.
- Cuban economy
- Cuban quality of life
- basic Cuban freedoms (like supporting parties other than the one in power)
Mexico $9,909 Guatamala $3,666 Honduras $2,495
I'd say Cuba is in the mix GDP-wise.
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).
That does not mean anything if the wealth is not well distributed (which is the case when elites keep the wealth and everyone else is poor).
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].
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-reform-inequality-idU...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
USA: 78.74 years
Cuba: 79.07 years
Sometimes financial crises can force lifestyle changes for the better.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/how-cubans...
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.
"Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
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?
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.
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.
>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.
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
I'm not arguing Castro was a saint, far from it. But you cannot lay blame of the suffering of Cuba at the feet of Castro only.
It's crucial to remember that Castro silenced all who disagreed with him. He condemned an entire nation to poverty! His most notable achievement with regards to Africa was sending soldiers to extend the life of wars.
It's stripped of the insults to those that disagree with you and complaints of down voting. In my experience users on HN will down vote tone more often than they will down vote disagreement.
I agree it doesn't have the punch of your original post. I don't have much experience writing emotionally charged comments, though I'm sure there are ways of doing that without resorting to insults.
It sounds like you may have some personal stories to share. These would definitely add to the power of your comment, if you chose to include them.
That's more because of the embargo than anything Cubans did. And even given that, they do way better than most latin american "free" nations.
>His most notable achievement with regards to Africa was sending soldiers to extend the life of wars.
Let's not go into which country, besides Germany and USSR, started more wars, meddled in more places, held more peopls down by installing friendly dictators in power, and caused more hurt in the 20th/21st century...
The embargo was with the US. Other countries (as long as the company doesn't do business in the US) were free to trade with Cuba.
Sure the embargo didn't help, but the poor state of the Cuba economy mostly lies at the feet of the Castro.
I just have to ask, does communism require trading with capitalist nations to be successful? Because there are many nations under embargo by the US that are significantly more prosperous.
But clearly, when Marx was talking about a communist revolution he clearly meant that you should allow yourself to be exploited by your nearest capitalist neighbor.
You keep on going back to this. No, they don't. But an island nation does. It's ridiculously hard to produce literally all the things your country needs when it's 100x smaller than the US, and it's even harder when you have no land borders. Trading with other nations becomes ridiculously important at that point.
HN is a place to gratify one's intellectual curiosity. Part of the fabric of the community is that we engage in a civil, substantive way. There are various topics that don't always make that easy, but it's important that we try.
There is only 1 ideology responsible for killing more than 100 million people in the existence of human civilization. Try considering that for a second.
We will likely not understand what Fidel has done to the Cuban people for a few more decades but I will take the role of oracle and tell you. 100 years from now Cuba will still be poor and it will still be an inexpensive tourist destination for rich white people from Canada and Europe.
If you're curious about the philosophy here, have a look at https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
The decisive difference between HN and other sites is that here, it almost doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you express your beliefs in a thoughtful and constructive way. You can still challenge beliefs you disagree with. But if you're looking to express outrage or if you're showing up to do ideological battle, you should be aware that it won't be tolerated here.
Please understand, HN has been around for about a decade. The community is the sole distinction between here and other sites. And as soon as the community consists of people commenting in anger rather than in thoughtful critique, the more thoughtful people will move elsewhere. We have to make it a priority to defend ourselves from that outcome.
Try to have the spirit of being among trusted friends, searching for the truth in a topic. It's not easy, especially when someone says something controversial. But HN is all about good conversation. That doesn't mean you have to be nice, but it means you have to be thoughtful and substantive. It's almost always better to say nothing than to convey anger.
What is misleading about anything I've just stated? Because that is one of the requirements for something to be propaganda.
HN is a place for discussions. That means being open to people having ideas other than your own, and acknowledging that those ideas may have merit. You don't have to agree with them; I don't agree with everything said on HN. That said, you do have to be open to accepting that others have different viewpoints and that they're not crazy for doing so.
That's why there's policies in place for civil commenting, and the like. To foster a discussion between people with potentially opposing viewpoints without devolving into a personally-charged argument.
Tons of people have lost their entire life because of US actions. And in places the US had no role to be at all, to boot.
It's beyond double standards...
If you really are as sick as you emote about these kind of atrocities, then move away from the US, because the US hurts a lot of people to maintain its high standard of living. New Zealand is a pretty ethical place that doesn't kill either it's own citizens or those abroad. Its economy doesn't rely on abusing migrant workers. It has a decent tech scene. Go there.
Or you could just do the usual counter-counter-culture blather while not actually changing your life to suit your stated morals.
You asked if I would, not if I will.
If I had the chance to do so I would, but I'm currently committed to do other things first.
Or do you believe that if someone wanted to go to Cuba that must be their sole and only motivation from that point on? You should't simplify people like that. It's rude.