I don't know what to make of Louis' post. Louis claims the evidence suggests to him that socialism is superior to capitalism. Then he cites statistics that speak volumes that show that Canada is superior to socialist Cuba in life expectancy, GDP per capita, and education index. Is Canada supposed to be socialist ! Of course these statistics are very imperfect indicators of anything. GDP per capita tells nothing about inequality of income distribution. The number of poor children in Canada is growing by leaps and bounds. Life expectancy is an average. If you took an average for aboriginals you would get a much lower figure. And so on. Cheers, Ken Hanly Louis Proyect wrote: > Michael Keany: > >I wouldn't describe Dewey as timid in outlook. Of course, the implication > >here is that timid equates to a basic acceptance of the social relations of > >production prevalent in his time, and our own. I don't believe this to be an > >accurate portrayal of Dewey's position, most especially in his latter years. > > John Dewey, like John Maynard Keynes, was an honorable man. He was one of > the few liberals in the US who had the guts to stand up to Stalinist > political hegemony and defend Trotsky. The timidity I am referring to does > not have to do with taking courageous stands on civil liberties questions. > It is rather connected to the tendency of middle-class intellectuals to > stand in awe of capitalist instititutions. With all of the blandishments > that go along with an academic career, it is very unusal for such figures > to attack these institutions at their root like Chomsky does. In some ways, > Chomsky with his blend of anarchism and libertarianism is less timid than > the averaged tenured Marxist professor. They have been trained to write in > a lofty, non-judgemental manner about history and economics, but rarely in > the exhortative manner found in Chomsky's writings. > > >And I think "socialists" would do well to attend to matters pertaining to > >the liberation of individuals - after all, it's the people we're doing it > >for, isn't it? Replacing one capitalist machine with another non-capitalist > >one is not much use if the individuals expected to work it still have no say > >in its design, construction, use and modification. > > Unless we're talking about the dark days of Soviet Stalinism, most > non-capitalist societies have tremendous amounts of control from the > bottom. Randy Martin, an editor at Social Text, comments that Cuba has had > more significant policy changes over the past 20 years than the US has had > in the entire 20th century. The only logical explanation for this is that > the rank-and-file of Cuban society have better channels to express their > ideas about "design, construction, use and modification" than we give them > credit for. > > >In my view, the fundamental issue is democracy, not what we label our system > >of economic organisation. Noncapitalist systems are not necessarily better > >simply for being so. > > I am old-fashioned on this question. My examination of the evidence > convinces me that socialism is superior. Here are some statistics that > speak volumes: > > >From UN Human Development Index 1998 by rank: > > 1) Canada > Life expectancy at birth (years) -- 79.1 > Adjusted real GDP per capita in dollars -- 6230.98 > Education index -- 0.9933 > > 85) Cuba > Life expectancy at birth (years) -- 75.7 > Adjusted real GDP per capita in dollars -- 3100 > Education index -- 0.8592 > > 139) India > Life expectancy at birth (years) -- 61.6 > Adjusted real GDP per capita in dollars -- 1421.99 > Education index -- 0.529 > > 174) Sierra Leone (in last place) > Life expectancy at birth (years) -- 34.7 > Adjusted real GDP per capita in dollars -- 624.85 > Education index -- 0.3089 > > Louis Proyect > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
