Chinese woman sentenced to 1 year of 're-education' on her wedding day for re-tweeting a joke on Twitter

[pmp10]

In short, we believe you are oppressing your people and that's not right.

 

And Western countries don't oppress their people? Can you show me a Western Country where the people are free and not oppressed by degrees of tyranny.

Tyranny is a form of absolute rule of a single individual who usually wrestles power from more legitimate government.

Since democratic institutions are by definition opposed to such abuses of power I'll say that various forms of representational government do not tyrannize their people.

 

In the end the concept of rule of law and representation implies that any action strongly opposed by people will lead to a change of elective representatives and by extension their policies.

No such possibilities exist in the likes of China.

 

If you honestly believe that the difference between democratic and autocratic/authoritarian government is insignificant then I doubt it's possible to change your mind by the means of discussion.

[Calax]

In short, we believe you are oppressing your people and that's not right.

 

And Western countries don't oppress their people? Can you show me a Western Country where the people are free and not oppressed by degrees of tyranny.

Tyranny is a form of absolute rule of a single individual who usually wrestles power from more legitimate government.

Since democratic institutions are by definition opposed to such abuses of power I'll say that various forms of representational government do not tyrannize their people.

 

In the end the concept of rule of law and representation implies that any action strongly opposed by people will lead to a change of elective representatives and by extension their policies.

No such possibilities exist in the likes of China.

 

If you honestly believe that the difference between democratic and autocratic/authoritarian government is insignificant then I doubt it's possible to change your mind by the means of discussion.

Except that even in the current US system we're having troubles because of how entrenched the two political parties are in the system that you don't really choose between a whole pile of different views and ideologies, but variations on two viewpoints. With no other viable choice, at all. Basically instead of just having the one communist party, you have the Dem and Rep parties.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Calax

[Hiro Protagonist]

Tyranny is a form of absolute rule of a single individual who usually wrestles power from more legitimate government.

Since democratic institutions are by definition opposed to such abuses of power I'll say that various forms of representational government do not tyrannize their people.

 

In the end the concept of rule of law and representation implies that any action strongly opposed by people will lead to a change of elective representatives and by extension their policies.

No such possibilities exist in the likes of China.

 

If you honestly believe that the difference between democratic and autocratic/authoritarian government is insignificant then I doubt it's possible to change your mind by the means of discussion.

 

Incorrect.

 

In reality, most people in Western Countries live in a police state, and are completely unaware of it. There is little difference between tyranny in governments, no matter where it may be. For example, the people of Poland:

 

* cannot drive without licenses

* are required to register their cars

* cannot build on their land without government approval

* are compelled to buy insurance

* must show identification papers upon demand

* have a portion of their wages taken away

* have ports of entry which compel them to stop, clear and pay duties

* are subject to searches on their highways

* may be arbitrarily taken into custody and fingerprinted without court order

 

The list goes on. It makes no difference where you may be located; citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free, but living under tyranny. It matters not whether we think we have it somehow "better" than the Poles. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens. The Poles understand that they live in tyranny, while people in other Western countries have been convinced that it can't happen here, even though it has already come to pass. We recognize tyranny in foreign countries, but in our own, we refer to it as "law and order." But a police state by any other name is still a police state.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Hiro Protagonist

[Hurlshort]

In reality, most people in Western Countries live in a police state, and are completely unaware of it. There is little difference between tyranny in governments, no matter where it may be. For example, the people of Poland:

 

* cannot drive without licenses

* are required to register their cars

* cannot build on their land without government approval

* are compelled to buy insurance

* must show identification papers upon demand

* have a portion of their wages taken away

* have ports of entry which compel them to stop, clear and pay duties

* are subject to searches on their highways

* may be arbitrarily taken into custody and fingerprinted without court order

 

The list goes on. It makes no difference where you may be located; citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free, but living under tyranny. It matters not whether we think we have it somehow "better" than the Poles. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens. The Poles understand that they live in tyranny, while people in other Western countries have been convinced that it can't happen here, even though it has already come to pass. We recognize tyranny in foreign countries, but in our own, we refer to it as "law and order." But a police state by any other name is still a police state.

 

I can't speak for Poland, but most of these exist in the US. But all this means is there is a paperwork process that needs to be gone through in order to do certain things. None of these things are actively withheld from citizens, and if they are, there is a legal system that heavily favors the individual citizen. Also, most of this stuff is designed to protect people. I don't want people driving around in unregistered cars without licenses and insurance on makeshift roads with no police presence! I want to know that when some bozo hits me, I have legal recourse.

[Orogun01]

Incorrect.

 

In reality, most people in Western Countries live in a police state, and are completely unaware of it. There is little difference between tyranny in governments, no matter where it may be. For example, the people of Poland:

 

* cannot drive without licenses

* are required to register their cars

* cannot build on their land without government approval

* are compelled to buy insurance

* must show identification papers upon demand

* have a portion of their wages taken away

* have ports of entry which compel them to stop, clear and pay duties

* are subject to searches on their highways

* may be arbitrarily taken into custody and fingerprinted without court order

 

The list goes on. It makes no difference where you may be located; citizens of any country who are so constrained are not free, but living under tyranny. It matters not whether we think we have it somehow "better" than the Poles. Both systems are tyrannical in nature, the only difference being the degree of tyranny applied and the understanding of the system by the citizens. The Poles understand that they live in tyranny, while people in other Western countries have been convinced that it can't happen here, even though it has already come to pass. We recognize tyranny in foreign countries, but in our own, we refer to it as "law and order." But a police state by any other name is still a police state.

You are arguing the semantics of freedom whilst living in a society, this is a point that gets nowhere since we are bound by many chains, social and metaphysical.

If trading some freedoms for comfort, a basic understanding and respect for others is tyranny then your alternative would be a completely asocial existence. Manners, human rights, ethics and laws are also imposed on us in a tyrannical manner. Should everyone "free" themselves and behave as they would, and completely ignore any form of boundaries? Boundaries that exist to maintain the existence of society which has allowed humans to reach this point.

 

Whilst its a matter of degrees of freedom, you can't operate freely in a tyrannical society with the government breathing constantly at your back. Whereas we enjoy a greater range of freedom since we can express distaste, publicly disagree, and even influence government legislation without fear of reprisals.

China may not be a pure Communist society with their many corporations and international trade but the flow of ideas in the country is stagnated by a governmental hold. That a woman was arrested for tweeting (which is also illegal on the country) is the perfect example of the backwards kind of thinking that should be changed. If the majority people really agree with their government then they shouldn't be afraid of giving them a voice or a little choice.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Orogun01

[Moose]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

Okay, I agree with the point made by this thread, but can you please not spout out cliches like they mean something?

 

It is not what we get. But who we become, what we contribute... that gives meaning to our lives.

[Calax]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

Okay, I agree with the point made by this thread, but can you please not spout out cliches like they mean something?

 

It is not what we get. But who we become, what we contribute... that gives meaning to our lives.

IF I CAN CHANGE... AND YOU CAN CHANGE... WE CAN ALL CHANGE!

-Rocky IV

[Moose]

He single handedly ended the cold war with that you know.

[Junai]

We fed them opium, the crumbling chinese society gave birth to Mao, now we criticize them for being hard and inhumane..

 

 

Life sure has a sick sense of humour..

 

J.

[Moose]

Tbh, I think the Qing dynasty would have collapsed before the end of WW2 anyway - so regardless of the 19th century opium trades, the Soviets would have had their opportunity to crap up China.

[Tale]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

Okay, I agree with the point made by this thread, but can you please not spout out cliches like they mean something?

 

It is not what we get. But who we become, what we contribute... that gives meaning to our lives.

IF I CAN CHANGE... AND YOU CAN CHANGE... WE CAN ALL CHANGE!

-Rocky IV

It's a gift... and a curse.

[Humodour]

In short, we believe you are oppressing your people and that's not right.

 

And Western countries don't oppress their people? Can you show me a Western Country where the people are free and not oppressed by degrees of tyranny.

 

What rot! It's the 'degrees' as you put it that are so crucial here. Fining somebody for smoking pot for example (Australia) is totally different to murdering them for it (China)! Fining (or in bad cases gaoling) somebody for tax evasion is totally different to murdering them for it (China)! And further, in Australia these laws can be changed through elections if the people decide they don't suit them (which is why the civil libertarian parties of the Greens, Liberty & Democracy Party, and the Sex Party are so successful right now - young people are flocking to them in droves, and so are quite a few older adults). In China, fat ****ing chance of even seeing movements like this, let alone parties with power to change government. No, that's not strictly true - you'll see these movements for a brief few days occassionally before the dictators swoop in and mop up any elements of dissent.

 

God, if China could just get a functioning, consistent legal system not subject to alteration and the making up of new laws when the Chinese government wants to eliminate/silence somebody would be a big ****ing start. You know, a fully independent judiciary.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Krezack

[Humodour]

In short, we believe you are oppressing your people and that's not right.

 

And Western countries don't oppress their people? Can you show me a Western Country where the people are free and not oppressed by degrees of tyranny.

Tyranny is a form of absolute rule of a single individual who usually wrestles power from more legitimate government.

Since democratic institutions are by definition opposed to such abuses of power I'll say that various forms of representational government do not tyrannize their people.

 

In the end the concept of rule of law and representation implies that any action strongly opposed by people will lead to a change of elective representatives and by extension their policies.

No such possibilities exist in the likes of China.

 

If you honestly believe that the difference between democratic and autocratic/authoritarian government is insignificant then I doubt it's possible to change your mind by the means of discussion.

Except that even in the current US system we're having troubles because of how entrenched the two political parties are in the system that you don't really choose between a whole pile of different views and ideologies, but variations on two viewpoints. With no other viable choice, at all. Basically instead of just having the one communist party, you have the Dem and Rep parties.

 

Irrelevant, though, really? America's ****ty electoral system has no bearing on this discussion's main point: there are plenty of countries out their with electoral systems which function to promote democracy rather then enforce two-party rule (e.g. New Zealand, Australia, much of Europe).

 

But even two-party rule tends to be far superior to totalitarianism because it means there is an opposition to hold the government of the day to account.

[Rostere]

Someone said that China was a economically successful totalitarian state. You know, that's what they all say when global circumstances makes your economy boom. But sooner or later, things will get out of hand - and the people responsible will have to take the blame. This is basically what has happened to every authoritarian state that has crumbled in the 20th century. The difference between democracy and a "successful" authoritarian state is that a democracy can handle the unrest when things go bad. Civilized societies are naturally tending towards democracy, because it is a stable system.

[Orogun01]

Someone said that China was a economically successful totalitarian state. You know, that's what they all say when global circumstances makes your economy boom. But sooner or later, things will get out of hand - and the people responsible will have to take the blame. This is basically what has happened to every authoritarian state that has crumbled in the 20th century. The difference between democracy and a "successful" authoritarian state is that a democracy can handle the unrest when things go bad. Civilized societies are naturally tending towards democracy, because it is a stable system.

I beg to differ sir, democracy is everything away from stable. Giving everyone a voice just causes the many conflicting groups seen during the 60's and even before, many of which still remain. Worst example is the KKK a hate mongering organization that promotes violence but it's allowed it's democratic vote and voice, I would like to know what's civilized about this.

Different peoples, different cultures, different history no one form of government is going to encompass the best for everyone in the world. The Chinese are better when under strong leadership, it has been that way through their history. Aside from their Communist "eccentricities"; which compared to other Communists regimes are mellow, they have a pretty stable and successful society.

[Walsingham]

I'm suspicious of the notion that democracy is magically better, or more hardy than other systems. However, in pure system terms, the more you try to force people away from what they want the more hostility you generate, and the harder you have to govern (info and physical effects). So letting the people define what laws govern them is a pretty obvious way of regulating the system whole.

 

My main objection to this is that you lay yourself oopen to revolutionary movements which aim to destroy democracy.

[Humodour]

Juicy juicy WikiLeaks news for anybody interested in China.

 

The realities of WikiLeaks have arrived in Australia following the publication of the American precis of a meeting between then prime minister Kevin Rudd and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

The secret world of diplomacy, now uncovered, confirms widely held suspicions of just how clear and pragmatic governments are about their national interests, using words they would never utter nor admit to in public. But the revelations are also generating problems that go well beyond the personal discomfort of diplomats into creating real new challenges for foreign policy.

 

The juicy details of the Clinton-Rudd China chat have captured all the headlines. There is little new for close watchers of the Australia-China-US triangle. Having more people understand the realities of these relationships is probably good.

 

But the revelations will create headaches for Rudd and Australia. Managing relations with China - the country's meal ticket but also the only possible real threat to its security - was already a hard ask. It has just become considerably harder. The Chinese leadership has always allowed international relations to mask frank and pointed talk behind closed doors, as long as its interlocutors are long on banal and benign platitudes in public.

 

One can only hope that the Chinese leadership will be sufficiently cool-headed to blame the messenger, Australia's new bad boy, Julian Assange, rather than the message sent by the nation's new Foreign Minister, Rudd. And Australia should also take comfort that its relations with the US are so close that conversations like those between Rudd and Clinton can happen. In fact, the leaked cable is no doubt only the tip of the diplomatic iceberg.

 

So what is in the cable? Clinton apparently opened the bidding by asking Rudd of China: ''How do you deal toughly with your banker?''

 

''Banker'', of course, is more what China is for the US, with Chinese greenback and Treasury bill holdings in the thousands of billions balanced by the fact that America is Chinese manufacturing's ''customer of last resort''.

 

''Co-dependent'' might have been more accurate but less polite shorthand for the Australia-China relationship, given China's insatiable appetite for Australian minerals and the invaluable role this played in Australia's escape from the ravages of the global financial crisis.

 

Rudd rose to the ''tough'' call by describing himself as a ''brutal realist on China''. He then defined brutal realism as ''integrating China effectively into the international community and allowing it to demonstrate greater responsibility, all while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong''.

 

This is a concise rendering of the Rudd government's foreign policy from the Asia Pacific community to the submarine build-up in last year's Defence white paper. It is also an accurate summary of the Obama administration's policy for the Asia Pacific: reinforcing its traditional alliances with Australia, Japan and South Korea; bringing new friends like India, Indonesia and Vietnam into the tent; and supporting pro-democracy and pro-markets regional institutions such as APEC and the emerging Trans Pacific Partnership.

 

The goal for Australia and the US is the same. Maximise the economic benefits of China's rise. Create regional partnerships, bilateral and multilateral, that are designed to socialise China into the club but that also act as an insurance policy should China go in the opposite direction.

 

Rudd was quick to acknowledge the real challenges to getting China to act the way the US and Australia want. He said that China's ''reactions on Taiwan were sub-rational and deeply emotional, whereas hard-line policies on Tibet were crafted to send clear messages to other ethnic minorities''.

 

Rudd was, of course, right. It is an article of faith in China, from the politburo to the street, that Taiwan is part of China. What Rudd didn't say is also well known - so long as no one rocks the boat, deep economic integration between Taiwan and the mainland decreases both the relevance of the legal formalism and the chances that the Taiwan issue will blow up.

 

Rudd was also right that being tough on Tibet is a Chinese proxy for all the territorial and ethnic challenges China faces with large minority populations in far flung parts of its massive multi-ethnic land mass. Beyond its Han core, they border countries with which the minorities share lots of culture and history. Think Central Asia, as much if not more than Tibet.

 

The rub for Rudd is that Western leaders are not supposed to say any of this in public. Pressure in private is okay with the Chinese government. So, too, is some degree of posturing for domestic purposes for countries such as Australia and the US that have very different values regarding human rights and sovereign self-determination. But calling China on the carpet in public is just not on.

 

As a result, the Foreign Minister will have his work cut out rebuilding trust with the Chinese leadership, all the more so because the Chinese were already sceptical since the abortive Chinalco bid for a part of Rio Tinto and the Stern Hu saga. There have also been personal missteps by Rudd including losing his temper in a foul-mouthed tirade at Chinese intransigence in Copenhagen and his perceived snub of the Chinese Ambassador in Britain.

 

The WikiLeaks cables are priceless foreign policy porn. But they have now raised the stakes for Australia. The Foreign Minister will need to use all of his vaunted diplomatic skills to rise to the challenge.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rud...tml?from=smh_sb

Edited December 7, 2010 by Krezack

[Rostere]

I beg to differ sir, democracy is everything away from stable. Giving everyone a voice just causes the many conflicting groups seen during the 60's and even before, many of which still remain. Worst example is the KKK a hate mongering organization that promotes violence but it's allowed it's democratic vote and voice, I would like to know what's civilized about this.

 

WTF? Seriously, what the **** are you talking about?

 

Please tell me of the "many conflicting groups" in the sixties formed BECAUSE OF DEMOCRACY, and then from a global perspective, and in which way stifling someone's voice forcibly would have caused less tension.

 

Also: I don't know, but at least where I live it's a criminal offence to promote a crime of violence against another person. But, judging from how many people over there saying Julian Assange should be shot, maybe those things are not illegal everywhere. Yes, I would also like to know what is civilized with threatening with murder or violence, because those things should be and are illegal in most countries.

 

Different peoples, different cultures, different history no one form of government is going to encompass the best for everyone in the world. The Chinese are better when under strong leadership, it has been that way through their history. Aside from their Communist "eccentricities"; which compared to other Communists regimes are mellow, they have a pretty stable and successful society.

 

Technically, everyone of us has basically been under "stronger" leadership throughout our entire histories. The entire world has gone successively from autocracy to democracy, from inequality to equality (with regards to race, gender, et.c.), from arbitrary violence to a judicial system, from corruption and nepotism to transparency, and so on. Of course this progression is not linear, and not even (necessarily) piecewise progressing, but it is very clear in which way human civilization is heading.

 

I find it amusing how you say that China is "a pretty stable and successful society", which is simply wrong. How many people have you talked with describing life in China? What is your opinion on the Chinese countryside as part of this "successful society"? For example, Cuba is a similar society only far more "stable" and "successful". But I don't think anyone else on this forum (with the possible exception of LoF) would say Cuba is a stable and successful society.

 

How can you say "the Chinese" "are better" when under "strong leadership"? The statement seems absurd and detached from reality just looking at the way you put it. I get the impression you've played Civilization, but never studied history in school, or at least not any history worth talking about. Which comparison did you make when you wrote that? And what separates the Chinese from the rest of the world in this aspect? Genetics? A culture not compatible with democracy? I have spoken with a lot of Chinese exchange students where I live, and I can ensure you they are just as incompatible with democracy as you or I.

 

Of course no one form of government is going to be the best for everybody in the world at any given moment. But as we become more and more educated, democracy will become more and more prevalent.

[Walsingham]

I beg to differ sir, democracy is everything away from stable. Giving everyone a voice just causes the many conflicting groups seen during the 60's and even before, many of which still remain. Worst example is the KKK a hate mongering organization that promotes violence but it's allowed it's democratic vote and voice, I would like to know what's civilized about this.

 

WTF? Seriously, what the **** are you talking about?

 

Please tell me of the "many conflicting groups" in the sixties formed BECAUSE OF DEMOCRACY, and then from a global perspective, and in which way stifling someone's voice forcibly would have caused less tension.

 

 

I must insist that you read a great and courageous book (that I don't agree with all the way) about radicalisation and abuse of free speech by fanatics in the UK. The Islamist, by Ed Hussain. It's not very long, and I am certain you will find it rewarding.

 

Mr Hussain worked for the fanatics until he wised up. Fanatics who number in the thousands, and whose numbers grow.

[Orogun01]

WTF? Seriously, what the **** are you talking about?

 

Please tell me of the "many conflicting groups" in the sixties formed BECAUSE OF DEMOCRACY, and then from a global perspective, and in which way stifling someone's voice forcibly would have caused less tension.

 

Also: I don't know, but at least where I live it's a criminal offence to promote a crime of violence against another person. But, judging from how many people over there saying Julian Assange should be shot, maybe those things are not illegal everywhere. Yes, I would also like to know what is civilized with threatening with murder or violence, because those things should be and are illegal in most countries.

The "yell fire" clause, it has a loophole where it's only where it harms or urges to harm someone directly. Hate groups like the KKK have exploited this to promote their message and at one time they even had a legitimate shot at the presidency. Like this there are lots of groups whose message has and is not one of peace who are allowed to exist because of democracy and because of democracy they may have a shot at ending it. E.G. Hitler was elected democratically.

Technically, everyone of us has basically been under "stronger" leadership throughout our entire histories. The entire world has gone successively from autocracy to democracy, from inequality to equality (with regards to race, gender, et.c.), from arbitrary violence to a judicial system, from corruption and nepotism to transparency, and so on. Of course this progression is not linear, and not even (necessarily) piecewise progressing, but it is very clear in which way human civilization is heading.

Technically my government its ineffective and can't pass legislation that would help me because of the democratic process. A guy that makes deals with Republicans holding legislation hostage it's not the best example of strong leadership. I guess democracy it's different on socialist Sweden.

I find it amusing how you say that China is "a pretty stable and successful society", which is simply wrong. How many people have you talked with describing life in China? What is your opinion on the Chinese countryside as part of this "successful society"? For example, Cuba is a similar society only far more "stable" and "successful". But I don't think anyone else on this forum (with the possible exception of LoF) would say Cuba is a stable and successful society.

 

How can you say "the Chinese" "are better" when under "strong leadership"? The statement seems absurd and detached from reality just looking at the way you put it. I get the impression you've played Civilization, but never studied history in school, or at least not any history worth talking about. Which comparison did you make when you wrote that? And what separates the Chinese from the rest of the world in this aspect? Genetics? A culture not compatible with democracy? I have spoken with a lot of Chinese exchange students where I live, and I can ensure you they are just as incompatible with democracy as you or I.

 

Of course no one form of government is going to be the best for everybody in the world at any given moment. But as we become more and more educated, democracy will become more and more prevalent.

China is the world's second largest economy and while not devoid of problems they have enjoyed a pretty stable rise.

 

Chinese work better with unified direction, recent example is Jackie Chan saying; to a Chinese audience, that a free society might not be the best for China and was met with applause. When you give to much freedom you get chaos and in a land as populated as China it will be magnified tenfold, plus there is the issue of the many areas trying to split from China. They have to give up certain freedoms for the sake of stability, such as having more than one child.

Historically they seem to have a series of periods of tribulation that are ended by a figure who unifies and brings direction to the people. It was this way with Qin, Confucius reforms, and the many figures that shone during the many occupations.

 

BTW, low blow bringing up Cuba.

There was a pretty successful economy before the revolution with a Gross domestic product that matched first world countries. This was also time when Batista an elected official by the Communist party (Deja Vu anyone?) had done away with electoral process. Plus we where under a American legislation and influence from which we were able to successfully exploit to reach an economic point where the Chinese where migrating to Cuba. Alas all came to a stop with the revolution which adopted Communist ideals but didn't have the economic wit of the previous regime and everything went down the drain. Our model pre-revolution, mirrored the American and that was the big thing; to bring the country out of the third world. I believe that's the same with the Chinese you have spoken to; they want the American dream but have no idea of what it would do to their country.

[Gorth]

This was also time when Batista an elected official by the Communist party (Deja Vu anyone?) had done away with electoral process

Umm, Batista was a military dictator that rose to power through a military coup. The "strawmen" he appointed as pro-forma presidents needed the backing of the US in order to get the job, until he gave up all pretenses of election and became dictator also in name.

 

Unless of course you consider his old friends like Lucky Luciano etc. to be communists. In the end he was just a tool for US companies exploiting the Cuban economy.

[mkreku]

In the end he was just a tool hero for US companies democracy exploiting bringing Freedom © to the Cuban economy people.

No no no! Have Afghanistan/Iraq taught you nothing?! Here, I fixed it for you.

[Orogun01]

This was also time when Batista an elected official by the Communist party (Deja Vu anyone?) had done away with electoral process

Umm, Batista was a military dictator that rose to power through a military coup. The "strawmen" he appointed as pro-forma presidents needed the backing of the US in order to get the job, until he gave up all pretenses of election and became dictator also in name.

 

Unless of course you consider his old friends like Lucky Luciano etc. to be communists. In the end he was just a tool for US companies exploiting the Cuban economy.

He led a coup remained in power, supported his "strawmen" and then led another coup and had extensive relations with the US which benefited Cuba greatly. GNP matching Italy! You know what that means for a third world country, that the middle class in Cuba lived better than the middle class in the US. His second term sucked though, but still not by the fault of the American. Most of the anti american sentiment prevalent in Communist Cuba was due to the fact that they did nothing to intervene in these affairs.

 

BTW the Popular Socialist Party supported the first campaign of Batista, it's duly noted since the Communist party had little weight on politics.

[Gorth]

BTW the Popular Socialist Party supported the first campaign of Batista, it's duly noted since the Communist party had little weight on politics.

Their own fault for believing his promises of "labour law reforms"

[Orogun01]

BTW the Popular Socialist Party supported the first campaign of Batista, it's duly noted since the Communist party had little weight on politics.

Their own fault for believing his promises of "labour law reforms"

And their own fault for believing Castro afterwards. Communists heh?