Breaking News Protests across Cuba against the Cuban Regime

[Communal concils]

1. These Cuban exiles are mostly from the generation that supported the Batista military dictatorship. That the fact that many of them were fine with the January 6 insurrection and aggressive hatred for BLM is probably a big reason why they are in Florida in the first place. They don't care about democracy, and would mostly turned Cuba into Haiti 2.0.

2. Breitbart is a far-right source.

Their claims of opposing violence are also pretty rich considering that violence against political opponents is not at all unheard of in the Cuban-American community. This is why our country's blanket policy of accepting Cuban "refugees" was a massive mistake. Latin American culture is completely incompatible with Anglo-American culture. Violence is far more tolerated and acceptable when you come from a country that's been mired in decades of authoritarianism and caudillos.

The irony is that Americans are responsible for making South America and Caribbean a land of plutocrats. We have the invasion of panama, the coup in Chile that installed Pinochet and the Bay of pigs invasion in Cuba. Oh, lets not forget about the war of drugs that created the issues surrounding immigration.

[New Odrana]

Political violence has a long history in American politics lmao.

Not nearly to the same extant, though. The US, for all of its flaws, has never had a military coup or been ruled by a junta or caudillo. We have problems, sure, but at least none of our heads of state have ever seized power forcefully or illegally (Trump's recent attempt notwithstanding, since it failed). Can I guarantee that won't change? Nope, but at least we don't have almost 200-years worth of instability and authoritarian rule at our back like most of Latin America does. (I mean, ffs, they started going at each other's throats immediately after independence. Simon Bolivar's final speech before he died included him lamenting independence because of how much the region's leaders couldn't refrain from murdering each other.)

America has been remarkably more stable and democratic in comparison (not that that's saying much).

[New Odrana]

Their claims of opposing violence are also pretty rich considering that violence against political opponents is not at all unheard of in the Cuban-American community. This is why our country's blanket policy of accepting Cuban "refugees" was a massive mistake. Latin American culture is completely incompatible with Anglo-American culture. Violence is far more tolerated and acceptable when you come from a country that's been mired in decades of authoritarianism and caudillos.

The irony is that Americans are responsible for making South America and Caribbean a land of plutocrats. We have the invasion of panama, the coup in Chile that installed Pinochet and the Bay of pigs invasion in Cuba. Oh, lets not forget about the war of drugs that created the issues surrounding immigration.

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

[Immortan Khan]

So?

It means that they do not believe in "democracy".

Neither do the people supporting the Cuban government *shrug*.

If your a hypocrite in politics, then its a good sign that your only in it for money. You must be truthful about what you are, or else history shows the consequences.

I think nearly everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to politics.

[Communal concils]

1. These Cuban exiles are mostly from the generation that supported the Batista military dictatorship. That the fact that many of them were fine with the January 6 insurrection and aggressive hatred for BLM is probably a big reason why they are in Florida in the first place. They don't care about democracy, and would mostly turned Cuba into Haiti 2.0.

2. Breitbart is a far-right source.

The left looks ridiculous trying to defend and rationalize a brutal communist dictatorship in Cuba and the billionaire Castro oligarchy.

IndeedThere are left us on this thread who have defended the former Soviet union despite the fact that they murdered tens of millions

The left's moral, economic and political compass is irretrievably broken.

It's good to be a constitutional conservative because I can condemn both the Batista regime and the Castro regime who both deserved execution by firing squad for the pain and suffering they caused the Cuban people.

Libertad!

1. The Cubans were able to avoid the catastrophe of coronavirus, they have high literacy rates, are able to support third world nations with medication. If that brutal, then I'll say that's great.

2. Where is the proof that they killed millions. the soviets certainly killed people, but many estimates are too extreme and don't account for the population demographics.

3. So what, America bombs nations and establish "democracy" while giving a thumbs up to Saudi Arabia. So let's look start with your own moral system.

4. Before the war against Batista, Castro was a senator. He took up arms in the name of Democracy. When he gained control, he had to deal with communist that said "not real communism" and the united states refused to support him. So he had to turn to the soviets. In a nutshell, its America's fault.

[Communal concils]

It means that they do not believe in "democracy".

Neither do the people supporting the Cuban government *shrug*.

If your a hypocrite in politics, then its a good sign that your only in it for money. You must be truthful about what you are, or else history shows the consequences.

I think nearly everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to politics.

1. There are different definitions to democracy. According to the regimes supporters, they are democratic and are making progress.They have liberalize the economy and have attempted to open up to the rest of the world.

2. Some people are more hypocritical than others. How can you support democracy when you support a military dictatorship( which the current regime isn't), and how can you really support fellow Cubans while support sanctions that cause shortages of essential products.

[Immortan Khan]

Political violence has a long history in American politics lmao.

Not nearly to the same extant, though. The US, for all of its flaws, has never had a military coup or been ruled by a junta or caudillo. We have problems, sure, but at least none of our heads of state have ever seized power forcefully or illegally (Trump's recent attempt notwithstanding, since it failed). Can I guarantee that won't change? Nope, but at least we don't have almost 200-years worth of instability and authoritarian rule at our back like most of Latin America does. (I mean, ffs, they started going at each other's throats immediately after independence. Simon Bolivar's final speech before he died included him lamenting independence because of how much the region's leaders couldn't refrain from murdering each other.)

America has been remarkably more stable and democratic in comparison (not that that's saying much).

The Reconstruction era saw numerous coups or coup attempts and was in general ravaged by widespread domestic terrorism. Then you had the various labour conflicts from the late 19th century to early 20th century, such as the Coal Wars. On top of that you had Jim Crow.

[Wallenburg]

The irony is that Americans are responsible for making South America and Caribbean a land of plutocrats. We have the invasion of panama, the coup in Chile that installed Pinochet and the Bay of pigs invasion in Cuba. Oh, lets not forget about the war of drugs that created the issues surrounding immigration.

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

"Before America started intervening" was when it was a Spanish colony. I'm not sure how what happened in the 19th century and prior is any justification for American imperialism.

[Orostan]

>but da gubbermint

Capitalism is a coercive system and invented the modern coercive state. Walmart doesn’t seem all that dangerous to your liberty until you try and unionize and they have the federal government send in the army to shoot you.

A hundred years ago in the US workers were fighting and dying for the weekend, for healthcare, and for higher pay. What threatened their liberty most was the entire system of capitalism which INCLUDES the federal government as the enforcer of the capitalist class.

Absurd, totalitarian regimes existed from beginning of recorded history.
It wasn't until free markets emerged that representative government followed.

Thanks to free markets there are more individual freedoms today than ever in history.

And some you can have free society and responsible government unless you have a free markets.

If you don't have free markets you have tyranny

bruh

“Free marketers” have backed brutal military dictatorships all around the world. Remember Pinochet? He was only one example. The US government doesn’t represent its people.

So far all you have done is repeat your claims with no attempt to even address anything I have said. Do you have even one single coherent argument against me?

[Nilokeras]

Political violence has a long history in American politics lmao.

Not nearly to the same extant, though. The US, for all of its flaws, has never had a military coup or been ruled by a junta or caudillo. We have problems, sure, but at least none of our heads of state have ever seized power forcefully or illegally (Trump's recent attempt notwithstanding, since it failed). Can I guarantee that won't change? Nope, but at least we don't have almost 200-years worth of instability and authoritarian rule at our back like most of Latin America does. (I mean, ffs, they started going at each other's throats immediately after independence. Simon Bolivar's final speech before he died included him lamenting independence because of how much the region's leaders couldn't refrain from murdering each other.)

America has been remarkably more stable and democratic in comparison (not that that's saying much).

There's a distinct irony in pointing out the abundance of caudillos in South American history and the lack thereof in American history considering how many of those caudillos were supported or even made with American money, guns and diplomatic pressure.

[Communal concils]

Absurd, totalitarian regimes existed from beginning of recorded history.
It wasn't until free markets emerged that representative government followed.

Thanks to free markets there are more individual freedoms today than ever in history.

And some you can have free society and responsible government unless you have a free markets.

If you don't have free markets you have tyranny

bruh

“Free marketers” have backed brutal military dictatorships all around the world. Remember Pinochet? He was only one example. The US government doesn’t represent its people.

So far all you have done is repeat your claims with no attempt to even address anything I have said. Do you have even one single coherent argument against me?

What do you expect from a Libertarian? They do not realize that free market capitalism and democracy are incompatible.Nearly every South American implementation required a rifle and curfew for capitalist to not face consequences for their answers.

[Concejos Unidos]

The irony is that Americans are responsible for making South America and Caribbean a land of plutocrats. We have the invasion of panama, the coup in Chile that installed Pinochet and the Bay of pigs invasion in Cuba. Oh, lets not forget about the war of drugs that created the issues surrounding immigration.

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

In the same way that Afghanistan was indeed already an absolute mess before the Americans got there, Latin American may have been a mess before, but America sure as hell made it a lot worse.

[New Odrana]

Not nearly to the same extant, though. The US, for all of its flaws, has never had a military coup or been ruled by a junta or caudillo. We have problems, sure, but at least none of our heads of state have ever seized power forcefully or illegally (Trump's recent attempt notwithstanding, since it failed). Can I guarantee that won't change? Nope, but at least we don't have almost 200-years worth of instability and authoritarian rule at our back like most of Latin America does. (I mean, ffs, they started going at each other's throats immediately after independence. Simon Bolivar's final speech before he died included him lamenting independence because of how much the region's leaders couldn't refrain from murdering each other.)

America has been remarkably more stable and democratic in comparison (not that that's saying much).

The Reconstruction era saw numerous coups or coup attempts and was in general ravaged by widespread domestic terrorism.

Not sure what "coups" you're referring to. There was widespread domestic terrorism, certainly, but that's not a coup. (In fairness, the January 6th riots weren't technically a coup, either, so I shouldn't have referenced it like that, but I felt like I had to mention it at some point.)

When I say "coup," I mean, "the military overthrowing the government." Fair enough?

Then you had the various labour conflicts from the late 19th century to early 20th century, such as the Coal Wars.

Okay. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with this. If it's just that violence happened, yeah, I never denied that, so that's irrelevant to what I said.

On top of that you had Jim Crow.

I also never claimed there wasn't racial discrimination, either, so again, it's irrelevant. Jim Crow was obviously evil, as is segregation in-general, but I don't see how it's particularly relevant to what I said (and it's not like Latin American governments aren't perfectly happy to go after their own racial minorities).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

"Before America started intervening" was when it was a Spanish colony.

I mean, this statement is just straight up false. As far as I know, America never made any attempt to actively intervene in Gran Colombia's government or to try and topple it. It collapsed all on its own. Like, I get the meme is that everything bad that happens in Latin America is America's fault, but that one just straight-up wasn't. Many of the Founders even respected Simon Bolivar and considered him to be about on par with themselves (and he admired them, as well). The US would've had zero incentive to topple his government even if they'd had the means back then.

I'm not sure how what happened in the 19th century and prior is any justification for American imperialism.

I didn't say it was.

[Communal concils]

The irony is that Americans are responsible for making South America and Caribbean a land of plutocrats. We have the invasion of panama, the coup in Chile that installed Pinochet and the Bay of pigs invasion in Cuba. Oh, lets not forget about the war of drugs that created the issues surrounding immigration.

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

That only proves my point, America only intervened because it enriched the Bourgeoisie. However,the lack of intervention of any Imperialist would've allowed for more progressive regimes to appear.If communism spread across the continent, then the Capitalist would run out of resources to continue their system of supply and demand. Therefor, they need death squads and cartels.

[Communal concils]

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

Absurd.

The three most brutal dictatorships in the western hemisphere are Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua. What these nations have in common are that they are all in opposition to the United States

contrast, because of benevolent American hegemony in the region the rest of Latin America and South America are more free than they've ever been in their history

Wait, are Brazilians free knowing that their racist president allowed covid to kill half a million people? Are Colombians free knowing that Cartels can pillage and massacre entire villages? As expected, the right can't back up it claims with even a speck of reality. All those nations that allegedly are evil( according to you) have increased the health of children, had allowed for literacy to grow and allowed the population to not be servants to foreigners.

[New Odrana]

Not nearly to the same extant, though. The US, for all of its flaws, has never had a military coup or been ruled by a junta or caudillo. We have problems, sure, but at least none of our heads of state have ever seized power forcefully or illegally (Trump's recent attempt notwithstanding, since it failed). Can I guarantee that won't change? Nope, but at least we don't have almost 200-years worth of instability and authoritarian rule at our back like most of Latin America does. (I mean, ffs, they started going at each other's throats immediately after independence. Simon Bolivar's final speech before he died included him lamenting independence because of how much the region's leaders couldn't refrain from murdering each other.)

America has been remarkably more stable and democratic in comparison (not that that's saying much).

There's a distinct irony in pointing out the abundance of caudillos in South American history and the lack thereof in American history considering how many of those caudillos were supported or even made with American money, guns and diplomatic pressure.

Oh, no, it's definitely ironic for sure. But it's also not like the US just toppled every single government it saw. Venezuela managed to remain largely democratic for most of its history and had both left-wing and right-wing governments. The coup in Guatemala was just a case of the CIA and State Department straight up lying to Eisenhower and fabricating a communist revolution where there wasn't one. That said, my main point was that in most cases Latin American countries haven't really needed US intervention to be authoritarian. If you don't believe me, just look at their Latin forefathers in Europe. Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, and Romania all managed to gather up their own dictatorships in the decades before World War II with zero assistance from the US.

I'd need a full essay to fully articulate the point in the best way possible, but in-short cultures derived from a Latin, Catholic/Orthodox base carry a great deal of authoritarian leanings within them. The Western European Latins do seem to have finally learned from their past and embraced liberal democracy, but that lesson hasn't translated well to Latin America. Is it entirely possible that Latin America would be completely different without US interference? Yes, it's likely in fact. Does that mean it'd necessarily be more democratic? No, there's no way of knowing that for sure. It's entirely fair to criticize the US's interference, though, I also contend that it's a lot less black and white than you're making it out to be. I fully acknowledge that's just my opinion, though (though, considering this is what I got my degree in, I do feel it's at least an educated opinion).

[South Welford]

How fascinating. I recently watched a video about merchant guilds and their impact on industrialization. It’s a segway, sure, but you might find it an interesting topic for the side.

My main qualm, alas, with the application of villainy is whether any directed ideology is in fact isolated to blame. Feudalism, capitalism, communism, a common feature is their imperfect application in society. It’s why you have so much variance in their proponents, including, I understand, much of the discord among proponents of certain communist states, as covered here.

You yourself stated a specific group of people needed to pre-date capitalism. This, then, does not seem like a flaw that can be isolated of capitalism, as it formed violently or otherwise of something else. Beyond this point we get something so broad that it’s hard to pinpoint the isms much earlier in human history, perhaps.

Of course, it hardly helps that our American flagged friend is quite abrupt about things. Ultimately, I’d advance that this whole question of capitalism and communism practically boils down to similar flaws. Left leaning proponents and their opposing counterparts may often bicker on the “real ness” of certain countries to an ideology because of this. Instead, perhaps a good question is which of varying systems best allows regular people to work with what makes humans humans.

On the note of Cuba, how does that apply in light of these events? Compared to, say, social upheaval in the US?

1) That sounds interesting!

2) I don’t believe capitalist ideology did anything, it’s produced by its environment. I think capitalism as a system is the big problem - whatever it invents to keep itself alive is important but still secondary to the actual existence of capitalism.

3) A specific social system Marxists call primitive accumulation - colonialism in other words - was needed to start industrial capitalism in Europe. Before that there was the feudalism we all know, and before that there was the slave society of the sumerians to the Romans which was much more centralized than feudalism. Before that even was hunting and gathering in a system of primitive communism.

4) Social issues in Cuba are caused mostly by the crippling embargo and exacerbated by the CIA. This is not to say they’ve solved class war - they have to watch out for the same middle management guys that destroyed the USSR but so far I think they’re doing an alright job of that. Social upheaval in the US though is primarily class based and as the US empire declines I think that conflict will intensify.

It’s arguable that colonialism in itself attempted to perpetuate feudalism. In Mexico, for instance, the Spanish had the Aztecs to integrate into a sort of caste system with Spanish-born nobles at the top. They visited North America a long time before the rest of Europe and considered it worthless. Then the English came along this eastern seaboard with the Virginia Company and eventually Lord Baltimore, but it turns out if a “worker” wanted to leave they could do perfectly well just outside the “workplace”. The Nortenos, historically, in Northern Mexico were always that post-colonial example. There’s this great hours long YouTube series on Spanish colonialism by “Kraut” in an animated form. Hours long if you want to go through it and see different parts or the whole thing. It’s quite interesting and informative.

Also, have you wondered where Soviet middle managers come from? It’s not something the Jedi would tell you, or so I’ve heard. Where destined to destroy the Sith, they inexplicably joined them, or something like that.

I wonder why Cuba’s having to deal with them too. Perhaps they should do some research on that bit?

[New Odrana]

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

Absurd.

The three most brutal dictatorships in the western hemisphere are Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua. What these nations have in common are that they are all in opposition to the United States

contrast, because of benevolent American hegemony in the region the rest of Latin America and South America are more free than they've ever been in their history

Tell that to the Hondurans lmao. The Organization of American States called for new elections after recording several irregularities in the 2017 presidential elections. And during the protests following that President's election, soldiers used forced to disperse the protestors, killing 22 civilians (according to the UN). Ffs, you're just as blinded by your ideology as Communal Councils is by his.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It was hardly the land of milk and honey before America started intervening, dude. I'm not going to say our hands are completely clean (because they're not), but if anything all we really did (usually) was to just encourage groups to do things they were already going to do anyway. Simon Bolivar's Gran Colombia project collapsed before it could even get off the ground because his allies and enemies alike couldn't stop fighting and killing each other for long enough to help in statecraft. No interference from the US needed.

That only proves my point, America only intervened because it enriched the Bourgeoisie. However,the lack of intervention of any Imperialist would've allowed for more progressive regimes to appear.If communism spread across the continent, then the Capitalist would run out of resources to continue their system of supply and demand. Therefor, they need death squads and cartels.

I mean, maybe, but that's pure speculation. It's just as likely liberal democracy would've spread and they would've adopted a European-style system. Or American cultural influence might've still led to a more conservative politics that wasn't necessarily authoritarian. It's entirely impossible to know for sure. And US intervention isn't purely resource-based. The US could get just as many resources from Europe, Asia, or Africa. The US intervenes because it's a hegemon and that's just what hegemons do. Communist hegemons like the USSR and PRC have intervened just as much in their neighbors' affairs.

[South Welford]

1. The Cubans were able to avoid the catastrophe of coronavirus, they have high literacy rates, are able to support third world nations with medication. If that brutal, then I'll say that's great.

2. Where is the proof that they killed millions. the soviets certainly killed people, but many estimates are too extreme and don't account for the population demographics.

3. So what, America bombs nations and establish "democracy" while giving a thumbs up to Saudi Arabia. So let's look start with your own moral system.

4. Before the war against Batista, Castro was a senator. He took up arms in the name of Democracy. When he gained control, he had to deal with communist that said "not real communism" and the united states refused to support him. So he had to turn to the soviets. In a nutshell, its America's fault.

Laughably Castro goes to Spain for his treatment and Cubans are rioting in the streets because of inadequate healthcare and We still have Americans defending the Cuban regime?!

Laughably Castro's family plundered billions of dollars from the Cuban people while enslaving them and we still have Americans supporting the Castro government

Reprehensibly we have Americans on the left discounting the millions of murdered innocents by the Soviet regime. this is akin to Holocaust denial and it is reprehensible

i thank God that I am a constitutional conservative and therefore possess an objective,rational and intelligent mind

This is a good preamble for the resolution but where are the acting clauses?

Regardless, however, I believe there is a sum of Americans on the left who acknowledge BS such as with Stalin. I think the internet term “tankies” (or something in that sense) is specifically for those Americans you speak of; for people in general who adore Stalin obsessively. Like Holocaust deniers, those people exist, but so long as people exist to counter that rhetoric it can be fought back against in ways that would likely surprise you.

It’s hard to argue that the Castro regime has done anything short of a reprehensible path to their present day position, regardless of whether or not America preferred them as a cooperating partner or ally in their bid for power and control. The same can be said in a sense for Batista who was backed by the USA. The idealism of a system and it’s underlying ideology is largely muddied by the empirical actions that follow, quite often. In Cuba’s case this is no less true, and it is hardly something to look proudly of in part or in whole.

This has yet to really be refuted in the forum discussion if you look through it, as far as I can tell, so your intellectual crisis may be somewhat misplaced.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Singapore is right next to what is possibly the best trade route in the world, Hong Kong is another trading city, New Zealand is a tiny country that was a wealthier colony of the British empire, and Switzerland is where nazis hide their gold. None of these make a good comparison to Cuba which for most of its history has been a resource extraction colony of one empire or another.

Absurd.

Vietnam has excellent harbors!

Go look at a map. Look at the Straits of Malacca and the Straits of Johor. Note that the Straits of Johor are blocked by a causeway. Then look at the South China Sea. Then, with a straight face, tell me that Vietnam is just as advantaged by its geographical position relative to sea trade routes as Singapore.

Bear in mind that the Straits of Sunda are significantly less navigable than the Straits of Malacca. The Straits of Malacca every bit as important, if not more, to global trade as the Suez and the Panama.

[Ethel mermania]

So?

It means that they do not believe in "democracy". If your a hypocrite in politics, then its a good sign that your only in it for money. You must be truthful about what you are, or else history shows the consequences.

Most of the people who left Cuba in 59 and 60 are dead. This is for the most part their Americanized kids and grandchildren

[Salandriagado]

So?

It means that they do not believe in "democracy". If your a hypocrite in politics, then its a good sign that your only in it for money. You must be truthful about what you are, or else history shows the consequences.

Given the timelines, it seems to me that it mostly means that their grandparents did not believe in democracy.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

The left looks ridiculous trying to defend and rationalize a brutal communist dictatorship in Cuba and the billionaire Castro oligarchy.

IndeedThere are left us on this thread who have defended the former Soviet union despite the fact that they murdered tens of millions

The left's moral, economic and political compass is irretrievably broken.

It's good to be a constitutional conservative because I can condemn both the Batista regime and the Castro regime who both deserved execution by firing squad for the pain and suffering they caused the Cuban people.

Libertad!

1. The Cubans were able to avoid the catastrophe of coronavirus, they have high literacy rates, are able to support third world nations with medication. If that brutal, then I'll say that's great.

2. Where is the proof that they killed millions. the soviets certainly killed people, but many estimates are too extreme and don't account for the population demographics.

3. So what, America bombs nations and establish "democracy" while giving a thumbs up to Saudi Arabia. So let's look start with your own moral system.

4. Before the war against Batista, Castro was a senator. He took up arms in the name of Democracy. When he gained control, he had to deal with communist that said "not real communism" and the united states refused to support him. So he had to turn to the soviets. In a nutshell, its America's fault.

The Holodomor and The Gulags all killed over a million, and even if we assume the western historians had a huge bias and slice the numbers in half, that's 2 million Ukrainians and 725 thousand Gulag inmates.

Also, on literacy, other nations improved in that regard under capitalism, like the Germans.

[Communal concils]

1. The Cubans were able to avoid the catastrophe of coronavirus, they have high literacy rates, are able to support third world nations with medication. If that brutal, then I'll say that's great.

2. Where is the proof that they killed millions. the soviets certainly killed people, but many estimates are too extreme and don't account for the population demographics.

3. So what, America bombs nations and establish "democracy" while giving a thumbs up to Saudi Arabia. So let's look start with your own moral system.

4. Before the war against Batista, Castro was a senator. He took up arms in the name of Democracy. When he gained control, he had to deal with communist that said "not real communism" and the united states refused to support him. So he had to turn to the soviets. In a nutshell, its America's fault.

The Holodomor and The Gulags all killed over a million, and even if we assume the western historians had a huge bias and slice the numbers in half, that's 2 million Ukrainians and 725 thousand Gulag inmates.

Also, on literacy, other nations improved in that regard under capitalism, like the Germans.

1. Britannica is not immune from biases, Wikipedia is even worse because its founder and many of its editors are right-wing libertarians.As for the holdomer, where is the proof that it is man made. The Soviets did mismanage food productions, gulags did exist and they did have secret police that was lead by Beria( a Man that Stalin didn't even trust because of sexual allegations against him). However, a man made famine would have affected the Russian majority and various other ethnicities other than Ukrainians. Such a situation would kill the main support of the Communist party and would allow for reactionaries and separatist movements to gain success early on( which did not happen during the allege holodomer). Speaking of ethnicities, the real famine went into Russian majority lands and Central Asia.

2. The horseshoe theory is a straw man of communism.

[Communal concils]

It means that they do not believe in "democracy". If your a hypocrite in politics, then its a good sign that your only in it for money. You must be truthful about what you are, or else history shows the consequences.

Most of the people who left Cuba in 59 and 60 are dead. This is for the most part their Americanized kids and grandchildren

That still doesn't change anything. The Children show totalitarian tendencies that go even beyond the Cuban regime.