Breaking News Protests across Cuba against the Cuban Regime

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Who came up with the idea that Cuba is a democracy?

Bill Cosby

Let’s talk about pound cakes…

[Ethel mermania]

Bill Cosby

Let’s talk about pound cakes…

Made with jello pudding

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Well, they clearly don't support authoritarian socialism. Otherwise, they wouldn't be protesting!


Looking at the features of this constitution, one thing seems clear: the Cuban people are in favor of democratization, which you certainly despise. The attacks on civil liberties in response to these protests are likely only fueling that fire.

1. There have been massive rallies in support of the government.

2. Everyone likes democracy and I do too - the protests aren’t about “attacks on civil liberties”, they started off as some discontent around economic crisis related problems and then got taken over by the CIA and gusanos.

No healthy democracy has 100% of a single party in parliament. Even North Korea, the USSR, China, and East Germany have token opposition.

Technically Cuba has 100% of no party in parliament - the Wikipedia page I know for a fact that you looked at to say this incredibly uninformed thing is wrong. Cuban politicians are banned from running as members of parties.

Candidates have to be approved by the National Candidature Commission, and not by how many signatures they received, but by vague terms like merit, patriotism, ethical values, and revolutionary history. Also, if 50% of the candidates are selected by the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, how are all members of the legislature members of the Committees. And if Cuba's elections are democratic, how did all the candidates in its 2008 Council of State election get over 99% of the legislature's votes?

[Proctopeo]

Well, they clearly don't support authoritarian socialism. Otherwise, they wouldn't be protesting!


Looking at the features of this constitution, one thing seems clear: the Cuban people are in favor of democratization, which you certainly despise. The attacks on civil liberties in response to these protests are likely only fueling that fire.

1. There have been massive rallies in support of the government.

Again, doubtful.

2. Everyone likes democracy and I do too

You've resorted to outright lying now? Shameful.

the protests aren’t about “attacks on civil liberties”, they started off as some discontent around economic crisis related problems and then got taken over by the CIA and gusanos.

Can you actually provide evidence for this - excluding Cuban state propaganda, of course.

The crux of your argument seems to be that, because you personally adore Cuba's basic dictatorship, the Cuban people couldn't possibly have any discontent with it, and any action to the contrary is the doing of foreign bodies or the ever-spooky "counter-revolutionaries".

Cuba is a better democracy than the USA all things considered - the US constitution is much less democratic than Cuba’s constitution which was designed in large part through suggestions from regular people.

Yes. A one-party state is clearly much more democratic than the US

Dictatorship is democracy. Freedom is slavery. France is bacon.

[Philjia]

Who came up with the idea that Cuba is a democracy?

It's an obfuscated one party state. There's nobody in the National Assembly of People's Power who wasn't first nominated by the public or a union and then elected into office, but they were all also vetted by the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution before being allowed to run and the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution are under the control of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Who came up with the idea that Cuba is a democracy?

It's an obfuscated one party state. There's nobody in the National Assembly of People's Power who wasn't first nominated by the public or a union and then elected into office, but they were all also vetted by the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution before being allowed to run and the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution are under the control of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba.

I know, which is why I’m wondering who the heck truly thinks Cuba is a democracy. It’s not.

[Philjia]

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.

Indeed, I attacked Batista in previous post(s). I even stated my opinion that dictators like Batista deserve nothing less than a firing squad. The same applies to Castro and his cabal.

Raoul Castro recently retired from his position this year, Miguel Díaz-Canel is the new first secretary of the Communist Party.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Indeed, I attacked Batista in previous post(s). I even stated my opinion that dictators like Batista deserve nothing less than a firing squad. The same applies to Castro and his cabal.

Raoul Castro recently retired from his position this year, Miguel Díaz-Canel is the new first secretary of the Communist Party.

It feels weird without the Castro's.

[Salus Maior]

Moreover, EVERYONE who has EVER worked for Walmart did so voluntarily and peacefully because they believed it was the most efficient use of their time.

Actually the greatest fantasy in the world. People work because we as a society will leave them to die if they don't. That's not voluntary, that's simply a mass scale version of me telling you to do something and shooting you if you don't.

The issue isn't that people have to work, because everyone who's able has to work in order for society to function. The issue is that people aren't earning enough to sustain themselves, and that wealth is being horded at the top.

I doubt anyone would complain about working at Walmart if they were paid properly.

[Major-Tom]

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

It really does appear that the initial protests over pandemic-related life have spiraled into a just coalition of protesters demanding change, liberalization, and societal openness.

I don't think this is the moment where Cuba fundamentally changes, but it's a welcoming start to see.

[Uiiop]

Actually the greatest fantasy in the world. People work because we as a society will leave them to die if they don't. That's not voluntary, that's simply a mass scale version of me telling you to do something and shooting you if you don't.

Everyone has to work dude.

Seriously, do you leftists think resources are readily plucked from trees?

The sociopath left thinks that someone else should work for their greedy, lazy and selfish needs and wants.

That's enslavement.

Your moral compass is broken if you're offended that you have to work to receive goods and services in this universe. It is irretrievably broken if you think you are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor.

But then again, that's progressivism. That's insanity.

Says the person who's only argument is being offended and making shit up .

Like what makes the work of the underling the fruit of the CEO anymore than the work of the people being the fruit of the state. Democracy whole goal is to make those intertwined if not one of the team.

[Cannot think of a name]

The issue isn't that people have to work, because everyone who's able has to work in order for society to function.

Is that strictly true? I'm pretty sure if no one did what I do, the Earth would just...keep on spinnin'.

I came across some figure once that I can't remember and don't have the google fu to find so maybe it was just some shit some dude made up, but the idea was to sustain the population very few of us actually had to work...the rest of us are kind of just moving things around because that's the system we built.

But again, I can't find it so maybe that's bullshit. But the everyone who's able has to doesn't feel right either. Because I've done a whole lot of worthless shit that seems to exist only because we set up a system where we have to go through those motions.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

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.

The first rule of holes is to stop digging. You apparently didn't learn this. For example, by any rational, objective and informed measure, the reason for Singapore and Hong Kong prosperity versus Vietnam has precious little to do with shipping lanes. The difference is economic freedom, those in Singapore and Hong Kong (pre-Xi) have it and Vietnam doesn't.

Furthermore, I can crush your absurd narrative by two easy rebuts. First Hong Kong is much farther removed from the Straits of Malacca than Vietnam, yet....

Second, New Zealand that I cited earlier was similarly far removed from any advantageous trade routes, yet...

We you not the ill informed poster who cited New Zealand's former British colonial status as the reason for it's prosperity? If so, that's equally laughable since being a former British colonial doesn't concur prosperity if that colonial is foolish enough to adopt insane progressive policies.

You're giving ol' Shapiro a run for his money, aren't you? Hong Kong doesn't rely on shipping as the primary driver of its economy (insert digression about historical status as a funnel for trade into China because of unique political status). Singapore doesn't anymore, but that's how it got its start. Nor is the Strait of Malacca the only advantageous shipping route in the world. Also, I didn't say anything about New Zealand. Go look through the quote chain again.

Most other posters, when they're being intentionally obtuse, aren't so proud of it.

Also, this is so simplistic. I don't support a planned economy, but if I lived in your Manichean world of Ayn-Randism vs. Orwellianism, I think I would have to if that meant none of this rhetoric. Unfortunately, the world cannot be generalized in broad strokes. Cf. economic freedom in post-Soviet countries.

[Salus Maior]

The issue isn't that people have to work, because everyone who's able has to work in order for society to function.

Is that strictly true? I'm pretty sure if no one did what I do, the Earth would just...keep on spinnin'.

I came across some figure once that I can't remember and don't have the google fu to find so maybe it was just some shit some dude made up, but the idea was to sustain the population very few of us actually had to work...the rest of us are kind of just moving things around because that's the system we built.

But again, I can't find it so maybe that's bullshit. But the everyone who's able has to doesn't feel right either. Because I've done a whole lot of worthless shit that seems to exist only because we set up a system where we have to go through those motions.

Well yes, but the earth will also keep spinning if we all drop dead tomorrow.

That sounds to me that only a handful of people have to sustain a lot of people that can sustain themselves, I don't see that as particularly fair.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

"Protect US national interests" sounds very much like neocolonialism. True, the US protected its national interests by installing and supporting brutal dictators. Batista, Pinochet, Syngman Rhee, Suharto, Noriega, Ngo Dinh Diem, etc. All of them had blood of the innocents on their hands, and were puppets to US interests.


Some of the countries the US overthrown democratically elected their own leaders, like Mossadegh and Allende.


Ironically, Biden is restoring many of the alliances Trump abandoned, and Obama literally started a lot of wars.


This is nonsense. The democracies that arose out of authoritarian regimes today happened without US support, it was the work of the people. South Koreans protested for decades to force the Korean government to democratize, especially after the June Democracy Movement. Suharto resigned after massive public demonstration and parliamentary opposition from his 30-year mismanagement of the economy. Pinochet stepped down from power after the 1988 and 1989 referendums.


At the cost of massive inequality and poverty. 26% of Chileans in 2017 are poor, and the richest 20%'s income equal 61% of GDP while the poorest 20%'s is only 3.3%.


South America is still plagued with inequality and corruption thanks to decades of American intervention. Many former Soviet countries remain poor, with Russia suffering the most from the 90s' shock therapy. Philippines and Indonesia also have structural inequality, economic problems and corruption. South Korea just barely got out of a massive corruption scandal a few years ago.


Depending on the metrics, this claim is questionable.


Right back at'cha.

First, to assert that current USA policy is anything remotely like colonialism is absurd on its face. Moreover, all of the authoritarian regimes the USA supported were removed from power after the collapse of the USSR and global communism. Laughably you cited Chile and South Korea, yet both nations are among the most free and stable on the geopolitic.

The US would have been perfectly happy for Chile and South Korea to continue as autocracies. South Korea especially only became what it is today thanks to the spilt blood of brave martyrs who stood up for their country. This is so wrong-headed as to be insulting to the struggle and sacrifice of the Chilean and South Korean people against US-backed autocracies. Many US-backed dictatorships are now gone (almost always no thanks to the US), but some still are around. E.g., Saudi Arabia and assorted Gulf states.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Says the person who's only argument is being offended and making shit up .

Like what makes the work of the underling the fruit of the CEO anymore than the work of the people being the fruit of the state. Democracy whole goal is to make those intertwined if not one of the team.

What you fail to acknowledge through a jaded, ill-informed, and twisted ideological lens is that every single person who works for your "ebil CEO" does so voluntarily. in contrast, every dollar that is plundered by your beloved statist government is acquired at gunpoint. But that's not the worse part, the money that comes from largely middle class Americans is plundered and spent to get politicians reelected in order to give them and their cronies more power and privilege.

So if plundering fellow citizens because they are more successful, harder working, innovative and talented than you is required to join your team --- I don't want any part of your team.

When they tell you they got rich through hard work, ask them "Whose?"

[Cannot think of a name]

Is that strictly true? I'm pretty sure if no one did what I do, the Earth would just...keep on spinnin'.

I came across some figure once that I can't remember and don't have the google fu to find so maybe it was just some shit some dude made up, but the idea was to sustain the population very few of us actually had to work...the rest of us are kind of just moving things around because that's the system we built.

But again, I can't find it so maybe that's bullshit. But the everyone who's able has to doesn't feel right either. Because I've done a whole lot of worthless shit that seems to exist only because we set up a system where we have to go through those motions.

Well yes, but the earth will also keep spinning if we all drop dead tomorrow.

Way to over read something. You knew what I meant. Calm down.

That sounds to me that only a handful of people have to sustain a lot of people that can sustain themselves, I don't see that as particularly fair.

I'm not 'sustaining myself'. I haven't so much as picked a berry or planted a thing since I was a teenager. I haven't forged or cleaned water. I haven't even built a tree house much less any dwelling I've lived in. My car passed through several hands before it even got to me.

I'm not sustaining myself. I'm doing some unimportant bullshit that's been created solely for the purpose of making money because we somehow think everyone has to do something no matter what it is. That's not sustaining myself, that sustaining an ass old system.

[Salus Maior]

Well yes, but the earth will also keep spinning if we all drop dead tomorrow.

Way to over read something. You knew what I meant. Calm down.

That sounds to me that only a handful of people have to sustain a lot of people that can sustain themselves, I don't see that as particularly fair.

I'm not 'sustaining myself'. I haven't so much as picked a berry or planted a thing since I was a teenager. I haven't forged or cleaned water. I haven't even built a tree house much less any dwelling I've lived in. My car passed through several hands before it even got to me.

I'm not sustaining myself. I'm doing some unimportant bullshit that's been created solely for the purpose of making money because we somehow think everyone has to do something no matter what it is. That's not sustaining myself, that sustaining an ass old system.

I'm perfectly calm, lol.

Ok, and what are you doing with that money?

Nobody's "picking berries" for themselves unless they're outright choosing that lifestyle. That's not what I mean by "sustaining yourself". You earn your own money, you pay for your own stuff, that's sustaining yourself.

Why should I work just for you to not work, when you're perfectly able to earn your own money?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

You're giving ol' Shapiro a run for his money, aren't you? Hong Kong doesn't rely on shipping as the primary driver of its economy (insert digression about historical status as a funnel for trade into China because of unique political status). Singapore doesn't anymore, but that's how it got its start. Nor is the Strait of Malacca the only advantageous shipping route in the world. Also, I didn't say anything about New Zealand. Go look through the quote chain again.

Most other posters, when they're being intentionally obtuse, aren't so proud of it.

Also, this is so simplistic. I don't support a planned economy, but if I lived in your Manichean world of Ayn-Randism vs. Orwellianism, I think I would have to if that meant none of this rhetoric. Unfortunately, the world cannot be generalized in broad strokes. Cf. economic freedom in post-Soviet countries.

You're wrong. Hong Kong and Singapore definitely depend on shipping. Both nations don't have any significant natural resources, hence without trade and shipping these nations would collapse within a fortnight. Second don't presume my ideological bent, you will most likely be wrong.

Hong Kong has a significant port, but they would do just fine without it, since they also have other strong sectors like finance. Also, there's a big difference between relying on imports for basic necessities and being a trading center. When I say depend, I mean depend in terms of GDP, not in terms of logistical necessity.

Your ideological bent is obvious. I wouldn't be surprised if I was talking to a Hillsdale College graduate.

[New Beaton]

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Cane accuses at least some of the protestors of being indirectly paid agents of the US government



holy shit there's so much disinfo flying around this one, goddamn

I mean.. that's standard practice for a regime right, blame foreign agitators. You can practically write the script for how this goes.

It is the carribean after all, US backed agitation is pretty much the name of the game

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

When they tell you they got rich through hard work, ask them "Whose?"

I don't care how anyone got rich, so long as they did it in a peaceful and voluntary market. In contrast, government is the vehicle by which many corporations get rich by engaging in rent seeking in a quid pro quo with some corrupt politician(s). Unfortunately, the young leftist mob on this forum thinks that politicians (at least the Bernie Sanders variety) are manifestly altruistic, enlightened and smart while CEO's are corrupt, stupid and greedy.

Alas, it appears leftist professors who've gotten rich spewing leftist propaganda know how to brainwash impressionable young minds.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 292A3237B7

Regression to the mean & peers explain ideological drift.

Anyways, if you can't understand the nature of non-violent coercion, then there is nothing else to say.

[Cannot think of a name]

Way to over read something. You knew what I meant. Calm down.

I'm not 'sustaining myself'. I haven't so much as picked a berry or planted a thing since I was a teenager. I haven't forged or cleaned water. I haven't even built a tree house much less any dwelling I've lived in. My car passed through several hands before it even got to me.

I'm not sustaining myself. I'm doing some unimportant bullshit that's been created solely for the purpose of making money because we somehow think everyone has to do something no matter what it is. That's not sustaining myself, that sustaining an ass old system.

I'm perfectly calm, lol.

Ok, and what are you doing with that money?

Nobody's "picking berries" for themselves unless they're outright choosing that lifestyle. That's not what I mean by "sustaining yourself". You earn your own money, you pay for your own stuff, that's sustaining yourself.

Why should I work just for you to not work, when you're perfectly able to earn your own money?

Why are we tied to that system? Why can't we rethink it? Why do I need to do bullshit just to justify my survival?

[Picairn]

First, to assert that current USA policy is anything remotely like colonialism is absurd on its face.

Wrong, even recent wars like Iraq and Libya are products of US imperialism.

Moreover, all of the authoritarian regimes the USA supported were removed from power after the collapse of the USSR and global communism. Laughably you cited Chile and South Korea, yet both nations are among the most free and stable on the geopolitic.

They were removed from power by the protests and demonstrations of the people, without any US intervention. Again, Chile have a massive inequality problem, and South Korea just barely got out of a corruption scandal. Most free and stable my ass.

Second, of course the USA subvert and toppled pro-communist regimes irrespective of whether they were democratically elected, or not.

Excusing US imperialism is not a good look on you, chief.

You forget Hitler and the Nazis came to power via democracy.

Both Mossadegh and Allende were not Hitler. Both did not have dreams of global domination or invasion whatsoever. Stop making up lie after lie to support a BS narrative.

Also Hitler did not become Chancellor by virtue of his party being the majority or negotiated a coalition government, he was appointed by Hindenburg after a majority coalition failed to form after the November 1932 election. The previous Chancellor, Franz von Papen, made a deal with the devil (Hitler) to return to power as Vice Chancellor after being replaced by General Kurt von Schleicher for his failure to form a government, falsely believing that he could tame Hitler while in office. Then Hitler and the Nazis seized power through the Enabling Acts and the rest is history.

The point of removing these governments was to combat the brutal global cancer of communism that had subjugated over a billions innocents souls and killed tens of millions more.

At the cost of hundreds of thousands to over a million deaths? The Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 lists 500,000 to 1 million deaths due to Suharto's purge. About 3,000 people were killed and 30,000 others were tortured under Pinochet. And various other dictatorships.

indeed, after the end of the Cold War, nations still in the USA fold became representative governments with more freedoms and stability than at anytime in their tumultuous and violent past.

Only because the people grew tired of living under dictatorships led by US puppets and started to fight back.

Third, without benevolent US hegemonic support there would be no representative government in Asia, Europe or South America.

Bullshit. The people created the democracies, not the US. The very same creations of the US, those dictatorships, were overthrown by the people.

The default position of government is autocratic. It was not until 1776 that democracy begin to bloom. It was not until 1945 that it bloomed in Europe and the Asian Pacific Rim. And it was not until 1989 that freedom begin to proliferate around the globe in an unprecedented fashion in human history. Wherever the USA holds sway, liberty, stability and relative prosperity are the norm.

The whole course of the Cold War and numerous US interventions says otherwise.

Fourth, sure if you look at a snapshot, there is poverty and inequality and statism abroad, but it is far less pronounced in regions were the USA maintains hegemony.

Russia and several East European countries are still suffering from the 90s shock therapy that the US prescribed to them. South America remains a hellhole.

However, no rational, objective and informed analyst would assert that Eastern Europe is worse off today than in 1989?

Russia and shock therapy say otherwise.

Similarly, no sane person would assert that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. is worse off today than in 1945.

Without US intervention did they become better, in the case of South Korea and Taiwan. Taiwan was also recently a dictatorship until the early 1990s.

Also, I challenge you to cited any period in history when South America was more free, prosperous and stable than today?

Brazil remains a hellhole. Columbia is a hellhole. Argentina is a hellhole. Bolivia is a hellhole. Chile's top 20% owns over 60% of its GDP.

In sum, all of Europe would be speaking German or Russian if not for the United States. Those nations on the Asian Pacific Rim would be under the brutal iron boot of either Japanese or Chinese rule. And South America would be an autocratic hellhole ruled by various nation-states competing for limited spoils as it was before American hegemony cast out statist interlopers from Europe.

South America, Eastern Europe and South East Asia are still reeling from the legacy of US intervention.

[Cultural Posadism]

The OP: GMS Crazy Cuban Alberto:
A 2 minutes Video Link by the Populist Political Party of Spain - By Santiago Abascal of The Populist Political Party of Spain.

The "populist political party" in question is Vox. And it's a fascist party. You're not doing the Cuban people any favours by highlighting Abascal's support for them.

[Cultural Posadism]

Oh yeah, it is probably important to note. A government having the power to shut down their country's connection to the Internet is never a good thing, and them using that power is always a bad sign. The same applies for other forms of quick, long-distance communication. I'd go so far as to say it's indefensible.

Yeah, I strongly support making the internet a public good, but there's a legitimate argument to be made against placing it under the unilateral control of an unaccountable government.