Is Cuba now an Absolute Monarchy State?

[Azrael]

No. We're biased.

Funny, that. I'm a conservative but I don't support any of the tyrannies that have managed to get themselves labelled "right-wing" in any way.

 

[Azrael]

I don't know? Four? Six? None?

Who the fuck cares?

Anyone who argues that the Castro regime has benefits, I would have thought.

 

[LLETSA]

Funny, that. I'm a conservative but I don't support any of the tyrannies that have managed to get themselves labelled "right-wing" in any way.

That really, really matters.

 

[LLETSA]

Anyone who argues that the Castro regime has benefits, I would have thought.

Only if you live in a Mickey Mouse world of goodies and baddies.

I thought 'real conservatives' were supposed to be pragmatists. Most prominent genuine conservatives throughout history have a list of dictatorships as long as their arms that they've supported. Many of them have been far more bloodthirsty than Cuba has ever been.

 

[Azrael]

Only if you live in a Mickey Mouse world of goodies and baddies.

What's that got to do with it? If Cuba had all these benefits, it should be attracting quite a few poor Americans.

I thought 'real conservatives' were supposed to be pragmatists. Most prominent genuine conservatives throughout history have a list of dictatorships as long as their arms that they've supported. Many of them have been far more bloodthirsty than Cuba has ever been.

Ah, "my dictator is less bloodthirsty than yours, nah!"

I'm sure many conservatives have supported nasty regimes. Just as a great many socialists supported the USSR in the 1930s and Mao in the 1960s. Thankfully I'm not answering for them. Conservatism is pragmatic, not amoral. At most I'd argue that we might have to deal with a dictator in exceptional circumstances like war. I wouldn't defend anything about their regime, however "right-wing" they might me.

The Left tends towards idealism. Why, then, support for Mr Castro?

 

[LLETSA]

What's that got to do with it? If Cuba had all these benefits, it should be attracting quite a few poor Americans.

No it shouldn't. The only relevant comparison is between Cuba as it was as a US client state and what it became, warts and all. As far as I'm aware, the Cuban regime doesn't claim to have surpassed the richest country in the world, even in terms of the living standards of the latter's millions of impoverished.

Contrary to what you might want to believe, there are not millions of people straining at the leash to get out of Cuba. Nor is present day Cuba particularly repressive in world historical terms.

 

[LLETSA]

.

Ah, "my dictator is less bloodthirsty than yours, nah!"

I'm sure many conservatives have supported nasty regimes. Just as a great many socialists supported the USSR in the 1930s and Mao in the 1960s. Thankfully I'm not answering for them. Conservatism is pragmatic, not amoral. At most I'd argue that we might have to deal with a dictator in exceptional circumstances like war. I wouldn't defend anything about their regime, however "right-wing" they might me.

The Left tends towards idealism. Why, then, support for Mr Castro?

Conservatism (whatever it means nowadays) may not be amoral, but many conservatives have been. Same with socialism and socialists. So what? People are strange fuckers.

It isn't all about you.

Some lefties support Castro, many don't. In fact, these days probably a majority don't (if they ever did.) You seem to tend towards idealism, as well. The conservatism you espouse seems like none that's ever existed.

 

[Azrael]

Contrary to what you might want to believe, there are not millions of people straining at the leash to get out of Cuba.

How do either of us know how many want to get out? There are clues, like the 100,000+ who skipped the country during the Mariel boatlift. It's clearly a great number. "There's worse" is an amoral dictator's charter, and can be used to defend any regime.

As for the lack of poor Americans trying to get into Cuba, if its healthcare is as claimed, it sounds rather more comprehensive than that for uninsured Americans. Beyond healthcare, I'd have thought a society genuinely run along socialist lines would appeal to quite a few, geo-political considerations aside.

Obviously Lefty support for Cuba varies. The point is that people who do support Mr Castro's regime aren't ostracised as supporters of "right-wing" dictatorships are.

My conservatism is the kind we used to employ in England, and is as far from idealist as you can get. And of course it's all about me, didn't you get the bulletin?

 

[JimW]

How do either of us know how many want to get out?

Fewer than want to get out of Haiti, which is the sort of place Cuba would likely be bar the repressive but largely humane and stable regime it has instead of coups, death squads, criminal gangs and rampant death and disease.
Some pragmatist you.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Contrary to what you might want to believe, there are not millions of people straining at the leash to get out of Cuba. Nor is present day Cuba particularly repressive in world historical terms.

You're probably right, but the Cuban public at large is constantly being fed lies and propaganda, and I question how much their attachment to the Castro regime would remain the same if they all e.g. had internet access.

 

[Pickman's model]

With Castro handing power to his brother.
Is Cuba now being ruled by a Royal Family?

you can usually tell monarchies from other forms of state. the head of state is called 'king' or 'queen'. just a hint for the future.

 

[Azrael]

Fewer than want to get out of Haiti, which is the sort of place Cuba would likely be bar the repressive but largely humane and stable regime it has instead of coups, death squads, criminal gangs and rampant death and disease.
Some pragmatist you.

Pragmatism is rooting ideals in reality. It's pragmatic to accept Cuba exists, and that we have no right or ability to roll in guns blazing to make it better, but not to temper criticism because "there's worse". There's always worse. Is there any dictatorship this couldn't apply to? If we tweak the chronology a bit, I can imagine Mao, Koba and the Corporal sitting around a table shouting it at one another, and all having a point, although not one worth the breath expended on it.

Maybe Haiti is worse in material terms than Cuba. That's entirely by the by. The point is that many on the Left go far beyond saying Cuba is less unpleasant than some alternatives as a matter of fact, and actively defend it for ideological reasons, citing unverifiable healthcare and education to mitigate a police state.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe Haiti is worse in material terms than Cuba. That's entirely by the by. The point is that many on the Left go far beyond saying Cuba is less unpleasant than some alternatives as a matter of fact, and actively defend it for ideological reasons, citing unverifiable healthcare and education to mitigate a police state.

what do you mean, unverifiable healthcare and education? do you mean that you can't verify the claims made?

 

[Azrael]

you can usually tell monarchies from other forms of state. the head of state is called 'king' or 'queen'. just a hint for the future.

Just like you can usually tell heads of state from revolutionary guerilla fighters because the former wear suits, yet Mr Castro appeared in tailored fatigues decades after he came to power. If it rules like a monarchy and succeeds like a monarchy ...

 

[Azrael]

what do you mean, unverifiable healthcare and education? do you mean that you can't verify the claims made?

I'm sure you can go to UN reports, but absent a free press and real political opposition, I don't see how those reports can be relied on.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm sure you can go to UN reports, but absent a free press and real political opposition, I don't see how those reports can be relied on.

but doubtless british government documents are entirely trustworthy and never the product of underhand means

the simple FACT of the matter, is that in terms of healthcare and education cuba's a world leader. i wouldn't disagree with you that the cuban political system has little, if anything, to recommend it - but it has produced remarkable successes in terms of healthcare which pretty much all liberal democracies would be proud of.

 

[JimW]

It's pragmatic to accept Cuba exists, and that we have no right or ability to roll in guns blazing to make it better, but not to temper criticism because "there's worse".

But again, you miss the point. It's not that there is worse, it's that Cuba itself would have been worse under almost any other conceivable regime, if you look at the historical trajectory of comparable states in the region. That doesn't excuse the regime its wrong-doings, failures and criminality, but it puts it into perspective. They may be shit, but they managed not to abandon the people of Cuba to endemic warfare, drug lords and gangsters and rampant HIV, even setting aside the widely acknowledged achievements that apparently you alone see fit to doubt.

 

[Azrael]

the simple FACT of the matter, is that in terms of healthcare and education cuba's a world leader.

If capitalisation put something beyond doubt, life would be so much easier.

I've just been told (on this very page) that Cuba's healthcare can't compete with even the USA, which has the patchiest cover of any economically developed country I can think of. You say Cuba is a "world leader". Which is it? As for education, how can Cuba possibly be a "world leader" without basic academic freedom of speech?

British statistics might frequently be massaged, but we have a free press, open society, and political opposition to hold it in check. If the UN want to question our claims, they'll have a much easier time of it than in Cuba.

But again, you miss the point. It's not that there is worse, it's that Cuba itself would have been worse under almost any other conceivable regime, if you look at the historical trajectory of comparable states in the region. That doesn't excuse the regime its wrong-doings, failures and criminality, but it puts it into perspective. They may be shit, but they managed not to abandon the people of Cuba to endemic warfare, drug lords and gangsters and rampant HIV, even setting aside the widely acknowledged achievements that apparently you alone see fit to doubt.

How do we know if Cuba would have been worse under, say, a democratic government? We don't. Counter factuals like this are incapable of proof, and reduce an argument to assertions.

As for being alone in doubting Cuba's claims, I doubt I'm that original. Are you arguing that it's possible to get accurate information from a dictatorship? If so, you put more faith in statisticians than me!

 

[JHE]

Maybe Haiti is worse in material terms than Cuba.

Haiti is horrendous, I believe!

That's entirely by the by. The point is that many on the Left go far beyond saying Cuba is less unpleasant than some alternatives as a matter of fact, and actively defend it for ideological reasons, citing unverifiable healthcare and education to mitigate a police state.

You are at least partly right.

I didn't know anyone seriously doubts that Cuba has got pretty good health and education systems.

Obviously, left-wing people vary a lot in how much they sympathise with Cuba. You could think of it as a spectrum really. At one end are people who think the Cuban revolution is crap (and state capitalist) but (like some people who are not left-wing) oppose the US embargo. At the other end of the spectrum are people who think the sun shines out of Fidel's fundament and that everything in Cuba is wonderful. One little example: there were people in the Cuba Solidarity Campaign who, during the years of greatest privation in Cuba, enthused about the lack of obesity in Cuba. If there were outright famine, they would probably say it was great that Cuba was outdoing the 'size zero' models of the West. But these people are not typical.

More typical, and worth complaining about, are left-wingers who rather play down the degree of illiberalism, the lack of freedom of expression, the lack of political pluralism, the level of repression, the imprisonment of people who disagree with the government and so on.

I think the only honest decent view to take of Cuba is ambivalent. There is no doubt that there have been advances - notably in health and education - and it is easy to see why lots of people don't want the lives of Cubans to become like the lives of shanty town dwellers in other Caribbean or Latin American countries. But the regime is a party dictatorship and to a surprising extent was Fidel's autocracy.

There are various reasons why some people on the left really like Cuba.

Here's one that's worth mentioning, though it's not the biggest. Compare how much people enthuse about Cuba with how little they enthuse about North Korea. Why the enormous difference? Because loads of people here, including leftists, find a Spanish-speaking Caribbean country with Afro-Hispanic culture and loads of great music highly attractive.

 

[JimW]

How do we know if Cuba would have been worse under, say, a democratic government? We don't. Counter factuals like this are incapable of proof, and reduce an argument to assertions.

As for being alone in doubting Cuba's claims, I doubt I'm that original. Are you arguing that it's possible to get accurate information from a dictatorship? If so, you put more faith in statisticians than me!

We don't know, but we have the examples of all the regimes around it that have by and large fared worse. I can imagine all sorts of better communist practice (which of course any true democracy would require) that might have worked better, but we're looking at the likely outcomes.
It entirely possible to form a reasonably accurate picture of health, educational and other outcomes in places like Cuba; its regularly visited by outside international experts who are used to dodgy statistics. Don't know Cuba so well, but have read in detail work on comparable dubious Chinese stats that seasoned observers are still able to extract a reasonable picture from. I have sufficient faith in the fair-minded observers who have actually looked at these sort of questions like open-mined adults rather than axe-grinders. If your main argument is based on denial, you look a bit lame.

 

[Pickman's model]

If capitalisation put something beyond doubt, life would be so much easier.

I've just been told (on this very page) that Cuba's healthcare can't compete with even the USA, which has the patchiest cover of any economically developed country I can think of. You say Cuba is a "world leader". Which is it? As for education, how can Cuba possibly be a "world leader" without basic academic freedom of speech?

British statistics might frequently be massaged, but we have a free press, open society, and political opposition to hold it in check. If the UN want to question our claims, they'll have a much easier time of it than in Cuba.

there are a lot of academic articles on the subject of cuba's healthcare system. here's an article from january this year, from the monthly review:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/090112brouwer.php

 

[Azrael]

Here's one that's worth mentioning, though it's not the biggest. Compare how much people enthuse about Cuba with how little they enthuse about North Korea. Why the enormous difference? Because loads of people here, including leftists, find a Spanish-speaking Caribbean country with Afro-Hispanic culture and loads of great music highly attractive.

Perhaps that's it in part, but North Korea is so unambiguously awful in every respect that to defend it would tarnish the Left, whereas Cuba, beyond fine music and cigars, has the much vaunted healthcare and education. These are used to partly excuse the dictatorship, or they wouldn't be raised.

You call the Cuban regime ambivalent. I'm entirely honest when I say that, however lovely its education and healthcare, they do nothing to mitigate tyranny. I question the quality of both because many disagree with me. Allowing that good can come from a dictatorship harms the argument against tyranny and helps the case for left-wing authoritarianism. For those who think a one-party state would be a price worth paying for material comfort, thinking Cuba a success in terms of social welfare is a dangerous belief to hold.

And beyond that, I don't see why a tyrant like Mr Castro should be given a free pass on anything.

 

[Azrael]

there are a lot of academic articles on the subject of cuba's healthcare system. here's an article from january this year, from the monthly review:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/090112brouwer.php

I'm sure its publication in a socialist journal does nothing to slant its perspective. It reads impressively all the same, noting a high number of doctors, and endurance of harsh economic conditions. I note reference to impressive statistics though. How are these statistics gathered, and by whom?

I quick bit of digging on Google led me to this article about the difficulty of collecting data in Cuba, and this one from the New York Times, about a doctor-drain to Venezuela in return for oil.

My claim isn't that Cuba's healthcare is a fabrication, but that its quality is very probably exaggerated, and above all, it's impossible to know for sure until the country ceases to be a dictatorship.

 

[Azrael]

I have sufficient faith in the fair-minded observers who have actually looked at these sort of questions like open-mined adults rather than axe-grinders.

It's not desirabe to grind an axe against dictatorship and tyranny?

However fair minded these observers, how do they get a comprehensive picture in a dictatorship? They're not omniscient!

 

[JimW]

It's not desirabe to grind an axe against dictatorship and tyranny?

Not if it's largely a paper one of your own devising. No use in promoting outcomes in the real world that would be genuinely progressive.

However fair minded these observers, how do they get a comprehensive picture in a dictatorship? They're not omniscient!

Same way stattos extrapolate the vast majority of the data used in the decisions that shape our world. As I recall from the little I have read, stats in Cuba are less dodgy on these matters than the equivalent in China, since it's one aspect of the regime where they genuinely have nothing to hide and plenty to trumpet.

 

[Azrael]

Not if it's largely a paper one of your own devising. No use in promoting outcomes in the real world that would be genuinely progressive.

How exactly does an objection to tyranny harm "genuinely progressive" outcomes? What is a "genuinely progressive" outcome, for that matter?

Beyond statistics (which I remain unconvinced about) there are other legal and moral factors that will damage healthcare in a dictatorship. From the first article I posted up: "There is no right to privacy in the physician-patient relationship in Cuba, no patients’ right of informed consent, no right to refuse treatment, and no right to protest or sue for malpractice. As a result, medical care in Cuba has the potential to be intensely dehumanizing." (p.9) Doctors are apparently obliged to inform on dissidents so they can be "treated".

I suggest thoroughgoing skepticism of a dictatorship's claims is as real a worldview as you can get.

 

[JimW]

How exactly does an objection to tyranny harm "genuinely progressive" outcomes? What is a "genuinely progressive" outcome, for that matter?

Because you're travelling in the company of the bestial "anti-communists" who sell children's live for the good of the business environment.
you have spotted that the health care system, whilst excellent, is not perfect. A telling point. Or not.

 

[Azrael]

Because you're travelling in the company of the bestial "anti-communists" who sell children's live for the good of the business environment. you have spotted that the health care system, whilst excellent, is not perfect. A telling point. Or not.

So you think a healthcare system can be "excellent" when patients are devoid of rights and risk being thrown in lock-up if they voice criticisms?

"Curious, Jim."

Apparently "bestial anti-communists" are the only people who can be against all forms of tyranny. Again, curious.

 

[Idris2002]

Talking of the odious South African regime, if they'd invested heavily in education and healthcare in the townships, would they be receiving the same consideration as Cuba?

You clueless fucking twat. The whole point of apartheid was to keep the majority down by, amongst other things, denying the people in the townships and the 'homelands' access to even barely adequate levels of health care and education.

 

[JimW]

Apparently "bestial anti-communists" are the only people who can be against all forms of tyranny. Again, curious.

But you're not - you're in favour of the tyranny of property and money, so naturally are seen as a false friend at best, hypocrite at worst.
The healthcare system is excellent; the political system it operates within, not so much. Is that hard to parse?