On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:53:26 -0600 Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> writes:
>
> > Does Chuck honestly believe that if Castro's regime
> > were to be overthrown anytime within the forseeable
> > future, that it will be succeeded by an anarchist
> > utopia (and does Pug belive that it would be
> > succeeded by some sort of European-style
> > social democracy)?
>
> Nope, I never said that. Not a good try at creating a strawman.
>
> Cubans would be much better off without Castro, without a leftist
> government, without U.S. interference, and the freedom to run their
> own
> lives.
The problem here is that it is highly unlikely that the Cubans would be able to get all of these things at one time. Once that point is granted ( which as illustrated by your comments below, you do), then choices have to be made, even if Chuck finds them to be unpalatable. But politics is often like that, whether we like it or not. Very often, people have to choose what they think will be the lesser evil. It would be nice if the attainment of an anarchist utopia was a live possibility right now for the Cubans or for ourselves, but such is not the case. Realistically, the options facing Cubans for the forseeable future are a choice between a continuation of the regime founded by Castro or its replacement by a US backed rightist regime. I don't see any other real options being made available to the Cubans anytime soon.
>I don't see anarchism happening in Cuba any time soon, but
> defending Castro's regime is just disgusting and indefensible.
Since you grant that anarchism is not on the table right now for the Cubans, then choices have to be made between options that you might find to be unpalatable. Of the available options, what would you deem to be the lesser evil? A continuation of the Castro regime in some form, or a US-backed rightist regime. If you see some third alternative as being possible, then please tell us what that might be and how might it be attained within realtime.
>
> > Much more likely, it would be succeeded
> > by a US-backed rightist regime that would proceed
> > to undo all of the progressive reforms instituted
> > under Castro. In other words, goodbye free universal
> > health care, bye bye free public eduation from nursery
> > school to graduate school, goodbye lowcost
> > public housing, goodbye to Cuban government
> > attempts to put an end to discrimination on the
> > basis of race or gender. Welcome to the privatization
> > of state owned industries (accompanied by
> > mass layoffs to workers to make them more
> > attractive to US investors). And in the end
> > such a regime will probably not have a
> > much better record on matters like civil
> > liberties or gay rights than the current
> > one. Fortunately, I don't think that
> > people like Chuck or Pug will ever
> > have the power to influence events
> > in Cuba one way or the other.
>
> Whatever. This is just typical leftist blathering in defense of
> Castro.
> You forgot to mention the medical clinics and the free rice and
> beans.
I realize that you might not value such things but most people do, especially people who have known poverty.
>
> I'm fully aware of the geopolitical stakes involving Cuba. But your
> argument pretty much illustrates that Castro and the Cuban
> revolution
> were not sustainable.
Castro's regime may well not be sustainable over the long term. The fact is, it has lasted much longer than anyone would have had a right to expect. After all the creation of such a regime, only ninety miles from the "belly of the beast" was a most improbable thing. And the fact that has managed to survive for almost half a century, during which period saw the collapse of its former patron, is most extraordinary.
>
> My power to influence events in Cuba is irrelevant since this is
> merely
> an Internet discussion. I never made any claim to have any power
> over
> the situation in Cuba.
>
> Chuck
> Infoshop.org
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>