wizofaus,

If you think a belief that capitalism is inherently evil makes one a fanatic, then there are a good many others who would also qualify as fanatics.

There were periods in the history of Western democracies where this belief was mainstream, and, at times, even a majority view.

I personally don't like the capitalist system, although I don't believe that all capitalists are inherently evil and I expect that Castro does not either.

There are times when it appears to have worked well, but only when it has been constrained by a strong state, and only when there has been abundant natural wealth to sustain it, particularly fossil fuels and metals. However, there seems to be a dynamic within the capitalist system which causes the most extreme anti-social trends to eventually predominate.

This is certainly the case in Australia, where we are ruled by figures who are fanatically hostile to any public ownership or provision of services or any government protection of the rights and wage levels of workers (tempered only, very briefly, by the need for the this Government to get re-elected, hence the almost impossibly complicated 'fairness test' that will inevitably be watered done as soon as the election is out of the way).

Personally, I believe that some amount of free enterprise could work very well, but only where the commanding heights of the economy are firmly controlled by the people of this country through its government.

Whatever, it needs to be agreed to at a fair and free election, and I would argue, thanks to the insidious influence of the corporate newsmedia, particularly Murdoch's, not to mention all the current taxpayer-funded Liberal Party advertising, we have not had one since 1972, if even then.

---

Back to Castro: Please show with quotes (google Castro's speeches) examples of his 'fanaticism'. I think you will find that of all the political leaders in the world today he would have to be one of the most level-headed and articulate, and, again, I am not writing that as one who is wholly uncritical of Castro.

James Sinnamon (author)

Daggett

You also say “there seems to be a dynamic within the capitalist system which causes the most extreme anti-social trends to eventually predominate.”

Let’s compare the very few occasions on which the political system has come close to controlled experiments of capitalism and alternative ideologies - North and South Korea, and East and West Germany. I’d suggest the capitalist route showed far less tendency to cause anti-social trends to predominate.

You say there are times when capitalism “appears” to have worked well, but “only when there has been abundant natural wealth to sustain it, particularly fossil fuels and metals.”

Not so. Hong Kong became the trading powerhouse of the east with no economic resources and one of the most laissez faire economic regimes the world has ever seen. Singapore, Japan and Taiwan all likewise have negligible resources, but are amongst the richest countries in the world, certainly far more prosperous than many of their neighbours more abundantly endowed with natural resources.

Or contrast North and South Korea – before it was partitioned, the North was relatively wealthy, while the South was poor and had a dearth of natural resources. But the South has grown prosperous through capitalism while the North is one of the most repressed and impoverished countries in the world – a poster child for the ill-effects of state-directed isolationist economics.

One of the key benefits of globalisation is that it allows people to get access to things that they can’t produce themselves, or which other produce more efficiently – not just raw materials but other goods, services, cultural artefacts, capital, and ideas.

Can you name a single non-capitalist country whose citizens enjoy either the freedom or the prosperity that we do?

Daggett, actually I never used the word "fanatical" wrt Castro, although it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

And I agree, for capitalism to work well...that is, for it to maintain stability and prosperity, it needs significant government oversight. The closest thing to "raw capitalism" that was ever tried was probably late 19th century America, with its robber barons, stifling monopolies, worker conditions that today would be intolerable, and extreme mistreatment (even murder) of workers who tried to organisation resistance to their exploitation. Most importantly, it clearly wasn't viable economically - manufacturers were running out of markets to sell to, as workers worked too many hours and had insufficient money to buy anything. Eventually it lead to the "New Deal", which was the first genuine realisation by governments that capitalism needed regulation and monitoring to function successfully. Since then, I would argue that as an economic system, certainly compared to anything that came before it, or has been tried in the mean time, it has functioned extremely well, bringing billions out of poverty and giving us standards of living that could only have been dreamed about in ages past. Yes, it has come with certain costs - and certainly current trends can't continue on too much longer, but that doesn't mean the basic principle of free enterprise should be discarded - indeed, were we to do so, it would have consequences that I shudder to think of.

"What about secure housing, free health, free education and free child care?"

Every unmarried mother, unemployed person etc in Australia,
is given money for essentially free housing, free food, free
eveything else, along with free education and free healthcare.
So whats the big deal? Given the wages paid in Cuba, there
is little other choice. My chookshed is better maintained then
some of those houses.

"Show us in his own words what a fanatic he truly is."

The very disaster that is Cuba is more then enough evidence.
Look up the definition of a fanatic. In mine, fanatical people
have very strong views about something and behave in an extreme
way. Thats Fidel for you!

If a fair election was the main concern, the UN could be called
in as in other countries, to monitor the election. A free press
would be allowed for a start, not just hours of endless brainwashing
by Uncle Fidel. The real issue is that he knows that his people
would probably kick him out, something that he simply can't handle,
because he's a fanatic. Hopefully he'll die soon, so that people
at least get the right to free speech

Yabby, thank you for the good news!

It's great to now have learnt from you that the problem of homelessness and housing unaffordability has been solved in Australia, even for unemployed people. I guess the fact that over 80% of Cubans own their own home and that none lack a secure roof over their head doesn't seem like such a groundbreaking achievement after all, in the light of this happy news.

---

Yabby wrote, "fanatical people have very strong views about something and behave in an extreme way. ..."

"Strong views", you say Yabby? "behave in an extreme way"? Thank you. I'll keep that in mind.

Who knows when I might soon run into someone who fits just such a description? If I consider more carefully all my encounters on OLO I might find that it has already occurred.

Still, it's a shame that you have not been able to provide me with direct quotes to show me how a fanatic actually talks, as I have asked of you.

Perhaps, this is because you have found that Fidel is an exceptionally devious fanatic and has not, in any of his many hundreds of speeches, revealed any overt signs of his fanaticism?

---

Personally, I would love to see free and open elections held in Cuba if that were possible. I believe that if this occurred the outcome would be an overwhelming victory for those in favour of preserving Cuba's socialist system. In all likelihood, the Cuban Communist Party would have to share power with other pro-socialist parties, and I think that that would be a very good thing.

However, unlike you, I am not convinced that guarantees of free and fair elections can be given, even by the UN.

If you choose to judge me for not joining with you in your condemnation of Castro over that and use that as a pretext not to acknowlege any of the other points I have raised, then that's your prerogative, but others may judge me differently.

---

Rhian, I think you're comparing apples with Oranges IMO. More later

James Sinnamon (author)

80% of Cubans "owning their own home" doesn't sound very socialist to me...I thought the ideal of socialism was for no individual to own property? Here's a different perspective on home ownership in Cuba (sorry about the crappy formatting): http://www.ibike.org/cuba/library/CU%20real%20estate2.rtf - or you can try
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:HP6UcTktp-AJ:www.ibike.org/cuba/library/CU%2520real%2520estate2.rtf+cubans+%22own+their+own+home%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au

I would think that at least 99% of Australians have a roof over their head, as would be the case in most capitalist democracies.
But I agree more could done by the government here to ensure home ownership opportunities are more widely available: not making investment properties such an excessively attractive proposition would be a good start.