| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Barry Schier" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2005 03:34:13 PM |
| Object: |
Re: U.S. sees democracy coming in post-Castro Cuba |
One of the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution was a literacy drive
which brought about a decline in illiteracy from 20%-40% to about 2%-4%
today. In the United States, by contrast, although the nominal current
illiteracy rate is almost same as that of Cuba, education authorities
estimate the current U.S. functional illiteracy rate to be about 20%,
with a chasm in performance between the rich whites in Beverly Hills
and poor African-Americans in Bedford Stuyvesant.
Thus, KRP responds to my message which states, "For apologists for U.S.
policy ... the 'best interests'of Cuba are a return to pre-1959"
conditions
by yelling that current conditions are "WORSE ... FAR WORSE [emphasis
in original] than pre-1959 conditions. Is that not an explicit
statement that for him, the pre-1959 days (1958) are must better than
current conditions?
As for whether "... fair elections and democracy are a BAD thing ...,"
when so-called elections are held with a choice of two or more
candidates and/or parties who have no fundamental differences about
what the fundamental conditions of a country should be, and there are
only representatives of the elite who are fighting among themselves who
should be in charge of the government (and the corruption, bribes,
etc.), those elections are NEITHER "fair elections" NOR "democracy."
Even if there ever were (hypothetically speaking) to be an election
where who gets which governmental post(s) is decided in a "fair"
electoral manner, without fraud, without threatened recriminations,
without campaigns where each candidate promises the OPPOSITE of he/she
intends to do, and with near-equal access to the ear and eye of the
public by each candidate (instead of the current system of
multi-million-dollar campaign advertising which guarantees that those
without mega-assets or who don't serve the interests of those with
mega-assets don't stand a chance), under bourgeois democracy, workers,
farmers and peasants still face a dictatorship of the boss(es) over
their workplaces. THAT is what overturning of capitalist governent to
establish a workers' and farmers' government does -- and why apologists
for U.S. policy from Little Havana to Belgium hate the Cuban Revolution
with such vigor and venom.
-- Barry Schier
krp ~ =
wrote:
"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129826655.987462.88820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
For apologists for US. policy from Little Havana to Belgium, the "best
interests" of Cuba are a return to pre-1959 dates.
Who has said that? Some folks (myself included) have suggested that as
bad as it WAS in 1958 - it is WORSE today! FAR WORSE.
Sure, PL breaks with the gusanos -- ruining the near-consensus -- by
denouncing
Fulgencio Batista's 1952 coup and the dictatorship which follows.
However, Batista himself and a series of near-clones had been running
"a representative government elected in free and fair elections:
This means fair elections and democracy are a BAD thing?
democracy..." in Cuba for decades which was nothing more than a U.S.
neo-colony. The change in 1952 was the addition of so-called "one man
rule" and a harsh repression -- the poverty, class divisions,
illiteracy, exploitation, etc. pre-dated Batista's coup. And, whether
the U.S. government gave lip service to "denouncing" the lack of
democracy or not, the materials and means -- if not also the plans --
for carrying out the repression were Made in USA. In 1959, that U.S.
puppet was kicked out. For PL (and Genocide Watch) the trials and
execution of several thousand of the regime's most brutal henchmen are
viewed at as "political genocide", but for the Cubans, it was
revolutionary justice and the end to impunity of the authorities for
their abuses of working people, peasants, etc.
But those conditions are WORSE today.
"I demand an end to all human rights abuses," in Cuba states PL, while
having nary a discouraging word about the only place where torture and
other human rights abuses occur in Cuba: the military base at Guatanamo
on land which the U.S. government robbed from Cuba over a century ago.
Note well that PL and Genocide Watch have deviously shifted the decimal
point in the death toll: The Cuban leadership has never made a secret
about any execution: the trials and executions (including that of Gen.
Ochoa and a few dozen other officers -- some of whom were acquitted
and others just jailed -- in the late 1980s as well as the more recent
trial and death sentence for 3 hijackers) were both televised and on
the front pages of the Cuban newspapers during their duration. Within
the last 4 decades in Cuba, whether for what PL would consider for
"civilian" (i.e., rare rapes/murders and the like) or would consider
for "political" reasons, there have been very few death sentences meted
out.
r the number of people executed for any reason (including non-political
crimes, such as rape-murder) is about 7,500, NOT 75,000, with
executions being used in only a few exceptional cases after the 1960's,
ALL of which were well-publicized.
The Cuban people -- and NOT Washington or Belgian businessmen -- have
the right to run their country. And memberships in popular
organizations measured in the humdreds of thousands (i.e., the CTC
trade union federation and FMC women's federation) and in the voluntary
national self-defense organization / militias exceeding 1 million
people (i.e., the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution) and
mass mobilizations that have sometimes had 7-figure attendence -- in a
country of about 11 million people -- show the Cuban working peoples'
determination to do just that. (Since the Communist Party and Union of
Communist Youth are not non-governmental mass organizations, I have
deliberately not included those organizations in the preceding sentence
despite their giant membership rolls.)
-- Barry Schier
.
|
|
| User: "PL" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. sees democracy coming in post-Castro Cuba |
24 Oct 2005 01:52:43 AM |
|
|
"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129926853.460553.112580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One of the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution was a literacy drive
which brought about a decline in illiteracy from 20%-40% (snip)
but then before Castro there was no hunger in Cuba (as he has admitted
himself).
Cuba, the "Pearl of the Antilles," though by no means a paradise, was
not, as many believe, an economically backward country. Castro himself
admitted that while there was poverty, there was no economic crisis
and no hunger in Cuba before the Revolution. (See Maurice Halperin:
The Rise and Fall of Fidel Castro, University of California, 1972,
pgs. 24, 25, 37)
Also quoted at:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter7.html
Armando Hart, a member of Castro's innermost ruling group, made the
extremely significant observation that:
.. . . it is certain that capitalism had attained high levels of
organization, efficiency and production that declined after the
Revolution. . . (Juventud Rebelde, November 2, 1969; quoted by Rene
Dumont, Is Cuba Socialist?,
Paul A. Baran, an ardent pro-Castroite in the equally ardent Monthly
Review pamphlet, Reflections on the Cuban Revolution (1961)
substantiates what every economist, as well as amateurs like Castro,
has been saying:
....the Cuban Revolution was born with a silver spoon in its mouth. .
..the world renowned French agronomist, Rene Dumont, has estimated that
if properly cultivated as intensively as South China, Cuba could feed
fifty million people. . . the Cuban Revolution is spared the painful,
but ineluctable compulsion that has beset preceding socialist
revolutions: the necessity to force tightening of people's belts in
order to lay the foundations for a better tomorrow. . .(p. 23)
Theodore Draper quotes Anial Escalante, (before he was purged by
Castro) one of the leading communists, who admitted that:
....in reality, Cuba was not one of the countries with the lowest
standard of living of the masses in America, but on the contrary, one
of the highest standards of living, and it was here where the first
great . . . democratic social revolution of the continent burst forth.
.. . If the historical development had been dictated by the false axiom
[revolutions come first in poorest countries] the revolution should
have been first produced in Haiti, Colombia or even Chile, countries
of greater poverty for the masses than the Cuba of 1958. . . (quoted
in Draper's Castro's Revolution: Myths and Realities; New York, 1962,
p. 22)
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/dolgoff/cubanrevolution/chapter7.html
Cuba was the third developed nation in the Amercas at par with Canada and
surpassing parts of the Southern US, Spain and even Belgium in lots of
areas.
More on Cuba:
The Issue of Food Security in Cuba
Inefficiency:
"Food availability is the result of a number of factors, with food waste as
one of them. As noted in a previous section of this fact sheet, another use
of food balance sheets is the quantification of a country's food waste
measured against the amount of food available for consumption. Figures for
some of Cuba's perishable commodities have been provided to FAO by the Cuban
government for the 1980-1997 period (Table 1 ). During the entire study
period, more than 4.3 million tons of these products (an average of almost
240,000 tons per year) were wasted. The ratio of food waste over food
available ranged from more than 10% to almost 15%."
Increased dependency on imports
"Interesting results are obtained when one compares Cuba's import dependency
ratios before and after the 1959 revolution. The figures for the 1980-1997
period range from a low of 42% in 1997 to a high of 70% in 1980. As reported
by Nova González (1993, p. 76), data taken from official Cuban sources of
that time include 31% in 1954, 23.3% in 1955, and 20.7% in 1956. It is
obvious that, with the passage of time, Cuba has become more dependent on
foreign sources to feed its population.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE483
This is a good example of why there now is hunger:
Castro's destruction of nutrition.
Rice is the staple of Cuban food. Cubans where no bread eaters. they ate
rice.
"After WW2 imported rice was difficult to obtain and costly, so Cuban
farmers had an incentive to grow rice. In 1949 Cuba produced 10 percent of
domestic consumption. In 1960, the year after Castro came to power, the
Cuban rice harvest was 400,000 metric toms, making Cuba for the first time
self-sufficient in rice. During the decade of the fifties, Cuban producers
had successfully adopted the latest methods of rice farming employed in
Louisiana and Texas. From the point of technological expertise, rice
production outstripped that of any other branch of Cuban agriculture; and in
terms of money value, rice became one of Cuba's major crops.
By 1962, with Cuban agriculture socialized, the rice yield was reduced by
50%. The same year, as has already been noted, the rationing of foodstuffs
was introduced, with the rice ration set at 6 pounds per person per month.
.... That lowered per capita consumption by two thirds... More over, for
low-income Cubans, for whom rice formed amore substantial part of their
diet, the reduction was even greater."
M. Halperin, Return to Havana, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, 1994,
p.49-50.
A well functioning free market ensured that from a shortage in 1949 break
even was achieved by 1960. Castro ruined the industry by 1962. In two years
50% of the annual need in rice were no longer met.
In 1966 the rice ration was again reduced by half to 3 ponds per person per
month. that is down from 18 to 3 ponds since the start of the dictatorship.
The reason was: the deal that Castro himself had made with China on the
supply of rice fell through when Castro didn't deliver the promised support
in their "polemic" with the SU.
(for details on the rice Crisis and the Cuba - China quarrel see: M.
Halperin, Taming of Fidel Castro, Berkeley: University of California Press,
1981, p. 195-207.)
"Thus in 1965, Cuban rice production had dwindled to 50,000 tons..."
M. Halperin, Return to Havana, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, 1994,
p.50..
Why did Castro need to reduce rice productions even further: to grow more
sugar to reach his (foolish) goal of 10 million tons of sugar in 1970.
He never made it, but destroyed the production of a staple food while at it.
Gross incompetence. Criminal negligence.
At the end of 1989 the rice ration was 5 pounds. Down from an average
consumption of 18 pounds before the revolution.
Last I saw that is still the same outside Havana with a 20% larger ration of
6 pounds in Havana.
On sugar:
I can recommend you this book:
Marcelo Fernandez, Cuba y la économia Azucarera Mundial, Havana, 1989,.
"Cuba"s response to economic prosperity has ... been problematic. In each of
the three world sugar booms since the early 60's, Cuba has mishandled
economic policies, over imported, and generated the foundations of a
subsequent economic crisis."
The guy is a professor at Harvard.
See:
Jorge I. Dominguez, "The Obstacles and Prospects for Improved US-Cuban
relations," in US-Cuban Relations in the 1990's, ed. Jorge I. Dominguez and
Rafael Hernandez (Boulder Colo. : Westview Press, 1989, 32.
Castro abandoned all attempts at export substitution and export
diversification in 1963. Castro thereby destroyed the food production in
Cuba for prestige reasons: to achieve more sugar than Batista and to thereby
dominate the sugar market.
Idiotic megalomaniac goals that destroyed the Cuban food production.
Cuba failed to even meet their required "planned" production to meet it's
obligations to the SU.
Castro made Cuba more than ever dependent on one crop: sugar.
The dependence on sugar never declined since the late 1950's: over 75% of
exports. Production rose from 5 to 7.5 million tons between the 70's and
80's
Prices ranged between 10 and 4 cents per pound (except the peak in 1985 of
20c).
Mercelo Fernandez said: "Expressed in their real value, the sugar prices[of
the late 1980's] are comparable with those of the decade of the 1930's ...
that is to say, the lowest prices of the century" (Hernandez, o.c., p.5)
Halperin has a great image for the Cuban sugar economy: "Cuba's sugar
dependent economy is on a treadmill: it has to produce more and more sugar
to
remain in the same place". ( M. Halperin, o.c., p 100)
Castro is reaping his "grim harvest".
His mistakes cost lives and brought misery.
The worst is that he wants to be able to continue unhindered.
This is the reality about Cuba:
The disaster is now "irrevocable"
Jul 4th 2002 | HAVANA
From The Economist print edition
A non-working system is enshrined forever
http://www.economist.com/World/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1217228
The effects:
Caloric intake Cuba:
1959 2682 - 2700
1961 2171
1970 2640
1980 2931
1990 3076
1995 2158
1999 2490
Dominican Republic caloric intake:
1961: 1757
1970: 2006
1980: 2312
1990: 2225
1995: 2274
1999: 2315
Caloric intake Jamaica:
1961: 1915
1990: 2530
1995: 2595
1999: 2678
Sources:
http://www.cidh.oas.org/countr yrep/Cuba83eng/chap.12.htm
http://faostat.fao.org/
Before de revolution: Caloric intake in Cuba: 2700
Jamaica: 1915 (1961 so 1959 would be lower) = 71% of pre Castro Cuba.
Dominican Republic: 1757 (1961 so again one can assume 1959 would be lower)
= 65% of pre-Castro Cuba
Evolution over 40 years:
Cuba: 2700 (1959) to 2490 (1999) = decline of 210 Kcal
Dominican Republic: 1757 to 2315 (1999) = increase of 558 Kcal
Jamaica: 1915 to 2678 (1999) = increase of 763 Kcal
Ranking pre-Castro: Cuba: 2700 - Jamaica: 1915 - Dominican Republic: 1757 -
with Cuba 100 Jamaica = 71 and Dominican Republic: 65
Ranking 1999: Jamaica: 2678 - Cuba : 2490 - Dominican Republic: 2315 - again
Cuba= 100 - Jamaica = 108 - Dominican Republic: 93
Conclusions:
- Cuba was way ahead in 1959 (30 to 35%) versus Jamaica and the Dominican
Republic
- Cuba's caloric intake declined over these 40 years (8%), Jamaica (40%) and
the Dominican Republic ( 32%) rose significantly.
So much for the "achievements" of Castro, Barry.
PL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "krp ~ =" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. sees democracy coming in post-Castro Cuba |
22 Oct 2005 11:23:01 AM |
|
|
"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129926853.460553.112580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
One of the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution was a literacy drive
which brought about a decline in illiteracy from 20%-40% to about 2%-4%
today. In the United States, by contrast, although the nominal current
illiteracy rate is almost same as that of Cuba, education authorities
estimate the current U.S. functional illiteracy rate to be about 20%,
with a chasm in performance between the rich whites in Beverly Hills
and poor African-Americans in Bedford Stuyvesant.
Lots of good that does when most books are against the law.
Thus, KRP responds to my message which states, "For apologists for U.S.
policy ... the 'best interests'of Cuba are a return to pre-1959"
conditions
by yelling that current conditions are "WORSE ... FAR WORSE [emphasis
in original] than pre-1959 conditions. Is that not an explicit
statement that for him, the pre-1959 days (1958) are must better than
current conditions?
In most "quality of life" factors Barry - yes- the Cuban people were
better off in 1958 than today. Higher wages, more food, BETTER health care,
better living conditions all around. Does that mean Batista was a good guy?
Of course not.
As for whether "... fair elections and democracy are a BAD thing ...,"
when so-called elections are held with a choice of two or more
candidates and/or parties who have no fundamental differences about
what the fundamental conditions of a country should be, and there are
only representatives of the elite who are fighting among themselves who
should be in charge of the government (and the corruption, bribes,
etc.), those elections are NEITHER "fair elections" NOR "democracy."
First of all that wasn't true. The Cuban people had the choice between
several parties and there were great differences. But that beats having ONE
party and absollutely NO choice whatsoever!
Even if there ever were (hypothetically speaking) to be an election
where who gets which governmental post(s) is decided in a "fair"
electoral manner, without fraud, without threatened recriminations,
without campaigns where each candidate promises the OPPOSITE of he/she
intends to do, and with near-equal access to the ear and eye of the
public by each candidate (instead of the current system of
multi-million-dollar campaign advertising which guarantees that those
without mega-assets or who don't serve the interests of those with
mega-assets don't stand a chance), under bourgeois democracy, workers,
farmers and peasants still face a dictatorship of the boss(es) over
their workplaces. THAT is what overturning of capitalist governent to
establish a workers' and farmers' government does -- and why apologists
for U.S. policy from Little Havana to Belgium hate the Cuban Revolution
with such vigor and venom.
What claptrap. Wouldn't utopia be great? Sure it would IF it existed.
The workers? That's *****. There never will be a perfect "state" as long
as humans run it., but socialist states are the worst of all. Why are they
the worst? Because by nature socialism is about control. It is about placing
total control in the fewest number of hands possible, typically ONE pair of
hands. BIG BROTHER whether his name is Joe, or Mao, or Pol, or Hugo, or
Fidel.Socialism CANNOT exist outside a totalitarian police state. As for it
being for the workers.. HAH! These "revolutions" are NEVER about the
"people" they are about the elite who want to take charge and dictate what
is best. One can look at the problem of the workers in capitalist states and
the exploitation. Anyone who suggests that workers are less exploited in
socialism (Communist) states is merely lying.
We can look at the Cuba worker as a good example. Look at the Cuban
worker in 1950 as a good bench mark. Now look at the Cuban worker is 2005.
What are the quality of life factors in contrast? Are the people better fed
today? NO! The diet is less than half what it was and worse in specific
commodities like meat, milk and the like. Is it better in housing? NO! Many
homes have collapsed due to a refusal to invest in infrastructure such as
that. A coat of moisture sealing paint is disallowed because it is
"decadent." So the home falls down sometimes killing sleeping workers.
Infrastructure like electric generation is neglected because it too is
deemed "decadent" so food spoils or has bacteria that harms health. Oh - but
they have FREE health care... (They NEED it) How do we explain away
deformities to people as an advancement in workers rights because they have
free medical care? Can we look at that free medical care to see how GOOD it
is? We only see infant mortality rates because the rest is so horrible. Do
we talk about women dying of cancers in their 40's? So we talk of spinal
defects from a TOTAL lack of calcium in the diet? Malformation of internal
organs from contamination of the environment?
All of this ***** Barry doesn't mean a dammed thing of the worker
isn't FREE. Nobody has ANY rights unless the individual rights are
paramount. You see Barry - I like many people believed in the Revolution...
I just think the revolution has been betrayed as has the Cuban people. I
just want to see it in REALITY instead of fiction. I want to see a
revolution that can exist in the sunshine without fear and without
paranoia..
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
