Before Fidel, Cuba was not some balanced, diversified "free market" farm paradise. It was a U.S. sugar monoculture with land concentrated in latifundia, serving one buyer, in one currency, for one purpose. Sugar for the empire. Tourism for the empire. Mafias, casinos, and brothels for the empire. That was your "economic fundamentals." When you turn a country into a plantation, it will import a lot of its food. Because the best land is reserved for export crops that serve foreign profit, not local nutrition. The revolution inherited that structure. Cuba did not start from "normal economy" and then ruin it with Marxism. It started from a gangster client state, where Washington and a tiny local elite owned the soil. What did Fidel do? He broke the plantations. He redistributed land. He sent literacy brigades into the countryside. He turned a semi-feudal island into a society where peasants could become doctors, engineers, and teachers. Then the United States answered that audacity with: Bay of Pigs. Economic embargo. Terror campaigns. Permanent attempts to isolate and starve the island. You act as if the USSR "feeding" Cuba was proof of Fidel’s incompetence. In reality, it was the only major power willing to trade with a country Washington was trying to strangle. Cuba sent sugar, citrus, nickel, and workers. The USSR sent oil, machinery, grain, and yes, food. That is called trade and specialization. Japan, the Gulf monarchies, Singapore, South Korea, many European states import large portions of their food. Nobody calls that a failure of "economic fundamentals." They call it comparative advantage. It only becomes "proof of incompetence" when a socialist country does it under siege. You say, "In the end, this folklore hero achieved nada." Nothing? He took a U.S. playground of casinos and child prostitution and turned it into a country with: Universal literacy. Life expectancy comparable to rich countries. Infant mortality rates lower than many U.S. cities. One of the highest doctor-per-capita ratios in the world. Medical brigades that went to Africa, Latin America, even to Western countries during crises. Under embargo. Under permanent sabotage. Ninety miles from a state that spends more on its military than most of the planet combined. If that is "nada," what do you call a superpower that spends trillions on war and still has people rationing insulin, drowning in student debt, and sleeping under bridges? You reduce six decades of resistance to a meme about "importing two-thirds of its food." I look at the same history and see this: A small island that refused to be a plantation. A people who were told, "Surrender and we will feed you properly." A leadership that answered, "We would rather be poor with a spine than rich on our knees." You want to score a cheap point about Fidel’s "folklore." But the real folklore is the story you are selling: That a country under embargo, sabotage, terror, and economic siege should be judged by the same metrics as the empire that besieged it, and if it is not equally rich, the problem must be "communist incompetence." Cuba’s real "crime" was not bad economics. Its crime was proving that a small, Black and brown island could kick the United States out and still refuse to crawl back for forgiveness. That is why people like you need to keep repeating that it "achieved nothing." Because if you ever admitted what it actually achieved under those conditions, you would have to ask a much more uncomfortable question: What would Cuba have become without the boot on its neck?