10102. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:52 AM PT
Sprite,
Actually infant mortality is a HUGELY important statistic. If for nothing else, Cuba and Castro must be applauded for achieving this startling success (and all the others delineated at length in WHOSIS).
And I'm very sorry, but I can't make head or tail of your statement "what happens to those infants when the medications they need are not available to them is a concern too, and this cannot be blamed on the US embargo."
Yes, despite the availability of well-trained doctors and excellent primary care, medicines from the West are in short supply. But how can you not blame the embargo for this??
10103. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:57 AM PT
Martha Gellhorn rarely saw a black person in Havana? Hahahahaha. What rarefied circles she must have moved in. I lived in a suburb of Havana, where the population was evenly distributed; blacks and those of mixed race outnumbered whites.
As to integration, when there is no property and everyone is forced to forage together for what they can, it's amazing how racial barriers can drop. I still have relatives in Cuba, you see.
In any case, I say Martha Gellhorn's personal experiences are not a sufficient basis for your assumptions; my own personal experiences belie hers. For example, I have cousins who are part African-Cuban and others who are part Indian-Cuban. This did not happen after the revolution, either, but in the 30s and 40s, and they were certainly not excluded from anything.
You make too many assumptions based on too little first-hand knowledge.
10104. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:58 AM PT
stostosto,
I'm with you, especially on education. The Asian "Crisis" has not obscured the fact that most of the countries involved have done a stellar job of creating and sustaining human development. India's literacy rate and access to education is an abyssmal disgrace, no matter how many millions of software engineers are churned out at the other end.
10105. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:01 AM PT
Those medicines are available from any other country doing business with Cuba.
I'm going to research infant mortality and literacy rates for pre-Castro Cuba. Castro has not occasioned any miracles there as you'd know if you'd known the island before the revolution.
10106. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:08 AM PT
Sprite,
Well, since I'm not allowed to go to Cuba I have to rely on what I can get my hands on. Suffice it so say that the island is a particular obsession of mine and my knowledge of it is not exactly minimal.
I too know African-Cubans and even Arab-Cubans and Chinese-Cubans to boot. The fact is that society in Batista's Cuba was extremely stratified and the benefits of the economy were NOT shared by the vast majority of blacks.
The vast majority of blacks on the island were marginalized by the education system and even the employment picture. This has changed remarkably.
10107. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:11 AM PT
Idiots idiots everywhere, and not a body to beat.
marzipranks (Message #10093 et al.) keeps assuming that had Castro NOT taken over in 1959, things in Cuba ca 1959 would have simply continued as they were, statically. This is the same idiotic fallacious nonsense people observe about the Soviet Union. Yes, the Soviets were awful, but at least the Russian people didn't starve as they did under the Czars. Just as Russia in 1914 had already been "taking off" to industrialisation, so Cuba was ALREADY in 1959 among the richest and most developed of Latin American countries.
"Integration is never aided by utter abject poverty."
No, it -- along with the ability to do many other things, like raise infant mortality or literary -- is SIGNIFICANTLY abetted when you have driven a third of your population from your country.
10108. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:16 AM PT
Stostosto (Message #10101)
"And no one - not even PseudoErasmus - is going to convince me that the American embargo on Cuba it is not economically significant. USA would no doubt be Cuba's single most important foreign market as it was before Castro, had it not been for the embargo."
Well, you can think what you want, but it is simply NOT BELIEVABLE that the U.S. embargo -- which I wholeheartedly support lifting -- is the difference between Cuba's being a basketcase and its not being one. I mean, Cuba can trade with Japan, Canada, the whole of Western Europe and pretty much everyone else.
Moreover, the two most important ingredients in Cuba's history of human development efforts have been 1) depopulation; and 2) Soviet subsidies.
#2 alone COMPLETELY vitiates Cuba as a realistic development model. It would NOT have raised literacy, lowered infant mortality, or supplied electricity to rural areas, etc. WITHOUT vast Soviet subsidies. Well, so what's the social lesson of Cuba? It doesn't present some alternative way to improve human lives; it is an object lesson that you could raise human development standards through abject economic dependency.
10109. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:18 AM PT
Yawn.
1) I am not assuming anything. I am merely comparing some of Cuba's basic statistics with other countries in the region and pointing out that someone is doing a good job. I refuse to speculate about whether or not something might or might not have happened if...I leave such exercises in hot air to you.
2) " No, it -- along with the ability to do many other things, like raise infant mortality or literary -- is SIGNIFICANTLY abetted when you have driven a third of your population from your country."
Abject nonsense and hopelessly speculative besides. Kindly describe why losing a third of your population (the richest best educated third btw) somehow makes it easier to achieve 95% literacy and low infant mortality statistics.
10110. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:20 AM PT
And your knowledge of Cuba's 'stratified society' comes from Martha Gellhorn, Marj?
'The vast majority of blacks on the island were marginalized by the education system and even the employment picture. This has changed remarkably.'
Substitute 'US' for 'island' and I think you'll get a better idea of why your comparisons are invalid.
10111. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:27 AM PT
Sprite,
It also comes from other sources, and also from personal accounts including that of the journalist I mentioned in my first post here. He's thinking of writing a book on Cuba and race relations.
Pseuder,
Surely you know that a very large part of pre-Castro Cuba's income came from tourism, American tourism. The embargo deprives Cuba of its natural source of tourism, the difference for that sector of the economy will be massive when the embargo goes. I mean, Canada just doen't cut it as an alternate source of hard-currency spending, drinking, whoring, gambling gringos.
10112. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:27 AM PT
Marj, you can visit Cuba, you just can't spend any money there. I'm sure there are some arrangements you could make if you wanted to do so.
10113. Raskolnikov - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:27 AM PT
I want Pinochet to burn. Too many thugs have escaped either through a peaceful death or a cushy retirement funded by their country's treasuries. I would love to see Pinochet (and Castro, Saddam Hussein, or any other thug) in prison clothes an handcuffs, followed by being confronted with the atrocities occurring under his watch. I want to see him spend the rest of his short life behind bars, knowing that he didn't get away with it. Spain is being hypocritical, but I don't particularly care (although I do think they have legitimacy in their claim over the deaths of Spanish nationals). Selective punishment of murderous thugs is better than no punishment of murderous thugs.
However, there are political realities involved. While there is a possibility that punishing Pinochet could deter other dictators from ever relinquishing power, I don't think our punishment of Hitler's cronies, the capture of Noriega, or the attempt to get Pol Pot extradited could be said to have similar incentive effects. Given this, I am torn, but leaning toward punishing the bastard anyway.
10114. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:29 AM PT
Marzipranks
Please give me a direct link for your Message #10100, since I can't find it. These data, by the way, present a COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS comparison.
10115. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:36 AM PT
10097 has a link to the WHO, the databases are called WHOSIS.
The statistics are only meaningless to you BTW.
10116. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:41 AM PT
MsGleason,
1) I fully intend on visiting Cuba. Sadly, I will not be able to travel for pleasure for at least a couple of years.
2) I get your point in 10110 and am fairly sympathetic to it, however, a useful comparison can and should be made between Cuba and the Dominican Republic and also between Cuba and Trinidad. (I've been to both, I've been to both). As far as I can tell, Cuba is miles ahead of both in terms of racial integration.
10117. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:48 AM PT
From the World Bank's Social Development Indicator Database
INFANT MORTALITY, # per 1000 births
Chile Cuba Costa Rica
1967 89.00 50.00 68.00
1968 85.00 47.60 65.00
1969 81.00 45.20 62.00
1970 77.00 42.80 59.00
1971 73.00 40.40 56.00
1972 69.00 38.00 53.00
1977 45.00 22.00 30.00
1982 24.00 17.00 19.00
1987 18.00 13.00 16.00
1992 16.00 12.00 14.00
1993 15.60 11.80 13.60
10118. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:52 AM PT
Marj, that'll be 'Sr. Sprite' to you once I join the contemplative order with the 12' high walls.
I've never been to Trinidad, but I have been to Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and Cuba was NOT like the Dominican Republic. I don't see how you can compare the two.
10119. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:55 AM PT
marjoribanks (Message #10115)
"The statistics are only meaningless to you BTW."
Idiot! The data cited in Message #10100 are ABSOLUTELY meaningless because 1) they don't tell us the starting point for each country; 2) they don't control for the kind of systems & policies opponents of the Castro model might favour; and 3) fluctuations in those data over the years.
Now, if you look at my Message #10117, you can see two things 1) Chile's improvement in infant morality has been superior to Cuba's over exactly the same period of time, and Costa Rica's has been comparable; and 2) superior & comparable improvements in infant mortality data have been achieved in the two alternative models of development to Castro's: the extreme free-market of Chile, and the mixed-market social democracy of Costa Rica.
I mean, the comparison with Brazil or Guatemal would be meaningful if anyone WISHED that other countries behaved like Brazil or Guatemala did in the 1970s and 1980s. But no one does!
10120. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 10:12 AM PT
Pseuder,
You spend way too much time and effort in trying to prove that your "debate opponents" are worthy of epithets and far too little time in actually reading their arguments.
1) You are constructing an argument for me. I said (in plain English) only that Cuba under Castro has done some remarkable and under-acknowledged things. The marked improvement in health-care for all Cubans is one.
2) I don't like comparing Cuba to Costa Rica, throw that example out.
3) Your other data is interesting. However, my point in bringing up Cuba's infant mortality rate was not to prove that Castro is a hero, but to illustrate that he has managed to do some important things for his people. In doing this, he and his regime have managed to outperform many many other governments in the region and in the developing world as a whole.
10121. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 10:25 AM PT
What's wrong with comparing Cuba and Costa Rica?
Costa Rica is a mature & fully functioning democracy; it features a regulated free market economy, with a sizeable if not extravagant welfare state.
Given that it is the sort of country one might want other Latin American countries to be, it is the PERFECT COMPARISON with Cuba.
Brazil, on the other hand, is a stupid comparison, for the country's economic & developmental policies from the 1960s until the late 1980s very like India's. And who would want to emulate Brazil or India?
10122. ScottLoar - Oct. 30, 1998 - 10:35 AM PT
Erh, Marjoribanks, the government of Cuba seemingly does not welcome "drinking, whoring, gambling gringos", just their hard currency spent on approved pleasures. The US embargo will not be lifted and the tide of US tourism and its attendant pleasures will not meet in Cuba until Fidel is dead. After that, it's probably gonna be one big party for a long while.
10123. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 10:49 AM PT
The ENABLING factor in Castro's alleged achievement in human development indicators was Soviet aid. Marzipranks, like deer immobilised by headlights, would have us marvel at achivements with which Castro cannot be credited. His assertions amount to saying that because some of these indicators improved under Castro's subsidised watch, he is responsible for them. This blow for analytical sophistication is about as savvy as when conservatives allege that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union.
10124. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:31 AM PT
Marj,
Given yours and Martha Gellhorn's views on the 'stratified society' in Cuba, how do you account for the fact that there is no 'apartheid' in the Cuban exile community? Any 'apartheid' that you claim existed at all levels of society was a feature of the very upper classes in Cuba. Tell me how this differs even today from the rest of the world, if you would.
This may come as a shock to you, but African-Cubans consider themselves _Cuban_, not black; they live among other Cubans, whites and mixed race, and this has been the case since the first wave of exiles hit these shores. The racial integration among exiled Cubans in the United States basically perpetuates the social arrangements that existed before their exile. Therefore, you are attributing to Castro a reality which has simply become more conspicuous UNDER HIS WATCH than before. The more noticeable, in part for the fact that the least integrated elements of society -- the upper classes -- were driven out of the country.
I'm surprised that you, who value on-the-spot reporting so much, would be so quick to dismiss knowledge obtained through my continuing association with Cuba and the relatives that were not able to leave.
10125. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:36 AM PT
ERRATA
"This blow for analytical sophistication is about as savvy as when conservatives allege that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union....
...simply because it happened under Reagan's watch."
10126. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:49 AM PT
marjoribanks (Message #10120)
"You spend way too much time and effort in trying to prove that your 'debate opponents' are worthy of epithets and far too little time in actually reading their arguments."
Hmm. I thought I had spent most of my time bringing facts and analysis to bear, rather than regurgitate gibberish literary impressions by Martha Gellhorn.
"You are constructing an argument for me. I said (in plain English) only that Cuba under Castro has done some remarkable and under-acknowledged things. The marked improvement in health-care for all Cubans is one."
And my point has been that unless you consider financing those human improvements with Soviet aid is particularly remarkable, there is nothing to acknowledge other than a profound dependency relationship that is not ordinarily feasible or replicable elsewhere.
10127. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:51 AM PT
Sprite,
I am in no way "dismissing" your accounts here. In fact, I am grateful for them.
However, surely you acknowledge that there are ways to observe Cuba other than your rather intimate perspective. From the perspective of people from other countries in more or less the same boat, Cubans have managed to do some rather remarkable things for themselves under Castro's regime. BTW, one issue we haven't discussed and that is quite hard to quantify is womens emancipation. From all available indicators, Cuba has done extremely well in this regard too, much better than most countries which offer a reasonable comparison.
Pseuder,
" His assertions amount to saying that because some of these indicators improved under Castro's subsidised watch, he is responsible for them. "
Idiot! Race relations and infant mortality and the literacy rate are extremely important indicators of human social development. While you and others are quite willing to demonize Castro for political sins, kindly remember that his regime has equalled or surpassed most of its neighbors in its performance on these crucial matters.
Also, your repeated use of the strawman argument that Cuba was "subsidized" is par for your course.
1) Show the level of subsidization that Cuba supposedly enjoyed
2) Demonstrate the loss incurred by the embargo.
10128. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:52 AM PT
marjoribanks (Message #10102)
"Yes, despite the availability of well-trained doctors and excellent primary care, medicines from the West are in short supply. But how can you not blame the embargo for this??"
Well, because Cuba's inability to obtain medicines is based on its inability to pay, which itself is due to its economic shambles, a situation PRIMARILY accounted for by Castro's unwillingness to significantly reform his economy. As I said, Cuba can trade with all other countries countries so that it's implausible that the absence of trade with the United States alone can make such a difference.
marjoribanks (Message #10109)
"I am not assuming anything. I am merely comparing some of Cuba's basic statistics with other countries in the region and pointing out that someone is doing a good job. I refuse to speculate about whether or not something might or might not have happened if...I leave such exercises in hot air to you."
Hopelessly speculative? So, in other words, WHY and HOW Cuba might have achieved certain things, despite appearances, are of no importance? Castro is to be credited for lowering infant mortality, even though nothing he did might have been particularly responsible?
Morever, it is not grossly speculative to assert that a country 30 years would not have stood still!
"Abject nonsense and hopelessly speculative besides. Kindly describe why losing a third of your population (the richest best educated third btw) somehow makes it easier to achieve 95% literacy and low infant mortality statistics."
Well, I was speaking primarily of racial integration. If you remove the least integrated sectors of society, then what you got left are easier to integrate. And Maria's fantastic and devastating Message #10120 speaks for itself.
Also the removal of a third of the population would impose fewer burdens on state spending. I'm asserting that the loss of
10129. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:53 AM PT
Sprite,
Point me to sources which corroborate your assertion that there is substantial racial integraton in the Cuban exile community.
10130. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:54 AM PT
Also the removal of a third of the population would impose fewer burdens on state spending. I'm asserting that the loss of the productive power of those educated Cubans was offset by Soviet aid -- sheerly in terms of the revenue available to the state to finance basic education & healthcare.
10131. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 11:59 AM PT
Mountebank (Message #10127)
In response to my statement: " His assertions amount to saying that because some of these indicators improved under Castro's subsidised watch, he is responsible for them."
Mountebank replied: "Race relations and infant mortality and the literacy rate are extremely important indicators of human social development. While you and others are quite willing to demonize Castro for political sins, kindly remember that his regime has equalled or surpassed most of its neighbors in its performance on these crucial matters."
Has anyone heard of "nonsequitur"?
I assert that the improvement in human development indicators is not an achievement of Castro's, no more than saying that subsidised food and gas prices in Saudi Arabia are a sign of a strong consumer culture.
"While you and others are quite willing to demonize Castro for political sins..."
Have I demonised Castro? I have brought up Castro ONLY to point out the hypocrisy of those who decry a Pinochet yet celebrate Castro. Pinochet kills people yet creates an Asian Tiger in Latin America. Castro kills people yet lowers infant mortality and raises literacy. Yet you execrate the one and celebrate the other!
10132. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:02 PM PT
Pseuder,
I repeat, kindly demonstrate how losing the richest, best educated third of the Cuban population made it easier to achieve 95% literacy and a stellar infant mortality rate. BTW, I consider these two factors to be important in determining race relations.
10133. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:06 PM PT
Mountebank continued in Message #10127
"Also, your repeated use of the strawman argument that Cuba was 'subsidized' is par for your course."
Sometimes I think of you as a pinko version of Socko. THERE IS NO STRAWMAN. If you are asserting that Castro should be credited with what improvements in human welfare there have been in Cuba over the last 35 years, then it is entirely relevant to bring up that it was possible only because he sucked assiduously on the Soviet teat. This is especially true since so many other developing countries have achieved comparable human welfare improvements without being pumped by anyone's udder.
"1) Show the level of subsidization that Cuba supposedly enjoyed
2) Demonstrate the loss incurred by the embargo."
You know I will, and you will be sorry for your mindless temerities. I am still looking for these figures.
10134. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:06 PM PT
Marj,
I am telling you what I know to be true because of my close connection with the exile communities in both in Miami and New York. I suppose you could ask for a demographic breakdown of Dade County, for example, by census category, if you wanted statistics. I also know, again, from personal experience, that your contention about the 'stratified society' in pre-Castro Cuba is simply untrue, except, as I mentioned before, among the very upper classes of Cuban society.
Tell me how my knowledge is any less valuable than Martha Gellhorn's; and prove the contentions you made first, if you would, about said 'stratified society'.
By the way, like the Soviets used to do, I, too, subsidize the 'medical miracles' in Cuba, to the tune of almost $500.00 per month in medicines and other medical aids unavailable there. Please don't bother bringing up the embargo; these things are available from any country Cuba does business with, and it's not just a few countries, as you know.
10135. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:07 PM PT
And yes, I've heard of 'nonsequitur'. Your entire argument of today can be charcterized as such.
10136. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:12 PM PT
Message #10132
Well, I admit because of the hurry in addressing the point I overstated things to argue that the loss of the richest, most educated third of the population actually abetted human development in Castro's Cuba. However, as I said, the loss of capacity to finance human development implied by this depopulation was made up quite handsomely by Soviet aid.
And I continue to stand by my statement about the effects of depopulation on racial integration.
10137. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:14 PM PT
"You know I will, and you will be sorry for your mindless temerities. I am still looking for these figures."
Go for it, bhai. I'll be happy to hear a convincing argument on this one, but somehow I don't think it'll be coming from you.
10138. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:15 PM PT
Message #10135
Mountebank says: "Castro should be credited with a lot of good things".
Pseuder says: "Castro should not be credited with them".
Now, pray tell, how is my reply a nonsequitur?
10139. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:22 PM PT
Message #10137
Look, I don't have the exact figures, but they will soon be retrieved. Suffice it to say for now, a giant -- truly giant -- chunk of Cuba's GDP between 1965 and 1989 was accounted for by Soviet welfare. We're not talking about 2% or 4%. We're talking about a range of 25% to 35%.
While it is harder to "demonstrate" (estimate, rather) the effect of the embargo, I am not certain why that's necessary to successfuly argue that Castro's economic & human development was largely made possible by sucking on the Soviet teat.
10140. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:24 PM PT
One of these days I will watch Mountebank squirm as I debunk Kerala too.
10141. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:29 PM PT
Well, pseuder, perhaps you can start first with "debunking" Cuba. You have done absolutely nothing in this regard so far.
10142. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 12:51 PM PT
Mountebank (Message #10141): One of your most outstanding qualities is a mulish imperviousness to evidence and logic.
I have already demonstrated the meaninglessness of the data cited Message #10100.
I have yet to fully substantiate 1) Cuba's dependency on Soviet aid; 2) the effect of the U.S. embargo on Cuba; and 3) the fact that the initial conditions in 1959 were quite favourable to Castro.
#3 alone will devastate much of your case, since Cuba was better developed than almost all other Latin American and Caribbean countries to begin with. In other words, I am asserting that much of the improvement in human development, such as literacy, is really just a statistical illusion, an artificact of high initial conditions.
I mean, which is more praiseworthy, a country which starts out with a 75% literacy rate and ends up with a 95% rate 30 years later; or a country which starts out with 50% literacy rate and ends up with a 85% rate over the same period? This contrast, by the way, exactly characterises Cuba and Mexico between 1960 and 1990.
10143. Raskolnikov - Oct. 30, 1998 - 1:02 PM PT
I seem to recall that USSR support for Cuba was around 1 billion per year during the 80s. I remember reading it in a few articles about the impact of the collapse of the Soviet Union on Cuba.
10144. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 1:08 PM PT
The United Nations human development index (HDI) is based on the figures for life expectancy, adult literacy, school enrollment, and real per capita GDP.
1990 1960
Barbados .928 64.3
Uruguay .881 67.7
Trinidad .877 63.5
Bahamas .875 63.2
Chile .864 57.1
Costa Rica .852 61.6
Argentina .832 64.9
Venezuela .824 59.5
Mexico .805 57.0
Colombia .770 56.5
Suriname .751 60.2
Panama .738 60.7
Jamaica .736 62.7
Brazil .730 54.6
Cuba .711 63.8
Ecuador .646 53.1
Paraguay .641 63.8
Peru .592 47.7
Dom. Rep. .586 51.8
Guyana .541 56.1
10145. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 1:08 PM PT
Nicaragua .500 47.0
Guatemala .489 45.6
Honduras .472 46.5
Bolivia .398 42.7
Haiti .275 42.2
10146. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 1:13 PM PT
Message #10144 and Message #10145 are missing a few countries from the Western Hemisphere, like El Salvador, but the data do seem to establish:
1) Cuba in 1960 had the fourth highest HDI in the Western Hemisphere.
2) Cuba's HDI rank slipped several places by 1990.
3) Cuba's CHANGE in HDI values, while not abysmal like Haiti's or Bolivia's, was certainliy pretty bad.
10147. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 1:15 PM PT
Message #10143
Well, that's only direct economic & military aid. Soviet sugar subsidies (in the form of buying Cuban sugar at three times the world price) alone amounted to more than $1 billion a year. A $1 billion, by the way, amount to something like 10% of Cuba's (certainly overestimated) GDP.
10148. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 3:06 PM PT
Re Message #10144: I messed up the decimal places on those figures. The disparity has to do with the fact the base for the HDI used to be 100 in its early history, but is now 1. All the same, that doesn't change anything. The base (I believe) is a composite of data for several OECD countries.
10149. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 3:13 PM PT
OK, according to Alvin Z. Rubinstein's "Soviet Foreign Policy Since World War II" (1990), "The overall Soviet subsidy to Cuba during the 1980s has been estimated to exceed $4 billion annually. In addition, Soviet arms amounting to another $1 billion a year, a provided lavishly and free of charge."
As for some evidence on the impact of the U.S. embargo, I have yet to find any worthwhile things. So it will have to wait until I return from my regular weekend outing.
10150. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 4:36 PM PT
Some information from the "Microsoft Encarta 95":
"Before 1959 most Cuban trade was with the United States. In 1960 the United States declared a complete embargo on trade between the two countries. In the early 1990s Cuba's chief trade partners were Argentina, Bulgaria, China, and the countries of the former USSR. Cuba's total imports each year cost approximately $7.9 billion, and its exports earned approximately $5.7 billion."
Not only the US was the largest trading partner: *Most* Cuban trade was with the US before 1959. This is not surprising given the size of the US economy and its vicinity to Cuba. Pseuder is of course right in saying that Cubans can trade with a lot of other countries. (Bar the many Latin American countries that for a long period at least joined the US embargo). But trade patterns depend on geography to a large extent, which is well established by economists' testing of the so-called "gravity model" of trade. It is clearly abnormal for a Caribbean country to have most of its trade with the above mentioned countries.
"Cuba," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.
10151. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:13 PM PT
More Encarta trivia:
"Credits and subsidies from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to Cuba totaled some $38 billion between 1961 and 1984 and up to $5 billion annually in the late 1980s. The collapse of the Soviet bloc, depriving Cuba of its leading aid donors and trade partners, dealt a crippling blow to the nation's economy as the 1990s began."
It seems Cuba was able to finance almost its entire imports by Soviet aid. Pseuder cites this as proof that whatever development Cuba had been capable of under Castro was solely due to Soviet aid. Hmmm. It was no doubt a huge cushion under the Cuban economy, and without it the country would have had to find other, more market oriented ways making do. The economic distortions that this kind of subsidy brings about are big and increasing over time. My point earlier when I mentioned the sudden implosion of the Soviet cushion (in a comment on a mariagleason post) was that the current - and quite sudden - miserable state of the Cuban economy is in large part a result of an external shock.
10152. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:23 PM PT
Cuba got a lot of aid from Soviet. But it also acted as a Soviet marionet in Southwest Africa and Yemen, sending a substantial number of troops overthere and keeping them in for quite an extended period. I wouldn't know the cost of this but I think it should somehow be subtracted from the Soviet aid in the sum total. I do not condone of this Cuban military activity, of course. I am only saying the Cuban adherence to the Soviet camp during the cold war also incurred some costs.
10153. pseudoerasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:25 PM PT
Jesus, it's an addiction. Here I am posting from the airport! Stostostostostosto (Message #10150): Yes, yes, yes. The gravity model of trade. Who cares. ABNORMAL OR NORMAL IS IRRELEVANT! Correcting an "abnormal" geographic pattern of trade does not necessarily increase the OVERALL VOLUME of trade. It might only SHIFT the geographic pattern of trade. If Cuba's exportable production is limited by its central planning system -- an exceedingly reasonable assumption -- then the lifting of the U.S. embargo will at best divert Cuban exports toward the United States at the expense of other, farther destinations. Did you really think that an economy whose productive capacity is limited by socialist central planning can simply increase output because there is new external demand (from the U.S.)??? What's wrong with you??? And without increasing the overall volume of trade (and running a trade surplus), how the hell would lifting the embargo raise Cuba's output??? (Yes, yes, yes, shifting exports to a nearer country would lower costs, but that's at best an economic thimble-full.) The salient question is, ALL THINGS EQUAL, is the U.S. embargo the difference between Cuba's being a bastketcase and its not being one? It's preposterous to answer affirmatively. I promise a full complement of Cuban data 1959 to 1998 by Tuesday or Wednesday. I demand that Stostostosto pay me the $5 this post is costing me, given that he gave me no choice but to post.
10154. pseudoerasmus - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:32 PM PT
yes, it is true, the lifting of the U.S. embargo would bring in American capital that would add to Cuba's productive capacity, especially to produce for export to the United States. But does anyone think U.S. capital flows would be diverted to Cuba at the expense of other, less shambly destinations in the Caribbean?
10155. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
"The Cuban army is made up of about 145,000 soldiers, and has been largely equipped by the former USSR. The navy, which has a membership of about 13,500 sailors, operates missile boats and various smaller craft. The 17,000-member air force is equipped with Soviet-built aircraft, comprising interceptor, ground-attack, and other first-line craft. Cuba also possesses Soviet-made surface-to-air and antishipping missiles. Cuba maintains an armed civilian militia that includes some 1.3 million men and women. Cuban forces served in several African countries during the 1970s and 1980s."
["Cuba," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.]
In a country of 10 million, a military of this size is quite a heavy burden on the economy. You might say that it is a self-imposed burden. But it is justified by the American siege of Cuba. Hence, the over-militarization should arguably also be counted as a cost to Cuba of being a Soviet ally so close to the USA.
10156. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:43 PM PT
No, Pseud Message #10153
I am arguing that when trade patterns are geographically determined to such a large extent, it is because this is the most economically advantageous way to trade. Consequently, when Cuba's trade patterns are as hugely distorted as they are, it is reasonable to assume that it implies a substantial economic loss compared with a normal trade pattern.
"What's wrong with you???"
Well, the same as with yourself, I am afraid; I am getting addicted to Fray-posting... Btw, thank you for asking. Which airport are you in?
10157. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:58 PM PT
One might also reasonably question the estimate of the value of Soviet aid. It has probably not come in the form of dollars. The Soviet foreign trade pattern was to pay for goods produced in its vasal countries primarily with energy, raw materials, machinery and weapons. This was generally quite advantageous for the vasal economies in that they received energy and raw materials which were easy to exchange into hard currency on the free market (or saved them hard currency), while it exported home-made goods of less than world-beating quality. But Cuba's export to the Soviet was mainly in the form of sugar which would also have fetched a price on the world market. The part of Cuban-Soviet trade which is harder to value is the non-energy, non-raw material part of it. That is, Soviet weaponry, machinery, vehicles and so on. I don't know how the estimate of $5bn mentioned above was done, but to be fair, it would have to allow for the fact that these Soviet gadgets were generally inferior in quality to what the Cubans could have obtained elsewhere.
10158. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 6:00 PM PT
Geez, I don't hope you people are as bored with these tedious technical hair-splittings as I am.
10159. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 6:17 PM PT
I will offer one final, more opinionated comment. Whatever the shortcomings of Castro's system, economically and with respect to human rights and democracy, you can't disregard his policy priorities. These have no doubt favoured a more equal distribution and a better quality of public service - schools, health care, for the population at last. Given the lack of democratic checks on the Castro government, such priorities were by no means a foregone conclusion. Look at how dictatorial regimes elsewhere have squandered resources on prestige projects, lavish lifestyles for the few and Swiss bank accounts.
Perhaps there really is a difference between bad bad guys and good bad guys?
10160. AzureNW - Oct. 30, 1998 - 6:20 PM PT
It's not boring, actually. I had thought the U.S. embargo was affecting Cuba more. I was hoping an end to the embargo would bring an end to much of the poverty there.
10161. stostosto - Oct. 30, 1998 - 6:37 PM PT
Finally, finally:
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether it is a completely wrong perception that US policy in 1959-60 unnecessarily helped to drive Fidel Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union? Why, if the US had welcomed him to power and acknowledged him as a leader with substantial popular support, wouldn't it have been able to make deals with him?
And, more generally: Is it a completely unfounded assumption that the US has made such blatant mistakes in its foreign policy repeatedly in the post-war period? Siding with hopelessly incompetent and brutal dictators who deserved to be ousted, and often were, often by the help of the Soviet Union and with the greater popular appeal, the worse the dictator's US-backed attempts to cling to power.
China, Vietnam, Iran, South Africa, the Philippines, ...various Latin American countries.
There, I said it. Go on and beat me.
10162. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:02 PM PT
StoStoSto:
I suppose you missed that happy moment when Castro announced that he was a 'Marxist-Leninist' and nationalized all foreign-owned property and that of nationals who did not agree with his politics.
He came prepackaged with a Soviet stamp on him, my friend.
10163. remolacha - Oct. 30, 1998 - 9:50 PM PT
So he's not all bad, just mostly bad.
but what happens when he's gone??
assuming he is not immortal.
10164. DaveCook - Oct. 31, 1998 - 4:00 AM PT
stostosto's economics - American's financed much of Cuba's domestic investment in the 1950's. Thus, the USA is to blame for not financing Cuban investment in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's after Castro expropriated all of the previous investment (expropriation, apparently, being Eurotrash for "stealing someone else's property,") when foreign investment in Cuba was forbidden by law.
Marjoribank's (tongue-in-cheek) economics: Most of Cuba's hard currency earnings come from tourism. Hundreds of thousands of European and Canadian men pay good money to fly to Cuba to "enjoy Cuba's natural resources," [Ironically, at the very moment when Pinochet was arrested in London, Castro was in Madrid receiving the much coveted "Caribbean Pimp of the Year" award.] Thus, if only the American government would improve the terms of trade of the Cuban hooker, Castro could maintain a socialist wonderland.
10165. DaveCook - Oct. 31, 1998 - 4:16 AM PT
Personally, (although I am against Helms-Burton), I do support the US embargo against Cuba. The main reason is, of course, vindictiveness/credibility. It doesn't hurt us to continue the embargo and it does hurt the Cuban government so why not go with it. The Cuban government stole the property of Americans and we should continue the embargo just to show we mean business. Further, the main argument for ending the embargo is weak: i.e. American trade would encourage the spread of American democracy. The main Cuban hard currency earnings are tourism, sugar, cigars, and a couple of nickel mines. We don't want to buy sugar, and US public policy is in general against cigars and "tourism" so whats the point?
10166. DaveCook - Oct. 31, 1998 - 6:25 AM PT
Castro is happy to provide cheap hookers to Eurotrash; Eurotrash are always happy to support Castro. Coincedince? Maybe not.
10167. marjoribanks - Nov. 2, 1998 - 7:05 AM PT
Actually DaveCook, you said it when you included vindictiveness (obviously not tongue in cheek) as a reason to maintain the embargo against Cuba. There are now few obvious US foreign policy idiocies apparent to the naked eye, the embargo against Cuba is a glaring one.
I know some will say it is hard to quantify, but sue me: the USA loses vast amount of international brownie points by needlessly extending the embargo against Castro's Cuba. I am in a minority who don't think Castro will fall automatically if this is done, but I still endorse the retraction on pragmatic and humanitarian grounds.
On other aspects of the situation, I enjoyed stostosto's spirited defense on the economics of the Cuban revolution/embargo. I hope it is not him that you are referring to with that epithet. The French in general, maybe.
10168. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 7:28 AM PT
StoStoSto's 'defense on the economics of the Cuban revolution/embargo' may have been spirited, but PseudE has demolished his romantic views with facts, and he'll provide more.
I love it when people who have absolutely no clue what it is like to live under a true Communist regime fall in love with an abstract ideal - parlor pinks, I believe the descriptive term is. They'd probably change their tune if they had to live the life of a typical Cuban citizen for a year or two.
In the next few days I'll post the food allowances for the people of Cuba, and I hope that the 'economics' of the revolution will become a little clearer.
10169. marjoribanks - Nov. 2, 1998 - 7:47 AM PT
Sr-in-waitingGleason,
"StoStoSto's 'defense on the economics of the Cuban revolution/embargo' may have been spirited, but PseudE has demolished his romantic views with facts, and he'll provide more."
Terribly sorry. I have been a participant in this discussion also and there is no way to construe it in the way you do. It is a complex picture, which the former has elaborated, even while the latter tries to reduce it to store-bought platitudes. It will take a great deal of "fact" indeed to contradict the "fact" already prsented.
"I love it when people who have absolutely no clue what it is like to live under a true Communist regime fall in love with an abstract ideal - parlor pinks.
This is nonsense. The Cuban episode has involved far too many unique variables to be representative of any simple label. However, I have (and have had) many experiences with Communist govts. I am currently dealing with two! in business matters.
"In the next few days I'll post the food allowances for the people of Cuba, and I hope that the 'economics' of the revolution will become a little clearer."
I'll be interested in seeing them. However, please realize that this citation means nothing.
10170. Raskolnikov - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:01 AM PT
Sto: "Whatever the shortcomings of Castro's system, economically and with respect to human rights and democracy, you can't disregard his policy priorities."
Well, Castro isn't a Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler, and from a "swell guy" standpoint is probably a cut above Somoza, Duvalier or Diem, but this is still damning by faint praise. If you compare Castro's record to Chile's, using Pseudo's numbers, it is clear that achieving increases in social welfare is more important than "setting it as a priority", and is almost definite that Cuba's performance in this area would have been much worse if they hadn't been sucking substantially from the Soviet teat.
"Can anyone enlighten me as to whether it is a completely wrong perception that US policy in 1959-60 unnecessarily helped to drive Fidel Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union?"
Castro was a Leninist through and through. He just didn't advertise it prior to coming to power. US policy toward him wouldn't have made a difference. And I think it is tough to argue that US policy could have really done anything to change the economic conditions in Cuba which helped Castro rise to power.
"Is it a completely unfounded assumption that the US has made such blatant mistakes in its foreign policy repeatedly in the post-war period?"
I certainly agree that it was not in the US interest to support murderous thugs in most of the locations you mention (I think I could argue Iran as an exception). It is another issue whether our support drove opponents into the arms of the Soviets. In many cases the answer is no - Marxist activity preceded US support. However, I think there are a few cases where it did damage US interest to support the thugs - Nicaragua and South Africa are the best examples I can think of. (btw, I know Pseudo disagrees on the damage, the two of us had a brief disagreement on this issue a few months ago).
10171. marjoribanks - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:06 AM PT
Raskolnikov,
" It is another issue whether our support drove opponents into the arms of the Soviets. In many cases the answer is no - Marxist activity preceded US support."
This is exactly the kind of store-bought platitude I am talking about.
10172. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:17 AM PT
Marj,
StoStoSto has 'elaborated' on the Cuban situation by citing an article he 'remembers' reading (from the Economist) and by quoting Encarta. Nice, but hardly conclusive. He also delivers questionable 'facts', i.e. the issue of sugar. The Soviets helped bolster the Cuban economy by paying much more than the free market value of sugar, as PseudE has said, yet StoStoSto says that Cuba would have fared better on the free market because sugar exports would have fetched cold cash. He is hallucinating; cold cash cannot make up for the inflated price the Soviets paid, no matter the manner of reimbursement. Don't forget; this type of economy was Castro's _choice_ when he turned his country over to the Soviets.
He also ignores one salient fact: Castro was a Soviet puppet from the beginning; he was in no way 'driven' into the Communist camp.
PseudE has delivered facts that you and StoStoSto choose to ignore, and will deliver more, yet I doubt that either of you will be convinced, preferring your own _opinions_ as is painfully obvious.
'However, I have (and have had) many experiences with Communist govts. I am currently dealing with two! in business matters.'
This is an impossibly naïve statement. Just what is it that you think you know that hasn't been sanitized for your viewing?
'"In the next few days I'll post the food allowances for the people of Cuba, and I hope that the 'economics' of the revolution will become a little clearer."
I'll be interested in seeing them. However, please realize that this citation means nothing.'
Sorry, but this has everything to do with Castro's economic 'miracles' and your own insistence on the high quality of life in Cuba.
10173. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:20 AM PT
'" It is another issue whether our support drove opponents into the arms of the Soviets. In many cases the answer is no - Marxist activity preceded US support."
This is exactly the kind of store-bought platitude I am talking about.'
How is this a platitude? Please note StoStoSto's reference to Castro being 'driven' into Soviet hands.
What do you know about Castro's early history, Marj?
10174. Raskolnikov - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:21 AM PT
marjori: You are saying that US support for dictators didn't follow revolutionary activity in many cases? This is naive. Revolutions occurred long before the US got involved in global affairs, and there is every reason to believe that revolutions would have continued with out it.
As examples, I'll cite Vietnam and China, where Ho and Mao were active long before the US got involved.
10175. marjoribanks - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:24 AM PT
Sigh.
MsGleason,
Cuba exhibits an excellent human development profile when compared with its neigbhbors. In particularly crucial areas like literacy, infant mortality and other primary health care, and in less quantifiable areas like womens emancipation and race relations, Cuba has done very well by any standards. I believe the embargo has had a stunting effect on other areas of Cuba's development, aided by mass mismanagement.
I have never talked about any economic "miracles" nor has anyone in this thread.
10176. marjoribanks - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
Rask,
Stick to examples which make the slightest sense when compared to Cuba.
10177. Raskolnikov - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:31 AM PT
marjori: I was explicitly addressing Sto's broader point, which was about other countries. Given that he listed Vietnam and China as examples where we supported dictators, they are perfectly fair examples of how our support did not hurt us in those specific countries.
And are you saying that Castro wasn't a Marxist before he started his movement?
10178. wonkers2 - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:34 AM PT
marjoribanks, Yes, but weren't Cuba's "gains" illusory because they were based on Soviet aid rather than real, sustainable economic growth. Now that the plug has been pulled on the aid from USSR Cuba is having a hard time and free enterprise is rearing its ugly head. The Cubans would have been better off today if Castro had stuck to trading with the U.S. and tried to follow Sweden's democratic socialism model.
10179. Raskolnikov - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:34 AM PT
I can't provide a cite as evidence that Castro was a Marxist right now (all my Latin American History and revolution textbooks are at home), but I remember that the evidence is quite strong.
10180. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:39 AM PT
There is more to a 'human development profile' than the items you have listed - how much food people are _allowed_ to obtain trumps all of your points. I see that you don't want to get down to the nitty-gritty, but prefer the afore-mentioned 'parlor pink' stance.
The 'economic 'miracles'' that I referred to go to the unending paeans regarding what you say Castro has accomplished in spite of the evil US. These require money, no?
As to your continued harping on literacy 'advances' - the pre-Castro literacy rate in Cuba was 75%, as PseudE has noted. What have you to say to that, in addition to the other questions I've asked you?
10181. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:42 AM PT
Castro denied being any sort of Communist until the consolidation of power, when he went on television to announce that he was a 'Marxist-Leninist'. He then nationalized everything in sight. I must point out that open diplomatic relations with the US still existed at this point.
10182. wonkers2 - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:42 AM PT
Castro initially was a hero in the U.S. It was mostly his own choice and actions that brought about the US embargo. My impression is that there is little doubt that he was a Marxist before bringing down Batista and he continues to be one today. Too bad for the Cubans. But at the same time shame on the United States for shooting itself and the Cuban people by continuing the embargo against Cuba while encouraging and trading with worse totalitarians in many other countries. Free trade shouldn't mean free trade with everybody except Cuba and Iraq.
10183. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:47 AM PT
The US government's collective pride was stung for believing in Castro; he was supposed to be much easier to deal with than Batista.
Hence, when he turned out to be everything that they feared the most, the embargo came down on his head. There's no reason for its continuance, merely spite.
10184. Raskolnikov - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:48 AM PT
I am perfectly in favor of dropping the embargo, whether Castro is a Marxist or a Moonie.
10185. wonkers2 - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:52 AM PT
erratum: for shooting itself and the Cuban people "in the foot."
10186. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:55 AM PT
I'm sorry, but I have to leave for a while. I'm in the Cuban Exile Capital of the World and must plot dastardly deeds against poor Fidel.
10187. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 2:58 PM PT
OK, I spent some time this afternoon looking into Cuban issues. Thanks to those wonderful electronic journal databases, I've managed to find within one hour and save to disk a huge number of scholarly articles as well as data on all things Cuban. I will present them slowly, as time permits.
For now, I will address one issue. Marzipranks has characterised Stostosto's "spirited defence" of his position on Cuba as painting a "complex picture". On the contrary, I will demonstrate in a dozen or so posts that Stostosto's "spirited defence" has been analytically vacuous gropings. (The only "facts" Stostosto has brought to the discussion are some skimpy information from Encarta, aka MS Shit 3.1.)
To whit, take his COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE Message #10155, where he argues, "a military of [Cuba's] size is quite a heavy burden on the economy. You might say that it is a self-imposed burden. But it is justified by the American siege of Cuba. Hence, the over-militarization should arguably also be counted as a cost to Cuba of being a Soviet ally so close to the USA."
Now, do Cuba's military expenditures overburden its economy?
10188. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 3:19 PM PT
Comparison of Measures of Military Burden
Military Expenditures as % of GNP
1983 1985 1990 1993
World 5.7% 5.4% 4.4% 3.3.%
3rd World 6.1% 5.4% 4.4% 3.1%
Cuba 5.8% 4.5% 4.2% 2.0%
Military Expenditures as % of government spending
1983 1985 1990 1993
World 19.0% 18.6% 16.6% 11.5%
3rd World 20.1% 18.2% 18.2% 12.6%
Cuba 10.8% 13.0% 6.5% 4.6%
10189. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 3:22 PM PT
Military Expenditures per capita (US$ equivalent)
1983 1985 1990 1993
World 255 255 222 157
3rd World 70 66 60 49
Cuba 211 173 144 39
Armed Forces/000 population
1983 1985 1990 1993
World 5.8 5.8 5.3 4.4
3rd World 4.7 4.8 4.5 3.9
Cuba 25.3 29.3 27.9 16
Source: United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, cited in Jorge F. Pérez-López, "Cuban Military Expenditures: Concepts, Data and Burden Measures", Cuba in Transition, Volume 6: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Association fo
10190. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 3:33 PM PT
Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy
(ASCE), University of Miami.
_______________________
Now, what may we infer from Message #10188 and Message #10189?
1) Cuba began reducing its military burdens BEFORE the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting external financial shock to Cuba.
2) Cuba's military expenditures as percentage of national income as well as percentage of national budget, are significantly below the averages for the world and for developing countries.
3) Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba has retrenched on its military spending even more.
4) Only in manpower can Cuba be called "overmilitarised". (What would these people be doing if they weren't employed in the armed forces?)
So, if, as Stostosto would like us to believe, "over-militarization should arguably also be counted as a cost to Cuba of being a Soviet ally so close to the USA" (Message #10155), then it is a cost which has dramatically fallen in the last 15 years.
10191. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 3:49 PM PT
Marjoribanks said in Message #10175
"In particularly crucial areas like literacy, infant mortality and other primary health care...Cuba has done very well by any standards."
Sigh. You know, it's alright if you think what I have said so far is misguided, even fantastically wrong. However, I would appreciate it if you would actually try to REFUTE what I did say on Friday about Cuba's progress in human development indices, rather than simply continue with the disputed claims as though I haven't disputed or qualified them in anyway. I will even be polite if you can demonstrate that you can deal with your opponent's arguments in some substantive way. Thus far, you just keep going on and on, as though these claims about Cuba's progress in human development are theological articles of faith you can't live without.
1) I have already demonstrated through Message #10144 that although Cuba's HDI rank had been #4 in 1960, it FELL to the 15th place by 1990 (before the Soviet collapse). This suggests SUB-PAR performance in human development.
2) Moreover, the same Message #10144 suggests that the state of human development Castro inherited in 1959 was already (relatively) high to begin with, making what he actually accomplished much easier than you might think. Also, the fact that initial conditions in 1959 were so (relatively) high make Castros's sub-par performance over the 30 years even less impressive.
3) Finally, Soviet aid made even this sub-par amount of progress possible. I know Stostosto has disputed this, but I will even more amply substantiate this tomorrow night.
I will also add more historical data on Cuba's human development indices.
10192. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 4:42 PM PT
Several times I have argued that Marjoribanks's Message #10100 was utterly meaningless as a measure of Castro's accomplishments because his data compare neither 1) PROGRESS in human development nor 2) the INITIAL LEVELS of human development. The following table, far more than my own Message #10117, corrects for these deficiencies for the countries Mazipranks himself chose to compare with Cuba. Although Marzipranks didn't want to compare Cuba with Costa Rica, I added it nonetheless; in exchange, I added his precious Dominican Republic to the mix.
10193. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 5:09 PM PT
For Christ's sake, what a useless piece of shit site the Fray is. It doesn't even have rudimentary HTML.
OK, so I uploaded the aforementioned table here.
[Source: The Statistical Abstract of Latin America for 1938 and 1958; the World Bank for 1968 and 1977; the United Nations for 1997.]
It is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: when it comes to infant mortality statistics, Cuba long before Castro was WAY WAY AHEAD of all the countries Marzipranks wishes to Cuba's performance with. If pressed, I can also amply document that Cuba's other human development indicators had always been more advanced than other Latin American countries', long before Castro came along.
This severely undercuts the claim that Castro has done something special.
10194. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 5:11 PM PT
ERRATA
"Cuba long before Castro was WAY WAY AHEAD of all the countries Marzipranks wishes to [compare] Cuba's performance with."
10195. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 5:15 PM PT
OK, I'm done for today, I think. But tomorrow, I will post more messages addressing Stostostosto's nonsensical claims about trade and Marjoribanks's babble about tourism.
10196. wonkers2 - Nov. 2, 1998 - 7:20 PM PT
PE, Thanks for the facts on Cuba. The only ones that were counter-intuitive for me were military expenditures. Until your information, my impression from the general media was that Castro was spending a bundle on the military.
10197. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:42 PM PT
As for this argument whether U.S. support drove Castro into the arms of the Soviets, my understanding is that scholars are pretty divided on this issue and that the evidence is a lot more ambiguous than Raskolnikov would allow in Message #10170. However, Raskolnikov's supposition that Castro had always been a Leninist through and through is NOT the "store-bought platitude" that Marzipranks ignorantly calls it in Message #10171. In fact, given that popular (i.e., non-scholarly) educated opinion generally defaults to believing that Castro WAS driven to the arms of the Soviets, I'd say if anybody has treated himself to a platitude at a penny store, it's Marzipranks. (Hardly surprising, that.)
Personally, I find implausible on a priori grounds that Castro should have been some sort of a pragmatic social democrat who was forced by U.S. paranoia and hostility to become a Marxist-Leninist and reluctant Soviet client. I mean, the whole notion is rather absurd on its face, and I can't really believe that educated and critical minds have ever thought it.
We need to separate Castro's alignment with the East Bloc and his conversion to Marxism-Leninism. It's understandable that U.S. hostility might have driven Castro to the arms of the Soviet Union. But if he wasn't a Marxist-Leninist, why would U.S. hostility have made Castro so faithfully implement a Marxist-Leninist programme in Cuba??? Why nationalise pretty much everything in sight (sugar refineries I understand); outlaw private entrepreneurial activity for all but the smallest farms; set up neighbourhood watches; herd whole populations into collective farms; drive out anywhere from a quarter to a third of the country's population; promote revolution in Latin America and Africa; and continue to act to this day like an unreconstructed Marxist only to find himself in the company of Kim Jong-il???
After all, the Soviet Union NEVER made communisation a condition of assistance
10198. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:43 PM PT
After all, the Soviet Union NEVER made communisation a condition of assistance to Cuba. That just wasn't Soviet policy in the Third World. It was precisely the opposite: it would pretty much give aid and comfort indiscriminately to anybody who they thought might nettle the Americans and otherwise work against the American interest. In this spirit, during the 1960s and 1970s the Soviet Union entered into close military & economic alliances with many countries in the Third World, most of whom then felt no particular need to sovietise their societies. (Egypt from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s and Syria from the mid-1960s to the late-1980s -- both as important to Soviet interests as Cuba ever was -- come quickly to mind as examples.)
Thus, Castro's conversion to Marxism-Leninism -- as oppposed to his alignment with the Soviet Union, in itself -- goes beyond anything he had to do in order to respond to U.S. hostility. Therefore, IMO, Castro had been a Marxist-Leninist all along.
But I disagree with MariaGleason that Castro was a Soviet puppet. On the contrary, Castro was a fiercely independent leader who CHOSE to do what he did.
10199. PseudoErasmus - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:56 PM PT
As for tsotso fly's Message #10161: "Is it a completely unfounded assumption that the US has made such blatant mistakes in its foreign policy repeatedly in the post-war period? Siding with hopelessly incompetent and brutal dictators who deserved to be ousted, and often were, often by the help of the Soviet Union and with the greater popular appeal, the worse the dictator's US-backed attempts to cling to power. China, Vietnam, Iran, South Africa, the Philippines...various Latin American countries."
Well, this is a "friendly tyrants" question. I think clearly in the case of Vietnam, the United States made a mistake. I'm not sure however what the mistake was in the other cases. China: does anybody suppose that had the United States not supported Chiang K'ai-shek, Mao and Zhou-enlai would have been pro-American? What was the mistake in South Africa? The U.S. opposed sanctions for a long time, and the first post-apartheid government turned out to be friendly to, or at least not hostile to, the United States. The same with the Philippines. Likewise with almost all other cases of "friendly tyrants": Spain under Franco, Greece under the colonels, Turkey under the generals, Argentina under the junta 1976-82, Haiti under the Duvaliers, Chile under Pinochet, Stroessner's Paraguay, South Korea under military rule, Taiwan under the Kuomintang, and Indonesia under Suharto.
As for the Shah of Iran, this is another favourite topic of mine, like Chile. In my opinion, U.S. support for the Shah had little to do with the subsequent government's virulent hostility to the United States. (The revolution itself had little to do with the United States or the Shah's tyranny.) Perhaps that is a controversial and counterintuitive notion, but I can defend it with some panache.
10200. mariagleason - Nov. 2, 1998 - 8:58 PM PT
Tonight, coincidentally, I was at the home of a former Castro supporter who fought with Castro in the hills and was imprisoned after the revolution precisely because he objected to Cuba's virtual sale to the Soviets.