14 ms·

As an African, I'd say the world has lost one of the most influential leaders of the past century. To pretend here, for me, as if he was cruel to our continent

by chirau 10y ago

As an African, I'd say the world has lost one of the most influential leaders of the past century. To pretend here, for me, as if he was cruel to our continent would be both ungrateful and untrue. The man offered free training and medical school for most of our African doctors, he harbored, trained and armed many a guerilla group in our pursuit of independence from colonization. Up until today, Cuba still sends significant numbers of doctors to remote African areas and provide expensive medical procedures for free. The truth is, if as a continent we are to point at individual world leaders who did the most for African nations, Fidel Castro is very high up that list, if not at the top. He had his fights and ills, but not with us. With that, rest in peace Fidel Castro. Your legend lives on.

gragas 10y ago
He was also an evil dictator who silenced any and all opposition. And you can't argue that his political philosophy works either---just look at Cuba today.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  > you can't argue that his political philosophy works either---just look at Cuba today. As someone who studied the subject formally, don't place maximum weight on the success and failures of the (statistically insignificant) rise and fall of modern nation states. This is a very far cry from a controlled experiment to begin with, anyways. Don't read into that too much. I'm not saying mainstream economics doesn't have compelling arguments to make about the elegant effectiveness of free (properly regulated) markets. I'm just trying to be fair: it's a far cry from a scientific fact, which it seems like not just this comment, but a lot of us in the west (even mainstream academic economics) sell the idea as.
  - gragas 10y ago
    Okay, I won't put too much weight on objective facts. I guess that destroys my argument that there hasn't been a single successful planned economy in history so far.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      There is not even such thing. There exists no major economy in modern history which is either 100% planned or 100% "free market" (anarchist). Well anyways, the objective fact here is that Cuba is objectively richer and more successful than some nearby economies that have had more right wing influence in nearby Central America.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      All economies are planned. There are none operating at global scale in the last century+ that have not been planned in myriad ways.
  - friendlygrammar 10y ago
    >it's a far cry from a scientific fact, which it seems like not just this comment, but a lot of us in the west (even mainstream academic economics) sell the idea as. Centrally planning an economy is an NP complete problem. Marxism is dumb and if any would be socialist on this forum can explain to me how we as a society can retain the benefits yielded by capitalism without the use of capital and how socialism of such a form can exist without a centrally planned economy, I'm all ears. Marxism has failed and failed and then failed again, and then it also led to the deaths of 100 million.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      You seem to have a very wrong idea of what Marxism is, means, and argues. You also seem to have a deep-seated and emotional hatred for it. That's all well and good, but perhaps you should lay off discussing it. You keep getting all worked up here, which you perhaps would be able to avoid if you had a better understanding of what Marxism is, what it means, what it argues, what it predicts. You're continuing to behave in an insulting manner toward people, calling names, and making antagonistic, simplistic, blanket statements that evince no nuance of understanding. For a concrete example, someone who is interested cannot really respond to you if they wanted to because you're firing in every direction with very little detail or explanation. How is anyone supposed to guess at what you consider to be the "benefits yielded by capitalism"? What socialism "of such a form" do you mean? Why do you seem blind to the many "dumb" parts of capitalism or liberal democracy? Do you study the various alternatives that have been discussed in the history of political science and theory? What specifically do you find dumb about Marxism, particularly as compared with its counterparts in other economic models and interpretations of human history? On HN, you'll find emotional, knee-jerk reactions receive a swift, negative response. Especially when they're negative emotions, delivered with insults and anger. You can do much better than this, and you'll find interesting conversations coming your way.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- djsumdog 10y ago
  Cuba has been under embargos for decades. You can't blame the current situation on Castro alone. That's like saying the reason your pizza shop was burned to the ground was because you paid protection money to the wrong mafia, and it was the other one that really controlled your neighbourhood.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "Cuba has been under embargos for decades. " Cuba has been embargoed only by the USA. Cuba can buy absolutely anything it needs - even American products - simply by going through any one of a myriad of interlocutors: Mexico, Canada, Jamaica, Venezuela. There is absolutely no forgiving Fidel's cruel dictatorship.
    - justicezyx 10y ago
      US embargo means a lot, not just unable to buy stuff easily. Let's not pretend that US was not the world cop. The embargo definitely has negative impact on Cuba economy.
      - edblarney 10y ago
        I fully sympathize with that fact and it's correct. Just as I understand there is some Cuban goodwill with respect to the doctors they send abroad - and early on Fidel's creation of better literacy/healthcare programs. But remember this: Fidel worked with the Russians to put nuclear weapons 40 miles away from the USA - and created a crazy situation - the closest the world has ever been to full blown nuclear war. That was this man's hubris - he nearly helped put the world on fire. That kind of existential threat is not easily forgotten. Point being: the 'embargo' is 100% Fidel's fault, and he could have easily taken steps to have it removed, but his ego would not allow it.
        justicezyx 10y ago
        > Fidel worked with the Russians to put nuclear weapons 40 miles away from the USA That's after US did the same to Russia and failed invasion of Cuba. “In response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961, and the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to agree to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter future harassment of Cuba.” [1] You may want to read [2], which was posted on HN before. In short, US was a real bully back then. Anything did by Cuba and USSR were mostly reactive knee-jerking response to the aggressive stance of US. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real...
- jknoepfler 10y ago
  That he was a dictator is uncontroversial. The word 'evil' in this context is probably meaningless. Cuba's trajectory through world history under Castro is in turns tragic, heroic, idealistic, and cynical. The comment you are replying to is embracing that complexity. Paving over it with simplistic thinking "Castro was evil and wrong" does a great deal of violence to the truth. I am no fan of the shape Fidel Castro's Cuba took, but I think it is more important that we learn from the mistakes of the revolution (which are not a simple matter of being 'evil' or 'wrong') than that we demonize them. In general, we should learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.
  - gragas 10y ago
    >Paving over it with simplistic thinking "Castro was evil and wrong" does a great deal of violence to the truth. I honestly agree. I just think it is ridiculous to claim that Castro was "a great leader" when Cuba has fared very poorly under Castro in almost every respect. I felt obliged to point this out.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >I just think it is ridiculous to claim that Castro was "a great leader" when Cuba has fared very poorly under Castro in almost every respect. I felt obliged to point this out. Were they given the chance (cold war, embargo, et al)? I feel obliged to point this out too.
      - chinhodado 10y ago
        Exactly. It doesn't help that the biggest country in the international stage is doing everything it can to stop you from succeeding.
        blahi 10y ago
        Well, they made their choice. They had the actual biggest country doing everything it can to make them succeed. Or is it better to forget because it was a failure? Communism failed. Mistakes like that are unforgivable.
Shanea93 10y ago
Not sure why this is being downvoted, it adds to the conversation, there is merit to the viewpoint that you can be both terrible to your own people while being generous to the people of other countries. I might not have liked the man but the reasoning behind his interventions in Africa were just as sound as the US interventions.
- aaron695 10y ago
  The view point is very interesting. But I'd say its factually incorrect. Should incorrect statements be downvoted even if it shows an interesting state of mind?
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think it would be most constructive to provide counterfactual evidence in a comment, and then down vote if so inclined. As a reader, I'd find that most helpful.
ant6n 10y ago
And to those who cheer the advent of capitalism in Cuba as a 'freer society', consider that now there's the form of proto-capitalism that existed in Eastern Europe and the former soviet countries after the fall of the wall. It's the time when society divides into economic winners and losers, and the wealth gap will increase - sometimes dramatically. So yay innovation and (somewhat more) freedom, but woe social tensions.
- gragas 10y ago
  Fidel's brother Raul is in power. He is 85, but I don't have reason to believe much will change in Cuba if Raul dies as well.
  - ant6n 10y ago
    I was there last year. The proto-capitalism is happening right now. I was also there in Europe when the East-Block fell. It feels eerily similar.
  - bzbarsky 10y ago
    It's hard to say. Some of the provisions of the pieces of US legislation that establish the US embargo of Cuba only apply while either Fidel or Raul is in power; they are explicitly named in the legislation text, iirc. Of course more legislation could be passed extending those terms to whoever the new leaders end up being, but I suspect (and hope!) it's more likely that the embargo would just end up being loosened somewhat at least by default.
- blahi 10y ago
  After the fall of the wall, the intelligence officers and highest party officials took control of the economy, the judicial and law enforcement systems and also the media. They people who ruled did not change. Just their methods.
- kamjam 10y ago
  It's also worth bearing in mind that America, the godfather of capitalism, have just had their crazy election. People were saying they as a nation had been left behind due to globalization. Isn't the capitalist market supposed to self regulate and spread the wealth? If US citizens are feeling left behind, how exactly are other nations supposed to feel when western nations "come to liberate them and give them democracy"?
djsumdog 10y ago
The western view of Castro is painted with decades of terrible propaganda. The Cuban people have been placed in their situation, not primarily by the Soviets or Castro, but by the American Hegemony and its unending empire across the globe. Many central and south American heads of state have tried to stand up to that empire, and many have died in plane crashes. Hugh Chavez, demonized in American media, put pieces of the bill of rights on all food packaging, stood up for the poor and was opposed by the rich. Those people help him survive a military coupé. I would not be surprised if in 40 years, declassified documented revealed that coupé was US led. For those who think that's crazy tin foil hat, remember that the US did cause the September 11th 1973 uprising in Chile, which led to the deaths of 11,000 civilians. In a few hundred years when this era is not covered in the relentless nationalism that paints our view of the world, people will discover how much of our modern world was controlled by so very few.
- gragas 10y ago
  They've been isolated for like half a century; they've had more than enough time to implement whatever form of government they want. It's clear that Castro's communism doesn't work. The US didn't cause this. They tried to stop it.
  - meric 10y ago
    That's why the US sanctioned Cuba.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    They are less isolated than you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTno8D-b2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTno8D-b2E
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > They've been isolated for like half a century; they've had more than enough time to implement whatever form of government they want. It's clear that Castro's communism doesn't work. If that wasn't obvious by itself, a brief glimpse at Venezuela and what Chavez/Maduro's regime has accomplished should dispel any remaining doubt.
edblarney 10y ago
This is a disturbing position. I don't doubt that his doctors may have helped you. However, the man has committed grievous crimes, keeps 'his people' in abject poverty, on an 'island prison'. More than 85% of the economy is in the control of the military - his private Army. "Up until today, Cuba still sends significant numbers of doctors to remote African areas and provide expensive medical procedures for free." This is false and misleading. They do not provide it for free - they are paid by international agencies and it is one of the few real 'exports' that Cuba has. Most perniciously - the money that is supposed to go to the doctors mostly goes to the military junta - while the doctors themselves receive very little. Moreover - the Cuban doctors abroad are prisoners. They are held with the threat of violence or internment of their families back home. If they try to escape or leave - they go to prison: http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/jun00/06e4.htm http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/jun00/06e4.htm Those doctors that 'helped you' get 5% of their 'salary' - while 95% goes to their captors. Praise the doctors, not Fidel. I find it abhorrent that such statements could be made about a cruel dictator, who has done 'some possibly good things' in the name of his legacy, whilst at the same time tormenting millions. It's sad that people should hold such a tyrant in such esteem - because not only are those medical programs are paid for mostly by 'evil Western Nations' - aid to African nations is overwhelmingly from 'Western nations' (at least in terms of direct/indirect aid - of course China is a huge economic investor). Let us not make a totem of this man without being cognizant of all the things he has done.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >However, the man has committed grievous crimes Way less crimes than those who accuse him. Never sprayed Vietnamese with Agent Orange or napalms for one, never dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, never supported Pinochet et co, doesn't have 25% of the world's incarcerated in just 4% of the global population, and lots of other things besides. >keeps 'his people' in abject poverty A 40+ years embargo has something to do with that too... >More than 85% of the economy is in the control of the military - his private Army. It's in control of the state, which is how things are supposed to work in communist countries. Not necessarily worse than having it in the hands of corporations...
  - 10y ago
betolink 10y ago
That's right! Fidel was the first world leader to support Nelson Mandela's fight for liberty and Cuba was the first country in the Americas that Mandela visited after his liberation.
- refurb 10y ago
  And Stalin helped defeat Germany in WW2. That doesn't really make up for the millions of Russians he killed for political reasons.
  - betolink 10y ago
    You're comparing apples and oranges, Fidel never killed millions, The U.S. government alone has killed far more people in a single day than Cuba under Fidel Castro.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - endisukaj 10y ago
      Fidel never had as much subjects as Stalin to kill.
      - betolink 10y ago
        How many did Fidel kill?
        endisukaj 10y ago
        From 550 to 15000[1], there's no official number. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political...)
        bzbarsky 10y ago
        Finding unbiased numbers is hard, obviously. Maybe we'll know more about it 50 years from now, but at the moment our knowledge is approximately what it was for the Soviet Union right after Stalin's death or so, yes? That said, I have yet to see anything resembling a credible source that claimed more than 10,000 direct deaths caused by the Castro regime. I've seen much higher numbers (50,000 or more) in terms of indirect deaths: people trying to get out of Cuba and drowning in the process. The population of Cuba around the time of the revolution was about 7 million; now it's around 11 million. The population of the Soviet Union in the 1930s was between 150 and 200 million (good statistics are hard to come by; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937) for why). Even if we take the extreme 7 million and 200 million numbers, 10,000 Cuban deaths is equivalent to about 285,000 Soviet deaths on a per-capita basis. And that's over a 50-year or so period. So yes, Stalin killed a lot more people no matter how you count it. Of course, "leader who killed a smaller percentage of the population than Stalin" is a _really_ low bar; pretty much everyone except Pol Pot clears it. In general, the "Cuba under Castro" numbers for political violence don't seem any worse than other Latin American countries in the 20th century. Again, this isn't _good_, just like it's not good that we can end up talking about "oh, that's equivalent to hundreds of thousands of deaths on a per-capita basis, which is _tiny_". :(
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vivekd 10y ago
I'm sure every horrible person did some good and charitable things sometimes. Hitler started the first anti smoking campaigns, was opposed to animal cruelty and did many charitable works to help the poor in his nation. That doesn't change that he was a very oppressive leader and the mere fact that we can find some good things he did doesn't make Hitler a Legend who lives on. No I'm not denying that providing hospitals and doctors to Africa is a good thing, but America, and even ordinary Americans like Bill Gates have done so much more for Africa than Castro ever did, and it seems rather unfair that Western efforts are neglected and we are seen as colonizers to seek independence from whereas brutal and oppressive dictators such as Castro are presented as honored crusaders for throwing a smidgen of help to Africa.
bdrool 10y ago
> The truth is, if as a continent we are to point at individual world leaders who did the most for African nations, Fidel Castro is very high up that list, if not at the top. Many don't know this, but George W. Bush had quite an impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for...
EugeneOZ 10y ago
You are taking about person who put country to isolation and moved world very close to nuclear war. Burn in hell, Fidel.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
Cuba also sent lots of soldiers to foment revolutions and enforce dictatorships in African countries. It's pretty rich to thank him for sending doctors when he's also sending the people creating more injuries. > He had his fights and ills, but not with us. Yeah, generally with his own citizens who he stomped on for decades. But hey, at least you got a couple free doctors out of it so screw those guys.
WalterBright 10y ago
Castro put a wall around Cuba to keep people from leaving.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
geezerjay 10y ago
> As an African, I'd say the world has lost one of the most influential leaders of the past century. What do you have to say, as an African, to Fidel Castro's role in the Angolan civil war, and in establishing Angola's dictatorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_intervention_in_Angola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_intervention_in_Angola
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by chirau 10y ago

gragas 10y ago

He was also an evil dictator who silenced any and all opposition. And you can't argue that his political philosophy works either---just look at Cuba today.

wallace_f 10y ago
> you can't argue that his political philosophy works either---just look at Cuba today. As someone who studied the subject formally, don't place maximum weight on the success and failures of the (statistically insignificant) rise and fall of modern nation states. This is a very far cry from a controlled experiment to begin with, anyways. Don't read into that too much. I'm not saying mainstream economics doesn't have compelling arguments to make about the elegant effectiveness of free (properly regulated) markets. I'm just trying to be fair: it's a far cry from a scientific fact, which it seems like not just this comment, but a lot of us in the west (even mainstream academic economics) sell the idea as.
- gragas 10y ago
  Okay, I won't put too much weight on objective facts. I guess that destroys my argument that there hasn't been a single successful planned economy in history so far.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    There is not even such thing. There exists no major economy in modern history which is either 100% planned or 100% "free market" (anarchist). Well anyways, the objective fact here is that Cuba is objectively richer and more successful than some nearby economies that have had more right wing influence in nearby Central America.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    All economies are planned. There are none operating at global scale in the last century+ that have not been planned in myriad ways.
- friendlygrammar 10y ago
  >it's a far cry from a scientific fact, which it seems like not just this comment, but a lot of us in the west (even mainstream academic economics) sell the idea as. Centrally planning an economy is an NP complete problem. Marxism is dumb and if any would be socialist on this forum can explain to me how we as a society can retain the benefits yielded by capitalism without the use of capital and how socialism of such a form can exist without a centrally planned economy, I'm all ears. Marxism has failed and failed and then failed again, and then it also led to the deaths of 100 million.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    You seem to have a very wrong idea of what Marxism is, means, and argues. You also seem to have a deep-seated and emotional hatred for it. That's all well and good, but perhaps you should lay off discussing it. You keep getting all worked up here, which you perhaps would be able to avoid if you had a better understanding of what Marxism is, what it means, what it argues, what it predicts. You're continuing to behave in an insulting manner toward people, calling names, and making antagonistic, simplistic, blanket statements that evince no nuance of understanding. For a concrete example, someone who is interested cannot really respond to you if they wanted to because you're firing in every direction with very little detail or explanation. How is anyone supposed to guess at what you consider to be the "benefits yielded by capitalism"? What socialism "of such a form" do you mean? Why do you seem blind to the many "dumb" parts of capitalism or liberal democracy? Do you study the various alternatives that have been discussed in the history of political science and theory? What specifically do you find dumb about Marxism, particularly as compared with its counterparts in other economic models and interpretations of human history? On HN, you'll find emotional, knee-jerk reactions receive a swift, negative response. Especially when they're negative emotions, delivered with insults and anger. You can do much better than this, and you'll find interesting conversations coming your way.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
djsumdog 10y ago
Cuba has been under embargos for decades. You can't blame the current situation on Castro alone. That's like saying the reason your pizza shop was burned to the ground was because you paid protection money to the wrong mafia, and it was the other one that really controlled your neighbourhood.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Cuba has been under embargos for decades. " Cuba has been embargoed only by the USA. Cuba can buy absolutely anything it needs - even American products - simply by going through any one of a myriad of interlocutors: Mexico, Canada, Jamaica, Venezuela. There is absolutely no forgiving Fidel's cruel dictatorship.
  - justicezyx 10y ago
    US embargo means a lot, not just unable to buy stuff easily. Let's not pretend that US was not the world cop. The embargo definitely has negative impact on Cuba economy.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      I fully sympathize with that fact and it's correct. Just as I understand there is some Cuban goodwill with respect to the doctors they send abroad - and early on Fidel's creation of better literacy/healthcare programs. But remember this: Fidel worked with the Russians to put nuclear weapons 40 miles away from the USA - and created a crazy situation - the closest the world has ever been to full blown nuclear war. That was this man's hubris - he nearly helped put the world on fire. That kind of existential threat is not easily forgotten. Point being: the 'embargo' is 100% Fidel's fault, and he could have easily taken steps to have it removed, but his ego would not allow it.
      - justicezyx 10y ago
        > Fidel worked with the Russians to put nuclear weapons 40 miles away from the USA That's after US did the same to Russia and failed invasion of Cuba. “In response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961, and the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to agree to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter future harassment of Cuba.” [1] You may want to read [2], which was posted on HN before. In short, US was a real bully back then. Anything did by Cuba and USSR were mostly reactive knee-jerking response to the aggressive stance of US. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real...
jknoepfler 10y ago
That he was a dictator is uncontroversial. The word 'evil' in this context is probably meaningless. Cuba's trajectory through world history under Castro is in turns tragic, heroic, idealistic, and cynical. The comment you are replying to is embracing that complexity. Paving over it with simplistic thinking "Castro was evil and wrong" does a great deal of violence to the truth. I am no fan of the shape Fidel Castro's Cuba took, but I think it is more important that we learn from the mistakes of the revolution (which are not a simple matter of being 'evil' or 'wrong') than that we demonize them. In general, we should learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.
- gragas 10y ago
  >Paving over it with simplistic thinking "Castro was evil and wrong" does a great deal of violence to the truth. I honestly agree. I just think it is ridiculous to claim that Castro was "a great leader" when Cuba has fared very poorly under Castro in almost every respect. I felt obliged to point this out.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I just think it is ridiculous to claim that Castro was "a great leader" when Cuba has fared very poorly under Castro in almost every respect. I felt obliged to point this out. Were they given the chance (cold war, embargo, et al)? I feel obliged to point this out too.
    - chinhodado 10y ago
      Exactly. It doesn't help that the biggest country in the international stage is doing everything it can to stop you from succeeding.
      - blahi 10y ago
        Well, they made their choice. They had the actual biggest country doing everything it can to make them succeed. Or is it better to forget because it was a failure? Communism failed. Mistakes like that are unforgivable.

Shanea93 10y ago

Not sure why this is being downvoted, it adds to the conversation, there is merit to the viewpoint that you can be both terrible to your own people while being generous to the people of other countries. I might not have liked the man but the reasoning behind his interventions in Africa were just as sound as the US interventions.

aaron695 10y ago
The view point is very interesting. But I'd say its factually incorrect. Should incorrect statements be downvoted even if it shows an interesting state of mind?
- grzm 10y ago
  I think it would be most constructive to provide counterfactual evidence in a comment, and then down vote if so inclined. As a reader, I'd find that most helpful.

ant6n 10y ago

And to those who cheer the advent of capitalism in Cuba as a 'freer society', consider that now there's the form of proto-capitalism that existed in Eastern Europe and the former soviet countries after the fall of the wall. It's the time when society divides into economic winners and losers, and the wealth gap will increase - sometimes dramatically. So yay innovation and (somewhat more) freedom, but woe social tensions.

gragas 10y ago
Fidel's brother Raul is in power. He is 85, but I don't have reason to believe much will change in Cuba if Raul dies as well.
- ant6n 10y ago
  I was there last year. The proto-capitalism is happening right now. I was also there in Europe when the East-Block fell. It feels eerily similar.
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  It's hard to say. Some of the provisions of the pieces of US legislation that establish the US embargo of Cuba only apply while either Fidel or Raul is in power; they are explicitly named in the legislation text, iirc. Of course more legislation could be passed extending those terms to whoever the new leaders end up being, but I suspect (and hope!) it's more likely that the embargo would just end up being loosened somewhat at least by default.
blahi 10y ago
After the fall of the wall, the intelligence officers and highest party officials took control of the economy, the judicial and law enforcement systems and also the media. They people who ruled did not change. Just their methods.
kamjam 10y ago
It's also worth bearing in mind that America, the godfather of capitalism, have just had their crazy election. People were saying they as a nation had been left behind due to globalization. Isn't the capitalist market supposed to self regulate and spread the wealth? If US citizens are feeling left behind, how exactly are other nations supposed to feel when western nations "come to liberate them and give them democracy"?

djsumdog 10y ago

The western view of Castro is painted with decades of terrible propaganda. The Cuban people have been placed in their situation, not primarily by the Soviets or Castro, but by the American Hegemony and its unending empire across the globe. Many central and south American heads of state have tried to stand up to that empire, and many have died in plane crashes. Hugh Chavez, demonized in American media, put pieces of the bill of rights on all food packaging, stood up for the poor and was opposed by the rich. Those people help him survive a military coupé. I would not be surprised if in 40 years, declassified documented revealed that coupé was US led. For those who think that's crazy tin foil hat, remember that the US did cause the September 11th 1973 uprising in Chile, which led to the deaths of 11,000 civilians. In a few hundred years when this era is not covered in the relentless nationalism that paints our view of the world, people will discover how much of our modern world was controlled by so very few.

gragas 10y ago
They've been isolated for like half a century; they've had more than enough time to implement whatever form of government they want. It's clear that Castro's communism doesn't work. The US didn't cause this. They tried to stop it.
- meric 10y ago
  That's why the US sanctioned Cuba.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  They are less isolated than you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTno8D-b2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTno8D-b2E
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > They've been isolated for like half a century; they've had more than enough time to implement whatever form of government they want. It's clear that Castro's communism doesn't work. If that wasn't obvious by itself, a brief glimpse at Venezuela and what Chavez/Maduro's regime has accomplished should dispel any remaining doubt.

edblarney 10y ago

This is a disturbing position. I don't doubt that his doctors may have helped you. However, the man has committed grievous crimes, keeps 'his people' in abject poverty, on an 'island prison'. More than 85% of the economy is in the control of the military - his private Army. "Up until today, Cuba still sends significant numbers of doctors to remote African areas and provide expensive medical procedures for free." This is false and misleading. They do not provide it for free - they are paid by international agencies and it is one of the few real 'exports' that Cuba has. Most perniciously - the money that is supposed to go to the doctors mostly goes to the military junta - while the doctors themselves receive very little. Moreover - the Cuban doctors abroad are prisoners. They are held with the threat of violence or internment of their families back home. If they try to escape or leave - they go to prison: http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/jun00/06e4.htm http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/jun00/06e4.htm Those doctors that 'helped you' get 5% of their 'salary' - while 95% goes to their captors. Praise the doctors, not Fidel. I find it abhorrent that such statements could be made about a cruel dictator, who has done 'some possibly good things' in the name of his legacy, whilst at the same time tormenting millions. It's sad that people should hold such a tyrant in such esteem - because not only are those medical programs are paid for mostly by 'evil Western Nations' - aid to African nations is overwhelmingly from 'Western nations' (at least in terms of direct/indirect aid - of course China is a huge economic investor). Let us not make a totem of this man without being cognizant of all the things he has done.

coldtea 10y ago
>However, the man has committed grievous crimes Way less crimes than those who accuse him. Never sprayed Vietnamese with Agent Orange or napalms for one, never dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, never supported Pinochet et co, doesn't have 25% of the world's incarcerated in just 4% of the global population, and lots of other things besides. >keeps 'his people' in abject poverty A 40+ years embargo has something to do with that too... >More than 85% of the economy is in the control of the military - his private Army. It's in control of the state, which is how things are supposed to work in communist countries. Not necessarily worse than having it in the hands of corporations...
- 10y ago

betolink 10y ago

That's right! Fidel was the first world leader to support Nelson Mandela's fight for liberty and Cuba was the first country in the Americas that Mandela visited after his liberation.

refurb 10y ago
And Stalin helped defeat Germany in WW2. That doesn't really make up for the millions of Russians he killed for political reasons.
- betolink 10y ago
  You're comparing apples and oranges, Fidel never killed millions, The U.S. government alone has killed far more people in a single day than Cuba under Fidel Castro.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - endisukaj 10y ago
    Fidel never had as much subjects as Stalin to kill.
    - betolink 10y ago
      How many did Fidel kill?
      - endisukaj 10y ago
        From 550 to 15000[1], there's no official number. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political_executions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political...)
      - bzbarsky 10y ago
        Finding unbiased numbers is hard, obviously. Maybe we'll know more about it 50 years from now, but at the moment our knowledge is approximately what it was for the Soviet Union right after Stalin's death or so, yes? That said, I have yet to see anything resembling a credible source that claimed more than 10,000 direct deaths caused by the Castro regime. I've seen much higher numbers (50,000 or more) in terms of indirect deaths: people trying to get out of Cuba and drowning in the process. The population of Cuba around the time of the revolution was about 7 million; now it's around 11 million. The population of the Soviet Union in the 1930s was between 150 and 200 million (good statistics are hard to come by; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937) for why). Even if we take the extreme 7 million and 200 million numbers, 10,000 Cuban deaths is equivalent to about 285,000 Soviet deaths on a per-capita basis. And that's over a 50-year or so period. So yes, Stalin killed a lot more people no matter how you count it. Of course, "leader who killed a smaller percentage of the population than Stalin" is a _really_ low bar; pretty much everyone except Pol Pot clears it. In general, the "Cuba under Castro" numbers for political violence don't seem any worse than other Latin American countries in the 20th century. Again, this isn't _good_, just like it's not good that we can end up talking about "oh, that's equivalent to hundreds of thousands of deaths on a per-capita basis, which is _tiny_". :(

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vivekd 10y ago

I'm sure every horrible person did some good and charitable things sometimes. Hitler started the first anti smoking campaigns, was opposed to animal cruelty and did many charitable works to help the poor in his nation. That doesn't change that he was a very oppressive leader and the mere fact that we can find some good things he did doesn't make Hitler a Legend who lives on. No I'm not denying that providing hospitals and doctors to Africa is a good thing, but America, and even ordinary Americans like Bill Gates have done so much more for Africa than Castro ever did, and it seems rather unfair that Western efforts are neglected and we are seen as colonizers to seek independence from whereas brutal and oppressive dictators such as Castro are presented as honored crusaders for throwing a smidgen of help to Africa.

bdrool 10y ago

> The truth is, if as a continent we are to point at individual world leaders who did the most for African nations, Fidel Castro is very high up that list, if not at the top. Many don't know this, but George W. Bush had quite an impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for...

EugeneOZ 10y ago

You are taking about person who put country to isolation and moved world very close to nuclear war. Burn in hell, Fidel.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

Cuba also sent lots of soldiers to foment revolutions and enforce dictatorships in African countries. It's pretty rich to thank him for sending doctors when he's also sending the people creating more injuries. > He had his fights and ills, but not with us. Yeah, generally with his own citizens who he stomped on for decades. But hey, at least you got a couple free doctors out of it so screw those guys.

WalterBright 10y ago

Castro put a wall around Cuba to keep people from leaving.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

geezerjay 10y ago

> As an African, I'd say the world has lost one of the most influential leaders of the past century. What do you have to say, as an African, to Fidel Castro's role in the Angolan civil war, and in establishing Angola's dictatorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_intervention_in_Angola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_intervention_in_Angola

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]