More details here:
"Would anyone dare to deny the social and human consequences of the neoliberal globalization imposed on the world?
"- If 25 years ago five hundred million people were going hungry, today over 800 million are starving.
"-In the poor countries, 150 million children are born underweight, which raises their risks of death as well as of mental and physical underdevelopment.
"-325 million children do not attend school.
"-Infant mortality rate under one year is 12 times higher than it is in the rich countries.
"-33 thousand children die every day in the Third World of curable illnesses.
"-Two million girls are forced into prostitution.
"-85 percent of the world population made up by poor countries consumes only 30 percent of the energy, 25 percent of the metals and 15 percent of the timber.
"-There are billions of full illiterates or functional illiterates on the planet.
"How can the imperialist leaders and those who share in the plundering of the world speak of human rights and even use such words as freedom and democracy in this brutally exploited world?
"A permanent crime of genocide is being committed against mankind. The number of children, mothers, adolescents, youths and adults who could be saved and die every year for lack of food, medical care and medicines is similar to the tens of millions who perished in any of the two world wars. This is happening every day, every hour, while none of the great leaders of the developed and rich world say a single word about it."
UPDATE: For those who don't read to well, please note that this entry is captioned with a question.
FURTHER UPDATE: I suppose it is predictable given the brainwashed condition of the public that this posting would provoke irrational responses, though the speed with which it has done so is still striking. Let me share an instructive exchange with one reader; perhaps it shall save me other pointless correspondence.
This reader started out just fine, disputing, perhaps correctly, that there is any causal connection between globalisation, per se, and increased human suffering and misery. One reason I left “globalisation” out of the title of the posting was precisely because I was uncertain what the relevant facts are on this.
But from this promising and rational starting point, this reader made a rapid descent.
READER: That millions of people who are suffering could be saved is beyond dispute, but this is hardly a failure of democracy or capitalism per se, as suffering and misery have always existed and, proportionately, in far greater numbers than they do today. No serious person disputes this.
LEITER: If you agree that “millions of people who are suffering could be saved,” then you have agreed with Castro’s central point. That there was more suffering in the past is irrelevant; the question is whether the material capacity now exists to ameliorate mass suffering. Many “serious” people—from Peter Singer to the United Nations—believe that it does, which therefore raises an issue about the moral culpability of the nations that fail to take the necessary steps.
READER: You're not reading very critically, professor.
LEITER: You have no idea how I’m reading, since I said nothing about the piece, other than posting it, and framing a question. I post items that strike me as interesting. As a reader of the blog, you will know that I’ve posted many items by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Does this mean that I am an “uncritical reader” because some of what Congressman Paul says is false or foolish? Sometimes it is good to be provoked, to reexamine old prejudices and conventional wisdom.
READER: One only has to compare those countries with a history of engagement in global capitalism and compare them to those without it. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and China have far less poverty and hunger now, after decades of engagement, than do countries without that history. I don't see large numbers of South Koreans agitating for the overthrow of their running dog masters and for the return of whatever filthy political/economic systems preceded their brand of capitalism. Do you? I do, however, see large numbers of Cubans...dying trying to escape Castro's prison. Tell me who is better off: the average Cuban, or the average Taiwanese?
LEITER: Your ignorance of the political situation in South Korea is astonishing, especially for someone so self-righteous. But let us put that to one side, since it is tangential to the main issues. I have no idea what the facts are about the per capita well-being of Cubans and Taiwanese, and I doubt you do either (you have no facts on offer, just your convictions, I’m afraid); since Cuba has also been the victim of a vicious embargo for decades by the country that would otherwise be its most important economic partner must surely be factored in to any comparison of the two systems. (The U.S. accounted for 70% of trade with Cuba under the fascist Batista.)
But none of this matters: for none of this is relevant to the posting, which made no comparative claims about the relative success of capitalist police states like Singapore and China (and for much of its modern history, South Korea) and socialist police states like Cuba. The point of the posting was that there is massive human misery in the world, and that the rich nations do nothing about it. Alas, you have been so well-indoctrinated that the mere mention of this latter fact brings up an irrelevant set of comparisons.
READER: Also: If trade and capitalism are so bad, why is Castro so upset about the embargo? Hmmm.
LEITER: He is upset about the embargo because it has destroyed the Cuban economy, and harmed the people of Cuba. I know of no socialists opposed to trade.
READER: It is to your everlasting shame that you'd favorably quote anything by Fidel Castro, much less his musings on the state of the global economy, of all things.
LEITER: This is a genuine ad hominem argument: why shouldn’t one quote something interesting, regardless of who said it?
READER: Castro, when he's not sharing his profound thoughts on the state of global capitalism, rounds AIDS victims and homosexuals into concentration camps and summarily executes political dissidents. Were you aware of that, Brian?
LEITER: I wasn’t aware of the parts that aren’t true. Cuba quarantines those infected with AIDS in facilities with levels of health care and services only dreamed of by the poorest victims of AIDS in the U.S. (For concentration camps, one would have to look to a different set of facilities in Cuba, run by the U.S. government.) At least as of the mid-1990s (when I last saw data on this), the quarantine policy had resulted in much lower levels of AIDS, per capita, in Cuba (most dramatically, among children) than in the United States. This may be an immoral policy—sacrificing the rights of some for the good of society—but it has nothing to do with concentration camps.
That Cuba is a police state—a far more benign police state, by the way, than typical U.S. clients--is not news to me, or anyone else. How is that relevant to the content of the quoted remarks?
READER: I doubt it matters much to you, but you've lost at least one reader permanent. Until now, I valued your opinions even when I disagreed with them, but your lack of judgment is really beyond question now.
LEITER: It is not clear, from this exchange or our earlier exchanges, that you read very carefully. Perhaps when you reflect rationally on your criticisms of this posting, you will reconsider.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Lawyer/philosopher John Bogart writes:
"In your exhange re Castro there is this comment by Reader in the early going:
'suffering and misery have always existed and, proportionately, in far greater numbers than they do today. No serious person disputes this.' I know this is largely beside the point of the original post and ensuing discussion, but it is not true. It is in fact a rather difficult problem to sort out if human beings are better off on the whole, and if so, when this occurred. Keep in mind that life expectancies and health generally was rather high during the era of the Roman Empire, and that the numbers of people varied significantly by era, at least in the European world.
"We do think that we live much better, but on a worldwide examination it is not so clear that there was not a significant decline through the middle ages and renaissance time periods of Europe, or that there was not another decline during the early and middle periods of industrialization. The regularity of large scale warfare complicates all of this as well. And we have limited information about the Americas and Africa. Changes in welfare in Asia also are not simply linear improvements."
Recent Comments