At 08:17 AM 1/24/98 GMT, you wrote:
>
>I don't think Andrew is being fairly treated in this discussion. I
>perceive a phenomenon known as the "wounded rabbit syndrome" - after the
>guy took a few hits in the flanks, the masses feel compelled to delurk and
>unload broadsides in his direction.
>
>Andrew's main point is entirely valid - communism has been the target of an
>intensive and prolonged propaganda campaign: its crimes have been
>exaggerated; its destabilization by external forces has been blamed on its
>internal shortcomings; its accomplishments have been discounted;
>comparisons with the West have been largely fallacious when not based on
>outright fabrication.
>
>---
>
>One interesting sub-thread has been the question of how comparisons between
>Western and Soviet systems should be based. Some have suggested looking at
>inequality levels in Standard-of-Living, some have suggested looking at
>"absolute" (ie, average) SoL levels.
>
>I suggest both approaches are capitalist-centric, in that they take
>monetary transaction rates as the measure of societal accomplishment. In
>fact a number of metrics need to be compared collectively, and the metric I
>consider most relevant hasn't even been mentioned:
> * the percentage of the population that has adequate food, shelter,
> medical care, and access to education
>
>The fact that lots of core families had color televisions, second cars, and
>other luxuries is a dubious balance against those condemned, say, to ghetto
>conditions. The West's core may have had a higher average SoL, but its
>inequality levels dipped many into abject poverty, and I agree with those
>who suggest periphery poverty should also be charged to the Western
>account.
>
>
>When one considers a brutal episode such as Stalin's starving of Georgian
>peasants, which should be rightly condemned, we in fairness need to look at
>the comparable depression situation in, say, the US. At least Stalin was
>robbing Peter to pay Paul: he felt it was more important to Soviet survival
>that urban populations and industrial workers be fed than a particular
>segment of the peasantry - the confiscated crops were at least put to use.
>
>In the US, by comparison, while many families were starving and migrating,
>crops which couldn't be sold profitably were sprayed with gasoline so that
>no one could eat them. Or consider the Irish famine: adequate food
>supplies were available at all times to feed everyone, indeed, more than
>enough food was being _exported_ from Ireland to feed the starving. And
>when huge emergency supplies of wheat were purchased from the US by
>Britain, the bread wasn't distributed to the starving, but was simply sold
>on the market, with negligable benefit.
>
>
>1/23/98, s_sanderson wrote:
> >"Socialism" has not been successful at developing a single Third World
> >country to any decent level at all.
>
>Wrong. Cuba, despite being subjected to a prolonged state-of-war by the
>world's most powerful nation thirty miles away, has managed to provide a
>much better standard of living, health, and literacy than in comparable
>Latin-American countries. And Cuba didn't have death squads and military
>actions against its own people. Cuba even exceeds US standards in some
>health metrics.
>
> >The most successful Third World countries in recent decades are capitalist,
> >namely, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They are way ahead
> >of China and Cuba, and on some measures of development (such as infant
> >mortality) are nearly even with the core.
>
>Specious - conveniently omits that these "winners" were supported by core
>investment and military protection, while the "losers" were being
>economically strangled and militarily threatened.
>
>
>1/24/98, Adam Kessler wrote:
> >Simple question--how do you *know* that they (the Cubans) *reject the
> >alternative in store for them*? After all, the essence of dictatorship is
> >that the dictator does note permit anyone to find out what the people
> >*really* want. Just before the fall of the Berlin wall...
>
>Here we see propaganda being reported as fact. First Castro is identified
>as a dictator, which is just party-line rhetoric, and then characteristics
>are thereby attributed to him which contradict fact. In fact Castro is a
>tireless public servant, has the overwhelming support of the people,
>systematically includes popular participation in policy making, and
>explains policy decisions forthrightly (and at great length) on television.
>
>
>By comparison, US presidents serve with marginal electoral majorities, make
>policies according to elite interests, and use their television time to
>deceive and mislead. For my money its the US that has a dictatorship and
>Cuba that has by comparison a democratic system.
>
>
>rkm
>
>
>