3 ms·

>Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This is just completely false. Cuba was by no means a democratic or r

>Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This is just completely false. Cuba was by no means a democratic or rich country, but there was a growing middle class and plenty of economic success. It was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. Here's a good article from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro... >Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education. This is another myth that's been debunked. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm . It's a National Review article, so they obviously have their own biases, but most of the pro-Cuban pieces rely almost exclusively on Cuba's self-reported WHO statistics, which are obviously unreliable.

the_af 11y ago
Um, the PBS link you posted states Cuba had a very troubled history, with a complex history of assassinated leaders, repression, inequality, illiteracy, and widespread corruption. Finally there's Batista, who after an initially progressive government, ended up conducting a coup d'etat which "destroyed the democratic republic he had brought into existence" [sic]. Whether the right next step was Communism or not, the country at that point was an unmitigated disaster. The article from the conservative National Review is, like you say, biased. There is truth to it and there is opinion.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Your first paragraph is totally right, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. Batista was an evil man, and many older Cuban-Americans today will admit that they originally supported the revolution because of that. But you're totally wrong to say that things were worse under Batista than under Castro. There's a great movie, The Lost City, that captures this whole tragedy: the evil of Batista's regime, the competing revolutionary movements, Castro's promises that he wasn't a communist, his victory and ensuing mass executions, lifelong exile in America for some--most of whom left Cuba with nothing but the clothes on their backs--and a life robbed of freedom and opportunity for the rest. As far as dictatorships go, they're all terrible scourges on mankind. But if I had to choose to live under a dictator like Pinochet or Batista, vs a dictator like Stalin or Castro, I'd choose Pinochet and Batista every time. Communism is uniquely destructive of a nation's culture and productivity. For example, in communist Cuba, you don't choose a job because it pays more. You choose a job based on what opportunities to steal it gives you. Cheating and stealing is the main way to get ahead, or even to meet your needs, in such a society. Few things could be as destructive to a people.
  - the_af 11y ago
    Well, if you'd prefer Pinochet there's little left to say on my part. Pinochet was a monster, a torturer and a traitor to his country, and along with many murderous dictatorships in South America (like in my country, Argentina) enacted the infamous "Plan Condor" for the assassination of dissenters, as well as the illegal detention and forced disappearance of students and political opponents. It's really hard to come up with a more brutal and despicable dictatorship in South America than his. We share no common ground on which to continue this discussion.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Your response here is intellectually dishonest. Of course Pinochet was bad, and I was very clear about that. My point is that Allende was and would have been worse. Allende was so bad that the Chilean Supreme Court and Congress called for his forcible removal from power by the military. He was ignoring court orders and ruling by diktat. He was turning Chile into Cuba and was close allies with Castro. Today, one country is extremely wealthy and stable, and had a peaceful transition to democracy. The other is still a totalitarian hell hole. You might come to a different conclusion, but moral indignation is unwarranted.
      - the_af 11y ago
        No, what you're saying is terrible. Allende was, good or bad (I think more good than bad) a democratically elected president. In contrast, Pinochet was a brutal dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat and enforced his rule via bloodshed, murder and repression of dissidents, students and anyone he didn't like; this included a clandestine plan of cooperation between intelligence agencies of neighboring dictatorships to kidnap and murder dissidents abroad (so that if you were a Chilean dissident living in Argentina, "Plan Condor" ensured you'd be captured and/or murdered there). There is no possible comparison between Allende and Pinochet. Being "close allies with Castro" isn't a crime, and to think so reeks of ideological persecution -- the very thing you accuse Cuba of! In democracy, if you don't like a president you wait for your turn to vote a different one. If the president does something grossly illegal, there are legal procedures to remove him from power, like impeachment. Removal by military force, assassinations and political repression IS NOT AN OPTION IN DEMOCRACY. No matter how allegedly ruinous a government is removal by military force IS NOT AN OPTION. That's not how democracy works! There is no possible crime a democratically elected president can commit that justifies a military coup, the banning of all political parties and clandestine torture centers. Nothing. At this point you might tell me that you don't think democracy is above all possible problems, that some emergencies may justify suspending the rule of law... but in that case, your criticisms of Cuba and Fidel ring very hollow. You'd be on very shaky ground. You disgust me. We have nothing in common. I'm stopping this discussion now.

the_af 11y ago

Um, the PBS link you posted states Cuba had a very troubled history, with a complex history of assassinated leaders, repression, inequality, illiteracy, and widespread corruption. Finally there's Batista, who after an initially progressive government, ended up conducting a coup d'etat which "destroyed the democratic republic he had brought into existence" [sic]. Whether the right next step was Communism or not, the country at that point was an unmitigated disaster. The article from the conservative National Review is, like you say, biased. There is truth to it and there is opinion.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Your first paragraph is totally right, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. Batista was an evil man, and many older Cuban-Americans today will admit that they originally supported the revolution because of that. But you're totally wrong to say that things were worse under Batista than under Castro. There's a great movie, The Lost City, that captures this whole tragedy: the evil of Batista's regime, the competing revolutionary movements, Castro's promises that he wasn't a communist, his victory and ensuing mass executions, lifelong exile in America for some--most of whom left Cuba with nothing but the clothes on their backs--and a life robbed of freedom and opportunity for the rest. As far as dictatorships go, they're all terrible scourges on mankind. But if I had to choose to live under a dictator like Pinochet or Batista, vs a dictator like Stalin or Castro, I'd choose Pinochet and Batista every time. Communism is uniquely destructive of a nation's culture and productivity. For example, in communist Cuba, you don't choose a job because it pays more. You choose a job based on what opportunities to steal it gives you. Cheating and stealing is the main way to get ahead, or even to meet your needs, in such a society. Few things could be as destructive to a people.
- the_af 11y ago
  Well, if you'd prefer Pinochet there's little left to say on my part. Pinochet was a monster, a torturer and a traitor to his country, and along with many murderous dictatorships in South America (like in my country, Argentina) enacted the infamous "Plan Condor" for the assassination of dissenters, as well as the illegal detention and forced disappearance of students and political opponents. It's really hard to come up with a more brutal and despicable dictatorship in South America than his. We share no common ground on which to continue this discussion.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Your response here is intellectually dishonest. Of course Pinochet was bad, and I was very clear about that. My point is that Allende was and would have been worse. Allende was so bad that the Chilean Supreme Court and Congress called for his forcible removal from power by the military. He was ignoring court orders and ruling by diktat. He was turning Chile into Cuba and was close allies with Castro. Today, one country is extremely wealthy and stable, and had a peaceful transition to democracy. The other is still a totalitarian hell hole. You might come to a different conclusion, but moral indignation is unwarranted.
    - the_af 11y ago
      No, what you're saying is terrible. Allende was, good or bad (I think more good than bad) a democratically elected president. In contrast, Pinochet was a brutal dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat and enforced his rule via bloodshed, murder and repression of dissidents, students and anyone he didn't like; this included a clandestine plan of cooperation between intelligence agencies of neighboring dictatorships to kidnap and murder dissidents abroad (so that if you were a Chilean dissident living in Argentina, "Plan Condor" ensured you'd be captured and/or murdered there). There is no possible comparison between Allende and Pinochet. Being "close allies with Castro" isn't a crime, and to think so reeks of ideological persecution -- the very thing you accuse Cuba of! In democracy, if you don't like a president you wait for your turn to vote a different one. If the president does something grossly illegal, there are legal procedures to remove him from power, like impeachment. Removal by military force, assassinations and political repression IS NOT AN OPTION IN DEMOCRACY. No matter how allegedly ruinous a government is removal by military force IS NOT AN OPTION. That's not how democracy works! There is no possible crime a democratically elected president can commit that justifies a military coup, the banning of all political parties and clandestine torture centers. Nothing. At this point you might tell me that you don't think democracy is above all possible problems, that some emergencies may justify suspending the rule of law... but in that case, your criticisms of Cuba and Fidel ring very hollow. You'd be on very shaky ground. You disgust me. We have nothing in common. I'm stopping this discussion now.