Pinochet is dead, and it looks certain that Fidel Castro will soon follow him to the grave. I don’t have the same visceral loathing of Castro that I feel for Pinochet, whose brutal coup in 1973 was one of the big political events that formed my view of the world, along with Brezhnev’s invasion of Czechoslovakia five years earlier.
Viewed objectively, though, the similarities between the two outweigh the differences. Any good they have done (education in Cuba, economic growth in Chile) is less substantial than claimed by their admirers, and in any case outweighed by the central fact that, to impose the policies they thought were good, they were willing to jail, torture and kill those who got in their way. And Pinochet’s gross personal corruption is matched by Fidel’s conversion of his dictatorship into a family business, to be inherited by his brother.
Moreover, Pinochet and Castro were two sides of the same political coin. Pinochet justified his destruction of Chilean democracy by the fear that Allende would turn into a new Castro. Castro used Pinochet’s coup (among many other US-backed attacks on Cuba and other Latin American countries) as a justification for repressing domestic dissenters. The world will be a better place when both are gone and, hopefully, democracy comes to Cuba.
Update Predictably, Andew Bolt defends Pinochet. It’s important to observe that Bolt is even-handed in these matters. He would be just as eager to excuse Castro’s crimes if Fidel happened to change sides (hat tip: Tim Dunlop)
John Quiggin 
I don’t know that dictators “justify” either destruction of repression of dissent. As dictators, they wouldn’t really have to justify anything, they just do it. I agree though that the world would be a better place without any dictators.
sorry, that should read ‘destruction OR repression of dissent”
History will judge that Pinochet left his country a better place when he carked it than will Fidel. The fact is, however, that Pinochet could have achieved the same results with less brutal means, or potentially, without any brutality at all.
….and JQ, how can you not loathe viscerally Fidel – has kept his people enslaved unarguably since the end of the Cold War (and I believe since the missle crisis).
“History will judge that Pinochet left his country a better place when he carked it than will Fidel.”
If so, only because by the time Pinochet carked it Chile had been governed democratically by his critics, opponents and former victims for sixteen years since he’d left office.
But would it have been a better place had Allende remained in power?
Jimmythespiv: He told you why, because it was “one of the big political events that formed my view of the world”. Quiggin was still a toddler when Castro overthrew Batista so I’m not sure we can expect it to be formative lesson for him.
“… along with Brezhnev’s invasion of Czechoslovakia five years earlier.”
Heh. Isn’t it funny how we all must strive to be “fair and balanced” these days? Lest a great plague of right-wing locusts descend upon our blog, lest we be denounced by our peers and the popular press, or lest political gate-keepers dig up our comments a decade from now. Sigh.
“… Pinochet left his country a better place when he carked it than will Fidel.”
Pinochet didn’t have to deal with decades of US-imposed sanctions and international isolation. It is impossible to know what Cuba might be like today without that perpetual obstacle. Something like China, perhaps?
Don’t get me wrong: I totally deplore the use of violence by both men. Whatever achievements they may have pointed to are nullified by their methods.
I think you have to view Castro alongside Che Guevara and Generalissimo Simon Bolivar’s Revolution, which is today being energetically revitalized by Chavez (another militant) and others. Pinochet belongs to the Fascist legacy of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini.
Are they “two sides of the same coin”? Only if you view all those who advocate violence as dangerous extremists. And of course we citizens of the 21st Century are still far too ape-like for such concepts. Just look at the people we choose to represent us, and how energetically we embrace their dark visions.
Sorry, I should have said: “the Fascist legacy of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Bush.”
The continuing battle between Right and Left across the Americas remains a rivetting spectacle. Fortunately MOST participants have nowadays embraced Democracy and renounced violence.
One can only hope that one day the USA will join them.
I don’t think John’s reference to Brezhnev’s invasion of Czechoslovakia was a matter of “striving to be fair and balanced”. For anyone old enough to be aware of the event (as I was – just) or who became involved in left-wing politics or formed a left-wing worldview in the shadow of its repercussions (which played out for more than twenty years – at least – in the USSR, Eastern Europe and amongst the international left) it was a very formative event.
Indeed, the Brezhnev regime’s response to the Prague Spring – both its repression of a major attempt to reform an “actually existing socialist” state from within, and its re-Stalinisation of the USSR for fear of where the feeble post-Stalin efforts at liberalisation might lead – probably sealed the fate of Soviet and Eastern European communism by putting off serious reform for a generation and ensuring that when it came (courtesy of Gorbachev) the system was too far gone, and the various opposition movements too sceptical with ideas of a “Third Way” between capitalism and communism, for attempts at reform to end in anything other than the system’s collapse.
Speaking as someone for whom the events of 1989 marked a political awakening, it is interesting to see how someone takes a historical perspective on the events of 1968 & 73.
Paul
Reform would have been equally impossible in 1968 as 1988 as centrally planned economies didn’t work (unless you were in the market for a million tonnes of low quality pig iron or something). The Soviets invaded because they knew the came would be up without coercion.
….and Paul, I haven’t noticed Castro leaving office and retiring peacefully to a little house in Vista del Mar to while away his twilight years. He’s a murderous thug – and he’s still (barely) in business.
Jimmy, I agree that centrally planned economies don’t work. Neither did the neo-liberal “shock treatment” inflicted on Russia in the 1990s (economic policies which lead to an economy contracting to half its previous size can be safely judged not to have worked). Methinks what might have worked was an evolutionary process (coupled with political democratisation) leading to a sensible social democratic point in between the extremes of 1930s Stalinist shock therapy and its 1990s neo-liberal counterpart.
“I haven’t noticed Castro leaving office and retiring peacefully to a little house in Vista del Mar to while away his twilight years.”
So why do you think that is?
What a boring exercise in posturing.
Some facts are necessary.
Most JQ and most of his commenters pay taxes in Australia and/or are Australian citzens.
As such, we contribute to tax dollars to the UKUSA consortium of intelligence services. Since the late 1940s this agreement has implicated Australian intelligence services with the activities of US intelligence. One of the most notorious examples of US intelligence activities against Cuba was Operation Mongoose, which among other objectives, entailed the assassination of Fidel Castro.
Equally, US intelligence services were implicated in the assassination of Salvador Allende and other Chilean leftists, including Orlando Letelier.
Thus, as taxpayers, Australians have aided and are aiding the US in its intelligence and assassination programs. Thus we have contributed in a small way to the destabilisation and destruction of the Castro regime.
Conversely, these same assets were used to place Pinochet in power and to keep him there.
Thus, Australians are not responsible at all for the longevity and activities of Castro, except insofar as we gave aid and assistance to a pack of incompetent putzes who failed at least 50 times to terminate Castro with extreme prejudice. Perhaps Australian officials should have suggested that US terrorists and assassins be better prepared and trained for their anti-Castro activities.
However, Australians are responsible in a minor degree for the longevity and actvities of the Pinochet regime.
Thus, we have an infinitely greater interest in discussing a regime supported by our money than we do in talking about a regime that our money was used unsuccessfully in an attempt to terminate.
Chilean blood shed by Pinochet is on our hands. Cuban blood shed by Castro is not on our hands.
Katz
Your argument is stupid – Australia complicit in Pinochet ? Do you really think the US would not have been pro Pinochet if we had declared neutrality and left ANZUS ?
By that logic we are also implicated in the ongoing repression by Turkey of its Kurds (because Turkey is a US ally and member of NATO).
You must cry a river every night for the sins of the world, just like John XXIII used to.
First time I’ve ever been likened to a Pope!!
My argument isn’t a moral one, that’s why it isn’t as boring as yours.
“Do you really think the US would not have been pro Pinochet if we had declared neutrality and left ANZUS ?”
Do you think this is an argument??
Try to learn the difference between a moral argument and a forensic argument.
Of course the US would have done exactly the same thing if australia had left ANZUS or UKUSA. So what?
The point is, our resources were used to help the US to do it.
Just to clarify, however, ANZUS has nothing to do with it.
UKUSA has.
“By that logic we are also implicated in the ongoing repression by Turkey of its Kurds (because Turkey is a US ally and member of NATO).”
Not necessarily. However, if Echelon data is passed to the Turkish government on the activities of the Kurds, then Australia is implicated because we help fund the supply the system.
Nup, its still a silly argument Katz
Shorter Jimmythespiv: “Fer Chrissake, don’t expect me to explain my prejudices!”
Whateever your opinion of Catro to equate his human rights abuses with Pinochet’s is to conflate two different things. See for example http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250022002?open&of=ENG-CUB
The right wing trolls ( see above comments) don’t help. It is of interest to note the $24 million in Pinochet’s U.S bank accounts. It slao dishonest to undersetimate Cuba’s achievements in education and medicine
Sorry Jimmy,
While you have an excellent name, I have take issue with your substandard rebuttals. Complicity is fairly straightforward- it’s not a question of relative influence but involvement. I presume I’m not arguing with J.S. Mill. If you were to walk next to a lynch mob and shouting similar things to the crowd, you could hardly wash your hands- despite not laying a finger. Same goes for inciting racial hatred Johnny.
Moving to September the 11th 1973, I have to agree that Chile’s ’economic miracle’ was more a sleight of hand by muppets who speak only in econometric terms. Before the coup the CIA was busy destabilising Chile (aka picking society apart a seams), so the economy was pretty damn shabby when ol mate got his hands on it. During and immediately after the coup Pinochet made a pretty got job implementing civil war/anarchy. When ’order was restored’ and they shipped in the Chicago boys, people were able to return to work and the US dropped their sanctions. The economy rapidly picked up (to become slightly less of a basket case)- a miracle! After that they sold every public asset that wasn’t bolted down (another ‘miracle’) temporarily filling the government coffers. Good stuff Pinochet!
One last thing that really surprised me- I was watching the Chilean celebrations following the death of Maggie Thatcher’s mate- the revellers were pronouncing the ‘t’ on Pinochet! I feel like an American must feel all the time- I’ve been mispronouncing it for years.
Castro used Pinochet’s coup (among many other US-backed attacks on Cuba and other Latin American countries) as a justification for repressing domestic dissenters
I have come to realise that one of the biggest impediments to democracy and open societies in many parts of the world is its vulnerability to outside interference. Small or medium sized countries that take positions that upset the major super powers end up with a choice between repression or usurption. They can make their country into an “open society” and then watch it be overtaken by quisling domestic political forces backed by major outside countries who themselves have no respect for democracy. Or shut down on dissent and maintain control of their country within their own political party. They often seem to be the only two outcomes. The situation in between is just not stable unless a country has an extremely strong democracy that is able to fend off outside interference while remaining open. Its the situation Cuba has faced since Castro came to power. You would have to be naive to think that the US would not help Cuban exiles from Florida abuse any opening up of Cuba to democracy to install a US friendly regime. The ruling Russian regime has faced similar problems recently which has caused it to choose to move further away from democracy. And we all know what happened in democratic Venezuela recently.
This is not to excuse what Castro has done. It was his own choice and he must should be judged by it. But it does explain why democracy is so stable in some places while really struggling in others, especially South and Central America.
Right wing and left wing murderers are murderers just the same and if they rule a country they will be despots just the same. Pol Pot horrified me – I was pleased to see him go too.
Australia and New Zealand took a lot of refugees from Pinochet’s regime. Pinochet was a brutal murderer and thug. Maggie Thatcher was saddened by his death.This is quite horrifying as she was the Prime Minister of Britain. John Howard admires Margaret Thatcher. Is two degress of separation from brutality enough for our comfort?
The other night, I am ashamed to say, I had a mischievous desire to post a classic gotcha comment on Pr Q’s site:
CASTRO DEAD. HOORAY!
[Apologies to the shade of Sir Frank Packer.]
But Pr Q beat me to the punch.
Congratulations to Pr Q for this post, which is another example of his moral integrity, intellectual honesty and political acuity.
I don’t have the same visceral loathing of Castro that I feel for Pinochet
Knock me down with a feather.
Just read the blog, some further thoughts:
1. Ghandi (Post 8): Don’t lump Bolivar with 20th/21st century caudillos. As much as I have tried to find out what political views Bolivar had, I have failed to find any other than he was a republican who despised monarchies and the unelected. He died before the liberation of Peru/Bolivia and therefore had little to do with nation building other than to liberate the spanish colonies. How much of a republican was he? He rebuked Napoleon 1 in person for announcing he was to become emperor and left his service (Bolivar was a general for teh revolutionaries and then napoleon).
2. I view russians/soviets very distinctly. I managed to read several books on russian history beginning from Ivan the Terrible through to the collapse of the Soviet Union back to back and including bios of several tsars, lenin, trotsky, etc. As far as I am concerned, the russian have had the same foreign policy for 500 years and they have implemented that policy in exactly the same way for 500 years. The name of teh actors changes and ocassionally some of the tactics change but the policy remains teh same.
3. The perspective of latinos living there is that the outside world is always interfering in their affairs. In this they have a lot of history on their side BUT they are no different to any other part of the world. It was amusing to hear Pinochet supporters applaud the USA for supporting and assisting the coup but complain bitterly of interference when the USA decided that they didn’t want Pinochet around anymore. Don’t ever talk to chileans about the meaning of the word hypocrisy you won’t get anywhere even if you have a stack of dictionaries to rely on.
4. Did Pinochet leave the country better off after he left power? A proper test would be to see what would have happened if there had been no coup but that is now pure conjecture. My thoughts are that he didn’t: the propaganda neglects to mention the rather deep recession in 1982 when the official unmployment figures hit 27.6%, bankruptcies were approaching 30% of the population, one in five were not guaranteed any daily intake of food and mass migration began resulting in one million people leaving the country. This was after 9 years of his economic policies. Not to mention the number of people who died at the hand of the military. Then of course there is Thatchers statement that he gave Chile democracy. Well given that he crushed it in the first place it was rather nice of him to return it. However that doesn’t mean that he returned it completely after all he did give himself a seat in the senate for life, appointed 11 senators directly and gerrymandered the lower house.
5. BTW Allende had to deal with the oil crisis plus the economic embargo from the US as well as Kissingers authorisation for armament to be smuggled to arm guerrilla forces.
6. So 17 years in power meant that in the end the economy at best would have been at the same point if there had been no coup.
7. The greatest impedement to democracy/stability in third world crisis is the lack of natural resources and people. I know that Singapore is an exeption but lets face it just on its door steps there are about 225 million consumers plus they were able to adeptly exploit the geopplitical situation. Note that since Shangai has rejoined the world economy the two zones most affected have been Singapore and HK as the geopolitical situation has changed.
8. The next greatest impedement is that teh elite have comptempt for teh lower classes. In many cases their attitude barely acknowledges them as human. This way they remain big fish in little ponds.
9. The rule of law is fine and dandy but what happens when the law is corrupt and the population is unable to change it?
One thing we can all agree on now though. Pinochet and Castro were the best options and we all needed to ‘engage’ with their regimes constructively.
In relation to the “visceral hatred” thing, my own emotional reaction is colored by the fact that Pinochet came to power by knocking off a legitimate democratic government, while Castro overthrew a kleptocrat and tyrant.
That’s gotta count for something, no?
That said, I’m still looking forward to dancing on Castro’s grave.
A key difference between Pinochet and Castro. Pinochet violently overthrew a popularly elected government (with the financial support and active connivance of the hemispheric hegemon) because it was implementing its mandate. His method was the standard military coup, and it is not incidental he had already violently eliminated military elements loyal to the government. Castro fought a prolonged revolutionary struggle based on popular support to oust a criminal dictatorship whose primary function was to serve the interests of the US mafia.
And I reckon you can put the fact that Cuba has the hemisphere’s longest life expectency (much longer than the US, for instance) in the positive side of Castro’s ledger too. Meanwhile, is it legitimate to ascribe Chile’s economic growth to Pinochet when most of it has happened since his departure from the Moneda Palace? For most of his misrule, Chile had lower economic indicators than under Allende.
Perhaps the true test of hemispheric hegemons and US mafia Hal, was where all those who were persecuted by left and right dictators actually fled to. USSR? Nope!, PRC? Nope!, NK? Nope!, North Vietnam? Nope!…..
“I havenÂ’t noticed Castro leaving office and retiring peacefully”
It is a myth that Pinochet gave up power voluntarily. The facts are these. In 1980, in the midst of a terrible recession brought about by his economic policies, Pinochet agreed to hold a referendum about whether he should step down in 1988. He tried to rig it, but was stopped by other members of the junta. The referendum was carried and Pinochet duly retired (with 28 million dollars in the bank – the Chilean military must have had a very good pension plan).
Even so. after stepping down Pinochet made it very clear he would not tolerate, that is, he would again violently overthrow the demoratic government, if its economic policies were insufficiently pro free market, in his opinion.
And to this daythere are places reserved in the Chilean parliament for the military.
Defenders of Pinochet, like Andrew Bolt, are no better than defenders of Stalin, circa 1970.
Nauru?
Observa,
Where are refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan fleeing today? Not to the USA and Australia and Britain, because our dear leaders refuse to admit their country has a problem, so we don’t let them in. In any case, I doubt the buggers could pass either the (a) literacy test, or (b) values test. And they almost certainly couldn’t afford the fees for the visa processing and the AIDS test (at a Harley Street doctor who must be on the Oz Govt approved list).
So Nauru it is, in a leaky boat to boot.
“…where all those who were persecuted by left and right dictators actually fled to”
Since the George H W Bush-led CIA abetted his assassination in downtown Washington, as Orlando Letelier bled to death he probably wished he’d gone elsewhere.
Hal9000, Those are some good points about the differences between these two. But I am no fan of castro either.
Here’s a little reminder of the kind of people that defend murderous dictators.
This (front page of Chile’s La Nacion) is how some pinochet fans gave their farewell to their beloved leader in the Military College in Santiago where his body was made available for his supporters prior to his farewell mass:
Spiros has it spot on. That’s the simple reason we do not want any single repeat of the likes of such murderous dictators as pinochet, marcos, stalin, lennin, etc.
They use each other to justify their budgets/weapons/restrictions on democracy and attacks on thier own citizens. All extremes are closer than they admit:
– the ends justify any means
and
– absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Katz,
Our taxpayer dollars pays the wages of people who hold a variety of views, some of which are published.
The vast inequalities and oppressions of Latin American society make the popularity of Cuba outside Cuba understandable. The major positive international contribution of the Cubans was their assistance to the Angolans against South Africa but the Cuban commander there was later executed after an appalling show trial.
When Cuba tortures, it’s because Castro is a monster. When the USA tortures, it’s because of bad apples and trailer-trash.
It’d be interesting to compare the amount of Cuban deprivation due to Castro with that due to the US embargo which has lasted for decades, and which has been condemned by the United Nations and the EU.
Castro is no good for Cuba now. But that’s what you end up with, when massive US pressure fossilizes its enemies from the outside. North Korea is worse, obviously, but Cuba has not escaped the warping gravity effects of a nearby massive presence in counter-orbit.
For all of Castro’s faults, he still stands as a political and moral giant on the world’s stage having stood up to the world’s most fearsome and powerful military power for close to five decades now.
How many of his contemporaries come even close to that?
How do people rate our own miserable excuse for a national leader in comparison?
As others have pointed out, his Government made good health services, education, child care, shelter, etc, freely or cheaply available to all of its citizens.
In one sense, Cuba is well ahead of most other countries on the planet. It has adapted its economy to run without the steady supply of petroleum that it previously received from the Soviet Union.
It’s easy to find fault with Castro, particularly with Cuba’s human rights record, but let’s not forget the military threat that Cuba has been under since 1960, and, also, let’s also acknowledge that his Government has never been accused of operating death squads or torturing political opponents as many right wing Latin American regimes have done.
And his Government has never been guilty genocide as the Guatemalan government was in the 1980’s.
Professor Quiggin, how can you be sure that the ‘democracy’ that you anticipate flourishing in Cuba, will be any better than the kind of ‘democracy’ that occurred in the USSR after the collapse of Communism, in which the wealth of the country was ransacked by a combination of the Russian Mafia and former Communist Party officials?
It was odd to watch a documentary featuring the ABC’s own Monica Attard not long after the collapse in which Attard lamented that farmers on the collectivised farms were not interested in having their collective farms broken up in to smaller privately owned farms, as the Russian government wished. Evidently, as in Australia, the ‘democracy’ that flourished their was one that paid little heed to the actual wishes of the people.
It’s a shame that Fidel Castro will almost certainly not live to see a time when Cuba is not living under the threat of invasion from its northern neighbor.
I, for one, will certainly miss him after he has gone.
Sinnamon
You’re nuts. Castro (or Raul) can call for free and fair elections tomorrow if they want to – so why don’t they ? Why arn’t ordinary Cubans allowed to hold US dollars, or open a barbershop, or a business consultancy or a private medical clinic (since the state owned sector is so good, it would have nothing to fear from such competition) ? Why can’t Cuban’s who want to emigrate just go ahead and do so ? Oh, I forgot, because Cuba is a Stalinist police state run by (and for the benfit of) the Castro family.
If you are going to miss him so badly, get on a plane now and go live in Cuba while he is still alive – in fact, why not migrate there ?
Perhaps because John Howard’s Australia, while high taxing, is not that bad after all.
,
Why don’t you properly read my post? I never claimed that Cuba is a perfect society, nor that Castro was without faults, but what they have achieved is monumental given the limited material resources available and the fact that they have been under an economic blockade and state of siege since 1960.
No doubt, political leaders like John Howard who consistently sell out our national interests to the US, China and other powerful nations and are much more to your liking.
Jimmythespiv wrote : Castro (or Raul) can call for free and fair elections tomorrow if they want to – so why donu2019t they?
I can think of many good reasons. In any election campaign, a right wing opposition would be immedately bankrolled by the US and by wealthy Cuban exiles. It would give an opportunity for right wing opponents who have waged a war of terror against the Cuban people since 1960 to operate openly.
Any attempt to hold elections that did not allow the US to meddle in it, would probably not be recognised as legitimate by the US, just as it failed to recognise as legitimate, an election which returned the Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua in the 1980’s. After those elections the US continued its covert war against Nicaragua, regardless. And let’s not forget the US’s continued efforts to undermine Chavez of Venezuela, in spite of him having won at least three popular elections, by my count, so far.
In fact there is a lot that should be done to give Cubans more of a say in the way Cuba is run, but the U.S. has no right to dictate how this is done.
The fact remains that Cuba’s Government remains enormously popular in Cuba as the loyalty shown to it by accomplished sportspersons and by internationally renowned artists such as the Buena Vista Social club is testimony.
Mate
Danny Ortega has just been relected President of Nicaragua.
Raul and Fidel don’t dare even introduce a limited for of democracy (ie restricted to pre-registered political parties declared free of US influence – by the Castro brothers). There is a lot that should have been done in, oh, 1973 to give Cubans more of a say in how the country is run.
Your post is mostly about the US, not Cuba (one of two remaining commie dictatorships in the world).
Ibrahim Ferrer and the boys are in their late 80s / early 90s- and their grandchildren would suffer if they hi-tailed it to Miami or made fun of Fidel’s beard.
But you got me – yes, I do prefer Howard to Castro. I also prefer Howard to the late Enver Hoxha, to Kim Jong Il, to the Chinese Communist Party, to Mahmoud Ahmenijad. I prefer Gough Whitlam to all these people too. I would prefer Kim Carr or Arthur Scargill as Australia’s PM than Castro et al. Fact is, Castro wasn’t democratically elected to anything.
I don’t agree with the ongoing US blockade though- but it affects only US – Cuba trade and investment, the rest of the world is free to do as it pleases, and by and large (tourism excepted) chooses not to.
I don’t particularly like Enver Hoxha, Mao or Stalin, either, nor do I have much time for Kim Jong Il, but I suspect your objection to Castro has little to do with the lack of democracy and a lot to do with oppositon to the way Cuban society provides so well for all of its members with the limited resources it has.
….you mean by forcibly impoverishing them, and forcing them to share what crumbs remain – like our POWs did in Changi. Meanwhile, Raul and Fidel smoke Cohibas (or did until Fidel had to give them up), swill champagne, eat meat, and have untramelled access to the basics (sugar, flour, milk, salt etc (that the masses have on strict, and inadequate, rationing). On that basis, yes, I agree with you on how well they provide for their people with the limited resources available.
La pobreza es muy, pero muy, romantico para extranjeros.
Am truly impressed with your Spanish. Now please elaborate on its relevance to anything I have written.
I love the way people blithely say “centrally planned economies don’t work”, forgetting that the Allied economies in WWII were all “centrally planned” and the war was won. Central planning can certainly work for limited periods. The wartime example also points up the impact of trade restrictions – in wartime trade is restricted and resources are scarce. Countries like Cuba and North Korea which are embargoed, abused and threatened over long periods are forced into a perpetual wartime-style regime. It is a politically unnatural state, which generates an economically unnatural state.
I suppose the obvious counterexample would be eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Prussia, famous for its extensive State interference with all aspects of national life both in peace and war. Perhaps other commenters would like to explain how this didn’t lead to a total internal collapse.
One of the points US RWDBs always love to raise is the number of Cuban refugees that flee to Florida, as a damning indictment of Cuba’s socialist system. I wonder what that says about their capitalist ally Mexico?
I’ve had several friends go to Cuba as tourists, they each and every one of them has enjoyed it immensely, felt very safe and had very hospitable stays, talked to lots of locals without any moderation, and generally thougth that Cuba at the moment, while poor, was otherwise pretty good.
Jimmythespiv,
Your last post reads like jaundiced propaganda from extreme anti-Castro Cuban exiles. Where is your evidence for such such lavish privileges in contrast to such extreme deprivation, comparable with the treatment of Australian prisoners at Changi, in the rest of the community? In any case, why do you seem more indignant overt this in contrast to examples of inequality that can be found in capitalist countries? Why do you dishonestly attempt to imply that Castro’s regime is as oppressive as that of Enver Hoxha or Kim Jong Il?
It seems that you do have an ideological axe to grind.
The objections that Castro’s right wing opponents have has nothing to do with either democracy nor concern for the welfare of ordinary working Cubans. As we can probably deduce from the lessons of the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern European Stalinist countries, it is about how they can take control of Cuba once more in order to be able to plunder its wealth for themselves. Once they have done so they will not hesitate to dismantle the free Health services and Education provided by the Government. Given the far worse human rights records of many nearby Latin American countries, there can be little guarantee that human rights and democracy would endure in a capitalist Cuba. Any ordinary Cubans who wish for a more democratic society, but wish to retain the current decent features of Cuba would be very ill-advised to find common cause with these people.
The reason Castro is hated so vehemently, in contrast to the attitude taken to many far more oppressive Latin American regimes, is that his Government took the wealth out of the hands of Cuba’s wealthy and foreign exploiters many years ago, when they came to power and made it, for the most part, available to ordinary Cubans. If they had not done so it would not have been possible to have provided Cubans with living standards which left most of the rest of Latin America and even parts of the US behind for decades.