30,000 Cuban doctors currently active in 67 countries - many in Latin America and Africa, but also European nations including Portugal and Italy
@kravietz what a āsurpriseā that the āgreatā British propaganda organisation has a negative Cuba story. Just literally, what weāre the fucking odds? Donāt believe the BBC narrative. Theyāve done more to undermine positive steps from Corbyn for a social safety-net and a NHS thatās funded properly. All crap, fake partisan reporting š©
Or just arguing because someone dared to say people in Cuba are exploited?
@kravietz as if. Iām well read. The timing of this is enough to make anyone suspicious of the provenance of these assertions
If you have just a little bit of self-respect, how can you support a regime whose whole economic model is based on *preventing its own citizens from leaving the country?*
Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to such oppression because I was born in country that operated just on this principle... When you are not free to leave you country you are nothing more than property of the state - and I wish Western leftists admitted that eventually.
@kravietz Moderate Rebels covered this: the US is asking countries to refuse help from Cuban doctors asking them to recognise them as human trafficking victims. This is mainstream media cooperation with a deeply racist neoliberal State department. Pretending that ābecause you can leaveā you are āFreeā is a nonsense; go anywhere you like and youāre debt with follow you.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
Can you explain how in your understanding a ban on leaving your country - as NK, Cuba and USSR did - has anything to do with social justice? How do you explain & justify this? You call yourself a socialist - is forcibly keeping people in a country part of your socialism?
I'm genuinely interested. I've read a lot of justifications for why there's nothing wrong with living at $20/month in 70's Poland from people like JP Sartre living in $2000/pm France.
> Actual wage levels per hour are not the issue
I can see they're certainly not a problem *for you* so I was just wondering how long have you been living in Cuba or North Korea or communist Poland exactly?
@CyberSocialist Because I can tell you first hand $20 monthly salary in communist Poland *was* a huge problem for my parents (I was 13 when the crap collapsed eventually).
Guess what - free housing and healthcare were *not* really free because when there's shortage of everything, from flats to basic medicines, you have to pay bribes and black market prices for these goods.
@kravietz Poland and the Cold War are a coexisting fact from 1960-1989: you canāt re-run history but neither can you ignore the racists that US/Russian geopolitics causes much of what you suffered. Blaming Cuba for fighting for its existence any way it can in the face imperial aggression seems ahistorical and pointless: the Media has an agenda against successful Cuba - thatās obvious, even to those who lived in the eastern block
I'm not blaming Cuba for fighting for independence.
I'm blaming Cuba for forcibly sticking to a failed economic model, keeping its citizens pariahs in their own country and renting them to capitalist countries as some kind of slaves.
> the Media has an agenda against successful Cuba
Except Cuba is *not* successful.
@kravietz yes, it is successful - why are you measuring purely GDP? For ideological reasons youāre ignoring facts: Cuban culture, music, art, dance, medicine, tourism, universal healthcare and education have all flourished despite the immoral and devastating US blockade and sanctions. You evidently know zero about Cuba. Why pretend?
If Cuba is successful, why people are risking lives to escape by boats to countries like Mexico or USA?
@kravietz thatās not a real argument for the success, in the context of a US blockade, of socialism in Cuba: people emigrate from many places for many reasons, even the USA! What are your criteria for āsuccessā then? And do some people wanting to leave mean itās āfailedā?
People emigrating from USA or Poland don't have to risk their lives on boats, did you notice the slight difference?
@kravietz no, in the USA they die where they live due to zero healthcare and no employment. Is this your model of success?
Once again https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
But thank you for that "no" at least. So starting from your honest "no", if people are risking their lives to escape country A, and they can just freely leave countries B,C,D if the don't like it there, would you still classify A as "successful"?
@kravietz Devoid of context the question has no meaningful answer. If 1 person wants to leave itās a failure? If 10? 1000? And what if their material needs are being denied due to the blockade? I donāt blame them for trying to leave, but I donāt naively conclude that this means ācountry x is a āfailureā ā as this ignores the historical contingencies that exist and how these impediments could be removed.
Yeah, I guess that would be truly socialist to *blame* these people for trying to escape!
Do you also mercifully spare your blame to wives suffering from marital violence for willing to escape?
Or would you rather console them explaining that violence and austerity are not really measures of a failed marriage because their husband can sing well!
It's not about how many want to leave in the first place.
It's about they *cannot* leave because their country holds them as... what exactly? How would socialist theory classify their position? "Enthusiastic members of the collective who don't want to leave, and if they want, they're reactionary traitors"? Just trying to simulate the language I remember from childhood.
So the question is: why would an allegedly successful country prevent its citizens from leaving and how "successful" it is if people are so desperate to risk their lives to escape?
@kravietz Cuba would be 100x richer without the US blockade. Why not argue for the lifting of that?
So what you're trying to say here, is that country that has built a socialist economy that is scientifically proven by Marx to be superior to capitalist economy, is 100x poorer only because an unsuccessful capitalist country doesn't trade with it and doesn't give it loans?
Can you see any, you know, possible contradictions in this logic?
@kravietz what a deeply flawed understanding of āthe blockadeā you have! The US is unique in having a governing seat on all the world financial institutions and an overriding veto on supranational trade organisations that even China can hardly compete in a trade war: what chance Cuba? The US seeks to punish every other nation that trades with Cuba.
How come? https://oec.world/en/profile/country/cub/
The top export destinations of Cuba are China ($379M), Spain ($184M), Germany ($82.3M), Indonesia ($55.4M) and Singapore ($52.4M). The top import origins are China ($1.35B), Spain ($1.01B), Mexico ($356M), Algeria ($353M) and Brazil ($345M).
And how come 7% of Cuban imports come from... the US?
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/cuba-exports-and-imports.html
@kravietz really? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/cuba-food-production-us-oil-sanctions youāre really denying the reality of this for ideological reasons? Because your childhood was impacted youāre denying the material reality of the US in Cuba and blaming socialism?
Because my childhood was impacted I can sympathise with people of Cuba under a regime that prevents them from living decent lives or - if the regime prevents them from it - leave the country.
Apparently for people living in wealthy Western countries it's easier to accept rather twisted view that "the people of Cuba want to live in a prison country because building socialism is more important for them".
I'd argue it's important for *you* as long as it's done with *their* hands
@kravietz again, youāve refused to focus on the impact of the US blockade. Weāre 12 tweets deep and youāve still not acknowledged the part it plays and the moral, legal and ethical implications of this. Why??
1. US imposed sanctions for a reason. Cuba ignores them.
2. Sanctions are not absolute. Cuba trades with EU *and* with US.
Now forget sanctions, it's 100% choice of Cuban regime to:
3. Stick to a weird mix of communist-capitalist state-controlled economy
4. Keep political prisoners and thwart opposition
5. Restrict people's right to travel
6. Restrict people's right to do business as they like
7. Protect the businesses of Castro dynasty & their friends
So the problem is not me "refusing to focus on US sanctions", it's you taking them as an exclusive reason for poor life in Cuba.
You're trying to imply that if US removes sanctions against Cuba, the country will suddenly grow decent economy and people will enjoy freedoms.
But... this actually happened! US has softened sanctions on Cuba on numerous occasions (last 2016) and nothing really changed, except for Castro family being able to travel more and buy more US cars.
@kravietz 2016
Was not the removal of sanctions. Not was it in place sufficiently long to notice this overnight reform you think exists (nowhere) in the world.
Once again, back in 1989 it was a single legal act by then (still) communist government of Poland that decriminalised (!) private trade that resolved all shortages and it happened literally overnight (same for travel).
There's *nothing* preventing Cuban government from saying "hey, from tomorrow you can open private firms, open a newspaper and get a passport for travel abroad".
If they're so "proud of their country" as you say, most of them will come back, won't they?
@kravietz societal reform doesnāt occur overnight without consequences. Try advocating for the removal of illegal and immoral sanctions and see what happens. What Cuba has achieved with them in place is remarkable. What theyād achieve without them is mind blowing. And even then āsomeā would want to leave. And that wouldnāt make it a failure either
Obviously, in 1989 there was tons of whining by party officials (what if everyone leaves?), Western racists (what if we're flooded by these communist savages?) and especially Western intellectuals, my favourite:
"they should stay in their country and build socialism!"
It all settled down, everyone benefited in the end.
It's the same level of naivety as people thinking that if we remove sanctions on USSR they will stop brutally killing workers who dared to strike (Novocherkassk '68), occupying Eastern Europe countries and putting people to prison for reading poems or selling home-grown cucumbers to neighbours.
Go, remove sanctions on Kim or Ramzan Kadyrov, so that both can buy more western luxury cars for their collections, but do you really think they will stop enslaving people?
@kravietz are you conflating communism with socialism??? Really?
Do you know how USSR expands exactly?
@kravietz actually many of the Cubans I know - having danced Cuban salsa since 1998 - and having visited the entire length and breadth of the country of Cuba are extremely proud of their country but lament the restrictions imposed on them by their government DUE TO the US embargo. Are they wrong?
It's not US government that imposes travel ban on Cuban citizens, it's Cuban government.
Same for imposing severe restrictions on private business *inside* Cuba (like a huge set of decrees blocking private entrepreneurship issued in 2018).
It's not US government that made Castros a dynasty.
Yes, they ARE wrong, just like Russians blaming Obama on low pensions or crap hospitals. And yes, both government do blame external parties on what is purely their responsibility.
@kravietz again, the US blockade on Cuba is unparalleled. Yet you find equivalence where there is none. You need to address this as itās colouring your understanding of the Cuban nation and the politics that is made possible (or not) by it being in place for 60 years + . You ignore structural issues that limit your Overton Window considerably
@kravietz This isnāt simply ānot trading with Cubaā but stopping ALL trade with any nation - a form of collective punishment hitherto unseen, except perhaps with the likes of Zionist apartheid Israel and its illegal blockade of Gaza.
> US/Russian geopolitics
Russian/German imperialism could be blamed for WW2.
Austerity of the Eastern Bloc after 1946 was caused exclusively by enforcement of Marxist economy. Before 1989 private trade was a crime (!) in all Eastern Bloc countries and you couldn't buy anything, from food, medicines to fucking toilet paper (!) because all paper was especially rationed (you could print leaflets on it).
In 1989 they allow private trade - and bang, overnight shops are full!
@CyberSocialist And while wages were like 100x less than in the West, food prices weren't so much different.
For an average salary today in Poland you can buy say ~7000 eggs or 300 kg of butter (just to compare purchasing power). Back in 80's for an average salary you could buy 700 eggs or just 16 kg of butter, if you were able to find them in official shops. If not, you'd need to buy on black market, add extra 150% price margin.
And speaking about "ahistorical", do you know at all what was the objective of all the 20th century revolutions?
Abolish capitalism because socialism is going to do everything so much efficiently, with less surplus and more justice.
Now fast forward 50 years: all the socialist countries begging for Western loans and humanitarian help, some struggling with famines (NK), unable to feed themselves and secure decent level of living on their own.
"More efficient", remember?
@kravietz again, your ahistorical analysis pits US-Western neoliberalism as normative and neutral , devoid of deleterious effects. To argue the merits of socialism you need to do it within the context of the places itās taken root. International loans are a tool of neoliberal empire.
> you need to do it within the context
Go on, surprise me. I'm not easily dismissed with a bunch of sophisticated-sounding truisms.
> International loans are a tool of neoliberal empire
Precisely my point! So why were socialist countries even taking them if their socialist economies were scientifically proven superior and more effective by Marx?
@kravietz youāre applying a ahistorical analysis to a country thatās been under an illegal and immoral blockade for the last 60 years. Actual wage levels per hour are not the issue. Neoliberalism doesnāt have the answer to climate destruction.