Essay/Term paper: The cuban revolution

Essay, term paper, research paper:  History

The revolution in Cuba was not a result of economic

deprivation, nor because of high expectations in the

economy, it was the political factors and expectations which

evoked the civilians to revolt. The Cuban economy was

moving forward at the time before the rebellion but the

dominant influence of the sugar industry made the economy

"assymetrical" and encouraged no "dynamic industrial

sector". Because of the dependance on sugar, the

unemployment rate ranged between 16 and 20% rising and

falling with sugar prices, ebbing and flowing as the season

changed. The rural wage levels were incredibly unsteady and

unpredictable; the standard of living was low. Dependance

on the sugar industry did not retard the economy of Cuba,

just the wages of its workers. It was the leaders of the nation

who reaped profit from this dependance, and it was the

leaders of the nation who insisted on keeping the nation the

way it was. By the mid 1950's, however, the middle class

had expanded to 33% of the population. Democracy, as we

know it, broke down: the large middle class did not assert

democratic leadership, there was no social militancy in the

working class ranks, and the people found order preferable

to disarray. Batista could no longer legitimize his regime .

Failure in the elections of 1954 showed the discontent of the

people, and failure in communications with the United States

illustrated its discontent. Finally, opposing forces confronted

Batista's power: there were street protests, confrontations

with the police, assault, sabotage, and urban violence. This

began the revolution in Cuba. America, with its stubborn

ideas and misjudgements of character, forced Castro to turn

to the Soviets for alliance and aid. When Castro visited the

United States in April, 1959, there were different respected

individuals holding different views of him and his future

actions. Nixon believed Castro to be naive, some others

thought him a welcome change from Batista, still others

called him an "immature but effective leader, without a well

formed view of how to lead a revolutionary movement and

not overly concerned with abstract of philosophical matters"

(p. 55). Why, then, did the United States impress nit-picky

ideals like "there should not be communists in the Army or in

labor", or "Cuba's approach to the Batista trials is totally

unacceptable, too casual, too nonchalant" on this "forming"

leader? Castro was like an inexperienced murderer with a

gun in his hand: any rustle in the background could set off his

nervous trigger finger causing death, destruction, and liaisons

with the U.S.S.R. When America expressed dislike of the

trial procedures Castro was holding, of course he (Castro)

would try to prove he was able to run his country by himself

and snub the U.S. ambassador. The United States had so

much invested in Cuba that it was stupid to think that Cuba

could not retaliate when the U.S. cut off sugar imports.

America was just too sure of itself thinking it could get away

with criticism and acts like that when an "immature" leader

was in control. Cuba was not totally dependant on the

United States and proved itself so. If Cuba could not find

help and support in America, it sought elsewhere for those

who smiled on its actions and ideals. Castro found friends in

Russia; the United States made this so. Succeeding and

failing have alot to do with judgement. For the United States,

the revolution was a failure because the result was a

communist nation in the Carribean. For the revolutionarie s in

Cuba, the revolution accomplished many of their goals:

capitalism was abolished and socialism installed eroding

class distinctions and eliminating private property, the

working conditions improved, women's rights improved,

labor unions were recogniz ed, the military became more

modern and advanced, political order was restored, the

status of the country improved from dependant to

independant, and many more. For the people of Cuba,

therefore, the revolution can be viewed as a success (if

communism ca n be seen as acceptable), but for America,

the result was a failure. Latin America is one of the poorest

and underdeveloped sections of the world. Because of this

fact, it is difficult for its nations to compete and thrive in the

world market with modern nations as they struggle to

industrialize and improve their status. Capitalism, as a basis

for an economy, means that each man has to struggle to

make a living, that each man may fail and starve, and that

each man may get a lucky break and thrive. We saw this

struggle of the lower classes clearly in Mexico during their

industrialization. With communism, a man may not become

of greater status than he is born with, but then again that

status is no better than his neighbors; this man is, however,

guaranteed a certain amount of land, for example, and a

certain home and a certain salary. To the poor, those

threatened by the extreme of starving, this idea is very

appitizing. To a nation undergoing change, where there are

many poor and these poor co uld get hurt by the

industrialization, communism is appealing in every way. The

United States has to learn that it is not in total control. We

cannot go around condemning countries which hold

procedures different than our own. The developing count

ries in Latin America must struggle through economically and

politically hard times to reach their own maturity; this means

experimentating with different styles of government to find

out which is best for the specific country. If America wants

democrac y to reign over the Carribean, Central, and South

America, it should make the idea appealing, show these

countries that it can work. America should support strong

democratic leaders, encourage capitalistic moves they (the

countries) make, and advise the nations when they need or

ask for it. Mexico is an example where democracy worked,

in Cuba, it didn't. Force will get us nowhere in preventing the

spread of communism, either will cutting off relations with

countries who are still debating U. S. A. or U . S. S. R.

America has too many interests in Latin America to force it

into alliance with the Soviets. If America is supportive and

acts like a friend--not a dictator--these nations will develop

naturally and see that democracy is the best for them.