Castro has passed on

[Dr. Keith]

Because of course the US now realises revolutions are bad things. I immediately expect you to be arguing for a move to become part of the the loyalist state of Canada and recognising Queen Elizabeth as your rightful head of state and deposing the that revolutionary autocrat Trump!

That's not so unpalatable a thought it once was.

 

[Craig B]

Further emphasis. Read "you" as the generic "one".

OK, but it was very poorly expressed.

The French Revolution, by the way, was not a "failure". Unless there's some Louis the Umpteenth hiding in Versailles, out of sight of the tourists, and secretly ruling the country.

And if the American Revolution succeeded, it was largely because France came along and helped out. The war ended with this polite gesture from the French at Yorktown.

Brigadier General Charles O'Hara presented the sword of surrender to Rochambeau. Rochambeau shook his head and pointed to Washington.​

A courteous Monsieur, indeed.

 

[Segnosaur]

Think of the best hospital possible. Suppose you have a country with only that hospital, which is only accessible to the family of the ruler, nobody else hence having any access to any sort of healthcare. Would you consider that country to have "better quality health care" than a country with average hospitals accessible to all?

Your analogy/hypothetical situation makes absolutely no sense, since it doesn't really reflect what is happening in the Western or Cuban health care systems.

I assume your hypothetical hospital "only accessible to the rulers" is an attack on the U.S., but it ignores the fact that the vast majority of people are covered by health care insurance, and the ones that aren't still can't be turned away in an emergency. Granted, wealthier people do get better access, but even poor people have avenues for treatment.

And your country with "average hospitals accessible to all" is supposedly the Cuban system... the problem is, Cubans don't have equal access to all hospitals. The best medical care is directed at either the ruling class, or foreigners. The remaining cubans are left with the scraps, which yes, are distributed evenly, but the are still that. Scraps.

Besides, interesting how this discussion has gone from "hospitals are literally falling apart with a single dirty toilet each" to "commie dictatorships' numbers should not be trusted" to "maybe infant mortality rate is not a good measure of quality of health care after all".

Not sure why that's interesting. Threads always have a certain amount of drift. The fact that most of the latest discussions involve infant mortality doesn't also mean that we also aren't arguing "dictaotrship's numbers shouldn't be trusted". We can't bring up every argument in every post.

In fact, all of those are interconnected. The reason why we can't trust the numbers from Cuba is because infant mortality figures may have been artificially manipulated.

From: http://abcnews.go.com/Exclusiva/story?id=3568278&page=1
Although Cuba claims to have low infant mortality rates, doctors have said the data is misleading because when there might be indications of problems with the fetus, there is a widespread practice of forced abortions. ...Yanet Sanchez, a Cuban exile, said she was simply told to submit to an abortion. "They told me I should end the pregnancy," said Sanchez....Other doctors have said that if a child dies a few hours after birth, they don't count it as ever having lived, which ultimately makes infant mortality in Cuba look better than that of the United States.

First-person-narrative unverifiable claims. Yes, we know, and the hospitals are literally falling apart as well. One wonders how they manage all those forced abortions without even having lining on the hospital beds.

I see... So, let me get this straight... You are rejecting statements by both a professor who lived in the country for months and would have seen dozens/hundreds of cases, AND you're ignoring a first person account because its "first person narrative".

I suspect you are so deaf to the facts that nothing short of a video tape of Fidel personally holding the woman down while Raoul performs the abortion, filmed by Chavez would be considered evidence by you. (But then, you'd probably complain that it wasn't valid evidence because the resolution on the tape wasn't high definition.)

Then why not provide such evidence?

I've provided plenty of evidence. You just prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "La la la ! Castro made Cuba a Utopia!"

I couldn't care less about your average. Western supremacy is simply Western supremacy, the notion that your Western "nations" are the norm against which everything else must be measured and valued. It is quite fragile as well, seeing the need to start propagandizing its superiority in every discussion on something which isn't Western.

Yes, I'm holding western culture up as an ideal standard by which other countries should be measured. Why?

- Because I attach a certain amount of importance to freedom of speech, which is much stronger in western countries than in Cuba

- Because I think its wrong to have thousands of people killed because they were in opposition to the leader

- Because non-free countries tend to have more problems with things like malnutrition/starvation than western countries

Hey, if you want to run around and claim that freedom of speech is irrelevant, and its no big deal of people are jailed and/or die for no other reason than they opposed the leader, then you have that right. I think most people here would look at that opinion and think you're nuts.

Yet still overriding consent for medical intervention, such as procedures with the freedom gang's magic wellness-sticks.

Seriously? That's your go-to argument? You get totally debunked, so your only course of action is to post some totally irrelevant picture that, in your mind somehow justifies Castro killing thousands of people just because some police officer/medic was pictured holding a baton.

Seriously, get a clue... some policeman holding a baton during a potentially violent protest is nowhere near as serious as Castro having thousands of people jailed and /or executed just because they want more freedom. No political system is perfect, but the situation in Cuba is far far worse when compared to a cop holding a baton.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, but it was very poorly expressed.

That can happen.

The French Revolution, by the way, was not a "failure".

I suppose that depends on what your metric is. The metric of interest to me is whether it improves things for the country. I would argue that it didn't.

 

[Giz]

OK, but it was very poorly expressed.

The French Revolution, by the way, was not a "failure". Unless there's some Louis the Umpteenth hiding in Versailles, out of sight of the tourists, and secretly ruling the country.

By that logic, the Weimar Republic was not a "failure". Sure the French Revolution/ Weimar ended with a dictatorship and massive war but it's not like there's an authoritarian government in either country currently!

 

[Craig B]

That can happen.



I suppose that depends on what your metric is. The metric of interest to me is whether it improves things for the country. I would argue that it didn't.

You would argue that? You will have a hard task. It's a matter for evidence, not rhetoric. Tell me an absolutist feudal system is better for a country than a market based representative parliamentary system if you want, but few will agree. And avoid the word "metric" in this context, I suggest; for one of the revolution's most resounding successes goes by that name.

 

[Craig B]

By that logic, the Weimar Republic was not a "failure". Sure the French Revolution/ Weimar ended with a dictatorship and massive war but it's not like there's an authoritarian government in either country currently!

The Weimar Republic ended when Hitler overthrew it. Subsequent German Republics have gone under different names.

But the French Revolution didn't end with Napoleon or Louis XVIII or whoever. It continually erupted again, in 1830, 1848, 1870, until feudalism and absolutism had been destroyed and replaced by a market economy and a representative parliament. And these things France now possesses, not a feudal economy and an absolute monarch.

To be sure, the Weimar Republic (under that name) is no more. But what is Germany now, if not a parliamentary republic? So German federalism has seen off the tyrannies and Empires that have contended against it since 1848.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Weimar Republic ended when Hitler overthrew it. Subsequent German Republics have gone under different names.

But the French Revolution didn't end with Napoleon or Louis XVIII or whoever. It continually erupted again, in 1830, 1848, 1870, until feudalism and absolutism had been destroyed and replaced by a market economy and a representative parliament.

Those are not the French Revolution. The term "French Revolution" is used to describe the 1789-1799 period.

But this isn't really about the French Revolution. The results of communist revolutions are really the point in this thread. Do you agree that communist revolutions don't make things better? Do you agree that the Cuban revolution did not in sum make things better?

 

[caveman1917]

I've provided plenty of evidence.

In other words, it is relevant for testing whether there's some consistent reasoning behind that "women treated like cattle during part of their pregnancy" stuff, or if it's just another variation on essentially this:

The latter it is then.

 

[Craig B]

Those are not the French Revolution. The term "French Revolution" is used to describe the 1789-1799 period.

But this isn't really about the French Revolution. The results of communist revolutions are really the point in this thread. Do you agree that communist revolutions don't make things better? Do you agree that the Cuban revolution did not in sum make things better?

I don't know, because I don't know what would have happened otherwise. Cuba was better in the sixties than some other countries in the area, so I really don't know. But you have redefined the OP quite illegitimately, and I will not abet this derailment.

We are discussing Castro. Did he become authoritarian after the revolution, and did that cause damage to the Cuban economy, society and the personal wellbeing of the Cuban people; damage which might have been avoided if Castro had behaved otherwise? Yes, certainly.

 

[Craig B]

Those are not the French Revolution. The term "French Revolution" is used to describe the 1789-1799 period.

Why don't you give us the whole of the paragraph on the French Revolution^WP which I think you have used as source?

The French Revolution was a period of far-reaching social and political upheaval in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799, and was partially carried forward by Napoleon during the later expansion of the French Empire. The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic, experienced violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon that rapidly brought many of its principles to Western Europe and beyond. Inspired by liberal and radical ideas, the Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and liberal democracies.​

We may see from this, that though we can (at a pinch) define the revolution in terms of the short period, we can't use solely the events of that period to determine the significance of its outcome. And even if we could: where is Louis the Umpteenth?

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

The Ancient Regime was rotten to the core.
It either needed to reform or be destroyed.

It refused to reform.

 

[Craig B]

The Ancient Regime was rotten to the core.
It either needed to reform or be destroyed.

It refused to reform.

Interestingly, its last significant political act was to convene the country's legislative assembly, to deal with a financial crisis; it had not been permitted to assemble for a hundred and seventy years. Once in being, it declared itself to be the representative of the French nation, and took power. The other power structures: the Church, the feudal nobility and the monarchy, were destroyed or demoted.

Tell me if these parliamentary principles have generally succeeded or not. They have. Some of these ideas, the French reformers got from the USA. That source of inspiration for important principles conducive to social progress has dried up, I fear.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Tell me if these parliamentary principles have generally succeeded or not.

Oh, I agree with you.

That source of inspiration for important principles conducive to social progress has dried up, I fear.

I just think it is odd that after more then two centuries old-fashioned revolutionary values like freedom, equality, and solidarity are still considered revolutionary.

 

[Craig B]

Oh, I agree with you.


I just think it is odd that after more then two centuries old-fashioned revolutionary values like freedom, equality, and solidarity are still considered revolutionary.

Yes, people pay lip service to liberty, often hypocritically, but equality and fraternity are not principles expounded easily by Trump or his followers.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know, because I don't know what would have happened otherwise. Cuba was better in the sixties than some other countries in the area

Cube before the revolution was better than ALL the other countries in the area (not including the US or Canada), and better than quite a few European countries as well. And while alternate histories can never be known with precision, we can make some reasonable predictions based on similar events elsewhere. Considering how much better Chile fared with Pinochet compared to Cuba with Castro, it's a very safe bet that things would be better if Castro's revolution had failed.

But you have redefined the OP quite illegitimately, and I will not abet this derailment.

Threads drift. Talking about whether or not Castro made things better or worse is well within the bounds of normal thread drift. And if you really cared about thread drift, you wouldn't have followed up this post with one about the French Revolution.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Ancient Regime was rotten to the core.
It either needed to reform or be destroyed.

It refused to reform.

And so replacing it with a regime that was rotten to the core and far more bloodthirsty was a good idea?

Yeah, no.

 

[Craig B]

Cube before the revolution was better than ALL the other countries in the area (not including the US or Canada), and better than quite a few European countries as well. And while alternate histories can never be known with precision, we can make some reasonable predictions based on similar events elsewhere. Considering how much better Chile fared with Pinochet compared to Cuba with Castro, it's a very safe bet that things would be better if Castro's revolution had failed.

Threads drift. Talking about whether or not Castro made things better or worse is well within the bounds of normal thread drift. And if you really cared about thread drift, you wouldn't have followed up this post with one about the French Revolution.

What words did I put after the passage ending ... "abet this derailment"? You haven't mentioned them. Castro disposed of a dictator. You praise Pinochet who caused the death of an elected head of government.

You see why "liberals" think people of your frame of mind are not being entirely honest all the time, when they claim to oppose undemocratic leaders, as I do oppose Castro, and have said so, in terms which you have chosen to ignore. The right doesn't care about democracy.

If corporate interests are served by bumping off an elected politician, that's what it supports.

 

[caveman1917]

You see why "liberals" think people of your frame of mind are not being entirely honest all the time, when they claim to oppose undemocratic leaders, as I do oppose Castro, and have said so, in terms which you have chosen to ignore. The right doesn't care about democracy.

If corporate interests are served by bumping off an elected politician, that's what it supports.

The frame of mind of liberals isn't entirely honest all the time either, for exactly the same reasons.

 

[Craig B]

The frame of mind of liberals isn't entirely honest all the time either, for exactly the same reasons.

Liberals kill elected politicians to serve corporate interests? Wow! Not over here they don't. Well, not very often anyway.