Thread: Castro's legacy Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020014
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
What is a balanced look at what Castro actually did for Cuba?
This link gives an attempt, at least for as short as it is.
So, free healthcare but massive poverty; free education but little opportunity.
In the long run, are Cuban's better off then they would have been without the Revolution?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The poorest of them certainly are. The rest aren't.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The poorest of them certainly are. The rest aren't.
The poorest of them probably accounted for a substantial majority of the population before the revolution. I'm not sure how much better off they are now, but I'll bet they are better off than they would have been had Batista and the United Fruit Company still been in charge.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yeah, they missed out on being run by the Mafia. Like Vegas but without CSI. A running sore of pure fifty bucks will get you ANYTHING hedonism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The poorest are if you project that Cuba would have stayed in stasis, certainly. And could well be if Cuba had followed a trajectory similar to other Caribbean countries such as Haiti. However, Cuba had much more potential.
My thinking is that had Castro adapted better, Cuba's economy would be in a much better place now than it is. Cuba had a strong, though unbalanced, economy and Castro stifled it. With help from a US embargo, of course.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Cuba, pre-Revolution as not good, but not as bad as often portrayed.
Batista, and the corruption, needed to go. I question whether Castro was the answer, though. Had the island been in the hands of someone else, it could likely be in a better position now. Castro's edict that none of the commandante's take power was one he should have kept.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cuba, pre-Revolution as not good, but not as bad as often portrayed.
Batista, and the corruption, needed to go. I question whether Castro was the answer, though. Had the island been in the hands of someone else, it could likely be in a better position now. Castro's edict that none of the commandante's take power was one he should have kept.
Not necessarily. This post from blogger Erik Loomis offers a few reasonable comparisons.
quote:
And this is the world context in which we have to evaluate Castro. In the end, which nation is better off today, Cuba or the Dominican Republic? Or any of its similar neighbors around the Caribbean basin. While many Americans demonize Castro as a monster, have the Cuban people been worse off than the U.S. client state in the Dominican Republic under the homicidal maniac Rafael Trujillo or his hack assistant Joaquin Balaguer, who came to power with the assistance of Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 invasion to eliminate the movement behind democratically elected but now overthrown Juan Bosch? I think that’s pretty unlikely. Cuba and the DR have similar histories, economies, racial makeup, and interactions with American imperialism. We can’t actually know the answer to this, but if you look at Mexico, at Nicaragua, at Honduras, at Guatemala, at Haiti, at Jamaica, and at the Dominican Republic, it’s really hard to see how their histories since 1958 have somehow been more free and prosperous than that of Castro’s Cuba. And while this is not the final statistic on these issues, of all the nations listed above, the UN Human Development Index ranks Communist Cuba 1st, and 5th in all of Latin America.
So the question isn't whether the island would have been better off in the hands of a generic "someone else", but rather with the specific type of client-state dictators installed to serve American interests, as we see in both Castro's predecessors and his neighbors.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The poorest of them certainly are. The rest aren't.
The poorest of them probably accounted for a substantial majority of the population before the revolution. I'm not sure how much better off they are now, but I'll bet they are better off than they would have been had Batista and the United Fruit Company still been in charge.
It's basically Macaulay on Sir Robert Walpole. Macaulay observed that he was on the side of good government against Walpole and on the side of Walpole against the Whigs who overthrew him. Substitute Walpole for Castro and Castro's predecessor for Walpole's successor and you have something like the truth.
The two fairly major demerits of Castro's policies are first, that during the Cuban missile crisis he urged Khrushchev to launch a first strike against the US. If Khrushchev had followed his advice we would not be discussing this on the internet. The second is that if we were Cuban citizens today we could not discuss this on the internet and indeed, if we were to discuss it at all we would have to do so, sotto voce. Castro's admirers, with some justice, point to his healthcare and literacy programmes. This, at a stroke, illustrates my love-hate relationship with the political left. It is, I suppose, preferable to prefer a dictatorship that privileges health care over, say, making the trains run on time or facilitating the interests of US multinationals. But it is still an apologetic for a dictatorship, which has governed in a fairly deplorable way.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. My guess is that the opening up of the US to Cuba will continue during Trump's Presidency. I also guess that a Trump Casino will open up in Havana during the next four years. I also guess that when this happens we will be assured that the President had no knowledge of the matter because his business interests are in a blind trust, controlled by his children. I await the response of "The sun shines by day, but you Comrade Fidel also shines by night" people, to that development with eager anticipation.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.
Franco and Salazar came closest with 36 years apiece, while Hitler and Mussolini, even Stalin and Mao, were well back in the field.
One of the common and more bizarre observations on Castro is that he outlasted so many American presidents.
So he did, but given that they have to stand for re-election every four years, and he declined to ever test the supposed devotion of Cubans to him at the polls (or even allow them to openly criticise and oppose his regime), this seems scarcely worthy of comment.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Sorry, I forgot Kim Il Sung with 46 years.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, one of the better ones.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Fidel Castro outlived American democracy.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, one of the better ones.
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, a lesser evil than some (such as Batista).
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Fidel Castro outlived American democracy.
If you mean that Trump has said that he is going to abolish elections and remain in power indefinitely, then I hadn't caught up with that.
If you mean that Trump won office without a majority of the popular vote then, as I pointed out in another thread, Salvador Allende, revered as one of democracy's martyrs, was not legitimately elected president of Chile, either.
If you are merely venting out of a sense of frustration, then FWIW I agree with you that Trump is an arsehole.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the question isn't whether the island would have been better off in the hands of a generic "someone else", but rather with the specific type of client-state dictators installed to serve American interests, as we see in both Castro's predecessors and his neighbors.
No it is not. Revolution was fomenting in Cuba and was inevitable, Castro was not. There could have been a different leader, Castro could have honoured his pledge to not take power, he could have moved towards democracy, etc.
BTW, Cuba's economy was 5th in the hemisphere prior to the Revolution.
Castro did better for his people than the majority of dictators, but he could have left the country in a better position than he did. Like many who seek power, he could not get out of his own way.
Castro's Cuba was not free, and only to a degree more free than other dictators and the puppet rulers of much of Latin America. It was less dangerous and the poor were much better served.
Castro was neither the devil nor a saint. IMO, his legacy should be viewed as mixed.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It is, I suppose, preferable to prefer a dictatorship that privileges health care over, say, making the trains run on time or facilitating the interests of US multinationals. But it is still an apologetic for a dictatorship, w
It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.
Castro's disregard for liberal human rights need to be understood in the context of Communist/Left political ideology. In terms of this ideology, any support of liberal human rights that did not come with an a priori ideological commitment to the interests of the working class would inevitably lead to the takeover of the political system by wealthy interests. Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people.
America never understood this because ideologically, their advancement of democracy is tied to their praise of capitalism, i.e. to a left wing view, American democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy.
Principled critique of Castro on human rights, needs to not be associated with praise of the capitalist system, which IMHO, is my suspicion with some of the right wing critics of Castro.
[ 27. November 2016, 02:57: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Like so many other dictators, he declared war on his own people, savagely and ruthlessly. Not to the extent of the Kim dynasty of North Korea, Mao or Stalin, but war nonetheless.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people..
Dictatorship of the proletariat is bullshit. Those who begin control will remain in control or be supplanted by another small group or person who will have control.
Any dictatorship will include the persecution of the people. At best it can manage some good, but abuse will happen. I do not agree that democracy must favour the wealthy. It does so in America because the wealthy founded the country and wealth is power. The people can have power as well, but it takes education and effort.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Dictatorship or plutocracy. Which do you love least? Probably the one which harms you more. Thus give me Cuba before Guatemala or Nicaragua, the later before Reagan's illegal guns and overthrow.
(Yes Kaplan, we agree)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Dictatorship or plutocracy. Which do you love least? Probably the one which harms you more. Thus give me Cuba before Guatemala or Nicaragua, the later before Reagan's illegal guns and overthrow.
(Yes Kaplan, we agree)
Not to mention that American conservatives only squawk about the evils of dictatorship when it comes to Castro's Cuba. They are surprisingly silent when it comes to America's cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia for example.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Dictatorship or plutocracy. Which do you love least? Probably the one which harms you more. Thus give me Cuba before Guatemala or Nicaragua, the later before Reagan's illegal guns and overthrow.
Sorry, don't give me either.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, one of the better ones.
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, a lesser evil than some (such as Batista).
Although a dictator, he restored his country's sovereignty and made great improvements in public health and infrastructure. But anyway, enough about Hitler.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Not to mention that American conservatives only squawk about the evils of dictatorship when it comes to Castro's Cuba.
This cuts both ways. A number of people on the left who bang on about how evil Pinochet was (which I don't doubt) are now mourning the death of Castro. I struggle to see the difference between the two, besides the fact one wore a smarter uniform.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
This cuts both ways. A number of people on the left who bang on about how evil Pinochet was (which I don't doubt) are now mourning the death of Castro. I struggle to see the difference between the two, besides the fact one wore a smarter uniform. [/QB]
Pinochet killed a lot more people, and did little to help the ordinary people of Chile. He also overthrew a democratic government rather than a corrupt dictatorship.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, one of the better ones.
I think I would sum up by saying, as dictators go, a lesser evil than some (such as Batista).
Although a dictator, he restored his country's sovereignty and made great improvements in public health and infrastructure. But anyway, enough about Hitler.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Not to mention that American conservatives only squawk about the evils of dictatorship when it comes to Castro's Cuba.
This cuts both ways. A number of people on the left who bang on about how evil Pinochet was (which I don't doubt) are now mourning the death of Castro. I struggle to see the difference between the two, besides the fact one wore a smarter uniform.
Dictators also have double standards when dealing with other dictators - hence Castro spent his career building a communist/socialist one-party state and then declared three days of national mourning in Cuba when Franco died...
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model. Castro was not this, but maybe closer than many. Definitely closer than Saudi or Korea.
Of course, so much of the information we have about Cuba comes from western-controlled sources, so tend to be negative. I suspect - without any justification - that he was a lot better than he could have been for many. Whereas most of the west makes things better for the few at the expense of the many.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Of course, so much of the information we have about Cuba comes from western-controlled sources
No doubt because Cubans themselves aren't able to tell us what they think.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pinochet killed a lot more people
Not true.
Estimates vary as to the numbers who died under Castro, but even when the thousands of those who drowned fleeing Cuba on makeshift flotation are left out, he still killed more than the more or less agreed upon 3,000 who died under Pinochet.
The only difference between them was that Pinochet was a murderous Latin American military dictator, and Castro was a murderous Latin American military dictator.
As dictators go, neither plumbed the depths of a Mao, Hitler or Stalin, but that is not saying a great deal.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pinochet killed a lot more people
Not true.
Estimates vary as to the numbers who died under Castro, but even when the thousands of those who drowned fleeing Cuba on makeshift flotation are left out, he still killed more than the more or less agreed upon 3,000 who died under Pinochet.
The only difference between them was that Pinochet was a murderous Latin American military dictator, and Castro was a murderous Latin American military dictator.
As dictators go, neither plumbed the depths of a Mao, Hitler or Stalin, but that is not saying a great deal.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pinochet killed a lot more people
Not true.
Estimates vary as to the numbers who died under Castro, but even when the thousands of those who drowned fleeing Cuba on makeshift flotation are left out, he still killed more than the more or less agreed upon 3,000 who died under Pinochet.
The only difference between them was that Pinochet was a murderous Latin American military dictator, and Castro was a murderous Latin American military dictator.
As dictators go, neither plumbed the depths of a Mao, Hitler or Stalin, but that is not saying a great deal.
The numbers game also seems pretty meaningless to me. On that basis Stalin was a far worse person than Pol Pot. Really?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It's just been announced on our news that the Cuban state has decided there will be a FOUR DAY funeral procession. It sounds as though his corpse will be taken for a tour of the whole country concentrating especially on locations which have particular significance in the mythology of the Great Leader.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Second post
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model. Castro was not this, but maybe closer than many. Definitely closer than Saudi or Korea. ...
One often hears people say this. Can you name any actual example?
I can't and I think that speaks for itself.
I lived for four years in one that is sometimes commended as one - but only by people who had never been there. It cured me of that particular delusion.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model. Castro was not this, but maybe closer than many. Definitely closer than Saudi or Korea. ...
One often hears people say this. Can you name any actual example?
I can't and I think that speaks for itself.
I lived for four years in one that is sometimes commended as one - but only by people who had never been there. It cured me of that particular delusion.
No, because I don't think we have ever had one. It is a model, not something that has ever been actually put into practice.
The idea is that someone has power to do what they want, but they are always working for the good of all the people. I don't think any political leader would actually want to move to that situation, because it actually removes their power.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was amused to read Castro's old idea that homosexuality is a bourgeois decadent phenomenon. You can of course reverse this - Castro's tendency to punish gays is the bourgeois phenomenon, found in many states. I do accept that he eventually apologized for this.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.
Castro's disregard for liberal human rights need to be understood in the context of Communist/Left political ideology. In terms of this ideology, any support of liberal human rights that did not come with an a priori ideological commitment to the interests of the working class would inevitably lead to the takeover of the political system by wealthy interests. Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people.
America never understood this because ideologically, their advancement of democracy is tied to their praise of capitalism, i.e. to a left wing view, American democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy.
Principled critique of Castro on human rights, needs to not be associated with praise of the capitalist system, which IMHO, is my suspicion with some of the right wing critics of Castro.
It's axiomatic that Western democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy, not left wing. Was there more social justice in Cuba than in the US? Is there? Or are we saying the egalitarian level of Cuba is so low that the lack of social justice in Western democracies is still more beneficial to the masses? If so, that's nothing to do with the failure of Cuban socialism but Cuba being punished for overreacting to the existential threat of the CIA's Bay of Pigs counter-revolutionary invasion by bringing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. With Castro demanding a first strike from Khrushchev.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.
Castro's disregard for liberal human rights need to be understood in the context of Communist/Left political ideology. In terms of this ideology, any support of liberal human rights that did not come with an a priori ideological commitment to the interests of the working class would inevitably lead to the takeover of the political system by wealthy interests. Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people.
America never understood this because ideologically, their advancement of democracy is tied to their praise of capitalism, i.e. to a left wing view, American democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy.
Principled critique of Castro on human rights, needs to not be associated with praise of the capitalist system, which IMHO, is my suspicion with some of the right wing critics of Castro.
It's axiomatic that Western democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy, not left wing. Was there more social justice in Cuba than in the US? Is there? Or are we saying the egalitarian level of Cuba is so low that the lack of social justice in Western democracies is still more beneficial to the masses? If so, that's nothing to do with the failure of Cuban socialism but Cuba being punished for overreacting to the existential threat of the CIA's Bay of Pigs counter-revolutionary invasion by bringing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. With Castro demanding a first strike from Khrushchev.
You make it sound as if communist states actually deliver social justice. In some instances they have delivered improvements in their citizens lives - if one overlooks the people they kill, torture or imprison along the way - but there is still a class which has what one might call preferential access to wealth. When the ministry of economics screws up and there are shortages it isn't the higher echelons of The Party who go without and the limited amount of luxury goods produced either find their way into the dachas of The Party elite or are sold to tourists in order to bring in foreign currency.
As a dissident in the old Soviet bloc memorably observed. Under capitalism man oppresses man. Under socialism, it is the opposite.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
No, because I don't think we have ever had one. It is a model, not something that has ever been actually put into practice. ....
But that's the point. History has had many millennia in which somebody could have demonstrated that this is possible, but it hasn't been done.
Likewise, Marx's dream might have appeared attractive, but the places that have put it into practice, Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Hoxha's Albania, Pot's Cambodia and the Kim hereditary kleptocracy have all demonstrated that not only is this a delusion, but the more purist anyone attempts to implement it, the less attractive the result.
However potentially persuasive the theory, if the evidence all demonstrates that something doesn't work, don't do it and don't advocate it. The evidence shows that the theory has missed something crucial. As a traditional sort of Christian, I've no difficulty spotting what that might be.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.
Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.
Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.
Though the level of power can overlap, monarchs and dictators are not technically the same thing and are generally not compared.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.
Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.
Though the level of power can overlap, monarchs and dictators are not technically the same thing and are generally not compared.
Usually, a long reigning monarch inherits the throne when their predecessor dies and preparations have been made for the succession. A dictator has, usually, to first become the leading member of the revolutionary party or army, then lead a successful revolution and only then does the clock start ticking. Considered on purely Machiavellian terms a long standing dictator is vastly more successful because holding power in a society which accepts that it is legitimate to take it by force than one where the possession of rule is hallowed by Divine Right or Ma'at or whatever the legitimising authority is. Louis XIV did not have to worry about William III authorising an invasion by disgruntled Hugenots or sending him exploding cigars.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Fidel Castro outlived American democracy.
If you mean that Trump has said that he is going to abolish elections and remain in power indefinitely, then I hadn't caught up with that.
If you mean that Trump won office without a majority of the popular vote then, as I pointed out in another thread, Salvador Allende, revered as one of democracy's martyrs, was not legitimately elected president of Chile, either.
If you are merely venting out of a sense of frustration, then FWIW I agree with you that Trump is an arsehole.
Elections or not, democracy is in peril in the supposed democratic West because business interests outweigh and overrule* the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
*I could say business interests "Trump" the will of the people, but the Donald can't be held responsible for that.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's just been announced on our news that the Cuban state has decided there will be a FOUR DAY funeral procession. It sounds as though his corpse will be taken for a tour of the whole country concentrating especially on locations which have particular significance in the mythology of the Great Leader.
He's being cremated - it will be his ashes that get the tour, not his corpse.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Democracy in the western hemisphere, Latin America. Was it encouraged more by Cuba's support of governments or America's overthrow of governments. And which did more invasions and assassinations and training how to torture?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Democracy in the western hemisphere, Latin America. Was it encouraged more by Cuba's support of governments or America's overthrow of governments. And which did more invasions and assassinations and training how to torture?
When a defence is predicated on lack of opportunity, it is not a justification of character.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
during the Cuban missile crisis he urged Khrushchev to launch a first strike against the US. If Khrushchev had followed his advice we would not be discussing this on the internet.
According to interviews with former Soviet officials after 1991 (specifically, staff officer General Danilevich, from a transcript held by George Washington University), Castro was still pressing for a first strike against the US during the early 1980s.
They had to explain to him the ecological consequences for Cuba, which suggests that his intelligence was on a par with his ethics.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Democracy in the western hemisphere, Latin America. Was it encouraged more by Cuba's support of governments or America's overthrow of governments. And which did more invasions and assassinations and training how to torture?
When a defence is predicated on lack of opportunity, it is not a justification of character.
When is predicated on avarice and economic gain of a nation, is character then justified?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
during the Cuban missile crisis he urged Khrushchev to launch a first strike against the US. If Khrushchev had followed his advice we would not be discussing this on the internet.
According to interviews with former Soviet officials after 1991 (specifically, staff officer General Danilevich, from a transcript held by George Washington University), Castro was still pressing for a first strike against the US during the early 1980s.
They had to explain to him the ecological consequences for Cuba, which suggests that his intelligence was on a par with his ethics.
Good grief!
Although it would have been equally bonkers in the 1960s, of course.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Elections or not, democracy is in peril in the supposed democratic West because business interests outweigh and overrule* the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
And the solution is to jettison elections and ballot box....?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.
Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.
Though the level of power can overlap, monarchs and dictators are not technically the same thing and are generally not compared.
Whether one equates Louis XIV with the average dictator or not, assessed from the standpoint of finding oneself one of his subjects, he is no persuasive advertisement for the benefits of absolute rule.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.
Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.
And Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria reigned for 68 years (1848-1916).
None of us would like to live under Louis, Francis or Fidel, but the point is that from a historical perspective, the first two were roughly representative of their era, whereas Castro was a (possibly wannabe totalitarian, certainly harshly repressive) dictator in an era when liberal, pluralist democracy was a rapidly spreading and workable ideal.
In other words, he was a reactionary aberration.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
With 49 years in power, he certainly came first in the Dictatorship Longevity Stakes.
Only for the 20th/21st century. Louis XIV (as one example) had a longer rule, even if you don't count his regency period.
Though the level of power can overlap, monarchs and dictators are not technically the same thing and are generally not compared.
Only because there are variations of monarchy. I'd argue that an absolute monarch, like Louis XIV, is just a dictator with a better tailor.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Usually, a long reigning monarch inherits the throne when their predecessor dies and preparations have been made for the succession. A dictator has, usually, to first become the leading member of the revolutionary party or army, then lead a successful revolution and only then does the clock start ticking.
I reject any definition where Kim Il-sung is a "dictator" but Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un are "monarchs". Or that the powers exercised by Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud are "monarchical" (because he inherited his position) but Bashar al-Assad's powers are "dictatorial".
BTW, since he inherited the position due to family connections, does this mean Raúl Castro is a monarch?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
None of us would like to live under Louis, Francis or Fidel, but the point is that from a historical perspective, the first two were roughly representative of their era, whereas Castro was a (possibly wannabe totalitarian, certainly harshly repressive) dictator in an era when liberal, pluralist democracy was a rapidly spreading and workable ideal.
In other words, he was a reactionary aberration.
As I noted earlier, Castro does not seem like much of an aberration when compared to his neighbors. Feel free to make the case that the the people of the Dominican Republic (referenced earlier) were enjoying a liberal, pluralist democracy.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In other words, he was a reactionary aberration.
But not without reason.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
It is no small thing to focus on lifting the poor and is not so throw away a thing as your post seems to imply. Castro came closer to fulfilling the promise of Communism than any other. Just not close enough.
Castro's disregard for liberal human rights need to be understood in the context of Communist/Left political ideology. In terms of this ideology, any support of liberal human rights that did not come with an a priori ideological commitment to the interests of the working class would inevitably lead to the takeover of the political system by wealthy interests. Genuine democracy in this view, ironically can only occur with a dictatorship of the proletariat because that is the price you pay to keep the greedy capitalists from controlling and imposing their will on the people.
America never understood this because ideologically, their advancement of democracy is tied to their praise of capitalism, i.e. to a left wing view, American democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy.
Principled critique of Castro on human rights, needs to not be associated with praise of the capitalist system, which IMHO, is my suspicion with some of the right wing critics of Castro.
It's axiomatic that Western democracy is an ideological cover for rule by the wealthy, not left wing. Was there more social justice in Cuba than in the US? Is there? Or are we saying the egalitarian level of Cuba is so low that the lack of social justice in Western democracies is still more beneficial to the masses? If so, that's nothing to do with the failure of Cuban socialism but Cuba being punished for overreacting to the existential threat of the CIA's Bay of Pigs counter-revolutionary invasion by bringing the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust. With Castro demanding a first strike from Khrushchev.
You make it sound as if communist states actually deliver social justice. In some instances they have delivered improvements in their citizens lives - if one overlooks the people they kill, torture or imprison along the way - but there is still a class which has what one might call preferential access to wealth. When the ministry of economics screws up and there are shortages it isn't the higher echelons of The Party who go without and the limited amount of luxury goods produced either find their way into the dachas of The Party elite or are sold to tourists in order to bring in foreign currency.
As a dissident in the old Soviet bloc memorably observed. Under capitalism man oppresses man. Under socialism, it is the opposite.
Can you join up the dots for me please mate? I don't know how we get from my hard won respect, sympathy for Cuba warts and all to approval of communist states.
The vileness of the Red Terror, of Lenin's killing of his own compassion, of Stalin is as evil as it gets: human, up close and personal on an industrial scale - didn't spring as Athena from the forehead of history. It seethed from the cauldron of WWI and the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.
I've read it ALL mate.
There is an appalling determinism about it all, Marx would be proud of me. The nomenklatura caste of the failed workers state is an obscenity I saw flagrant in Czechoslovakia in 1979 when I hobnobbed with Iraqi Ba'athists over becherovka at the Imperial in Karlovy Vary. But that's another story. How I ended up dining with Mossad in a small town in Germany the following year and living to tell the tale is another. Especially after I identified mine host's regiment. As for name dropping David Cornwell at the British Embassy, a dreadful faux pas.
The West is as fecklessly culpable as any other factor and then some in creating communist excess. A living false dichotomy made in hell.
[ 27. November 2016, 22:36: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I'm wondering considering that some of my left-wing friends are sympathetic to Castro's ideology, if it's the case of supporting his initial aims, if not agreeing with his methods.
Castro was one of the few leaders, who genuinely, could not be a friend of business, he was a true dyed-in-the-wool socialist who believed that business and capitalism fundamentally oppressed people. In the 90s, when the moderate left of Europe was moving towards Blairist accommodation of capitalism, there was a certain romanticism that at least one leader was not a fan of capitalism.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Feel free to make the case that the the people of the Dominican Republic (referenced earlier) were enjoying a liberal, pluralist democracy.
What an idiotic comment.
To say that Castro was an aberration is not the same as saying that he was unique.
Of course there were, and are, regimes as bad or worse than Castro's, from all over the ideological spectrum.
It makes no difference to a victim whether the dictatorship torturing them is currently reviled or revered on Western university campuses.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Feel free to make the case that the the people of the Dominican Republic (referenced earlier) were enjoying a liberal, pluralist democracy.
What an idiotic comment.
To say that Castro was an aberration is not the same as saying that he was unique.
No, but in order to be an aberration one does have to be at the very least a member of a small number of outliers. Which brings us back to the question of whether there was the flowering of "liberal, pluralist democracy" in the Caribbean and Central America during the second half of the twentieth century, or whether dictatorships were the rule rather than the exception. You're the one advancing this argument, so make your case that Castro, Duvalier, Montt, Balaguer, Duarte, Batista, etc. are simply a series of aberrations rather than a pattern.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Of course there were, and are, regimes as bad or worse than Castro's, from all over the ideological spectrum.
It makes no difference to a victim whether the dictatorship torturing them is currently reviled or revered on Western university campuses.
Nor does it usually matter if the regime is an "aberration" or something that fits into a broader pattern, but you've claimed that this distinction is relevant, so please elaborate.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
How does Castro compare to other Latin American dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Manuel Norwiega of Panama, and others?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
flowering of "liberal, pluralist democracy" in the Caribbean and Central America during the second half of the twentieth century
The context is global, not just Central and South America, and globally there has been a trend post-WWII away from authoritarian forms of government - fascist, communist, imperialist, whatever - toward democracy, even when it is honoured in the beach rather than the observance.
Dictatorial regimes, whether right or left, which don't even pay lip service to democracy have therefore become aberrations.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
How does Castro compare to other Latin American dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Manuel Norwiega of Panama, and others?
Castro helped the very poor at the expense of making everyone else poor. Pinochet boosted the economy at the expense of the poor. Both appear to have directly killed more people than Noriega. All three suppressed opposition. Noriega was part of the Medellín drug cartel.
Castro was better than the other Latin American dictators. But he was still a dictator and still killed and oppressed.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Castro was one of the few leaders, who genuinely, could not be a friend of business, he was a true dyed-in-the-wool socialist who believed that business and capitalism fundamentally oppressed people.
Regardless of the truth of such a statement (which I am not about to argue right now), to replace them with an alternative system that fundamentally oppresses people isn't exactly a good thing.
I visited Cuba in 2012. It is a beautiful country and the people, the culture and the music are amazing. The rest of this post is based on my observations during that visit, and some things may have changed in the four years since.
I will not deny that there are many positives that have come about in the country due to the Castro reign. Healthcare and education are universal and free. It is probably the best-prepared Caribbean nation when it comes to hurricanes - we had a major tropical storm while we were there and everything was protected and secured well in advance. Nobody goes without a place to live or food to eat. There will be many on this board who would happily declare it a paradise on the basis of this paragraph.
Here comes the "but".
Everybody gets the bare essentials I mentioned above - but nobody gets more. At all. And that's regardless of what they do - a doctor earns the same state-mandated monthly wage as a street sweeper. We saw many beggars on the streets of the town, and obviously none of them were begging in order to feed themselves or find shelter - they were begging for the ability to buy a few small luxuries for themselves and their families. A nice hat, some decent coffee to replace the state-provided stuff, that sort of thing. More than that, it became apparent that a good beggar could earn more money from well-meaning tourists than they could earn in a job. In any job. Think about that for a second - a beggar can earn more than a doctor. I am honestly not making that up. What would that fact mean for a society? What aspirations would it stimulate in the people?
The lifeguard at the hotel beach asked me to let him have any leftover sunblock at the end of my stay, because he couldn't afford to buy any and was suffering with sunburn. I honestly shit you not.
As for oppression? Well, after a while you start to notice that the people are very happy to talk about how things are privately, but seem to clam up in a crowd. Political dissent is a private thing that isn't spoken openly by anyone who wants to still be around in a few months. And every market has one or two well-dressed individuals just sort of hanging around, watching and making notes.
Was Castro's Cuba a paradise or a hell? Ultimately it comes down to whether you think personal freedoms are worth the risk that some individuals may fall through the cracks of society. Whether you think everybody having the basics is worth nobody having anything more. To have aspirations of bettering oneself is human, and in a society where such betterment is impossible through legal means, people will seek it in other ways - in this case, by begging or by trying to escape to America.
On that note, I have to say that any country that feels a need to make it illegal for its nationals to leave must be doing something wrong. If it was such a great place, wouldn't they want to stay? Why would they risk everything - even their lives - just to leave?
I loved Cuba, and would happily go back. But I'd never want to live there permanently, and I'd never want Britain to adopt the same political philosophy. Even with all its risks, I prefer freedom.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Castro helped the very poor at the expense of making everyone else poor.
That's basically a tl;dr of my post!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
It is probably the best-prepared Caribbean nation when it comes to hurricanes - we had a major tropical storm while we were there and everything was protected and secured well in advance.
AIUI Cuba did an outstanding job of hurricane preparation before Castro came to power. I'm not sure he changed anything.
In the early twentieth century Cuba had the world's best hurricane experts. Since it is hit more frequently than anywhere else, this made sense.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Excellent report MtM.
Does it really take making everyone poor for the sake of the very poor?
I suspect it does.
As half the world is very poor, the rest of us need to be poorer. Can we start with the bottom billion at least? Bring them up to very poor?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Excellent report MtM.
Thank you.
quote:
Does it really take making everyone poor for the sake of the very poor?
All available evidence suggests it does.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Castro helped the very poor at the expense of making everyone else poor.
That's basically a tl;dr of my post!
Except, of course, himself: he amassed a $900,000,000 fortune.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... None of us would like to live under Louis, Francis or Fidel, ...
Franz Joseph may not have been a modern democrat, but he was hardly a dictator in the sense of either Louis XIV or Fidel. The regime he ruled over was a creaking and somewhat bureaucratic state - or double one from 1867. He sort of represented it, but his ability to dictate what happened in the administration, yet alone give orders directly to the average resident in Graz, Agram, Pecs or Lemberg was fairly limited.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Does it really take making everyone poor for the sake of the very poor?
All available evidence suggests it does.
Bullshit. Even without breaking down the myth of zero sum wealth, all it would take in a country with adequate resource is reducing the super-wealthy to merely wealthy. In the UK, US, Canada and Australia no one needs to be poor.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
My point is it's never been done. All the evidence from history is that countries where the government ensures no-one is very poor are ones where (virtually) everyone is poor.
A lot of countries have tried to implement Marx's ideas, and Cuba is probably the one where that worked out the best for people. And yet those people persist in risking everything to flee to the capitalist oppression of the United States. That has to tell you something.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Scandinavia comes to mind as doing much better in equality. So does this: A town without poverty.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which brings us back to the question of whether there was the flowering of "liberal, pluralist democracy" in the Caribbean and Central America during the second half of the twentieth century, or whether dictatorships were the rule rather than the exception.
The context is global, not just Central and South America, and globally there has been a trend post-WWII away from authoritarian forms of government - fascist, communist, imperialist, whatever - toward democracy, even when it is honoured in the beach rather than the observance.
It's very easy to make a case if you've made an a priori decision to ignore any contrary evidence, or pass off contrary evidence as proof of your proposition. (i.e. your basic premise is actually being promoted when it's being violated, a.k.a. "honoured in the b[r]each".)
Or maybe you really did mean "honoured in the beach", democracy (or the façade thereof) in tourist areas near the coast, but not extending to the interior?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Dictatorial regimes, whether right or left, which don't even pay lip service to democracy have therefore become aberrations.
Most dictatorships, Castro's included, usually pay some kind of lip service to democracy, always portraying the leader as very popular. So popular, in fact, that elections are not even necessary! And is simply "pay[ing] lip service to democracy" all it takes to move from being an aberration to being part of this global democratic wave? If that's your standard, I may actually agree with you, though I'm not sure I'd be willing to classify "pay[s] lip service to democracy" as enough to qualify as a trend away from authoritarianism.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My point is it's never been done. All the evidence from history is that countries where the government ensures no-one is very poor are ones where (virtually) everyone is poor.
I'm pretty sure that there are countries with a generous social safety net that aren't impoverished hell-holes. Most of western Europe comes to mind.
[ 28. November 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Croesus:
quote:
I reject any definition where Kim Il-sung is a "dictator" but Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un are "monarchs". Or that the powers exercised by Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud are "monarchical" (because he inherited his position) but Bashar al-Assad's powers are "dictatorial".
BTW, since he inherited the position due to family connections, does this mean Raúl Castro is a monarch?
Well, you can reject whatever you want but in ordinary usage and in political practice there is a meaningful difference between a dictator and a monarch. Pisistratus was a dictator. Alexander the Great was a monarch. Sulla was a dictator. Caligula was a monarch. The distinction may have been academic to their victims but it is reasonably salient for a historian trying to understand the difference between Athenian and Macedonian politics or the difference between the Late Republic and the early Principiate.
Some dictators successfully establish monarchies, of course, mention of Caligula brings me to the most celebrated example. Julius Caesar was literally a dictator, his successor Augustus was, theoretically, a Roman magistrate with one or two extra powers but in practice established a hereditary monarchy in which power was passed around the members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty until the death of Nero. In modern times the Bonaparte's in France, the Egyptian dynasty which terminated with King Farouk, and the Palavis in Iran more or less successfully established a dynasty - less successful attempts were made by King Zog in Albania and the Emperor Bokassa I in the Central African Empire. North Korea functions as a hereditary monarchy in all but name. The Duvaliers managed a successful father to son transition when Papa Doc died but Baby Doc was not quite the chip off the old block that Papa might have hoped. Much the same could be said of President Assad, fils. Broadly speaking, it is fairly hard to seize power in a coup d'etat and then go on to appeal to legitimist sentiment among the masses.
I don't think that there is a moral difference between monarchy and dictatorship where the monarch rules with absolute power, if that is what is worrying you. Given a choice of evils I would prefer to live under Castro than under the House of Saud, but I would prefer to live in a free society than either. Or, to put it another way, an absolute monarchy differs from a dictatorship in the same way that a democratic republic differs from a constitutional monarchy. The institutions of state are different when one, say, crosses the Pyrenees but lived experience as a citizen of a democracy in Spain or France is not markedly different.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Inspired by 'zero sum wealth' I googled up: "Americans don't like the idea that one man's wealth might come at another man's expense.
We like to talk about "win-win" situations.
During the cold war, we decided, following John Rawls's ideas on justice, that inequality was okay to the extent that it led to greater productivity and thus left even the poorest better-off.
Hence wealthy, unequal capitalist societies were better than poorer, (supposedly) egalitarian communist ones.
This distracted us from a crucial question: when you see a specific case of inequality, how do you know it actually led to greater overall wealth?
[the rich got richer!]
It's dangerous to fall into the resentful-peasant belief that whatever makes rich guys richer must make everybody else poorer.
[ohhhhhhh no they didn't]
But it's also dangerous to fall into the genial-sucker belief that whatever makes rich guys richer must make everybody else richer, too."
[ohhhhhhh yes they did and only them]
from.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
During the cold war, we decided, following John Rawls's ideas on justice, that inequality was okay to the extent that it led to greater productivity and thus left even the poorest better-off.
I was under the impression that Rawls favoured something a little more egalitarian than Actually Existing Capitalist Democracy. I'm open to correction, but my understanding is that Rawls' big deal was his idea of the veil of ignorance. If you want to advocate a particular society as being a good society you can only do so, if you imagine yourself pre-incarnate and having no idea as to what position you will occupy after your birth. If you want to say, for example, that the Roman Republic was a good society you have to further say that you aren't going to be dining with Caesar and hobnobbing with Catullus and Cicero. You have to say that it would be a good society if you were fighting in the arena or a slave in the silver mines. To take a less extreme example, a Rawlsian can say that life under David Cameron was good, if and only if, they were prepared to spend their lives on a sink estate in Halifax with their income depending on the vagaries of the DWP and the resources of the local food bank.
I'm not an expert on Rawls, by any means, so if I've got that wrong do give me chapter and verse. If nothing else it will help shame me into reading the unread copy of 'A Theory of Justice' currently gathering dust on my bookshelf instead of arguing the toss about stuff on The Ship. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not even the Church will do that Callan!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Scandinavia comes to mind as doing much better in equality.
Poverty rates being a few percentage points lower is one thing, zero poverty is another. We were talking about the latter, and how it doesn't seem to have been achieved anywhere without totalitarian government.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that there are countries with a generous social safety net that aren't impoverished hell-holes. Most of western Europe comes to mind.
Which western European country has zero poverty?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Scandinavia comes to mind as doing much better in equality.
Poverty rates being a few percentage points lower is one thing, zero poverty is another. We were talking about the latter, and how it doesn't seem to have been achieved anywhere without totalitarian government.
When you talk absolutes it is boxed in. However, when we talk of vastly reduced poverty, we have achieved in the world much better. I grew up in Saskatchewan, which, though not now, has been mostly governed by socialist governments. With much more economic equality and sloganeering such as "make the rich pay".
The province to the east of Sask, Manitoba, had their Liberal Party promising a minimum income if elected last spring. I personally have no trouble with wealthy paying much more tax so as to lift people from poverty and guarantee minimum ability to sustain life. It is probably inevitable that social democracy instead of communist revolution achieve this. Even if we're in a bad spot just now.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Scandinavia comes to mind as doing much better in equality.
Poverty rates being a few percentage points lower is one thing, zero poverty is another. We were talking about the latter, and how it doesn't seem to have been achieved anywhere without totalitarian government.
No. But using it as an excuse not to try, or worse, to use it as a benchmark for repressive societies, seems a bit off.
When Jesus said "You'll always have the poor with you", it wasn't a campaign pledge.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
During the cold war, we decided, following John Rawls's ideas on justice, that inequality was okay to the extent that it led to greater productivity and thus left even the poorest better-off.
I was under the impression that Rawls favoured something a little more egalitarian than Actually Existing Capitalist Democracy. I'm open to correction, but my understanding is that Rawls' big deal was his idea of the veil of ignorance. If you want to advocate a particular society as being a good society you can only do so, if you imagine yourself pre-incarnate and having no idea as to what position you will occupy after your birth. If you want to say, for example, that the Roman Republic was a good society you have to further say that you aren't going to be dining with Caesar and hobnobbing with Catullus and Cicero. You have to say that it would be a good society if you were fighting in the arena or a slave in the silver mines. To take a less extreme example, a Rawlsian can say that life under David Cameron was good, if and only if, they were prepared to spend their lives on a sink estate in Halifax with their income depending on the vagaries of the DWP and the resources of the local food bank.
I'm not an expert on Rawls, by any means, so if I've got that wrong do give me chapter and verse. If nothing else it will help shame me into reading the unread copy of 'A Theory of Justice' currently gathering dust on my bookshelf instead of arguing the toss about stuff on The Ship.
From the Wiki article on A Theory of Justice under the heading "The Second Principle of Justice", "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (...) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (...)"
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No. But using it as an excuse not to try, or worse, to use it as a benchmark for repressive societies, seems a bit off.
This thread is about Castro's legacy. There are some who think he's the absolute bees knees, a hero, and an example for the rest of us because of how he eradicated poverty in Cuba. Pointing out the downsides of what he had to do to achieve that seems perfectly fair to me.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No. But using it as an excuse not to try, or worse, to use it as a benchmark for repressive societies, seems a bit off.
This thread is about Castro's legacy. There are some who think he's the absolute bees knees, a hero, and an example for the rest of us because of how he eradicated poverty in Cuba. Pointing out the downsides of what he had to do to achieve that seems perfectly fair to me.
It is not what he had to do, but what he did.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that there are countries with a generous social safety net that aren't impoverished hell-holes. Most of western Europe comes to mind.
Which western European country has zero poverty?
Which country has zero poverty? Ultra-communist/Marxist/whatever North Korea is an example of a country where there is almost universal poverty.
I'm expecting someone to set up a cause for Castro and seek expedition. After all, he did his best in reducing the numbers of Cubans, such that the available food could go further. Not as extreme as some, but making a good start.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not what he had to do, but what he did.
And of course a complete American embargo has nothing to do with it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not what he had to do, but what he did.
And of course a complete American embargo has nothing to do with it.
1. I said as much up thread
2. Castro was not an unwitting participant in that
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It ain't my opinion, it's the Yank in the Economist as per my 'this' link above, which contains "we decided, following John Rawls's ideas on justice, that inequality was okay to the extent that it led to greater productivity and thus left even the poorest better-off", which looks like a justification of trickle down.
I think that's a travesty of Rawls as per wiki: "inequalities are allowed when they benefit the least advantaged", as I read that to justify positive discrimination, not you can have as much inequality as you like as long as the poorest are always better off because of it, i.e. the cake gets bigger even though the top icing gets disproportionately thicker, richer and the decorations get more ornate.
Have I got both wrong?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most dictatorships, Castro's included, usually pay some kind of lip service to democracy, always portraying the leader as very popular. So popular, in fact, that elections are not even necessary! ...
One thing one needs to bear in mind is that to Marxist-Leninist regimes and their derivatives, 'democratic' doesn't mean what it does to the rest of the world. However, they are alert to the benefits of deluding others into not noticing this.
'Democracy' = rule by the demos = rule by the people.
So,
Because the dictatorship of the proletariat is rule by a dictator so as to achieve what the dictator knows that the people need,
∴ the dictator embodies the will of the people.
∴ the dictatorship of the proletariat = democracy.
∴ the truest form of democracy = dictatorship of the proletariat, AND ∴
Anything else claiming to be democratic is a bourgeois, revisionist delusion.
QED.
So also North Korea is the only truly democratic society in the world.
Easy really.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most dictatorships, Castro's included, usually pay some kind of lip service to democracy
They have no choice, because democracy has become today (unlike in much of previous history) the overwhelmingly popular global ideal to which everyone therefore has to be at least seen to aspire.
The number of democracies has increased since WWII, and they now make up about two thirds of all the world's countries.
Dictatorships such as Cuba are therefore aberrant in terms of current political sentiment, in terms of historical trajectory, and statistically.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most dictatorships, Castro's included, usually pay some kind of lip service to democracy
They have no choice, because democracy has become today (unlike in much of previous history) the overwhelmingly popular global ideal to which everyone therefore has to be at least seen to aspire.
The number of democracies has increased since WWII, and they now make up about two thirds of all the world's countries.
Dictatorships such as Cuba are therefore aberrant in terms of current political sentiment, in terms of historical trajectory, and statistically.
The number of democracies does not make for a democratic world. Too many decisions are made by elected governments that do not reflect the will of the people: instead they reflect the will of the market and the boardroom.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
During the cold war, we decided, following John Rawls's ideas on justice, that inequality was okay to the extent that it led to greater productivity and thus left even the poorest better-off.
I was under the impression that Rawls favoured something a little more egalitarian than Actually Existing Capitalist Democracy. I'm open to correction, but my understanding is that Rawls' big deal was his idea of the veil of ignorance. If you want to advocate a particular society as being a good society you can only do so, if you imagine yourself pre-incarnate and having no idea as to what position you will occupy after your birth.
Yes. Rawls has to assert that everyone is risk averse to get his argument to work. (Otherwise he'd end up with your basic issue utilitarianism.)
But his basic conclusion is that you maximise the living standards of the least well off person in the resulting society consistent with all fundamental social liberties.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most dictatorships, Castro's included, usually pay some kind of lip service to democracy
They have no choice, because democracy has become today (unlike in much of previous history) the overwhelmingly popular global ideal to which everyone therefore has to be at least seen to aspire.
The number of democracies has increased since WWII, and they now make up about two thirds of all the world's countries.
Dictatorships such as Cuba are therefore aberrant in terms of current political sentiment, in terms of historical trajectory, and statistically.
The number of democracies does not make for a democratic world. Too many decisions are made by elected governments that do not reflect the will of the people: instead they reflect the will of the market and the boardroom.
I'm not sure that the solution to that problem is to increase the number of non-democracies!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
"Getting rid of democracies", however you define them won't do it. The power and influence of the business lobby needs to be reined in. FWIW I believe that was one of Castro's objectives but he disregarded the need to maintain democratic backing.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
For a mostly appreciative view of Castro:
The Nov. 28th episode of "Democracy Now" is all about Fidel, with guests who've written about him. You can watch the whole hour-long episode. You can also go to the right-hand nav bar, and pick a segment of the show (video or transcript).
FYI: this is a very liberal TV news series--possibly THE liberal TV news series.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No. But using it as an excuse not to try, or worse, to use it as a benchmark for repressive societies, seems a bit off.
This thread is about Castro's legacy. There are some who think he's the absolute bees knees, a hero, and an example for the rest of us because of how he eradicated poverty in Cuba. Pointing out the downsides of what he had to do to achieve that seems perfectly fair to me.
Oh, I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him.
But I also know that you see any attempt at redistributive policies as authoritarian. Pointing out that your criticism of Castro also applies to pretty much every other country where there's a social safety net is simply a public service announcement.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
For a mostly appreciative view of Castro:
The Nov. 28th episode of "Democracy Now"
If it's an appreciative view (I haven't yet had chance to watch it) will they be re-branding their show 'Democracy Now (Except For Cubans)'?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Pointing out that your criticism of Castro also applies to pretty much every other country where there's a social safety net is simply a public service announcement.
My criticism from yesterday.
Skipping over the positive things I mentioned, that criticism consisted of:
- Nobody in Cuba gets more than the bare essentials.
- Beggars can earn more than doctors.
- Nobody can afford to buy even the smallest luxury item, such as sunblock or decent coffee.
- Political dissent is brutally suppressed.
I also made the observation that any country that feels a need to make it illegal for its nationals to leave must be doing something wrong.
I would be intrigued to know which of those criticisms also applies to pretty much every other country where there's a social safety net, as you assert.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I responded to your response to NP. That is all.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Too many decisions are made by elected governments that do not reflect the will of the people: instead they reflect the will of the market and the boardroom.
A lot of left-wing idealists say wonderful things about "the will of the people", but when the will of the people runs counter to what they think it should be (Tories elected, Brexit, Trump elected, etc.) their opinions about it seem to change very quickly.
This links in very interestingly with their praise for Castro, who was a textbook example of a dictator who didn't give a shit about the will of the people other than when he told them what it was. One can't help but think that their real position is that democracy and individual freedoms are a small price to pay for better healthcare and education.
[ 29. November 2016, 08:58: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Too many decisions are made by elected governments that do not reflect the will of the people: instead they reflect the will of the market and the boardroom.
A lot of left-wing idealists say wonderful things about "the will of the people", but when the will of the people runs counter to what they think it should be (Tories elected, Brexit, Trump elected, etc.) their opinions about it seem to change very quickly.
The left likes decisions made by the will of the majority of a well-informed populace. When the media is owned by and controlled by a handful of wealthy plutocrats a lot of people are not going to be well-informed. Besides, I can accept the result of a democratic vote (not that Trump's election was democratic when Clinton got more votes but that's by the by) but still think it was fucking stupid decision and use the democratic process to see it changed as soon as possible. Only autocrats hold that democracy means one person, one vote, once.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The left likes decisions made by the will of the majority of a well-informed populace.
Where they define "well-informed" as "agrees with us".
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, no.
I genuinely do want people to be well-informed, and then come to a decision. What I don't want is politicians and the press to collude in spreading a mass mis-information campaign, and people voting on that basis.
Of which, currently in many western democracies, it's not the Left that are guilty.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The left likes decisions made by the will of the majority of a well-informed populace.
Where they define "well-informed" as "agrees with us".
That's a convenient argument, certainly, and true for some. It's certainly an old joke that reality has a liberal bias. However, I'd be a lot happier if people who agree with me and who disagree with weren't basing their views on outright lies.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model. Castro was not this, but maybe closer than many. Definitely closer than Saudi or Korea. ...
One often hears people say this. Can you name any actual example?[/QB]
Paul Kagame?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model.
Is there such a thing? Castro enriched himself while the Cuban people suffered a drop in their standard of living.
The daughter of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan dictator, is the wealthiest person in Venezuela.
The problem with benign dictators is that we are all fallen selfish individuals.
Moo
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model.
Is there such a thing? Castro enriched himself while the Cuban people suffered a drop in their standard of living.
Have they? I thought that was the point of debate?
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
The Rules for Rulers
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model.
Is there such a thing? Castro enriched himself while the Cuban people suffered a drop in their standard of living.
Have they? I thought that was the point of debate?
I thought Cuba's GDP per head is the same now as it was in 1959.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model.
Is there such a thing? Castro enriched himself while the Cuban people suffered a drop in their standard of living.
Have they? I thought that was the point of debate?
I thought Cuba's GDP per head is the same now as it was in 1959.
That may be so, but if it is spread around then more people are better off: not just Castro.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still think a benign dictator is a good model.
Is there such a thing? Castro enriched himself while the Cuban people suffered a drop in their standard of living.
Have they? I thought that was the point of debate?
I thought Cuba's GDP per head is the same now as it was in 1959.
That may be so, but if it is spread around then more people are better off: not just Castro.
Trying to find the upsides to 50 years of economic stagnation is quite bold, I think.
And of course Castro (net worth $900,000,000) was rather more better off than others.
[ 29. November 2016, 13:40: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Stagnation in large part caused by the 58 year US embargos.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A lot of left-wing idealists say wonderful things about "the will of the people", but when the will of the people runs counter to what they think it should be (Tories elected, Brexit, Trump elected, etc.) their opinions about it seem to change very quickly.
This links in very interestingly with their praise for Castro, who was a textbook example of a dictator who didn't give a shit about the will of the people other than when he told them what it was. One can't help but think that their real position is that democracy and individual freedoms are a small price to pay for better healthcare and education.
You make an interesting point about "giving a shit about the will of the people. It it too jaded to suggest that not giving a shit about the will of the people is general characteristic of governance today? That the rightwing tout nationalism, freedom, individuality by which they mean the least restrictions possible so as to make money. That the leftists also tout nationalist, freedom, replacing individuality with collective responsibility by which they mean that they will control the money and redistribute it so as to promote themselves. Neither being very interested in actual democracy or the will of any one besides themselves.
The current tendency of the rightists to lump anyone in the centre and left all together as a grand left corresponds with the prior age of socialism calling out the middle as rightwing.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought Cuba's GDP per head is the same now as it was in 1959.
That may be so, but if it is spread around then more people are better off: not just Castro.
That's an interesting comment. If the GDP is the same but spread around more people, then it follows that some people must be worse off.
If the bottom 10% are better off, the next 20% or 30% are about the same, and everyone else bar the top 1% is worse off, then does that average out to more people being better off?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You make an interesting point about "giving a shit about the will of the people. It it too jaded to suggest that not giving a shit about the will of the people is general characteristic of governance today?
Not at all. The advantage of a democratic system, however, is if they piss us off or take us from granted too often then we can vote them out and give someone else a try. And as a pleasant bonus, it means they have to have policies that enough of us want to vote for.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The left likes decisions made by the will of the majority of a well-informed populace. When the media is owned by and controlled by a handful of wealthy plutocrats a lot of people are not going to be well-informed. ...
So different, so very different from those places where the media is owned and controlled by the state and pumps out what the dear leader tells it to pump out.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The advantage of a democratic system, however, is if they piss us off or take us from granted too often then we can vote them out and give someone else a try. And as a pleasant bonus, it means they have to have policies that enough of us want to vote for.
In practice it means that the PTB manipulate us differently and we are participatory in that manipulation. Yes, we do have a choice, but that choice is not completely open.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The left likes decisions made by the will of the majority of a well-informed populace. When the media is owned by and controlled by a handful of wealthy plutocrats a lot of people are not going to be well-informed. ...
So different, so very different from those places where the media is owned and controlled by the state and pumps out what the dear leader tells it to pump out.
Yes, The BBC take direct orders from the PM. And PBS from the president. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
The BBC isn't controlled by the state. Pretty much all the media in Cuba is. I think the latter was the sort of thing Enoch had in mind.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The BBC isn't controlled by the state. Pretty much all the media in Cuba is. I think the latter was the sort of thing Enoch had in mind.
Exactly. And it's not the only example.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought Cuba's GDP per head is the same now as it was in 1959.
That may be so, but if it is spread around then more people are better off: not just Castro.
That's an interesting comment. If the GDP is the same but spread around more people, then it follows that some people must be worse off.
If the bottom 10% are better off, the next 20% or 30% are about the same, and everyone else bar the top 1% is worse off, then does that average out to more people being better off?
The maths varies, but wealth inequality is very pronounced and has got more so in the last thirty years. If you start from a point in which the top few percent own a highly disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth then if that is spread around a lot of people are better off while relatively few are worse off. In Britain for example the poorest 50% of the population own less than 9% of the wealth while the situation is reversed at the top where the wealthiest 10% own nearly 50% of the wealth.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You make an interesting point about "giving a shit about the will of the people. It it too jaded to suggest that not giving a shit about the will of the people is general characteristic of governance today?
Not at all. The advantage of a democratic system, however, is if they piss us off or take us from granted too often then we can vote them out and give someone else a try. And as a pleasant bonus, it means they have to have policies that enough of us want to vote for.
Can you therefore explain why it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for? We get the same outcomes and the same excuses for not delivering the policies on which governments are elected.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
At least in an open society (pluralistic democratic) we can't kid ourselves. We can't hide behind the dictatorship of the proletariat enforcing classless equality, equal shares of less; it's down to us, not some always inevitably power corrupted and abusing, unjust, unequal, hypocritical chairman like Castro. It's our choice. A pretty feckless, deterministic, central tendency, chaotically complex, constrained kind of choice that, for the likes of us here, ends up with helpless guilty privilege.
That's the choice.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can you therefore explain why it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for? We get the same outcomes and the same excuses for not delivering the policies on which governments are elected.
Up to a point Lord Sioni Sais.
It often feels like that, and the ability of one mouse to change anything is small when there are so many elephants, But.
One really big difference between the UK, say, and Castro's Cuba, is that in the UK, you can try to do something about it. You may feel, 'I'm not going to succeed. It's a waste of time. I've better things to do. I don't think I'll bother'. But each of us are free to try and to combine with others to try, to persuade and even perhaps to get somewhere.
However limited you may feel those freedoms are, in Castro's Cuba, none of them exist at all. The state has a complete monopoly on the lot.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The BBC isn't controlled by the state. Pretty much all the media in Cuba is. I think the latter was the sort of thing Enoch had in mind.
The post I quoted from was contrasting private media vs state media. I was illustrating the alternative. It did not appear to me that Enoch was representing this.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You make an interesting point about "giving a shit about the will of the people. It it too jaded to suggest that not giving a shit about the will of the people is general characteristic of governance today?
Not at all. The advantage of a democratic system, however, is if they piss us off or take us from granted too often then we can vote them out and give someone else a try. And as a pleasant bonus, it means they have to have policies that enough of us want to vote for.
Can you therefore explain why it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for? We get the same outcomes and the same excuses for not delivering the policies on which governments are elected.
Off the top of my head, a victory for Ed Miliband in the UK in 2016 would have meant no bedroom tax, the introduction of the mansion tax and no EU Referendum. In the US Donald Trump has just beaten Hilary Clinton to the Presidency. Now I know that Hilary is seen as being a bit establishment in some quarters but they are hardly interchangeable. If you support policies outside the narrow range of issues contested by the two main parties (who between them hoover up much of the popular vote) this may be depressing but it doesn't follow that there is simply no difference between the parties. During my adult life the Prime Ministers have been Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May. I'm not a particularly massive fan of any of them but there was a major change when Major handed over power to Blair and another major change when Brown handed power to Cameron. I'm always slightly bewildered when people say there is not. Representative Democracy has its flaws but we are not living in The Village and a General Election does not merely end with the installation of a New Number Two.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Paul Kagame?
There are elections in Rwanda. Although it is true that Kagame has amassed a lot of power and dictatorial tendencies, and in keeping with that has been making political opponents disappear, reducing freedom of the press, and suppressed freedom of speech and of association. He's not quite a dictator, but far from benign.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Adding to Callan's latest post, I was not then adult but can clearly remember a change in attitude and action when Wilson came in. Not the same degree of change during the 70's, perhaps because of the odd pattern of elections. There was an enormous change from Callaghan to Thatcher in 1979. Within days, again a major change in attitude and no doubt that Thatcher would see that the anti-parliamentary tactics of Militant Tendency ultimately came to nothing.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Anglican't--
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And of course Castro (net worth $900,000,000) was rather more better off than others.
??? Please explain, and give a source. Thanks.
Related topic:
The news coverage said that Batista took most of the Cuban government's money with him, when he left. What if that money had been available to fix/support Cuba?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Anglican't--
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And of course Castro (net worth $900,000,000) was rather more better off than others.
??? Please explain, and give a source. Thanks.
Forbes made the claim, Castro denied it. Regardless, Castro did not want in the same way his subjects did.
quote:
The news coverage said that Batista took most of the Cuban government's money with him, when he left. What if that money had been available to fix/support Cuba?
Batista took what was there at the time. Castro still had the same resources to make the money again. He took the steps to not do that. He banked on the USSR to support Cuba.
Posted by Marama (# 330) on
:
Reminds me of a funny story told me by a Cuban Australian friend some years ago. She visited first her relatives still in Cuba, then travelled -via Mexico - to Miami to see more extended family. (Since she was on an Aussie passport the old American rules didn't apply). Her opinions of Cuba were mixed, but not entirely negative. At a party in Miami there was much tut-tutting about her visit to Cuba, but about half way through an uncle took her aside and admitted he too had visited Cuba - 'but don't tell anyone else'. Half an hour later another uncle made a similar admission. After the fourth such story she wondered what happened when the uncles met on the main street of Havana!
[ 30. November 2016, 09:12: Message edited by: Marama ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can you therefore explain why it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for? We get the same outcomes and the same excuses for not delivering the policies on which governments are elected.
Because:
(a) Many people find those outcomes acceptable enough that they will continue to vote for them.
(b) Many people don't care about what the outcomes are enough to either change their vote or vote at all. If you're going to give the people the right to decide who will form their government, then you have to accept that some of them will answer "meh, I don't really care".
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The news coverage said that Batista took most of the Cuban government's money with him, when he left. What if that money had been available to fix/support Cuba?
He probably took a personal fortune of ill gotten gains numbering in the hundreds of millions. Likely acquired through graft and bribes and not stolen directly from the country's treasury. Not clear to me what was in the coffers when he left, but the post revolutionary government expropriated property that totaled in the billions with a "B".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Property doesn't count for much if there is no one to buy it.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Property doesn't count for much if there is no one to buy it.
Then in retrospect seizing it was counter productive, whatever the initial aims.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Property doesn't count for much if there is no one to buy it.
Unless you can live on it instead of paying rent to The Man.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marama:
After the fourth such story she wondered what happened when the uncles met on the main street of Havana!
If it's anything like what happens when Baptists see each other at the liquor store, they act as if they don't even recognize each other. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can you therefore explain why it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for? We get the same outcomes and the same excuses for not delivering the policies on which governments are elected.
Other examples have been cited, but just watch and see the differences between the outcomes and policies between the Obama administration and the upcoming Trump administration.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Batista took what was there at the time. Castro still had the same resources to make the money again. He took the steps to not do that. He banked on the USSR to support Cuba.
And didn't have a back-up plan when the USSR collapsed.
I don't think anyone's mentioned Castro's support for the MPLA in Angola and its atrocities and the dictator in Ethiopia whose name escapes me at the moment, the one convicted of genocide in absentia.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Property doesn't count for much if there is no one to buy it.
Then in retrospect seizing it was counter productive, whatever the initial aims.
Pure productivity is not the motive of any revolution. Punishing and controlling those who are deemed part of the previous structure is part of it.
But anyway my point was property, whatever the reason it was taken, cannot be counted as wealth for Castro as it was never potentially for sale.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unless you can live on it instead of paying rent to The Man.
Redistibution is part of the manifesto, n'est-ce pas?
[ 01. December 2016, 06:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Marama:
After the fourth such story she wondered what happened when the uncles met on the main street of Havana!
If it's anything like what happens when Baptists see each other at the liquor store, they act as if they don't even recognize each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can you therefore explain why it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for? We get the same outcomes and the same excuses for not delivering the policies on which governments are elected.
Other examples have been cited, but just watch and see the differences between the outcomes and policies between the Obama administration and the upcoming Trump administration.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Batista took what was there at the time. Castro still had the same resources to make the money again. He took the steps to not do that. He banked on the USSR to support Cuba.
And didn't have a back-up plan when the USSR collapsed.
I don't think anyone's mentioned Castro's support for the MPLA in Angola and its atrocities and the dictator in Ethiopia whose name escapes me at the moment, the one convicted of genocide in absentia.
These are effects, not causes RuthW. The causes being the inevitable failures of the West. The extenuation is that now we know; we have to go down every cul-de-sac of suffering it seems. The MPLA were up against a cannibal army from Zaire in the Angolan Civil War of 1975 following on from the Angolan War of Independence (1961–74) from 400 years of imperialist atrocities.
And it was Mengistu in Ethiopia, eventual successor of the fecklessly criminally pathetic Haile Selassie I, another puppet of the West.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
These are effects, not causes RuthW. The causes being the inevitable failures of the West.
Nobody in the developing world of the Soviet bloc had moral agency during the Cold War. The only people who were morally culpable for anything that went wrong were the US and UK. Surely you should know this, by now Ruth.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Nobody in the developing world of the Soviet bloc had moral agency during the Cold War. The only people who were morally culpable for anything that went wrong were the US and UK.
And not just the Cold War! Western Imperialism is responsible for every evil the world has ever known! African dictatorships? Western Imperialism. Stalin's purges? Western Imperialism. The bubonic plague? Western Imperialism. Genghis Khan rampaging across Asia? Western Imperialism. Christ being crucified? Western Imperialism. Cain killing Abel? Western Imperialism. The Permian-Triassic Extinction Event? Western Imperialism.
Nothing else has ever been or will ever be responsible for anything even slightly bad.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Although you inflate your points beyond hyperbolic recognition, much of current world affairs is living out the biblical 5 ( or is it 7) generations of border drawing, and organizing of world economy. One has to only consider Africa and the Mid-East for a moment to understand it. Because money has always been the driver of it, it isn't ever solvable, though some arrangements are better than others. Better international regulation would help, but we are on another path just now.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nothing else has ever been or will ever be responsible for anything even slightly bad.
Going back into mythological pre-history is quite cute, but just to drag you back to the past, say, 150 years.
The list of wars not caused directly or indirectly by Western imperialism and its legacy is going to be quite short.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So the West didn't rape at least two continents, make it four, excluding its own, for 500 years? OK only 3 for 500, 1 for 200. And the odd sub-continent?
And where did Communism originate? Remind me again? In reaction?
And don't go back a thousand let alone two whatever you do. To other reactions. Like Islam.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Western imperialism forced Castro to support atrocities in Angola and Ethiopia? How exactly did that work?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Oh, so it was them that compelled Castro to send troops to Africa?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
Portugal and, um, Ethiopia.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
How long must a country be independent before you will accept that it is responsible for its own actions?
Cuba has, of course, been an independent nation since 1902.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
Portugal and, um, Ethiopia.
I think the combination of words you're looking for is 'Portugal and Italy'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
How long must a country be independent before you will accept that it is responsible for its own actions?
Cuba has, of course, been an independent nation since 1902.
Great Britain has been more or less extant since the Act of Union in 1707. Can we hold it responsible for its actions yet? And when I say actions, I mean fucking over large swathes of Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania. North America is possibly a separate (though allied) discussion.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
Portugal and, um, Ethiopia.
I think the combination of words you're looking for is 'Portugal and Italy'.
Portugal and Italy made Castro send troops to Angola and Ethiopia?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
How long must a country be independent before you will accept that it is responsible for its own actions?
Cuba has, of course, been an independent nation since 1902.
Technically independent, but not completely independent in practical terms.
------------------------
To the general tone of the thread at the moment:
Communism will always lead to repression. Always.
The difference between Communism and "the West" as far as exploiting, interfering or flat out conquering is minor. Communism must exert resources to control its own people so have fewer to fuck up other peoples. But Godless bless em! They give it the old college try!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Remind me again which countries used to own Angola and Ethiopia?
Portugal and, um, Ethiopia.
I think the combination of words you're looking for is 'Portugal and Italy'.
Portugal and Italy made Castro send troops to Angola and Ethiopia?
If Portugal and Italy hadn't colonised Angola and Ethiopia, bloody wars of liberation that turned into proxy wars between East and West would never have happened.
The Angolan civil was fought between Portugal, supported by South Africa, against the indigenous freedom movements, supported by mainly Communist regimes. Thereafter, during the civil war, one side was supported again by mainly Communist countries, the other by western powers via South Africa and Israel.
Ethiopia is a different case. After being invaded by fascist Italy in 1935, it was liberated by the British, and after a series of missteps and poor governance, as well as behaving badly towards Somalia, a Soviet-backed Marxist government took over. Who had also been funding the Somalis.
So the answer to your question is, no, of course not. But there is a wider historical context, in which the west - European powers, and the USA, play a very large, and often incredibly grubby part. As is the case in Cuba's history. Denying that this extra dimension doesn't exist or is unimportant seems a little off.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Brit. understatement to the point of litotes.
And the two words ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
<- me now.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Great Britain has been more or less extant since the Act of Union in 1707. Can we hold it responsible for its actions yet?
Twist and turn some more, why don't you?
Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975, and only then did the civil war start between the various factions that wanted to be in charge of the newly independent country. It was to this conflict that Castro sent troops, and those troops also participated in the killing of political dissidents.
Portugal (much less "The West") is not responsible for the actions of the various factions that started the Angolan civil war, and it is definitely not responsible for Castro's decision to send troops to intervene in that war. Those people bear responsibility for their own atrocities.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Portugal (much less "The West") is not responsible for the actions of the various factions that started the Angolan civil war, and it is definitely not responsible for Castro's decision to send troops to intervene in that war. Those people bear responsibility for their own atrocities.
They bear the responsibility for their own atrocities and Portugal bears responsibility for setting the circumstances. Portugal created a country and then left it to people who had no reason to consider themselves homogeneous.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Great Britain has been more or less extant since the Act of Union in 1707. Can we hold it responsible for its actions yet?
Twist and turn some more, why don't you?
Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975, and only then did the civil war start between the various factions that wanted to be in charge of the newly independent country. It was to this conflict that Castro sent troops, and those troops also participated in the killing of political dissidents.
Portugal (much less "The West") is not responsible for the actions of the various factions that started the Angolan civil war, and it is definitely not responsible for Castro's decision to send troops to intervene in that war. Those people bear responsibility for their own atrocities.
It's as if 500 years of rape didn't happen.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975, and only then did the civil war start between the various factions that wanted to be in charge of the newly independent country. It was to this conflict that Castro sent troops, and those troops also participated in the killing of political dissidents.
Bzzt. Cuban troops took part in the war of independence that preceded the civil war.
quote:
Portugal (much less "The West") is not responsible for the actions of the various factions that started the Angolan civil war
Bzzt. Portugal had a choice. An orderly handover of power to indigenous African politicians, or drag it out over 13 years. Portugal (part of "The West" the last time I looked) is totally and utterly responsible for those 13 years, and more or less totally and utterly responsible for the chaos that followed.
quote:
and it is definitely not responsible for Castro's decision to send troops to intervene in that war. Those people bear responsibility for their own atrocities.
Castro's decision was Castro's decision. That's pretty much the only factual comment in your entire post. It was equally the USA's decision to fund one half of the civil war and use South Africa and Israel to expedite arms shipments and training without telling its own citizens that's what it was doing. That civil war went on for a further 26 years. Thanks, USA.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Ethiopia: It's near impossible to talk of this as colonisation. The Italian conquest was not complete until mid-1936 and the Allies had defeated the Italians by the end of 1941. Not really long enough to colonise the country.
Angola: It's interesting that the Portuguese home revolution was carried far to the left by troops returning from Portugal's African colonies. The Angolan civil wars after the Portuguese quit were predominantly proxy wars between the Russians and the Chinese, each supporting a major combatant (and a few minor ones, used to keep the major ones on their toes). South Africa would throw a bit of money and a few arms in from time to time to stir things up.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Western imperialism forced Castro to support atrocities in Angola and Ethiopia? How exactly did that work?
Supporting atrocities in foreign countries puts Castro on the same moral level as most of his contemporary Presidents of the US (with the possible exception of Carter), and most of the Prime Ministers of the UK.
It's arguable that the option of running a left-wing democratic government simply wasn't open to Castro, given what the US did to left-wing democratic governments in south and central America throughout the Cold War. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Not to say Castro was a hero. Just that the whole thing is a murky shade of grey. And that in the context of US foreign policy a sane moral person could think Castro looked the least-worst option.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I recommend Ryszard Kapuściński's works on both. And The Shadow of the Sun, which contains the most beautifully ghastly account - from Ethiopia - I have ever read.
The West took Selassie's money for champagne, caviar while the people he took it from starved to death. Admittedly comparing him with Mengistu is like comparing Mussolini with Hitler.
Western, i.e. European, Christian imperialism (which is SO much more than colonialism and I take the view that the West starts shallowly at the Urals), funnily enough began in Ethiopia 500 years ago with Portugal opposing Turkey there. Britain - and even America and France and Russia - wouldn't begin sticking their snouts in for over 300 years, with her Egyptian proxy and Turkish ally, followed by Italy of course. Twice. And dear old Blighty. Again. Twice. And the Russians again! Bless.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pure productivity is not the motive of any revolution. Punishing and controlling those who are deemed part of the previous structure is part of it.
But anyway my point was property, whatever the reason it was taken, cannot be counted as wealth for Castro as it was never potentially for sale.
Then it was an inevitability that the Revolution would end in poverty for its people. Just as the embargo was an unavoidable response to the assets being seized in the first place.
[ 02. December 2016, 02:40: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pure productivity is not the motive of any revolution. Punishing and controlling those who are deemed part of the previous structure is part of it.
But anyway my point was property, whatever the reason it was taken, cannot be counted as wealth for Castro as it was never potentially for sale.
Then it was an inevitability that the Revolution would end in poverty for its people. Just as the embargo was an unavoidable response to the assets being seized in the first place.
A communist revolution could, in theory, end with everyone provided for adequately if the resultant country had adequate resources. I do not think this a likely outcome regardless, but it would be possible It would still end up repressive, but that is a separate issue.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's arguable that the option of running a left-wing democratic government simply wasn't open to Castro, given what the US did to left-wing democratic governments in south and central America throughout the Cold War.
But from everything I've read, Castro was set on Communism from the get go. So even if the argument you place is valid, it was never going to happen.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Castro and Africa:
"Why Nelson Mandela Loved Fidel Castro." (HuffPost)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Castro and Africa:
"Why Nelson Mandela Loved Fidel Castro." (HuffPost)
quote:
“We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious, imperialist-orchestrated campaign,” Mandela said during the visit, according to the Los Angeles Times. “We, too, want to control our own destiny.”
The Cuban people have no independence and no choice in the matter of what they would sacrifice. Mandela was wrong to unreservedly praise Castro, The freedom he worked for was denied the people of Cuba.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Became distraced and missed the edit window.
Mandela, when he gained his freedom and came into power, sought reconciliation with those who had imprisoned him and repressed black people.
Castro killed opponents and jailed anyone who even spoke against him and even jailed people who had supported him but simply wanted out.
I understand his wish to support those who supported him, but he was wrong to praise Castro.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975, and only then did the civil war start between the various factions that wanted to be in charge of the newly independent country. It was to this conflict that Castro sent troops, and those troops also participated in the killing of political dissidents.
Bzzt. Cuban troops took part in the war of independence that preceded the civil war.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
quote:
quote:
Portugal (much less "The West") is not responsible for the actions of the various factions that started the Angolan civil war
Bzzt. Portugal had a choice. An orderly handover of power to indigenous African politicians, or drag it out over 13 years. Portugal (part of "The West" the last time I looked) is totally and utterly responsible for those 13 years,
Agreed, but the atrocities we are discussing did not happen during those 13 years. They came later.
quote:
and more or less totally and utterly responsible for the chaos that followed.
How so? In what way is Portugal responsible for the fact that the Angolan independence movement fractured into disparate and antagonistic factions once independence had been won?
quote:
Castro's decision was Castro's decision. That's pretty much the only factual comment in your entire post. It was equally the USA's decision to fund one half of the civil war and use South Africa and Israel to expedite arms shipments and training without telling its own citizens that's what it was doing. That civil war went on for a further 26 years. Thanks, USA.
If the USA was wrong to intervene then so was Castro. If Castro was right to intervene then so was the USA. Choose.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A communist revolution could, in theory, end with everyone provided for adequately if the resultant country had adequate resources.
The biggest problem with that is the question of who gets to define what "provided for adequately" means.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
Wikipedia also agrees with me. Such is the way of these things.
quote:
Agreed, but the atrocities we are discussing did not happen during those 13 years. They came later.
You can't draw a line under 13 years of conflict so neatly. Your bizarrely binary thinking manifests itself here, too:
quote:
In what way is Portugal responsible for the fact that the Angolan independence movement fractured into disparate and antagonistic factions once independence had been won?
Because it was already deliberately fractured by various global powers supporting different factions during the 13 years of fighting.
And again, here:
quote:
If the USA was wrong to intervene then so was Castro. If Castro was right to intervene then so was the USA. Choose.
So, on one hand, you have a country sending arms, training and soldiers to aid an indigenous independence movement trying to overthrow their colonial masters. On the other, you have a country doing the same thing trying to make sure the status quo was maintained.
And yet you can't make a moral judgement as to which side of history was the right one? That's interesting.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
Wikipedia also agrees with me. Such is the way of these things.
Where in that article are Cuban troops mentioned prior to 1975?
quote:
quote:
Agreed, but the atrocities we are discussing did not happen during those 13 years. They came later.
You can't draw a line under 13 years of conflict so neatly.
13 years of conflict which Portugal lost. To blame Portugal for the subsequent actions of the winners is a bit like blaming Nazi Germany for the Berlin Wall.
quote:
quote:
In what way is Portugal responsible for the fact that the Angolan independence movement fractured into disparate and antagonistic factions once independence had been won?
Because it was already deliberately fractured by various global powers supporting different factions during the 13 years of fighting.
All of the factions were fighting against Portugal, and yet you blame Portugal for the fact that those factions were backed by other global powers?
quote:
quote:
If the USA was wrong to intervene then so was Castro. If Castro was right to intervene then so was the USA. Choose.
So, on one hand, you have a country sending arms, training and soldiers to aid an indigenous independence movement trying to overthrow their colonial masters. On the other, you have a country doing the same thing trying to make sure the status quo was maintained.
The FNLA and UNITA were many things during that period, but "trying to maintain the status quo" wasn't one of them.
And you're still ignoring the fact that by the time period we're talking about, the colonial masters had already been overthrown.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So everything is a zero sum game, springs from the forehead of history fully formed with no history. Every day is Another Day of Life with complete amnesia of 500 years of rape.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So everything is a zero sum game, springs from the forehead of history fully formed with no history. Every day is Another Day of Life with complete amnesia of 500 years of rape.
What alternative are you proposing? That the formerly colonial countries have no moral agency in their own right, and all their bad decisions are to be laid at the door of their former masters?
Clearly that would mean the USA isn't responsible for any of the things you criticise it for, as it used to be owned by Britain. But then, Britain used to be owned by the Roman Empire, so maybe it isn't responsible for anything it does either.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wow! Is that loj-ick?
How long has the West had Canterbury? Lambeth? Oxbridge? Paris is oldest I realise. Whitehall? The Ivy League? Foggy Bottom?
By what orders of magnitude of knowledge?
The heart of darkness of the sewers of Portugal were emptied on Angola for five hundred years and spread deep in to central Africa paving the way for the monstrous Belgians (who'd have thought it eh?). They go and the society that arises in the vacuum over the toxic shit they left has agency?
Like the street people I'll be working with tonight. I'll tell them that shall I? "No, I was wrong, you DID choose your parents, you only have yourselves to blame.".
The alternative is incarnationality. Don't worry, we'll NEVER try it.
[ 02. December 2016, 11:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
To blame Portugal for the subsequent actions of the winners is a bit like blaming Nazi Germany for the Berlin Wall.
I'm sorry. You've pretty much written yourself out of any credible position on anything that has every happened even one second ago.
Are you even aware of the notion of causality? That one thing happens because of the thing before it?
You can draw a direct line between Nazi Germany deciding to invade Russia in 1941 and the Berlin Wall going up. Literally, a line. X then Y. I cannot believe that you think otherwise.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
My exact thoughts.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are you even aware of the notion of causality? That one thing happens because of the thing before it?
So if someone has a bad day at work and goes home and hits their wife, it's really work's fault rather than their own? Your approach to causality would suggest it is.
quote:
You can draw a direct line between Nazi Germany deciding to invade Russia in 1941 and the Berlin Wall going up. Literally, a line. X then Y. I cannot believe that you think otherwise.
You can draw similar lines all the way back to the beginning of civilisation. But what would that prove, exactly?
My point is that for each line drawn, someone made a decision to react the way they did. And they alone bear the moral responsibility for that decision.
Or to put it another way, "A then B" does not equate to "A therefore B".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
They go and the society that arises in the vacuum over the toxic shit they left has agency?
Well if the society they left didn't have agency then maybe they should never have left at all. I mean, I thought all that stuff about self-determination was predicated on the notion that the people concerned were capable of determining their own fate, but you seem to be saying they weren't (aren't?).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Of course they aren't. Who is?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course they aren't. Who is?
Well if nobody is then on what grounds are you criticising the West?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Being fecklessly privileged. Which is without excuse. Marmosets know what fair is.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Being fecklessly privileged.
How can you blame them for that if they don't have the agency to do anything about it?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I blame no one for their blame. We can't help being to blame. Being deluded predators of the poor. How else are we going to keep what we've devoured? And justify it? If only to ourselves.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or to put it another way, "A then B" does not equate to "A therefore B".
To put it properly: A then B doesn't necessarily equate to A therefore B. It requires an evidentiary chain as part of the claim.
You exhibit the logic that makes Tories spontaneously orgasm; the freedom to wreak havoc with no responsibility.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You exhibit the logic that makes Tories spontaneously orgasm; the freedom to wreak havoc with no responsibility.
I'm not the one arguing that the post-colonial leadership of Angola bears no responsibility for its atrocities. I'm the one arguing that everyone bears the responsibility for things they do, but not for things other people do afterwards.
If I rob you, I am guilty of that crime. If you rob someone else to replace what I took, I am not guilty of that crime. Even though it wouldn't have happened had I not committed mine first.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm the one arguing that everyone bears the responsibility for things they do,
What people/nations/etc. do has consequences. How much responsibility goes with that is dependent, but not automatically disconnected.
quote:
If I rob you, I am guilty of that crime. If you rob someone else to replace what I took, I am not guilty of that crime. Even though it wouldn't have happened had I not committed mine first.
Love the simple, but totally inapplicable analogy.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the freedom to wreak havoc with no responsibility.
Tories?
Maybe.
Sounds exactly like the attitude of countless revolutionaries, communist and otherwise, from the Hebertists and Enrages, to the Red Guards and Khmer Rouge.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You exhibit the logic that makes Tories spontaneously orgasm; the freedom to wreak havoc with no responsibility.
I'm not the one arguing that the post-colonial leadership of Angola bears no responsibility for its atrocities. I'm the one arguing that everyone bears the responsibility for things they do, but not for things other people do afterwards.
If I rob you, I am guilty of that crime. If you rob someone else to replace what I took, I am not guilty of that crime. Even though it wouldn't have happened had I not committed mine first.
I'm sympathetic to that. I know it's true ... And false. So do you. Thou doth protest too much, methinks. THAT'S the lesson of history (apart from there not being one) that we can't learn. But the survivor guilt at the top of the mountain of skulls is high isn't it?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
If I rob you, I am guilty of that crime. If you rob someone else to replace what I took, I am not guilty of that crime. Even though it wouldn't have happened had I not committed mine first.
Love the simple, but totally inapplicable analogy.
Inapplicable For what reason(s)?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the freedom to wreak havoc with no responsibility.
Tories?
Maybe.
Sounds exactly like the attitude of countless revolutionaries, communist and otherwise, from the Hebertists and Enrages, to the Red Guards and Khmer Rouge.
It's apparently also applicable to the post-colonial authorities in Angola, who according to this thread were completely free to wreak all the havoc they liked in the knowledge that all the responsibility would be laid at the door of Portugal.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Get a room guys.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A communist revolution could, in theory, end with everyone provided for adequately if the resultant country had adequate resources.
In theory true; if everyone worked to contribute to the state and broader society without the normal human inducements of personal material gain and property ownership that could work out. In practice its total nonsense, and what you get is repression and poverty.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A communist revolution could, in theory, end with everyone provided for adequately if the resultant country had adequate resources.
In theory true; if everyone worked to contribute to the state and broader society without the normal human inducements of personal material gain and property ownership that could work out. In practice its total nonsense, and what you get is repression and poverty.
There are many factors why communism is nothing more than a delusionary wet dream. But this is about Castro specifically, so I don't wish to go too far down that road.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
If I rob you, I am guilty of that crime. If you rob someone else to replace what I took, I am not guilty of that crime. Even though it wouldn't have happened had I not committed mine first.
Love the simple, but totally inapplicable analogy.
Inapplicable For what reason(s)?
It implies that all issues are direct cause and effect and this is patently ridiculous.
Most analogies fail at some point, but I will try a simple one just for you.
Say I construct a building for you with shoddy materials and workmanship. And earthquake later happens and the building collapses, who/what is responsible?
In your logic, it is purely the earthquake. In the real world, the building triggered the collapse, but I am at fault as well.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You exhibit the logic that makes Tories spontaneously orgasm; the freedom to wreak havoc with no responsibility.
I'm not the one arguing that the post-colonial leadership of Angola bears no responsibility for its atrocities. I'm the one arguing that everyone bears the responsibility for things they do, but not for things other people do afterwards.
If I rob you, I am guilty of that crime. If you rob someone else to replace what I took, I am not guilty of that crime. Even though it wouldn't have happened had I not committed mine first.
As a moral argument, you would not be guilty of
that crime, it's true, but you would be guilty of "causing another to stumble", at least according to that guy we are supposed to be following, and he seems to think that a far more serious offence, if all that talk of millstones is true. FWIW, I agree with him, but YMMV.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
If I rob you, I am guilty of that crime. If you rob someone else to replace what I took, I am not guilty of that crime. Even though it wouldn't have happened had I not committed mine first.
Love the simple, but totally inapplicable analogy.
Inapplicable For what reason(s)?
It implies that all issues are direct cause and effect and this is patently ridiculous.
Most analogies fail at some point, but I will try a simple one just for you.
Say I construct a building for you with shoddy materials and workmanship. And earthquake later happens and the building collapses, who/what is responsible?
In your logic, it is purely the earthquake. In the real world, the building triggered the collapse, but I am at fault as well.
Neither earthquakes nor building materials have moral agency, so it's still the decision to use shoddy materials that's responsible. We're talking about a situation where people chose to react to a situation (Portugal leaving Angola) in a certain way (by killing each other in a bitter battle for control). And that choice is all on them.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I'm not certain you truly understand what an analogy is or how they function. Nor do your statements demonstrate a knowledge of the concept of cause and effect beyond I let go a rock and it fell.
This is not mean as an insult, but if you are arguing in good faith, it is difficult to find another conclusion.
No one is arguing that those committing atrocities are not responsible for their actions. This does not exclude that those who created the circumstance have responsibility as well.
It is not zero-sum.
[ 04. December 2016, 19:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one is arguing that those committing atrocities are not responsible for their actions.
Could have fooled me.
quote:
This does not exclude that those who created the circumstance have responsibility as well.
It is not zero-sum.
I don't know, it still feels like you're denying the agency of the Angolans. As if there was nothing else they could have done once Portugal left except start murdering each other - as if it was as inevitable as a shoddily-made building falling down in an earthquake. I'm saying that once Portugal had left they had the opportunity to shape the nation however they wanted, and they chose violence. And I don't see how Portugal is responsible for that choice.
[ 04. December 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
On the subject of Castro's legacy, I found this Washington Post article, following Justin Trudeau's (in my opinion bizarre) eulogy interesting. I've long had doubts about the actual quality of Cuban public services, given accounts of it by tourists and visitors who saw it first hand. From the article:
quote:
Trudeau appears to accept outdated Cuban government spin as current fact. The reality is that education and health care were already relatively vibrant in Cuba before the revolution, compared with other Latin American countries. While the Castro regime has not let that slip — and given greater access to the poor — it is a stretch to claim Castro was responsible for “significant improvements,” especially more recently.
Many other Latin American countries made far more dramatic strides in the past six decades, without the need for a communist dictatorship; Cuba simply had a head start when Castro seized power.
Moreover, the focus on health care and education should not detract from the fact that overall living standards, as measured by gross domestic product, calorie consumption and other measures, have declined significantly under communist rule. Without big handouts from first the Soviet Union and then Venezuela, the economic picture would be even worse.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one is arguing that those committing atrocities are not responsible for their actions.
Could have fooled me.
quote:
This does not exclude that those who created the circumstance have responsibility as well.
It is not zero-sum.
I don't know, it still feels like you're denying the agency of the Angolans. As if there was nothing else they could have done once Portugal left except start murdering each other - as if it was as inevitable as a shoddily-made building falling down in an earthquake. I'm saying that once Portugal had left they had the opportunity to shape the nation however they wanted, and they chose violence. And I don't see how Portugal is responsible for that choice.
We can, you can't. That's your choice. We can't see it for you.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We can't see it for you.
Apparently you can't even begin to explain it either. Just a whole lot of bluster about cause and effect that ignores (or denies) any ability of human beings to make choices.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's a meaningless concept. Show me. Show me a meaningful choice. In the context of the thread or ANYWHERE.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Ah, you're back to the "nobody bears any responsibility or blame for anything" line of thought. Which would be fine if you were consistent, but when you've spent so much time blaming Western Imperialism for all the ills of the world it falls a little flat.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We can't see it for you.
Apparently you can't even begin to explain it either.
It has been explained. In a reasonable and rational way.
quote:
Just a whole lot of bluster about cause and effect that ignores (or denies) any ability of human beings to make choices.
Do you actually not understand what non-zero sum means? Or how it works?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We can't see it for you.
Apparently you can't even begin to explain it either.
It has been explained. In a reasonable and rational way.
It's possible I've missed a post somewhere on this thread. Could you link to it?
quote:
quote:
Just a whole lot of bluster about cause and effect that ignores (or denies) any ability of human beings to make choices.
Do you actually not understand what non-zero sum means? Or how it works?
In context, I'd imagine you mean that blame doesn't have to be apportioned wholly in one direction. But that doesn't mean it's fair to assign blame willy-nilly without cause.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ah, you're back to the "nobody bears any responsibility or blame for anything" line of thought. Which would be fine if you were consistent, but when you've spent so much time blaming Western Imperialism for all the ills of the world it falls a little flat.
It's all about what one does with what one has. Western Imperialism has ALWAYS had more than enough. Christ.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
One form of causality:
Boss yells at man.
Man goes home, and yells at wife.
Wife yells at kid.
Kid yells at dog.
Dog bites mailman...
(This is decades old, so not inclusive.)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's all about what one does with what one has.
See, now you're saying that people have responsibility for their own choices. Make your mind up.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
One form of causality:
Boss yells at man.
Man goes home, and yells at wife.
Wife yells at kid.
Kid yells at dog.
Dog bites mailman...
Assuming that we all agree that all those things are bad, how do we assign blame in that causal chain?
I would say that each of the participants has responsibility for their own action. Each of them had a choice to respond to the prior interaction in the way they did. Well, maybe not the dog, but you get the picture.
Going by what's been said on this thread, some would say the boss is wholly to blame for the mailman getting bitten, and no-one else in the chain bears any guilt at all.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The abuse of power starts at the top and avalanches down. Proverbs 29:2 2nd half.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0