On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
[Nikolai]:
>>> My doubts and questions:
>>> Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot'
>>> struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL
>>> the local national 'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917,
>>> China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania, led inevitably to mass
>>> social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror.
[myself (Bruce)]:
>> I find it hard to credit Castro's regime with leading
>> to poverty in Cuba. I don't much favor hypotheses with
>> consequences leading causes by that length of time. And
>> there's a bit of a post-hoc ergo propter-hoc problem, as
>> well, particularly if you note the tremendous economic
>> growth (sic) of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica
>> over this time.
>
> Castro transformed Cuba from periphery to communistic isolate. I have not
> insisted that to periphery in w-economy gives any guarantees for growth.
> They have some chances, not more (take South-East Asia that triumphally
> used its chance).I insist only on the guarantees for non-growth and
> stagnation for communistic isolates (in spite of periods of military-
> industrial growth by means of mass slavery as in USSR 1920-56)
This is a shift from the position above. Above Castro's Cuba
experienced an inevitable mass social disaster due to the nature of the
adopting the "communistic isolate" strategy (as it has just been dubbed).
It may be that in adopting this strategy Castro's Cuba has been locked out
of the opportunities that many South East Asian countries have taken
advantage of. On the other hand, its neighbor's that have been pursuing
these opporunities have also been locked out, so it may well be that the
options available to East Asian nations weren't available to small
Caribbean nations. In this case, the 'social disaster' that Cuba has
experienced has been to be a bit poorer and a bit healthier, under a
government that is from a bit to a lot more authoritarian, depending on
the Caribbean country it is being compared to. And the substantial
difference between the post-Castro and pre-Castro comparison is the part
about Cubans being a bit healthier than comparable neighboring countries,
because it was both poorer and more authoritarian than average before it
adopted the "communistic isolate" strategy.
[Nikolai]:
>>> On the contrary most "soft" and interior attemps to
>>> ameliorate capitalism were successful, or at least, harmless
>>> (Second International and Social-Democratic reforms in Europe
>>> in the beginning of XX, laborists in Great Britain, socialists
>>> in Sweden, promotion of social programs in US, France, Germany,
>>> etc).
>>> Well, WS-theory can tell that it was possible only for core
>>> or semipripheral countries, not for periphery. Great, but in this
>>> case the imperative should be not a struggle against 'imperialism'
>>> (ie core countries) transforming them to less democratric and
>>> tolerant regimes, but vice versa - the imperative should be to try
>>> to rise the status (from periphery to semipheriphery) of most
>>> exploited countries and peoples.
>>> Is the last task possible without support of world capital,
>>> without IMF, TNC, Big- 7 and all other 'devils', without appeal
>>> to moral norms of humanism, justice,etc, even if we see so much
>>> hypocrisy in proclaiming these values by mainstream leaders?
[Bruce]:
>> The question supposes that it's possible *with* the support
>> of 'world capital'. Whatever that means, and if it means anything
>> *besides* the IMF/WorldBank/TNC's or the Big7.
> Oh, well, you are fairly precise here and I was not precise. But
> what the use of splitting hairs instead of principal debate?
This was not an effort to split hairs. The question *does*
presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank /
TNC's etc, and the track record in that respect is not very strong.
Regarding the East Asian countries that are cited above as providing
examples of the potential available to peripheral countries, it is
arguable whether they did so by working with IMF / WorldBank / TNC
'development policy', or by working arounf it. The performance of African
countries that have followed the development policy line of the day has
over the years been abysmal. So, I'd like to see the specific argument
that it *is* possible to raise the status of peripheral countries *with* the
support of the IMF / World Bank / TNC's / etc, before looking that the
(presently loaded) question of whether its possible without the support
of these organizations.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au