End of Castro Dynasty in Cuba as Raul Steps Down

Stability brought by refusing economic colonization and political subversion by foreign interests, to which political suppression is incidental. I think the disparate impacts of the 08 financial crisis was a nice insight into that. Political suppression in itself doesn't build a functional state or economy.

So how does jailing Huber Matos helped stop economic colonization and subversion?

And Cuba doesnt has a functional economy, its economy is based on foreign tourists being treated much better than actual cubans and rich party members having the good life.0

You seem to draw fantastical conclusions.

Well, you are the one justifying brutal dictatorship for latin Americans as "necessary" and while right wing dictatorships were as brutal as left ones the key differences is that right wing dictatorships tended to cede power without much bloodshed or chaos.
 
well not the end just yet .. canel said castro 'would remain the country's ultimate authority' but castro's 86 so that won't be for long .. but canel also said he will continue the 'communist system' so there's that
 
well not the end just yet .. canel said castro 'would remain the country's ultimate authority' but castro's 86 so that won't be for long .. but canel also said he will continue the 'communist system' so there's that

Then fuck him.
 
Politically, the Cuban people are probably the single most inspiring people on earth. Culturally, their music is pretty great too.


Castro set the Cuban music industry back and heated Cuban Jazz and banned the saxophone as he said it was a American instrument.
 
So how does jailing Huber Matos helped stop economic colonization and subversion?

In the eyes of the provisional government? Absolutely, as anything but a united front would be quickly collapsed.

However, you asking me to justify every individual decision of Castro does not accurately get at the heart of my support for the Cuban regime and people. You could find deeds of every ruler of every country that I would denounce individually.

And Cuba doesnt has a functional economy, its economy is based on foreign tourists being treated much better than actual cubans and rich party members having the good life.0

Again, all that is needed is a look at how the people of Central America and the Caribbean fared in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. People in Cuba had food, shelter, medical care, and educational access.

Also, have you ever been to Cuba? I have many times and had very little interaction with the government to have me be "treated much better than the actual Cubans." In fact, I'm fairly sure there was a redistributional aspect to the money that I did pay to the state in that it exceeded exchange rate + transactional cost.

Well, you are the one justifying brutal dictatorship for latin Americans as "necessary" and while right wing dictatorships were as brutal as left ones the key differences is that right wing dictatorships tended to cede power without much bloodshed or chaos.

LOL, are you kidding me?

First off, I didn't say the Cuban regime is "necessary," but rather that it was preferable then and is clearly justifiable now on purely comparative bases.

And you are still yet to defend that the interference of US money in places like Honduras and El Salvador has made them distinctly worse off for the citizens than they would have been if they had a strong leftist regime to deter. Likewise, you fail to view Cuba relative to its most relevant comparators in the imperial era: Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, which occupy just about the entire spectrum of colonialiszation. The Dominican Republic is more or less independent but with considerable economic ties to the United States, Haiti is still a pseudo-colony subject to considerable French interference, and Puerto Rico is a literal colony of the United States. Cuba is undoubtedly, unarguably better off than the first two, and I would posit better off than the last two.

You have openly talked about being wealthy, or at least minimally comfortable, such that you live in a white, rich area of Mexico. Yet you also talk about how Mexico is one of the most dangerous and unequal countries in the world where private capital (legitimate and elicit) has exercised ruinous influence over a hapless government.

Meanwhile, I grew up in abject poverty in a country that is the richest in the world and that has continually subsidized its wealthy class through exploitation of the poor in Central and South America. You may think I am privileged to not live under authoritarianism and that's why I support the Cuban government, but I think you are privileged to have never been under the thumb of economic colonization.

Lastly, your anecdote about the noncommittal nature of right wing regimes (however inaccurate) gets to the very source of the difference between left and right wing authoritarian movements. Right wing puppets like Batista and the Shah high tail it out of dodge relatively quickly and just take a bunch of wealth with them and their forces, as well, lack meaningful conviction. Because they're all just hired guns and serve no higher purpose, real or imagined. You seem comfortable letting the rich Haves of the US to prey on the poor Have-nots of the rest of the world on the basis that that's consistent with your definition of "freedom." I, personally, am more comfortable with a third world country being ran by members of that country, and not by foreign oligarchs, even if those members comprise an imperfect government, and I think that presents a greater opportunity for governance toward the welfare of the people.
 
In the eyes of the provisional government? Absolutely, as anything but a united front would be quickly collapsed.

However, you asking me to justify every individual decision of Castro does not accurately get at the heart of my support for the Cuban regime and people. You could find deeds of every ruler of every country that I would denounce individually.

I merely put a name to someone whose jailing served no purpose for the revolution.

And its specially ironic considering said individual opposed subservience to the USSR and thus bringing the ire of the USA in the first place by not only taking place in the big dick swinging contest of the Soviet-US cold war but also using Cuba as a launch platform for Soviet missiles and thus endangering every single cuban.

Again, all that is needed is a look at how the people of Central America and the Caribbean fared in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. People in Cuba had food, shelter, medical care, and educational access.

Also, have you ever been to Cuba? I have many times and had very little interaction with the government to have me be "treated much better than the actual Cubans." In fact, I'm fairly sure there was a redistributional aspect to the money that I did pay to the state in that it exceeded exchange rate + transactional cost.

Which countries in particular? you talk as if said countries have long experiences with democracy and freedom.

The closest to the Cuba example would be Panama and Costa Rica and those countries are currently doing far better than Cuba.

LOL, are you kidding me?

First off, I didn't say the Cuban regime is "necessary," but rather that it was preferable then and is clearly justifiable now on purely comparative bases.

So you accept that Cuba was just the least worst of a really fucked up region, thats not really much of an argument.

And you are still yet to defend that the interference of US money in places like Honduras and El Salvador has made them distinctly worse off for the citizens than they would have been if they had a strong leftist regime to deter. Likewise, you fail to view Cuba relative to its most relevant comparators in the imperial era: Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, which occupy just about the entire spectrum of colonialiszation. The Dominican Republic is more or less independent but with considerable economic ties to the United States, Haiti is still a pseudo-colony subject to considerable French interference, and Puerto Rico is a literal colony of the United States. Cuba is undoubtedly, unarguably better off than the first two, and I would posit better off than the last two.

Im not defending the US and you would see that i am very critic of US intervention.

That doesnt changes the fact that most functional Latin American democracies right now are the byproduct of a right wing dictatorship ceding power to civilians, meanwhile leftists dictatorship can only be removed by force.

You have openly talked about being wealthy, or at least minimally comfortable, such that you live in a white, rich area of Mexico. Yet you also talk about how Mexico is one of the most dangerous and unequal countries in the world where private capital (legitimate and elicit) has exercised ruinous influence over a hapless government.

Mexico was for most of the XX century an extremely left country.

The reason why Mexico pivoted right was simply because of the 80s economic crisis that left Mexicans with a phobia towards leftist economic policies, plus the left and right paradigm is broken because in Mexico the economic left isnt socially left.

Meanwhile, I grew up in abject poverty in a country that is the richest in the world and that has continually subsidized its wealthy class through exploitation of the poor in Central and South America. You may think I am privileged to not live under authoritarianism and that's why I support the Cuban government, but I think you are privileged to have never been under the thumb of economic colonization.

You dont know what abject poverty is, being poor in the USA is being middle class in Mexico.

Even most Mexicans dont know what abject poverty is, for that you need to drive to rural Mexico or live in a country like Venezuela.

Lastly, your anecdote about the noncommittal nature of right wing regimes (however inaccurate) gets to the very source of the difference between left and right wing authoritarian movements. Right wing puppets like Batista and the Shah high tail it out of dodge relatively quickly and just take a bunch of wealth with them and their forces, as well, lack meaningful conviction. Because they're all just hired guns and serve no higher purpose, real or imagined. You seem comfortable letting the rich Haves of the US to prey on the poor Have-nots of the rest of the world on the basis that that's consistent with your definition of "freedom." I, personally, am more comfortable with a third world country being ran by members of that country, and not by foreign oligarchs, even if those members comprise an imperfect government, and I think that presents a greater opportunity for governance toward the welfare of the people.

You talk as if foreign oligarchs only came from the West.

Do you honestly believe that Venezuela doesnt has to answer to Russian and Chinese oligarchs?

That was one of my points with Huber Matos, i think both the USSR and the USA fucked latin America big time during the cold war, but it seems that those that were fucked by the USA managed to recover faster than those that were fucked by the USSR, for whatever reason you want to think off.
 
Back
Top