The recent statements by Miguel Díaz-Canel, in which he claims that the revolution eliminated “all miseries” and that today Cubans have “more rights than ever”, are not new.
The tedious account of the leader appointed by Raúl Castro, presented in the Palace before the docile Pablo Iglesias, is part of a narrative repeated for decades by those in power, crafted to justify 67 years of absolute control.
However, that account falls apart upon even the slightest rigorous examination of the historical data and the current reality of the country.
A republic with problems, but far from the collapse described by the regime
Cuba before 1959 had inequalities, rural poverty, and economic dependency. But it was not, as the official discourse insists, a devastated country or one without basic services.
In the 1950s, the island was among the most advanced economies in Latin America. Studies in economic history published in the Journal of Economic History place its per capita GDP among the highest in the region, comparable to that of Argentina or Uruguay.
In health, the indicators were strong for its context: a life expectancy of around 62 years and an infant mortality rate of about 30 per 1,000 live births, among the lowest on the continent according to reconstructions used by the WHO and analyzed in The Lancet. Cuba also had about 6,000 doctors for six million inhabitants, a remarkable ratio in the region.
In education, literacy ranged between 60% and 76% before the 1961 campaign, according to studies based on historical censuses. It was not universal, but it was also not nonexistent.
This was accompanied by high levels of consumption and modernization in Latin America: widespread access to electricity, televisions, and automobiles, as well as one of the highest caloric intakes in the region, according to historical data from the FAO.
The image of Cuba immersed in absolute poverty does not align with these data.
U.S. dependency: real, but not unique or exceptional
Díaz-Canel insists on portraying the Republic as a "neocolony" without sovereignty.
It is true that there was a strong relationship with the United States, with investments ranging from 750 to 861 million dollars (very high figures for that time) in key sectors such as sugar, electricity, and transportation, according to documents from the State Department itself.
It is also true that this presence created dependency. However, it omits a key fact: these companies operated within the Cuban economy, generated employment, paid salaries and taxes, and contributed to the development of entire sectors.
More importantly, Cuba was not an exception. As documented by CEPAL, practically all of Latin America operated under a model dependent on foreign capital: Argentina on British capital, Chile on copper in foreign hands, Venezuela on multinational oil.
The problem was not the existence of foreign investment, but rather the combination of dependence, inequality, and institutional weakness.
Turning that into a caricature of "a plundered country with no economy of its own" is a propagandistic simplification.
The revolution: from dependence on Washington to subordination to Moscow
Instead of eliminating dependence, the revolution transformed it. Cuba became almost completely dependent on the Soviet Union.
For decades, the country survived thanks to massive subsidies: the purchase of sugar at artificially low prices, subsidized oil supply, and direct financial support, as documented in studies by ECLAC and the economist Carmelo Mesa-Lago.
The supposed “sovereignty” came into question during episodes such as the missile crisis of 1962, when Cuba was used as a strategic pawn in the Cold War.
The collapse of the USSR in 1991 led to an economic contraction of over 30%, revealing an uncomfortable reality: the model was not self-sustaining.
The dependency did not disappear; it simply changed from capitalist actors to communist regimes.
Social achievements: real, but built on a prior foundation
The regime often claims exclusive credit for advancements in health and education. However, these did not emerge out of nowhere.
Cuba already had a healthcare and education system in place before 1959. The revolution expanded and universalized these services, achieving high levels of literacy (though not absolute), life expectancy (78 years), and low infant mortality, according to the World Bank.
But these achievements coexisted for decades with Soviet economic support and today contrast with a reality marked by scarcity.
International organizations such as the World Food Program warn of recession, inflation, and increasing food insecurity. The has raised concerns about the deterioration of basic rights, while Human Rights Watch documents blackouts, lack of medicine, and humanitarian crisis.
This is the context in which Díaz-Canel speaks of "more rights than ever."
From an imperfect republic to a system without freedoms
The deepest difference is not just economic, but political.
Before 1959, Cuba was a republic with a multiparty system, elections —with irregularities during times such as the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista— and an active civil society. There was independent media, public debate, and spaces for participation.
After the revolution, a one-party system was established: competitive elections disappeared, opposition was banned, and fundamental civil liberties were eliminated, as documented by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Freedom House.
The citizen has ceased to be a political subject and has become an object of control.
The contrast that the official discourse tries to conceal
The "continuity" of Díaz-Canel not only distorts the past: it seeks to divert attention from the present, as taught by brothers Fidel and Raúl Castro over six decades.
While the government speaks of historical achievements, the country is facing one of the worst crises in its recent history: blackouts of up to 30 hours, widespread shortages, and an accumulated economic contraction that has driven hundreds of thousands of Cubans to emigrate.
Historical evidence and current data lead to an uncomfortable conclusion for those in power:
- Before 1959, Cuba was a relatively advanced country in Latin America, although it was unequal and dependent.
- The revolution expanded social services, but did not start from scratch.
- Dependency did not disappear; it first shifted to the USSR and then to other allies like Venezuela and Mexico.
- The cost has been a stagnant economy and the loss of fundamental freedoms.
Conclusion
The myth of a devastated pre-revolutionary Cuba and a redemptive revolution does not hold up against the facts.
It is not about idealizing the past, but rather about dismantling a narrative that has been used to justify decades of political control and economic failure.
Today, when Díaz-Canel insists on that rhetoric, the reality for millions of Cubans—characterized by shortages, blackouts, and a lack of future—serves as the most compelling rebuttal.
Filed under: