Vale to one of the great revolutionary leaders of the 20th century Fidel Castro Ruz. Along with other great revolutionary's like Che Ernesto Guevara de la serna lynch and Camilo Cienfuegos he freed Cuba from the dead hand of the US backed fascist Battista regime.

...and installed himself. 

Interesting times. Will Cuba now remain open now that Trump has become the deranged leader?

hmmm

1 hour ago, bush demon said:

...and installed himself. 

I

 

1 hour ago, bush demon said:

...and installed himself. 

Yes he did BD that is probably because he was the leader at the time. And strong leadership was needed and he set himself up as the prime target for the US reprisal. I suppose he could have hid in the background and let some other figure head be knocked off by US interests.

and remember Cuba was being ruled largely by the Mafia in1959 and they were running their US drug operations with impunity from the FBI out of Havanna. Castro sent them packing to Florida, Nevada and Atlanta where the FBI could deal with them if they chose to. In theory Castro did the US authorities a favour and a chance to deal with the drug trade. I don't think they were that interested. 

I travelled to Cuba in December last year and I found a fascinating society created largely by Fidel. Free medicine and education for all, a monthly basic food ration and allocated housing for all. Litter free streets, no drug lords, no drug addicts that I saw, no terrorists, little obvious crime. I certainly felt safe and I saw little poverty, no shanty towns and a lot of great old cars from the 50's and a lot of crumbling architecture. Cuba has its problems and your average Cuban does it tough, they don't get paid much, but they won't starve and they won't end up in drugs or victims of drug cartels. I have travelled regularly around central and South American countries for the past 5 years and yes there is affluence for the privileged and so called deomocratic freedom in Columbia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Belize, Honduras etc but guess what there are a hell of a lot of people living in squalor or they are just dead from assorted drug lords or from military regimes protecting US interests. 

The amazing thing about Castro is that he could be in power for 50 years in a one party system yet he has not corrupted its initial objectives. In Havana you will not find much evidence of Fidel, no statues, few images just some quotes exhorting hard work and education for the revolution! Che Guevara is the national martyr, Fidel seems to be respected but not necessarily loved. I can't think of any other socialist revolutionary who has not turned himself into a Demigod and destroyed their original vision and their society, think Stalin, Mugabe, Assad, Sadam and the tyrants of North Korea, Romania, East Germany and on and on. 

Somehow Castro remained committed to his revolutionary ideals and has not enriched himself or his family at the expense of the people. I am sure he has plenty of skeletons in the closet after 50 years in power but he really stands out as one the great world figures of the last 60 years. 

 

America's abominable behaviour towards central and south american states does not justify one-party states and elimination of political enemies. Gabriel Garcia Marquez in One Hundred Years of Solitude illustrates the nastiness and brutishness of leaders such as Battista and Castro.

15 hours ago, camillo said:

Vale to one of the great revolutionary leaders of the 20th century Fidel Castro Ruz. Along with other great revolutionary's like Che Ernesto Guevara de la serna lynch and Camilo Cienfuegos he freed Cuba from the dead hand of the US backed fascist Battista regime.

guevara a great revolutionary? LOL

a good head for a t-shirt is about all

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

guevara a great revolutionary? LOL

a good head for a t-shirt is about all

I suppose you've read his book on guerrilla warfare ? 

3 hours ago, camillo said:

I suppose you've read his book on guerrilla warfare ? 

i haven't and not interested in hagiography

good at guerrilla warfare doesn't mean great revolutionary

here's some reading if you can be bothered http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-che-guevara

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i haven't and not interested in hagiography

good at guerrilla warfare doesn't mean great revolutionary

here's some reading if you can be bothered http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-che-guevara

DC I took the time to read your article, quite informative, one journo's opinion and he makes some good points but I don't believe anyone, including myself is making a claim for sainthood for Fidel or Che. Remember the times, the 1950's and 60's the era of revolution against European and US imperialism. Marxist socialism was the political theory of choice at the time to galvanise the masses against the ruling elite. It doesn't mean Socialism is the best way but it was the preferred way to gain independence from Colonialism in the 1960's. 

Think Ho Chi Minh, what is his legacy in Vietnam? How is he regarded by the Vietnamese today? I am sure he is reviled be many refugees here but he is revered I think by the society there today for those peasants that stayed and yes he and his successors have blood on his hands and education camps etc. But what was the alternative? 

Mahatma Ghandi's passive resistance only worked in India because they were dealing with the Brittish who had a high profile, but a diminishing empire to maintain and a conscience and let's face it millions of Indians to deal with. 

 But try passive resistance in South America and see what might have happened in the 1960's. Imperialists have always loved passive peoples. 

For good or bad both Che and Fidel where remarkable men in history. 

 

 

On 26/11/2016 at 8:02 PM, camillo said:

Vale to one of the great revolutionary leaders of the 20th century Fidel Castro Ruz. Along with other great revolutionary's like Che Ernesto Guevara de la serna lynch and Camilo Cienfuegos he freed Cuba from the dead hand of the US backed fascist Battista regime.

 

Vale` Fidel Castro.

 

You have had my appreciation of your efforts to maintain your country out of the hands of the greedy & the powerful, at a time of political extremes & deceit.

On 26/11/2016 at 9:29 PM, Earl Hood said:

...

I travelled to Cuba in December last year and I found a fascinating society created largely by Fidel. Free medicine and education for all, a monthly basic food ration and allocated housing for all. Litter free streets, no drug lords, no drug addicts that I saw, no terrorists, little obvious crime. I certainly felt safe and I saw little poverty, no shanty towns and a lot of great old cars from the 50's and a lot of crumbling architecture. Cuba has its problems and your average Cuban does it tough, they don't get paid much, but they won't starve and they won't end up in drugs or victims of drug cartels. I have travelled regularly around central and South American countries for the past 5 years and yes there is affluence for the privileged and so called deomocratic freedom in Columbia, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Belize, Honduras etc but guess what there are a hell of a lot of people living in squalor or they are just dead from assorted drug lords or from military regimes protecting US interests. 

The amazing thing about Castro is that he could be in power for 50 years in a one party system yet he has not corrupted its initial objectives. In Havana you will not find much evidence of Fidel, no statues, few images just some quotes exhorting hard work and education for the revolution! Che Guevara is the national martyr, Fidel seems to be respected but not necessarily loved. I can't think of any other socialist revolutionary who has not turned himself into a Demigod and destroyed their original vision and their society, think Stalin, Mugabe, Assad, Sadam and the tyrants of North Korea, Romania, East Germany and on and on. 

Somehow Castro remained committed to his revolutionary ideals and has not enriched himself or his family at the expense of the people. I am sure he has plenty of skeletons in the closet after 50 years in power but he really stands out as one the great world figures of the last 60 years. 

 

Thanks for the personal perspectives Earl, these count for much more than the cant and clichés that the ideologically driven throw around at times like this. Latin America is far too complex to unthread with catchphrases.

 

Quote

America's abominable behaviour towards central and south american states does not justify one-party states and elimination of political enemies. Gabriel Garcia Marquez in One Hundred Years of Solitude illustrates the nastiness and brutishness of leaders such as Battista and Castro.

I'm guessing you've forgotten about the role of the Banana Company in that book. And that Garcia Marquez was a personal friend of Castro for decades.

But no, America's tyrannies don't justify the tyranny of others. They may help to explain, though, but that's a different matter. In that, I'm not sure that attempting to distance Batista from 'America's abominable behaviour' helps very much since part of that behaviour involved propping his dictatorship up for years.

On 11/27/2016 at 9:05 PM, Earl Hood said:

DC I took the time to read your article, quite informative, one journo's opinion and he makes some good points but I don't believe anyone, including myself is making a claim for sainthood for Fidel or Che. Remember the times, the 1950's and 60's the era of revolution against European and US imperialism. Marxist socialism was the political theory of choice at the time to galvanise the masses against the ruling elite. It doesn't mean Socialism is the best way but it was the preferred way to gain independence from Colonialism in the 1960's. 

Think Ho Chi Minh, what is his legacy in Vietnam? How is he regarded by the Vietnamese today? I am sure he is reviled be many refugees here but he is revered I think by the society there today for those peasants that stayed and yes he and his successors have blood on his hands and education camps etc. But what was the alternative? 

Mahatma Ghandi's passive resistance only worked in India because they were dealing with the Brittish who had a high profile, but a diminishing empire to maintain and a conscience and let's face it millions of Indians to deal with. 

 But try passive resistance in South America and see what might have happened in the 1960's. Imperialists have always loved passive peoples. 

For good or bad both Che and Fidel where remarkable men in history. 

 

 

How times have changed. The President elect and ruler of the free world has galvanised his masses by rebelling against a politically correct world pushed by marxists socialism, the elites and a willing media who are predominantly elites and marxists socialists. Political overreach is always countered by an opposite extreme.

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

How times have changed. The President elect and ruler of the free world has galvanised his masses by rebelling against a politically correct world pushed by marxists socialism, the elites and a willing media who are predominantly elites and marxists socialists. 

It's a shame the narrative doesn't match the reality wrecker. 

After railing against the likes of Goldman Sachs and George Soros - and hedge fund managers - during the campaign, Trump's Secretary for Commerce is a former Goldman Sachs banker who worked as a hedge fund manager for George Soros. 

The rest of the Cabinet positions are slowly being filled by the usual types from inside the beltways of Washington and Wall St., making a mockery of the pledge to drain the swamp. 

And now, after 12 months of 'crooked corrupt Clinton' calls (some of it justified I might add), we learn that David Patreous could get the nod for Sec of State - a man who revealed classified material to his mistress and who will actually have to notify his probation officer if he gets the job! 

It'd be funny if it wasn't all so farcical. 

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the Trump presidency, but I'm sceptical of populist politics, and it remains to be seen whether he can lift his vision from the minutiae and trivia about which he seems to obsess. 

Back on topic, we should never forget that Castro created a free, thriving, democratic and wealthy Latin American community. 

In Miami. 

On 1 December 2016 at 4:40 PM, Wrecker45 said:

How times have changed. The President elect and ruler of the free world has galvanised his masses by rebelling against a politically correct world pushed by marxists socialism, the elites and a willing media who are predominantly elites and marxists socialists. Political overreach is always countered by an opposite extreme.

Fascism? 

On 11/27/2016 at 3:59 PM, daisycutter said:

i haven't and not interested in hagiography

good at guerrilla warfare doesn't mean great revolutionary

here's some reading if you can be bothered http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-che-guevara

Yes you're like most people that don't do anything, you sit around behind your computer and criticise people that have. I read the article and when I start believing an american journalist that has worked for the new york times, the wall street journal etc. etc, I will know i've given up on any critical thinking attributes I may have assumed I had.

On 01/12/2016 at 8:41 PM, Grapeviney said:

It's a shame the narrative doesn't match the reality wrecker. 

After railing against the likes of Goldman Sachs and George Soros - and hedge fund managers - during the campaign, Trump's Secretary for Commerce is a former Goldman Sachs banker who worked as a hedge fund manager for George Soros. 

The rest of the Cabinet positions are slowly being filled by the usual types from inside the beltways of Washington and Wall St., making a mockery of the pledge to drain the swamp. 

And now, after 12 months of 'crooked corrupt Clinton' calls (some of it justified I might add), we learn that David Patreous could get the nod for Sec of State - a man who revealed classified material to his mistress and who will actually have to notify his probation officer if he gets the job! 

It'd be funny if it wasn't all so farcical. 

I'm trying to keep an open mind about the Trump presidency, but I'm sceptical of populist politics, and it remains to be seen whether he can lift his vision from the minutiae and trivia about which he seems to obsess. 

Back on topic, we should never forget that Castro created a free, thriving, democratic and wealthy Latin American community. 

In Miami. 

I was allowing myself an "ugghhhh", at yet another anti Trump post, but the final comment was worth reading the entire post for.

 

Gold.

If Che Guevara was evil what does that make Kissinger who said about Chile:

"We can't just let an entire country go communist just because of the irresponsibility of it's people".

(After a democratic election won by communists).

We must judge Fidel and Guevara in these historical terms and not mouth platitudes about freedom when the only alternative was the freedom to be American slaves.

 

Interesting posts

Pleasure to read many of the well thought out theses.

As some have said the world cannot be reduced to a slogan. What Fidel did back in the late 50's was probably justifiable but at some stage over the next 50 years the ideal was lost.

I always have a bit of a chuckle about Guantanamo and the American excesses at that place given their complaints about the lack of human rights in Cuba.

Would like to think that Cuba can find its way without the need to become another Caribbean Las Vegas pandering to middle class America. Unfortunately with its rural based economy I do not hold out much hope.

6 hours ago, camillo said:

Yes you're like most people that don't do anything, you sit around behind your computer and criticise people that have. I read the article and when I start believing an american journalist that has worked for the new york times, the wall street journal etc. etc, I will know i've given up on any critical thinking attributes I may have assumed I had.

no need to get personal. i'm sure you can do better than that

my point re guevara was that he was more interested in guerrilla warfare than genuine revolutionary activities and responsibilities. he preferred to cover himself in blood rather than genuine revolution and just became a constant mercenary albeit a marxist mercenary.

he may have been a poster boy to intellectual socialist fan-boys but hardly a "great" revolutionary as you claimed. imho opinion of course. the article i referenced was just one i came across and i wasn't necessarily endorsing all he said, it was just to reference a different perspective . there are many other che-critical articles out there.

no probs with castro being described as a great revolutionary, though ultimately he failed

On 12/3/2016 at 10:16 AM, camillo said:

Yes you're like most people that don't do anything, you sit around behind your computer and criticise people that have. I read the article and when I start believing an american journalist that has worked for the new york times, the wall street journal etc. etc, I will know i've given up on any critical thinking attributes I may have assumed I had.

Hahahahahaha what race does the journalist have to be for you to start believing? And what previous employers are acceptable?

When I read an article I tend to concentrate on the content...

 

 

On 1 December 2016 at 9:41 PM, Grapeviney said:

Back on topic, we should never forget that Castro created a free, thriving, democratic and wealthy Latin American community. 

In Miami. 

Good point GV and perhaps this was a unique case of win win for Cubans at the time. Those Cubans who had aligned their fortunes with the Batista regime left for Miami pronto after Batista took off with the central banks millions, leaving the treasury empty. The descendants of the first refugees have carved out a good life in Florida, and good luck to them but by leaving they maybe have allowed the other 80% of the Cuban population to live their lives in a socialist system they are reasonably happy to live with. Maybe they were happy with that life. They certainly have shown tremendous remorse and love for Fidel over the past week. But I am sure we will be told all that is coersed by the communists. 

It is interesting to me at least that I now realise that Capitlists can't handle any other economic system. They act no differently than a 15th century missionary who is hell bent on saving souls even if that meant death for unbelievers. 

So there can be only be one true  belief system, free market Capitalism and if you disagree you must be destroyed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Earl Hood said:

 

Good point GV and perhaps this was a unique case of win win for Cubans at the time. Those Cubans who had aligned their fortunes with the Batista regime left for Miami pronto after Batista took off with the central banks millions, leaving the treasury empty. The descendants of the first refugees have carved out a good life in Florida, and good luck to them but by leaving they maybe have allowed the other 80% of the Cuban population to live their lives in a socialist system they are reasonably happy to live with. Maybe they were happy with that life. They certainly have shown tremendous remorse and love for Fidel over the past week. But I am sure we will be told all that is coersed by the communists. 

It is interesting to me at least that I now realise that Capitlists can't handle any other economic system. They act no differently than a 15th century missionary who is hell bent on saving souls even if that meant death for unbelievers. 

So there can be only be one true  belief system, free market Capitalism and if you disagree you must be destroyed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quite the opposite really. I hope socialism does well somewhere and all the lefties can unite in one spot and spend their days protesting and arguing about who is the most persecuted. 

Unfortunately, that is a pipe dream and socilalism has failed everywhere. Capatilism will always rule and I'll live the rest of my life listening to lefties complaining about it.

9 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Quite the opposite really. I hope socialism does well somewhere and all the lefties can unite in one spot and spend their days protesting and arguing about who is the most persecuted. 

Unfortunately, that is a pipe dream and socilalism has failed everywhere. Capatilism will always rule and I'll live the rest of my life listening to lefties complaining about it.

Personally I think the problem with Socialism is essentially the same as the problem with Capitalism.

Inevitably you end up with corrupt people in positions of power.

No political or economic system will be infallible or perfect because there are always human being involved, and we tend to suck in general at governing ourselves.

Personally I like and dislike aspects of both Socialism and Capitalism. I like the notion that one should be entitled to benefit from their own work, and build personal wealth based on individual talent or intelligence. I also subscribe to the idea of a welfare state, where those who cannot do so are given a safety net. Disabled people are taken care of, children can be reliably educated by a state-run non-partisan education system. Honestly though, no political party is really campaigning for someone who tries to hold those two values. 10 years ago, it didn't seem like they were in conflict, now they are. Each side is constantly being pushed further and further to the left or right, and in my opinion it's to the detriment of us all.

3 hours ago, Choke said:

Personally I think the problem with Socialism is essentially the same as the problem with Capitalism.

Inevitably you end up with corrupt people in positions of power.

 

couldn't agree more - no matter what the system or the label we chose for it - power corrupts and draws people in like magnets