Breaking News Protests across Cuba against the Cuban Regime

[New Odrana]

I can’t say that I’m surprised to find people on NSG trying to critique an organic protest movement in Cuba. All because “fUcK LiBeRaL dEmoRaCy”. I mean the isn’t an attempt from the U.S to foster a coup, but “fuCK AmErIcA” anyway, right?

That's a very disingenuous representation of the criticism. Literally no one here has said, "Fuck liberal democracy." The closest is WRA saying he doesn't "worship liberal democracy" or whatever (which I'm not mocking--it's a fair point that people let their ideological beliefs about democracy get in the way of actual, practical reality), but that's not even really the main point of his criticism either. The criticisms most of us are offering are practical ones--namely, that rapid, radical regime change (whether sponsored by an external power or not) tends to have a negative outcome for the vast majority of people. Toppling a dictatorship doesn't just magically make a country better overnight, it leads to a breakdown in social order and collapse of political and economic infrastructure as everyone scrambles to grab their piece of the pie (whether for simple survival or sheer greed). And, frankly, while Cuba's government is authoritarian, it's hardly incompetent or kleptocratic enough to justify complete societal collapse just on the hope that it might work out.

[Cannot think of a name]

Page 3 rule comes through once again.

admittedly, i have no idea what this means

When you see a thread title, or thread title and OP combination, and you think, "Eeeeeehhhhh, that's probably not exactly right" but you don't feel like slogging through to figure it out and hunt down the real story, you wait until page 3 to click on the thread. By then, someone has unraveled it for you and you can just move on. The Page 3 Rule is a real time saver.

[HISPIDA]

The thing is, again, it all depends on how that free market is adopted. The worst case scenario is simply that it isn't. Maybe the new regime is pseudo-fascist, or maybe even fully fascist, and rejects the free market for state control. Maybe it would be like the aforementioned Russia, where shock therapy lead to hyperinflation, oligarchy, and an economic crisis. The best case scenario is that it's like Poland, but that was gradual.

The reason that people have a hard time getting basic goods in some areas of Cuba (in cities like Havana you can find supermarkets packed with goods, just not very varied goods due to the lack of competition) is because of the US embargo, which was enhanced in 2001.

Hey, whatever comes next is probably better than what they have now. They need to open themselves up to the world and the Castroists are to busy doing what communists do best: Living fat and rich while the "working class" eats shit.

What comes next can't really be predicted, and in all likelihood will either be oligarchy or little to no change at all. The best way for market reforms to be introduced to any statist economy is gradually; this worked in Poland but backfired in countries like the former USSR (where oligarchs now reign and the economy went under) and the PRC (which is now a fascist pseudo-corporatocratic state).

[Cannot think of a name]

admittedly, i have no idea what this means

I'm guessing "you just said something I said before, proving you didn't read my post, and are not fulfilling your duty to read everything anyone else wrote before you post"

Or something, maybe not quite that rude. Not your fault, it's just Page 3 rule, summin.

No I didn't look it up on Dramatica. Because I've read the OSRS (well most of it) and infer that sources prohibited to be posted at all, cannot be required reading before making my take.

Swing and a miss.

[Just-An-Illusion]

I can’t say that I’m surprised to find people on NSG trying to critique an organic protest movement in Cuba. All because “fUcK LiBeRaL dEmoRaCy”. I mean the isn’t an attempt from the U.S to foster a coup, but “fuCK AmErIcA” anyway, right?

Authoritarians are weird like that... They will complain about the U.S. shooting protestors.

But when it comes to authoritarian regimes like China and Cuba shooting protesters?

It's all "Fine and Dandy" for some reason.

[Kowani]

admittedly, i have no idea what this means

When you see a thread title, or thread title and OP combination, and you think, "Eeeeeehhhhh, that's probably not exactly right" but you don't feel like slogging through to figure it out and hunt down the real story, you wait until page 3 to click on the thread. By then, someone has unraveled it for you and you can just move on. The Page 3 Rule is a real time saver.

ahhhhhhhhhhh, gotcha
yeah that makes sense

[Nazeroth]

Hey, whatever comes next is probably better than what they have now. They need to open themselves up to the world and the Castroists are to busy doing what communists do best: Living fat and rich while the "working class" eats shit.

What comes next can't really be predicted, and in all likelihood will either be oligarchy or little to no change at all. The best way for market reforms to be introduced to any statist economy is gradually; this worked in Poland but backfired in countries like the former USSR (where oligarchs now reign and the economy went under) and the PRC (which is now a fascist pseudo-corporatocratic state).

Then that's what should happen, the United States should open up trade with the new regime(as long as it's democratic and capitalist) and make some deals. Tourism would EXPLODE in Cuba(shit I would buy a plane ticket immediatly) The amount of educated Cuban-Americans that would move as well would be huge. Their isn't a whole lot Cuba could lose by overthrowing the Castroists.

these people ration food and gasoline on the regular and live in in a time bubble...it's insane.

[Nazeroth]

I can’t say that I’m surprised to find people on NSG trying to critique an organic protest movement in Cuba. All because “fUcK LiBeRaL dEmoRaCy”. I mean the isn’t an attempt from the U.S to foster a coup, but “fuCK AmErIcA” anyway, right?

Authoritarians are weird like that... They will complain about the U.S. shooting protestors.

But when it comes to authoritarian regimes like China and Cuba shooting protesters?

It's all "Fine and Dandy" for some reason.

Collectivists being collectivists

[Nazeroth]

From Reuters

President Diaz-Canel visited the town, later saying in his broadcast remarks: "We are calling on all the revolutionaries in the country, all the Communists, to hit the streets wherever there is an effort to produce these provocations".

LOL hes calling on "revolutionarys" when they are the state haha

[HISPIDA]

What comes next can't really be predicted, and in all likelihood will either be oligarchy or little to no change at all. The best way for market reforms to be introduced to any statist economy is gradually; this worked in Poland but backfired in countries like the former USSR (where oligarchs now reign and the economy went under) and the PRC (which is now a fascist pseudo-corporatocratic state).

Then that's what should happen, the United States should open up trade with the new regime(as long as it's democratic and capitalist) and make some deals. Tourism would EXPLODE in Cuba(shit I would buy a plane ticket immediatly) The amount of educated Cuban-Americans that would move as well would be huge. Their isn't a whole lot Cuba could lose by overthrowing the Castroists.

The US should open up trade with Cuba in general - one of the reasons the Cuban economy isn't nearly as strong as it could be is because of the US embargo. If Cuba does eventually decide to move forward with market reforms then one of their first trading partners would be the US, but it's hard to even start on that front when you're being blockaded by the largest (or maybe second-largest?) economy in the world, especially one that's right next door. Plus, tourism is already a pretty big industry in Cuba. It accounts for about 10.6% of the country's economy, and my sister actually went there with her boyfriend two years ago before COVID broke out. I have a beret from there! It has a little Cuban flag and a Che Guevara on it and is actually pretty comfy. I don't wear it often, but it's nice.

[Nazeroth]

Then that's what should happen, the United States should open up trade with the new regime(as long as it's democratic and capitalist) and make some deals. Tourism would EXPLODE in Cuba(shit I would buy a plane ticket immediatly) The amount of educated Cuban-Americans that would move as well would be huge. Their isn't a whole lot Cuba could lose by overthrowing the Castroists.

The US should open up trade with Cuba in general. If Cuba does eventually decide to move forward with market reforms then one of their first trading partners would be the US, but it's hard to even start on that front when you're being blockaded by the largest (or maybe second-largest?) economy in the world, especially one that's right next door. Plus, tourism is already a pretty big industry in Cuba. It accounts for about 10.6% of the country's economy, and my sister actually went there with her boyfriend two years ago before COVID broke out. I have a beret from there! It has a little Cuban flag and a Che Guevara on it and is actually pretty comfy. I don't wear it often, but it's nice.

Why should the US be forced to trade with the Cuban Communist Party?

also fuck Che, I have in laws that went to Cuba, who speak Spanish and they say they were horrified at how people lived.

The Castroist government should inherit nothing

[Nazeroth]

Once the Cuban government is destroyed along with anything related to communism, a free market can be introduced and Cuba could be the jewel of the Carribean. People their literally have a hard time even getting ketchup, which is ridiculous. A lot of Cubans in America want that horrible regime toppled, it's not just Americans in black suits, many Cubans,especially in Florida, would love to return to their homeland if it was stable and free.

Neoliberal regime-change claptrap.

At least try to raise the ad populum argument a bit above Fallacy with some polling on how many Americans DO actually want Diaz-Canel "toppled". And while you're doing that, perhaps find a less euphemistic term for "invaded by US main force". We all have some bad memories of how US forceful regime change has turned out.

Horrible atrocities demand immediate US intervention.
Hey, that was easy! We lost like 20 lives and a plane.
OK, let's establish a free market and democratic government.
Do not ever poll the people about girls going to school etc. That's not what we mean by "democracy".

*five years later, US deaths moving up to second or third in all time war losses*

Phew. It cost like a trillion bucks but the new "democratic" government is standing on it own one foot.
Run away, fast, before our grand achievement topples over and crushes a humvee.

Not US intervention, but economic support for a new government absolutley.

also neo-liberalism is utter garbage

[HISPIDA]

The US should open up trade with Cuba in general. If Cuba does eventually decide to move forward with market reforms then one of their first trading partners would be the US, but it's hard to even start on that front when you're being blockaded by the largest (or maybe second-largest?) economy in the world, especially one that's right next door. Plus, tourism is already a pretty big industry in Cuba. It accounts for about 10.6% of the country's economy, and my sister actually went there with her boyfriend two years ago before COVID broke out. I have a beret from there! It has a little Cuban flag and a Che Guevara on it and is actually pretty comfy. I don't wear it often, but it's nice.

Why should the US be forced to trade with the Cuban Communist Party?

Well, uh... the fact that it'd be beneficial for both parties and it's a potential incentive for the Cuban government to begin economic reforms.

also fuck Che, I have in laws that went to Cuba, who speak Spanish and they say they were horrified at how people lived.

Yeah, fuck Che. I just like his little face on my beret.

The Castroist government should inherit nothing

shadOw The hEdgehog

[Nazeroth]

Why should the US be forced to trade with the Cuban Communist Party?

Well, uh... the fact that it'd be beneficial for both parties and it's a potential incentive for the Cuban government to begin economic reforms.

also fuck Che, I have in laws that went to Cuba, who speak Spanish and they say they were horrified at how people lived.

Yeah, fuck Che. I just like his little face on my beret.

The Castroist government should inherit nothing

shadOw The hEdgehog

it's not beneficial to continue to support a totalitarian police state...

[Dexterra]

As a specialist in mid-20th century history, I am glad Cubans are protesting, but the younger ones should definitely sit down and hear a few stories from their grandparents first

[HISPIDA]

Well, uh... the fact that it'd be beneficial for both parties and it's a potential incentive for the Cuban government to begin economic reforms.


Yeah, fuck Che. I just like his little face on my beret.


shadOw The hEdgehog

it's not beneficial to continue to support a totalitarian police state...

I don't support Cuba. It'd be beneficial to American businesses for Cuba to open economic laws, though, and business is one of, if not the biggest, deciding factor in American politics. Hell, America does trade with China, which is a neo-fascist state that's actively committing genocide. China is far worse than Cuba, so it's not like this is unprecedented.

[Sundiata]

On 12 June 1991, Yeltsin won 57% of the popular vote in the democratic presidential elections for the Russian republic, defeating Gorbachev's preferred candidate, Nikolai Ryzhkov, who got just 16% of the vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russ ... nal_crisis

Parliament voted to remove him from power in 1993 due to the collapse of the economy, and he responded by having tanks bombard the parliamentary building.

That's a legitimate reason to disapprove of Yeltsin, but nonetheless his market reforms were in the right direction. Still, they were executed far too quickly.

[Sundiata]

Boris Yeltsin, the only man to ever drunk drive a superpower.

Vladimir Putin could use a drink. His foreign policy is too militaristic.

[Punished UMN]

If Cuba does go through regime change then I hope it doesn't return to Batista's style of regime nor the American puppet state that came after the end of the Spanish-American War which preceded and continued under Batista. I don't think it will, though.

That being said, I'm certainly no fan of the Communist party. My hope for Cuba is that it eventually becomes a modern welfare democracy, but if the party can liberalize and humanize I'd be alright with that. The main problem with Cuba isn't the party, but instead the embargo and sanctions we place on it.

Years of progress were not lost. Yeltsin over Gorbachev and Putin any day.

Ooooh, here we go.

The only thing I'll say on it, and maybe a hot take, but: Mikhail Gorbachev is, in my opinion, the best leader Russia has had in modern (i.e. around 1800 onward) times. He's been a big influence on my personal political beliefs and I genuinely believe that if the GKChP didn't try and oust him the USSR would still remain as a world superpower, albeit not under CPSU rule and much more libertarian and democratic. Maybe it wouldn't be entirely capitalist, although that wouldn't be a shock.

By contrast, Yeltsin illegally tried to gain control over the Russian parliament (see the 1993 Russian Constitutional Crisis, which is IMO one of the biggest tragedies to befall the modern Russian state after the August Coup), introduced shock therapy which led to the rise of the oligarchs and an economic recession (real GDP fell by 40% and the economy went into hyperinflation, eventually leading to the 1998 financial crisis, which is in my opinion one of the reasons Russia isn't likely to become a superpower again in the next few decades), was a notorious drunk (he once was found in New York in his underwear hailing a cab to get pizza), and almost single-handedly set the future presidencies of Medvedev and Putin. But I digress, and this isn't the point of the thread.

The USSR was already collapsing into open civil war by the time the August Coup happened and even Gorbachev had ordered the military to kill protesters.

[Sundiata]

Yeah because American intelligence operations in Cuba are famous for their outrageous success l o l

One success is all we need, it's going to take a concentrated intelligence effort to reform the Cuban government or a full-scale invasion.

Ideally, but as history has shown, regime change doesn't often lead to those things. It didn't for Cuba in 1959.

The geopolitical conditions of Cuba have changed since 1959. We can make history today.

[Punished UMN]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russ ... nal_crisis

Parliament voted to remove him from power in 1993 due to the collapse of the economy, and he responded by having tanks bombard the parliamentary building.

That's a legitimate reason to disapprove of Yeltsin, but nonetheless his market reforms were in the right direction. Still, they were executed far too quickly.

His "market reforms" were responsible for millions of deaths.

[Sundiata]

That's a legitimate reason to disapprove of Yeltsin, but nonetheless his market reforms were in the right direction. Still, they were executed far too quickly.

His "market reforms" were responsible for millions of deaths.

Because they were not executed more gradually. If Yeltsin remained Prime Minister the country could have been guided in a stable direction with more government integrity.

[Punished UMN]

His "market reforms" were responsible for millions of deaths.

Because they were not executed more gradually. If Yeltsin remained Prime Minister the country could have been guided in a stable direction with more government integrity.

The reason Yeltsin resigned from the Presidency is that he had lost all public legitimacy. By the end of his term he was a universally despised figure in Russia, and remains so today.

[Sundiata]

Because they were not executed more gradually. If Yeltsin remained Prime Minister the country could have been guided in a stable direction with more government integrity.

The reason Yeltsin resigned from the Presidency is that he had lost all public legitimacy. By the end of his term he was a universally despised figure in Russia, and remains so today.

You're not wrong about that. What I mostly appreciate about him is that he cemented the Russia's politics away from communism. His market reforms, while rushed, were a step in a more morally good direction than the Soviet Union.

While I prefer Yeltsin to Putin and Gorbachev, I far prefer Putin to Gorbachev.

[Punished UMN]

The reason Yeltsin resigned from the Presidency is that he had lost all public legitimacy. By the end of his term he was a universally despised figure in Russia, and remains so today.

You're not wrong about that. What I mostly appreciate about him is that he cemented the Russia's politics away from communism. His market reforms, while rushed, were a step in a more morally good direction than the Soviet Union.

While I prefer Yeltsin to Putin and Gorbachev, I far prefer Putin to Gorbachev.

So is the quality of life of nearly three hundred million people and the deaths of millions due to civil conflict, the collapse of the economy and infrastructure, the endless frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union, the rise of human and drug trafficking, the massive increase in crime rates in the country, etc. etc. acceptable collateral damage so that a few nominally Christian glorified organized crime lords can run the former Soviet Union instead of some admittedly atheist party bureaucrats?