Hacker News Reader

> Looking at the next-island neighbors in Haiti, or any number of comparable African countries, it seems the Cubans got the better deal.

Why didn't you compared Cuba before the coup, and after Fidel Castro established his dictatorship?

Comparing Cuba to one of the lowest developed nations on earth, particularly while ignoring the other half of the island (Dominican republic) is a tad disingenuous.

>Why didn't you compared Cuba before the coup

Does this sound better?

Back in power, 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.[4] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large US-based multinationals who were awarded lucrative contracts.[4][5] 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 Activities to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from hundreds to 20,000 people.[6][7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

I'm also not a "fan" of Castro and don't identify with socialist politics, but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo.

You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison.

For example, there was a story posted on HN long ago about a Soviet dissident who had his life ruined because he was known to be a dissident. They didn't imprison him and torture him, they just got him fired, made sure he couldn't find any but the most menial work, discredited him, etc. Would we say that it was his fault for adopting a pro-Western position? That it was "his policies" that ruined his life, family? Or that an external force opposed to his views and more powerful than him punished him for his views?

> but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo.

Seems to be a direct consequence of Fidel Castro's political initiatives. I'm sure we can agree that Castro's regime has at least some responsibilities in this outcome.

> You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison.

That assumption is rather disingenuous. There's a clear before/after period in Cuba. I'm sure you agree that Fidel Castro is the direct responsible for this revolution. If he is responsible for this change, what exactly leads you to believe that he holds no responsibility in any negative consequence that arose naturally from his direct political actions and planning?

Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising". They are quite obviously very different consequences compared to pollution or traffic jams following heavy car subsidies.

> Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising".

So, you believe that the Cuban missile crisis was yet another misunderstanding that Fidel Castro had absolutely no say in the subject, do you?

What an unfortunate saint, Fidel Castro has been. Those countless political asylum-seekers risking their lives in makeshift boats must be a whole bunch of ungrateful fools for not enjoying living in Castro's paradise on earth.

No, that is obviously a mischaracterization of my statement. Not only is the missile crisis a quite separate event than the imposition of sanctions, I was not discussing the agency of Castro but your assertion that the US had no agency over its foreign policy towards Cuba once Castro had power.

>comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo.

How is the fact that they've done relatively well in spite of the embargo supposed to make the comparison not fair?

The one word I'd like to quibble with here is "comparable".

Cuba was twice as rich as Haiti (see graph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba#/media/File:GD... for example) even before the revolution and had a lot more social capital. Yes, there was a good bit of inequality. Yes, the Batista regime was not great in all sorts of ways. But I expect Cuba would have been better off than Haiti even without the revolution happening.

What African countries are you thinking of that you consider comparable to Cuba in 1958?

Fully agreed on your last paragraph, though.

Comparing it to Haiti is pretty unfair, Haiti has long been the poorest country in the Americas.

Legitimate question, was the Soviet Union subsidising Cuba during the Cold War (besides military protection) ?

Yes, when the Soviet Union collapsed Cuba went through a huge economic contraction including food shortages. Without virtually no international trade whatsoever, they had to become completely self-sufficient for all the goods and expertise they needed.

Trade is not subsidy. Is China subsidizing the USA?

The economic relationship between Cuba and the Soviet Union was not entirely subsidy, nor entirely trade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_rela...

The United States subsidizes many government within its sphere of influence, too. In turn it also trades with them and gains significant sway over the economic affairs of those countries for the benefit of US markets. Cuba had none of this for the last 25 or so years.

Compare Cuba when he took over to Cuba now: the first a reasonably prosperous country (on a par with Southern Europe), the second a poor, stagnant third world nation.

You are asking for racial theories to come out when you compare Cuba to Haiti. I would stay away from doing that.

>with a superpower fixated on killing you (and ruining you economy) next door

Look at how awful the quality of life in Cuba is today. Look at its people's lack of basic freedoms. Look at its awful economy. The US tried to save Cuba from itself.

Like I said: Compared to Haiti, or Venezuela, or Panama, or Simbabwe, or Ruanda, they did pretty well. Depending on the point in time over the last 50 years and your position in society, even Mexico (Drug wars, now), Argentina (during the dictatorship), or Brasil (born into the wrong class, today) may not be clearly superior in every regard.

I've been to Cuba, and life there is somewhat boring, and the standard of living is obviously low. But it's not the kind of poverty you seen many other countries. No starving old people and children in the streets, also no gang violence ruling your block.

Streetlife in general seemed quite happy – old people playing chess, young girls playing soccer (in school uniforms, no less), groups of three or four neighbors fixing one of those old cars etc.

Now it sounds too much like glorification – I also listened to 6 hours of Castro's labor day sermon in 2003 and most people around me felt I was insane for attending it voluntarily – they only went because somebody, somewhere had to check their name of a list or they may get into trouble. That's a price I wouldn't be willing to pay.

I hope Cuba will find a way to preserve a bit of what made it bearable in its worst times.

Why not compare to the Dominican Republic, say? That seems like a much closer comparison in so many ways - capitalism under a ruthless dictator, a long history of US intervention etc.

I'm with you up until "the US tried to save Cuba from itself". Castro was an awful dictator but the US embargo not only didn't save Cuba from itself, it made things worse for ordinary Cuban citizens. I wouldn't be proud of it.

And a lot of people would argue that the most awful part of Cuba today is still the Guantanamo of Bush.

Like how US saved Haiti and Libya and Iraq, right?

More like how it saved South Korea. Saving usually hasn't worked, but that's one clear counterexample.

It didn't try to "save" South Korea from itself it tried to build it up into an industrial bulwark against the Soviet Union.

> Like how US saved Haiti and Libya and Iraq, right?

Libya was a NATO intervention that was pushed and led by France, specifically Sarkozy's government.

It also ended up a lot better than non-intervention in Syria. Although make no mistake, the USA is blamed for both anyway.

There is still civil war in Libya, it barely gets any mentioning so I don't know how much less the killings are.

Furthermore, non-intervention only meant no actual American troops in Syria, not staying out of the conflict: the US has funded, armed and trained much of the opposition from the start of the conflict, and US made and supplied anti-tank weapons are prominent in the rebels ability to counter the armoured forces of the Syrian army.

Victims of Libyan conflicts are still counted in thousands (which is huge still when viewed alone), and there is no refugee crisis thus far.

Any of the US involvement to Syria beyond verbal support occurred only years into the conflict, and even then it was minimal compared to meddling of Turkey, Arab states or Russia.

> It also ended up a lot better than non-intervention in Syria.

It ended marginally better because NATO's intervention decisively tipped the scales against Gaddafi's regime.

The Syrian civil war has been in a stalemate for years, and only recently has Assad's regime been making inroads due to Russia's decisive and no-holds-barred military intervention.

If by marginally we mean a difference of half million dead and three million seeking refuge, I beg to disagree.

And yes Syria is an intangible mess now, probably the same would have been in Lybia if it was left to own civil war for 5 more years.

> If by marginally we mean a difference of half million dead and three million seeking refuge, I beg to disagree.

Now, factor in the fact that Libya is now a failed state and the refugee crisis is largely caused by human traffickers using Libya as a staging area to send those countless lifeboats packed with countless unwitting victims, a great number of which end up dead in the Mediterranean.

The cause of the current refugee crisis is not Libya, this is really creative interpretation of the results of Syria non-intervention policy.

The tail gave the dog horrible tremors indeed.

And Germany and Japan. If the U.S. Had a bit of sanity they could have saved Iraq if they were willing to accept that it should have been split into three countries rather than a pointless attempt to create a country that inky existed as part of the British/French carving up the middle East.

this is a good point. i dont think you can really call the us good guys here (or cuba, for that matter)

There are no good guys. There are just interest. The US protects its interests. Embargo on oil exports to the US? Fuck up your whole region so bad that this can't happen again. Divide and concur. Communism on its shore? Well, nobody goes on this forsaken place or else...

That's how you keep power and that's why you have such a high standard of living. You think it's because you work hard but it's not. At least not primarily.

The US has a long history of sponsoring violent coups. I don't think you get to talk about 'saving' anyone.

The problem with the US model is it leaves no room for other/different ideas. It is all consuming. Now that it has no competition to keep itself in check it is well on the way to consuming itself.

No competition? Look again, this is not 1990 any more.