What if Cuba never went communist?

[Asp]

The data from the world bank says, accounting for inflation, that GDP PC was the same in 2015 as it was in 1985. (It didnt stay at the same level, it dipped post 1990 and then came back up).

Definitely had a rocky economic time. Might it have anything to do with the embargo?

In any event, most experts on Cuba assert that the US embargo strengthened Castro's dictatorship by creating a common enemy and allowing him to blame the (large, and many) economic issues the country faced on the embargo, rather than the system itself.

Castro was unequivocally an improvement on Batista.

I said without communism, best case scenario is Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico's GDP per capita is higher than Spain or Portugal (2021) and is within 2% of Italy's.

...And this would be the other big annoying myth that always comes up in these threads, that you can trust Cuban government statistics or international organizations that use numbers given to them by the Cuban government.

This is what the World Bank themselves say about their data:

Much of the data comes from the statistical systems of member countries, and the quality of global data depends on how well these national systems perform. The World Bank works to help developing countries improve the capacity, efficiency and effectiveness of national statistical systems. Without better and more comprehensive national data, it is impossible to develop effective policies, monitor the implementation of poverty reduction strategies, or monitor progress towards global goals.

Here's why that's a problem regarding Cuba:

Cuba is not a member of the World Bank, and therefore the data published by the government is not independently confirmed by the international entity. If Cuba ever joins one of the international financial institutions, it could receive technical assistance to produce more reliable data, de la Torre said.

Cuba is one of the most blatant statistical liars and manipulators out there. All credible studies of their economy say their performance has been cataclysmic.

The embargo didn't actually hurt their economy much at all until Soviet aid ended because the USSR, China, Yugoslavia, and other Communist countries bought all the sugar they previously exported to the U.S. at inflated prices, so within a couple years, Cuba was exporting even more of it than they had been before the revolution. They also received all of their oil for free from the USSR. This in practice means they got close to free electricity, because their grid burned oil for the exact reason that they could get the stuff at no cost. They actually got so much of it that they had a significant surplus they could reexport, to the point that before 1991 their second biggest export was oil (bigger than tobacco or any other cash crop). They still get their oil for free today from Venezuela, so while there was a gap in the 90s, that effectively hasn't changed. Even so, they've done really poorly. To put it into perspective, North Korea, the most isolated, autarkic economy on the planet, managed stable growth of 4% a year after Kim Jong-un took over. The embargo hasn't helped to say the least, but the Castros really did destroy the country to the point that it's worse off now than 60 years ago. That's just insane.

No, it wasn't. In the end the Castros ended up being even worse. The economics speak for themselves. Cuba was on track to be a first-world country within a few decades before the revolution. Where is it now?

 

[Dan1988]

What's wrong with casinos? Or brothels?

In this case, the Mafia being in cahoots with the Cuban government (for lower-class Cubans, gambling was primarily based around the lottery/numbers game and cock-fighting instead of the casinos, so it's not like it was viewed as a problem). Of which that was a symptom of much wider problems that Cubans looked at when asked why they were dissatisfied with the Batista regime. So while it makes for an easy symbolic gesture to turn them into, say, cultural centers or theaters or other more useful things, it would have to be part of a wider reckoning with long-standing systemic problems within Cuba. The main thing to remember is that first and foremost the Revolution was a nationalist uprising, and nationalism has long been a powerful force in Cuba (cf. the earlier Revolution of 1933, also motivated by nationalist sentiments against a string of corrupt pro-US governments). The agricultural economy that was the real backbone was well into severe decline, and something needed to be done to turn it around - that and putting Cuba on a better economic footing. If Cuba never went Communist, there's plenty of other third-way options to choose from that can allow Cuba to develop capitalism on its own terms while keeping within the pro-ISI mainstream at the time in Latin America and remain sensitive to nationalist sentiments, not to mention the 1940 Constitution was pretty progressive for its time (and any post-Batista regime would strive to uphold that Constitution).

 

[Dan1988]

Cuba was on track to be a first-world country within a few decades before the revolution.

It was never really on track to be a First World country within a few decades before the Revolution, since the country still had an impoverished majority (and which was spoken of in terms that would be better off these days in Chat, considering current conditions). Not all of it could be pinned on Batista, though - that had long been a constant throughout Cuban history even under the Spanish, but it was more pronounced before the Revolution because of how the country became a de facto Jim Crow society. That's why a lot of the living standard indicators are misleading and all that, even with Cuba's manipulation of statistics taken into account, because they were biased towards more affluent socioeconomic classes than the majority, who had poor health outcomes, were illiterate, and did not have ownership of their own land. So no, Cuba was never going to be a First World country unless actual changes took place to how the country was governed and its economy was run, the latter probably on a more East Asian/general European trajectory which would have provided more tangible benefits for Cubans than before and even after the Revolution. Instead, it was just another stereotypical "Third World" Latin American country, and was continuing towards higher inequality and greater potential for civil unrest.

 

[Asp]

It was never really on track to be a First World country within a few decades before the Revolution, since the country still had an impoverished majority (and which was spoken of in terms that would be better off these days in Chat, considering current conditions). Not all of it could be pinned on Batista, though - that had long been a constant throughout Cuban history even under the Spanish, but it was more pronounced before the Revolution because of how the country became a de facto Jim Crow society. That's why a lot of the living standard indicators are misleading and all that, even with Cuba's manipulation of statistics taken into account, because they were biased towards more affluent socioeconomic classes than the majority, who had poor health outcomes, were illiterate, and did not have ownership of their own land. So no, Cuba was never going to be a First World country unless actual changes took place to how the country was governed and its economy was run, the latter probably on a more East Asian/general European trajectory which would have provided more tangible benefits for Cubans than before and even after the Revolution. Instead, it was just another stereotypical "Third World" Latin American country, and was continuing towards higher inequality and greater potential for civil unrest.

At the time, that was pretty much indistinguishable from countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Portugal. The rural life in all of those places was seriously bleak. Italy did have some industry, but the south in particular was dirt poor. Overall, when you look at where it was compared to those countries, how they did, and the overall trajectory that it was on, it's very probable that it would have been a first world country. AFAIK, the only two countries with non-Communist governments that were comparably well-off by the 1950s and *did not* end up becoming a first world countries are Argentina and Venezuela. Uruguay is marginal, but I'd say $24k per year GDP per capita just makes the cut for first world. That's on par with a lot of eastern and Southern Europe, Sicily's is around $22k and Poland's is $16k for comparison. So just Argentina and Venezuela, both of whom had problems that were already apparent by the 1950s and that probably wouldn't be applicable to Cuba. Add in Cuba's tourism/service industry potential and yeah, I would definitely put my money on it becoming first world IATL.

 

[durante]

At the time, that was pretty much indistinguishable from countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Portugal. The rural life in all of those places was seriously bleak. Italy did have some industry, but the south in particular was dirt poor. Overall, when you look at where it was compared to those countries, how they did, and the overall trajectory that it was on, it's very probable that it would have been a first world country. AFAIK, the only two countries with non-Communist governments that were comparably well-off by the 1950s and *did not* end up becoming a first world countries are Argentina and Venezuela. Uruguay is marginal, but I'd say $24k per year GDP per capita just makes the cut for first world. That's on par with a lot of eastern and Southern Europe, Sicily's is around $22k and Poland's is $16k for comparison. So just Argentina and Venezuela, both of whom had problems that were already apparent by the 1950s and that probably wouldn't be applicable to Cuba. Add in Cuba's tourism/service industry potential and yeah, I would definitely put my money on it becoming first world IATL.

But those countries didnt have a racial element to their class system.

 

[Asp]

But those countries didnt have a racial element to their class system.

Which didn't prevent the U.S. from becoming a first world country.

It's hard to say how much an impact that would have. There are so many Afro-Cubans or ones with partial ancestry that it would be pretty hard to totally lock them out.

 

[durante]

Which didn't prevent the U.S. from becoming a first world country.

It's hard to say how much an impact that would have. There are so many Afro-Cubans or ones with partial ancestry that it would be pretty hard to totally lock them out.

The US was already a developed economy in the 1950s. You're positing that an agriculturally based society with gross economic disparities and Jim Crow laws would reach developed status (beyond Puerto Rico's) within a few decades, without any data because you claim that Cuba's data cant be trusted?

Economists do not talk in terms of "First, Second, and Third World" countries anymore. Nor "developing", because it gives a simplistic view of issues countries are facing (developing implies child like, and therefore they just need more time to develop, which seems to be what you're insinuating).

Economists use the term "developed" and "underdeveloped". The question becomes: who did the under developing, and why?

As far as Castro, I said the embargo strengthened his regime, not strengthened Cuba's economy.

Its ludicrous to assert he was worse than Batista. Older Afro-Cubans love Fidel. For many of them, Castro's regime taught them to read and write, gave them their first home with an actual floor, gave them rations every month of necessities and pensioned them off at 55 (if they were cane-cutters, which many of them were).

Batista was a corrupt murderous dictator who cancelled elections and let the Mafia run wild. He set up a police and surveillance state which was later used by the Castro regime.

Batista executed more political prisoners in his last 8 years than Fidel did in 47.

He was so bad, EVEN THE CIA initially supported Fidel.

 

[marathag]

Its ludicrous to assert he was worse than Batista.

Other than jailing far more people, and killing more of them. Che had a grand old time killing enemies of the Revolution

 

[durante]

Other than jailing far more people, and killing more of them. Che had a grand old time killing enemies of the Revolution

THIS is a myth.

(Also, as I pointed out, Batista killed more in less time than Castro).

 

[GrandMaster]

You get rid of one of the most crowning achievements of Obama's second term.

 

[HARRY]

You get rid of one of the most crowning achievements of Obama's second term.

But also no Ted Cruz.

 

[marathag]

THIS is a myth.

(Also, as I pointed out, Batista killed more in less time than Castro).

Since the Cuban Records out are only the numbers they want published, there is a problem, just like with their economic data.
I note that you had no mention that Castro kept the Jails and Prisons Batista had, full to capacity, and then more with overcrowding.

 

[NedStark]

Which didn't prevent the U.S. from becoming a first world country

A better comparison to pre-Communist Cuba would be a hypothetical CSA, not the US. It was the North, whose demographic profile was similar to Europe, that drove the US development. Finally, the US was always one of the better off regions in the world even in colonial era.

And imagine a much smaller CSA with less natural resources.

At the time, that was pretty much indistinguishable from countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Portugal. The rural life in all of those places was seriously bleak

They all have more homogenous population, which means no Jim Crow-style racial-based class system. Taiwan was actually quite well-off under Japanese rule due to heavy investments in infrastructures and education, so that already left the KMT a good base to develop the economy.

In addition, Spain and Portugal under Franco/Salazar were not exactly the most successful examples out there.

Italy did have some industry, but the south in particular was dirt poor

Unlike Italy, Cuba did not have rather developed areas (developed here means industrialized, because there were places like pre-ww2 Argentina that were rich but not developed in that sense) like North Italy to build upon.

erall, when you look at where it was compared to those countries, how they did, and the overall trajectory that it was on, it's very probable that it would have been a first world country

Not in policies, certainly. All those countries pursued industrial policy, invested heavily in education and infrastructures, especially education regarding the East Asian Tigers. East Asian countries also pursued land reform, while Batista did the opposite.

Cuba was rich before Batista and he just inherited it, but evidence suggested that he would have run it to the ground.

Now, one legit argument is that democracy may be easier to return under Batista (e.g. a different revolution in line with Spain/Portugal and then Cuba back on track afterwards) than under Fidel. Right-wing dictatorships often failed to outlive the dictator.

 

[marathag]

Unlike Italy, Cuba did not have rather developed areas (developed here means industrialized, because there were places like pre-ww2 Argentina that were rich but not developed in that sense) like North Italy to build upon.

Not having WWI era industry was a bonus, in a way, after WWII.
New plants would be 'new', far more efficient that trying to update old Industry built for old methods.
Having Bessemer Process Steel plants were an anchor, once Basic Oxygen plants were available.
The only advantage was that meant a skilled workforce was around.
But even that can be a detriment, see the UK Postwar Labor issues.
South Korea had new Workers and New Management, who were willing to work with each other, and not poisoned by Labor/Management issues dating to the start of the industrial revolution.

 

[Gillan1220]

It would be the Las Vegas of the Caribbean. Corruption would still be a thing. There might be a not-so large Cuban diaspora in Miami and Key West.

 

[marathag]

It would be the Las Vegas of the Caribbean. Corruption would still be a thing. There might be a not-so large Cuban diaspora in Miami and Key West.

Corruption still.is a thing.
Just Party Members, not the Mob.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Corruption still.is a thing.
Just Party Members, not the Mob.

Then again, Corruption is an eternal beast, fueled by the vices of humankind.

 

[AlexG]

Without the nationalist revolution of Castro (yes, his revolution was nationalism before going full socialism due to disagreements with the U.S.) we could see a number of factions rise like the Falangists, a fascist faction originated from Spain and has growing activities in Latin America at the time, even Syndicalists and others.

This is one of the biggest myths in history. My great grandmother was in the crowd when Castro gave his 8th of January speech in Havana. Having a lack of accurate information about who this man really was, she quickly realized "Este hombre es un communista." This man is a communist. Fidel was never not a socialist revolutionary and the "disagreements" between him and the U.S were about him stealing land from american nationals and not offering anything close to real compensation for it.

I do agree with you regarding how insanely 'lucky' Castro was to have ever succeeded in the first and it took plenty of luck and a comedy of errors and incompetence from the U.S. side, Cuban racism against Batista, the hate against Batista's coup and his subsequently illegitimate dictatorship, failure to execute Castro when they had him, etc.

 

[ric350]

1950s Cuba was ripe for revolution. Most saw the large US companies owning, or at least taking, the financial rewards of their labor. They saw corruption in their leaders and government. And had Batista, who was right out of central casting, for a villain. Then a charismatic revolutionary promises to turn it all on its head, and damn if he doesn’t start getting results. He even gives the US the finger! So they sweep Castro into power and wait for the sun to come out. Unfortunately it didn’t work out that way. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

ric350

 

[durante]

Since the Cuban Records out are only the numbers they want published, there is a problem, just like with their economic data.
I note that you had no mention that Castro kept the Jails and Prisons Batista had, full to capacity, and then more with overcrowding.

First of all, according to the Black Book of Communism (which is broadly agreed to be a gross exaggeration), Batista killed more than Castro.

According to Amnesty International, Batista killed nearly 100 times more people than Castro.

You said Che had a grand time "killing enemies of the revolution". If by "killing" you mean "presiding as judge over trial" and by "enemies of the revolution" you mean "literally exclusively the high ranking officials of the murderous Batista regime", your statement begins to touch base with reality. (Che left Cuba quite early!).

I never said Castro was good, I said (and then backed up with data and arguments) that he was an improvement on Batista.

(Btw, if it's bad that Fidel had people in prison - as many as 75,000 at one point, according to amnesty international - then the USA having the worlds largest prison population must also be bad?).

My first post in the thread said that without Communism, Cuba's worst case scenario is the Dominican Republic. They have a host of problems but twice the GDP PC and a functioning democracy. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Cuban regime.
I also said that their best case scenario is PR, which is the wealthiest country* in Latin America.

In fact, I only brought up Castro because some in this thread decided they needed to defend Fulgencio Batista.

This is one of the biggest myths in history. My great grandmother was in the crowd when Castro gave his 8th of January speech in Havana. Having a lack of accurate information about who this man really was, she quickly realized "Este hombre es un communista." This man is a communist. Fidel was never not a socialist revolutionary and the "disagreements" between him and the U.S were about him stealing land from american nationals and not offering anything close to real compensation for it.

They offered Americans the exact value of the land that the Americans were paying tax on. Of course, to pay less tax, the Americans were grossly undervaluing their land and properties. When offered this low compensation, they balked. They demanded full compensation. Castro demanded back pay of taxes.

The disagreements are based around this until today.

A myth is not something your great-grandmother disagrees with. Fidel is among the most studied figures in modern history. Fidel was certainly not a socialist revolutionary when he was a law school student and candidate for the Ortodoxo party...he was always left leaning, but Nationalism and anti-American imperialism were always his animating issues.

Sources:

"Cuba: A History" Sergio Guerra
"Cuba Libre" Phillip Brenner
"Cuba Libre!" Tony Perrottet
"Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" Jon Lee Anderson.