Cuban Fencing

[Maeve_Mari]

Perhaps the question contains it's own answer: because those countries, like Cuba, have NOT "chosen" to be governed that way. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" always seems to get simplified to "dictatorship, period" under communist regimes. Generally we don't like dictatorships, though we often tolerate them when they aren't also inclined to threaten us in one way or another.

In the case of Cuba there was a clear threat initially. The government there, ie Castro, was allowing the Soviet Union to place ballistic missiles there. Missiles aimed at guess who? Thus the sanctions. Alas, national policies tend to ossify and acquire the sanctity of tradition. Thus Cuba.

IMO there'a also one other factor: Cuba was a large producer of sugar, which has become one of our most zealously protected industries with a powerful lobby. Cuban expatriates are another powerful lobby. Add all of these together and, well, the outcome may be neither honorable nor honest but it is nevertheless comprehensible...

Two notes:
First, at the time of the revolution in Cuba that brought Castro to power the people of Cuba were angry at the Batista dictatorship in Cuba which was seen by many Cubans as a oppressive and illegal government. Young Castro lead an uprising that presented an option to the angry for change and reform. What happened surprised many when Castro's changes and reforms , including nationalization of assets, including US assets, showed signs of leftist tendencies. The US retaliations (embargos and halting imports) to this action left Castro desperate for cash which the Soviet Union was more than happy to supply. Many of the revolutionaries supporting Castro didn't expect what happened. Nor did the United States. (1959-60 - Eisenhower Administration.)

Second, for Lou. Cuba is only about 90 miles off the coast of the United States. In exchange for the cash support the Soviet Union wanted Cuba's close proximity to the United States for it's own offensive opportunity. When armed with missiles aimed at right over here, the United States had to get tough really quick with protection and safety.

[Louweasel]

Thanks guys, it does make it a bit clearer. To be fair I had overlooked the Cuban missile crisis and that whole defense threat concept which was rather remiss.
Politically, it seems like it's the dictator thing which is more the contentious issue than the communist thing I suppose, which makes more sense.

As for the turning everybody communist concept, well, that does sound (i beg your pardon) a bit hysterical to me as communism in most places that Iknow anything about came about as the result of a revolution of a lot of very very unhappy disadvantaged people who felt that the previous system was f**cking them over; not because of an invasion. And I've never heard the inkling of a suggestion that american citizens are or were ever inclined to overthrow the government to put in place a communist regime!

Anyway, as a nod to Soldier's very sensible "cynical thread", I think I'll leave it there as I have contributed all I usefully can to the debate and it has actually clarified a few things in my mind (although not everything!)

[jeff]

Louweasel, there's actually another point you may wish to consider regarding the "turn everybody communist" issue: during its active years (so to speak), it was the public policy of the Communist nation states to export Communism to the rest of the world "by any means necessary". There were "wars of liberation", both direct and indirect in nations all over the world with varying degrees of success (and violence). So, it wasn't paranoia ("it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you"). Coming back to the present, it's not clear to me that there is any credible threat prevented via the embargo against Cuba (as Soldier points out). Inq summarized the reasons then, and the (faulty) reasons now.

[Gav]

Louweasel, there's actually another point you may wish to consider regarding the "turn everybody communist" issue: during its active years (so to speak), it was the public policy of the Communist nation states to export Communism to the rest of the world "by any means necessary". There were "wars of liberation", both direct and indirect in nations all over the world with varying degrees of success (and violence). So, it wasn't paranoia ("it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you"). Coming back to the present, it's not clear to me that there is any credible threat prevented via the embargo against Cuba (as Soldier points out). Inq summarized the reasons then, and the (faulty) reasons now.

What about, "Lets turn everybody Capitalist"? Are you saying that states such as the US never promoted this? tsk tsk

[Louweasel]

Thanks, jeff, that's certainly something I wasn't really considering. Wasn't really aware of, to be honest.

Gav - nice one! Very good point there...

[Schiavona]

What about, "Lets turn everybody Capitalist"? Are you saying that states such as the US never promoted this? tsk tsk

We don't have to. All the goodies do it for us. Big Mac anyone?

[jeff]

Hey, that was a good one, Gav!

To answer seriously, I guess there are two ways to look at it: First, prior to Communism, almost all societies had some form of capitalism (in small scale only in pre-industrial nations). It was the incumbent situation, which Communism sought to overthrow, and Fascism (state-aligned monolithic capitalism) sought to consolidate. Capitalism of the form practiced by the US, UK, EU, Japan falls between those two extremes, and (typically) is accompanied by democratic institutions to keep it from tilting one way or the other. Communism and Fascism lack those institutions.

The second thing, I suppose, is to consider imperialism (in which the US lagged the European countries by a very large margin!), and which seems to have come from both Communist and capitalist societies. Look for example at the British colonization of India and suppression of their native garment industry, in order to create markets for British goods. But that's not "exporting capitalism" - that's suppressing capitalism in weaker countries in order to protect ones own.

[epeemike81]

What about, "Lets turn everybody Capitalist"? Are you saying that states such as the US never promoted this? tsk tsk

well, actually, most of the times we've actively saught change it's been "let's turn everybody fascist."

-m

[epeemike81]

Louweasel, there's actually another point you may wish to consider regarding the "turn everybody communist" issue: during its active years (so to speak), it was the public policy of the Communist nation states to export Communism to the rest of the world "by any means necessary". There were "wars of liberation", both direct and indirect in nations all over the world with varying degrees of success (and violence). So, it wasn't paranoia ("it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you"). Coming back to the present, it's not clear to me that there is any credible threat prevented via the embargo against Cuba (as Soldier points out). Inq summarized the reasons then, and the (faulty) reasons now.

yep, and most of those communist revolutions were provided direct support by the USSR. Then again, most of the fascist revolutions against ELECTED socialist governments were even more closely supported by us, so, I don't think we're really in a position to talk.

hmmm, "wars of liberation"... where have I heard THAT recently??

-m

[Louweasel]

hmmm, "wars of liberation"... where have I heard THAT recently??

-m

Too true! I remember last year graham Norton, who has a comedy chat show on the BBC, took his programme to New York for a few shows and said "What a wonderful country - when I left England there was a war in Iraq! I got here and it's a liberation!"

[Louweasel]

The second thing, I suppose, is to consider imperialism (in which the US lagged the European countries by a very large margin!), and which seems to have come from both Communist and capitalist societies. Look for example at the British colonization of India and suppression of their native garment industry, in order to create markets for British goods. But that's not "exporting capitalism" - that's suppressing capitalism in weaker countries in order to protect ones own.

God yes, we were rather terrible inthose days - if it stood still long enough, someone stuck a flag in it and claimed it for the British Empire! I still don't know how we managed it, tiny little country that we are. Maybe it was the same principle as those really small dogs that bark really loudly, or short men that are always picking fights...
Anyway we've given most of it back now, which is nice. I didn't know that about the natice Indian garment industry. Now I worry more about buying things stamped "made in India" for fear of supporting sweatshop exploitation...

[Soldier]

What about, "Lets turn everybody Capitalist"? Are you saying that states such as the US never promoted this? tsk tsk

Nobody ever said we weren't. After all, why do you think the Soviets were always so afraid?

[telkanuru]

...because we had nukes...

[Maeve_Mari]

...because we had nukes...

No. They were not afraid of our nukes! Turning the tide of communism, enticing their citizens with capitalism and all that comes along with it - gold lined streets and opportunities of great wealth and comfort - reducing the powerhold and the perks communist leaders enjoyed - is what frightened them. Uncontrollable, comfortable, outspoken and voting citizens is what they were really afraid of!

[telkanuru]

ah. The 'communist leaders' and the 'soviets' I classify into the categorys of the 'people in charge' and the 'proles', respectively. Merely a misunderstanding. I should here note that any governement is built around the fear of the 'other'. This is because of the original nature of the government; to protect the people from things that would kill them. For example, the cuban gov't exists in large part in opposition to the united states. The US itself always has an 'enemy number 1'. Indians, blacks, the british, blacks again, europe, poverty, the germans, the russians/communists, and now the terrorists. This is the current manifestation of what Orwell places as '2 minutes hate' in "1984". Isn't it odd that the existance of a government lies in how much its people are afraid?

[Soldier]

I agree, except with capitalist governments. In that case, the government exists as a control measure - the entity that regulates business in order to keep it running smoothly. People keep it in order to further prosper.

[telkanuru]

The US happens to be a capitalist gov't. FYI. Ergo, see above.

[Soldier]

Understood. I am disagreeing with you.

[Inquartata]

well, actually, most of the times we've actively saught change it's been "let's turn everybody fascist."

-m

Only using your definition of "fascist", ya pinko!

[Gav]

Nobody ever said we weren't. After all, why do you think the Soviets were always so afraid?

I doubt that the Soviets were any more afraid of the West [or in your case the US] than the West was of them. I don't think that a lot of people in the US truly understand the complexities of Russian (and following that Soviet) life.

Lets not rehash the Communism vs Capitalism argument either.