Fidel Castro Dead at 90

[Zoraptor]

 

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

"I didn't like Clinton at all, but her position's are much better than Trump's on every issue I can think of." -Chomsky in an interview post election.

 

Major election issues:

 

TPP- Any genuine supporter of socialism (or even any non-corporatist shill) should be 100% opposed to TPP. Trump is far better than Hillary on this issue.

 

Syria, Libya, Iraq, and neo-con warmongering- Trump was critical of Iraq, opposed intervention in Syria. On this front a genuine leftist should see Trump as better. At the very least Chomsky should considering his past rhetoric. 

 

These are NOT minor issues either. Either he's lying now, lied about his goals/ideology in the past for years, he's a partison hack, or he's just an idiot.

 

At least theoretically Clinton was anti TPP as well. I wouldn't trust her over it either, personally, but to be fair her most quoted comment on it ("the gold standard of trade agreements") left out the rather important and conditional first part of her sentence: "it could become".

 

I agree with the specific foreign policy examples given as being things he should be against, especially with Chomsky's strident opposition to military adventurism. However, Trump is not exactly bereft of FP negatives. I'd have to imagine that Chomsky supports things like the Iran deal and Cuba deals, which Trump opposes but Hillary supported; and Trump is considerably more likely to randomly insult random world leaders or alienate entire sections by 'banning muslims' or similar. Chomsky did describe Clinton as the lesser evil multiple times in that interview which is hardly an endorsement, if he's compartmentalising things into sections like 'economy', 'fp', 'supreme court' etc then he could very easily disagree less with Clinton than Trump on every issue but not agree with every subissue.

 

(I presume someone has linked to the AJE interview that quote comes from above, but I have youtube blocked along with google so I'll do it again to be sure. As an aside, I rather like Mehdi Hasan, he had a fantastic interview with one of his indirect employers in the Qatari royal family that had no punches pulled)

[Gorgon]

A concession to the Bernie wing, giving up on TPP I think. But that's fine. Politics is compromise. 

[Namutree]

A concession to the Bernie wing, giving up on TPP I think. But that's fine. Politics is compromise. 

TPP had not been given up on (in earnest) until Trump won the election.

[algroth]

Well, I for one respect and enjoy hearing/reading both Zizek and Chomsky. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but neither do I see how anyone can say either "lacks intellectual credibility", less so when defending the other. But that's just me, I guess. *shrug*

[Meshugger]

Zizek is fun, but i find the whole "everything is ideology" too constrictive considering humans gonna human. Chomsky can be insightful in his systematic analysis of knowledge, but such a bore to listen to that i rather read the transcript instead. Chomsky's fault lies in his optimism on if people would only gain enough understanding, power would naturally evaporate, which is unfortunate as most people don't even know themselves. 

[algroth]

I can agree that not everything is ideology, but at the same time see the position held by Zizek as well as so many post-structuralists does have its degree of truth, as ideology does create a rigid framework that has an effect on any individual's perception, understanding and choice of action. I don't think it's the sole factor to take into consideration but it's certainly one of them, and usually when it comes to art and politics it is rather handily the most important factor. As both a cinephile and screenwriter I do find his observations on film to be very keenly observed and worthwhile, and of course I also think what he has to say on other subjects is frequently very interesting and worth some thought.

Edited November 29, 2016 by algroth

[redneckdevil]

It's been a really long time since I researched Fidel, but what I remembered was that he was fighting the ideal of capitalism with lies and some really bad things. I know that due to the nature of culture and politics, he basically had to be the bad guy to stay and do what he wanted to do. From my understanding he was a dangerous man surrounded by very grey areas.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Zizek is a god damn god.

 

It's been a really long time since I researched Fidel, but what I remembered was that he was fighting the ideal of capitalism with lies and some really bad things. I know that due to the nature of culture and politics, he basically had to be the bad guy to stay and do what he wanted to do. From my understanding he was a dangerous man surrounded by very grey areas.

Fidel was a nationalist who overthrew the US backed Batista. His opposition to capitalism was one of opprtunism to gain the support of the USSR. But yes, his choices after taking power were either be the bad guy or get killed and let Batista 2.0 take over.

[Orogun01]

It's been a really long time since I researched Fidel, but what I remembered was that he was fighting the ideal of capitalism with lies and some really bad things. I know that due to the nature of culture and politics, he basically had to be the bad guy to stay and do what he wanted to do. From my understanding he was a dangerous man surrounded by very grey areas.

Bull, he didn't have to do a lot of what he did, he did some things that ended hurting the economy but lining his pocket and he backtracked on a lot of those things. That's where we are now, trying to fix the damage that has been done by policies that were only sustained by the Soviet Union.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19677/the-left-fidelity-castration-slavoj-zizek-fidel-castro-cuba-che-communism

 

More Zizek.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Obviously this is true, but Raúl Castro forgets to include into the picture he was describing his own position: If people don’t work the fields, it is obviously not because they are lazy but because the system of economy is not able to convince them to work. Instead of reprimanding ordinary people, he should have applied the old Stalinist motto according to which the mobile of progress in Socialism is self-critique, and exert a radical critique of the system he and Fidel personify. Here, again, evil is in the very critical gaze which perceives evil all around.

So is he saying Cuban government is too soft, and could use some more Stalinism?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Reading comprehension is Stalinist.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Top of his class, everybody!

[Wrath of Dagon]

I never claimed that.

 

Edit: So KP, what do you think he's calling on Castro to do specifically to get people to work the fields, except for "the radical self-critique".

Edited November 30, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"Instead of reprimanding ordinary people, he should have applied the old Stalinist motto according to which the mobile of progress in Socialism is self-critique, and exerted a radical critique of the system he and Fidel personify. Here, again, evil is in the very critical gaze which perceives evil all around."

 

I removed what triggered you. Do you get it now or do I have to hold your hand?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I got it all along, but you still haven't answered my question.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The answer to your question is "no", if you would have gotten it all along instead of ctrl-Fing for Stalinism that should be clear. I guess proficiency in reading comprehension isn't a requirement for graduation at Rice.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I meant the question in my later post, about what you think his concrete proposal is.

[Gorgon]

The current Cuban leadership is gradually easing restrictions on commerce and sooner or later their socialist roots is going to matter about as much as it does in China, which is to say not at all. Ideology always takes a backseat to the practicalities of development.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I meant the question in my later post, about what you think his concrete proposal is.

He didn't have one.

[Barothmuk]

Zizek is a hack. Entertaining but a hack nonetheless. Chomsky has his moments but his commitment to "humanism" makes his politics quite impotent.

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Barothmuk

[Drowsy Emperor]

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. 

[Volourn]

Castro didn't give a crap about equality and the only independence he cared about was his own not the Cuban people's. He's just another dictator who came into power due to lying and promising hope and change to the people only to squash them like the little bugs. EVIL. EVIL TO THE CORE. A TRUE BLUE NAZI.

[Barothmuk]

Nuanced as always.

[Volourn]

There is no nuance when it comes to murdering people, incarcerating,  controlling all media and news ,  chasing people out of the country, basically making the country a miserable place to live, etc., etc.. But, hey, he gave the US the middle finger so that makes him a 'hero'. LMAO