In 1953, six years before the Castro revolution, 76% of the Cuban population over 10 years of age were literate (Breidlid, 2007, p. 619).
Cuban physicians were well trained and respected before Fidel Castro's rebel army overthrew the Batista regime in 1959, but health services and facilities were concentrated in the cities.
"Following the Revolution and the subsequent United States embargo against Cuba, an increase in disease and infant mortality worsened in the 1960s."
"The famine in Cuba during the Special Period was caused by political and economic factors similar to the ones that caused a famine in North Korea in the mid-1990s. Both countries were run by authoritarian regimes that denied ordinary people the food to which they were entitled when the public food distribution collapsed; priority was given to the elite classes and the military."
"The total mortality rate shown is the crude—i.e., not age-adjusted—rate and therefore tends to rise as the proportion of elderly people in the population increases, which has been the case in Cuba because the birth rate is falling and life expectancy is rising."
"The rate of suicide in the island is higher than average in Latin America and has been among the highest in the region and the world since the nineteenth century."
Your second article shows that it wasn't as great as certain people think.
"Following the Revolution and the subsequent United States embargo against Cuba, an increase in disease and infant mortality worsened in the 1960s."
"The famine in Cuba during the Special Period was caused by political and economic factors similar to the ones that caused a famine in North Korea in the mid-1990s. Both countries were run by authoritarian regimes that denied ordinary people the food to which they were entitled when the public food distribution collapsed; priority was given to the elite classes and the military."
"The total mortality rate shown is the crude—i.e., not age-adjusted—rate and therefore tends to rise as the proportion of elderly people in the population increases, which has been the case in Cuba because the birth rate is falling and life expectancy is rising."
"The rate of suicide in the island is higher than average in Latin America and has been among the highest in the region and the world since the nineteenth century."
Your second article shows that it wasn't as great as certain people think.
From first article by NIH
“More than 50 years of political enmity separating Cuba and the United States, complicated by a United States embargo prohibiting normal trade in food, medicines and medical equipment, and official programs aiming at regime change on the island, have made it difficult for Cuba’s National Health System (NHS) and its outcomes to be thoughtfully considered by the United States media, the public, or policymakers. During the same decades, however, strategies were developed in Cuba that have resulted in consistent improvement in the population’s health status, to the extent that today the country’s health indicators resemble those of industrialized nations.” An important point to note, Cuba has been embargoed illegally for decades now leading to multiple shortages in key nessesities.
“The disparity between rural and urban health was marked. Cuba had only 1 rural hospital, only 11% of farm worker families drank milk, and rural infant mortality stood at 100 per 1000 live births.10–12“
“The new government faced the immediate challenge of making good on its pledge to address rural poverty, illiteracy, and health disparities.13 The 1959 agrarian reform distributed deeds to 150 000 landless farmers, and a 1961 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization lauded literacy campaign enlisted nearly 200 000 young volunteers who fanned out across the country, teaching some 700 000 to read and write.14,15”
“The first is the continuing drive to improve the country’s health status, a factor 1 of the authors has called the “historic dynamic of dissatisfaction that has propelled Cuba’s health movement over the years… .”58(p5) It is a drive that is singularly focused on continually asking and answering the same policy question: “What can be done now, given our limited resources, to further improve health status?”” It is clear that Cuba’s government despite its lack of recourses, and its various mistakes is focused on improving the life of the average citizen.
“
Changes thus motivated can be instituted from the top down or from the bottom up, and they indicate the kind of flexibility and agility that characterizes the system. An example of a change instituted from the top down was the complete restructuring of the National Cancer Program in 2006–2007, mandating creation of a new National Cancer Unit with authority over all program implementation, from prevention through treatment, rehabilitation, and cancer medication development. This was prompted by a review indicating that many types of cancer morbidities and mortalities were showing significant increases.59
As a bottom-up example, there are the lobbying efforts of HIV/AIDS patients, their families, and physicians for change in a national policy that had obliged all diagnosed patients to live in a sanatorium. As a result of the presentation of evidence that many of these patients not only wanted to return to their jobs and families, but were also likely to survive longer as Cuba applied antiretroviral therapy, MINSAP was persuaded to change this policy in 1993. Patients were offered the option of ambulatory care once they understood how to prevent transmission of the disease, and neighborhood family physicians were given further training to provide primary care for these patients once they were back home.60,61
The same creativity in “facing the facts” is being applied to a number of current challenges. Cuba has made steady progress in the reduction of infant mortality, now achieving a rate of less than 5 per 1000 live births, an accomplishment comparable to the industrialized world. Maternal mortality has also improved and reached 43.1 per 100 000 live births—a rate that, although less than half the rate for Latin America and the Caribbean, is far higher than it should be. This reality has led to a national review of protocols for care, facilities, human resources, and preventive approaches aimed at a significant reduction in maternal mortality.62” It is also clear, especially post Soviet Union, that Cuba‘s government isn’t just a bunch of elites ruling in a capital, but also the average person with an issue they care about.
“A second important factor is the reality of very limited resources. Cuba is a poor country with a gross domestic product less than US $48 billion annually. Despite the political commitment to health demonstrated by its government over the last 50 years, its economic limitations have significant policy and performance impact. On the positive side, limits in resources for chronic disease treatment have made a heavy focus on prevention both smart and prudent. On the negative side, the collapse of the Soviet Union, which forced a contraction of the Cuban economy by 35% in the 1990s, the continuing United States embargo, and the recent worldwide recession have contributed to both governmental and individual hardship.63” The end of the Soviet Union was sudden and had dramatic effects on the living conditions of practically every socialist nation. We shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand and say that the suffering of the people was solely due to the government of Cuba during the famine, especially considering the embargo.
Second Article.
"The famine in Cuba during the Special Period was caused by political and economic factors similar to the ones that caused a famine in North Korea in the mid-1990s. Both countries were run by authoritarian regimes that denied ordinary people the food to which they were entitled when the public food distribution collapsed; priority was given to the elite classes and the military." Ignoring that you and I are not entitled to food, I agree this is a disaster and a dubious response. I will have to look more into the special period, but it is clear that that was a disaster.
“
Cuba: Public health 1950–2005
1950–55
1955–60
1960–65
1965–70
1970–75
1975–80
1980–85
1985–90
1990–95
1995–00
2000–05
Life expectancy
59.5
62.4
65.4
68.6
71.0
73.1
74.3
74.6
74.8
76.2
77.1
Mortality rate
10.73
9.21
8.56
7.30
6.37
5.94
6.31
6.65
7.06
6.66
7.08
Under-5 mortality
112.4
93.9
75.9
58.6
43.6
27.0
21.2
19.3
18.7
11.8
7.72
Notes:
Life expectancy is life expectancy at birth. Mortality rate is the crude mortality rate; i.e., annual number of deaths per 1,000 inhabitants. The under-5 mortality is the number of deaths of children up to age five, per 1,000 live births.
Source: United Nations, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean—CEPAL), Cepal Stat, Social Indicators and Statistics.
“
Pre revolution under 5 mortality was 112/1000. 5 years later 94/1000 and 5 more years 76/1000 as of 2005 it was 8/1000. You can not say that this isn’t a massive improvement especially considering the U.S. embargo.
“Cuba began a food rationing program in 1962 to guarantee all citizens a low-priced basket of basic foods. As of 2007, the government was spending about $1 billion annually to subsidise the food ration. The ration would cost about $50 at an average grocery store in the United States, but the Cuban citizen pays only $1.20 for it. The ration includes rice, legumes, potatoes, bread, eggs, and a small amount of meat. It provides about 30 to 70 percent of the 3,300 kilocalories that the average Cuban consumes daily. The people obtain the rest of their food from government stores (Tiendas), free market stores and cooperatives, barter, their own gardens, and the black market.[17]
According to the Pan American Health Organization, daily caloric intake per person in various places in 2003 were as follows (unit is kilocalories):
Cuba, 3,286;
America, 3,205;
Latin America and the Caribbean, 2,875;
Latin Caribbean countries, 2,593;
United States, 3,754.[18]”
As we can see a massive improvement when compared to the US. It also shows why the collapse of such a gaurentee was so deadly in the immediate post Soviet world.
“Annual suicide deaths per 100,000 population (2003–2005 data) were: Cuba 13.6, Americas 7.7, Latin America and Caribbean 5.8, Latin Caribbean 8.7, United States 10.8.“ Indeed this is an issue.
In the end I still believe that modern Cuba is better as a socialist nation than as a capitalist one. Does that mean it is a perfect place to live? No, but at the very least it isn’t a US puppet whose government is controlled to extract the wealth and life of Cuba to give to US companies and their local cadres as in a historically similar Haiti. Would Cuba be better off if they opened up more to the outside world, most definitely but they have little hope of that given the US embargo. Would they be better off if they reduced the power of the state, of course! However, that is not for me here in the US to decide, but for the Cuban workers and citizens to decide.
“More than 50 years of political enmity separating Cuba and the United States, complicated by a United States embargo prohibiting normal trade in food, medicines and medical equipment, and official programs aiming at regime change on the island, have made it difficult for Cuba’s National Health System (NHS) and its outcomes to be thoughtfully considered by the United States media, the public, or policymakers...” An important point to note, Cuba has been embargoed illegally for decades now leading to multiple shortages in key nessesities.
Yes, they complain that their failures are all the US fault, despite them being spoonfed by the Soviet Union until the Soviet Union fell. They chose a command economy as opposed to a market economy; the US can't be blamed for that.
You keep mentioning how they've prioritized rural communities, but the protests that have occurred throughout the 21st century prove that they are still prioritizing politicians and military officials, especially the protests occurring right now (2021-2024). Watch them blame the US for those too.
It was considered the jewel of the Caribbean and the new world before the dictatorships. You need to only look at all the people who flee that country to see that the view through your "rose tinted glasses" is far from realistic.
Yes, they complain that their failures are all the US fault, despite them being spoonfed by the Soviet Union until the Soviet Union fell. They chose a command economy as opposed to a market economy; the US can't be blamed for that.
You keep mentioning how they've prioritized rural communities, but the protests that have occurred throughout the 21st century prove that they are still prioritizing politicians and military officials, especially the protests occurring right now (2021-2024). Watch them blame the US for those too.
It was considered the jewel of the Caribbean and the new world before the dictatorships. You need to only look at all the people who flee that country to see that the view through your "rose tinted glasses" is far from realistic.
No, all of the failures are not due to the US, however we cannot ignore the material circumstances of the Cuban nation. Name a poor country that can exist without imports and thrive. Name a rich country that can exist without imports and thrive. Cuba has had an embargo placed on it for 60+ years by the USA. An embargo that whenever is brought up by the UN is voted as illegal by the vast super majority of countries, only to be vetoed by the U.S. If it was Britain doing the embargo I would blame Britain, if it was Japan Japan, or if it was Brazil Brazil. But it is not those countries. Cuba is not thriving, but it is better than it was pre revolution. (I will get to that at the end.)
The protests are good, it is also good that they are allowed to happen. Cuba’s municipal system is a gift to the idea of democracy and how its parliament is formed takes that gift and throws it in the incinerator. As long as the protests are to limit the power of the state, to increase democracy and freedom of speech, I am for them.
I take a firm stance against imperialism. India was the Crown Jewel of the British Empire, Cuba was the Crown Jewel of the American one. Before the revolution, it was inherently worse for the average Cuban no matter what. Here is some of the history.
Batista then appointed himself chief of the armed forces, with the rank of colonel, and effectively controlled the five-member "pentarchy" that functioned as the collective head of state. He maintained control through a series of puppet presidents until 1940, when he was elected president on a populist platform.[3][4] He then instated the 1940 Constitution of Cuba[5] and served until 1944. After finishing his term, Batista moved to Florida, returning to Cuba to run for president in 1952. Facing certain electoral defeat, he led a military coup against President Carlos Prío Socarrás that pre-empted the election.[6]
Back in power and receiving financial, military and logistical support from the United States government,[7][8]Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[9] Eventually, it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[10] As such, Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships both with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.[9][11] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activitiessecret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions. These murders mounted in 1957, as socialist ideas became more influential. While exact numbers are unclear, estimates of the death toll attributed to Batista range from hundreds to up to 20,000 victims.
Batista's efforts to quell the unrest proved not only ineffective, but his tactics were the catalyst to even wider resistance against his regime. During this time, revolutionary leaders Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, founders of the July 26th Movement began a resistance campaign that saw a combination of peaceful protests and guerrilla warfare in both rural and urban areas of Cuba between 1956 and 1958. After almost two years of fighting, rebel forces led by Guevara successfully defeated Batista's forces at the Battle of Santa Clara on New Year's Eve, 1958, effectively collapsing the regime. On January 1, 1959, Batista announced his resignation, fleeing the country to the Dominican Republic under the protection of Rafael Trujillo, before settling in Spain, spending the rest of his life in exile until his death in 1973.
I also do not deny that thousands have fled Cuba for a better life. No matter how you look at it, Cuba is a developing country with an authoritarian national government, 100 miles from the richest nation on the planet. I do not blame anyone from fleeing for green pastures and believe we should welcome them as for all other refugees. But let’s be realistic here, the current Cuban people are better off now than if it stayed a ’Banana Republic’ under something similar to the Batista regime. Look at Guatemala, Haiti, and Cuba all similar nations in similar regions with similar modern history. Cuba is more stable and less violent while having a similar amount of corruption in their governments, Cuba is better of as a socialist nation than as a capitalist one. I am having fun with this conversation, but am tired. Continue tomorrow or nah?
No, they were the crown jewel of the new world, not of the US. They never belonged to the US (like Puerto Rico belongs to the US). The US annexed it in 1898 to piss off Spain and gave them their freedom in 1902. They thrived from 1902 to 1952 with free markets.
No, they were the crown jewel of the new world, not of the US. They never belonged to the US (like Puerto Rico belongs to the US). The US annexed it in 1898 to piss off Spain and gave them their freedom in 1902. They thrived from 1902 to 1952 with free markets.
You keep going back to the Batista regime, but the matter of fact is that there was a lot of success before the Batista regime that started in 1952.
I don’t think you understand how modern imperialism works, nonetheless you are extremely wrong on the imperialism front. Cuba had a large economy for the region, that was built from the late 20’s to the early 50’s before it was directly looted by US companies with the help of Batista. Still, that building of the economy was stagnant in the late 40’s and unrest was growing between urban and rural populations. Even then boiling it down to Cuba thrived due to free markets is vastly missing the point and is an oversimplification. Said markets at their best were extremely unstable and only tended to help urban populations.
You can not ignore the Batista regime, because if the revolution didn’t happen that would be the future of Cuba for the long term. Of course you can close your eyes and imagine an ideal world where the 1940’s constitution was never overthrown, and how Cuba would be better today. But it was brutally overthrown. The burgeoning prosperity was looted by Batista and US companies. You cannot ignore that. The only way to believe that the socialist revolution wasn’t better for Cuba, is to believe that the Batista regime wasn’t the direction that Cuba was going in. However with the Cold War and the surge of American backed Latin American Dictators it would be foolish to believe that.
Perhaps you could argue that if Cuba went through a color revolution after the fall of the USSR it might be in a better place. However you could also argue that if there was no US Embargo Cuba would be in a better place. Both are equally ridiculous to use as an argument for/against the socialist government as they both didn’t happen, imo. We would be better off discussing how Cuba might improve in the here and now. However that isn’t the conversation, the conversation is about how pretty much every successful socialist revolution has brought the country in question to a better place than if it hadn’t happened.
Here is a short timeline before the evidence. Cuba gained its independence in 1902 on the premise that the Platt amendment was passed. This amendment specifically allowed the US to intervene militarily and economically in Cuba. The US then intervened directly 4 times in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920. Eventually an anti-imperialist revolution happened in 1933. In 1934 Batista, with the help of the US overthrew the provisional government. With a more social democratic lean the following governments brought Cuba to the height of its pre-Revolutionary economy. However that economy began to stagnate, in the late 40’s, as disparities between rich Cubans and unionized workers against the rest of the Cuban population became more and more stark. In 1952 Batista came into power through a coup d’etat, and was welcomed hesitantly just because of how bad corruption had become. From 1952-1959 Batista led the looting of the Cuban economy while brutally crushing opposition to his rule until he was overthrown.
“Following the defeat of Spain in 1898, the United States remained in Cuba as an occupying power until the Republic of Cuba was formally installed on May 19, 1902. On May 20, 1902, the United States relinquished its occupation authority over Cuba, but claimed a continuing right to intervene in Cuba.”
”Approved on May 22, 1903, the Platt Amendment was a treaty between the U.S. and Cuba that attempted to protect Cuba's independence from foreign intervention. It permitted extensive U.S. involvement in Cuban international and domestic affairs for the enforcement of Cuban independence.”
”The Platt Amendment supplied the terms under which the United States intervened in Cuban affairs in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920. By 1934, rising Cuban nationalism and widespread criticism of the Platt Amendment resulted in its repeal as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy toward Latin America. The United States, however, retained its lease on Guantánamo Bay, where a naval base remains in operation today.”
“On 6 April 1901, the Constituent Assembly rejected the Platt Amendment by a vote of 24 to 2. The United States demanded that this amendment be approved fully and without changes by the Constituent Assembly as an appendix to the new constitution. US Secretary of War Elihu Root told Governor Wood to convey to the Cuban delegates that “they never can have any further government in Cuba, except the intervening Government of the United States, until they have [approved the Platt Amendment].” On 12 June 1901, after heated debate, the Constituent Assembly approved the appendix by a margin of four votes. Wood later admitted privately to US President Roosevelt: "Little or no independence had been left to Cuba with the Platt Amendment and the only thing appropriate was to seek annexation".[96][97]”
“The Second Occupation of Cuba, also known as the Cuban Pacification, was a major US military operation that began in September 1906. After the collapse of Palma's regime, US President Roosevelt invaded and established an occupation that would continue for nearly two and a half years. The stated goal of the operation was to prevent fighting between the Cubans, to protect North American economic interests, and to hold free elections.”
“Three presidents governed Cuba from 1909 to 1925 with little distinction and much corruption. They were José Miguel Gómez (1909–13), Mario García Menocal (1913–21), and Alfredo Zayas y Alfonso (1921–25). During this period the U.S. interfered twice in Cuba and threatened to intervene several more times. During the Gómez administration the country prospered, but charges of corruption in the government rose. The government was accused of giving few offices to Afro-Cubans and also of favoring those who had supported the Spanish cause in the war for independence. Protests by Afro-Cubans against a law prohibiting political organization by race or religion led to a bloody government crackdown that claimed the lives of thousands.”
“Under the Liberal Gómez the participation of Afro-Cubans in the political process was curtailed when the Partido Independiente de Color was outlawed and bloodily suppressed in 1912, as American troops reentered the country to protect the sugar plantations.[103]”
“Menocal’s administration oversaw much material progress, but with prosperity came new charges of government corruption, including accusations of nepotism. Menocal won reelection in 1916 by employing fraud and violence, and, as a result, war broke out against him in February 1917. The rebels had hoped for intervention by the U.S., but it was too occupied with the situation in Europe, and Menocal was able to put down the rebellion.”
“Until 1919 Cuba enjoyed phenomenal prosperity, thanks to the high price of sugar. By 1920, however, a severe financial crisis had struck the country, and, despite a moratorium, many banks and other business concerns went bankrupt. Zayas introduced financial reforms and was given a $50 million loan by the U.S. in January 1923. The economic situation rapidly improved, but charges of corruption against Zayas intensified, and revolts broke out against him, led in part by war veterans.”
“
President Gerardo Machado was elected by popular vote in 1925, but he was constitutionally barred from reelection. Machado, determined to modernize Cuba, set in motion several massive civil works projects such as the Central Highway, but at the end of his constitutional term he held on to power. The United States decided not to interfere militarily. In the late 1920s and early 1930s a number of Cuban action groups staged a series of uprisings that either failed or did not affect the capital.
The Sergeants' Revolt undermined the institutions and coercive structures of the oligarchic state. The young and relatively inexperienced revolutionaries found themselves pushed into the halls of state power by worker and peasant mobilisations. Between September 1933 and January 1934 a loose coalition of radical activists, students, middle-class intellectuals, and disgruntled lower-rank soldiers formed a Provisional Revolutionary Government. This coalition was directed by a popular university professor, Dr Ramón Grau San Martín. The Grau government promised a 'new Cuba' which would belong to all classes, and the abrogation of the Platt Amendment. They believed their legitimacy stemmed from the popular support which brought them to power, and not from the approval of the United States Department of State.
To this end, throughout the autumn of 1933, the government decreed a dramatic series of reforms. The Platt Amendment was unilaterally abrogated, and all the political parties of the Machadato were dissolved. The Provisional Government granted autonomy to the University of Havana, women obtained the right to vote, the eight-hour day was decreed, a minimum wage was established for cane-cutters, and compulsory arbitration was promoted. The government created a Ministry of Labour, and a law was passed establishing that 50 per cent of all workers in agriculture, commerce and industry had to be Cuban citizens. The Grau regime set agrarian reform as a priority, promising peasants legal title to their lands. The Provisional Government survived until January 1934, when it was overthrown by an anti-government coalition of right-wing civilian and military elements. Led by a young mestizo sergeant, Fulgencio Batista, this movement was supported by the United States.[107]” Cuba tried to have a liberal capitalist revolution, while attempting to throw off the yoke of imperialism, but this only lasted a year before the U.S. intervened and overthrew said attempt within a year.
”Batista was endorsed by the Democratic Socialist Coalition and the original Cuban Communist Party (later known as the Popular Socialist Party), which at the time had little significance and no probability of an electoral victory.[26] This support was primarily due to Batista's early advocacy of strengthening labor laws and his support for labor unions, with which the Communists had close ties, as well as the pro-Allied stance in World War II.[27] In fact, Communists attacked the anti-Batista opposition, saying Grau and others were "fascists" and "reactionaries."[28] During this term in office, Batista carried out major social reforms[26] and established numerous economic regulations and pro-union policies.[28“
”
In September 1933 he organized the “sergeants’ revolt”; it toppled the provisional regime of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, which had replaced the dictatorial regime of Gerardo Machado y Morales. In the process Batista became the most powerful man in Cuba and the country’sde facto leader.
An astute judge of men, Batista preferred to consolidate his control through patronage rather than terror. He cultivated the support of the army, the civil service, and organized labour. Ruling through associates the first few years, he was elected president in 1940. While greatly enriching himself, he also governed the country most effectively, expanding the educational system, sponsoring a huge program of public works, and fostering the growth of the economy.”
“
In 1944, Batista's handpicked successor, Carlos Saladrigas Zayas,[31] was defeated by Grau. In the final months of his presidency, Batista sought to handicap the incoming Grau administration. In a July 17, 1944, dispatch to the U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Ambassador Spruille Braden wrote:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that President Batista intends to discomfit the incoming Administration in every way possible, particularly financially. A systematic raid on the Treasury is in full swing with the result that Dr. Grau will probably find empty coffers when he takes office on October 10. It is blatant that President Batista desires that Dr. Grau San Martin should assume obligations which in fairness and equity should be a matter of settlement by the present Administration.[32]
”
“During the eight years that he was out of power in Cuba, there was a resurgence of corruption on a grand scale, as well as a virtual breakdown of public services. His return to power, through a bloodless military coup that deposed Pres. Carlos Prío Socarrás in March 1952, was widely welcomed. But he returned as a brutal dictator, controlling the university, the press, and the Congress, and he embezzled huge sums from the soaring economy. In 1954 and ’58 the country held presidential elections that, though purportedly “free,” were manipulated to make Batista the sole candidate.”
“Rather than endorsing Batista's hand-picked successor Carlos Zayas, the Cuban people elected Ramón Grau San Martín in 1944. Grau made a deal with labor unions to continue Batista's pro-labor policies.[111] Grau's administration coincided with the end of World War II, and he presided over an economic boom as sugar production expanded and prices rose. He instituted programs of public works and school construction, increasing social security benefits and encouraging economic development and agricultural production. However, increased prosperity brought increased corruption and urban violence.[111][112] The country was also steadily gaining a reputation as a base for organized crime, with the Havana Conference of 1946 seeing leading Mafia mobsters descend upon the city.[113]
Grau's presidency was followed by that of Carlos Prío Socarrás, whose government was tainted by increasing corruption and violent incidents among political factions. Eduardo Chibás – the leader of the Partido Ortodoxo (Orthodox Party), a nationalist group – was widely expected to win in 1952 on an anticorruption platform. However, Chibás committed suicide before he could run, and the opposition was left without a unifying leader.[114] Batista seized power in an almost bloodless coup. President Prío was forced to leave Cuba. Due to the corruption of the previous two administrations, the general public reaction to the coup was somewhat accepting at first. However, Batista soon encountered stiff opposition when he temporarily suspended balloting and the 1940 constitution, and attempted to rule by decree. Nonetheless, elections were held in 1954 and Batista was re-elected under disputed circumstances.[115]”
”In 1952, while receiving military, financial, and logistical support from the United States,[127][128] Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[129] Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[130] Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with both the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinationalcompanies who were awarded lucrative contracts.[129][131] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activitiessecret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions. Estimates range from hundreds to about 20,000 people killed.[132][133][134][135]”
“Upon his seizure of power, Batista inherited a country that was relatively prosperous for Latin America. According to Batista's government, although a third of Cubans still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in the region.[39] In the 1950s, Cuba's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly equal to that of Italy at the time, although still only a sixth of that of the United States.[40] Moreover, although corruption and inequality were rife under Batista, Cuban industrial workers' wages rose significantly. In 1953, the average Cuban family only had an income of $6.00 a week, 15% to 20% of the labor force was chronically unemployed, and only a third of the homes had running water.[41][40] Despite this, according to the International Labour Organization, the average industrial salary in Cuba became the world's eighth-highest in 1958, and the average agricultural wage was higher than some European nations (although, according to one sample from 1956 to 1957, agricultural workers could only find employment for an average of 123 days per year while farm owners, rural tenants and sharecroppers worked an average of only 135 days per year).[42]”
“In 1951 the World Bank reported that between 80 and 90% of children in rural areas suffered from some form of intestinal parasites, in 1956 about 13% of the rural population had a history of typhoid and 14% at one point had tuberculosis.[37] A study conducted in 1959 by public health authorities found that throughout the country around 72% of the population was afflicted with parasitism and in the rural areas this percentage was as high as 86.54%.[36] Only 11% of farm worker families drank milk, and rural infant mortality stood at 100 per 1000 live births.[38] Only 1 in 4 peasants were able to afford regularly eating meat, eggs and fish and chronic unemployment was at 25%.[39] Cuba was a very unequal society with a mere 8% of landowners owning approximately 75% of the land, and while one-fifth of the population took in 58% of the national income, the bottom fifth got 2% of it, the lowest rates for the bottom 20% in the world then and even now.[40]”
“In 1958, Cuba was a relatively well-advanced country by Latin American standards, and in some cases by world standards.[42] On the other hand, Cuba was affected by perhaps the largest labor union privileges in Latin America, including bans on dismissals and mechanization. They were obtained in large measure "at the cost of the unemployed and the peasants", leading to disparities.[43] Between 1933 and 1958, Cuba extended economic regulations enormously, causing economic problems.[26][44] Unemployment became a problem as graduates entering the workforce could not find jobs.[26] The middle class, which was comparable to that of the United States, became increasingly dissatisfied with unemployment and political persecution. The labor unions supported Batista until the very end.[26][27]Batista stayed in power until he was forced into exile in December 1958 during the Cuban Revolution.[33]”
“
At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands—almost all the cattle ranches—90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions—80 percent of the utilities—practically all the oil industry—and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports.
— John F. Kennedy[41]
“Earl E.T. Smith, former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, testified to the U.S. Senate in 1960 that, "Until Castro, the U.S. was so overwhelmingly influential in Cuba that the American ambassador was the second most important man, sometimes even more important than the Cuban president."[55]”
I'm not ignoring the Batista regime; I correctly stated that Cuba was thriving under the free markets rather than the command economy, regardless of whether it was Batista or Castro. Yes, workers and unions would sometimes need to knock down the rich industrialists a peg, but that was much easier than now when they're actively protesting the military and sometimes getting shot at, like in 2021.
I'm not ignoring the Batista regime; I correctly stated that Cuba was thriving under the free markets rather than the command economy, regardless of whether it was Batista or Castro. Yes, workers and unions would sometimes need to knock down the rich industrialists a peg, but that was much easier than now when they're actively protesting the military and sometimes getting shot at, like in 2021.
It is easier for them to protest now than it was under Batista, which was the state prior to the revolution. Cuba now is better off than it was under Batista, that is my full argument. It would definitely be better off if it was more democratic and open. We can criticize the personality cult and laud the people standing up to it, but we don’t live in Cuba so it is not for us to decide that is a decision for the Cuban workers and citizens.
I am aware, like I said multiple times now. It was also better before Batista under the free markets than it was under Castro. You're using the existence of one dictatorship to justify the other one; I'm saying both were horrible. The people oppressed aren't thinking, "Thank God that my oppressor has a different last name."
You know exactly what happened to the citizens who opposed Castro; they didn't just lose an election and wait till the next one; they were gotten rid of.
I am aware, like I said multiple times now. It was also better before Batista under the free markets than it was under Castro. You're using the existence of one dictatorship to justify the other one; I'm saying both were horrible. The people oppressed aren't thinking, "Thank God that my oppressor has a different last name."
Which will never happen under a command economy, even without the sanctions.
You know exactly what happened to the citizens who opposed Castro; they didn't just lose an election and wait till the next one; they were gotten rid of.
As for your first point. No, all I am saying is it is better than if Batista stayed in power.
As for your second point. Which is why there are only two socialist command countries. Cuba and North Korea.
As for your third point. It is for the people of Cuba to decide. I can’t decide if they go for electoralisim, a revolution, or something in between. That isn’t for us to decide but for the Cuban workers and citizens to decide.
I can’t decide if they go for electoralisim, a revolution, or something in between. That isn’t for us to decide but for the Cuban workers and citizens to decide.
I will and have only defended it from imperial ideas like it was better under Batista, which was a miscommunication. That is why I will rarely defend the actions of any state, they all kill/imprison dissidents to some degree.
I've met Americans who criticize the US; I've met Mexicans who criticize Mexico; I've met Canadians who criticize Canada; I've met Germans who criticize Germany; and Spaniards who criticize Spain. All in their home countries, and they're safe from persecution for expressing their dissatisfaction. I can't say the same for the Cubans who've remained in Cuba.
I've met Americans who criticize the US; I've met Mexicans who criticize Mexico; I've met Canadians who criticize Canada; I've met Germans who criticize Germany; and Spaniards who criticize Spain. All in their home countries, and they're safe from persecution for expressing their dissatisfaction. I can't say the same for the Cubans who've remained in Cuba.
To my understanding in Cuba you can criticize the government, so long as you don’t try to change things, ie protest, strike, create dual power systems, etc. You could technically run in opposition in a local election, but the only way people would know that is if they read the single piece of paper you are allowed when campaigning. Even then if you step out of line a tiny bit you would probably be arrested. Cuba is more repressive than most western nations, besides maybe Russia.
en.wikipedia.org
