Not sure quite how to go about that. It should be said that the article really doesn’t have any bearing on the conversation. What I found especially interesting was the experimentation with pest control and fertilization that was inspired (if not compelled) by Cuba’s inability to afford the sorts of chemical intervention that is the backbone of American agribusiness.
If it need be said, I am not a farmer, nor an expert on agricultural ecology. Only that I found the article interesting, and inspiring of some hope, that Cuba does from necessity what we should have been doing years ago. Some good may actually come of all this.
But, just as I said, however interesting, this is hardly germane to the conversation. Probably even less relevent than a conversation about the philosophical foundations of the notion of “property”. I remain open to such a conversation, but am mindful of the ethics of cruelty, and boring people to tears is just such a cruelty.
It is entirely true that partisan politics clouds perception. If you wish to imply that this is a failure exclusive to lefties (such as myself), I would have to point out that recent history strongly declares otherwise.
As to whether a “collectivist” style of government “works”, how might we test such a proposition? I am reminded of G. K. Chesteron’s remark about Christianity: not that it was tried and found wanting but it was found difficult and not tried. Is not a tribe, the most ancient of human social structures, a “collectivist” form of government? Is not a kibbutz? And don’t these structures accommodate a notion of individual property?
Your use of the word “collectivist” as though you expect immediate horror and dismay reminds one of Ayn Rand. I was one of her victims in my misspent youth, and only recovered through generous applications of sex, drugs, and humor. I am much better now, thank you, and no longer feel the need to wear a dollar sign around my neck to ward off the Leninists.
But the particular kind of collectivism practiced in Cuba has been tried repeatedly throught the twentieth century and with grim results: grinding poverty, totalitarian repression, and tens of millions dead. How high would the butcher’s bill have to get before you would finally admit that you’ve aligned yourself with the most destructive political movement in world history?
Of course partisan politics clouds perception, I have never stated otherwise. lalenin wanted to know why some people question his statements. I referred to leftists in my response because they are the only ones in this thread who are doing so.
I believe collectivism has been tried and found dearly wanting. I believe LonesomePolecat described it pretty accurately. And a kibbutz is a relatively small community, in which every member is a voluntary one. Not the same thing as a collectivist econonmy run by the government of a country. Not the same thing at all.
My issue with collectivism is the totalitarianism that accompanies it. I can’t imagine what your reason would be for not fearing the same.
First off, I question whether or not “collectivism” really exists as a distinct entity, discrete and seperate. There are elements of collectivism in any group endeavor, by necessity, by definition. “To promote the general welfare” is a collectivist statment, no? What is a nation but a tribe writ large? Our obligations to our fellow citizens are “collective”, are they not? You are stating a firm and unwavering opposition to something that, for all practical purposes, doesn’t really exist.
Oh, my yes! I am an all-American, flag-waving, patriotic radical, in the tradition of Tom Paine. But the oppression of the collective farm of the Soviets and the oppression of the coal mine of the capitalist is too fine a distinction to bother with.
Let us take a moment to weep for the miserable lives endured by the Swedish. By the way, have you read One Day in the Life of Thor Thorvaldsonn? A damning indictment, indeed!
If you want to split hairs (again) about the meaning of words, that’s fine. Forget “collectivism” if you want. Let’s just call the system in Cuba what it is, good, old-fashioned, Soviet-style communism, replete with all that made it fun back in Russia…a tolalitarian government, inprisonment and death for those who oppose it, and abject poverty for everyone else. Sound terrific! Sign me up!
So you WOULD trade the bill of rights for “free” medical care. Interesting. Of course, I put “free” in quotes because there is always a cost for everything…in this case, as I started out in this thread saying, the cost is freedom. Dang, that is pretty expensive medical care! But I’m sure it’s worth it to the Cuban people. Of course some of them don’t like it, but as they say in the US, if you don’t like it, leave. Oh, wait…they can’t leave, because if they try to, they get shot. Again, sounds terrific! Sign me up!
The miners in Western democracies weren’t herded into the mines at gunpoint, for one thing, nor were millions of them murdered in basement rooms, gulags and artificial famines. Moreover, genuine democratic freedoms such as freedom of the press and the right of assembly made it possible to put an end to the sort of abuses that made the mines such a horror. Such distinctions seem very much worth bothering with.
Luci has tried to be clever, and ended up being merely obscure. I think he is trying to say that he wants a social welfare state like Sweden rather than a Stalinist command economy. Apparently he doesn’t understand that cuddling up with Castro is liable to create doubts about what he really wants.
“Cuddling up”? Huh? Simply because I am skeptical of your claims that Castro is a total monster bent on destruction of all that is good? Please. There are any number of men who will drape the legitimacy of thier ideology over repulsive and barbaric acts. We have an example very close to home.
He is one of those sorts of people who believes that the right puts all socialist economies in the same box. Ironic, since he is the one who is doing so.
Exactly. If you want socialized medicine, why the fuck would you point to Cuba as a shining example? Why not point to the successes of Canada, or Sweden? To be fair, Canada doesn’t have socialized medicine, it has socialized medical insurance.
Your defense of Cuba based on the fact that Castro provides free medical care for his subjects is as laughable as the defense of Mussolini, that at least he made the trains run on time. The laugh is that Mussolini DIDN’T make the trains run on time, he just made it a crime to complain about it. The reliability of medical statistics in a totalitarian dictatorship where the state controls both the medical system and the media should be left as an exercise for the student.
Laud Canada or Sweden all you like. It certainly is true that the choice is not between totalitarianism and publicly funded health care on one hand, and democracy and private health care on the other hand. We can have both, Canada has both, Sweden has both, plenty of countries have both. Thing is, Cuba has neither. The idea that Cuba has traded freedom for medical care is laughable, because Cubans have both no freedom and no medical care. Thing is, when you give up your freedom, it turns out that the people who took your freedom no longer feel much need to answer to your complaints.
Just wanted to make it clear, Lemur, that I agree that Cuba’s medical care is nothing to brag about. way back in the thread, I said that for argument’s sake, I would assume for a minute that it was the best in the world, and that even if that were true, it’s not worth giving up freedom for.
But you have an excellent point…once the freedom is lost, the power is lost. The government can do what they want, and you have to like it…there’s really no other choice.
Yes, there is a false dichotomy being put forth between property rights and “free” medical care. But let’s not go overboard and claim that Cubans “have… no medical care”. By objective standards the average Cuban has pretty decent medical care compared to what your average Jose has in most Latin American countries. They have a pretty good education system, too (again, we’re grading on a curve here).
If Americans decide we want to put the government in charge of health care (in some manner), then that’s what happens in a democracy. We choose to order our affairs in whatever manner suits us best. Right now, we’ve chosen not to. Most other 1st world nations have chosen differently. But claiming that one system is somehow “right” and the other system is “wrong” ignores the idea that what is more important is that we are able to choose, not what our particular choice is. People in the US have chosen their system, just as those in Canada and Sweden have. Not so the Cubans.