Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[eppie]

"Second: I find Cuba a pretty good example."

Two Czech Models detained for photographing Havana slums.-- More...

"She pointed out that it is almost impossible to provide any assistance through official means because the Communist authorities refuse to admit anything in their country does not work."

No news is good news.

well, if two czech models would go to slums in any other country in the world to take pictures they would probably be raped and killed, before someone had time to put them in jail.

(this is what I mean with compare them to other countries.....it is easy to point out some ridiculous facts that happened there but only fair to see what is happening in other countries)

[kandrathe]

well, if two czech models would go to slums in any other country in the world to take pictures they would probably be raped and killed, before someone had time to put them in jail.

From reading about her organization, I think she does go all around the world to try to help disadvantaged children (sick, maimed, orphans). Only in Cuba, did she find that the government wants to get in her way.

[Jester]

Second: I find Cuba a pretty good example. Despite a boycott from most part of the world, they are doing a lot better than the surrounding island states.

Cuba in regional context

Cuba's about as poor, and about as rich, as its neighbors. Haiti is much poorer, the small colonial islands are much richer. But Cuba does not stand out for being particularly well-off. Life expectancy is very good, but no better than in Puerto Rico.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Jester! Missed you dude!

Nice chart. Haiti suffered from political turmoil (US Ocupation 34-56, Duvalier 57-86, Aristeide 90-96 )for so so long, then natural disasters. I had heard that during one particularly bad period, they nearly deforested their side of the island.

[eppie]

Second: I find Cuba a pretty good example. Despite a boycott from most part of the world, they are doing a lot better than the surrounding island states.

Cuba in regional context

Cuba's about as poor, and about as rich, as its neighbors. Haiti is much poorer, the small colonial islands are much richer. But Cuba does not stand out for being particularly well-off. Life expectancy is very good, but no better than in Puerto Rico.

-Jester

Indeed, and they don't profit from American support. So pretty good as I said.

[Jester]

Indeed, and they don't profit from American support. So pretty good as I said.

Except that wasn't quite what you said.

I find Cuba a pretty good example. Despite a boycott from most part of the world, they are doing a lot better than the surrounding island states.

It's one thing to argue that Cuba is (relatively) poor because US policy makes them so. It's another to argue that they're doing (relatively) well. But you can't have it both ways. Cuba is not "doing a lot better" than the surrounding islands. Except for the godforsaken case of Haiti, it's not. We can debate why that is true, but not whether it is.

-Jester

[eppie]

Indeed, and they don't profit from American support. So pretty good as I said.

Except that wasn't quite what you said.

I find Cuba a pretty good example. Despite a boycott from most part of the world, they are doing a lot better than the surrounding island states.

It's one thing to argue that Cuba is (relatively) poor because US policy makes them so. It's another to argue that they're doing (relatively) well. But you can't have it both ways. Cuba is not "doing a lot better" than the surrounding islands. Except for the godforsaken case of Haiti, it's not. We can debate why that is true, but not whether it is.

-Jester

Fair enough if you want to use GDP as a means to compare. Also knowing that you are talking about a semi-communist state here.
What about (and I Wikipedia'd this) a lower infant mortality number than the USA, or the third highest life expectancy of the America's.


I know you can get more brands of cola when you visit the Bahama's or that it is easier to store your money on the Cayman's.

[Jester]

Fair enough if you want to use GDP as a means to compare. Also knowing that you are talking about a semi-communist state here.
What about (and I Wikipedia'd this) a lower infant mortality number than the USA, or the third highest life expectancy of the America's.

The medical accomplishments of the Cuban state are real and impressive. Castro prioritized doctors and teachers, and it shows, to the point where doctors are basically a Cuban export commodity. But surely a society is comprised of more than reducing infant mortality down those last few points? It's a worthy goal, but it's not the only goal.

The US' manifest failures in heath care are the topic of another thread, but needless to say, the systems in place in almost any other developed country seem better.

I know you can get more brands of cola when you visit the Bahama's or that it is easier to store your money on the Cayman's.

Snark aside, surely you can compose a rather longer list of things that I am perfectly able to do in most developed countries, or even in Jamaica or the Dominican Republic, that are either difficult or impossible in Cuba? It's not just that you can't get different *brands* of cola. Often enough, it's that you can't get *any* cola, or even basic food items. Or electricity. Or gasoline. Unless, of course, you know the right people. Or have family in Miami sending you money. Or work in the shiny, tourism-driven side of the economy that trades in convertible pesos.

Again, none of this is to deny the accomplishments of Cuba, some of which are impressive, especially given the deprivation of the "special period". And Latin America on the whole has done badly, which raises questions about the appropriate counterfactual. Nonetheless, there are serious problems with the Cuban economy, and they have fallen from being much richer than their neighbours (and still more literate, and longer-lived, that has always been true, even before Castro) to being relatively poor.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What about (and I Wikipedia'd this) a lower infant mortality number than the USA, or the third highest life expectancy of the America's.

Correlation <> causality.

I've argued before that US infant mortality is tied to factors where the US also leads, such as drug use, and lower age of pregnancies. So, on the further end of the freedom scale, we suffer in the US from an unhealthy excess of liberty. And, try to get a teen to do anything. Really. “Teenage mothers in the U.S. tend to be poorer, less educated, and receive less prenatal care than older mothers. Because of these challenges, babies born to teen mothers are more likely to be low-birthweight and be born prematurely and to die in their first month. They are also more likely to suffer chronic medical conditions, do poorly in school, and give birth during their teen years (continuing the cycle of teen pregnancy),” Report

Second, some of their health strategies for infectious disease would not be acceptable within non-dictatorships. A lengthy stay at the sanitorium is still required, but since 1994, the rules on life long imprisonment of infectious disease carriers have been eased. Cuba also has compulsory treatment -- where the patient really has little control over their own treatment.

Third, there is evidence that "honesty" is not the party line policy in Cuban death certificates when it makes the state look bad for untreated disease. Doctors are sometimes coerced by the government to report falsely.

Fourth, the US is not monolithic. We are a collection of regional differences, punctuated by variations in State governmental law. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db120.htm

Lastly, social equality and equal access to healthcare is what the socialist revolution brought to Cuba. In that regard, it was a success compared to other nations in the area.

I know you can get more brands of cola when you visit the Bahama's or that it is easier to store your money on the Cayman's.

It is not quite as trite. Less opportunity also has a darker side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

[FireIceTalon]

Except the U.S. doesn't exactly have a stellar record for human rights either. After all, this was a country that was founded and built upon SLAVERY, the slaughtering, exploitation, and dehumanizing of millions of indigenous peoples (but of course, these inconvenient facts are left out of our children's history textbooks, surprise surprise). Not to mention the sponsoring of dictators in other nations to strengthen western colonial rule and the expansion of international markets (who we then turn against when they decide they don't want anymore to do with us), the mass killing of innocent civilians in all the wars to propagate our cultural, military, and political hegemony, an extremely chauvinistic and racist history of oppressing women and minorities and the working class (which still goes on today) within our own borders, and the highest prison population in recorded history (and throw in guantanamo bay for good measure). All wrapped in a pretty package with labels like "democracy", "freedom", and the complete myth that is called "the American Dream" by the lords of private capital in D.C. I just get tired of brainwashed idiots saying we are the epicenter for democracy and human rights in the world. We are from it.

I hate patriotism/nationalism of any kind, but I guess I hate the American variety the most since its where I live, and see firsthand everyday. If I lived in GB, I guess I would hate British nationalism the most. As a famous Irish poet once said, "Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious".

[kandrathe]

I just get tired of brainwashed idiots saying we are the epicenter for democracy and human rights in the world.

Were you thinking of any particular "brainwashed idiot"?

[FireIceTalon]

No. I was referring to the average, everyday American that I see engaging in political discourse that thinks America is this little shining city on the hill that can do no wrong, and that the "big bad commies" (or whoever makes the best scapegoat of the day, right now Islamphobia is the current fad) are the evil of the world. According to them, someone like me wants to take away all their rights and control them (which is of course nonsense). Why, did you think I was referencing you (or someone else here on LL)? That isn't my style man. If I want to call someone out specifically, I do so. But I don't think you are an idiot (and in fact I think you generally mean well, which is more than I can say for most libertarians that I've encountered), I just strongly disagree with your views of human nature, and as a natural result, your politics and views of the world also. I think the term "idiot" is more appropriately reserved for guys like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, and a majority of their followers. At least with you, I can have a semi-civil discussion on capitalism vs. socialism. With a Glenn Beck fanboy, I would immediately be dismissed as a blood-thirsty dictator and murderer the moment I mentioned myself as a Marxist (which would be at the beginning of almost any political conversation, since I am very honest and upfront about my political stance - I don't try to hide or make any agenda subtle), and being able to have any meaningful discussion would be impossible and therefore I would just leave, since there would be absolutely no way I could communicate my perspective to them. Not without being demonized or seen as an abomination from the get-go. It was mostly these types I had in mind when I typed my previous post.

[LavCat]

Second, some of their health strategies for infectious disease would not be acceptable within non-dictatorships. A lengthy stay at the sanitorium is still required, but since 1994, the rules on life long imprisonment of infectious disease carriers have been eased.

This is different from much of the rest of the world how?

Notifiable disease

Mary Mallon

During the scourge of the White Death, according to Wikipedia, in Britain "the infected poor were "encouraged" to enter sanatoria that resembled prisons".

And as I've mentioned previously, in our local community we have a facility (now being renovated as a park), where epileptics and other defectives were involuntarily incarcerated and sterilized. Though the site is closed now, there were still inmates when I served on a grand jury once upon a time.

I suspect most folks on the lounge would not be in favor of incarcerating epileptics (sorry if I am jumping to conclusions) but what of people like Mary Mallon?

[FireIceTalon]

I would be strongly against incarceration of epileptics, and in fact I would downright abhor it. Treating those are are ill or disabled as criminals is pretty dehumanizing and just ethically bankrupt, is it not? We see this commonly as it is with the elderly. As far as someone like Mallon, I agree that in such an extreme circumstance that people should be isolated from the wider society, but isolated and incarcerated are two different things. They should still be treated as human beings, and their isolation should be carried out in the most humane and dignified way possible, so that they can still live without feeling ashamed of themselves or being viewed as burden or abomination to society, both by themselves and from others.

[kandrathe]

... but what of people like Mary Mallon?

We have many asymptomatic carriers of transmittable diseases now.

Also, I'm afraid these types of facilities are often abused. I'm pretty sure a maternal great grandmother of mine was committed to a tuberculosis sanitarium by her children after her husband died, just because she was difficult to live with. I know of other cases here in the eugenics homeland where parents have sterilized their daughters with very slim medical cause.

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/minnes...Holocaust/

[eppie]

Again, none of this is to deny the accomplishments of Cuba, some of which are impressive, especially given the deprivation of the "special period". And Latin America on the whole has done badly, which raises questions about the appropriate counterfactual. Nonetheless, there are serious problems with the Cuban economy, and they have fallen from being much richer than their neighbours (and still more literate, and longer-lived, that has always been true, even before Castro) to being relatively poor.

-Jester

Yes indeed, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union they were left even more isolated.
And here we are directly at a point i have made many times.....and isolated communist state, especially when it is a small country, will of course always have difficulties......not because of it being communist, but because of the countries surrounding it have attraction to citizen who just like all of us would rather be rich and decadent.
This sadly 'requires' to take away freedom, because otherwise your country would collapse.
But besides that I have always been impressed with the way they handled things. And it is clear that Castro should never been compared to e.g. the Kims in North Korea. And of course in these states there is always a ruling class (unlike real power of the people) but I have the idea that especially compared to that class in other countries (communist AND capitalist) in Cuba they are not scandalously enriching themselves.


So yes OF COURSE Cuba will never top GDP rankings when they have problems trading with other countries. But again their life expectancy is just impressive........especially if you think about how much we westerners pay as a society to for example keep terminal patients alive for an extra month or so. (indicating that for us a long life is one of the most important things.....more important than GDP at least).

---

What about (and I Wikipedia'd this) a lower infant mortality number than the USA, or the third highest life expectancy of the America's.

Correlation <> causality.

I've argued before that US infant mortality is tied to factors where the US also leads, such as drug use, and lower age of pregnancies. So, on the further end of the freedom scale, we suffer in the US from an unhealthy excess of liberty.

Of course but nobody needs a sum-up of all things bad in a typical dictatorship.
But honestly if you would really compare it to a country in which your birthplace and color of skin are directly correlated to your life expectancy, the chance you will become a teen mom, the chance you will get certain diseases etc.


The whole point is here that I think it is unfair to use Cuba as example of failed communism.

[FireIceTalon]

Although Castro is a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, most communists did/do not consider the Cuban Revolution to be a "socialist" or proletarian revolution. If anything, in some ways it could be viewed as reactionary since it was much more of a national-liberation movement than it was a proletarian revolution (The 1917 Russian Revolution and the Paris Commune of 1871 were actual proletarian movements, the Egyptian Revolution a couple years ago was a national-liberation movement). The working class in Cuba was a very small minority during the time, much in the same way it was during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 - although Lenin and the Bolsheviks clearly intended for it to be a genuine workers revolution that would spread throughout Europe (the SPD's vote for WW1, which contributed to the failure of the German Revolution led to the isolation of the Bolsheviks, coupled with 'white' bourgeois invasion, resulting in a civil war, pretty much killed any chance for the revolution to become successful and forcing Lenin to employ the NEP). Although many Marxists will disagree with me, I think capitalism is a necessary pre-requisite, to some extent, for socialism. It is pretty difficult to build socialism straight from a feudal-like society, especially in the face of capitalist imperialist threats. But if revolutions take place in the developed nations first, assuming they are successful, it could then be possible for them to assist 3rd world nations in going from feudal or early-capitalism to develop socialism.

From a Marxist view point, any sort of movement that seeks to preserve a particular culture, set of values or tradition, or nationalism is viewed as reactionary, not revolutionary (at least not in Marxist sense). This is why I (and most communists) have rather mixed feelings about the Cuban Revolution. I respect the fact Castro wanted free the Cuban people from the US backed dictator Batista, and in that sense he has my full support in defending them from the largest and most powerful imperial threat on the planet, but he also did it to preserve Cuba's culture from being westernized, more than he intended it to be a genuine proletarian movement. Socialists (especially Leninists) must own up to that, instead of blindly defending him, just as it doesn't make sense to blindly demonize him also. I don't make it a point to support national liberation movements, since they are in the big picture contrary to the aims of communists, yet any movement that improves the lives of a substantial amount of people (and lets be real, Cubans are MUCH better off under Castro than they were under a US sponsored dictator that was there to leech the countries resources so us spoiled brats in the first world retain our higher standard of living, while the Cuban literacy rate floundered at a dismal 60%, with mass poverty everywhere) deserves support in some way. It would be rather dogmatic of me to dismiss it just because it doesn't align with our ultimate goals.

At any rate, Cuba isn't and never was communist, since as I've explained many times before that communism/socialism in one country is impossible (unless your a Stalinist of course, and anyone who is actually for socialism and all that it merits should distance themselves as far from Stalinism as possible). Communism is international, democratic, and classless/stateless, so as long as there is a state, that means classes exist, and therefore communism does not exist.....and it cannot do so until capitalism is fully defeated. And even once capitalism is defeated, we cannot just go straight into communism (only Anarchists think this is possible, and it's not) - it must be built first and it will require first a successful 'dictatorship of the proletariat' since reactionary/counter-revolutionary forces are still likely to exist. I look at places like Cuba and the former USSR as being 'social democratic states with bayonets". Thats really the best way to describe them, although Castro's politics are substantially more democratic (and far less lethal) than Stalin's ever were. In either case, neither of them resemble socialism/communism in the least bit - they were/are no closer to being socialist than either Sweden or the US. Free healthcare and education provided by a state or guaranteed employment do NOT constitute socialism, and yet so many people have this weird misconception that if the government is wiping your ass in some way, it must be socialist

[Jester]

Yes indeed, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union they were left even more isolated.

Mostly, they lost their source of free money. The Soviets were bankrolling massive Cuban deficits, year after year.

And here we are directly at a point i have made many times.....and isolated communist state, especially when it is a small country, will of course always have difficulties......not because of it being communist, but because of the countries surrounding it have attraction to citizen who just like all of us would rather be rich and decadent.
This sadly 'requires' to take away freedom, because otherwise your country would collapse.

I read this over and over again, and it still seems horrifying. What does it mean, to be "required" to take away freedoms, because Cubans, like everyone else, want to be "rich and decadent"? Is the argument that the Cuban system would be great, if only Cubans were different from everyone else, and preferred austere poverty in the name of socialism? I seem to remember Che trying that argument. It seems inhuman.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The whole point is here that I think it is unfair to use Cuba as example of failed communism.

I'm not sure what Cuba would be if it allowed more freedom, but removing pretty basic freedoms was required in order to get the results the Party elite wanted.

But honestly if you would really compare it to a country in which your birthplace and color of skin are directly correlated to your life expectancy, the chance you will become a teen mom, the chance you will get certain diseases etc.

By country, you mean trying to compare a place like The Netherlands, or Sweden to a country like the USA?

Preposterous. We could compare The Netherlands to a State like Minnesota. About 75% of Minnesotans are ethnically Northern European, which in also now true of the Netherlands. Our infant mortality rate is between 3.5 and 4.5/1000, which is similar to yours. Our life expectancy at birth is about 80.5, and yours is about the same. You have about 10-11% living below the poverty line, we have about the same.

Where you see the most consistent hardship from poverty is in places like Alabama, or Mississippi -- where there is less opportunity for economic mobility. Where you see the largest income gaps are in places like Chicago, New York, LA, and the DC metro. The key population centers of commerce have the largest incomes, and also some of the poorest poor. But, this is not different from comparing the demographics of Amsterdam to that of the whole Netherlands.

Living in Alabama is more like living in Enschede, only far less chic. The death of the textile industry devastated both of them. Although, Alabama's problems are more from historic institutionalized discrimination, dearth of capital and a lack of investment socially, or economically. They languish from poor education, lack of employment, and poor social services. Some States, like Georgia, or Arkansas would be described as a low tax, low service. Alabama would be more like no tax, no service. And, what taxation they do have is mostly regressive.

The bottom line is that using Cuba as representative of communist systems, is as unfair as generalizing the US. People in my state have no influence over what happens elsewhere in the US, and mostly the Federal government has little either other than what they give away. So, when you look at national statistics for the US, know that you are lumping together a bunch of stuff. Can we hold Egyptians accountable for the poverty of Africa? Our advantage in the US is that we do have a Federation of self-interested States.

[Hammerskjold]

I read this over and over again, and it still seems horrifying. What does it mean, to be "required" to take away freedoms, because Cubans, like everyone else, want to be "rich and decadent"?

Oh you, don't be so coy now.




I think anyone with access to a library card, or at least the wits to ask where the 'History' section of the building with lotsa books -but isn't- a 'Chapters\Indigo'. Would know the spoiler to that final ending.

(Hint for those who wants to skip to the ending: it involves lots and lots of rouges being spilled. Usually involuntary. Also, a true believer gets into an 'ax-ident' involving an ice axe.

/shrug. Oh well, it must be for the greater good. Praise be to Marx.)

Is the argument that the Cuban system would be great, if only Cubans were different from everyone else, and preferred austere poverty in the name of socialism? I seem to remember Che trying that argument. It seems inhuman.

-Jester

Yeah, but having a myriad of choices in Colas is a triumph of achievement that only commie-ism can produce. I think spilling a little red now and then is an acceptable sacrifice for that (Royal Crown)ing achievement.



Nah I'm just kidding. I was going to rib kandrathe for using ATS for an example link, but I got clobbered with the colas remark.

Come on eppie. Colas? Really? Unless it's a language barrier between us, I still can not find fault for the original point that shoju made re: commie-ism on paper, and how it works in real life so far.

(Though I think another point he raised, was how someone can be hard selling\Jehovah Witnessing commie-ism and socialism, but they can barely behave socially in a community themselves.

Maybe their brilliant understanding of 'commies' comprises of 'comm -ME-, because it's all about comm -ME- ism. That's what commie-ism is about see, because I am in a poli-sci college course, and oh so edgy and rad.)

Anyhow eppie, you said that you didn't claim commie-ism is perfect, just refuting shoju's point. But just saying you're refuting it, is not the same as doing it.

So far I'm still kinda dazed with 'look at Cuba, and look at the many choices of Colas.' I can't say I'm exactly buying the point you're offering\refuting so far on the subject.

I don't doubt your ability to come up with a valid yet counterpoint argument. But Cuba Cola isn't one of them IMO.