UP I crave your comment, yours too MT

[Michael Tee]

<<If the intent was to increase the drain on the Soviet economy and hasten the inevitable , it was a good idea to boycott.>>

Which has nothing to do with your original comment that Cuban socialism couldn't have survived its initial phases without Soviet support.

And if you think the collapse of the U.S.S.R. is such a great accomplishment, ask yourself this:  Would the U.S. have dared to invade Iraq if it weren't the world's only super-power?

[_JS]

The embargo on Cuba had nothing to do with the economy of the Soviet Union. It was effectively the same plan we put into place on Allende's Chile, only in that case it was successful because Allende was democratically elected in a minority coalition and when we bullied Chile's neighbors into compliance we effectively cut off Chile from any potential economic salvation. The Soviets saw little interest in communism through democracy, but it certainly scared the hell out of Nixon and Kissenger.

Lastly, unlike Cuba, we had the Chilean Army of right wing murderous thugs on our side. Put it all together, throw in a trip for a bunch of unarmed socialists to the local football stadium to be executed, and you've got what was the hoped for outcome in Cuba. It just didn't materialise that way. Plus Castro was a somewhat romantic guerilla fighter that looked good on propaganda posters, whereas Allende was a bit of a nerdy-looking elected official.

Pinochet was far more photogenic and he loved Milton Friedman and Maggie Thatcher - it doesn't get any better than that!

As for Globalism, it is really a simple element of Marxism. People in the lower echelons of the bourgeoisie will gradually be subsumed into the vast mass of the proletariat. You can see it happening when you look at the world and see how previously distinguished professions become proletarianised. It becomes cheaper and more expedient to outsource jobs to China and India that were once done in the United States, Canada, or Europe. It is really just a leveling of pay and benefits as well as false class distinction.

It also makes the discussion of illegal immigration as it relates to labor, primarily a short-term and short-sighted issue. Eventually the labor market, in terms of what the market can and will pay, will have to equalise in respect to the global market. So spending hundreds of billions on massive walls, turrets, identification cards, visa programs, and whatnot, will all do little to stop an economic inevitability.

[Plane]

It also makes the discussion of illegal immigration as it relates to labor, primarily a short-term and short-sighted issue. Eventually the labor market, in terms of what the market can and will pay, will have to equalize in respect to the global market. So spending hundreds of billions on massive walls, turrets, identification cards, visa programs, and whatnot, will all do little to stop an economic inevitability.

That sounds right  , the employment and the workforce are very attractive to each other and the employment will go to the workfore if the workforce can't go the other way. The erection of barriers to migration of workforce ,makes the outflow of employment potential all the more likely.


What the barriers might be good for tho is the controll of criminal flow , which is worth the fight even if only partially effective. Capital attracts honest people , but dishonest ones no less.


This is what makes me a supporter of President Bush's immigration plan , it needs to be two pronged and it is. Beefing up the enforcement of the border while also increasing the allowance for honest  entry.

[Universe Prince]

I find Michael Tee's comments about long term versus "right now" interesting. He talked about some speech Fidel Castro gave about why he wasn't going to gradually build Cuba's economy rather than institute the (so-called) benefits of socialism right away. And from there, Michael Tee says, "Long-term is fine for philosophers or historians, but it's an abdication of the responsibility owed by the political leadership to THIS generation of the nation's young." Which seems, to me, like an excuse for short-sighted actions. The desire for solutions that fix everything now is understandable, but usually not practical. If you ignore the long term in favor of the short term, the long term problems with your short term solutions are going to be added to the long term problems that already existed, ultimately making the situation worse and not better. This is not to say that short term solutions are necessarily or inherently bad. There indeed times when short term solutions are needed and appropriate. However, short term solutions almost never fix long term problems. It's like putting a bandage on a wound that cuts through a major artery. All you've accomplished is to cover up the real problem which, if not dealt with, will grow into a significantly worse problem.

I want to go back to that quote from Michael Tee. "Long-term is fine for philosophers or historians, but it's an abdication of the responsibility owed by the political leadership to THIS generation of the nation's young." So far this discussion is mostly in terms of economics, but compare that quote to another statement Michael Tee made:

Loss of civil rights (freedom of speech particularly) is a well-recognized trade-off for the many material accomplishments of the Revolution, among them the huge advances in housing, medicine and public health, education and the moral accomplishments of national pride, international solidarity in the socialist movement and in the war against racism and fascism and the dignity of the individual.  So I'd say it's time to stop beating Castro over the head with the free speech thing - - sure it would be nice to have the Revolution AND freedom of speech, but reality tells us that is just not possible.

Apparently there are things that are okay for the government to deny right now in favor of a long term goal. For Michael Tee, those things happen to be human rights. Personally, I think denying people the liberty to exercise their rights is completely irresponsible toward this or any generation. But that is not because of a focus on liberty, but on humanity.

Which brings me to another point I'd like to make. Michael Tee said he believes I am "excessively focused on liberty" and proceeded to imply that I am some how "fetishizing" about liberty. He also speculated that I think he is "unduly focused on security." To all of that I say, not so. I think that both Michael Tee and I are focused, in the context of this discussion, on helping humanity. He and I just happen to disagree on how to go about doing that. In any case, I am not interested in liberty for liberty's sake. I am interested in liberty for humanity's sake. I believe that the liberty to exercise one's rights helps people and that taking away that liberty harms people. Sure, that is a simplification, but I'm trying to get across a simple and often missed concept. If I criticize the Cuban government or the U.S. government or any other authority for not recognizing basic human rights, my concern rests not with the rights but with the humans.

Of course, now that I've made that simple point, I also need to address Michael Tee's accusation that by introducing the words 'liberty' and 'freedom' I'm somehow oversimplifying the issues that Mr. Steingart discussed. To the contrary, I think Mr. Steingart and Michael Tee are trying to gloss over the issue as merely a matter of what kind of products and goods we buy at the store. Tee says my comments were missing "an appreciation of the complexity of modern economic life", but then he says he wants to excise the word 'liberty' and replace it with "broader range of consumer choice" as if somehow the range of consumer choice was the whole the matter of be considered. There I see a serious lack of appreciation of the complexity of modern economic life. My use of terms like 'liberty' and 'freedom' are not an oversimplification, but in fact merely a simple way of addressing with the whole of underlying complexities of the economic issues involved. If you start insisting people stop buying cheaper goods manufactured in non-welfare state countries, you're doing far more than insisting people limit their brand choices. You're insisting they spend more money, which eats away at their disposable income, which decreases their purchasing power, which ultimately means a lowering of their standard of living. Which is a matter of freedom because you're artificially limiting their economic freedom. Which may not seem all that bad on the surface, but dig deeper. You're hurting the purchasing power of the middle and lower economic classes. You're making their efforts, their work for money worth less that it would otherwise be. You've damaged their economic security. And I haven't even touched on the implications for employers, which lead to rising costs, which further damages the economic freedom of the middle and lower economic classes. So obviously "broader range of consumer choice" neither addresses the complexity of the situation nor contributes to a better understanding of what is at stake.

Using terms like 'liberty' and 'freedom', on the other hand, gets to the heart of what is actually at stake. Michael Tee tried to trivialize my use of the terms by making references to Braveheart, Nazis and anti-slavery crusades, implying that I've introduced the terms to make my supposedly simplistic argument seem more glamorous or romantic. But that is not what I'm doing. I am throwing light on the actual nature of the issue. No, Mr. Steingart and Michael Tee are not Nazis or dictatorial English kings, and I never made that sort of comparison or implication.  However, to say that this is somehow not about liberty is to ignore not only the very basis of what their argument is, but also the nature of the issue. Individuals are making choices. For Mr. Steingart and Michael Tee, those choices are detrimental to what they want the government to achieve for society, so they make the case that individuals are making choices which are detrimental to society. Mr. Steingart compares it to treason, and Michael Tee compares it to social Darwinism that "cannot be tolerated." The notion that some how liberty for the individual is not at the heart of this issue and that this is merely a matter of a "range of consumer choice" is preposterous.

[Michael Tee]

I thought UP gave a generally well-reasoned examination of my post, but perhaps inevitably a few oversimplifications crept in .  (Not that I'm one who never oversimplifies.)  A lack of time compels a short response right now, but I intend to give a more detailed reply later.  (I have to do as Prince suggests, forgo the present for the future.)  However:  I don't think Fidel was suggesting that the future generations be ignored, only that the presesnt generation could NOT be ignored, which was effectively what the Alliance for Progress would have required.

Second, when you are talking about sacrifices, you have to keep in mind the goal for which the sacrifices are being made.  I was a little uneasy at the thought of comparison being made between Fidel's sacrifice of the people's freedom of speech for the goal of material progress, class levelling, racial equality and national unity on the one hand and Bush's sacrifice of freedom in the name of "security" - - security from an artificial boogeyman of "terrorism" cynically created from the ashes of the WTC in an eerily similar replay of the Nazis' utilization of the Reichstag Fire to smash German democracy.

Third, I think it's important to realize the distinction in degree between interference with consumer choice, and the broader concept of interference with "freedom," which of course encompasses a much wider range of restrictions.  Neither one is ideal, but you do have to keep a "lesser of two evils" in mind, both in comparing the two cases of a lost "freedom" and in comparing the consequences of the freedom or freedoms lost with the alternatives of providing full freedom and facing the consequences, economic or otherwise, that will result.

Fourth - - and without going into detail here - - you need to consider the flexibility that Fidel was able to exercise after taking the first steps into Marxist-Leninist policy.  As the situation seemed to dictate, he has shown the ability to advance further or retreat back on the Marxist-Leninist road.  For example, the Mercados Libres that he was permitting farmers at the time of our second visit to Cuba.  I mention this in terms of the alleged "sacrifice" of future generations - - as the problems of those generations manifested themselves, it was possible to change tack to deal with them at the time.  So attending to the present generation is more of a risk to than a sacrifice of the future generations.  It is one way of ensuring that at least one generation is not going to get fucked.  The others still have a fighting chance, IF you have relatively flexible leadership.

[Plane]

Fourth - - and without going into detail here - - you need to consider the flexibility that Fidel was able to exercise after taking the first steps into Marxist-Leninist policy.  As the situation seemed to dictate, he has shown the ability to advance further or retreat back on the Marxist-Leninist road.  For example, the Mercado's Libres that he was permitting farmers at the time of our second visit to Cuba.  I mention this in terms of the alleged "sacrifice" of future generations - - as the problems of those generations manifested themselves, it was possible to change tack to deal with them at the time.  So attending to the present generation is more of a risk to than a sacrifice of the future generations.  It is one way of ensuring that at least one generation is not going to get fucked.  The others still have a fighting chance, IF you have relatively flexible leadership.

What do you mean by "flexability"? It seems that you are talking about his uncontested authority over all facets of governance , I hope that our government never gets that kind of flexibly.

If by flexability you might mean that the government can rapidly change direction I would argue that a dictatorship that keeps the same leadership until they are all Nonagenarians is one of the least flexable of all governmental forms.

I am sure that the government of Cuba can turn on a dime when the president for life changes his mind , but a democratic government does not need to wait for that sort of event ,it can change  the most recalcitrant mind out of the leadership by replacing it with a whole 'nother person, on a regular basis.




http://www.genarians.com/

[_JS]

What the barriers might be good for tho is the controll of criminal flow , which is worth the fight even if only partially effective. Capital attracts honest people , but dishonest ones no less.

That's certainly true, but that is really just a different market.

The problem with something like drugs is that the profit margin is so huge that someone will always attempt to circumvent the law to produce the supply and meet the demand. Stronger enforcement only leads to higher prices, which means accepting riskier behavior (as well as purchasing better technology) to meet the demand.

Once you start talking about 14,000% to 17,000% profit margin, that demand is going to be met.

[Michael Tee]

plane, you're losing sight of the issue.  Flexibility was discussed in the context of policy-making, specifically whether a policy which favours the current generation of young will disadvantage others further down the road.  My only point was that by saving this generation today, other generations are not necessarily lost.  The future is not necessarily lost.  As time passes and the disadvantages of the policy that saved the generation starting school at the time of the Triumph of the Revolution start to make themselves manifest, policy can change and adapt.  So at least the first post-Revolutionary generation was saved, others may be saved as well.  They at least have that chance. 

Sacrificing the first generation guarantees only that a whole generation will be sacrificed.  It was unacceptable to Fidel and the Communist Party of Cuba and correctly so, I would think.

I did not mean to get into a contest as to which form of government can change course faster, although it does seem obvious to me that that would be one-man absolute dictatorship (which Cuba is not.)  However, due to the much stronger streak of absolutism in Cuban government, I would think Cuba can change course if needed much faster than the U.S.A.  The current impasse in Iraq should prove better than anything I can say the absurdity of your little fantasy that <<a democratic government . . . can change  the most recalcitrant mind out of the leadership by replacing it with a whole 'nother person, on a regular basis.>>  This is pure bullshit.  In both Britain and the U.S.A., democratically elected governments pursue unpopular wars despite the indifference or objection of the people.  Moreover, behind-the-scenes control of the two major parties ensure that the public will NEVER be given the choice between "stay the course" and "pull out everything now."

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that what we have in the US is not actually a democracy at all.

The choice between Gore and Juniorbush did not appear to be a great one, but it seems that in retrospect, that was the greatst choice we have been offered since Humphrey vs Nixon in 1968 or McGovern vs Nixon in 1972.

Kerry vs Juniorbush was hardly any sort of serious choice. Two Bonesmen arguing over who could be more bellicose, what a fraud.
 
Big money assures that only those that favor it will get nominated.

A certifiable insane dingbat like Ross Perot was taken seriously enough to make it to a three way debate, only because Perot did not threaten Big Money.

Ralph Nader lacked big money, and was not allowed to debate Gore and Juniorbush, because Big Money was against it.

Look what they did with Gov. Dean: he was overly enthusiastic for about 42 seconds, and those 42 seconds were played endlessly again and again until the voters were convinced that the man was insane.

Perot had many more moments of dingbattiness, and was never given similar treatment.

[Michael Tee]

I agree with everything that XO just posted, and just want to make it clear that when I was contrasting "flexibility" between Cuba and the US, I was not endorsing plane's view that the governments being contrasted represented a "dictatorship" and a "democracy" respectively.  My contrast was intended to be between the Cuban government as is, and the US government as is.

[Universe Prince]

I don't think Fidel was suggesting that the future generations be ignored, only that the presesnt generation could NOT be ignored, which was effectively what the Alliance for Progress would have required.

I find that difficult to believe.

I was a little uneasy at the thought of comparison being made between Fidel's sacrifice of the people's freedom of speech for the goal of material progress, class levelling, racial equality and national unity on the one hand and Bush's sacrifice of freedom in the name of "security" - - security from an artificial boogeyman of "terrorism" cynically created from the ashes of the WTC in an eerily similar replay of the Nazis' utilization of the Reichstag Fire to smash German democracy.

Well, I can underst- Wait... What? Who made that comparison? I certainly did not.

But since you brought it up, security from terrorists and security from "enemies of the people" doesn't seem a whole lot different to me. Yes, you're trying to justify the latter with talk about material progress and national unity, but then that isn't really a whole lot different than Bush talking about protecting our way of life and about the national jingoism of the talk about the war on terror. It's all about supposedly protecting society by trying to control society. This is why society needs protection from the government.

Third, I think it's important to realize the distinction in degree between interference with consumer choice, and the broader concept of interference with "freedom," which of course encompasses a much wider range of restrictions.

You're watering down the issue. We're not taking about keeping Wal-Mart out of the area so that people only get to choose between shopping at Target, K-Mart and the local mom'n'pop. We're not talking about some store not carrying this or that brand. If it were just that, it would be a simple issue of interference in consumer choice. We're talking about something much, much broader in scope and consequences that affects the economic and social liberty of individuals. Yes, we do need to understand the distinction, but it isn't the one you're trying to make.

So attending to the present generation is more of a risk to than a sacrifice of the future generations.  It is one way of ensuring that at least one generation is not going to get fucked.

Except of course on human rights, like freedom of speech. And frankly, as best I can discover, pretty much most generations in Cuba have been fucked since Castro took over. Yes, I know, you're going to tell me about their marvelous education and health care, but I find myself, as I read about economic and social conditions in Cuba, I'm not really buying the whole marvelous education and health care bit.

The others still have a fighting chance, IF you have relatively flexible leadership.

Of course, if rather than attempt to have a centralized authority controlling things, you had a decentralized, say for example, marketplace, then you'd have even greater flexibility in play. But then, flexibility isn't really the issue. Authoritarianism is. Flexibility in attempts to control society doesn't impress me.

[Plane]

<<If there were no Soviet Union acting as sponsor there would have been no benefit in the short term for Cuban socialism .>>

If the U.S.A. had not boycotted the Cuban sugar crop, the Soviets would not have had to buy it.  Basically the U.S. tried to isolate Cuba and the U.S.S.R. threw them a lifeline.

The natural market of Cuba was the U.S.A.  The "Soviet support" would have been completely unnecessary had the U.S. not tried to sabotage the Cuban economy every way it could.

Here you complain that the US boycott was unfair , perhaps so everyone knows that any departure from pure capitolism involves a departure from fair dealing.

In the link at the top of the thread the authr bemoans the poor enforcement of trade barrier , butbetter trade barriers better enforced are not fair are they?

[Michael Tee]

<<Here you complain that the US boycott was unfair , perhaps so everyone knows that any departure from pure capitolism involves a departure from fair dealing.>>

You are definitely reading stuff into my posts that is not there.   I did not complain at all about the unfairness of the boycott.  I was merely responding to your statement that if the U.S.S.R. had not subsidized the Cuban economy from the start of the Castro regime, the regime would have failed.  Your inference was that communism was not a viable system, that it was bound to fail.

I pointed out to you that the Soviet support was not required because of any inherent failure in the Cuban communist system, but because of a trade boycott enforced by the U.S.A., thereby demolishing your theory.


<<In the link at the top of the thread the authr bemoans the poor enforcement of trade barrier , butbetter trade barriers better enforced are not fair are they?>>

You are correct that there is nothing inherently fair in trade barriers.  In a perfect world, why shouldn't foreign workers get an equal shot at our markets if our workers get an equal shot at theirs?  In the real world, however, the foreign workers are oppressed by cruel and violent employers who torture and kill labour leaders asking for higher wages and better working conditions.  With the resulting low wages and low production costs, they then can offer their goods at competitive prices in our markets.  Well fuck them.  Why should we subsidize their oppression of their own workers by allowing them to underselll our own manufacturers, who use labour that has freely bargained for its own wages?  Shut them out of our markets and force them into bankruptcy if they won't allow a free market in labour within their own borders. 

[Plane]

<<Here you complain that the US boycott was unfair , perhaps so everyone knows that any departure from pure capitolism involves a departure from fair dealing.>>

You are definitely reading stuff into my posts that is not there.   I did not complain at all about the unfairness of the boycott.  I was merely responding to your statement that if the U.S.S.R. had not subsidized the Cuban economy from the start of the Castro regime, the regime would have failed.  Your inference was that communism was not a viable system, that it was bound to fail.

I pointed out to you that the Soviet support was not required because of any inherent failure in the Cuban communist system, but because of a trade boycott enforced by the U.S.A., thereby demolishing your theory.


<<In the link at the top of the thread the authr bemoans the poor enforcement of trade barrier , butbetter trade barriers better enforced are not fair are they?>>

You are correct that there is nothing inherently fair in trade barriers.  In a perfect world, why shouldn't foreign workers get an equal shot at our markets if our workers get an equal shot at theirs?  In the real world, however, the foreign workers are oppressed by cruel and violent employers who torture and kill labour leaders asking for higher wages and better working conditions.  With the resulting low wages and low production costs, they then can offer their goods at competitive prices in our markets.  Well fuck them.  Why should we subsidize their oppression of their own workers by allowing them to underselll our own manufacturers, who use labour that has freely bargained for its own wages?  Shut them out of our markets and force them into bankruptcy if they won't allow a free market in labour within their own borders. 

Yes, I would like to see Labor unions working for the people of China , I am not expecting it soon tho.

The Soviets frustrated President Kennedy in his attempt to effect change wihout war. Boycott doesn't work if someone steps in to buy up the diffrence , but whereas the destruction of the Soviet system was accomplished ver a long period of exploiting their inability to make money and their institutinaly intrinsic poor understanding of economy , it would up working out well to add Cuba to the unsupportable load.

Now if only Russia can start makeing real money instead of collapseing all over again from poorly managed capitolism....

And now the tourist industry of Canada , Europe and South America  supports the last of the real communist regime in the world , the reolution is living on tips.

[Michael Tee]

<<And now the tourist industry of Canada , Europe and South America  supports the last of the real communist regime in the world , the reolution is living on tips.>>

They give good value to the tourists and the tourists pay for the accommodation.  No different than the hospitality industry in Florida or NYC, except that the last time we visited Cuba, the workers owned the hotel.