h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Cuba!

"Over the next four years we will continue to press hard and insure that the gift of freedom finally reaches the men and women of Cuba," Bush said, provoking loud applause and chants of "Viva Bush!"

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/election.main/index.html

That's right! The wonderful gift that Bush has brought to Iraq (100,000 innocents dead and a destroyed infrastructure) is coming soon to that terrifying threat to world peace, Cuba.

When you have destabilized the middle east, where next? The Caribbean, of course!

""Over the next four years we will continue to press hard and insure that the gift of freedom finally reaches the men and women of Cuba," Bush said, provoking loud applause and chants of "Viva Bush!""

So Bush thinks the unelected, human-rights-abusing Castro dictatorship should be replaced with an elected government and you think this is something that we and the Cubans should all be worried about?

Kindly explain why.

Oh, and Bush was elected (although the system is flawed) and America's human-rights abuses (Guatanamo included) pale in comparison to Cubas's so I wouldn't aim for that "get out clause".

"That's right! The wonderful gift that Bush has brought to Iraq (100,000 innocents dead and a destroyed infrastructure) is coming soon to that terrifying threat to world peace, Cuba."

First off, Bush didn't "kill 100,000 Iraqis", that's just the opinion of one survey based on "interviewing Iraqis". Even the most extreme estimates before that put the death toll at half of that. Bush started a war and, given that 600,000 died in the "policy of containment" started by his father and continued by Clinton, in the long-run will have probably saved another 600,000 dying under Saddam's precious soverignty and those nice, legal, UN sanctions. Believe it or not, Iraqis who die other than in a war also count. Also, a hell of a lot of those dead Iraqis were killed by rightwing insurgents (which some anti-war people refer to as though they were the French resistance).

Secondly, Bush hasn't actually said he's going to invade Cuba, he's just said he's going to push for the fall of the dicatorship there. Given Castro's age, the failure of the communist system and the growing resistance over there, it's only a matter of time.

Hi, Zagreb.

All your points are accurate (as accurate as anything in this mess of lies and deceit) of course.

except . . .

"the failure of the communist system"

In Cuba, for example, it hasn't failed yet. In fact, the old Capitalist system failed in Cuba. And the fat lady has only just started singing for the U.S. version.

Oh. I just noticed one other little error:


'given that 600,000 died in the "policy of containment"'

The one study you mention actually took into account those 600,000 (or what ever extimate was available to them). The 100,000 figure was 100,000 more than would have died without the invasion, based on the death rate before the invasion, in other words, based on a continuation of the policy of containment. In a nutshell, as is stated in the report of the study, the death rate in Iraq among civilians increased sharply with the invasion and has remained high. And this is after the exclusion of data from Fallujah, where the death rate is quite remarkably higher still.

"except . . .

"the failure of the communist system"

In Cuba, for example, it hasn't failed yet. In fact, the old Capitalist system failed in Cuba.erm And the fat lady has only just started singing for the U.S. version"

I would argue that communism has failed in Cuba. It's failed to deliver a standard of living comparable with a Western country. Anywhere it has "succeeded" (ie healthcare) would actually work better under a welfare state sitting on a free-market system (dare I suggest our own NHS?).

In fact communism is a system that doesn't work full-stop. It requires a population that believe completely in the system and will not challenge it. This is the requirement for the "withering away of the state". Because of the obvious human tendency to challenge systems, the state can't wither-away and thus continuous repression is needed.

sort of like Corporate Capitalism.

But only someone who is not a true believer would see the failures and flaws, perhaps.

Oh, and "capitalism" didn't fail in Cuba. The problem was a rightwing and oppressive dicatorship that the Americans stupidly backed thinking it would "keep Marxism at bay", failing to realise that the backing of such a dicator makes Marxism and it's false promises far more attractive to a poor and disenfranchised majority and a revolution promising "liberty" followed by a communist dicatorship all the more likely. American governments continued to make this mistake right up until the end of the cold war.

"sort of like Corporate Capitalism"

Well, in a way. Corporate capitalist entities suffer in many ways from the same problems as, for example, a communist state (too much bureaucracy, too much power at the top, a dislike of individual initiative and an obssession with paternalism and people doing what they are told etc) but that's another argument for another day.

And there is a clear agenda of bringing about the whithering of the state.

I've long thought that the unfinished business of the 20th century (well, for a few years now I've thought it, since the bleeding century only ended a few years ago) was the fall of Capitalism. There really is a lack of balance that is aesthetically offensive.

"The one study you mention actually took into account those 600,000 (or what ever extimate was available to them). The 100,000 figure was 100,000 more than would have died without the invasion, based on the death rate before the invasion, in other words, based on a continuation of the policy of containment."

Yes, but probably over the same timescale (ie a year). The policy of containment would have lasted far, far longer than that. In fact, one of the madnesses of the containment policy (apart from the moral madness of punishing an entire country for a dictatorship they didn't choose and couldn't remove) was the fact that it had no real aim. It was, in effect, open-ended.

"In a nutshell, as is stated in the report of the study, the death rate in Iraq among civilians increased sharply with the invasion and has remained high."

This is inevitable in a war. But I would argue (as above) that more lives were saved in the long-term. As I said, Iraqis who die from sanctions and Saddam's internal repression count as much as Iraqis who die in an invasion.

"And this is after the exclusion of data from Fallujah, where the death rate is quite remarkably higher still."

Fallujah is a disaster and a good example of America's great weakness in this war - they are not fully trained to engage in a Police Action. Rumours are that the Americans were welcomed into Fallujah at first and then, after the insurgents made trouble, they found themselves in a combat situation. Apparently they had the option of retaking the town slowly (and being more likely to be victorious) or going for a quick-bombing scenario. They chose the latter and it has been a mistake. The person responsible for persuading Bush of the need for a quick (if risky) solution? Unsurprisingly, one Donald Rumsfeld.

The couple of interesting things I have heard about Cuba is that it has developped a sustainable agricultural system because sanctions meant it couldn't import agricultural chemicals, and that it contained the AIDS/HIV epidemic in ways that the West hasn't been able to (albeit in ways that most Westerners would disapprove of).

I haven't read up on that for along time, except some pieces that Alice Walker wrote after visiting a few times. I think there are all sorts of interesting things happening in Cuba that are invisible to the West, and our own ideologies stop us from seeing the things that are actually working there.

The other point is that this Western standard of living that is so highly prized comes at a huge cost socially, environmentally, and even to our health. We just aren't very aware or honest yet about what that cost is.

"I've long thought that the unfinished business of the 20th century (well, for a few years now I've thought it, since the bleeding century only ended a few years ago) was the fall of Capitalism. There really is a lack of balance that is aesthetically offensive."

The problem is that Capitalism delivered what the communists promised - wealth, workers rights etc. The difference between late 20th century capitalism and 19th century capitalism (which is what brought about Communist thinking) is that the wealth-creaters were brought to heel and made via political realism to acknowledge their workers basic rights and, eventually, human rights generally. As a result, free trade unions (allowing dialogue between workers and bosses) became an alternative to communist revolution and welfare states based on free-market systems delivered what communists could only promise. As a result, communism ran out of arguments and was reduced to grandstanding until it self-destructed in the late 1980s.

Cuba... Well, it's a very easy target! Castro is about 78, for goodness' sake!

And now Corporate Capitalism is taking back all the things that Communism promised and Capitalism almost delivered (I think it's a pretty untenable position to argue that Capitalism delivered all the things that you say it delivered. It certainly didn't deliver Wealth (ask Walmart workers) It certainly didn't deliver workers' rights (ask Walmart workers) It hasn't delivered human rights (need I go on?)

<>

Hear, hear!

"The problem is that Capitalism delivered what the communists promised - wealth, workers rights etc. The difference between late 20th century capitalism and 19th century capitalism (which is what brought about Communist thinking) is that the wealth-creaters were brought to heel and made via political realism to acknowledge their workers basic rights and, eventually, human rights generally. As a result, free trade unions (allowing dialogue between workers and bosses) became an alternative to communist revolution and welfare states based on free-market systems delivered what communists could only promise. As a result, communism ran out of arguments and was reduced to grandstanding until it self-destructed in the late 1980s."

However one could also argue that the capitalist ideal of the free market is now removing some of the deliverables in the individualization of the human form. What I mean by this is that many things in capitalism do not work to the benefit of the workers as you suggest they do. However the state of a communistic belief cannot hope to deliver them as well. Both forms tend to drift money and or power to the elite (ie those in power or placed in power). The free market system did deliver many things however I would not say that the "freer the market the freer the people" based on the simple fact that under a "welfare state" system the privatization of the welfare has always resulted in services becoming worse from the corporations within that system becoming greedy and only giving those who are on the richer end of the scale services as they are 1. Able to afford them and 2. healthier from there standard of living in the first place. To place what was in the USSR and China as working examples of communism however is also a falsehood considering it could be argued that neither achieved such a system. It is unfortunate to say the least that at the current state of things the ideal of capitalism in its available form concentrates on capital as a ideal. It is the accumulation of capital that is seen as the greatest achievement in this philosophy. Were as in communism the greatest achievement is generally seen as the ability to actually have an effective an working system whereby communism is achieved. One could effectible argue that neither system is indeed right and both have various flaws and both will eventually collapse, what they are replaced with however is anyones guess and I don't wish to speculate on it.

Sorry, Kea, I missed that post.

We in Canada are perhaps fortunate in that we holiday in Cuba. We trade with Cuba. We learn about Cuba.

And, we get lured across the American border, get entrapped by the FBI, get thrown in a U.S. prison to rot for a number of years just because we followed all the rules of our country and traded with Cuba. And, we learn about the U.S.

"And now Corporate Capitalism is taking back all the things that Communism promised and Capitalism almost delivered (I think it's a pretty untenable position to argue that Capitalism delivered all the things that you say it delivered. It certainly didn't deliver Wealth (ask Walmart workers) It certainly didn't deliver workers' rights (ask Walmart workers) It hasn't delivered human rights (need I go on?)"

You refer to Walmart. Walmart are not capitalism personified any more than Virgin or The Body Shop are. They are simply one version of it and, I agree, it's shoddy. Also, workers in a communist state have considerably less rights (not to mention pay) than even under the worst corporate-capitalist entity in the West.

I didn't mean Capitalism "delivered" human rights, I meant that 19th-century capitalism gave way to liberal democracies and these respected human rights whilst preserving the fundaments of capitalism as their economic base (and it's arguable that the wealth and general contentment this created protected liberal democracy). "Pure" capitalism is as unworkable as communism - as an example, the only purely capitalist market we have in the world is the market in illegal drugs (no taxes, no regard for state laws, price based purely on demand etc) and it is run by violent gangsters. Capitalism works when it is tempered by respecting human rights, obeying laws and working with it's workers rather than against them.