Cuban Infant Mortality, 5.3 in 2007!

[Red Terror Doctor]

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/enero/vier4/mortality.html



Infant mortality, 5.3 in 2007!

By José A. de la Osa, Granma daily

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/enero/vier4/mortalidad1.jpg

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/enero/vier4/mortalidad2.jpg
FOR the second consecutive year, Cuba has achieved an infant mortality rate of 5.3 for every 1,000 live births; the lowest in the history of our country and, together with Canada, the country has attained a lower figure than those registered by other countries in the Americas, in a genuine expression of the most sacred of human rights: health.
As experts acknowledge, the true measure of a nation’s progress is the quality of care provided for its children, their health and protection, material safety, their education and socialization. And the infant mortality rate is an indicator that measures those advances in a synthetic form.
Worldwide, the global rate stands at 52 and in Latin America, 26. The rate for West Africa is 108, according to statistics gathered for The State of the World’s Children published by UNICEF.
Translated by Granma International

[VukBZ2005]

I just got this news, and, it can only be good for the people of Cuba. Also, it can only be pondered at what the rate of infant mortality may have been like, if Cuba was a truly industrialized nation.

[Red October]

How much better is this than the rate in the US?

[Red Terror Doctor]

For the USA the CIA says it's 6.37 and The UN says 6.3

Check out this list. It's in descending order from worst to best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

[Lenin II]

And people act as if Cuba is SUCH A DUMP, as if it has SUCH problems with poverty and misery. The United States has a larger poverty problem than Cuba could ever dream of having, and I've noticed that most of these empty accusations come from people who have never been to Cuba.

Maybe if America would wise up and get universal healthcare and maybe start giving a shit about its people for once, then Hugo Chavez might not have to be the one giving free heating oil to the homeless.

[spartan]

This is a perfect example of how a welfare state with nationalised health care is better than private health care.

I always laugh whenever i hear Americans accuse Democratic party candidates of "Communism" whenever they propose nationalised health care.

[Lenin II]

This is a perfect example of how a welfare state with nationalised health care is better than private health care.

I always laugh whenever i hear Americans accuse Democratic party candidates of "Communism" whenever they propose nationalised health care.
I cringed a bit when I heard the term "welfare state." Socialism is not the petty-bourgeoisie practice of condescending "charity" practiced by liberals. That's actually one thing we should stress, I think. Socialism is not the same as welfare.

[SouthernBelle82]

I think so too. If any country was going so badly people wouldn't be having children more than likely cause most of the time people don't want to bring hardships on their children. I know if my country was going through rough times (like now) I wouldn't think of having a baby unless I knew I could handle the situation fine and really take care of my child and had a good paying job and all that since we don't have national health care and all that. :(


And people act as if Cuba is SUCH A DUMP, as if it has SUCH problems with poverty and misery. The United States has a larger poverty problem than Cuba could ever dream of having, and I've noticed that most of these empty accusations come from people who have never been to Cuba.

Maybe if America would wise up and get universal healthcare and maybe start giving a shit about its people for once, then Hugo Chavez might not have to be the one giving free heating oil to the homeless.

[jake williams]

I think so too. If any country was going so badly people wouldn't be having children more than likely cause most of the time people don't want to bring hardships on their children. I know if my country was going through rough times (like now) I wouldn't think of having a baby unless I knew I could handle the situation fine and really take care of my child and had a good paying job and all that since we don't have national health care and all that. :(
But doesn't it tend to be countries with objectively better living conditions who have lower birth rates, and miserable countries with the highest birthrates?

[SouthernBelle82]

Well I don't know but what I posted was just my opinion. But I think if Cuba was as bad in poverty etc as people claim they wouldn't be producing new children like they are.


But doesn't it tend to be countries with objectively better living conditions who have lower birth rates, and miserable countries with the highest birthrates?

[Dimentio]

This is a perfect example of how a welfare state with nationalised health care is better than private health care.

I always laugh whenever i hear Americans accuse Democratic party candidates of "Communism" whenever they propose nationalised health care.

Since when has the democrats proposed nationalised health care?

[spartan]

Since when has the democrats proposed nationalised health care?

Arent all the major players, running for the leadership of the Democratic party, proposing that America have national health care for all its citizens?

[Faux Real]

Arent all the major players, running for the leadership of the Democratic party, proposing that America have national health care for all its citizens?
No. For example, Hillary advocates mandatory health insurance, not a nationalized system. Barack wants some sort of extension of Medicaid, still not national, single-payer health care.

[Sam_b]

as if it has SUCH problems with poverty and misery

You mean it doesn't?!

[manic expression]

Yes, I saw this before, and it is indeed a great thing for the people of Cuba.

By the way, where are all the Castrophobes now? Shouldn't they be bewailing Cuba's revisionism/state-capitalism/baby eating? Just a hunch, but part of me thinks that Cuba could lower the infant mortality rate to -99% and some people here would persist in their opposition to the Cuban Revolution.


Arent all the major players, running for the leadership of the Democratic party, proposing that America have national health care for all its citizens?

As mentioned before, spartan, that is an incorrect assumption. Furthermore, the real point here is that even with single-payer healthcare, it would not match Cuba's system at all. Why? Cuba has socialist property relations and a worker state. That is the key difference, and that is why no capitalist country will ever equal Cuba's amazing feats.

[Sam_b]

but part of me thinks that Cuba could lower the infant mortality rate to -99% and some people here would persist in their opposition to the Cuban Revolution.

Thats a complete strawman. How does the infant mortality rate change anything about worker's control, for example?

Like many apparant "Castrophobes" I would actually applaud Cuba's healthcare system, but there has to be serious debates about the very nature of the Cuban state. If Cuba is the model for fighting for socialism, then I would feel exceptionally disheartened.

[SouthernBelle82]

Not really. Details is in their plans which for the most part still involves insurance companies.


Arent all the major players, running for the leadership of the Democratic party, proposing that America have national health care for all its citizens?

[Xiao Banfa]

Doesn't Dennis Kucinich propose nationalised health care?

[Lenin II]

You mean it doesn't?!
This is an arguement often used by capitalists and counter-revolutionaries to make the Cuban state look bad--the arguement that if Cuba isn't every bit as prosperous as imperialist countries, that they are somehow "poor." What this arguement fails to relaize is that poor is a relative term. Where is there hunger in Cuba? Show me statistics. If there is relative poverty, it is because they are a tiny nation, isolated and blockaded for fifty years, with little natural resources and constant influence from their neighbor, the beast of imperialism.

[SouthernBelle82]

More so then the top three that's for sure. However he's still a liberal and for the most part still accepts capitalism.


Doesn't Dennis Kucinich propose nationalised health care?

[Geronimo Pratt]

More so then the top three that's for sure. However he's still a liberal and for the most part still accepts capitalism.

He's still too far to the left for the subtle corporate party line in the U.S. This is why he was not allowed to debate in the Democratic debate on the General Electric-owned station NBC although they had previously allowed him. To me I don't even understand why he is wasting his energy and time on running for office when it seems he is losing faith in the system (based on a Democracy Now interview). His best option would be to get on the independent ticket for the election but I would still not vote as I have no real incredible urge to do so.

[BobKKKindle$]

Like many apparant "Castrophobes" I would actually applaud Cuba's healthcare system, but there has to be serious debates about the very nature of the Cuban state. If Cuba is the model for fighting for socialism, then I would feel exceptionally disheartened.

Agreed.

Cuba's health care system is very impressive, and is widely considered a model for other developing countries, and even the United States, which is the only developed state lacking a universal system of healthcare provision. What makes Cuba's healthcare even more impressive is the fact that the economy has suffered prolonged isolation, as a result of the loss of markets due to the collapse of the former Soviet bloc, and the ongoing embargo of the United States. It is also true that Cuba's faults are often overstated, and the ongoing emigration from Cuba is cited as an indication of a poor quality of life, even though emigration is artificially stimulated through the United States' policies.. As such, I defend Cuba through argumentation, and, if Cuba were subject to imperialist attack, I would support the defence of Cuba as a pressing necessity.

However, we should not assume that Cuba is therefore a 'socialist' country and abstain from criticising the government. I take the view that Cuba is a state-capitalist country, albeit with many progressive features, relative to the Soviet Union and other states which have claimed to be socialist despite the lack of democracy. To claim that Cuba is socialist because of the prevalence of state ownership is to misunderstand what Socialism is, as state ownership is by no means the key criterion for deciding whether a country is 'socialist'. I base this evaluation on the class origins of the Cuban state. The Cuban revolution was led by a band of guerilla fighters, primarily composed of intellectuals with no experience of proletariat life, and was isolated from the working class, such that Castro suggested that he would not challenge the institution of private property, when he first came to power. The new government's political objectives were based on petty-bourgeois nationalism, and a desire for economic independence and freedom from the Imperialist aggression of the United States. Therefore, a further revolution is required, to preserve, and at the same time extend upon the gains of the state-capitalist revolution, so as to establish a fully socialist state.

[Xiao Banfa]

Therefore, a further revolution is required, to preserve, and at the same time extend upon the gains of the state-capitalist revolution, so as to establish a fully socialist state

A revolution? One that endangers the integrity and power of the cuban state. It sounds like destabilisation that would leave Cuba open to intervention from the north.

If you're meaning a "political revolution" that sounds like the sort of orthodox trotskyist revolution that takes place against a bureaucratically degenerated workers' state.

[kromando33]

Although I don't see eye to eye with Cuba on matters of their politically line, they are the most socialist state currently in existence and deserve our support.

[manic expression]

Thats a complete strawman. How does the infant mortality rate change anything about worker's control, for example?

Like many apparant "Castrophobes" I would actually applaud Cuba's healthcare system, but there has to be serious debates about the very nature of the Cuban state. If Cuba is the model for fighting for socialism, then I would feel exceptionally disheartened.

First, it's not a strawman. Too many people here put their own petty ideological prejudices above class struggle, and this is apparent on the issue of Cuba. Cuba has abolished private property, and as this thread proves, the Cuban Revolution has greatly benefited the working class in Cuba. I have a great amount of difficulty discerning why people find it so hard to support the Cuban Revolution.

And in terms of the Cuban model, it needs to be a model for socialism. The biggest reason it has some problems is the imperialist blockade, which has been a major obstacle for the socialist government. At every turn, Cuba has tried to get it repealled, but to no avail. This is the main reason for Cuba's problems. However, in spite of this, Cuba continues to shock, amaze and inspire with its performance in these areas.

[SouthernBelle82]

So where's the outrage with Mike Gravel being excluded? Why doesn't anyone get upset about that? He is more to the left in general then Kucinich is. He has maybe one or two libertarian issues he's for but in general he's a leftist and nobody ever talks about him. I don't see Kucinich doing that. He's a democrat through and through. I remember in 2004 his campaign went all the way to the convention even though he encouraged his supporters to support Kerry.


He's still too far to the left for the subtle corporate party line in the U.S. This is why he was not allowed to debate in the Democratic debate on the General Electric-owned station NBC although they had previously allowed him. To me I don't even understand why he is wasting his energy and time on running for office when it seems he is losing faith in the system (based on a Democracy Now interview). His best option would be to get on the independent ticket for the election but I would still not vote as I have no real incredible urge to do so.

[SouthernBelle82]

I think so too. Much more so then China that's for sure.


Although I don't see eye to eye with Cuba on matters of their politically line, they are the most socialist state currently in existence and deserve our support.

[SouthernBelle82]

Oh speaking of the blockade of importing with Cuba what countries currently do trade with Cuba?

[Geronimo Pratt]

So where's the outrage with Mike Gravel being excluded? Why doesn't anyone get upset about that? He is more to the left in general then Kucinich is. He has maybe one or two libertarian issues he's for but in general he's a leftist and nobody ever talks about him. I don't see Kucinich doing that. He's a democrat through and through. I remember in 2004 his campaign went all the way to the convention even though he encouraged his supporters to support Kerry.

You're right, I forgot about Kucinich advocating Kerry in the 2004 elections. Mike Gravel is cool but he has his flaws as well; no politician is really free of some sort of ruling class bias after all. Gravel and Kucinich represent the "far left" extreme minority of capitalist opinion if not completely outside the very limited spectrum line. It is almost impossible for a "left" populist or social-democrat to gain power in the current political sphere of the U.S. The age of "voting for reform" has long been over and we are in the dark winter of center-left neoliberals, evangelical fascists, far-right libertarians, and liberal hegemonic imperialists (i.e. neoconservatives). If anybody still believes that voting is going to change anything by now then there is little hope for them.

[Sam_b]

However, we should not assume that Cuba is therefore a 'socialist' country and abstain from criticising the government. I take the view that Cuba is a state-capitalist country, albeit with many progressive features, relative to the Soviet Union and other states which have claimed to be socialist despite the lack of democracy. To claim that Cuba is socialist because of the prevalence of state ownership is to misunderstand what Socialism is, as state ownership is by no means the key criterion for deciding whether a country is 'socialist'. I base this evaluation on the class origins of the Cuban state. The Cuban revolution was led by a band of guerilla fighters, primarily composed of intellectuals with no experience of proletariat life, and was isolated from the working class, such that Castro suggested that he would not challenge the institution of private property, when he first came to power. The new government's political objectives were based on petty-bourgeois nationalism, and a desire for economic independence and freedom from the Imperialist aggression of the United States. Therefore, a further revolution is required, to preserve, and at the same time extend upon the gains of the state-capitalist revolution, so as to establish a fully socialist state

Completely agree with your analysis.


the Cuban Revolution has greatly benefited the working class in Cuba

Seeing as they were under the Batista dictatorship, that wouldn't be hard.


I have a great amount of difficulty discerning why people find it so hard to support the Cuban Revolution

Care to prove that it was actually a revolution? Was it not just a coup of guerilla fighters?

I would find it hard to support a 'revolution' that in the past has locked up Trade Unionists. Stalinists don't 'inspire' me in the slightest.

[manic expression]

Seeing as they were under the Batista dictatorship, that wouldn't be hard.

Well, that...and the full weight of American imperialism. Washington and Havana's ties were so close that Cuba was oftentimes considered a (second-class) state, or more appropriately, a big brothel and casino for capitalists and the US Navy. All this was washed away, with virtually all American interests being liquidated on the island, a Herculean achievement in itself.

So no, it wasn't an easy task, just like any other socialist revolution.


Care to prove that it was actually a revolution? Was it not just a coup of guerilla fighters?Sure. Socialist social relations now exist on Cuba. Private property has been abolished, a worker state has been established.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)

(Note: The above source cites original research and reputable support)

The means of production are controlled by the working class through the Cuban government, and Cuba's property relations show this.


I would find it hard to support a 'revolution' that in the past has locked up Trade Unionists. Stalinists don't 'inspire' me in the slightest.The Cuban revolutionaries have never been Stalinists. They have been communists, and they have ALWAYS sought to marginalize bureaucratic growth within the Cuban worker state. The rectification process in the 80's is a good example of this, in which bureaucratic roles were replaced by community control and local leadership. This is but one of the countless instances where the working class has been the central focus of the socialist Cuban Revolution.

As for trade unionists, please provide an example.

[Sam_b]

Sure. Socialist social relations now exist on Cuba. Private property has been abolished, a worker state has been established.

You miss my point. I asked whether it was a revolution, or just a coup by Marxist intelligencia?

And Cuba itself, even out of embargo necessity I will say, is not a socialist country. It can't be, it is state capitalist. Like any company, Cuba sells its commodities for profit, and indeed is the hirer and firer of workers.


The Cuban revolutionaries have never been Stalinists

Even the El-Militante people I was talking with a few months ago admitted that at least in the past Cuba has been a Stalinist state!


As for trade unionists, please provide an example.

Not just Trade Unionists, but anyone labelled as a 'counterrevolutionary' or 'on the payroll of the US'! If Cuba was such a glorious state, why are workers and citizens in jail for opposing it? What about Reynaldo Garcia? What about Reinaldo Arenas?

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2331960920070423