RIP Fidel Castro August 13, 1926 – November 25, 2016

[littlebabyjesus]

That wasn't my experience in Cuba. I didn't detect a strong urge in people to disparage the government. I wasn't there long enough to tell whether the reason for that was because people supported the government; or because of the presence of many undercover police, and the presence of neighborhood-level political groups keeping an eye on things. Usually, anti-government denunciations to strangers, aren't something that citizens living under authoritarian regimes, are eager to engage in.

Don't want to be rude. But if you don't speak Spanish your opinion is of limited value.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Don't want to be rude. But if you don't speak Spanish your opinion is of limited value.

I suspect that most of the contributors to this thread don't speak Spanish. I also suspect that the vast majority of contributors to this thread have never set foot in Cuba.

 

[Rimbaud]

The idea that it existed before the revolution and so had to extend into the policy of the post revolutionary state. That's what castro offered and what you gave us. This needs to be treated with contempt.

Look, I'm not a cheerleader for Castro, and I'm absolutely not a Marxist-Leninist either. I've been living in a Marxist-Leninist state for about 5 years and I'm under absolutely no illusions about the bullshit that comes with it, I've had plenty of my own run ins with Party informers etc. My point is that to judge whether Castro was overall good or bad you have to compare Cuba to analogous non-revolutionary countries and to pre-revolutionary Cuba. In terms of gay rights, Cuba today compares well to most other central American countries, and I doubt it was any worse prior to 1979. In fact Cuba legalised homosexuality earlier than most countries in the region. The worst part of Castro's legacy is undoubtedly the repressive Marxist-Leninist state that he established

I'm not trying to whitewash what happened, or say that homosexuals were't repressed, but you can't judge Castro's legacy based on things which weren't new. The labour camps you can judge him on, fair enough, but homosexuals weren't specifically targeted according to legislation introduced by Castro and constituted a very small proportion of those who were sent to the camps. If you have any evidence that the targeting of homosexuals in raids was specifically ordered by Castro and not a by-product of homophobia in the police/military and their status of anti-social elements which was inherited from pre-revolutionary Cuba, then point me to it and I'll concede your point.

 

[Rimbaud]

Don't view history like this then. No one I know does. Don't hide or whitewash the bad things. Connect the two if you can. Can you?

As far as I can tell, you do view history like this, because you're painting Castro as an irredeemable villain and anyone who doesn't agree with you as just as bad.

What were the positive things about the Cuban revolution? How do they compare to the negative things? Would Cuba today be worse or better if the revolution had never happened?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The trains always ran on time.

 

[charlie mowbray]

"I suspect that most of the contributors to this thread don't speak Russian. I also suspect that the vast majority of contributors to this thread have never set foot in Stalin's Russia."

 

[butchersapron]

As far as I can tell, you do view history like this, because you're painting Castro as an irredeemable villain and anyone who doesn't agree with you as just as bad.

What were the positive things about the Cuban revolution? How do they compare to the negative things? Would Cuba today be worse or better if the revolution had never happened?

Castro is an irredeemable villain and people who seek to actively cover up for the actions he took are twats. The period and the context help see why he was an authoritarian prick. They don't , or shouldn't, lead to you or others then justifying his actions.

 

[Sasaferrato]

They are currently minting 1,500,000,000 of the new 12-sided £1 coins with the Queen's head and "2017" on them. I bet they'd be well pissed off if they had to do a bunch with Charles and then scrabble about to find a suitable portrait of William.

Edward VIII stamps were produced, and used after the abdication. That year 1936, was the year of the three kings. There are covers extant franked with the stamps of the three monarchs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I meet a lot of South Americans in London. They regard Che and Fidel as heroes. Might not go down well here but that its how a lot of them see them. Standing up to the "Yanquis" and the rich who collude with US. Of course other Latin Americans see it otherwise. Politics there is really divided.

My Spanish flatmate was upset that Fidel ( Fidels family came from Spain) has died. She has been to Cuba and loves it. My Argentinian friend is also mourning the loss of Fidel.

These are ordinary people not full on political activists.

For all its faults Fidel/ Che and the Cuban revolution meant a lot to many people.

Is it Fidel/Che that people love, or is what they love a set of ideas about the romanticism of revolutionary action, that Fidel and Che happen to symbolise to some people? If you divorce that set of ideas from the person/people that are thought to embody them, what are you left with, but political strongmen using the same tactics and strategies as their predecessors the world over?

I understand what you're communicating regarding anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, but they're forces that - while they may have shaped Castro and Guevara - pre-existed the revolution, and were being striven against for a century prior to the rise of the Cuban revolution.

 

[Raheem]

Castro is an irredeemable villain and people who seek to actively cover up for the actions he took are twats. The period and the context help see why he was an authoritarian prick. They don't , or shouldn't, lead to you or others then justifying his actions.

There's a difference between "covering up" and wanting to view things in context. After all, Castro is dead and it doesn't matter a great deal whether he had terrible flatulence or if he was good fun to play cards with. Really, the question is by what standards you judge post-revolutionary Cuba by. It doesn't really make sense for that to be anything other than comparative standards.

 

[butchersapron]

There's a difference between "covering up" and wanting to view things in context. After all, Castro is dead and it doesn't matter a great deal whether he had terrible flatulence or if he was good fun to play cards with. Really, the question is by what standards you judge post-revolutionary Cuba by. It doesn't really make sense for that to be anything other than comparative standards.

Indeed. Do you think the posts that i've been replying to - including yours - started from this position of neutral (as far as can be achieved anyway) open context setting inquiry rather than challenging what is - or should be on an informed discussion - standard history? I don't. And so dealing with the myths, the state PR, separating it from the actual context and chronology is a pre-requisite before what you say you'd like to see can happen.

 

[Brainaddict]

I meet a lot of South Americans in London. They regard Che and Fidel as heroes. Might not go down well here but that its how a lot of them see them. Standing up to the "Yanquis" and the rich who collude with US. Of course other Latin Americans see it otherwise. Politics there is really divided.

My Spanish flatmate was upset that Fidel ( Fidels family came from Spain) has died. She has been to Cuba and loves it. My Argentinian friend is also mourning the loss of Fidel.

These are ordinary people not full on political activists.

For all its faults Fidel/ Che and the Cuban revolution meant a lot to many people.

As I've already referred to in this thread, there is a very problematic and simplistic 'anti-imperialist' stance that permeates the Latin American left. You can see it clearly in the work of Eduardo Galleano, who I don't rate very highly because of this. We see the remains of a similar simplistic anti-imperialist stance in the UK when people feel they have to support Assad because he's fighting the good fight against the West.

There is a failure to come to terms with the history of colonialism that founded Latin American states. I think there are cultural reasons why Latin America has been so dogged by authoritarian regimes (of the left and right), that go well beyond the problem of US intervention. We have to think about the fact that Spain, a country that went on to develop home-grown fascism (and in the case of Argentina, Italy), provided much of the basis for Latin American urban culture (rural areas can be more mixed, with more indigenous or sometimes African influence), and also the fact that to colonise is a fundamentally authoritarian and violent mode of governing. This is the history of the Latin American states. It's very problematic and complex. But the vast majority of the left there, ranging from liberal left to Marxist-Leninists, doesn't talk about this. They talk about how Europe and the US have oppressed little old them, and anyone who resists Europe/US is a hero. There is a partial truth in the narrative of US intervention curtailing democracy of course, but it is so incomplete it becomes dishonest.

Perhaps it seems strange for an outsider like me to feel I can challenge this, but I do think it needs to be challenged. Just as I might be willing to judge conservative Islam for its treatment of women, I'm prepared to judge parts of Spanish and Spanish-derived culture for its love of (violent) paternalism.

 

[Brainaddict]

I've moved this point to a different post as it's another topic:
As for those who see Castro's healthcare advances as a reason to cheer for him, would you judge capitalism (and universal healthcare in some form across most of Western Europe) by the same standard? If not, why not?

You can even have this discussion about ending extreme poverty. Here's an article about the achievements of China under state-directed capitalism:
China has almost wiped out urban poverty. Now it must tackle inequality

Yet-to-be-released data shows that China has all but eradicated urban poverty. For a country with huge numbers of poor people streaming into its cities, many of whom living initially in conditions of abject misery, this is an extraordinary success.

[...]

China has lifted more people out of poverty than anywhere else in the world: its per capita income in increased fivefold between 1990 and 2000, from $200 to $1,000. Between 2000 and 2010, per capita income also rose by the same rate, from $1,000 to $5,000, moving China into the ranks of middle-income countries. Between 1990 and 2005, China’s progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and is the reason why the world reached the UN millennium development goal of halving extreme poverty. This incredible success was delivered by a combination of a rapidly expanding labour market, driven by a protracted period of economic growth, and a series of government transfers such as the above urban subsidy, and the introduction of a rural pension.

So do we embrace Chinese capitalism as the answer? It has saved far more people from poverty than Castro.

 

[chilango]

I suspect that most of the contributors to this thread don't speak Spanish. I also suspect that the vast majority of contributors to this thread have never set foot in Cuba.

Pah. I've been detained by the Cuban military. Do I win the thread?

 

[Brainaddict]

Pah. I've been detained by the Cuban military. Do I win the thread?

Depends what your views on Castro are

 

[Jay Park]

I've moved this point to a different post as it's another topic:
As for those who see Castro's healthcare advances as a reason to cheer for him, would you judge capitalism (and universal healthcare in some form across most of Western Europe) by the same standard? If not, why not?

You can even have this discussion about ending extreme poverty. Here's an article about the achievements of China under state-directed capitalism:
China has almost wiped out urban poverty. Now it must tackle inequality



So do we embrace Chinese capitalism as the answer? It has saved far more people from poverty than Castro.

Isn't Chinese capitalism basically Keynesian economics, and therefore embraced by many.

 

[Sirena]

 

[Raheem]

Indeed. Do you think the posts that i've been replying to - including yours - started from this position of neutral (as far as can be achieved anyway) open context setting inquiry rather than challenging what is - or should be on an informed discussion - standard history? I don't. And so dealing with the myths, the state PR, separating it from the actual context and chronology is a pre-requisite before what you say you'd like to see can happen.

I can only speak for my own posts, but I think they have at least been less shrill than yours. And, if I picked up a book that began and ended with "Fidel Castro killed and imprisoned anyone who didn't agree with him, such as gays and communists", I'm not sure "good standard history" is what I would think.

 

[Pickman's model]

.

 

[chilango]

Depends what your views on Castro are

Well, he was on "medical leave" when I found myself hauled into the little room with ostentatiously displayed pliers, pincers and other pretty unpleasant looking "aids to discussion" so....

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, he was on "medical leave" when I found myself hauled into the little room with ostentatiously displayed pliers, pincers and other pretty unpleasant looking "aids to discussion" so....

So what did you chat about?

 

[J Ed]

Well, he was on "medical leave" when I found myself hauled into the little room with ostentatiously displayed pliers, pincers and other pretty unpleasant looking "aids to discussion" so....

You can't leave it there

cuéntanos más!

 

[chilango]

So what did you chat about?

Cigars. Ultimately.

 

[chilango]

You can't leave it there

cuéntanos más!

That's kinda what they were saying as they made knowing glances towards the implements.

 

[spliff]

That feels so good, thank you

 

[Gramsci]

As I've already referred to in this thread, there is a very problematic and simplistic 'anti-imperialist' stance that permeates the Latin American left. You can see it clearly in the work of Eduardo Galleano, who I don't rate very highly because of this. We see the remains of a similar simplistic anti-imperialist stance in the UK when people feel they have to support Assad because he's fighting the good fight against the West.

There is a failure to come to terms with the history of colonialism that founded Latin American states. I think there are cultural reasons why Latin America has been so dogged by authoritarian regimes (of the left and right), that go well beyond the problem of US intervention. We have to think about the fact that Spain, a country that went on to develop home-grown fascism (and in the case of Argentina, Italy), provided much of the basis for Latin American urban culture (rural areas can be more mixed, with more indigenous or sometimes African influence), and also the fact that to colonise is a fundamentally authoritarian and violent mode of governing. This is the history of the Latin American states. It's very problematic and complex. But the vast majority of the left there, ranging from liberal left to Marxist-Leninists, doesn't talk about this. They talk about how Europe and the US have oppressed little old them, and anyone who resists Europe/US is a hero. There is a partial truth in the narrative of US intervention curtailing democracy of course, but it is so incomplete it becomes dishonest.

Perhaps it seems strange for an outsider like me to feel I can challenge this, but I do think it needs to be challenged. Just as I might be willing to judge conservative Islam for its treatment of women, I'm prepared to judge parts of Spanish and Spanish-derived culture for its love of (violent) paternalism.

My Argentinian friend once said to me the Europeans don’t really understand Argentina She understands that in Argentina that the indigenous people were treated very badly. ( She is part indigenous). She is a Peronist- as most of the people in her part of Buenos Aires are.

I have almost finished reading Mario Vargos Llosa novel "The War at the End of the World". Which does cover the issues of authoritarian and violent modes of governing. Its a bleak look at South America using an actual historical event. Particularly relevant to what ur talking about. Critical of simplistic anti imperialism for example.

Read recently Bolanos novel 2666 which is about the violence in South American society (and in Europe). Particularly violence against women.

So I would say its (more recent) South American writers who are taking a critical approach and are dealing with the important issues you raise in your post.

I have not read "Open Veins of South America"- which my South American friends have recommended to me.

 

[J Ed]

Llosa is a neoliberal fanatic.

 

[Sirena]

 

[Gramsci]

Llosa is a neoliberal fanatic.

I didnt get that from reading "The War at the End of the World". He portrays the poor peoples community with great deal of sympathy. They set up a society that worked. Where everything was held in common and all provided for.

The same goes for the Brazilian army. Many of whom really believe they have to put down the rebellion in order to build a new progressive Brazil.

The novel does not provide provide any clear cut answers.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I can only speak for my own posts, but I think they have at least been less shrill than yours. And, if I picked up a book that began and ended with "Fidel Castro killed and imprisoned anyone who didn't agree with him, such as gays and communists", I'm not sure "good standard history" is what I would think.

You're a dick btw.