Unicef Confirms 0% Child Malnutrition in Cuba

[KurtFF8]

Source (http://socyberty.com/issues/unicef-confirms-0-child-malnutrition-in-cuba/)


UNICEF confirms that Cuba is the only country in Latin America and the Caribbean that child malnutrition has been eliminated.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2009/12/17/unicef_1.jpg
http://a.stanzapub.com/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=756&cb=80f4b55351fe808edfa46c53fc01062b&n=eea172 (http://a.stanzapub.com/delivery/ck.php?n=eea172&cb=80f4b55351fe808edfa46c53fc01062b)
The existence in the developing world 146 million children under five underweight, contrasts with the reality of Cuban infants, recognized worldwide for being outside the social evil.
These alarming figures emerged in a recent report by the United Nations Fund for Children (UNICEF), entitled Progress for Children, A Report Card on Nutrition, released at UN headquarters.
According to the document, the percentage of underweight children are 28 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, 17 in Middle East and North Africa, 15 in East Asia and the Pacific and seven in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The complete table of Central and Eastern Europe, with five percent, and other developing countries, with 27 percent.
Cuba has no such problems, is the only country in Latin America and the Caribbean that has eliminated severe child malnutrition, thanks to government efforts to improve the diet of the people, especially those most vulnerable.
The harsh realities of the world show that 852 million people suffer from hunger and that 53 million live in Latin America. Only in Mexico there are five million 200 thousand people malnourished and in Haiti, three million 800 thousand, while across the globe die of hunger every year more than five million children.
According to United Nations estimates, it would be very costly to achieve basic health and nutrition for all people in the Third World.
Suffice to meet this target of 13 billion dollars a year additional to what is intended now, a figure that has never been achieved and that is meager when compared with the trillion spent each year on commercial advertising, over 400 thousand million in narcotic drugs or even eight billion spent on cosmetics in the United States.
To the delight of Cuba, the United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has also acknowledged that it is the nation with more progress in Latin America in the fight against malnutrition.
The Cuban state guarantees basic food basket that allows the nutrition of its population? “At least at basic levels-through the distribution of regulated products.
Similarly, adjustments are made cheap in other markets and local services to improve the nutrition of the Cuban people and to mitigate the food shortage.
Especially keeps a constant watch on the livelihoods of children, and adolescents. Thus, attention to nutrition begins with the promotion of better nutrition and natural way of human kind.
From the earliest days of age the incalculable benefits of breastfeeding justify all the efforts made in Cuba for health and development of their children.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2009/12/17/desnutricic3b3n20infantil20j_1.jpg
This has enabled it to raise the percentage of newborns who remain until the fourth month of life, exclusive breastfeeding and even continue to consume milk, supplemented with other foods until six months old.
Currently, 99 percent of newborns maternity leavers with exclusive breastfeeding than the proposed goal, which is 95 percent, according to official data, which indicates that all provinces to meet this target.
Despite the difficult economic conditions traversed by the Island, ensuring food and nutrition of infants through daily delivery of a liter of fluid milk to all children from zero to seven years old.
Adding to this the delivery of other foods, eg jams, juices and meats, which, depending on the available funds in the country, distributed equally across the ages smaller children.
Until the age of 13 prioritizes the subsidized distribution of complementary products such as soy yogurt and natural disaster situations protects children by providing free food staples.
The child-care centers incorporated into the (nursery) and primary schools are FULL TIME regime also benefit from the continuing effort to improve their diets in terms of dietary components and milk protein.
With the support of agricultural production-even in conditions of severe drought, and increased food imports is reached nutrient intake above the standards set by FAO.
In Cuba, this indicator is not adding fictitious average food consumption of the rich and the hungry.
Additionally, the social consumption includes the school lunch that is distributed free to hundreds of thousands of students and education workers, special supplies of food to children through age 15 and people over 60 in the eastern provinces.
On that list are provided for pregnant women, nursing mothers, elderly and disabled, food supplementation for children with low weight and size and food supply to municipalities of Pinar del Rio, Havana and Isla de la Juventud.
These institutions were hit by hurricanes last year, while the provinces of Holguin, Las Tunas and Camaguey five municipalities are currently experiencing drought.
In this effort works the World Food Program (WFP), which contributes to improving the nutritional status of vulnerable populations in the eastern region, where more profit of 631 thousand people.
WFP cooperation with Cuba dating back to 1963 when the agency provided immediate assistance to victims of Hurricane Flora. To date, the country has accomplished in five development projects and 14 emergency operations.
Recently, Cuba went from being a recipient to donor.
The issue of malnutrition looms large in the UN campaign in 2015 to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, adopted at the Summit of Heads of State and Government held in 2000 and which have among their goals to eliminate extreme poverty and hunger by that date.
But the Cubans say that these goals do not take away anyone’s dream, the UN itself puts the country at the forefront of compliance with such challenges in human development.
Not without shortcomings, difficulties and limitations of a serious economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States more than four decades, Cuba does not show desperate nor alarming rates of child malnutrition.
None of the 146 million children under five underweight living in the world today is Cuban.

[h0m0revolutionary]

It'd be extra nice if those kids grew up with sexual, political and artistic freedom.

[Atlanta]

In what way do they not?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Glad you asked, i'll be brief as I have a zionist im arguing with, and it takes priority, but homosexuality:

Homosexual behaviour is tolerated by the authorities, but gay clubs and bars only have semi-legal status and are regularly raised by police authorities. Homosexual behaviour that causes a 'public scandal'?? is still punishable by up to 12months imprisonment. LGBTQ publications are not allowed, they are infact specifically outlawed - in 1997 the Cuban Association of Gays and Lesbians was disbanded by the state and many of it's leading members arrested.

Cuba today is far from the Cuba when the famous documentary 'Before Night Falls' - a film exposing the state endorsed homophobia in Cuba. But it's no utopia.

[RedSonRising]

Nice news, this is probably one of the most impressive accomplishments of the revolution. The food rationing system, specifically the quality, has lots of problems, but as many kinks as it has, starvation has been evaded in the third world thanks to the current government's policies.

And we all know Cuba isn't a representative electoral socialist worker-dictated paradise free from hierarchy, and we all (should) know that significant evidence suggests that the economic and political institutions in relation to the party have quite some actual constituency with participating Cuban citizens. So let's skip the bullshit, shall we?

[Nolan]

Imagine what Cuba could do if the blockade were lifted, US sabotage ended, and it obtained access to better medical facilities.

[Andropov]

Great news.

[Guerrilla22]

Doesn't matter Cuba is "state capitalist" therefore none of their gains mean anything. :p

[Drace]

Doesn't matter Cuba is "state capitalist" therefore none of their gains mean anything.

Cuba is like second to last on the Economic Freedom list :cool:

[BIG BROTHER]

This shows the potential of an organized economy versus a wild capitalist economy. Despite all the setbacks that are in Cuba, is possible to see what can be accomplished. Imagine then a country like the US under Socialism?

We wouldn't achieve communism over night but we could certainly guarantee a dignified life to everyone.

[Bitter Ashes]

There is something to be said for State Capitalism clearly, although only when compared to free market capitalism, not real socialism.

[Communist Pear]

Source (http://socyberty.com/issues/unicef-confirms-0-child-malnutrition-in-cuba/)
Excellent news. :cubaflag:
Clearly shows the superiority of socialism over capitalism.


Glad you asked, i'll be brief as I have a zionist im arguing with, and it takes priority, but homosexuality:

Homosexual behaviour is tolerated by the authorities, but gay clubs and bars only have semi-legal status and are regularly raised by police authorities. Homosexual behaviour that causes a 'public scandal'?? is still punishable by up to 12months imprisonment. LGBTQ publications are not allowed, they are infact specifically outlawed - in 1997 the Cuban Association of Gays and Lesbians was disbanded by the state and many of it's leading members arrested.

Cuba today is far from the Cuba when the famous documentary 'Before Night Falls' - a film exposing the state endorsed homophobia in Cuba. But it's no utopia.
From what I've heard and red the situation is improving, especially comparing it to pre-revolution.

Latest document I could find on the matter with some googling: http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=10&ZoneID=5&FileID=26

[Bitter Ashes]

Glad you asked, i'll be brief as I have a zionist im arguing with, and it takes priority, but homosexuality:

Homosexual behaviour is tolerated by the authorities, but gay clubs and bars only have semi-legal status and are regularly raised by police authorities. Homosexual behaviour that causes a 'public scandal'?? is still punishable by up to 12months imprisonment. LGBTQ publications are not allowed, they are infact specifically outlawed - in 1997 the Cuban Association of Gays and Lesbians was disbanded by the state and many of it's leading members arrested.

Cuba today is far from the Cuba when the famous documentary 'Before Night Falls' - a film exposing the state endorsed homophobia in Cuba. But it's no utopia.
In fairness, they are getting better year by year. This stuff doesnt happen overnight and there's plenty of places in the world that are activly getting worse towards gay rights as time goes on. It horrifies me to think that this stuff is still going on in parts of the world, but there's literaly nothing that anyone can do right now to speed things up. They're moving ahead in Cuba as fast as possible.

The Stonewall riots kinda projected the gay rights movement forward in Europe and mainland North America, but that had no effect in Cuba. Castro's daughter is doing some of the work of getting things moving forwards, which is Cuba's gay catalyst.

The flame of lgbt liberation has been lit in Cuba in recent years, but don't expect it to burn any faster than it did/does for us.

[Soldier of life]

I'm sure the gay people in Cuba would rather the way things are now in Cuba, than to lying in some gutter starving under capitalism and allowed to circle jerk each other all they like.

[KurtFF8]

There is something to be said for State Capitalism clearly, although only when compared to free market capitalism, not real socialism.

Well I'm not too sure exactly about the status of the relations of production in Cuba, but from what I hear, it seems pretty democratic and worker run, although I could be wrong if certain sources were provided ;)

[Coggeh]

I'm sure the gay people in Cuba would rather the way things are now in Cuba, than to lying in some gutter starving under capitalism and allowed to circle jerk each other all they like.
I don't see why their should be a choice . Cuba has been able to bring in huge sweeping social reforms without any backlash in reality from the people reform such as abortion rights etc . Their is nothing stopping them bringing in full rights for lgbt couples and individuals besides the backward chauvinistic views of the government.

That aside this is an excellent achievement for Cuba which is a 3rd world nation, this to be verified by an independant organisation goes to show a strong agruement against the miami anti castro movement which spreads BS about Cuba constantly and favors the return of Capitalism which has nothing to offer Cubans in reality.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I'm sure the gay people in Cuba would rather the way things are now in Cuba, than to lying in some gutter starving under capitalism and allowed to circle jerk each other all they like.

Prick.

[Nolan]

I'm sure the gay people in Cuba would rather the way things are now in Cuba, than to lying in some gutter starving under capitalism and allowed to circle jerk each other all they like.

Homophobia, anyone?

[Nolan]

I don't see why their should be a choice . Cuba has been able to bring in huge sweeping social reforms without any backlash in reality from the people reform such as abortion rights etc . Their is nothing stopping them bringing in full rights for lgbt couples and individuals besides the backward chauvinistic views of the government.

That aside this is an excellent achievement for Cuba which is a 3rd world nation, this to be verified by an independant organisation goes to show a strong agruement against the miami anti castro movement which spreads BS about Cuba constantly and favors the return of Capitalism which has nothing to offer Cubans in reality.

You have to remember than Cuba is still a backward, Latin American island. The cultural situation there wouldn't favor LGBT people. Even though Cuba has made huge strides in these areas, many people are still sexist and homophobic, just as in Venezuela, where my family is from.

In giving LGBT people full rights, liberating the minds of the non-LGBT people is more important than simply recognizing their marriages. Otherwise, they will have a similar situation to African-Americans after the Civil War. I think these things will come in time in Cuba.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I think the problem in Cuba is largely to do with the 'macho' culture that exists, unfortunately. There's definitely progress being made, but obviously changing attitudes could take a long time. Once the government realize this, they'll hopefully promote better understanding of LGBT issues; they've implemented successful social projects in other areas, so it would be good to see them maybe setting up LGBT centres to educate the public. I wonder whether it would be possible for volunteers to go there to help out.

Anyway, the UNICEF report shows how amazingly well Cuba has done, especially considering its relationship with the US.

[Josef Balin]

You have to remember than Cuba is still a backward, Latin American island. The cultural situation there wouldn't favor LGBT people. Even though Cuba has made huge strides in these areas, many people are still sexist and homophobic, just as in Venezuela, where my family is from.

In giving LGBT people full rights, liberating the minds of the non-LGBT people is more important than simply recognizing their marriages. Otherwise, they will have a similar situation to African-Americans after the Civil War. I think these things will come in time in Cuba.
That's one of the most reactionary posts I've ever seen on this forum.

How is Cuba "backward"? And what do you mean giving FREEDOM and making life BETTER FOR a group of people will be bad for that group? Sounds like bourgeois propaganda to me.

[Nolan]

That's one of the most reactionary posts I've ever seen on this forum.

How is Cuba "backward"? And what do you mean giving FREEDOM and making life BETTER FOR a group of people will be bad for that group? Sounds like bourgeois propaganda to me.

Reactionary? :confused:

I mean Cuba is poor. And you took what I said completely out of context. I didn't say it would be bad, just that it wouldn't be enough.

If you want to see reactionary, go to OI. :rolleyes:

[chegitz guevara]

There's still child malnutrition in the US.

[proudcomrade]

I hope that this latest finding becomes one more incentive for Raúl to reconsider slashing away any more of the guaranteed food program. With any luck, stats like these will pound into his corrupted head the necessity of reinstating the workers' kitchens and NOT doing away with the libretas de abastecimientos (food-rations records for each household in the land). They have a beautiful thing going; let's hope that it stays that way for good.

[Nolan]

I hope that this latest finding becomes one more incentive for Raúl to reconsider slashing away any more of the guaranteed food program. With any luck, stats like these will pound into his corrupted head the necessity of reinstating the workers' kitchens and NOT doing away with the libretas de abastecimientos (food-rations records for each household in the land). They have a beautiful thing going; let's hope that it stays that way for good.

Unfortunately, it'll probably be downhill from here for Cuban Socialism. :(

[proudcomrade]

Unfortunately, it'll probably be downhill from here for Cuban Socialism. :(

I don't know; it's such a wild guess right now, you know? One one hand, the world economic crisis is throwing serious problems at the Revolution; but on the other hand, new sources of support are firming up in Venezuela, Bolivia and El Salvador. It is so hard to tell which way things are clearly going.

Raúl has been really unstable lately, on one hand denouncing the US up and down, currying as much support as possible from every allied leftist country in the globe; but on the other hand, slashing away at the food program, linking up with cappie China and ushering in luxury resorts hand-over-fist. He is a very unreliable element in many ways, definitely not gifted with either the stability nor the leadership that his brother displayed. At worst, he is rapidly starting to look like Cuba's Gorbachev.

Two things rattling around in my mind: 1. Randy Alonso might be a key figure to keep an eye on in this coming decade. 2. How much of a realistic threat is the influence of Yoani Sánchez?

[Nolan]

I don't know; it's such a wild guess right now, you know? One one hand, the world economic crisis is throwing serious problems at the Revolution; but on the other hand, new sources of support are firming up in Venezuela, Bolivia and El Salvador. It is so hard to tell which way things are clearly going.

Raúl has been really unstable lately, on one hand denouncing the US up and down, currying as much support as possible from every allied leftist country in the globe; but on the other hand, slashing away at the food program, linking up with cappie China and ushering in luxury resorts hand-over-fist. He is a very unreliable element in many ways, definitely not gifted with either the stability nor the leadership that his brother displayed. At worst, he is rapidly starting to look like Cuba's Gorbachev.

Two things rattling around in my mind: 1. Randy Alonso might be a key figure to keep an eye on in this coming decade. 2. How much of a realistic threat is the influence of Yoani Sánchez?

Raul is too reformist in my opinion. If Cuba goes down the road of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," the only thing that could turn it around is some kind of coup by a general who still believes in Socialism.

[RedSonRising]

A lot of people complain about the rationing system. If any change is made to it, it should be improved in terms of quality. A lot of people on the island like Raul's smalltime changes, so we'll have to wait and see how the broader structural changes play out as a better Cuban Revolutionary government gets sought out.

[FSL]

I hope that this latest finding becomes one more incentive for Raúl to reconsider slashing away any more of the guaranteed food program. With any luck, stats like these will pound into his corrupted head the necessity of reinstating the workers' kitchens and NOT doing away with the libretas de abastecimientos (food-rations records for each household in the land). They have a beautiful thing going; let's hope that it stays that way for good.



Instead of food, people get money with which they can buy lunch (or anything else). In fact this new policy costs more than what the old one did. Some people would bring lunch from their home, others smuggled supplies etc. I do think that whenever monetary supplements can be replaced with services, this should be so as it also strengthens the socialist character of production but it might have been problematic in Cuba for now.

I'm quite optimistic regarding Cuba. These last years have been with a faltering world economy and harsh weather conditions, that hurt food production and cost billions in damage, but still the economy remains as it was with a safety net in place.
In Cuba, the "dissidents" are not workers but well-educated bloggers who admire Obama. This has to count for something

[Soldier of life]

Homophobia, anyone?

How was what I said homophobic?

This liberal nonsense is quite annoying in relation to Cuba. Cuba has made unbelievable progress improving the material conditions of its population, and then people whine and whine about gay rights there. In this regard Cuba has already made great progress too, so what's the problem? Cuba isn't perfect, no-one would argue this, but in a thread about a wonderful achievement by Cuba so-called socialists come in screaming about gay rights, something the cuban government are making progress on every year. Who's agenda does that feed into? My point stands, I'm sure the gay community in Cuba would rather live in the Cuba now where they have a home, food and a job and where progress is being made consistently in regard to gay rights rather then a capitalist country where they could circle jerk all day long under a 'liberal democracy' and then starve to death. The msot immediate task facing the Cuban revolution in 59 was not gay rights, it was the material conditions of its population. This should be first priority and as I already said, progress is being made in relation to gay rights. But whine and moan all ye like in what should be a thread to celebrate Cuba's achievements.

[Lenny Nista]

This is because cuba has a qualitatively different social and economic system from any other country in Latin america, as anyone who looks into the question can see - namely, post-capitalist property relations.

However, we still have the usual "trotskyists" who claim it is just "state capitalism". This position will lead to them demanding full borugeois democratic rights for all poltiical tendencies and free elections - i.e. they will fight to allow back into Cuba an expropriated and exiled class! This same class, the semi-colonial bourgeoisie, is the one that shown itself in all semi-colonial countries, incapable of carrying out the basic tasks of a borugeois revolution - those of establishing politicasl sovereignity and a national economy. Of course this is not socialism, but it is a qualitative advance on anything the national bourgeoisie can offer. I other words, only post-capitalist property relations in the semi-colonial world, can acheive the basic tasks of the bourgeois revolution.

Finally, just as in the Soviet Union and China, it is the restorationist bureaucracy in Cuba which is restoring capitalism, and in Cuba it is looking to do this by a democratic counter-revolution. Therefore by not raising the urgent need for Cuban workers and peasants to rise up and organize independently of the bureaucracy to defend the post-capitalist property relations and prevent any return of the bourgeoisie in exile whose only possible offer to Cuba is a return to the status of a country like Haiti or Jamaica, these currents place themselves on the far right in Latin America and are complicit in the semi-colonization of a country, which will have brutal human costs.

[Ravachol]

I'm sure the gay people in Cuba would rather the way things are now in Cuba, than to lying in some gutter starving under capitalism and allowed to circle jerk each other all they like.

Despite the fact that I'm very nuanced and positive towards Cuba (especially for an anarchist) and can understand your passion towards the state-socialist project there, I consider that statement borderline homophobic.
Secondly, the discussion about Gay Rights is indeed not to be had here. This is about the great progress Cuba has made when it comes to welfare. Gay Rights are another debate. Using it as an argument to discredit these gains is below the belt.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

How was what I said homophobic?

This liberal nonsense is quite annoying in relation to Cuba. Cuba has made unbelievable progress improving the material conditions of its population, and then people whine and whine about gay rights there. In this regard Cuba has already made great progress too, so what's the problem? Cuba isn't perfect, no-one would argue this, but in a thread about a wonderful achievement by Cuba so-called socialists come in screaming about gay rights, something the cuban government are making progress on every year. Who's agenda does that feed into? My point stands, I'm sure the gay community in Cuba would rather live in the Cuba now where they have a home, food and a job and where progress is being made consistently in regard to gay rights rather then a capitalist country where they could circle jerk all day long under a 'liberal democracy' and then starve to death. The msot immediate task facing the Cuban revolution in 59 was not gay rights, it was the material conditions of its population. This should be first priority and as I already said, progress is being made in relation to gay rights. But whine and moan all ye like in what should be a thread to celebrate Cuba's achievements.

I have a problem with this post, specifically the lines I've highlighted. You can applaud Cuba's economic achievements AND remain critical of the homophobia that still exists there; there isn't some rule that says you can only say good things about what's happening in Cuba. I think most posters here are celebrating Cuba's achievements, but gay rights is a significant issue no matter how much you're trying to downplay its importance. ''So-called socialists'' are the people you'd expect to be concerned about gay rights! And it's not about being able to circle jerk all day long - that comment was out of line.

[Soldier of life]

I have a problem with this post, specifically the lines I've highlighted. You can applaud Cuba's economic achievements AND remain critical of the homophobia that still exists there; there isn't some rule that says you can only say good things about what's happening in Cuba. I think most posters here are celebrating Cuba's achievements, but gay rights is a significant issue no matter how much you're trying to downplay its importance. ''So-called socialists'' are the people you'd expect to be concerned about gay rights! And it's not about being able to circle jerk all day long - that comment was out of line.

Gay rights of course are important, but what I am saying is that this thread is about the material improvements in the lives of Cuban people and the eradication of malnutrition, something which I would see as much more important than gay rights and was the most immediate task of the revolution[which is now achieved]. I also mentioned the progress Cuba has made in relation to gay rights, but yet people come in here talking about some random flaw to do with Cuba that has nothing to do with the topic and pales in importance when compared to the topic at hand and is a flaw cuba is working on constantly to ease...what a joke these people should cop on. This is a clear attempt to undermine the significant achievement which this thread surrounds, why mention it otherwise it has nothing to do with the topic? That is why I said so-called socialists, because in threads like these Cuba deserves nothing but congratulations and some smaller issue should not be dragged up totally off topic to somehow tarnish Cuba's achievement.

And as for the 'homophobia', give me a break there's nothing homophobic in what I said. I was making a clear point by that statement, that being that I'm sure that homosexuals in Cuba appreciate having good food to eat and a decent standard of life along with steady progress to do with gay rights, rather than living in a nice little liberal state where they have none of the previously mentioned but can in between starving to death enjoy an owl hand shandy without fear.

This is a thread about malnutrition, if people want to whine about an issue that is not nearly as important as the issue being dealt with here then by all means start another thread, then I won't have to endure your liberal nonsense.

[Andropov]

Gay rights of course are important, but what I am saying is that this thread is about the material improvements in the lives of Cuban people and the eradication of malnutrition, something which I would see as much more important than gay rights and was the most immediate task of the revolution[which is now achieved]. I also mentioned the progress Cuba has made in relation to gay rights, but yet people come in here talking about some random flaw to do with Cuba that has nothing to do with the topic and pales in importance when compared to the topic at hand and is a flaw cuba is working on constantly to ease...what a joke these people should cop on. This is a clear attempt to undermine the significant achievement which this thread surrounds, why mention it otherwise it has nothing to do with the topic? That is why I said so-called socialists, because in threads like these Cuba deserves nothing but congratulations and some smaller issue should not be dragged up totally off topic to somehow tarnish Cuba's achievement.

And as for the 'homophobia', give me a break there's nothing homophobic in what I said. I was making a clear point by that statement, that being that I'm sure that homosexuals in Cuba appreciate having good food to eat and a decent standard of life along with steady progress to do with gay rights, rather than living in a nice little liberal state where they have none of the previously mentioned but can in between starving to death enjoy an owl hand shandy without fear.

This is a thread about malnutrition, if people want to whine about an issue that is not nearly as important as the issue being dealt with here then by all means start another thread, then I won't have to endure your liberal nonsense.
I think its telling that you take such a disparaging look at homophobia, a blatant source of descrimination.
Call me crazy but I abhorre all descrimination.

[Ol' Dirty]

It'd be extra nice if those kids grew up with sexual, political and artistic freedom.

Absolutely. If Cuba had those freedoms, I'd have unmeasurable respect and envy for the Cuban people.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Gay rights of course are important, but what I am saying is that this thread is about the material improvements in the lives of Cuban people and the eradication of malnutrition, something which I would see as much more important than gay rights and was the most immediate task of the revolution[which is now achieved]. I also mentioned the progress Cuba has made in relation to gay rights, but yet people come in here talking about some random flaw to do with Cuba that has nothing to do with the topic and pales in importance when compared to the topic at hand and is a flaw cuba is working on constantly to ease...what a joke these people should cop on. This is a clear attempt to undermine the significant achievement which this thread surrounds, why mention it otherwise it has nothing to do with the topic? That is why I said so-called socialists, because in threads like these Cuba deserves nothing but congratulations and some smaller issue should not be dragged up totally off topic to somehow tarnish Cuba's achievement.

And as for the 'homophobia', give me a break there's nothing homophobic in what I said. I was making a clear point by that statement, that being that I'm sure that homosexuals in Cuba appreciate having good food to eat and a decent standard of life along with steady progress to do with gay rights, rather than living in a nice little liberal state where they have none of the previously mentioned but can in between starving to death enjoy an owl hand shandy without fear.

This is a thread about malnutrition, if people want to whine about an issue that is not nearly as important as the issue being dealt with here then by all means start another thread, then I won't have to endure your liberal nonsense.

OK, I'll admit that it's off-topic and it would probably more appropriate to move gay rights discussions into another thread. I don't know what others' motivations were by bringing up the topic, but I know that I wasn't trying to undermine Cuba's achievements. That said:

1. Please stop lessening the importance of LGBT rights; you can think eradication of malnutrition is more important - it probably is more important just because it's a basic, essential goal that should be achieved by every country in the world. But to say that it's just a 'flaw' that 'pales in comparison' with the issue at hand is incorrect. In England where (as far as I know) the culture is less homophobic, suicide amongst gay teenagers is six times higher than straight ones. In one US state (don't remember which one) it is suspected that 30% of youth suicides are due to issues with being gay. So for some people it is a matter of life or death.

2. Dismissing the issue as a 'liberal' concern sounds worryingly similar to the ''arguments'' used by conservatives who are trying to push their agendas by comparing the tree-hugging liberal policies with the ''common sense'' of the right-wing.

Edit: Seeing as it's off-topic I won't discuss this further, but I stand by my belief that it is a very, very important issue.

[Soldier of life]

OK, I'll admit that it's off-topic and it would probably more appropriate to move gay rights discussions into another thread. I don't know what others' motivations were by bringing up the topic, but I know that I wasn't trying to undermine Cuba's achievements. That said:

1. Please stop lessening the importance of LGBT rights; you can think eradication of malnutrition is more important - it probably is more important just because it's a basic, essential goal that should be achieved by every country in the world. But to say that it's just a 'flaw' that 'pales in comparison' with the issue at hand is incorrect. In England where (as far as I know) the culture is less homophobic, suicide amongst gay teenagers is six times higher than straight ones. In one US state (don't remember which one) it is suspected that 30% of youth suicides are due to issues with being gay. So for some people it is a matter of life or death.

2. Dismissing the issue as a 'liberal' concern sounds worryingly similar to the ''arguments'' used by conservatives who are trying to push their agendas by comparing the tree-hugging liberal policies with the ''common sense'' of the right-wing.

Edit: Seeing as it's off-topic I won't discuss this further, but I stand by my belief that it is a very, very important issue.

In never denied it was important, however I am saying in comparison to an issue like malnutrition and starvation it is clear as day it is not nearly as important IMO.

[Soldier of life]

I think its telling that you take such a disparaging look at homophobia, a blatant source of descrimination.
Call me crazy but I abhorre all descrimination.

Not really. In reference to the points you highlighted:

Its random in the context of this thread.

And no its not as important as the issue of malnutrition IMO.

[KurtFF8]

In all honesty the fact that such a topic is...off topic for this thread demonstrates the length people will go to delegitimize Cuba...even on the Left.

I suppose people could make similar arguments to First World Capitalist countries as well: they make an achievement and we cite other significant problems in the country.

But then again, this is a thread about an awesome achievement for a country given its circumstances.

[Lenny Nista]

Yes. People who have been to Cuba from imperialist countries, and not as tourists but on political solidarity missions which take them to small towns and the districts of the cities, often say in fact in day to day life in Cuba, there is less LGBT oppression than in their country overall - although it is worse int emrs of nightlife, it is much safer for gay couples in small towns in Cuba than it is in the west, I was told this by a gay shop steward from Europe who went with his partner.

Regarding Latin America, Cuba is probably one of the least homophobic countries in day to life, and regarding the Caribbean, definitely, regardless of rules on paper.

This is not to say that homophobia is not a problem or that the Stalinist bureaucracy has a consistently good policy of challenging it - neither would be true.

However, given the situation in Cuba before the revolution, and comparing it to comparable countries in the Caribean/Central America, or even much more developed countries in Latin America, Cuba is remarkably progressive and LGBT people have much more security and respect day to day than in those other comparable or much richer countries.

This is due, clearly, to the post-capitalist property relations in Cuba which have allowed the development of a reasonably civilized society free of permanent insecurity, irrationality, and brutal oppression, inequality and poverty - something that every single bourgeosie in Latin Amererica have shown themselves incapable of and uninterested in acheiving, and something which, should they be allowed to return in the "free" elections which many on the supposedly "revolutionary" left will call for, they will dismantle systematically.

[Pogue]

Shows what can be done when you don't fuck around with neo-liberalism like the IMF always says you should do. Cool stuff.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A fantastic achievement. We should be proud of this Socialist island. It has its problems, and we all know about them, but we should not disown it for these problems, as it regularly shows that it is a progressive system that is for the working people.

[Intelligitimate]

Hispanic culture is massively homophobic. I went venture to guess Cuba is literally the most gay-friendly country in the entire Spanish speaking world, with the possible exception of Spain.

[Nolan]

Hispanic culture is massively homophobic. I went venture to guess Cuba is literally the most gay-friendly country in the entire Spanish speaking world, with the possible exception of Spain.

Definitely Spain. I would venture to say Spain is one of the most gay rights-friendly countries in the world.

[Lenny Nista]

Definitely Spain. I would venture to say Spain is one of the most gay rights-friendly countries in the world.

unless you happen to be a gay immigrant...

[Intelligitimate]

The government is gay-rights friendly, sure, but I'm not really aware of what the general attitude of the population is to homosexuality. I would guess more conservative than the rest of Western Europe, but better than Latin America.

[Nolan]

The government is gay-rights friendly, sure, but I'm not really aware of what the general attitude of the population is to homosexuality. I would guess more conservative than the rest of Western Europe, but better than Latin America.

I don't know, I thought the UK was the most conservative.

[Soldier of life]

The government is gay-rights friendly, sure, but I'm not really aware of what the general attitude of the population is to homosexuality. I would guess more conservative than the rest of Western Europe, but better than Latin America.

Fidel Castro himself acknowledged Cuban culture was quite macho and the common views of people was not altogether progressive towards gay rights over the years, but over time this has eased and eased and is moving firmly in the right direction.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Shows what can be done when you don't fuck around with neo-liberalism like the IMF always says you should do. Cool stuff.

neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented.

We don't oppose capitalism (in whatever form) because it cannot deliver for children, we oppose it because of it's essential exploitative character. Its by-products (including, but not limited to, habitual disregard for the poorest in society..) are of little consequence.

Which is exactly why we don't cheer-lead regimes such as Cuba who chose to bring in capitalism in a different form.

[Nolan]

neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented.

We don't oppose capitalism (in whatever form) because it cannot deliver for children, we oppose it because of it's essential exploitative character. Its by-products (including, but not limited to, habitual disregard for the poorest in society..) are of little consequence.

Which is exactly why we don't cheer-lead regimes such as Cuba who chose to bring in capitalism in a different form.

It can also wreck your economy, (ask Argentina, the IMF's "best pupil") give you an insanely high Gini coefficient (ask the US, China, and any Latin American country except Cuba). It favors those who are lucky enough to be born either in the upper classes of an exploited country or in the middle or upper class of an imperialist country. It is, in fact, a tool for global American domination.

[h0m0revolutionary]

It can also wreck your economy, (ask Argentina, the IMF's "best pupil") give you an insanely high Gini coefficient (ask the US, China, and any Latin American country except Cuba). It favors those who are lucky enough to be born either in the upper classes of an exploited country or in the middle or upper class of an imperialist country.

Of course. I imagine nobody is of the contrary opinion.


It is, in fact, a tool for global American domination.

If by 'it' you mean neoliberalism, then you're wrong. Neoliberalism is but one form capitalist mode of production can take, but my point above is that whatever guise that mode of production dresses itself it, we oppose it.

Neoliberalism cannot be reduced to merely being a tool of American imperialism, it isn't, it is merely a form which America itself likes to advocate.

[Nolan]

Neoliberalism cannot be reduced to merely being a tool of American imperialism, it isn't, it is merely a form which America itself likes to advocate.

In itself, it isn't, but it has been used as such on many occasions. What better way to dominate a foreign market than to let big Western corps in? Obviously globalization is not just about the US, but the US is the biggest player, and spreading neoliberalism would be impossible without America's influence.

[Intelligitimate]

neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented.

We don't oppose capitalism (in whatever form) because it cannot deliver for children, we oppose it because of it's essential exploitative character. Its by-products (including, but not limited to, habitual disregard for the poorest in society..) are of little consequence.

Which is exactly why we don't cheer-lead regimes such as Cuba who chose to bring in capitalism in a different form.

Speak for your fucking self. I don't oppose capitalism out of some stupid, petty-bourgeois, knee-jerk reaction to privilege. I oppose capitalism because it most certainly is not capable of helping the vast majority of humanity. That you would suggest something so profoundly ignorant and stupid is the height of petty-bourgeois idealism. You're a disgusting, selfish piece of shit. It's people like you that made older revolutionaries believe homosexuality was simply a matter of "bourgeois decadence."

[Ismail]

neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented.In College economics classes, maybe.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Speak for your fucking self. I don't oppose capitalism out of some stupid, petty-bourgeois, knee-jerk reaction to privilege. I oppose capitalism because it most certainly is not capable of helping the vast majority of humanity. That you would suggest something so profoundly ignorant and stupid is the height of petty-bourgeois idealism. You're a disgusting, selfish piece of shit. It's people like you that made older revolutionaries believe homosexuality was simply a matter of "bourgeois decadence."

0_o.

OTT much?

I don't oppose capitalism out of some stupid, petty-bourgeois, knee-jerk reaction to privilege
Go read again mayhaps, i suggested no such thing.

[Luisrah]

Thanks OP, this is great news.

Great stuff to put in fron of the capitalist bastards when they say that Cuba is in a horrible state, and that's why socialism fails.

Great news :)

[Glenn Beck]

neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented.

Yeah, it can do so for a large proportion, maybe even a majority of children. In rich countries. Are you fucking stupid or something? You realize that most places on Earth are way poorer than Liverpool, right?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Yeah, it can do so for a large proportion, maybe even a majority of children. In rich countries. Are you fucking stupid or something? You realize that most places on Earth are way poorer than Liverpool, right?

I know this board is a stalinist-fest, but come on throw me a bone. Where did i suggest differently.

I said exactly what you're saying, that we don't hate neoliberalism because it cannot provide for children - because it can!

Yes not all, and yes those it can and does provide for are in the main in North America and Euro-centric.

We oppose capitalism because of it's essential exploitative, environment destroying, poverty-inducing nature, not because it can't provide for some children.. is the basic point I was making :/.

[khad]

Yeah, it can do so for a large proportion, maybe even a majority of children. In rich countries. Are you fucking stupid or something? You realize that most places on Earth are way poorer than Liverpool, right?
Yeah, no shit. The arrogance of the white west is sickening.

[Pogue]

neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented.

We don't oppose capitalism (in whatever form) because it cannot deliver for children, we oppose it because of it's essential exploitative character. Its by-products (including, but not limited to, habitual disregard for the poorest in society..) are of little consequence.

Which is exactly why we don't cheer-lead regimes such as Cuba who chose to bring in capitalism in a different form.

I hate it when people say 'we' as if their position has some majestic authority because they supposedly speak for all of us.

I don't know about you but I don't want to abolish capitalism because its logically exploitative, I think that kids starving to death and what not are more important than its 'essential exploitative nature'. I don't give a rats arse about the essential nature of anything, I only care about what impact it has on people.

If you want to know the context of what I said, look up the IMF's policies in the context of the region which I was referring to in my statement. Bolivia was told by the IMF to adopt neo-liberal polcies in the 90s - disaster. Same for Chile (altohugh less by the IMF and more by Friedman) - disaster. Same goes for Panama, Guatemala, well, essentially every Carribean/Latin American country. Living standards dropped in all these cases. But under the Cuban system, and call it what you want, although I'd say the best term would be an extreme form of social democracy (because state capitalism is a term overused and only real has any worth when refuting claims of socialism) living standards have sky-rocketed to the best in the region.

I think the essence of your contention is not that 'we oppose the fundamental exploitative nature' instead of what it does to people, which to you is of 'little consequence' (:confused:), but that you saw me praising Cuba. Well I will praise aspects of Cuban society. I praise the healthcare, the education, from an objective basis because its useful to me. I can use Cuba as an example of how it is possible to move away from neo-liberalism and still develop, for one thing. And even aside from that, whats happened in Cuba is impressive. I don't feel a need to only attack it when it clearly has positive aspects to it as well. If I had said 'Cuba's government is wonderful and we should support it', then not only would I be a moron I would also be worthy of criticism, but I didn't, I said it was good stuff that their model, a break with neo-liberalism, is working. I think thats alot more interesting and constructive than just rolling out age old dogmatic anarchist arguments every single time Cuba gets mentioned, as if the repressive government completely discounts the progress in healthcare and education.

Honestly, its this sort of attitude that makes revleft such a shit place sometimes, for alot of the anarchists you can't do anything but repeat slogans (state capitalism, totalitarian) and go deeper in your analysis, for alot of the Trotskyists its the inability to recognise the pettiness of your own bullshit and for the Stalinists its dogmatic defence of past regimes and dead dictators against all the facts. I think we're all intelligent enough to realise Cuba has alot of positives, the Spanish revolution wasn't a fascist third campist attempt to undermine the Republic and what Lindsey German had for breakfast isn't the crucial issue over the emancipation of the working class.

[Glenn Beck]

I know this board is a stalinist-fest, but come on throw me a bone. Where did i suggest differently.

When you minimized the achievements in public health by Cuba, as compared with the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean by UNICEF, areas which consist of countries that are in large part wealthier than Cuba but have instituted neo-liberal politics. By saying "neo-liberalism can feed children as well" you are implying that Cuba's policies are fundamentally no better than neo-liberalism and a neo-liberal regime should in principle be just as effective at guaranteeing human well-being as Cuba's. If this isn't what you meant you should be cognoscent of the fact that this is how pretty much everyone has read your posts and try to word things more clearly next time.

Also I don't really see where 'stalinism' enters into the discussion here.

[Luisrah]

We oppose capitalism because of it's essential exploitative, environment destroying, poverty-inducing nature, not because it can't provide for some children.. is the basic point I was making :/.

I don't think I really understood your point, but I'm thinking we do hate capitalism because it can't provide for some children, also.

Heck, if communism couldn't provide for all children, than I'm thinking that few of us would be 100% communists.

[Patchd]

I'm sure the gay people in Cuba would rather the way things are now in Cuba, than to lying in some gutter starving under capitalism and allowed to circle jerk each other all they like.
This is a verbal warning for homophobia, you have made an implication (and have continued to back it up in this thread despite others outlining how that was a homophobic comment) that all we ever do, when not living under supposed 'socialism' is sit around and "circle jerk" one another off. Any more homophobic comments from you I'll be taking to the admins to have you restricted.


Speak for your fucking self. I don't oppose capitalism out of some stupid, petty-bourgeois, knee-jerk reaction to privilege. I oppose capitalism because it most certainly is not capable of helping the vast majority of humanity. That you would suggest something so profoundly ignorant and stupid is the height of petty-bourgeois idealism. You're a disgusting, selfish piece of shit. It's people like you that made older revolutionaries believe homosexuality was simply a matter of "bourgeois decadence."
Again, another example of homophobia within the left. As if you can even legitimise 'older revolutionaries' belief that homosexuality was bourgeois decadence because of what an individual has said. This is disgusting and is another display of ad hominem attacks (one which you did not need to make, but made anyway with regards to someone's sexuality, as if that should be a point of attack in an argument) that you constantly make towards users on this board, you can make arguments without having to resort to personal homophobic attacks. Like the case above, I'm issuing you with a verbal warning and any more signs of homophobia in this thread I'm going to push for restriction. Covertly implied homophobia seems like one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry allowed on the 'left' (among other forms of bigotry, such as transphobia). It's disgusting to see people thanking your post despite the comment you made.


As for my views on this topic, Cuba has to be one of the more providing nations in the world, thanks largely to it's isolation and ideological line, although we can argue over numerous pages over what the nature of Cuba's ideological line is, fact of the matter is that unlike many 'first world' nations, and despite the economic embargo, Cubans can still live healthy lives, obviously, as others have pointed out earlier, there are certainly many criticisms of Cuba (and just because many are living healthy lives doesn't mean it's a reason to outrightly support the regime), and one of those is over homosexuality in the country. Knowing a comrade who has a Cuban boyfriend, who is still living in Cuba, he still faces social and state homophobia, although admitedly it is getting better.

[Intelligitimate]

Again, another example of homophobia within the left.

What a slanderous piece of shit you are. I've probably worked a lot harder than you to fight homophobia in my local area, up to being a paid activist for the LGBT Task Force to defeat homophobic legislation. Go fuck yourself.

[Patchd]

What a slanderous piece of shit you are. I've probably worked a lot harder than you to fight homophobia in my local area, up to being a paid activist for the LGBT Task Force to defeat homophobic legislation. Go fuck yourself.Then start acting like someone who supposedly 'champions' LGBTQ rights, prick. Oh, and if you want to make a complaint about my actions, do it here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cheka-f37/index.html).

[Soldier of life]

This is a verbal warning for homophobia, you have made an implication (and have continued to back it up in this thread despite others outlining how that was a homophobic comment) that all we ever do, when not living under supposed 'socialism' is sit around and "circle jerk" one another off. Any more homophobic comments from you I'll be taking to the admins to have you restricted.





Farcical. I never said all homosexuals do is 'circle jerk all day long', nor did I imply it. Learn to read.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Farcical. I never said all homosexuals do is 'circle jerk all day long', nor did I imply it. Learn to read.

You said:


I'm sure the gay people in Cuba would rather the way things are now in Cuba, than to lying in some gutter starving under capitalism and allowed to circle jerk each other all they like.

Why circle jerk?
Is that what we homosexuals do?
Is that what comes to mind when you think of us as peoples?

That'd be homophobia darling.

[Intelligitimate]

lol, phoney war on homophobia in this thread, from reactionary anarcho-children who don't like it when you disagree with their counter-revolutionary bullshit and call out their petty-bourgeois idealism.

[PRC-UTE]

You said:



Why circle jerk?
Is that what we homosexuals do?
Is that what comes to mind when you think of us as peoples?

That'd be homophobia darling.

He's not homophobic at all, he's mocking your ridiculous standards-ie if Havana's streets aren't shut down by orgies, it's not really free.

Don't pretend that anarchists don't have a history of indulging in nonsense like free love.

[PRC-UTE]

Fidel Castro himself acknowledged Cuban culture was quite macho and the common views of people was not altogether progressive towards gay rights over the years, but over time this has eased and eased and is moving firmly in the right direction.

Ironically enough for the anarchists here, it's the central power of state in this case that is easing the repression of homosexuals, which was the norm in Cuba's past. Much like what happened in the DDR and sex education.

[h0m0revolutionary]

He's not homophobic at all, he's mocking your ridiculous standards-ie if Havana's streets aren't shut down by orgies, it's not really free.

Remind me where I suggested Cuba can't do anything progressive until there are orgies in the street? Of course Cuba has made significant gains, nobody here has to make that point, we all appreciate it, but given the uncritical support that particular regime receives on this forum, it does bear pointing out it's inadequacies too.

I take it you would actively refuse to criticise Cuba for the lack of political freedom (association, press...) and sexual freedom?



Don't pretend that anarchists don't have a history of indulging in nonsense like free love.

I would not pretend otherwise, I would defend the concept of free love, and all it's proponents, from Kollontai to Goldman - I'm dangerously radical like that you see ;)


Ironically enough for the anarchists here, it's the central power of state in this case that is easing the repression of homosexuals, which was the norm in Cuba's past. Much like what happened in the DDR and sex education.

Indeed. And only a centralised bureaucratic state can perform that education function im sure.

[Patchd]

He's not homophobic at all, he's mocking your ridiculous standards-ie if Havana's streets aren't shut down by orgies, it's not really free.

Don't pretend that anarchists don't have a history of indulging in nonsense like free love.
Yes, by using homophobic language, is that escaping you completely? And what exactly do you mean (bolded writing)? Are you implying that we, or even h0m0revolutionary is suggesting that Havana should be 'shut down' by gay orgies, or that LGBTQ liberation amounts to sexual orgies on the streets?

I'll let you reply before I consider taking any action for your comments.

EDIT: Of course, if you choose not to reply, I'll just go ahead an issue you a verbal warning for what I consider is another example of homophobia coming from the revleft resident Marxist-Leninists, but I'll let you defend yourself. This raises another point which I got pissed off before the CC was shut down, and that's the fact that homophobia, transphobia and sexism results in a lesser punishment than racism on this board, simply because it's supposed to be representative of our fucking society.

[anticap]

When you oppose capitalism not on grounds that it is inherently exploitative, but on grounds that it can't provide for people, you open yourself to a hypothetical question: would you oppose capitalism if it could provide for people? By your own statements I think it safe to assume that some of you would not. This is probably why you don't oppose the (top-down) state-"socialism" (some call it "state-capitalism") that unfortunately passes for actual (bottom-up) socialism among too many leftists. Such states are indeed progressive, in the main, and a radical improvement over free-market capitalism -- but they are not socialist, unless socialism no longer means democratic worker-control of the means of production. But never mind! They provide for people, and that's your primary concern. Let us pay no attention to the new ruling-class behind the curtain, nor the conspicuous lack of worker-control.

As for me, even if capitalism did provide for people, I'd still oppose it, on grounds that it entails a class of non-workers who exist by exploiting the labor of workers, who are denied control of their own productive lives. This is a moral objection, which is the very root of socialism. You may deride me as a "liberal," but the fact remains that, even with a distinction drawn between utopian and scientific socialism, we can't account for why we care in the first place, except by referring to our moral outrage at the injustice of exploitation. If slaveholders in the US antebellum south had provided their slaves a decent standard of living, slavery would still have been fit only to be abolished.

When we oppose capitalism on grounds that it is inherently exploitative, the other objection takes care of itself; for when we eliminate the exploitation, workers will be able to provide for themselves and for each other. Conversely, when our primary concern is that workers be provided for, we're at risk of settling for whatever can deliver on that promise, even though it may retain exploitative social relations.

At any rate, this division is silly: we can oppose capitalism on both grounds, because both objections are valid.

[Nolan]

EDIT: Of course, if you choose not to reply, I'll just go ahead an issue you a verbal warning for what I consider is another example of homophobia coming from the revleft resident Marxist-Leninists.....

Is it just me, or do the Anarchists want to get rid of all us MLs?

[Patchd]

Is it just me, or do the Anarchists want to get rid of all us MLs?
No not at all, I respect the opinion of quite a few here, and agree with, or at least engage in respectful debate with a number of MLers. Comrade Alastair has been talking to me about Nepal, the situation there and what's going on, I get along quite fine with Arizona Bay, hugsandmarxism I think is really nice and civil, a can talk about the environment fine with Luisrah as well as a lot of other people. It's when MLers resort to homophobia, or to trollish comments (like when Anarchists, or Trotskyists do) that I get pissed off.

[Nolan]

No not at all, I respect the opinion of quite a few here, and agree with, or at least engage in respectful debate with a number of MLers. Comrade Alastair has been talking to me about Nepal, the situation there and what's going on, I get along quite fine with Arizona Bay, hugsandmarxism I think is really nice and civil, a can talk about the environment fine with Luisrah as well as a lot of other people. It's when MLers resort to homophobia, or to trollish comments (like when Anarchists, or Trotskyists do) that I get pissed off.

I just don't see why it was necessary to mention his tendency. MLs ''resort to homophobia'' no more often than anyone else. I know a Nazi that claims to have all kinds of Hispanic friends, but that doesn't make him non-racist.

[Revy]

I'm a gay male, and I think the homophobia in Cuba is exaggerated. There is CENESEX (the National Center of Sex Education) and in official party papers like Juventud Rebelde there are open sexual discussions including positive discussion of homosexuality.

World Day Against Homophobia celebrated in Cuba (translated by me, imperfectly, it's not my native language) (http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/cuba/2008-05-18/celebran-en-cuba-dia-mundial-contra-la-homofobia/)



The President of the Cuban Parliament emphasized the fulfilled task in the island through the elimination of orthodox concepts that don't respect sexual diversity.

To persuade, to understand sexual diversity and eradicate homophobia as one of the most deeply-rooted forms of discrimination in current societies is to be in solidarity, and solidarity is part of socialism, maintained Ricardo Alarcón, President of the National Assembly of People's Power.

As part of the conference for the World Day against Homophobia, this saturday a group of activities were celebrated in the country that advocated for the persuasion and the understanding of the different sexual orientations of human beings, through love and understanding.

In the central venue of the festivities, in the Cuba Pavilion, the President of the Parliament maintained the fulfilled task in the island as part of the national program of sexual education, that advocate for inclusion, and for the elimination of orthodox concepts that don't respect diversity.

Mariela Castro, director of the National Center of Sexual Education (CENESEX), pointed out that Cuba has proposed the search for spaces and solutions to the conflicts of gender and sexuality that still are permeated by many prejudices.

Panels of homosexuals issued a call to the Cuban family, to the school and to the society to understand them, and to learn to coexist with them, with equal rights.

Movies were projected as well, magazines were presented, HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns, a book fair, a mural was made against homophobia and questions were asked about HIV, meanwhile the pro-health youth groups distributed through the streets flyers and condoms.



According to the director of CENESEX, these educational actions will be maintained through the year, with the intention of being better people and promoting understanding the right of free sexual orientation and gender identtiy.

As climax of the conference, a cultural gala was celebrated at night, with the participation of health promoters and people of diverse sexual orientation.

[Soldier of life]

You said:



Why circle jerk?
Is that what we homosexuals do?
Is that what comes to mind when you think of us as peoples?

That'd be homophobia darling.

No it's not what comes to my mind generally when I think of homosexuals.

And as for is that what homosexuals do, well I wouldn't generalise because I'm sure different homosexual people engage in different sexual acts, like heterosexuals do. I personally know homosexuals who have done this, but that is irrelevent to my point. I used circle jerking as an example because it would be seen as an extreme by most people when it comes to sexual activity. So it fitted into my point that the right to have food and a home takes precedent over and is more important than gay rights and that I'm sure homosexual Cubans would much prefer to have food, a home, a job and ever-increasingly progressive attitudes towards gay rights than have none of the first 3 yet have the right to engage in any homosexual activity they wanted to, even ones that wouldn't be the norm like circle jerking. It's a hyperbole, do you understand now bear?

x

[Patchd]

EDIT: I'm not going to continue this actually, it's strayed off topic enough, if people want to discuss my actions in this thread, they can do so in the 'Cheka' forum.

[PRC-UTE]

And what exactly do you mean (bolded writing)? Are you implying that we, or even h0m0revolutionary is suggesting that Havana should be 'shut down' by gay orgies, or that LGBTQ liberation amounts to sexual orgies on the streets?

As I remembered, homorevolutionary is a proponent of "free love" and I think that's what s/he's criticising here, which is a baseless criticism. Cuba is a country that will provide sex change operations for anyone wanting it. To go on and on about it being some oppressive state for GBLT's is not somehting I will accept on faith, particularly since leading figures are attempting to get rid of what homophobic attitudes remain.



I'll let you reply before I consider taking any action for your comments.

EDIT: Of course, if you choose not to reply, I'll just go ahead an issue you a verbal warning for what I consider is another example of homophobia coming from the revleft resident Marxist-Leninists, but I'll let you defend yourself.

Because I'm a Marxist praising the Cuban Communists for struggling against homophobic and sexist attitudes you want to warn me? :laugh: Unfuckinbelievable how biased and absurd this is.



This raises another point which I got pissed off before the CC was shut down, and that's the fact that homophobia, transphobia and sexism results in a lesser punishment than racism on this board, simply because it's supposed to be representative of our fucking society.

Em...Lesser punishment? There was once a comrade who supported full and equal rights for all gay people, including marriage, but was restricted or banned (can't remember which) on this site for saying he thought that as a heterosexual gay sex was gross. It's as the admins/mods here want to drive away allies of gay liberation.

My party has one of the best records on gay liberation of any Marxist party in the world, we've full members who are openly transgendered. Though I'm sure you'll somehow twist that into a reason to attack us as you do with Cuba. :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Honestly, its this sort of attitude that makes revleft such a shit place sometimes, for alot of the anarchists you can't do anything but repeat slogans (state capitalism, totalitarian) and go deeper in your analysis, for alot of the Trotskyists its the inability to recognise the pettiness of your own bullshit and for the Stalinists its dogmatic defence of past regimes and dead dictators against all the facts. I think we're all intelligent enough to realise Cuba has alot of positives, the Spanish revolution wasn't a fascist third campist attempt to undermine the Republic and what Lindsey German had for breakfast isn't the crucial issue over the emancipation of the working class.

Spot on. Absolutely spot on. It is a shame that the variety of tendencies that exist on the left take themselves and their theories so seriously that they lose the ability to logically analyse a situation or an event; they only have the ability to analyse it according to whether it fits into some dogmatic ideological checklist.

[Pogue]

Is it just me, or do the Anarchists want to get rid of all us MLs?

No, I would have issued a verbal warning in that case too, for what was clearly a distasteful statement that as Patchd said, stank of homophobic undertones. I wouldn't say the user who said it was homophobic but it wasn't a statement we're going to abide here, as Patchd is hardly being childish in attacking homophobia in Cuba is he.

[Luisrah]

When you oppose capitalism not on grounds that it is inherently exploitative, but on grounds that it can't provide for people, you open yourself to a hypothetical question: would you oppose capitalism if it could provide for people? By your own statements I think it safe to assume that some of you would not. This is probably why you don't oppose the (top-down) state-"socialism" (some call it "state-capitalism") that unfortunately passes for actual (bottom-up) socialism among too many leftists. Such states are indeed progressive, in the main, and a radical improvement over free-market capitalism -- but they are not socialist, unless socialism no longer means democratic worker-control of the means of production. But never mind! They provide for people, and that's your primary concern. Let us pay no attention to the new ruling-class behind the curtain, nor the conspicuous lack of worker-control.

As for me, even if capitalism did provide for people, I'd still oppose it, on grounds that it entails a class of non-workers who exist by exploiting the labor of workers, who are denied control of their own productive lives. This is a moral objection, which is the very root of socialism. You may deride me as a "liberal," but the fact remains that, even with a distinction drawn between utopian and scientific socialism, we can't account for why we care in the first place, except by referring to our moral outrage at the injustice of exploitation. If slaveholders in the US antebellum south had provided their slaves a decent standard of living, slavery would still have been fit only to be abolished.

When we oppose capitalism on grounds that it is inherently exploitative, the other objection takes care of itself; for when we eliminate the exploitation, workers will be able to provide for themselves and for each other. Conversely, when our primary concern is that workers be provided for, we're at risk of settling for whatever can deliver on that promise, even though it may retain exploitative social relations.

At any rate, this division is silly: we can oppose capitalism on both grounds, because both objections are valid.

I wasn't saying I wouldn't oppose capitalism if it could provide for everyone.
I was saying that when we fight for communism and socialism, we don't fight only for the liberation of the working class, we also fight for these minimal conditions to live (heck, we fight for good conditions to live)

My point was against homorevolutionary's post, that said that we fought capitalism not because it couldn't provide for these children, but because of it's exploitative nature (or something along those lines)

All I said was that if communism couldn't provide for all the hungry in the world and all that, then I'm guessing few of us would be 100% communists, because in that case, a communist society wouldn't be so good as the one we really fight for.

If the fight for socialism and communism wouldn't bring equal rights for gays, bisexuals, transexuals, males and females, if it wouldn't bring food for the hungry, medicine for the ill and all that comes with the emancipation of the working class, this would just be another fight like the abolition of slavery, and not a new system of society organization.

[Wanted Man]

EDIT: I'm not going to continue this actually, it's strayed off topic enough, if people want to discuss my actions in this thread, they can do so in the 'Cheka' forum.

The what forum? Whatever it is, people can't access it.

[bricolage]

neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented.

Have you got examples of where neoliberalism has done this?

Surely if that were the case Cuba wouldn't be 'the only country in Latin America and the Caribbean that child malnutrition has been eliminated.'


We don't oppose capitalism (in whatever form) because it cannot deliver for children, we oppose it because of it's essential exploitative character. Its by-products (including, but not limited to, habitual disregard for the poorest in society..) are of little consequence.Hmmm, while I appreciate the sentiment here (in fact I'd even go as far as saying something like it is necessary in meaning that we don't immediately lose our convictions and principles when capitalism feeds or houses some people that didn't have food or shelter before) I don't think you can just reduce anti-capitalism to a base moral objection. People don't turn to anti-capitalism sinply because it is exploitative but because that exploitation means their children don't get food, or they get fucked over at work, or they get paid a pittance while their boss gets a shedload, or they have to survive on bread for dinner, or because it means they get stuck in a war which kills their family etc etc.

The point is that capitalism simply cannot provide those things you've mentioned, history and the present day surely serve as empirical examples of this. Cuba, as a state capitalist regime, definitely does not provide all these things, however its move away from completely rampant neoliberal capitalism to a more redistributive form, has elements (however small they may be) of the kind of society we are striving for. As long as you don't see such state capitalism as an end in itself or a complete model to follow, and remain ever critical of it I don't think there is harm in applauding something like 0% child malnutrition.


All I said was that if communism couldn't provide for all the hungry in the world and all that, then I'm guessing few of us would be 100% communists, because in that case, a communist society wouldn't be so good as the one we really fight for.

If the fight for socialism and communism wouldn't bring equal rights for gays, bisexuals, transexuals, males and females, if it wouldn't bring food for the hungry, medicine for the ill and all that comes with the emancipation of the working class, this would just be another fight like the abolition of slavery, and not a new system of society organization.

I'd agree with this too.

[Patchd]

As I remembered, homorevolutionary is a proponent of "free love" and I think that's what s/he's criticising here, which is a baseless criticism. Cuba is a country that will provide sex change operations for anyone wanting it. To go on and on about it being some oppressive state for GBLT's is not somehting I will accept on faith, particularly since leading figures are attempting to get rid of what homophobic attitudes remain.
So does Islamic Republic of Iran, and we can hardly say they're tolerant of homosexuals or of transgender identity now can we? They see sex change operations as a means to solve the problem of homosexuality, because you know, we all really just want to be women apparently. Not saying that Cuba offers them for the same reason, but merely using it as a point that you cannot measure a nation's tolerance towards homosexuality by their policies with regards to sex changes.

I agree, and as I have said before, the situation in Cuba is improving for homosexuals, which can't be said for many places around the world. However, we still can't dismiss the fact that there is still institutional homophobia within Cuba, yes it's being dealt with, but it is a sign that socialism, and socialism alone will not rid the world of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. I have a comrade (a trotskyist) who's boyfriend is from Cuba, and lives there, he visits him regularly and comes back with reports of police harassment because of his boyfriend's sexuality.


Because I'm a Marxist praising the Cuban Communists for struggling against homophobic and sexist attitudes you want to warn me? :laugh: Unfuckinbelievable how biased and absurd this is. Nope, I wanted to warn you because of this comment:
"he's mocking your ridiculous standards-ie if Havana's streets aren't shut down by orgies, it's not really free."

If this was in reference to the concept of 'free love', as you've suggested then that's settled, but in the context of the whole thread, it seemed like you were one, of a few, making attacks on homosexuality, on the grounds that all we ever want is to be able to fuck one another on the streets, or circle jerk one another off, or even lay claim that the view that homosexuality is bourgeois decadence is legitimate.


Em...Lesser punishment? There was once a comrade who supported full and equal rights for all gay people, including marriage, but was restricted or banned (can't remember which) on this site for saying he thought that as a heterosexual gay sex was gross. It's as the admins/mods here want to drive away allies of gay liberation.Who was this member?


My party has one of the best records on gay liberation of any Marxist party in the world, we've full members who are openly transgendered. Though I'm sure you'll somehow twist that into a reason to attack us as you do with Cuba. :rolleyes:I don't care what your party has done, I don't care what you've done, like I said to Intelligitimate, if you really think you 'champion' our cause, then start acting like it. Considering the point I made above though, if your phrase was about 'free love', although it was an unnecessary comment, this is no longer relevant.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Have you got examples of where neoliberalism has done this?

Yes. Would you describe Britain as particularly neoliberal? I would.

And are you reasonably healthy? Fed? Educated, Clothed and Contented?


I agree, neoliberalism cannot deliver these things for everyone, but my point, is that even if i could, we oppose it anyways. We don't strive for better capitalism, kinder capitalism or greener capitalism, we oppose it for it's basic nature.

That doesn't mean we equate different forms of capitalism, Cuban gains are very real and the millions of children that will be raised better than they would have been elsewhere is a true credit.

But we still oppose the basic functioning of Cuban generated capital. And the sooner Stalinists stop praising Cuba as a regime worth emulating the sooner we can remove ourselves form the shackles of State capitalism.

[manic expression]

So does Islamic Republic of Iran, and we can hardly say they're tolerant of homosexuals or of transgender identity now can we? They see sex change operations as a means to solve the problem of homosexuality, because you know, we all really just want to be women apparently. Not saying that Cuba offers them for the same reason, but merely using it as a point that you cannot measure a nation's tolerance towards homosexuality by their policies with regards to sex changes.

The revolutionary government of Cuba offers free sex changes for the exact opposite reason. It's a means of allowing our LGBT brothers and sisters the chance to live the life they want to live. That's why it's provided. That's a clear demonstration of the Cuban Revolution's commitment to universal human dignity, and it is more than reasonable to measure Cuba's progress with such a policy.


Yes. Would you describe Britain as particularly neoliberal? I would.

I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make with this, but comparing the UK to Latin America is ridiculous for many reasons (historical development is one biggie).

If you actually want to compare the UK and Cuba in terms of health, education, women's rights, housing and the like, then be my guest, but don't try to vaguely equate the two just because you feel like it.

For example: Does the UK have 0% child malnutrition? No, and it won't under present circumstances, because neoliberalism necessarily involves the further weakening of workers' rights and bargaining power.


But we still oppose the basic functioning of Cuban generated capital. And the sooner Stalinists stop praising Cuba as a regime worth emulating the sooner we can remove ourselves form the shackles of State capitalism.

Yet again, we hear of the phantom "capitalism" of Cuba. Unless you quantify this statement with a shred of real evidence, then you're just talking the same nonsense we've all heard before. There is no generalized commodity production in Cuba, there is no private ownership of production, there is no empowered capitalist class...I could go on.

Something to think about: is your opposition to the Cuban Revolution based on a concern for our LGBT sisters and brothers in Cuba, or is it based on your own warped and myopic conception of what you think socialism should look like?

[Wanted Man]

And the sooner Stalinists stop praising Cuba as a regime worth emulating the sooner we can remove ourselves form the shackles of State capitalism.

Eh? Our support for Cuba keeps "you" (are you a pregnant woman, royalty, or schizophrenic?) shackled to state capitalism? I didn't realise we held that much power. If you need to be removed from the shackles of state capitalism, I'm sure you can do it yourself.

[Bitter Ashes]

Can a mod please split this thread? :)

Yes, it's worth talking about homophobia in Cuba, but it's got out of hand now and is offtopic.

[Patchd]

I would do it, but I don't know which posts to move, some are mod posts or posts discussing moderator actions and homosexuality/homophobia itself, yet still contain some content relevant to the discussion :bored:

[Die Rote Fahne]

I think Raul is waiting for Fidel to croak before he hits Cuba with some more social reforms.

I liked Fidel back when he wasn't "ban this and that"

[Robocommie]

Yes. Would you describe Britain as particularly neoliberal? I would.

And are you reasonably healthy? Fed? Educated, Clothed and Contented?


You surely appreciate that you're only healthy, fed, educated, all of that, because neoliberalism exploits other regions of the world for the benefit of the United Kingdom. Cheap resources, cheap labor, cheap goods. The only reason you in particular benefit from neoliberalism is the vagaries of history, and that inequality is why capitalism is bad. That's the point.



I agree, neoliberalism cannot deliver these things for everyone, but my point, is that even if i could, we oppose it anyways. We don't strive for better capitalism, kinder capitalism or greener capitalism, we oppose it for it's basic nature.


Perhaps if capitalism did bring prosperity equally to everyone, as it's proponents say, we'd support it. But it doesn't, so we don't. I'd like to think leftists base their opposition to capitalism on the realities of people being systematically deprived of their material needs, rather than some mystical quality which just makes it bad.

[anticap]

Perhaps if capitalism did bring prosperity equally to everyone, as it's proponents say, we'd support it.

Then why aren't you advocating a better, stronger, faster capitalism, given that it actually exists and can be tinkered with in the here and now, unlike socialism?

BTW, its proponents don't say that it can (or should) bring prosperity equally to everyone; they say that its rising tide can lift all boats, if allowed to function "properly." Assuming this were true, would you support it? If yes, then 'nuff said; your mission is clear (stated above, in case you missed it). If no, then why not? Perhaps because it's inherently exploitative, and you find exploitation to be morally objectionable?


I'd like to think leftists base their opposition to capitalism on the realities of people being systematically deprived of their material needs, rather than some mystical quality which just makes it bad.

The inherently exploitative nature of capitalism is a material reality (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm); it isn't mysticism. Whether that nature is "bad" or not is a subjective moral question. I happen to think that it is bad; and I know that you agree, because I know that you think that it is bad when there are people who are not "healthy, fed, educated, all of that." In both cases, the objection is a moral one. The real question, then, is which of these situations flows from the other; but I won't repeat what I've already said here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1637238&postcount=74).

[Pogue]

Yes. Would you describe Britain as particularly neoliberal? I would.

And are you reasonably healthy? Fed? Educated, Clothed and Contented?


I agree, neoliberalism cannot deliver these things for everyone, but my point, is that even if i could, we oppose it anyways. We don't strive for better capitalism, kinder capitalism or greener capitalism, we oppose it for it's basic nature.

That doesn't mean we equate different forms of capitalism, Cuban gains are very real and the millions of children that will be raised better than they would have been elsewhere is a true credit.

But we still oppose the basic functioning of Cuban generated capital. And the sooner Stalinists stop praising Cuba as a regime worth emulating the sooner we can remove ourselves form the shackles of State capitalism.

You do know how neo-liberalism feeds people don't you? The point is, the CIban system doesn't rely on the exploitation of the developing world, nor is it imperialist.

[robbo203]

You surely appreciate that you're only healthy, fed, educated, all of that, because neoliberalism exploits other regions of the world for the benefit of the United Kingdom. Cheap resources, cheap labor, cheap goods. The only reason you in particular benefit from neoliberalism is the vagaries of history, and that inequality is why capitalism is bad. That's the point..

Hmm. I keep hearing this argument - that the West is relatively affluent "because" neoliberalism exploits the Third World - but where are the economic data behind this argument that would justify it? It seems to me
to be a variant of the Lenin's discredited "labour aristocracy" theory - the absurd idea that western workers (or a stratum of them) are somehow "bribed" by their local capitalist class in return for their compliance

The facts speak otherwise

Imperialist investment, particularly in the global South, represents a tiny portion of global capitalist investment. Foreign direct investment makes up only 5% of total world investment - that is to say, 95% of total capitalist investment takes place within the boundaries of each industrialized country. Of that five percent of total global investment that is foreign direct investment, nearly three-quarters flow from one industrialized country - one part of the global North - to another. Thus only 1.25% of total world investment flows from the global North to the global South. It is not surprising that the global South accounts for only 20% of global manufacturing output, mostly in labor-intensive industries such as clothing, shoes, auto parts and simple electronics. ("The Labor Aristocracy Myth" , International Viewpoint Online magazine : IV381 - September 2006)

You can legitimately argue that it it is due to the vagaries of history and the fact that capitalism developed in the West first, that western workers have a standard of living significantly higher than their counterparts in the develping world (although even this argument would be simplistic). However saying that is quite different from saying this relatively higher standard of living is directly attributable to western exploitation of the third world. By far the biggest exploiters of Third world workers and peasants are the homegrown comprador capitalists in the third world itself

[anticap]

By far the biggest exploiters of Third world workers and peasants are the homegrown comprador capitalists in the third world itself

Wouldn't "Third Worldists" agree with that though? Wouldn't they say that the global North exploits the global South by way of such compradors? I'm asking because I don't know. I don't want to derail this thread, but I'd enjoy following a debate on this topic between the two sides. It interests me but I'm not confident of my grasp of it. Both sides seem to make good points.

[robbo203]

Wouldn't "Third Worldists" agree with that though? Wouldn't they say that the global North exploits the global South by way of such compradors? I'm asking because I don't know. I don't want to derail this thread, but I'd enjoy following a debate on this topic between the two sides. It interests me but I'm not confident of my grasp of it. Both sides seem to make good points.

Well, technically exploitation occurs through the investment of capital and through the capitalist creaming off a surplus from said capital part of which goes towards the capitalist onw ocunsumption part of which is reinvested as capital. But if the figues I gave are correct and I have no reason to believe they are incorrect, then it follows that the flow of capital between the North and the South constitutes a tiny fraction of total capital flows - 1.25% - there is just no way you can assert the relatively high living standards of workers in the west derives from the West's "exploitation" of the Third world. It has to be due to some other factor (s)

I think, in any case, the whole global picture is changing rapidly. China is poised to overtake Japan as the second largest capitalist economy in the world and I suspect in a few decades down the line it will be the biggest capitalist economy , knocking the USA off its perch (indeed it is already to some extent America's banker). India is making great strides as well.

It is far too simplistic to think in terms of a rich first world exploiting a poor third world . There are gross inequalities of wealth throughout the world

[(A)(_|]

This is absolutely great news. It makes it clearer as to the proposed concept that the US only pushes its embargo and blockade on Cuba to show other countries with similar economic straits that the Cuban "Socialist" model would never work unless you had the blessing of the US. Cuban kids are spending new year's free of malnutrition while working class Egyptian kids are having to live with whatever 107 pounds a month can get them. Let's all buy Mcdonald's :(

Is there anybody here that has insight on whether Raul is willing to make any liberal adjustments to the country's economy?

[bricolage]

Yes. Would you describe Britain as particularly neoliberal? I would.

Dunno to be honest, neoliberlism is a pretty hard thing to pin down most of the time and I think it's easier and more relevant to look at it as mode of economic foreign policy than a domestic issue. In any case there is still an NHS, minimum wage blah blah here which, however you or I may or may not wish to view them, are aspects not very favoured by neoliberlism. In any case I'm mostly just speculating here.


And are you reasonably healthy? Fed? Educated, Clothed and Contented?I am yes, but not everyone in the UK is and most definitely not everyone in the world is, that neoliberalism could provide the living standards in the West for the entirety of the world is just not a plausible outcome, the core flourishes through the periphery's impoverishment, this is a clear historical trend that continues today.

I think talking about whether we would oppose capitalism if it could provide x y z and everything in between is entirely hypothetical and it's fair enough to say that because it can't do this it is one of the reasons we oppose it.


That doesn't mean we equate different forms of capitalism, Cuban gains are very real and the millions of children that will be raised better than they would have been elsewhere is a true credit.But we still oppose the basic functioning of Cuban generated capital. And the sooner Stalinists stop praising Cuba as a regime worth emulating the sooner we can remove ourselves form the shackles of State capitalism.I'd agree for the most part yeah.

[the last donut of the night]

As much as I love the discussion:

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/members/vertigo+paris/albums/misc+pics-36/thread-derail-1953.jpg

[Q]

As much as I love the discussion:

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/members/vertigo+paris/albums/misc+pics-36/thread-derail-1953.jpg
What a nice and subtle way of bumping a thread.

[the last donut of the night]

What a nice and subtle way of bumping a thread.

If only I weren't forced to look up what "bumping a thread" means, I would be more pissed at you.

But thank you for caring.:wub: