Castro Makes A Public Appearance, Warns Of Nuclear War [Archive]

Who?

7th August 2010, 20:45

Not to divert the topic of the thread, but where do right wingers get the standard of living stats of pre-Castro Cuba? They keep saying that Cuba was a bastion of wealth and high living standards while Batista was around. Why?

They probably get it from Glenn Beck or some other right wing prophet. They just create lies to help their cause.

But what else is new? :D

KurtFF8

7th August 2010, 21:13

Not to divert the topic of the thread, but where do right wingers get the standard of living stats of pre-Castro Cuba? They keep saying that Cuba was a bastion of wealth and high living standards while Batista was around. Why?

I've never heard anyone claim this before, and I've had countless debates about Cuba.

Anyway, good to see Fidel able to do this kind of thing again. Interesting to see he didn't take the seat that had set aside for him in his absence.

fa2991

7th August 2010, 21:29

Not to divert the topic of the thread, but where do right wingers get the standard of living stats of pre-Castro Cuba? They keep saying that Cuba was a bastion of wealth and high living standards while Batista was around. Why?

Because Miami mobsters and rich tourists lived well when they were in Cuba, the "Latin Las Vegas". Right wingers don't actually have real stats on Cuban citizens.

The Vegan Marxist

7th August 2010, 21:46

CleverTitle

7th August 2010, 23:19

Good to see Fidel back out there.

Lolshevik

8th August 2010, 02:36

does anyone have the full video of Fidel's address? preferably with english subs but I can mull through the spanish if I need to.

Rakhmetov

8th August 2010, 14:53

Not to divert the topic of the thread, but where do right wingers get the standard of living stats of pre-Castro Cuba? They keep saying that Cuba was a bastion of wealth and high living standards while Batista was around. Why?

I've heard these arguments before from Professor Suchlicki and his ilk. If that were true then why was there a civil war in Cuba in 1956-1959 where over 100,000 were killed???? It's a lot cant.

Hexen

8th August 2010, 17:32

What does everyone think of Castro's Nuclear War warning? Is it something to be worrying about or is Castro still living in the past?

Red Commissar

8th August 2010, 18:14

I think the important part here is that he's not making any move to reassert himself politically. He's made a comment on what he feels to be pertinent to modern day issues as he has done through his "reflections" that get posted periodically.

More importantly, he's not rotting away from his disease as western media was speculating.

RebelDog

8th August 2010, 20:49

What does everyone think of Castro's Nuclear War warning? Is it something to be worrying about or is Castro still living in the past?

Who can tell what any attack on Iran could lead to? Here is a Chomsky article that might help you:

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-iranian-threat-by-noam-chomsky-1

Barry Lyndon

8th August 2010, 21:49

I've talked to the anti-castro Cubans, & I've shown them these stats (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/cuban-truth-against-the-lies/), yet they always tend to dodge them & replace them with "well my parents said this happened". I can't stand them.

How can you rebut someone like that? After all, they say their uncle personally saw Fidel Castro eat babies. It must be true!

RebelDog

9th August 2010, 01:57

The primary US concerns over Cuba are its defiance of US hegemony in the region and the inability of the US corporations to exploit it. Clearly though another concern is the example Cuba shows in what can be achieved by prioritising resources and actually having some degree of interest in the welfare of the population. Here we are in rich 1st world countries with social outcomes in health, education, infant mortality etc that Cuba competes with or even exceeds, and we are getting set to go backwards because suddenly we can't afford it anymore. There are parts of the Cuban revolution that have been a triumph and that we can all learn lessons from, and these achievements stand as a real world example of what populations should expect, and indeed demand, where they see their public services being attacked and dismantled.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 18:53

Its good to see Fidel's still here and active :)

He is a legend and probably my favorite all time political figure

Red Conall

9th August 2010, 19:23

Why should a retired bourgeois-nationalist politician or what he has to say about the prospect of nuclear war & such be of any interest to communists?

The Vegan Marxist

9th August 2010, 20:25

Why should a retired bourgeois-nationalist politician or what he has to say about the prospect of nuclear war & such be of any interest to communists?

Say's the Trotskyite.

Are you serious about what you posted? :rolleyes:

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 20:29

Why should a retired bourgeois-nationalist politician or what he has to say about the prospect of nuclear war & such be of any interest to communists?

Because it is Fidel Castro. :D

Hes transformed Cuba from a small crappy third world nation into a thriving and brilliant country.

Lolshevik

9th August 2010, 22:21

Why should a retired bourgeois-nationalist politician or what he has to say about the prospect of nuclear war & such be of any interest to communists?

It really bothers me when people like you say stuff like this - as we're both self-described Trotskyists, you're making me look bad, too!

Wanted Man

9th August 2010, 22:23

Why should a retired bourgeois-nationalist politician or what he has to say about the prospect of nuclear war & such be of any interest to communists?

Yeah, he's definitely no Red Conall from Ireland, sympathizer of COFI.

Red Conall

10th August 2010, 02:14

Are you serious about what you posted?

No. It was a joke.

Hes transformed Cuba from a small crappy third world nation into a thriving and brilliant country.

What do you mean by "a thriving and brilliant country" and shouldn't you be more concerned with, oh I don't know, the class nature of the Cuban state or something terribly silly and 'unMarxist' like that?

It really bothers me when people like you say stuff like this - as we're both self-described Trotskyists, you're making me look bad, too

USec makes itself look bad enough as it is what with its crap politics and that. You don't need my help.

Yeah, he's definitely no Red Conall from Ireland, sympathizer of COFI.

Indeed. He's a bourgeois-nationalist from an island in the Caribbean. The 'Well could you do any better?' line is no substitute for real analysis. It also happens to be irrelevant. Castro's personal qualities or achievements (or lack thereof) have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Cuba is or ever was a workers state (which it was/is not).

Lolshevik

10th August 2010, 06:06

Why is Fidel a bourgeois nationalist politician, though? The 26 de Julio movement and the revolution that followed are living validation of the theory of permanent revolution. & even if he was a 'retired bourgeois nationalist politician', why would that make him less relevant? do we tend to plug our ears and 'la la la' while any non-communist individual is speaking?

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 10:41

What do you mean by "a thriving and brilliant country" and shouldn't you be more concerned with, oh I don't know, the class nature of the Cuban state or something terribly silly and 'unMarxist' like that?

Rubbish.

Before Fidel came, Cuba was a little shit-hole in the Caribbeans. They were being exploited like slaves. They had nothing, the life expectancy was around 55 years, now its 77.5. Cuba is ranked #1 in literacy rate, coming to almost 100%. The literacy rate before the revolution was terrible. Cuba has an infant mortality rate of only 5.1, compared to the U.S. where it is 6.3. Before Fidel Castro came along, the infant mortality rate of Cuba was at 60.

These are just a few small facts of the wonders Fidel Castro has done. He is without doubt one of the best ever political figures.

Barry Lyndon

10th August 2010, 16:02

a) What do you mean by "a thriving and brilliant country" and shouldn't you be more concerned with, oh I don't know, the class nature of the Cuban state or something terribly silly and 'unMarxist' like that?

b) USec makes itself look bad enough as it is what with its crap politics and that. You don't need my help.

c) Indeed. He's a bourgeois-nationalist from an island in the Caribbean. The 'Well could you do any better?' line is no substitute for real analysis. It also happens to be irrelevant. Castro's personal qualities or achievements (or lack thereof) have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Cuba is or ever was a workers state (which it was/is not).

a) Well, in my 'un-Marxist' analysis, the bourgeoisie in Cuba has been smashed and expropriated, private property has almost entirely been collectivized, and a party of the Cuban workers and peasants holds power. I know that doesn't count to you, because its not a Trotskyist party in power.

b) Yay! Sectarianism! Let's have the Trotskyists fight once AGAIN over who are the honorary heirs of the non-existent fourth international!
I have news for you- its not going to happen. Ever.

c) Where has your 'real analysis' gotten you in the last few decades? Nowhere, just sniping on the sidelines and slandering any real revolution that happens, while holding hands with the capitalists in declaring that socialism is impossible and a failure wherever its been tried.
The question is not 'Well could you do any better'- the question is 'Well have you done ANYTHING'?

Devrim

10th August 2010, 22:14

The Vegan Marxist

10th August 2010, 22:48

On the point of the thread, Castro seems like a retired old (83) man who is losing it a bit upstairs. Nuclear war doesn't seem likely at all at the present moment. It is certainly a lot less likely than it seemed back at the height of the 'cold war'.

Devrim

Well given he's got loads of more experience than us on the steps towards the possibility of nuclear war, I would say his word is more credible than yours, no offense.

Reznov

10th August 2010, 22:58

How can you rebut someone like that? After all, they say their uncle personally saw Fidel Castro eat babies. It must be true!

Make a joke out of it if you like, but the fact still remains. They were there and did see it. Have you ever lived in Cuba like these people you are describing have?

Reznov

10th August 2010, 23:01

Rubbish.

Before Fidel came, Cuba was a little shit-hole in the Caribbeans. They were being exploited like slaves. They had nothing, the life expectancy was around 55 years, now its 77.5. Cuba is ranked #1 in literacy rate, coming to almost 100%. The literacy rate before the revolution was terrible. Cuba has an infant mortality rate of only 5.1, compared to the U.S. where it is 6.3. Before Fidel Castro came along, the infant mortality rate of Cuba was at 60.

These are just a few small facts of the wonders Fidel Castro has done. He is without doubt one of the best ever political figures.

:confused: ugh, mind sourcing this?

Wanted Man

10th August 2010, 23:17

Indeed. He's a bourgeois-nationalist from an island in the Caribbean. The 'Well could you do any better?' line is no substitute for real analysis. It also happens to be irrelevant. Castro's personal qualities or achievements (or lack thereof) have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Cuba is or ever was a workers state (which it was/is not).

I haven't seen any of your "real analysis" yet. You just claimed that Fidel's opinions are somehow irrelevant to communists. So the obvious question is: if you don't care and if you don't want to give us your "real analysis", why even bother posting?

McCroskey

11th August 2010, 01:52

Not to divert the topic of the thread, but where do right wingers get the standard of living stats of pre-Castro Cuba? They keep saying that Cuba was a bastion of wealth and high living standards while Batista was around. Why?

My bold. They get it from, precisely, the fact that these are statistics, and therefore they can absolutely be real. There is no reason to believe that the statistics are wrong. To put it in simple words, let´s imagine than in pre-Castro Cuba there were 10 million people (Just made up the figure), let´s then imagine that, say, out of the 10 million, 1 million eat twenty meals a day, and the other 9 are starving to death. Statistically, the population in Cuba eats 2 meals a day.

Statistics have to be accompanied by an analysis on distribution of wealth and social inequality, which is always lacking from the arguments of the anti-Castro brigade.

Devrim

11th August 2010, 04:11

Well given he's got loads of more experience than us on the steps towards the possibility of nuclear war, I would say his word is more credible than yours, no offense.

I can't quite believe that you have so little understanding of the international situation today as to take this seriously. There is no danger of nuclear war at the moment. At 83, I think it is very likely that Castro has a good medical reason for his disconnection from reality. What is yours?

Devrim

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 08:48

:confused: ugh, mind sourcing this?

Here (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/cuban-truth-against-the-lies/)

Fidel has made a huge contribution to socialism. He has done wonders with Cuba.

Now, Castro simply wanted to show the world that hes still alive and active. He decided to speak about a topic that interests him and that he knows a lot about and so he talked about the possibility and the dangers of nuclear war. Now, sure, the possibility of nuclear war is lower now than in the cold war, but its still possible. So Castro decided to speak about it. Whats wrong with that?

Cuba is probably the only communist country that didn't end up terrible.

Devrim

11th August 2010, 09:18

Fidel has made a huge contribution to socialism. He has done wonders with Cuba.

Whatever your opinion of Castro, it doesn't really change this statement.

Now, Castro simply wanted to show the world that hes still alive and active. He decided to speak about a topic that interests him and that he knows a lot about and so he talked about the possibility and the dangers of nuclear war. Now, sure, the possibility of nuclear war is lower now than in the cold war, but its still possible. So Castro decided to speak about it. Whats wrong with that?

I think there is virtually no danger of nuclear war at the moment, not just less than in the cold war. Castro is simply speaking talking complete nonsense.

Devrim

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 09:27

I think there is virtually no danger of nuclear war at the moment, not just less than in the cold war. Castro is simply speaking talking complete nonsense.

Devrim

As I have said before, Castro is simply choosing a topic to speak about which he can speak of with true knowledge. The is always a possibility of nuclear war when you have madmen around the globe but I agree it is very unlikely now.

I think the stats on Fidel speak for themselves. He turned a country around like no one has ever done before.

Devrim

11th August 2010, 10:05

As I have said before, Castro is simply choosing a topic to speak about which he can speak of with true knowledge. The is always a possibility of nuclear war when you have madmen around the globe but I agree it is very unlikely now.

Yet Castro thinks that it is 'imminent'. How can you suggest that he is speaking with true knowledge? He is talking absolute nonsense.

Devrim

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 12:44

Yet Castro thinks that it is 'imminent'. How can you suggest that he is speaking with true knowledge? He is talking absolute nonsense.

Devrim

Hes lived through the all of the cold war. Hes the only world leader that lived and ruled through all of the cold war. He has been in the heat of things. He was in the middle of it when we were the closest to nuclear war ever. Not many people know more about it then him.

The things Castro has done and lived through alone justify his fear of nuclear war.

I don't think hes lost the plot. He may be 83 and he may be stuck in the past as you say but hes not talking absolute nonsense.

Devrim

11th August 2010, 13:17

The things Castro has done and lived through alone justify his fear of nuclear war.

Fear of nuclear war was common then. I am old enough to remember it. It doesn't mean I am running around saying it is imminent now.

I don't think hes lost the plot. He may be 83 and he may be stuck in the past as you say but hes not talking absolute nonsense.

He is talking absolute nonsense. Do you really think that nuclear war is 'imminent'?

I don't think there is any shame in somebody 'losing the plot' as they get older. My grandfather, who incidentally was a communist for a lot longer than Castro, went senile in his 80s*. It happens to people. What is wrong is people hanging on to his every word, and taking such nonsense as this seriously.

Devrim

*I am not saying that Castro is senile, but he certainly appears to be losing it.

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 13:25

Salmonella

11th August 2010, 14:05

Salmonella

11th August 2010, 14:08

Castro, who turns 84 on August 13, called the National Assembly into special session, which is discussing global affairs, in particular what Castro views as an imminent nuclear war involving the United States, Iran and North Korea. Castro has dwelt on that topic since resurfacing last month.

I would neither be surprised if there will be a war between them. USA, what do they expect?

Devrim

11th August 2010, 14:57

I accept that he may be living in the past. But I don't think its insanity. The possibility of nuclear war, one could argue, is increasing day by day as new countries discover how to make the bomb and as new more dangerous weapons are developed. When it was just the USA and the USSR with the bombs. Only two countries could fire the bombs, and of course they wouldn't. However, in a world where everyone has the bomb. All it takes is one lunatic who doesn't care about his people or one little accident, or one small misunderstanding, and kaboom.

But this isn't at all what Castro has been saying. First he is suggesting that the US will launch the war against Iran and North Korea, and secondly he says it is "imminent". In fact during the World Cup he was implying it would start before the tournament was over.

Do you think that has anything to do with reality?

Devrim

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 16:03

But this isn't at all what Castro has been saying. First he is suggesting that the US will launch the war against Iran and North Korea, and secondly he says it is "imminent". In fact during the World Cup he was implying it would start before the tournament was over.

Do you think that has anything to do with reality?

Devrim

When you're an old man who's lived through times like he has (and unlike your grandfather, he was world leader), you can understand why he might be a bit unrealistic.

Red Conall

2nd October 2010, 16:37

The 26 de Julio movement and the revolution that followed are living validation of the theory of permanent revolution.

If by that you mean it illuminated the vital necessity of a proletarian leadership (as the petit-bourgeois one had yet again led the masses to defeat) and the export of the revolution both regionally and internationally, then yes. But something tells me you mean the opposite and are confusing 'Socialism in One Country' with Permanent Revolution. Oh my...

Red Conall

2nd October 2010, 16:44

These are just a few small facts of the wonders Fidel Castro has done.

No, they are all examples of gains won from the Castroists by the Cuban working class and poor.

Red Conall

2nd October 2010, 16:54

a) Well, in my 'un-Marxist' analysis, the bourgeoisie in Cuba has been smashed and expropriated, private property has almost entirely been collectivized, and a party of the Cuban workers and peasants holds power.

What do you base this on exactly?

b) Yay! Sectarianism! Let's have the Trotskyists fight once AGAIN over who are the honorary heirs of the non-existent fourth international!
I have news for you- its not going to happen. Ever.

What's not going to happen?

c) Where has your 'real analysis' gotten you in the last few decades? Nowhere, just sniping on the sidelines and slandering any real revolution that happens, while holding hands with the capitalists in declaring that socialism is impossible and a failure wherever its been tried.
The question is not 'Well could you do any better'- the question is 'Well have you done ANYTHING'?

Again what do you base this on?