Here is the news....

[Kalahari Diver]

I think you are probably right. I hope you are right. If we are wrong the possibility of harm will eclipse anything that any of the so-called "socialists" have ever done (unless you want to include the Russian dictator Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin)

And possibly that other Socialist Chairman Mao?

David.

[notdeadyet]

And possibly that other Socialist Chairman Mao?

David.

But they were not real socialists.

It's a simple rule:

Success = real socialist; failure = fake socialist.

Fake socialists: Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Castro, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Boris Yeltsin, Nasser, Guevara, Hoxha, Jaruzelski, Gadaffi... Or maybe we could just list failed socialist states: Venezuela, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Laos, Cambodia, USSR, DDR, Hungary (twice, don't they learn?), Poland, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Benin, Congo, Ethiopia, Yemen, North Korea, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia...

Real socialists: zero.

I think it would be unfair to make any sort of judgement call on that, it really is too narrow a margin and socialism hasn't been given a fair try. Sure, the fake socialists have millions of deaths directly attributed to them, untold millions more indirectly from the economic damage done to their countries and, quite often, entire geographic regions but you've got to remember that for all his faults, Castro never called a millionaire celebrity "fat" on Twitter. When that's the alternative, I'm sure we can all agree that socialism is worth the risk.

Since we gave up on stupid ideas like state imposed socialism, world poverty has declined massively in the last 30 years, 50% if you believe the US figures (more if you believe the World Bank). The Chavez/Castro style of socialism was a failure, arguably a crime against humanity. Anyone eulogising these animals is a fool. I put Corbyn and Trudeau in the "fool" category quite firmly.

[Jay_Benson]

The fact remains that unless Trump starts a major conflict he will have done nothing even remotely close to what Castro or Chavez did. The worst thing he has done so far is to make an unfunny pussy joke and call Haiti a shithole. When he kills his first ten thousand people I'll maybe start seeing him as a monster. At the minute he's just a bit of a dick.

It would not be an unreasonable argument that the number if deaths caused by Trump should Include the deaths caused by the repeal of the AFA and deaths associated with the resurgence of the white supremacist movement that has happened since he was elected.

[notdeadyet]

It would not be an unreasonable argument that the number if deaths caused by Trump should Include the deaths caused by the repeal of the AFA and deaths associated with the resurgence of the white supremacist movement that has happened since he was elected.

It would be unreasonable because ACA hasn't been repealed. He also cannot repeal the act without congress and the senate passing it. Attributing white supremacist murderers to Trump would be like attributing black killers to Clinton. It's a ridiculous argument to make. Was David Cameron responsible for the death of Jo Cox, then?

Do you have any idea of the numbers of people executed under the Castro regime?

This is the stupidest comparison I've read so far.

[Chrisch]

But they were not real socialists.

Or possibly not socialist at all?

It's a simple rule:

Success = real socialist; failure = fake socialist.

Or more accurately if it fails call it socialist in order to give a definition to the word that is not in accordance with the accepted one?


Sadly the failure of many dictators and dictatorial regimes who have hidden behind this simple word in order to con the hapless populations are (as you list) many. The problem with the dishonesty (or lack of basic English - whichever you prefer) is that the inference that all ideas left of Thatcher are thus tainted with failure. This allows the preposterous lie that removing regulation will somehow benefit both the ordinary citizens and the wider economy. Thatcher at least knew this was a lie and introduced massive rafts of new regulation. Those that follow are less interested in the fate of the minions. Regulations like the London Building Act (repealed by Eric Pickles) would have made illegal the cladding on Grenfell Tower. So once again I make a simple request as to what is the problem with regulation by the state on behalf of society? I care nothing what you call this - the word "socialism" is so toxic, so misapplied, so "wrong" I think it wise to avoid it altogether.

Also Stuart you missed off your list Germany and Hitler (a National Socialist) Whilst this repugnant and frankly evil regime did actually kill those members of it's population that one might refer to as left-wing (or socialists in the parlance of the day) it did - at least - fail to nationalise the many private enterprises that made substantial profits supplying chemicals to gas Jews, bombs to kill children and destroy vast swathes of Europe and the wider world. So undoubtedly not - as you rightly point out - proper socialists.

[Chrisch]

...Do you have any idea of the numbers of people executed under the Castro regime?

Certainly in the high hundreds, but the main argument seems to be the US backed idea that many of these were "unjust". (Possibly true to some extent.)

The Wiki on him certainly does not list much in the way of atrocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

A very complex and multi-faceted situation with Cuba really little but a pawn in the cold war between the USSR and the USA. Not a man of any greatness or worthy of eulogy but hardly a mass murderer on the scale of Pinochet for example.

[steelemonkey]

Could someone please PM me when this thread goes back to news items rather than one long political discussion on one subject. Ta.

[Chrisch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-42701811

Some interesting news for you. I have no doubt the same twats that wanted the shark as pot bait are looking at this opportunity.......

[notdeadyet]

Certainly in the high hundreds, but the main argument seems to be the US backed idea that many of these were "unjust". (Possibly true to some extent.)

The Wiki on him certainly does not list much in the way of atrocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

A very complex and multi-faceted situation with Cuba really little but a pawn in the cold war between the USSR and the USA. Not a man of any greatness or worthy of eulogy but hardly a mass murderer on the scale of Pinochet for example.

Again, seriously? The Castro regime executed 5000 straight off the bat after the revolution. They even harvested their blood for sale abroad (very socialist). The Cuba Archive has 7000 documented deaths and are considered to be conservative in their assessment. Academic historians put the estimated figure anywhere upwards of 75,000.

Summary execution without trial was standard. Death penalty was abolished except in acts of terrorism. Suddenly trying to escape got deemed terrorism. Estimates suggest more people died trying to escape Cuba than East Germany. Castro's regime detained without trial tens of thousands. Torture is a standard practice. "Subversives" like homosexuals, artists and journalists were/are regularly imprisoned without charge for extended periods of time.

High hundreds? Bit of a difference. Never took you for a Castro apologist. Got a holiday booked there?

[Chrisch]

Again, seriously? The Castro regime executed 5000 straight off the bat after the revolution. ...

Where are these numbers coming from? You might be right or wrong, I never have had any interest in the matter if I am honest. Wiki gives other numbers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

"Various estimates have been made in order to ascertain the number of political executions carried out on behalf of the Cuban government since the revolution. Within the first two months of the 1959, Castro's government performed more than 300 executions of Batista officials"

300 is not 5,000.


Just for the record I am totally against the death penalty under any circumstances - end of. I wouldn't and don't defend anyone anywhere that uses it or advocates it.

[notdeadyet]

Where are these numbers coming from? You might be right or wrong, I never have had any interest in the matter if I am honest. Wiki gives other numbers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

"Various estimates have been made in order to ascertain the number of political executions carried out on behalf of the Cuban government since the revolution. Within the first two months of the 1959, Castro's government performed more than 300 executions of Batista officials"

300 is not 5,000.


Just for the record I am totally against the death penalty under any circumstances - end of. I wouldn't and don't defend anyone anywhere that uses it or advocates it.

IACHR reported on the harvesting of blood prior to execution.

Cuba Archive is an independent Cuban research and archive organisation which only includes verifiable deaths. They put the known figure at 7000.

If I remember right, the US government puts it around 16,000.

Historian Rudolph Rummell put the figure at 75,000 upwards based on his own research.

The best agreement seems to be "tens of thousands".

None of that includes anyone from Mozambique or Angola where Cuban forces were involved in horrendous wars. Nor any of the victims of Cuban funded and equipped terrorists.

So, yeah, Corbyn and Trudeau eulogising Castro's death is something I find totally abhorrent.

[Chrisch]

IACHR reported on the harvesting of blood prior to execution.

Cuba Archive is an independent Cuban research and archive organisation which only includes verifiable deaths. They put the known figure at 7000.

If I remember right, the US government puts it around 16,000.

Historian Rudolph Rummell put the figure at 75,000 upwards based on his own research.

Hardly unbiased sources though I feel. We can only speculate as to the true figure in the absence of any more data. Wiki generally flags up any disputes and it does not on this matter.

So, yeah, Corbyn and Trudeau eulogising Castro's death is something I find totally abhorrent.

I am forced to agree, whatever the true extent of Castro's wrongdoing he was certainly a person of some controversy and undisputed tendency to use violence to settle the argument. Without doubt the criticism needs to be balanced with an equal measure of culpability laid at the door of the US in it's dealings with this tiny island. Probably stemming from the missile crisis rather than any real objection to Castro and his covert activities which I am sure have been matched by those of the US itself over the years. I tend (rightly or wrongly) to see the issue as yesterday's problem and part of the stupidity (on both sides) that was the cold war.

Corbyn is - of course - a dinosaur locked into 1970s thinking. This is why he supports Brexit (reason enough to boot his arse out of office). I am very disappointed that all the advances I have seen over my adult life are now being washed away in a sea of nationalistic and bigoted bollocks the world over. I really thought we had left all this shit behind us. The fact that my country is a major part in the growth of European intolerance is deeply saddening. I honestly fear for the future. That is a very new emotion for me.

[Ian_6301]

Certainly in the high hundreds, but the main argument seems to be the US backed idea that many of these were "unjust". (Possibly true to some extent.)

The Wiki on him certainly does not list much in the way of atrocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

A very complex and multi-faceted situation with Cuba really little but a pawn in the cold war between the USSR and the USA. Not a man of any greatness or worthy of eulogy but hardly a mass murderer on the scale of Pinochet for example.

Whereas the USA has executed 1465 since 1976 (51 yrs). At one point, the annual numbers were in the high 50s per annum, but now seem to have followed a steady decline to the 20s. 2017 saw 23 executions by the US state.

The UK executed 632 people between 1900 and 1949 (a comparable period), plus 27 spies or enemy combatants during 2x world wars. Per head of population, that is a LOT higher than the US total, even allowing for the political differences of the time periods...

And we're quibbling over 300 following a revolution?

Hardly Pol Pot, is it?

[jamesp]

Whereas the USA has executed 1465 since 1976 (51 yrs). At one point, the annual numbers were in the high 50s per annum, but now seem to have followed a steady decline to the 20s. 2017 saw 23 executions by the US state.

The UK executed 632 people between 1900 and 1949 (a comparable period), plus 27 spies or enemy combatants during 2x world wars. Per head of population, that is a LOT higher than the US total, even allowing for the political differences of the time periods...

And we're quibbling over 300 following a revolution?

Hardly Pol Pot, is it?

http://www.deathpenaltyusa.org/usa1/indexother1.html

A quick glance at the above, and the period 1900-1949 has about 6500 executions in the USA.

[Jay_Benson]

It would be unreasonable because ACA hasn't been repealed. He also cannot repeal the act without congress and the senate passing it. Attributing white supremacist murderers to Trump would be like attributing black killers to Clinton. It's a ridiculous argument to make. Was David Cameron responsible for the death of Jo Cox, then?

Do you have any idea of the numbers of people executed under the Castro regime?

This is the stupidest comparison I've read so far.

So you are confident that the changes in the ACA won't cause people to lose access to health care then? There are changes going through now - I suspect that at least some of the changes will be implemented before the end of the year - it is highly likely that there will be an increase in mortality in those groups affected.

The re-emergence of the white supremacist movement has been clear since Trump came onto the political scene - the content and delivery manner of his speeches have emboldened the white supremacists such that when they marched recently one of their number drove a car at a counter march, killing one person. Do I hold Trump responsible? Not directly, would it have happened if he wasn't there? I honestly don't know in that individual case but, in much the same way that there was a marked increase in racially motivated crimes in the UK after the EU referendum, I would not be at all surprised to see an increase in racially motivated crimes in the US since he started to try to get elected.