Cuba consistently required Soviet subsidies to survive through the end of the 20th century [3]. That's all gone now.
[1] http://revolutions.truman.edu/cuba/aboutme.htm
The agricultural workers almost all lived in shacks without power or plumbing.
There's a reason Castro was so popular at the time.
In exchange, Castro offered long term bonds, but I don't think anyone accepted.
Pretty sure if you offered Hawaiians and Cubans the possibility to switch places, many Cubans would want to do it, but not many Hawaiians!
Other than that you are correct about land reform in Cuba.
To escape a country, or to enter a country? The example you gave is the latter. Do you have any examples of the former?
Do you have a source for that? This [0] suggests otherwise.
Consider the saying "People don't leave jobs, they leave bosses." Sure, you're getting a new job, not just leaving an old one. But what they're really doing is leaving that jerk of a boss.
In the same way, you can be "going to America", or you can be "escaping from Cuba". Same thing in terms of actions, but not at all the same in terms of motive.
Let's say I'm in Venezuela, and I'm tired of the "Maduro diet", i.e., borderline starvation. I'll go to Colombia or Brazil, or Guyana. Or I'll go through Colombia to Panama or Peru or Ecuador. Any of the above. I'm leaving Venezuela more than I'm going to somewhere.
In contrast, consider the caravans that show up at the southern US border. They're often from Honduras. But the people in them didn't stop at Guatemala or Belize or Mexico. No, they're coming to the US, not just leaving Honduras.
No, not the same thing at all. Forcibly stopping your citizens from leaving your country altogether is not the same thing as another country stopping them from entering theirs.
Communist countries have historically implemented strict emigration policies [0]. For example, East Germany famously had a policy of mass-murdering citizens who tried to escape to the West [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bl...
That's a step in the right direction, if true. Do you have a source for it? This older article [0] says:
President Raul Castro said the regime will still decide who can renew or obtain passports. The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons."
Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing. The "national security" clause worries some opposition figures.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/11/cuba-ex...
That's an understatement.
> controls on who can obtain passports are sadly the norm in the entire world
These restrictions are far from "the norm in the entire world".
Source? To prevent goalpost-moving, the restrictions we're referring to are:
The government will protect "human capital" in its decision-making, and travel can be denied for "national security reasons." Those deemed necessary to the Cuba socialist revolution — professionals such as doctors, scientists and engineers — can be prevented from departing.
Human rights violations: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba
Cuba sanctions: https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/
Are you suggesting JFK had an ulterior motive?
The regime can end the sanctions at any time: simply allow for democracy and return the stolen property. It's that simple.
That they would prefer their people risking their lives on rafts and starving should tell us all something about the Castros.
US Embargo against Cuba would surely be a drag on even a 'regular capitalist economy' - but at they same time they'd do just fine with it. They can trade anything with any of the other 180 nations of the world. Most prosperous nations don't trade that-that much with the US.
And if they were open and fair, there'd be no embargo.
Stop defending this murderous regime there are no excuses for them.
That is not true in this case, or even in general.
Canada trades with Cuba, but is not restricted from trading with the United States.
For example, you can freely purchase Cuban cigars in Canada.
Another example: the U.S. had an embargo against Iran for many years, but that didn't stop Siemens in Germany from selling them uranium centrifuges, nor did it result in a U.S. embargo against Germany.
Edit: here's a Canadian government site encouraging Canadian companies to do business with Cuba.
https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/cuba/index.aspx?lang=eng
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law).
I don’t know the exact mechanism but I believe our sanctions cause more than just a pain for American companies doing business with Cuba.
https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles...
Siemens did not sell centrifuges to Iran when it was during the full embargo. It did so earlier. Even then, sales of this equipment to Iran are done with coordination with the EU that does the footwork to insure the companies and avoid sanctions.
The Canadian government will in effect compensate you for these secondary sanctions though.
Because you're the one making the claim. You claimed that you need "financial instruments" to "insulate" yourself. Do you have an example of this or not?
> It's well documented that the US has secondary sanctions on Cuba
1) That's about private lawsuits, not government sanctions, "secondary" or otherwise. 2) It only applies to people who directly traffic in confiscated U.S. property, not to generic trade with Cuba. 3) No one has ever successfully pressed a claim or collected any compensation under that statute.
The key to the embargo are two measures, the exclusion of Cuba from the global financial system, and the restriction on ships that docked in Cuba. Because of these, trade with Cuba from other countries is severely restricted.
It's the same situation as the Iranian embargo, just even worse. As you can see in Iran even in capitalist countries it causes untold economic disruption.
There would 1000% be a blockade even if Cuba became capitalist as long as it was opposed to US geopolitical interests. The US trades with endless murderous dictators and even traded with the USSR, the determining factor of the embargo is the Monroe doctrine, not anything else. Ever since 1776 Cuba has been struggling with escaping the American sphere of influence.
Is (nominal) communism to blame for the rise of China?
The rise of China is due to the economic reforms [0] launched in the late 70s by Deng Xiaoping and continued by his successors:
The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, a large percentage of industries remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry. The 1985 lifting of price controls[11] was a major reform, and the lifting of protectionist policies and regulations soon followed, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005.[12] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year.
So in the end I think neither of you are really wrong.
For both, the purpose was not only to get foreign investment, but to improve internal economic efficiency, since collectivization and central planning were lethally inefficient [1][2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
[0] https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Economic-Policy-Soviet-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1931%E2%80%93...
Or because they don't work.
The only ones to claim that it worked were the state owned media, regime and regime-controlled hospitals.
There's a pretty good chance it either doesn't work and the regime is trying to save face or that they copied a western vaccine and are trying to replicate it. They need US dollars from tourism so they have to get the population vaccinated as soon as possible or else the food shortages will get even worse.
It would be the highest in central/south America alongside Chile.
Nature maagazine had a bit on their vaccine here [1]. It's not unreasonable or 'bad journalism' at the same time, it's biased towards them with no hard questions, making excuses, and soft-balling them questions on the embargo etc. and finally it doesn't address or put into context the overwhelmingly negative outcomes which are a result of the regimes power.
Castro is a ruthless despotic killer. The entire economy is under his thumb, most of the prosperous larger scale enterprises are run by the Army. He purposely forbade minor economic activity (i.e. shops, trades) that would normally form 1/2 of the entire economic base. Some of this has loosened up.
You can't blame a blockade for not having mechanics available to fix cars when being a mechanic is defacto outlawed.
If Cuban were an open economy, even with crappy authoritarian leadership and and embargo, it would probably prosper.
Trading with other nations has some 'essential' aspects, but mostly it's not necessary, it's just advantageous. And there's no reason to have to trade with any one nation, generally.
Cuba might need very specific equipment from in order to advance some parts of the economy - for example, many factories need equipment only made in Germany as one example, the same thing applies to US sourcing. This would be acquired through intermediaries.
But by and large, trade would come in commodities, tourism etc. none of which is 'essential' between US and Cuba.
Not having the US to trade with is a drag, but anything that Cuba would actually need (i.e. specialized tech) would be purchased through intermediaries.
Definitely foreign direct investment and tourism would hamper things, but not by some kind of existential amount.
Castro Inc. is 100% the problem there, that people continue to defend them in some way is astonishing and shameful frankly.
I think I know what case you're referring to, I think you're misrepresenting it.
It's pretty sad that people are defending Castro Inc.
I believe that hatred for one's local political opponents transcends any material reality which is why Castro still gets so much indirect support in the West. Or let's just say 'lack of condemnation' or 'redirection of blame'.
In this way, the 'points' that Leftist/Rightists can glean over their opponents, they will use by seriously distorting the facts over some 'example' entity like Cuba.
The ability to rise above that to me is the 'litmus test' for ideological inanity vs. true good faith reasoning.
So many people don't want to admit that Castro Inc. is a vile authoritarian murderous regime, an so they'll do quite a lot to cover that up, by highlighting the few supposed positives, and rarely covering the negatives.
This is the 'red flag' of intellectual failure and I pretty much ignore anything these people have to say, much like I don't have any time for people that think that Donald Trump is some kind of 'Glorious Businessman' and can't fathom that what he does on TV is just made up.
Castro was (now Castro Inc.) a tyrant in the most obvious and classical sense it's clear as day.
[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/15/the-end-of-cubas-entrep...
And yes in practice. Cuba trades with China, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands.
As far as the embargo I don't think you can really separate it. Countries with more oppressive dictatorships have been able to develop economically if given the chance to trade.
Beyond that, Cuba's economy is in shambles as there is no tourism to make money from and as covid restrictions are incredibly strict while cases are increasing.
If you've never had the chance to live as an average citizen in an average developing country it's hard to understand, but actually fleeing on boats is really not uncommon. Where I'm from people that can't even swim take discarded water bottles, stuff them under their t-shirts, and swim 40km to richer countries, for purely economic reasons.
When you don't have enough money for a plane ticket, you don't have the choice, and it's a lot more common in the world than you think. Cuba doesn't even have emigration rates that are out of the norm for poor countries close to rich countries.