Drowsy Emperor

I don't see right winning votes on the weight of their economic programme. In fact, none of those parties have offered an economic alternative for the voter to latch onto, other than some extremely vague promises. Statements of the sort: "Bring back manufacturing jobs to the US", "We'll save xyz million euro if we leave the EU" were the least vague things I saw coming from the right. They did however, present a hard stance on immigration. You could always argue it was a punitive vote against, rather than a vote for - but if they're rejecting the economic status quo they sure as hell are rejecting the pro-immigration left positions as well. And bear in mind they managed all this while on the beating end of a severe media frenzy - if the game was played on anything resembling a level playing field, there wouldn't be a single non-right government left in Europe.

What exactly was it about immigration that some people were very dedicated to proving you wrong about? That it's going to "destroy our culture"? That in a generation there would be less ethnic French in France than second-gen Muslim immigrants? I ask because a lot of nonsense has been said regarding this "issue" and it wasn't so much proving anyone wrong as asking you and others to, um, substantiate your claims, so an actual discussion could be had. I'd also like to know when you say "it" has tanked governments, what exactly is "it"? Immigration? If so, being generous I'd say you're jumping to conclusions, and disregarding other important factors, such as, the huge-ass long-term unemployment in Italy and constant strikes and protests that have been going on in France for a while now, and that have nothing to do with immigration, being instead directed against PM Valls' labor reform pet project. Mind, if you want to play the card that immigration is the chief factor for what has been happening, you are actually pushing the "2016 the year of racism" narrative. Can't have your cake and eat it too. And well, the limp-**** right has been re-elected for another term over here after some embarrassing kowtowing by the limp-**** left, so I personally don't have much to say. Er... the more things change, the more they stay the same? ...I got nothing. While there is no doubt that the state of the economy was a factor, the EU barometer poll makes it quite clear what was on the public's mind in spring 2016, just before the dominoes started falling. And, frankly, the top two might as well just be combined and called Islam. Because there isn't any other kind of terrorism or immigration topping the news for the past two years. And even if you lump the next three together, which might as well be called "the economy" they still aren't close.

That any convinient lie becomes a truth if enough people are willing to believe it. Of course that said, the problem has always been that we never had a real and constructive talk on how to approach any religious and cultural difference that clashes with established values, opting to either bury our heads in the sand or believe whatever lie we we're told, as long as it targeted those we didn't like. There are huge problems with many religious paradigmes in the modern era, especially for Islam - but to single them out only proves that your are blind to your own. The only lie was that the problem ends with Islamic immigration itself, instead of it being just the most prominent byproduct of a (a)national policy that was destructive to begin with. I don't fundamentally have a problem with Islam. In my part of the world, we've had relations with it longer than almost any other European state - and from more angles than anyone else - the victor, the defeated, coexistence, both within Islam and outside of it. You name it, we've had it. Ergo we know exactly how the relationship works - everybody keeps to their side of the fence and doesn't pretend to be anything other than what they are. Trade, cooperation, free practicing of faith - sure, 'melting pot' and uncontrolled immigration - hell no. So I will concede that it was a partial untruth that Islam itself is "the problem". Islam is what its always been. The problem is that you want it to be something else (a non-issue) so that you can fill up your aging workforce with people to make your pizza and sweep your streets, going so far as to deceive yourself about how open and tolerant you really are of substantial cultural differences. And now its a slow motion train wreck, blowing up in your face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

By the way, some people on this forum were very dedicated to proving me wrong on the issue of Islam and immigration. Now that its successfully tanked half of your governments, what have you to say now?

Loving the butthurt over the return of "nationalism" to politics. As if the likes of Trump and Farage would have had a leg to stand on if the current system wasn't perceived to be rotten to the core. And still the European quasi left (all centrist neo-lib really) blames the other side for their ****up, despite being in power for decades. The demon is always Trump, or Farage, or nationalism or populism or demagoguery... but never "us". Unfortunately, this new breed of nationalism is not the old paternalistic kind - that can actually create value for a state. Its more the old Franco/Mussolini "big businesses know what's best" type wearing the skin of nation based politics. But unlike even Franco or Mussolini, the people pitching the thing are just as powerless against the moneyed elite as their predecessors. So, as yet another representative of the status quo they'll be unable to rescue Europe from its economic quagmire.Therefore, I give them an even shorter shelf life.

What? As an Argentinian and generally an anti-Peronist, I'll go ahead and say that much of what is said here could very well be applied to Perón. That said, I don't think Zizek's point was so much that his rise to power did not bring anything new but that his government proceeded to stagnate and maintain a decadent system for much longer than it should have been allowed. Hence his comparison to the cartoon scene of the cat walking on air, not realizing he is bound to fall. I don't think there is a disagreement on his behalf that it was an improvement over Batista. Back to the comparison with Perón, he too presented a number of good policies early on in his rule, giving the rural workers basic human rights and minimum wage, giving women the right to vote, and essentially ending what was up to that point an ostensibly oligarchic system. But he did in turn establish a fascist government that was forcibly controlling the market and media, using education as a tool of ostensible propaganda with means such as making Eva Perón's The Reason for my Life a mandatory read in ethic and civil formation classes all over the nation, incarcerating and expropriating the property of anti-peronists, all of which eventually proved carcinogenic for the country. Nowadays the peronist party lives pretty much in the state Zizek describes, and exists as little more than a romantic fantasy of those early years of peronism that every Argentinian demagogue loves to vociferously stand by and abscribe to even as their politics stand frequently elsewhere entirely (see: Menem, Kirchner, Macri, all self-proclaimed peronist presidents). The way I see it, I think the hatred towards Castro on the Americans' behalf is largely misguided and built on years of mediatic propaganda and bias; but the way Castro is being revindicated is also pretty sketchy, as in our desire to stand against American imperialism we are all too eagerly washing over the many flaws and failures of Castro's regime, not to mention crimes, and making of Castro a very questionable icon and role model. To me this article is pretty much Zizek's warning of this very same issue. States change only very slowly and even that is only when things become unbearable. The results are usually catastrophic. So let's say Castro maintained a stagnant system for too long. Let's look at a man who didn't - Gorbachov. Destroyed the USSR in the worst way imaginable, bringing untold misery to Russia for a decade - during which it was at one of its lowest points in history. So beloved that he can't show his face there anymore and would probably be lynched on the spot. With the end of the Soviet Union, Castro started on limited market reforms. He knew communism could no longer be sustained. Cuba looks set to follow the same trajectory as China, a slow slide to a market state. So far it is the best way for that sort of system to transition into something else without major upheavals. Alternatively it could transition more smoothly in a way that Croatia or Slovenia did but they had significant external assistance (and Cuba does not have a positive atmosphere in this regard). Even so, a lot of what they had when they were part of former Yugoslavia, ended up in the hands of foreign capital. So their independence and ability to decide their fate is questionable. China's isn't. Of course the discrepancy between their size and power is massive, but the fact remains that China changed slowly without becoming anyone's client state. So the accusation is still not true. Castro initiated the changes, knowing they're necessary. Yes they're very slow - but that's a good thing. We've seen what "shock therapy" looks like. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

I found Zizek's position on Castro absurd. He states that Castro should be forgotten as soon as possible because he didn't bring anything new (as in a new form of organizing society). But that completely ignores the context - for Latin America, a pure national, independent government that also tries to correct pervasive injustices that plague those societies - at least in the domain of access to education and quality healthcare is new. What Castro brought is the proof that Latin America can, if its clever and dedicated enough - do things on its own, as opposed to being a passive importer of US foreign policy, and that countries don't have to be the type of bandit states headed by the likes of Peron, Pinochet, Papa Doc or Batista. Even though much of LA has switched to a quasi democracy in the post-dictator era, for the most part nothing has really changed thereby making Cuba's example all the more relevant. So if Zizek doesn't value attempts at equality and independence much then, sure, Castro didn't bring anything new. But that really says more about Zizek than it does about Castro.

I've never heard him say anything ridiculous. But I'm not exactly a Chomsky scholar either

We can criticize Castro from the standpoint of individual ethics (as pointless as that is without taking into account the context), but no American president has a leg to stand on in this regard by comparison. The combined body-count of the ten US presidents Castro outlasted makes him look like a paragon of virtue and humanity. Besides, the Bay of Pigs is proof enough who the Cuban people identified with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CDkWN1-BwE I sometimes put on one of his lectures if I can't sleep. The way he drones on in an unexcited monotone about power structures. It's comforting. I was talking about Zizek. I feel Chomsky still has intellectual credibility and is as a rule clear about the things he says. Zizek just blabbers on and on, hits on something true at a rate of one sentence per hour - just enough that you can't call the mental ward to take him away.

That seems very dramatic. Its just common sense

This was actually more pro-Castro than Russia today's embarrassing Zizek stint Incidentally why do they keep asking that prick to give his opinion on anything - I've never heard him say anything worthwhile

There is no stepping down from that position. The only way to leave power is to strike a deal, death or exile. And no one will choose any of those options unless they're already on the edge of defeat.

*shrug* I'd say the answer is patently obvious to everyone

What was the alternative? He went to the US first, realized he would get no support there and that they would try to depose him. After that any "elections" would have cost him his head. Money would have flowed to any pliable opposition on the island and there'd be as many regime change operations as it took to get rid of him. This isn't Sweden or Canada where nobody cares what they do with no real opponents, massive buffer zone between any source of instability and limitless resources to build up in peace. It was either rule the way he ruled or not at all.

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades. As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects. Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily. Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government. On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies. Where does this small government you speak of exist? They created it in 1789, but then a bunch of guys decided to star growing it in 1913 by allowing income tax on a federal level and ruined it. Then more guys came along and created a huge unregulated bank to create a fiat currency that caused massive inflation but allowed for a century of Wars to occur. So, right now, it doesn't exist because a bunch of people expect the government to take care of them. So, year after year it keeps getting bigger. Eventually it will do what everything that is too top heavy for its foundation does, and it will topple. It's a sad story to be sure. Lol, that "small" government also went on to all but obliterate Native Americans. Paradise indeed Why do Castro's acts against his political opponents disqualify his legacy but those of your ancestors do not?

S' nice, but it was an absolute monarch that put bread on his table

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades. As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects. Why would I bother? I said in the post you quoted that politicians have no problem with causing death and destruction. That's why I'm a small government guy. Because big authoritarian governments can cause more harm to its people and to other countries more easily. Either way, all the sins of other governments of the world and history don't make many of those committed by Castro morally acceptable. You are giving the "but they did it too" argument that doesn't work with children and shouldn't extend to government. On poverty, that's fair, but his decisions led them there. You can't overrun a nation and expect it's neighbors to just play nice with you afterwards. Especially if you are friends with their enemies. Where does this small government you speak of exist?

Please find me a single government that hasn't engaged in blatant Human Rights violations, especially one in a position as precarious as Cuba's. I'd love to see you, or anyone else, remain a saint while keeping the worlds strongest superpower at bay as it attempts to depose or outright kill you in every way imaginable for decades. As for poverty, Cuba is poor for a reason. That reason has little to do with Castro and more to do with the fact that the island has little in the way of valuable resources and less ways to utilize what it has since the US tried to keep it in an economic stranglehold for years. Politics is the art of the possible, not living a fantasy. With what little Cuba has, it has done rather well in some respects.

Every Cuban I've ever met has a serious issue with Castro. I take their word over anything else. I'm hoping that you know even the basics of Cuban history. If you do you should be well aware that the opinions of Cubans living in the US are, at best, a one sided view of those affairs. But do feel free to ignore fifty years of established international politics and world history for someone's bitter anecdotal evidence. By the way, shouldn't you, as a teacher, be dealing primarily with facts? Funny Teachers teach what they are being told to teach. In many cases like the sciences, that is obviously teaching facts. But there is no uktimalye truths when it comes to politics. Or rather, there is, but people (especially in America) want their children to support their country. So everything is taught in a way that supports the US. Now, obviously there are exceptions, but this is the general consensus. And obviously this is true for basically every school system ever-if children are taught politics, they are usually also taught underlaying principles. And in the case of the US those are democracy, capitalism and (to a greater or lesser extend) patriotism. In some parts also religion. But history and especially politics is always taught an talked about at an angle. Always! Yes, but its the duty of any self-respecting academic and intellectual to try to entertain other points of view and educate himself as broadly as possible on a topic, weighing the extent of his knowledge on the topic and trying to get at what is likely the truth. What Hurlshot said is no better than a farmer saying that he doesn't vaccinate his animals because Bob from next door said "they are, like, really bad for you". Sure, there are more than a few people that hate Castro. You don't get to be a leader for half a century without inspiring some hate in the process - even Ghandi is positively despised in most of India. But there are also millions of people to whom Castro is the best leader they can imagine - and millions of others across the world who see him as the symbol of national liberation, a champion for equality and freedom. His status in Latin America, most of Africa and Asia - and much of Europe is unrivaled. Its ridiculous to discount that legacy merely on account of the minority of Cubans living in the US.

Every Cuban I've ever met has a serious issue with Castro. I take their word over anything else. I'm hoping that you know even the basics of Cuban history. If you do you should be well aware that the opinions of Cubans living in the US are, at best, a one sided view of those affairs. But do feel free to ignore fifty years of established international politics and world history for someone's bitter anecdotal evidence. By the way, shouldn't you, as a teacher, be dealing primarily with facts?

Politics level over 9000

Mass murdering is an extreme exaggeration. All revolutions are filled with misdeeds, and all governments eventually devolve into an oligarchy. Those two truisms aside he could have held onto power without giving the people anything and behaving in the exact same manner as Batista before him. Yet he chose not to do that, built a healthcare and education system out of nothing, supported several national liberation struggles that were probably done at a greater cost than profit, managed to defeat a foreign invasion, managed to keep a superpower at bay, made it state policy to send Cuban doctors pro bono to help Latin american countries, supported the independence of other nations and a whole lot of other remarkable things. The man is an icon of freedom the world over, barring anglo-saxon countries and non-state satellites like Canada. So, the overwhelming majority of the world. Ask yourself why he used to get a roaring applause prior to opening his mouth at the UN as opposed to any other politican, including those from your own country.

The US hates being baulked, and Castro did it for 49 years, including through the 90s when he was supposed to go the way of Ceacescu etc. That a lot of people in the US take it personally is no real surprise. Would have said that Tito could, but you'd know more about that than I. And for most of his time Castro was nor genuinely politically independent as he was solidly USSR sphere, albeit more by necessity than outright desire- it was only the last 15 years of his rulership where he was independent. Such irony that I forgot about Tito. Yeah his political acumen was second to none. I just have a general distaste for the way nation politics were handled within former Yugoslavia so I sometimes tend to overlook his objectively impressive achievements.

There was also play piece states in Europe during cold war that successfully kept their indecency and do much better economically. And some of them even have free education and free healthcare systems that are accounted to being some of the best in the world. Those states also had strong willed governance but they succeed not making enemies from either USA or USSR. But of course it is hard to say if what they did was similar, better or lesser demonstration of political independence and sheer willpower, but at end they left their countries in better economical and political positions in the world, which of course don't mean that they necessary did better job. And most of them were either former colonial powers with massive accumulated wealth or in the the protected back of Europe with someone else banking their defense costs ... and no one attempting to kill their leaders or invade them.