|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 27 2016 05:52 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 05:31 Nyxisto wrote:On November 27 2016 05:28 Paljas wrote:On November 27 2016 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:
The biggest error Chomsky makes is that he actually paints the embargo as some kind of capitalist power play. Actually it was probably the thing that kept the Castro administration going in the first place. The best way to bring these regimes down is just to hug them to death. If you start to play nice they basically can't keep their "we are encircled" thing going. Yes, lets completely ignore all economic factors and downgrade our analysis to scientifc concepts like "hug them to death". That will work, so we can clearly see how the embargo wasnt a power play, the US just doesnt like cigars. Btw, the reason why many people dont commit to the monotone Castro demonizing has something to do with the medical, educational and anti poverty standards which where established under the Castro regime as well as him being a symbol for the antiimperialist liberation struggle around the world. The embargo was a political move because people at the time where very much still operating on domino-theory fears of everybody succumbing to communism. Strong-arming them was simply politically popular. If the US had taken a pragmatic approach and just tried to open them up with trade Cuba would have probably gone down the route of the Soviet Union or China. Compared to countries that were in a similar state int the 60's and 70's and embraced market economies, for example in Asia, Cuba is objectively still in an absolutely ridiculous and downtrodden situation. And how do you come to this conclusion? Surely not by looking at history, as the the US obviously was not aiming to hug the Soviet Union to death. Same with China which is, despite being relatively open to free trade, still a dictatorship, ruled by the same exact party. The "lets just trade" with them approach also doesnt seem all that effective when one looks at Saudi Arabia, Ruanda, Egypt etc. To claim that the US sanctions somehow helped the Castro regime is an absurd notion. Which countries do you mean exactly? Do you have any statistics? Compared to the rest of the countries in latin america and the carribean, cuba has excellent ratings in literacy, healthcare etc. some sources: https://www.internations.org/cuba-expats/guide/life-in-cuba-15677/healthcare-and-education-in-cuba-2http://www.unesco.org/new/en/santiago/press-room/newsletters/e-newsletter-education-for-all-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/no16-may-2014/nota-habana-03/
The 'Asian Tigers' managed to develop without bringing censorship and authoritarianism onto themselves just fine. There's no real excuse for Cuba's authoritarianism. Outperforming Honduras is hardly an achievement. The Soviet Union was basically done for after Glasnost and Perestroika and China abolished Communism pretty soon after the US normalised relations in the late 70's and 80s.
|
Norway28743 Posts
I visited Cuba with my family 12 years ago. While all my experiences were anecdotal, I feel they corroborate the greater understanding I have of the country and of the Castro regime.
On the negative side, there was real poverty. Saw some older people who looked malnurished. Mostly everything was kinda.. 'shanty', exceptions for some parts of Habana (and the touristy locations, although we mostly avoided those). Some of the Cubans we got to know would ask us for our hotel soap - seems like soap was a luxury good unavailable to the public. At one point, we used a public taxi - and the car was from the 30s. This is not a joke - on two occasions during a ~20 kilometer ride, the driver had to stop because she had to go back and pick up parts of the car that had fallen off. And when we on the drive back from the same place ended up accepting a private taxi, that showcased another negative aspect, because the car was stopped by the police after less than 1 kilometer, and the drivers looked seriously frightened. While I certainly oppose tax evasion, I feel the ~some months of pretty terrible jail-experience our two nice drivers seemed to be in line for was somewhat exaggerated for their crime. (I do however think you can find examples of stupidly draconian punishments for select offenses deemed particularly reprehensible in mostly every country - as harsh as I thought it was, I think every single instance of someone being jailed over smoking pot even worse. )
On the positive side, the people were incredible. Not just in terms of having 'positive spirits' or whatever, but they were also; helpful, knowledgeable, and very open. The knowledge people had spoke volumes of the success of their educational system. Sure, some selection bias in that we'd only talk to people who knew some amount of English, but if we talked to a group of people in their 20s, that would normally include most of them. And while I'm sure some of the helpfulness was rooted in the desire to make a quick buck (literally), there also seemed to be this genuinely communitarian sentiment which made people want to be helpful because they thought it was the right thing to do. I came down with stomach problems at some point, and had to get medical assistance. The hotel fixed it, for free, in a very short amount of time, and the nurse was awesome.
And the openness showcased itself through people being absolutely willing to openly criticize the regime and Castro. Even then, most of it wasn't too bad - but variants of 'he talks too much' or 'just babbles on and on' we heard on several occasions. We did some illegal home-dining on a couple occasions, and the people we visited would have more negatives - but mostly in the sense that they thought it sucked that they had to operate their home restaurant in careful secrecy. Even though people were willing to criticize, they mostly were not that negative. Of course, while expressing 'he talks too much' or 'while I think the socialist revolution brought a lot of good, I wish we could have open markets' might be common sentiments that people were not afraid to share, there might still have been people who silently wished for his death as well. But I really didn't get that vibe. I got the vibe from the Cubans we spoke to that their view of Castro was 'overall positive despite obvious detractions'.
I do remember a (brilliant) guy from Ghana who was there as an exchange student lambasting my dad over my dad's somewhat romanticized impression of Cuban socialism - and also lambasting myself for my understanding of myself as privileged (he contested this, stating that my sheltered life had made me weak  ).
Anyway. obviously the country has had great issues. But comparing Castro to Stalin is ridiculous. Cuba had great success relative to comparable countries with regard to health care and education. Literacy rates reached the high 90s much faster than other latin american countries, and while there obviously is some indoctrination, the people I spoke to were very knowledgeable of world events and geography. They knew that Cuba was a poor country. There was no 'grand supreme leader is the reason why our country is so prosperous and superior' feeling going around, but there also wasn't a 'we're so downtrodden and desperate, we hope this guy will finally die' feeling.
Personally, I wonder how it could have been without the whole cold war dynamic. Castro being a reaction to american imperialism is indisputable - if he could have risen to power without that conflict, if there weren't 20-600 assassination attempts, if there hadn't been a bay of pigs invasion, if they hadn't been forced to partner up with a dysfunctional empire at the other side of the world, rather than the more functional empire at their doorstep. I think if not for these factors, we could have seen the same positive aspects - universal education and health care as the two top priorities of the nation (as it should be for developing nations, but which it usually is not), but without the economy being so stagnant.
|
The 'Asian Tigers' managed to develop without bringing censorship and authoritarianism onto themselves just fine.
Worth noting that these countries didnt get punished by trade embargos. Your statement is also clearly wrong.
From Wikipedia:
About Korea
A period of political instability followed, broken by General Park Chung-hee's May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual government the next year. Park took over as president until his assassination in 1979, overseeing rapid export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. Park was heavily criticised as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution, which gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms. However, the Korean economy developed significantly during Park's tenure and the government developed the nationwide expressway system, the Seoul subway system, and laid the foundation for economic development during his 17-year tenure.
About Taiwan
During the 1960s and 1970s, the ROC maintained an authoritarian, single-party government while its economy became industrialized and technology oriented. This rapid economic growth, known as the Taiwan Miracle, was the result of a fiscal regime independent from mainland China and backed up, among others, by the support of US funds and demand for Taiwanese products
It would be nice if you could stop making things up.
Not at any point did I excuse the Castro regime and the brutal opression it stood for. I merely pointed out the reasons why people see Castro partly in a favorable light.
You also didnt respond to my point at all concerning the effectiveness of open trade. China still has the same exact authoritarian regime it had 40 years ago. The Sovie Union suffered under the pressure of the US. You still havent brought forward a singe piece of evidence or rational argument to support your statement
|
On November 27 2016 06:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I visited Cuba with my family 12 years ago. While all my experiences were anecdotal, I feel they corroborate the greater understanding I have of the country and of the Castro regime. On the negative side, there was real poverty. Saw some older people who looked malnurished. Mostly everything was kinda.. 'shanty', exceptions for some parts of Habana (and the touristy locations, although we mostly avoided those). Some of the Cubans we got to know would ask us for our hotel soap - seems like soap was a luxury good unavailable to the public. At one point, we used a public taxi - and the car was from the 30s. This is not a joke - on two occasions during a ~20 kilometer ride, the driver had to stop because she had to go back and pick up parts of the car that had fallen off. And when we on the drive back from the same place ended up accepting a private taxi, that showcased another negative aspect, because the car was stopped by the police after less than 1 kilometer, and the drivers looked seriously frightened. While I certainly oppose tax evasion, I feel the ~some months of pretty terrible jail-experience our two nice drivers seemed to be in line for was somewhat exaggerated for their crime. (I do however think you can find examples of stupidly draconian punishments for select offenses deemed particularly reprehensible in mostly every country - as harsh as I thought it was, I think every single instance of someone being jailed over smoking pot even worse. ) On the positive side, the people were incredible. Not just in terms of having 'positive spirits' or whatever, but they were also; helpful, knowledgeable, and very open. The knowledge people had spoke volumes of the success of their educational system. Sure, some selection bias in that we'd only talk to people who knew some amount of English, but if we talked to a group of people in their 20s, that would normally include most of them. And while I'm sure some of the helpfulness was rooted in the desire to make a quick buck (literally), there also seemed to be this genuinely communitarian sentiment which made people want to be helpful because they thought it was the right thing to do. I came down with stomach problems at some point, and had to get medical assistance. The hotel fixed it, for free, in a very short amount of time, and the nurse was awesome. And the openness showcased itself through people being absolutely willing to openly criticize the regime and Castro. Even then, most of it wasn't too bad - but variants of 'he talks too much' or 'just babbles on and on' we heard on several occasions. We did some illegal home-dining on a couple occasions, and the people we visited would have more negatives - but mostly in the sense that they thought it sucked that they had to operate their home restaurant in careful secrecy. Even though people were willing to criticize, they mostly were not that negative. Of course, while expressing 'he talks too much' or 'while I think the socialist revolution brought a lot of good, I wish we could have open markets' might be common sentiments that people were not afraid to share, there might still have been people who silently wished for his death as well. But I really didn't get that vibe. I got the vibe from the Cubans we spoke to that their view of Castro was 'overall positive despite obvious detractions'. I do remember a (brilliant) guy from Ghana who was there as an exchange student lambasting my dad over my dad's somewhat romanticized impression of Cuban socialism - and also lambasting myself for my understanding of myself as privileged (he contested this, stating that my sheltered life had made me weak ). Anyway. obviously the country has had great issues. But comparing Castro to Stalin is ridiculous. Cuba had great success relative to comparable countries with regard to health care and education. Literacy rates reached the high 90s much faster than other latin american countries, and while there obviously is some indoctrination, the people I spoke to were very knowledgeable of world events and geography. They knew that Cuba was a poor country. There was no 'grand supreme leader is the reason why our country is so prosperous and superior' feeling going around, but there also wasn't a 'we're so downtrodden and desperate, we hope this guy will finally die' feeling. Personally, I wonder how it could have been without the whole cold war dynamic. Castro being a reaction to american imperialism is indisputable - if he could have risen to power without that conflict, if there weren't 20-600 assassination attempts, if there hadn't been a bay of pigs invasion, if they hadn't been forced to partner up with a dysfunctional empire at the other side of the world, rather than the more functional empire at their doorstep. I think if not for these factors, we could have seen the same positive aspects - universal education and health care as the two top priorities of the nation (as it should be for developing nations, but which it usually is not), but without the economy being so stagnant.
Thanks for this nuanced post.
|
On November 27 2016 06:26 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +The 'Asian Tigers' managed to develop without bringing censorship and authoritarianism onto themselves just fine. Worth noting that these countries didnt get punished by trade embargos. Your statement is also clearly wrong. From Wikipedia: About Korea Show nested quote + A period of political instability followed, broken by General Park Chung-hee's May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual government the next year. Park took over as president until his assassination in 1979, overseeing rapid export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. Park was heavily criticised as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution, which gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms. However, the Korean economy developed significantly during Park's tenure and the government developed the nationwide expressway system, the Seoul subway system, and laid the foundation for economic development during his 17-year tenure. About Taiwan Show nested quote +During the 1960s and 1970s, the ROC maintained an authoritarian, single-party government while its economy became industrialized and technology oriented. This rapid economic growth, known as the Taiwan Miracle, was the result of a fiscal regime independent from mainland China and backed up, among others, by the support of US funds and demand for Taiwanese products It would be nice if you could stop making things up. Not at any point did I excuse the Castro regime and the brutal opression it stood for. I merely pointed out the reasons why people see Castro partly in a favorable light. You also didnt respond to my point at all concerning the effectiveness of open trade. China still has the same exact authoritarian regime it had 40 years ago. The Sovie Union suffered under the pressure of the US. You still havent brought forward a singe piece of evidence or rational argument to support your statement
In what world is China as oppressive as it was 40 years ago? The country is living under the same government in name only
|
On November 27 2016 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 06:26 Paljas wrote:The 'Asian Tigers' managed to develop without bringing censorship and authoritarianism onto themselves just fine. Worth noting that these countries didnt get punished by trade embargos. Your statement is also clearly wrong. From Wikipedia: About Korea A period of political instability followed, broken by General Park Chung-hee's May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual government the next year. Park took over as president until his assassination in 1979, overseeing rapid export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. Park was heavily criticised as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution, which gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms. However, the Korean economy developed significantly during Park's tenure and the government developed the nationwide expressway system, the Seoul subway system, and laid the foundation for economic development during his 17-year tenure. About Taiwan During the 1960s and 1970s, the ROC maintained an authoritarian, single-party government while its economy became industrialized and technology oriented. This rapid economic growth, known as the Taiwan Miracle, was the result of a fiscal regime independent from mainland China and backed up, among others, by the support of US funds and demand for Taiwanese products It would be nice if you could stop making things up. Not at any point did I excuse the Castro regime and the brutal opression it stood for. I merely pointed out the reasons why people see Castro partly in a favorable light. You also didnt respond to my point at all concerning the effectiveness of open trade. China still has the same exact authoritarian regime it had 40 years ago. The Sovie Union suffered under the pressure of the US. You still havent brought forward a singe piece of evidence or rational argument to support your statement In what world is China as oppressive as it was 40 years ago? The country is living under the same government in name only
You are right, I worded that badly. Point still stands however, as its still an authoritarian regime, ruled by the same exact party.
I would appreciate it if you could also respond to the other points i made.
|
I'm a little confused about your statement:
"Worth noting that these countries didnt get punished by trade embargos"
That was my initial point, because they weren't antagonised they were fairly quickly integrated into the world economy. Governments like the Cuban one draw a lot of stability from the fact that they are able to paint an image of fending of a global power. If this doesn't exist there's really no justification for the authoritarianism.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 27 2016 04:13 Nyxisto wrote:
Don't really have time right now to watch the whole 30 minute video but the only thing you can applaud Castro for is overthrowing Batista but that is pretty much where it ends. After that he turned into another lame dictator.
Chomsky on political issues is pretty bad. Chomsky would defend the robot devil if he'd mess with US 'imperialism' which for Chomsky is basically anything the US does.
This. Castro was good for taking government out of Bastista hands. Unfortunately Castro never normalized his government back from the repressive defensive stance against American meddling and adopted the failing economic policies of Communism. After that Cuba could never get out of its failing infrastructure.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 27 2016 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 06:26 Paljas wrote:The 'Asian Tigers' managed to develop without bringing censorship and authoritarianism onto themselves just fine. Worth noting that these countries didnt get punished by trade embargos. Your statement is also clearly wrong. From Wikipedia: About Korea A period of political instability followed, broken by General Park Chung-hee's May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual government the next year. Park took over as president until his assassination in 1979, overseeing rapid export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. Park was heavily criticised as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution, which gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms. However, the Korean economy developed significantly during Park's tenure and the government developed the nationwide expressway system, the Seoul subway system, and laid the foundation for economic development during his 17-year tenure. About Taiwan During the 1960s and 1970s, the ROC maintained an authoritarian, single-party government while its economy became industrialized and technology oriented. This rapid economic growth, known as the Taiwan Miracle, was the result of a fiscal regime independent from mainland China and backed up, among others, by the support of US funds and demand for Taiwanese products It would be nice if you could stop making things up. Not at any point did I excuse the Castro regime and the brutal opression it stood for. I merely pointed out the reasons why people see Castro partly in a favorable light. You also didnt respond to my point at all concerning the effectiveness of open trade. China still has the same exact authoritarian regime it had 40 years ago. The Sovie Union suffered under the pressure of the US. You still havent brought forward a singe piece of evidence or rational argument to support your statement In what world is China as oppressive as it was 40 years ago? The country is living under the same government in name only
If you look at Asian tigers, the current economic strength are all based on state-incubated targeted export industries with high value add.
Success with open trade does not only mean open trade.
|
I find it fascinating how so many Americans have such animosity toward Castro. He's not even in the top 10 worst dictators we've supported, let alone our "enemies".
Meanwhile people are giving him static for human rights when we literally have an extrajudicial prison, verging on torture camp, that we put there, we are basically threatening our indigenous people with death/imprisonment if they don't leave land the US stole from them to build a poison pipeline through their water system, and millions of Americans who don't even have access to several of their constitutionally protected rights.
Don't get me wrong, his methods were pretty terrible, but they can't be looked at in isolation (people love to use this for excuse slavery), what's the most recent terrible thing Castro did? Something tells me we can find a more recent and more terrible example from plenty of "allies" and probably the US itself.
|
On November 27 2016 07:39 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:On November 27 2016 06:26 Paljas wrote:The 'Asian Tigers' managed to develop without bringing censorship and authoritarianism onto themselves just fine. Worth noting that these countries didnt get punished by trade embargos. Your statement is also clearly wrong. From Wikipedia: About Korea A period of political instability followed, broken by General Park Chung-hee's May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual government the next year. Park took over as president until his assassination in 1979, overseeing rapid export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. Park was heavily criticised as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution, which gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms. However, the Korean economy developed significantly during Park's tenure and the government developed the nationwide expressway system, the Seoul subway system, and laid the foundation for economic development during his 17-year tenure. About Taiwan During the 1960s and 1970s, the ROC maintained an authoritarian, single-party government while its economy became industrialized and technology oriented. This rapid economic growth, known as the Taiwan Miracle, was the result of a fiscal regime independent from mainland China and backed up, among others, by the support of US funds and demand for Taiwanese products It would be nice if you could stop making things up. Not at any point did I excuse the Castro regime and the brutal opression it stood for. I merely pointed out the reasons why people see Castro partly in a favorable light. You also didnt respond to my point at all concerning the effectiveness of open trade. China still has the same exact authoritarian regime it had 40 years ago. The Sovie Union suffered under the pressure of the US. You still havent brought forward a singe piece of evidence or rational argument to support your statement In what world is China as oppressive as it was 40 years ago? The country is living under the same government in name only If you look at Asian tigers, the current economic strength are all based on state-incubated targeted export industries with high value add. Success with open trade does not only mean open trade.
Sure, I don't disagree. They all have fairly active governments and run some form of managed capitalism. I didn't argue against state intervention, just against Cuba's isolationist socialism.
On November 27 2016 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
Don't get me wrong, his methods were pretty terrible, but they can't be looked at in isolation (people love to use this for excuse slavery), what's the most recent terrible thing Castro did? Something tells me we can find a more recent and more terrible example from plenty of "allies" and probably the US itself.
well citizens essentially have no internet access ... in 2016
|
On November 27 2016 07:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 07:39 TanGeng wrote:On November 27 2016 06:39 Nyxisto wrote:On November 27 2016 06:26 Paljas wrote:The 'Asian Tigers' managed to develop without bringing censorship and authoritarianism onto themselves just fine. Worth noting that these countries didnt get punished by trade embargos. Your statement is also clearly wrong. From Wikipedia: About Korea A period of political instability followed, broken by General Park Chung-hee's May 16 coup against the weak and ineffectual government the next year. Park took over as president until his assassination in 1979, overseeing rapid export-led economic growth as well as implementing political repression. Park was heavily criticised as a ruthless military dictator, who in 1972 extended his rule by creating a new constitution, which gave the president sweeping (almost dictatorial) powers and permitted him to run for an unlimited number of six-year terms. However, the Korean economy developed significantly during Park's tenure and the government developed the nationwide expressway system, the Seoul subway system, and laid the foundation for economic development during his 17-year tenure. About Taiwan During the 1960s and 1970s, the ROC maintained an authoritarian, single-party government while its economy became industrialized and technology oriented. This rapid economic growth, known as the Taiwan Miracle, was the result of a fiscal regime independent from mainland China and backed up, among others, by the support of US funds and demand for Taiwanese products It would be nice if you could stop making things up. Not at any point did I excuse the Castro regime and the brutal opression it stood for. I merely pointed out the reasons why people see Castro partly in a favorable light. You also didnt respond to my point at all concerning the effectiveness of open trade. China still has the same exact authoritarian regime it had 40 years ago. The Sovie Union suffered under the pressure of the US. You still havent brought forward a singe piece of evidence or rational argument to support your statement In what world is China as oppressive as it was 40 years ago? The country is living under the same government in name only If you look at Asian tigers, the current economic strength are all based on state-incubated targeted export industries with high value add. Success with open trade does not only mean open trade. Sure, I don't disagree. They all have fairly active governments and run some form of managed capitalism. I didn't argue against state intervention, just against Cuba's isolationist socialism. Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 07:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
Don't get me wrong, his methods were pretty terrible, but they can't be looked at in isolation (people love to use this for excuse slavery), what's the most recent terrible thing Castro did? Something tells me we can find a more recent and more terrible example from plenty of "allies" and probably the US itself.
well citizens essentially have no internet access ... in 2016
Should be noted it's not a China like lockdown, but pricing people out of the internet (and it's just really slow). Also, looks like they are working on that.
The Cuban government has promised that 50 percent of its population will have internet access in their homes and 60 percent from mobile devices by 2020, a US Department of State official reported on Monday.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Sepúlveda visited the Caribbean island last week and reported that there exists a “real potential” to make the internet faster and more accessible for more Cubans.
Source
I know you're not talking about being able to play on their favorite minecraft servers, but that's probably not where I would go if I was looking for something "terrible".
|
I'm talking about not being able to register a website without national approval and absolute censorship. Cuba exercises some of the strongest internet censorship on the planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Cuba
This isn't about minecraft, this is about having basic access to information, which is a human right. There's no broadband, there's no modern mobile phone infrastructure, this is some NK level of bullshittery. I'm no Conservative either but you can't be serious. According to LiquidDrone fucking soap was a luxury good in the 90s. If you had to move to Seoul or Havana where'd you go?
|
ITT people excusing the oppressive, beyond impoverished, communist/socialist shit-hole that is Cuba and Fidel Castro. People risk their lives on tiny little scrounged up wooden rafts to flee from there. Cuba is not that much economically better off than NK, and while Cuba isn't as bad on the torturing and killing now-a-days, Castro's history is terrible.
Of course I'd expect idealistic lefties to do so. I wonder what you all would say to people on the "right" if they praised Pinochet (hey...at least Chile was far richer during his time than Cuba...). We should be glad when dictators/authoritarians die; gives hope that things have the possibility of change. Maybe once Raul dies Cuba can shed itself of its authoritarian socialism.
|
On November 27 2016 08:59 Wegandi wrote:
ITT people excusing the oppressive, beyond impoverished, communist/socialist shit-hole that is Cuba and Fidel Castro. People risk their lives on tiny little scrounged up wooden rafts to flee from there. Cuba is not that much economically better off than NK, and while Cuba isn't as bad on the torturing and killing now-a-days, Castro's history is terrible.
Of course I'd expect idealistic lefties to do so. I wonder what you all would say to people on the "right" if they praised Pinochet (hey...at least Chile was far richer during his time than Cuba...). We should be glad when dictators/authoritarians die; gives hope that things have the possibility of change. Maybe once Raul dies Cuba can shed itself of its authoritarian socialism.
what's your citation on the relative economy of cuba vs NK?
cuz they look fairly different to me.
|
On November 27 2016 08:08 Nyxisto wrote:I'm talking about not being able to register a website without national approval and absolute censorship. Cuba exercises some of the strongest internet censorship on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_CubaThis isn't about minecraft, this is about having basic access to information, which is a human right. There's no broadband, there's no modern mobile phone infrastructure, this is some NK level of bullshittery. I'm no Conservative either but you can't be serious. According to LiquidDrone fucking soap was a luxury good in the 90s. If you had to move to Seoul or Havana where'd you go?
I was there for 4 weeks in 2008 and agree with most of what Drone wrote. Access to internet, as with everything else, is directly controlled by the state. There are cybercafes in the big cities, but you pay for them in dollars (convertibles), meaning they are virtually impossible to afford for locals. Other than that, there's dial-up access for some people. Setting up a website is forbidden (well, state-controlled) as with any other form of media.
The Cuban government, when I was there, was incredibly repressive. A doctor I met, got questioned intensively by a policeman as we walked along the street, merely for being in the company of a foreigner. All girls sitting in the main square of Santiago were rounded up on suspicion of prostitution (it's quite possible that they were indeed prostitutes, but they were not actively selling their wears... and if you wanted to buy sex, there were ample opportunities and the main square of Santiago was not the obvious place for it). And those were just the two cases that I experienced personally. Clearly it's a lot worse where there aren't tourists around, as people were quite happy to tell me.
That said, the Cuban government does provide a quality education for everybody. Free healthcare for everybody (it's short on supplies, though). And a "basic income" in the form of rations and subsidies on food, and housing for everybody (pretty grotty in many cases, and there's a housing crisis, causing the kind of overcrowding you see in Havana Central). In many ways, the situation is a lot better than in neighbouring countries. It is a very poor country, and a fair amount can be blamed on the ridiculous sanctions that the US had (and some it still has): with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US is their only realistic trade partner, and they refuse to trade. The sugar price collapsing also helped destroy the remnants of the Cuban economy during the 90s. A fair amount of the poverty can also be blamed on the system, which completely stifles any incentive for innovation. Why bother setting up a (legal) business when you have to pay between 80 and 90 percent of your profits to the government, yet the government won't lift a finger if your business goes under, meaning you have all the risk and none of the reward of enterprise? And a final part is simply historic and geographic reasons: the rest of the Caribbean is not exactly thriving either. Either way, poverty is a huge problem. All the same, inequality is relatively low, which seems to indicate that the government is at least not overtly filling their pockets at the expense of the population (as plenty of other dictatorships around the world have happily done).
My general conclusions were that Castro was a brutal dictator, who was paranoid about opposition (and rightfully fearful of the US throughout the cold war), but also a true believer. He was a man who used all means he could to reform Cuba to his vision of his beloved country.
|
On November 27 2016 08:08 Nyxisto wrote:I'm talking about not being able to register a website without national approval and absolute censorship. Cuba exercises some of the strongest internet censorship on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_CubaThis isn't about minecraft, this is about having basic access to information, which is a human right. There's no broadband, there's no modern mobile phone infrastructure, this is some NK level of bullshittery. I'm no Conservative either but you can't be serious. According to LiquidDrone fucking soap was a luxury good in the 90s. If you had to move to Seoul or Havana where'd you go?
While I usually strongly disagree with your opinions, I congratulate you for not partaking on this leftist crusade to defend what is simply indefendible, as it was this brutal dictator. Watching him people praising him online makes me want to puke in disgust.
|
I won't go into too much depth about how Castro is seen back in the Easternlands, but I will say that Cuba was seen as one of the states that Russia (as in the Russian SFSR) propped up. While Cuba did have some very valuable and appreciated produce (they had a very good climate for some of the agricultural produce that was hard to come by in the Warsaw nations), it was ultimately not a nation that was well-developed enough to stand on its own, yet it did provide valuable benefits as an ally near the US. So Russia gave it aid to help make ends meet in a standard Russian fashion ("loans" that really don't have to be repaid so long as the nation maintains favorable political alignment). The end of the USSR meant the end of these subsidies simply because the money dried up, and that led to some difficult times for Cuba. It seems that most people's experience with Cuba is after 1991 (not surprising given embargoes and the like).
Certainly it would have been more logical for Cuba to be allied with the US, if that were an option, but many weaker nations within the US sphere of influence would tell you that alliance with the US is a one-way street. Just because the US itself is a strong economy doesn't mean it's about to go out of the way to help others do well. If they do well it's often because the fundamentals were already there, as they were in the big three West European nations. Cuba would absolutely benefit from the US opening itself up again as a trading partner though, that much is clear. I wouldn't mind not having to go to Mexico to get sane prices on Cuban cigars (I don't smoke, and they're not contraband anymore, but they make really great gifts).
How Cuba would have fared in different circumstances is hard to judge. It is quite unfortunate that the US took the least productive approach possible to dealing with Cuba over the past century, and that Cuba's fate is too closely tied to the US for it to have any other option. I suppose "if only the superpower on our border didn't try to prop up oppressive dictators in our country then assassinate the leader who got rid of one of them" is a way you could think of this, but that's one hell of a counterfactual. As it stands, it's a weak nation just off the border of a superpower that chose to be hostile towards it, and it had to make do with the assistance of a faraway superpower that mostly was willing to subsidize it in return for favorable political alignment. Hard to say how things would have gone if a better circumstance were present.
|
On November 27 2016 02:53 Reaps wrote:
I like how there is a massive uproar on TL whenever someone posts Sam Harris's views but its perfectly fine to use Noam Chomsky.
Why wouldn't you like it?
It's not enough to make a post like this, at least not on my watch. Let's probe deeper.
|
On November 27 2016 12:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2016 02:53 Reaps wrote:
I like how there is a massive uproar on TL whenever someone posts Sam Harris's views but its perfectly fine to use Noam Chomsky.
Why wouldn't you like it? It's not enough to make a post like this, at least not on my watch. Let's probe deeper.
I made a post in the feedback thread describing my own thoughts on the matter. I think this discussion belongs there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
