Fidel Castro has died - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38114953 <comment><USER7> I would encourage the commenters in this thread who see Fidel's legacy as a black-and-white matter of an "evil dictator who did bad things and was wrong about economics" to step back, bear witness to the objective facts about Fidel Castro's life ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro)), think sincerely about what could lead a highly intelligent and charismatic person to become or follow Fidel Castro (as many have), and take a moment to reflect on the complexities of global politics in the 20th century.

I am not a fan of Fidel Castro - quite the opposite - but humans are cut from a common cloth. When we see revolutions turn into dictatorships, and idealism deteriorate into a cynical fight to survive, it is foolish and dangerous to dismiss the dictators and revolutionaries as "evil" or "idiots" or some similarly otherizing term. It is dangerous because it means we are refusing to learn from history, and to apply the lessons of other lives to our own. Fidel Castro's mistakes are our mistakes to repeat, or to learn from.

If you hold yourself holier than Fidel Castro, and think that celebrating the death of someone you perceive as "evil" is prudent, take a deep long moment and try to learn something non-trivial from his life. "Fidel Castro" in the particular was not some kind of unique demon who plagued humanity. He was a charismatic revolutionary who occupied a very complex time. His life's trajectory was in many respects one of tragic failure. He may have, in reality, occupied a very dark corner of history, but that is for us to learn and judge, not to assume.

If you think you're better, then do better. Be better. Don't refuse to acknowledge the humanity of another person because you believe you can totalize their entire life under a cheap tagline.

<comment><USER8> On the contrary, it's dangerous not to call out evil for what it is. Of course it might be wise to try to analyze what genetic/family/social/economic/political factors shape people like Castro, Gaddafi, Franco etc. — but if you think you're dealing with people like you and me you fail to grasp the phenomenon.

Dictators that prosecute and murder their opponents, like Castro did, share a very predictable set of psychopathic/narcissistic/paranoid personality characteristics. They are, by definition, not normal.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "On the contrary, it's dangerous not to call out evil for what it is."

Judging on the comments on this thread most people (I'm not specifically referring to you) are making statements based on what they've heard, not by what they've personally researched, and unfortunately a lot of that information is biased or propaganda.

I'm not coming down one way or the other but something I found very interesting was comparing the comments in this thread to those of world leaders. The vast majority of world leaders, including those in modern, developer, western states, are praising Castro for helping bring down apartheid, providing good health care and education to his citizens etc.

My point really is that on this issue as persons views are clearly shaped by the propaganda they are exposed to and their personal political opinions (e.g. socialism is evil, socialism is fair and good). Like most people Castro did good and bad. Some of the things he did may be construed as evil but he also did quite a lot of good things so brandishing the person as evil rather than considering all of the factors is foolish.

<comment><USER9> Fidel Castro leaves behind a nation awash with tears and blood from thousands of executions, tens of thousands of political prisoners, concentration camps for gay men, labor camps for those who thought differently, listened to jazz, or even just had long hair.

These are facts I learned only after doing more research, after listening to friends who are gay and who did years of research.

So we all need to be careful not to repeat the trope "but healthcare and education were good and free and available to all". I for many years allowed those reports, parroted so often, to soften my judgment of Castro. But now learning of the extent of the horrors of oppression, those outweigh any social welfare "results".

And now I have had cause to question even those results as I read and learn of a healthcare system where critical operations that were performed only after agonizing waits for eight months and then by doctors and nurses so starved of supplies that they sometimes operated with bare hands.

Castro should be remembered for the suffering he caused - all of it preventable. The best way to him sum up is to consider that he created an island prison where nobody was allowed to leave without his permission - <USER5> for an unbearable number of years most of the world applauded him. I hope you will remember this and hear the cynical trying to tie themselves to a "distinguished legacy" when politicians comment today.

<comment><USER10> I agree that Fidel Castro made many mistakes and is responsible for many atrocities. But the plight of Cuba is not his doing alone.

He leaves behind a Cuba that was embargoed by the US, their closest and largest trade partner after the US had staged a failed invasion to overthrow the government. This forced them into the Soviet sphere of influence for supplies and trade.

Then, when the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the cold war, it could no longer support Cuba. The island nation was driven further into poverty and essential goods like food and medicine became scarce.

And what did the US do at that point? Did they reopen diplomatic relations and try to find some rapprochement after an era of high tensions? No. Instead they decided that now was an excellent time to extend their embargo to include food and medicine as well, which were up to that point exempt from the trade ban.

To point to a single man and his inner circle as the sole cause for the sad state Cuba is in today is just as absurd as to deny the wrongs of the Castro regime, nor did he only do bad things for the Cuban people. The "trope" of education and healthcare being available to all is not some straw man. It is a legitimate achievement, and one that many nations the world around have not been able to match, no matter their affluence.

<comment><USER11> You're forgetting some details there. In the 1920s, Cuba was a big producer of sugar, and their largest trading partner was the US. US companies owned 60% of the sugar production. But during the great depression, the US introduced tariffs on a wide range of goods (from everywhere), and the Cuban sugar industry collapsed.

Then when Fidel came to power one of the things he promised was to reduce the reliance on US trade. And he nationalized all of the private property and assets belonging to American individuals and companies.

And in response to that, the embargo was introduced. AND THEN there was the Bay of Pigs.

So lets not pretend the embargo is what destroyed US Cuban trade. Fidel did that all by himself, without the help of the embargo.

Also, the US didn't push Cuba into the Soviet sphere.. Fidel already had close tied to the Soviets before the embargo. It was one of the reasons for putting the embargo in place.

<comment><USER12> You just said the US caused the sugar trade to collapse and then said Castro destroyed trade himself. Are you referring to trade besides sugar? Why WOULDNT Cuba decide (realize) that they need to protect themselves from the US?

<comment><USER11> The Great Depression was worldwide, not US specific. Cuba was affected by it, as were many countries. And while the tariffs definitely contributed to Cuba's problems during the Great Depression, it's a little unrealistic to think Cuba would be unaffected by the Great Depression.

This was 30 years before Fidel, before the embargo. The point was, you already had this anti-US sentiment in Cuba before Fidel came to power.

US Cuban trade did not end at that point. But when Fidel came to power (30 years later), he used that anti-US sentiment to nationalize all American property in Cuba. That is what actually ended US Cuban trade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> He has certainly led one of the most exciting lives of our times...

And despite his flaws (and/or crimes against humanity) I can't help but wonder how Cuba would have faired under different leadership. Looking at the next- island neighbors in Haiti, or any number of comparable African countries, it seems the Cubans got the better deal. Just one example: life expectancy is 15 years higher than Haiti, and actually even a bit higher than in the US.

Organizing the necessities for life on this island, with a superpower fixated on killing you (and ruining you economy) next door, and keeping it peaceful for 50 years must be some sort of high score.

I know there'll be many Americans dancing on his grave (once the Trump International Hotel Havanna has opened). They may not even be wrong in an absolute sense. But there have been dozens of leaders in South America, Africa and Asia in the last 50 years much worse than Castro who don't seem to trigger the reflexes of righteousness. Actual mass-murdering sadists like Manuel Noriega, throwing living people into the ocean, from airplanes paid for by the CIA.

Let's hope for a bright future for Cuba – I met many people there who felt paralyzed by the stagnation, the constant scarcity. The beginning of the end of the embargo may turn out to be one of the most significant legacies of President Obama.

<comment><USER14> >with a superpower fixated on killing you (and ruining you economy) next door

Look at how awful the quality of life in Cuba is today. Look at its people's lack of basic freedoms. Look at its awful economy. The US tried to save Cuba from itself.

<comment><USER15> Like how US saved Haiti and Libya and Iraq, right?

<comment><USER16> > Like how US saved Haiti and Libya and Iraq, right?

Libya was a NATO intervention that was pushed and led by France, specifically Sarkozy's government.

<comment><USER17> It also ended up _a lot_ better than non-intervention in Syria. Although make no mistake, the USA is blamed for both anyway.

<comment><USER18> There is still civil war in Libya, it barely gets any mentioning so I don't know how much less the killings are.

Furthermore, non-intervention only meant no actual American troops in Syria, not staying out of the conflict: the US has funded, armed and trained much of the opposition from the start of the conflict, and US made and supplied anti- tank weapons are prominent in the rebels ability to counter the armoured forces of the Syrian army.

<comment><USER17> Victims of Libyan conflicts are still counted in thousands (which is huge still when viewed alone), and there is no refugee crisis thus far.

Any of the US involvement to Syria beyond verbal support occurred only years into the conflict, and even then it was minimal compared to meddling of Turkey, Arab states or Russia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As an African, I'd say the world has lost one of the most influential leaders of the past century.

To pretend here, for me, as if he was cruel to our continent would be both ungrateful and untrue. The man offered free training and medical school for most of our African doctors, he harbored, trained and armed many a guerilla group in our pursuit of independence from colonization. Up until today, Cuba still sends significant numbers of doctors to remote African areas and provide expensive medical procedures for free.

The truth is, if as a continent we are to point at individual world leaders who did the most for African nations, Fidel Castro is very high up that list, if not at the top.

He had his fights and ills, but not with us.

With that, rest in peace Fidel Castro. Your legend lives on.

<comment><USER20> This is a disturbing position.

I don't doubt that his doctors may have helped you.

However, the man has committed grievous crimes, keeps 'his people' in abject poverty, on an 'island prison'. More than 85% of the economy is in the control of the military - his private Army.

"Up until today, Cuba still sends significant numbers of doctors to remote African areas and provide expensive medical procedures for free."

This is false and misleading. They do not provide it for free - they are paid by international agencies and it is one of the few real 'exports' that Cuba has.

Most perniciously - the money that is supposed to go to the doctors mostly goes to the military junta - while the doctors themselves receive very little.

Moreover - the Cuban doctors abroad are _prisoners_. They are held with the threat of violence or internment of their families back home. If they try to escape or leave - they go to prison:

[http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/jun00/06e4.htm](http://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/jun00/06e4.htm)

Those doctors that 'helped you' get 5% of their 'salary' \- while 95% goes to their captors.

Praise the doctors, not Fidel.

I find it abhorrent that such statements could be made about a cruel dictator, who has done 'some possibly good things' in the name of his legacy, whilst at the same time tormenting millions.

It's sad that people should hold such a tyrant in such esteem - because not only are those medical programs are paid for mostly by 'evil Western Nations' \- aid to African nations is overwhelmingly from 'Western nations' (at least in terms of direct/indirect aid - of course China is a huge economic investor).

Let us not make a totem of this man without being cognizant of all the things he has done.

<comment><USER21> > _However, the man has committed grievous crimes_

Way less crimes than those who accuse him. Never sprayed Vietnamese with Agent Orange or napalms for one, never dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, never supported Pinochet et co, doesn't have 25% of the world's incarcerated in just 4% of the global population, and lots of other things besides.

> _keeps 'his people' in abject poverty_

A 40+ years embargo has something to do with that too...

> _More than 85% of the economy is in the control of the military - <USER3> > private Army._

It's in control of the state, which is how things are supposed to work in communist countries. Not necessarily worse than having it in the hands of corporations...

<comment><USER14> >Way less crimes than those who accuse him. Never sprayed Vietnamese with Agent Orange or napalms for one, never dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, never supported Pinochet et co, doesn't have 25% of the world's incarcerated in just 4% of the global population, and lots of other things besides.

That's a logical fallacy. You can't say that Castro's crimes against humanity are okay because the US has committed worse ones.

>A 40+ years embargo has something to do with that too...

Only a US embargo. That leaves more than 80% of the world GDP to interact with.

<comment><USER22> > Only a US embargo. That leaves more than 80% of the rest of the world GDP to > interact with.

That's a naive view. Do you really think the rest of the world can just straight up ignore the US's embargo and play nice with Cuba, while still staying on good terms with the US?

<comment><USER23> Yes.

My impression was then when America tried to force other countries to participate in the embargo they told them to shove it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act)

Also yes Cuba has trade with the rest of the world

[http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/cub/](http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/cub/)

> Cuba is the 140th largest export economy in the world. In 2014, Cuba > exported $1.74B and imported $5.91B, resulting in a negative trade balance > of $4.17B.

> The top exports of Cuba are Raw Sugar ($392M), Refined Petroleum ($314M), > Rolled Tobacco ($236M), Hard Liquor ($116M) and Raw Nickel ($108M), using > the 1992 revision of the HS (Harmonized System) classification. Its top > imports are Wheat ($234M), Refined Petroleum ($228M), Concentrated Milk > ($207M), Corn ($204M) and Poultry Meat ($196M).

> The top export destinations of Cuba are China ($311M), the Netherlands > ($157M), Spain ($141M), Senegal ($92M) and the United Kingdom ($67.3M). The > top import origins are China ($1.05B), Spain ($920M), Brazil ($507M), Canada > ($389M) and Mexico ($360M).

Of course geography still matters, the US is nearby, large, and rich. Exporting to the US would be a huge plus for the Cuban economy but it wouldn't change everything.

<comment><USER24> >> My impression was then when America tried to force other countries to participate in the embargo they told them to shove it.

Your impression is wrong.

An example knock-on effect relevant to HN is that as a UK company, we couldn't sell windows software to Cuba because things like windows run-time libraries would be covered by the US export embargo. In theory, they wouldn't even have a legal copy of any US operating system.

I'm sure there were similar knock-on effects across all industries that had US products, suppliers or connections in their business.

<comment><USER25> This is naive

As even you said, Cuba was not supposed to have Windows copies, but I'm sure they had

Iran _theoretically_ couldn't have access to Boeing parts (and this was a stricter embargo), but they had

There's always a way of solving things.

Most of Cuban problems were caused by themselves, not the embargo.

<comment><USER26> > There's always a way of solving things.

Except, not really.

You can't put any app using any encryption technology up on the Google Play Store or the iOS App Store, if you also distribute anything to Cuba.

For the first you need to get an approval from the US DoD, which requires that you never interact with Cuba.

<comment><USER23> You could sell apks

<comment><USER26> I can't sell anything to Cuba while also providing anything in the Google Store or the Apple App Store.

That's part fo the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Excerpt from the article on CNN (probably edited by the time you read this): [http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/26/americas/fidel-castro- obit...](http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/26/americas/fidel-castro- obit/index.html)

 _" One Castro or another has ruled Cuba over a period that spans seven decades and 11 U.S. presidents. Fidel Castro outlived six of those presidents,[[[NOTE: change to seven if George H.W. Bush dies before Castro]]] including Cold War warriors John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan."_

<comment><USER28> The software they use to draft these should be given support for a special tag that it will refuse to publish to prod an article containing.

<comment><USER29> I worked on software like this. You wouldn't believe how many variations of a typo can escape parsing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> After reading some of the comments here, my fath in the human race is not enhanced.

Castro was a genuine hero and a great man; indeed among the top 10 greatest individuals of the 20th century. He believed in freedom and dignity. He saw the US government as the enemy of progress everywhere in the world; he wanted people to be free and he devoted his life to that ideal.

How many people can you say that of?

> He was also an evil dictator...

Lol @ evil dictator. Fidel Castro never killed as many people as Nixon, Reagan, Bush or Blair. He did not go half way around the world as Thatcher did to claim an Island 4,000 km away from home (Falklands).

>...who silenced any and all opposition

What opposition? Imperialists and mafia members who wished to turn Cuba into an enclave for gambling? CIA operatives who tried to return Cuba to its occupied past?

> just look at Cuba today

Just look at Iraq, Libya,Syria today. And while you are at it; look also at Iran, China, Russia (which evaded western occupation). Indeed, look at Mexico which is friendly terms and has not been invaded yet by the US and tell me how much they have gained from that relationship.

I detest the hypocrisy I see in many (not all) western commentators. The spin and one sided arguments, the glossing over historical truths. Cuba is behind in development because of the American embargo.Simple. Not because the regime had no plan for economic development. In healthcare, this small nation with a health care budget 0.001% of the US beats the USA hands down in universal coverage and access to health. Who knows what would have happened if previous administrations had left them alone.

Finally, Castro sent troops to Africa to fight against colonial occupiers. He sent armies to harass the apartheid regime at the Angolan/ Namibian border. This counts as a plus in my book.

Rest on Fidel. You have fought the fight and lived like a man. I will pray for you. May heaven receive your soul.

<comment><USER31> > He believed in freedom

> I detest the hypocrisy I see in many (not all) western commentators.

A counterexample: this photo was taken in NYC after the most recent US presidential election:

[http://i.imgur.com/DcVbqAm.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/DcVbqAm.jpg)

It's a picture of someone standing in front of Trump Tower holding a sign that says "You're not my president. Fuck you."

Can you imagine someone getting away with that in Castro's Cuba?

<comment><USER32> Do you have palpable proof that holding such a sign in Cuba will lead you to trouble?

I'm genuinely asking. Not from the US and just today found out (by curiosity) where Cuba is.

<comment><USER33> There's the old parable

>"In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Equally, you can also stand in Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.

<comment><USER34> Actually, you still could be punished, being an _independent_ political activist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I know that in geopolitics, there are no good guys, that each nation acts in their own self-interest. I know that the crimes of one nation may be horrible, but pale in comparison to those of a bigger enemy. I know that politics has winners and losers, that the winners get to claim the moral high ground, while the losers mourn their injustice.

But tonight, I'll remember my family members that were killed in Las Cabañas by Che. I'll embrace my uncle who endured torture in Cuban prisons for buying black market bread. I'll remember my late aunt, who had to flee Cuba for her life under an assumed identity as a housekeeper. I'll remember my grandparents, who were always optimistic that they would soon return to their homes that were taken from them.

Tonight is for us. Tonight, I celebrate...

<comment><USER9> Thank you for sharing the personal experiences in your family.

Admirers of Fidel Castro around the world - and all his admirers on this page - have one thing in common: they never had to live under his dictatorship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> My aunt knew him pretty well. She runs a few hotels or resorts in Cuba (I'm quite estranged from that part of the family, so don't have many details), and had to cook for/host him on a regular basis.

I remember stories about how he, or Raul for that matter, would request to have sushi, even though she didn't have access to salmon, tuna nor eel. Even sushi rice was impossible to get by. The classic seaweed another hard to find item. These kind of crazy requests would usually come in a handful of hours, or less, before said meal was due to happen. Her job for many years was to pass off whatever she had access to as the real deal. Call it "tantrum trompe l'œil", if you will.

I remember being surprised when she said it was probably the most fulfilling position to be in as a chef, because of how challenging it was.

</comment><comment><USER37> The most chilling testament to this dictators intolerable cruelty is all of the various hand crafted boats that Cubans used over the years to flee his control.

The first time I saw one on the beach in the Florida Keys, I was astonished at the ingenuity of the craft and marveled that someone had so longed for freedom that they had spend years building it in secret.

Then, I was chilled.

[http://www.floatingcubans.com/](http://www.floatingcubans.com/)

[https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1...](https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1510&bih=778&q=cuban+refugee+boats&oq=cuban+refugee+boats)

</comment><comment><USER38> Castro's poor judgement led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Afterwards John F Kennedy estimated there was between a one-third and one-half chance that it would have escalated to nuclear war [1]. That seems like an underestimate considering that we now know some of the missiles were fully operational [2]

Yet today it's difficult for most people to appreciate the extreme threat and terror of nuclear weapons in the 1960's. Half of US voters think life was better then than now [3]. Really? To me, there's no level of job security that could possibly compensate for such a high chance of nuclear catastrophe.

[1] Reported in [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKO6MS8/ref=dp-kindle- redirect?...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKO6MS8/ref=dp-kindle- redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

[2] As described by Robert McNamara in 'The Fog of War'

[3] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/20/6-charts- tha...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/20/6-charts-that-show- where-clinton-and-trump-supporters-differ/)

<comment><USER39> Wait, I thought it was Kennedy's poor judgement that "led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis" by placing nukes on the USSR border?

<comment><USER40> The US had had ballistic missiles (Redstone) in European airbases since 1958 -- Kennedy simply continued the existing policy of the US. Kennedy's poor judgment, arguably, consisted in aggressively defending the "rule" that it is acceptable for the US to have nuclear missiles near the Soviet border, but it is not acceptable for the USSR to have nuclear missiles near the US border. While JFK was driven by the need to appear tough, one has to give him credit for not following the advice of the "hawks" (Curtis LeMay) who advocated a preemptive invasion of Cuba, a move that would have almost certainly led to a nuclear exchange, given that the USSR had already placed (unbeknownst to the US intelligence) tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Fidel should have made it to the Guinness World Records, he survived more assassination attempts than we can count. I don't think there had been another man that had stood up to an empire for so long and had live to tell the story.

<comment><USER42> If standing up to an empire means subjecting your country to half a century's worth of squalor and poverty, then...yeah, he really showed us what's what.

<comment><USER41> I'm not going to get into details but if you take major economic facts about Cuba before the revolution and after it the balance is clear. [http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CUB](http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/CUB) comparatively they do better than most Latin American countries. It's a shame that their leaders weren't more pragmatic and allowed more civil liberties but then again, they always lived under an embargo and a permanent terror campaign from the CIA.

<comment><USER43> Cuba was doing better than most Latin American countries before the revolution too, for what it's worth.

<comment><USER44> Even so, were would it have been if intervention attempts by Uncle Sam against Cuba succeeded? Name one country that is better of than it was before western intervention.

<comment><USER43> South Korea is the poster child here, depending on how you define "western intervention".

<comment><USER44> Does the life quality of populace increase or did it decrease on countries that US of A intervened? I do not understand US fear of communism(by definition ussr did not even have communism, it was something else may be call it ussr-communism?). Both countries were allies in world war. What was the need for a piss of contest between the two? I would say ussr's involvement in cold war was caused by passive aggressive tactics began by USA. It was USA who first deployed nuclear weapons near Russian border. When russia deployed in response in cuba, suddenly that was news and more fear mongering to justify their actions that caused it in the first place. Most americans didn't even know that it was their country that started it. And in the fear of communism, they took destructive actions. Just like they are doing it now in the name of terrorism, but actually making the problem even more worse.

<comment><USER43> > Does the life quality of populace increase or did it decrease on countries > that US of A intervened?

Yes, I understand that's the question at hand. In the case of Korea, there is a good argument to be made that the entire country would have had the quality of life North Korea has if it were not for the intervention.

> by definition ussr did not even have communism

Yes, and neither did China, nor Cuba, nor Vietnam, etc, etc. At some point we end up with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. In any case, the fear was of "the thing calling itself communism", not "theoretical platonic communism".

The fear, at least for people who actually thought about the matter, was based on the following facts:

1) Communism (as it was being practiced; I will assume this parenthetical henceforth) was incompatible with fundamental aspects of society that were considered important in the US. For a simple example, if you look at the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the US constitution), the only right that was not being actively being violated in the countries that called themselves "communist" was the one granted by the Third Amendment. Well, except it _was_ being violated in the USSR in the early 20s. But generally 20th century nation-states have housed their own soldiers.

2) Communism was actively expansionist when it had the chance to be; see eastern Europe, the Korean peninsula.

3) Communism had as part of its doctrine the goal of fomenting revolutions in countries that were not yet communist.

4) There were communist parties in various countries, including the US, and some of their members (not all, yes) were actively involved in item #3.

5) There were various people in the US who were not members of the communist party but were clearly sympathetic to the idea of the communist party having more power or seizing power altogether. A number of these people were highly placed in the existing US government.

So at least in some quarters there was the perception of a plausible existential threat to the US as currently constituted (literally; throw out the Constitution and replace it with a totally different setup).

In addition to this, there was of course the usual fear of the other, the fear of the labor movement on the part of owners of capital, and so forth. In many cases these various reasons for fear were self-reinforcing.

> Both countries were allies in world war.

Yes. That doesn't always mean much on its own; the USSR and Germany were allies from 1939 to 1941.

> What was the need for a piss of contest between the two?

This is a question without a simple answer.

To some extent, in both cases, it was driven by domestic political considerations. It's a lot easier to maintain power if you keep telling people there are external enemies they need to worry about and hence shouldn't rock the domestic political boat too much. In the case of the USSR this was a quite explicit (and longstanding; it dates back to the 20s) policy of the Communist Party. In the US, I think it was a bit more opportunistic and not as organized.

Add to that concerns regarding the fate of allies, the pre-existing tensions I talk about below, and lots of stuff I am not thinking of right now and may not even know about...

> I would say ussr's involvement in cold war was caused by passive aggressive > tactics began by USA.

The tension dates back way longer than that. There were quite a number of people in the US who fundamentally mistrusted the USSR for the reasons listed above, and that distrust went back to the original October Revolution. There were quite a number in the USSR, including in high government positions, who distrusted the US because of its participation in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Rus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War) . There was tension over the UN declaration of human rights and its article 13. There was tension over the post-war division of Europe. I'm sure you're aware of the Soviet blockade of West Berlin and the ensuing Berlin Airlift; that situation was not precipitated by the US. The Korean War was not precipitated by the US.

Claiming that the US "began" the cold war in some sort of sole act of aggression involves some serious revision of history as far as I can tell.

> It was USA who first deployed nuclear weapons near Russian border.

Yes. The context was that the US was looking for a way to be able to defend western Europe from invasion by Warsaw Pact forces. There was no realistic way to match those in terms of actual troop numbers and materiel without deploying a _lot_ more troops to Europe than the US was willing to do (for various reasons, including cost), so nuclear deterrent was viewed as a way to provide the needed defensive capabilities.

I agree that it was an escalation of the nuclear situation. I don't know to what extent the fears of a Warsaw Pact invasion of West Germany (say) were justified. But given what had just happened on the Korean peninsula a few years earlier, they weren't entirely baseless. I won't claim the missile deployment in Turkey and Italy was the right call, but I have a hard time categorically saying it was the wrong call...

> When russia deployed in response in cuba, suddenly that was news

In the US, sure. The deployment in Turkey was sure news in the USSR. ;)

> Most americans didn't even know that it was their country that started it

Indeed.

> Just like they are doing it now in the name of terrorism

I think the fear of communism was a _lot_ more justified than the current fear of terrorism. In particular, communism was a _lot_ more successful both in terms of seizing power and in terms of gaining mindshare in countries where it was not yet in power. For example, I have yet to see a US government official saying it would be good if the US were run more like ISIS-controlled areas. There were quite a few saying that sort of thing about communism in the 40s.

Again, I won't claim the US response to the threat was perfect. But I think the threat was real, and did need a response.

<comment><USER44> I meant to take into account all results of US interventions from the end of world war 2. Its a net negative result for affected citizens due to underhanded tactics by US. And for US too. Which is why USA is no more a world leader. It would have had plausibility if it didn't constantly try to undermine other democratic countries atleast. But no, every other country is a possible enemy. Spying even the heads of states of allies only proves that attitude and pushes them to actually become an enemy when these underhanded tactics comes to light.

Interchange usa with ussr and communism with capitalism in the above para. Then read it as if you are from ussr.

What I would strongly advocate for is open governance. That would prevent waging war for profit. Perhaps those who calls for war should lead it like old times. Waging war for profit in the comfort of your home while your soldiers die like expendibles causes career politicians to take that risk. If won its profit, if lost then its just an election for them.

I wonder if law banning hipocracy is the answer. Most Politicians does not experience suffering of commons.I wouldn't have a problem with most politicians if at least half of them displayed an expertise in solving real problems rather than expertise in saving face

Here is a very good article that has many ideas I strongly agree with. It addresses many fundamental problems involved.

[https://medium.com/rethinking-security/the-problem-with- nati...](https://medium.com/rethinking-security/the-problem-with-national- security-concepts-4ea7a20cdbc6)

<comment><USER43> > Its a net negative result for affected citizens due to underhanded tactics > by US

Net negative compared to the counterfactual of perfect interventions or the counterfactual of no interventions?

Again, I think there were lots of cases in which the US screwed up. That's easier to tell in hindsight in some of those cases. On the ground at the time, was it obvious that the Korean War was a good idea and the Vietnam War a bad one? (I think it _did_ become obvious that the Vietnam War was a bad idea quite a bit before the US actually pulled out of it; again, I won't claim that the US didn't make preventable mistakes!)

What I don't have a good handle on is what the world would look like if the US post WWII had adopted the sort of foreign policy it had in 1910 or 1925 and just minded its own business and ignored the rest of the world. And if you're not suggesting it should have done _that_, then I'm not sure what you're suggesting, exactly.

> Which is why USA is no more a world leader.

Is the USA less of a world leader than in the 1920s or 1930s? I don't think so.

Is it less of one than it was in 1946? Maybe, but that was inevitable, for at least two obvious reasons:

1) Its economic influence decreased as its share of world GDP dropped (which it _had_ to; in 1946 a lot of the rest of the world's industrial capacity was in ruins, and let's not get started on the service sector in most of 1946 Europe, Japan, China, USSR). Also, the dependence of other countries on US exports or aid dropped from 1946 to now, generally speaking. This is, of course, a good thing.

2) The rest of the world caught up to the US in some areas in which it had had moral leadership, thus decreasing the moral leadership aspect. As one example, the non-communist European countries which hadn't done so yet finally got around to introducing women's suffrage (Belgium 1948, France 1944, Greece 1952, Italy 1945, Liechtenstein 1984, Portugal 1976, San Marino 1959, Spain 1976, Switzerland 1971 or 1991 depending on how you count).

Which countries would you consider to be more "world leaders" than the US at the moment? Or is your claim that the US is no longer _the_ world leader (as if it ever were)? I would say that's a very good thing.

> Spying even the heads of states of allies

Do you seriously believe that the US is the only country doing that? I would be quite shocked if this were the case.

> Then read it as if you are from ussr.

I _am_ from the USSR (back when there was one). So yes, I have some idea, both from my reading and from talking to people of my parents' and grandparents' generation of what things looked like from that side. A bit from personal experience as well, but that covers a somewhat small slice of post-WWII history of the USSR.

> What I would strongly advocate for is open governance.

Do you mean [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government) or something else? If that's what you mean, then I'm all in favor.

> I wonder if law banning hipocracy is the answer.

I'm not sure whether you mean [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hipocracy](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hipocracy) or something else. "Hipocracy" is not a word I've seen before you used it just now, and I can find no other references to it. Not sure whether you mean "hypocrisy", but that wouldn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph that follows the above-quoted sentence...

> Here is a very good article that has many ideas I strongly agree with.

Thank you for the link. I'll need to take some time to read it and think before I can comment on it intelligently.

<comment><USER44> Yes, US should just mind its own business.

Just because other governments do it doesn't make it right.

Open governance that I suggested is very similar to Open government wiki link you linked.

And I spelled hypocrisy wrong.

My understanding is the world would be a better place if everyone works together and live peacefully.

<comment><USER43> > Yes, US should just mind its own business.

Now please convince the Latvians of that, say. Seriously, the case that the second half of the 20th century would have turned out better with an isolationist US is a hard case to make.

> Just because other governments do it doesn't make it right.

I'm not entirely convinced. The problem is that alliances are not permanent...

> And I spelled hypocrisy wrong.

Then as I said, I don't understand the rest of your paragraph.

> My understanding is the world would be a better place if everyone works > together and live peacefully.

Sure. We'd need no police, no armies, etc. It would be pretty nice.

The question is how we get there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I once spent 2 months in Cuba, about 12 years ago as a musician. We lived and rehearsed in Havana for a month with mostly a local band, and spent another month touring the country, big and small cities.

The level of poverty I saw as someone from the Nordics was new to me, and while things like hospital visits were free (even for me as a tourist), people really had so little money, to the point it drastically affected the kind of food they could buy. And indeed many types of food wasn't even available in the peso shops, or was rationed.

At the same time, there was very little crime, and it was generally quite safe, probably due to a large police force, and lack gangs or organised crime. The people were fantastic, so warm and hospitable even they had so little.

There was inequality too, some very nice houses in the rich parts of Havana reserved for members of the political/military elite while a lot of people live in extremely run down conditions, and bizarre things like taxi drivers who get paid in dollars and receive dollar tips easily making 20-40x more per month than doctors.

I understand that part of the reason the country has been struggling is the long US embargo, but I can't help feeling part of it is due to bad governance too. When I arrived I had a rose-tinted picture of Cuban communism like many tourists, but it shocked me when I asked some of the band memebers what would be needed to make things better, they said "The best thing would be if Fidel died".

Now that has happened, I wonder what the way forward will look like - if they will be able to retain the best parts of the socialist ideals and start growing the economy responsibly, or if it will turn into a land grab with the majority being left in poverty.

<comment><USER46> > taxi drivers who get paid in dollars and receive dollar tips easily making > 20-40x more per month than doctors

And what is wrong with this? Or should physicians continue using health to become rich as it is the case in so many other countries?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> His enemies claim he was a king without a crown, mistaking unity for unanimity.

And in that his enemies were right.

His enemies say if Napoleon had had a newspaper similar to the «Granma», no french would have ever heard about Waterloo.

And in that his enemies were right.

His enemies say he used power by talking and not listening, because he was more comfortable with echoes than with voices.

And in that his enemies were right.

But his enemies won't say that he didn't just stood by while history moved forward that he faced the bullets when the USA invasion arrived, that he faced hurricanes with equal fury as the wind, that he survived 637 attemps on his life, that his energy was decisive to turn a colony into homeland and that it wasn't by any spell or miracle that that homeland was able to survive 10 US presidents.

And his enemies won't say Cuba is one of those countries that won't compete in the International World Cup as to whom is the most servient.

And they won't say this revolution, grown in punishment, is what could be and not what it wanted to be. Nor they say that the division between the wish and the reality grew taller and wider thanks to the imperial blockade, that drowned the development of a cuban democracy, forced militarization of society and granted bureaucracy, which for every solution has a problem, the alibies it needed to justify and perpetuate itself.

And they won't say that despite all of the problems, despite the agressions from outside and arbitrariness from inside, this small island, suffered but stubbornly happy, has created the least unjust latin american society.

And they won't say that this achievement was because of the sacrifice of their people, but also because of the stubborn will and outdated sense of honor of this gentleman who always fought for the losers, much like that renowned colleague from the fields of Castilla.

Eduardo Galeano.

(apologies in advance for any mistakes I may have made while translating this from spanish)

<comment><USER30> > His enemies claim he was a king without a crown, mistaking unity for > unanimity ...

Thank you for posting this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> There's a lot of complaining about Castro here (and elsewhere) specifically because he was a communist. But if you think about it, the capitalist West has really dropped the ball on this. Most of these communist movements - <USER4> Vietnam, Cuba etc - were originally national liberation movements. And the reason why they appeared was because the respective countries were colonies, and their people were painfully (in many cases, literally so) aware of that fact.

Now, suppose you're a leader of such a movement. What's going to be your ideology, beyond just national self-determination?

Well, on one hand, you look at the guys that are currently busy denying you that, and you notice that they generally tend to be capitalist countries. If you listen to what their ideologues have to say, they notice they aren't actually saying much about your plight at all - it's all about some abstract stuff like free markets.

On the other hand, you have those communists, who _constantly_ talk about imperialism and colonialism, and how it sucks for those on the receiving end. And you know it's true, from your own experience. And those guys haven't ever made you their colony, and aren't demanding that you become one. Basically, their talk on that subject is entirely in your favor. Well, why wouldn't you believe that they're right on all those other things, as well?

There are actually several examples of leaders that weren't initially particularly left-wing becoming more so solely because they were fighting against some Western country occupying them, other Western countries were just pretending nothing's happening (at best; at worst, they were actively helping the occupier, as in e.g. Indochina), while the Soviets were ready and willing to supply food, arms, and everything else you need to fight. Of course, it came with ideological strings attached, but beggars can't be choosers.

Castro, for example, was not a communist when he first started to participate in violent resistance. He was anti-American, and specifically anti-American involvement in the countries in the region, which then consisted of backing dictators like Batista and Trujillo. It was sometime after he started down that road that he became to radicalize along Marxist lines, especially after several bitter setbacks (that also made it clear that fighting against US requires a powerful ally to succeed).

<comment><USER48> Speaking of Trujillo, one thing I would recommend to understand the effect and legacy of Castro's rule is to compare Cuba to another, otherwise similar country in the region that didn't undergo a long period of communist rule.

I'm talking about the Dominican Republic. US had ensured that it would not go communist or socialist by two direct successful military interventions. It had its own corrupt capitalist dictator, but from there gradually reformed into a free (albeit still corrupt) democracy. It is geographically very close, and has a similar population size. So it's interesting to compare and contrast metrics like GDP, life expectancy, literacy etc:

[http://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/cuba.dominican- re...](http://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/cuba.dominican-republic)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> For all interested in good photography - Castro had great photo session shoot by street photographer Elliott Erwitt - really worth seeing! ([https://pro.magnumphotos.com/Catalogue/Elliott- Erwitt/1964/C...](https://pro.magnumphotos.com/Catalogue/Elliott- Erwitt/1964/CUBA-NN110092.html))

Also: there is nice set of photos here: [http://lahabanaphoto.com/?page_id=132](http://lahabanaphoto.com/?page_id=132)

</comment><comment><USER50> Growing up in a northern US state Cuba and the US policies affecting it always seemed remote. Besides studying the facts in school I never gave the Cuban Revolution, Cuba, or Castor much thought until I played "Cuba Libre: Castro's Insurgency (1957-1958)" this summer.

Reading the historical/design notes in the player's guide and watching events unfold while playing as M26 brought history to life in a very visceral way. I spent the week after playing obsessively reading about modern Cuban history.

[http://www.gmtgames.com/p-497-cuba-libre-reprint- edition.asp...](http://www.gmtgames.com/p-497-cuba-libre-reprint-edition.aspx)

Cuba Libre is part of a game series on COunter-INsurgencies (COIN). "Liberty or Death: The American Insurrection" covers the American Revolution using the same system.

[http://www.gmtgames.com/p-582-liberty-or-death-the- american-...](http://www.gmtgames.com/p-582-liberty-or-death-the-american- insurrection-reprint-ed.aspx)

<comment><USER51> Yes! There is nothing like a video game ability to spark interest in history, at least for me. I experienced the same thing after playing "Empire: Total War. Napoleon."

Afterwards, I inhaled biographies on him. My favorite was the Felix Markham book: [https://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Signet-Classics-Felix- Markha...](https://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Signet-Classics-Felix- Markham/dp/0451531655/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480142615&sr=1-15&keywords=napoleon)

<comment><USER50> Agreed! But board games in my case.

I have Command & Colors: Napoleonics and a biography of Napoleon sitting next to my desk as I type this.

[http://www.gmtgames.com/p-576-commands-colors- napoleonics-3r...](http://www.gmtgames.com/p-576-commands-colors- napoleonics-3rd-printing.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> He had the dubious honour of being the least awful communist dictator. I hope Cuba can move forward now that it's free from his shadow.

<comment><USER53> I think there might be an argument to be made for Marshal Tito to have that "honor" over Castro.

But hopefully the foolishness of the embargo can really end now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I went to Cuba earlier this year. It felt like a new era was upon the island. This just solidifies that.

Looking back, it will be crazy to think, I went to Cuba while Fidel Castro was still alive.

<comment><USER55> Castro's death changes nothing, he has been away from leading Cuba and decision making for about 8 years. The current president (his own brother) has his very same ideals

<comment><USER56> same ideals, and close to the same age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I was fascinated by Fidel's choice of attire when he appeared before the Communist Party congress in April.

I think I've only seen him in the green military uniform. But at the congress he wore an Adidas jacket!

It would be interesting to know the story behind that.

Edit: Naturally, a half hour after posting this, I realized there was probably a way to find out...

[https://www.google.com/search?q=fidel+castro+adidas](https://www.google.com/search?q=fidel+castro+adidas)

</comment><comment><USER58> A central figure of the 20th century - it would've been remarkable to be a fly on the wall for some of this man's life experiences.

</comment><comment><USER59> As a Russian, who was born in USSR, I regret that CIA has failed to assassinate him 50 years ago. May be Cuba would be liberated from communist/socialist disease.

Look at countries who declared a war against free markets - Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea. They are absolutely pathetic.

<comment><USER60> Russia still has not regained the standard of living that existed during the USSR.

<comment><USER61> I do not agree, oil wealth moved Russia miles ahead of 80s USSR experience (I see this first-hand).

<comment><USER60> Economic data disagrees with your personal experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> It is so sad to read comments from uneducated educated americans about Fidel Castro. Cuba under Fidel had the best education and health system in the world. Maybe you should apologized for the 600+ tries of assassinations launched by Americans towards a country that was communist. I would rather live in Cuba than in the States/Europe where everything is measured by you stinking paper you call money and autocratic ways of governing people. I mean, what the fk. Does England has a constitution? No it does not? I am disgusted that these comments come from the VCs and other people who think capitalism was the best thing that came around. Look at you inner cities and homeless people you create. Look at the murderous ways your country has been involved in toppling governments in Latin America financing dictators. By eh, Castro was a dictator and your Saudi Arabians friends are doves of freedome and democracy. I just want puke.

Long Live Comantade

</comment><comment> vic-traill I found Castro's Cuba a very interesting place, primarily because of its independence from American direct influence (and yes, I realise that Cuba has longed been _defined_ by America's influence on it, even in opposing it).

American culture has had a huge effect on the world. To attend an island off the coast of Florida and find it more or less free of that cultural influence was fascinating. Fascinating in that they were even just able to do it.

I didn't see an island prison there. Which is not to whitewash anything. However, I was free to go anywhere I wanted and did. People I met were kind, welcoming and seemed, to my eyes and ears, content.

The view of Fidel as a tyrant is not the view one finds as they travel the world. Neither is he viewed as a saint. He is viewed as someone who achieved something incredible, with all that entails, good and bad.

<comment><USER63> Someone who held no free nor fair elections for half a century, imprisoned his political opponents after trials presided over by crony judges, completely controlled all the national media and installed his brother as his successor? And that's not a tyrant?

<comment> vic-traill Well, that's a part of the story. And the only part of the story that you have been able to encounter in the American media since the 1950's.

The story is much broader than that. Fidel was also the liberator of his country from a military dictatorship which had sold Cuban casinos to the Mafia [0] and swaths of Cuban agricultural land to the United Fruit Company. [1]

In that context, Castro was certainly not the tyrant.

History is nuanced. Look below the surface.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Lansky#Cuba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Lansky#Cuba)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Cuba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Cuba)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> My Father in Law had dinner with Fidel 10-15 years ago on a trade delegation. One of his colleagues had a little too much to drink and over cigars he turned to Castro and said 'I have to ask. A lot of people in my country think Cuba might have been involved in the assassination of JFK. What do you think about that?'

The room goes totally silent. All eyes on Castro and his bodyguards lining the walls. He says 'when the missiles were removed, the US vowed not to invade Cuba. I would've been a fool to do anything that would give the US the desire and moral high ground to break that promise. Nothing could come from killing Kennedy that would justify such a risk for Cuba'.

The remarkable part, I'm told, is that he laughed it off and the revelry continued.

</comment><comment><USER65> This feels like one more end of an era. Though I wonder if the opening of relations between the US and Cuba might have been the end of that era.

In any case, Fidel lived long enough to see the American overreaction through most of it's shelf life.

</comment><comment><USER66> Most Cubans do not support the Castro dictators. Only party members do, and they have a lot of privileges compared to the general population.

People live in very basic conditions under constant surveillance. Phone lines, Internet connections, etc. are monitored.

Most cars and electronics are still from the 50s, from the Batista era, and are repaired with homemade parts.

People can study for free, but there are no job opportunities, so you can see architects sweeping the streets and physicians driving cabs.

Disturbing a tourist is a grave offense and lead to years in jail. There are 2 currencies, one for tourists, another one for nationals, and nationals are not allowed to have tourist currency. Nationals are not allowed to enter hotels or tourist facilities.

People grow animals at home and give all scraps to them. Once they grow big enough they kill them for consumption. People rely on the black market for their basic needs. Some set up clandestine restaurants at home to make a living.

Cubans are not allowed to leave the country. They need to pay for the privilege of traveling, and all trips must include a return ticket. If multiple family members are traveling, at least one has to stay to ensure the family doesn't escape the regime. People bypass that by creating fake families through marriage.

As you can see, their life experience is BAD. The Castros are personally responsible for a lot of it. They should have stepped down for humanitarian reasons. People that supported the revolution initially would not have done so if they knew what was going to happen to them.

<comment><USER45> This was my experience also. Do you think things will change now or stay more or less the same?

<comment><USER66> It will take time to erode years of brainwashing. The regime was not only authoritarian / militaristic, but also ideological... starting from an early age in schools. The ruling caste is completely brainwashed and will not let go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> The US has far more sins on its hand than Castro. Its not even a contest. There are over 59 self serving armed interventions in other countries since 1950 the last being Iraq, Syria, Libya and that's not counting stirring up 'revolution' that usually leads to US friendly despots in place.

This is destruction and devastation of tens of millions of lives. Libya was one of the most advanced countries in Africa, now its a basketcase. That's millions of lives in disarray setback for generations. Who takes responsibility for this? If these are not crimes against humanity what is?

We have got used to a fraudulent narrative supported by 'our' media where we can judge and think the worst of others and not examine our own devious actions. But if we want to judge and get self righteous about Castro we must first hold our own government to account to have an iota of credibility.

Since there is zero interest in prosecuting or even reining in the warmongers this persistent kneejerk rush to the moral highground is a sinister posturing by people who know exactly what this country has been doing and are out to defraud the world.

</comment><comment><USER68> Hasta siempre, Comandante Fidel Castro. It was a huge victory succeed in a revolution, survive hundreds of kill attempts coming from USA and then, die of natural causes at 90.

</comment><comment><USER69> I might not agree with his methods but he did seem like a leader that legitimately cared about Cubas citizens.

<comment><USER20> I don't see how a leader that 'cares about his people' would not allow them to leave their island prison, not have democracy, not have access to the internet, not trade with one another.

I don't think he cared about them in any way. He had a totalitarian view of how they should be, and he forced that upon them.

<comment><USER26> > not have democracy, not have access to the internet,

So foreign countries' propaganda can overthrow your democracy and put up a complete crazy, due to fake news?

The US has seen how much Russia Today and fake news have influenced this presidential election. Would you want that to become an issue in your country?

This is a serious problem one has to ask themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> This utter failure of foreign policy is such an embarrassment for the US. Even against a small island country that they partially occupy, the US couldn't cause a regime change. Everyone can spend all day debating if Fidel's army is better than Capone's gangsters, or living off state payments in squalor is better than being a peasant harvesting fruit for the wealthy Dole family with no healthcare, but the fact is that Fidel was only their #2 enemy, after America. I have no idea how the wounds between the people will ever heal, but the only way forward is if America's leaders choose to learn from their past mistakes and take a new, probably completely different approach. Obama started down a path, but the next 4-8 years are a complete mystery for now.

</comment><comment><USER71> Fidel Castro was an inspiration for much of the world.

He demonstrated that it is possible to survive without compromising with the hegemon.

</comment><comment><USER72> I live in Miami and streets were full of pots and pans being banged around. Some fireworks too.

A lot of cubans and venezolanos are my neighbors, and there is whistling going on.

</comment><comment><USER73> I guess death by old age is definitely an "unnatural" death for a dictator.

When he was very old but still in power, I always wondered if he would just suddenly die one day and his country would descend into chaos. At least that has not happened, what, if you like or dislike him, you should probably still credit him. I hope Cuba will develop into a freer society over time.

<comment><USER60> Cuba is not a dictatorship. It's a democracy with extremely localized control.

<comment><USER33> And Venezuela is a paradise on earth!

<comment><USER60> Have you ever read anything about Cuban democracy besides the propaganda put out by the US government? If you're actually interested in educating yourself, there's an interesting sociology paper called Representative Government in Socialist Cuba.

<comment><USER33> I'm not particularly interested in Cuban propaganda, no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> A wonderfully productive life and human example in service for humanity.

</comment><comment><USER75> Is there anyway way that castro could have done his revolution that wasn't opposed to the us? suppose you lived in a country that was ruled by a dictator that was supported by foreign powers, and you wanted to end that dictatorship so the people got freedom? that part seems okay. castro was a communist, that was unforgivable. but think about how the us treated chile and pinochet and other south american leaders. Like most revolutions, there were good and bad things. I don't know enough about castro and cuba to draw conclusions. after he took power, did he become a new dictator himself? what did he do more than be a communist leader?

<comment><USER76> Why is it 'unforgivable' to be communist?

<comment><USER77> Because of the incredible harm to humanity done at the hands of communists over just the past 100 years alone

<comment><USER78> When you buy a beer for your friends at a bar and maybe next week they buy a round, that's communism. Communism is a central part of western society.

China, the USSA and Cuba were never communism. They varied between heavy socialism (also a pinical of all high income countries: roads, trains, parks, police, fire, airports) and fascism.

A lot of people who just go on about communists, today, in 2016, seemed to have not learned that much of what we learned about the communists was mostly propaganda; same way the US creates enemies out of "terrorists" today.

<comment><USER73> > When you buy a beer for your friends at a bar and maybe next week they buy a > round, that's communism. Communism is a central part of western society.

Communism is when you and your friends go to a bar and there is no beer, because there was not enough grain produced on command of the central planning committee 4 years ago. Now you and your friends are upset and complain about it, so you get arrested and locked up without trial because you are betraying communist ideals.

<comment><USER79> This is a good joke, but unfortunately, is not an accurate description of communism. As the parent comment suggests, there were no real communism nation on earth ever.

""" In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6] """ [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

<comment><USER73> That's like saying that there are no capitalist societies by claiming that capitalism is some higher, perfect ideal which has just not been implemented yet perfectly. Or calling the outcome of christian rule in the middle ages "not really christian" by comparing it to a biblical description of heaven.

If there are people who call themselves communists and they create societies, then "communism" should be judged on that.

<comment><USER80> > If there are people who call themselves communists and they create > societies, then "communism" should be judged on that.

That's not how it works; some terrorists may call themselves muslims and even form "Islamic" societies, but I hope you'll agree that muslims and Islam shouldn't be judged on their actions. The same goes for Christianity.

<comment><USER81> This thread is going to get hot enough on politics alone. Perhaps we can try to leave religion out of it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> I wonder if Raul (since he seems a bit more relaxed) will hold general elections or stay in power till he too passes (which doesn't seem that far since he's only 4 years younger than his brother )

</comment><comment><USER83> We can debate all we want about Communism and democracy, but if history is any guide, democracy has definitely had more positive effect on the world.

Communism looks awesome on paper, but hardly works in practice.

</comment><comment><USER84> Judging judging judging based on metrics that are amazingly forgiving of ourselves and our leaders. What a convenient lazy worldview.

Castro tried, all the way.

</comment><comment><USER85> He outlived Kennedy by ~53 years. Kind of amazing.

</comment><comment><USER86> I see the Cuban revolution like Israel/Palestine. Anybody who has a black-and- white opinion on the subject is aggressively wrong.

</comment><comment><USER87> So I open a bottle of champagne as another surpressor is gone. He did not care about the lives of his opponents, so I have nothing against his own departure. Would have been great if he had used his power to build up something.

</comment><comment><USER88> With the Fidel Castro death, will there be changes in the Cuba's government? What about the relationships with others countries?

</comment><comment><USER60> The Cuban Revolution lives on. Rest in power, comrade Fidel.

<comment><USER89> Nah, the Cuban revolution is dead. Get ready for A. Further integrations with the _capitalist_ US or B. Fall of the Cuban economy because they are definitely not getting support from venezuela which propped up their economy in the first place.

<comment><USER60> Cuba is basically an autarky, for all intents and purposes, so they're not going anywhere on that front, and I think Diaz-Canel will help to steer Cuba away from liberalism/revisionism. But I've been wrong before.

<comment><USER90> Autarky with juuust a little bit of foreign aid (USSR/Venezuela). Slightly contradictory, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> It's time for ending the Cuban orwellian nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER92> Good. One less dictator.

</comment><comment><USER93> dictators and dictatorships are failures to avoid, period.

</comment><comment><USER94> Hasta siempre comandante!

<3 <3 <3

</comment><comment><USER95> One of the great men of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. That he will be vilified by the soon-to-be-led-by-Trump empire to his north, and Cuba's old idle class, which now lives in Florida, is a given. The empire's last outpost in Guantanamo Bay is where the empire takes other anti-imperialists it has kidnapped and holds them indefinitely without any sort of trial or Geneva convention procedure, and tortures and waterboards them. How different it is in the Cuba outside there, where Castro maintained his country's independence, and saw to the needs of all his country's people. While maintaining a large force of international health aid workers around the world, as well as aiding in such conflicts as the fight against the apartheid South African invasion of Angola.

It is amazing that a small island could defy the empire to his north for half a century. Such courage is probably what caused Khrushchev to send him nuclear missiles when talk of invasion of the rebelling perceived colony became widespread in the US. Courage, fortitude, the love of the people and international solidarity helped maintain the Cuban people's defiance of and independence from the empire which is soon to be Trump's.

<comment><USER96> I think he'd be vilified by quite a few of his own people if they could do it without ending up in jail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> I am not a big fan of greedy-unchecked-capitalism but communism is not the answer for problems of the world.

A thought exercise: Here is an attempt to take on an argument made by the communist apologists about Cuba in favor of Castro: that "there are no children sleeping on the streets."

May be that's true even if we don't have any independent scrutiny made by human rights organizations to support it. But "no children sleeping on the streets" is not a sufficient condition to judge the social progress of the nation.

For instance, these children may be sent to gulags (if they happen to be of the lesser equal people) or they may be forced to sleep on floors in a dungeon and still the claim "no cuban children sleeping on the streets" will be technically true. Or even the tyrant Castro might have ordered to kill all the children who were seen to be sleeping on streets (who's to prevent him from doing so there?)

The apologists just shun away from such critique as they are dishonest or are passionate followers blinded by their faith in communism.

</comment><comment><USER20> Today, most Cuban ex-pats around the world are celebrating his death.

Liberal Arts students across the Western World are saddened.

To me that's funny.

<comment><USER98> To me it's equally funny how it's ok to group one side into wimpy liberal arts students (you forgot their MacBooks and lattes!) and the others into ex-pats.

These days it's like superhuman to be able to look at an issue from two sides.

<comment><USER20> I didn't say wimpy :)

And my comment is not trolling.

I was seeing all the news of Cubans around the world celebrating, and then reading some comments here, in the Guardian, in the Globe and Mail - <USER5> noting the differences.

It's shocking to see so many people support someone who was almost so cruel.

'Please help us, this man we escaped is a totalitarian'

'Oh, you just don't understand your experience, we agree with this ideology and anti-Americanism, so whatever happened to you - it couldn't have been that bad, let's not judge him'.

It's one of those things that really tells us a lot about people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> 2016 has been very sad for left wing. Brexit, Trump now Castro...

</comment><comment><USER100> The last of the communist monsters is dead.

<comment><USER96> North Korea still to go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> 'Zimbabwe' not Simbabwe

<comment><USER81> Likely carried from another language, e.g., [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbabwe](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbabwe)

Similarly Ruanda/Rwanda

<comment><USER19> granted :) my mistake, overlooked that possibility

<comment><USER13> No, it's quite alright – I should be writing in English. I do manage to, in general. But these "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike my native language"-words sometimes trip me up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> What a terrible mistake it was not to annex Cuba in 1898.

</comment><comment><USER101> Finally.

</comment><comment><USER102> RIP Sir

</comment><comment><USER103> Good riddance.

</comment><comment><USER104> Do you guys think Trump will reinstate the embargo?

</comment><comment><USER105> Has there been a single anti-American dictator who has actually improved the lives of their people? It seems the amount of anti-American rhetoric is directly correlated with how much they screw their country over.

<comment><USER106> Interesting question. I think that depends on how you define "their people". In some sense, all dictators improved the lives of "their people".

Nelson Mandela for instance made life better for black South Africans, but he's implicated in violence against white south africans.

Hitler made life better for many Germans, especially given the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.

Turning back to the US, you could argue that those descended from native americans have not had their lives improved by an ugly history of genocide. The US also enslaved people who our citizens today descended from. There was also internment of Japanese-American citizens. And to this day, high incarceration rates for the poor/minorities.

<comment><USER107> Mandela or Hitler are don't seem particularly anti-American.

"The forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its naturally ordained sphere." [http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html](http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html)

<comment><USER106> I suppose I didn't pick the best examples. Though Mandela was a critic of the US in later years regarding Iraq / Israel, and Hitler's sentiment on America seems to be complex: a combination of not taking america too seriously and not desiring conflict too early.

But I don't think that changes my original point, which is that all dictators can be seen as serving their people, depending on how you define "their people".

<comment><USER107> I don't disagree, but the comment you replied to was about the direct correlation between "the amount of anti-American rhetoric" and "how much they screw their country over" so the fact that you choose as example dictators which were not very high in the anti-American rhetoric axis kind of supports his case.

<comment><USER106> True. I suppose better picks would have been leaders of Russia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, etc. going off of [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2014/07/15/which-countr...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2014/07/15/which-countries-dont-like-america-and-which-do/)

In all those cases they're helping some group in their country, even if its the political elite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> ... and nothing of value was lost.

[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/cuba/dictatorship.html](http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/cuba/dictatorship.html)

The man was an evil murderous dictator, and the world - and his subjects - <USER6> better off without him.

<comment><USER63> The Left's love affair with murderous dictators is a wonder to behold. And boy, do they hate it when you point that out!

[http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/wont-jeremy-corbyn- like...](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/wont-jeremy-corbyn-like-look- behind-cubas-facade/)</comment></comment>


Are Pets Really Good for Us? - <AUTHOR> http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/maybe-not-but-cmon-take-a-look-at-these-hounds <comment><USER2> If somebody adopts an animal solely because they were persuaded to by a study, maybe they shouldn't be pet owners.</comment>


Nina Paley passes on Netflix DRM and thousands of dollars - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/04/23/turning-down-netflix/

<comment><USER2> I don't see the point in avoiding Netflix's DRM here. It's just on the content stream between Netflix's servers and Netflix's client software. Furthermore, once the stream has arrived at whatever device you're using to play the movie, Netflix then helpfully strips the DRM and decodes the stream to whatever output you want. I can play movies from Netflix on my computer or on my Wii and either will happily use a large variety of unprotected outputs (VGA, S-Video, etc.)

<comment><USER3> Part of the point was they wouldn't even let her add a credit that had a non- DRM url. So it sounds like she didn't want to perpetuate the myth that DRM is the whole world and the only legitimate distribution venue.

<comment><USER4> It seems like a strange application of Netflix's "no bumpers" policy. Unless this was only regarding a pre-roll card—perhaps both parties could still come to an agreement if Nina were to add this disclaimer to the credit roll instead?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I never buy video with DRM, but I love Netflix's streaming service. I think the DRM backlash is getting so rabid that people are blinded to an actual, legitimate use for it, which I think in Netflix's case it is.</comment>