After the Special Period in Cuba which began in 1989 with the collapse of the soviet union Cuba was forced to become substantially more self-sustaining. Previously they were able to farm in much more extractive ways and offset their agrictultural output from trade with the USSR. Once the USSR disappeared it was extremely difficult to import agricultural chemicals and import food. Food in Cuba isn't great today, but it's pretty sustainably created.

I would argue that an economic system that concentrates power has the ability to create and enforce a monopoly on land usage. Political or economic systems that allow for a minority control of usable land are much more inclined to use that land for the benefit of the controlling minority, and so far that seems maximizing profits in the short term. When we speak of land management what do we mean? The best "returns"? What is being returned to us? I'm inclined to agree that the values used inland management _can_ be independent of economic system, but an economic system that brings with it a predefined value-set based around extracting profit via exploitation is going to manage the land according to those values. Until we have values that supersede the values of the economic system then the econmic's system's values with be the dominating ones.

While I find his philosophy a bit lacking, Derrick Jensen has some great writing on how we value and manage land. https://www.amazon.com/Language-Older-Than-Words/dp/19314985...

For more from the wonderful Jensen on how abusive our culture is, read A Language Older Than Words (http://www.amazon.com/Language-Older-Than-Words/dp/189395603...). If you can look past the absurd stuff about talking to animals, there is a lot to be learnt from it.