But the important question is, what would come after? Would Cuban Communism fall all the way and all at once, as it did in Eastern Europe in 1989-90? Or would the people, given a free choice, want some sort of democratic socialism?
It is an important question, but one not easily answered. I can tell you that when I left Cuba I had very little idea of what a democracy or a representative government was like, or how it worked. It has taken me a lot of years to understand, at more than an intellectual level, that I can choose those who make the laws, and by extension choose what laws are made.
If you had asked me when I was in Cuba what kind of government I would like, I would probably have chosen something similar to the existing government but with more political and economic freedom.
So I guess the answer to the first part of your question is that no, the Cuban government will not fall and become something completely different, just something more open.
If you grew up in Cuba: What, generally, do the Cuban people know, and not know, about the outside world?
The major problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
My guess is that communism would crash all the way past socialism into a free market capitalist economy.
I’m not somebody who thinks socialism is the anti-christ and I understand that communism and socialism are two different things. But people who are getting out from under a communist regime are likely to reject any form of government control of the economy so socialism would be judged guilty by association. Which I think is unfortunate - I think the formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union would have been better off under a transitional socialist system for a couple of decades rather than jumping directly from communism to wide-open capitalism.
In an update, Castro has said that the journalist misinterpreted his intent and he meant his remark to be ironic not factual.
Suppose the UN made Haiti a protectorate, and assigned free market absolutists free reign over its economy. How long before it becomes an economic powerhouse? Never, because they got nothing to sell but their labor. They don’t have anything to sell each other, much less the world.
Cuba at the time of the revolution was an agriculture based nation. How many agriculture based nations thrive in the world economy? Especially those whose agricultural resources are owned by foreigners who take their profits out of the country?
The question isn’t so much whether socialistic economics worked or failed. The question is whether any economic system would have succeeded any better.
If they followed the example of Singapore, about 10 or 20 years.
We live in a knowledge based economy. Raw materials are sooooo 19th century.
The Republic of Korea was an agricultural country in 1948. The Republic of China was an agricultural country in 1949.
The “world economy” has been around for centuries. Even the US was an agricultural economy during that time. Making the transition to a technological economy isn’t rocket science. Or, in a sense, it is rocket science. But rocket science isn’t rocket science, if you take my meaning.
I see. The power that transforms illiterate sugar cane choppers into Ph.D.'s, would that be the unyielding will of the proletariat or the magic of the free market?
In terms of benefit to the people, I suggest that a free market based autocracy with power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy is no improvement over a socialist based autocracy with power concentrated in the hands of the commissars.
Castro and Co made huge mistakes, first and foremost adopting such a rigid and doctrinaire ideology that hindered growth. But simply replacing Batista with a more benign martinet while leaving the wealth and power of Cuba in precisely the same hands would have done nothing to resolve the problems that made the revolution necessary.
And any “redistribution of wealth” would have meant ferocious resistance from the US investors (and the Gambino family), tighty righty rectums slam shut when such concepts are bandied about lightly. As well, the USA of the fifties was very keen on the value of stability and continuity in the Spanish speaking countries of our hemisphere. Yeah, ours. Wanna make something of it? Tell it to the Marines.
Did the US give Castro assistance in overthrowing Batista, who so richly deserved it? OF course not, if anything, we gave aid and comfort to Batista. So why should he trust us? He expected our opposition, and we did not disappoint.
We should have stopped glowering at Cuba and started sweet talking at least twenty years ago, everybody be a damned sight better off.
It’s not magic. If you want a thriving economy, you ditch communism and adopt a free market. You don’t even need to free up the political system, as Chinese have shown us.
No argument there.
I’m not following this. I, at least, was responding to your post where you said:
The answer is, yes, a free market economy would have succeeded better, as evidenced by countries in similar, or worse circumstances than Cuba. No one in this thread is suggesting a return to a crony capitalist economy, so I don’t see why we can’t just state the truth: Castro’s system failed (whether you call it socialism or communism or Castroism).