>>47200 He expelled the American businessmen using cuba as a source of cheap slave-like labour & tax haven, and as we all know, the capitalist state exists only to perpetuate the interest of the bourgoise. Ergo, embargo & assmad.
1) He is a Communist. 2) He is anti-American 3) He supports anti-American movements in other areas of the world. 4) He sided with the Soviet Union in the Cold War 5) He overthrew the US ally Batista 6) His island was a nuclear launch pad against the USA
Daily reminder after the Cuban revolution Castro's first diplomatic move was to head to the USA and request a meeting with the President to restore relations, but he got the cold shoulder from paranoid Ike who didn't trust his evil commie ways bent on destroying Ameriga
Without anyone to provide the help and support to Cuba that the USA once provided, Castro turned to the Soviet Union for support as his second option, on hearing of the Cuban revolution, Khrushchev had no idea who Castro even was...
Soviets were a bunch of sneaky bastards too in plenty of places, involved in civil wars they shouldn't have been, but you can't be saying all the socialist governments overthrown were secretly in the Soviets pocket
>>48773 >but you can't be saying all the socialist governments overthrown were secretly in the Soviets pocket
I am currently eating a hamburger, I think that should suffice.
Most of them were, and the ones that weren't would have played ball with our enemies based on ideological opposition, just like Cuba did. Ever heard of realpolitik? You can disagree on moral grounds if you want, but the reality remains that if you don't fight your enemies your going to end up cucкed out of existence. To me, people who ignore that reality are either delusional anti-nationalists and/or they feel kinship with the people that got fucked over and express their anger through moral outrage, though if the opportunity ever came up they would of course gleefully do the exact same.
>>49005 >They are the most developed Latin American country He killed thousands of people. He was a brutal dictator.
>muh economy He created a giant banking crisis and destroyed the economy and had to nationalise all banking in 1982. After the crash, Chile abandoned all the stupid free market shit they were doing and went back to state intervention.
You should try learning some history instead of repeating memes.
>>49128 >He killed thousands of people. He was a brutal dictator. Sometimes you have to break eggs to make an omelette.
>He created a giant banking crisis and destroyed the economy and had to nationalise all banking in 1982. After the crash, Chile abandoned all the stupid free market shit they were doing and went back to state intervention. You are missing the point which is that what he did worked, and as you yourself admit he changed policies when things proved not to be working. Cuba and other Socialist states in Latin America such as Venezuela just march on until their people are being told to eat rocks to deal with food shortages.
>>49195 Pinochet's regime drove down wages and attacked workers when they requested political rights. It was an extremely oppressive regime and it didn't work. It only started succeeding when he did a 180 but even then the poor were still totally screwed and all the wealth went straight to the top.
Cuba and Venezuela are not anywhere near as bad as Pinochet's regime.
>>49107 >you didn't see them leaving NATO and jumping ship to the Warsaw pact
You don't actually consider that an insightful argument do you? The UK has such overpowering cultural, political, and economic ties to the rest of the Western world that it would never do something like that even if the effete political elite were entirely in favor of it, which they weren't.
>>49104 Argentina isn't that far off, but I'm unaware of its economoical potential. Uruguay is doing pretty damn well for a country with virtually no industry and for having a past of being politically instable for 100 years, being influenced by both of its neighbours. They are still kinda influenced economically by both of them though, as a good deal of their revenue comes from cattle raising iirc. Chile, on the other hand, has its copper going on for them and a whole industry to support that.
>>49270 No one ever tried to flee Pinochet's Chile in a make-shift boat. In fact, with the exception of political exiles, Chile under Pinochet attract migrants from countries such as Peru and Bolivia, which were under left-wing regimes.
>>49270 >Pinochet's regime drove down wages and attacked workers when they requested political rights Attacked Communists you mean.
>Pinochet's regime drove down wages and attacked workers when they requested political rights It worked which is why Chile is the best country in terms of living standards, life expectancy, purchasing power etc in Latin America.
>Cuba and Venezuela are not anywhere near as bad as Pinochet's regime. They are both far worse. In Venezuela they cannot even get basic products like food and toilet paper. In Cuba they have plenty of Doctors but no medicine for them. Socialism is not capable of product distribution or responding to demand.
>>49344 Argentina has been stagnant for decades and bankrupted multiple times due to its Peronist governments. If the Peronists had never come to power it would be at European levels of wealth it had continued its economic trends.
>>49405 Venezuela has some of the largest reserves of oil and minerals on the world, it has not benefited them much because socialists are not able to properly make use of resources.
>>49383 >Pinochet dictatorship was not totalitarian This is a contradictory statement. >>49457 >No one ever tried to flee Pinochet's Chile Yes they did. People were blacklisted and there tens of thousands of forced disappearances. >>49463 >Attacked Communists you mean. No. Attacked regular working people who wanted an improvement to working conditions. >It worked Stalin did the fastest industrlisation in the history of mankind. Does communism work then? >Venezuela and Cuba Both of these countries are under giant economic sanctions. It's more or less impossible for them not to face problems.
>>49589 >Pinochet dictatorship was not totalitarian >This is a contradictory statement. No it is not. A dictatorship can be authoritarian but not totalitarian. An example of a totalitarian dictatorship would be North Korea. An example of an authoritarian dictatorship would be Egypt.
>Stalin did the fastest industrlisation in the history of mankind. Does communism work then? Sure, if you are willing to work millions to death to do it.
>Both of these countries are under giant economic sanctions. It's more or less impossible for them not to face problems. They have been facing economic problems from the moment their socialism was established.
>No. Attacked regular working people who wanted an improvement to working conditions. No, attacked Communists.
>>49707 If /his/ is going to be a place for apologists for brutal dictators than this board is already ruined. The relative economic success of Pinochet started in 1982 when he abandoned the Neoliberal policies, nationalised banking and went back to pragmatic state intervention. Before then, he had a giant crash where 25% of the population were unemployed on his watch. >>49741 The Asian tigers were another extremely amazing success story (also done through state intervention). The sheer scale of Russia's industrialisation was much greater however.
>>49880 >pinochet had problems in the begining when he dealt with the crash caused by allende's commie policies >the economic boom happens AFTER he implemented his policies >somehow he did wrong TOP KEK
>>49880 >If /his/ is going to be a place for apologists for brutal dictators than this board is already ruined. This thread is filled with Communist apologists. I am just returning the favour. Including you who defend both Cuba and Venezuela. So lets not pretend you are some impartial person in this argument.
>>49960 Pinochet came into power in 1973. The Chilean crisis happened in 1982. It's not even denied it was his "shock therapy" that caused it. After 1982 he abandoned the Neoliberal economic policies. It was at this point that Chile started to do well. When people celebrate Pinochet they seem to forget he actually had to do a 180 on his own policies in order to get the country back on track. >>49971 I am no apologies for Cuba and Venezuela. But even the most ardent capitalist would appreciate that putting countries under embargos/sanctions will screw their economic development. After all, isn't free trade what the free market is based on?
>>49880 >Korea and Japan are Africa tier, with tens of millions of families living on the streets, and all usable infrastructure bombed to shit >follow America's example >have double digit GDP growth for decades >steadily improving human rights situation in Japan, democratic uprising in South Korea after middle class reaches critical mass >no GULAG >no NKVD >both states survive to this very day
Frankly, you'd have to be an actual retard to choose Marxist economics over Keynesian.
>>50107 >chile still tops latin america in human development with privatization of many important industries and more economic freedom than any other country in latino america >IT WAS ABANDONING THOSE POLICIES THAT HELPED
>>50107 >After all, isn't free trade what the free market is based on? No that is a meme. Trade is based upon interests and shifts with interests. It is Marx who encourages free trade in his belief that it will speed up the arrival of socialism.
>>50125 >if you don't support Communists you do not belong here Well meme'd.
a lot of US politicians (mostly from south florida) have a vested intrest in satisfying the Cuban American electorate that hates Fidel's guts. Combine that with him being an "Evil" commie and various other bad blood issues and you have an unending dick waving contest.
>>50146 Your post is 100% correct and I don't advocate Marxist economics (not that they have ever been done though). Also, traditional Keynesian economics is fraught with problems. Post-Keynesian is where it's really at now.
America/South Korea/Japan did amazingly well through state interventionism in mixed economy. It never pursued free markets and profited as a result. >>50160 Read what I actually wrote. In 1982, Chilean unemplyoment was 25% and GDP was -15. That was after nearly 10 years of Pinochet's epic market fundamentalism.
In 1982, he nationalised banking and switched to a more moderate state interventionist role. Also, he actually maintained the nationalisation of Chilian mines.
>>50532 Salvador Allende was funding communist guerrillas from the Revolutionary Left Movement to take power after the end of his office. He wasn't some sort of "democratic socialist" like Olof Palme or François Mitterant, he was a legit revolutionary marxist for whom electoral politics were merely a method to achieve the end result which was the proletarian revolution that would slaughter the Chilean bourgeoisie.
>>50812 >Depends on the definition you use. The definition which we actually use here in Europe. I know Americans have an obsession with thinking Europe is full of Socialist countries but this is not the case. The Nordic states are Social Democratic, which is just capitalism with a welfare state.
>than Pinochet style fascism. Pinochet cannot really be said to be a Fascist, he did not have any Fascist policies. He was just a pretty standard authoritarian leader. This is another very American thing to do, call all Dictators Fascist or Communist, as if they only come in two forms.
>>47200 The USA has always considered Cuba to be a rightful possesion of theirs since they got it from spaniards (even before, actually).
So every cuban who rejects the USA is an enemy. Communists leading the anti-american movement in Cuba was just a consequence of the era where the events developed, it could've been any other ideology enemy of the hegemonic power in another time, like liberalism when american colonies escaped from Spain.
>>52894 The CIA's Black Ops: Covert Action, Foreign Policy, and Democracy
On Page 115
Perhaps the most humorous plot involved the bearded leader's prized symbol of revolution: his beard. The CIA developed a plan to humiliate Castro in the eyes of the Cuba by dusting his shoes with thallium salts, a low-level radioactive powder. When Castro put his shoes on, the radiation would quickly make his beard fall out. This plan was to take place on a trip outside Cuba (almost certainly New York), where the CIA would get Castro's shoes when he placed them outside his hotel room at night to be shined. The CIA planned for this to take place during his appearance on The David Susskind Show, to maximize his embarrassment. This plan got to the animal testing stage, but was aborted when Castro canceled his trip.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.