• Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    You understand that Castro went after than more than just slave owners right? It’s super disingenuous to pretend that most of the 1.5 million people who have fled Cuba were slave owners.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If they were fine with Batista being a military dictator, but drew the line at someone trying to upend his stint as one, I’m going to ask, why the military dictatorship didn’t cause them to flee every time.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 months ago

      You understand people fled Cuba not only because Castro was trying to take their plantation or Casino, but because the US has spent over have a century carrying out terrorist attacks and engineered a famine right?

      • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        carrying out terrorist attacks and engineered a famine right?

        Citation needed

        BTW: You mean that time when Cuba was soviet ally and had on their territory soviet nukes aimed at US?

        Fuck you and your revisionism.

    • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re cultists. If you talk to them in neutral sub, You’ll find horribly defective logic and broken definitions (“Your definition of Anarchy is wRoNg, anarchy is an organised system!!!”).

      If you try talking to them in one of their sub, you’ll get banned instantly. Socialists/communists are pro censorship and therefore pro coercion. No wonder, every communist state turned into dictatorship.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        I agree with most of what you’ve said, you should read more from anarchist philosophers like Tolstoy or Goldman though.

        Socialists

        However I would subtract the socialist from you comment and just keep it at communist, there’s plenty of democratic socialist parties that never devolved into rampant totalitarianism like the leninist parties did.

        • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          plenty of democratic socialist parties that never devolved into rampant totalitarianism like the leninist parties did

          I guess you’re right there, still, they tend to be authoritarian - socialism in the soviet controlled republics was rather ugly - centrally planned economy, rationing of everything from meat and sugar to cars and housing, censorship of any political subject in media, ever present corruption, berlin wall to keep people from escaping…

          Not a place you’d want to live in.

          • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            Not a place you’d want to live in.

            Of course not, which is why it’s unfair to lump in welfare state creators like the demsoc parties of western Europe, and the brutal leninist parties of Asia and Eastern Europe.

            • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              the demsoc parties of western Europe

              They often have socialism in their name, but I don’t really consider them socialist, as you said - they’re welfare state supporters, which is really, really far away from socialism in soviet controlled eastern europe

              • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                which is really, really far away from socialism in soviet controlled eastern europe

                In that it’s democratic and they want to expand rights from just being political to also being economic? Yes I agree, they’re severely different from the Soviet style parties, but that doesn’t make them not socialist, their left wing members will usually still argue for the ownership of the means of production by workers, usually they just argue for cooperatives rather than mass nationalization nowadays.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 month ago

                No, of course. Only the bad things are socialist! The good ones clearly are not true socialist! /s

                You’re pretty fucking stupid my man. Leftism is as broad as anything else, and socialism can take a wide variety of forms and positions. Authoritarianism is the thing that causes issues, and that can be anywhere on the left, right, and center. In the traditional political compass (which isn’t worth much, but whatever) there’s left/right as liberal/conservative, but there’s also up/down as authority/liberty.

                • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  No, of course. Only the bad things are socialist!

                  Well it happens it’s a shitty system.

                  You’re pretty fucking stupid my man

                  That’s pretty rich coming from a person who probably cant even define socialism, not to mention applying that definition in real life

                  • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    That’s pretty rich coming from a person who probably cant even define socialism, not to mention applying that definition in real life

                    Projection. Your previous comment pretty much just said it has to be USSR countries, which is absolutely wrong.

                    Capitalism is a shitty system. So many capitalist countries have horrible living conditions and/or have collapsed. You just don’t hear about them because the capitalists want you to support capitalism and hate alternatives.

                    So many socialist countries have failed because of the intervention of capitalist countries. We can’t know what would have happened if they were left alone. If socialism was such a shitty system it wouldn’t require intervention everywhere it appears to ensure it fails. It’d be left to fail on it’s own. Instead we (the US mostly, with other countries assistance) support coups, replace elected leaders with dictators, assassinate legitimately elected officials, support genocides, undermine labor movements, enact embargos, and all kinds of other things.

                    Again, if socialism was doomed to failure none of this would be required. There would be no reason to fear it spreading. Instead capitalist countries see it as as an existential threat. Why is that so if it’s such a bad system? Could you have been mislead?

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        If you try talking to them in one of their sub, you’ll get banned instantly. Socialists/communists are pro censorship and therefore pro coercion. No wonder, every communist state turned into dictatorship.

        are we talking about hexbear? The sub that is insufferably boring?