Agrarian Reform 1959?

[Exasperated_Youth]

In Cuba, after the revolution, I think I read somewhere that they seized about $1 billion (figure might be incorrect) worth of land etc from American companies.

Since that was the government, and they can pass laws etc to legalise what they're doing, does it count as illegal? If so, by whose standards? Obviously said companies probably objected on the grounds that it was private property, but does international law prohibit such acts by a government, since the laws of that government would permit it?

[Magón]

Well Cuba could ask for Guantanamo back anytime they wanted, and the US would probably pout but end up giving it back. So was it illegal? Probably if it was the old government of Batista wanting it back, but I think that in my own opinion, land that once belong to someone through a previous deal, is kinda void with the next group if they're not willing to stand up to the old deal. I mean, really, what could a bunch of Company people do when there's a newly formed government taking back what was originally the peoples, they were fighting for? Besides trying to broker another deal, not much. So I wouldn't say it was illegal, I'd just say the previous deal was considered void when Fidel came to power.

[Adil3tr]

Why do you assume it is in some way illegal or wrong?

[fa2991]

I doubt that it was illegal, or America would have taken legal action against Cuba instead of invading and embargoing it. They also would have sued instead of overthrowing (or attempting to overthrow) Jacobo Arbenz, Salvador Allende, and Hugo Chavez when they did the same thing.

[Exasperated_Youth]

Well Cuba could ask for Guantanamo back anytime they wanted, and the US would probably pout but end up giving it back. So was it illegal? Probably if it was the old government of Batista wanting it back, but I think that in my own opinion, land that once belong to someone through a previous deal, is kinda void with the next group if they're not willing to stand up to the old deal. I mean, really, what could a bunch of Company people do when there's a newly formed government taking back what was originally the peoples, they were fighting for? Besides trying to broker another deal, not much. So I wouldn't say it was illegal, I'd just say the previous deal was considered void when Fidel came to power.

Could debt be considered void too? I know that isn't the case for Britain right now, but I'm assuming that if Batista's regime had any debt, Castro's would refuse to pay it.

[fa2991]

Could debt be considered void too? I know that isn't the case for Britain right now, but I'm assuming that if Batista's regime had any debt, Castro's would refuse to pay it.

Debts can be declared void when taken on by dictators, etc.. It's called "odious debt" - Rafael Correa, for example, declared Ecuador's debt void because it was accumulated by a military government. Batista's debt could surely be voided legally.

[Magón]

Could debt be considered void too? I know that isn't the case for Britain right now, but I'm assuming that if Batista's regime had any debt, Castro's would refuse to pay it.

Well, it could be considered void? Like if I was in Cuba before Fidel, Batista made a deal with the US or UK over something, Batista was in debt to one of them or both, then Fidel comes to power, I would think that Fidel would say, "Hey guys, not our problem. You made a deal with Batista, not us, he couldn't pay you back right away or was paying you back, that's something you have to take up with him. We haven't bought anything from you, or plan to make deals with you. Take it up with him since it was between you and his government, not ours."

So yeah, I'd say debt would probably be void if a whole new government/regime of some sort (good or bad). If it wasn't, and some country I supported had a revolution or coup I didn't like, I'd do all I could to help keep that government I support in power so they can pay me back, and more for helping them like I did. (Of course, that's Capitalist thinking, and I wouldn't be doing that anyway.)

[Adil3tr]

The Bolsheviks voided Russia's debt. You are aware that we are talking about communist revolutions, right? Why should the people have to pay for Batista's corruption and waste?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Doesn't mean they didn't accrue new debt. They voided the debts of czarist Russia and the Provisional Government, not the debts they accrued during NEP.

[Adil3tr]

They voided Capitalist debt. Isn't that what we're talking about?