You know what’s great for getting Cuban votes in Miami? Supporting sanctions and starving out Cuba.
The gusano voting bloc is mutually exclusive with people who don’t like starving foreign countries.
There may be hope for Cubans who fled in the 90s due to famine, but the social relations and economic and cultural history of the ones who fled either fearing the wrath of the people they’d exploited or seeking to restore the privilege they had pre-revolution are always going to vote for the fascists.
deleted by creator
The gusano
You know there’s a way to make your point politically without using literal slurs right?
it blows my mind how much gusanos and evangelical chicanos & tejanos hold in common and i’m convinced that if they listened to the same music and spoke with the same accent; that they would be indistinguishable from each other.
This one confuses me, what’s the basis for this being a slur? It’s based in ideology, not race (given that it was invented by cubans for use on other cubans) or sexuality.
That would make Tankie a slur too, wouldn’t it?
what’s the basis for this being a slur?
It’s a slur just like “Uncle Tom” would be for conservative black Americans, it’s not exclusively racial, but it has a nationalist and racialist element, that’s added onto by ideology.
That would make Tankie a slur too, wouldn’t it?
If Tankie was used like Gusano is, to justify violence and to persecute, then I would be against using it too.
The term was also prevalent in hate crimes against anti-revolutionary Cubans. In September or October 1961, over the course of a week, 12 deceased bodies were discovered over Havana with notes attached to them that said "gusanos with pro-revolutionary [ideologies], CIA agents
During the 1962 wildfires that destroyed sugarcane plantations, locals in Cubas were reported saying that “gusanos have infiltrated the canefields.”[28] This led to quick military tribunals resulting in death by firing squad for “gusanos”
But no use of Tankie has ever neared how the Cuban government used Gusano to justify mass persecution of those unfriendly to the regime.
During the 1962 wildfires that destroyed sugarcane plantations, locals in Cubas were reported saying that “gusanos have infiltrated the canefields.”[28] This led to quick military tribunals resulting in death by firing squad for “gusanos”
You mean when the CIA was bombing sugar plantations in Cuba?
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=MT19600310&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------
Calling someone a gusano is more like calling them a confederate traitor; it implies they want to return to a social order where most of the people were forced to work the fields and unable to leave.
It’s not a hate crime to punch a nazi, same with someone advocating a return to slavery.
Man, it’s almost like their government gave land for a missile launch base or something at the end of a very long, cold war.
So weird someone would mistreat a neighbor innocently trying to provide a nuclear Holocaust.
Edit: here is the /s you weren’t looking for. Be better lmao
That has nothing at all to do with the US supporting terrorism against random civilians.
the end of a very long, cold war.
The cuban missile crisis was in 1962, near the start of the cold war.
But regarding the cuban missile crisis, the soviets stationed missiles in Cuba in response to the US stationing missiles in Turkey. The USSR agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba when the US agreed to remove their missiles from Turkey.
But sure the US had to bomb fields and machinery in Cuba, Cuba was coming right for them. Same reason they have to sanction them today, in case Cuba gets nuclear missiles again /s
They gave them a missile base after the US had already been sabotaging their fields, food, and electrical grids for years and sponsoring random terrorist attacks. Also, they had already attempted an invasion of Cuba by that point with the Bay of Pigs. Of course they freaking wanted help defending themselves. Or does that only apply to the US helping Israel but not the USSR helping other non-settler colonialist countries?
Yes but they’re okay with that one :/
Stupid is as stupid does.
Well Socialists/communists from lemmy.ml will tell you that you’re wrong - you escaped from heaven on earth into capitalist exploitation grinder, and actually Cuba is perfect equal economy, destroyed by evil western sanctions.
I wish that was sarcasm, but it isn’t
No no… you see that is not “real communism ™”. So your argument is false.
Real communism can’t fail, ergo all failed communist states weren’t truly communist. Check mate!
Are there any examples of it working though, or only examples of poverty, famine and crime stricken totalitarian end results?
As far as I know, no, there aren’t any - every single example of “working socialism” they give you, are basically welfare states - capitalist countries with high taxation going towards social benefits - like free health care, free education, social security and so on.
i think fundamentally, no. The reason is simple, planned economies simply cannot feasibly work, semi planned economies, maybe? Free market and heavily regulated economies, absolutely will work.
Planning and running something as big as a national economy effectively is an impossible task. Even with modern computers, it’s simply impossible, the free market is quite literally the decentralized network of goods and services.
I think the only realistic “variant” of communism is going to be the modern western concept of socialism, it’s a little out there, but theoretically, it’s not that far off of capitalism either. It essentially just removes the capitalist middleman, although even that is a bit of a bear to deal with, because now you have to deal with decentralized ownership and authority, which is known to be quite a tough problem to solve.
There’s also the whole, humans aren’t generally a fan of being put into a box and forced to do X problem also, but i feel like that goes without saying.
Thing is, regardless of what anyone says, you’ll probably not be moved to consider a state you fundamentally disagree with as “successful”. My following two paragraphs are mostly based on data collected and published by western studies, and compiled in a book called “Human Rights in the Soviet Union”, by Albert Szymanski, which I highly encourage reading to anyone interested in socialism.
By the 70s, the USSR had eliminated homelessness and unemployment. It guaranteed free healthcare to every citizen, free education up to university level, men retired at 60 and women at 55. It drastically improved the material conditions of hundreds of millions of people, lifting them from feudal agrarian societies like the Russian Empire or the central-asian countries, to industralized societies with welfare state. They progressed the rights of women to the point that there were more female engineers in the USSR than in the rest of the world combined. There were widely available and affordable canteens and food at the workplace so that women wouldn’t have to cook at home if they didn’t desire to do so, as well as affordable childcare and kindergartens to prevent women from being tied home by children. Free abortions were available for every woman. In most republics, including Kazakhstan, Latvia, Uzbekistan, Lithuania… there were more publications in the local official language (in which people could study at schools and take university exams in) than in Russian. The vast majority of the population was content with the government, except possibly in Estonia and Georgia due to the strong and long-lasting nationalist movements in those countries.
The USSR went from being a feudal backwater country in Eastern Europe, to extremely rapid industrialization that enabled the defeat of the Nazis, and to eventually become the second world power for the latter half of the 20th century. All of this was achieved without the exploitation of 3rd world countries’ resources and labor, the USSR never engaged in colonialism and, since it was mostly a self-sufficient country, it didn’t partake in unequal exchange either. In the past of the country, mainly in the Stalin period, there was massive and unjustified repression with terrible consequences for millions of people, but that was a phenomenon that exclusively took place in the paranoia between 1935 and 1945 approximately, afterwards this level of repression was never seen again. We should condemn this for what it was, but does it invalidate all the achievements of the USSR? Should the UK, for example, be dismantled as a state, because all the benefits that it generated for its population were at the expense of the oppression and murder of tens if not hundreds of millions across the British Empire? Would you classify the UK as a failed state as a consequence? Is the USA a failed state because it developed under the premise of the Manifest Destiny doctrine, which implied ans turned into the genocide of practically the entirety of the native population?
Many people in the world saw such a country as the USSR and decided to follow its steps, that’s why there were plenty of leftist movements in many developing countries such as Iran (Mossadegh), Congo (Lumumba), Chile (Allende), Cuba… Most of these movements didn’t “fail”, but were eliminated by elaborate western-country ploys to do so, as is the case of the three former that I mentioned.
My point is, you probably disagree with the point of what I’m saying, but what metrics would you actually use to consider whether a country is a success or a failure?
Well I’d at least state that the countries absorbed into the Soviet union where not free to do so. So stating that the Soviet union did not partake in colonialism is only part of the story. They conquered their neighbors and with all the people and resources of these countries managed a lot of that. Also many countries in the world where aligned with the Soviet union so they where also part of the international market.
To be honest I can’t really speak to how these relationships where forged and maintained, but a lot of these USSR aligned countries had ruling classes that where also not the nicest people to put it mildly.
So maybe some aspects where good, there is plenty of bad to be found as well. As this was the world back then.
The western block where by no means holy, but I’d argue better for most of their people overall. How the American system ended up in its current form I don’t know but I tend to see a lot of similarities between the wealthy elite of either system abusing the workers in an unsustainable way.
Edit: I had the privilege to discuss old vs new with my east German grandparents in law. And they had a lot of good to say about their communist days. Especially the labor market, equal rights, and access to goods. It took time but everything was available. But when asked if they preferred then or now they said now… when asked why. The answer got to me. “Because now if someone rings your doorbell unexpectedly you don’t have to worry about dissapearing”. They told me they knew multiple families that where all arrested and never heard from again.
Well I’d at least state that the countries absorbed into the Soviet union where not free to do so
While what you say is partly true (although the reality is more complicated for many countries such as Ukraine or Belarus or Armenia or most of Central Asia), when you say “the countries” were not free to do so, what do you mean exactly? Because I don’t think anyone is really free to belong to a country or to other for the most part. I’m Spanish and I didn’t choose to be so, and there are plenty of people in my country who don’t feel Spanish but are forced to be so, especially in Basque areas and Catalonia. I’ve never been asked what nationality I want to belong to, or what country I wish to be born in.
This is especially true for regimes in the 1920s (countries that annexed during the Russian Civil war) and the 1940s (countries that annexed during and after WW2). Polish citizens themselves, or Ukrainian, or Finnish, when in 1917 the first Bolshevik constitution declared the unilateral right of self-determination and secession for all peoples of the former Russian Empire, didn’t get to choose democratically whether they wanted to become independent. The local powerful authorities simply declared so, and afaik there was never any referendum about the topic in these countries. In some places this was very short-lasting, as for example in Ukraine when they were immediately invaded by Poland because of nationalist expansionism in the Polish-Ukrainian war. So, can you argue that these peoples of Ukraine were incorporated into the USSR against their will after the expulsion of the Polish forces from Ukraine by the Soviets, any more than they became independent against their will since there was no referendum?
I didn’t get to vote the constitution of my country since I was born too late for that. I didn’t get to choose the parliamentary form of it, I didn’t get to choose to have a fucking king, I didn’t get to choose whether I wanted to join the EU and abandon our previous currency. If my decision power is consistently ignored, can you argue that my national identity and my belonging to a state is good just because it’s by default? Second-generation Latvians, Uzbeks, or Georgians, didn’t get to choose what country they were born in and belonged to, any less than I do currently. In fact, most citizens of the USSR got to vote in 1991 in a referendum whether they wanted to maintain the USSR, and the overwhelming majority of citizens voted affirmatively… which was promptly ignored as the state was dissolved from the top-down, and plunged into the worst humanitarian crisis in Eastern Europe since WW2 with the application of Neoliberal shock therapy.
I had the privilege to discuss old vs new with my east German grandparents in law. And they had a lot of good to say about their communist days. Especially the labor market, equal rights, and access to goods. It took time but everything was available. But when asked if they preferred then or now they said now… when asked why. The answer got to me. “Because now if someone rings your doorbell unexpectedly you don’t have to worry about dissapearing”. They told me they knew multiple families that where all arrested and never heard from again.
As for this, I’m not familiar with the history of repression in Eastern Germany. I’d dare to say that your grandparents in law were “lucky”, in the sense that they got to have an employment for the most part after the dissolution of the country and the reunification with western Germany (which forced the deindustrialization of Eastern Germany in favour of western one, big part of the reason why there are so many inequality differences between the two afaik). Is the risk of unemployment and misery less serious than the risk of political oppression? We tend to think so, but for many people who don’t enjoy the most basic material rights, the answer isn’t that simple. I agree that oppression to those levels is something inherently negative, but it’s the common response of systems when there are sectors of the population that go against the system itself. In my country, Spain, cases of lawfare manufactured by the state and police apparatus and coordinated with mass media, destroyed the leftist party Podemos which used to be the 3rd biggest force in the parliament after the 2008 crisis. In the USA, the Black Panthers movement was eliminated by the CIA despite committing no real crime.
My point isn’t anything other than “let’s question the metrics that we use to compare one country to another”. To me, as a young person who may never be able to afford a house, who’s only seen the welfare state eroded further and further in his lifetime and maybe won’t have a public pension like my grandparents and parents enjoy/will enjoy, who’s seen the political oppression through lawfare and manufactured consent of progressive politicians, who doesn’t have a right to decide whether to eliminate the literal monarchy from his country, and who has seen Catalonian politicians jailed for wanting to make a referendum on the HUMAN RIGHT of self-determination, it’s hard for me to see the innumerable advantages of the capitalism that ravages the third world and destroys the climate of the planet I inhabit. Young people don’t unionize because they’re afraid that the hidden profiles that companies make of them and share with each other thanks to the internet will brand them as undesirable to be employed. If they’re unionized, they’re liable of getting arrested and getting a sentence to jail as happened to “las seis de la suiza”. How the fuck is this more democratic and less oppressive?
Ill leave arguing history. Smarter people than me can do that.
And just say that your last paragraph I agree to. I’m in my 40s and understand the sentiment all too well. I have the luxury that I own a house… but this was only possible because of the economic crash and subsequent fuckery with the interest rates which opened up a window for me and my wife where we where able to buy at the lowest house prices and with an interest rate equally low. For the rest I see everything you say and agree. I worry for people my age and younger as it seems to be getting worse.
That doesn’t sound right, but I don’t know enough about strawmen to dispute it.
I am terrified to talk to mine about politics. Even though the Suarez’s are cool as shit, when it comes to Trump it is like I am talking to a bunch of terrified children.
It’s weird to me how many various Hispanic voters are pro-Trump. A lot of them are Catholic and anti-abortion, and single issue voters are nothing new, but still. I just cannot comprehend such a limited perspective.
It’s a combination of things – Trump’s agressive, chauvinistic persona maps well onto Latin concepts of machismo, and there’s also a surprising strain of pull-the-ladder-up-behind-you thinking amongst established Hispanic families aimed at the current wave of migrants.
“Fuck you got mine” is the most American thing
Many Chinese Americans are also conservatives, not just second or third generation but also first generation when they were the ones that fled China.
Do they also support ending the embargo?
Like the people escaping islamist hell holes only to be pro sharia in Europe. And people escaping violence stricken African countries and then end up in gang Fights against their countrymen in Europe.
These people are just as much part of the problem in their old home country as they are in their new home country. But where probably affluent enough to buy a (very dangerous) trip out of their previous hell and want to make their new home into a nightmare.
This is not all of them btw… this is a minority of the minority. The problem is, these people fuel the far right as if they are pooring liquid oxygen on the fire.
If trump ends up elected, I wish these people all the luck in the world. They will need it.
Yeah, it seems many didn’t have an issue with the evil shit just that they weren’t on the top and/or were poor
These people aren’t trying to create communism in America, the older generation fled because communism was making society more equal, and they stood to lose, and are the most right-wing mfs you’ll ever meet.
This applies a little less to the ones who fled after Reagan offered US citizenship and were mostly criminals who chose America over prison.
And not at all to the ones who fled during the 90s, fleeing famine after the USSR collapsed and the US wanted to make an example out of Cuba.
Democrats are not creating communism in the U.S.
Correct, but Rubber Duck was implying the people fleeing Cuba were communists trying to recreate conditions of Cuba.
But no, they’re absolutely not trying to get everyone healthcare and housing and a constitutional amendment securing LGBT+ rights.
Citizens and immigrants need to be provided mandatory civics education, especially adults
The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Independent:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cuban-latino-vote-trump-republicans-b2590277.html
Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed
Can we get rid of this shitty bot?
Just block it
That’s not good enough. Threads like this show up in the comment count and give the appearance of activity on a post even when there is none.
Reminder.
The calls are coming from inside the house.
Hmm maybe these things are connected!
It’s not like Bautista wasn’t a dictator, so the question becomes why didn’t they flee the dictator that allowed you to have slaves instead of the one that wanted every Cuban to have a house and be able to read.
WatchMojo’s Top 10 gusano moments
tfw petty burgeois are mad that communism took their oligopolies
You understand that Castro went after than more than just slave owners right? It’s super disingenuous to pretend that most of the 1.5 million people who have fled Cuba were slave owners.
They’re cultists. If you talk to them in neutral sub, You’ll find horribly defective logic and broken definitions (“Your definition of Anarchy is wRoNg, anarchy is an organised system!!!”).
If you try talking to them in one of their sub, you’ll get banned instantly. Socialists/communists are pro censorship and therefore pro coercion. No wonder, every communist state turned into dictatorship.
I agree with most of what you’ve said, you should read more from anarchist philosophers like Tolstoy or Goldman though.
Socialists
However I would subtract the socialist from you comment and just keep it at communist, there’s plenty of democratic socialist parties that never devolved into rampant totalitarianism like the leninist parties did.
plenty of democratic socialist parties that never devolved into rampant totalitarianism like the leninist parties did
I guess you’re right there, still, they tend to be authoritarian - socialism in the soviet controlled republics was rather ugly - centrally planned economy, rationing of everything from meat and sugar to cars and housing, censorship of any political subject in media, ever present corruption, berlin wall to keep people from escaping…
Not a place you’d want to live in.
Not a place you’d want to live in.
Of course not, which is why it’s unfair to lump in welfare state creators like the demsoc parties of western Europe, and the brutal leninist parties of Asia and Eastern Europe.
the demsoc parties of western Europe
They often have socialism in their name, but I don’t really consider them socialist, as you said - they’re welfare state supporters, which is really, really far away from socialism in soviet controlled eastern europe
No, of course. Only the bad things are socialist! The good ones clearly are not true socialist! /s
You’re pretty fucking stupid my man. Leftism is as broad as anything else, and socialism can take a wide variety of forms and positions. Authoritarianism is the thing that causes issues, and that can be anywhere on the left, right, and center. In the traditional political compass (which isn’t worth much, but whatever) there’s left/right as liberal/conservative, but there’s also up/down as authority/liberty.
which is really, really far away from socialism in soviet controlled eastern europe
In that it’s democratic and they want to expand rights from just being political to also being economic? Yes I agree, they’re severely different from the Soviet style parties, but that doesn’t make them not socialist, their left wing members will usually still argue for the ownership of the means of production by workers, usually they just argue for cooperatives rather than mass nationalization nowadays.
If you try talking to them in one of their sub, you’ll get banned instantly. Socialists/communists are pro censorship and therefore pro coercion. No wonder, every communist state turned into dictatorship.
are we talking about hexbear? The sub that is insufferably boring?
You understand people fled Cuba not only because Castro was trying to take their plantation or Casino, but because the US has spent over have a century carrying out terrorist attacks and engineered a famine right?
carrying out terrorist attacks and engineered a famine right?
Citation needed
BTW: You mean that time when Cuba was soviet ally and had on their territory soviet nukes aimed at US?
Fuck you and your revisionism.
Take a listen to Blowback season 2.
If they were fine with Batista being a military dictator, but drew the line at someone trying to upend his stint as one, I’m going to ask, why the military dictatorship didn’t cause them to flee every time.
The Democratic candidates are not even leftist.
If you break it down on a policy by policy basis (is this policy leftist?) like dems are certainly not leftist. People conflate being “left of republicans” with being “leftist” even though a lot of their positions are quite centrist.
