Los Gusanos--the Worms--Infest the Comment Section Tonight...

Ah. The Fidel Castro fans are out in force, I see:

Bloix: Let's do a thought experiment: Imagine that the year is 1960 and that you are a soul about to be inspirited into a foetus about to be born. God gives you a choice: you may become the son or daughter of a poor rural woman in either Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic. What would you choose?

Reply #1: That is the wrong comparison: Cuba in 1960 is like Costa Rica, northern Mexico, Puerto Rico, or Portugal. The fact that you today think of Cuba as to be plaed in the same basket as Guatemala, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic is Castro's doing, and is worth thinking about. The normal course of development should have given Cuba today the wealth, freedom, and health that Costa Rica, northern Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Portugal possess. It has only the health--and perhaps not even that. The only excuse for breaking eggs is if you manage to make a tasty omelette.

prov: Too bad for an academic like you using such a language. you clearly depict the other side of the communist coin that of brutal capitalism, of dictatorships in Latin America etc.. Too bad taking an extreme position in an issue that must always be addressed in a more serious way. Too bad that you used Rosa's words to support you anti communist feelings

Reply #2: So it's forbidden to use Rosa Luxemburg's words to support her anti-Leninist feelings?

Ken Houghton: Model that one up and show me the results. Your major local trading partner when you were run by a Mob-backed dictator unilaterally refuses to buy your goods, or to import anything to you...

Reply #3: You know, there is something very wrong with an argument that goes (a) Leninist centrally-planned communism is necessary because market exchange is inherently exploitative an destructive, and (b) it's not Castro's fault Cuba's economy is in the toilet--America won't trade with it. That simply does not compute.

dsquared: I'm not getting this Brad. At precisely which point after the Cuban revolution would it have made sense for Cuba to decide to switch allegiances, throw itself open to American capitalism and step onto the development path of Honduras, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean and Central American quasi-colonies? Or is the idea that Castro should have tried to start a revolution in a banana republic in the backyard of a superpower without any support from the other superpower? Or that all things considered, life under Batista wasn't so bad and the Cubans ought to have toughed it out for another forty years?...

Reply #4: Stepping, at any point, onto a eurocommunist development path would have been fine. Stepping back onto the development path Cuba had been on--Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, etc.--would have been even better. Stepping onto the southern European Italian, Portuguese, or post-Franco Spanish development path would have really good. But any of those would have rapidly meant an end to the dictatorship of the Castro brothers.

One Salient Oversight: Was Castro good or bad? He was both. Forget for a moment the brutality of his regime, especially in the early days. Instead focus upon what the nation has achieved since he took power. The United Nations Human Development Index has Cuba at a respectable 0.838 - a number higher than Mexico and can be defined as a nation with "High Human Development". If this increase in standards of living continues for another 10-20 years, Cuba will be considered a "First World Nation". I'm not going to defend Castro's sins. He did, however, prove to the world that Communism could improve the living standards of its citizens

See Reply #1

Jessica: Cuba is certainly something there are intensely felt emotions about on all sides. I would not put Castro in a class with Stalin at all. Nor with Mother Theresa. Best comparisons would be Muhammed Ali of 19th century Egypt. Some elements of Menachim Begin/Ariel Sharon.... Castro's choice for the Soviet economic model turned out very poorly. But this was not at all obvious back when he was making that choice (and making it under severe pressure). Back then, North Korea was economically in far better shape than South Korea. (I know it's hard to believe, but that was the world in which Castro made his choices.) And once that die was cast, I don't see where Castro ever had a chance to switch directions without risking not only US invasion, but vindictive and brutal US invasion...

Reply #5: Muhammed Ali of Egypt did not know that democracy was possible, and so cannot be blamed for not instituting it. Menachim Begin and Ariel Sharon held elections. History will judge Fidel Castro much more harshly than them, I think--most of all because he made the choice of political strategy, he did not let the people of Cuba make that choice. As to when Fidel could have switched to a eurocommunist or social-democratic model without immediately losing his head--well, 1968 with Dubcek, or 1975 with Sadat, or anytime in the Carter administration, certainly.

Neal: Freedom and elections are fine sentiments for the comfortable--as long as you have enough to eat.

No reponse seems possible

James Killus: The last time I calculated the difference between infant mortality in Cuba vs the average in Latin America, it amounted to something like 3,000 per year infants that did not die in Cuba, but would have had they been born elsewhere in Latin America. Apparently the "stupidest man alive" contender thinks that this amounts to something. Apparently, smarter men do not believe it does.

See Reply #1

Comments

[Randy Paul]

I honestly wish just once someone would ask why Castro kept up the repression - all those years long after the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs, in which the US pledged not to support an invasion of Cuba (and has stuck to its word) - and why they couldn't accomplish the good things in a free society.

[andres]

In the first place, it is highly dishonest to say that your critics in the previous thread are fans of Fidel Castro--none of them, myself included, are defending his human rights anti-record or his lack of ability to generate economic growth. They _are_ defending his elimination of extreme poverty in Cuba.

"The normal course of development should have given Cuba today the wealth, freedom, and health that Costa Rica, northern Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Portugal possess. It has only the health--and perhaps not even that. The only excuse for breaking eggs is if you manage to make a tasty omelette."

No. The normal course of post-1959 development in Cuba, with people like Machado and Batista in power, bears a greater resemblance to Haiti, Honduras, and El Salvador than it does to Costa Rica, northern Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Portugal. Momentary GDP growth in the 1940's and 1950's is not sustainable if it occurs on the back of a Mobutu-style kleptocracy that drives up the Gini coefficient 10 points in less than 20 years and that strings up its political opponents in meathooks. Think about it.

[Delicious Pundit]

Plus, seriously, your critics are "worms"?

[You need to read more about Castro.]

What is this, The Corner? St. Matthew 7:5 comes to mind.

[Craig Nelson]

In choosing Latin American comparisons for criticism of Castro, it may not be fair to choose "northern Mexico." A national government is responsible for the economy of a nation -- and should be judged accordingly. The absurd extension would be judging American presidential performance not on national GDP but on the production from some selected part of the economy, say the most profitable. I assume there must be a darn good reason to say that the Cuban economy should have grown as fast as northern Mexico so Fidel gets marked down 40 points as a leader. But see the next paragraph.

It should also be clear that the Cuban economy suffered, as intended, from the trade disruption. Florida sugar production has boomed to the point of ecological damage as a result despite costing more than Cuban sugar. But has not trade driven the northern Mexico economy? So Fidel gets marked up 20 points.

[shah8]

Ok, I'm ready to play spoiler in this little discussion...

Take these two lists...

Guatamuala Haiti Dominican Republic (one really should include Jamaica)

Northern Mexico Costa Rica Portugaul Puerto Rico

Where does Cuba fit in? Well, two things...

Cuba has natural resources, most notably, as with Jamaica, bauxite. Cuba also probably can count on oil reserves. Cuba also has rich soils that grows cash crops exceptionally well.

Cuba is one of the countries that have a relatively heterogenous society. Whites, Blacks, Chinese, and a few others.

Why are they significant? Well....

Northern Mexico, Portugual, and Costa Rica are all places that have lower amounts of ethnic diversity than many of the countries around them. Only Puerto Rico is similar to Cuba in terms of diversity. Guatamuala's civil war was very much divided by ethnicity--between a small white elite and the masses of people of mayan descent. The white elite won that war, with the aid of the US. In comparison, the system was only imposed on Nicauragua by essentially blackmailing people into not voting for the Ortega bros--there was only one ethnic minority willing to fight for Uncle Sam. Costa Rica is something of an outlier since, well, they've had truly excellent politicians (who also didn't have much diversity for US to pry apart--blacks at 3% was the largest minority).

Northern Mexico and Portugual (as well as Peurto Rico) also had few natural resources, and both of those areas had started to industrialize in the 1970s. As with many places with few natural resources, they were *allowed* to industrialize. Countries with resources, like Cuba/Dominican Republic/Guatamuala's rich soils that produces plenty of cash crops were *not* allowed to industrialize for fear of competing with american industry. Sometimes this was even true for agricultural products like sugar!

In the end, I don't think Cuba really had much of a chance to develop among democratic lines. It was spared the fate of Central America mostly because it was an island and it had the direct support of the Soviet Union. Castro, and just about any ethical leader, would have had to have the iron tits of Marshal Tito or Lee Kuan Yew. If Cuba wanted to avoid being exploited by the US through the race wars that were such a common tactic (divide and conquer), it would have had to be at least as repressive as the societies that the two leaders I mentioned before. If the US hadn't been so bloody-minded about the revolution, I think it's highly likely that Cuba would have been at least as wealthy as Taiwan, given the prevalence of capable Cuban throughout its history.

The US is the cause of Cuban poverty, not Castro. If you want to argue otherwise, you would have to almost certainly point at Costa Rica, and a close inspection of that country's history would only support my point. Failing that, you'd have to show why Cuba isn't as successful as Yugoslavia at the end of Tito's reign. You'd also have to show that what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito's death wouldn't have happened to Cuba in the event of an untimely Castro death. The US did specifically target Yugoslavia for quite a long time, and the new Kosovar republic, with that nice military base in it was just one of the products of Reagan's attempt at destabilizing Yugoslavia. Not that the other European countries didn't play a pretty big role in Yugoslavia's demise, but that's besides the point.

[James Killus]

Interesting.

I specifically made my calculation of excess deaths to the average of the Latin America and Caribbean. Comparing Cuban infant mortality to Costa Rica would reduce the estimated reduction of mortality to a bit above 800 per year.

I'll admit it never occurred to me to compare it to Portugal, nor to cherry pick Northern Mexico as the comparison. Nor, for that matter, did I compare it to the U.S. which has a slightly higher infant mortality rate than Cuba, but that is usually attributed to a slightly greater number of live births per pregnancy, reflected in lower birth weight, a confounding bit of epidemiology that I would not wish to tangle with in a venue where the observation that perhaps infant mortality says something about a country is greeted with the slur, "Castro lover."

I'm also trying valiantly to figure out how it is that someone knows how Cuban development _should_ have gone, and feels that he can say so without explanation of any kind, then keep referring to said lack of explanation as if it were an actual argument, rather than a deeply held prejudice.

[christofay]

Economically Bush should be judged on the economic results in Houston, his natural constituency, and a few blocks around the Ranger-dome, rather than the nation as a whole.

[albrt]

Brad, this is a very odd exercise for you. Are you so conflicted about the demise of Clintonism that you've come unhinged? I guess if Castro had gotten seriously ill thirty years sooner, Cuba might have followed the same trajectory as Spain after Franco. But using that kind of Original Star Trek logic, wouldn't Franco have to survive until 2008 as a dramatic counterweight?

Surely you can't be suggesting that academic communist poseurs are a threat to anybody? I would have thought that particular problem was relatively well understood. Triangulating doesn't work the same way for getting tenure as it does in politics. People have to try to say something different from what everybody else is saying. So what? Better to focus on excoriating journalists and trying to make economics look like it has some connection to reality.

[Jessica]

Reply to Reply 5
You have made a good case that Castro was bad for Cuba. That might put him in a class with Peron or Ferdinand Marcos but hardly with Stalin.
We disagree on how much maneuvering room Castro ever had. Particularly during the Carter administration, which however over-soft it may seem to many Americans is the same administration that backed the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese _after_ the Khmer Rouge genocide and that, according to Secretary of State Brezinski, deliberately baited the Soviets into invading Afghanistan.
Is there any way to justify our boycott of Cuba in terms of helping the Cuban people? Just as contact with the West helped undermine East Germany and lack of it props up North Korea, let's open the door fully from our side (as we have never done).

I am genuinely curious why you attack those who hold a more complicated view of Castro with such vigor. I respect your writing and have benefited greatly from the MP3s of your lectures. (Thank you!) So I am open to being shown why you have so much enthusiasm for this criticism. I just can not see it in the facts as I understand them or even as you have presented them.

Is it really possible that a few aging lefties with memories of Che posters seen through swirls of marijuana smoke (such as myself) pose the same danger to the peaceful and fruitful transition of post-Castro Cuba as the enduring vindictiveness of some of anti-Castro politics in the US?

In any case, I repeat that I will bow to the wisdom of the Cuban people on this whenever the day comes that they can speak freely. If they denounce Castro, then I was wrong. If they respect and love him even as they move to correct the imbalances he has left behind, then I am correct.

(Small details: Muhammed Ali had no chance to institute democracy in his time and place, but it was hardly unknown to him. He had more of the British than he could have wanted. Like Castro, he arose in a culture that stressed autocratic leaders and lacked the broad-based civic society necessary for democracy.
You are correct about Begin and Sharon. They were part of an electoral democracy but they committed very brutal acts that had the backing of most of their nation. In his fears of US invasion and his organizing a government to defend against that, I think Castro was as representative of his people as Begin's terrorism (in the 40s) was of his. They did what their people thought was necessary.)

Reply #5: Muhammed Ali of Egypt did not know that democracy was possible, and so cannot be blamed for not instituting it. Menachim Begin and Ariel Sharon held elections. History will judge Fidel Castro much more harshly than them, I think--most of all because he made the choice of political strategy, he did not let the people of Cuba make that choice. As to when Fidel could have switched to a eurocommunist or social-democratic model without immediately losing his head--well, 1968 with Dubcek, or 1975 with Sadat, or anytime in the Carter administration, certainly.

Jessica: Cuba is certainly something there are intensely felt emotions about on all sides. I would not put Castro in a class with Stalin at all. Nor with Mother Theresa. Best comparisons would be Muhammed Ali of 19th century Egypt. Some elements of Menachim Begin/Ariel Sharon.... Castro's choice for the Soviet economic model turned out very poorly. But this was not at all obvious back when he was making that choice (and making it under severe pressure). Back then, North Korea was economically in far better shape than South Korea. (I know it's hard to believe, but that was the world in which Castro made his choices.) And once that die was cast, I don't see where Castro ever had a chance to switch directions without risking not only US invasion, but vindictive and brutal US invasion...

[Greg Alton]

Good riddance.

Let's also hope this is good riddance to a fundamentally destructive trade blockade that has contributed to the maintenance of that regime. And hopefully, good riddance to the pandering and destructive internal politics that has caused more harm to the nation maintaining that blockade than to the regime it was targetting.

And good riddance, hopefully, to the last excuse remaining to dismiss changes that would be beneficial to the American people on the basis that they are "socialist" like in Cuba. Good riddance, hopefully, to the last bastions of McCarthyism.

And good riddance, hopefully, to the misplaced dreams of Cuban-Americans that they will be welcomed back as a new Ruling Class - a dream unfortunately supported by the US government, and that dramatically increases the likelihood of serious bloodshed on that island.

[Alex]

Jesus wept. Worms? Not people; not even vertebrates.

Are you really that scared of being red-baited?

[Are you really that ignorant of Fidel Castro? I guess you are...]

[dsquared]

[Reply #4: Stepping, at any point, onto a eurocommunist development path would have been fine. Stepping back onto the development path Cuba had been on--Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, etc.--would have been even better. Stepping onto the southern European Italian, Portuguese, or post-Franco Spanish development path would have really good. But any of those would have rapidly meant an end to the dictatorship of the Castro brothers.]

This is just ludicrous, Brad. Your three suggestions all basically involve giving up the Cold War alliance with Russia and assuming that this would be just fine for Cuban independence.

[A bunch of moments at which Castro could have made the move and bargained successfully: 1968 (saying that the suppression of Dubcek had opened his eyes), 1975 (giving Kissinger and Ford a big Cold War victory by crossing the line), anytime during the Carter administration before the Mariel boatlift. I do think that once January 21, 1981 comes around it is too late: Reagan won't accept and thereafter Castro cannot survive a change of course.]

All three of these ideas are basically an invitation to become a US puppet, reinstate the expropriated corporate (and criminal) property, and take a step onto the Honduras model.

[Jessica]

"Stepping onto the southern European Italian, Portuguese, or post-Franco Spanish development path would have really good."

With all due respect Dr. Delong, was this option open to any nation other than Italy, Portugal, Spain and a few other nations fortunate enough to join the EU (such as Ireland and Greece) at any time in history? If this were the test, then every single government south of the Rio Grande would fail miserably.
Which raises an interesting comparison, between how we have treated the Caribbean and Latin American and how the original core of the EU treated the rest of Western Europe.

[jim]

Much of this discussion is irrelevant to why people liked Castro. The headline in The Times (a conservative newspaper in the US's closest ally) this morning: He Stood Up To The US And Survived.

It's not about Castro. It's about us.

[Monte Davis]

"It's not about Castro."

Well, it is, in a sense so crude and obvious that no one has mentioned it:

Can you name any other nation, any other configuration of 20th-century history, in which anyone -- left, right, or middle -- would have much to say in defense of ONE MAN being head of state, party leader, chief minister, and commander-in-chief for FORTY-NINE FRICKING YEARS?

Set aaside embargos, infant mortality, the Counterfactual Immortal Batista Timeline, and the rest. Could we maybe just stipulate that under any system, any ideology, that concentratrion/duration of power, and the cult of personality inseparable from it, is Not a Good Thing..?

[Roger Albin]

Gusanos is inappropriate in this context. Gusanos is the term applied by Cubans and others in Latin America to anti-Castro Cuban emigres.

[Not so. Gusanos is very appropriate in this context. Gusanos is the term applied by Castro and his apologists to all non-Castro worshippers.]

The Portugal comparison is also not appropriate. Portugal in 1960 was still Salazar's Estado Novo; a state that deliberately resisted economic development to preserve its backward looking, authoritarian regime. This wasn't out of ignorance either; Salazar trained as an economist and had a shrewd idea of what industrialization could do to a traditional social order. As for what happened after Salazar, its quite different being in a Europe dominated by social democratic parties than being in the economic and political orbit of the USA, which has tended to exploit nations like Cuba. Portugal, for example, is a member of the European Union. Countries like Cuba get things like CAFTA.

[Ken Houghton]

Reply to Reply #3: I posted the PWT data and the Parade dictator ranking post at Marginal Utility. I'll assume I don't have to discuss them here; those interested can stop by Tom's Place.

I would be more sympathetic to your argument that it's Castro's fault if time travel existed. Since it doesn't, let's come back to reality:

October 1960 - US bans exports to Cuba, except "humanitarian"

16 Apr 1961 (which is about six months later in my world; your mileage appears to vary) - Castro declares Cuba a socialist state.

Even without discussing The Next Day (17-19 Apr 1961), the Cuban state is faced with a world that has two alleged superpowers--one of which supported the previous regime, but has ended the trade relationship that was mutually beneficial when Batista was killing his citizens.

The other local States on your list were all given the option of alliance with either, and chose the one with lower transaction costs (though a drop in domestic hegemony). Cuba was not.

So when you say "Leninist centrally-planned communism is necessary because market exchange is inherently exploitative an destructive," you mistake the cause. More accurately, "Leninist centrally-planned communism is THE ONLY MARKET AVAILABLE TO US."

And that's even if you're ignoring andres's comment which is accurate and bears repeating: "No. The normal course of post-1959 development in Cuba, with people like Machado and Batista in power, bears a greater resemblance to Haiti, Honduras, and El Salvador than it does to Costa Rica, northern Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Portugal."

[dsquared]

By the way, you ought to email Dani Rodrik with a few notes on this "Normal Course Of Development" that you appear to have discovered as a magical technology available to Cuba. I think these starting-point arguments would be pretty weak analysis even if they didn't also rely on a crazy assumption that unique among central American states, Cuba would have been allowed to get away with expropriating foreign corporations and setting up a socialist state during the Cold War.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/castro_reactions.php

February 19, 2008

Castro Reactions
By Matthew Yglesias

Obama says: *

"If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring the Americans together."

You would think that this formula would be the very height of cautious, go-it-slowism with regard to Cuba. If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo? And yet, our policies are so screwed up that this counts as a progressive measure. Our stated, exil-driven policy regards getting back the property exiles and US corporations lost decades ago as an "essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba."

* http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Castro_comments.html

[anne]

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ar/us-cuba/libertad.htm

1996

Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act

One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America

To seek international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and for other purposes....

[The collective punishment of Cubans by economic sanctions because we disapprove of Cuba's government has always struck me as beyond conscience, and I am a fine person, all red-haired and Irish and even Catholic around the edges, and decidedly no worm though worms are often ever so helpful.]

[Delicious Pundit]

Besides which, I don't remember such heated rhetoric from the proprietor against the government of China; surely they are no beacon of human freedom

I am basically a Tory and care more about what my government does than what other governments do. And I believe we could have brought this day about in Cuba many years ago, had we but lifted our stupid embargo. Which, if true, means that our own beacon of human freedom has been held hostage to the desire of politicians to win the state of Florida.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/world/americas/08havana.html?ex=1323234000&en=4f0950b0e6ba65ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

December 8, 2006

Hippocrates Meets Fidel, and Even U.S. Students Enroll
By MARC LACEY

HAVANA — Anatomy is a part of medical education everywhere. Biochemistry, too. But a course in Cuban history?

The Latin American School of Medical Sciences, on a sprawling former naval base on the outskirts of this capital, teaches its students medicine Cuban style. That means poking at cadavers, peering into aging microscopes and discussing the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power 48 years ago.

Cuban-trained doctors must be able not only to diagnose an ulcer and treat hypertension but also to expound on the principles put forward by "el comandante."

It was President Castro himself who in the late 1990s came up with the idea for this place, which gives potential doctors from throughout the Americas and Africa not just the A B C's of medicine but also the basic philosophy behind offering good health care to the struggling masses.

The Cuban government offers full scholarships to poor students from abroad, and many, including 90 or so Americans, have jumped at the chance of a free medical education, even with a bit of Communist theory thrown in.

"They are completing the dreams of our comandante," said the dean, Dr. Juan D. Carrizo Estévez. "As he said, they are true missionaries, true apostles of health."

It is a strong personal desire to practice medicine that drives the students here more than any affinity for Mr. Castro. Those from the United States in particular insist that they want to become doctors, not politicians. They recoil at the notion that they are propaganda tools for Cuba, as critics suggest.

"They ask no one to be political — it's your choice," said Jamar Williams, 27, of Brooklyn, a graduate of the State University of New York at Albany. "Many students decide to be political. They go to rallies and read political books. But you can lie low."

Still, the Cuban authorities are eager to show off this school as a sign of the country's compassion and its standing in the world. And some students cannot help responding to the sympathetic portrayal of Mr. Castro, whom the United States government tars as a dictator who suppresses his people.

"In my country many see Fidel Castro as a bad leader," said Rolando Bonilla, 23, a Panamanian who is in his second year of the six-year program. "My view has changed. I now know what he represents for this country. I identify with him."

Fátima Flores, 20, of Mexico sympathized with Mr. Castro's government even before she was accepted for the program. "When we become doctors we can spread his influence," she said. "Medicine is not just something scientific. It's a way of serving the public. Look at Che."

Che Guevara was an Argentine medical doctor before he became a revolutionary who fought alongside Mr. Castro in the rugged reaches of eastern Cuba and then lost his life in Bolivia while further spreading the cause.

Tahirah Benyard, 27, a first-year student from Newark, said it was Cuba's offer to send doctors to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, which was rejected by the Bush administration, that prompted her to take a look at medical education in Cuba.

"I saw my people dying," she said. "There was no one willing to help. The government was saying everything is going to be fine."

She said she had been rejected by several American medical schools but could not have afforded their high costs anyway. Like other students from the United States, she was screened for the Cuba program by Pastors for Peace, a New York organization opposed to Washington's trade embargo against the island.

Ms. Benyard hopes that one day she will be able to practice in poor neighborhoods back home. Whether her education, which is decidedly low tech, is up to American standards remains to be seen, although Cedric Edwards, the first American student to graduate, last year, passed his medical boards in the United States.

If she makes it, Ms. Benyard will become one of a small pool of African-American doctors. Only about 6 percent of practicing physicians are members of minority groups, says the Association of American Medical Colleges, which recently began its own program to increase the number of minority medical students....

[anne]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4842483-110738,00.html

January 24, 2004

My Dinner With Castro
By Arthur Miller - Guardian

Like a lot of other people's feelings toward Cuba, mine have been mixed in the past decades. Apart from press reports, I had learned from film people who had worked there that the Batista society was hopelessly corrupt, a Mafia playground, a bordello for Americans and other foreigners. So Castro storming his way to power seemed like a clean wind blowing away the degradation and subservience to the Yankee dollar. What emerged once the smoke had cleared finally turned into something different, of course, and if I chose not to forget the background causes of the Castro revolution, the repressiveness of his one-man government was still grinding away at my sympathy. At the same time, the relentless US blockade at the behest, so it appeared, of a defeated class of exploiters who had never had a problem with the previous dictatorship seemed to be something other than a principled democratic resistance.

The focus of all these contradictions was Castro himself; this man, in effect, was Cuba, but when my wife, the photographer Inge Morath, and I were invited in March 2000 to join a small group of "cultural visitors" for a short visit, we went along with no thought of actually meeting the Leader but merely to see a bit of the country. As it turned out, soon after our arrival he would invite our small group of nine to dinner and the following day, unannounced, suddenly showed up out in the country where we were having lunch to continue the conversation.

By March 2000, the time of our meeting, the future of Cuba was the big question for anyone thinking about the country. Our group was no exception. We were, apart from my wife and myself, William Luers, former head of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art and ambassador first to Venezuela and later to Czechoslovakia, and his wife, Wendy, a committed human-rights activist; novelist William Styron and his wife, Rose; book agent Morton Janklow and his wife, Linda; and Patty Cisneros, philanthropist organiser of a foundation to save Amazon culture. The only non-speakers of Spanish were the Styrons, Jank-lows and me.

Expecting to simply wander around the city and perhaps meet a few writers, we were surprised on our second day by the invitation from Castro to join him for dinner. Later, it would become clear that "Gabo" (Gabriel García Márquez), Castro's friend and supporter as well as a friend of Bill Styron's, had most probably been the author of this hospitality. I was greatly curious, as were the others, about Castro, and at the same time slightly guarded in my expectations.

Having had a certain amount of experience with Soviet and eastern European officialdom in the arts, particularly as head of International PEN for four years, I expected to have to do a lot of agreeable nodding in silence to statements manifestly silly if not at times idiotic. Unelected leaders and their outriders are unusually sensitive to contradiction, and the experience of their company can be miserably boring. However, Castro was mythic by this time, and the prospect of an hour or two with him was something to look forward to.

I'll mention only two or three observations I had made in Havana before our dinner. The city itself has the beauty of a ruin returning to the sand, the mica, the gravel and trees from which it originated. The poverty of the people is obvious, but at the same time a certain spiritedness seems to survive. Poor as they are, there is little sense of the dead despair one finds in cities where poverty and glamorous wealth live side by side. But this is all appearances, which do count for something but not everything. A guide I happened upon with whom I had a private chat - answering my questions, I should add, and not volunteering - said it was simply not possible for anyone to live in Cuba on a single job. Educated, clearly disciplined, he could not keep his deep frustration from boiling over as he explained that he worked for a government tourist agency that charged large fees to foreign clients for his services while he received a pittance. If this was not exploitation he did not know the meaning of the word.

But there may be another dimension to unhappiness like his. I walked around near the lovely old Hotel Santa Isabel, where we were staying, and a few blocks away sat down on a park bench facing the pleasantly meagre traffic on the Malecón, the broad road around the harbour. Presently, two guys showed up and sat beside me, deep in discussion. They were exceedingly thin, neither had socks, one wore cracked shoes and the other disintegrating sandals, their shirts were washed and unironed with shredded collars, they were both in need of a shave. Their way of sitting, crouched over crossed knees while sucking on cigarettes, and staring at the flowing away of time as they talked, reminded me of street people in New York, Paris, London. A taxi pulled up to the kerb in front of us and a lovely young woman stepped out.

She was carrying two brown paper bags full of groceries. Both men stopped talking to gape at her. I saw now that she was beautiful and tastefully dressed and, more noticeable in this proletarian place, was wearing high heels. One white tulip arched up from one of the bags and drooped down from its long slender stem. The woman was juggling the bags to get her purse open, and the tulip was waving dangerously close to snapping its stem. One of the men got up and took hold of one of the bags to steady it, while the other joined him to steady the other bag, and I wondered if they were about to grab the bags and run.

Instead, as the woman paid the driver, one of them gently, with the most tender care, held the tulip stem between forefinger and thumb until she could get the bags secured in her arms. She thanked them - not effusively but with a certain formal dignity, and walked off. Both men returned to the bench and their avid discussion. I'm not quite sure why, but I thought this transaction remarkable. It was not only the gallantry of these impoverished men that was impressive, but that the woman seemed to regard it as her due and not at all extraordinary. Needless to say, she offered no tip, nor did they seem to expect any, her comparative wealth notwithstanding....

[jerry]

anne, not to hijack this thread, but honestly curious, how does this:

"Our stated, exil-driven policy regards getting back the property exiles and US corporations lost decades ago as an "essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba.""

differ from Palestinians demanding rights of return to Israel?

[bakho]

My question is how does one separate the effects of trade barriers on economic progress in Cuba from the effect of government control of parts of the economy? The US trade barrier has a large and obvious effect or the US would not have maintained it for half a century.

[Not clear: Europe is close by. Lots of people trade with Western Europe...]

Small island nations must trade in order to have a good economy. They typically lack all the necessary resources for success. Is Haiti a better comparison to Cuba? After the slave revolt in Haiti, it was restricted in trade to try to keep the slave rebellion from spreading. That coupled with destruction of infrastructure during the revolt was a setback that Haiti has never overcome in spite of its "democratic" and free market economy. Haiti remains today one of the poorest countries on the planet.

With its educated populace and good medical care system, Cuba should be poised for an economic boom. Could a change in government and economic structure have much effect if it were not coupled by a change in trade relations? The economic structure could be liberalized, but without a change in trade relations, how helpful would that be? Isn't a change in trade relations a necessary stimulus to liberalize the economic structure?

[anne]

My understanding is that other governments have long since successfully negotiated compensations with Cuba, though I know no details and would like to gain several. I wish there had been similar diplomatic negotiations by America, but know of no such attempt only demands. I wish there were similar on-going diplomatic negotiations between Israel and Palestinians.

[sd]

Brad,

I think you're 100% right to be tough on Castro, whose actual behavior as a head of state has been inexcusable.

I have often been frustrated by the tendency of some otherwise clear headed people on the left and center left to make excuses for charismatic Latin American autocrats. There's Castro of course but also Che and now Chavez.

I think this is very much of a piece with the tendency of some otherwise clear headed people on the right and center right to make excuses for the old Confederacy.

In both cases there is an objectively evil regime that nonetheless is wrapped in a certain kind of romantic idealism. Jessica (above and in the previous thread) is indeed correct that Castro meant well in a certain twisted way, just as paleocon Daniel Larison is correct that Robert E. Lee went to war out of a sense of chivalrous dedication to hearth and home.

But, um, so @#&%^*! what? Lots of very bad people see themselves as noble and good and mired in an ongoing struggle against long odds. And they often possess discrete virtues, like courage and honor and style. But that doesn't mean that they get a pass

[anne]

Bakho:

"Is Haiti a better comparison to Cuba?"

We have had singularly exploiting or neglecting and ineffective development policies in the Caribbean.

[anne]

"There's Castro of course but also Che and now Chavez."

What abusive slandering rubbish.

Hugo Chavez is a properly elected President, and slandering Chavez only shows disdain for efforts at democracy in Latin America. But, that is the point, we must dictate to Latin Americans how they must conuct themselves even when they are being democratic.

[Charles]

Ironically, "gusanos" is the pejorative that the Castroites applied to the wealthy and middle class who fled Cuba after the revolution. Thus, our host has adopted the language of the very people he so harshly criticizes.

[anne]

Yes; I can be a worm too.

We are even now nearly 5 years in on having needlessly and destructively and self-destructively and soul-damagingly invaded and occupied Iraq, and I am not about to forget that reflection of an America that is belligerent above all when there is need for diplomacy.

[bacon]

> That is the wrong comparison: Cuba in 1960 is like Costa Rica, northern Mexico, Puerto Rico, or Portugal.

That is wrong comparison. Cuba in 1960 is a brutal dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista:
It is estimated that over 20,000 people were murdered by the Batista regime in acts of political repression, most of whom were tortured.

[Nordic Mousse]

"I can tell you that the possibility of food and warmth is very attractive when you don't have them. Even more attractive than elections"

Obviously you're right, Neal -- all else being equal, elections are no substitute for food & warmth, so our esteemed host must have meant something else when he said:

"No reponse seems possible"

Did the right words fail him?

[bacon]

Reply #3: You know, there is something very wrong with an argument that goes (a) Leninist centrally-planned communism is necessary because market exchange is inherently exploitative an destructive, and (b) it's not Castro's fault Cuba's economy is in the toilet--America won't trade with it. That simply does not compute.

Castro did not start as communist. He moved towards communism to get Soviet help in the face of American aggression. Oddly enough some nations consider foreign aggression more repugnant than inefficient economic system. Go figure.

[Patrick (G)]

Guatemala, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic have each had post-WWII interventions by U.S. forces. Thus their subsequent lack of economic success must be Fidel Castro's doing, obviously. (oops, is that sarcasm?)

And according to Brad, if it weren't for Fidel Castro, Cuba today would be as rich as the poor man of Europe, a second-class U.S. protectorate, a geographic region (not a state entity) known for providing the U.S. with cheap labor, or the least-impoverished spanish-speaking country in the world.

Eliminating the non-independent states and non-states and states not subject to the Monroe Doctrine; Brad thinks that without Castro, Cuba would be as prosperous, free and healthy as Costa Rica.

Okay. I don't quite see how Brad came to that conclusion. perhaps its the uncanny resemblances of the governments formed by Fulgencio Batista and José Figueres Ferrer, respectively ? (why Yes, I am being sarcastic)

Strangely enough, there seem to be more similarities in the backgrounds and careers of Messieurs Ferrer and Castro. So it seems rather odd that the former demilitarized his country, while the survivor of an estimated 648 CIA assassination attempts took the complete opposite tack. (sorry, being sarcastic again)

Brad, if this is your best Anti-Fidel Castro argument, you are going to turn all of us into gusanos.

[Joe S.]

I suppose that Chomsky and Castro bashing are the price we must pay for Brad's other insights. A fair bargain, IMO. One shouldn't always expect Internet content to be free.

End of snark.

[Art]

Is/was Castro good or bad.

Compared to what, or who. Lets face facts here the guy he replaced was a sock puppet for the US and the US mob. They had turned Cuba into, quite literally, a gangsters paradise, complete with sexual exploitation, and a reenactment of the southern plantation system without the virtues of slavery. People as property at least has the consequence of the owner wanting to preserve his property. In Cuba they got the labor without any need to take care of the labor pool. It wasn't like they were going anywhere.

The Cuban people weren't fooled into supporting Castro. He was and is head and shoulders above what he replaced.

The economic consequences have been brutal but it wasn't the Castro who declared a trade embargo. If the US had maintained economic ties, instead of screwing the US taxpayers by subsidizing sugar in South Florida and Hawaii, effectively destroying those areas, Cuba would have had a leg up on economic development compared to similar nations.

Of course the claim is that Castro was excessively dictatorial and politically constraining. It is one way of seeing it and there is some truth to it. But it has to be noted that this amount of autocratic control started as a way of consolidating power and freeing the nation of a slim percentage of Cubans who were prospering under the previous system. Casino and whorehouse owners were doing well and remained for some time a force to be suppressed if the new system was to survive.

It also should be noted that at about the same time it could be expected Castro to loosen his grip the terrorist attacks started and continued. Groups operating out of South Florida were staging agents, provocateurs, saboteurs and outright direct attacks into Cuba. Largely financed by the well off elites who had fled Cuba.

The US has suffered under the claims of a need for a 'unitary executive', suspended habeas corpus, domestic surveillance and torture because of a single attack on US soil. Imagine that we were a much smaller and poorer nation. Imagine that the attacks were multi-faceted and long-term concerted attacks on infrastructure and the people. Imagine if the US was under an ongoing propaganda war with a much larger and more powerful state. Imagine if the US had only a few major industries but a trade embargo and sanction system prevented us from maintaining a functional economy.

A single attack has shifted the US from a open democracy to something resembling a banana republic. Is it any wonder that Castro would similarly feel the need to consolidate control at the top and operate a politically repressive regime?

The US made Cuba into an isolated and economically and politically unviable state simply because we didn't like their politics. We have done everything possible to punish and cripple the Cuban economy and nation. Up to and including: economic warfare, assassination attempts, fifty years of terrorist attacks and outright invasion. Exactly what choice did Castro have outside of maintaining himself as dictator for life.

In this context it is a wonder that Castro has been as politically open as he has and that Cuba has done as well as it has economically and in service to the Cuban people.

One has to marvel at what might have been if the US had handled it differently. If we would have maintained trade ties and not belligerently held Cuba under foot. Is suspect that Castro would have liberalized his political stance and allowed more freedoms. He would have moved rapidly from a hard socialist model to something more resembling a social-democratic model with a good amount of economic prosperity provided by trading on tobacco, sugar and tourism. And , of course, with a viable independent economy there would have been no need for Cuba to toe the hard socialist line or act as a puppet to the USSR.

No Cuban missile crisis. No Bay of Pigs. The Everglades wouldn't have been converted into a sugar plantation. Florida would have plenty of fresh water and US taxpayers wouldn't be spending Billions trying to undo the ecological damage. The US taxpayers wouldn't be subsidizing big sugar and the real cost of sugar would be lower. Now we even find out that cane sugar is really better for you than high-fructose corn syrup. Maybe we would all be a little thinner and a little healthier.

But Castro was one of those "Godless Communists" so Billions lost, the dry Florida wasteland, big agriculture, the risk of nuclear war and the health of the average American wasn't too much to pay. Or was it?

[Christopher Monnier]

> Hugo Chavez is a properly elected President, and slandering Chavez only shows disdain for efforts at democracy in Latin America.

"Slandering" Chavez shows disdain for central planning, not democracy in Latin America.

[Liam]

So, I still have family living in Cuba. My grandmother sends them money each month so that they can buy necessities. Another relative actually figured out a way to visit this family in Cuba, and her description of their standard of living as the bare minimum furnishings, purchasing barely more goods than what they can afford for food each month.

So, "freedom and elections are fine sentiments for the comfortable"...but those living uncomfortably, such as most of the population of Cuba, should not have these rights? I see a horrible flaw in this argument, one that disturbs me.

Secondly, Batista was a horrible dictator, so is Castro. So the argument that Castro ousting Batista was a good thing is useless. Are you defending one horrible dictator over another because of political sentiment?

[Neal]

Liam--read about the conditions in Cuba before Castro. And read my comments from the previous thread. My point was that the Cuban revolution happened for good reasons. And my concluding point was that Castro, along with many other regimes, were frozen into place far beyond their useful term because of the frozen positioning of the US.

Cuba today is a shadow of what it could have been with a liberalized trade agreement between the US and Cuba under Castro. But Cuba under Castro was, for decades, far better than Cuba under Batista.

[Commenterlein]

I think Brad has it mostly right - there is no excuse for Castro's continued repression of the Cuban people over the last fourty years. And that holds true even acknowledging that his initial alliance with the Soviets was driven by US aggression.

Let me add an important point - all the folks who keep citing Cuba's wonderful health system, low infant mortality, and UN development indicators have never been to Cuba. I have been twice in the last ten years and have talked to many Cubans on the island and visited several community clinics there. To make a long story short, the health system is in complete shambles, you wouldn't want to receive treatment in these clinics if you had the common cold, and the reported health statistics are completely fabricated. As are much of the economic statistics the Cuban government produces. Mark my words - there will be a lot of crow eating among Castro apologists in the future when the truth about these numbers comes out.

[Liam]

Conditions in Cuba before Castro were terrible, my family was an educated, middle class family that freely admits that. Castro was not frozen into place because of US policy though. During the revolution many wealthy or middle class, educated families were targeted, many were imprisoned or executed. His excessively violent and oppressive revolution and affiliation with communists such as Che Guevara initiated US policy against him.

This is not a personal issue for me (though my grandfather was subject to arrest and abuse, just to freely admit my background), and the continuing US policy towards Cuba is outdated, I agree. I don't think you can dispute though that between Castro and Batista, human rights issues (and abuses) were essentially equal, the poor under Batista remained the poor under Castro (except perhaps the most dedicated Castro supporters), and that the biggest difference between a Cuba under Batista and a Cuba under Castro is that for at least a while, Cuba under Castro lacked a significant portion of the educated, middle class (I would think one of the most progressive demographics) that Cuba under Batista did have.

What if? A big question in history, I think Cuba continuing under Batista had a greater chance at progress and liberalization than we have seen under Castro.

[anne]

I suppose understanding is beyond the possible, but the point has been an American willingness to collectively punish the Cuban people for the disapproval of the Cuban government for decades with never a thought that diplomacy could be a resolution. So we will continue to punish Cubans. Some of us have learned absolutely nothing from the disaster we have brought on in collectively punishing Iraqis. Now, let there be more idiocy about central planning or anti-anti-anti-Communism. Should we like punish the Venezuelans, for like voting?

[Randy Paul]

Cuba today is a shadow of what it could have been with a liberalized trade agreement between the US and Cuba under Castro

Cuba trades extensively - and for several years - with China, Canada, Spain, Italy, France, Venezuela and Mexico. The embargo, however, a remarkably stupid policy, provides a convenient excuse for Castro to blame his nation's difficulties on.

[Potato Head]

Having actually visited Cuba recently I suppose gives me a somewhat useful perspective, and since I have also visited Guatemala, Mexico and Costa Rica in recent years, I have some basis for comparison.

The simple fact is that the "bottom" of Cuban society and the bottoms of even Costa Rican society are not comparable, and I say this based not on wandering around Havana but from having seen the countryside. Travel the back roads of Cuba and the streets are clean, the houses have electricity and running water, they are bland but functional. Visit a town like Casilda, flattened by Katrina, and see public housing already rebuilt in its aftermath. (How's NOLA doing BTW?)

Costa Rican poorest by contrast live in mud huts as they do elsewhere in Central America; I might also note the country as a whole is undergoing an involuntary fire sale as wealthy Americans flock there to buy up beachfront retirement properties, driving housing prices through the roof and creating a wave of internal refugees who can no longer afford to live on their own land. Taxes (on ordinary Ticos, not the rich) are sky high, and the education and health care systems are falling apart.

This is not to dispute the obvious and unjustifiable abuses of Castro's government, only to state facts that are obvious to anyone with firsthand experience with the relevant countries. There's a reason why Castro retains a level of support in Cuba that he does. Whether the heavy costs paid by Cubans for it are worth it is of course a legitimate issue.

[anne]

"US policy towards Cuba is outdated, I agree."

US collective punishment of the Cuban people is outdated, I agree. That is the point, but changing the policy for some is as unthinkable as leaving Iraq even after the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and after millions have been driven from their homes, and after the wanton destruction of vast swaths of cities. we boast of having just dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs on urban Iraq in a mere 10 minutes followed by 100,000 pounds, not to mention the routine daily air bombings over urban Iraq. As I remember, 100,000 pounds was about the explosive tonnage of an atomic bomb used against Japan. While 40,000 pounds was the tonnage of bombs used against Guernica. Remember Guernica? Should I be impressed with American diplomacy?

[Neal]

Liam said: "What if? A big question in history, I think Cuba continuing under Batista had a greater chance at progress and liberalization than we have seen under Castro."
________

In accordance with the tenor of the host's rebuttals, a worm wonders if this is our host's sentiment also?

[JJ]

Ah 1960. Golden year when we Venezuelans were among the top 20 countries by GDP per capita. Almost 50 years later, we are still struggling and not even in the Top 50. 50 years of " democracy" and capitalism. Including old bi-partisan system and the Chavez system. So, no, it does not follow at all that Cuba would be today at the same standard than Portugal. Cuba is certainly a sensitive and difficult topic in political economics, but I guess making bold assumptions and calling "gusanos" (by the way, use "La gusanera", it makes these guys appear more horde-like) to people who may question the accepted wisdom of liberal academy is not a good way to move on. Just saying.

[Roger Albin]

"Not so. Gusanos is very appropriate in this context. Gusanos is the term applied by Castro and his apologists to all non-Castro worshippers."

Gusanos was widely used in the Spanish Caribbean, Puerto Rico for example, to refer to Cuban emigres. Whatever its origin, it was popular slang, not always politically motivated and sometimes inspired by economic jealousy. John Sayles' book on Cuban exiles in South Florida is entitled Los Gusanos for this reason.

[Barkley Rosser]

I would agree with those who say Castro should have liberalized and gone democratic a long time ago, irrespective of debates over economic policy.
He was no Stalin, but he did not need to be what he has been.

Regarding the economy, the evidence on the state of the Cuban economy in 1959 seems pretty mixed. I suspect that Brad is basing his remarks on a paper by Carlos Echeverria that argues that Cuba was 22nd out of 122 in the world then in real per capita income and makes remarks similar to those made by Brad about who it should be compared to then. Of course we also know that there was great inequality then, so it is not clear what the median income was, and other sources say things were not so great.

The earliest I have data for is 1969, which means that if Echeverria is right, then most of the economic damage done by Castro was in his first decade. I list below numbers for several countries in 1969 and 2005 in 2000 US dollars. The most recent number for Cuba is from the US State Dept. These are real per capita incomes.

Country 1969 2005

Cuba 531 4100
DR 867 2370
CR 2401 4590
PR 6418 17,902
Honduras 723 1190
Guatemala 1236 2400.

If these numbers are at all representative of reality, then
the story is a lot more complicated than most here have said,
and certainly does not correspond with the story that Brad has
told, with Cuba moving ahead of Guatemala, Honduras, and the
Dominican Republic since 1969, and catching up somewhat to
Costa Rica, if not catching it, although Puerto Rico was and
remains clearly well ahead, although he may be right that Cuba
was way ahead of those countries economically in 1959, if
Echeverria is right (although not in human rights or democracy,
as has been noted by others).

[Craig Nelson]

"As I remember, 100,000 pounds was about the explosive tonnage of an atomic bomb used against Japan."

No. 20 kilotons = 20 * 1000 * 2000 = 40,000,000 pounds. Nuclear bombs are a whole different category of death.

This is not to defend the use of bombs in urban areas. A 2000 pound bomb has a kill radius of something like 400 yards.

[Sarcastro]

Slavador Allende, a legally elected Marxist president of a liberal democratic republic, was overthrown, with American support, by right-wing dictatorial thug Augusto Pinochet in 1973. Allende, by common account, committed suicide as Pinochet's forces closed in on the presidential mansion by shooting himself with a Kalashnikov rifle given to him Fidel Castro. Upon that rifle were engraved the words:

"To my good friend Salvador from Fidel, who by different means tries to achieve the same goals."

No American has the right to criticize how Castro went about achieving his goals when we eradicated those who tried to achieve similar goals using "our" way. Castro, like Ho Chi Minh before him, came to us FIRST! They wanted our way to be their way, they wanted our system to make their nations better for their people, but we preferred our pet criminal dictators. To now say Castro should have used our methods is disingenuous, two-faced bullshit of the highest order.

[Chris Brown]

I am late to the party, have not read the earlier thread, and have not read the last few comments here. But as someone who has traveled in Cuba frequently in recent years, as well as in 1970, and who now lives in Mexico, please permit me a couple of comments.

The Cubans were driven into the Soviet sphere by the USA government decision to stop oil exports to Cuba and to order Shell and Texaco not to refine Soviet oil in their Cuban refineries. Consequently Cuba expropriated the refineries, one of which in now under Venezuelan sponsored rehabilitation. The USA government also ended the purchase of Cuban sugar, the countriy's principle export at the time.

Castro has been able to remain in power and prevent democratic development because of the aggressive policies of the USA to Cuba. Remember, Bush's terror alert a week 2004 re-election. Castro and his governments have constantly presented the USA threat to justify the less than democratic system of government. A fact well recognized by Cubans.

USA policy toward Cuba is not based upon a desire to help the Cuban people nor to compel democratization. It is based completely on the pursuance of the FL and NJ electoral college votes. Lots of wealth was taken out of Cuba in the wake of the victory of the revolution and settled, primarily, in Southern FL and NJ, and that wealth exercises and inordinate influence on the political infrastructure in those states.

As someone pointed out above, though folks in Cuba are poor, there is no comparison to the poverty amongst the poor of other Latin America nations. Cubans are healthy and well educated. One rarely encounters, for instance, Cubans missing teeth, such as one encounters even in the relatively prosperous Mexican city in which I live. Cuba leads LA and Caribbean nations in almost health and education indices.

Relative to political repression and human rights violations since January, 1959, Cuban government offenses do not nearly approach the depths of such as existed in LA nations which chose to follow the USA "neo-liberal" path. I would venture to guess, and it's only a guess, that more folks have been executed in Texas since 1959 than have been executed in Cuba during the same period.

Though racism is relatively prevalent in Cuba the Constitution guarantees the rights of all minority groups, including, as of recent years, gays.

[Colin Danby]

I second Andres and Barkley's comments. The question of the character of Cuba's economy in the late 1950s and possible trajectories is interesting and requires a little more than asserting it belongs on one list or another. I think there's some lit on this but I'm away from the office.

And Brad, your Rosa Luxemburg point was good! One of the costs of nearly 50 years of caudillo rule is all the politics that didn't happen, that couldn't happen in Cuba. (And this might be a good moment to renew pressure on the Cuban gov't over its political prisoners.) It would be nice, though, to be able to discuss your ancillary assertions without your assuming that every doubt about an ancillary assertion is a thinly-disguised apologia for repression. Just sayin'.

[Rob]

I read the original postings and have skimmed through the comments. I just want to make a small point. In Lee Lockwood's Castro's Cuba, Cuba's Fidel, the author reproduces several long interviews with Castro. During one of them, he asks Castro how many political prisoners there are in Cuba, and Castro gives an answer in either the high hundreds or the low thousands (I'm traveling in Brazil right now and don't have the book on hand. That number, as declared by Castro, would have made Cuba the country with the highest number of political prisoners per capita in the world, not just for the date of the interview (circa 1966 I believe), but for the entire period of the 1960s. This number is even more impressive given the fact that the regime had already consolidated its power and its worst excesses were several years in the past. I think if we're going to talk about the omelette, we should check the trash can first and count the eggs cracked.

[Charles]

Rob, it's questionable that Cuba has ever had the highest number of political prisoners. It depends in part on how accurate Castro's estimate was.

The number of political prisoners--and people executed-- is wildly underestimated in nominally democratic countries like Guatemala and even Mexico. In the late 1960s, Mexico was engaged in what is called "the dirty war." There was a mass shooting of peaceful protestors in the heart of Mexico City. Many others were jailed without due process.

One cannot, metaphorically, stack bodies to see whose stack is the highest and make moral judgments. Castro was wrong to jail political opponents, no matter how few or how many. But the double standard applied by the US to Castro is very apparent to those who know Latin America.

[Bloix]

(1) Prof D says: "Gusanos is the term applied by Castro and his apologists to all non-Castro worshippers." Actually, Prof. D, that's not correct. "Gusanos" is the term that Castro used for self-exiled Cubans who opposed his regime, and for internal dissidents. The literal translation is "worms" but the meaning is "traitors."

[Like I said: Gusanos is the term applied by Castro and his apologists to all non-Castro worshippers.]

[Diana]

Re Muhammad Ali, who came to power with British consent after Napolean left Egypt: remember that the French had just had a revolution and Napolean was still young enough to pretend to care. Once ensconced in Cairo, Napolean held a dinner to which he invited all the prominent Egyptians that he could identify, presented each with a copy of Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" translated into Arabic, and lectured to them about democracy and revolution. Between the crazy French and the ever-present English, who were sailing up and down the African coast trying to eliminate the international slave trade, the Egyptians of the 19th century probably did know about democracy ... although they probably would have considered it a piece of Western lunacy inapplicable to them.

Now, back to Cuba...

[anne]

Craig Nelson:

"No. 20 kilotons = 20 * 1000 * 2000 = 40,000,000 pounds. Nuclear bombs are a whole different category of death.

This is not to defend the use of bombs in urban areas. A 2000 pound bomb has a kill radius of something like 400 yards."

Thank you, for correcting me; I was completely wrong.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/print/174887/Tomgram%253A%2520%2520Bombs%2520Away%2520Over%2520Iraq

January 29, 2008

Looking Up: Normalizing Air War from Guernica to Arab Jabour
By Tom Engelhardt

On April 27, 1937, in the midst of the Spanish Civil War (a prelude to World War II), the planes of the German Condor Legion attacked the ancient Basque town of Guernica. They came in waves, first carpet bombing, then dropping thermite incendiaries. It was a market day and there may have been as many as 7,000-10,000 people, including refugees, in the town which was largely destroyed in the ensuing fire storm. More than 1,600 people may have died there (though some estimates are lower). The Germans reputedly dropped about 50 tons or 100,000 pounds of explosives on the town. In the seven decades between those two 100,000 figures lies a sad history of our age....

[anne]

Craig Nelson, thank you again for showing me the terrifying difference in a nuclear explosion, even though a small, small bomb is altogether too terrifying. Somehow I had completely misunderstood the difference in magnitudes, and this is not something to misunderstand however awful. I am stunned in considering and will not forget your figure though I would like to.

[anne]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DC1330F93BA15755C0A964958260

June 28, 1992

'Los Gusanos'
LAUREL GRAEBER

LOS GUSANOS
By John Sayles.

Los Gusanos -- "the worms" -- is the disparaging term used by Cuban revolutionaries to describe those who left the island after Fidel Castro's rise to power. Mr. Sayles' novel deals with one such family, Miami immigrants whose personal dramas are interwoven with Cuban politics and more than a little madness. Marta, the daughter, is hoping to redeem both her country and her relationship with her father by launching a reprise of the Bay of Pigs invasion, complete with explosives. "The historical opera in this novel has become mostly opera buffa ; or, more appropriately for the post-modern, it is both at once," Jay Cantor said here last year, calling the book "energetic, fierce, melodramatic and ironic."

[anne]

Again; Fidel Castro has long been Cuba's sad misfortune. My complaint with American policy is the use of what amounts to collective punishment of Cubans, a majority of whom were even born when Castro came to power, through our economic embargo.

[Yagur]

Brad DeLong is completely right here. Certainly, the US policy toward Castro has been stupid, self-defeating, and cruel. But it is not true that Castro was "forced" into nationalizing industries, or seizing property, or for that matter canceling elections, just to survive some US onslaught. Castro did all those things himself, because he wanted, and achieved, absolute and unending power over the island. One thing that's easy to forget is that while he was fighting against the Batista kleptocracy from the Sierra Maestra, he presented himself to the world, and to his many supporters in the upper and middle classes in Cuba, as not just a nationalist but a democrat -- he promised to restore the elected President that Batista had overthrown years earlier. He promised, repeatedly, that he wouldn't seek power himself. As soon as he entered Havana, on 1/8/59, he started to break that promise, and a thousand others.

It's also untrue that the expatriate anti-Castro community -- the true "gusanos" -- are all, or even mostly, former aristocrats associated with Batista. Batista, by the time he fled, had very few supporters and friends left, even and especially among the economic elite. The first waves of departures from the island began more than a year later -- after the depth and meaning of Castro's betrayal became clear, after he had declared himself, in essence, El Jefe. Among the most strident leaders of the anti-Castro exiles, including some of those who fought in the Bay of Pigs invasion, were not Batista's friends but Castro's... people who had supported him, supplied him, even fought with him during the guerrilla war against Batista.

Lastly, we can argue about mortality rates, and poverty levels vis a vis other Latin American nations all day. I just wonder which among us, here in the United States, would trade away our right to free speech, elect our leaders, and to be secure in our persons and property -- basically, the most elemental and important civil rights -- for better access to doctors.

[SocraticGadfly]

Brad, you are SOOO effing wrong. (I still don't get why an alleged liberal like Kevin Drum links to you so often.)

Cuba 1960 was like Portugal only if you were a white Cuban. If Afro-Cuban or mulatto (and they're the majority) Guatemala, et al... the comparison by Bloix is perfectly valid.

Pull your hypercapitalist head out of your ass.

[Tracy Lightcap]

"Reply #3: You know, there is something very wrong with an argument that goes (a) Leninist centrally-planned communism is necessary because market exchange is inherently exploitative an destructive, and (b) it's not Castro's fault Cuba's economy is in the toilet--America won't trade with it. That simply does not compute."

This isn't contradictory at all unless you assume, as it appears Brad does, that centrally planned economies are inherently autarkic. Look at any account of the first 5 Year Plan, the founding document of the whole enterprise. The plan included foreign trade (agricultural products for machine tools and engineering consultancy) and loans as a vital component. It wasn't Stalin's fault that the first year of the plan coincided with the beginning of the Great Depression and the trade blocks. Autarky was forced on the SU just like it was on the Cubans. And, we might add, in both cases the revolutions in question had removed real "market exchange" that was inherently exploitive and destructive to the nth degree. And, of course, real "market exchange" is the only kind that counts; even an economist ought to know that.

But I suppose this is the kind of stuff we have to put up with occasionally here. After all, Brad just spent a couple of posts praising the Red Army's victory in WWII last month. He has to get his liberal creds back somehow and Fidel was handy. Once, however, just once, I'd like him to get this part of his act straight.

[Craig Nelson]

Is there any plausible way to quantify the effect of the embargo on the Cuban economy or is it inextricable from the effect of Castro's centrally planned economics? Instead of arguing either-or could we disagree over how much?

Anne, you're welcome. I left my bombs at the door, but I hadn't known that Guernica pioneered incendiary bombing.

[Bloix]

I see one of my comments has been disappeared - well, that's happened before, and it's the good professor's blog. One shouldn't complain about the quality of the free ice cream. Let's try again.

In official Cuban communist parlance, "Gusano" does not mean anyone who disapproves of Castro, or even all enemies of the Cuban regime. The word is never applied to non-Cubans. Although the literal meaning is "worm" the connotation is "traitor." US presidents, for example, are not called "gusanos." This is not a left vs. right issue, it's just how the Castro regime uses the word and how it's used by others (often ironically by emigres themselves, or by their children).

[granulatedsugar]

Brad is right. To hell with Fidel. The sooner that monster and the cult of personality (that extends internationally and even into this thread) surrounding him dies, the better.

[Sam Jackson]

Liam:"What if? A big question in history, I think Cuba continuing under Batista had a greater chance at progress and liberalization than we have seen under Castro."
But we don't need to worry about hypotheticals: Cuba under Baptista begat Cuba under Castro

[Harold]

"Cuba under Batista begat Cuba under Castro" is exactly what my Cuban exile friend said to me.

What are Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo begetting?