Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If your entire life is defined by the car you drive.
Cuba was a hell hole under Batista. Under communism the Cubans have a quality of life that's substantially better than many Latin American countries. They have universal health care and a better baseball program than the United States.
I have to strongly disagree. The only thing under Batista is you had a rich class and a poor class. This caused disenchantment of course with the poor, and finally revolution. Under Castro you have one class now - ALL POOR (well you have the rich communist party members, but that is limited). Weather the current poor are worse than the Batista poor is a matter of opinion. But - it's evident, there is no middle or upper class making a good income with disposable income for luxuries (and you see this, at least, in the other S. and Central American countries). The disenchantment, well, you don't have the poor looking at the rich and middle class in jelousy, and the party has ways of handling that. Still - the number of people traveling to the US in bathtubs shows that many are not happy with life in Cuba.
Cuba has always been a state that was propped up, just barely, with Soviet Russia support. It was basically a welfare state. How it has survived when that ended is a testemant to Castro's cult of personality. When Castro dies, expect the regime to collapse.
Their health care leaves alot to be desired, free?, yeah. But it's not the paradise pictured by one of Michael Moore's agenda-based documentaries. Picture hospitals with soiled unchanged beds, 2 or 3 to a bed, obsolete medical equipment, lack of sanitation, cockroaches on the floors, etc. Again, party members get better
treatement.
As to the original topic - well someone pointed out that there is no country that has ever been total communism, no more than the US is a total democracy (i.e. - more like representative republic). China and Vietnam has taken a step away from communism for instance - allowing more private ownership and capitalistic qualities. Still, even in China's case - compare China to Taiwan, or it's semi-autonomous district of Hong Kong?
The first distinction is that no country has truly ever reached the point of becoming definably "communist". Many have tried and they have collapsed along the way.
The biggest issue is that communism was never intended to be a system for us in an undeveloped country. Marx's ideal of communism was meant to be applied to a post-industrial nation like Britain, Germany or the United States where industrialization was already complete.
However, it has only been attempted in countries that were grossly underdeveloped when the push for "communism" began. In that light I would say there were several examples of succesful communist countries mainly Russia and China. In a relatively short period of time these countries were able to change from a peasant agrarian economy into industrial states and in the case of Russia a global superpower. The main problem is that they were never able to fully transition to a communist state do to various influences. In the case of Russia the system collapsed and in the case of China they moved to a more capitalistic system to fuel further growth.
I have to strongly disagree. The only thing under Batista is you had a rich class and a poor class. This caused disenchantment of course with the poor, and finally revolution. Under Castro you have one class now - ALL POOR (well you have the rich communist party members, but that is limited). Weather the current poor are worse than the Batista poor is a matter of opinion. But - it's evident, there is no middle or upper class making a good income with disposable income for luxuries (and you see this, at least, in the other S. and Central American countries). The disenchantment, well, you don't have the poor looking at the rich and middle class in jelousy, and the party has ways of handling that. Still - the number of people traveling to the US in bathtubs shows that many are not happy with life in Cuba.
The question was states countries that are better off communist than where they were before. Let's stick to that construct.
Cuban poor under Batista were essentially serf to the major fruit and cane companies. The police state was reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Under communism the Cubans have a per capita GDP of $4900/year, which put the above the Dominican Republic, Belize, Peru, Jamaica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and many others. The are 39th on the World Health organization ranking of countries, where the US is 37th.
You have some typical and shallow American beliefs of Cuba, but the facts don't support your baseless assertions.
Last edited by rhinestone; 06-10-2010 at 04:02 PM..
The question was states that are better off communist than where they were before. Let's stick to that construct.
Cuban poor under Batista were essentially serf to the major fruit and cane companies. The police state was reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Under communism the Cubans have a per capita GDP of $4900/year, which put the above the Dominican Republic, Belize, Peru, Jamaica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and many others. The are 39th on the World Health organization ranking of countries, where the US is 37th.
You have some typical and shallow American beliefs of Cuba, but the facts don't support your baseless assertions.
Shallow american beliefs? Ooookay, we know where this is leading...
How is this for assertions - under Batista Cuba had a lower infant mortality rate than most of wester europe. Now, it does not. Yes - health care has gotten worse. Literacy rates have decreased. Under Batista - Cuba ranked third in food consumption for latin american countries. Standard of living on average was higher under Batista. Havana was a rich thriving metropolitan city. They had a thriving middle class. Sure, it had problems, but we are comparing third world countries to each other. This wasn't Haiti under Batista, it was a technologically advanced country, it was a relatively rich country, this had the potential to be a stable succesful country such as Costa Rica. Castro inherited a rich country by 3rd world standards. Look what it is now. Imagine what it could be now without Batista if they cleaned up their act without Castro and the Soviet Russian puppet state. Human rights under the Castro? You want me to post some Anmesty International report on this? It's still a police state, let's be frank. See, you make the typical mistake of comparing it to other countries, rather than comparing the Cuba of today to what was, or what it could be.
Castro brought some social reforms, lets agree on that. But at what price? Soviet presence payed for those reforms, and now they money is gone. And you are left with a classless society without hope for prosperity.
Baseless? All the above can be supported by US State Department Bureau of Inter American Affairs statistics.
China yes...Cuba not so much...57 Chevys grow tired after this many years. Also talk to the refugees and ask them how fine it is? And China today is capitalist in business....somewhat totalitarian in government.
Last edited by Pretzelogik; 06-10-2010 at 04:05 PM..
Reason: content
Shallow american beliefs? Ooookay, we know where this is leading...
How is this for assertions - under Batista Cuba had a lower infant mortality rate than most of wester europe. Now, it does not. Yes - health care has gotten worse. Literacy rates have decreased. Under Batista - Cuba ranked third in food consumption for latin american countries. Standard of living on average was higher under Batista. Havana was a rich thriving metropolitan city. They had a thriving middle class. Sure, it had problems, but we are comparing third world countries to each other. This wasn't Haiti under Batista, it was a technologically advanced country, it was a relatively rich country, this had the potential to be a stable succesful country such as Costa Rica. Castro inherited a rich country by 3rd world standards. Look what it is now. Imagine what it could be now without Batista if they cleaned up their act without Castro and the Soviet Russian puppet state. Human rights under the Castro? You want me to post some Anmesty International report on this? It's still a police state, let's be frank. See, you make the typical mistake of comparing it to other countries, rather than comparing the Cuba of today to what was, or what it could be.
Castro brought some social reforms, lets agree on that. But at what price? Soviet presence payed for those reforms, and now they money is gone. And you are left with a classless society without hope for prosperity.
Baseless? All the above can be supported by US State Department Bureau of Inter American Affairs statistics.
See link but what you might perceive as a biased report, but it is well supported (UN factbook), full of boring charts and statistics of comparing 1957 to 2000. It's enlightening to see that all countries everywhere are getting better - the results in increasing technology and production rates. It's best to approach this as comparing rate of growth and regional standings to other latin american countries to see "what could have been" without Castro.
Infant mortality - All countries show improvement due to technology. Pre-castro - Cuba was equivalent to Western Europe, now they are falling behind.
Education - Cuba even before Castro was 4th among latin american countries. Now they are 2nd. This has improved, but the precentage of improvement cannot compare to other developing latin american countries.
Food consumption - not clear from the chart but Cuba ranks last overall in daily caloric consumption increase.
Automobiles - As has been discussed. The only country on the charts that has actually decreased automobile usage.
Electricity - fallen from 8th to 11th in latin american rankings.
Export growth - fallen to last place (yeah yeah, blame it on the evil US boycott).
Mass Media - no longer reported by UN statistics. But in pre-Castro Cuba had more television stations than any other latin american country. Now I would guess they have one station, Fidel TV.
See link but what you might perceive as a biased report, but it is well supported (UN factbook), full of boring charts and statistics of comparing 1957 to 2000. It's enlightening to see that all countries everywhere are getting better - the results in increasing technology and production rates. It's best to approach this as comparing rate of growth and regional standings to other latin american countries to see "what could have been" without Castro.
If I look at the Un Health Development Index Cuba ranks 51st in the total world, 8th in the Americas.
Infant mortality - All countries show improvement due to technology. Pre-castro - Cuba was equivalent to Western Europe, now they are falling behind.
No Cuba is better off than comparable Latin American countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Education - Cuba even before Castro was 4th among latin american countries. Now they are 2nd. This has improved, but the precentage of improvement cannot compare to other developing latin american countries.
Yeah and the benefits before Castro were confined to the upper class
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Food consumption - not clear from the chart but Cuba ranks last overall in daily caloric consumption increase.
The statistics clearly show that Cubans get an adequate diet. More calories isn't a benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Automobiles - As has been discussed. The only country on the charts that has actually decreased automobile usage.
You got me there. Cuba doesn't get new GM cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Electricity - fallen from 8th to 11th in latin american rankings.
So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Export growth - fallen to last place (yeah yeah, blame it on the evil US boycott).
Again, so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Mass Media - no longer reported by UN statistics. But in pre-Castro Cuba had more television stations than any other latin american country. Now I would guess they have one station, Fidel TV.
Also talk to the refugees and ask them how fine it is? .
Refugees??? Good Lord, talk to refugees from Norway, and and ask them how fine it is. Do you think a refugee is a reliable objective reporter of conditions in his former country?
Castro has been a thorn in the side of the US since 1959. At every turn he has given us the middle finger whenever the opportunity presented itself....from the 1961 missile crisis right up to this past year when he dumped dollars on the market for the euro. He has always taken a dangerous and unproductive path for Cuba and almost leading the world to nuclear war thru his actions. He should have taken a cue from Tito about how to play both sides of the fence and gain advantage for his nation.
From the start he should have been trying to maintain friendly relations with both superpowers to make it hard for either side to gain domination of Cuba. He was a very impatient man and unwilling to take the right steps needed to foster economic growth in the early days of his rule. and far too unwilling to compromise his ideals. The US needed more time to evaluate Castro before establishing closer relations with him. His visit to New York went over like the carpet stains he left behind in that hole in the wall he stayed at (the one he supplied the holes for). Had he exercised more tact and patience in the early days......if not Eisenhower, then Kennedy would have opened relations with him.
Who had easy travel access to Cuba and money to spend there, the Americans or all those wealthy Russian tourists flying about the world in those days? Shutting down all the hotels and casinos and driving away US tourists was just plain stupid. He was able to raise an army to overthrow Batista, can't imagine it being that hard to keep the maffia activity confined to their hotel district and take his cut from Meyer Lansky (whom was very flexable on the terms). Of course Castro would have been in the right to force them to allow Cuban locals (that were not vagrants) to enter the casino and spend their money like the out of town guests. Laws against prostitution could have been enacted and enforced if that was a problem that Fidel was concerned with.
Fidel did not have to nationalize all of the sugar plantations, he could have negotiated with United Fruit to gain better wages for the workers thru strikes or other means. He could have hinted to the land owners that nationalization was an option if they refused to pay fair wages and taxes on their land, and gave them more time to reconsider. Also making sure the terms he offered would still make it worthwhile for United Fruit to continue production in Cuba.
Instead he hastened a massive brain drain to Miami, chasing away the elites that could have boosted the economy, preventing those bathtub sailboats that came along later. He did not have to devote precious national resources fighting wars in Africa, while cuban living standards were going down the toilet along with the USSR. He promoted drug trafficing and caused mischief for all the Americas, North, Central and South.
Castro was lucky Nixon lost the 1960 election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
