Talk:Cuba/Archive 9

Continued discussion about Cuban democracy

I drafted this (albeit wordy) explaination for the problem. But I have a thousand citations from all sides of the argument if need be. I personally believe all this should be settled in the government section and shouldn't even be in the opening paragraph. I don't mean to discredit anyone here, but the democratic features of a society are not written in stone. To disagree with Adam aligns one with the UN and many leading political philosophers, it is certainly not a "flat earth theory".--Zleitzen 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The distinct nature of grassroots political participation in Cuba has fostered much international discussion surrounding the nature of modern democracy. In 2000, Cuba sponsored the adopted UN resolution (55/96) which affirmed the recognition that “while all democracies share common features, there is no one universal model of democracy”[1]. Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy[2] or a "centralized democracy". In 2006, the discussion gained additional attention after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to the Cuban model as a “revolutionary democracy”[3]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy"[4]. Modern Western political theory as advocated by groups including Freedom House, an organisation funded jointly by US Government and private investment budgets, demands more exact requisites to distinguish the criteria of electoral democracy. These include a competitive, multiparty political system, open political campaigning and independent media[5]. Consequently such groups determine that Cuba cannot be considered a modern functioning democracy, and frequently campaign to promote the implementation of these criteria for the island.

Agree; this is not about those who don't want the 'not democracy' word being somehow part of a pro-Castro conspiracy or flat-Earth society. This is about the difficulty of defining democracy or what it means - let's just not go there. The pro-Cubans say they are democrats - by the twisted logic of communism as used in the Soviet Onion etc, this was 'sort of' true. You cannot assume that because I don't want 'no-democrat', I (or the many more than two who disagree with you) are somehow implying that this means 'yes-democrat'. I don't want 'no-democrat' because the meaning of the term is fixed only within your understanding of it, and there are many 'democratic' entities in the West which in reality aren't, and others that are technically not democratic eitehr (recall there are still some dependencies in the Western hemisphere - which automatically invalidates your argument, even if they are small & insignificant). Why have a values based argument when this plain isn't necessary? Say Soc Rep in the intro, and have the government discussion in the appropriate section where, as Zleitchen points out, it can be properly expanded upon, explained, and discussed without either misleading or over-simplifying in the intro.Bridesmill 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, Adam has already explained this in the last paragraph of his re-write of the government and politics section, if anyone cares to check. I disagree with aspects of that re-write, but his approach there is basically sound and open to readers. I have no idea why he's still defending that absolutist opening paragraph with such zeal. He reminds me of Canute!--Zleitzen 16:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - I know I have gotten a bit stubborn on WP at times myself, it's easy to do. Adam earlier implied that he was willing to fall on his sword over the 'democratic' bit (User_talk:172#Cuba).Bridesmill 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What do people feel about Zleitzen's draft? It strikes me as a very good NPOV statement which would allow the debate to move on to more detailed discussion and definition MichaelW 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Economy

172, you're not going to be able to use any neoliberal terms (including terms such as "market reforms") here. They are not neutral terms, which is why "market reforms" was amended to "market oriented measures" etc. Feel free to add anything to the article, and much of your economy section was highly informative. But remember that every word will be scutinised for neutrality. And every disputable sentence will be examined in the closest detail. That applies to all editors from all political POV's. --Zleitzen 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, the term "market reform" is not a neoliberal term. And, by the way, I'm not a "neoliberal" in both the approaches I use in research and in my politics. 172 | Talk 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest that you personally have a neoliberal economic approach, 172. "Market reforms" is a well known term and there's nothing dramatically POV about it, but it is very much a Bretton Woods term. I think a more neutral wording would be better. --Zleitzen 03:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bretton Woods system-- another article I wrote. Sure the term is used in IMF and World Bank reports (which are not always best described as "neoliberal," by the way). I don't see why that matters. It's the best description to use here. 172 | Talk 03:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree. And my motivation is neutrality. Reverting in that matter is not good practice 172, and it won't stick. I've got ample time and patience to ensure NPOV down to the last word. Why do you think "market reforms" is more neutral then "market oriented measures". Given that the former is only used in certain circles, and the latter is understood by all? --Zleitzen 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's wordy. This point is pretty pedantic. 172 | Talk 03:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well get used to me being painstakingly careful. Better to use three NPOV words than two POV words.--Zleitzen 03:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Market reforms" is not a POV-term. It may have a postive connotation, but that's neither here nor there. 172 | Talk 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There are issues with that term 172 and I'm not alone in focusing on them [6] [7][8]. Actually your use of the term "market reforms" in this section doesn't neccessarily show the full picture. We're talking about a number of changes, of which "market reforms" were only part. The legalisation of the dollar wouldn't come under that bracket, it was a measure (and a desperate one at that) rather than a market reform. This also applies to the rollback. This might all seem pedantic, but that's what an encyclopedia has to be. And if you've ever met a lexicographer you'll know what I mean, they drive you mad!--Zleitzen 12:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I also encourage 172 to provide citations with his/her edits so they can be verified. BruceHallman 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of them can be verified as I've seen them myself, others I'm not so sure about. I'm only on the third paragraph or so of my basic scanning of the section, neutralising a few terms and adding the occasional line (such as the dollar to Euro move etc). I removed your US comparison, Bruce. I don't feel the US debt (or even the US economy itself) can be easily compared to any other countries. --Zleitzen 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Bruce, I have reservations about the tourism prediction at the end of that paragraph. Do you know when that source was compiled, because I have a hunch things have changed in very recent times due to increased government restrictions.--Zleitzen 01:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why I converted the debt to a ratio of GDP, so it could be compared. I still think that including the comparison is helpful in an encyclopedia article, otherwise you cannot tell from a stand alone statistic whether the debt ratio number is relatively high or low. BruceHallman 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's about typical for the size and region, lower than say Guatemala but higher than Honduras and certainly far higher than an island like Jamaica. I don't know if that helps, but I imagine that if we compared Sudan's GDP/debt ratio to the US, even Sudan would still come out looking pretty good!--Zleitzen 02:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a citation for this: "In the late 1990s Cubans had been receiving hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars annually from Cubans in the U.S. sending cash to the island. Today, these donations are reportedly often confiscated by state security"--Zleitzen 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably a sneaky reference to the new tax on the USD. Myciconia 22:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything specifically mentioning this. Hopefully someone will come up with something.--Zleitzen 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That came from the old version of the economy section. See the citation appearing in the old version. 172 | Talk 02:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here is the source [9]--Zleitzen 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Crap. That was the citation? I hadn't looked because I knew the claim was correct anyway. I'll try to find a news article or something. 172 | Talk 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Chuckle! Back to the grindstone, 172.--Zleitzen 12:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

THISS is still a comuniste state.

Reversion

I undid a series of edits. [10] First, I don't see what the image of the Che Guevara mural contributes. The photo appears to be recent, yet it appears in a part of the "History" mostly covering the 1960s and 1970s. Second, the information on Chernobyl is irrelevant in the "Health" section. It may be relevant in a section detailing Cuba's relations with the Soviet Union and later Russia and Ukraine. Still, I don't see why Chernobyl is particularly noteworthy here. And the edits to the "Economy" took out material noting the rollback at any attempt to implement market reforms aimed at reducing the severe shortages. 172 | Talk 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On the economy section, it didn't leave out the rollback the last time I looked. i'll have another look. --Zleitzen 02:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No it's still there, but it's followed by a sentence about the dollar and Euro. --Zleitzen 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind then. I see what's removed-- the stuff on the balance of trade. I also really dislike the new lead sentence. It's wordy and vague at the same time. It's much more informative to include the descriptions linked to the economy of the Soviet Union article (of which I think I was a main author, but I haven't looked at in a while.) article and the planned economy article. The reference to political control of the workforce is also important, as it considers state and party control of the trade unions and other workers' organizations. 172 | Talk 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead was a combination of the lead to economy of Cuba and your lead. I still think you're looking at it from one perspective, rather than a neutral position. The source on your trade paragraph isn't neutral, in fact it's about as biased as we're likely to get on the subject of the Cuban economy, The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom! You've got to get serious on this NPOV issue before you address any future edits. --Zleitzen 03:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Only one sentence was based on the Heritage report: the sentence on sugar. I was citing a single fact, not their policy perscriptions. I'm no fan of Heritage, but they are as strict when it comes to checking their facts and I see no reason not to cite them when they publish relevant information. And BTW, look at my userpage. You'll be able to see that I do not keep with with a narrow range of publications. 172 | Talk 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing Che from the Cuba article--Have you no decency?!! But seriously, must everything that looks somewhat nice be removed? Excuse me if i'm jumping to conclusions, but that is what it appears you are doing. Also, I believe there was an attempt to discuss your recent edits above in this talk page. Myciconia 02:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The mural looks nice? I'd think otherwise. It's yet another example of the cult of personality and the saturation of the island with communist propaganda. 172 | Talk 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly an example of the former. You should visit Belfast [11]. I also remember this mural in England which may be more to your taste, 172 [12]. It could almost work as an ironic juxtapostion to the Cuban mural! In fact your focus on Cuban propaganda images is a little one-sided [13] and as for cult of personality, how about this motley crew [14]. "Why do we look at the speck of sawdust in our brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in our own eye?":) --Zleitzen 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What does a mural have to do with the politics of Cuba? Move on. Too brainwashed "communist" or in most recent terms "castroist" because communism in cuba is no where near what the Communist Manifesto stated. This site would be banned in cuba so i guess "democratic/facist" US is still pretty good.

It does look nice if you are one of these rich kids in the Che Guevara shirts that haven't been exposed that much to history. :-) --Bletch 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara was pivotal to the recent history of Cuba, therefore an image of him is essencial. --Andrelvis 15:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The main issue of the opening of the economy section seems to be the difference between my (Zleitzen) version.

• "The industrial and services sectors are owned and governed by the state and about 75 percent of the labour force is employed by the state. The state plays the primary role in the domestic economy and controls practically all foreign trade.

And your version 172

• "The industrial and services sectors are almost entirely dominated by the state, and the vast majority of the labor force is under the regime's firm political control.

There's plenty of room for collaborative manoeuvre here. --Zleitzen 15:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have offered another version on the main page. With more of a sense of your points, 172.--Zleitzen 18:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen's draft

Zleitzen has proposed the following text for the Politics section:

The distinct nature of grassroots political participation in Cuba has fostered much international discussion surrounding the nature of modern democracy. In 2000, Cuba sponsored the adopted UN resolution (55/96) which affirmed the recognition that “while all democracies share common features, there is no one universal model of democracy”[15]. Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy[16] or a "centralized democracy". In 2006, the discussion gained additional attention after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to the Cuban model as a “revolutionary democracy”[17]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy"[18]. Modern Western political theory as advocated by groups including Freedom House, an organisation funded jointly by US Government and private investment budgets, demands more exact requisites to distinguish the criteria of electoral democracy. These include a competitive, multiparty political system, open political campaigning and independent media[19]. Consequently such groups determine that Cuba cannot be considered a modern functioning democracy, and frequently campaign to promote the implementation of these criteria for the island.

My comments:

• The first sentence is an opinion. I for one deny that there is any "grassroots political participation" in Cuba. I also deny that the Cuban systam "has fostered much international discussion surrounding the nature of modern democracy." Modern democracy may have its problems, but history has judged that communist dictatorship is not a solution to any of them, and everyone except the residual leftwing intelligentsia (who are grossly over-represented at Wikipedia) knows it.
• The second sentence proves only that the UN Human Rights Commission is deeply corrupt and needs to be replaced, as is now happening.
• The "international analysts" who have suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a "direct democracy" or a "centralized democracy" obviously know nothing about democracy. If Cuba was a "direct democracy" like Ancient Athens, it wouldn't have a (purportedly) elected legislature, now would it? France is a "centralised democracy," in the sense that it has a strong central government. Cuba is a dictatorship.
• I fail to see the relevance of Venezuelan or Peruvian politicians' opinions to this question. Chavez in particular, a thug and crypto-dictator himself, has no credentials.
• How is the source of Freedom House's funding relevant? A typical communist smear - I was beginning to think better of Zleitzen than that. Why not cite HRW or the OAS, who say the same thing?

You will all be pleased to know that I am off to Europe tomorrow for two weeks, to attend two human rights conferences: one on North Korea (in Norway) and one on China (in Berlin), so I'll be taking a much-needed wikibreak. But (Arnold Schwarzenegger voice) I'LL BE BACK. Adam 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"A typical communist smear". I hope you don't use that tone at your conferences, Adam. Or you'll likely be received with the same raised eyebrow and circling index finger formation which has just come over me! The UN is wrong, Latin American leaders have no credentials, analysts know nothing about democracy, etc etc. Good luck on your travels Adam, it sounds like you need a break ;) --Zleitzen 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

While he could have been more diplomatic, Carr is right on one thing. It almost looks like Freedom House was chosen precisely so that accusation could be made. Why not quote Human Rights Watch or the Organization of American States? Also, do not confuse "local democracy" with "grassroots democracy"; just because some local posts may be elected does not mean that the country overall qualifies as a democracy. --Bletch 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the intention Bletch it was merely a contextual thing. You made some good points about Jimmy Carter earlier though, and my paragraph is more of a guide than any finished article. There were many positives to Adam's version also. The grassroots democracy business doesn't come from me, it comes from the embedded link from respected scholars (which perhaps isn't as clear as it should be), take a look [20].--Zleitzen 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

?? I sense folks arguing for the sake of arguing. 'Market oriented measures'??? no need for the newspeak - using that only caters to ideologues. I think the Peru/Ven quote is quite subtle and pertinent - underlining that only folks like chavez consider it to be 'a democracy'. Back to the 'what it is not', can we add that Cuba is not a Monarchy? And it is 'not' the only non-democracy ion the western hemisphere - dependencies aren't democracies either. The 'not' is a total red herring - we are here to describne what is; not what isn't - the second you start decribing what 'isn't' you are inserting judgements and POV - no need to go there - it is perfectly possible to describe Cuba for the whacked system it is by remaining detached and scholarly - be totally objective - if the place has problems, that becomes self-evident. Bridesmill 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Market reforms" is the newspeak Bridesmill [21], I'm looking for neutral alternatives. But I agree with everything you say about another of Orwell's concerns, the definition of "democracy". I'm only arguing here on all these matters because of repeated unilateral reverts from certain quarters.--Zleitzen 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow; I see now why this page is controversial - not exactly waht I normally use for references.

Edward Herman is good enough for me on any economic/media matters, Bridesmill.--Zleitzen 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

? Methinkj your POV is showing rather boldly .Bridesmill 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read pretty much every scholar on this kind of subject from Mcluhan to Barthes over the years. Herman's as much a key text as any other in that respect. Observing bias and viewing everything through filters is second nature and is my job, which is what brought me to this business. I've written pages on Wikipedia about "right wing" media analysts and have authored a number of long criticism sections and pages of "left wing" journalists in the time I've been here. I'm too long in the tooth to be seduced by my own POV here, I'm not even sure what that POV is!--Zleitzen 20:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

MichaelW

I suppose ignoring my last message is the only way to keep your ignorance in tact:

"Cuba is no more a 'country of apartheid' than any other where having money will buy you things others can't afford." Arguing with you is simply proving to be a source of personal pain. This is an insulting statement that is consuming my very last shred of civility. Even if Cubans were lucky enough to receive money from exiled family members, CUBANS CANNOT USE THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE SERVICES, CANNOT STAY AT THE NICE HOTELS, CANNOT SHOP AT THE NICE STORES OR SUPERMARKETS, THERE ARE EVEN SOME PARKS THEY CANNOT ENTER. The situation in Cuba is PURE UNADULTERATED APARTHEID, and if a tourist asks a government official why a Cuban cannot join him for lunch, the official will say it is for the tourist's safety.

Pre 1990 (and it has been this way since roughly the early 60's), Cubans have used bicycles as their primary source of transportation. What can I site other than my own memories and the accounts of my family? Do you think a household that makes a handful of money a month can afford anything other than a bicycle? When my cousin soaked a mop in a pressure cooker filled with water, salt and a small ration of government chicken - just to stretch the food out an extra day or two to feed his hungry family - Do you think my cousin would do that and still think about saving for a car, just to keep his "cuban pride" intact?? Or how about a friend who tried to stay at a tourist hotel for his honeymoon - he had collected enough money from relatives for one night - who had been denied stay simply for being Cuban. No Cubans allowed at that hotel... Or explain to me how when my uncle was diagnosed with cancer, he stayed on a stained bed and was denied medicines that are easily accessible in clean, sanitized beds in the "tourist hospitals"? That, sir, is APARTHEID at its truest and cruelest. And it is one thing to not realize it exists, but it is something else to deny its existense after being informed. --Mcmachete 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mcmachete wrote: "...consuming my very last shred of civility". I appreciate and honor such an honest statement. It embodies the essense of the POV dispute that plagues us. There are people that have genuine valid deep all consuming feelings about Cuba that amount to hate, or near hate. That is one POV. Another POV feels that Cuba is, a unique country with a unique social experiment, a remarkable people & history and a unique government, sometimes failed, sometimes a success; but this 'other POV' does not share a consuming hate towards Cuba. How can we resolve the gap between these two POV's? BruceHallman 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)