8 ms·

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 tha

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.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      You realize that Hitler was elected, right? Democracy is not the be all and end all. It's great because of all of the wonderful things it has done for us. Self-representation is a good in itself, but not greater than human prosperity and freedom. And loyal opposition only works when everyone agrees on the sanctity of the system. I believe in liberal democracy, where the sovereignty of the people is limited by institutions like a constitutional court and a general separation of powers. An elected dictatorship (especially one like Allende's, elected on a slim plurality) has no legitimacy in my eyes. Allende had effectively made himself dictator by ignoring the Congress and the Supreme Court. That doesn't justify Pinochet creating a military junta after the coup, and it certainly didn't justify his political death squads. But again, I'd rather live under a traditional dictatorship, that seeks to preserve society's structure and institutions, than a Communist dictatorship that has social and economic upheaval (destruction in practice) as its agenda. It's not a choice I want to ever be in a position to make. But man has lived and prospered under unfree governments throughout history. Man has never prospered under Communism. It's disappointing that someone who's clearly intelligent can't have an intellectual disagreement without attacking the other person's moral integrity. Personally, I'll take it as badge of honor to be called 'disgusting' by someone who defends Castro and Allende and their ilk.

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.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    You realize that Hitler was elected, right? Democracy is not the be all and end all. It's great because of all of the wonderful things it has done for us. Self-representation is a good in itself, but not greater than human prosperity and freedom. And loyal opposition only works when everyone agrees on the sanctity of the system. I believe in liberal democracy, where the sovereignty of the people is limited by institutions like a constitutional court and a general separation of powers. An elected dictatorship (especially one like Allende's, elected on a slim plurality) has no legitimacy in my eyes. Allende had effectively made himself dictator by ignoring the Congress and the Supreme Court. That doesn't justify Pinochet creating a military junta after the coup, and it certainly didn't justify his political death squads. But again, I'd rather live under a traditional dictatorship, that seeks to preserve society's structure and institutions, than a Communist dictatorship that has social and economic upheaval (destruction in practice) as its agenda. It's not a choice I want to ever be in a position to make. But man has lived and prospered under unfree governments throughout history. Man has never prospered under Communism. It's disappointing that someone who's clearly intelligent can't have an intellectual disagreement without attacking the other person's moral integrity. Personally, I'll take it as badge of honor to be called 'disgusting' by someone who defends Castro and Allende and their ilk.