Consider that despite many natural disadvantages Cuba had higher standard of living, better educated public, better healthcare system, etc. than any of the countries in Latin America which started at similar level but were left under the control of US-backed right wing governments. I’d much rather live in Cuba of the 1960s–1980s than in any of Washington’s pet quasi-fascist police states or in those Latin American states undergoing active civil war with US-trained paramilitaries genocidally slaughtering peasants.

Arguably the US embargo, cut of diplomatic ties, invasion attempt, repeated assassination attempts, piles of money illicitly funneled to opposition, etc. had as much to do with Castro’s entrenchment/radicalization as anything to do with his personal ideology.

Just after the Cuban revolution, Castro was interested and open to US relations, but ideological prejudices and commitments by American elites made friendly relations impossible. Then a feedback loop ensued by which mutual trust was destroyed and both sides were increasingly radicalized.

Many things Castro did over his long career were reprehensible, but the same certainly can be said for pretty much every US president, and most other national leaders in similarly political turbulent situations.

> I’d much rather live in Cuba of the 1960s–1980s

Yes, while the Soviet Union was sending Cuba billions per year, it was much better there.

> but the economic and societal destruction of communism is in its own category

The Human Development Index puts Cuba at position 40, despite the huge economic disadvantage of the embargo.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2015_H...

The urban parts of Cuba started out in a pretty good position.

> "One might best summarize the complex situation by saying that urban Cuba had come to resemble a Southern European country (with a living standard as high or surpassing that of France, Spain, Portugal and Greece) while rural Cuba replicated the conditions of other plantation societies in Latin America and the Caribbean," according to analyst Mark Falcoff. [0]

I've left off the bit about racism as that's already been much discussed in this thread.

[0] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro...

The fixation people have with expanding middle classes is odd. I'd say progress where the poorest are included in social gains is more valuable than any other kind. Otherwise we end up with societies like the US where some parts of the population live in ghettoes worthy of the worst of the third world.

With all due respect, that's a crazy exaggeration. There is nowhere in America where the entire neighborhood has no electricity, no running water, no sewage, and no paved roads. Such places are common in Africa and India.

https://www.facebook.com/126979a/posts/10101269399749522

Such places are common in Texas.[1]

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/the-amer...

Whenever someone quotes poverty and hardships in India, I feel the urge to defend - the scale at which India has to operate is completely different from any other country. Being a democracy, and hence having to deal with high viscosity in governance

There are indeed places in the US without running water right now (see Flint as an example). I also don't think comparing with in development countries is relevant.

There are places all over the world that have suffered disasters taking out normal services. That doesn't mean that the services never existed or the country as a whole isn't industrialized yet.

Flint isn’t a disaster, it’s direct mismanagement and corruption combined.

How long ago was it that people in America without insurance would go without lifesaving treatment?