Some experts have said that Raúl Castro is more pragmatic. He has given signals he might try to follow the Chinese example of state-sponsored capitalism. But his regime has made no significant changes. In March 2009, Mr. Castro announced a shake-up in his administration.
People say they have seen small improvements in the economy that do not go far enough. Many roads in Havana have been repaired. Microwave ovens, DVD players and cellphones are now in stores, but most Cubans cannot afford them.
Please read the enrire article published by the New York Times, it is a very condense and good history.
1. I copied these three parragraphs in part because I could argue and I don't agree that Fidel Castro was the most important leader to emerge from Latin America since the independence of America in the 19th century. I have many reasons for why I think that way and I base my opinion in the facts and history itself.
2. Raul Castro is more pragmatic, and he did give signals of a change, but we are still waiting (since 2009) for him to "chake" his administration, it has not happened yet (now in 2011).
3. There were some small improvements in the economy, but not anything significant. What good is for you to have a cell phone if you can't call anyone else in or outside of the island, because only certain selected people can have cell phones, and by selected people I mean those who belong to the party. What good is it for you to have a microwave if you don't have electricity half of the day???
anyways, these are my responses to the article, please feel free to comment. Maybe I am being too negative...
