Did Castro Reject Communism

[jbg]

Even if this is true, the selectivity is astonishing. How many tyrannies have been "propped up" in similar (often worse, ie violent) means by Western democracies? How many of them have made Castro look like Gandhi in comparison?

(You'll need more than just your fingers and toes to count 'em.)

Oh I'm sure you're right. Doesn't make it not a fact.

[nicky10013]

Shady said that Canada has propped up Castro, not the other way around. If Canada and other Western countries had continued to isolate Castro the regime would have collapsed after the cessation of USSR subsidies.

This is pretty much horse shit. The scenario you point out is exactly what happened in North Korea. So, where did Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il go?

Authoritarian states love things like sanctions because in the end it cloisters them in from foreign intervention which weakens the state's hold on the freedom of information. No, the thing that has been propping Castro up hasn't been Canada and Canadian trade, it's been the US embargo.

Watch Fareed Zakaria's GPS that was on today. He makes the exact same argument.

Edited September 19, 2010 by nicky10013

[Pliny]

This is pretty much horse shit. The scenario you point out is exactly what happened in North Korea. So, where did Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il go?

Authoritarian states love things like sanctions because in the end it cloisters them in from foreign intervention which weakens the state's hold on the freedom of information. No, the thing that has been propping Castro up hasn't been Canada and Canadian trade, it's been the US embargo.

Watch Fareed Zakaria's GPS that was on today. He makes the exact same argument.

That's interesting.

Trade, I think we can agree, is beneficial to a country. Superficially, we could say our trade was a benefit to Cuba and thus contributed to the continuance of it's welfare. From that our trade propped it up. And indeed it did help.

In the long term or on a more in depth level we could say that the benefit that Cuba received from Canadian trade helped to undermine the political stronghold Castro had over the island's citizenry.

The US embargo probably did contribute more to Castro remaining in power than any weakening of the regime.

I think that is a great lesson of trade. If you wanted to undermine a regime then it would be better to trade with the country than not.

Someone once said that if trade is stopped wars are the result.

It really isn't the people or the country that people of another country are against it is their interference with trade. Muslim leaders attempt to restrict western ideas from their citizenry. And I think that government's natural tendency is to attempt to widen their base of influence, increase their power and bristle at any outside influences that may negatively affect their influence over their own populace. Trade often contributes to that negative influence on government.

[Pliny]

of course communism doesn't work. neither does capitalism. they're both utopian systems that do not take into consideration so many other variables.

i wonder if communist cuba's unemployment rate of 1.9% that it has today will go anywhere near the capitalist u.s.'s unemployment rate of 9.6% after the 500k job loss.

Communism is a form of government. Capitalism is a system of economy.

We know that communism's economic principle's will fail. The system of economy of various political ideologies has developed various forms of capitalism influencing it's base concept from one of free enterprise and voluntary exchange for mutual benefit and producing some metamorphosis of it that allows government some control over it. There are monetarists , corporatist fascists, laizzez-faire governments each with their own ideas on what form of capitalism is best for their purposes.

So if the economy is left alone and outside of government influence and that failed then I would say that capitalism failed. But governments have never left the economy alone especially communist or socialist ones, democracies are just as guilty of intervention as well so how can we tell?

I think the black market in the USSR was probably a good example of capitalism. It was eventually bigger than the economy of the USSR and had little government influence or regulations.

[Jack Weber]

He didn't say we've been propped up by Castro; he said we have been propping him up.

It's still patent nonsense, of course....

I'd also be interested to know at what point in the last, oh, 24 hours or so that Shady began to oppose relationships with dictators. He's offerred no opposition to it before.

My bad...I misread...

I'd also be interested in that last point,as well...We know how that turned out before,don't we?

[jbg]

My bad...I misread...

I'd also be interested in that last point,as well...We know how that turned out before,don't we?

The leftists should note that point when they urge "trade sanctions" against Iran rather than military action.

[nicky10013]

Communism is a form of government. Capitalism is a system of economy.

Nope. Communism is an economic system. In the USSR, it was combined with authoritarian governance. India had free and fair elections along with a complete state planned economy until the 70s.

We know that communism's economic principle's will fail. The system of economy of various political ideologies has developed various forms of capitalism influencing it's base concept from one of free enterprise and voluntary exchange for mutual benefit and producing some metamorphosis of it that allows government some control over it. There are monetarists , corporatist fascists, laizzez-faire governments each with their own ideas on what form of capitalism is best for their purposes.

So if the economy is left alone and outside of government influence and that failed then I would say that capitalism failed. But governments have never left the economy alone especially communist or socialist ones, democracies are just as guilty of intervention as well so how can we tell?

Considering you've already failed to define what socialism is miserably, you're obviously no expert. Pure communism existed in states like the USSR the way pure capitalism exists today. Both are theories that aren't practicably implementable. The difference is the amount of people trying to implement communism has fallen dramatically.

I think the black market in the USSR was probably a good example of capitalism. It was eventually bigger than the economy of the USSR and had little government influence or regulations.

The black market was heavily influenced by the government. It was encouraged for factory managers in order that they could meet their quotas. High state officials got all their goods on the black market. It was highly manipulated to make sure that only those loyal would actually have access. Wrong again.

[nicky10013]

The leftists should note that point when they urge "trade sanctions" against Iran rather than military action.

As we've seen with military action in Iraq, that's an even bigger risk of failure than with sanctions.

[jbg]

As we've seen with military action in Iraq, that's an even bigger risk of failure than with sanctions.

Maybe the West's safety and the people of these countries' well being demands perpetual occupation. I know it's similar to colonaliasm but "self-determination" has not worked out well.

Edited September 20, 2010 by jbg

[nicky10013]

Maybe the West's safety and the people of these countries' well being demands perpetual occupation. I know it's similar to colonaliasm but "self-determination" has not worked out well.

That's my argument. Either go all out or don't do it at all. All long term British Colonies have a record of democracy - Canada, US, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Namibia, Jamaica etc. etc.

Then again, the Americans don't have anywhere even close to the gonads to actually colonise.

[jbg]

That's my argument. Either go all out or don't do it at all. All long term British Colonies have a record of democracy - Canada, US, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Namibia, Jamaica etc. etc.

Nicky, one of the best posts I've seen you make. I've actually made this point elsewhere (link), where I stated:

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

Then again, the Americans don't have anywhere even close to the gonads to actually colonise.

Unfortunately you may well be right. History would be a bit different if we stuck around in Cuba after the Spanish-American War.

We have done some long-term colonizing:

1. Alaska
   
2. Hawaii
   
3. Puerto Rico
   
4. U.S. Virgin Islands
   
5. Guam
   
6. U.S. Marshall Islands
   
7. Phillipines
   

The first two, of course, became states. In those cases I believe the impetus was WW II; we had to demonstrate unequivocally that an attack on Alaska (for the U.S.S.R.'s benefit) and Hawaii (remember Pearl Harbor) was an attack on the U.S. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have deep economic ties to the U.S. The full-blown application of the Internal Revenue Code would probably wreck their conomies.

Guam and the Marshall Islands, as well as other Pacific dependencies, are more or less "leftover" from WW II. They seem satisfied with relatively beneficent and detached U.S. administration. We in turn gain reliable bases.

The Phillipines is a much more mixed story. The southern islands were a problem much like Afghanistan and Iraq are now; relatively intractable and ungovernable. The early wars there were a heartbreak. The northern islands were more willing to be governed by us since the Spanish didn't make many friends. After their liberation from Japan, I think the U.S. basically decided to declare them independent, i.e. be rid of them.

But generally you are right. We don't enjoy the job of running colonies. Perhaps we need to learn how to since not all countries are as compliant as Japan was in being "molded". And we only used the A-bomb in Japan.

Edited September 20, 2010 by jbg

[M.Dancer]

That's my argument. Either go all out or don't do it at all. All long term British Colonies have a record of democracy - Canada, US, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Namibia, Jamaica etc. etc.

Then again, the Americans don't have anywhere even close to the gonads to actually colonise.

Namibia?

As well as never having been a nation either ruled or colonized by GB, its record of democracy (a good one) goes back to 1990.

[M.Dancer]

Nicky, one of the best posts I've seen you make. I've actually made this point elsewhere (link), where I stated:

Unfortunately you may well be right. History would be a bit different if we stuck around in Cuba after the Spanish-American War.

We have done some long-term colonizing:

1. Alaska
   
2. Hawaii
   
3. Puerto Rico
   
4. U.S. Virgin Islands
   
5. Guam
   
6. U.S. Marshall Islands
   
7. Phillipines
   

You forgot Texas, California and New Jersey...

Edited September 20, 2010 by M.Dancer

[jbg]

You forgot Texas, California and New Jersey...

Texas and California, yes, but New Jersey? It was one of the original colonies. And referred to by Benjamin Franklin (link) as a "keg tapped at both ends".

[nicky10013]

Namibia?

As well as never having been a nation either ruled or colonized by GB, its record of democracy (a good one) goes back to 1990.

It wasn't called Namibia under the British. It was called South West Africa and was incorporated into the Empire during WW1. It wasn't under British control for long. I just knew the territory to be on Imperial Maps, never knew the history behind it.

[jbg]

It wasn't called Namibia under the British. It was called South West Africa and was incorporated into the Empire during WW1. It wasn't under British control for long. I just knew the territory to be on Imperial Maps, never knew the history behind it.

So I guess it was an "oops". You referred to it as a "British Colon(y)" with "a record of democracy - Canada, US, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Namibia, Jamaica". I would make a stronger case in that list for Barbados than either Namibia or Jamaica. Jamaica has democratic forms, but corruption, poverty and violence so extensive as to make the democratic patina not that impressive.

[M.Dancer]

It wasn't called Namibia under the British. It was called South West Africa and was incorporated into the Empire during WW1. It wasn't under British control for long. I just knew the territory to be on Imperial Maps, never knew the history behind it.

It was never under British control at all. It was under control of South Africa.

[bloodyminded]

The leftists should note that point when they urge "trade sanctions" against Iran rather than military action.

The more influential Latin American nations appear to disagree with both ideas. Notably Brazil and Venezuela.

Edited September 20, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bud]

The leftists should note that point when they urge "trade sanctions" against Iran rather than military action.

the fake radical leftist lawyers should note that there are other options besides trade sanctions and military action.

the fake radical leftist lawyers should also note that the united states ruined south america with their decades of interventions. nicaragua is a perfect example of this. a reason why the world court concluded that the united states participated in state terrorism.

[bloodyminded]

the fake radical leftist lawyers should note that there are other options besides trade sanctions and military action.

That reminds me of one of the more magnificently tautological defenses of the Iraq War: namely, that it ended the murderous sanctions.

The sanctions, evidently, were a natural force, a punishment from God that demanded the sacrifice of War blood to end them....

There was simply no other way to stop the sanctions, nor the joint (illegal) US/UK interference in the sanctions that made them worse.

[jbg]

the The fake radical leftist lawyers lawyer should note that there are other options besides trade sanctions and military action.

the The fake radical leftist lawyers lawyer should also note that the united states United States ruined south america South America with their decades of interventions. nicaragua Nicaragua is a perfect example of this. a reason why the world court World Court concluded that the United States participated in state terrorism.

Wow, this post poses lots of interesting issues;

1. How do you determine who is a "fake radical leftist lawyers (sic)" and who is real?
   
2. Do you really think South America would be a good government paradise in the absence of (long ago) U.S. interventions (sic)?
   
3. What options are there besides trade sanctions and military action? A wet noodle lashing at the U.N.?
   
4. Show me the judgment or order wherein the World Court concluded that the United States participated in state terrorism.
   

Edited September 20, 2010 by jbg

[bloodyminded]

[*]Do you really think South America would be a good government paradise in the absence of (long ago) U.S. interventions (sic)?

That's like asking, as if it is a justificatory defense, whether or not the US would be a "good government paradise" were it not for the 9/11 attacks. "[sic]"

[*]Show me the judgment or order wherein the World Court concluded that the United States participated in state terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

Edited September 20, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

And where is the reference to "state terrorism"? Did the U.S. fly planes into buildings in Managua?

[bloodyminded]

And where is the reference to "state terrorism"? Did the U.S. fly planes into buildings in Managua?

Mining the harbours--which was flatly illegal--thus "disrupting peaceful commerce and threatening innocent life" is explicitly terrorism, every bit as much as a car bomb.

Further, the CIA was responsible for this delight:

As a part of its training program for the contras, the CIA prepared and distributed a manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. This manual included instructions in the "use of implicit and explicit terror", and in the "selective use of violence for propaganda effects". Commander Carrion explained that the manual was given to the Contras, "All of these terrorist instructions have the main purpose of alienating the population from the Government through creating a climate of terror and fear, so that nobody would dare support the Government". The manual calls for the "neutralization" (i.e. assassination) of Sandinista local government officials, judges, etc. for purposes of intimidation. It was openly admitted by the President Reagan in a press conference that the manual had been prepared by a CIA contract employee.

Or this testimony, by David McMichael who " was an expert on counter-insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and Latin American affairs, he was also a witness because he was closely involved with U.S. intelligence activities as a contract employee from March 1981 - April 1983. MacMichael worked for Stanford Research Institute, which was contracted by the U.S. Department of Defense. After this he worked two years for the CIA as a "senior estimates officer", preparing the National Intelligence Estimate. Dr. MacMichael's responsibility was centered upon Central America. He had top-secret clearance. He was qualified and authorized to have access to all relevant U.S. intelligence concerning Central America":

Contra paramilitary actions would "hopefully provoke cross-border attacks by Nicaraguan forces and thus serve to demonstrate Nicaragua's aggressive nature and possibly call into play the Organization of American States' provisions (regarding collective self-defense). It was hoped that the Nicaraguan Government would clamp down on civil liberties within Nicaragua itself, arresting its opposition, so demonstrating its allegedly inherent totalitarian nature and thus increase domestic dissent within the country, and further that there would be reaction against United States citizens, particularly against United States diplomatic personnel within Nicaragua and thus to demonstrate the hostility of Nicaragua towards the United States".

In other words, the plan was to evoke dissent and repression; and, amazingly, the plan was also to provoke a reaction against US citizens, thus justifying further hostile action by the US.

The manual given to the Contras explicitly advocates the use of "terror" against "soft targets" (civilians and civilian infrastructure).

Terrorism.

Edited September 20, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

Bloodyminded -

I'll cut to the chase. I have a real problem with any position that regards international law adherence as a suicide pact. The Sandinistas also did not fight in an above-board manner. Unless Western freedom is to die the death of a thousand cuts some unappetizing responses are needed.