Do Cubans actually want capitalism?

I spent my formative years living under a socialist regime driven by communist ideology.
Honestly, screw socialism with that communist ideological backbone. If you let yourself get too swept up in the rhetoric, you can end up completely stuck—not to mention the fact that the economic structure itself is an absolute disaster.

Now, I’m living abroad, in what everyone calls one of the best capitalist systems in the world.
Well, let me tell you about this "best" capitalism—it’s nothing more than a grind. It’s a soulless machine where you're essentially forced to slave away for the dollar, simply because the entire system is rigged to push you in that direction. You just keep running until you drop dead.

The truth is, there isn't such a thing as a "good" system; there are only bad ones and slightly less bad ones.
The communists got carried away with their delusions and eventually stumbled into total absurdity. On the flip side, the democratic aspect of capitalism is mostly a hollow narrative—you might feel like you have some agency, but everyone knows exactly who holds the power and who has the right to rule.

Regarding Cuba, sure, they are struggling with poverty, but the surrounding capitalist nations are actually three times worse off.
And of course, capitalism is inevitable for the Cubans; they’ll surrender to it with smiles on their faces, eager to escape the endless, corrupt dictatorships of Fidel Castro.
But they haven't quite realized yet that their reality won't suddenly transform into the capitalism of Zap, Europe, or Canada—instead, they're likely to face the kind of capitalism seen in Colombia or Paraguay.
Unfortunately, it will probably just end up being another private windfall for wealthy Americans.

If you find yourself craving a more extensive debate regarding American interventionism, perhaps you might consider opening a dedicated thread for such matters. One could argue that the conflict in Vietnam was essentially a component of a broader containment strategy aimed at the communist bloc; viewed through that specific lens, one might suggest it was a perfectly legitimate intervention intended to counter the corrosive influence exerted by the Soviet Union and China. Similarly, the situation in Chile—which I would contend did not constitute a military intervention in the traditional sense—was also part of a strategic effort to prevent that same ideology from spreading across South America. It is certainly a subject worthy of deeper discussion, if you are so inclined. Regarding the whole situation involving Cuba, I suppose we can finally consider the matter settled—that she was indeed a genuine threat to the USA.

I find myself wondering when we will finally put this whole chapter regarding Cuba and Chile to rest. If my memory serves me correctly, there wasn't exactly a direct military intervention in Chile; rather, I believe it was more about protecting the interests of ITT and those copper mines. As for how that coup actually went down, I suspect it was orchestrated by the CIA.
I believe someone mentioned that the NSA might have released some information, though I suppose it’s hard to be entirely certain without seeing the official documentation. Perhaps it was just a rumor circulating the forums, but if what they said is true, it could be quite significant. I suppose I should probably begin this discussion now, though I suspect my timing might be somewhat questionable given how much has already transpired. Perhaps it would be more prudent to wait, but I feel a certain compulsion to get these thoughts down on paper—or rather, onto the screen—while they are still relatively coherent. It seems to me that we have reached a point where silence is no longer the most dignified option, even if my observations are perhaps a bit too granular for some tastes. I guess what I am trying to say is that the moment has arrived.I suppose if the Cubans had actually started assembling those missiles before the intervention in the Gulf of Pigs—which, you know, they waited forty-five years to finally admit—it might have served as a somewhat convenient justification for that whole failed operation. Maybe, if they had just come clean about it back then, it would have provided a much more palatable excuse for why things went so sideways.

The national average sits at roughly $13,000, though that figure is somewhat misleading when you consider the regional disparities. In Washington, D.C., for instance, you’re looking at closer to $20,000, whereas most other parts of the country tend to fall well below that mark. I suppose this variation is largely driven by how highly productive, capital-intensive service industries tend to cluster heavily within major metropolitan hubs.

I would ask that you provide me with an official data point, if possible—something sourced from an actual record rather than just the usual chatter you find floating around the public media outlets.

analoggull52 said:Take a look at the post
I find myself somewhat at a loss when attempting to follow the discourse on this forum; I truly cannot grasp why everyone seems so intent on viewing every single issue through such a starkly binary lens. It is all so incredibly black and white, isn't it? Now, please understand, I have absolutely no affinity for communists—not by a long shot—but I suppose one must acknowledge that a thing either is what it is, or it simply isn't. To me, that seems to be the crux of the matter, whether we are discussing objective reality or merely the whims of subjective perception. Or perhaps, if I may venture a guess, is it possible that this entire fixation is driven by something else entirely? Maybe it is all just a question of vested interests, or some sort of underlying material motivation that we are all overlooking.

I suppose I might be a bit out of my depth here, but one has to wonder what exactly you think you know about the delicate interplay between corporate profit margins and worker benefits, or how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws. It’s all quite complex, isn't it? Perhaps I am overstating the matter, but there is a certain nuance to how these forces balance against one another that seems to escape most casual observations.

I fail to see how your response bears any meaningful connection to my original assertion—which was that everything being discussed here is being viewed through such an incredibly narrow, black-and-white lens.
I suppose it’s a bit of a circular predicament, isn't it? You don't quite grasp the depth of what I know, and yet, if I'm being perfectly honest, I can't say for certain that I truly understand the full extent of what you know either.Even if we are all operating under the veil of anonymity here, I suppose that doesn't necessarily grant anyone the license to resort to personal insults, though it might feel like that's becoming the norm. I suppose that is more or less the tone one might expect from your response, wouldn't you agree? It seems to me that such a manner of speaking is quite characteristic of the way you have chosen to present your position.

I suppose one might be inclined to think that the rest of the world was simply living in a state of perpetual abundance—a veritable land of milk and honey—during that era, but I find myself wondering if that isn't a rather naive assumption to make.
Whether there was any genuine public support behind him is a question we may never truly be able to answer, I suppose, primarily because he never actually ascended to power through the mechanisms of a democratic election. To put it plainly, one might say he was, quite simply, a dictator.

I suppose I have to agree with you that the man was indeed a dictator, though one might argue he managed to cultivate that critical mass necessary to trigger a revolution simply because the people were living in such dire conditions. It’s a complicated thing, really. On the other hand, one could also contend that they made some rather significant mistakes in how they handled the situation.

I suppose it was always just a matter of big American corporations fearing that if the US drifted too far left, they’d end up hemorrhaging profits to fund better benefits for the working class.

In the three years following the start of the revolution, roughly 250,000 Cubans fled the island, eventually settling in nearby Florida where they formed the backbone of the opposition against the new regime in Havana.
Whether you believe it or not, those same Cubans were likely involved in various affairs and certainly lobbied within the USA to push for specific measures against that government.

It stands to reason, I guess, that once people flee to a place like that, they’re going to advocate for the downfall of the regime they escaped just so they might actually have a chance to go home.

Kenneth Jackson30 said:A buddy of mine spent some time over in Cuba, and he swears he’s never seen anything quite like it—just this incredibly genuine warmth from people and a pace of life that's hard to find anywhere else. Despite the lack of money, there’s no frantic rushing or constant stress; he said it was exactly what he needed to recharge his batteries. On the flip side, I have another friend who’s been living in New York City for nine years now, and when he came to visit this past summer, he told me straight up: "Trust me, man, you guys have it better here." He said life in the States is just one non-stop grind—everyone is constantly in a hurry, always working, never truly relaxing. It sounds strange to hear two such polar opposite takes, but I figured I’d share them as an example of how differently people experience the world.🤷

So, I went to Cuba, along with a few buddies of mine. I can tell you right now, we all agreed on one thing—which is pretty rare for us, honestly. That whole vibe of seeing those grand, old buildings clashing with nothing but absolute poverty? It’s actually kind of charming for the first couple of days. Maybe five days, tops. But after that, once any sane person starts really getting to know Cuba, the whole thing just starts to gross you out. It honestly drags you into this heavy depression. Anyone telling you they left feeling "recharged" is either lying through their teeth or they never stepped foot outside the Hotel or the beach next to it. After five days, Cuba just starts to feel revolting. You look around at the misery and the crushing poverty everywhere you turn, and it's just... a lot.👎 It’s all that old man’s fault. Honestly. Cuba could have been just like Florida, and Havana could've turned into a total Miami, no doubt about it. But hey, maybe it’s never too late. Better days are coming for Cubans, I guess. A critical mass is building up... slowly, but it's happening.👍 .

analoggull52 said:

If you find yourself craving a more extensive debate regarding American interventionism, perhaps you might consider opening a dedicated thread for such matters. One could argue that the conflict in Vietnam was essentially a component of a broader containment strategy aimed at the communist bloc; viewed through that specific lens, one might suggest it was a perfectly legitimate intervention intended to counter the corrosive influence exerted by the Soviet Union and China. Similarly, the situation in Chile—which I would contend did not constitute a military intervention in the traditional sense—was also part of a strategic effort to prevent that same ideology from spreading across South America. It is certainly a subject worthy of deeper discussion, if you are so inclined. Regarding the whole situation involving Cuba, I suppose we can finally consider the matter settled—that she was indeed a genuine threat to the USA.

I find myself wondering when we will finally put this whole chapter regarding Cuba and Chile to rest. If my memory serves me correctly, there wasn't exactly a direct military intervention in Chile; rather, I believe it was more about protecting the interests of ITT and those copper mines. As for how that coup actually went down, I suspect it was orchestrated by the CIA.
I believe someone mentioned that the NSA might have released some information, though I suppose it’s hard to be entirely certain without seeing the official documentation. Perhaps it was just a rumor circulating the forums, but if what they said is true, it could be quite significant. I suppose I should probably begin this discussion now, though I suspect my timing might be somewhat questionable given how much has already transpired. Perhaps it would be more prudent to wait, but I feel a certain compulsion to get these thoughts down on paper—or rather, onto the screen—while they are still relatively coherent. It seems to me that we have reached a point where silence is no longer the most dignified option, even if my observations are perhaps a bit too granular for some tastes. I guess what I am trying to say is that the moment has arrived.I suppose if the Cubans had actually started assembling those missiles before the intervention in the Gulf of Pigs—which, you know, they waited forty-five years to finally admit—it might have served as a somewhat convenient justification for that whole failed operation. Maybe, if they had just come clean about it back then, it would have provided a much more palatable excuse for why things went so sideways.

The national average sits at roughly $13,000, though that figure is somewhat misleading when you consider the regional disparities. In Washington, D.C., for instance, you’re looking at closer to $20,000, whereas most other parts of the country tend to fall well below that mark. I suppose this variation is largely driven by how highly productive, capital-intensive service industries tend to cluster heavily within major metropolitan hubs.

I would ask that you provide me with an official data point, if possible—something sourced from an actual record rather than just the usual chatter you find floating around the public media outlets.

I suppose I might be a bit out of my depth here, but one has to wonder what exactly you think you know about the delicate interplay between corporate profit margins and worker benefits, or how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws. It’s all quite complex, isn't it? Perhaps I am overstating the matter, but there is a certain nuance to how these forces balance against one another that seems to escape most casual observations.

I fail to see how your response bears any meaningful connection to my original assertion—which was that everything being discussed here is being viewed through such an incredibly narrow, black-and-white lens.
I suppose it’s a bit of a circular predicament, isn't it? You don't quite grasp the depth of what I know, and yet, if I'm being perfectly honest, I can't say for certain that I truly understand the full extent of what you know either.Even if we are all operating under the veil of anonymity here, I suppose that doesn't necessarily grant anyone the license to resort to personal insults, though it might feel like that's becoming the norm. I suppose that is more or less the tone one might expect from your response, wouldn't you agree? It seems to me that such a manner of speaking is quite characteristic of the way you have chosen to present your position.

I suppose one might be inclined to think that the rest of the world was simply living in a state of perpetual abundance—a veritable land of milk and honey—during that era, but I find myself wondering if that isn't a rather naive assumption to make.
Whether there was any genuine public support behind him is a question we may never truly be able to answer, I suppose, primarily because he never actually ascended to power through the mechanisms of a democratic election. To put it plainly, one might say he was, quite simply, a dictator.

I suppose I have to agree with you that the man was indeed a dictator, though one might argue he managed to cultivate that critical mass necessary to trigger a revolution simply because the people were living in such dire conditions. It’s a complicated thing, really. On the other hand, one could also contend that they made some rather significant mistakes in how they handled the situation.

I suppose it was always just a matter of big American corporations fearing that if the US drifted too far left, they’d end up hemorrhaging profits to fund better benefits for the working class.

In the three years following the start of the revolution, roughly 250,000 Cubans fled the island, eventually settling in nearby Florida where they formed the backbone of the opposition against the new regime in Havana.
Whether you believe it or not, those same Cubans were likely involved in various affairs and certainly lobbied within the USA to push for specific measures against that government.

It stands to reason, I guess, that once people flee to a place like that, they’re going to advocate for the downfall of the regime they escaped just so they might actually have a chance to go home.

The CIA didn't exactly pull the strings on the whole thing, they just... helped facilitate the push, as part of a broader program to contain the spread of communism. Honestly, it seems like there were enough local players interested in making a move, especially since Salvador Allende's unconstitutional actions basically put a target on his back.

analoggull52 said:

If you find yourself craving a more extensive debate regarding American interventionism, perhaps you might consider opening a dedicated thread for such matters. One could argue that the conflict in Vietnam was essentially a component of a broader containment strategy aimed at the communist bloc; viewed through that specific lens, one might suggest it was a perfectly legitimate intervention intended to counter the corrosive influence exerted by the Soviet Union and China. Similarly, the situation in Chile—which I would contend did not constitute a military intervention in the traditional sense—was also part of a strategic effort to prevent that same ideology from spreading across South America. It is certainly a subject worthy of deeper discussion, if you are so inclined. Regarding the whole situation involving Cuba, I suppose we can finally consider the matter settled—that she was indeed a genuine threat to the USA.

I find myself wondering when we will finally put this whole chapter regarding Cuba and Chile to rest. If my memory serves me correctly, there wasn't exactly a direct military intervention in Chile; rather, I believe it was more about protecting the interests of ITT and those copper mines. As for how that coup actually went down, I suspect it was orchestrated by the CIA.
I believe someone mentioned that the NSA might have released some information, though I suppose it’s hard to be entirely certain without seeing the official documentation. Perhaps it was just a rumor circulating the forums, but if what they said is true, it could be quite significant. I suppose I should probably begin this discussion now, though I suspect my timing might be somewhat questionable given how much has already transpired. Perhaps it would be more prudent to wait, but I feel a certain compulsion to get these thoughts down on paper—or rather, onto the screen—while they are still relatively coherent. It seems to me that we have reached a point where silence is no longer the most dignified option, even if my observations are perhaps a bit too granular for some tastes. I guess what I am trying to say is that the moment has arrived.I suppose if the Cubans had actually started assembling those missiles before the intervention in the Gulf of Pigs—which, you know, they waited forty-five years to finally admit—it might have served as a somewhat convenient justification for that whole failed operation. Maybe, if they had just come clean about it back then, it would have provided a much more palatable excuse for why things went so sideways.

The national average sits at roughly $13,000, though that figure is somewhat misleading when you consider the regional disparities. In Washington, D.C., for instance, you’re looking at closer to $20,000, whereas most other parts of the country tend to fall well below that mark. I suppose this variation is largely driven by how highly productive, capital-intensive service industries tend to cluster heavily within major metropolitan hubs.

I would ask that you provide me with an official data point, if possible—something sourced from an actual record rather than just the usual chatter you find floating around the public media outlets.

I suppose I might be a bit out of my depth here, but one has to wonder what exactly you think you know about the delicate interplay between corporate profit margins and worker benefits, or how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws. It’s all quite complex, isn't it? Perhaps I am overstating the matter, but there is a certain nuance to how these forces balance against one another that seems to escape most casual observations.

I fail to see how your response bears any meaningful connection to my original assertion—which was that everything being discussed here is being viewed through such an incredibly narrow, black-and-white lens.
I suppose it’s a bit of a circular predicament, isn't it? You don't quite grasp the depth of what I know, and yet, if I'm being perfectly honest, I can't say for certain that I truly understand the full extent of what you know either.Even if we are all operating under the veil of anonymity here, I suppose that doesn't necessarily grant anyone the license to resort to personal insults, though it might feel like that's becoming the norm. I suppose that is more or less the tone one might expect from your response, wouldn't you agree? It seems to me that such a manner of speaking is quite characteristic of the way you have chosen to present your position.

I suppose one might be inclined to think that the rest of the world was simply living in a state of perpetual abundance—a veritable land of milk and honey—during that era, but I find myself wondering if that isn't a rather naive assumption to make.
Whether there was any genuine public support behind him is a question we may never truly be able to answer, I suppose, primarily because he never actually ascended to power through the mechanisms of a democratic election. To put it plainly, one might say he was, quite simply, a dictator.

I suppose I have to agree with you that the man was indeed a dictator, though one might argue he managed to cultivate that critical mass necessary to trigger a revolution simply because the people were living in such dire conditions. It’s a complicated thing, really. On the other hand, one could also contend that they made some rather significant mistakes in how they handled the situation.

I suppose it was always just a matter of big American corporations fearing that if the US drifted too far left, they’d end up hemorrhaging profits to fund better benefits for the working class.

In the three years following the start of the revolution, roughly 250,000 Cubans fled the island, eventually settling in nearby Florida where they formed the backbone of the opposition against the new regime in Havana.
Whether you believe it or not, those same Cubans were likely involved in various affairs and certainly lobbied within the USA to push for specific measures against that government.

It stands to reason, I guess, that once people flee to a place like that, they’re going to advocate for the downfall of the regime they escaped just so they might actually have a chance to go home.

Well, that’s just how things work with classified documents in a rule-of-law nation. A document stays locked away until its expiration date, depending on how high the secrecy level is. But, I suppose I can see why that concept feels foreign to you; after all, you come from a place where even the President tosses around classified files just to score some political points.

analoggull52 said:

If you find yourself craving a more extensive debate regarding American interventionism, perhaps you might consider opening a dedicated thread for such matters. One could argue that the conflict in Vietnam was essentially a component of a broader containment strategy aimed at the communist bloc; viewed through that specific lens, one might suggest it was a perfectly legitimate intervention intended to counter the corrosive influence exerted by the Soviet Union and China. Similarly, the situation in Chile—which I would contend did not constitute a military intervention in the traditional sense—was also part of a strategic effort to prevent that same ideology from spreading across South America. It is certainly a subject worthy of deeper discussion, if you are so inclined. Regarding the whole situation involving Cuba, I suppose we can finally consider the matter settled—that she was indeed a genuine threat to the USA.

I find myself wondering when we will finally put this whole chapter regarding Cuba and Chile to rest. If my memory serves me correctly, there wasn't exactly a direct military intervention in Chile; rather, I believe it was more about protecting the interests of ITT and those copper mines. As for how that coup actually went down, I suspect it was orchestrated by the CIA.
I believe someone mentioned that the NSA might have released some information, though I suppose it’s hard to be entirely certain without seeing the official documentation. Perhaps it was just a rumor circulating the forums, but if what they said is true, it could be quite significant. I suppose I should probably begin this discussion now, though I suspect my timing might be somewhat questionable given how much has already transpired. Perhaps it would be more prudent to wait, but I feel a certain compulsion to get these thoughts down on paper—or rather, onto the screen—while they are still relatively coherent. It seems to me that we have reached a point where silence is no longer the most dignified option, even if my observations are perhaps a bit too granular for some tastes. I guess what I am trying to say is that the moment has arrived.I suppose if the Cubans had actually started assembling those missiles before the intervention in the Gulf of Pigs—which, you know, they waited forty-five years to finally admit—it might have served as a somewhat convenient justification for that whole failed operation. Maybe, if they had just come clean about it back then, it would have provided a much more palatable excuse for why things went so sideways.

The national average sits at roughly $13,000, though that figure is somewhat misleading when you consider the regional disparities. In Washington, D.C., for instance, you’re looking at closer to $20,000, whereas most other parts of the country tend to fall well below that mark. I suppose this variation is largely driven by how highly productive, capital-intensive service industries tend to cluster heavily within major metropolitan hubs.

I would ask that you provide me with an official data point, if possible—something sourced from an actual record rather than just the usual chatter you find floating around the public media outlets.

I suppose I might be a bit out of my depth here, but one has to wonder what exactly you think you know about the delicate interplay between corporate profit margins and worker benefits, or how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws. It’s all quite complex, isn't it? Perhaps I am overstating the matter, but there is a certain nuance to how these forces balance against one another that seems to escape most casual observations.

I fail to see how your response bears any meaningful connection to my original assertion—which was that everything being discussed here is being viewed through such an incredibly narrow, black-and-white lens.
I suppose it’s a bit of a circular predicament, isn't it? You don't quite grasp the depth of what I know, and yet, if I'm being perfectly honest, I can't say for certain that I truly understand the full extent of what you know either.Even if we are all operating under the veil of anonymity here, I suppose that doesn't necessarily grant anyone the license to resort to personal insults, though it might feel like that's becoming the norm. I suppose that is more or less the tone one might expect from your response, wouldn't you agree? It seems to me that such a manner of speaking is quite characteristic of the way you have chosen to present your position.

I suppose one might be inclined to think that the rest of the world was simply living in a state of perpetual abundance—a veritable land of milk and honey—during that era, but I find myself wondering if that isn't a rather naive assumption to make.
Whether there was any genuine public support behind him is a question we may never truly be able to answer, I suppose, primarily because he never actually ascended to power through the mechanisms of a democratic election. To put it plainly, one might say he was, quite simply, a dictator.

I suppose I have to agree with you that the man was indeed a dictator, though one might argue he managed to cultivate that critical mass necessary to trigger a revolution simply because the people were living in such dire conditions. It’s a complicated thing, really. On the other hand, one could also contend that they made some rather significant mistakes in how they handled the situation.

I suppose it was always just a matter of big American corporations fearing that if the US drifted too far left, they’d end up hemorrhaging profits to fund better benefits for the working class.

In the three years following the start of the revolution, roughly 250,000 Cubans fled the island, eventually settling in nearby Florida where they formed the backbone of the opposition against the new regime in Havana.
Whether you believe it or not, those same Cubans were likely involved in various affairs and certainly lobbied within the USA to push for specific measures against that government.

It stands to reason, I guess, that once people flee to a place like that, they’re going to advocate for the downfall of the regime they escaped just so they might actually have a chance to go home.

That *is* an official data point reported through the media. 😁

analoggull52 said:

If you find yourself craving a more extensive debate regarding American interventionism, perhaps you might consider opening a dedicated thread for such matters. One could argue that the conflict in Vietnam was essentially a component of a broader containment strategy aimed at the communist bloc; viewed through that specific lens, one might suggest it was a perfectly legitimate intervention intended to counter the corrosive influence exerted by the Soviet Union and China. Similarly, the situation in Chile—which I would contend did not constitute a military intervention in the traditional sense—was also part of a strategic effort to prevent that same ideology from spreading across South America. It is certainly a subject worthy of deeper discussion, if you are so inclined. Regarding the whole situation involving Cuba, I suppose we can finally consider the matter settled—that she was indeed a genuine threat to the USA.

I find myself wondering when we will finally put this whole chapter regarding Cuba and Chile to rest. If my memory serves me correctly, there wasn't exactly a direct military intervention in Chile; rather, I believe it was more about protecting the interests of ITT and those copper mines. As for how that coup actually went down, I suspect it was orchestrated by the CIA.
I believe someone mentioned that the NSA might have released some information, though I suppose it’s hard to be entirely certain without seeing the official documentation. Perhaps it was just a rumor circulating the forums, but if what they said is true, it could be quite significant. I suppose I should probably begin this discussion now, though I suspect my timing might be somewhat questionable given how much has already transpired. Perhaps it would be more prudent to wait, but I feel a certain compulsion to get these thoughts down on paper—or rather, onto the screen—while they are still relatively coherent. It seems to me that we have reached a point where silence is no longer the most dignified option, even if my observations are perhaps a bit too granular for some tastes. I guess what I am trying to say is that the moment has arrived.I suppose if the Cubans had actually started assembling those missiles before the intervention in the Gulf of Pigs—which, you know, they waited forty-five years to finally admit—it might have served as a somewhat convenient justification for that whole failed operation. Maybe, if they had just come clean about it back then, it would have provided a much more palatable excuse for why things went so sideways.

The national average sits at roughly $13,000, though that figure is somewhat misleading when you consider the regional disparities. In Washington, D.C., for instance, you’re looking at closer to $20,000, whereas most other parts of the country tend to fall well below that mark. I suppose this variation is largely driven by how highly productive, capital-intensive service industries tend to cluster heavily within major metropolitan hubs.

I would ask that you provide me with an official data point, if possible—something sourced from an actual record rather than just the usual chatter you find floating around the public media outlets.

I suppose I might be a bit out of my depth here, but one has to wonder what exactly you think you know about the delicate interplay between corporate profit margins and worker benefits, or how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws. It’s all quite complex, isn't it? Perhaps I am overstating the matter, but there is a certain nuance to how these forces balance against one another that seems to escape most casual observations.

I fail to see how your response bears any meaningful connection to my original assertion—which was that everything being discussed here is being viewed through such an incredibly narrow, black-and-white lens.
I suppose it’s a bit of a circular predicament, isn't it? You don't quite grasp the depth of what I know, and yet, if I'm being perfectly honest, I can't say for certain that I truly understand the full extent of what you know either.Even if we are all operating under the veil of anonymity here, I suppose that doesn't necessarily grant anyone the license to resort to personal insults, though it might feel like that's becoming the norm. I suppose that is more or less the tone one might expect from your response, wouldn't you agree? It seems to me that such a manner of speaking is quite characteristic of the way you have chosen to present your position.

I suppose one might be inclined to think that the rest of the world was simply living in a state of perpetual abundance—a veritable land of milk and honey—during that era, but I find myself wondering if that isn't a rather naive assumption to make.
Whether there was any genuine public support behind him is a question we may never truly be able to answer, I suppose, primarily because he never actually ascended to power through the mechanisms of a democratic election. To put it plainly, one might say he was, quite simply, a dictator.

I suppose I have to agree with you that the man was indeed a dictator, though one might argue he managed to cultivate that critical mass necessary to trigger a revolution simply because the people were living in such dire conditions. It’s a complicated thing, really. On the other hand, one could also contend that they made some rather significant mistakes in how they handled the situation.

I suppose it was always just a matter of big American corporations fearing that if the US drifted too far left, they’d end up hemorrhaging profits to fund better benefits for the working class.

In the three years following the start of the revolution, roughly 250,000 Cubans fled the island, eventually settling in nearby Florida where they formed the backbone of the opposition against the new regime in Havana.
Whether you believe it or not, those same Cubans were likely involved in various affairs and certainly lobbied within the USA to push for specific measures against that government.

It stands to reason, I guess, that once people flee to a place like that, they’re going to advocate for the downfall of the regime they escaped just so they might actually have a chance to go home.

If you actually understood these correlations, I guess you wouldn't be feeling so insulted.

I suspect that characterizing the CIA as the primary architects behind the coup might be a bit of an overstatement; perhaps it would be more accurate to say they provided support within the broader framework of a program designed to halt the spread of communism. In my view, the actual organization of the movement was largely driven by local interests who felt sufficiently provoked by Lyndon B. Johnson’s unconstitutional maneuvers.

It is essentially all the same thing, I suppose. What truly matters is whether they were actually performing the work, whether one looks at it through a narrow lens or adopts a much broader perspective.

That is simply how classified documentation functions within a constitutional republic. A document remains under lock and key until its expiration date, governed strictly by its specific level of sensitivity. But, I suppose I can see why that concept might feel somewhat foreign to you; after all, you come from a nation where even the President tends to toss around classified files quite liberally just to serve certain domestic political agendas.

Those weren't merely matters of daily political debate; I suppose one could argue they were hovering right on the precipice of nuclear war itself, and if that were the case, then surely the classification labels would have been stripped away immediately.

analoggull52 said:Take a look at this post
I suppose I could attempt to provide that, but I would need you to specify exactly which official record or data set you are looking for. Unless we are talking about something documented in an actual government filing or a verified agency report—rather than just the usual noise you see floating around on the news cycles—it’s difficult to be certain. If you can point me toward the specific department or the particular type of documentation you require, I might be able to help you track down something more substantial than the typical media spin.

I suppose one might consider it an official statistic, given that it’s been reported across the mainstream media outlets.

I suppose you’re looking for the official figures regarding our national GDP? If I recall correctly, one would need to consult the latest reports released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to get the most accurate, up-to-date numbers for the United States.

analoggull52 said:Take a look at this post.
I find myself somewhat at a loss when attempting to follow the discourse on this forum; it seems as though everyone tends to view every single issue through such an incredibly rigid, black-and-white lens. I suppose I should clarify that I have absolutely no affinity for communists—truly, I don't—but I feel there is a certain necessity in distinguishing between what actually is and what simply isn't. To me, it feels like a matter of whether one is striving for objective truth or merely indulging in subjective opinion. Or perhaps, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, maybe everything here is ultimately driven by underlying interests, or even just purely material concerns?

And what exactly do you think you know about profit margins, worker benefits, and how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws? I suppose one might assume there's a simple equation at play here, but I suspect the reality is far more nuanced than that.

analoggull52 said:Take a look at this post
I fail to see how your response bears any meaningful connection to my initial assertion—which was that everything being discussed here is being viewed through an excessively reductive, black-and-white lens.
I suppose neither of us truly knows what the other is thinking, especially since we’re both just anonymous voices in a digital void, but that doesn't give anyone a free pass to be insulting. I mean, regardless of the fact that we don't know each other, the tone you chose for your response was quite frankly unnecessary.

If you actually possessed even a modicum of understanding regarding these correlations, I suppose you wouldn't feel quite so insulted.

I still find myself struggling to see how your response regarding economic correlations actually addresses my point—which was that we simply aren't having an objective discussion here.

I suppose this is drifting quite a bit from our original starting point, isn't it? The actual question at hand is whether John Doe actually wants capitalism, and if I’m being honest, I suspect they might just want it after all.

analoggull52 said:

I suspect that characterizing the CIA as the primary architects behind the coup might be a bit of an overstatement; perhaps it would be more accurate to say they provided support within the broader framework of a program designed to halt the spread of communism. In my view, the actual organization of the movement was largely driven by local interests who felt sufficiently provoked by Lyndon B. Johnson’s unconstitutional maneuvers.

It is essentially all the same thing, I suppose. What truly matters is whether they were actually performing the work, whether one looks at it through a narrow lens or adopts a much broader perspective.

That is simply how classified documentation functions within a constitutional republic. A document remains under lock and key until its expiration date, governed strictly by its specific level of sensitivity. But, I suppose I can see why that concept might feel somewhat foreign to you; after all, you come from a nation where even the President tends to toss around classified files quite liberally just to serve certain domestic political agendas.

Those weren't merely matters of daily political debate; I suppose one could argue they were hovering right on the precipice of nuclear war itself, and if that were the case, then surely the classification labels would have been stripped away immediately.

I suppose one might consider it an official statistic, given that it’s been reported across the mainstream media outlets.

I suppose you’re looking for the official figures regarding our national GDP? If I recall correctly, one would need to consult the latest reports released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to get the most accurate, up-to-date numbers for the United States.

And what exactly do you think you know about profit margins, worker benefits, and how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws? I suppose one might assume there's a simple equation at play here, but I suspect the reality is far more nuanced than that.

If you actually possessed even a modicum of understanding regarding these correlations, I suppose you wouldn't feel quite so insulted.

I still find myself struggling to see how your response regarding economic correlations actually addresses my point—which was that we simply aren't having an objective discussion here.

I suppose this is drifting quite a bit from our original starting point, isn't it? The actual question at hand is whether John Doe actually wants capitalism, and if I’m being honest, I suspect they might just want it after all.

Look, if you want to insist they’re the same thing, fine. That’s your call. But unfortunately, reality isn't quite as accommodating to those kinds of delusions as you might hope. Being an accessory to murder and committing murder itself... they just aren't the same thing. They aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to sentencing. It’s a massive distinction.

analoggull52 said:

I suspect that characterizing the CIA as the primary architects behind the coup might be a bit of an overstatement; perhaps it would be more accurate to say they provided support within the broader framework of a program designed to halt the spread of communism. In my view, the actual organization of the movement was largely driven by local interests who felt sufficiently provoked by Lyndon B. Johnson’s unconstitutional maneuvers.

It is essentially all the same thing, I suppose. What truly matters is whether they were actually performing the work, whether one looks at it through a narrow lens or adopts a much broader perspective.

That is simply how classified documentation functions within a constitutional republic. A document remains under lock and key until its expiration date, governed strictly by its specific level of sensitivity. But, I suppose I can see why that concept might feel somewhat foreign to you; after all, you come from a nation where even the President tends to toss around classified files quite liberally just to serve certain domestic political agendas.

Those weren't merely matters of daily political debate; I suppose one could argue they were hovering right on the precipice of nuclear war itself, and if that were the case, then surely the classification labels would have been stripped away immediately.

I suppose one might consider it an official statistic, given that it’s been reported across the mainstream media outlets.

I suppose you’re looking for the official figures regarding our national GDP? If I recall correctly, one would need to consult the latest reports released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to get the most accurate, up-to-date numbers for the United States.

And what exactly do you think you know about profit margins, worker benefits, and how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws? I suppose one might assume there's a simple equation at play here, but I suspect the reality is far more nuanced than that.

If you actually possessed even a modicum of understanding regarding these correlations, I suppose you wouldn't feel quite so insulted.

I still find myself struggling to see how your response regarding economic correlations actually addresses my point—which was that we simply aren't having an objective discussion here.

I suppose this is drifting quite a bit from our original starting point, isn't it? The actual question at hand is whether John Doe actually wants capitalism, and if I’m being honest, I suspect they might just want it after all.

What? A nuclear war threat? I mean, what are we even talking about here? What happens to that whole little theory about us being this peaceful, tiny nation that couldn't possibly threaten the integrity of the USA if anything? It just doesn't add up, I guess.

analoggull52 said:

I suspect that characterizing the CIA as the primary architects behind the coup might be a bit of an overstatement; perhaps it would be more accurate to say they provided support within the broader framework of a program designed to halt the spread of communism. In my view, the actual organization of the movement was largely driven by local interests who felt sufficiently provoked by Lyndon B. Johnson’s unconstitutional maneuvers.

It is essentially all the same thing, I suppose. What truly matters is whether they were actually performing the work, whether one looks at it through a narrow lens or adopts a much broader perspective.

That is simply how classified documentation functions within a constitutional republic. A document remains under lock and key until its expiration date, governed strictly by its specific level of sensitivity. But, I suppose I can see why that concept might feel somewhat foreign to you; after all, you come from a nation where even the President tends to toss around classified files quite liberally just to serve certain domestic political agendas.

Those weren't merely matters of daily political debate; I suppose one could argue they were hovering right on the precipice of nuclear war itself, and if that were the case, then surely the classification labels would have been stripped away immediately.

I suppose one might consider it an official statistic, given that it’s been reported across the mainstream media outlets.

I suppose you’re looking for the official figures regarding our national GDP? If I recall correctly, one would need to consult the latest reports released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to get the most accurate, up-to-date numbers for the United States.

And what exactly do you think you know about profit margins, worker benefits, and how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws? I suppose one might assume there's a simple equation at play here, but I suspect the reality is far more nuanced than that.

If you actually possessed even a modicum of understanding regarding these correlations, I suppose you wouldn't feel quite so insulted.

I still find myself struggling to see how your response regarding economic correlations actually addresses my point—which was that we simply aren't having an objective discussion here.

I suppose this is drifting quite a bit from our original starting point, isn't it? The actual question at hand is whether John Doe actually wants capitalism, and if I’m being honest, I suspect they might just want it after all.

I'm not doing that. I gave you the number. If you don't like it, then fine—go ahead and find yourself another one.

analoggull52 said:

I suspect that characterizing the CIA as the primary architects behind the coup might be a bit of an overstatement; perhaps it would be more accurate to say they provided support within the broader framework of a program designed to halt the spread of communism. In my view, the actual organization of the movement was largely driven by local interests who felt sufficiently provoked by Lyndon B. Johnson’s unconstitutional maneuvers.

It is essentially all the same thing, I suppose. What truly matters is whether they were actually performing the work, whether one looks at it through a narrow lens or adopts a much broader perspective.

That is simply how classified documentation functions within a constitutional republic. A document remains under lock and key until its expiration date, governed strictly by its specific level of sensitivity. But, I suppose I can see why that concept might feel somewhat foreign to you; after all, you come from a nation where even the President tends to toss around classified files quite liberally just to serve certain domestic political agendas.

Those weren't merely matters of daily political debate; I suppose one could argue they were hovering right on the precipice of nuclear war itself, and if that were the case, then surely the classification labels would have been stripped away immediately.

I suppose one might consider it an official statistic, given that it’s been reported across the mainstream media outlets.

I suppose you’re looking for the official figures regarding our national GDP? If I recall correctly, one would need to consult the latest reports released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to get the most accurate, up-to-date numbers for the United States.

And what exactly do you think you know about profit margins, worker benefits, and how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws? I suppose one might assume there's a simple equation at play here, but I suspect the reality is far more nuanced than that.

If you actually possessed even a modicum of understanding regarding these correlations, I suppose you wouldn't feel quite so insulted.

I still find myself struggling to see how your response regarding economic correlations actually addresses my point—which was that we simply aren't having an objective discussion here.

I suppose this is drifting quite a bit from our original starting point, isn't it? The actual question at hand is whether John Doe actually wants capitalism, and if I’m being honest, I suspect they might just want it after all.

Look, just give me an objective explanation here. What actually happens to unemployment when the legal minimum wage is set higher than the market-clearing level? I mean, come on. This falls squarely into the realm of "labor benefits"—which is your absolute favorite topic to lecture everyone about—so let's see if you can actually provide some objective discourse for once.

analoggull52 I guess... I mean, if you really look at it... what analoggull52 is saying here... it's just... well, it's complicated. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but there’s a certain way things work, isn't there? You can't just jump to conclusions without looking at the whole picture first. It’s like when people talk about those massive corporations—you know, like ExxonMobil—they act like everything is so simple, but it's never that straightforward. Not really. And honestly, it makes me a bit heated, if I'm being completely honest, how much gets glossed over in these discussions. It feels a bit reckless, I suppose. Or maybe it's just me. I don't know. But yeah, there's more to it than meets the eye. Definitely.
Look, this is drifting way too far from what we were actually talking about in the beginning, I suppose. We're veering off track here. But fine, let's address it: do John Doe actually want capitalism? Personally, if you ask me... I think they do. I really do.

John Doe just wants the cash. It’s funny, really... they have absolutely no clue how capitalism actually functions. I guess they think money just appears out of thin air, maybe? It's all very misguided.

analoggull52 said:

I suspect that characterizing the CIA as the primary architects behind the coup might be a bit of an overstatement; perhaps it would be more accurate to say they provided support within the broader framework of a program designed to halt the spread of communism. In my view, the actual organization of the movement was largely driven by local interests who felt sufficiently provoked by Lyndon B. Johnson’s unconstitutional maneuvers.

It is essentially all the same thing, I suppose. What truly matters is whether they were actually performing the work, whether one looks at it through a narrow lens or adopts a much broader perspective.

That is simply how classified documentation functions within a constitutional republic. A document remains under lock and key until its expiration date, governed strictly by its specific level of sensitivity. But, I suppose I can see why that concept might feel somewhat foreign to you; after all, you come from a nation where even the President tends to toss around classified files quite liberally just to serve certain domestic political agendas.

Those weren't merely matters of daily political debate; I suppose one could argue they were hovering right on the precipice of nuclear war itself, and if that were the case, then surely the classification labels would have been stripped away immediately.

I suppose one might consider it an official statistic, given that it’s been reported across the mainstream media outlets.

I suppose you’re looking for the official figures regarding our national GDP? If I recall correctly, one would need to consult the latest reports released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to get the most accurate, up-to-date numbers for the United States.

And what exactly do you think you know about profit margins, worker benefits, and how they actually correlate within the broader framework of economic laws? I suppose one might assume there's a simple equation at play here, but I suspect the reality is far more nuanced than that.

If you actually possessed even a modicum of understanding regarding these correlations, I suppose you wouldn't feel quite so insulted.

I still find myself struggling to see how your response regarding economic correlations actually addresses my point—which was that we simply aren't having an objective discussion here.

I suppose this is drifting quite a bit from our original starting point, isn't it? The actual question at hand is whether John Doe actually wants capitalism, and if I’m being honest, I suspect they might just want it after all.

Well, you could have just led with that; there was really no need for us to go back and forth like that, was there? 🙄

I suppose I can believe they’re just looking for a better quality of life. Though, I suspect there are plenty of them out there—the real question is whether the majority actually still have the stomach for a revolution. Even here in the States, you can still find plenty of those kinds of fanatics.

hiddensurfer17 said:I suppose I can believe they’re just looking for a better quality of life. Though, I suspect there are plenty of them out there—the real question is whether the majority actually still have the stomach for a revolution. Even here in the States, you can still find plenty of those kinds of fanatics.

They want more. They’re tired of communism and they’re tired of Castro. It’s only natural.
But once they actually have to deal with the cutthroat, Colombian-style brand of Latin American capitalism, Castro is going to start looking like an angel sent straight from paradise.

And we wanted 🤣
too!

Communism in Cuba is 👎

But let’s be real—the thing that actually gutted the Cuban economy and committed a straight-up crime against the Cuban people is the USA!
Forty-five years of "smart" embargoes = nothing but poverty and misery.

And about those photos...

Fine, I'll play along and show some staged crap too!
Here’s what awaits the Cuban people if they become buddies with the USA:
http://www.american-pictures.com/gal.../usa-00438.htm

http://www.american-pictures.com/gal.../usa-01288.htm

http://www.american-pictures.com/gal.../usa-00567.htm

http://www.american-pictures.com/gal.../usa-00301.htm

http://www.american-pictures.com/gal.../usa-00025.htm

http://www.american-pictures.com/gal.../usa-00222.htm