You should read up on Cuban Democracy. Not only is Cuba now more democratic than under Batista, a fascist slaver US puppet, Cuba is more democratic than countries like the United States.
Those claiming Cuba does not have “free and fair elections,” without fail, are those who oppose their system of Socialism and wish for the US to recolonize Cuba.
I think it’s amazing when US people try to claim that other countries they know jackshit about are undemocratic, while having a Dr. Seuss-ass electoral system with legalized bribing that exclusively elects ghouls everyone despises.
They wish to see Cuba recolonized, so they dismiss any claims that would get in the way of their moral standing in maintaining that stance. Ie, recolonization is better than living in a system where Castro (who isn’t president anymore, though I doubt they know that) eats babies or some nonsense.
Because of this, they pile a large amount of lies on top of Castro (who again, isn’t president anymore) and demand the Cuban people be “freed” from themselves, ripe for the US to swoop back in and recolonize. If the Communists aren’t evil, then they can’t justify wanting to recolonize Cuba anymore morally.
It’s cool how you make broad assumptions about an entire nation of people while criticizing them for doing the exact same. Lol
It’s not unreasonable to want to see Cubans thrive under a socialist government led by the people while simultaneously criticizing Castro for being an oppressive dictator.
I am speaking of the subconscious roots of this. I think most people would generally say they want the Cuban people to succeed. However, the underlying base for how information about Cuba, and Castro in particular as a special “demon,” is interpreted is guided by bias. The essay I linked makes a great case for such a process explaining why people believe what they believe even in the face of proof to the contrary, provided by myself and other pro-Cuban commenters.
I didn’t intend to demonize him. He’s just not the man of the people that a small socialist nation needed to prosper. Castro wasn’t always authoritarian. I think he may have been kept in check by Che’s idealism, had he not died.
Can you explain any of this, though? Why do you say he was a dictator? Why do you say he wasn’t a “man of the people,” what could he have done to better help his people prosper? Che and Fidel got along quite well, the anticommunist “left” mostly uses the fact that Che died early to support the idea that the Cuban Revolution was “betrayed,” it’s a convenient rhetorical technique that allows you to claim Leftist aesthetics while agreeing entirely with the US State Department, who wishes to recolonize Cuba.
Absolutely. Fidel was more pragmatic compared to Che. My point was that I believe Che’s idealism could have had a positive effect on Fidel’s career had he survived.
Why do you say he was a dictator?
In 1959, Castro promised free and fair elections the following year. He was the longest-serving non-royal head of state in two centuries with a 50 year reign, and never held an election.
There were elections in many areas, of course, and you conveniently leave out the Bay of Pigs. Ultimately, the measure of democracy in a country is the extent to which the people are satisfied by how much their input is taken into account. The Cuban People supported Fidel, which is why he remained.
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
I’m fully aware that Fidel died in 2016, and his brother Raul was elected into power in 2013.
None of that changes the fact that Fidel promised free and fair elections then proceeded to remain in power, without holding elections, for five decades.
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
You really need to do more research. In Cuba, candidates are nominated by the people. The Party plays no role on this process. The actual elections are done with those that have been nominated, logically people will not change their mind. The United States hasn’t had a third party Candidate win the presidency either, that’s a silly sticking point for you.
I’m flabbergasted that the official website of a political entity is being touted as evidence that the political entity isn’t perceived correctly.
Forget about Cuba, or politics, or class, everything. This is not how you find the truth. What’s the thing I’m not thinking of that’s throwing things off balance? Why would someone link to North Korea’s official website to argue that North Korea is not so bad? What’s the use and whose it for?
The only sources I trust: Prager U and the US State Department. And maybe some thinktank funded by the Koch brothers called something like Institute for International Freedom and Democratic Policy
And this is why I think Cowbee is wasting his time trying to engage in good faith with shitlibs; you’ll always just worm your way out and find some excuse, because you’re not actually engaging in good faith, you’ve already decided what you believe, and because you’re supremely arrogant westerners, nothing will ever be as good as your gut feeling for you.
To be clear, I have no illusions about mhague changing their mind, I engage for others who see the clear bad faith and contradictory logic to maybe have their minds changed.
Gotta say I really appreciate that you do this. I try to varying degrees when I have the time since like you said it’s usually so lurkers can have their minds changed but it can be time consuming.
It’s really nice when others are jumping in to help and I see you posting great takes a ton.
Thanks! It’s more of an evolution of myself over time, back in my Reddit days years ago I used to be such a debatebro. Now I try to be more chill and focus on education and unity, though when the obviously bad-faith users swarm in I try to call them out on that moreso than trying to focus on education. Sometimes I get great questions that help me reconsider things, sometimes people thank me over DMs or in comments, and either way it’s a great feeling.
Never really looked too deep on Cuba beyond what is obviously forced into my face by American education/media/“news” etc…
So interesting to see a dissenting opinion, I support socialism/communism tho I wish there were better examples of communism working to point to, as if the west didn’t actively work against it all the time lol.
But it is fair to say I think that it is a bit concerning how often it has devolved into essentially dictatorships of one kind or another, but basically since Reagan it’s not like we’ve actually had a honest legislature/election process.
You should read up on Cuban Democracy. Not only is Cuba now more democratic than under Batista, a fascist slaver US puppet, Cuba is more democratic than countries like the United States.
Those claiming Cuba does not have “free and fair elections,” without fail, are those who oppose their system of Socialism and wish for the US to recolonize Cuba.
I think it’s amazing when US people try to claim that other countries they know jackshit about are undemocratic, while having a Dr. Seuss-ass electoral system with legalized bribing that exclusively elects ghouls everyone despises.
And gerrymandering.
They wish to see Cuba recolonized, so they dismiss any claims that would get in the way of their moral standing in maintaining that stance. Ie, recolonization is better than living in a system where Castro (who isn’t president anymore, though I doubt they know that) eats babies or some nonsense.
Because of this, they pile a large amount of lies on top of Castro (who again, isn’t president anymore) and demand the Cuban people be “freed” from themselves, ripe for the US to swoop back in and recolonize. If the Communists aren’t evil, then they can’t justify wanting to recolonize Cuba anymore morally.
I recommend always Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.”
It’s cool how you make broad assumptions about an entire nation of people while criticizing them for doing the exact same. Lol
It’s not unreasonable to want to see Cubans thrive under a socialist government led by the people while simultaneously criticizing Castro for being an oppressive dictator.
I am speaking of the subconscious roots of this. I think most people would generally say they want the Cuban people to succeed. However, the underlying base for how information about Cuba, and Castro in particular as a special “demon,” is interpreted is guided by bias. The essay I linked makes a great case for such a process explaining why people believe what they believe even in the face of proof to the contrary, provided by myself and other pro-Cuban commenters.
It’s absolutely worth hearing Dr. Michael Parenti speak of the Cuban Revolution, who actually visited and spoke with Cubans on the ground.
I didn’t intend to demonize him. He’s just not the man of the people that a small socialist nation needed to prosper. Castro wasn’t always authoritarian. I think he may have been kept in check by Che’s idealism, had he not died.
Can you explain any of this, though? Why do you say he was a dictator? Why do you say he wasn’t a “man of the people,” what could he have done to better help his people prosper? Che and Fidel got along quite well, the anticommunist “left” mostly uses the fact that Che died early to support the idea that the Cuban Revolution was “betrayed,” it’s a convenient rhetorical technique that allows you to claim Leftist aesthetics while agreeing entirely with the US State Department, who wishes to recolonize Cuba.
Absolutely. Fidel was more pragmatic compared to Che. My point was that I believe Che’s idealism could have had a positive effect on Fidel’s career had he survived.
In 1959, Castro promised free and fair elections the following year. He was the longest-serving non-royal head of state in two centuries with a 50 year reign, and never held an election.
That’s a dictator.
There were elections in many areas, of course, and you conveniently leave out the Bay of Pigs. Ultimately, the measure of democracy in a country is the extent to which the people are satisfied by how much their input is taken into account. The Cuban People supported Fidel, which is why he remained.
He literally did hold elections you utter dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
I’m fully aware that Fidel died in 2016, and his brother Raul was elected into power in 2013.
None of that changes the fact that Fidel promised free and fair elections then proceeded to remain in power, without holding elections, for five decades.
Lol, demonstrating your own proud ignorance. Raul is also dead, dumbfuck
So you’ve graduated from making bullshit claims that you have no basis for to outright lying and making claims you know are false.
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
Removed by mod
Watch the ableism with the claims of “insanity.”
You really need to do more research. In Cuba, candidates are nominated by the people. The Party plays no role on this process. The actual elections are done with those that have been nominated, logically people will not change their mind. The United States hasn’t had a third party Candidate win the presidency either, that’s a silly sticking point for you.
I’m flabbergasted that the official website of a political entity is being touted as evidence that the political entity isn’t perceived correctly.
Forget about Cuba, or politics, or class, everything. This is not how you find the truth. What’s the thing I’m not thinking of that’s throwing things off balance? Why would someone link to North Korea’s official website to argue that North Korea is not so bad? What’s the use and whose it for?
I am talking about structure. These are sources referenced and fact checked. Who would you prefer?
The only sources I trust: Prager U and the US State Department. And maybe some thinktank funded by the Koch brothers called something like Institute for International Freedom and Democratic Policy
I thought you were serious at first, please mind my blood pressure
Lmao almost got me
And this is why I think Cowbee is wasting his time trying to engage in good faith with shitlibs; you’ll always just worm your way out and find some excuse, because you’re not actually engaging in good faith, you’ve already decided what you believe, and because you’re supremely arrogant westerners, nothing will ever be as good as your gut feeling for you.
To be clear, I have no illusions about mhague changing their mind, I engage for others who see the clear bad faith and contradictory logic to maybe have their minds changed.
Gotta say I really appreciate that you do this. I try to varying degrees when I have the time since like you said it’s usually so lurkers can have their minds changed but it can be time consuming.
It’s really nice when others are jumping in to help and I see you posting great takes a ton.
Thanks! It’s more of an evolution of myself over time, back in my Reddit days years ago I used to be such a debatebro. Now I try to be more chill and focus on education and unity, though when the obviously bad-faith users swarm in I try to call them out on that moreso than trying to focus on education. Sometimes I get great questions that help me reconsider things, sometimes people thank me over DMs or in comments, and either way it’s a great feeling.
Thanks for the support!
Hi I’m a lurker and I appreciated the responses.
Never really looked too deep on Cuba beyond what is obviously forced into my face by American education/media/“news” etc…
So interesting to see a dissenting opinion, I support socialism/communism tho I wish there were better examples of communism working to point to, as if the west didn’t actively work against it all the time lol.
But it is fair to say I think that it is a bit concerning how often it has devolved into essentially dictatorships of one kind or another, but basically since Reagan it’s not like we’ve actually had a honest legislature/election process.