Fidel Castro Dead at 90

[licketysplit]

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

 

 

"Hitchens and Harris are religious fanatics worshiping the state." I was dumbfounded when I saw this retarded analysis by a so called intellectual. It's the debate equivalence of calling someone nasty, taking his ball and going home. That's the best he could muster. Compare this to Sam Harris' willingness to engage with his opponents one on one, and Chomsky seems like a joke to me. At least politically. 

[algroth]

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. 

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.

Edited December 1, 2016 by algroth

[Chilloutman]

Ha always fun when someone from US trying to portrait commie dictator as 'not that bad' to someone who lived in commie country

 

HA! Good fun!

[Drowsy Emperor]

Ha always fun when someone from US trying to portrait commie dictator as 'not that bad' to someone who lived in commie country

 

HA! Good fun!

 

What?

 

 

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. 

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.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gorgon]

 

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

 

 

"Hitchens and Harris are religious fanatics worshiping the state." I was dumbfounded when I saw this retarded analysis by a so called intellectual. It's the debate equivalence of calling someone nasty, taking his ball and going home. That's the best he could muster. Compare this to Sam Harris' willingness to engage with his opponents one on one, and Chomsky seems like a joke to me. At least politically. 

 

Chomsky is from the Vietnam era. The overwhelming boogieman was always the state. Nothing else comes even remotely close. 

[Guard Dog]

[Gorth]

Been thinking about it a bit now that the debates seems to have quieted down a bit. Love him, hate him, I always try to think what would the alternative have been and asking myself the question, would Cuba have been better off with Castro and "communism" or Batista and low key US colonialism? I'm not convinced a continued military dictatorship would've been better.

[Volourn]

But they did have a military (run by Castro) dictatorship. All they did was  switch one douchebag for another.

[Hurlshort]

Well we can look at Puerto Rico as an example as to what would have happened if Castro had not been successful.  As understandable as it was to break away from colonial rule, it does not seem to have been a great deal for the Cuban people in the long run.  Maybe if the USSR hadn't collapsed, you could make a better argument for Cuban independence being successful, but unfortunately things have been rough since the late 80's.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well we can look at Puerto Rico as an example as to what would have happened if Castro had not been successful.  As understandable as it was to break away from colonial rule, it does not seem to have been a great deal for the Cuban people in the long run.  Maybe if the USSR hadn't collapsed, you could make a better argument for Cuban independence being successful, but unfortunately things have been rough since the late 80's.

I disagree, I think it's more likely we'd see something along the lines of Chile with a US supported dictator. Perhaps I'm wrong and there's some alternate timeline out there where Cuba didn't end up with a dictatorship, but looking at the track record of the US in Latin America it seems the choice was either Castro(or some other anti-US leader) or a US backed dictator. I suppose with that US backed dictator we'd have less Cubans in Miami, a collapse in the 90's, and when he died less celebration/mourning about the end of the last refuge of Soviet Socialism, but frankly I don't see either option delivering a result that could be considered "good" for Cubans in the long-term.

[Orogun01]

Been thinking about it a bit now that the debates seems to have quieted down a bit. Love him, hate him, I always try to think what would the alternative have been and asking myself the question, would Cuba have been better off with Castro and "communism" or Batista and low key US colonialism? I'm not convinced a continued military dictatorship would've been better.

The thing is that Batista had a very successful first term where the GDP of the isle was on par with first world nation and we still have reminders of that decadent age, like a capitol building that makes the White House pale in comparison. His second term was were all the troubles began and when the US failed to intervene; more of their on/off intervention policy, revolt began on the isle and the underground resistance movement culminated with the war for independence.

 

Considering that Batista's policies created a great divide between classes and at the time that Castro took power there was rampant illiteracy on the isle, I can't really say that support for the revolution was surprising.

[Meshugger]

I find it interesting that the dichotomy of heads of state in South America has most of the time been a Pinochet or a Castro. Why is that? Why not the US model? Was the weather too hot perhaps?

[Pidesco]

Because every time a moderate left leaning government was put in power in any Central or South American country, the US would butt in the name of the Truman Doctrine. Pinochet is pretty much the perfect example of that.

[Meshugger]

Because every time a moderate left leaning government was put in power in any Central or South American country, the US would butt in the name of the Truman Doctrine. Pinochet is pretty much the perfect example of that.

 

But why Allende and similar ones in the first place? Where are their Washingtons and Jeffersons?

[213374U]

Because every time a moderate left leaning government was put in power in any Central or South American country, the US would butt in the name of the Truman Doctrine. Pinochet is pretty much the perfect example of that.

 

Not to be (more of) an insufferable ass, but I think you mean the Monroe Doctrine, which predates the explicitly anti-Soviet Truman Doctrine.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that the dichotomy of heads of state in South America has most of the time been a Pinochet or a Castro. Why is that? Why not the US model? Was the weather too hot perhaps?

 

The traditional ruling classes in South America can largely trace their origins to the upper castes of the old Spanish (and Portuguese? I don't know much about that) colonial system. Unlike in the US, you had a small minority of European colonists who ruled over a rigidly stratified society with which, for the most part, they did not intermingle. The independence movements in those countries had little to do with the dignity and rights of native Amerindians and everything to do with creole elites wanting more leeway to do as they pleased without Peninsular meddling and taxation.

 

Left or right trappings were just superficial and cosmetic for these elites, ultimately what mattered was maintaining their privileged status. With a few exceptions, most rulers in South and Central America are of evident European descent, and it's not by coincidence. Reductionist explanation leaving out other factors of course, but as usual, if you want to understand something in history, all you have to do is keep going back...

Edited December 8, 2016 by 213374U

[Wrath of Dagon]

I find it interesting that the dichotomy of heads of state in South America has most of the time been a Pinochet or a Castro. Why is that? Why not the US model? Was the weather too hot perhaps?

After Pinochet, Chile has become a very successful democracy.

[Pidesco]

Chile was already a successful democracy before the CIA and Nixon's policies helped depose Allende.

[Pidesco]

 

Because every time a moderate left leaning government was put in power in any Central or South American country, the US would butt in the name of the Truman Doctrine. Pinochet is pretty much the perfect example of that.

 

Not to be (more of) an insufferable ass, but I think you mean the Monroe Doctrine, which predates the explicitly anti-Soviet Truman Doctrine.

 

I was thinking more about US intervention in the post war era, so I actually meant to write Truman Doctrine. Of course, the Monroe Doctrine applies for interventions before WWII.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Chile was already a successful democracy before the CIA and Nixon's policies helped depose Allende.

Yeah, but under Allende it wouldn't have stayed that way. "As president, Allende adopted a policy of nationalization of industries and collectivisation;" from Wikipedia. It'd be about as successful as Venezuela.

 

Edit: Monroe doctrine actually had to do with opposing European colonialism in America.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its impossible to say what Cuba's fate might have been, but in terms of the times, Castro's foreign policies were textbook examples of the resourceful action under poor circumstances. 

 

Also these accusations of dictatorial behavior fail to mention that Castro enjoyed, more than most politicians, a long period of genuine political support. When the US invaded, it wasn't just the army fighting for him - most of his forces were armed militias, the kind that would easily scatter when mustered by someone they don't actually care to support. But they didn't and after that debacle, there is really no question about whether he was the legitimate ruler of the country or not.

 

After the Bay of pigs, it is also impossible to argue in a credible manner that the US had Cuba's good will at heart or that there was a better alternative to Castro.

 

As for the period post-USSR - sure, times were hard. But not even professional strategists in Washington, whose only business was studying the USSR, saw the collapse of the Soviet Union coming. Castro could hardly be judged guilty of that same mistake. Besides, the US would not accept any sort of rapprochement with Cuba while he was alive because it would be seen as weakness. So basically, everything that happened in the past 30 or so years had to happen, for as long as Castro was alive. 

[Meshugger]

 

Because every time a moderate left leaning government was put in power in any Central or South American country, the US would butt in the name of the Truman Doctrine. Pinochet is pretty much the perfect example of that.

 

Not to be (more of) an insufferable ass, but I think you mean the Monroe Doctrine, which predates the explicitly anti-Soviet Truman Doctrine.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that the dichotomy of heads of state in South America has most of the time been a Pinochet or a Castro. Why is that? Why not the US model? Was the weather too hot perhaps?

 

The traditional ruling classes in South America can largely trace their origins to the upper castes of the old Spanish (and Portuguese? I don't know much about that) colonial system. Unlike in the US, you had a small minority of European colonists who ruled over a rigidly stratified society with which, for the most part, they did not intermingle. The independence movements in those countries had little to do with the dignity and rights of native Amerindians and everything to do with creole elites wanting more leeway to do as they pleased without Peninsular meddling and taxation.

 

Left or right trappings were just superficial and cosmetic for these elites, ultimately what mattered was maintaining their privileged status. With a few exceptions, most rulers in South and Central America are of evident European descent, and it's not by coincidence. Reductionist explanation leaving out other factors of course, but as usual, if you want to understand something in history, all you have to do is keep going back...

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Cultural differences. Edit: I read it's because when they drop something, they don't say "I dropped it" they say "It fell from me"

Edited December 8, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[213374U]

Edit: Monroe doctrine actually had to do with opposing European colonialism in America.

I'm sure James Monroe would agree. Teddy Roosevelt and others? Not so much.

 

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

The US put out a system that slaveowners wouldn't have only after the country was torn apart in a civil war. And the reasons leading to the war were not only political and ethical, but economic as well.

 

At the same time, you have to remember that Spain, unlike Great Britain, didn't have a long tradition of parliamentarianism. Spanish colonists, unlike their English counterparts didn't establish local assemblies and electoral processes. Socioeconomic arrangements were also different; while in the Thirteen Colonies there was no landed aristocracy to speak of, the Creoles and Peninsulars in Spanish colonies effectively became the landed aristocracy of Latin America thanks to the aforementioned caste system and forced labor schemes which, while formally retaining property of the land for the Crown, granted rights of exploitation of the natives to individuals (encomiendas and repartimientos).

 

Why weren't there social liberal movements in Latin America? Flawed question. There were, but they failed to bring about real change for different reasons. US interference is one of them, but not the only one.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

 

Apart from the different overall systems as above you also have to consider the effects of those systems. Things like literacy and numeracy or just general education were far higher in North America, and those things tend to be highly advantageous for economic development as your potential Einstein types are less likely to be illiterate or innumerate. Unless a Cuban or Venezuelan or Colombian Einstein was born into a tiny subset of privilege they'd have spent their time cutting sugar cane or harvesting bananas.

 

You tend to get 'socialist revolutions' for two main reasons- there are lots of poor people, and the current system tends to be ratcheted down. The US has the pressure release valve of the electoral system and knowledge that in 4 years you can vote Trump/ Obama/ Bush out. If you have a Pinochet or a Galtieri, they're there long term with no prospect of going, and you potentially have a family history of centuries of grinding poverty as well. You also tend to have literal 1% owning 99% type situations, and virtually no prospect of social mobility unless it's of the radical redistribution kind. You also have the US tending to support the interests of its companies (United Fruit Corp/ Chiquita being the best known) as a matter of policy right up to present day, per the support for the (fairly) recent Honduran Coup.

[Meshugger]

 

Edit: Monroe doctrine actually had to do with opposing European colonialism in America.

I'm sure James Monroe would agree. Teddy Roosevelt and others? Not so much.

 

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

The US put out a system that slaveowners wouldn't have only after the country was torn apart in a civil war. And the reasons leading to the war were not only political and ethical, but economic as well.

 

At the same time, you have to remember that Spain, unlike Great Britain, didn't have a long tradition of parliamentarianism. Spanish colonists, unlike their English counterparts didn't establish local assemblies and electoral processes. Socioeconomic arrangements were also different; while in the Thirteen Colonies there was no landed aristocracy to speak of, the Creoles and Peninsulars in Spanish colonies effectively became the landed aristocracy of Latin America thanks to the aforementioned caste system and forced labor schemes which, while formally retaining property of the land for the Crown, granted rights of exploitation of the natives to individuals (encomiendas and repartimientos).

 

Why weren't there social liberal movements in Latin America? Flawed question. There were, but they failed to bring about real change for different reasons. US interference is one of them, but not the only one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what i am interested in: How and why. I mean the US was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free and the time of robber barons is well documented to boot, but still somehow the US put out a framework which resulted in better social mobility and a foundation of a functioning republic all while socialist revolutions seems to pop up in South America. It's not as the ideas of the founding fathers were new to the age either as they borrowed quite a lot from Rome and the Hellenian city states as well.

 

 

Apart from the different overall systems as above you also have to consider the effects of those systems. Things like literacy and numeracy or just general education were far higher in North America, and those things tend to be highly advantageous for economic development as your potential Einstein types are less likely to be illiterate or innumerate. Unless a Cuban or Venezuelan or Colombian Einstein was born into a tiny subset of privilege they'd have spent their time cutting sugar cane or harvesting bananas.

 

You tend to get 'socialist revolutions' for two main reasons- there are lots of poor people, and the current system tends to be ratcheted down. The US has the pressure release valve of the electoral system and knowledge that in 4 years you can vote Trump/ Obama/ Bush out. If you have a Pinochet or a Galtieri, they're there long term with no prospect of going, and you potentially have a family history of centuries of grinding poverty as well. You also tend to have literal 1% owning 99% type situations, and virtually no prospect of social mobility unless it's of the radical redistribution kind. You also have the US tending to support the interests of its companies (United Fruit Corp/ Chiquita being the best known) as a matter of policy right up to present day, per the support for the (fairly) recent Honduran Coup.

 

 

I have a lot to read on the history of South Americas, kudos to both of you.