high infant-mortality, bullshit elections, etc.,

Now, you're articulate and you back-up what you say with sources, and I think you could contribute here, but I'm not going to waste my time trashing Castro with somebody who'd replace him with Rios Montt.

And all this talk in this thread about Communist violence, especially Magoo, ... when you were presented with clear examples of how the US maintains the "free world's" political-economic systems with the overthrow of unwanted governments and the brutally violent suppression of civil unrest, and the outbreaks of rebellions everywhere, ... you uttered some banal nonsense about "shady politics" which completely missed the point. Our system is maintained with as much violence as theirs was. We're benifitting, but millions of others most assuredly are not.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: thwap ]

quote:

---

What happened to the Eastern Block was the direct result of WWII and the fight against Nazism. The Soviet Union did not continue - like the US - to attack and overthrow foreign governments.

---

Hungary, 1956

quote:

---

RA:
I do not believe in enforced communism, because that's not communism at all. But if Cuba didn't have to survive under constant war conditions, it would actually be an option as a country to move to.

---

They had that option in 1959 and Castro and his boys blew it for everyone. The war condition nonsense is not an excuse for setting up a state. Look at Ukrain. They fought off 3 industrial armies under an anarchist social organization only to be taken out by the Soviets(who Maknho should never have helped.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

What was Afghanistan then?

---

To get back to you on that, after a bit of reading... it doesn't appear to be the same thing as what the US is doing.

In fact, the USSR sent troops into Afghanistan AT THE REQUEST of the Afghan government, after the US began inciting unrest in the country by financing and arming the Mujahedeen.

The USSR and Afghanistan were in fact allies up to and including the time the Soviets sent troops to support the Afghan Government, fighting alongside - not against - the Afghan Army (unlike the US).

As history had it, the US-backed rebels won in the end, returning Afghanistan and its women to the slavery of Middle-Ages Islam. Great work!

"The question then as today demands an answer…"what ‘national security’ interest of the USA, other than war-making and predatory economic and also political aggression could possibly have been at stake?" Since then the "Bush the Elder President Oilman’s ‘Desert Storm'" war on Iraq has continued, as has the robbery of Palestinian land and aggression against those people by Israel; the CIA emplacement of US appeasing the Pakistani rulers such as El Haq and the current leadership, and a ten-year CIA war in conjunction with the hideously feudal Mujahadeen warlords of Afghanistan to overthrow the first government there in 1978 had placed its feet on the path to modern, progressive policies and direction. A Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance had been put into place with the neighboring USSR and its Muslim Republics of Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kirghizia. Building of Afghan infrastructure, modernizing of educational facilities and new economic development were the great results under a non-Communist Government, albeit led by a Communist, Taraki. Most significantly for the first time the legal elimination of feudal and medieval oppression of women was brought into force, and they emerged in the professions and new freedoms. On a very popular basis they began to discard the ancient oppressive restrictions that were part and parcel of the feudal Afghan way of life.[...]

"The destruction of the "new freedom" for the Afghan women, in fact, became a significant target and point of agreement between the "New War" engineered by Brzezinski, the CIA and cohorts in 1979. Brzezinski now brags of "baiting the USSR into their Vietnam War". The Mujahadeen [...] agreed that the hideous restrictions on women were to be re-imposed… as it was by the Pakistan (post-Indira Bhutto) Government and the Taliban feudalists. Thus more than 50% of the Afghan population were thrust into female slavery and servitude such as the civilized world has not witnessed in centuries. The US government did not even raise a whisper of dissent or opposition. Instead, they sent in their bombers and the most modern weaponry to the feudalist warlords to the tune of billions to help their bloodthirsty feudal friends of the Mujahadeen and the Taliban to re-impose the unbelievable conditions on the Afghan people… first of all on the women.

"Did the USSR "invade" Afghanistan when they sent troops there in late 1979 under the commitment of mutual aid to the Afghan Government which requested such military assistance? It is extremely unlikely that a single "psychological warfare" media such as the (CNN, BBC, CBC or otherwise) will "inform" their audiences otherwise. The facts of history based even on the loquacious outpourings of "Triggerman" Brzezinski [...] are otherwise. The Soviet interest in seeking to uphold a popular, progressive Government in their neighboring Muslim country, beside their own Muslim Republics is clear. Their entry into the ten-years attempt at protection of the Afghan Government and people came at an official request of that Government under the terms of the reciprocal Treaty of Friendship and Solidarity. In reality, it should have received UN support opposing the war.

"Incidentally the first of these treaties between the Afghans and the Soviets was signed in 1921, but fell upon non-compliance precisely because of mainly British intervention in Afghanistan with corrupted medieval forces of the Mujahadeen… now being entertained in Germany. Their "price" of cooperation will unquestionably come in the form of greater shipments of military hardware in their hands. The US-British-NATO "rewards" will involve a greater confusion and more deadly control of the Afghan people and some kind of military occupation and open season on the exploitation of the natural resources and wealth they have been so successful thus far in stealing from the Afghan people. Under such regimes these bloodied and exploited people will have zero control of their destiny… political, economic, cultural or otherwise. That future will be determined in the Board rooms of the TNC oil monopolies and their financial backers of the "Westernized" (more correctly... "militarized") Powers."

Except from http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0112/afghan.htm

Timeline:

1956 Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agrees to help Afghanistan, and the two countries become close allies.

1957 Women are allowed to attend university and enter the workforce.

1973 The Republic of Afghanistan is established with firm ties to the USSR.

1975-1977 Daoud Khan proposes new constitution. Ousting of suspected opponents from government. Women's rights confirmed.

1978 Nur Mohammad Taraki becomes president, and Babrak Karmal is named deputy Prime Minister. They proclaim independence from Soviet influence, and declare their policies to be based on Islamic principles, Afghan nationalism, and socioeconomic justice. Taraki signs friendship treaty with the Soviet Union. In June, the U.S.-supported guerrilla movement Mujahadeen [ed note: including Osama bin-Laden] is created.

1979 February 14: American ambassador Adolph Dubs is killed. Power struggle between Taraki and deputy prime minister Hafizullah Amin ensues. Taraki is killed on September 14 in a confrontation with Amin supporters. USSR invades Afghanistan on December 24 to bolster the faltering communist regime. On December 27, Amin and many of his followers are killed. Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal becomes Prime Minister. Widespread opposition to Karmal and the Soviets spawns violent public demonstrations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Hungary, 1956

Prague, 1968

---

Are you hard of understanding? Again, the CSSR and Hungary were part of the Soviet Block as a result of WWII. The cold war was on. You cannot separate what happened then from those facts. At the same time in the west, there was a witch-hunt against Communists [McCarthy].

The Soviets weren't going to let their client states go any more than the US would allow Communists in the west.

The USSR's expansion into Georgia and the other Muslim republics of the south during the civil war was aimed at reclaiming the fringes of the Czarist empire, for one thing, and justified more or less on the same basis that the Chinese invasion of Tibet was justified. These were imperial possessions reincorporated into the Russian empire by the Leninists during the civil war, and there was a lot of resistance to this not just from the White Russian armies but also local nationalist movements rejecting Russian rule.

These areas as well as Eastern Europe were viewed by the USSR in more or less the same manner that the USA views Central and South America and the Caribean, as part of its inaliable natural "sphere of influence."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The USSR's expansion into Georgia and the other Muslim republics of the south during the civil war was aimed at reclaiming the fringes of the Czarist empire, for one thing, and justified more or less on the same basis that the Chinese invasion of Tibet was justified. These were imperial possessions reincorporated into the Russian empire by the Leninists during the civil war, and there was a lot of resistance to this not just from the White Russian armies but also local nationalist movements rejecting Russian rule.

These areas as well as Eastern Europe were viewed by the USSR in more or less the same manner that the USA views Central and South America and the Caribean, as part of its inaliable natural "sphere of influence."

True the USSR did not project itself into areas outside of its immediate sphere of influence, in the way the US did, but its actions throughout its empire do not indicate that it would not have done so had it had the opportunity, and did in Afghanistan.

---

a) As the facts point out, the USSR did not invade Afghanistan. The troops were sent at the request of the Afghan Government and part of their treaty.

b) You rightfully noted, (though not with the same meaning,) that the Leninist Revolution stopped at the borders of what was already part of the Czarist Empire.

c) You compared that to the 'sphere of influence' of the US, which has never had claim to the territories of Central or South America, or the Carribbean. Therefore I disagree with equating the two (as you probably expected me to do). The Leninsts conquered what had been part of the Russian Empire. The US conquers (what should be) sovereign states which never belonged to its empire.

quote:

---

1979 February 14: American ambassador Adolph Dubs is killed. Power struggle between Taraki and deputy prime minister Hafizullah Amin ensues.Taraki is killed on September 14 in a confrontation with Amin supporters. USSR invades Afghanistan on December 24 to bolster the faltering communist regime. On December 27, Amin and many of his followers are killed. Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal becomes Prime Minister. Widespread opposition to Karmal and the Soviets spawns violent public demonstrations.

---

The Speznatz drove up to the presidential compound dressed as Afghan soldiers, broke into the compound and executed the President, under the orders of the KGB. So say a number of Sovier defectors. So the general sotry is widely corroborated.

quote:

---

More importantly, the KGB files present, according to Christian Ostermann, the director of the Cold War International History Project, "the inside story of the growing split between Afghan Communist Party leaders Babrak Karmal, Mohammad Taraki and Hafizullah Amin-and the rather frantic Soviet efforts to keep it under control"-advising the Afghans, for example, after Taraki's guards had machine gunned Amin's, that 'in the present circumstances it was particularly important to be restrained and controlled.' The Mitrokhin materials reflect the rivalry among the main Soviet agencies operating in Afghanistan-the embassy, the military, the KGB, and the party advisers, often at cross-purposes. Examples include the KGB surveillance of the messenger whom General Zaplatin, the Soviet chief political adviser to the Afghan army, sent to Moscow in December 1979 in a desperate attempt at preventing a Soviet invasion; and the failed attempt at removing Amin from power in September 1979, in which Soviet ambassador Puzanov became a hapless diplomatic victim of a KGB-hatched plot. Among the many new details on KGB operations in Afghanistan and other countries are the accounts of the September 1979 Operation "Raduga," the KGB's high-risk scheme to usher three Afghan cabinet ministers out of the country, and "Operation Agat," the storming of the presidential palace and the killing of Amin in December 1979, at the onset of the Soviet invasion.

---

DEFECTOR'S DOCUMENTS SHED NEW LIGHT ON SOVIET WAR

This conclusion seems about right:

quote:

---

While it is clear that Moscow's interest in the critical year 1979 lay in finding ways for the two main Communist Party factions to cooperate against their increasingly efficient Islamist enemies, the KGB's operations achieved exactly the opposite. By concocting rumors and slander, the KGB contributed significantly to the destruction of the Afghan Communist Party and to the dysfunctionality of Soviet policies.

---

quote:

---

b) You rightfully noted, (though not with the same meaning,) that the Leninist Revolution stopped at the borders of what was already part of the Czarist Empire.

---

Earlier you noted:

quote:

---

What happened to the Eastern Block was the direct result of WWII and the fight against Nazism. The Soviet Union did not continue - like the US - to attack and overthrow foreign governments. In fact, the only (perhaps then) communist/socialist government which could be charged with such crime would be China and its attack and occupation of Tibet. Yet hardly a year goes by where the US is not involved in some intrigue to overthrow a government or invade another country.

---

Wasn't Maoist Revolution stopping "at the borders of what was already part of the" Celestial "Empire."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Yes, actually, I will simply ignore it. It's not like "Communism" is some kind of victim in all this. The Soviet Union had its own empire in its day. The fact that it eventually tanked does not, to me, put any extra special emphasis on what Capitalism is doing around the world.

---

The Russian economy didn't quite "tank" until some years after Gorbachev. At the time when Gorby oversaw the switch from USSR to independent states, the number of Russian's living in poverty was about 2 million. Fifteen years later, poverty stricken Russian's number about 60 million as state assets were sold off, privatised and absconded with. I think that's an important distinction to make in retrospect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Wasn't Maoist Revolution stopping "at the borders of what was already part of the" Celestial "Empire."

I am not clear on what the difference is?

---

What happened to Russia was an internal Revolution which stayed within the borders of the country and did not result in an attack on a sovereign nation...

Czarist Russia prior to the Bolshevik Revolution

quote:

---

...buy back Russian vodka production...

---

One of the first things Andropov did, when he finally became the Chair of the CPSU after his heady career as the USSR's ambassador in Budapest in 1956 and crushing the Czech communist party as KGB man in Prague in 68 and the mangeling the Afghan CP, as Director of the KGB in 79, introduced a new brand of cheap Vodka that quickly became known as Andropovodka.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

What happened to Russia was an internal Revolution which stayed within the borders of the country and did not result in an attack on a sovereign nation...

Czarist Russia prior to the Bolshevik Revolution

...whereas it appears that Tibet was at least a semi-sovereign nation from 1911-1951 (while still sending representatives to be part of the chinese government. A bit of a muddled affair, there's a writeup (in not very good english) here. You decide for yourself whether Tibet was independent or part of chinese territory, as the chinese claim.

---

I disagree. I think that discussing these events in terms of the abstract defintions of sovereignty amounts mostly to semantics.

The campaign during the Civil War in Georgia and the Muslim territories of Asia was an attack on nationalist independence movements, some of which had already declared independence officially. In those terms it was an invasion, which was resisted quite vigorously. These are conflicts of the Russian empire that go back beyond the Pugachev Rebelion of the Yaik Cossacks.

On War

quote:

---

The Communist victory was at the same time a defeat for the various nationalist movements of the non-Russian peoples. The hopes of the Tatars and Bashkirs, between the Kazan area and the southern Urals, were ruined in the course of the civil war. The Communists proclaimed the right of self-determination, but in practice they imposed the dictatorship of the Russian Communist Party on them. In Tashkent the Muslim population remained mistrustful of any Russian authorities, and for some years guerrilla bands of nationalists, known as Basmachi, harassed the Communist authorities.

The defeat of Turkey in World War I had resulted in the temporary revival of the three separate Transcaucasian republics--Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. The Moscow government did not intend to respect Transcaucasian independence for long. In April 1920 the Azerbaijan government surrendered to the double threat of invasion by the Red Army and rebellion in Baku. In December 1920 the formerly Russian portion of Armenia was incorporated into Soviet Russia, and the Moscow government recognized the rest of Armenia as part of Turkey. From February to April 1921 the Red Army invaded and conquered Georgia.

---

It was not simply a matter of white Russians versus red Russians. This is an important narrative in the rise and fall of the USSR, and one that had untold impact on the future of the Communist parties throughtout the Muslim world, where the CP became tainted with a reputation of repression, not liberation.

I think, for instance, that it may have had a huge impact on the the 1979 Iranian revolution.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The Cuban Revolution had and still has the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. There are some aspects I do not like about Cuba, but I believe the Cuban people have the right to chart their own course without interference and war brought on them from the outside. Personally, I like Hugo Chavez approach better, but that was because it was possible to change the Venezuelan government in a peaceful way, which was NOT an option in Cuba. But it wouldn't matter if Hugo Chavez had the support of 95% of the population, Bush would still want to overthrow him and install a government more to the liking of the International Exploiters.

I postulated that a series of substantive material events, having to do with the economic development of the Soviet Union and WW2, make it difficult to make a prima facie case that one system is superior to the other, based on migratory paterns.

During that discussion I tried to establish that Soviet Union spent considerable effort maintaining its control over territories already within its sphere of influence, while at the same time rebuilding them, or developing them. I posed this against the US, which was able to use its victory in WW2 to further expand its sphere of influence, and economic power.

While I think we were in agreement on this point, I felt that you implied that the Soviet Union was not expansionist in the manner of the USA and this was evidenced by your arguement about the capture of territory as part of ww2, and the fact that it halted the expansion of its primary land base at the limits of the Czarist empire. It seemed to me that you were implying that this might have had something to do with an inate moral superiority of the USSR in comaprison to the USA. In contradiction to that I assert that the evidence of the Civil War, in Eastern Europe, and in Afghanistan shows that the USSR had no compuntion in being expansionist in a directly imperial form, using very much the same methods of the USA, and that the differences between US imperial expansion and Soviet expansion was more a matter of opportunity than moral superiority, or systemic superiority.

My arguement was advanced along the lines of describing geopolitical power struggles and economic wealth as opposed to asserting the superiority of one ideology over another.

This is not to say that they are the same. But for the purposes of having a useful discussion about creating a better and more humane form of social organization by comparing the USA to Cuba, it is important to contextualize them within their relative places in history as they have been impacted by geopolitics.

Having looked at all of this, my conclusion is that anyone who seeks to be able to come up with a defining arguement suggesting that the socialized economy is better than, or worse than, the capitalist economy by comparing these two countries that come from such completely alien historical situations, where one is extremely powerful and rich and the other nothing more than a geopolitical fly speck, and adheres strongly to this notion that a conclusive arguement can be made either way probably thinks that Windows is more functional than Unix.

I agree with Fidel, it is more appropriate to make a comparison between the capitalist European economies, or the USA and Sweden, which by advent of good fortune, and some clever diplomacy, managed to escape that god awful war like the USA.

As for Cuba, what strikes me most about it, is that it persists and exists in the form which it does in direct opposition to the most powerful nation on earth. Despite its obvious failings, that says something about the intrinsic strength of the organizational modeal applied.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
As for Cuba, what strikes me most about it, is that it persists and exists in the form which it does in direct opposition to the most powerful nation on earth. Despite its obvious failings, that says something about the intrinsic strength of the organizational modeal applied.

---

Ah, the US is on this (yet again):

quote:

---

New post to help Castro 'demise'

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced the creation of a new post to help "accelerate the demise" of the Castro regime in Cuba.

Caleb McCarry, a veteran Republican Party activist, was appointed as the Cuba transition co-ordinator.

Ms Rice said for 50 years Fidel Castro had condemned Cubans to a "tragic fate of repression and poverty".

Mr Castro accuses the US of funding unrest and vowed that dissidents would never bring down his government.

BBC

---

Every administration since the Kennedy tenure has tried to take out Castro. But given Castro's age, perphas this Bush administration will strike it lucky.

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Thank you for the civil discussion, Cueball. I would like to add that neither of the opposing systems "creates" wealth, but merely allows for differences in distribution. For the most part, I think national wealth is static. Even in our case in Canada, some get rich at the expense of the many, but because our country is so wealthy in natural resources, most of us do not realize how little we get in return for them, while certain interests get to reap the benefits for their personal use. I had a discussion quite a while back... a couple of months maybe... about the model of "state-communism" vs "group-communism", and have argued extensively that I do not believe in "state communism" because it does not allow for the choice to be selfish and not be part of the community. For real communism to work, it has to be the choice of the people joining together, and can not be a matter of 'you live on this tract of land, therefore you must be part of the whole'. That is why I proposed a 'business model' certain people basically considered to be 'the devil'.

Some of Cubas accomplishments are incredible in light of the adversary they have to live with. Some of the things the Cuban Government does I cannot agree with, but that may be because of not having to live with the Cuban Reality. Some day I hope to travel to Cuba to see and experience the country and the people first hand. Until that day comes, I will have to base my opinion on the things I hear and read from people who have been there.

---

Yes it was a fun discussion. I guess my take on this kind of thing is that power does as power wills. By which I mean that once you assert the need to achieve certain strategic objectives on a realpolitik basis, even those with best intentions end up following the rules of geopolitical power struggles:

Q: Why must Russia become involved in Afghanistan?

A: To stop the Americans from gaining a strategic advantage by doing so.

Q: Why must the USA become involved in Afghanistan?

A: To stop the Russians from gaining a strategic advantage by doing so.

Power does as power wills, whatever the ideology.

And we all know who got truly fucked over.

[ 29 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I also find it amusing that whenever some serious discussion is given about some incredible advances that Cuba has made for its people and the milions of poor around the world they've helped out, the subject immediately turns to Pol Pot (wrong country dude)!

No country is perfect. Cuba's experiment in challenging the corporate world is still ongoing and is leading to some impressive results when compared to some right wing hell holes. This fact alone is a miracle considering its giant neighbour.

The fact is that Cuba and other Latin American coutries are increasingly thumbing their noses at the North as they should. Nations such as Cuba, Venezuala, Argentina, Uruguay and one day Bolivia are deciding to put their people's needs first. Right now South America is the most exciting continent in the world for its experiment against the "new world order". For the sakes of us all who long for an end to the greed economy let's hope it works. It's time the USA and our right wing contingent stopped being the centre of the world.

Before I sign off, I just want to say that yes I've been to Cuba (in fact we always fly in 10kgs of medical supplies on behalf of registered Canadian charities which all us can legally do).

As far as I can tell, and on a general scale, there aren't many countries in the world which hold the wellbeing of all of their citizens as a priority like Cuba does. Castro has succeeded in making sure that all Cubans have pretty much all of their needs - not all their wants - provided for. This is a task most governments don't care to actually take on. Usually, they're too busy serving special interest groups and individuals to take care of the nation.

One just has to read how vindictive these bastards are in the following article:

Pro-Cuba group says US seized Canadian computers

Once again we let our sovereign rights go down the toilet to these bullies.

Another interesting aside is since Pettigrew took over as our US Affairs Minister all CIDA info on Cuba has been removed. This appears that we are cutting off Canadian aid to Cuba without a word about any hurricane relief.

quote:

---

Castro has succeeded in making sure that all Cubans have pretty much all of their needs

---

How bout letting people decide this themselves without the "help" of some damn vanguard.

Better yet, you and Morpheus should get together and plot-out a road trip to Honduras and El Salvador on your electric A&P mopeds. Be sure and wear some reflective decals because it gets dark on that PanAm highway, and the armed soldiers can be trigger happy when they've had a few cervezas.

For someone who puportedly is looking for an alternate mode of apart from the two most known ideologies, capitalism and communism, the fact that you spend all your time making up silly phrases like "Red-facists," not only reveal your very simplistic analysis, but also bring into question your credentials since you spend absolutely no time at all making a critique of capitalism.

Constanly grinding your anti-communist axe does not a revolution make. Nor does name calling help propogate understanding of any substantive issue.

I have tremendous respect for the anarchist political tradition, and probably share some aspects of your critique of Leninism but I find your constant red-baiting irritating.

Isn't there some other way of going about this, other than setting up a Red vs. Black dichotomy?

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:

How bout letting people decide this themselves without the "help" of some damn vanguard.

---

No. The "people who make those decisions" had their chance to do that before Castro gained power with the help of the Cuban people. They drove 95% of the country to abject poverty and prostitution. I think the Cubans should peacefully deport/let leave all who want capitalism and are truly unhappy with the system the majority want; on top of that, I think all who actively receive money from foreign governments to overthrow the government of Cuba should receive the death penalty for treason.

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

I know it could be difficult, as Castro's political opposition are either dead or in prison. He's just another megalomaniacal dictator. I'd like to see a repeat of the Ceauşescu
scenario. He and his brother Raul should share the fate of their many victims.

quote:

---

I think the Cubans should peacefully deport/let leave all who want capitalism and are truly unhappy with the system the majority want;

---

Should Canada deport capitalists?

How about letting Cubans vote on it? Red Albertan, I doubt that you speak for the majority of Cubans.

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: argentia ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by argentia:
When might the Cuban people get to vote in a multi party election?

---

You must be one of the people who think that multi-parti/partisan-divided countries are somehow/automatically democracies, even when the final result is - over and over again - that the 'elected government' doesn't do at all what the people would want them to do. Canada is not the least example of that.

But I will assist you in lifting the veil of your ignorance:

Cuba's Secret Elections
By Circles Robinson

One of the best-kept media secrets about Cuba is that the country holds regularly scheduled elections and that the Communist Party has nothing to do with the candidate selection.

In fact, the Caribbean island is about to hold nationwide nonpartisan municipal elections on Sunday, April 17. Voter registration is automatic for all citizens reaching sixteen years of age, unlike many countries where getting on the voter lists can be a difficult process for some sectors of the population.

Another surprise to those unfamiliar with the Cuban electoral system is that money is not the driving force, a refreshing difference from the dance of dollars and unethical practices that characterize campaigns throughout a continent where winning public office can be highly profitable.

Cuba does not claim to have a perfect electoral system but defends it as being more voter-friendly than others. As in most countries, the electoral law is subject to constitutional amendments, like occurred in 1992, when it was decided that provincial delegates and national parliament members should be elected by voters just like local representatives.

Those standing for election on the island are neither nominated because of their personal wealth nor for being the best fundraisers. Neither do they end up on corporate boards after leaving office as a payback for bending to special interest groups. The concept of a paid politician is absent in Cuba and even the national parliament representatives derive no financial compensation for their civic work.

Back in the 19th century, Cuban national hero Jose Marti was quoted as saying: "La Patria es ara, no pedestal" --the homeland is an altar, not a pedestal. His statement symbolizes the model for public service on the island since the 1959 revolution.

Anyone Can Nominate, Anyone Can be Nominated

Candidates in each of the 15,097 electoral districts located in the 169 municipalities were chosen at open neighborhood assemblies. All members of the electorate have the right to nominate a candidate or be picked to run for office, a unique feature of the Cuban system.

The electoral law stipulates that in each voting district there must be a minimum of two and a maximum of eight candidates. City council members serve two and a half year terms while provincial delegates and national parliament representatives are elected every five years.

As in the nonpartisan city council elections held in the vast majority of US municipalities and cities - like Los Angeles, Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Seattle, Las Vegas, Chicago and Atlanta - Cuban candidates do not have to have a party affiliation to seek public office. Instead, they run on their personal merits, and they include people with professional, political, community and labor involvements.

The Communist Party sees its role in the electoral process as a promoter of citizen participation and community awareness. The political organization, which is considered the ideological backbone of the revolution, considers grassroots support crucial to the survival of the system.

Similar to Republican and Democratic Party members running in municipal elections in the US, the nonpartisan nature of the elections in Cuba does not exclude members of the Communist Party, but they must run as individuals.

High Voter Turnout

Since the current Cuban electoral system took effect in 1976, voter turnout has averaged 95% and above, one of the world's highest for non-obligatory voting. This contrasts to municipal elections in the United States, which often draw less than a third of the registered voters.

An excellent example is the city council elections recently held in Los Angeles, California. With several candidates vying for mayor, only 28 percent of the registered voters bothered to show up at the polls. The two leading candidates, incumbent James Hahn and challenger Antonio Villaraigosa -who will compete in a runoff election-, received the nod from only 8 and 6 percent of the registered voters. Despite the spending of millions of dollars on the campaign, the vast majority of the electorate didn't think any candidate was worth voting for.

Such a common situation in today's USA would send up smoke signals in Cuba. National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon said in a recent interview, "the primary emphasis [in the Cuban electoral system] is on the participation of the people. I would be very concerned if the level of involvement declined, if the public were to grow indifferent toward their government."

In the Bohemia magazine article about Cuba and the history of democracy quoted by a Canadian Friends of Cuba group, Alarcon said, "to resolve the basic problems of equality and build a system which allows participation to be channeled is easier said then done."

An article published March 14 in Granma newspaper, the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, takes a look at the long road ahead for men and women to have a truly equal opportunity to hold public office. The author, Maria Julia Mayoral, notes that while women now represent 23.37 percent of the local representatives, up from 8 percent in 1976, there are still major roadblocks to overcome.

Females now represent nearly two thirds of the island's university graduates and also stand out in scientific research and community work. Nonetheless, Mayoral states, independent of their academic level and professional success, women continue to be tied to domestic obligations and family responsibilities that men conveniently believe are not theirs.

Foreign Media Blackout

Something that usually catches the eye of visitors at election time is how cities and towns in Cuba are not plastered with campaign propaganda and that local TV and radio programs are not bombarded with ads. Instead, candidate photos and biographies are publicly posted in the voting districts, where, due to their reduced size, the contenders are personally known by most voters. This year, meet the candidate evenings are also slated for the first two weeks of April.

Cuban elections may never be headline grabbers in the foreign media. The absence of fantastic promises and viscous negative media campaigns makes them rather dull by comparison. The large number of polling stations and always holding elections on a Sunday also mean virtually nobody ends up saying they didn't vote because they didn't have time, a common complaint lodged by a growing number of US citizens.

To the contrary, Iraq's elections in January inundated world headline news because it was essential for the United States to show the world that its brand of democracy had arrived to the war torn Persian Gulf nation. After all, the alleged reason for being there in the first place-weapons of mass destruction-had long since proven to be a fabrication. The millions that boycotted the elections in protest of the foreign occupation of their country did so, according to Washington, because of their terrorist and undemocratic sympathies. On the other hand, the White House conveniently writes off Cuba's elections and the high voter turnouts as "one-party" or "communist."

Local Government in Cuba

Municipal governments, called People's Power Assemblies, have a president and vice president similar to a mayor and vice-mayor. The number of electoral districts in the municipality determines the amount of city council members, known as delegates or representatives. The minimum number is 30 and some assemblies in the more densely populated areas have as many as 80, 100 or more members. A rural voting district may have as few as 300 constituents while that figure can reach 4,000 in densely populated urban areas. These are much smaller than most wards or districts in the United States.

Cuban city council members are empowered to elect the mayor and vice-mayor from within their ranks and must do so by secret ballot within 21 days after the elections.

The Cuban system puts great importance on citizen accessibility to their council people, thus explaining the smaller electoral districts and greater number of representatives than in local governments in the United States. In Cleveland, Ohio, for instance, the ratio is 24,000 residents to one city council representative and the rate is considerably higher in other urban populations.

Among the city council member's responsibilities is to receive complaints and suggestions about public services and social problems, and vote on a proposed municipal budget which then goes on to the Provincial and National Assemblies for review and final approval. Then, it's one of their jobs to see that the corresponding institutions implement budgeted projects.

In a country subjugated to nearly a half-century of economic, financial and commercial blockade from the world's greatest military and economic power, the limitations faced by Cuba make the work of the city council member far from easy. Many of the economic problems facing the country originate in the White House, or the country's colonial and dependent past, and some will continue as long as Washington insists.

However, creative efforts to resolve local problems with the limited resources at hand and making sure the municipality gets its fair share of support from the country's many social programs, are the key to being a successful representative. Election officials note that on an average 46.5 percent of the delegates are re-elected, some for multiple terms.

Open To All

For visitors to Cuba interested in seeing the island's electoral process in action, voter registration lists and candidate profiles are currently posted in convenient locations. In addition, the polling places on Election Day and the vote count are all open public activities.

A novel feature of Cuban elections is the presence of 5th to 9th grade students at the polling places. Besides getting acquainted with this important civic responsibility and symbolically guarding the ballot boxes,their function is to help voters with disabilities that request assistance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by argentia:
How about letting Cubans vote on it? Red Albertan, I doubt that you speak for the majority of Cubans.

---

And where in that barrage of bumph is there any hint of debate, or contest of different approaches and ideas? Yeah, Fidel's democracy is open and free. That's why he's beaten every candidate who ever stood against him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by argentia:
Who is Circles Robinson?

And where in that barrage of bumph is there any hint of debate, or contest of different approaches and ideas? Yeah, Fidel's democracy is open and free. That's why he's beaten every candidate who ever stood against him.

Get real. Thanks be I don't live in a society where the crap you just posted can be taken for serious political discussion.

---

quote:

---

You didn't even read the article.

---

Can you at least provide a link?

[ 30 July 2005: Message edited by: argentia ]

quote:

---

Cueball:
Vigilante, your ferocious anti-communism is an embarrasment to anrachists.

For someone who puportedly is looking for an alternate mode of apart from the two most known ideologies, capitalism and communism, the fact that you spend all your time making up silly phrases like "Red-facists," not only reveal your very simplistic analysis, but also bring into question your credentials since you spend absolutely no time at all making a critique of capitalism.

Constanly grinding your anti-communist axe does not a revolution make. Nor does name calling help propogate understanding of any substantive issue.

I have tremendous respect for the anarchist political tradition, and probably share some aspects of your critique of Leninism but I find your constant red-baiting irritating.

Isn't there some other way of going about this, other than setting up a Red vs. Black dichotomy?

---

Cueball is of course being disengemuous when he accuses me of "anti-communism". I've made my view of what my view and what real communism is clear. I shall not legitimise the view of some elite bolshavics who at the 3rd international decided to lump communism with the state capitalist inplementation which supposedly would lead to this society(we know how that turned out). Eventually when it was clear that these elites would not "wither" the state away they still continued to call this state capitalism "communism" this like I said is tantamount to a friedman calling him/herself a communist. What i seek to do is take back the original definition.

As for red baiting, it's one thing to call it red baiting when someones views are completely dismissed via attacking the motive, however if critiqing vanguardist ideology in general is red baiting then your really cheapening the word. And I do critique capitalism, no just capitalism, but capital in general which can be used in a variety of modes of production.

Anyway The idea that anarchist discourse should give vanguardist ideology a break is something that does not fly. Perhaps anarchists of old would do this, however that is no longer the case for the simple reason that any historical analysis will show you that leftists tend to screw anarchists badly in these revolutionary situations. I honour the many revolters past who fought for generations only to have their years of trial and errer fucked apart by a couple of managers. I do this for those millions of russians who were close to something beautifual only to have it ripped out of their hands by a few. Uncompramsing I will be.

quote:

---

One of the best-kept media secrets about Cuba is that the country holds regularly scheduled elections and that the Communist Party has nothing to do with the candidate selection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:

Cueball is of course being disengemuous when he accuses me of "anti-communism". I've made my view of what my view and what real communism is clear. I shall not legitimise the view of some elite bolshavics who at the 3rd international decided to lump communism with the state capitalist inplementation which supposedly would lead to this society(we know how that turned out). Eventually when it was clear that these elites would not "wither" the state away they still continued to call this state capitalism "communism" this like I said is tantamount to a friedman calling him/herself a communist. What i seek to do is take back the original definition.

---

Well for one thing I think it is highly elitist of you to think that you can simply redefine the language so as to suit your specific ideological take on things, even if no one else agrees with your terms and defintions.

Or do we have the right to make stuff up too, when the prevailing definitions don't suit us?

[Edited to add] What is even weirder Vigilante is that you are making me write like I am part of the "we" that is to you "them," when in fact I have always thought of myself as somewhat in variance to "them," (see disclaimer below) but your constant unnuanced attacks upon "them," are leading me to assert myself as part of the "we" that is "them," as opposed to the "us," which might be you and me.

I thin you should look for ways around the dichotomies, which merely reproduce the anatagonistic social relations you say you oppose.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Everybody seems to know where Cuba is, but what about those real shitholes so close to Uncle Sam's back doorsteps ?. Why don't those bastions of democracy and American influence rate so much as a thread or even a casual comment from you pundits on Cuba ?.

No comment ?.

Magoo ? Vigilante ? Those guys are slippery'er 'n snakes in a tractor rut after a downpour.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Democracy is a sham in Central and S. America, Magoo. Free and fair elections are what the right-wing are afraid of in Latin America. Remember Kissinger on Chile, "They can't be trusted with democracy." Do you realize how ridiculous it is to talk about democracy in that part of the world so close to Uncle Sam's backdoor steps ?.

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

The CIA and their dupes would love to be able to count on the poor in Caracas and Havana and San Salvador and Guatemala City without having to use coercion and threats before, during and inbetween so-called free and fair elections. But they cannot. The people of Latin America have had enough of right-wing death squad mentality from Washington. These people here are unwitting mouthpieces for those who fund the killing and oppression throughout Latin America. We could tune in to the same weak arguments on right-wing radio or Fox News. At least Vigilante is original with his web references to "Morpheus" and other authorities on Cuba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

So who ran against Castro? How'd he/she do?

---

"The electoral law [of Cuba] stipulates that in each voting district there must be a minimum of two and a maximum of eight candidates."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I'm guessing the answer to my question is "Nobody runs against Castro; the elections are for local joe jobs" but you can't bring yourself to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Was that an embarrassing question that I asked, Fidel? Otherwise, why the soft-shoe shuffle?

I'm guessing the answer to my question is "Nobody runs against Castro; the elections are for local joe jobs" but you can't bring yourself to say.

---

Correction. Fidel Castro is President of the Republic, and hence elected by the National Assembly, not in a Riding/Electoral District.

quote:

---

Intellectuals have a responsibility to distinguish between the defensive measures taken by countries and peoples under imperial attack and the offensive methods of imperial powers bent on conquest. It is the height of cant and hypocrisy to engage in moral equivalences between the violence and repression of imperial countries bent on conquest with that of Third World countries under military and terrorist attacks. Responsible intellectuals critically examine the political context and analyze the relationships between imperial power and their paid local functionaries who they describe as “dissidents” – they do not issue moral fiats according to their dim lights and their political imperatives.

[snip]

We have in recent times seen too many self-styled “progressive” Western intellectuals supporting or silent on the U.S. destruction of Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing of over 250,000 Serbs, gypsies and others in Kosovo, buying into the U.S. propaganda of a “humanitarian intervention”. All the U.S. intellectuals (Chomsky, Zinn, Wallerstein etc… ; ) supported the U.S.-financed violent fundamentalist uprising in Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed secular government in Afghanistan – under the pretext that the Soviet Union “invaded” Afghanistan and the fundamentalist fanatics entering the country from all over the world were the “dissidents” defending “self-determination” – an admitted propaganda ploy successfully executed by the boastful former National Security Adviser, Zbig Bryzinski. Then and now prestigious intellectuals brandish their past credentials as “critics” of U.S. foreign policy to give credibility to their uninformed denunciation of alleged Cuban moral transgressions, equating Cuba’s arrest of paid functionaries of the U.S. State Department and the execution of three terrorist kidnapers with the genocidal war crimes of U.S. imperialism. The practitioners of moral equivalents apply a microscope to Cuba and a telescope to U.S. crimes – which gives them a certain acceptability among the liberal sectors of the empire. Source

---

[ 02 August 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

But sometimes there are circumstances when non-imperial countries, even countries the US is oppressing, need to be criticized. Let's say they torture people. Or operate a gulag.

I don't think Petras identifies when criticism for those abuses is appropriate. In fact, I think he basically gives revolutionary regimes a pass.

So, when did Chomsky sell out? And what did they pay him for that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:
Petras has a point, but he loses his credibility when he defends any "Marxist" government against any criticisms.

So, when did Chomsky sell out? And what did they pay him for that?

(It's too stupid to even contemplate.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:
Petras has a point, but he loses his credibility when he defends any "Marxist" government against any criticisms.

---

If you and Mr. House read the essay as saying that anti-imperialist governments are beyond criticism, then you didn't read it very carefully.

Second point: I've read a whole bunch of Petras's writings, and I've strongly agreed with him more than i've disagreed with him. But i've also noted a clumsy inability to find fault with "Marxist" regimes.

And, when Petras disses proven enemies of empire as witless dupes for not genuflecting in front of his chosen idols, then he loses my support.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: thwap ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

Chomsky ... lost ALL credibility when he decided to abandon the independent Presidential candidate for the war-monger John Kerry. To back Kerry after preaching against the invasion of Iraq by the US for so long, completely discredited Chomsky in my view. I will always support the cause I believe in, and will never choose the "lesser evil". To me he has proven that he is an opportunist who will throw away his 'convictions' for the perception of an advantage.

---

quote:

---

Cueball:
Well for one thing I think it is highly elitist of you to think that you can simply redefine the language so as to suit your specific ideological take on things, even if no one else agrees with your terms and defintions.

---

Your defintions might have been viable at the end of the 19th century, when the exact meaning of the word was being forged by numerous thinkers world wide, but that was a long time ago, and many things have changed, and the word communism is one of them.

I even feel that your etymological defence for your definition of communism smacks of puritanical elitism.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It is this exclusivity wich I find most elitist.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:

The "advantage" being what? The removal of George W. Bush from office? Yeah, what an opportunist. I agree - why choose the "lesser evil" when you can choose the "greater evil"? Damn that war-monger Kerry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

You don't get rid of a murderer by backing a murderer. That kind of thinking has brought us constantly corrupt governments in Canada, because people choose "the lesser evil" instead of the best choice.

---

[Sorry for the continuing thread drift, everyone....]

So who was the independent presidential candidate Chomsky originally supported? Why would that person have made a better president than Kerry, overlooking for the moment that he or she probably lacked the organizational base to put up a serious challenge?

I supported Ralph Nader in 2000, but things were a little different in 2000. Back then, Bush was just another prospective awful Republican president, not someone who had started a potentially hundred-year-long world war, and Nader was running with the Green Party, which did have an alternative vision of sorts, as opposed to running his own vanity campaign.

Kerry a "murderer"? Do you mean in his initial support for the Iraq war? If so, fair enough, although I hope you aren't suggesting that when people take part in an immoral action, any subsequent criticism they may later make of that action is therefore worthless. Or do you mean because he went to war in Vietnam and killed people there? Again, I guess that's accurate enough, but there too, Kerry was intelligent enough to later appreciate the immorality of what he'd taken part in, and principled enough to speak out against it. I thought Kerry was the most articulate, perceptive, and morally courageous presidential candidate from either major party in several decades.

As for the application of the "lesser evil" argument in Canada, it's true that the Liberals have exploited it well to give us generally mediocre government with occasional flashes of principle and brilliance but with a heaping side order of corruption. Which is ironic, because Canadian parliamentary elections afford more choice than American presidential elections. You can't have an American president who's dependent on minority support from a smaller party - rather, whoever wins gets essentially unchallenged power over large areas of government policy, particularly foreign policy. So when I vote NDP, there's a chance my vote might end up influencing the formation of policy, as indeed it has in the last year. If I lived in the US and voted for Nader, I might leave the polling booth feeling self-righteous, but George W. Bush wouldn't wake up the day after saying "Oh my God, look at all these people who voted for Nader - guess I'd better start listening to him."

When George Bush Sr. was president, I heard one political commentator say that the Democrats were like salt pork, while the Republicans were like rat poison. Salt pork isn't very palatable, but it won't kill you.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Nader said as much ... that we do have a third option, the NDP.

---

Oh yeah - he did, didn't he? I'd forgotten about that. Hmm... the prophet is not without honour, save in his own country.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:

[Sorry for the continuing thread drift, everyone....]

Kerry a "murderer"? Do you mean in his initial support for the Iraq war? If so, fair enough, although I hope you aren't suggesting that when people take part in an immoral action, any subsequent criticism they may later make of that action is therefore worthless.[...] I thought Kerry was the most articulate, perceptive, and morally courageous presidential candidate from either major party in several decades.

---

It wasn't simply the initial support for the war, but his continued support for the war, which meant that, if he would have been elected, he would have continued the carnage GWB started. How can Chomsky possibly support such a dark gray candidate, just because he doesn't like the black one. But then, I haven't considered "The Corporate Parties" viable alternatives to each other for many years. In fact, it is doubtful that under the corporate control, "democracy" is really the 'best choice', because in reality western 'democracy' is little more than Plutocracy...

quote:

---

When George Bush Sr. was president, I heard one political commentator say that the Democrats were like salt pork, while the Republicans were like rat poison. Salt pork isn't very palatable, but it won't kill you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

It wasn't simply the initial support for the war, but his continued support for the war, which meant that, if he would have been elected, he would have continued the carnage GWB started.

Whether Republicrat or Democan, the end result for the world is only a slight difference.

---

I suppose this debate already happened on Babble back last year before I started reading and posting. And I suppose it's kind of moot for the time being, seeing how the thoroughly nasty and insane Republican administration was re-elected. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now. We may have another chance to revisit this argument in a few years.

But I really think there is a difference between the Republicans in George W. Bush's circle and the Democrats who would have formed Kerry's administration.

Kerry said he would have kept American troops in Iraq for the immediate future (this may have been what he was really planning to do, or it may have been part of his "I'm-a-tough-guy-too" rhetoric). I don't agree with the logic behind this position, but I can follow it. Kerry's reasoning was that the US had created the mess and had some responsibility for extricating itself in a way that would be the least harmful to Iraq. Maybe there isn't such a way. Maybe Kerry made the same error of logic that LBJ did in Vietnam, reasoning that "we can't just pull out all at once, that'd result in chaos" when continued involvement was itself a major contributor to the chaos.

But the difference between Kerry and Bush was that Kerry approached the situation from the starting point that the invasion and occupation had been a bad idea carried out badly. Not that I would expect Bush to have admitted as much during the campaign, even if he did believe it. But while Kerry made a questionable assumption about the future, I think Bush and his advisers were (and are) in a complete state of denial about the reality of what's happened over the last three years. Or if they're smarter than that and they realize how disastrous the Iraq invasion was, they don't give a shit about the reality of what's happened, because their foreign policy fuckups seem to play well at home.

Kerry would likely have been very cautious with regard to future military action, both because of having watched and learned from what Bush did, and because of his own wartime experiences. Do you think the Bush administration has learned from experience and won't blunder / lie its way into another conflict that will fuel further terrorism? I sure hope so, but I'm not very confident about that.

[ 03 August 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

quote:

---

You've been brainwashed, Sven. The Iron Curtain was only there to prevent the western proletariat from flooding into the workers' paradise en masse. Luckily, Casto has the Caribbean as a buffer.

---

I think we have found the receipient for the "Most whacked out obsurd posting of the year" Award.

I trukely think praenomen3 should give his head a shake, dump a bucket of water over his head, give his head another shake and hold his head under a running tap of water for a few minutes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albion1:
Then praenomen3 should talk to survivors of those who once use to live in Communist Europe who have had their relatives killed by the soldiers that were stationed along the wall. He should see the state of Eastern Europe and find out for himself what a "worker's paradise" the east truely was!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albion1:
I think we have found the receipient for the "Most whacked out obsurd posting of the year" Award.

I trukely think praenomen3 should give his head a shake, dump a bucket of water over his head, give his head another shake and hold his head under a running tap of water for a few minutes.

Then praenomen3 should talk to survivors of those who once use to live in Communist Europe who have had their relatives killed by the soldiers that were stationed along the wall. He should see the state of Eastern Europe and find out for himself what a "worker's paradise" the east truely was!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Cueball:
Yes but you see, it is not "now known as the right." I don't know why you insist on resorting to an analysis which forces itself beyond common understandings, to the point were you are asserting an untruth. I can see the point of forcing the paradigm, but you need to maintain linkages to the paradigm for the analysis to have meaning that is not exclusive to yourself.

It is this exclusivity wich I find most elitist.

---

Well if you know your humanities you should know that left wing discourse started the classical enlightenment thinkers. It was the liberals who sat on the left who embraced this first. Politcal evolutions changed this however, when the workers formed their ideology they the accepted the ideas originally started by the liberals at their core, they just wanted to reshuffal things. I think it's important to point this out.