MREInfo.com

Hi all.

From people I know ex - Cuban military personel who served YEARS ago in the FAR (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias or Revolutionary Armed Forces), the rations in the 1960's and 70's were a sort of hodge-podge of canned meats and fish (of mostly Soviet origin), condensed milk, and native Cuban tubers such as malanga, boniato, and calabaza. It seems to me at least, that the Cuban military does not have a set ration schedule or menu, but rather dishes out what it has available.

As other posters have mentioned, the general population of Cuba has been under a rationing system since 1962 and at present the rationing systems supplies the food needs of the population for only a portion of the month rather than a full month, and the quality of the items supplied is not comparable to anything sold in a non- Communitst countries, in that the items supplies are the cheapest and lowest quality (or even substandard quality) in regards to both the food and non-food items, and frequently not all items due are issued due to ineficiency, theft or other reasons.

As for the "Blockade" issue, I fail to see where that could have a significant effect on a tropical island that was largely self-sufficient in many areas of food production prior to 1959. Cuba can trade pretty much with anyone it wants to except the USA, so that is at best a naive argument, or at worst a justification for a failed economic and political system. Both South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) had sanctions upon them which were more severe than those imposed on Cuba, yet their populations were not subject to any sort of rationing or major economic disruptions. I would dare say while on this subject that the so called Blockade helps the government justify its failures to the Cuban population and its removal could potentially in one fell swoop eliminate the raison d'etre for the present economic policies followed by the Cuban regime.

As a closing argument, one can say that the rulers of Cuba must have a fed military if they hope to keep power due to the fact that Cuba-unlike North Korea- is not totally isolated from the rest of the world. Time will tell...

carlos1066 wrote:Hi all.

From people I know ex - Cuban military personel who served YEARS ago in the FAR (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias or Revolutionary Armed Forces), the rations in the 1960's and 70's were a sort of hodge-podge of canned meats and fish (of mostly Soviet origin), condensed milk, and native Cuban tubers such as malanga, boniato, and calabaza. It seems to me at least, that the Cuban military does not have a set ration schedule or menu, but rather dishes out what it has available.

As other posters have mentioned, the general population of Cuba has been under a rationing system since 1962 and at present the rationing systems supplies the food needs of the population for only a portion of the month rather than a full month, and the quality of the items supplied is not comparable to anything sold in a non- Communitst countries, in that the items supplies are the cheapest and lowest quality (or even substandard quality) in regards to both the food and non-food items, and frequently not all items due are issued due to ineficiency, theft or other reasons.

As for the "Blockade" issue, I fail to see where that could have a significant effect on a tropical island that was largely self-sufficient in many areas of food production prior to 1959. Cuba can trade pretty much with anyone it wants to except the USA, so that is at best a naive argument, or at worst a justification for a failed economic and political system. Both South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) had sanctions upon them which were more severe than those imposed on Cuba, yet their populations were not subject to any sort of rationing or major economic disruptions. I would dare say while on this subject that the so called Blockade helps the government justify its failures to the Cuban population and its removal could potentially in one fell swoop eliminate the raison d'etre for the present economic policies followed by the Cuban regime.

As a closing argument, one can say that the rulers of Cuba must have a fed military if they hope to keep power due to the fact that Cuba-unlike North Korea- is not totally isolated from the rest of the world. Time will tell...

WELL put, Carlos.

Bypah wrote:

fdsman wrote:I would think there wouldn't be any pre-prepared and preserved food ration packs like developed nations have. That to me is sickening, the fact that Castro is only feeding every adult around a pound of meat every month...We have people in our own country who eat that much in a day, or even a meal which is also sickening but just goes to show you the effects of communism and the effects of capitalism.

Actually I don't think is Castro's doing or the "effects of the dreaded communism", Cuba is not communist but a socialist regime.they use the word "communist" as a name not an ideology.
We have forgotten that the United States has kept an economic embargo and other sanctions for the past 51 years‼. but there still countries and companies that go over the blockade to make bussiness with the cubans. So the cuban goverment has to do what ever it takes with what little they got so everybody ,EVERYBODY is fed.

How many people goes to bed hungry every night and every day in the US??? Some don't have the money to feed themselves and even kids go hungry or only eat the meals @ their schools.
and please don't blame it on Obama....

If they lift the economic embargo trust me the regime will fall eventually.....

Looks like three years ago I was not skilled enough to respond to this, but I am now.

"Actually I don't think is Castro's doing or the "effects of the dreaded communism", Cuba is not communist but a socialist regime.they use the word "communist" as a name not an ideology. "

This is simply because communism is impossible. From every aspect, the concept that everyone puts in the maximum in terms of effort, and only receives back the minimum, i.e. what they need.

The real reality of life is human beings see it fit to work harder if there is a greater reward, but if there is none they will do the minimum to not be punished.

This is why in every "communist" country there is inequality. Instead of three or more levels of pay, you have the poor and the rich. There is no middle class or anything. If it was truly equal, Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky would have all lived in the same apartment blocks as the rest of their countrymen, and not in lavish lodges in the country side, dining on the finest their people had to produce and doing whatever it is Russians do for leisure. But you see the Soviets understood to get ahead, you cannot expect the scientists to produce what they did on the same income, rations, etc that everyone else did. This is why there were special apartment blocks in areas like Chernobyl, and other areas of scientific endeavor that were only available to scientists and their families. I have no doubt they received extra benefits, and never had to drink out of the public juice machines like the less fortunate did.

Socialism on the other hand while equally despicable in my eyes, is more attainable. The principle of taking from everyone and redistributing to them through the government is possible, but as we have seen here at home with Obamacare and many other programs, what you receive back from the government compared to what one could purchase from several competing companies is rather disappointing.

I've heard some say these controlling, overbearing, life stealing forms of government are good in theory but bad in practice.

I'd like to ask them what is good in theory about taking your wealth, income away from you and giving you only one choice (the government) vs giving you the choice of what your fellow men can produce giving you variety. What is great about punishing an individual for working and earning pay by confiscating his due from him and removing his ability to choose, his ability to buy things he doesn't need, but wants and enjoy life?

Punishing the successful has never brought any nation closer to equality, only misery. Look at the US now as we are forcing the "higher earners" to pay more than the people down near the bottom.

Honestly what kind of motivation is that for say a college graduate with a business degree to get a job and succeed rather than wait for all this to blow over while living at mom's house again? We did not become the super power that we are by worrying about whether or not our taxation and redistribution of wealth was fair or not. We got to this point by allowing there to be a system of reward and failure. Companies were not bailed out when they failed, and successful people and businesses were not punished by having their taxes raised.

Instead what we see is a rather old idea emerging that Alexis De Tocqueville scarily predicted over 150 years ago in his book Democracy in America.

He foresaw that the only way to weaken the American people was to get them to give up their freedoms and liberties in exchange for a comfortable and government dependent life style. Everything from their faith to their healthcare, and even their pleasures would be provided in exchange for any freedoms they previously held that made them successful.

And it's working.