>> Cuba is a typical post-revolutionary state? (JT)
>>
>
> It must be, because Yoshie says that it's self-evident that the Cuban
> revolution was susscessful. Given how other lefties defend Cuba, it's
> safe to assume that Cuba demonstrates the kind of revolution that some
> people on this list want. (Chuck)
>
I didn't ask you wrote Yoshie thinks or wrote I asked you how you felt
Cuba could be classified as a "typical small country coup".
What makes it so typical? It seems quite different than any other small
country coup I am familiar with. (JT)
>
>> I never knew how successful the other Caribbean, South American, and
>> Central American states that underwent similar revolutions really were.
>> Which one of them sends as many doctors abroad as Cuba? (JT)
>>
>
> I really don't know. Was the Cuban revolution about medical care? (Chuck)
>
As much as it was about anything. The point of revolution isn't to have
a revolution but to meaningfully increase the quality of life of a
countries citizens and grant them access to the means of replicating
life. Cuba hasn't done it perfectly (far from it) but it certainly has
succeeded much more than any other small country coup you would care to
name.
>> What other post-revolutionary states have statistical similarities to
>> Cuba and what are they? (JT)
>>
>
> Are you really arguing that Cuba had a revolution? Scary. Let's hope
> that there aren't any more like Cuba's. I'd hate to live in that kind of
> "post-revolutionary" situation. (Chuck)
>
It was most definitely a revolution. It wasn't the revolution you
advocate but you do not define what is or isn't a revolution.
The fact that you would prefer not to live in a Cuban style
post-revolutionary situation is totally irrelevant to the argument
whether there was a revolution in Cuba.
My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines revolution as: A complete and
forcible overthrow of an established government or political system. A
pervasive change in society and the social structure.
You can argue over preferences for or against aspects of the
post-revolutionary society but arguing it was not a revolution is utter
nonsense. That's scary. (JT)
>> Cuba may not be utopia but it is hardly typical. (JT)
>>
>
> No, it's not typical. I hope that people really aren't holding up Cuba
> as some kind of model for a socialist revolution. You ain't going to win
> many people to your vision for revolution if you hold out Cuba as your
> model. (Chuck)
>
So now it's not typical where your earlier post claimed it was. Please
make up your mind. (JT)
>
>> If this is the best rebuttal you have you don't a rebuttal at all. (JT)
>>
>
> Rebutting my comments with the standard leftist zombie argument about
> Cuban doctors is really laughable. (Chuck)
>
As against the standard anarchist argument void of any substance that
you put forth?
There is nothing standard in my comments except they place concerns for
actually living people higher than a doctrinaire anarchist knee-jerk
reaction to consider all states as failures with no regards to the
living conditions of people within them.
I never knew a huge increase in life expectancy as well as quality of
life was considered laughable to anarchists. That too is scary. (JT)
>
>> Since the ultimate fate of Cuba's socialist state has yet to be written
>> it points out the folly of nothing except to sooth-seers. (JT)
>>
>
> Plenty has been written. 50 years of Castro is enough.
>
> Chuck
What has been written is sometimes informative but most often useless
reactionary drivel with regards to Cuba. Nothing yet written points out
the folly of attempting a social statist revolution in one country since
the final history of Cuba is not known.
Certainly one socialist state can never be truly a completely functional
socialist state because of the world in which we live. The alternative
however, massive simultaneous revolutions world-wide, is a child's
simplistic dream.
Rather than simplistic chiding of the failings of a states attempts at
implementing socialism in the really existing world why don't you
describe some actual realistic policies and detail how the Cubans could
have done more with what they had? You know, constructive criticism,
rather than dogmatic zombie-like criticisms of no substance.
"50 years of Castro is enough"? Sounds like the standard leftist
arguments you rail against. A meaningless soundbite with nothing
substantive.
John Thornton