International bastards league: new political parlour game
Posted on Thursday 28 January, 2010
Filed Under Industrial relations
IMAGINE a scale that runs from one to ten and measures every independent polity in the world in terms of niceness and nastiness.
At one we have Sweden and Norway, because they are permanently cuddly and welfare statey and social democratic, even when the centre-right gets in.
Singapore occupies the half way point with a score of five, because it is authoritarian while desperately trying to pretend to be a semi-democracy. Trade unionism isn’t exactly encouraged, for instance. But trade union activists are not routinely executed, either.
At ten I have placed Saudi Arabia and Burma, both utterly execrable totalitarian regimes with manifold sins that need no reiteration here.
This scale is not designed as a yardstick of democracy as such, but rather an indefinable property that might be described as a ‘bastardness quotient’. You must know what I mean.
The game is this: commenters are invited to place Cuba, Iran, Israel, Britain and the US at points of their choosing along this continuum, giving reasons for doing so.
When evaluating Cuba, for instance, you have to decide whether the combination of a one-party state, a ban on independent unions, free universal healthcare and the eradication of illiteracy makes the place better or worse than Lee Hsien Loong’s Asian city-state.
Ditto Iran, which some leftwing blogs apparently consider ‘a mature democracy’, despite its repression of peaceful demonstrations by opposition supporters. Does it rank above or below five in your book?
Arab citizens of Israel have all the rights associated with liberal democracies. Yet at the same time, Tel Aviv’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians has rightly attracted the condemnation of liberals and socialists everywhere. What should we conclude?
How about the US and the UK? How far do the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq make them international bastards of the first water? Do you cut them any slack for adherence to broadly free elections and human rights at home?
Over to you. I’ll join the discussion in the comments box.
<<Go back
Comments
70 Responses to “International bastards league: new political parlour game”
Cuba: Having achieved what effectively no other comparable country has in terms health, education, and popular political activity and trade union rights, alongside consistently positive contributions internationally (medical programmes, education programmes, the largest single third world giver of aid, and backing up its commitment to democracy in Africa in actions and not just words), it’s defiantly the winner here. 1
Iran: Well, it’s never invaded anyone, so that’s a bonus. It also has a kind of semi-democratic system in place which beats most of its neighbours. Of course on the other hand there’s the brutal repression, the constitutional supremacy of the theocracy etc. etc. etc. 8
Israel: What’s their to say. It’s ironic that there are few countries more fundamentally racist than Israel, although as it was founded as a colonial state with an official ethnicity what else could be expected? No such state can ever score well on such a scale, but they could at least have kept their score down by adopted a semi-civilised approach to the people who already live there, but no: ethnic cleansing, apartheid, military occupation, political suppression. It’s really not looking good. 9
US: Over the past 100 years they have done almost nothing but wage war and install puppet governments around the world. At home they have gradually accepted democratic reforms and basic civil rights, although in many areas the realisation of these formal rights leaves a lot to be desired. They have ‘free’ elections, although here more than anywhere else the political leadership is determined by money rather than anything else. They have fairly good freedom of speech, although again their practice can be extremely inconsistent. 4
UK: Internally its role has been usually very negative, although no where near as extreme as the US (that may be more a capability than ideological thing though). At home its fairly democratic, recognises some trade union rights, has avoided developing the gun-culture in its police force that the other nations has – although some how they still manage to keep killing innocent bystanders. Fairly democratic, within the limits of liberal democracy. Its really been letting itself down with recent crackdown on civil liberties and the privatisation of just about everything once held in common. About a 2.5
Saudi Arabia, the country in which I live, is not quite bad enough to justify a mark of 10. A mark of 8 at the most. There’s an immense difference between hard totalitarianism of the kind existing in Libya and the Gulf’s soft totalitarianism.
Nor is Burma, for that matter. It’s been a few years since I was there, but there’s surprising liberty compared to a truly totalitarian country like China, Cuba or the DPRK. Christian evangelical groups openly yapping about salvation, for one thing. Again, a mark of eight at the most.
The bastard UK – From Blair, Brown to Osler, and, of course, long long before. Just look at the current torture/castration cases re Kenya in the 50s rejected by Labour. Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan etc? You GOT it. Our British army? OUR Brutality Boyos. When not lately getting their heroic arses kicked. Continuity is the watch word.
But as with Dave, I’ll be voting “Gordon” cause I don’t fk/ng care…and well, Gordon’s the best PM we’ve got. Ever. In the post 2010 Labour Party all to play for. Wasn’t Jack Straw great chez Chilcot? 1441 out of 10.
I forget but didn’t Lenin say the enemy was at home?
I am surprised at Simon’s sanitised view of Britain, which always must be put in a historical context:
o The first modern imperialists, invading Ireland in the 12th century, plantation and settlement in Tudor times, wanton murder of the Irish for the centuries and still a little outpost in the six counties [that's excluding the shoot to kill policy, the assassinations in Gibraltar, etc]
o As for trade union rights, they are not even close to the pre-Thatcher days, as the recent court actions against unions show.
o Surveillance orientated Britain, cameras, ID cards and government databases, not something we should forget.
o The divide between rich and poor, largest for 40 years.
o The potential rise of Far Right parties in Britain and the daily dose of xenophobia and anti Europeanism from parts of the British media.
o 50+ years of minimal infrastructure investment and more recently the privatisation, the PFI and the shambles that is the British rail network. Why the British seem to want to do these projects on the cheap, I’ll never know
o Decades and decades of the British sucking up to oil rich dictatorships, in one way shape or form.
o Not forgetting the British armaments industry which produces nothing worthwhile.
o The British are very good at the veneer of democracy, but you’d hope that dialectical materialists would be able to see beyond that.
and I haven’t even started.
Score: not printable.
As modernity finds it such a trial living on these shore, why doesn’t he consider finding a more congenial country? I would be interested to know his choice. Could you perhaps share with us the name of a country you would consider blessing with your presence?
And I thought the IBL was your secret entryist cabal in the Labour Party.
Interesting question, I’ll bite.
Cuba: Certainly a decent player internationally, and provides a better standard of living than any other country of its wealth, in the face of intense international pressure. But then, it has no democratic rights whatsoever so to speak of, and while there are (just about functioning) hospitals, and decent free education, otherwise it’s hardly a barrel of laughs and most Cuban’s want to leave. The scale breaks down, and splinters like the British left:
Standard of living: 5 (In this case Singapore is more like a 3, it’s got a Western economy with long Eastern working hours) Hospitals and Schools, people don’t really starve, but that’s about it.
Freedom/Democracy: 7.5/8, People aren’t executed, but you can’t say much else.
International nicety: 3/2 For people an example to Socialists around the world (of both the limits and possibilities of socialism within one country), for doing a lot of humanitarian good for it’s neighbors, for it’s low Carbon Output.
Bah, sleepy time, I’ll come back to this later.
But if there’s a “point” to what I’m saying thus far it is that countries are not simply good or bad, but are complex entities with good, bad, very good and very bad points. This is hardly deep stuff, but it’s amazing how few Leftists appear aware of this…
what about Dominica, run by a leftwing social-democratic government since 2000 and the only state in the world with a parrot in its flag?
Or Costa Rica for not having armed forces since 1949?
As they are all, without exception, states they would be given nul points by, among others, Errico Malatesta.
Modernity, Britain scoring so well is more a reflection upon how bad things are elsewhere than anything else. Certainly things are better than Singapore, and in most regards better than the US, and most of teh EU states. Trade union rights are marginal compared with the pre-Thatcher era but few countries in the world have better ones. That and its international role prevent it from earning a two.
Cuba 1
Venezuela 2
South Africa 3
Iran 4
China 5
Zimbawe 6
UK 7
USA 8
Saudi Arabia 9-10
Israel 10-Off the scale
Britain went from a 6 in the pre-war colonial period to a 2 in the 1970s and has slipped to a 4.
The USA has been 3 at a couple of points but is generally 4 or 5.
Israel sadly is an 8 or so.
Don’t know enough about the others.
@ Entdinglichung
* claps *
The rain is sweet after the burning sun. Remember Eugenia Charles, the iron lady of the Caribbean?
OK Dominica gets a 2 then, what about Iceland? Stood up to the banks, 2 as well. Forgot Colombia, 9-10 there for obvious reasons. Same goes for Nigeria, both effectively ruled by murdering death squads at the behest of oil companies. Trade unionists are regularly culled in both those countries.
Sorry for multiple posts, something went crazy with computer!
Could Simon and Red Snapper please explain why they’ve put Cuba at No. 1, if two of the criteria mentioned are “Trade Union Rights” and “Democratic Accountability”?
Surely, if Cuba was as great as people suggest then it would have nothing to fear from full freedom of expression and pluralist democracy?
Yes DPRK for keeping old Stalinist kitch alive. Worth a 1 for that alone! Russia?
Cubans do have trade union rights. Unions are well represented at all levels in the system. I have heard leading Cuban trade unionists last years TUC and unison conferences and they were impressive a lot better, apart from a few exceptions, than the lot we have here.
Because trade unions in Cuba are in general more free than in the UK, and because it has an actual democracy, not a bourgeois, liberal, parliamentry democracy. It’s fairly simple really.
Cuba has freedom of expression and why would they want pluralism? What form would this pluralism take? Would we have what the workers have decided on one side and the bourgeois on the other, and then seek some sort of compromise? Or would we just get it over with an ask the US to install its president?
Totally agree with you Simon. Cuba ain’t perfect but what it has been able with its limited resources is nothing short of miraculous and puts other richer countries to shame. It displays the total superiority of a planned economy over a free market or mixed one. Well worthy of its score of 1!
So is this just “Bourgeois Propaganda” then?
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/18/cuba-ra-l-castro-imprisons-critics-crushes-dissent
And Simon, pluralism and socialism are entirely compatible with each other. Being a pluralist just means that you expect people to disagree (even if they share the same class background), you don’t think that you have all the answers and that allowing people to freely organise politically is good for the health and legitimacy of a political system.
And why are there no INDEPENDENT trade unions in Cuba?
Red Snapper: “Cubans do have trade union rights. Unions are well represented at all levels in the system. I have heard leading Cuban trade unionists last years TUC and unison conferences and they were impressive a lot better, apart from a few exceptions, than the lot we have here.”
Ha-fuckin’-ha-fuckin’-ha.
My gawd, sections of the so-called “left” have an awful lot to learn about the a-b-c’s of class politics. And it seems that Stalinist propaganda still hol;ds sway amongst stupid people.
I have a real soft spot for Cuba, I confess, but doesn’t quasi hereditary ‘monarchy’ in Cuba cause any socialists to have a little think?
I wonder would readers find it acceptable if a future British socialist regime was passing the leadership from relative to relative?
[As the Windsors currently do.]
‘The Labour Party is fucked’: Vote John McDonnell.
Not an easy sell, that one.
“So is this just “Bourgeois Propaganda” then?”
I can’t comment on the details of the most recent cases, but if it’s anything like the infamous 72 “political dissidents” reported by HRW then I’m not too concerned about it.
“And Simon, pluralism and socialism are entirely compatible with each other. Being a pluralist just means that you expect people to disagree (even if they share the same class background), you don’t think that you have all the answers and that allowing people to freely organise politically is good for the health and legitimacy of a political system.”
Disagreement exists. If you’re ever in Cuba and understand some Spanish I highly recomend asking to sit in on a CDR meeting, the debate can get rather agressive sometimes.
“And why are there no INDEPENDENT trade unions in Cuba?”
That one’s easy. There are.
“I have a real soft spot for Cuba, I confess, but doesn’t quasi hereditary ‘monarchy’ in Cuba cause any socialists to have a little think?”
I understand your feelings here, but Cuba isn’t North Korea, the next President of Cuba will not be a Castro (I’d be willing to bet quite a bit on that). Raul was a major public leader in his own right. He was the only senior guerrilla leader still in politics, that’s pretty significant in a country with the political mythology that Cuba has.
I know this is a little off-topic, but I would like to add a secondary question to this little game (particuarly aimed at those who oppose the Cuban government): If we had a directly elected Presidential election tomorrow, would you vote for Fidel Castro or Margaret Thatcher?
Additionally (as few people have given their ratings for the 5 countries) how may people would rate Cuba as worse than Singapore (>5)?
Simon,
On trade unions in Cuba…
http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991215640&Language=EN
On disagreement – I think that there is a big difference between disagreement expressed within a single, closed, party structure and disagreement expressed through a plurality of freely associated, independant organisations. As an ex-Swuppie, I have a pretty clear idea of what “democracy” means in an old-skool communist context. And it ain’t democratic.
And just for the record, I have great admiration for countries that tread an independent, anti-neo-liberal path. I just think that it means nothing unless there are propper mechanisms of poltical consent in place.
Your data on trade unions seems somewhat out of date. In response to ILO criticism the Cuban Government adjusted their consultation practices so that CTC affiliated unions have no legal advantage over non-CTC unions. It also seems to somewhat misleadingly suggest that strikes are prohibited, when it is simply the case that they are not mentioned in law either way. I’m not suggesting Cuba is perfect and I would definately like to see positive affirmation of this right in the constitution.
On disagreement/democracy: The CDR’s aren’t party bodies but mass organisations with the involvement of the majority of the local community. It would be numerically impossible for CP members to dominate these meetings directly.
As for the wider society, there are many dissident groups in Cuba, some openly counter-revolutionary. The Ladies in White hold regular marchs through Havana, for example. Most of those imprissoned for their “dissent” are those with proven associations with the US Interests Section. If it wasn’t for the seige conditions Cuba suffers they would probably be a lot less jumpy about such groups.
It’s a bit of a cliché, but the British Govt didn’t let Mosely wonder freely promoting Hitler during WW2, and quite rightly in my opinion. Now compare the threat germany posed to the uk with that the USA poses to Cuba… You’re free to disagree with such measures, but let’s not pretend that they are exceptional or wildly disproportionate.
I forgot to add, Britain’s marvellous contribution to human rights, internment
Locking people up without trial, another British innovation.
Of course, if you look at the situation historically you will see many circumstances when the English rulers decided to try out more extreme measures in the “provinces” first
O policing, most of the heavy-handed techniques used in 21st century Britain, or London, were first trialed in the six counties, years back.
O the poll tax, first implemented in Scotland
and so on
Female Genital Mutilation qualifies any country for the lowest mark going:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/01/our_daughters_s.php
To be honest, I’m astounded that people feel qualified to award top marks to Cuba without having set foot in the place even once.
Surely the simple acid test for any country is whether people are trying to get into it or get out of it.
This is a stupid game.
How about who the lunatic West should bomb next?
This could be based on economic interests, Israeli interest, ethnic divions that could be exploited, ideological differences, strategic location interest, weapons of mass destruction (I.E. those without WMD’s are better to be bombed, those with like North Korea we stay the fuck away from).
So obviously Iraq was a 1, great economic and strategic interest, plenty of underlying social divions to take advantage of, lack of fighting force so easily defeated and big supporters of the Palestinians.
Saudia Arabia would be a 10 as we have their corrupt rulers just where we like em.
I am agreeing with mod more and more here!
Simon, as a Communist I think you are bit soft on the UK for the reasons that cde mod has mentioned and many others too.
Didn’t the Brits invent concentration camps? What about genocide? Think the Tasmanian Aboriginies may have something to say about this if there were any left that is.
Erm,
2009 report on Cuba’s TU rights
Is a citizen’s property secure in Blighty?
Check this out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1222777/The-raid-rocked-Met-Why-gun-drugs-op-6-717-safety-deposit-boxes-cost-taxpayer-fortune.html
And former-neo-liberal is talking out of his-her narrowest orifice of love; the fact is that the Saudi rulung elite have the U.K. political class just where THEY want THEM, a fact which can be checked by spening an hour checking out what the Grauniad – for all its faults – has revealed about the BAe Systems deals with the Saudis over the years!
Bill,
For a self proclaimed expert on the Saudi kingdom it seems to have escaped your attention that their military power is significantly less than the USA and the UK. Indeed the US has troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and the during the gulf war their corrupt leaders requested more US troops for its defence!
So while there is some mutual reliance the balance of power is obvious to all but the most deranged. (And you definitely fall into that category).
@Red Deathy
“The General Secretary of the national trade union centre, the Central de Trabajadores de Cuba (CTC), has the right to take part in meetings of the Council of Ministers and its Executive Committee. The CTC National Committee can propose legislation.”
Lot better than we have here. Workers can actually propose and influence legislation.
Red Deathy shames us all. Here is the report on workers’ rights in KSA:
http://survey09.ituc-csi.org/survey.php?IDContinent=5&IDCountry=SAU&Lang=EN
However, once in a very blue moon, those who maltreat domestic servants are brouyght in front of courts and punished.
Without quoting chapter-’n-verse of the current Jane’s, there’s no point in going into the complex relationship which the Saudis have with their increasingly numerous and diverse arms suppliers.
In the Saudi – British relationship, it is unquestionably the Saudis who have the upper hand and this has been the case from Lightning and Strikemaster to Tornado to – coming soon -Typhoon.
Deranged or not, I have been in and out this sandpit since 1975. Indeed, I remember meeting an ex-Special Forces American who assured me that the US Special Forces were training their Saudi equivalents long before this became common knowledge.
The Saudi request for extra US forces was, I am inclined to think, during the Kuwait War rather than the Regime Change War. During the Kuwait war the Iraqis crossed the border and occupied part of Khafji, a meaningless and doomed venture which nonetheless terrified the Saudi out of their wits until their American allies saddled up and rode to the rescue.
Bill,
Oh wondrous pile of excrement Bill,
So Bill you agree with me that the balance of power lies with the West and it’s allies (lunatic West) as I said originally. You are the one who has turned this into a UK v Saudi thing which shows your complete ignorance of how these relationships work. You cannot talk of a relationship between the Saudi’s and the UK without factoring in the USA (and to a much lesser extent the EU). But this is all too complicated for a wretch like you fed on simplistic BNP rallies and Daily Mail opinion pieces.
“You’re free to disagree with such measures, but let’s not pretend that they are exceptional or wildly disproportionate”
It’s not that they’re wild or exceptional, it’s that they grossly contradict the basic tenets of socialism, which is “the free association of the producers” and not, you notice, the police-state association of producers.
This is the beginning of one of those tiresome and interminable one-on-one snappings-and-snarlings that are a feature of life on Socialist Unity or Harry’s place.
Factoring in the USA ?
The RSAF bought the none-too-super MRCA Tornado to display infantile rage and fury at the Americans because Members of the two houses of Congress – some, with an axe to grind, would and did claim that this was due to Israeli influence – were unwilling to sell the RSAF the upgrade systems which would have made the RSAF F-15s the operational equal of Israeli F-15s [we need not discuss the respective merits of RSAF and IAF aircrews or maintenance crews, because there is no comparison possible.]
On the issue of the Saudis and top-of-the-line aircraft procurement the Brits and the Americans are, and remain, bitter rivals. The Typhoon purchase is known to have galled the Americans to utter fury.
Of course, F-N-L is ultimately right insofar as all hydrocarbons are priced in US dollars rather than, say, Euros.
However, Saudi purchases of such hardware as the Chinese-made Silkworm missiles and cheaper stuff from Swiss [!], Pakistani and French sources are indicative of the fact that the Saudis possess considerable freedom of action. If the Saudis wanted to wanted to, they could buy all sorts of quite expensive stuff from a variety of sources, as the Malaysians have.
Since I am not employed as a PR flak-catcher for the RSAF or anyone else, I shall now cease and desist.
” … the idiot who praises
in enthusastic tone
every century but this
and every country but his own …”
W. S. Gilbert, libretto of
‘Never would be Missed’
in ‘The Mikado’
Back to how wonderful and/or vile Britain is compared to Cuba, Somalia and Burundi, here’s somthing from an ungoodthinkful Amerikan source:
http://vdare.com/gabb/100127_police_state.htm
Doomed! We’re all doomed!
“It’s not that they’re wild or exceptional, it’s that they grossly contradict the basic tenets of socialism, which is “the free association of the producers” and not, you notice, the police-state association of producers.”
Pure utopianism. If Cuba didn’t suppress attempts to disrupt its revolution by agents of the US it would be nothing but a capitalist US client state today. Nirvana is not an option.
It is apparent that the British ruling classes have been chronically obsequious to Saudi Arabia for years.
I don’t need to remind older readers of the controversy concerning “death of a Princess”, or how despite the utterly terrible human-rights record in Saudi Arabia very little of it makes it into the British media, comparatively speaking.
Nor do any of us need reminding of George Bush holding hands with a Saudi leader and buttering him up – the pictures are plastered across Google, but the British are equally accomplished in pandering to dictators.
You only have to see how Gordon Brown almost genuflects when one of the heads of the Beijing dictatorship comes calling.
Surely readers will remember how brutally pro-Tibetan demonstrators were treated when the Olympic flame was passing through London?
The British certainly know which side their bread is buttered on, and despite the occasional token gesture, will always be found supporting those with power, oil and wealth.
However, these attitudes are not new, they go back centuries and barely raise an eye in Britain where people are so accustomed to them.
The British ruling classes see with clarity their common purpose and goals with those of the Beijing dictatorship and the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, more is the pity that those apparently gifted with dialectical materialism can’t.
On the repective merits of countries A, B and C, you may have missed this:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5174919,00.html
Evangelical Germans granted asylum in the USA because they’re homeschoolers.
To be honest, Dave, I think this is a silly game. It’s impossible to compare countries because how do you balance freedom to walk down the street alone late at night with freedom from ignorance or hungar, or attending a shadow puppet play performance with going to an orchestral concert? What is better a job for life or social mobility? Is it better to have a strong, all controlling family structure or to have free trade unions? Then, one’s position in the social hierarchy determines how one experiences the country one is currently residing in, class plays no insignificent role. The question should be perhaps ‘which countries enable their populations to work towards socialism, and if not, what conrete actions need to be taken to overcome any obstacles.’.
I’ll be honest, I don’t think Britain is all that bad. What do they of England know, who only England know?
It’s too hard for me to try and judge countries in isolation- are we to praise Britain for the relatively high material standard of life for workers without taking into account the fact that these workers are walking around in sweatshop made clothing abroad?
It’s easy to have a “nice” society when you can shift all the nastiness to the neo-colonies at will.
*from abroad, that should read- I don’t mean while they’re on holiday.
I find myself agreeing with MikeSC.
Someone from a white middle-class, relatively highly educated and somewhat prosperous perspective may view Britain one-way (as Sue R seems to), whereas immigrants, the working classes, the underclasses, etc those at the sharp end of capitalism and also critical socialists would see it differently.
It is that cosy middle-class bubble that socialists should aim to puncture, to bring a degree of objectivity and less rose tinted glasses to this subject.
I always thought socialists tended to be republicans, but there seems to be a lot of support for the Cuban monarchy in this thread!
I don’t think these scores can be taken particularly seriously, but here are my thoughts anyway:
Cuba – 7 – Oppressive, censoring, one-party state must be a real pain. Combine that with a rubbish economy and no wonder everyone wants to leave the country. On the plus side, the weather is better than over here and the dictatorial government isn’t quite as bad as it could be (North Korea, I’m looking at you)
Iran – 7 – There seems to be more potential for positive political change in Iran at the moment, which stands in its favour, but all the religion truly does my head in. The fact that the country is still presided over by a Holocaust-denying loon does not bode well.
Israel – 5 – I’d love to visit Israel one day. When it comes to democracy and human rights, Israel is the best thing going in the region. But at the same time, there are many obnoxious defenders of the illegal settlements. Plus more religious mumbo jumbo.
The US – 3 – Negatives = Anti-communist hysteria in 20th century leading to unhealthy domestic politics and overzealous intervention across the world; love of free-market capitalism; gross social inequalities. Positives = Has maintained system of elected government for hundreds of years; crucial role played in defeating fascism during WW2; gave us The Simpsons, the West Wing, Bob Dylan, and all that other great stuff. If there has to be a single power acting as global policeman I’d still take the US over, say, China anyday.
The UK – 2 – Cos I’m patriotic, innit.