To many Cubans, Fidel Castro is the father of their country, a strong, charismatic leader who overthrew the shackles of the corrupt Batista regime of the 1950s and ended American control over the island. To parts of the developing world, he is a symbol of self-government and justice in opposition to political and economic imperialism. Cuban troops and military aid have flowed to revolutionary movements from Angola to Nicaragua. Cuba has sent doctors and other professionals around the world to provide social services in regions that desperately need them. Even in the developed world, Castro has been the darling of the political left, helping to assuage the guilt for enjoying the fruits of an unjust world economy.
Since his retirement last Tuesday, many have been tempted to portray Castro’s legacy in this positive light. But history should judge him much more harshly.
Throughout Latin America, Castro has spread the dangerous myth that good intentions and central planning are the shortcuts to rapid and equitable economic growth. From Salvador Allende’s disastrous attempt to communize Chile in the 1970s (which sadly led to a brutal military coup), to Hugo Chávez’s equally destructive “21st Century Socialism,” Castro has inspired the replacement of liberal property rights with bloated bureaucracy and state-run cooperatives. On a more violent note, murderous guerilla groups like the FARC in Colombia and the Shining Path in Peru believe they’re following in Castro’s footsteps, bringing “progress” in their wake. As one of the few remaining communist regimes, Cuba instills a sense of hope among the radical left that the economic disasters of the Soviet Union and Maoist China were simply aberrations of socialist doctrine, and that their ideology will eventually be vindicated.
As the years go on, it is clear that the Cuban system is failing. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s eliminated the subsidies that were propping up Cubans’ standard of living. Today, consumer goods are in severe shortage, caloric intake for the average citizen is low, infrastructure is deteriorating, and Cuba is increasingly dependent on Venezuelan oil revenues for foreign aid and cheap loans.
Castro’s system was flawed from the beginning. The lack of formal markets stifled private initiative and eliminated the price signals necessary to allocate resources efficiently and encourage innovation. Black markets emerged to replace some of these functions, but spawned corruption and inequality. Even the fabled achievements in education and health care become unimpressive when one considers that during the late Batista years, Cuba already ranked among the top countries in Latin America in both these categories. It even had an infant mortality rate lower than West Germany, France, and Italy. Today, the country hardly stands out at all. Some, the Cuban government included, predictably blame stagnant living standards on the United States for maintaining a trade embargo. By attributing their problems to a lack of international trade, the Cuban government only demonstrates the bankruptcy of communist economics that sees market exchanges as exploitive and emphasizes the need for self-sufficiency.
As if facing the consequences of faulty economic dogma wasn’t enough, Cubans are subject to some of the most oppressive political conditions in the world. The Internet is effectively illegal, while the media is dominated by the state. Criticism of the government is punished harshly. Many human rights organizations have documented the imprisonment and torture of dissidents. Lacking individual rights, it is hardly surprising that many Cubans prefer the hard life of an illegal immigrant in the United States to this so-called island paradise, health care and all. Tens of thousands of political and economic refugees have made the dangerous trip through shark-infested waters on homemade boats. Tragically, many have perished.
Economic realities since the mid-1990s have forced Cuba to implement minor market reforms. Fidel’s retirement may lead his brother and successor Raúl, who has suggested the need for “structural and conceptual changes,” to pursue further modification. With any luck, as the economy liberalizes and people become more autonomous from the state, pressure for political reform will rise. The United States should help push this process along by lifting the trade embargo and encouraging Cuba to integrate into the global web of trade, investment, and communication.
After a half-century of Castro’s social experiment gone bad, Cubans deserve a change.
