5 ms·

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.

by gragas 10y ago

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.

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.

by 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.