Prostitution in Cuba

["Jurriaan Bendien" <j.bendien@xxxxxxxxxx>]

What I don't understand is, if Powell is critical of prostitution in
Cuba, why then does the State Department favour trade boycotts against
Cuba, and why do Americans participate in conspiracies to keep Cuba
poor ? If they lifted the economic sanctions against Cuba, an enormous
number of Cubans would be able to have regular jobs, and in fact, if
they could have that, most would prefer it.
It is the same story almost anywhere in the world, the vast majority
of prostitutes would prefer another source of income and a decent
life, they prostitute because they are poor and alienated, this is a
way of getting to a better life.  If the sabotage against Cuba was
stopped, the economy could be developed so that the quality of life
was such, that a lot of Cubans living in Florida would think
themselves crazy for living in Florida, they would realise you can
have a much better life in Cuba where they come from originally
anyway. This would have other spin-offs and benefits such as lower
crime in Florida and more pluralism in Cuba as well, since if people
are cooperating, then you do not get all the paranoia and need for
repressive measures. There has to be countries in the world where
people experiment with alternative forms of economy, with
non-capitalist forms, to find ways of social organisation where you
have zero unemployment, zero crime, zero or near-zero pollution and
eco-destruction, social security for people, excellent human
development, no racism, no sexism, high cultural standards.

Let us grant for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the vast
majority of the world's people prefer capitalism and money grubbing,
which means ruthless competition, exploitation, crime, racism,
militarism, disease, eco-destruction, destitution, prostitution,
social disintegration and so forth, all those things socialists talked
about and pointed out for 150 years or more. Okay, I am democratic,
they can have that on the basis of majority rule. But I think, and
this is my opinion, we should try in a few countries to experiment
with alternatives, in other words with forms of social organisation
that eliminate the unpleasant experiences of capitalism, to see what
really works, which of course can only be done through practice, or,
as Che would say, exemplary practice. As they already made a good
start with that in Cuba, I think it should be continued and developed.
Castro has pointed out the advances of Cuba in relation to the rest of
Latin America very clearly, but there are few indications that Latin
America wants to follow the Cuban method. Okay, so be it, but let us
continue the experiment in Cuba, give it a chance, and see if human
creativity can produce a realistic alternative. Let us face it, the
Cuban economy is hardly influential in the world economy anyhow, so
why turn this social experiment into a huge problem ? Why does the
State Department turn it into a huge problem, when they cannot even
deal with crime and corruption in Florida properly ? What goal is
being pursued here, what do these people really want ? Haven't they
got problems in the USA itself to think about ?

Maybe you think I am being arrogant or utopian in this suggestion, but
really I am not, I am trying to be sincere and sensible. I worked in
the area of statistics, and one of the important valuable
contributions of statisticians and mathematicians is that they
emphasise that human problems should be understood in the correct
proportions, in their quantitative dimensions, so you get a balanced,
objective perspective on them and don't go making mountains out of
molehills, so that you can correctly prioritise what the tasks are.
The statistician or mathematician is generally not a politician, he
just makes a contribution to solving human problems by telling you
some basics about what is a big problem and what is a small problem,
how to reduce big problems to small problems, and how to prevent small
problems from turning into big problems. Also, statisticians and
mathematicians can vastly reduce the amount of bunk talked in politics
with with clearly defined concepts and a reduction of vagueness. I can
give you an example in the New Zealand context, deliberately chosen
outside any socialist arguments. Prime Minister Robert Muldoon
introduced a new superannuation scheme which responded to a
traditional concern of New Zealanders (Muldoon was fond of saying that
economics was about people), and of course it was also a vote-catching
device. The statisticians pointed out, that in the way the scheme was
set up, this was not financially viable and if you extrapolated into
the future, then you could see it just could not work long-term. The
government however ignored this and did it anyway, as I say, political
interests and prestige played an important role. Well later people of
course threw out Muldoon, and there was a neoliberal revolution in the
economy, then ended up savagely cutting superannuation (I do not need
to explain my opinion about this). The statisticians were proved
correct, except of course they would also frown on ripping off poor
people who had worked all their lives and deserved a reasonable and
secure retirement. But like I say, it was not their function to be
politicians, just to get the data, analyse the data and so on, put it
in perspective.

J.