quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I guess not everyone thinks Cuba is such a "worker's paradise".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
While I haven't been in Cuba, I have been in Central America and SE Asia. Yes, there are a lot of people who want to come to America. If they can't get there, they'll settle for Canada. The thing that always strikes me is that I've never heard anyone in these areas say that they want to come for our freedom and/or democracy. No, everyone I talked to wanted stuff! A car or pickup truck was always mentioned. North Americans are seen as financially rich, and that's all that matters to many in the Third World.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's "freedom and democracy" that ALLOWS people to become affluent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
People also flee the US all the time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:
While I haven't been in Cuba, I have been in Central America and SE Asia. Yes, there are a lot of people who want to come to America. If they can't get there, they'll settle for Canada. The thing that always strikes me is that I've never heard anyone in these areas say that they want to come for our freedom and/or democracy. No, everyone I talked to wanted stuff! A car or pickup truck was always mentioned. North Americans are seen as financially rich, and that's all that matters to many in the Third World.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Silly kid. No, that would be corporate welfare statism and upside-down socialism that allows your country to prop-up 2.4 million high net worth'ers, worth at least a million bucks not including real estate assets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Silly kid. No, that would be corporate welfare statism and upside-down socialism that allows your country to prop-up 2.4 million high net worth'ers, worth at least a million bucks not including real estate assets.

---

Here in America you can be born poor and grow up to become the President of the United States (Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton etc) or a multi-millionaire or whatever you choose to if you have the talent and the ambition. That's what America is all about. In Socialist countries all you can ever hope to be is a miserable bureaucrat working for the state. No wonder people want to come to the land of opportunity and capitalism!

VIVA FREEDOM!!!

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: eastcoast ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:
VIVA FREEDOM!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:

Here in America you can be born poor and grow up to become the President of the United States (Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton etc) or a multi-millionaire or whatever you choose to if you have the talent and the ambition.

---

Horatio Alger lives! Actually, the US has less social mobility than Britain, Canada and Scandinavia...in that order.

See here: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's "freedom and democracy" that ALLOWS people to become affluent?

---

Capitalism is neither freedom nor democracy. Capitalism doesn't allow affluency, it allows exploitation. For every wealthy man who doesn't give a shit about others, there are 10 who are dirt poor.

At least they already had their free education. Perhaps they'll be able to escape the hell some people are condemned to live in in our capitalist paradise.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cougyr:

Your sense of freedom looks to me to be entirely about material gains. I think that there is more to life than that.

---

Without question, I think you are correct about there being more to life than just material gains. But, my "material gains" give me a lot of autonomy over what I choose to do with my non-work time. I think a lot of people come here for that sense of economic autonomy. If we are all equalized economically and therefore subject to the dictates of a centralized government (how much space we get to live in, what kind of foods we get to eat, how much extra spending money each of us were to get, where we can travel, etc.) we cede control of our lives to the whims of a centralized government.

quote:

---

People also flee the US all the time, and seek asylum in Canada, though they never actually obtain it, and generally get deported.

---

But why wouldn't they rather flee to a Communist country like Cuba, and get that nasty Capitalist's hand out of their pocket once and for all?

Why would they simply move to another country where part of the value of their labour will be shared with — some prefer to say 'stolen by' — their Capitalist boss?

It's certainly true that people leave countries and attempt to move to other countries all the time, but for some reason, this exodus is always from Communist country to somewhere else, and for some reason those Communist countries seem particularly unwilling to let people choose, and so they have to "defect". They can't simply "emigrate" like everyone else.

Remember the failed social experiment called "the Soviet Union"? Remember how they always had to guard their ballet companies and their athletes when they travelled, so they couldn't defect? Remember when some did anyway? More ingrates, practically begging to live under the yoke of the Capitalist overlord, I guess.

quote:

---

Capitalism is neither freedom nor democracy. Capitalism doesn't allow affluency, it allows exploitation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
But why wouldn't they rather flee to a Communist country like Cuba, and get that nasty Capitalist's hand out of their pocket once and for all?

---

Not everyone flees or leaves their home country for the same reason. It is difficult to immigrate to Cuba, but some people actually do.

quote:

---

It's certainly true that people leave countries and attempt to move to other countries all the time, but for some reason, this exodus is always from Communist country to somewhere else, and for some reason those Communist countries seem particularly unwilling to let people choose, and so they have to "defect". They can't simply "emigrate" like everyone else.

---

If Cuba weren't at war, I am sure this whole issue wouldn't exist. In fact, thousands of people legally emigrated from Cuba to the US in the 90's, until the US changed its immigration policy. Tito's Yugoslavia was another socialist country with open borders, and many Yugoslavs worked in Germany.

quote:

---

Remember the failed social experiment called "the Soviet Union"? Remember how they always had to guard their ballet companies and their athletes when they travelled, so they couldn't defect?

---

I am not talking about the Soviet Union unless you are willing to accept Hitler's Germany, Musslini's Italy and Franco's Spain for your side.

quote:

---

I can think of 20 people who disagree with you tonight.

---

I wonder what your point is. I can think of just as many who disagree with you. So what?

quote:

---

And they didn't just Google a few pictures of homeless guys to make their point, they risked their lives.

---

Which society would you rather have:

SOCIETY A: Society A is a capitalist system in which 2% of the people are very wealthy (i.e., they have enough money to live very comfortably without working) [GROUP 1], 73% of the people have to work for a living but are reasonably comfortable living middle-class lives--school teachers, accountants, firefighters, etc.) [GROUP 2], 23% of the people have a tough time making ends meet but somehow manage to do so [GROUP 3], and 2% of of the people are homeless and depend on the charity of others to survive [GROUP 4].

SOCIETY B: Society B is a centralized system that has no one in GROUPS 1, 2 or 4 (kinda like Cuba, for example, except for the party muckity-mucks who are really GROUP 1 kinda folks).

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:
Sven & Mr.Magoo know what they're talking about!

---

To:

It could be any number really. But if its 2000 there'll be sidescroll, if there's only 500 it's unlikely. If you quote my post you'll see the code that's used.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

How many homeless people per millionaire in our capitalist paradises? Winter is coming. There will be a lot less by Spring time.

---

Wow! What a deep & profound social commentary that was Red! Thanks for sharing! Maybe you can print that out on some recycled paper and sell them as cards down at the local coffee shop to others who share you're concern for humanity.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: eastcoast ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Which society would you rather have:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:

Wow! What a deep & profound social commentary that was Red! Thanks for sharing! Maybe you can print that out on some recycled paper and sell them as cards down at the local coffee shop with others who share you're concern for humanity.

---

Its not at all suprising to me that you are up late since you will not be working tomorrow, as it is not possible that anyone with an actual job in media, could possibly get hired writing copy like that. Unless of course you are scripting Hulk Hogan interviews.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I simply used the Image feature. I don't understand what you mean by Sidescroll anyhow, but if the images are a problem for you, I'll go in and delete them all.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]

Yeah it's just the guy on the street. Whatever, its not that important.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
I simply used the Image feature. I don't understand what you mean by Sidescroll anyhow, but if the images are a problem for you, I'll go in and delete them all.

---

Ah, minutes ago happily lurking, now forced to comment.

Red, sidescroll occurs when images or links are so long that those of us with ordinary size computer screens need to use the mouse to scroll right and left through every line in order to read the text.

The images you posted are very powerful. Please do not delete them. If it is too late and you are too tired to reformat, please post links to these images.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Its not at all suprising to me that you are up late since you will not be working tomorrow, as it is not possible that anyone with an actual job in media, could possibly get hired writing copy like that. Unless of course you are scripting Hulk Hogan interviews.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

I guess not everyone has the luxury of having a high resolution capable monitor.

Anyhow, these discussions always quickly turn aggressive, and the core values that really should be discussed get swiped under the carpet while it turns into a battle of ideologies.

Ideologies that do not recognize the value of a human being - any human being - all human beings - aren't worth pig dung. I do not believe in repression, and I do not defend every action of e.g. the Cuban Government. At the same time I realize they are in a state of war with a much more powerful foe, and I don't have the right to tell them what they should be doing or how they should do it, if it means their way of life will be destroyed and neo-colonialism will be reestablished.

Capitalism doesn't produce wealth. It extracts it from others. In our case, our standard of living is not the result of our own labour, but in the bigger picture, it is the result of exploiting weaker nations. What our nations do economically to the world is insignificantly different to how Colonial Powers exploited their colonies. People in poor countries earn little money because they get exploited by the rich countries. Their resources get stolen with the help of complicit 'democratic' governments. Many people, especially in East and South Asia, have much higher education than the average American or Canadian, and yet only earn a fraction of what most of us earn. Capitalist Exploitation is the modern Slavery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

How many homeless people per millionaire in our capitalist paradises? Winter is coming. There will be a lot less by Spring time.

---

Well, in Minnesota, one not-for-profit social service agency estimates that there are 21,000 homeless people here on an average day (and I'm going to assume that's on the high side since they are advocates for the homeless).

Just a quick Google said that there are about 2.5 million "millionaires" in the US (defined as those who have at least $1 million in financial assets, excluding homes and other non-financial assets). If you include homes and other non-financial assets, I'd guess there'd be at least three times that number (or 7.5 million millionaires in the USA or about 3% of the population).

If that average applies to the Twin Cities, there should be about 147,000 millionaires in Minnesota.

So, very, very roughly, there would be about 1/7th of a homeless person for every millionaire.

More importantly, (assuming that 15% of the population here is "poor", 3% millionaires and the rest essentially middle class), there are about 1/193rd of a homeless person for every middle class person.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Anyhow, these discussions always quickly turn aggressive, and the core values that really should be discussed get swiped under the carpet while it turns into a battle of ideologies.

---

I think that you "aggressively" defend your positions, but in a good way.

Next you will tell me that there is something democratic about a system that requires an average citizen to fund raise tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to get elected to congress. The American political system highlights the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tunes. Could you imagine an American election with spending limits and no corporate donations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So Cuba has been the recipient of a 40 year blockade by the most powerful nation on the planet and then that nations citizens point to its ecomomy and say it doesn't work. Wow what an insight. Why not compare Cuba to Haiti or Jamaca or Porto Rica? I think you would find very quickly that the people of Cuba have far superior education, health care and natural disaster preparedness to name a few things that us socialists think should be done by society not left up to the god of the invisible hand.

---

It's not a comprehensive "blockade". Canada, Europe, Asia/Pacific and the rest of Latin America are free to trade with Cuba, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Next you will tell me that there is something democratic about a system that requires an average citizen to fund raise tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to get elected to congress. The American political system highlights the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tunes. Could you imagine an American election with spending limits and no corporate donations?

---

I really don't know the answer to that problem. The McCain-Feingold Bill was hopefully going to help remedy that. But, I think that failed.

One of the very interesting things about campaign donations in the US is that the average size of the Republicans' donations are much smaller than the average size of the Democrats' donations. It would be nice to cap the donations at, say, $500 per individual (no corporate, union or any other money).

But, the "soft money" issue is something that would be very difficult to address without raising serious First Amendment concerns (I don't like the idea of the government limiting citizens' speech rights--and, there again, the Democrats were much more successful with the MoveOn.orgs of the last campaign: the super rich gave millions to that and similar organizations).

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Yes Cuba has problems but what country dosn't especially one that has been under attack by America for over 40 years. So do you think Batista was so much better and the right wing thugs who control Miami will really be good for the average Cuban if they ever achieve their goal of dismanteling the current Cuban system and reintroducing the Batista regime.

---

Over a million homeless children in the US of A

250 000 homeless veterans of various wars - VA Dept

Real Unemployment Rate 23 Percent and Orwell's not dead

American Gulags - US becomes history's biggest Jailer

Warehousing the Poor in America

Child Poverty in Canada - comparable with Kazakhstan

Cuba - A University Nation

Cuba's Infant Mortality Lower than in USA

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Such "defections" do not bother me in the slightest. The difference with Haiti is that Haitians are SENT BACK by the Murricans, while Cubans aren't. Have babblers not been looking at what is going on in Ceuta, in Malta, in Sicily, with huge numbers of people from the global south risking their lives to work in a rich country?

This speaks to global inequality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In this case its 20 out of 40 people in the chorus - that's 50%

---

That was in comparison to the numbers of Americans who come to Canada, I believe.

Red Albertan's excellent last post as well as kropotkin's and lagatta's I applaud. I'm also glad for these chorus members that they have been able to emigrate fairly easily and with good prospects of acceptance, unlike many other Caribbeans or Central and South Americans, many of whom are much more desperate refugees but cannot make it to Canada through the U.S. any longer and would face a tougher time once arriving.

I certainly don't wish ill on the folks who've stayed, but I'm sure many will have a very difficult time here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Actually, there is a significant Haitian community in Cuba.

Such "defections" do not bother me in the slightest. The difference with Haiti is that Haitians are SENT BACK by the Murricans, while Cubans aren't. Have babblers not been looking at what is going on in Ceuta, in Malta, in Sicily, with huge numbers of people from the global south risking their lives to work in a rich country?

This speaks to global inequality.

On principle, I won't waste my time arguing with right-wingers like Sven, but I am amused that his social model, beyond its gross overestimation of the numbers of the idle rich (only economies based on extraction and petroleum rent such as the Gulf States could present such a social profile) there is absolutely no WORKING CLASS in his portrayal of society! Bizarre...

---

But then everytime that any Cuban performers or athletes are allowed out of the country - half of them seem to defect - I wonder why?

quote:

---

I don't hear about very many Canadian tourists going to Varadero for a week and then begging the Cubans to let them stay forever because life is so much better than it is in Canada.

---

Precisely. But if you make such a claim on this thread, you're "rebutted" with a photo of a homeless guy. Or, if it's Fidel, maybe a fakey-stupid UFO thing or something. Or maybe just some magician-style distraction about Haiti or El Salvador.

You know very well that most Haitians can't afford a plane ticket, and that few will be accepted by rich countries if they just show up, unlike Cubans.

Nor can one claim that there is any effective democracy in Haiti or Guatemala, where social movements by the poor are most often met with gunshots and machetes by the goons defending the landowning classes.

quote:

---

You know very well that most Haitians can't afford a plane ticket, and that few will be accepted by rich countries if they just show up, unlike Cubans.

---

That's not my point. My point is that the government of Haiti would not attempt to prevent emigration, nor would the government of any country I can think of that's not a Communist country.

I'm not discussing wealth, or inequality, or social spending, or (God fucking forbid) infant mortality.

I'm pointing out that as awesome as Cuba's resident cheerleaders make it out to be, it's still acting like the Soviet Union and denying citizens the right to pick up and go if they're not happy. If you want to address something, address that. Fidel and RA apparently cannot.

quote:

---

My point is that the government of Haiti would not attempt to prevent emigration, nor would the government of any country I can think of that's not a Communist country.

---

100 per cent wrong, Mr M. You haven't been reading Fenton and Engler, have you. Wait a couple of days, till the book club discussion gets going -- or look up a couple of the Haiti discussions already going.

The U.S. Coast Guard and the current Haitian "government" (supported by Canada and France) are indeed doing just that right now, preventing emigration.

quote:

---

You haven't been reading Fenton and Engler, have you

---

Uh, guilty as charged, I guess.

quote:

---

The U.S. Coast Guard and the current Haitian "government" (supported by Canada and France) are indeed doing just that right now, preventing emigration.

---

quote:

---

I'm pointing out that as awesome as Cuba's resident cheerleaders make it out to be, it's still acting like the Soviet Union and denying citizens the right to pick up and go if they're not happy. If you want to address something, address that. Fidel and RA apparently cannot.

---

quote:

---

Why should anyone else address that? You're doing a yeoman's work already, Magoo.

---

But I'd love it if one of the cheerleaders would address the question. Tickled pink, like. No, not with another photograph of a homeless guy, not with another round of infant mortality stats and not with another finger pointing to some other country. Am I hoping for too much? Am I dreaming the impossible dream?

quote:

---

And don't worry; it'll never get tedious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I'm pointing out that as awesome as Cuba's resident cheerleaders make it out to be, it's still acting like the Soviet Union and denying citizens the right to pick up and go if they're not happy. If you want to address something, address that. Fidel and RA apparently cannot.

---

Fidel wouldn't touch that issue with a 10 meter cattle prod.

The Gusanos would not bring political democracy to Cuba, but impose the very undemocratic rule of a mafia-like group, and bring about serious setbacks in terms of racial and sexual equality.

Fortunately, there are a lot of people who think Cuba would benefit from greater political democracy and openness who bear no relation to the Miami mafia, and many Miamian Cubans who reject the old Gusanos' hardline stance...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
This whole thread started in response to the absurd claims by the Castro apologists here that Cuba is this socialist utopia where people have it so good and where castro is beloved by 99% of the population and that no one wouod ever want to leave Cuba for those reasons.

---

Will you let me play your silly game, Stockholm? You will?! Great! Okay, people say that Cuba has a population of about 9 million. Stockholm mockingly asserts that we believe 99% of Cubans are happy. So, accepting that thesis, 90 000 Cubans could defect, and that would leave 99% of contented Cubans. We're only up to 20 thus far, a little short of that marker.

I'm really bothered by the all-or-nothing that has emerged on the topic of Cuba. People who praise Cuba for having the best standard of living in Latin America are mocked as Cuban apoligists, they're made to be claiming that Cuba is a "socialist paradise," etc. Why is this? Why can't we treat Cuba's standard of living and their democratic system as separate entities? Why do people who feel that the Cuban democratic system is on balance better than ours while still aware of shortcomings that may exist in the Cuban system "defenders of opression?"

It's important also to have discussions about Cuba in context of its history and the history of Latin America. Haiti, for instance, was the first independent nation run by blacks. The colonial powers in Europe, and later in Canada and the US, didn't like that, so they've done everything in their power to keep Haiti down (ie last year's revolt). Who are we to tell Cubans that our democratic system is better than theirs? And does anyone here honestly believe that Amnesty International and Human Right's Watch could both hand Castro a list of recommendations for reform tomorrow, Castro would follow each one to the letter and the US would all of a sudden leave Cuba alone?

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Haiti, for instance, was the first independent nation run by blacks. The colonial powers in Europe, and later in Canada and the US, didn't like that, so they've done everything in their power to keep Haiti down (ie last year's revolt).

---

Are you suggesting that the U.S wants to harm Haiti because haitians are black ? If so, What evidence do you have to support this claim ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:
What exactly has the U.S done to "keep Haiti down" - the U.S is Haiti's BIGGEST benefactor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

You're question is answered here

---

quote:

---

Who are we to tell Cubans that our democratic system is better than theirs?

---

and who are we to tell North Korea that their system leaves a lot to be desired. and why did we bother campaigning for majority rule in South Africa? Who were we to tell the South Africans whose system is better than whose.

maybe its none of our business what any country's government does within its own boundaries and we in Canada should confine ourselves to only ever commenting on Canadians politics. To express an opinion about what goes on in any other country would be rude. After all its none of our business.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: eastcoast ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I'm really bothered by the all-or-nothing that has emerged on the topic of Cuba. People who praise Cuba for having the best standard of living in Latin America are mocked as Cuban apoligists, they're made to be claiming that Cuba is a "socialist paradise," etc. Why is this? Why can't we treat Cuba's standard of living and their democratic system as separate entities? Why do people who feel that the Cuban democratic system is on balance better than ours while still aware of shortcomings that may exist in the Cuban system "defenders of opression?"

---

Let’s say there was a (hypothetical) system in Country X that treated everyone the same economically yet didn’t give women the right to vote, criminalized homosexual behavior, prohibited religious practice and the exercise of free speech, and indiscriminately employed capital punishment with respect to minors.

Could you legitimately compare Country X’s economic system to the economic system in any other country if you completely ignored the loss of civil rights in Country X if the loss of those civil rights was the cost of having a system of economic equality?

If you compared infant mortality rates (sorry Magoo) between Country A (1 per thousand) and Country B (5 per thousand) but ignored the fact that the cost of achieving the 1:1,000 rate in Country A was the same loss of the civil rights suffered by Country X (something not suffered by the people in Country B), it may legitimately call into question whether the lower infant mortality rate was worth that higher cost in anther area and would, therefore, be relevant.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
No more discussion of Cuba, Haiti, Guatemala, Israel, Iraq etc... etc....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Let’s say there was a (hypothetical) system in Country X that treated everyone the same economically yet didn’t give women the right to vote, criminalized homosexual behavior, prohibited religious practice and the exercise of free speech, and indiscriminately employed capital punishment with respect to minors.

Could you legitimately compare Country X’s economic system to the economic system in any other country if you completely ignored the loss of civil rights in Country X if the loss of those civil rights was the cost of having a system of economic equality?

If you compared infant mortality rates (sorry Magoo) between Country A (1 per thousand) and Country B (5 per thousand) but ignored the fact that the cost of achieving the 1:1,000 rate in Country Y was the lost of the civil rights suffered by Country X (something not suffered by the people in Country B), it may legitimately call into question whether the lower infant mortality rate was worth that higher cost in anther area.

---

Okay, so now that Country X has got the infant mortality thing down pat, it can work on the civil rights aspect. And I see no reason why the lower infant mortality rates in that situation would have to come at the expense of civil rights.

Let’s say there was a (hypothetical) system in Country X that treated everyone the same economically yet didn’t give women the right to vote, criminalized homosexual behavior, prohibited religious practice and the exercise of free speech, and indiscriminately employed capital punishment with respect to minors.

Could you legitimately compare Country X’s economic system to the economic system in any other country if you completely ignored the loss of civil rights in Country X if the loss of those civil rights was the cost of having a system of economic equality?

quote:

---

Who are we to tell Cubans that our democratic system is better than theirs?

---

And who are we to tell Canadians that Cuba's economic model is better than ours?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Okay, so now that Country X has got the infant mortality thing down pat, it can work on the civil rights aspect. And I see no reason why the lower infant mortality rates in that situation would have to come at the expense of civil rights.

Infant mortality rates are a widely accepted benchmark for the standard of living in any given country.

---

Put aside infant mortality rates. My hypothetical assumed that the infant mortality rate was conditioned upon a loss of those civil rights—I wasn’t making a literal cause and effect claim. I wasn’t asking you to literally accept that premise as true. My point was that if a system could only get infant mortality rates to such a low level by eliminating those civil rights, it would call into question whether or not the cost of getting those low infant mortality rates was worth it.

The broader point is that if a significant loss of civil rights is a necessary precondition for economic equality, then it is legitimate to look at the cost of obtaining that economic equality and you cannot simply look at economic equality in isolation.

I think that the basic point of disagreement is that I believe that a system of true economic equality can only be achieved by imposing it on a people (like Cuba does and like the Soviet Union and the Easter Block countries did). In other words, the cost of realizing pure economic equality is necessarily preceded by a loss of important civil liberties and personal freedoms. And, therefore, a comparison of a country’s equal economic system with a country with an unequal economic system cannot be fairly made unless the cost of achieving that equal economic system is also taken into account to determine if, on balance, it is worth having a purely equal economic system.

I think that if you look at any system that has purported to achieve economic equality, each of those systems have a corresponding loss of very important civil and personal liberties.

Philosophically, I think that a free-market economic system goes hand-in-hand with a free and open society. It’s essentially a libertarian viewpoint.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

I think that the basic point of disagreement is that I believe that a system of true economic equality can only be achieved by imposing it on a people (like Cuba does and like the Soviet Union and the Easter Block countries did). In other words, the cost of realizing pure economic equality is necessarily preceded by a loss of important civil liberties and personal freedoms. And, therefore, a comparison of a country’s equal economic system with a country with an unequal economic system cannot be fairly made unless the cost of achieving that equal economic system is also taken into account to determine if, on balance, it is worth having a purely equal economic system.

---

Moreover, Cuba was not a democracy, even in formal terms, before the Revolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Mr Envy (Conrad?) conveniently seems to be forgetting that Pinochet's Chile was used as a laboratory by free-market advocates.

Moreover, Cuba was not a democracy, even in formal terms, before the Revolution.

This is a shame, because I think there are serious problems in terms of political freedom and pluralism in Cuba, but a call for a "free-market" society would only mean utter destitution, a return to systemic racism and ultimately, the rule of criminal goons in the service of landowners and mafiosi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Do you suppose that maybe if Haiti had never declared independence from France, it would today have a similar standard of living to Guadeloupe and Martinique - both of which have about the same standard of living as Provence?

maybe the Haitians should ask France to take them back.

---

One of the reasons Haiti was brought to its knees almost immediately after it declared independence was the ruinous reparations -- reparations! -- that France sought and won, internationally enforced, against Haiti. In other words, the former slaves, who were the first in the world to declare themselves free, were required to pay off the slaveholders.

As is usual in these imperial monetary schemes, the payments stretched out through the rest of the C19 into the C20; the Americans bought the debt from the French and became the bloodsucking landlords shortly after WWI.

So you enjoy sneering at the victims of Western colonialism, do you, Stockholm? Don't bother answering that. We all know the answer already.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

Nowadays Guadeloupe and Martinique are "départements" mostly as a way for France to keep a toehold in the Americas, and live mostly on tourism, subsidies from France, and the healhty remittances Martiniquais and Guadeloupiens send regularly from La Mère patrie (and I've seen that at close-hand, in a neighbourhood of Paris where many islanders live).

Overlooking the sorry history of slavery and imperialist plunder is nothing but wilful ignorance - convenient for these right-wingers who are lecturing us about our supposed refusal to acknowledge the shortcomings of Castro's Cuba.

I'm sure Sven knows who Conrad is, but we'll play along: Conrad Black, former plutocrat and advocate of "free-marketism" (not for him, mind you). He and consort Babs Amiel were always ranting about how the left's call for greater social equality was a perversion rooted in "envy" - as if we'd want to live like them.

I think it's just a touch outrageous, though, that there should be three -- count 'em: three! -- really well-informed discussions about Haiti going on on this board at this very time, and yet a load of lazy louts should colonize this thread, demand that we produce research for them, and then sit on their hands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Guess what, guys. You don't have to "defect" from Haiti either. They'll let you leave if you want to.

---

Of course, being the absolute poorest nation in the western hemisphere, about 80 percent of Haitian's have about as much chance of leaving Haiti as any of the estimated 2700 homeless Calgarian's do of vacationing in Whitehorse - nil next to none.

If we're so democratic, Magoo, why are we aiding and abetting the overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Haiti ?. If people want free market capitalism in Haiti, then why do they always vote against the American lap dogs in Haiti ?. Why does capitalism need to be enforced in such a crack-down manner in that island nation ?. Can you explain that, Magoo ?.

Like the Soviet era Russian's and East German's, Cuban's have skills and multi-degree educations which are coveted by any western nation where education is had only at a premium. Cuban's are not poor as per western hemispheric standards - ie. dirt poor, ignorant and not a centavo to their names and kept that way as a form of fascist censorship - Cuban's have important freedoms that millions of American's and their Latin American influences deny their citizens on a daily basis, like the right to see a doctor when needed, the right to an education, the right to shelter and the basic human right to food every day.

And on the issue of prison-nations, no country incarcerates its own citizens in publicly-funded, and privately owned gulags than does the US of A.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I don't think it's fair to pose an alternative of Castro or Batista. I would love to see a democracy in Cuba (with competing parties and transparent voting).

---

Yep.

Cuba's present non-partisan model for electing its representatives is fine, it really is. But the reality of Cuba's system is that once Fidel passes from the scene USAmerica and the Cuban exiles in Miami-Dade are going to force their own wrapped brand of "democracy" on the Cuban people. Civil war may well be the result.

Cuba needs to cut USAmerica off at the passes by designing its own system of multi-party democracy. Otherwise, should Cuba retain a system so easily lied about in the USAmerican media, we'll find USAmerica not only running over Cuba but over Venezuela as well. If I were Chavez I'd strongly suggest to my right honourable amigo, Fidel "La Barbia" Castro Ruz that he ramp Cuba up for a multi-party system.

If Fidel will do what...well, I think it means that the United States of America is finished in Latin America and will not be able to successfully interfere wth "21st Century Socialism."

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Overlooking the sorry history of slavery and imperialist plunder is nothing but wilful ignorance - convenient for these right-wingers who are lecturing us about our supposed refusal to acknowledge the shortcomings of Castro's Cuba.

---

Or, to put that logic into a different context:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And on the issue of prison-nations, no country incarcerates its own citizens in publicly-funded, and privately owned gulags than does the US of A.

If free market capitalism is so wonderful in America, then why do they have more of their citizens in prison than any other nation on earth ?.

---

As soon as he is gone, there will be a serious threat of war -- not just civil war, either. The Americans and the Mafia want that country back, and they want it back in exactly the same corrupt condition it was when they were forced out. Of course most Cubans will resist. It is going to be very hard to stop a terrible conflict there.

quote:

---

One of the reasons Haiti was brought to its knees almost immediately after it declared independence was the ruinous reparations -- reparations! -- that France sought and won, internationally enforced, against Haiti.

---

So you're saying that Haiti's extreme poverty today is all because France made haiti pay reparations in the 19th century.

Germany had to pay heavy reparations after WW1 and then got obliterated in WW2 and today that have one of the most enviable standards of living in the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Exactly. Economically, it's great that Cubans have good health care, education and food to eat. But why does it have to come at the expense of freedom? Is it really necessary to choose between eating, and being able to openly criticize the government?

---

You're kidding, right? Cubans openly criticise their government everyday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Put aside infant mortality rates. My hypothetical assumed that the infant mortality rate was conditioned upon a loss of those civil rights—I wasn’t making a literal cause and effect claim. I wasn’t asking you to literally accept that premise as true. My point was that if a system could only get infant mortality rates to such a low level by eliminating those civil rights, it would call into question whether or not the cost of getting those low infant mortality rates was worth it.

---

You have only hypothesised about low infant mortality rates having to come from an economic system being imposed on people and denying them their civil liberties, you have not made a case for that being so. Therefore, I reject that premise. Furthermore, if you look at Haiti and Central America, you'll see that capitalism is imposed on those countries by force.

As for Cuba's electoral system? Identifying problems and proposing solutions is one thing. Same goes for human rights. But we don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

And on the issue of prison-nations, no country incarcerates its own citizens in publicly-funded, and privately owned gulags than does the US of A.

If free market capitalism is so wonderful in America, then why do they have more of their citizens in prison than any other nation on earth ?.

---

In the U.S we put *convicted criminals* in prison where they belong. Otherwise you are free to come & go as you please. Care to explain WHY Castro WILL NOT LET the citizens of Cuba leave the Island ? What is he afraid of ? It's a pretty scathing indictment of a system when "doctors" in Cuba try to escape and if they are lucky, they work as busboys in the U.S.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Germany had to pay heavy reparations after WW1 and then got obliterated in WW2 and today that have one of the most enviable standards of living in the world.

---

In Germany's case, it was in America's best interest to help Germany rebuild under a capitalist model because America wanted to have influence in the region and didn't want the Germans to turn to communism. There's really nothing for the US to lose by allowing Haiti to fall into poverty.

quote:

---

I have no idea what the solution is in Haiti. it seesm to be a totally failed state on a par with Somalia. maybe they need to put the place under UN trusteeship until some form of civil society and institutions can be created and until all weapons can be confiscated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
And my question still stands: who on babble honestly believes that Cuba could receive recommendations from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch tomorrow, implement each one to the letter, and the US would stop going on about how undemocratic and totalitarian Cuba is?

---

*plonk*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

If Joe in the USA makes decision to commit a crime, he gets imprisoned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
If Am Int'l and Hum Rights Watch gave Cuba recommendations that were not watered down but were similar to the democractic institutions in Europe, Japan or Canada and if Cuba then implemented them, the legs would be knocked out from under any serious attempt to undermine the results of the exercise of those democratic powers by the Cuban people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

It's just that Joe "gets imprisoned" at about seven to ten times the rate as any other western nation. And then they're made to work for non-union slave wages for corporate America when they arrive in the gulags for what, petty drug posession charges for about 85% of them ?. And that makes "free market" USA the biggest prison in history.

---

I can agree with you that petty drug crimes should not be criminal. I'm not sure it would eliminate 85% of the prison population but it would significantly reduce it.

How about applying the acid test: If the laws of both Cuba and America were changed so that citizens of each country could freely move to the other country, what would be the direction of the flow of people? If the Cuban system was superior to the US system, I would expect most movement to be southernly. But, something tells me that the migration would have a distinct northernly directly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

So you're saying that Haiti's extreme poverty today is all because France made haiti pay reparations in the 19th century.

Germany had to pay heavy reparations after WW1 and then got obliterated in WW2 and today that have one of the most enviable standards of living in the world.

---

Haiti could be a healthy and prosperous country today despite the ignoble things done to them by the French, still there is a huge difference between an otherwise prosperous nation falling on hard times and finding itself paying reparations or being bombed to 'Kingdom come' and a nation whose population is made of former chattel slaves with little or no skills.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

These organisations do work around developing countries and at the same time they are very harsh on industrialised countries like Canada and the US. Amnesty and HRW don't ever water anything down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
How about applying the acid test: If the laws of both Cuba and America were changed so that citizens of each country could freely move to the other country, what would be the direction of the flow of people?

---

You'll never see that happen before an outbreak of democracy in the U.S., Sven. The prison industrial complex funded by taxpayer handouts and prison labour is too lucrative a subsidy for big business. You'd have to pry it from their "cold dead hands" down there.

Prison industrial complex is upside-down socialism for the rich in America. It serves both an obscene profiteering motive and a political one by undermining unions. That's an integral part of fascism.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

You'll never see that happen before an outbreak of democracy in the U.S., Sven. The prison industrial complex funded by taxpayer handouts and prison labour is too lucrative a subsidy for big business. You'd have to pry it from their "cold dead hands" down there. ha ha

---

The hypothetical is not "will the two countries change those laws?" but "if the two countries changed those laws, where would the flow of people be?"

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Prison conditions
Prisoners are generally kept in abusive conditions, often in overcrowded cells. Prisoners typically lose weight during incarceration, and some receive inadequate medical care. Some also endure physical and sexual abuse, typically by other inmates with the acquiescence of guards. In October 2004, human rights advocate Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia was reportedly stripped and beaten by police and prison officials in the Youth Prison of Santa Clara. The following month, dissident Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta was reportedly beaten to unconsciousness by prisoners who called him “traitor, worm, coward.” Other incarcerated dissidents report receiving death threats and being subjected to other forms of harassment.

---

quote:

---

Death penalty
Under Cuban law the death penalty is possible for a broad range of crimes. Because Cuba does not release information regarding its use of the penalty, it is difficult to ascertain the frequency with which it is employed. As far as is known, however, there have been no executions since April 2003.

Human Rights Defenders
Human rights monitoring is not recognized as a legitimate activity, but rather is stigmatized as a betrayal of Cuban sovereignty. No local human rights groups enjoy legal status. Instead, human rights defenders face systematic harassment, with the government placing heavy burdens on their ability to monitor human rights conditions. Nor are international human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch allowed to send fact-finding missions to Cuba. And Cuba remains one of the few countries in the world, and the only one in the Western Hemisphere, to deny the International Committee of the Red Cross access to its prisons.

---

I understand why many Cubans would choose to defect from that system. The people pay heavily for Castro's delusions of grandeur.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Ranngyn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
What do you mean by saying that those human rights organizations "work around" developing countries? If it means they are dumbing down democratic standards for places like Cuba, then Cuba's acceptance of those standards, depending on how diluted they were, may not give rise to a change of US policy. If, on the other hand, the standards were the same or similar to other free democracies, then I stand by my answer that the US policy would undoubtedly change.

---

I should have stated "working in such areas promoting human rights, democracy, etc." And no, these organisations don't "dumb down" democratic standards for developing countries, they call things as they are. And questions are being raised about how democratic "democratic" nations are.

US policy towards Cuba has more to do with opening the place up to allow corporate exploitation of Cuban resources at the expense of the Cuban population. The US just talks about freedom and democracy so that Americans will accept the agenda. And no, American attitudes towards Cuba won't change even if Castro were to adopt recommendations that Amnesty and HRW might make. The US would still come up with some sort of propaganda to justify wanting to go after Cuba. That's how the US justified the 1st Gulf War.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
And no, American attitudes towards Cuba won't change even if Castro were to adopt recommendations that Amnesty and HRW might make. The US would still come up with some sort of propaganda to justify wanting to go after Cuba.

---

quote:

---

And no, American attitudes towards Cuba won't change even if Castro were to adopt recommendations that Amnesty and HRW might make.

---

Who ever said that Castro should adopt the recommendations of AI and HRW just to please the Americans?

Maybe its just the right thing to do!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Like hundreds of millions of other third world refugees prospering under free market conditions, they'd probably prefer western Europe, Scandinavia or even Canada where social justice rules but immigration laws limit those possibilities.

---

If that is the result of opening Cuba, then wonderful. I'm all for it. As long as each Cuban individual can make that decision for her or himself.

quote:

---

You're kidding, right? Cubans openly criticise their government everyday.

---

I eagerly await the Cuban newspaper or underground press with the courage to say "down with Castro, down with Communism".

I think we both know they cannot go that far.

Whereas here in Canada, we can say "down with _____" and put anything we want in the blank. Doesn't mean anyone cares to read it or publish it, but we won't be hauled off in leg irons as an "enemy of the state" for saying it.

quote:

---

And my question still stands: who on babble honestly believes that Cuba could receive recommendations from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch tomorrow, implement each one to the letter, and the US would stop going on about how undemocratic and totalitarian Cuba is?

---

They might not stop (it's not like we control the U.S.) but at that point at least it would be laughable, instead of mostly correct.

This could all go away if the Cuba cheerleaders would just own up to one basic fact: most people do NOT prefer Communism to a Capitalist system such as Canada has (no, not Robber Baron Capitalism of the 19th century, but a mixed Socialist/Capitalist system), and so the only way to keep people in Communist countries is by effectively imprisoning them. Hence they must "defect" if they want escape, rather than just emigrating like anyone else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I'm sure Sven knows who Conrad is, but we'll play along: Conrad Black, former plutocrat and advocate of "free-marketism" (not for him, mind you). He and consort Babs Amiel were always ranting about how the left's call for greater social equality was a perversion rooted in "envy" - as if we'd want to live like them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
While you are correct that Europe and Canada have millions of immigrants (hence, "million...probably prefer western Europe"), the more accurate way of describing the comparison is that millions more immigrate to the USA. We have more immigrants than all other western countries combined.

---

And that's because watering-down the labour market with lowly skilled, lowly paid workers is entirely anti-union and pro-big business in nature. The only reason they allow cheap labour in the States is to drive down wages, not for any love of immigrants escaping abject poverty in third world capitalist nations. The oppressive foreign policies implemented in Latin America by Washington are colonialist and coercive in nature.

Salvadoran's would have freely chosen Marxist government had Washington not intervened by waging a war of ideology on them during the death squad years. To say that they prefer American capitalism to socialism is like saying a rape victim must not have been raped because no one came to her the person's aid or that they didn't report it to the police.

In fact, the hawks in the U.S. were so unconvinced that Latin American's would choose free market capitalism over socialism that they funded the killing in Latin America over two decades since CIA operation condor. The hawks knew that Marxist-built hospitals, schools and owning their own resources would appeal to the poor moreso than Nazi-esque propaganda about owning mansions, and two folkswagons in every driveway. The poor weren't buying that line of crap just like they aren't buying privatization of oil and water in Bolivia right now.

quote:

---

Because I don't think you believe it yourselves.

---

Depends what you mean by Capitalism.

Unfettered, unregulated, free-for-all style Capitalism, with robber barons selling us bottled air? Nope. I don't think there are many babblers eager for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And that's because watering-down the labour market with lowly skilled, lowly paid workers is entirely anti-union and pro-big business in nature. The only reason they allow cheap labour in the States is to drive down wages, not for any love of immigrants escaping abject poverty in third world capitalist nations. The oppressive foreign policies implemented in Latin America by Washington are colonialist and coercive in nature.

---

What the motives “they” (meaning US capitalists) have with regard to opening the borders is irrelevant. If the borders of both countries were opened, for whatever reason, would a significant number of Cubans freely elect to leave Cuba if they were given that opportunity? In other words, regardless of what “evil motives” the US business people may have, what do you think the Cubans themselves would decide if Castro let them?

All that matters is what the Cubans themselves, as free individuals, would decide to do if they had a choice.

Would you choose war and right-wing death squads to electing safe candidates in your banana republic. Stokholmer ?.

The choices in those countries haven't been entirely free ones, and that's a cruel reality for millions of poor Latino's who remember what has been described as a Latin American holocaust.

And all this fuss in L.A. is over the last several decades was over their desire to get rid of outdated Spanish colonial land laws being enforced by Washington and SOA graduates throughout Central and S. America. It seems that colonialism and banana republicanism go by the noblest descriptions still today - "free markets" and "liberal democracy." If they trust Latin American's with democracy, then why don't the Yanks pull thousands of CIA operatives and unofficial military presence out of Latin America and the Caribbean?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Cut the bullshit, you $35 or $40 thousand dollar a year capitalist wannabes. Because I don't think you believe it yourselves.

---

By the way, I not sure why you referred to me a “$35 or $40 thousand dollar a year capitalist wannabe”.

There exists a Cuban-American immigration accord, under which the United States agrees to process a minimum of 20,000 migrants a year, and Cuba pledges 'to discourage irregular and unsafe departures.' [The US has taken about 230,000 Cuban immigrants of all kinds since the 1994 agreement, but the bulk of these could be 'irregular.' Of 15,385 whose last residence was Cuba in fiscal year 2004, 11,740 were refugees or asylum seekers, while a much smaller number were family-sponsored or had relatives in the US. Figures here in xls format. Other figures show a total of 20,488 Cubans of all kinds admitted in fiscal '04, but this includes all those whose birth country is Cuba.)

skdadl raises the question of Coast Guard actions: they do indeed regularly 'repatriate' Haitian migrants who try to flee the island. There's a story here about 174 Haitian migrants being returned to Port au Prince after trying to sail away. This happened in September, 2004, but there is a longer history. A major Coast Guard action called 'Able Manner' responded to the large increase in fleeing Haitian migrants in the period before 1994.

(In fact, I have read the plausible claim that the 're-installation' of Aristide by the US had more to do with a wish to stem this flow of migrants fleeing terror than it did with any love of democracy.)

Finally, there are some statistics regarding interdictions from Cuba, Haiti, the DR, etc. here. Of 211,000 interdicted migrants since 1982, over half have been from Haiti; about one quarter have been from Cuba. The general US policy is to have the Coast Guard intercept and 'repatriate' these people before they get 'dry feet,' though there are exceptions in the case of Cubans migrants. The differences in treatment between Cuban and Haitian migrants are very likely, given the circumstances on the two islands, ideologically driven.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
There exists a Cuban-American immigration accord, under which the United States agrees to process up to 20,000 migrants a year, and Cuba pledges 'to discourage irregular and unsafe departures.'

---

Please re-read your own
source. It doesn’t say that we will only process “up to” 20,000 Cubans. It says we will process a “minimum of” 20,000 Cubans annually.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
The small number of Cuban defectors/refugess needs to be put in context against the huge number of refugees from first and third world free enterprise systems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Fidel, let me ask you a simple question: Do you or do you not favor letting the Cuban people, as individuals, decide whether or not they want to live in Cuba under Castro or elsewhere under another system?

---

Democracy is a charade throughout Latin America. The reason the Yanks are crazy-gone-wild over the whole thing in Cuba is because they can't field candidates friendly to big business and the rich in Cuba. Cuban democracy is untouchable as far election rigging and lobbying weak and corrupt puppets of big sugar, fruit and Coca Cola are concerned. And they want Castro out. Not you, not me, but them. This isn't really about what Cuban's want or desire as far as big business is concerned.

If Cuban's had wanted to get rid of the old man, they certainly would have done it by now, and Washington knows that. Otherwise, as Marlon Brando once said, the US military would have made a parking lot out of Havana by now with any evidence that Castro was one tenth the way to being the monster that some of the one's the Yanks have propped-up over the years.

When the US military industrial complex and multinational cohorts in crime cease forcing their agenda on the rest of the world and calling it democracy, then the people will no longer need strongmen like Fidel and Hugo.

Remember Che
Viva la revolucion!

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Fidel, let me ask you a simple question: Do you or do you not favor letting the Cuban people, as individuals, decide whether or not they want to live in Cuba under Castro or elsewhere under another system?

---

quote:

---

Yes, ever since pork and corn was exported to "the market" while six million starved to death in Ireland, so it is today. Anywhere from 4 000 000 to 13 000 000 children "vote with their feet" every year around the capitalist, free trading third world when they starve to death and die of curable diseases. It's a free market-induced holocaust every year. Capitalism is the kiss o death for millions every year.

---

quote:

---

And Hinterland finds me tedious?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If Cuban's had wanted to get rid of the old man, they certainly would have done it by now, and Washington knows that.

---

I don’t think that’s the case, but be that as it may. We can agree to disagree on what the Cubans could or could not have done in the past.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
I didn't say you were tedious, Magoo. That's a vile and slanderous/libelous (I can't never keep those things straight) accusation!

MODERATOR!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

And Hinterland finds me tedious?

---

Why does free market resemble cash crop colonialism around the capitalist third world ?.
The IMF and World Bank has essentially tried to create what never was in the richest nation on earth - free markets. They've basically said that these third world shitholes need an investment class, an invisible hand, so to speak. And so they set out creating the fictitious top-down economic structure of invisible hand economy with corrupt loans to hand-picked despots of the west. Incorrigible or not, the new investment class would kick-back money to the west and creating wealth should have been easy-peasy because the market would florish so easily and naturally. A win-win situation regardless of who posessed the wealth.

But that's not how the U.S. became as wealthy as they did since post-1929 New Deal America and WWII. Not nearly. It was a good dose of socialism that picked America off its knees and allowed them to transform it into Keynesian-militarism and calling it a free market success story. So why did ultra right-wing economic experiments fail as badly as they did in Chile and Argentina and all this after knowing that laissez-faire capitalism was so unpopular with the American people themselves after 1929?. Why did they think it could work anywhere else ?

So, why is liberal democracy and free market failing to do what it was supposed to do for those countries that were the target of western cold war affection?. And what about the rest of the capitalist third world where the red menace was never even a factor?. Why are 800 million people suffering chronic hunger as 80 percent of those nations export food to "the market" every day?. I hope that wasn't too tedious. I don't think it was.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
In this case its 20 out of 40 people in the chorus - that's 50%

---

These are professional singers. They were paid by the Cuban state to sing in the Coro Nacional. The defectors are talking about forming a "Freedom Chorus" in Canada. Maybe they haven't figured out yet that they won't be on the government payroll here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Fidel, let me ask you a simple question: Do you or do you not favor letting the Cuban people, as individuals, decide whether or not they want to live in Cuba under Castro or elsewhere under another system?

---

*Muzak version of Muskrat Love...one of the glorious products of capitalism...plays on*...

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ex-hippy:
So Fidel what is the answer to Svend's question already??

---

I think it might have tried to answer it
here

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
I least I knew who Conrad Black was.

...What is it with right-wingers and humour?

---

First of all, we are all humorless drones who simply refuse to be duped into enjoying the levity so often practiced by (dare I say it?)...progressives??

Eww!!

Humor, along with (non-pro-creative) sex, of course, are things to be avoided at all costs. But, more importantly, we want to stamp out humor among progressives so that they can follow the "righteous" path to true happiness: Being saved by our Lord, Jesus Key-Rist Himself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
{pause to let triumphalist right-wingers bask in the glory of their frequent pyrrhic victories}

*Muzak version of Muskrat Love...one of the glorious products of capitalism...plays on*...

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Oh, God, that's so funny, I laughed until I coughed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I think it might have tried to answer it
here

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I think it might have tried to answer it
here

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

Nope. Sorry. That didn't answer (my very simple) question (please see below).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If Cuban's had wanted to get rid of the old man, they certainly would have done it by now, and Washington knows that.

---

quote:

---

Subsequent Question From Sven:
I don’t think that’s the case, but be that as it may. We can agree to disagree on what the Cubans could or could not have done in the past.

But, going forward, would you advocate for expressly permitting Cuban individuals to remain in or leave Cuba as they may desire?

---

...and Sven...I'm waiting for my answer.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
For those of us playing along at home, what exactly is the "gotcha" moment you're going for, Sven?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
...and Sven...I'm waiting for my answer.

---

I'm not looking for a "gotcha" moment. What I'm looking for is similar to what you were looking for above...a direct answer to a simple question.

For some reason, Cubaphiles cannot answer that question. Why? I suspect it is because an honest answer would be an admission that they are supporting a regime that is, in fact, diametrically at odds to their sincere belief in seeking a society of equals that can exist without coercion of the people.

quote:

---

Why? I suspect it is because an honest answer would be an admission that they are supporting a regime that is, in fact, diametrically at odds to their sincere belief in seeking a society of equals that can exist without coercion of the people.

---

Don't bore me with obfuscation. You definitely are looking for a "gotcha" moment and you admitted as much in this quote. Most progressives who are interested in Cuba -- seriously, historically, from socialist-capitalist economic perspectives and who are very aware of American imperialism toward and economic interference with Cuba -- are interested in the ideas that surface from such discussions. Right wingers (and they're most often boys) are usually only interested in one thing...having everyone admit that the system they believe in is the best and that anyone who dares to defend Cuba is inconsistent and dishonest....thus winning the discussion.

This is transparently obvious and, frankly, it's tedious.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Right wingers (and they're most often boys) are usually only interested in one thing...having everyone admit that the system they believe in is the best and that anyone who dares to defend Cuba is inconsistent and dishonest....thus winning the discussion.

---

Uh huh.

quote:

---

If you write a piece supporting abortion rights, are you not trying to convince people that your system or viewpoint "is best" and that banning abortions is “wrong”? Or, do you write the argument without a care about whether others are convinced or not? If it's the latter, why engage in political dialogue at all?

---

See, I don't know what to do with that. People who argue for access to abortion are not trying to convince other people to have abortions. They're arguing what their rights should be or in fact, are. They're not talking about winning discussions, they're talking about the basic sovereignty over their own person, their human rights.

You can argue capitalism and socialism from those two perspectives (human rights), but trying to win the discussion is pointless.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
See, I don't know what to do with that. People who argue for access to abortion are not trying to convince other people to have abortions. They're arguing what their rights should be or in fact, are. They're not talking about winning discussions, they're talking about the basic sovereignty over their own person, their human rights.

---

Where did I say that a pro-choice person is "trying to convince other people to have abortions"? When I make pro-choice arguments, I am trying to convince the person that the pro-choice position is "the best" or "the right" position. And, of course I want to "win" that argument. If someone disagrees with the pro-choice point of view, why wouldn't you try to convince them of the rightness of your position? Of course you do.

By the way, this is one of your principled posts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Let me know how many more posts will be required before you actually admit you were wrong in thinking standard of living and consumption are coextensive.

---

Huh. Pot calling the kettle black, no?

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
They're not talking about winning discussions, they're talking about the basic sovereignty over their own person, their human rights.

---

And, if they don't "win" their argument, they lose that right.

What is the point of a policy debate but to convince others that your position has greater merit than theirs (i.e., "win").

Whether you're talking about the legislature, the courts or public opinion, if you engage in a policy debate, you are doing it to win (or, if you lose, you've learned something from the other person).

The Lincoln-Douglas debate was not about "winning" an election regarding states' rights, the Union and slavery.

An editorial advocating more funding for addressing homelessness is not about "winning" more support for that position.

Having a discussion with an anti-choice neighbor and trying to convince her than choice is the principled and morally justifiable position is not about "winning".

Arguing for Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court was not about "winning".

Trying to convince a Cubaphile that Castro rules his people with an iron fist and will not freely permit Cubans to leave the country should they elect to do so is all about "winning".

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Oh, fuck off. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about now.

---

To paraphrase you:

Oh, the "fuck off" comment is a great come back. What did I say...boys.

You must be a boy?

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Yes, ever since pork and corn was exported to "the market" while six million starved to death in Ireland, so it is today. Anywhere from 4 000 000 to 13 000 000 children "vote with their feet" every year around the capitalist, free trading third world when they starve to death and die of curable diseases. It's a free market-induced holocaust every year. Capitalism is the kiss o death for millions every year.

---

So what do you call the following:

The Russian revolution occurs in 1917 - in the 1924 a huge famine in the Volga region of Russia kills millions while the Communist elite in Moscow sips champagne and turns a blind eye because the famine occurred in a regions that had supprted the Whites in the Civil War.

In 1933-34, Stalin induces a famine in Ukraine that kills millions during years where there were bumper crops.

Duiring Mao Great Leap Forward (or was it backwards) and estimated 20 million Chinese starve to death.

Strange.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

-------------------------------
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Let me know how many more posts will be required before you actually admit you were wrong in thinking standard of living and consumption are coextensive.
-------------------------------
Huh. Pot calling the kettle black, no?

---

Um, Sven? That one was directed at me. I didn't take (much) offense then, and after many, many rounds of interacting with Hinterland over the past 2 years, I certainly don't hold it against him now.

quote:

---

The odd thing is that Hinterland started this whole "winning" sidebar in the first place. It wasn't my idea.

Strange.

---

Right. And you're talking about a million other things. So I don't what you're trying to do...I'm sorry, I just don't what you're talking about anymore.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Um, Sven? That one was directed at me. I didn't take (much) offense then, and after many, many rounds of interacting with Hinterland over the past 2 years, I certainly don't hold it against him now.

Find another example, will you?

---

The point is not whether you were "offended" or not. The point is that he used the same rhetorical device he was criticizing me for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I'm also glad for these chorus members that they have been able to emigrate fairly easily

---

Something bugged me about the Corporate Press again when I read the news today. First they exaggerate the number and make the claim that half the chorus defected - presumably as a slap in the face to Cuba - but then today I read it is 11 of the 41. Our media is way too sloppy in reporting anything, to be taken as a serious source of information. On the other hand, it does bug me that the Cuban media has made no mention of it at all. I understand that Cuba has to be vigilant, because the enemy is powerful. But it can go overboard like is happening in the US, where freedoms are curtailed because of 'terrorist threat'. The Cubans should not have to lose Socialism and allow Capitalism. But those who don't want Socialism should be allowed to leave, either after serving in their profession for a period of time in order to reimburse the country for the cost of educational input, or if they can get the financing, by paying Cuba for the cost of their education.

quote:

---

and with good prospects of acceptance, unlike many other Caribbeans or Central and South Americans, many of whom are much more desperate refugees but cannot make it to Canada through the U.S. any longer and would face a tougher time once arriving.

---

I know first hand how hard it is for Latin Americans to come to Canada even on a tourist visa and just for a visit, if they are young and single.

quote:

---

Everyone's guess is that a good number of these chorus members are really heading for the U.S., probably Florida, where they have family. Interesting community down there, long political traditions, some of them pretty nasty. Lots of connections to money and power, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:
But you cannot force people into a system they are not happy with, but what you can demand is that people who have taken advantage of the system and then want to leave for what they perceive to be greener pastures instead of supporting the society which has given them their security and their skills, reimburse 'the State' for the full cost of their education before leaving.

---

quote:

---

The point is that he used the same rhetorical device he was criticizing me for.

---

No, I had a legitimate disagreement on a specific point with Stephen Gordon. He used "standard living" as an economic measure, and I disagreed with him, and still do, if standard of living is not operationalised properly for what we're talking about (ie. gdp per capita, disposable income, happiness and health, what?). That discussion went on too long without Stephen conceding anything (I felt) so I got tired. That happens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
For some reason, Cubaphiles cannot answer that question. Why? I suspect it is because an honest answer would be an admission that they are supporting a regime that is, in fact, diametrically at odds to their sincere belief in seeking a society of equals that can exist without coercion of the people.

---

As someone you've labelled a "Cubaphile," no, I don't believe either in Cuba restricting emmigration, nor do I believe in such a thing for that matter.

Sven and Magoo continually yap away about how bad Cuba must be because of the human rights violations and look at all of those people who defect and look at how they like to sail over in boats risking their lives.

1 People emmigrate from Cuba. People also emmigrate from Canada. Does it logically follow that Canada's a bad place?

2 Those pictures you see on the TV are because the media wants to create a perception that Cuba's such a horrible place that people are risking their lives to leave yet they consistently ignore the big business of smuggling people into Western nations from all parts of the globe.

3 Magoo and Sven have also ignored Cuba both in its own context and in the context of Latin America. All of Latin America was once under the rule of colonial powers, and that rule was hard on the people there. Along comes Castro, fights his revolution, and promises to help his people. What happened as a result? Cuba now has the lowest infant mortality and among the highest literacy rate in Latin America, among other things, while life remains hard on the rest of Latin Americans, notwithstanding the many operations backed by powerful countries that resulted in untold death and poverty and despair. Sven and Magoo are well fed and never have to worry about where they're going to sleep, so it's easy for them to dismiss those advantages and talk about how Cubans are going about things the wrong way

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Or, if it's Fidel, maybe a fakey-stupid UFO thing or something.

---

I think you just slandered Fidel. I have never seen any such things written by him.

quote:

---

Guess what, guys. You don't have to "defect" from Haiti either. They'll let you leave if you want to.

---

There is legal emigration from Cuba also. But I read that if you're a doctor, for example, they won't just let you leave. You have to put in several years of service before you can leave. Education costs money, and though I certainly don't agree with everything how Cubas Government handles emigration - and it's none of my business, because I don't live there - I agree that people should not be able to "freeload" on the Cuban Education System, and then simply leave the country after their studies, to apply their skills somewhere else. Education is expensive. Pay the full cost or work it off, before you leave.

quote:

---

In fact, the only countries that I can think of off the top of my head that deny someone the right to emigrate are or were Communist countries. Coincidence? Hell no. Not at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
That's not my point. My point is that the government of Haiti would not attempt to prevent emigration, nor would the government of any country I can think of that's not a Communist country.[...]I'm pointing out that as awesome as Cuba's resident cheerleaders make it out to be, it's still acting like the Soviet Union and denying citizens the right to pick up and go if they're not happy. If you want to address something, address that. Fidel and RA apparently cannot.

---

Mr. Magoo, I would like to point out that Cubas Emigration Policy is not the problem at all. The reason why people have to resort to trying to get to the US by boat is because of US policy, not Cuban policy. The US has it made vitually impossible for a Cuban to receive even a tourist visa, and the 'rafters' are being used as political ammunition. The following are excerpts from http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/Cuba_alt/part3.htm, and shed a lot of light on the political games that are being played.

quote:

---

The US routinely denies tourist visas to parents whose grown sons or daughters have chosen to come to the US, giving only one parent permission to visit, while the other remains in Cuba. This is to discourage people from taking advantage of the US policy under the Cuban Adjustment Act, which legally entitles the couple to stay in the US. However, if someone steals a boat, hijacks one at gunpoint, or organises a $1000-a-head alien smuggling operation, then the US government receives them with open arms as a "political refugee" fleeing "communism". This is done despite US immigration law provisions which prohibit granting legal status to people who have committed crimes. Alien smuggling and entering the US without a visa are crimes, and people from every country except Cuba are automatically barred from obtaining legal status if they come into the US illegally, even if they are otherwise entitled to become residents.

Cuba's Emigration Policy

Cuba's policy on emigration has always been absolutely clear: the building of socialism is a task for free men and women. As a general rule, anyone who wishes to leave, whether it be for political, economic or family reasons, is free to do so, although minors need the permission of both parents, even if divorced, to do so.

There are exceptions where the Cuban government delays permission to emigrate for a period: active-duty military personnel, college graduates who have not completed a mandatory two-year period of national service, people who have had access to state secrets, and hard-to-replace medical specialists (until replacements can be found or trained). According to the US government, there were just over 100 such cases pending in the summer of 2000, a tiny number compared to the more than 100,000 Cubans who had legally emigrated to the US, every last one with Cuban government permission.

What's more, the revolutionary government has waged battle after battle to force Washington to accept through safe and legal means the migration it constantly encourages. If there are so many Cubans in Miami it is because President Fidel Castro has pushed and even trapped the US government into accepting them, and not at all because the US government has facilitated their arrival.

Since the first days of the Cuban Revolution, the US has used emigration as a weapon against it. Under the Eisenhower administration, the US opened its arms wide to Cuban capitalists, managers, technicians and professionals, confidently predicting that Cuba would quickly collapse.

After two years of this policy, the US tried a different tack. It broke diplomatic relations with Cuba and shut down all the consulates. It now became impossible to go to the US from Cuba, because only consulates could issue visas. The only other option was the "visa waiver", a document as prized (among some circles) and hard to obtain as the legendary Nazi "letters of transit" in the movie Casablanca.

Operation Peter Pan

One little-known reason for the explosion of outrage in Cuba against the kidnapping of Elián González is that he is not the first Cuban child the US government has separated from his family. In the early 1960s, through the kind offices of the Catholic Church in Cuba and the US, the CIA carried out "Operation Peter Pan", in which nearly 15,000 children were brought to the US without their parents and basically given to anyone who would have them.

By then, the US had developed the basic line of attack it has used ever since — systematically encouraging people to leave Cuba and systematically refusing them visas to do so. The Kennedy administration decided to vary this policy a little to hand out "visa waivers" for all children whose parents wanted to send them to the US, but not for the parents.

To encourage the parents to send their children, a handbill was printed up purporting to reprint a draft law that had been "removed from the office of the [Cuban] Prime Minister", titled "Law on the Nationalisation of Children". This fabricated "law" stated that once children were three parents were to hand them over to state-run child-care centres which would become the children's guardians.

Given the colonial mentality of Cuba's privileged layers, it seemed credible enough to them at the height of the Cold War. If the communists could do something as unthinkable as expropriating the all-powerful US corporations in Cuba, they could do anything. There were even rumours that the children would be ground into canned sausages and sent to the Soviet Union in exchange for Soviet oil!

The irony is that the charge the CIA fabricated against Cuba was, in fact, what the US was working towards: taking children away from their parents and making them wards of a quasi-governmental organisation, the CIA's Catholic Charities operation.

Many Peter Pan children were taken in by Cuban relatives or friends, others by well-meaning US couples. Others were warehoused in places that can only be described as concentration camps, the most notorious of which was Matacumbe in south Florida.

Freedom to emigrate

Operation Peter Pan was the beginning of the Cuban Revolution's struggle to force the US to facilitate the emigration of people from Cuba to the US.

In 1965 or so, "someone" in Miami announced they would take a boat to Cuba to pick up relatives whose children were in the US. The revolutionary government agreed and designated the port of Camarioca for the pick-ups.

That is how the Johnson administration was forced to negotiate with Cuba, and out of that negotiation came the so-called freedom flights, which lasted into the early 1970s. Two or three times a week, the US government chartered aeroplanes to Cuba to bring to Miami parents, and eventually other relatives, of Cubans already in the US.

It is worth thinking about what Castro did. By 1965, the revolution was fairly consolidated. The bandit bands in some rural areas and the urban CIA networks had been rolled up. The opponents of the revolution had been crushed and those who were disaffected were under the watchful eye of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution and an ever more efficient intelligence service.

Under those circumstances, and given the US attitude, the revolution could well have decided to force these tens of thousands of doctors, technicians, professionals, administrators and so on to stay and work for the revolution. Instead, Castro used all his political skill to outwit Johnson and force open the door to the US so that the families of all these people who hated the revolution could be reunited and could plot against it with impunity from Miami.

At a time when others were building Berlin Walls and barbed wire fences to prevent people from leaving, Cuba was fighting so that its dissidents could walk out the door. This is the policy Cuba has always followed.

In 1973, the US unilaterally suspended the flights and then, under the Carter administration, it lifted many of the prohibitions on trips to Cuba. Thousands of Cubans from Miami suddenly swarmed over the island with stories about how great life was in the US.

As the years went by, pressure from people who wanted to emigrate mounted and, although the two countries exchanged "interest sections" (low level diplomatic missions), the US issued only a couple of hundred visas a year, instead of the 20,000 allowed by law.

This led to incidents where people who were not dissidents or political activists, but mostly disaffected young men, would crash into embassies — literally, for example with a hijacked truck — and demand asylum. Cuba warned the Latin American missions that what they were doing by granting asylum was to encourage these attacks, but to no avail.

Finally, in a bus-ramming of the Peruvian embassy, a young Cuban guard was killed. The revolutionary government withdrew its protective cordon around the embassy and soon it was overrun with more than a thousand would-be émigrés.

The stand-off lasted for days. Peru begged the Cuban government to allow it to fly these people out and restore the guards around the embassy. The US government mounted a huge propaganda campaign against Cuba, which made it clear that it was Washington, not Lima, behind the provocation.

Hundreds of thousands of people in Cuba expressed their outrage at the CIA-sponsored embassy crashing by holding "Marches of the fighting people".

Then someone in Miami remembered the Camarioca boat-lift, and announced that they would take a boat and offer to pick up the embassy people. The Cuban government said: Fine, if that's why you're coming, we've got no objection to you picking up not just the people at the embassy, but anyone else who wants to go. The storm Washington had provoked inevitably wound up hitting its shores. The Mariel boat-lift began.

By the end, more than 100,000 people had left Cuba. The US put an end to the boat-lift by threatening confiscation of boats used in further operations, and went back to granting only a few hundred visas a year to people in Cuba.

'Rafters'

In the early 1990s, under the impact of the economic crisis caused by the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the pressure to emigrate from Cuba grew again. The new form this took was the hijacking of boats.

Cuba pleaded with the US government not to accept violent hijackers, or at least to punish them once ashore. Washington haughtily ignored the Cuban pleas, instead hailing every new arrival to create even more incidents.

Inevitably, a Cuban border patrol guard was killed and the revolutionary government reacted as it had in the case of the Peruvian embassy. The government announced that it would no longer try to prevent individuals from building rafts to get to the US, thereby setting off the "rafter" crisis.

This time, because the rafts were being built in Cuba by Cubans, there was no practical way for the US to put an end to the wave of emigration except by coming to an agreement with the Cuban government.

Cuba sought two essential goals in the negotiation. The first was to get the US to stop encouraging illegal emigration, to stop granting legal status to those who made it to Florida illegally. The second was to get the US to facilitate large-scale, legal emigration. Cuba largely succeeded on both counts. First, the US agreed to turn back all illegal immigrants caught at sea. (By and large, rafters did not count on making it to Florida, only to the limit of Cuba's territorial waters where a US Coast Guard cutter could pick them up, having been notified by relatives or friends in Miami of the projected date of the voyage).

The US agreed to issue the legal maximum number of visas, 20,000, every year, and even found a loophole to double that figure for the first couple of years, holding a lottery if not enough people with close relatives in the US applied.

That accord has come under increasing strain in the past year due to the emergence of organised smuggling and changes in US practices. The smugglers are often those involved in the drug trade. They typically charge several thousand dollars a head and use very fast speedboats. The goal now is to get the émigrés to dry land in Florida, because under a new US policy, those who make it to dry land can stay, but those caught in even a few inches of water on the beach are deported. This is commonly known as the "wet foot/dry foot" policy, the latest reinterpretation of the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act.

This new element led to highly publicised clashes on the high seas and near shore between the smugglers and the Coast Guard. After an incident in 1999, in which Coast Guard personnel capsized a boat, causing several people to drown within range of TV cameras, the Coast Guard seems to have largely abandoned its interdiction efforts.

At the same time, the US has cut back the issuing of residence visas from 40,000 to 20,000. Because those with close relatives in the US get preference, the number of visas now available to others is relatively small.

That's why the right-wing émigré groups in Miami seized on Elián's case and transformed the boy into a poster child for illegal immigration. That's the reason for the highly publicised birthday party, the trip to Disney World, the shower of gifts, including the heavy gold chain Elián is made to wear, an appropriate symbol of his enslavement.

Camarioca, Mariel and the rafter crisis which led to the current immigration accords represent major battles waged by the revolution to force the US to accept responsibility for the results of its policy of constantly encouraging emigration. Under the current accords, the US is committed to granting at least 20,000 visas for permanent residency a year, and to discouraging illegal immigration by sending those who try to cross by boat back to Cuba.

This is a distasteful issue for many people sympathetic to Cuba who do not know the facts. Given the constant barrage of imperialist propaganda, it is hard to explain to people that it is the Cuban government that has fought for the right of Cubans to emigrate and the US government that has stood in the way. Everyone has seen the pictures of the rafts, and a picture is worth a thousand words. It is our job to tell people that every one of those words is a lie.

As to why so many people would want to emigrate, the real wonder is that so many choose to stay. In addition to the fact that some people are disaffected with the revolution, there simply is no question that the US has a vastly higher standard of living.

Even without the powerful magnet of full legal status, there are millions of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, the Dominican Republic and other Latin American countries in the US. If the US were to treat other immigrants as it does Cubans, immediately giving them full legal status, the number of émigrés would be in the tens of millions overnight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:
What exactly has the U.S done to "keep Haiti down" - the U.S is Haiti's BIGGEST benefactor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Alan has it right about Cuba. The current outrage is that Fidel is not preparing a strong democracy to succeed him.

As soon as he is gone, there will be a serious threat of war -- not just civil war, either. The Americans and the Mafia want that country back, and they want it back in exactly the same corrupt condition it was when they were forced out. Of course most Cubans will resist. It is going to be very hard to stop a terrible conflict there.

And Canada's current whoring in Haiti is not giving anyone much confidence that we are going to be very helpful to the Cubans when the time comes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Germany had to pay heavy reparations after WW1 and then got obliterated in WW2 and today that have one of the most enviable standards of living in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eastcoast:
In the U.S we put *convicted criminals* in prison where they belong.

---

Why are there so many criminal minds in that capitalist paradise of yours? I recently read that 25% of all prisoners in the world are imprisoned in the US, which has only 5% of the worlds population. Again, I must ask: If your country is so great, then why are so many Americans imprisoned? Why does your country have the most prisoners in the world of any country, as well as such a disproportionate percentage of all of the worlds imprisoned?

quote:

---

Care to explain WHY Castro WILL NOT LET the citizens of Cuba leave the Island?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
How about applying the acid test: If the laws of both Cuba and America were changed so that citizens of each country could freely move to the other country, what would be the direction of the flow of people? If the Cuban system was superior to the US system, I would expect most movement to be southernly. But, something tells me that the migration would have a distinct northernly directly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
What do you mean by saying that those human rights organizations "work around" developing countries? If it means they are dumbing down democratic standards for places like Cuba, then Cuba's acceptance of those standards, depending on how diluted they were, may not give rise to a change of US policy. If, on the other hand, the standards were the same or similar to other free democracies, then I stand by my answer that the US policy would undoubtedly change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ranngyn:
The Cuban government systematically denies its citizens basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, movement, and a fair trial. A one-party state, Cuba restricts nearly all avenues of political dissent. Tactics for enforcing political conformity include police warnings, surveillance, short term-detentions, house arrests, travel restrictions, criminal prosecutions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I'm not sure I understand your reference to millions preferring Europe and Canada to the USA. While you are correct that Europe and Canada have millions of immigrants (hence, "million...probably prefer western Europe"), the more accurate way of describing the comparison is that millions more immigrate to the USA. We have more immigrants than all other western countries combined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
In case there is any doubt as to what that straightforward question is: “Fidel, do you advocate for expressly permitting Cuban individuals to remain in or leave Cuba as they may desire without restriction?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So are the vast majority of Cubans - being of Spanish descent doesn't qualify as being non-Caucasian.

People in Moldova are white too and its as poor as they come.

---

I thought I'd try to find an unbiased source (not the CIA Fact Book, on the one hand, nor the “Democratic Socialist Perspectives” website that Red Albertan so voluminously quoted from above, on the other hand). I figured that the UN would be a reasonably good site.

The UN Statistics Division reported a Cuban infant mortality rate of 10.047 and a US infant mortality rate of 8.548, a rate that is about 15% less than Cuba's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Its also common knowledge that if you go to Cuna you can't even talk to any Cubans apart from hotel staff. They will get followed by the secret police and interrogated and often tortured if they are seen talking to foreigners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

That's not true at all. It is 'discouraged', not forbidden, and certainly nobody gets tortured for it. This January my newly acquired knowledge of spanish will make it a lot easier to talk with ordinary Cubans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Am I looking in the wrong place for the data?

---

Data that is 15 years outdated!? 1990 is hardly relevant today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Why would it even be "discouraged"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
That must be old data. Checkout UNICEF's 2002 or newer data. It shows the point at which Cuba's IM rate was lower than the U.S. Bushanomics

---

Okay. UNICEF shows an infant (under five years of age) mortality rate of 8 for Cuba and a rate of 8 for the US, both for 2003.

It looks like both rates are pretty pathetic (Cuba's rate ranked 153rd in the world and the US ranked 157th in the world) (same links). I would say that it's relatively worse for the US given that it's a much wealthier country than Cuba.

But, it really isn't a huge advertisement for Cuba, either.

Other interesting stats:

Per cap GNP for US is $37,600 per year and is a mere $1,200 per year in Cuba (same links).

US maternal mortality rate is 8 and the Cuban rate is 34 (425% more than the US) (same links).

100% of US households use improved water sources but in Cuba it's only 91% (same links).

Number of Internet users per 100 people: 55 (US) and 1 (Cuba) (same links).

Life expectancy: Both countries at 77 years (same links).

UNICEF USA

UNICEF Cuba

Thanks, M.Spector. Link fixed.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Some would call it planned and enforced infanticide in the most expensive, most privatized health care system in the developed world.

---

"Planned and enforced infanticide"? Since the rate is essentially the same in Cuba, would you say the same thing there?

I've always seen two drastically different figures quoted for Cuba's per capita income (the lower one always being used to show how poor Cuba is), but for comparison, I think only the PPP-adjusted one is valid.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

That's not true at all. It is 'discouraged', not forbidden, and certainly nobody gets tortured for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
...frankly, I don't think GNP per capita, all by itself, is all that useful in talking about standards of living...

---

You need a new refrigerator. You would have two choices: Buy some piece of crap build by a government-owned factory (think YUGO) or spend about two months of your year’s income (using your figure and assuming a cheapo $500 fridge).

You want to buy a cheap $5 paperback book? That’s about two days’ wages.

You want to be one of the one-out-of-a-hundred Cubans with Internet access so you want to buy a low-end $1,000 ‘puter. That’s about four months’ wages.

You want to buy your spouse a special tenth anniversary gift for fifty bucks. That’ll take you a week to earn that money.

You want an air conditioner to cool your aging parents that live with you. If it’s even available, it’s probably a couple of hundred bucks. So, there goes another month’s wages.

So, to buy a cheapo fridge, computer and air conditioner, a small anniversary gift for your spouse and a five dollar paperback book, you’ve already spend 60% of your annual income (or if you use the UNICEF figure, you’ve spent more than your annual income!!).

So, yeah, a per cap GNP number doesn’t tell the whole story but, in this case, it paints a very dreary picture.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

P.S. But, they do have a pretty good infant mortality rate compared to the USA.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

Let’s say Cuba invests about $500 per year per person on its fabulous healthcare system (which is but a tiny fraction of what the USA spends, per person, on healthcare, so the $500 figure may be very low). The Cuba government would have to tax the Cuban people for about two months of their per cap GNP to fund that!! That, of course, would correspondingly reduce their individual income by $500 per year and make the micro number above even worse.

But, you are correct that GNP doesn’t tell the whole story. Might we not also want to take into account “intangibles” that affect a peoples’ living standard, such as, oh, the right to leave the country any time they want to?

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]

P.S.

I’ll take the “evil” capitalist system of America (or even of Canada, for that matter) over a command economy system any day.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]