Was Fidel Castro a bad guy?

[Kubra]

Castro's insurgency against the guy wasn't even particularly well run as far as insurgencies and irregular armed forces go, Bautista was just that bad at his job. Like, comically so.

Dwight D Eisenhower: This is a ragtag communist force. There's no way they're gonna beat Bautista, and I'm sure this'll be resolved in-

Bautista: That's it, I'm out of here. I just wanna go back to the Overton window !

Eisenhower:

nah the us actually threw money at Castro on the basis of "Jesus Christ we'll take someone else, anyone else "

[The New California Republic]

Fidel Castro wasn’t a bad guy it John F. Kennedy who was the bad guy who started the Cold War.

Stalin was the one that started the Cold War with the Berlin Blockade. The Cold War started (roughly) 20 years before JFK came into power. Misinformed take is misinformed.

I mean technically the thing that started the Cold War was the partition of Europe at Yalta. Only from that point were all the ingredients in place for the emergence of the Cold War to be a foregone conclusion. The final thing that really started it however was the Truman Doctrine in 1947, where it became US policy to contain Communism.

[Tarraya Vel]

You know, I’ve read a lot of really fucking stupid articles on here
This may be one of the worst.
It never proves Castro made healthcare worse. Instead, it says “healthcare good pre-Revolution” and then immediately pivots to entirely irrelevant statistics about education spending and GDP. The “evidence” they provide that modern Cuban healthcare are literally pictures of pharmacies taken by the author fucking hacks are everywhere

This does not address what you think it does


In addition to the study not claiming what you say it does again, it’s just…very stupid
Their “evidence” that Cuba is fudging their statistics on early neonatal deaths is that…Cuba is doing better than the rest of Latin America

Hes just doing what alot of right wingers often do. Argue in bad faith, grab random numbers cause most people aren't gonna dig deep into what the numbers actually mean and then tell people about how communism is totally evil and never did anything good and capitalism is good and never did anything bad. I mean all of the sudden I'm a tankie somehow because I didn't tote the line of "Castro is Satan and he was 100% evil and Cuba is worse in every way under him. We should bring back Bautista." It's sad.

Random numbers? These aren't random numbers. They are comprehensive studies published in reputable medical research journals, and one was published in one of Canada's leading papers of record, with direct links to verifiable sources. I've read all of those articles in their entirety. They support exactly what I'm talking about and support everything I've said. The best part is, those articles don't just exist in a vacuum; the literature—academic and popular—on the subject of pre-revolutionary Cuba is so plentiful that it's embarrassing for you to claim that these three legitimate and well-sourced materials are nonsense. You're just glancing at them, seeing things that either challenge your unfounded convictions you'd prefer not to adjust or force you to acknowledge total ignorance of the subject.

And right winger? Only right wingers know Fidel was a despot? Really? What an embarrassing thing to say, really. Actually, I don't know what's more embarrassing—that, or your next claim that whatever I said is advocating in Batista's favour. Because criticism of one is acclaim for another. My god, man. Get your argumentation—as well as your history—in order or don't participate at all.

[Kowani]

Hes just doing what alot of right wingers often do. Argue in bad faith, grab random numbers cause most people aren't gonna dig deep into what the numbers actually mean and then tell people about how communism is totally evil and never did anything good and capitalism is good and never did anything bad. I mean all of the sudden I'm a tankie somehow because I didn't tote the line of "Castro is Satan and he was 100% evil and Cuba is worse in every way under him. We should bring back Bautista." It's sad.

Random numbers? These aren't random numbers. They are comprehensive studies published in reputable medical research journals, and one was published in one of Canada's leading papers of record, with direct links to verifiable sources. I've read all of those articles in their entirety. They support exactly what I'm talking about and support everything I've said. The best part is, those articles don't just exist in a vacuum; the literature—academic and popular—on the subject of pre-revolutionary Cuba is so plentiful that it's embarrassing for you to claim that these three legitimate and well-sourced materials are nonsense. You're just glancing at them, seeing things that either challenge your unfounded convictions you'd prefer not to adjust or force you to acknowledge total ignorance of the subject.

And right winger? Only right wingers know Fidel was a despot? Really? What an embarrassing thing to say, really. Actually, I don't know what's more embarrassing—that, or your next claim that whatever I said is advocating in Batista's favour. Because criticism of one is acclaim for another. My god, man. Get your argumentation—as well as your history—in order or don't participate at all.

you know
you could
actually address my points

[Saiwania]

Castro's own family wasn't a fan of his revolution apparently. They lost their family estate because it was nationalized along with everything else. Got changed into a museum from a sugar plantation.

[Stellar Colonies]

Latin America has had worse dictators.

[Odreria]

Yes.

Did he help people? Yes he did.

Did he hurt people? Yes he did.

What he did for the people of Cuba does not wash out the crimes he has committed against them as well. The way I see it trying to determine whether or not he should be considered a hero or villain is a disservice to history.

"any kind of nuance is a disservice to history"

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Hes just doing what alot of right wingers often do. Argue in bad faith, grab random numbers cause most people aren't gonna dig deep into what the numbers actually mean and then tell people about how communism is totally evil and never did anything good and capitalism is good and never did anything bad. I mean all of the sudden I'm a tankie somehow because I didn't tote the line of "Castro is Satan and he was 100% evil and Cuba is worse in every way under him. We should bring back Bautista." It's sad.

Random numbers? These aren't random numbers. They are comprehensive studies published in reputable medical research journals, and one was published in one of Canada's leading papers of record, with direct links to verifiable sources. I've read all of those articles in their entirety. They support exactly what I'm talking about and support everything I've said. The best part is, those articles don't just exist in a vacuum; the literature—academic and popular—on the subject of pre-revolutionary Cuba is so plentiful that it's embarrassing for you to claim that these three legitimate and well-sourced materials are nonsense. You're just glancing at them, seeing things that either challenge your unfounded convictions you'd prefer not to adjust or force you to acknowledge total ignorance of the subject.

And right winger? Only right wingers know Fidel was a despot? Really? What an embarrassing thing to say, really. Actually, I don't know what's more embarrassing—that, or your next claim that whatever I said is advocating in Batista's favour. Because criticism of one is acclaim for another. My god, man. Get your argumentation—as well as your history—in order or don't participate at all.

You're just mad that history isn't as one sided and one dimensional as you wish it was.

[Karovrusso Soyuz]

Was he a good man? No- most definitely not. But I consider him a positive influence on Cuba and brought it to being on-par with some of the more prosperous nations in the area. Its more a shame how Cuba was impacted by Western Tariffs that holds it back continuously.

[Odreria]

Castro's rule in Cuba didn't turn out as well as it could have, but he was still probably an above average leader.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Let’s just say it like this, he had the chance to be much worse, but also the chance to be better.

[Dangine]

He was better than the former leader, but still an oppressive ruler.

[Major-Tom]

I'm not fond of dictators, probably a bad guy.

[Page]

Most people are a shade of gray to begin with, and the state itself is intrinsically violent regardless of ideology, so a damning case can always be made for a head of state being a bad guy.

Personally, I think the most compassionate and caring people are naturally repulsed from involvement in wielding power. Good people can certainly be activists, revolutionaries, and even politicians, but the deeper their involvement in the state, the more morally compromised they become.

I'm not an authority on Cuban history, I don't know enough about Castro to really say if he was more good or bad, but I do think socialist leaders are blamed more for the worst things that happen under their rule than capitalist leaders are. And that's really an inevitability of the nature of capitalism, as a great deal of capitalism's atrocities stem from neglect rather than action. If society was judging a parent who kills their baby with a knife vs. a parent who doesn't feed their baby until they starve to death, the latter will not be treated much more favorably, but on a national scale, the atrocity of neglect is downplayed. People can see the evil in Stalin's gulags but not in the modern day capitalist gulags of chocolate production, cobalt mining, and iPhone manufacturing, mostly because people still fail to comprehend that the prisoners of the latter have no more choice in the matter than the prisoners of the former, people still fail to understand that hunger is no different than a gun to one's head.

[Tarraya Vel]

You're just mad that history isn't as one sided and one dimensional as you wish it was.

See my comment that if you're not going to argue the OP's points or with anything I've said, there is no discussion. To date you have yet to address a single claim I've made. Instead, you've committed to embarrassing strawmen and ad hominem because you apparently have nothing else to contribute.

you know
you could
actually address my points

You didn't make any points. Calling something stupid and saying "fuck" a few times isn't a point.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Fidel was a narcissistic authoritarian who used violence and oppression to live high on the hog while the Cuban people taken as a whole suffered and sacrificed. Some of them were better off under Fidel than under Batista; mostly those who either kept their heads down and accepted his and his party's oppression and those who actively assisted it. If you want to know what the US under Trump would have looked like, start with Cuba under Fidel.

Most of his economic improvements were bankrolled by the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the USSR they collapsed as well. Also with Moscow's backing he attempted to spread authoritarianism elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, Africa, et. al. That also failed with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Another question is how are other nations to deal with such a Cuba. For the most part the US's answer, isolation, opposition and economic sanctions -- not to mention invasion, harebrained covert actions and support for reactionary exiles -- was wrong. Only under Obama and, now, Biden does the US have a chance to create a reasonable policy toward Cuba based on selective engagement, and criticism and opposition when such is needed, to encourage more openness within Cuban society.

[The New California Republic]

If you want to know what the US under Trump would have looked like, start with Cuba under Fidel.

Somehow I doubt that.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Unfortunately the rumor that he was a yankee prospect is false.

Otherwise another power mad south American evil dictator, just playing for red team instead of blue.

As Maduro once said, when are they the bourgeoisie opposition, going to learn the revolution is here to stay, this statement says it all and proves it all.

But Maduro lives like a rich communist, socialist, capitalist hypocrite:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/world/ve ... index.html

There is a news video in Spanish were he makes this statement, I wish I could find it to post it.

The eternal Cuban revolutionary government, calls itself the continuity of the revolution, this statement says it all and proves it all.

While the privileged governing elite, live like rich, communist, socialist, capitalist hypocrites and my family still in Cuba live poor,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/world/ve ... id=1235120

[Alcala-Cordel]

He did some really cool stuff, and he did some really not-so-cool stuff. Overall he's in a really weird gray area (leaning toward bad) but Cuban healthcare is amazing and standing up to the US is based, so he falls solidly at critical support levels.

[Kowani]

You're just mad that history isn't as one sided and one dimensional as you wish it was.

See my comment that if you're not going to argue the OP's points or with anything I've said, there is no discussion. To date you have yet to address a single claim I've made. Instead, you've committed to embarrassing strawmen and ad hominem because you apparently have nothing else to contribute.

you know
you could
actually address my points

You didn't make any points. Calling something stupid and saying "fuck" a few times isn't a point.

fuckit
I'm really bored and I don't particularly care for you.
So let's have some fun.
First article you cited, from the Globe & Mail, which you cited to prove that "Castro didn't improve healthcare at all.".
notice how in the article, they start with some statistics about the state of Cuba's healthcare prior to the revolution. But because we're not morons, we can actually look at the claims they make-nothing about outcomes. They talk about education spending and GDP, but they neither talk about healthcare spending, access, or outcomes. And when it comes to modern Cuba, well.
They don't cite anything. Like I said, it's pictures.

In February, 2008, I was in Cuba when Fidel Castro resigned and the statistics were obvious in the streets. I snapped a picture of one Havana pharmacy with half-empty shelves.

Astrotufing at its worst.

Now, the next article, which you claimed proved "healthcare is in an abysmal state."
But read it. It doesn't make any claims about the state of modern cuban healthcare at all. It talks about 3 things: persecuting Cubans who talked about the status quo before the revolution, the segregation of people with HIV, and the violation of the labour rights of cuban physicians. Only one of those things could possibly be construed to be an indictment of the healthcare system, and it's nowhere near the level you'd need to make the claim that healthcare was in an abysmal state.

Your last study, which you used to claim "the quality of care and treatment depends almost entirely on your political status"
There's absolutely nothing in here to support that claim. The entire concept isn't mentioned.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Fuck him. Had Batista not been overthrown, Cuba likely would've transitioned to democracy in the '90s just like Argentina and Chile did. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, which didn't succumb to communism, are all thriving, prosperous liberal democracies today. All were right-wing dictatorships in the past. Had the Viet Cong not overrun South Vietnam, Saigon would be on par with Seoul today and South Vietnam would be a liberal democracy.

Hong Kong was much better off under the British capitalist yoke than it is under the Chinese communist yoke.

Fuck Sukarno as well. He was a communist, nationalist prick who went to war with my country and bankrolled a communist insurgency in my home state.

Communism has a track record of leaving nothing but death, destruction, famine, poverty, and genocide in its wake. See the link in my sig for further details.

Fidel Castro, like every communist leader by definition, was unambiguously a bad guy. No ifs. No buts.

[Insaanistan]

Fuck him. Had Batista not been overthrown, Cuba likely would've transitioned to democracy in the '90s just like Argentina and Chile did. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, which didn't succumb to communism, are all thriving, prosperous liberal democracies today. All were right-wing dictatorships in the past. Had the Viet Cong not overrun South Vietnam, Saigon would be on par with Seoul today and South Vietnam would be a liberal democracy.

Hong Kong was much better off under the British capitalist yoke than it is under the Chinese communist yoke.

Fuck Sukarno as well. He was a communist, nationalist prick who went to war with my country and bankrolled a communist insurgency in my home state.

Communism has a track record of leaving nothing but death, destruction, famine, poverty, and genocide in its wake. See the link in my sig for further details.

Fidel Castro, like every communist leader by definition, was unambiguously a bad guy. No ifs. No buts.

Why do I almost completely agree with GHK?

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you want to know what the US under Trump would have looked like, start with Cuba under Fidel.

Somehow I doubt that.

Shit if that's the case lets bring back Trump, I'm down to have world class healthcare and education

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I feel like this is a discussion that's happened before but needs to happen again. If there's one dictator all people of the Americas know well and are acquainted with, it's Fidel Castro of the island country of Cuba, who took power in 1959 after overthrowing the regime of Fulgencio Batista and installing a socialist government. Castro is often known for things such as the persecution of political opponents and the cuban missile crisis and his name is on a list of Marxist leaders like Stalin and Mao, but was Castro really all bad and are all the arguments against him really in good faith? After all, healthcare in Cuba did improve under Fidel as did education, and the Castro regime did institute rent control. And Cuba before Castro was a dictatorship without those things so it didn't just lack freedom but also did little for the poor. Still, that doesn't excuse political persecution and the imprisonment of dissenters. It's a complicated issue and I wanted to get the opinion of you NSG. Was Castro a hero of the Cuban people? Was he the worst dictator ever seen in Latin America? Or was he somewhere in the middle?

It’s not a well-defined question. This is dependent on each person’s value system.

[Nolo gap]

he was a populist military leader who over threw someone who was a whole orders of magnatude worse.

as a person, who knows, i never met him. what he did for cuba was a mixed bag, but generally favorable.