returning to the net, my answers to Bruce McFarling criticisms and questions:
Bruce:
> 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.
sure Cuba was not a real isolate but Soviet satellit (this Communistic w-
empire was as I believe, following D.Chirot, was isolated in many aspects from
world cap. economy.) One should take into account enormous economic aid of
USSR to Cuba. At the same time I confess that the custom for anti-reading of
Soviet ideological information (in this case on pre-Castro regime) played a
bad joke here with me.
>
Bruce:
> The question *does*
> presuppose that this development is possible *with* the IMF / WorldBank /
no, it presupposes only that all main capital and respectable international
resources should be envolved into new wide humanistic-oriented coalition, why
not IMF besides all others?
> 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.
really no, the fortunate constellation of historical, geopolitical, and
cultural factors helped them
The performance of African
> countries that have followed the development policy line of the day has
> over the years been abysmal.
it is really so, as I pointed in my book 'the structure of
civilization...1992' the reason is that periphery needs not (only) money but
accepting new social and cultural patterns (education, infra-structure, life-
style, political culture, legal culture, etc). without aid of this type no
money (from IMF or elsewhere) will help
> 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.
there some favorite for IMF examples (Hana, Tanzania) but I am not an expert
here and by no means I am a proponent of IMF (its policy of opening Russia
only for grasping by the West her raw resources seems to me revolting)
at the same time I see no serious counter-arguments why not to consider
IMF as one of potential members of new humanistic coalition
has IMF humanistic demagogy? yes, and so it is possible to play on it
once again, Bruce, why not to discuss principal problems of ways of
moving to more humanistic future?
my best regards, thanks for detailed examination of my msgs
Nikolai Rozov
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru