Castro's resignation and Cuba's future

craner

Beast of Burden
It seems very unlikely that Cuba is automatically on the road to democracy post-Castro, sadly.

This is a wonderful book by the way, worth re-reading right now if you can find the time. (Or the book.)

 

craner

Beast of Burden
He then started to spit and bluster about neo-liberalism and in an amazing passage, somehow to conflate Hayek with his collectivist ideological enemies (and the subject of his most famous book), the Nazis and Fascists of the 1930s

I remember that! It was pretty funny. That was a very nice Dissensus debut, Vimothy.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Coming late into this but ...

Does anyone here actually know anyone who had the misfortune to be living in Cuba when Castro
took over ?
I do , and her family was basically stripped of what they had.
And got out when they could.

Can you imagine what that would be like, as we tap away on the net ?

My x loves her country but would never go back.

Not at all to excuse wot the US politicorp has been doing all these years, mind you ...

Totally understand your point, and good to bring up a firsthand account, but the tricky thing about the revolution in Cuba is that the blood Castro has on his hands and the corruption his reign suborned pale in comparison to the corruption and state-supported violence before the revolution, most of it U.S. sanctioned, supported, and bank-rolled.

Sadly, the mafia and the U.S. government had mutual financial interest in Cuba as a major port stop on the whole "French connection" route for heroin and cocaine coming into the U.S., and people were hardly "better off" under Batista. Things arguably would've become far bleaker had he or his relatives/party associates retained power there.

Of course, I don't think Castro solved Cuba's problems by any means, and he's not a good leader in my opinion, but in historical context the revolution (and Castro's rise to power) makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
According to Rudolph J. Rommel, Batista was repsonsible for 1,000 deaths, whereas Castro is responsible for 70,000 to date.

This is absolutely absurd. Meyer Lansky and Murder Inc. alone probably killed at least 1,000 people on contract for Batista or in order to keep him in power. Where did this guy get his info? I'd love to see his criteria for compiling this data set.

I don't doubt Castro has killed thousands, but so did Batista, without a doubt.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
You post this hackneyed tripe from the National Review, then call other people out on their sources?

When he's not thumping reports published by the Heritage Foundation, Vim likes to check out a wide variety of politically divergent data sources with no political affiliation or obvious agenda.
 

vimothy

yurp
This is absolutely absurd. Meyer Lansky and Murder Inc. alone probably killed at least 1,000 people on contract for Batista or in order to keep him in power. Where did this guy get his info? I'd love to see his criteria for compiling this data set.

Did your uncle Frankie tell you that?

Post some alternative data, then. And in any case, the difference in magnitude is what is important. Maybe Batista killed two thousand. Maybe Castro killed 50 thousand. What did Castro's killings cost and what did they buy? I've put forward my argument upthread. If you have a criticism beyond disagreements with approximate totals of deaths, please make it.

World Atlas:

Batista regime (1952-59)
Mario Lazo, Dagger in the Heart : American Policy Failures in Cuba (1968), calls Castro's charge that 20,000 were killed by Batista a "cynical falsehood". He says "total deaths ... not more than 900 on both [sides]"
Mid-Century World, Newsweek (1970) believes the accusation: 20,000 executions in 2 years. (This is probably the only mainstream American source that does. Most simply ignore it.)
Hugh Thomas, Cuba, or, the pursuit of freedom (1971, 1988): 1,500-2,000 deaths as a direct consequence of the political crisis, 1952-58, including war.
Gilbert: 2,000 deaths in 6 years of war and punitive actions.​

When he's not thumping reports published by the Heritage Foundation, Vim likes to check out a wide variety of politically divergent data sources with no political affiliation or obvious agenda.

For the record, I didn't post "data" from the NRO, I posted a quote from an op-ed piece.
 
D

droid

Guest
Sorry for letting you hang on this Vimothy, I'm very busy right now and am avoiding forums unless I happen to get sucked into and argument...

I will get back to you as soon as I can.
 

vimothy

yurp
Sorry for letting you hang on this Vimothy, I'm very busy right now and am avoiding forums unless I happen to get sucked into and argument...

I will get back to you as soon as I can.

No worries mate -- I think that I have said as much as I want to say about Castro and am happy to leave it at that, though of course would be equally happy to read your response...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Did your uncle Frankie tell you that?

Post some alternative data, then. And in any case, the difference in magnitude is what is important. Maybe Batista killed two thousand. Maybe Castro killed 50 thousand. What did Castro's killings cost and what did they buy? I've put forward my argument upthread. If you have a criticism beyond disagreements with approximate totals of deaths, please make it.

World Atlas:

Batista regime (1952-59)
Mario Lazo, Dagger in the Heart : American Policy Failures in Cuba (1968), calls Castro's charge that 20,000 were killed by Batista a "cynical falsehood". He says "total deaths ... not more than 900 on both [sides]"
Mid-Century World, Newsweek (1970) believes the accusation: 20,000 executions in 2 years. (This is probably the only mainstream American source that does. Most simply ignore it.)
Hugh Thomas, Cuba, or, the pursuit of freedom (1971, 1988): 1,500-2,000 deaths as a direct consequence of the political crisis, 1952-58, including war.
Gilbert: 2,000 deaths in 6 years of war and punitive actions.​



For the record, I didn't post "data" from the NRO, I posted a quote from an op-ed piece.

Did I ever say Castro was a good leader? No. I don't think he was. But let's not post numbers that on the face of them are obviously absurdly off and based on the unconfirmed data "cited" (I'm using this loosely) in books by people like Lazo (where did he get his numbers? I don't see any footnotes).
 
Top