Would Cuba be better off without the revolution?

I just finished reading a portuguese article about the pre revolution cuba (a english source of the many used by the article), one thing that got me by surprised was that the average cuban per capita income were of US$ 11,3 thousand dollars (almost ten thousand dollars more than today)

Then I searched on wikipedia (I know, a not so good source, but still) and I found that "Although a third of the population still lived in poverty, Cuba was one of the five most developed countries in the region. In the 1950s, Cuba's GDP per capita was roughly equal to that of Italy at the time" and "Moreover, despite the fact that corruption and inequality were rife under Batista, Cuban industrial workers' wages rose significantly"

So have the Cuban revolution to fail, maybe a better led and trained cuban army crushes Fidel insurrection, maybe the americans intervene, it doesn't matter, just have the revolution to fail

The question is: Would Cuba today be better off if the revolution failed?
 
I think there needs to be consideration of this being more complex than just two sides of either Batista or Castro as we know him. Cuba would have been better off with a revolution that ended Batista's corruption, while also ushering in democracy and reform in Cuba. Castro got rid of a dictatorship and then set up his own. And it may be a fair argument that Castro's dictatorship was a better one, which undid the corruption and mafia exploitation of it's predecessor, but that does not mean it was good. Collectivism does not work. By it's nature, it intends "democracy, but only the one I like", which by it's nature is not democracy, and quickly becomes a new tyranny. Cuba has suffered for nearly 60 years under suppression of liberties and freedom. Whatever good Castro did is undermined by that fact, and could have been done in a free and open society.
 
Would Cuba be better off without a kleptocratic Communist dictatorship, a command economy and an embargo with its primary trading partner?

Yes. Yes it would.
 
To phrase this another way, was it good that the Czar was overthrown? Yes. Was it good that the Bolsheviks threw out the free elections they ushered in that would have elected moderate democratic socialists to the government majority instead of themselves, and instead made themselves a one party dictatorship and the entire State? No. Was it good that they suppressed freedoms and different opinions with arrest, intimidation, torture and violence? No. The act of revolution itself is different from what is set up as the replacement to what was overthrown.
 
Last edited:
Would Cuba be better off without a kleptocratic Communist dictatorship, a command economy and an embargo with its primary trading partner?

Yes. Yes it would.
To Cuba's credit, you can't really say that a corporate dictatorship and an exploitative economy is any better.
 
To Cuba's credit, you can't really say that a corporate dictatorship and an exploitative economy is any better.

Well, the data I posted in the OP showed the opposite

Even their literacy rate was at 76%, it was question of time until reached a developed country level
 

Cook

Banned
Would Cuba today be better off if the revolution failed?

This is another one like the Russian Revolution where people often miss the critical details. In the Russian revolution many people miss the fact that the popular revolution took place in February and installed a provisional government, composed mostly of liberals, with the full support of an elected parliament and it was this that the Bolsheviks toppled in October; in Cuba, the successful revolution that toppled Batista was by the July 26th movement, a broad coalition organisation. After Batista was ousted, the Castro's set about eliminating all potential rivals for power; most of those shot by Ché Guevara, far from being counter-revolutionaries, had in fact taken part in the revolution.

So to have a better-off Cuba, keep the revolution but have someone else treat the Castro boys to a little 'purge him before he purges you'.
 
To Cuba's credit, you can't really say that a corporate dictatorship and an exploitative economy is any better.

As I said, the act of overthrowing what was there is different from the act of what is created to replace it. Batista was certainly a corporate dictatorship and an economy of exploitation, if you want to phrase it that way. But Castro's dictatorship does not have a moral high ground. If it is considered good only by comparison, that is not a good thing. However, if that is meant as a criticism of all forms of Capitalism, I wholly disagree. A democracy with a capitalist economy, or even a mixed economy if you want to argue democratic socialism, is what Cuba deserved and what would have made it a free and open society.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Possible, but not a no-brainer.

Longterm civil war, a cold-war proxy war, a Allende-Pinochet scenario, or even a nuclear WWIII (no Cuban-missille crisis will alter the entire Cold War) are possibilities.

Cuba could look a lot like Mexico, beeing a NAFTA member, but with a lot of crime and mighty drug cartels.

But Cuba could have become a caribean tiger state as well taking a development similar to Taiwan or South Korea with slowly becoming more democratic while becoming an industrious nation,
maybe one with offshore banking...
 
Last edited:
Problematic issue. It was clearly good that corrupt, American puppet government was overthrown. Revolutionary government too gave better education and health care. But bad thing is that there not be democracy and opposition is in prison or exile.
 
it might have been better, but only after Batista died. Then it would really depend on just who took over... someone who might have been less corrupt and really worked to make the place better, or just another dictator. Cuba had the potential to be a much better place; it's problems (pre and post revolution) seemed to be the guy in charge...
 
it might have been better, but only after Batista died. Then it would really depend on just who took over... someone who might have been less corrupt and really worked to make the place better, or just another dictator. Cuba had the potential to be a much better place; it's problems (pre and post revolution) seemed to be the guy in charge...

Batista might just try to set up a family member to succeed him.
 
I think there needs to be consideration of this being more complex than just two sides of either Batista or Castro as we know him. Cuba would have been better off with a revolution that ended Batista's corruption, while also ushering in democracy and reform in Cuba. Castro got rid of a dictatorship and then set up his own. And it may be a fair argument that Castro's dictatorship was a better one, which undid the corruption and mafia exploitation of it's predecessor, but that does not mean it was good. Collectivism does not work. By it's nature, it intends "democracy, but only the one I like", which by it's nature is not democracy, and quickly becomes a new tyranny. Cuba has suffered for nearly 60 years under suppression of liberties and freedom. Whatever good Castro did is undermined by that fact, and could have been done in a free and open society.

That's not entirely true. A free and open Caribbean nation has never put a man (let alone a man of colour) into space like the Cubans did with the Soviets. The Cubans have made a recent medical breakthroughs that are on the level of wealthy western nations and far exceed those of free and open countries at similar income levels. Several things Castro's Cuba has achieved wouldn't be achieved in a free open society because of the priority (or lack thereof) we place on education, healthcare, and representation, in many cases because it's uneconomical and might inconvenience the wealthy - non concerns for a communist nation. That's not to excuse all the terrible things, but it is to point out that capitalist democracy isn't better in every way prima facie. If, for no other reason, than capitalist democracy isn't as inclusive as its apologists make out.
 
My parents visited Cuba a few years ago, they're both socialists and have visited Yugoslavia, USSR, GDR, Czechoslovakia and Communist Poland. You would think as socialist they would be impressed, they wasn't. Yugoslavia was the most successful country they had visited and the corruption was epidemic, of course when the police found out they was invited by a party boss, the police and border guards was suddenly very helpful. When they visited Cuba they saw a economy which didn't function ast all, Cuba run on three things, medical export (including doctors), tourism and money sent from the diaspora in USA, nothing else function.

But let's be honest here if we look at the rest of the Caribbian and Central America, they're all pretty dysfunctional, Cuba doesn't have a significant worse GDP per capita than most (outside some of the smaller islands), in fact it lies in the high end. I personal find it unlikely that Cuba would have turned into some kind of Caribbian Tiger, but I also find unlikely that it would do worse than the Dominican Republic. I think it would be slightly better off in pure GDP per capita (maybe 10000$ per capita), but the poor would likely be poorer, but at the same time it would be a liberal democracy. The tourist sector would likely still dominate, this would allow many small business owners, I could also see it selling itself to American pensionist as a cheaper and more exotic Florida.

So would it be better off, maybe slightly, but I think it can go better ways.
 
This is another one like the Russian Revolution where people often miss the critical details. In the Russian revolution many people miss the fact that the popular revolution took place in February and installed a provisional government, composed mostly of liberals, with the full support of an elected parliament and it was this that the Bolsheviks toppled in October; in Cuba, the successful revolution that toppled Batista was by the July 26th movement, a broad coalition organisation. After Batista was ousted, the Castro's set about eliminating all potential rivals for power; most of those shot by Ché Guevara, far from being counter-revolutionaries, had in fact taken part in the revolution.

So to have a better-off Cuba, keep the revolution but have someone else treat the Castro boys to a little 'purge him before he purges you'.
You have a funny reading of the Russian Revolution.

The Provisional Government was made entirely of the pre-revolution Duma, with only token participation from the actual popular mass parties like the Socialist Revolutionaries and the liberal Constitutional Democrats (Kadets). The Provisional Government never held free and fair elections, and in fact for the most part it was a shop full of monarchists trying to scheme a way of restoring Tsarist autocracy, and trying to let the liberals take the fall for the poor military and economic conditions post-February Revolution. It was spared from a reactionary putsch in the Kornilov affair only by the mass political action of the mass parties.

Furthermore, the Provisional Government had very little popular legitimacy, due to the dual power situation with the Petrograd Soviet. The appendgages of the state that had supported the February Revolution would only treat the decrees of the Provisional Government valid if they were countersigned by the Petrograd Soviet, an actually elected body. Kerensky may have been from the left, but he kept up his predecessors military adventurism and refusal to hold constituent assembly elections, i.e., the one thing that could have given his government popular legitimacy.
 
You have a funny reading of the Russian Revolution.

The Provisional Government was made entirely of the pre-revolution Duma, with only token participation from the actual popular mass parties like the Socialist Revolutionaries and the liberal Constitutional Democrats (Kadets). The Provisional Government never held free and fair elections, and in fact for the most part it was a shop full of monarchists trying to scheme a way of restoring Tsarist autocracy, and trying to let the liberals take the fall for the poor military and economic conditions post-February Revolution. It was spared from a reactionary putsch in the Kornilov affair only by the mass political action of the mass parties.

Furthermore, the Provisional Government had very little popular legitimacy, due to the dual power situation with the Petrograd Soviet. The appendgages of the state that had supported the February Revolution would only treat the decrees of the Provisional Government valid if they were countersigned by the Petrograd Soviet, an actually elected body. Kerensky may have been from the left, but he kept up his predecessors military adventurism and refusal to hold constituent assembly elections, i.e., the one thing that could have given his government popular legitimacy.

And when the Bolshiviks lost a free election to the SR's they basically voided the election instead of simply handing over power as they should have. That showed their true commitment to democracy . IOW none.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I sure think so, as half my family wouldn't have had to flee from there if things were suddenly much better because of Castro.

But there really isn't way to know. Batista wasn't going to make things better, but he was running afoul of the CIA and might have found himself deposed by someone nicer than Castro, or he could retrenched and kept power after a failed coup. Long term I think the economic damage done by an inept kleptocratic centrally planned economy reliant on foreign aid was probably avoidable even with continued Bastista clique rule.
 
Top