Castro cures millions of blindness

[Julius Seeker]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 333837.ece



The rich tourists whose luxury yachts once crowded the idyllic Marina Hemingway complex on the outskirts of the Cuban capital are shocked to find all Havana's hotel rooms fully booked until mid-2006. More than a dozen hotels have been temporarily closed to tourists to make way for a different kind of visitor. Most of them arrive nearly blind; but all will be able to see perfectly before they leave.

A remarkable humanitarian programme is under way here, which aims to restore the sight of six million people through free eye surgery. Launched in July by the 79-year-old Cuban President, Fidel Castro, and Venezuela's Socialist leader, President Hugo Chavez, Operation Miracle has brought daily planeloads of the poor from across Latin America and the Caribbean to Havana for surgery. Cuba provides the medical skills, Venezuela the petro-dollars.

[SineSwiper]

Wasn't Castro's reign supposed to be temporary? I thought that was the whole point of communism.

[Zeus]

Wasn't Castro's reign supposed to be temporary? I thought that was the whole point of communism.

That wasn't how Stalin and Lenin ruled :-)

Besides, the Cubans actually "voted" him in...................

[Julius Seeker]

Wasn't Castro's reign supposed to be temporary? I thought that was the whole point of communism.

Communism is an economic system in which all property is collectively owned. Anyways, the point of the article is that Castro in combination with Hugo Chavez is curing millions of people, right at this moment, of blindness; one of the greatest humanitarian deeds of this century. Perhaps this century will see a lot more good in it than previous ones.

[Nev]

I did a report on Cuba in grade school, and remembered thinking even then that our embargo against them was not founded on good policy. I don't think it is now, either.

Try not to get too starry-eyed about socialist government, though, Seek. I know you've got the Che Guevara icon going and all, but socialist governments, and countries, the world over, have fallen prey to vices of humankind. Different ones than capitalism, perhaps, but still vices.

It seems to be pretty easy for socialist believers to get all starry-eyed about it, but do try to be realistic.

[SineSwiper]

Well, again, like I always point out, there's a stark difference between socialism and communism. Communism has this weird idea of "a dictatorship of the proletariat", which doesn't work. Establishing a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent, always ends up abusing the people that they are trying to protect. Sure, Russia shared everything, but when the ones in power were hoarding all of the money, everybody else was poor.

Socialism still leaves the option open for democracy. If the people in the US just suddenly decided to switch to socialism (ha!), we would be making $50-60K a year. Of course, that'll never happen here. I mostly changed to the Socialist Party as a statement against being a "hardcore Democrat".

[Julius Seeker]

I did a report on Cuba in grade school, and remembered thinking even then that our embargo against them was not founded on good policy. I don't think it is now, either.

Try not to get too starry-eyed about socialist government, though, Seek. I know you've got the Che Guevara icon going and all, but socialist governments, and countries, the world over, have fallen prey to vices of humankind. Different ones than capitalism, perhaps, but still vices.

It seems to be pretty easy for socialist believers to get all starry-eyed about it, but do try to be realistic.

From what I gather from Cubans, the pro-Castro ones (I haven't ever actually met an anti-castro one, but I know a lot of them exist in Florida). The main arguments they have is that things are better now under Castro's government than they were under Batista's, and that things would be a lot better were it not for US blockades. Given the proper economic channels, a socialist or communist country can thrive quite a bit. Norway is socialist and per capita one of the wealthiest nations in the world. In Western Communism/socialism (as opposed to Soviet and Chinese, China is not communist though they do have some communist policies, they are more like a Socialist totalitarian republic) things such as what has been happening with Venezuala aiding tens of thousands of Americans living in the North by serving them cheap oil, and now serving millions who would otherwise be blind.

Public healthcare is a major communist development, and it is one of the things in my country that is always generally seen as a positive to put more money into. In various polls, public healthcare always comes out on top as being the most important thing in Canada, as judged by the Canadian people.

[Julius Seeker]

Well, again, like I always point out, there's a stark difference between socialism and communism. Communism has this weird idea of "a dictatorship of the proletariat", which doesn't work. Establishing a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent, always ends up abusing the people that they are trying to protect. Sure, Russia shared everything, but when the ones in power were hoarding all of the money, everybody else was poor.

Socialism still leaves the option open for democracy. If the people in the US just suddenly decided to switch to socialism (ha!), we would be making $50-60K a year. Of course, that'll never happen here. I mostly changed to the Socialist Party as a statement against being a "hardcore Democrat".

The difference between the core theories of communism and socialism has nothing to do with government style. You can have a communist democracy, a socialist democracy, a communist dictatorship, or a socialist dictatorship. The same goes for Capitalism.

The difference between the two is that with Socialism only the monetary resources are collectively owned and distributed; where various institutions are privately run with public dollars (such as Universities, Military, Police, etc...). With communism, everything is collectively owned; public Universities, pubic healthcare, and no private institutions.

The problem with various current communist regimes is that they have all been established through military means, and in poor countries. There has never been a wealthy, or even moderately well off, nation convert to communism before. For example, I do think that if Canada, England, Sweden, or Norway converted to communism, things would be QUITE different from any Russian, Asian, or South American regime. First of all, the nation would be run through democratic representation; and I believe in Canada there would be a much stronger regional or provincial power over the economy than a federal one; and likely more splits, Southern and Northern Ontario would split into separate provinces.

I do believe that without the negative soviet propaganda all over the place anymore, that many countries in the coming times will be more open to the idea of communism. Even England had a close call of converting at various times just before the cold war kicked into heavy gear.