All Things Cuba (Castro, politics, etc.)

[winchable]

some member of the local university chapter of the Spartacus League.

Actually I really hate those bastards. How do they get to the protest? In an SUV from the south end of Halifax.

Seriously though, I would encourage you to try and sell your convictions in Florida.  There is a reason people float on cars to get there

Illusions of granduer in the land of the free? Angry Exiles offering them room and board?

Beware the snake-oil salesmen.

Believe me if I could name names I would, but sufficed to say, these were not all sunshine and lollipops academics.

I wouldn't have mentioned them had they not been very critical of Castros power fetish.
Cuba is a model for a developing country, not a champion of democracy.
I will bend and concede Castro is long past his time and that Cuba is anything but paradise, and I have seen the medical clinics the slums and the underbelly of Cuba.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I've talked with quite a few Cuban academics, doctors, engineers who Castro has sent to other developing countries and they say "no" they will not leave. Cuba might be imperfect, but they've seen how the rest of the developing world is and they, due to experiences they would never have gotten under other regimes, know that the majority of the world is NOT any better.

I've talked to a few who aren't part of the elite and their story seems to differ somewhat ...

And they didn't support Castro's rise to power for a minute until the United Fruit Company set the Eagle up in arms.
Opportunism? Yeah, but they had very little to do with Castro until the US started twisting Castros nipples.

Let me follow your logic: the old communist party (under directives from Moscow) exists in Batiista's cabinet; Castro wins the revolution and starts nationalizing the economy and eliminating political opponents.  US gets pissed-off at the expropriation of private property and aborts a (ridiculously underwhelming) invasion.  So the old communist party decides to join with Castro because of the actions of the US and not, say the fact that they threatened with extinction (and death and torture of their leaders), or that Castro was being paid by Moscow to consolidate communist power.

And I'm not sure what's unclear about the last point.

I don't understand what you are trying to say: that if you shower enough money for long enough in even the stupidest of economic systems that there will be some economic benefit for some people?

 

[winchable]

I've talked to a few who aren't part of the elite and their story seems to differ somewhat

That would be right on par with my thesis.
The elite (if you knew how little they get payed they might not seem so elite) have, as I've said, seen how the majority of the world lives. And it would make sense that Juan the bartender has not worked in Africa and has heard enough stories about the fabulous America that their stories would differ.

So the old communist party decides to join with Castro because of the actions of the US and not, say the fact that they threatened with extinction (and death and torture of their leaders), or that Castro was being paid by Moscow to consolidate communist power

Quite frankly, until I see some textual sources that's a theory that has little basis in history and uses the same speculation that Mr. Chomsky uses.

I don't understand what you are trying to say: that if you shower enough money for long enough in even the stupidest of economic systems that there will be some economic benefit for some people?

Yeah...still not following.

 

[Infanteer]

Actually I really hate those bastards. How do they get to the protest? In an SUV from the south end of Halifax.

HA!   You're right on the mark there.   I shut one up pretty quick by asking him how he amended himself between aiming at getting American Imperialists out of Iraq and owning a $120 Nike running shoes...Academia is so full of contradictions at times....

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

That would be right on par with my thesis.
The elite (if you knew how little they get payed they might not seem so elite) have, as I've said, seen how the majority of the world lives. And it would make sense that Juan the bartender has not worked in Africa and has heard enough stories about the fabulous America that their stories would differ.

If my family were, in effect, being held hostage by my government while I was overseas I might have some difficulty speaking out against it.  More to the point is the fact that the press, internet, etc. is so strictly controlled that they have no choice but to dream about the outside world.

Quite frankly, until I see some textual sources that's a theory that has little basis in history and uses the same speculation that Mr. Chomsky uses.

Be serious here: I am having to make the assumption that Moscow would support nationalization of the economy and that COMINTERN existed to spread communism (or at least fealty to Moscow's communism) around the world.

Yeah...still not following.

From your subsequent post, you seem to be arguing that Cuba is some kind of a model for third world development, and while socialism has failed in nearly every other context, Cuba is the notable exception.  However, one can't help but to wonder how much of it's supposed success was built purely on transfers from the Soviets (given the post-Soviet collapse of their economy, I would venture that the answer is somewhere between the lines of "a lot" and "a heck of a lot").

 

[winchable]

If my family were, in effect, being held hostage by my government while I was overseas I might have some difficulty speaking out against it.  More to the point is the fact that the press, internet, etc. is so strictly controlled that they have no choice but to dream about the outside world.

Well I did state they were speaking out against Castro's control fetish in the conversation I had with them.
A very reasonable point though of course.
I should note that I don't follow Castro's Cuba blindly and that freeom of press is one of the things I don't see eye to eye with them on.

Be serious here: I am having to make the assumption that Moscow would support nationalization of the economy and that COMINTERN existed to spread communism (or at least fealty to Moscow's communism) around the world

Fair enough, however if you read the diaries and memoirs of the revolutions main players, prior to the big blowup, you'll find that they were equally critical of the USSR as being as imperialist as the "Yankee agressor"
Which supports, I believe, my theory that they were in fact pushed into bed with the Soviets more so than willingly jumping in.

From your subsequent post, you seem to be arguing that Cuba is some kind of a model for third world development, and while socialism has failed in nearly every other context, Cuba is the notable exception.  However, one can't help but to wonder how much of it's supposed success was built purely on transfers from the Soviets (given the post-Soviet collapse of their economy, I would venture that the answer is somewhere between the lines of "a lot" and "a heck of a lot").

Ah Now I follow.
A good point of course.
When I say Cuba is a model I mean in the sense that the social changes are neccessary before economic success can be achieved.
IE;Dead campesinos can't cut sugar cane.

As good model I suppose I shouldn't say. A working possibility outside of opening the flood of foreign investment and land control (Assume for a moment that the USSR and the USA weren't locked in a power struggle)

 

[Danjanou]

Actually good ole Juan the bartender probably has got a good look at Africa that is if he's over 30-35.
To get work in a hotel/resort there you must show proof of completion of national service. Anyone in that age group probably got a free all inclusive vacation in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Angola or other charming spots compliments of the Bearded one whose name is never mentioned aloud amongst the companeros.

Che you're probably right re the Rocqueros, mind I think they're all dead, and because of those drastic measures back then HIV infection is pretty minimal on the island. That and the closing of Varadero to the sex tourists back in the late 1990's.

You get the feeling that Senor Galt may have spent a little time there too amigo and not at the all inclusive swim up bar either?

 

[winchable]

Actually good ole Juan the bartender probably has got a good look at Africa that is if he's over 30-35.

Most Juan's I met were young hotheaded youth (nary a year or two past me!) who hated not having nike shoes, porno and well endowed blond American women around all the time.

I still find it strange that Castro doesn't have the sight to be able to realise that he's headed off into a bad place, the same kind of place that allowed him to take power.

 

[a_majoor]

What an amazing thread!

It seems socialism has cast its magic spell even over those of us who are in the profession of fighting socialism   .Seriously, the actions of Castro are pretty self evident. A 10% foreign exchange tax or commission is just another means of raking off and pocketing what little wealth the Cubans have managed to gain for themselves.

The historical background of the United States in Cuba and the rest of the Carribean basin are best outlined in Max Boot's "The Savage Wars of Peace", which I strongly suggest people read before going on about the United Fruit Company. The original imperative for US actions in Haiti, Nicaragua, Cuba and the Dominican Republic was to protect the sea approaches of the Panama Canal, and prevent local instability and revolutions from inviting the unwelcome attention of Imperial Powers like Germany, far fetched as it may sound today. US military power was secondarily used for what we call "nation building" today, on only marginally for economic reasons (the defense of property rights). Benign neglect was actually the order of the day, with American administrations believing in the power of example, rather than explicitly creating government structures which could govern after the withdrawl of the Marines. (This lesson seems to have been learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. How well it is executed remains to be seen).

IF anyone really wants to make a comparison between Socialism and Capitalism, simply compare the current rates of economic growth, unemployment or number of MRIs per capita between Canada and the United States. If only Mr Martin would emulate George W Bush's "mistakes" and give us such a "weak" economy....

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Fair enough, however if you read the diaries and memoirs of the revolutions main players, prior to the big blowup, you'll find that they were equally critical of the USSR as being as imperialist as the "Yankee agressor"
Which supports, I believe, my theory that they were in fact pushed into bed with the Soviets more so than willingly jumping in.

To be fair, the only diary I've read is (the other) Che's, and that was well before his Cuba days ... I do find this hard to swallow as Castro's official diplomatic and military alliance with the USSR coincided with nationalization of the economy (at the time the US was still trying to get him 'onside') and thus preceeded any kind of US "push" (unless they somehow time-travelled and did it retroactively): the only reasonable interpretation is that Castro was pushing-away the US at Moscow's behest (or at the VERY least endorsement).  A good chunk of Castro's raison d'etre was to distance Cuba from the US ... the US had too much investment in the country to try to "push" Castro to the Soviets (not to mention that whole communism in their backyard thing).  Rather ironic that the two main selling features of the revolution were the dictatorship of Batista and economic dependence on the US, which within a couple of years were replaced with the dictatorship of Castro and economic dependence on the USSR ...

And don't think that it was purely communist ideology that brought the Soviets and the Cubans together: it's been argued by many that without continued Sino-Soviet conflict the Cold War would have been lost to communism.

Actually good ole Juan the bartender probably has got a good look at Africa that is if he's over 30-35.
To get work in a hotel/resort there you must show proof of completion of national service. Anyone in that age group probably got a free all inclusive vacation in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Angola or other charming spots compliments of the Bearded one whose name is never mentioned aloud amongst the companeros.

HEH!

You get the feeling that Senor Galt may have spent a little time there too amigo and not at the all inclusive swim up bar either?

Yeah, a little ... never even made it to Varadero or any of the other hotspots, though (Damn!).

 

[winchable]

Rather ironic that the two main selling features of the revolution were the dictatorship of Batista and economic dependence on the US, which within a couple of years were replaced with the dictatorship of Castro and economic dependence on the USSR ...

Which I agree with you on.
And as I've stated if you read the diaries and works up to an including the revolution you'll find no mention (at least in favorable light) of the USSR, which is why I find it hard to believe that they jumped into bed with the soviets.
And I find it even more difficult to believe that the Cubans pushed the US away at the behest of the USSR, based on said writings.

the US had too much investment in the country to try to "push" Castro to the Soviets

Agreed, but the land reforms began long before the Soviets came along, they began in the Oriente province (state within a state) during Batista's reign.
In fact, Castro's family farm was the first one to be nationalized.
It's an example of bluffs being called and an asshole stepping in and screwing things up if you ask me
The US pushed and pushed Castro to fall in line because they assumed eventually he would.
The Soviets siezed the opportunity to trade sugar for raw materials, factories, professionals to train, engineers etc.
And of course, piss of uncle Sam.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I still don't buy it: the Soviets had a strategic interest in Cuba, and Castro wanted to sever ties with the US by any means necessary.  The Soviets didn't give a rat's a** about sugar or any other Cuban "resources".  Castro only wanted to reduce dependence on the United States: the USSR started bribing him almost immediately by buying sugar well above market prices.  The relationship grew closer as Castro bought Soviet oil at well below market prices (the Soviets were bribing him in both directions), but the (primarily US-owned) oil refineries refused to process the Soviet oil (as if they ever would!).  So Castro nationalised them.  So the US refused to purchase Cuban sugar.  So Castro nationalized pretty much everything else.

An oversimplification, but the points are that: 1> central to Castro's appeal was that he would reduce dependence on American multinationals; 2> that he was proactive vis-a-vis the United States in that regard; 3> he could only afford to do so with the support of the Soviets; and, 4> the Soviets were willing to incur huge trade losses to ensure that Castro was on their side.

Let me put it this way: do you really think that Castro was stupid enough to believe he wouldn't be pushing Cuba away from the US if he nationalized ITT, United Fruit, Texaco, etc.?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If I were to tell you by riding the backs of the proleteriat this thread might degrade slightly in quality

What is the difference between "free market" and "riding the backs of the proletariat"?

>so suffice it to say I believe the modern developed world got to be developed in ways that are unacceptable in modern times.

Please, be specific.  I'm curious to hear how the industrialization of, say, England compares in terms of "unacceptable" with the industrialization of, say, Russia?  What is acceptable?  In what ways should we constrain our rate of abolishment of poverty (thereby condemning future generations) in order to achieve "acceptability"?

Certainly as a one-crop colony of the USSR Cuba obtained more subsidies than it did as a one-crop colony of US "big agriculture".  The end of the free ride has been a little rough, though.  I wonder how Cuba would look today if had spent the last 50+ years as a tourist destination freely accessible to Americans?

 

[winchable]

do you really think that Castro was stupid enough to believe he wouldn't be pushing Cuba away from the US if he nationalized ITT, United Fruit, Texaco, etc.?

Never said I didn't think that.
I said he wasn't pushing away the Americans because the Soviets were urging him to.
He pushed away American control before the Soviets entered the fray in Oriente.

What is the difference between "free market" and "riding the backs of the proletariat"?

Well I would say that the free market had much loose definition at the time of budding US interest in LATAM after the Spanish-American war (And prior to)
Meaning they Couldn't grow certain crops at home due to soil constraints and they could get much cheaper labour by strong arming and pressuring LATAM governments to fall in line and grow what was demanded in the US while caring less about what the actual people of said county could grow.
So in that sense, and I used proletariat in a humorous sense, the free market means not being constrained by laws that the US imposed at home by exporting this labour to cheaper countries.

Cubans, if we might momentarily disregard what occured afterwards, had the fortune of finding a gruop of leaders at the right time in the right place with the right amount of luck and the right message to try and end this.
It's definetly debatable that what happened afterwards strayed from the initial idea due to outside pressure from two warring superpowers vying for a foothold.

I'm curious to hear how the industrialization of, say, England compares in terms of "unacceptable" with the industrialization of, say, Russia?  What is acceptable?  In what ways should we constrain our rate of abolishment of poverty (thereby condemning future generations) in order to achieve "acceptability

Acceptable in modern terms is not what happened during the industrialization of either country.
If you think I'm pro Soviet you're mistaken.
The people worked insanely long hours at wages that don't even compare to modern wages after inflation is taken into account and were given no subsidies of any kind whatsoever
This made a few very lucky people filthy rich and industralized England and Russia (even more so) in a short amount of time.
Can this be done today?
I don't know, can it? Would it be acceptable?

I wonder how Cuba would look today if had spent the last 50+ years as a tourist destination freely accessible to Americans?

Roughly without much work, something like this I would wager:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gt.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ho.html

 

[Acorn]

Brad, I think Che has a point there. Much of what occurred to bring us to the lofty position of "developed" looked a lot like what has occurred in Latin America in the past 50-odd years. The rise of unions, providing collective protection of workers (leaving aside that gov't has taken much of the union role today, and they are much less relevant and more a nuisiance.) Universal sufferage. A great many socialist "benefits" we have here in Canada, including some which seem to have, unfortunately, come to define our culture, like universal health care.

Perhaps the difference between Castro's Cuba and Pearson/Trudeau's Canada was a common language with the US? We got away with it, and Castro was forced to look to the USSR.

Acorn

 

[Brad Sallows]

Cuba was definitely caught between two superpowers; it simply moved from providing what one wanted to providing what the other wanted.  If I understand you arightly, you believe the leadership might magically have done something else if they were free of those constraints.  Well, if they were truly free of the need to co-operate with a superpower they should've done so.  The evidence to me suggests that they could not, so they made accommodations and had to live with their choices.  I would guess that anytime from the late '60s onward it has been possible for Cuba to move in a direction more of its own choosing, rather than waste time sticking to its client status and fomenting revolutions elsewhere.  At whose feet should that wasted time be laid?  I simply see yet another dictator, bereft of any useful ideas or perhaps merely the energy to do anything with them, dedicated to preserving the status quo of his own rule at all costs.  I have yet to see his chosen "system" benefit any particular nation in the long term; capitalism still seems to be the worst possible system, except for all the others.  How would Cuba look today sans Soviet subsidies for all the time those subsidies were provided?  Let me guess: Cuba will thrive when and only when it obtains free trade and access to free markets.

>Acceptable in modern terms is not what happened during the industrialization of either country.

"Acceptable" is what you get when you can afford a particular level of acceptability.  I am sure that our "acceptable" practices today will seem barbaric to a more advanced level of development in 100 years.  I grant that socialism has enabled some nations to move more quickly through some stages of the transition from agrarian to industrial, although at a fairly spectacular human cost.  Shorter work hours and higher earnings are "earned" by increases in productivity.  Those increases can't be enacted by fiat, although goodness knows some governments have tried.  It will be interesting to see what happens to GDP in India and China over the next few years.  There may be a lesson there that some people haven't learned yet.  Maybe we can also learn something by watching the rate of change of development in Venezuela.

>This made a few very lucky people filthy rich and industralized England and Russia (even more so) in a short amount of time.
>Can this be done today?
>I don't know, can it? Would it be acceptable?

Is your focus on the income gap, or the absolute change in incomes?  The pigs are growing wealthier faster than the sheep, but the sheep are growing wealthier.  Is that better or worse than a system in which the sheep grow wealthy more slowly, but the pigs don't move ahead so quickly?

>I wonder how Cuba would look today if had spent the last 50+ years as a tourist destination freely accessible to Americans?

Honduras and Guatemala?  Why not Costa Rica?  Cuba was a popular destination before its revolution.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Does anyone have any expertise which would enable them to give a reasonable prediction what direction the net worth of Cubans will move in after they trade their US currency for Cuban?

Supposing that expats will continue to send money "home", but in a different currency, the Cuban economy will now also enjoy the fact that of the wealth "X" that was formerly imported in raw USD, some will now be lost to the transaction cost of changing USD to other currencies.  Good move.

 

[winchable]

I do agree with your points to a certain extent and know there is room for both of us to bend on this.

Castro is neither devil nor saint but can and has exhibited qualities of both.

Cuba was a popular destination before its revolution

Agreed, but what for, and by whom?

 

[Infanteer]

Agreed, but what for, and by whom?

Michael Corleone?

But was it necessarily an improvement to trade him in for Boris from Odessa (who now, oddly, has assumed the mantle once occupied by Mr Corleone)

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I said he wasn't pushing away the Americans because the Soviets were urging him to.
He pushed away American control before the Soviets entered the fray in Oriente.

This is getting confusing: I thought your claim was that the Americans pushed Cuba into the arms of the Soviets ... this suggests that Castro was pushing away the Americans and not vice-versa!

Well I would say that the free market had much loose definition at the time of budding US interest in LATAM after the Spanish-American war (And prior to)
Meaning they Couldn't grow certain crops at home due to soil constraints ...

Ahh yes, find discredited old Marxist propaganda, strike out "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie", replace with "third world" and "imperialist American capitalist pigs" and abracadabra new economic theory (and only theoretical assumption required is to equate capitalism with mercantilism)!  And to think that all these years I've been thinking it was the industrial revolution.

P.S> Sorry for the sarcasm: I couldn't resist pointing-out the obvious ...