From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: capitalist cuba?
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:43:22 +0100



"This is called lying with statistics," according to Louis Proyect
when I pointed to information such as that "infant mortalliy also actually
rose during the first years of Castro." As I found this a couple of
years ago on the regime's own website (though hardly as a
headline) I am in case not the one lying. This is quite typical.
Official representatives of Castro's party living here in Norway
have always laughed (in private) of the picture that members of the
Norwegian-Cuban friendship association have of their country.
There is something about being more Catholic than the Pope.

My point was hardly of giving a full picture of Cuba society and
and its devopment in the 20th century, before and after Castro.
People tend to compare Cuba to places as Bolivia and Columbia,
rather than for instance Costa Rica where both illiteracy rates and
infant mortality according to WTO statistics actually have
decreased more than in Cuba in the period of question, as they
were originally somewhat higher. I am no what claiming that this
says everything but it puts things somewhat into proportions.

Nor am I saying that the level of wages says everything. It is actually
you who are making the argument, even if  you seem unaware of it.
Generalised wage slavery tells us however that we are talking about
capitalism.

But iif we are to talk about the wage level, according to ILO it was
higher in Cuba during the Batista regime than in many West-European
countries, despite colonial history. I am very sure this does not tell the
full story (you pointed yourself to the critical factor of only seasonal
employment, something that any agricultural labourer in Andalucia  at
that time would regonisize him or herself in). The relative high wage
level had much to do with the historical strong union movement in theĻ
country (and certainly was not due to Batista) but still again this put
some things into proportions. It is very possible that Cuba would have
lagged behind in all circumstances but is not certain. If we are to talk
about bread let us talk about bread and not what poltical rhetorics
are used to put it on the table. And now we have not entered into
things such as the remarkably large prison population ( and the over-
representation of "blacks" among them) where a comparison with
the U.S. of A is far more adequate than with Europe. But I suppose
to that to those who chose to side with the oppressors and exploiters
of them working class, such things does not matter much.

There are far worse places to live than in Cuba. There are also far
worse places to live than in South Korea. That does not make any
of these countries less capitalist.

At last. you write. "The Human Development Indicators would reveal
that, whatever the wage rate, the average Cuban lived better under
the revolution than before it. Even with the difficult situation facing
Cuba, a bourgeois economist is forced to admit:" No one has denied
that the material living standard is better in Cuba today than in the
1950ies.
Though I find it quite funny this reference to "under the revolution,"
even if I would be very much pleased if  a social revolution was actually
taking place. In all circumstances, the same could be said about
quite a few countries. What about:  "The Human Development
Indicators would reveal that, whatever the wage rate, the average
Irish, South Korean,  Taiwanese and Costa Rician live better under
the revolution [today] than before1958.  Even ... a bourgeois economist
is forced to admit [that]?" Any bourgeois economist would also have
to admit that this would be true for the end of the Franco period
compared to Republician Spain of 30ies.

Harald



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---