> What do you do when the massive amounts of disinformation campaigns remove any sort of international solidarity from you?
Have you talked with anyone who lives there? The problem is not propaganda or poor PR.
Same goes for Venezuela nowadays.
Have you talked with anyone who lives there? The problem is not propaganda or poor PR.
Same goes for Venezuela nowadays.
Do you believe that the US has most of the responsibility while Cuba's dictatorship has none at all?
The parent poster commented on Cuba's current state but never mentioned any active role of Cuba's ruling regime, which single-handedly rules the country with an iron fist for over half a century.
Instead, he commented on a couple of US presidents, including the current acting president which was elected over six decades of continuous rule of Cuba's acting regime.
If we are honestly discussing who is responsible for Cuba's current state, can you try to explain to me without resorting to ad hominem attacks why are the two last ruling US presidents relevant but Cuba's very own regime isn't even worthy of a side reference?
Because I'm pretty sure the Castro brothers were the ones calling the shots for over half a century, including how and where to jail political dissidents.
It's pretty customary to break off relations with a country when diplomats are attacked, it goes against the very fabric of diplomatic immunity. Sure everybody tails them, everybody spies on them, but physical attacks are so far outside the norm, that I was actually surprised that it took as long as it did to disconnect the small ties that had been established. I have my issues with the current administration but to chalk one up against their side after US diplomats where attacked is wanting at best.
There is no doubt the US meddles and sometimes (maybe even most times) for the worse, but to attribute Cuban or even Venezuelan strife to primarily the US is an overreach. The US has backed some bad players in response to communism (Pinochet comes to mind), but to attribute the misdeeds of the ones that actually went left, to the US is more of this fantasy-land, we want to try communism again and this time we will get it right thinking.
What someone says, when they say, "if it where not for the US and capitalist influence it would have succeeded" is actually that they are saying: that they are smarter than Engle, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin and the rest of them; if we just implement their non-dictator, non-western influenced, idea of communism things will be great this time. The problem is, all the above mentioned thought the same thing.
I lived thru communism (had family that lived under it in East Germany, father-in-law was a refuge from Castro), I never realized it would only take a generation to completely forget how bad it was.
Honestly what scares me more is, I always thought Fascism and the Nazis had run their course and there would be no way anyone could make that mistake again. Now watching the apologizes for the failings of communism, I am really not so sure, now I realize if these fringe Nazis find the right voice, appeal the the right social triggers and pull on the correct emotional strings, they could actually become a force to recon with.
You lived through a dictatorship. Very different things.
There are various leftist thoughts that are more libertarian than whatever system we have right now.
The fact that you're equating nazism which isn't even an economic school of thought to communism, which is, means you frankly don't know what you're talking about.
Your experiences are valid, and I would hate to live in USSR or Cuba, but your experiences aren't the end-all of communism.
Fascism absolutely has an economic model you could call it socialism lite. The Nazi's slid from full socialist to Fascist (the Chinese did the same thing, they represent somewhere between a socialist and Fascist state now, because communism does not work, as well, the US has had it's slide towards it, Prescott Bush was a known Fascist and wanted the US to trend towards it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#:~:text=I....
The Nazis where first and foremost national socialist and then softly migrated to Fascist. As far as political spectrum libertarians are to the extreme right, with Anarchist being the end of the spectrum to the right. What the new speak definitions of left/right are trying to do is interject economic, social and emotional issues into the spectrum, because communism cannot be sold in it's original form so now it is being packaged with social issues and plays to emotions. That being said, historically left/right was in systems of and the authorities of governance, the further to the right, the less authority the government had. It historically has not entailed economic models nor social issues like abortion, gay right, etc. You technically could have a far right communist utopia but given the limit of government authority, it would not last long as communism has to be enforced, thus back to central planning, thus back to the left.
The left is defined by reliance in government and the desire for centrally planned governments, the right is towards the limitation or abolition of government. The Republic is a little to the right, Democracy is further right than that, confederation is further right than that and finally no law is the extremity of the right.
We can certainly state that I lived thru communism, the fact that they all became dictatorship speaks more to the flaw of the system than it does that it did not get a fair shake.
I would also certainly say I know what I am talking about given that I am well studied in geopolitical affairs, worked in the field and have extensive experience with the horrors of communism. The fact that you did not know that the Nazis where socialist and slid towards a Fascist economy means you frankly don't know what you are talking about or further that libertarians are extremely right and cannot be left as per their desires to limit government, as per historic and classically defined political pendulum analysis. As well, you most likely have had no experience with a real communist government as most people that even have peripheral experience with communism are wary of government overreach and would not look for a reason to argue or advocate for it. You would realize it's not something to get right.
Your theory of we will do it better than Marx or Lenin puts millions of peoples lives in the balance. It's not going to work this time, central planning always leads to totalitarianism. That is what caused it, not the CIA not KSK not MI6, while they have had their meddlings they did not set up death camps, gulags or oppress dissidents for the communist (every communist regime that has come into existence mind you). It will not bring equality for the oppressed and will bring nothing but suffering for the majority under it's rule. The leaders of the movement, disillusioned with it not working out, will develop a final solution to fix it, which generally means getting rid of some people. This is the way it went down every time, and even before the US started meddling in their affairs.
As further reading I would point you to the chronology of US and USSR spying. As you will note, the USSR had an established agency, propaganda network and sources before the US, and where actively meddling in US affairs, many agencies where formed in light of this new reality, the USSR had a active policy of world wide spread of communism, because Lenin believed in Marx as a profit and Marx was emphatic on the fact that for communism to succeed it would have to be a world wide revolution, Lenin is the text book example he implemented Marxist vision to a T, and honestly out of all of them he was probably the best example but it was the communist according to their core doctrine, that said the capitalist has to go. They painted a mark on people not the other way around. When the capitalist went and it still did not work, someone else had to go, in the case of the UUSR, it was the intellectuals then portions of the Bolsheviks, then the artists. the US response was to contain that spread after the fact, somewhere along the way, that commission changed and the CIA decided it was going to get into nation building, but that does not excuse communism for it's spectacular failings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_espionage#Chronology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Im...
Right so you're specifically talking about your flavor of communism you went through. Which is exactly missing the point of what I said. Please tell me what part of this is centrally planned, or has a strong state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
> The Nazis where first and foremost national socialist and then softly migrated to Fascist.
Yes, they were nationalist. AKA fascist. But we already knew that didn't we.
> with Anarchist being the end of the spectrum to the right.
You're actually trying to use the political spectrum to discuss politics? You understand there are nuances involved, right? I'm tired of people falling for the political compass meme thinking they've understood politics in a 2 or 3 dimensional grid.
> The left is defined by reliance in government
Okay what? Where was this definition?
> and the desire for centrally planned governments,
You're literally making stuff up now.
> We can certainly state that I lived thru communism, the fact that they all became dictatorship speaks more to the flaw of the system than it does that it did not get a fair shake.
You lived through ONE flavor of communism that was authoritarian. Not every flavor of communism is authoritarian or centrally planned.
> I am well studied in geopolitical affairs
Yet you use a political compass to describe politics.
> worked in the field and have extensive experience with the horrors of communism
Yes the horrors of communism. Specifically your flavor of communism.
> The fact that you did not know that the Nazis where socialist and slid towards a Fascist economy means you frankly don't know what you are talking about or further that libertarians are extremely right and cannot be left as per their desires to limit government, as per historic and classically defined political pendulum analysis.
Uh huh. What part of the nazi economy was worker owned and operated? Do you just pick up on the name of something and say "ah yes they called themselves socialist therefore who am I to question them?"
> peripheral experience with communism are wary of government overreach and would not look for a reason to argue or advocate for it.
Except you're wrong here and plenty of people who have lived through USSR are still advocates of communism, just not stalinism :)
> central planning always leads to totalitarianism.
You're the only one bringing this one up mate.
> not the CIA not KSK not MI6,
Yeah they didn't do anything to destabilize countries, no sir. Wonder if the situation was as bad as you're talking about, why did they get involved?
> death camps, gulags or oppress dissidents for the communist
No but we have the modern prison industry complex to do that for us. Same shit, different name. https://twitter.com/chloedontsurf/status/1277422601061744640
> As further reading I would point you to the chronology of US and USSR spying. As you will note, the USSR had an established agency, propaganda network and sources before the US, and where actively meddling in US affairs, many agencies where formed in light of this new reality, the USSR had a active policy of world wide spread of communism, because Lenin believed in Marx as a profit and Marx was emphatic on the fact that for communism to succeed it would have to be a world wide revolution, Lenin is the text book example he implemented Marxist vision to a T, and honestly out of all of them he was probably the best example but it was the communist according to their core doctrine, that said the capitalist has to go. They painted a mark on people not the other way around. When the capitalist went and it still did not work, someone else had to go, in the case of the UUSR, it was the intellectuals then portions of the Bolsheviks, then the artists. the US response was to contain that spread after the fact, somewhere along the way, that commission changed and the CIA decided it was going to get into nation building, but that does not excuse communism for it's spectacular failings:
This is the wildest justification of the redscare that I've read. You're acting like Marx somehow invented communism or that his version is the only version out there.
I'm sorry you lived through an authoritarian state, it sucks, I know because I lived through one as well. But if you take your head out of the dirt and actually go understand that not all of the left want a strong central government, maybe then we can have a better conversation.
Communism and Democratic Socialism are different beasts but that is also where the danger lies, many communist see socialism as the palatable step to their end goal. It's not a red-scare, history is littered with the dead proof and human wreckage of the failings of communism. You would be hard pressed to convince me to give communism no matter how it is dressed up a try again, there are just too many failings and bodies along the way, many of which I have seen with my own eyes, to risk "getting it right, this time".
Trump has effectively shut that down and has made millions of enemies and millions of future enemies from Iran. You can't just choke an economy and expect the state to get better. If anything you're just making it worse.
The sanctions and embargo that is still on going to Cuba is choking their economy and recovery to the global stage.
It also doesn't help that they were used as a proxy by the US and USSR.
I mean, do you believe that all those poor martyrs who died trying to leave the country by boat just so happened to have floated away from their beach when they lost track of how much good times they were having?
A revolution is inherently something that's going to break the stability of a country for a few years to few decades. That's simply a given when it comes to revolutions. The rich and privileged can find a way to escape the country during a revolution, especially if they don't believe the revolution will do them any good.
What comes after a revolution is reconstruction of that stability, this is extremely difficult when you're being choked by the biggest economic power in the world.
When have sanctions actually improved lives for anyone? When has deploying literal biological weapons helped anyone?
The US doesn't play fair with economic systems that go against the grain the US has set. This is where the problem is. We can't even see if this alternate system would work or not because of how the US treats them.
Are you serious? Do you actually believe the balsetos risking their lives during the 90s in makeshift barges to escape Cuba's totalitarian stranglehold are the rich and priviledged escaping Castro in the 60s?
I'm explaining what happens in a revolution. The rich and wealthy pack up and leave. This happens in basically every revolution.
I've made no claims. I've presented facts regarding the 90s balsetos exodus from Cuba and requested you to clarify your baseless assertion that even nowadays only these so-called rich and powerful are anything less than stellar to report on Cuba's totalitarian and oppressive regime, even when you're faced with the facts that tens of thousands of people risked their lives to escape Cuba's stranglehold in makeshift barges.
And somehow you preferred to deflect the question. Why is that?
Did you see the old Cubans at Versailles (or for that fact all over Little Havana) celebrating Castro's death? Did they look like the rich of Cuba that fled. My father in law was a farmer, they took his families farm he was essentially poor, when they took it and destitute after the fact, he was sentenced to death at 16 for speaking out. He ran a mine field, after escaping prison to claim asylum by setting foot in Guantanamo, most Cuban's take their chances by boat because it is safer. It's delusional to think that communist systems have not been given their fair shake. They all failed and they all failed spectacularly due to the fact that they have a propensity to kill their own people when things don't go according to how the pie in the sky dreamer, dreamed it up.
Foreign interventions are all about interests and they ruin other other countries. That's how we bash Iran for democracy, but we sell bombs to KSA at the same time. WAR and Oil are big businesses.
You can easily connect all the dots in Iran and you get to the point that today they have corrupted leaders. Nobody is letting them to construct their country. I'm not sure if it's fair to blame them now.
"Although Reza Shah declared neutrality at an early stage of World War II, Iran assumed greater strategic importance to the British government" "The invasion's strategic purpose was to ensure the safety of Allied supply lines to the USSR"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
"The CIA collaborated with the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and install General Fazlollah Zahedi. Later, the 1979 hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran, lasting 444 days until January 21, 1981, stemmed from past CIA affairs in Iran"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran
"According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...
"International policies pursued by the Shah in order to increase national income by remarkable increases in the price of oil through his leading role in the OPEC have been stressed as a major cause for a shift of Western interests and priorities, and for a reduction of their support for him reflected in a critical position of Western politicians and media, especially of the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter regarding the question of human rights in Iran, and in strengthened economic ties between the United States of America and Saudi Arabia in the 1970s." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Criticis...
"Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655