Breaking News Protests across Cuba against the Cuban Regime

[Heloin]

I see the unironic Hoxhaist has entered the group chat.

[North Washington Republic]

I see the unironic Hoxhaist has entered the group chat.

At least they don’t call themselves ancoms when they’re really MLs.

[Communal concils]

I see the unironic Hoxhaist has entered the group chat.

I'm not a hoxhaist, I'm not even a Marxist-Leninist.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

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.

The Soviet government was in charge of where food supplies went. Let's assume that a corporation owns a plot of land, with complete control of the land. In one group of villages on the company land, the inhabitants provide water from a nearby lake reservoir, or at least they did before the corporation dammed the river and began taking water for themselves, sending anyone who was wealthy or resisted to other towns away from home. And then a drought occurs. The corporation then refuse to let the areas population exit, and prevented the sending of water to some of the villages. Anyone who speaks out against this or resists is sent away. This drought spreads to other towns, but mostly because the area in question provided most of the water. The company is responsible for the deaths, because it owned the land fully. And so did the Soviet Union. Also, the Ukrainian death toll in the article is listed as 3.9 million. Other regions are 1.1 million, it seems. So the USSR did focus on the Ukrainians. And don't you think resisting collectivization of land you and your family owned for years isn't worthy of deportation, and that speaking out against this is worthy of a stint in a labor colony?

Regarding point 2, how is that horseshoe theory.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I see the unironic Hoxhaist has entered the group chat.

I'm not a hoxhaist, I'm not even a Marxist-Leninist.

What are you then?

[Communal concils]

I see the unironic Hoxhaist has entered the group chat.

At least they don’t call themselves ancoms when they’re really MLs.

I'm a Democratic Socialist. Here's my reason for having similarities with such tendencies.

1. I'm a non-interventionist.

2. I believe that these nations have potential to be better. Liberalization in terms of civil liberties is something I hope will happen in Cuba, and it should happen while maintaining socialism. Supporting US intervention would not guarantee democracy, and it would certainly spread Neo-liberal economics.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

At least they don’t call themselves ancoms when they’re really MLs.

I'm a Democratic Socialist. Here's my reason for having similarities with such tendencies.

1. I'm a non-interventionist.

2. I believe that these nations have potential to be better. Liberalization in terms of civil liberties is something I hope will happen in Cuba, and it should happen while maintaining socialism. Supporting US intervention would not guarantee democracy, and it would certainly spread Neo-liberal economics.

According to your sig, you think left-communism and anarchism are "liberal," and are class reductionist. Those are the stances of someone who got locked in a room full of Stalinist and Maoist theory for a year.

[Communal concils]

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.

The Soviet government was in charge of where food supplies went. Let's assume that a corporation owns a plot of land, with complete control of the land. In one group of villages on the company land, the inhabitants provide water from a nearby lake reservoir, or at least they did before the corporation dammed the river and began taking water for themselves, sending anyone who was wealthy or resisted to other towns away from home. And then a drought occurs. The corporation then refuse to let the areas population exit, and prevented the sending of water to some of the villages. Anyone who speaks out against this or resists is sent away. This drought spreads to other towns, but mostly because the area in question provided most of the water. The company is responsible for the deaths, because it owned the land fully. And so did the Soviet Union. Also, the Ukrainian death toll in the article is listed as 3.9 million. Other regions are 1.1 million, it seems. So the USSR did focus on the Ukrainians. And don't you think resisting collectivization of land you and your family owned for years isn't worthy of deportation, and that speaking out against this is worthy of a stint in a labor colony?

Regarding point 2, how is that horseshoe theory.

1. Can you explain why would the soviets focus so much resources on Ukraine when separatist movements were in every nation that eventually broke away in 1991.

2. To westerners, authoritarianism is the same thing regardless of exact tenets within ideologies like communism and Fascism . Comparing the crimes of the soviet union is usually compared to the Third Reich. If they both have large governments, both kill dissidence, then they are treated the same( according to liberal ideologues). We don't focus on the fact that the soviets didn't actually target people on race( in terms of eugenetics and segregation), or had different economic policies that were focus on demographics that contradict the tenets of another( in other words, the Reich was pro-capitalist in practice while the soviets target those people) . If taken to its extreme( the soviets killed more than the Nazis) , then it becomes holocaust revisionism and downplays what the axis have done to Europe.https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/holocaust-revisionism-ultranationalism-and-the-nazisoviet-double-genocide-debate-eastern

[North Washington Republic]

The Soviet government was in charge of where food supplies went. Let's assume that a corporation owns a plot of land, with complete control of the land. In one group of villages on the company land, the inhabitants provide water from a nearby lake reservoir, or at least they did before the corporation dammed the river and began taking water for themselves, sending anyone who was wealthy or resisted to other towns away from home. And then a drought occurs. The corporation then refuse to let the areas population exit, and prevented the sending of water to some of the villages. Anyone who speaks out against this or resists is sent away. This drought spreads to other towns, but mostly because the area in question provided most of the water. The company is responsible for the deaths, because it owned the land fully. And so did the Soviet Union. Also, the Ukrainian death toll in the article is listed as 3.9 million. Other regions are 1.1 million, it seems. So the USSR did focus on the Ukrainians. And don't you think resisting collectivization of land you and your family owned for years isn't worthy of deportation, and that speaking out against this is worthy of a stint in a labor colony?

Regarding point 2, how is that horseshoe theory.

1. Can you explain why would the soviets focus so much resources on Ukraine when separatist movements were in every nation that eventually broke away in 1991.

2. To westerners, authoritarianism is the same thing regardless of exact tenets within ideologies like communism and Fascism . Comparing the crimes of the soviet union is usually compared to the Third Reich. If they both have large governments, both kill dissidence, then they are treated the same( according to liberal ideologues). We don't focus on the fact that the soviets didn't actually target people on race( in terms of eugenetics and segregation), or had different economic policies that were focus on demographics that contradict the tenets of another( in other words, the Reich was pro-capitalist in practice while the soviets target those people) . If taken to its extreme( the soviets killed more than the Nazis) , then it becomes holocaust revisionism and downplays what the axis have done to Europe.https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/holocaust-revisionism-ultranationalism-and-the-nazisoviet-double-genocide-debate-eastern

Nice whataboutism.

I know, there was absolutely no racism in the Soviet Union.

[Communal concils]

I'm a Democratic Socialist. Here's my reason for having similarities with such tendencies.

1. I'm a non-interventionist.

2. I believe that these nations have potential to be better. Liberalization in terms of civil liberties is something I hope will happen in Cuba, and it should happen while maintaining socialism. Supporting US intervention would not guarantee democracy, and it would certainly spread Neo-liberal economics.

According to your sig, you think left-communism and anarchism are "liberal," and are class reductionist. Those are the stances of someone who got locked in a room full of Stalinist and Maoist theory for a year.

1. Yes, I see pointless left-wing ideologies as liberalism because of how they see history and how they address various topics( notable example being on interventionism ). I honestly never call anyone a class reductionist, that term is directed against.

2. I disagree with those groups on several issues. You'll realize that many social democrats/Democratic Socialist support Cuba. Bernie sanders never apologized for saying that they had free healthcare( which they do).

[Communal concils]

1. Can you explain why would the soviets focus so much resources on Ukraine when separatist movements were in every nation that eventually broke away in 1991.

2. To westerners, authoritarianism is the same thing regardless of exact tenets within ideologies like communism and Fascism . Comparing the crimes of the soviet union is usually compared to the Third Reich. If they both have large governments, both kill dissidence, then they are treated the same( according to liberal ideologues). We don't focus on the fact that the soviets didn't actually target people on race( in terms of eugenetics and segregation), or had different economic policies that were focus on demographics that contradict the tenets of another( in other words, the Reich was pro-capitalist in practice while the soviets target those people) . If taken to its extreme( the soviets killed more than the Nazis) , then it becomes holocaust revisionism and downplays what the axis have done to Europe.https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/holocaust-revisionism-ultranationalism-and-the-nazisoviet-double-genocide-debate-eastern

Nice whataboutism.

I know, there was absolutely no racism in the Soviet Union.

1. Predictable, The rejection of "whataboutism" is simply avoiding criticisms of hypocrisy .

2. we are talking about systematic racism. We are not talking about individual cases.
If the soviets hated Ukrainians, they wouldn't have recognize their language, allowed Khrushchev to rule the nation, nor allowed for the existence of a Ukrainian state within the nation.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

The Soviet government was in charge of where food supplies went. Let's assume that a corporation owns a plot of land, with complete control of the land. In one group of villages on the company land, the inhabitants provide water from a nearby lake reservoir, or at least they did before the corporation dammed the river and began taking water for themselves, sending anyone who was wealthy or resisted to other towns away from home. And then a drought occurs. The corporation then refuse to let the areas population exit, and prevented the sending of water to some of the villages. Anyone who speaks out against this or resists is sent away. This drought spreads to other towns, but mostly because the area in question provided most of the water. The company is responsible for the deaths, because it owned the land fully. And so did the Soviet Union. Also, the Ukrainian death toll in the article is listed as 3.9 million. Other regions are 1.1 million, it seems. So the USSR did focus on the Ukrainians. And don't you think resisting collectivization of land you and your family owned for years isn't worthy of deportation, and that speaking out against this is worthy of a stint in a labor colony?

Regarding point 2, how is that horseshoe theory.

1. Can you explain why would the soviets focus so much resources on Ukraine when separatist movements were in every nation that eventually broke away in 1991.

2. To westerners, authoritarianism is the same thing regardless of exact tenets within ideologies like communism and Fascism . Comparing the crimes of the soviet union is usually compared to the Third Reich. If they both have large governments, both kill dissidence, then they are treated the same( according to liberal ideologues). We don't focus on the fact that the soviets didn't actually target people on race( in terms of eugenetics and segregation), or had different economic policies that were focus on demographics that contradict the tenets of another( in other words, the Reich was pro-capitalist in practice while the soviets target those people) . If taken to its extreme( the soviets killed more than the Nazis) , then it becomes holocaust revisionism and downplays what the axis have done to Europe.https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/holocaust-revisionism-ultranationalism-and-the-nazisoviet-double-genocide-debate-eastern

The Ukrainian Jewish Encounter, and The New Republic both say it was caused to destroy resistance, with the first one mentioning that by 1933, resistance ended in the countryside, and the second having a left-wing bias.

Also, I wasn't talking about the Nazis, I was talking about the German Empire and Prussia(which were both bad, but to be somewhat fair, so was every state in Europe at the time, and they were among the most progressive).

[Communal concils]

1. Can you explain why would the soviets focus so much resources on Ukraine when separatist movements were in every nation that eventually broke away in 1991.

2. To westerners, authoritarianism is the same thing regardless of exact tenets within ideologies like communism and Fascism . Comparing the crimes of the soviet union is usually compared to the Third Reich. If they both have large governments, both kill dissidence, then they are treated the same( according to liberal ideologues). We don't focus on the fact that the soviets didn't actually target people on race( in terms of eugenetics and segregation), or had different economic policies that were focus on demographics that contradict the tenets of another( in other words, the Reich was pro-capitalist in practice while the soviets target those people) . If taken to its extreme( the soviets killed more than the Nazis) , then it becomes holocaust revisionism and downplays what the axis have done to Europe.https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/holocaust-revisionism-ultranationalism-and-the-nazisoviet-double-genocide-debate-eastern

The Ukrainian Jewish Encounter, and The New Republic both say it was caused to destroy resistance, with the first one mentioning that by 1933, resistance ended in the countryside, and the second having a left-wing bias.

Also, I wasn't talking about the Nazis, I was talking about the German Empire and Prussia(which were both bad, but to be somewhat fair, so was every state in Europe at the time, and they were among the most progressive).

Both sources have no links with in them, plus the first one is a Ukrainian Zionist website.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So apparently protesting pandemic restrictions means it's time for regime change?

It was time for a regime change since 1959 lmao.

Bad take. Castro was an improvement over Batista in mostly every way.

[Thermodolia]

Is it not absurd and ironic that leftists are opposed to private sector monopolies yet willingly embrace the economy encompassing, ubiquitous monopoly of coercive government?

Indeed I always laugh when I ask a leftist who is more dangerous to their liberty, the federal government or Walmart.

They stutter and stammer, or go mute, cite Walmart, or their head explodes.

The left is indeed insane

Walmart is actually more dangerous due to the fact that they literally teach their employees how to game the system so they don’t have to pay them a living or even a fair wage. Plus Walmart has destroyed local businesses and mom and pop shops by dropping a waste of space in the area.

So yes Walmart is far more a danger to the US then the federal government

[Thermodolia]

It was time for a regime change since 1959 lmao.

Bad take. Castro was an improvement over Batista in mostly every way.

Pretty much anything was. It’s just a shame that we went “commie bad”. Funny enough the CIA originally funded Castro’s group for some fucking reason.

If anyone is to blame for a commie cuba it’s the USA

[Communal concils]

Bad take. Castro was an improvement over Batista in mostly every way.

Pretty much anything was. It’s just a shame that we went “commie bad”. Funny enough the CIA originally funded Castro’s group for some fucking reason.

If anyone is to blame for a commie cuba it’s the USA

Your right, the US initially had positive views of the Castro regime. His revolution was seen as a pro-democracy movement.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... government

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180971277/

https://notevenpast.org/how-washington- ... -to-power/

[New Odrana]

According to your sig, you think left-communism and anarchism are "liberal," and are class reductionist. Those are the stances of someone who got locked in a room full of Stalinist and Maoist theory for a year.

1. Yes, I see pointless left-wing ideologies as liberalism because of how they see history and how they address various topics( notable example being on interventionism ). I honestly never call anyone a class reductionist, that term is directed against.

2. I disagree with those groups on several issues. You'll realize that many social democrats/Democratic Socialist support Cuba. Bernie sanders never apologized for saying that they had free healthcare( which they do).

How is saying they have free healthcare "supporting Cuba"? It's literally just an objective observation lmao. I mean, I don't doubt he probably said it in a positive light, but that's hardly what I'd consider "support." Fuck, I wrote an essay documenting Cuba's healthcare system and explaining why other countries should take inspiration from it, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of Castroism.

[Communal concils]

1. Yes, I see pointless left-wing ideologies as liberalism because of how they see history and how they address various topics( notable example being on interventionism ). I honestly never call anyone a class reductionist, that term is directed against.

2. I disagree with those groups on several issues. You'll realize that many social democrats/Democratic Socialist support Cuba. Bernie sanders never apologized for saying that they had free healthcare( which they do).

How is saying they have free healthcare "supporting Cuba"? It's literally just an objective observation lmao. I mean, I don't doubt he probably said it in a positive light, but that's hardly what I'd consider "support." Fuck, I wrote an essay documenting Cuba's healthcare system and explaining why other countries should take inspiration from it, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of Castroism.

1. Saying anything positive about Cuba in American politics automatically makes you a supporter. That's the legacy of the red scares.

2. As far as I'm concerned, The Cuban implementation of Marxist-Leninism was probably the greatest of any experiment based on the teachings of Karl Marx.

[New Odrana]

Bad take. Castro was an improvement over Batista in mostly every way.

Pretty much anything was. It’s just a shame that we went “commie bad”. Funny enough the CIA originally funded Castro’s group for some fucking reason.

If anyone is to blame for a commie cuba it’s the USA

It's because the 26 July Movement wasn't a purely communist group. They had many non-communist supporters and the leaders weren't going around preaching the glories of communism during the revolution. They were more interested in building a pragmatic anti-Bautista coalition than in an ideological pure communist revolution. It wasn't until after they won when the Communists made their ultimate move and threw off their M-26-7 banners and revealed their hammers-and-sickles.

On a side note, talking about this is making me want to play Cuba Libre again, fuck.

[Thermodolia]

Pretty much anything was. It’s just a shame that we went “commie bad”. Funny enough the CIA originally funded Castro’s group for some fucking reason.

If anyone is to blame for a commie cuba it’s the USA

Your right, the US initially had positive views of the Castro regime. His revolution was seen as a pro-democracy movement.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... government

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180971277/

https://notevenpast.org/how-washington- ... -to-power/

It’s a damn shame. We could have had powerful allies in Cuba and Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh had originally expressed support for the US and sought aid and support against the French, but we decided that “Commie bad” was more important.

We could have also kept Iran from going Islamist if we didn’t intervene there on the behalf of the British. Interestingly our failure in iran and Vietnam can be traced back to European powers not wanting to lose their empires. We should have just told the Brits and French to pound sand

[New Odrana]

How is saying they have free healthcare "supporting Cuba"? It's literally just an objective observation lmao. I mean, I don't doubt he probably said it in a positive light, but that's hardly what I'd consider "support." Fuck, I wrote an essay documenting Cuba's healthcare system and explaining why other countries should take inspiration from it, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of Castroism.

1. Saying anything positive about Cuba in American politics automatically makes you a supporter. That's the legacy of the red scares.

2. As far as I'm concerned, The Cuban implementation of Marxist-Leninism was probably the greatest of any experiment based on the teachings of Karl Marx.

1. Just because some people are infested with ideological brainworms doesn't mean we all need to be.

2. I mean, I guess, but that's not a high bar to clear.

[New Odrana]

Your right, the US initially had positive views of the Castro regime. His revolution was seen as a pro-democracy movement.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... government

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180971277/

https://notevenpast.org/how-washington- ... -to-power/

It’s a damn shame. We could have had powerful allies in Cuba and Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh had originally expressed support for the US and sought aid and support against the French, but we decided that “Commie bad” was more important.

We could have also kept Iran from going Islamist if we didn’t intervene there on the behalf of the British. Interestingly our failure in iran and Vietnam can be traced back to European powers not wanting to lose their empires. We should have just told the Brits and French to pound sand

Which is ironic considering that's what we did in Egypt and it ended up being a huge boon for our international prestige among de-colonizing nations. But I guess our hateboner for communism ended up winning out over the anti-imperialism, and we became the very thing we swore to destroy.

[Communal concils]

Your right, the US initially had positive views of the Castro regime. His revolution was seen as a pro-democracy movement.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... government

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180971277/

https://notevenpast.org/how-washington- ... -to-power/

It’s a damn shame. We could have had powerful allies in Cuba and Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh had originally expressed support for the US and sought aid and support against the French, but we decided that “Commie bad” was more important.

We could have also kept Iran from going Islamist if we didn’t intervene there on the behalf of the British. Interestingly our failure in iran and Vietnam can be traced back to European powers not wanting to lose their empires. We should have just told the Brits and French to pound sand

China during the Cold war was an "ally" after the Sino-soviet split , Romania and Somalia were other Marxist states that eventually collaborated with the US. So, this wasn't always the case.
I honestly consider it a good thing, because every nation has to find its own destiny. They have to decide things on their own, and not depend on hegemonic powers without consent.

[Communal concils]

1. Saying anything positive about Cuba in American politics automatically makes you a supporter. That's the legacy of the red scares.

2. As far as I'm concerned, The Cuban implementation of Marxist-Leninism was probably the greatest of any experiment based on the teachings of Karl Marx.

1. Just because some people are infested with ideological brainworms doesn't mean we all need to be.

2. I mean, I guess, but that's not a high bar to clear.

1. We should be supportive of Nations that are progressive for their region. If the US really cared for the people of the world, we wouldn't support Saudi Arabia or the "democratic" regime in Myanmar that commits Genocide.

2. I don't care.