Fidel Castro Has Died.

[NAOS]

Government sponsored trip trying to open up more markets for agriculture. It definitely wasn't church related lol.

lol? It makes no difference to me if it was church or not. And please don't think that your sponsored trip is more "objective" than a church-related one. Problems related to Caribbean agriculture go back to 1492 and are easily among the most complicated issues in modern history. I doubt your trip sought to rip those open in a comprehensive way (and, btw, I notice you still haven't come clean about how long you were there).

For the record, I lived in the Caribbean for two different stints. On one of them I was doing archival work (for free) for the Lloyd Best Institute in Trinidad. Lloyd was a very insightful economist at the time of independence, so he was a contemporary of Castro and the problems facing the Caribbean at this time. So, in other words, if you want to move this discussion beyond platitudes, I'm ready.

 

[Stoked]

Sounds like a cool experience [MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION] I wish I was in a position to travel outside the U.S. more.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Yeah, people need to understand that communism is an economic system, not a political system. China is not even close to being communist. They are probably less socialistic than many European countries.

Well perhaps, I disagree that they are so neatly separable. A communistic economic system is incompatible in a society with political freedom (e.g., would people vote to deny themselves economic freedom or the freedom to benefit economically from their labor?); political repression is absolutely necessary to make the economic aspect of it work. Political andeconomic repression are part and parcel of communism. The one is essential to the other.

 

[JazzGal]

Like all dictators, Castro's reign had its share of good and bad decisions (and I'm not making light of the thousands of political opponents who have suffered in Cuba). I think the USA penalized them too harshly for not giving in, especially in light of the other horrible world leaders with whom we do business. But he's gone, and I hope we continue to improve relations.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Like all dictators, Castro's reign had its share of good and bad decisions (and I'm not making light of the thousands of political opponents who have suffered in Cuba). I think the USA penalized them too harshly for not giving in, especially in light of the other horrible world leaders with whom we do business. But he's gone, and I hope we continue to improve relations.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

I suppose Castro may have done some good things (e.g., universal health care, albeit doled out by an under-resourced and inadequate health care system), but when policies achievements are made on the back of political and economic repression (including jailing, torture and murder of political opponents, a pervasive system of spying--neighbor ratting out neighbor a la the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution--that destroyed any semblance of civil society), then the cost was too high.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Like all dictators, Castro's reign had its share of good and bad decisions (and I'm not making light of the thousands of political opponents who have suffered in Cuba). I think the USA penalized them too harshly for not giving in, especially in light of the other horrible world leaders with whom we do business. But he's gone, and I hope we continue to improve relations.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

"Well ya know, Stalin did some bad things, but we have to appreciate that those trains were on time."

 

[JazzGal]

I'm not excusing him. He killed or imprisoned his detractors and opponents. He's a terrible guy.

I do question if we handled the relationship in the best way possible. I'm typically not a fan of our getting involved in another country's government because it rarely helps the citizens of that country. We supported Castro's predecessor Batista for some reason, and he was every bit as bad. He just wasn't in power as long and didn't oppose us like Castro did. We can't really claim the high ground.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'm not excusing him. He killed or imprisoned his detractors and opponents. He's a terrible guy.

I do question if we handled the relationship in the best way possible. I'm typically not a fan of our getting involved in another country's government because it rarely helps the citizens of that country. We supported Castro's predecessor Batista for some reason, and he was every bit as bad. He just wasn't in power as long and didn't oppose us like Castro did. We can't really claim the high ground.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

Agree 100%. The major factor influencing US policy toward Cuba, which isn't present in the cases of the many other dictators we have worked with, supported, or even helped set up (e.g., Chile, Guatemala, Congo), is the presence of many rabid anti-Castro Cuban-exile voters in a state with a large share of electoral college votes (Florida).

There's no reason, however, given the US' sordid history of collaborating with other brutal dictators, to continue our past policy toward Cuba.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

ah yes, the anti-establishment Trump-voter towing the GOP line with this 60s-repurposed McCarthyism

Trump is truly cucking u all tbh

Actually, that sounds more like the poster is parodying the type of rhetoric heard from the Left, not the Right. There are a number of Castro apologists on the left (often among the 'intellectual elite'), including Colin Kaepernick, who have for years defended Castro, as they did with the Soviet Union before. As an aside, and IMHO, once someone defends an accomplished civil rights abuser -- not to mention oppressor, imprisoner and torturer of political dissidents -- like Castro, then he/she loses all credibility as a critic of social injustices being committed by the US government.

 

[NAOS]

Castro's legacy is complicated. Coming down on him hard as a "murderer who should rot in hell" is reflective of 50 years of anti-socialist indoctrination along with a side of American exceptionalism

just 50 years?

Much longer.

 

[NAOS]

I have just a laypersons understanding of the subject. Based on my limited understanding of Marx, and every socialist thinker that I know of, they would say that your insistence that communism is an economic system and not a political system is not only wrong but nonsensical. For Marx the 2 concepts are wholly inseparable. TBH I'm not even sure if Ayn Rand would disagree on this point.

Further if I understand modern advocates of communism, most of them would say that the USSR never was communist. They would say that the USSR never achieved more than state socialism. A despotic and poorly run version of state socialism. Communism is what is supposed to follow state socialism which was only intended to be a system that would aid in the transition from capitalism to communism.

you should give yourself more credit. I don't have a single nit-picking critique of your take in this thread.

The idea that politics can be separated from an economic system, which takes a massive amount of organizing and hands on the control levers, is laughable. It's a distinction that neocons have been trying to inculcate in the masses.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Castro's legacy is complicated. Coming down on him hard as a "murderer who should rot in hell" is reflective of 50 years of anti-socialist indoctrination along with a side of American exceptionalism

With all due respect, I despise all despots who oppress, imprison, torture and murder political dissidents regardless of their ideology. Thus I despise left-wing despots as much as I despise right-wing despots as much as I despise non-ideological despots. May they all rot in hell, regardless of how complicated their legacy is. It hardly requires indoctrination in American exceptionalism to despise despots, it requires more a belief in and commitment to civil rights/liberties and human freedom. I imagine there are plenty of people living outside of the US, and thus not subject to indoctrination in American exceptionalism, who also find Castro, and similar despots, odious.

There are no social or economic gains that tip the scales in favor of a despot who uses political terror, jailing, torture, murder, etc. as a means to achieve his/her policy aims.

With further due respect (and I do respect you hugely), your post comes off with a whiff of apologetics for left-wing despots often found among the left-wing intellectual set.

By the way, whatever positive social outcome Castro might have achieved via his repressive methods have also been achieved by other democratic regimes in which freedom and respect for civil liberties and rights have flourished, while not ruining the economy in the process, which is something Castro never managed to achieve.

 

[Stoked]

I'm really liking JEJ here.

 

[Siro]

Well perhaps, I disagree that they are so neatly separable. A communistic economic system is incompatible in a society with political freedom (e.g., would people vote to deny themselves economic freedom or the freedom to benefit economically from their labor?); political repression is absolutely necessary to make the economic aspect of it work. Political andeconomic repression are part and parcel of communism. The one is essential to the other.

I've had this conversation with a communist friend many times. He believes that authoritarianism does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with communism. He thinks that a free society with a planned economy is possible, and he blames the U.S. aggression toward communists as the reason to why only authoritative communist regimes arise, since a peaceful communist experiment would be impossible due to US intervention and meddling.

I am not so sure. I don't know how you can give a government so much power, and still trust that they'll leave you be, and allow you to vote the system away if you so choose. Maybe small scale free Marxist communities are possible, but I feel that any large scale implementation of communism is totalitarian by necessity.

 

[Gameface]

I never said that political systems and economic systems were not closely linked. In fact, I gave examples of how certain political systems were required to implement communism.

The question first came up because someone mentioned China as an example of a communist nation. While China's political party is the "communist" party, China's economy is far from communism. So I'm this regard I was saying that just because a political party calls itself communist doesn't mean it leads a communist economy.

But to go further, communism is an economic system. The political system required to go along with it might be synonymous with communism but it will have its own name to describe whatever political system it is.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I've had this conversation with a communist friend many times. He believes that authoritarianism does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with communism. He thinks that a free society with a planned economy is possible, and he blames the U.S. aggression toward communists as the reason to why only authoritative communist regimes arise, since a peaceful communist experiment would be impossible due to US intervention and meddling.

I am not so sure. I don't know how you can give a government so much power, and still trust that they'll leave you be, and allow you to vote the system away if you so choose. Maybe small scale free Marxist communities are possible, but I feel that any large scale implementation of communism is totalitarian by necessity.

A fundamental problem is that a planned economy allocates economic resources, including labor and capital, via political fiat. In such a system, people are not free (by and large) to offer their labor as they see fit nor to acquire and allocate capital. These constitute egregious impositions on human freedom (particularly when we consider that economic freedom is an important element of one's overall freedom)that are very, very unlikely to be consented to through democratic means. (While some may vote to eliminate their economic freedom, what are the odds that this meets mass voter approval?) As people don't willingly surrender their economic freedom, the state must compel them to do so.

Your friend can only be correct if we assume that society as a whole will voluntarily vote away their economic freedom. What's the precedent for this?

It is illustrative that few, if any, communalist communities, in which people come together for the express purpose of creating the type of planned economy/society that your friend espouses, survive. Human economic self-interest cannot be done away with on a mass scale, unless via political oppression.

I would be curious if your friend can cite any examples of voluntary communalist societies that have survived and grown over time.

 

[DutchJazzer]

2 years ago this socialist POS died! good riddance. i take a moment of pissing and disrespecting on this animals grave!

now if that filty socialist maduro would just jump of this mortal coil! the venezuelan government is poluting latin america with oil!

 

[Getting Traded]

2 years ago this socialist POS died! good riddance. i take a moment of pissing and disrespecting on this animals grave!

now if that filty socialist maduro would just jump of this mortal coil! the venezuelan government is poluting latin america with oil!

He actually tried to do some good you filthy fascist ignoramus. He kicked out the Mafia and closed down the casinos. His big stumbling block was the economic boycott put in place by the U.S. (thanks to the CIA, Hoover, and Mafia being in bed with each other) and he was forced to go to the Soviets for aid. In fact, JFK was negotiating for a normalization of relations with Cuba before he died and had called off the CIA's plans to kill Castro (despite their disinformation to the contrary), but as you know, fascists like yourself assassinated Kennedy.

 

[DutchJazzer]

He actually tried to do some good you filthy fascist ignoramus. He kicked out the Mafia and closed down the casinos. His big stumbling block was the economic boycott put in place by the U.S. (thanks to the CIA, Hoover, and Mafia being in bed with each other) and he was forced to go to the Soviets for aid. In fact, JFK was negotiating for a normalization of relations with Cuba before he died and had called off the CIA's plans to kill Castro (despite their disinformation to the contrary), but as you know, fascists like yourself assassinated Kennedy.

and speaking of great socialist leaders. hitler tried to do something good. Germany was in ruin because of filthy Jewish world bankers. he introduced universal healthcare, universal welfare and free education, banned guns. he was a GLORIOUS LEADER he even took back mponey from those filthy jews, build a great factory with the taxation he took form the jews. it is called Volkswagen the greatest socialist car company in the world. but the world was against him.

stop hating on our socialist leaders. our great symbols of socialsim. now dont disturb me while i rea dgiovani gentilis work

fixed it for you!

**** Castro may he rot in hell. fitlhy peace of **** he sold tens of thousand of doctors in slavery while holding their family hostage! all in the name of free healthcare!

i want free cotton give me free slaves

 

[DutchJazzer]

He actually tried to do some good you filthy fascist ignoramus. He kicked out the Mafia and closed down the casinos. His big stumbling block was the economic boycott put in place by the U.S. (thanks to the CIA, Hoover, and Mafia being in bed with each other) and he was forced to go to the Soviets for aid. In fact, JFK was negotiating for a normalization of relations with Cuba before he died and had called off the CIA's plans to kill Castro (despite their disinformation to the contrary), but as you know, fascists like yourself assassinated Kennedy.

One man's villain is another man's hero.

you have the right to worship that evil man, see him as a hero. doesnt change the fact that he is a piece of **** dictator, keep worshiping that piece of socialist ****! hahahahahahahahahaha