>That Cuba has been able to survive at all with the U.S. boycott, as well
>as the distorted economy left behind by imperialism, is something of a
>miracle. It is also strong evidence for Patrick Bond's argument that at
>least a partial delinking from the world economy, at almost any cost, is
>the prerequisite for building a decent society.
Cuba is where it is today because there was a USSR when it "delinked" from the circuits of capital. Without cheap oil and other aid, not to mention military defense, Castro's government probably wouldn't have lasted a year. That option isn't available to anyone today.
> It would be infinitely
>better, _of course_, if there was a world economy designed for real
>cooperation rather than for exploitation, but the criticisms of Bond's
>arguments are as naively vicious as the arguments that the U.S. should
>stay in Iraq until it has "repaired" the damage it has done.
You disagree with the POV. Why do you have to label it as "naively vicious"? That's almost the sort of questioning of motive you're always condemning in others.
> Imperialism
>will _never_ repair the damage it has done. It's fine to be prosperous
>in any nation, but it's far better to be Cuba than to be among the
>lower 25%-50% of such nations as India and China.
What about the other 50-75%? How much do they count? Should the majority stay poorer than they otherwise would be if the poorest are made better off (or less badly off)? I'm really asking you.
Doug