I agree. It's absolutely insane to side with Castro. Even if you agree with his political philosophy, there is overwhelming objective evidence of how awful it is:
- Cuban economy
- Cuban quality of life
- basic Cuban freedoms (like supporting parties other than the one in power)
Considering economic sanctions and political isolation in the region, it actually appears they're not doing too bad actually, eh?
With economics and politics, the story is always more complicated than it appears, and science can't save us, so we should be hesitant to form strong opinions. I'm just supporting open-minded thinking, not saying I agree with everything Castro/Cuba (I don't).
People complaining about low metrics in Cuba (quality of life, income, etc.). When being offered other metrics as counterpoints (like life expectancy) they conveniently dismiss it as being made up by the state. Really Cuba can't win.
Actual communism tends to keep wealth fairly uniform.
Cuba's Gini coefficient is fairly low, at around 0.38 in 2000 [1], although the data quality might be poor. Most of Latin America is substantially less equal. The US's was around 0.4-0.45 during that time frame [2].
That's the same for any country, not just Cuba. The wealth distribution of the US or any other western society is not evenly distributed and the pay gap is growing even more rapidly.
Ok let's take GDP numbers at face value and let's assume this says much about daily life.
Basically, you're stating that 50+ years of Marxist order imposed by the Castro regime has managed to keep up with countries plagued by 50+ years of general chaos in the form of pathologically corrupt regimes, nepotism, inflation, rampant violent crime, civil war, guerilla movements and narcoterrorism.
Hmmm... I will contemplate the US embargo argument tonight, as I light up one of my precious Cuban cigars to honor the old commie bastard and to celebrate this great achievement of dialectical materialism. Hasta la victoria siempre!
People in communist countries trade in some of the classical liberties, to make a higher level of economic planning possible.
In one form or another, this is the “trade-off” believed in by most genuine communists. The classical liberties are just a lie anyway, and this trade-off will result in a kind of progress and general wellbeing that would far surpass anything seen in backwards, private capital-oriented economies driven by the profit motive.
Castro was not like Pol Pot or the Kim dynasty. The Cuban regime had a shot at enforcing progress for 50+ years. Cuba appears reasonably stable; although the real test of this will come in the post-regime era. It has managed to keep some of its charm, despite truly being a police state.
But some people here on HN are suggesting Cuba is not doing so badly (and by extension, the trade-off proposed by communism), because Cuba’s self-stated numbers have kept up with countries that are plagued by bouts of deep, crippling political and social malaise.
I think that’s a terrible argument for obvious reasons. Especially in the case of GDP and in light of what most communists believe their system can achieve. The comparison just proves there are many ways you can screw a population.
So once again: why does pointing this out have to get downvoted?
And for the record, about the embargo: I am staring at Cuban cigars right now. I will light one up tonight to honor Castro, because as far as commie bastards go, he wasn’t the worst.
Both are way better than most Latin American countries that US has meddled with and have friendly terms with. And they would be even better if it wasn't for the embargo and the whole cold war play against Cuba.
>- basic Cuban freedoms (like supporting parties other than the one in power)
Like being able to support two parties that alternate in power, like you are free to do in the US?
>Like being able to support two parties that alternate in power, like you are free to do in the US?
My point is that Castro kills people who support opposition parties. You aren't free to support parties other than the one in power if you are in Cuba.
> basic Cuban freedoms (like supporting parties other than the one in power)
To be fair in the US there are also attacks for supporting political parties. Yes it's a different degree of extremism entirely.
For example the terrorist/riot/civil activist group (whatever you want to call them) By Any Means Necessary violently attacked white nationalist parties (they claim they're not white nationalists, but media says they are, I don't know anything about them beyond that) at rallies without legal consequence. No I'm not defending white nationalists, I'm defending right to assembly. What I'm saying is that if that's your argument for why Cuba is terrible then it's not consistent unless you are making the same argument about America as well. If you just happen to agree that they're a "bad party," so you it's OK here, not there, that's exactly what authoritarian government is.
Claiming Cuba and the US are comparable in the respect is absurd. Castro killed thousands of his own civilians to stay in power. Here in the US, you can literally disavow the president (c.f. #NotMyPresident) without any consequence.
>To be fair in the US there are also attacks for supporting political parties.
There is a HUGE difference between your government killing you for your political beliefs and a member of the opposing political party "attacking" you for your political beliefs. People break the law all the time. It's a whole other level of unfair when the government murders you.
I would never trade the freedoms I have in the US for the "freedoms" seen in Cuba.
I agree with you, but if your argument for why Cuba is bad is based on a principle that you can be oppressed for political views, then you should still be consistent about it and not selectively apply that principle to only Cuba.
Even if it's only a minority that is being oppressed, and even if both you and I don't agree with their awful politics, it doesn't make it any less wrong to attack them.
- Cuban economy
- Cuban quality of life
- basic Cuban freedoms (like supporting parties other than the one in power)