Fidel Castro

[Mr White]

Has died aged 90.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38114953

[Pretty Boy]

Love him or loathe him he was one of the key political figures and personalities for much of the 20th century.

It's hard to make an informed case either way for his leadership of Cuba as most of the information available is distorted propoganda from one side or the other.

[Colr]

He was a better dictator than the dictator he overthrew.

[Mr White]

He survived a fair few james bond-esque CIA assassination attempts and remained one of the world's most iconic former leaders. It'll be interesting to see how history remembers him and also how Cuba continues to develop in his absence.

[hibsbollah]

Love him or loathe him he was one of the key political figures and personalities for much of the 20th century.

It's hard to make an informed case either way for his leadership of Cuba as most of the information available is distorted propoganda from one side or the other.

...but it's surely beyond argument that it's better to be poor and black in Castros Cuba than poor and black in the USA. Which taking into account the US Helms blockade and the relative wealth of both countries is astonishing. An independent voice in the world of which there are ever fewer.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

...but it's surely beyond argument that it's better to be poor and black in Castros Cuba than poor and black in the USA. Which taking into account the US Helms blockade and the relative wealth of both countries is astonishing. An independent voice in the world of which there are ever fewer.

Im not poor or black in either country, but i would doubt such a claim would be beyond argument.

Dont really mind old fidel, his partner in crime che is a hero of mine, and i think a good case could be made that fidel woyld have been no worse, if not better than the alternative, or the previous mafia government of batista.

[CropleyWasGod]

Im not poor or black in either country, but i would doubt such a claim would be beyond argument.

Dont really mind old fidel, his partner in crime che is a hero of mine, and i think a good case could be made that fidel woyld have been no worse, if not better than the alternative, or the previous mafia government of batista.
I've travelled a lot around Cuba, 2 trips 9 years apart. I've also travelled around Costa Rica and Jamaica, and the comparisons are interesting.

Whilst the poverty in Cuba is undeniable and crushing, what I did see is potential for getting people out of that. The creeping social changes that are controlled by the state are having an effect. I am not so sure that there is that potential in those other, market-led, countries.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

I love the story about when they kidnapped Fangio.

[Pretty Boy]

...but it's surely beyond argument that it's better to be poor and black in Castros Cuba than poor and black in the USA. Which taking into account the US Helms blockade and the relative wealth of both countries is astonishing. An independent voice in the world of which there are ever fewer.

Yep I would broadly agree with that.

[Betty Boop]

The last revolutionary icon passes away.
RIP Fidel Castro.

[Nameless]

There is a fantastic piece in the Guardian about his legacy. Free universal healthcare and education, to first world standards, are enviable achievements. Almost everything else he did probably less so.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Whatever he was the man was a giant of the 20th century .... You cant defend his persecution of his opponents and from that perspective he was just another dictator, but to his credit it didn't seem to be a case of him being a crook looking to line his own pockets as so many dictators become, he genuinely seemed to care for his people as the levels of education and health care in Cuba testify to.

I find it hard to pass too much judgment on a guy who was able to stick two fingers up to the USA ..... hell, the Cubans even beat them at Baseball I'm lead to believe :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

There is a fantastic piece in the Guardian about his legacy. Free universal healthcare and education, to first world standards, are enviable achievements. Almost everything else he did probably less so.

The Guardian isn't likely to give him a glowing eulogy, or an objective one.

edit-although to be fair they did let Richard Gott write the obituary, who is the author of Cuba A New History, the definitive history of the country which is a great read if you want some historical context to why Castro came about.

[snooky]

:singing: "Once we were bold Companeros......"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-G94UkM55M

[Hibrandenburg]

I think if you compare the stability and quality of life in Cuba with the other Latin American states then you can only come to one conclusion on Castro. Who knows what he'd have achieved if the US hadn't thrown Cuba to the dogs.

[heretoday]

Poor old Cuba. Out of the Batista frying-pan and into the fire of repressive Castro.

Great health service though.

[Hibernia&Alba]

There is a fantastic piece in the Guardian about his legacy. Free universal healthcare and education, to first world standards, are enviable achievements. Almost everything else he did probably less so.

That's certainly true, particularly in light of fifty years of U.S. sanctions. On the other hand, one dictatorship was replaced by another at the other end of the political spectrum in 1959. That isn't to say each was as bad as the other, but in any dictatorship unaccountable power is even more difficult to challenge than in the so called democracies we inhabit, where, in truth, money and power are still also largely unaccountable. Castro's civil rights violations must be a stain upon his legacy; for example, the disgraceful treatment of gay men and women over the years.

[hibsbollah]

That's certainly true, particularly in light of fifty years of U.S. sanctions. On the other hand, one dictatorship was replaced by another at the other end of the political spectrum in 1959. That isn't to say each was as bad as the other, but in any dictatorship unaccountable power is even more difficult to challenge than in the so called democracies we inhabit, where, in truth, money and power are still also largely unaccountable. Castro's civil rights violations must be a stain upon his legacy; for example, the disgraceful treatment of gay men and women over the years.

Can you find some kind of world league table of how Cuba rates in terms of 'Human rights violations'? I think if you compare and contrast you'll struggle to find evidence that HRC or Amnesty rates Cuba as particularly bad. But if you keep using the phrase the mud sticks.

Yes they have a secret police and limits on dissent but I doubt whether the regime would have survived 60 years with the CIA crawling all over the place, the Bay of Pigs invasion and multiple assassination attempts of Castro without it.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Can you find some kind of world league table of how Cuba rates in terms of 'Human rights violations'? I think if you compare and contrast you'll struggle to find evidence that HRC or Amnesty rates Cuba as particularly bad. But if you keep using the phrase the mud sticks.

Yes they have a secret police and limits on dissent but I doubt whether the regime would have survived 60 years with the CIA crawling all over the place, the Bay of Pigs invasion and multiple assassination attempts of Castro without it.


I'm sure that's correct, but that doesn't justify persecution of vulnerable groups e.g. locking up homosexuals or giving them a one way ticket to Miami. What was a wonderful message of liberation in 1959 wasn't extended to all in society, sadly. Accountability is always going to be more difficult in one party states with a controlled press; it's very difficult in what we call liberal democracies, when they've been bought by corporate power. I'm not an expert on the history of the Castro regime, but one party sates always frighten me, and the treatment of some groups since 1959 seems decidedly unjust.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm sure that's correct, but that doesn't justify persecution of vulnerable groups e.g. locking up homosexuals or giving them a one way ticket to Miami. What was a wonderful message of liberation in 1959 wasn't extended to all in society, sadly. Accountability is always going to be more difficult in one party states with a controlled press; it's very difficult in what we call liberal democracies, when they've been bought by corporate power. I'm not an expert on the history of the Castro regime, but one party sates always frighten me, and the treatment of some groups since 1959 seems decidedly unjust.
One of the biggest changes I saw in my latest trip was the extent to which gay men are allowed to be out. Now Cuba is like any other Latin country in its tolerance and flamboyance.

I suspect that's down to Debra Castro, though.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

I'm sure that's correct, but that doesn't justify persecution of vulnerable groups e.g. locking up homosexuals or giving them a one way ticket to Miami. What was a wonderful message of liberation in 1959 wasn't extended to all in society, sadly. Accountability is always going to be more difficult in one party states with a controlled press; it's very difficult in what we call liberal democracies, when they've been bought by corporate power. I'm not an expert on the history of the Castro regime, but one party sates always frighten me, and the treatment of some groups since 1959 seems decidedly unjust.

One can argue the toss whether true democracy is possible in a one party state, or whether it actually makes no difference; it's the width of spectrum of opinion that matters. The truth is whatever their ideologies States always exist to maintain the status quo. There is propaganda, state brutality and limits on dissent everywhere, including here. You need to look at context and geographic realities. Who is a 'dictator' is a very subjective call IMO.

I'm not a leftist who defends Castro automatically, I looked at it objectively and from what I read and what I saw ten years ago while travelling there, Castro seemed to be the best choice for ordinary Cubans. The alternative would be to return to being a puppet state run by US multinational interests and probably the return of organised crime.

[Hibernia&Alba]

One can argue the toss whether true democracy is possible in a one party state, or whether it actually makes no difference; it's the width of spectrum of opinion that matters. The truth is whatever their ideologies States always exist to maintain the status quo. There is propaganda, state brutality and limits on dissent everywhere, including here. You need to look at context and geographic realities. Who is a 'dictator' is a very subjective call IMO.

Very true. You can have dictatorships in countries that hold elections: I would argue, for example, that America has become a state of corporate fascism, with no way to challenge the system via the ballot box. The only parties that can run the government serve the same interests. We are heading down that path too I fear. There was no accountability after the banking crash of 2008 despite the massive criminal behaviour that was going on. Banks mis-sell to their customers with no criminal charges, but if a staff member stole fifty quid from the till, they'd be in the police station. When the rule of law of law doesn't apply you don't have a democracy. I agree that terms are thrown around glibly, but the capacity for dissent in Cuba has to be a valid question.

[hibsbollah]

Very true. You can have dictatorships in countries that hold elections: I would argue, for example, that America has become a state of corporate fascism, with no way to challenge the system via the ballot box. The only parties that can run the government serve the same interests. We are heading down that path too I fear. There was no accountability after the banking crash of 2008 despite the massive criminal behaviour that was going on. Banks mis-sell to their customers with no criminal charges, but if a staff member stole fifty quid from the till, they'd be in the police station. When the rule of law of law doesn't apply you don't have a democracy. I agree that terms are thrown around glibly, but the capacity for dissent in Cuba has to be a valid question.

Sure its a valid question. And the answer is, dissent in Cuba was allowed but it had its limits. It fell short of the purest definitions of basic freedoms, expression, thought, political opinion. Ordinary Cubans could vote, and they voted for individuals with a limited spectrum of beliefs.

But to say that Castro's legacy was somehow tainted by 'human rights abuses' is akin to saying Gordon Brown's tenure was 'tainted' because actions like the Met Police shooting Jean Charles de Menezes and promoting the policewoman who oversaw it. But that is Castros legacy if you read every single major news outlet including the 'apparently' left leaning ones. If that were true there would be overwhelming evidence of systematic torture, murder on a large scale. But there isn't any. It just doesn't bear scrutiny. The image on the TV screens is celebrating loons in Miami, a lot of whom who were deported for organised crime, as if that is the story of the day. His main crime, and why he was considered so dangerous, was to show that communism can be a successful model of development.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sure its a valid question. And the answer is, dissent in Cuba was allowed but it had its limits. It fell short of the purest definitions of basic freedoms, expression, thought, political opinion. Ordinary Cubans could vote, and they voted for individuals with a limited spectrum of beliefs.

But to say that Castro's legacy was somehow tainted by 'human rights abuses' is akin to saying Gordon Brown's tenure was 'tainted' because actions like the Met Police shooting Jean Charles de Menezes and promoting the policewoman who oversaw it. But that is Castros legacy if you read every single major news outlet including the 'apparently' left leaning ones. If that were true there would be overwhelming evidence of systematic torture, murder on a large scale. But there isn't any. It just doesn't bear scrutiny. The image on the TV screens is celebrating loons in Miami, a lot of whom who were deported for organised crime, as if that is the story of the day. His main crime, and why he was considered so dangerous, was to show that communism can be a successful model of development.

There's a massive amount of inbetween,between a state that allowed the killing of de Menezes and a state that practices systematic murder on a large scale.

Lack of a free press, lack of independent trade unions and lack of a right to strike don't suggest a socialist people's nirvana.

I agree with you in principle though, the evidence of the impact on the Cuban people of his policies on healthcare and education are inarguable. They suggest that a left-wing statist approach can improve the lives of its people at a fundamental level and I don't doubt how much that scared a lot of vested interests.

[hibsbollah]

There's a massive amount of inbetween,between a state that allowed the killing of de Menezes and a state that practices systematic murder on a large scale.

Lack of a free press, lack of independent trade unions and lack of a right to strike don't suggest a socialist people's nirvana.

I agree with you in principle though, the evidence of the impact on the Cuban people of his policies on healthcare and education are inarguable. They suggest that a left-wing statist approach can improve the lives of its people at a fundamental level and I don't doubt how much that scared a lot of vested interests.

'Systematic murder on a large scale' :dunno: Have you got evidence for this? (I'm aware of summary executions in the 1950s of Batistas cronies after the revolution, but that was wartime). Sounds like hyperbole to me.

[Mibbes Aye]

'Systematic murder on a large scale' :dunno: Have you got evidence for this? (I'm aware of summary executions in the 1950s of Batistas cronies after the revolution, but that was wartime). Sounds like hyperbole to me.

:rolleyes: :greengrin

I wasn't accusing Castro of systematic murder on a large scale!!

I was quoting back the two positions you had stated - a society where things like the de Menezes death happens and one where the government goes about liquidating folk.

The point I was trying to make was that he wasn't either, and in amongst all the good stuff there was a fair bit of 'compromising' on individual liberties that sat somewhere between the two positions above.

I obviously worded it clumsily, apologies for that. I won't be able to look at my expensively-framed Che Guevera poster in the face now :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

:rolleyes: :greengrin

I wasn't accusing Castro of systematic murder on a large scale!!

I was quoting back the two positions you had stated - a society where things like the de Menezes death happens and one where the government goes about liquidating folk.

The point I was trying to make was that he wasn't either, and in amongst all the good stuff there was a fair bit of 'compromising' on individual liberties that sat somewhere between the two positions above.

I obviously worded it clumsily, apologies for that. I won't be able to look at my expensively-framed Che Guevera poster in the face now :greengrin

:aok: although it's ****ers like you that put the honest working class Che poster framers out of work by buying capitalist monopolist frames. First up against the wall :cowboy

[Mibbes Aye]

:aok: although it's ****ers like you that put the honest working class Che poster framers out of work by buying capitalist monopolist frames. First up against the wall :cowboy

:tee hee:

Nearly spat the coffee over the screen (from my high-definition embossed image Rosa Luxemburg coffee mug)

[High-On-Hibs]

People that argue that there is no democracy in a one party state clearly fail to realize that multi party states also have no democracy. Because there is still a status quo in which all of those parties adhere to. It's an illusion of choice, when there really isn't a choice at all.

[Hibernia&Alba]

People that argue that there is no democracy in a one party state clearly fail to realize that multi party states also have no democracy. Because there is still a status quo in which all of those parties adhere to. It's an illusion of choice, when there really isn't a choice at all.

That's Chomsky's theory of manufactured consent, which is certainly valid. Many of the nations we call democratic aren't really democratic at all, including our own to a great extent. There is no industrial democracy for the vast majority; they do as the company/the boss commands and have no role in deciding what is made, how and on the what basis the organisation should be run. That's corporate fascism: the freedom of the few to make fortunes on the backs of the many. Civil liberty, economic liberty (which 'free markets' don't provide for the majority) and political liberty are surely inter-dependent. No country is perfect, and all fall down on these criteria; the question is the extent each fails by. Some are clearly more authoritarian than others. The right to peacefully dissent is a key measure for me, and I don't know enough about Cuba since 1959 to make a judgement upon their full record, though there are legitimate concerns on some issues I've read about.

[High-On-Hibs]

That's Chomsky's theory of manufactured consent, which is certainly valid. Many of the nations we call democratic aren't really democratic at all, including our own to a great extent. There is no industrial democracy for the vast majority; they do as the company/the boss commands and have no role in deciding what is made, how and on the what basis the organisation should be run. That's corporate fascism: the freedom of the few to make fortunes on the backs of the many. Civil liberty, economic liberty (which 'free markets' don't provide for the majority) and political liberty are surely inter-dependent. No country is perfect, and all fall down on these criteria; the question is the extent each fails by. Some are clearly more authoritarian than others. The right to peacefully dissent is a key measure for me, and I don't know enough about Cuba since 1959 to make a judgement upon their full record, though there are legitimate concerns on some issues I've read about.

Reasonable response.

The way I see it. There are 2 types of countries in the world. Countries where there are no freedoms to protest and countries where there is freedom to protest, but it will only fall on deaf ears.

If anything, the illusion of choice is more dangerous than realizing you don't really have a choice at all. Believing you have freedoms, when really, you're options are shaped by the status quo without even realizing that they are is the worst regime of all. It's peoples ignorance of the regime that keeps those forces in place.

[lucky]

For me he was a hero, I've been over to Cuba and attended conferences where senior members of party spoke. The Cuban people's struggle was against the illegal blockade by the US. The health and education that has been provided by Fidels government was comparable with the western world. His government improved the living conditions of the very poor, achieved health and literacy levels on a par with rich countries and rid Cuba of a powerful Mafia presence.

Can you imagine what he could have delivered if there was no illegal blockade ✊

[High-On-Hibs]

Can you imagine what he could have delivered if there was no illegal blockade ✊

Which is exactly why the US feared him. He didn't fit into their plutocratic plans for world domination through the illusion of liberal values. The US have always seeked to snuff out leaders of his kind by any means necessary. They want every country nationwide to adhere to their "democracy". Which is really just a front for a one world government, led by the 1% that own more than the other 99%.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's Chomsky's theory of manufactured consent, which is certainly valid. Many of the nations we call democratic aren't really democratic at all, including our own to a great extent. There is no industrial democracy for the vast majority; they do as the company/the boss commands and have no role in deciding what is made, how and on the what basis the organisation should be run. That's corporate fascism: the freedom of the few to make fortunes on the backs of the many. Civil liberty, economic liberty (which 'free markets' don't provide for the majority) and political liberty are surely inter-dependent. No country is perfect, and all fall down on these criteria; the question is the extent each fails by. Some are clearly more authoritarian than others. The right to peacefully dissent is a key measure for me, and I don't know enough about Cuba since 1959 to make a judgement upon their full record, though there are legitimate concerns on some issues I've read about.

Im curious why you think that industrial democracy is a good thing? And surely we absolutely could have that, you are free to start a company amd run it like that if you want to, but others are free not to.

Seems quite a curious way to judge how free a society is to me.

I agree on Cuba though, it is difficult to judge. It does seem to have done well compared to maby sinilar states, but i alwayd think the best way to judge a society is to look at whether people are fightimg to get in or fighting to get out. It was what always puzzled me about the eastern bloc as a youngster watching news. If its so good, why do so many risk theor lives to escape?

But i think it shows that communism could work in some circumstances i.e. for impoverished, fairly undeveloped countries.

[(((Fergus)))]

The last revolutionary icon passes away.
RIP Fidel Castro.

There's still George Galloway to go.

People criticise Cuba but the fact remains very few Cubans chose to leave.

Yes Castro was a horrible dictator, but at least he had the gumption to personally carry out his executions. You won't get that from Donald Trump.

[Betty Boop]

There's still George Galloway to go.


People criticise Cuba but the fact remains very few Cubans chose to leave.

Yes Castro was a horrible dictator, but at least he had the gumption to personally carry out his executions. You won't get that from Donald Trump.

:greengrin

[snooky]

Which is exactly why the US feared him. He didn't fit into their plutocratic plans for world domination through the illusion of liberal values. The US have always seeked to snuff out leaders of his kind by any means necessary. They want every country nationwide to adhere to their "democracy". Which is really just a front for a one world government, led by the 1% that own more than the other 99%.
A bit radical, HoH. I would say however that the USA have a hard time accepting that not every country wants to be just like them. While they are "free" they are brainwashed into thinking that they live in the best country in the world and that fact in itself is open to debate.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

A bit radical, HoH. I would say however that the USA have a hard time accepting that not every country wants to be just like them. While they are "free" they are brainwashed into thinking that they live in the best country in the world and that fact in itself is open to debate.

I agree with this but we should remember it was framed in the cold war atmosphere, and for all the US flaws (which are many) everyone is glad they won. Rightly or wrongly, the ussr were our enemy and so cuba 'going communist' was a big deal at the time. It also tested the monroe doctrine to almost breakinh point, thankfully both sides backed away from that confrontation.

[One Day Soon]

One Dictator/tyrant less in the world is always a good day be they left or right.

Genuine question: What did Cubans get by way of a very good health and education system under dictatorship with the killings, torture, censorship, lack of freedom of expression etc that went with it that they wouldn't have got anyway under a liberal democracy?

[hibsbollah]

One Dictator/tyrant less in the world is always a good day be they left or right.

Genuine question: What did Cubans get by way of a very good health and education system under dictatorship with the killings, torture, censorship, lack of freedom of expression etc that went with it that they wouldn't have got anyway under a liberal democracy?

Simple and straightforward; a 'liberal democracy' would have opened the door to the 'free market', private capital into the health service, selling off industry for a profit to North American investment. No public health care, 'modernisation' of public services, Pepsi McDonald's and agribusiness the same crappy model that has ****ed the third world in Laton America since Breton woods. I'm surprised you even have to ask.

Do you think the CIA and the Miami organised crime goons would have allowed genuine free elections in Cuba? There would have been another invasion before you could say Bay of Pigs.

[RyeSloan]

One Dictator/tyrant less in the world is always a good day be they left or right.

Genuine question: What did Cubans get by way of a very good health and education system under dictatorship with the killings, torture, censorship, lack of freedom of expression etc that went with it that they wouldn't have got anyway under a liberal democracy?

From what I can see Castro and his communism is being hailed a success because it was more 'successful' than other Dictatorships (and of course because he stood up to the US)....a pretty low bar that one.

There is no real sensible measure that suggests this has proven Communism to be successful.

[hibsbollah]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=WApT5wYHSCg

A good interview, an objective viewpoint seemed to perplex the interviewer...

[RyeSloan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=WApT5wYHSCg

A good interview, an objective viewpoint seemed to perplex the interviewer...

Loved the part where she asked for specifics....urmm ermm well...then turned it nicely into an analysis of the US behaviour!

[Hibernia&Alba]

Im curious why you think that industrial democracy is a good thing? And surely we absolutely could have that, you are free to start a company amd run it like that if you want to, but others are free not to.

Seems quite a curious way to judge how free a society is to me.

I agree on Cuba though, it is difficult to judge. It does seem to have done well compared to maby sinilar states, but i alwayd think the best way to judge a society is to look at whether people are fightimg to get in or fighting to get out. It was what always puzzled me about the eastern bloc as a youngster watching news. If its so good, why do so many risk theor lives to escape?

But i think it shows that communism could work in some circumstances i.e. for impoverished, fairly undeveloped countries.

It's very simple: most people spend the majority of their time in outside society in the workplace at some point in their lives. It comes down to what is an economy and what is it for? It isn't something separate from society, it only exists because of society; but when is there ever a discussion about how it should operate? An absence of industrial democracy creates millions of people doing jobs they hate merely to survive, not being able to make the contribution to society they would like. That is wage slavery and is incompatible with democracy; where is the freedom? Democracy isn't merely putting a cross on a ballot paper every five years for one party amongst three or four which fundamentally represent the same thing. Rather it requires active participation in all walks of life, and the economy is perhaps the major driver that controls what we do in life. I believe that 'free' markets, particularly in the neo-liberal form we've been living under for 35 years now, create freedom for the few to tyrannise the many, and the fact millions are living hand to mouth and the social safety net has been seriously weakened, is evidence of that. It's either take a dead end job you hate, in order to make profits for shareholders, or starve. Trade unions, the most obvious form of industrial democracy have been hamstrung and turned into the bogeyman. As someone who believes that fundamentally the profit system and its surplus value creates this imperative, I would like to see collective ownership and decision making. Empowerment for working people, running an economy consistent with value to society and protective of the environment; stopping the race to the bottom of corporate globalisation. It's about the consent of those doing the work.

[TheReg!]

Under Castro 5,600 Cubans murdered by firing squad; 1,200 in “extrajudicial assassinations,” 10s of 1000s jailed/tortured/died escaping not to mention his treatment of Gay people.
Yeah, Castro was a cracking bloke.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's very simple: most people spend the majority of their time in outside society in the workplace at some point in their lives. It comes down to what is an economy and what is it for? It isn't something separate from society, it only exists because of society; but when is there ever a discussion about how it should operate? An absence of industrial democracy creates millions of people doing jobs they hate merely to survive, not being able to make the contribution to society they would like. That is wage slavery and is incompatible with democracy; where is the freedom? Democracy isn't merely putting a cross on a ballot paper every five years for one party amongst three or four which fundamentally represent the same thing. Rather it requires active participation in all walks of life, and the economy is perhaps the major driver that controls what we do in life. I believe that 'free' markets, particularly in the neo-liberal form we've been living under for 35 years now, create freedom for the few to tyrannise the many, and the fact millions are living hand to mouth and the social safety net has been seriously weakened, is evidence of that. It's either take a dead end job you hate, in order to make profits for shareholders, or starve. Trade unions, the most obvious form of industrial democracy have been hamstrung and turned into the bogeyman. As someone who believes that fundamentally the profit system and its surplus value creates this imperative, I would like to see collective ownership and decision making. Empowerment for working people, running an economy consistent with value to society and protective of the environment; stopping the race to the bottom of corporate globalisation. It's about the consent of those doing the work.


Thanks for the responsr mate.

I do see your point of view, but my own view is that people have always been 'slaves' to something, even hunter gatherers would no doubt have railed against the tyranny of having to constantly search for more berries.

I view work as just a more developed variation of that system.

Your points questioning what an economy is for are valid, and increasingly i think this is a question that people are asking. But i think the view you take is unneccessarily pessimistic. 'Feeedom' is an impossibility if you have to live and exist and share resources with other people, it was ever thus.

And i would again point out that you are perfectly free to set up and run a company on such egalitarian principles. Im sure rhere must be examples of it in the uk.

[CropleyWasGod]

Under Castro 5,600 Cubans murdered by firing squad; 1,200 in “extrajudicial assassinations,” 10s of 1000s jailed/tortured/died escaping not to mention his treatment of Gay people.
Yeah, Castro was a cracking bloke.

I don't see anyone saying that he was a cracking bloke.

However, what a lot of people forget is that, for almost 30 years, Cuba was on the frontline of the Cold War. That's not meant as an excuse for the deaths... I am fundamentally against the death penalty in any situation.... but it does give things some context. It was a country constantly under attack (in Cold War terms) by a country 90 miles away.

As for gay rights, things have moved on immensely in recent times. It's fair to say that Cuba is now a much safer place for gay men than its near-neighbour, Jamaica.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Under Castro 5,600 Cubans murdered by firing squad; 1,200 in “extrajudicial assassinations,” 10s of 1000s jailed/tortured/died escaping not to mention his treatment of Gay people.
Yeah, Castro was a cracking bloke.

I don't know if your figures are correct, Reg, but the possibility of such abuses is what concerns me in one party states without a free press. How is power to be held to account in such societies?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This is a good thread, and its made me think.

What seems pretty clear is that he elicits strong responses.

My own definition of great politicians is people who really change the face of their society, a sort of 'go big or go home' test.

There seems little doubt that he did that, all while managing to survive and play in the highest-stakes game of great power politics in the history ofbthe world, and managed to repeatedly poke the bear, and kick the mafia out of his country at the same time.

Im not sure what any of that means as an assessment of communism, but it is surely beyond doubt that he was a great political figure, in a time where they seem to be rarer than hens teeth.

[TheReg!]

I don't see anyone saying that he was a cracking bloke.

However, what a lot of people forget is that, for almost 30 years, Cuba was on the frontline of the Cold War. That's not meant as an excuse for the deaths... I am fundamentally against the death penalty in any situation.... but it does give things some context. It was a country constantly under attack (in Cold War terms) by a country 90 miles

As for gay rights, things have moved on immensely in recent times. It's fair to say that Cuba is now a much safer place for gay men than its near-neighbour, Jamaica.

The cracking bloke comment was due to the nonsense I've read about him on various social media pages.
The Cold War was against the West not his own people. No matter how anyone washes it, Castro was a tyrant and should have been held accountable for his actions against his own citizens.

[hibsbollah]

Under Castro 5,600 Cubans murdered by firing squad; 1,200 in “extrajudicial assassinations,” 10s of 1000s jailed/tortured/died escaping not to mention his treatment of Gay people.
Yeah, Castro was a cracking bloke.

You are quoting figures for all crimes in Cuba. The US has capital punishment too; 4600 executed between 1930 and 2002 according to wiki, about 75% black. Are successive US presidents (dictators?) to be 'held accountable for their actions' too?

[TheReg!]

You are quoting figures for all crimes in Cuba. The US has capital punishment too; 4600 executed between 1930 and 2002 according to wiki, about 75% black. Are successive US presidents (dictators?) to be 'held accountable for their actions too?

Cuba population is around 11m the USA is 320m, the people put to death in the USA have been done so by a Jury, it's laughable to think the Cubans have a fair and similar system considering it's a totalitarian regime. Yup, some American presidents should be held accountable, most recently GW Bush for Iraq and Barack Obama for arming/Training ISIS etc, we should include our own Tony Blair to the mix.

[CropleyWasGod]

The cracking bloke comment was due to the nonsense I've read about him on various social media pages.
The Cold War was against the West not his own people. No matter how anyone washes it, Castro was a tyrant and should have been held accountable for his actions against his own citizens.
The point, though, was that the people killed by his regime would have been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as enemies in the Cold War.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Cuba population is around 11m the USA is 320m, the people put to death in the USA have been done so by a Jury, it's laughable to think the Cubans have a fair and similar system considering it's a totalitarian regime. Yup, some American presidents should be held accountable, most recently GW Bush for Iraq and Barack Obama for arming/Training ISIS etc, we should include our own Tony Blair to the mix.

Cuba has judges appointed by the president, just like in the US. Both country's judges are separate from the legislative and executive arms of government, although the fact that the executive has control over appointments in both countries means there is a good deal of political influence in both countries legal systems. See Donald's Trumps likely appointment of three right wing nutcases as Chief Justice.

[TheReg!]

The point, though, was that the people killed by his regime would have been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as enemies in the Cold War.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Sure, some of the deaths would have been due to the Cold War but the vast majority will have been for dissent against the regime.

[TheReg!]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;4867139]Cuba has judges appointed by the president, just like in the US. Both country's judges are separate from the legislative and executive arms of government, although the fact that the executive has control over appointments in both countries means there is a good deal of political influence in both countries legal systems. See Donald's Trumps recent appointment of serial nutcase as Chief Justice.[/QUOTE

The difference is Donald Trump can be voted out in 4 years time or if he F##ks up he could be impeached and booted out before his time is up, you can't say the same of Cuba.

[hibsbollah]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;4867139]Cuba has judges appointed by the president, just like in the US. Both country's judges are separate from the legislative and executive arms of government, although the fact that the executive has control over appointments in both countries means there is a good deal of political influence in both countries legal systems. See Donald's Trumps recent appointment of serial nutcase as Chief Justice.[/QUOTE

The difference is Donald Trump can be voted out in 4 years time or if he F##ks up he could be impeached and booted out before his time is up, you can't say the same of Cuba.

That is true, although neither country's voter will ever change the actual nature of the regime. You need the guillotine to achieve that.

[beensaidbefore]

The cracking bloke comment was due to the nonsense I've read about him on various social media pages.
The Cold War was against the West not his own people. No matter how anyone washes it, Castro was a tyrant and should have been held accountable for his actions against his own citizens.

Fwiw I agree with you, however I th ink the part that causes controversy is who makes the rules we play by? He thought that the way we treat people is fundamentally wrong. It's the same now in the middle east. Who the he'll are we to make the rules for the whole world? In many people's eyes we re equally outrageous.

Ie footballers being paid 20x the average salary for only 1 weeks pay whist people have to attend food banks. That must look weird to people on the outside looking in, no?

[Betty Boop]

Fwiw I agree with you, however I th ink the part that causes controversy is who makes the rules we play by? He thought that the way we treat people is fundamentally wrong. It's the same now in the middle east. Who the he'll are we to make the rules for the whole world? In many people's eyes we re equally outrageous.

Ie footballers being paid 20x the average salary for only 1 weeks pay whist people have to attend food banks. That must look weird to people on the outside looking in, no?


:agree:

[lyonhibs]

Fwiw I agree with you, however I th ink the part that causes controversy is who makes the rules we play by? He thought that the way we treat people is fundamentally wrong. It's the same now in the middle east. Who the he'll are we to make the rules for the whole world? In many people's eyes we re equally outrageous.

Ie footballers being paid 20x the average salary for only 1 weeks pay whist people have to attend food banks. That must look weird to people on the outside looking in, no?

Weird aye, unjust aye but nothing on the same scale as for example violently suppressing dissenters, denying the right to free assembly and protest or, in a different part of the world, the wholesale subjugation of women via a variety of heinous means.

"The West" is far from angelic, particularly on the international stage, but I would be interested to know of anything as indubitably systematic and discriminatory being imposed domestically in the UK in the last 20 years as Castro did to sections of Cuban society that he deemed undesirable.

[Geo_1875]

Weird aye, unjust aye but nothing on the same scale as for example violently suppressing dissenters, denying the right to free assembly and protest or, in a different part of the world, the wholesale subjugation of women via a variety of heinous means.

"The West" is far from angelic, particularly on the international stage, but I would be interested to know of anything as indubitably systematic and discriminatory being imposed domestically in the UK in the last 20 years as Castro did to sections of Cuban society that he deemed undesirable.

Not all within the last 20 years but our Government/Police treatment of the miners and poll-tax protesters wasn't very nice. And it's less than 100 years ago that the Army deployed troops and tanks in George Square. We're lucky that we don't live in a gun culture like they do in the Americas.

[lyonhibs]

Not all within the last 20 years but our Government/Police treatment of the miners and poll-tax protesters wasn't very nice. And it's less than 100 years ago that the Army deployed troops and tanks in George Square. We're lucky that we don't live in a gun culture like they do in the Americas.

Point entirely taken and perhaps there was an element of craftiness in my choosing of the time period of 20 yeas but you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere historically when making comparisons here and now in 2016 or else we'd still be saying that the British Army are a bunch of ****s cos Richard of Lionheart + co were a bit naughty during the Crusades.

My point was that, whilst I do not agree with the judging of absolutely every act of foreign governments through the prism of what we might consider to be right or normal, there are a few unalienable and indisputable pillars of decent, humane society which an absence of can't be explained away by saying "oh, they just do things differently over there"

[hibsbollah]

Weird aye, unjust aye but nothing on the same scale as for example violently suppressing dissenters, denying the right to free assembly and protest or, in a different part of the world, the wholesale subjugation of women via a variety of heinous means.

"The West" is far from angelic, particularly on the international stage, but I would be interested to know of anything as indubitably systematic and discriminatory being imposed domestically in the UK in the last 20 years as Castro did to sections of Cuban society that he deemed undesirable.

Internment and other wholesale human rights abuses in Ulster in the early 70s? not that long ago. Homosexuality is often cited in relation to Castros Cuba; its often forgotten that homosexuality was illegal in Scotland till 1980, incredibly. I would also make the case that propaganda is just as endemic in our society as in Cuba, although more subtle. Then theres Orgreave. And WMD and Iraq. Cuba has not been engaged in almost constant warfare with and invasion against foreign states as we have. (although Castro did support Mandela's ANC and helped overthrow apartheid when the Tory Govt in London was propping up that regime).

Its all about how you measure 'angelic' behaviour, I suppose.

[CropleyWasGod]

Internment and other wholesale human rights abuses in Ulster in the early 70s? not that long ago. Homosexuality is often cited in relation to Castros Cuba; its often forgotten that homosexuality was illegal in Scotland till 1980, incredibly. I would also make the case that propaganda is just as endemic in our society as in Cuba, although more subtle. Then theres Orgreave. And WMD and Iraq. Cuba has not been engaged in almost constant warfare with and invasion against foreign states as we have. (although Castro did support Mandela's ANC and helped overthrow apartheid when the Tory Govt in London was propping up that regime).

Its all about how you measure 'angelic' behaviour, I suppose.

2 things, one of which supports your argument, the other of which doesn't.:greengrin

1. Cuba was in a virtual state of war for almost 30 years, on the front line of the Cold War. People often forget that particular context.

2. Its army was engaged in foreign wars, for example in Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Syria and Ethiopia.

[hibsbollah]

2 things, one of which supports your argument, the other of which doesn't.:greengrin

1. Cuba was in a virtual state of war for almost 30 years, on the front line of the Cold War. People often forget that particular context.

2. Its army was engaged in foreign wars, for example in Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Syria and Ethiopia.

1. The most fundamental context of all, you're right.
2. You're also right about that, fair play (although of course in these conflicts the Cubans were assisting brave freedom fighters, not bloodthirsty terrorists. When defining right and wrong, as Chomsky would tell us, its all about linguistics:greengrin).

[Hibernia&Alba]

2 things, one of which supports your argument, the other of which doesn't.:greengrin

1. Cuba was in a virtual state of war for almost 30 years, on the front line of the Cold War. People often forget that particular context.

2. Its army was engaged in foreign wars, for example in Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Syria and Ethiopia.

Wars of national self-liberation i.e. to overthrow puppet regimes imposed from outside, usually from America. Nicaragua and El Salvador as perfect examples :agree:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Wars of national self-liberation i.e. to overthrow puppet regimes imposed from outside, usually from America. Nicaragua and El Salvador as perfect examples :agree:

I dont think simplistic analysis of the cold war does anyone amy good.

Rightly or wrongly, communism was our enemy at that time, so any actions to spread communism through the americas need to be viewed through the perspective that the usa had genuine fears about a soviet backed invasion from a trojan horse country. Whether well founded or not.

Therefore Cuba, propped up and encouraged bu the ussr, trying to spreaf revolution through africa but more importantly, the americas, was a highly provocative act in that context.

Ultimately neither side was 'good' or 'right', as always in international politics there were just sides with competing interests pursuing them.

But fidel certainly played the game well...

[Hibernia&Alba]

I dont think simplistic analysis of the cold war does anyone amy good.

Rightly or wrongly, communism was our enemy at that time, so any actions to spread communism through the americas need to be viewed through the perspective that the usa had genuine fears about a soviet backed invasion from a trojan horse country. Whether well founded or not.

Therefore Cuba, propped up and encouraged bu the ussr, trying to spreaf revolution through africa but more importantly, the americas, was a highly provocative act in that context.

Ultimately neither side was 'good' or 'right', as always in international politics there were just sides with competing interests pursuing them.

But fidel certainly played the game well...

In the case of el Salvador and Nicaragua (as well as examples like Chile and Iran) America overthrew democratically elected governments in clear breach of international law. We're not talking Cold War here, but the right of people in a sovereign nation to choose their own government. That's the point; and it's hardly surprising the indigenous population mightn't take too kindly to that kind of thing. The Cuban revolution was a consequence of that same kind of thing with Batista. Three times Castro challenged the legitimacy of the regime in the courts, but guess what - the judges said a junta was okay. It's misleading to suggest that the destruction of democratic governments should be understood by the actions of the USA or Soviet Union in the Cold War. Remember, when America was overthrowing those governments, it had the audacity to moralise about 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

In the case of el Salvador and Nicaragua (as well as examples like Chile and Iran) America overthrew democratically elected governments in clear breach of international law. We're not talking Cold War here, but the right of people in a sovereign nation to choose their own government. That's the point; and it's hardly surprising the indigenous population mightn't take too kindly to that kind of thing. The Cuban revolution was a consequence of that same kind of thing with Batista. Three times Castro challenged the legitimacy of the regime in the courts, but guess what - the judges said a junta was okay. It's misleading to suggest that the destruction of democratic governments should be understood by the actions of the USA or Soviet Union in the Cold War. Remember, when America was overthrowing those governments, it had the audacity to moralise about 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

I'm not defending the USA, and some of their actions in the Americas were terrible, and very hypocritical.

But their misdeeds dont excuse the other sides misdeeds. And if you think that the USSR and Cuba weren't doing likewise, and backing left-wing coups, parties in elections etc then i think that is naive.

Also, Fidel was no fan of democracy.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm not defending the USA, and some of their actions in the Americas were terrible, and very hypocritical.

But their misdeeds dont excuse the other sides misdeeds. And if you think that the USSR and Cuba weren't doing likewise, and backing left-wing coups, parties in elections etc then i think that is naive.

Also, Fidel was no fan of democracy.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. As stated earlier in this thread, I have grave concerns about the authoritarianism in Cuba after 1959. The Cold War was grubby and filled with hypocrisy, and, as usually happens, it was the innocent who suffered most because of power games.

[Sir David Gray]

The question that has to be asked is - "Would I have chosen to leave the UK to go and live in Cuba whilst Fidel Castro was in charge?"

The answer to that question is undoubtedly a no so I think that says it all.

[Hibernia&Alba]

The question that has to be asked is - "Would I have chosen to leave the UK to go and live in Cuba whilst Fidel Castro was in charge?"

The answer to that question is undoubtedly a no so I think that says it all.

Of course nobody would have left the UK to live in Cuba. It was a third world country which was then subjected to a half century blockade. But many of us wouldn't leave the UK to live in France or Germany either. I don't think that's the point. For me the question is whether the lives of the great majority of Cubans improved after the removal of Batista and the revolution. The answer seems to be yes, but of course there was repression of dissent, no question.

[Sir David Gray]

Of course nobody would have left the UK to live in Cuba. It was a third world country which was then subjected to a half century blockade. But many of us wouldn't leave the UK to live in France or Germany either. I don't think that's the point. For me the question is whether the lives of the great majority of Cubans improved after the removal of Batista and the revolution. The answer seems to be yes, but of course there was repression of dissent, no question.

A lot of British people have chosen to live and work in France, Germany and many other 21st century countries.

The repression and lack of basic human rights which blighted the entire reign of Castro cannot be overlooked, despite the positive things he did do. I think a country needs to be judged first and foremost on its basic human rights such as freedom of speech and expression and the presence of free and fair elections. Under Castro that was not allowed unless it was in support of him and his government. Any world leader who turns their nation into a single party state cannot be condoned.

[hibsbollah]

The question that has to be asked is - "Would I have chosen to leave the UK to go and live in Cuba whilst Fidel Castro was in charge?"

The answer to that question is undoubtedly a no so I think that says it all.

It is evidently a 'no' from you. But lots of British people did go and work in Cuba, usually as volunteers, because they supported what was happening in the country. If you like sunshine, swimming in the sea, beautiful people everywhere and left wing politics its not a bad choice! And if you made that decision, you would likely be a supporter of the regime and hence be less likely to be engaged in trying to overthrow him, and hence probably have less reason to be arousing the interest of the Cuban police.

[hibsbollah]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/04/fidel-castro-name-cuba-never-on-monument-says-brother-raul


What an egotistical evil *******.