Castro has passed on

[caveman1917]

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

More regarding the "don't care about democracy" and "serve corporate interests" than the literal "kill elected politicians" anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

Castro disposed of a dictator.

And murdered countless others, including harmless civilians, becoming a dictator far more violent and oppressive than the one he overthrew.

You praise Pinochet

No I didn't. Saying Pinochet wasn't as bad as Castro is not praise.

You see why "liberals" think people of your frame of mind are not being entirely honest all the time

You say that, after claiming I praised Pinochet?

The right doesn't care about democracy.

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

Don't lecture me about honesty when you're presenting straw men like this. You think I'm ignoring parts of what you said, but you're simply inventing things for me out of whole cloth.

 

[Craig B]

And murdered countless others, including harmless civilians, becoming a dictator far more violent and oppressive than the one he overthrew.



No I didn't. Saying Pinochet wasn't as bad as Castro is not praise.



You say that, after claiming I praised Pinochet?



Don't lecture me about honesty when you're presenting straw men like this. You think I'm ignoring parts of what you said, but you're simply inventing things for me out of whole cloth.

Your words were not, Pinochet was not as bad as Castro. They were

Considering how much better Chile fared with Pinochet ...​

which is a positive statement that Pinochet was good. But if you now want to tell me he that in fact you believe was a deplorable tyrant, do it, and I will acknowledge the point you make.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

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

Yeah, no.

You make it sound as if they knew what they were doing.
That is almost never the case. Under some circumstances revolutions become inevitable and the fallout will usually be violent.

America got kinda lucky. If you weren't a loyalist.

Non-violent political change are the exception.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your words were not, Pinochet was not as bad as Castro. They were

Considering how much better Chile fared with Pinochet ...​

which is a positive statement that Pinochet was good. But if you now want to tell me he that in fact you believe was a deplorable tyrant, do it, and I will acknowledge the point you make.

It's better to stick your hand in a pile of dog poo than in a vat of hydrofluoric acid. Does that actually constitute praise of sticking your hand in a pile of dog poo?

No, it does not.

Less bad doesn't mean good.

 

[Ziggurat]

You make it sound as if they knew what they were doing.

Castro knew what he was doing. He didn't turn into a murderous dictator by accident, but by design.

Non-violent political change are the exception.

And good communist revolutions don't exist at all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And good communist revolutions don't exist at all.

Karl Marx's position was that a violent and bloody revolution was necessary to initiate the transformation to communism. It comes as no surprise that the fruits of the poisoned tree are poison.

 

[Craig B]

It's better to stick your hand in a pile of dog poo than in a vat of hydrofluoric acid. Does that actually constitute praise of sticking your hand in a pile of dog poo?

No, it does not.

Less bad doesn't mean good.

Dog poo? Sulphuric acid? I asked if you would condemn Pinochet as a tyrant. You have responded with abstractions about dog poo. I therefore see you won't condemn Pinochet, which is what I expected. He's a hero of the extreme right. Fine.

 

[Degeneve]

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.

If being a giant casino and brothel run by the American mafia was better than all the other countries in the area, you're right...

 

[Ziggurat]

Dog poo? Sulphuric acid?

Hydrofluoric. Much worse than sulphuric.

I asked if you would condemn Pinochet as a tyrant. You have responded with abstractions about dog poo. I therefore see you won't condemn Pinochet, which is what I expected. He's a hero of the extreme right. Fine.

Sure, he was a tyrant. Not nearly as bad a tyrant as Castro, but a tyrant. Now, will you acknowledge that Castro was much worse?

 

[Craig B]

Hydrofluoric. Much worse than sulphuric.



Sure, he was a tyrant. Not nearly as bad a tyrant as Castro, but a tyrant. Now, will you acknowledge that Castro was much worse?

I will acknowledge what I said I would, namely that you admit Pinochet was a tyrant.

 

[Ziggurat]

I will acknowledge what I said I would, namely that you admit Pinochet was a tyrant.

Does this mean that you won't admit Castro was worse?

Because he was. And not by a little bit.

Fair's fair, Craig: if you're going to make conclusions about me based on whether or not I call Pinochet a tyrant, I'm going to make conclusions about you based on whether or not you admit Castro was worse.

 

[Craig B]

Does this mean that you won't admit Castro was worse?

Because he was. And not by a little bit.

Fair's fair, Craig: if you're going to make conclusions about me based on whether or not I call Pinochet a tyrant, I'm going to make conclusions about you based on whether or not you admit Castro was worse.

Make any conclusions you like. But before making the conclusions it's normal to establish the points you're concluding about. You may want to change that procedure, but I don't agree.

In fact, I don't think you have any serious criticism of Pinochet. Although under pressure you admit him to be a tyrant, I don't believe you have a problem with that. Your only criterion is whether people are commies or not, not whether people are democratic or not. My evidence? The following is highly favourable to Batista and Pinochet. Whatever it is that makes you enthusiastic about a country, the fact of it being ruled by a tyrant (if supported by the USA) doesn't diminish your support for it.

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

In fact, I don't think you have any serious criticism of Pinochet.

Just like you have no serious criticisms of Castro.

Although under pressure you admit him to be a tyrant, I don't believe you have a problem with that.

Sure I do. Just not as much of a problem as with Castro, since Castro was far worse.

Your only criterion is whether people are commies or not

It's not my only criterion, but it's a sure-fire indicator that someone is bad. The correlation between communism and despotism is perfect.

not whether people are democratic or not. My evidence? The following is highly favourable to Batista and Pinochet.

The only comparison between Pinochet and anyone else was Castro, and yes, Pinochet absolutely comes out ahead in that comparison. I compared Cuba under Batista to other countries, and it was doing pretty well relatively speaking, but I didn't say Batista was the reason why. He wasn't. The prosperity that Cuba had was not a result of anything he did. He just didn't screw things up as badly as Castro did.

Whatever it is that makes you enthusiastic about a country, the fact of it being ruled by a tyrant (if supported by the USA) doesn't diminish your support for it.

Nope, wrong again. Note first off that I haven't given any support to either Batista or Pinochet.

As for you, well, you give lip service to Castro not being democratic, but you won't come to terms with the fact that he wasn't simply undemocratic, he was incredibly violent and incredibly oppressive. He didn't try communism and fail to pull it off, he did what communism always does successfully. And that's produce human misery on a truly industrial scale. Every. Single. Time. Yes, Batista was a bad man. But Castro was so much worse. And that's a truth you refuse to acknowledge, because in your heart you don't actually think communism is that bad.

 

[Craig B]

It's not my only criterion, but it's a sure-fire indicator that someone is bad. The correlation between communism and despotism is perfect.

The words you have used there mean, among other things, not merely that all communist regimes are despotic, but that all despotisms are communist, which is exactly the point about your criteria of approval I was making before.

Papa Doc was a despot but not a communist. Stalin was both one and the other. Hitler was a despot and an anti communist. But perhaps you don't really mean perfect correlation.

Please clarify this, and I can then explain my opposition to Castro. By the way I am not interested in, let alone abashed by, baseless accusations.

 

[Ziggurat]

The words you have used there mean, among other things, not merely that all communist regimes are despotic, but that all despotisms are communist, which is exactly the point about your criteria of approval I was making before.

Papa Doc was a despot but not a communist. Stalin was both one and the other. Hitler was a despot and an anti communist. But perhaps you don't really mean perfect correlation.

Please clarify this, and I can then explain my opposition to Castro. By the way I am not interested in, let alone abashed by, baseless accusations.

All communists are despotic, with no exceptions, and no possible future exceptions.

Not all despots are communists.

 

[Craig B]

All communists are despotic, with no exceptions, and no possible future exceptions.

Not all despots are communists.

Thank you. I would put it this way. No communist state has ever managed to sustain a representative democratic parliament, and there appear to be features inherent in that political system which prevent the formation of democracy in that accepted sense. Thus it is probably true that there will never be a democratic constitution in that kind of state. You probably agree with that.

But, and this is quite interesting: it doesn't follow that "all communists are despotic". Many people who are not in the least despotic have been attracted to this idea. But it turns out that no matter what these people's wishes and intentions may be, an authoritarian state invariably emerges from a communist regime.

Not all of these regimes is equally obnoxious, and not all are equally murderous - but none of them is or ever has been (and therefore probably never could be) - a democracy. Castro probably started off as a revolutionary libertarian, but he ended up creating an authoritarian entity that had political features in common with Stalin's state machine as it developed in the 30s, although it was much less murderous than Stalin's operation. Please believe me on that point.

The interesting question is why this happens, seemingly independently of the psychological starting point of the operators of the system. It is probably a basically economic phenomenon, but discussing it in detail would go beyond the subject of this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

But, and this is quite interesting: it doesn't follow that "all communists are despotic".

All the ones who ever obtain power, and those are the ones of interest here.

Not all of these regimes is equally obnoxious, and not all are equally murderous

Sure. Castro wasn't as bad as Pol Pot. But he was still worse than Batista.

Castro probably started off as a revolutionary libertarian

I find that... improbable.

 

[Craig B]

All the ones who ever obtain power, and those are the ones of interest here.

Sure. Castro wasn't as bad as Pol Pot. But he was still worse than Batista.

I find that... improbable.

My point is that whether someone started off as a revolutionary libertarian, or as a trainee bureaucrat in the ministry of economic planning in Lenin's Russia during the period of the New Economic Policy, seems to make no essential difference to the outcome. That is what is interesting.

 

[Craig B]

All the ones who ever obtain power [are despots] and those are the ones of interest here.

Let me cite another example. Gorbachev obtained power, but he wasn't a despot by inclination, and he strove to make the USSR less authoritarian. He pursued this project against many serious obstacles. The effect was not to create a democracy, but to bring about the complete collapse of the state. A huge empire disappeared, with hardly a hand raised in its defence. Never in history has such a massive political entity imploded with so little fuss. Phenomena like that invite enquiry, because it seems desirable to be able to explain them, and slogans about despotism don't adequately do that. Even though the USSR was unquestionably a despotism during its entire existence.

Now, will Castro's Cuban régime implode so easily? It might well do so. And then we will find out all manner of things about what has been going on. Or it might keep going in one form or another.