NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that Fidel is stepping aside, how do you view his legacy? Do you think he had done more good for Cuba or bad?

In before the "Fidel Castro is the Devil!" and "Fidel Castro is God!" crowds.

Meh. It's too soon to be talking about legacy.

we should have assinated him in the 80s, before the soviet union disolved and cuba slowly became poorer and poorer.
:cool:

we should have assinated him in the 80s, before the soviet union disolved and cuba slowly became poorer and poorer.
:cool:

kill him for what?

Here is an interesting article on Castro's legacy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101166.html

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

Castro's legacy looks about as wonderful as what I shit out after I spend too much time at Ihop on a Sunday morning....

we should have assinated him in the 80s, before the soviet union disolved and cuba slowly became poorer and poorer.
:cool:

many people have tried.Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro)
Fabian Escalante, who was long tasked with protecting the life of Castro, has calculated the exact number of assassination schemes and/or attempts by the CIA to be ........638..............
Some such attempts have included an exploding cigar, a fungal-infected scuba-diving suit, and a mafia-style shooting. Some of these plots are depicted in a documentary entitled 638 Ways to Kill Castro.[61] One of these attempts was by his ex-lover Marita Lorenz whom he met in 1959. She subsequently agreed to aid the CIA and attempted to smuggle a jar of cold cream containing poison pills into his room. When Castro realized, he reportedly gave her a gun and told her to kill him but her nerve failed.[62] Castro once said in regards to the numerous attempts on his life, "If surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal."

According to the Family Jewels documents declassified by the CIA in 2007, one such assassination attempt before the Bay of Pigs invasion involved Johnny Roselli and Al Capone's successor in the Chicago Outfit, Salvatore Giancana and his right-hand man Santos Trafficante. It was personally authorized by then US attorney general Robert Kennedy [63].

Giancana and Miami Syndicate leader Santos Trafficante were contacted in September 1960 about the possibility of an assassination attempt by a go-between from the CIA, Robert Maheu, after Maheu had contacted Johnny Roselli, a member of the Las Vegas Syndicate and Giancana's number-two man. Maheu had presented himself as a representative of numerous international business firms in Cuba that were being expropriated by Castro. He offered $150,000 for the "removal" of Castro through this operation (the documents suggest that neither Roselli nor Giancana and Trafficante accepted any sort of payments for the job). According to the files, it was Giancana who suggested using a series of poison pills that could be used to doctor Castro's food and drink. These pills were given by the CIA to Giancana's nominee Juan Orta, whom Giancana presented as being an official in the Cuban government who was also in the pay of gambling interests, and who did have access to Castro. After a series of six attempts to introduce the poison into Castro's food, Orta abruptly demanded to be let out of the mission, handing over the job to another, unnamed participant. Later, a second attempt was mounted through Giancana and Trafficante using Dr. Anthony Verona, the leader of the Cuban Exile Junta, who had, according to Trafficante, become "disaffected with the apparent ineffectual progress of the Junta". Verona requested $10,000 in expenses and $1,000 worth of communications equipment. However, it is unknown how far the second attempt went, as the entire program was cancelled shortly thereafter due to the launching of the Bay of Pigs invasion. [64][65] [66]

May I sig that? Pretty pretty please? :D
Be my guest. :D

Castro's legacy looks about as wonderful as what I shit out after I spend too much time at Ihop on a Sunday morning....

May I sig that? Pretty pretty please? :D

U guys are obviosly cpaitalists. Fidels resignation means the death of socialism he was a great man look @ cuba befroe fidel and then talk, but nahh ur 2 hypocritical honestly get an education then speak

Be my guest. :D

Yay, thanks!

Washington Post = Failure at life.

More good than bad, but only slightly.

If I save ten people's lives and murder five people, have I not done more good than bad?

Does that make me any less of a murderer?

Washington Post = Failure at life.

Josef Stalin = Failure at life

In before thread lock!

Apperantly 10 of us are Castro.

Apperantly 10 of us are Castro.

Castro died years ago there are hundreds of clones. Many of the reside here on NSG.



But in all seriousness Castro may already be dead. Any reports of him being seen after this announcement?

12 votes for "I am Fidel Castro"?

What is this, Spartacus?

kill him for what?

why, for sucking of course. :)
cuba was going down hill, the public was lacking faith in the government, it would've been a great time to reinstate democracy, therefore making cuba the only place with a screwier voting system and more spanish voters than south florida, were I unfortunately reside, even thoug I am Boston Irish. God I hate florida.

12 votes for "I am Fidel Castro"?

What is this, Spartacus?

"I am Fidel Castro!"

"No, I am Fidel Castro"

...

Is any one here putting up serious posts? amusing as this is, it is pointless and juvenill, two things I know a lot about.

If you want to take away my freedom to be pointless and juvenile, then you're a Goddamn commie... ;)

"I am Fidel Castro!"

"No, I am Fidel Castro"

...

Is any one here putting up serious posts? amusing as this is, it is pointless and juvenill, two things I know a lot about.

Will the real Fidel please stand up?

Will the real Fidel please stand up?

*stands up*

I win!

His legacy is great and one to be admired and emulated.

Fidel Castro was a failure at mainstream foreign policy, which we in academia call "American suckuperry."
That being said, there was plenty more wrong with Castro than the forgivable sin of not doing what the US wanted.

I think the fact that thousands of Cubans are prepared to float 95 miles on a raft (and risk being shot, drowned, or eaten by sharks) to leave Cuba tells us all we need to know about Castro and his "revolution".

Also of note is the curious lack of mass immigration to Cuba by all the Fidel wankers that infest the Internet. If Cuba is such a worker's paradise and America is so bad why not emigrate?

Did any of you leftist zombies actually read the article or just spout the usual leftist pro-castro automated response???

"By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote. "

Let's pull out the keywords of Castro's legacy:

an economically ruined and freedomless country

killed and exiled thousands

communist economic system had impoverished his country

refused to abandon that system

reversing a partial liberalization

imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote

Where exactly do we find the "good" he did and even if you managed, with a microscope to find it, how could it even come close to outwiegh the bad?????

His legacy is great and one to be admired and emulated.

If I save ten people's lives and murder five people, have I not done more good than bad?

Does that make me any less of a murderer?

More good than bad, but only slightly.

Washington Post = Failure at life.
Refute it then....don't just troll. Explain to me how this article failed.

I think the fact that thousands of Cubans are prepared to float 95 miles on a raft (and risk being shot, drowned, or eaten by sharks) to leave Cuba tells us all we need to know about Castro and his "revolution".

Also of note is the curious lack of mass immigration to Cuba by all the Fidel wankers that infest the Internet. If Cuba is such a worker's paradise and America is so bad why not emigrate?
*worhships the ground you walk on*

I've been trying to say this for years!

I think the fact that thousands of Cubans are prepared to float 95 miles on a raft (and risk being shot, drowned, or eaten by sharks) to leave Cuba tells us all we need to know about Castro and his "revolution".

Also of note is the curious lack of mass immigration to Cuba by all the Fidel wankers that infest the Internet. If Cuba is such a worker's paradise and America is so bad why not emigrate?

[/thread]

Rebund it then....don't just troll. Explain to me how this article failed.

Don't hold your breath.

Don't hold your breath.
Bah..I know...trying to get a Stalinist to reason is like trying to get a bear not to shit in the woods.......

Bah..I know...trying to get a Stalinist to reason is like trying to get a bear not to shit in the woods.......

Sigged twice in one day. Congrats. :D

Because the average Cuban is better off now than they were before, if only slightly.
Really?

No freedom of property? No freedom of speech? No political freedom? No freedom of movement?

Oh yes...much better off.

Unless I'm forgetting something, the Cuban refugee exodus wasn't the constant tidal wave of Cubans fleeing (with their lives...some dying for freedom along the way) UNTIL the glorious revolution took over, "making the average Cuban better off than they were before."

Someone used this on me the other day...so I'll use it on you. (It's only fair)

"Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserve neither and will lose both."

Sigged twice in one day. Congrats. :D
Thanks, thanks!

Well, I'd like to thank my parents, God......:D

Where exactly do we find the "good" he did and even if you managed, with a microscope to find it, how could it even come close to outwiegh the bad?????Because the average Cuban is better off now than they were before, if only slightly.

Thanks, thanks!

Well, I'd like to thank my parents, God......:D

Shit, make that THREE times! :eek:

Really?

No freedom of property? No freedom of speech? No political freedom? No freedom of movement?

They had none of that before Castro, AND they were starving and dying of disease.

Unless I'm forgetting something, the Cuban refugee exodus wasn't the constant tidal wave of Cubans fleeing (with their lives...some dying for freedom along the way) UNTIL the glorious revolution took over, "making the average Cuban better off than they were before."

The people who left were the wealthy Cubans who had lost their property. They were the ones who had the means to leave. The poor people didn't have the means to leave under Batista.

The people who left were the wealthy Cubans who had lost their property. They were the ones who had the means to leave. The poor people didn't have the means to leave under Batista.

So the advancement was that under Castro even the poor people could leave? :p

They had none of that before Castro, AND they were starving and dying of disease.
In my opinion, the enlargement of the state's control over the economy AND the abolishment of freedoms is simply unacceptable. Atleast under Batista's government there wasn't the stranglehold on change that there is under Castro's. Right wing authoritarian states are more likely to devolp into free states because they allow free economic expression, while left wing authoirtarian states are more likely to remain oppressive because they subdue and opress all levels of society. Social, political and economic. Jeane Krikpatrick, former American ambassador to the U.N. wrote a book which stated this theory in "Dictatorships and double standards."


The people who left were the wealthy Cubans who had lost their property. They were the ones who had the means to leave. The poor people didn't have the means to leave under Batista.
That's not true....Cubans are STILL coming over...but according to Castro the 'wealthy" (that is, everyone not in his government-gang) were eliminated in the revolution and after the revolution...so where are all these "wealthy" Cubans coming from, who shore up on our beaches?

:rolleyes:

He outlived a lot of US presidents thus far and it'll be interesting to see what his brother will actually do.

Shit, make that THREE times! :eek:
I'm scared to say anything else...I don't want to jynx it. :p

They had none of that before Castro, AND they were starving and dying of disease.

Bollocks. Did you know that Cuba had the 13th lowest infant mortality rate in the world (now it has the 24th lowest); a per capita income higher than many Western European countries; twice as many physicians and teachers in relation to population as the U.S.; more female college graduates (to scale) than the U.S.; and it had a literacy rate of 84%.

No freedom of movement? Then explain why, prior to Castro, there were more Cubans vacationing in the U.S. than vice versa.

Batista was no saint. Journalists critical of the regime were persecuted; the military used pitiless and brutal counter-insurgency tactics; corruption was endemic; and many middle-class and wealthy Cubans hated Batista. Political rights were negligent. However, Cubans did have freedom of religion, freedom of movement, a greater degree of free speech than they do today, etc. And whereas Castro helps spread terrorism and tyranny to other countries, at least Batista confined his to Cuba. He didn't deploy troops all around the world to prop up Third World despots like Mengistu, Nguema, or dos Santos.

The people who left were the wealthy Cubans who had lost their property. They were the ones who had the means to leave. The poor people didn't have the means to leave under Batista.

Before Castro came to power, people were lining up in droves to emigrate to Cuba. Cuba actually had to turn away immigrants (many of them from the First World).

Bollocks. Did you know that Cuba had the 13th lowest infant mortality rate in the world (now it has the 24th lowest); a per capita income higher than many Western European countries; twice as many physicians and teachers in relation to population as the U.S.; more female college graduates (to scale) than the U.S.; and it had a literacy rate of 84%.

This begs the question "why was their a revolution in the first place".

The obvious answer is that these statistics are focused on the more opulent members of Cuban society. I wouldn't be suprised if a large number of people were not counted. The vast majority of the Cuban people had access to none of this.

No freedom of movement? Then explain why, prior to Castro, there were more Cubans vacationing in the U.S. than vice versa.

Batista was no saint. Journalists critical of the regime were persecuted; the military used pitiless and brutal counter-insurgency tactics; corruption was endemic; and many middle-class and wealthy Cubans hated Batista. Political rights were negligent. However, Cubans did have freedom of religion, freedom of movement, a greater degree of free speech than they do today, etc. And whereas Castro helps spread terrorism and tyranny to other countries, at least Batista confined his to Cuba. He didn't deploy troops all around the world to prop up Third World despots like Mengistu, Nguema, or dos Santos.

Like I said, none of this meant anything if you were a poor Cuban, the vast majority of the people in Cuba. I'm not apologizing for Castro's regime, but the simple fact is that a large number of people supported Castro because he brought some really clear positive changes to their life in spite of the embargo.

Thanks, thanks!

Well, I'd like to thank my parents, God......:D

I guess the devil too for keeping him busy

Before Castro came to power, people were lining up in droves to emigrate to Cuba. Cuba actually had to turn away immigrants (many of them from the First World).

Most of which were mobsters that left after prohibition ended, but thats beside the point..

a per capita income higher than many Western European countries;

What, and which ones?

This begs the question "why was their a revolution in the first place".

Ever notice how most "Communist" revolutions are led by well-to-do people from middle- or upper-class backgrounds?

The obvious answer is that these statistics are focused on the more opulent members of Cuban society. I wouldn't be suprised if a large number of people were not counted. The vast majority of the Cuban people had access to none of this.

Wrong.

Like I said, none of this meant anything if you were a poor Cuban, the vast majority of the people in Cuba. I'm not apologizing for Castro's regime, but the simple fact is that a large number of people supported Castro because he brought some really clear positive changes to their life in spite of the embargo.

Again, wrong.

And it's easy to blame the embargo, but consider this: Cuba received the equivalent of eight Marshall Plans in foreign aid from the Soviet Union, and still remained shit poor, yet Cuba has only a tiny fraction of Western Europe's population.

What, and which ones?

Italy's and Austria's, as well as Japan's and Taiwan's.

Most of which were mobsters that left after prohibition ended, but thats beside the point..

No, more like 1,000,000 Spaniards (between 1903-1957) and 65,000 Americans. Unless you want to claim that they were all mobsters?

because he brought some really clear positive changes to their life in spite of the embargo.
Or..atleast he said he was going to during the revolution and right after the revolution..in his promises for a new Cuba. One of those promises was elections in 18 months.:rolleyes:

Maybe that's why Cubans supported the revolution at the time....? But then Castro turned out to be a no good shit head two bit dictator that the rest of the 3rd world has already seen and will see again.....

By the way...anyone want to do the math and tell me how many months democracy has been due in Cuba, since Castro said he would bring it within 18 months of his reign?

No, more like 1,000,000 Spaniards (between 1903-1957) and 65,000 Americans. Unless you want to claim that they were all mobsters?

Well, according to Godfather III, yes.:p

Italy's and Austria's, as well as Japan's and Taiwan's.

There's your problem. Italy, and Austria were the asshole of Europe around that time, having been completely pillaged by WWII. They were also poor before WWII, and poor during WWI. Not suprising.

Same thing with the Japan and Taiwan of that era. So you have another problem compounding your stats.

Ever notice how most "Communist" revolutions are led by well-to-do people from middle- or upper-class backgrounds?

...in countries with vast levels of working class poverty. They don't occur otherwise.

Again, wrong.

And it's easy to blame the embargo, but consider this: Cuba received the equivalent of eight Marshall Plans in foreign aid from the Soviet Union, and still remained shit poor, yet Cuba has only a tiny fraction of Western Europe's population.

That doesn't change the fact that average standard of living is better. Castro squandered the aid on military hardware. And your statistics, as I pointed out, ignore the extremes, and are based on a dubious comparison.

Do you have anything positive to say about any existing socialism or do you just criticise everything? I know it's hard for you half-baked Hegelians to say anything positive about Cuba or whatnot without going into a idealistic rant which has no basis in reality, but seriously...

Thread now rated C for commie on commie action ;)

...in countries with vast levels of working class poverty. They don't occur otherwise.



That doesn't change the fact that average standard of living is better. Castro squandered the aid on military hardware. And your statistics, as I pointed out, ignore the extremes, and are based on a dubious comparison.

Do you have anything positive to say about any existing socialism or do you just criticise everything? I know it's hard for you half-baked Hegelians to say anything positive about Cuba or whatnot without going into a idealistic rant which has no basis in reality, but seriously...

Do you have anything positive to say about any existing socialism or do you just criticise everything? I know it's hard for you half-baked Hegelians to say anything positive about Cuba or whatnot without going into a idealistic rant which has no basis in reality, but seriously...

They have some great and inspiring art?

But seriously, I've been keeping track of the prerogative terms you've called me.

I've gone from a "brain dead anarchist" to a "sell out Trotskyist" to a "Trotskyist revisionist" to an "ultra-leftist absurdist" to "a half-baked liberal" to now a "half-baked Hegelian"

Make up your fucking mind. In short, I will have less positive things to say about "actually existing socialism" (if you can call it that without destroying language) now then I did before. Might I remind you that my critiques have all been firmly grounded in reality: the reality of their hypocrisy.

Thread now rated C for commie on commie action ;)

I get it a lot.

Thread now rated C for commie on commie action ;)
I get it a lot.

Ooooh, kinky :p

Ooooh, kinky :p

Andaras and I cannot remain civil in a thread, regardless of the topic. I'll end up saying something that seems vaguely anti-leninist in his eyes, so he'll go off on me, and then I have to rip him a new one.

They have some great and inspiring art?

But seriously, I've been keeping track of the prerogative terms you've called me.

I've gone from a "brain dead anarchist" to a "sell out Trotskyist" to a "Trotskyist revisionist" to an "ultra-leftist absurdist" to "a half-baked liberal" to now a "half-baked Hegelian"

Make up your fucking mind. In short, I will have less positive things to say about "actually existing socialism" (if you can call it that without destroying language) now then I did before. Might I remind you that my critiques have all been firmly grounded in reality: the reality of their hypocrisy.

I get it a lot.

Your positioning is completely wrong to what the role of a Communist is, and it's relationship to the working class and cadre organization. Even Cuba, which has some revisionist tendencies, has my support because it's not in the imperialist camp, and is fundamentally progressive. That doesn't mean I take an absolutely absolutist pseudo-Marxist position of 'they are the worst country in the world zomg' like you do, I simply put my criticism in context.

Seriously Trotskylvania, I don't even if a country emerged with 'exactly' the system you wanted that you wouldn't criticize it and ultimately condemn it before quietly changing your own position, I know 'leftists' like you in RL and you all have a reflexive 'oppositionism', or a 'underdog disorder', whereby you always have to be criticizing 'the power' but never try to get your cause into power. You sit in your fringe cliques and critique yet ultimately do nothing.

So I am not going to argue with you further, because you will never be pleased, and that's the point with people like you, forget 'peace, bread and land' there's nothing that will satisfy you pseudo-leftists... A dose of some Leninist realism and a self-criticism class would do you good Trot, maybe afterwards you wouldn't be such an ego and think your views represent the pinnacle of human knowledge.

Andaras and I cannot remain civil in a thread, regardless of the topic. I'll end up saying something that seems vaguely anti-leninist in his eyes, so he'll go off on me, and then I have to rip him a new one.

It's hard for anyone to remain civil with AP, seeing as he is so completely blinded to the failings of his god substitute.

You sit in your fringe cliques and critique yet ultimately do nothing.

...

A dose of some Leninist realism and a self-criticism class would do you good Trot, maybe afterwards you wouldn't be such an ego and think your views represent the pinnacle of human knowledge.

Oh, wow. :D

In before the "Fidel Castro is the Devil!" and "Fidel Castro is God!" crowds.

much closer to the former than the latter.

Your positioning is completely wrong to what the role of a Communist is, and it's relationship to the working class and cadre organization. Even Cuba, which has some revisionist tendencies, has my support because it's not in the imperialist camp, and is fundamentally progressive. That doesn't mean I take an absolutely absolutist pseudo-Marxist position of 'they are the worst country in the world zomg' like you do, I simply put my criticism in context.

First of all, you don't know dick about what I believe. Second, I did not call Cuba the "worst country in the world". In fact, I was defending the record of Castro vs. the Batista regime before, something I never thought that I'd do. Of course, then you come a long, and then take a really minor jab about wasted aid money (made in defense of Cuba, mind you), and blow it up into some huge absurdist position which I quite frankly am not occupying.

Seriously Trotskylvania, I don't even if a country emerged with 'exactly' the system you wanted that you wouldn't criticize it and ultimately condemn it before quietly changing your own position, I know 'leftists' like you in RL and you all have a reflexive 'oppositionism', or a 'underdog disorder', whereby you always have to be criticizing 'the power' but never try to get your cause into power. You sit in your fringe cliques and critique yet ultimately do nothing.

For the record, I have not changed my position in three years. I have been a Libertarian Marxist/Anarchist for that long. Before that, had very little interest in politics. I criticize not out of a desire to tear down, but out of a desire to be constructive, because I genuinely care about what I have dedicated my entire life to advocating, and do not wish to see it go up in flames.

So I am not going to argue with you further, because you will never be pleased, and that's the point with people like you, forget 'peace, bread and land' there's nothing that will satisfy you pseudo-leftists... A dose of some Leninist realism and a self-criticism class would do you good Trot, maybe afterwards you wouldn't be such an ego and think your views represent the pinnacle of human knowledge.

I will be pleased the moment that you stop being a belligerent, holier-than-thou Leninist. I originally set out on this road to change the world, but right now I'll think I'll settle for just that. Unlike you, I read the works of my opponents and learn from their triumphs and mistakes. As for self-criticism, I've already done more than enough of that, but you are not privy to every stream of consciousness that I have. I am defensive and highly critical because these are ideas and people that I deeply care about and I do not wish to see more of the same from the twentieth century.

maybe afterwards you wouldn't be such an ego and think your views represent the pinnacle of human knowledge.

You surely realize the irony of that statement?

Or you are Utopian because of a direct and conscious decision to reject Marxist materialism in favor of non-knowledge, in that case your most definitely opportunistic because the only reason I can possibly think for doing this is that you wish to conform to bourgeois ideological standards or get into 'a group'.

maybe afterwards you wouldn't be such an ego and think your views represent the pinnacle of human knowledge.

...

You surely realize the irony of that statement?
You think I am dogmatic? If you even read my posts rather than just a 'skin and troll' approach you wouldn't be even asking this question. The fact which I place a solid progression of material advancement on Marxism means I am not dogmatic, any Communist would ultimately see the decline of Hoxha's advancement of Leninism as a step backward.

Trotskylvania, you claim to be objective and critical, and indeed have not opportunistically changed your position, but the fact remains that you claim to be a Libertarian Marxist, which in itself indicates a contradictory hole in your knowledge. Marx mentions libertarianism and other 'variants' of socialism in the Manifesto, and ultimately they do no represent the material reality of modern society. Utopian socialism as Marx said, as opposed to scientific socialism, represented the first dreamy and vague ideals of the proletariat, embodied by writers like Saint-Simon. Their idealist utopianism was thus a result of the not fully developed class consciousness of their time, because of the early sage that industrialization was at. Marx puts all these utopian Ivory Tower ideologies into the anti-materialist/progressive camp.

So thus Trot, I am assuming that you are either Utopian because of your ignorance (which I consider a pretty big foresight considering you claim to be a Marxist yet haven't read the Manifesto), in which case get reading. Or you are Utopian because of a direct and conscious decision to reject Marxist materialism in favor of non-knowledge, in that case your most definitely opportunistic because the only reason I can possibly think for doing this is that you wish to conform to bourgeois ideological standards or get into 'a group'.

U guys are obviosly cpaitalists. Fidels resignation means the death of socialism he was a great man look @ cuba befroe fidel and then talk, but nahh ur 2 hypocritical honestly get an education then speak

To be honest with you, outside of a handful of marginal issues that, although good for PR don't matter much when you're starving to death, Cuba after fidel looks basically the same as Cuba before him. True, it does have a few advantages, slightly better education, better health care, but there were also advantages it had before that are now lost, like good roads, Havanna's reputation as the worlds premier tropical tourist town, major trading center - not that these things ever made life better for the majority of Cubans, but neither did knowing what an integral is. And as wonderful as healthcare sounds to the uninsured, it doesn't help a whole lot when there's a doctor who can tell you "you need to eat" but there's no food with which to do so.

Oh, and keep in mind that what predated Fidel wasn't Capitalism either. It was a Kleptocracy Fascism combo that probably was every bit as bad for encouraging economic development as Communism. The only difference between Fascism and Communism is that fascism Admits to it's crimes but commits them anyways, while Communism starts out with such wonderful allusions only to discover that politics distorts the hell out of everything.

Trotskylvania, you claim to be objective and critical, and indeed have not opportunistically changed your position, but the fact remains that you claim to be a Libertarian Marxist, which in itself indicates a contradictory hole in your knowledge.

Libertarian Marxism begins with the assumption that Marx was not the Godhead of Communism, and is capable of faults. It ends with a reading of Marx that is influenced by Bakunin's libertarian conceptualization of Marxian dialectics.

Marx mentions libertarianism and other 'variants' of socialism in the Manifesto, and ultimately they do no represent the material reality of modern society. Utopian socialism as Marx said, as opposed to scientific socialism, represented the first dreamy and vague ideals of the proletariat, embodied by writers like Saint-Simon.

He did not such thing. Libertarian Marxism is a development of Marx's theories. Marx critiqued the utopian and reactionary socialists of his day, most often because these visions were oppressive to the core, as well as being rooted in the idealization of the past.

So thus Trot, I am assuming that you are either Utopian because of your ignorance (which I consider a pretty big foresight considering you claim to be a Marxist yet haven't read the Manifesto), in which case get reading. Or you are Utopian because of a direct and conscious decision to reject Marxist materialism in favor of non-knowledge, in that case your most definitely opportunistic because the only reason I can possibly think for doing this is that you wish to conform to bourgeois ideological standards or get into 'a group'.

On the contrary. I have read the Manifesto. And Capital, the Critique of the Gotha Programme, have started reading the Holy Family. I have never indicated to the contrary. Your dichotomies you keep trying to corner me into are made of phail. I have never indicated that I did not suscribe to a materialist view of the world. I have noted it's present shortcomings, but have never gave any indication of rejecting it.

You think I am dogmatic?

Yes.

If you even read my posts rather than just a 'skin and troll' approach you wouldn't be even asking this question.

Clearly false, because I do read your posts fairly regularly.

The fact which I place a solid progression of material advancement on Marxism means I am not dogmatic,

The fact that you are consistently unwilling to listen to anyone else, write mindless replies that amount to "Marx said this" and "Marxism-Leninism argues that", and prefer denial over reconsideration when it comes to the atrocities of the alleged "socialist" countries means that you are dogmatic.

It's very difficult to be your kind of Marxist these days without being dogmatic. Those of us who aren't moved on a long time ago.

Yes.



Clearly false, because I do read your posts fairly regularly.



The fact that you are consistently unwilling to listen to anyone else, write mindless replies that amount to "Marx said this" and "Marxism-Leninism argues that", and prefer denial over reconsideration when it comes to the atrocities of the alleged "socialist" countries means that you are dogmatic.

It's very difficult to be your kind of Marxist these days without being dogmatic. Those of us who aren't moved on a long time ago.

No, my attitude in that regard is because your opinions do not require analysis, I know the bourgeois material reason for their existence, and thus need not waste my time further.

First this:

you wouldn't be such an ego and think your views represent the pinnacle of human knowledge.

Then this:

No, my attitude in that regard is because your opinions do not require analysis, I know the bourgeois material reason for their existence, and thus need not waste my time further.

This not "Suck up to the Party Line", this is a debate, and as such you are required to provide reasons, not pronouncements on truth.

No actually my position is firmly grounded in Marxist science, I am not making pronouncements on truth, but every time I see criticisms of socialism on NSG I think the obligatory 'go and read Marx, he has already dealt with and refuted that argument'.

In that way also ignorance is the enemy of Marxism, you are just one of the long lined up of petty idealists who haven't discovered their ideas aren't original yet.

Well then tell people that. Telling them "Go read Marx" is not enough. Tell them he has already addressed the issue instead.

I have only claimed to have one original idea in my entire time here. One single original idea, and it has not been in the field of traditional Marxism. Everything else I have always attributed to others. And I get to add yet another term to the list of prerogative terms you have given me.

First this:



Then this:



This not "Suck up to the Party Line", this is a debate, and as such you are required to provide reasons, not pronouncements on truth.

No actually my position is firmly grounded in Marxist science, I am not making pronouncements on truth, but every time I see criticisms of socialism on NSG I think the obligatory 'go and read Marx, he has already dealt with and refuted that argument'.

In that way also ignorance is the enemy of Marxism, you are just one of the long lined up of petty idealists who haven't discovered their ideas aren't original yet.

"I am Fidel Castro!"

"No, I am Fidel Castro"

...I am Tiger Woods !
...








I mean,
I am Fidel Castro!!!

:D

No, my attitude in that regard is because your opinions do not require analysis, I know the bourgeois material reason for their existence, and thus need not waste my time further.

Okay, someone needs to teach you basic reasoning skills.

Sometimes, for the same set of data, there is more than one explanation. I could be voicing certain opinions because of the "bourgeois material reason" behind them, but I also could be voicing opinions because I have good, rational reasons behind them--ones that, if you thought about them, might even convince you. It is not enough that you know of a "bourgeois material reason" that could explain my arguments. You need to show that it does explain my arguments, that there is nothing to them.

That's why, in serious discussion, we presuppose that our opponents are rational until proven otherwise. We make every effort to treat their arguments seriously unless they clearly show, again and again, that they are not interested in rational discussion at all, but rather in parroting propaganda, spewing hatred, or being obnoxious.

If we fail to make that crucial presupposition, we are being close-minded. In effect, we are begging the question: we assume that we are right (and obviously so), and as a consequence, anyone who disagrees must only disagree because he or she is irrational. That's the height of dogmatism... at least when that supreme vanity is carried out in the name of an ideology.

I am Tiger Woods !
...








I mean,
I am Fidel Castro!!!

:Dviva yo. :D

*snip*

Marxism does not represent the pinnacle of communist or socialist thought. Marxism is far too rigid for its own good, not to mention outdated. Marx was speaking of the economic climate 150 years ago. It is complete out of date and has no place in modern economics. The idea that workers would unite by class over nationality, has proven to be false, as has the idea that capitalism will fall any day now. Its time for new, modern approaches to socialism not a rigid, prehistoric mindset.

Marxism does not represent the pinnacle of communist or socialist thought. Marxism is far too rigid for its own good, not to mention outdated. Marx was speaking of the economic climate 150 years ago. It is complete out of date and has no place in modern economics. The idea that workers would unite by class over nationality, has proven to be false, as has the idea that capitalism will fall any day now. Its time for new, modern approaches to socialism not a rigid, prehistoric mindset.

QFT

At the same time, I must stress that classical Marxism shouldn't be discarded whole. There are observations made by Marx that are still quite relevant today, in particular theories like labor alienation. What is needed is a transcendence of Marxism into something new, just as Marx transcended Hegel before him.

No actually my position is firmly grounded in Marxist science, I am not making pronouncements on truth, but every time I see criticisms of socialism on NSG I think the obligatory 'go and read Marx, he has already dealt with and refuted that argument'.

If what you say is truly "science," why is based on the writings of one man who died over 120 years ago, and wrote over 150 years ago? Not only have the passages of time made it less relevant, history has actually proven many of his claims to be false. A real scientist would take this into account, and would still consider the findings of Marx without treating him as the end all be all.
Science? Yes, in the same grand tradition of phlogiston, Lamarckian evolution, and alchemy.

No actually my position is firmly grounded in Marxist science, I am not making pronouncements on truth, but every time I see criticisms of socialism on NSG I think the obligatory ‘go and read Marx, he has already dealt with and refuted that argument’.
All I can say is: Listen, Marxist! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bookchin/listenm.html)

All the old crap of the thirties is coming back again—the shit about the “class line,” the “role of the working class,” the “trained cadres,” the “vanguard party,” and the “proletarian dictatorship.” It’s all back again, and in a more vulgarized form than ever.

All I can say is: Listen, Marxist! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bookchin/listenm.html)

Sorry, I have no time for every self-important anarchist and his dog. If I wanted that I'd go to revleft.

Sorry, I have no time for every self-important anarchist and his dog. If I wanted that I'd go to revleft.

You should in this case, because Murray Bookchin is the single most influential socialist theorist of the past half-century, and was a Marxist not unlike yourself at one time. Remember my talk about transcending classic Marxism scientifically? This is the guy who did the most of anyone to do so.

Sorry, I have no time for every self-important anarchist and his dog.
*sigh*

You mean: "I don't want to read anything that may show a flaw in Marxism-Leninism."

Shame.

I hate to derail the discussion of Andaras' ideological blinders, but I'm going to discuss Castro's legacy for a bit.

...snipped flaming..."By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote. "...Refute it then....don't just troll. Explain to me how this article failed.

It failed because it's an unsubstantiated editorial. Are you honestly suggesting we refute an editorial? An editorial is an opinion piece. Post something factual and objective.

I think the fact that thousands of Cubans are prepared to float 95 miles on a raft (and risk being shot, drowned, or eaten by sharks) to leave Cuba tells us all we need to know about Castro and his "revolution".

How many Mexicans come to the USA each year? Mexico is a capitalist country. Why don't they just stay and make tons of money in Mexico? Cubans also have the added incentive that they automatically get a green card. It's almost as if the US government wants Cuba to look bad!

In my opinion, the enlargement of the state's control over the economy AND the abolishment of freedoms is simply unacceptable.

You might be surprised to know that Cubans don't care about your opinion at all.

At least under Batista's government there wasn't the stranglehold on change that there is under Castro's. Right wing authoritarian states are more likely to devolp into free states because they allow free economic expression, while left wing authoirtarian states are more likely to remain oppressive because they subdue and opress all levels of society. Social, political and economic. Jeane Krikpatrick, former American ambassador to the U.N. wrote a book which stated this theory in "Dictatorships and double standards."

Do you have a link to a study? I'd love to read it.

Bollocks. Did you know that Cuba had the 13th lowest infant mortality rate in the world (now it has the 24th lowest); a per capita income higher than many Western European countries; twice as many physicians and teachers in relation to population as the U.S.; more female college graduates (to scale) than the U.S.; and it had a literacy rate of 84%....Before Castro came to power, people were lining up in droves to emigrate to Cuba. Cuba actually had to turn away immigrants (many of them from the First World).

You have posted several pages worth of claims about Cuba, yet you have not provided a single source to back up your claims. Is it really too much to ask that people back up their claims?

I hate to derail the discussion of Andaras' ideological blinders, but I'm going to discuss Castro's legacy for a bit.
For shame! ;)

Gift-of-god - well said. i didn't want to quote that whole thing for the sake of people forever scrolling. I believe Castro has done wonderful things for the Cuban people, and his determination against selling out to the US is quite admirable in my opinion.

being a former Marxist, I do find the commie infighting on this thread quite entertaining.

No actually my position is firmly grounded in Marxist science, I am not making pronouncements on truth, but every time I see criticisms of socialism on NSG I think the obligatory 'go and read Marx, he has already dealt with and refuted that argument'.

In that way also ignorance is the enemy of Marxism, you are just one of the long lined up of petty idealists who haven't discovered their ideas aren't original yet.

Tell us more about Chavez and his government being the pinnical of human freedom, achievement, and equality.


Andaras, we all have reasons to not take you seriously. Mine is that when we argued about Chavez shutting down media outlets, and my source was my journalist friend who lives in Ven. you said he was wrong, when you dont live in Ven. Some people think youre a tool because you cant back up your arguements without talking points and cue cards from the Manifesto. And some people just think Marx was a moron.

But really, this topic, and your comments in it, have just given everyone more reasons to point and lawl at you.

Oh, and just so you know:

The American Marx scholar Hal Draper once remarked, "there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike." The legacy of Marx's thought is bitterly contested between numerous tendencies who claim to be Marx's most accurate interpreters, including Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, and libertarian Marxism.


So it does exist, FYI.

Even though I don't like his ideology, I admire his leadership.

I admit I don't know Cuban history that much, but he has not, as far as I know, been a cruel bastard like many of his communist colleagues like Mao and Stalin. So in some way I admire his ability to hold the country together.

Even though I don't like his ideology, I admire his leadership.

I admit I don't know Cuban history that much, but he has not, as far as I know, been a cruel bastard like many of his communist colleagues like Mao and Stalin. So in some way I admire his ability to hold the country together.

As far as history, before Castro their was Batista, before that it was a quasi-US protectorate-colony, and before that it was a Spanish colony.

being a former Marxist, I do find the commie infighting on this thread quite entertaining.

It's been the most absurd tangent I've ever seen. It began because I suggested that Castro misused aid money to the detriment of the Cuban people after trying to put Castro into context, pointing out that he was far more beneficial to his people then those who came before.

It's been the most absurd tangent I've ever seen. It began because I suggested that Castro misused aid money to the detriment of the Cuban people after trying to put Castro into context, pointing out that he was far more beneficial to his people then those who came before.

Well I have plenty of criticism for Castro, probably foremost his inability to create a diversified self-sufficient economy, but instead Cuba became dependent on the Soviet Union, Che was actually a critic of Castro in this regard. I believe that sugar cain, a major Cuban export, actually retarded during the Soviet-aid period, rather than increasing.

I think to a degree the military spending is justifyable because of Castro's internationalist policy, which in many ways hastened the end of colonialism and Apartheidism in Africa, in particular he assured the independence of Namibia and Angola.

I must admit that the minutiae of the various self-professed Marxist states during the Cold War is not my area of expertise, but of course there is this blatant bias in mainstream western discourse that basically excuses any tyrant that was an ally of the US or NATO. I can't confirm the Cuban sugar cane output story, but it wouldn't surprise me that production dropped during the aid period.

Castro and his friends did not prove to be the best of economic managers, and any military foreign policy would definitely strain an economy the size of Cubas.

Well, Cuba being the only country of Latin America with a life expectancy rate and childbirth comparable to western countries (even better than USA), and being (until Venezuela joined Cuba in 2003) the only country "free of illiteracy", is definitely a good thing to put in credit of Fidel Castro.

That doesn't mean I agree with all what he did and with everything in the cuban system. But compared to the rest of Latin America, and if you consider the situation of Cuba (small island close to an hostile superpower), it's pretty good.

Cuba's behavior on the international scene is also very positive. It should be a shame for us all big rich countries than a tiny, third world country, is the country with the highest number of medic helping poor countries and doing relief work after disasters. After the earthquake in Pakistan for example, 1/3 of the total number of international medic helping the victims were Cuban.