/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>18113568

Almost inevitable unfortunately, given that Cuba is just an island nation. It existed in a multi-polar world and was within the sphere of American influence. I saw Castro was more of a lefty populist, but he was definitely a Marxist by the time of the revolution, so that obviously biased his allegiance to the soviets. But I still think that as an individual Castro was a heroic guy that was much more laudable than Batista and probably did more good for Cuba than Batista ever would have done. It is possible some kind of capitalistic government could have turned Cuba into more of a modern and affluent country, like Singapore or something, but judging by the region I can see why somebody like Castro was almost inevitable and why he would bet on the USSR over the USA, which any politically conscious Latin American was going to be suspicious of as a regional tyrant.

Of all the 20th century communist strongmen though I might put Castro below Tito. Tito was an even more adept statesman and was able to basically put Yugoslavia at the center of its own power bloc straddling the USSR and the USA. Of course, when he died Yugoslavia fell apart, but he was another turbo alpha revolutionary guy that singlehandedly held his whole country together and made it a global player. Cuba may still be under the communist party, but in a way more resembles the stubbornness and isolation of North Korea. It is much more open than North Korea, but unlike say Vietnam or something Cuba just refuses out of principle to concede an inch to the US. Fidel Castro was telling Obama to fuck off even as he took the time to try to thaw relations between Cuba and the US.