From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #141 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, June 7 2005 Volume 14 : Number 141 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: Pres Bush shat on from great height ["Marc Alberts" ] RE: Pres Bush shat on from great height ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: pres shrub shat on from great height [great white shark Subject: RE: Pres Bush shat on from great height Christopher Gross wrote: > > And while I wouldn't > > want to defend every aspect of Castro's regime, the fact is by most of > > the measures used by the 'capitalist' world, Cuba is far ahead of the > > rest of Central American nations (education, health, etc.). > > Well, technically Cuba is a Caribbean nation, not a Central American one. > Anyway, even *before* the revolution, Cuba was already richer and more > advanced than most nations in either the Caribbean or Central America. > So if Cuba is doing better than some of these nations now, > Marxism-Leninism-Castroism doesn't necessarily deserve all the credit. > > The achievements of the Cuban revolution can basically be summarized as > universal education and healthcare. Those are real achievements, sure, > but they were largely achieved thirty or forty years ago. Not much in the > way of new achievements since then. Oh, and income inequality has been > reduced, but they managed to do that mainly by chasing out or > impoverishing the rich more than by increasing the wealth of the poor. The problem here is that the great progress of Cuban healthcare is largely a myth. Cuba didn't achieve much at all in this area, in fact, but rather the Soviets did, financing extravagant systems that did indeed lead the top echelons to having health care as good as anything available in the US, Europe or Japan. Since the collapse of the Soviets (and to a lesser extent before) the best healthcare, the stuff that the sympathetic press in the US talked about, has been available only to high government officials and to those with hard currency to pay for it directly. You can argue that this is an embargo issue, but the fact is it worked just fine until the USSR ceased to exist, and with that event ceased to provide millions of dollars worth of support for the Cuban economy. Their "success" in other words was never theirs to begin with. However, this didn't stop health care from being reported as a triumphant success by the "useful idiots" in the Western press after they would tour select show hospitals in Cuba much like they used to report on the success of Soviet industry and collectivized agriculture in the 30s. Outside of the show clinics, evidence suggests Cuban medicine was never what it was thought to be by Western sympathizers, and that statistics of success in areas such as infant mortality were doctored like statistics in other economic areas in Soviet economies. And don't even start about the US embargo, because Cuban health care was in decline prior to the 1995 tightening of rules on embargo participation. It is quite clear to anyone studying with an objective eye that by far the biggest issue in Cuban health care is that Cuba is no longer propped up by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Soviet aid. Estimates of increased medical care importation costs under the embargo are less than $50m a year, and if Cuba can't afford that it cannot be blamed on the embargo but on the tremendous poverty their economic system has created for the Cuban people. > I'd agree that capitalist failures often come from being too thoroughly > capitalist. Capitalist successes (at least in the already developed > countries) generally seem to come when business is regulated and there are > good public services and some sort of safety net; in other words, under > the conditions that free-market fanatics think will inevitably lead to > failure. I would disagree to the extent that "capitalist failures" are generally caused by applications of the market to areas where extra-market forces are involved. If this is what you mean when you say "too thoroughly capitalist," then I apologize in advance. I will say, however, that there are numerous misconceptions about what capitalism means in terms of public services, etc., just as there are misconceptions of what libertarians say in terms of justifiable government that were repeated in the recent thread. The description I saw looked a heck of a lot more like liberal anarchism than libertarianism. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:14:53 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/5/05, Marc Alberts wrote: > > The achievements of the Cuban revolution can basically be summarized as > > universal education and healthcare. ... > The problem here is that the great progress of Cuban healthcare is largely a > myth. Cuba didn't achieve much at all in this area, in fact, but rather the > Soviets did... Could be; I'm by no means an expert here. 'Course (playing devil's advocate) the Soviets *did* lift themselves from an agrarian backwater to a major industrial nation...at huge cost to its people, but it would seem that by some economic measures, the Soviet Union was a "success" until the Cold War pushed it over the edge... > > I'd agree that capitalist failures often come from being too thoroughly > > capitalist. Capitalist successes (at least in the already developed > > countries) generally seem to come when business is regulated and there are > > good public services and some sort of safety net; in other words, under > > the conditions that free-market fanatics think will inevitably lead to > > failure. > > I would disagree to the extent that "capitalist failures" are generally > caused by applications of the market to areas where extra-market forces are > involved. If this is what you mean when you say "too thoroughly > capitalist," then I apologize in advance. Probably. I will say, however, that there > are numerous misconceptions about what capitalism means in terms of public > services, etc., just as there are misconceptions of what libertarians say in > terms of justifiable government that were repeated in the recent thread. > The description I saw looked a heck of a lot more like liberal anarchism > than libertarianism. This is probably a terminological issue. What I'm arguing against - whatever you want to call it - is the currently ascendant right-wing belief that government should essentially disappear - except for the military, and perhaps some sort of repressive apparatus to make sure everyone's a Christian. I'm sure there are plenty of responsible capitalist theorists who note that "market [logic can be misapplied] to areas where extra-market forces are involved." Libertarians, too, seem to believe the state's role is essentially the defense of property rights - or so it seems from what I've read. I'm willing to be proven wrong, of course - but it seems to me the chief shortcoming of both theories is their unwillingness to acknowledge/believe the harms bottom-line corporatism can do to people when it becomes pervasive in society (and maybe its application in inappropriate areas is what you mean by "extra-market forces" - I'm not sure what that means...since there are "extra-market forces" involved in nearly everything). Oh - Marxism, at least initially and in theory, plead for equality, and a more integral connection between labor and the fruits of that labor for the laborers. I don't see it as *intrinsically* leading to a repressive state - although it certainly seems that that's a tendency in practice. By "too much capitalism" or whatever I said, I mean more or less what I summarize above: the bottom line above all, the belief that markets are the solution in *every* arena of life. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 09:43:33 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Pres Bush shat on from great height Jeff wrote: > > > The achievements of the Cuban revolution can basically be summarized > as > > > universal education and healthcare. ... > > The problem here is that the great progress of Cuban healthcare is > largely a > > myth. Cuba didn't achieve much at all in this area, in fact, but rather > the > > Soviets did... > > Could be; I'm by no means an expert here. 'Course (playing devil's > advocate) the Soviets *did* lift themselves from an agrarian backwater > to a major industrial nation...at huge cost to its people, but it > would seem that by some economic measures, the Soviet Union was a > "success" until the Cold War pushed it over the edge... Well, they did prove that a country could employ the concept of surplus labor and expropriate it for the use of the state, which is all Marx talks about in Kapital, so in that sense they did prove that some economic gain could be had if you are willing to enslave sizeable chunks of your population and murder those who aren't willing to cooperate. It still does beg the question of whether Russia would have developed in a more rational way (that's the economic use of the term "rational" btw) had they developed as a capitalist state instead of a Soviet state upon the collapse of the Tsarist system. After all, the revolution occurred only 50 years after the emancipation of the serfs who, while free, were still essentially sharecroppers, and thus the migration was from one form of semi-slavery to another form of semi-slavery with no capitalism to speak of in between. > > > > I'd agree that capitalist failures often come from being too > thoroughly > > > capitalist. Capitalist successes (at least in the already developed > > > countries) generally seem to come when business is regulated and there > are > > > good public services and some sort of safety net; in other words, > under > > > the conditions that free-market fanatics think will inevitably lead to > > > failure. > > > > I would disagree to the extent that "capitalist failures" are generally > > caused by applications of the market to areas where extra-market forces > are > > involved. If this is what you mean when you say "too thoroughly > > capitalist," then I apologize in advance. > > Probably. > > I will say, however, that there > > are numerous misconceptions about what capitalism means in terms of > public > > services, etc., just as there are misconceptions of what libertarians > say in > > terms of justifiable government that were repeated in the recent thread. > > The description I saw looked a heck of a lot more like liberal anarchism > > than libertarianism. > > This is probably a terminological issue. What I'm arguing against - > whatever you want to call it - is the currently ascendant right-wing > belief that government should essentially disappear - except for the > military, and perhaps some sort of repressive apparatus to make sure > everyone's a Christian. See, this is what I'm talking about. I have never in my life heard of anyone from the "currently ascendant right-wing" ever talk about the disappearance of government. They do, however, talk like libertarians in that they suggest the government should have a reduced scope compared to what it has now, but that's a far cry from saying that all government should whither and die like an anarchist might or Marx suggested in his Manifesto (only to retract it significantly in his later works). I guess it boils down to the idea that just because you don't like government subsidizing housing on a grand scale when housing subsidies should be locally allocated (to pick an example rather than endorse an idea) doesn't mean you think there should be no government at all. True, there are those out there that do advocate anarchism from a nationalist or patriotic standpoint that have been looped into the right by those with the power to do such looping, but they are a far cry from the mainstream, and as far a cry from the mainstream as anarcho-syndicalists are from the mainstream of the left. > I'm sure there are plenty of responsible > capitalist theorists who note that "market [logic can be misapplied] > to areas where extra-market forces are involved." Libertarians, too, > seem to believe the state's role is essentially the defense of > property rights - or so it seems from what I've read. This is true, but doesn't get to the heart of the matter since it tends to neglect that libertarians also believe that property rights are at the heart of all civil rights as well as they conceive them as being based on an idea of ownership of the self. This extends the areas of governmental involvement (at least from the judiciary) into virtually every area of life where our current system has involvement, but the key differences are the voluntary aspect of association (based on property rights) as opposed to the enforced association that we have through taxation and anti-property rights legislation. I tend to be closer to the libertarians philosophically, but I wouldn't even remotely say that I believe that the minimalist government shouldn't have a say in many areas that an anarchist or that I am advocating for the disappearance of government. On the contrary, a part of my education regarding anarchism taught me that a true disappearance of a government would do nothing but create a vacuum, and we all know that nature abhors a vacuum--another state would spontaneously erupt out of the vacuum. Anarchism can be only temporary in my book, and certainly not desireable. > I'm willing to > be proven wrong, of course - but it seems to me the chief shortcoming > of both theories is their unwillingness to acknowledge/believe the > harms bottom-line corporatism can do to people when it becomes > pervasive in society (and maybe its application in inappropriate areas > is what you mean by "extra-market forces" - I'm not sure what that > means...since there are "extra-market forces" involved in nearly > everything). > > Oh - Marxism, at least initially and in theory, plead for equality, > and a more integral connection between labor and the fruits of that > labor for the laborers. I don't see it as *intrinsically* leading to a > repressive state - although it certainly seems that that's a tendency > in practice. There are many crude assessments of Marxism, however, that do not go beyond that pleading. Indead, that pleading for equality and the like is probably the most persuasive marketing slogan that we've seen since Christianity showed up. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and most who profess to follow Marx's path do not understand the full extent of Marx's beliefs. The beliefs on surplus labor, which are the heart of any sort of justification for socialist or communist belief systems, are extremely faulty, and application of the theory does inherently lead to repressive trends in any state that applies them necessarily. However, talking about the "common good" has a nice ring to it, so people tend to fall for it. They rarely ask themselves what the "common good" actually is, whether it truly is common, or what would happen once you have enacted a system designed to enforce the common good would do to you if your "good" isn't "common." > By "too much capitalism" or whatever I said, I mean more > or less what I summarize above: the bottom line above all, the belief > that markets are the solution in *every* arena of life. Well, the reason I addressed it is this seems like a straw-man argument against capitalism, since no capitalist I've ever read, known or even heard about would advocate using the markets to solve every problem, particularly since a huge branch of capitalist thinking is devoted to studying areas where the markets do not function. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:04:26 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Cuba > > And while I wouldn't > > want to defend every aspect of Castro's regime, the fact is by most of > > the measures used by the 'capitalist' world, Cuba is far ahead of the > > rest of Central American nations (education, health, etc.). > >Well, technically Cuba is a Caribbean nation, not a Central American one. >Anyway, even *before* the revolution, Cuba was already richer and more >advanced than most nations in either the Caribbean or Central America. >So if Cuba is doing better than some of these nations now, >Marxism-Leninism-Castroism doesn't necessarily deserve all the credit. It's not ahead of Costa Rica, either (although it is doing well comared to a lot of other nations). Costa Rica is regarded as the stablest country in Latin America politically, despite having fairly volatile neighbours. It also has no armed forces, allowing it to plough its government funding into education and health. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:27:03 +0930 From: great white shark Subject: Re: pres shrub shat on from great height Chris opined > Capitalist successes (at least in the already developed > countries) generally seem to come when business is regulated and there > are > good public services and some sort of safety net; in other words, under > the conditions that free-market fanatics think will inevitably lead to > failure. Indeed , capitalism needs to be curbed by a well regulated welfare state ,which provides excellent health ,education and utilities etc, for the benefit of all citizens -the problem is that as we move to this bold new world of globalisation, rampant free trade mega mega corporations , rampant environmental degradation and ultra conservative government the welfare state is increasingly being whittled away - with a consequent creation of more inequality and lack of services for us poor plebs on the bottom of the rung and the eventual loss of many freedoms we take for granted . Its already happening here in oz and given another decade of the likes of bush and howard in control we might as well say goodbye to good government services I fear for our children , I really do, our real enemy is within and they are getting stronger by the year, unfettered capitalism is probably as bad as an other ism that has been around , we just ain't seeing the end results at the moment, but they are coming ,mark my words .... commander ( foreteller of the oh, so black future ) lang ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #141 ********************************