[QatzelOk]

...socialism doesn't actually lead to the abolition of the state in the real world either.

This is just another of your throw-away lines that doesn't recognize how the "fading of the Cuban state" over the last 30 years has lead to much more community organization and resource distribution. In other words, the abolition of the state is visible as the community develops more autonomy and education in Cuba.

Great question indeed, why did Castro - wealthy like most other revolutionaries - choose the way of revolution?

Firstly, because when you end as a dictator you can get way wealthier.

This is a very warped view of what inspired Castro. Like he went to a business school and decided in his last year of his MBA that he would write his thesis on "Dictatorship as a Revenue-Enhancing Strategy."

This demonstrates that you really can't imagine what inspires people to do good acts and to devote themselves to the commons. You can't even imagine this, though it was a major inspiration for so many people historically - both famous and not.

In Quebec, many nurses and teachers are in it for the sainthood of it. To this day. Inspired by Jeanne Mance and Marguerite Bourgeois.

Is this so far from your mentality because... you've been ruined by commerce?

[wat0n]

This is just another of your throw-away lines that doesn't recognize how the "fading of the Cuban state" over the last 30 years has lead to much more community organization and resource distribution. In other words, the abolition of the state is visible as the community develops more autonomy and education in Cuba.

How is the abolition of the state visible in Cuba? Do Cuban communities have autonomy to manage their affairs? Can they express different political opinions, contrary to those of the government?

This is a very warped view of what inspired Castro. Like he went to a business school and decided in his last year of his MBA that he would write his thesis on "Dictatorship as a Revenue-Enhancing Strategy."

This demonstrates that you really can't imagine what inspires people to do good acts and to devote themselves to the commons. You can't even imagine this, though it was a major inspiration for so many people historically - both famous and not.

What makes you believe Castro had purely altruistic reasons?

This is a pattern that has been noticed by historians of revolutions, by the way - that revolutionaries often come from wealthy backgrounds (although not necessarily from the very top) and have personal resentment against the system. A resentment that is often shared by those in the middle and bottom.

In Quebec, many nurses and teachers are in it for the sainthood of it. To this day. Inspired by Jeanne Mance and Marguerite Bourgeois.

Is this so far from your mentality because... you've been ruined by commerce?

Are they revolutionaries?

[Tainari88]

@wat0n and @QatzelOk I promised a Puerto Rican lady friend that moved to Mérida because of us suggesting it...I promised I would take her to see a pretty little hacienda nearby. So I am off to do that now.

But before I go I wanted to tell @wat0n some realities.

Cuban intelligence is very effective. Even the CIA recognizes that. Kissinger also recognized that the Cubans sent troops to South Africa to help the ANC and the opposition to Apartheid because they had a commitment to anti-Colonial regimes. Kissinger was surprised because he literally said that countries like the US and the UK only send troops to Africa to manipulate, extract and control resources and governments that favor them. Cuba had nothing to gain materially by sending support to the South Africans. The only reason they did it is because they were against colonialism on principle only. Kissinger said that. Not a Lefitst. Are you going to argue with a fucking super right wing war criminal that had everything to gain by saying Castro went and sent troops to South Africa to get rich?

The reality is that if Castro had hidden Swiss bank accounts or were getting rich off of his dictatorships? Or was running drugs from Cuba to Miami that shit would have come out a long long time ago. I have a video from youtube.com from Second Thought were due to the Freedom of Information Act they were able to get documents asking about why the CIA had a hard time killing Castro and digging dirt about becoming wealthy only....they told the truth in the fucking CIA documents. Castro is clean. He is not squirrelling away money to become a fucking billionaire like Putin. He does not have hidden fucking bank accounts. If you read enough about Fidel Castro you read up about Cristina his first wife and only wife. She stated that he never gave a shit about making money. Never. He neglected that aspect of his life. He was always about trying to fight for power and nationalism and then he was going further left as time went on and he realized the USA was wanting a puppet.

His wife hated the fact that he did not give a shit about getting rich. She was from a bourgeois family and wanted him to dedicate himself to a private law practice and give up on revolution and risking his ass in these confrontations that she felt he had no hope in hell in winning in the end because the US and Fulgencio Batista (of which her family members were a part of Batista's administration) would never grant a victory to. One of many reasons of why they wound up divorced.

Anyway, one of Fidel Catro's most famous speeches is entitled 'La Historia Me Absolverá'. He presented it at his sentencing to Isla de Pinos where he was sentenced by the Batista regime. They feared if they killed him outright there would be larger political reprecussions. It is very interesting reading Wat0n whether you think him the Devil or not. It is very interesting.

Again, revolutionaries are not Mother Teresa Wat0n. They believe in armed conflict and dedication to using violence to get a nation liberated from foreign control or from a form of government they disagree with. Batista was Washington DC's man. There is no doubt about it.

I have to go.

I was reading about the Atacama desert in Chile. Also Chile has an enormous solar panel field out there in that area of the desert creating solar energy. Interesting.

Chile's history of copper mining and the Kennecott corporation. One has to follow the money to understand the interests involved in toppling governments that are not corporate friendly or US government manipulated. There is a pattern that is very very consistent Wat0n.

If you argue against that I think it is going to be detrimental. If you think the US government is more just and innocent and shit? And they have a right to dictate to sovereign nations and Latin America and its systems are just hopeless and need DC help? Then I would think you a hopeless case.

Lol.

The New York Times. They want me to subscribe to their news subscription. No. I won't.

Excerpt:

The Kennecott Copper Company took its first action yesterday to prevent Chile from selling copper from the company's expropriated mines located in that country.

Kennecott said early last month that it would halt its legal proceedings in Chile to obtain payments for its expropriated mines and would “pursue in other nations its remedies for the confiscated assets.”

Yesterday, the Braden Copper Company, a subsidiary of Kennecott, won a preliminary court action in Paris blocking payments to the Chilean government's CODELCO on a cargo of copper from Kennecott's for mer El Teniente mine due at the port of Le Havre this week.

The copper was purchased by Groupement des Importations de Netaux for distribution to the French copper fabricating industry.



https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/05/arch ... event.html

[wat0n]

@wat0n and @QatzelOk I promised a Puerto Rican lady friend that moved to Mérida because of us suggesting it...I promised I would take her to see a pretty little hacienda nearby. So I am off to do that now.

But before I go I wanted to tell @wat0n some realities.

Cuban intelligence is very effective. Even the CIA recognizes that. Kissinger also recognized that the Cubans sent troops to South Africa to help the ANC and the opposition to Apartheid because they had a commitment to anti-Colonial regimes. Kissinger was surprised because he literally said that countries like the US and the UK only send troops to Africa to manipulate, extract and control resources and governments that favor them. Cuba had nothing to gain materially by sending support to the South Africans. The only reason they did it is because they were against colonialism on principle only. Kissinger said that. Not a Lefitst. Are you going to argue with a fucking super right wing war criminal that had everything to gain by saying Castro went and sent troops to South Africa to get rich?

This is definitely not true. Cuba did charge Angola for its support, it wasn't free. This was discussed earlier in this thread.

Cuban intelligence in indeed very effective, especially to repress Cubans, which is one reason the dictatorship still exists.

The reality is that if Castro had hidden Swiss bank accounts or were getting rich off of his dictatorships? Or was running drugs from Cuba to Miami that shit would have come out a long long time ago. I have a video from youtube.com from Second Thought were due to the Freedom of Information Act they were able to get documents asking about why the CIA had a hard time killing Castro and digging dirt about becoming wealthy only....they told the truth in the fucking CIA documents. Castro is clean. He is not squirrelling away money to become a fucking billionaire like Putin. He does not have hidden fucking bank accounts. If you read enough about Fidel Castro you read up about Cristina his first wife and only wife. She stated that he never gave a shit about making money. Never. He neglected that aspect of his life. He was always about trying to fight for power and nationalism and then he was going further left as time went on and he realized the USA was wanting a puppet.

His wife hated the fact that he did not give a shit about getting rich. She was from a bourgeois family and wanted him to dedicate himself to a private law practice and give up on revolution and risking his ass in these confrontations that she felt he had no hope in hell in winning in the end because the US and Fulgencio Batista (of which her family members were a part of Batista's administration) would never grant a victory to. One of many reasons of why they wound up divorced.

There are doubts, even to this day, as to whether the Castros embezzled Cuban money or not. But it's irrelevant - you don't need to do that when you control the state.

Instead of stealing money to build you a nice mansion, you can just turn the government's residence into the same mansion and live there - all legally, by the way.

Instead of embezzling funds, you can just set part of the budget apart for to enjoy luxury as the head of state - all legally, too.

Anyway, one of Fidel Catro's most famous speeches is entitled 'La Historia Me Absolverá'. He presented it at his sentencing to Isla de Pinos where he was sentenced by the Batista regime. They feared if they killed him outright there would be larger political reprecussions. It is very interesting reading Wat0n whether you think him the Devil or not. It is very interesting.

Again, revolutionaries are not Mother Teresa Wat0n. They believe in armed conflict and dedication to using violence to get a nation liberated from foreign control or from a form of government they disagree with. Batista was Washington DC's man. There is no doubt about it.

Oh yes, they're not saints at all - Cuba in particular has a long history of repressing dissent after all. History has not absolved Castro.

I have to go.

I was reading about the Atacama desert in Chile. Also Chile has an enormous solar panel field out there in that area of the desert creating solar energy. Interesting.

Chile's history of copper mining and the Kennecott corporation. One has to follow the money to understand the interests involved in toppling governments that are not corporate friendly or US government manipulated. There is a pattern that is very very consistent Wat0n.

If you argue against that I think it is going to be detrimental. If you think the US government is more just and innocent and shit? And they have a right to dictate to sovereign nations and Latin America and its systems are just hopeless and need DC help? Then I would think you a hopeless case.

Lol.

The New York Times. They want me to subscribe to their news subscription. No. I won't.

Excerpt:

The Kennecott Copper Company took its first action yesterday to prevent Chile from selling copper from the company's expropriated mines located in that country.

Kennecott said early last month that it would halt its legal proceedings in Chile to obtain payments for its expropriated mines and would “pursue in other nations its remedies for the confiscated assets.”

Yesterday, the Braden Copper Company, a subsidiary of Kennecott, won a preliminary court action in Paris blocking payments to the Chilean government's CODELCO on a cargo of copper from Kennecott's for mer El Teniente mine due at the port of Le Havre this week.

The copper was purchased by Groupement des Importations de Netaux for distribution to the French copper fabricating industry.



https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/05/arch ... event.html

Yes, and they did so because Allende broke an agreement with them (brokered by the US) on how Kennecott and other mines would be nationalized. By 1972, the Chilean state already owned 51% of the Chilean subsidiary of Kennecott.

[late]

There are doubts, even to this day, as to whether the Castros embezzled Cuban money or not. But it's irrelevant - you don't need to do that when you control the state.

IOW, he didn't.

You do love your BS.

[wat0n]

IOW, he didn't.

You do love your BS.

You do love to butcher quotes, don't you?

Are you still seething?

[late]

You do love to butcher quotes, don't you?

What it boils down to is cartoon level analysis.

Castro was not a nice guy. Want to know why he was never overthrown? All he had to do is point at Latin America and ask his people if that was what they wanted.

I'll explain that later.

[wat0n]

What it boils down to is cartoon level analysis.

Castro was not a nice guy. Want to know why he was never overthrown? All he had to do is point at Latin America and ask his people if that was what they wanted.

I'll explain that later.

Cuba got hefty Soviet subsidies that helped legitimize the regime, and then there's the indeed efficient Cuban intelligence.

[late]

Cuba got hefty Soviet subsidies that helped legitimize the regime, and then there's the indeed efficient Cuban intelligence.

Yes, he got money from Russia.

You didn't answer my question. Most of the people in Latin America had it worse than the Cubans. If they had tried to get rid of Castro, we would likely gain power, and their lives would get worse.

You could learn a lot from Tainari, if you didn't have your head so far up your butt.

[wat0n]

Yes, he got money from Russia.

You didn't answer my question. Most of the people in Latin America had it worse than the Cubans. If they had tried to get rid of Castro, we would likely gain power, and their lives would get worse.

You could learn a lot from Tainari, if you didn't have your head so far up your butt.

Most people in Latin America have it much better than Cuba, now, in the 21st century.

Why do you hate Cubans so much as to wish them to live in a communist hellhole?

[Tainari88]

@wat0n wrote this:

Yes, and they did so because Allende broke an agreement with them (brokered by the US) on how Kennecott and other mines would be nationalized. By 1972, the Chilean state already owned 51% of the Chilean subsidiary of Kennecott.

Have you studied the working conditions of Chilean copper miners in Chile in the years before Allende came to power?

You either side with these exploitative punitive and highly unjust labor practices or you do not agree.

Allende did not believe in the complete nationalization of all industries. He actually liked a mixed economy. Some nationalizing and some privatization according to what made the most sense to create worker stability and growth.

But? Nixon and Kissinger (literally said that why should democratic votes stand in the way of their plans to topple Allende because the Chilean voters were making the mistake of choosing a Marxist-leaning president). It does not ever enter in their heads that Chile is not the US. If they want a Marxist in charge the US has no right to topple him because he wants a mixed economy. He would be considered your average EU socialist liberal nowadays.

All that fallout happened because the US was fearful of the domino effect of all of South America going Commie. They were total asshole fearmongering people with that shit theory.

Vietnam had to be eradicated and erased from Commies because that meant the PRC, and so on would mean that all of Asia would go rogue Commie and the menace of Communism was imminent. Fuck, if Capitalism was so perfect and strong and the Commies suck and are weak why all this fucking paranoia about dominoes falling? The Red Scare. They are scared.

They were never scared about the fucking stark poverty that all these Cappy nations had going on there that never fed well their working people, never housed well their working people, and never did much for getting people to get their basic needs met. Most of South America for a very long time never had food stamps, public housing, subsidized anything. No money for that. It was work for peanut salaries or DIE.

If some democratically elected president decides to change things why is it such a threat if the entire socialist agenda sucks and has no real benefits? Why fear it?

They fear it because if it does wind up working it means the working class can agitate and advocate for better wages, and working conditions, you get better safety nets, and more taxes from the wealthy, and you can invest in roads, schools, clinics, and so on. You have to redistribute the wealth in a much more equitable manner. It is really about equality Wat0n.

If you are an elitist from either Chile, Mexico, the USA, or anywhere else, you are not interested in equality. You are interested in being able to keep control of the vast majority of your wealth. Fuck the little people.

Then they get angry and upset about these equality-seeking government leaders spouting socialist and communist rhetoric.

Do something about the issue of poverty and bad working conditions. Do something to remedy why people are not happy and might vote your ass out of office!

If you want to keep the fucking socialists out of power? Give the workers who are the vast majority of the voting public some rights and some improvements. You refuse because you are a selfish bastard who wants to be making profits and fuck everyone else in your way!!??

I will not be worried about your fearmongering, warmongering bullshit tactics. You deserve to get your ass kicked. Really.

If Trump wins the popular vote in the US? He should have the right to rule the US. Lol. He has an insurrection problem. But hey, if the PRC and Russia do not like the choices in the US government they should have the right to topple fucking Trump or Biden and put in a puppet and round up a bunch of US dissenters torture their asses and throw them in rivers and bury them in walls and shit. Electrocute their testicles and so on. Right @wat0n? Nixon and Kissinger thought that was the best way to deal with foreign policy that they disagreed with. Too bad Nixon had to resign due to the Watergate scandal. He was doing such a great job being a clean prez. LOL.

I mean if the Xi does not like you in Beijing and you are an American prez he disapproved of for his tastes all over the world? He has a right to go and talk to some general and get him in power and have him remain in power as a fucking dictator from 1973--1990- It is just a little bit of 17 years of a Chinese Puppet pick in Washington DC. US has to suck it up for seventeen years of Chinese Puppet dictatorship. It is not a high price to pay for going against Beijing and Xi. Lol. The shit that you refuse to see is incredible Wat0n.

That is how you cope with disagreement between political factions in politics according to the ones who spout they love DEMOCRACY.

It is ridiculous shit Wat0n. Hypocritical and highly unorthodox. Fidel Castro has been dead since 2016. Raul Castro is very old and will kick the bucket soon. The vast majority of the original Granma boat revolutionaries are dead and buried.

Yet, Washington DC continues to punish Havana and they will continue with the Cold War shit in the America for all time. Even though Putin ain't a commie. He is a right-wing fascist Oligarch.

And the PRC sells the USA tremendous amounts of goods and services even though that nation is run by the Chinese Communist Party.

The hypocritical shit is astounding Wat0n!

Look the Khan Academy is an online school for people who need to cover all the major subjects in school. Mostly geared towards K-12 students. This is what they say about Chile and about Cuba. Do you see a pattern? I do.

Lol.

They are trying to be objective the Khan Academy. But reality is reality. The Bay of Pigs failed.

[late]

now

Castro is dead, since you haven't noticed.

We are talking about the past.

Seriously, you keep making mistakes you can't escape from.

"First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging."

[wat0n]

@wat0n wrote this:



Have you studied the working conditions of Chilean copper miners in Chile in the years before Allende coming to power?

Yes.

You either side with these exploitative and punitive and highly unjust labor practices or you do not agree.

As opposed to the exploitative and punitive and highly unjust labor practices of Allende's administration? Particularly lying to the copper workers.

Allende did not believe in complete nationalization of all industries. He actually liked a mixed economy. Some nationalizing and some privatization according to what made the most sense to create worker stability and growth.

Not really, he believed in central planning since he was a Marxist of his time. This was standard fare.

In his program, he promised to nationalize all "monopolistic" businesses in several industries. This in practice meant nationalizing all large businesses in those industries and most Chilean large businesses.

But? Nixon and Kissinger (literally said that why should democratic votes stand in the way of their plans to topple Allende because the Chilean voters were making the mistake of choosing a Marxist leaning president). It does not not ever enter in their heads that Chile is not the US. If they want a Marxist in charge the US has no right to topple him because he wants a mixed economy. He would be considered your average EU socialist liberal nowadays.

All that fallout happened because the US was fearful of the domino effect of all of South America going Commie. They were total asshole fearmongering people with that shit theory.

Vietnam had to be eradicated and expunged from Commies because that meant the PRC, and so on would mean that all of Asia would go rogue Commie and the menace of Communism was imminent. Fuck, if Capitalism was so perfect and strong and the Commies suck and are weak why all this fucking paranoia about dominoes falling? The Red Scare. They are scared.

Yes, they were scared - of the security implications of having Soviet military bases in Chile and attempts to export the revolution.

They were never scared about the fucking stark poverty that all these Cappy nations had going on there that never fed well their working people, never housed well their working people, and never did much for getting people to get their basic needs met. Most of South America for a very long time never had food stamps, public housing, subsidized anything. No money for that. It was work for peanut salaries or DIE.

This is demonstrably false - have you forgotten about the Alliance for Progress? The Panam highway?

If some democratically elected president decides to change things why is it such a threat if the entire socialist agenda sucks and has no real benefits? Why fear it?

Because those presidents could start aligning themselves with the USSR and letting it build military bases in their countries.

They fear it because if it does wind up working it means the working class can agitate and advocate for better wages, working conditions, you get better safety nets, more taxes from the wealthy, and you can invest in roads, schools, clinics and so on. You have to redistribute the wealth in a much more equitable manner. It is really about equality Wat0n.

If you are an elitist from either Chile, Mexico, the USA or anywhere else, you are not interested in equality. You are interested in you being able to keep control of the vast majority of your wealth. Fuck the little people.

Then they get angry and upset about these equality seeking government leaders spouting socialist and communist rhetoric.

Also demonstrably false - and if anything the Americans (particularly the ambassador, Edward Korry) had a very poor opinion of the Chilean elite of the time.

Do something about the issue of poverty and bad working conditions. Do something to remedy why people are not happy and might vote your ass out of office!

If you want to keep the fucking socialists out of power? Give the workers who are the vast majority of the voting public some rights and some improvements. You refuse because you are a selfish bastard who wants to be making profits and fuck everyone else in your way!!??

I will not be worried about your fearmongering, warmongering bullshit tactics. You deserve to get your ass kicked. Really.

I agree, something needs to be done - but you know what doesn't need to be done? Adopting communism.

It's not "fear mongering" to state that communism failed, that's just history.

@late yes, Castro is dead and while alive was very dependent on Soviet aid. Without it, Castro himself would have had to deal with unrest very early on.

[late]

Yes, they were scared - of the security implications of having Soviet military bases in Chile and attempts to export the revolution.

Sigh.

Under all the BS, the reality is the phones.

It was a poor country, and all they needed was a simple phone system. They could have gotten one cheap from a communist country. An American company wanted to sell them a state of the art phone system that cost more than they could afford, and all those fancy features couldn't be used.

If you knew our real history, a lot of it is driven by business.

[wat0n]

Sigh.

Under all the BS, the reality is the phones.

It was a poor country, and all they needed was a simple phone system. They could have gotten one cheap from a communist country. An American company wanted to sell them a state of the art phone system that cost more than they could afford, and all those fancy features couldn't be used.

If you knew our real history, a lot of it is driven by business.

You don't know history, it seems. This is actually available from the historical record, where those two (Soviet military bases and exporting the revolution) are mentioned as problems and particularly the latter.

III. THREATS TO U.S. INTERESTS

In examining the potential threat posed by Allende, it is important to bear in mind that some of the problems foreseen for the United States in the event of his election are likely to arise no matter who becomes Chile’s next president. [Page 85]All three candidates have expressed unhappiness with the OAS resolutions on Cuba, and Tomic’s domestic platform, including the nationalization of such basic industries as the U.S. copper companies, is quite similar to that of Popular Unity. While Alessandri has pledged to honor the existing copper accords, he is capable of reversing himself should it prove politically expedient, and further pressure in this regard is inevitable. Nevertheless, the prospects for acceptable compensation would be significantly better under Tomic or Alessandri, and neither of these two would take up the anti-U.S., pro-Soviet line foreseen for Allende.

A. Within Chile

We identify no vital U.S. national interests within Chile. Beyond our interest in the survival of democracy there, we have more tangible interests in Chile’s substantial indebtedness to us,4 in acceptable treatment of existing private U.S. investment (notably the copper companies), in the market for $300 million per year of U.S. exports to Chile, in the AFTAC installation, and the NASA installation. As indicated in section I.A. and I.B. above we would anticipate varying degrees of danger to these interests under an Allende administration, with the copper companies most obviously threatened and our exports least jeopardized. The Chilean public’s favorable interest in the space program would provide some hope for the survival of the NASA installation, and even the AFTAC installation, if properly and promptly explained, might weather the advent of an Allende government; the French nuclear tests are ill-received in Chile.

B. International

The United States has no vital strategic interest which would be threatened even by the establishment of an enlarged Soviet presence in Chile. Nevertheless, expansion of that presence could take many forms, some of which might improve Soviet strategic positions to an extent as yet impossible to judge. These would include more extensive, possibly unlimited utilization of Chile’s unique geographical location in support of the Soviet space and FOBS programs. Refueling and reprovisioning of Soviet ships, already accepted as a commonplace in Chilean ports, could be expanded to support a Soviet naval presence in the area. The Soviets reportedly have started supplying informational material (much of it innocuous or unrelated to military matters, some more applicable) to Chilean Navy officers. This cultivation and increased offers of cooperation in various naval activities and in oceanographic re[Page 86]search and fishing would be useful to Soviet maritime activities without the establishment of bases. Because of the caution which we estimate would characterize both sides of Chilean-Soviet relations, we consider the establishment of Soviet military bases unlikely, certainly in the short (2–3 years) run.

Whatever the military considerations, an Allende government would create considerable political and psychological costs. The election of Allende would certainly bring a destabilizing factor to hemispheric cohesion on such matters as Cuba, subversion, development assistance, and the role of the United States in hemispheric affairs. While, as we noted earlier, we judge the prospects for actual Chilean intervention in other countries to be quite limited, the establishment of an Allende government calling for revolution in the hemisphere, reestablishing full and close relations with Cuba, and “denouncing” the OAS would provoke the hostility of some governments and the apprehension of others. Under such circumstances the OAS could come to find itself in crisis, with some governments favoring some form of response to the Chilean challenge and others hewing to the Latin American tradition of non-intervention. Depending on the degree of Allende’s finesse, some might be attracted to follow in his efforts to weaken the OAS and work through exclusively Latin American organizations. The internal stability of some countries would also be affected if, for example, Marxist elements encouraged by the Allende example (see below) were to step up the scope and pace of their efforts, as they probably would.

Were Allende to become Chile’s next president, his victory would undoubtedly provide Marxists everywhere with an enormous boost in morale and in propaganda effectiveness, particularly because he would have been chosen constitutionally. An Allende victory would inevitably be seen around the world and within the United States as a definite set-back to U.S. interests and aspirations and would be exploited as such by our adversaries. As an example of a Marxist-Leninist state, Chile under Allende would doubtless inspire Marxist elements throughout the hemisphere, and the result could be an increase in pressure on the region’s more moderate governments. Private foreign investment, already under attack now, would be a particular target for such pressure. We note, nevertheless, that Chile as an example would be unlikely to find any effective hemispheric imitator, at least for some time: the strength, skill, and freedom of action of Chile’s Marxist sector are unique at present in the region.

The influence that Chile as a Marxist-Leninist state could wield is subject to further limitations. As we have stated, the addition of another Marxist voice to the hemispheric dialogue seems certain to increase tensions. As a regional leader, however, Chile has enjoyed influ[Page 87]ence out of proportion to her size and strength because of her credentials as a genuine democracy committed to an independent foreign policy. To the extent that Chile under Allende might become identified as just another mouthpiece for Moscow, her ability to persuade others would be correspondingly diminished. Similarly, the economic difficulties that we foresee Allende encountering in fairly short order would limit the “model effect” of Chile.

The telephone company? That actually proved to be an irritant for the Nixon Administration.

[Tainari88]

@wat0n wrote:

Would you elaborate a bit here?

Particularly, what's the problem the US is trying to solve when intervening abroad?

I don't think it's about making those countries richer or even democratic, and I don't think many expect those interventions to lead to that. Even more so after the last 20 years, but even before then, Cold War interventions were not really about bringing prosperity.

In fact, I'd say it's the other way around - the US would try to bring prosperity precisely to avoid having to intervene.

What is the problem the US is trying to solve when intervening abroad?

Are you serious about posing this question to me? Or are you just being facetious?

Have you read Harari's books on human history?

Or Fanon's book on the Wretched of the Earth?

There are a lot of books where human power relationships are studied. One of my favorites is Noam Chomsky's book on Power.

How do governments deal with power. How do economic systems do power?

I frankly think you either do not really understand power and or how it works really in practice?--Or you just like fucking around and wasting people's time or just lying outright. Because it can't be both.

You basically think the USA is populated by some kind of special species of human beings that are different than the other human beings on Earth that are human beings too? Because as far as I know there is only one species of human beings left and the Neanderthals died off a long time ago.

So you are dealing with only one species. The one that abuses power according to the economic and social superstructure they are following as a guide to how to deal with power relationships.

For you the US or North American one is what? The compassionate humane one? But is it humane? Compassionate?

If you study Kolbert's The Sixth Extinction? Elizabeth K. talks about a human-made Sixth Extinction coming our way fairly quickly. If the present dominant system is not modified or discarded completely it will spell doom for the human race. If you think that all that capitalism without any real brakes is the most wonderful, fucking, compassionate and efficient and sober, and realistic system that never has to change because it works like a charm? Well, I have nothing more to write to you Wat0n.

¿Por qué desperdiciar mi tiempo?

I am interested in the entire species of humans. Not one nation here and another nation there. Gee, these people got shiny new cars and suburban homes, and these live in shacks and or on the street, and ride dented bicycles. I guess that means that the ones in the shiny new cars, are the superior species and the ones on the bikes are the ones who are inferior.

What happens when one is studying an animal species? You think oh, those animals are the same species but they are living in different environments--I guess that means they are two separate species. One inferior and one superior? Or as a scientist you think....they are the same species but are living two different conditions. Why are the conditions different and how does that affect the behavior of the same species.

That is what has to happen Wat0n. If you fall into the trap of desires of wanting to be more American or United Statian because it is the superior shit of all time? You have issues.

@late thinks Castro was not a nice guy. If Castro had been a nice guy according to what the US government wanted him to be? Most definitely would not have survived politically at all up until the age of 90. Nice guys rarely survive the pressures of Superpowers Wat0n. Politics is a dirty business. Not for the ones who always are conceding to the ones who threaten your position.

Revolutions are about a traumatic and unusual set of circumstances. If they were common in human history? They would not be really studied intensely. You study revolutions in human history in order to understand a human condition that is no longer tolerated the used to be tolerated. Like the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the American Revolution, etc. because there is a change that is deep and traumatic from the previous status quo.

The history of the Americas was about a free-for-all of European monarchical colonialism. At least the history before the arrival of Columbus eh? All these countries from Europe claimed lands in the Americas as part of their colonial Empire. Why?

That interests me. I am not interested in studying the status quo. The status quo has always existed in human history because all societies seek stability at some point. They have to. No one can have a routine in place and decide to change the routine and disrupt it with chaos to do what? Everything has to have a motive for change. No motive no change. No cause. No effect. It is like a law of physics. Lol.

I am not going to waste my time on explanations if you are not interested in learning about it Wat0n.

The Cubans are human beings. They had a revolution. If you had listened to those Khan Academy videos I put in there? John F. Kennedy basically said the US abused Cuba terribly and that all this revolution was about the mistakes the US government made in Cuba. He acknowledged that in the video. JFK. Not Fidel. You are so off base with your questions I am thinking you are not at all respectful at all. That is what I am thinking.

I am getting older every single day. I have a son who needs me, work that I find rewarding, and people I care about here in Mexico. Why write to you jovencito if you only want to fuck around with pendejadas thinking the Americans are superheroes with good intentions when all the evidence is pretty self-explanatory? If you do not even want to acknowledge what is the obvious truth? Why continue eh?

[Tainari88]

Yes, he got money from Russia.

You didn't answer my question. Most of the people in Latin America had it worse than the Cubans. If they had tried to get rid of Castro, we would likely gain power, and their lives would get worse.

You could learn a lot from Tainari, if you didn't have your head so far up your butt.

I worry Wat0n might have his head far up his butt. I am semi-retired and like to write a lot. He is younger and is an immigrant in Chicago. I wonder how ambitious he is eh? Lol. I do think that young man likes to troll way too much.

The US government has intervened in the Caribbean for many long years. Thomas Jefferson wanted to annex Cuba and make it part of the USA. They annexed PR instead. It was easier to administrate and manipulate and it was in another historical situation.

I think being imperialistic is not going to bring anything of great value over long periods. Mainly because it becomes hard to administrate and run. You need to have a lot more local control of a lot of things. Also, the lack of respect that the Empire has on places that are powerless and disempowered in that structure. It is just a bad scene. You have to give respect, trust and equality to other human societies. If you fail at that? You wind up losing control over them. Without respect, trust equality and love for other people and other societies your influence is going to be either resented or dismissed and rebellion is the eventual outcome. I often am surprised at how patronizing all the shit that the US government engages in with Latin America. They truly believe that we are what? Not their equals? Untrustworthy? And if they do not bother to learn the culture, the history, or the language of our nations? Then why even bother imposing policies on us that are made to fail? It makes no sense. No one will ever just accept and never resent being disrespected, suspected of untrustworthy behavior, and being seen as inferior. Who the fuck likes that? Nobody.

Late you will say that decent Americans do not believe that about Latin America. I am not talking about decent people who are decent human beings. I am talking about human governments from the nations that love imperialism as a policy. They do not have good intentions. They never have. Yet they act surprised that they get bad results? It is laughable.

The whole world is our oyster they say because we are interconnected now more than ever before with the internet. But the reality is that even in today's technology we still live our lives locally. We have to eat by buying food or items close by, and most of our lives as human beings are about many interactions over time, with a few people who we care about. It is about about millions of people whom we somehow love and care deeply about. Most of our lives are about a few key people whom we adore and love deeply. Not strangers and not people who do not affect our lives much.

[late]

You don't know history, it seems.

If irony was explosive, your state would be a smoking ruin.

If you look at the history of Latin and South America, it's surprising how often business interests motivated what we did. ITT wanted their system, basically nobody wanted it in Chile. ITT got involved in coup attempts, and worked with the CIA to undermine Allende.

It's certainly not the only thing in the stew, we were mindlessly anti-Communist at the time.

But it was in there.

[Tainari88]

If irony was explosive, your state would be a smoking ruin.

If you look at the history of Latin and South America, it's surprising how often business interests motivated what we did. ITT wanted their system, basically nobody wanted it in Chile. ITT got involved in coup attempts, and worked with the CIA to undermine Allende.

It's certainly not the only thing in the stew, we were mindlessly anti-Communist at the time.

But it was in there.

I liked some lines from that movie starring Ed Harris about Walker the Yankee dictator of Nicaragua who was part of the Manifest Destiny stage of US history. They really believed they had a right to rule all of the nations of the American continent, both North, Central and South and most if not all of the Caribbean. Keep going to Africa maybe but the European governments were not allowing competition with Africa which is much closer geographically to Europe.

They sliced up the world like a pie. Very horrible mentality.

Yeah they believe in democracy as long at it favors their pockets. Lol.

It is about business and about some fucked up idea that the entire world has to go for only one socioeconomic system or be bullied into compliance. That mentality is what is rotten. No such thing as complete conformity and only one variation for all of nature, the universe or the world. Why fight for something innately wrong from the beginning. Everything starts with peace. Peace allows for problem solving without undue pressures and craziness and waste. Nothing more wasteful and inefficient than war.

But you got Bush telling Kirschner that war is what makes the economy work. Oliver Stone recorded the ex president of Argentina who spoke to Bush Jr. in a summit that the USA has to have a war to keep the economy strong.

So far, sure is right about that. How long was Biden war free? Lol.

No, the USA if it continues spending billions on war making sure Israel wins, and Ukraine wins, and x or y country wins? When it is really about making sure the Defense industry keeps wars going and based in the US Washington DC area....rich.

All Empires in human history that I have studied extensively usually have to abandon their civilizations because the myths they believed in were found out to be false. And they overstretched their resources with either too many wars, or too many exploitation of the natural environment, and resources and had to give it up. People stopped believing in the lies and the myths, they were impoverished by constant conflict and too many years of living via over-exploitation. Most had to give up on being a superpower because they made too many enemies. Both internal and external.

The US is following a similar pattern. The US is in a very strong position economically socially and geographically. But the lies and the internal rot are problematic. If they can stop the lies and the fabrications and get rid of the people who do not believe in democracy and prefer fascism and dictatorship the US can survive for another set of generations or more. But if they want racism, and want wars all the time? And spend on that and not on positive investments in health, education and housing and infrastructure and cease to want white Europeans as the new Americans and hate on the Latinos and Blacks and Asian hate like they tend to do when they think they got to share power with Black presidents and Asian people and shit? It is all going to the toilet fast Late.

[wat0n]

If irony was explosive, your state would be a smoking ruin.

If you look at the history of Latin and South America, it's surprising how often business interests motivated what we did. ITT wanted their system, basically nobody wanted it in Chile. ITT got involved in coup attempts, and worked with the CIA to undermine Allende.

It's certainly not the only thing in the stew, we were mindlessly anti-Communist at the time.

But it was in there.

Why don't you tell the whole ITT story?

It tried to intervene in Chile, not just by pressuring the US government to do so (there's record of this) but also by acting behind the US government's back and against its explicit advice (there's also record of this) in Chile.

But you know how it really ended for ITT? It was still expropriated at well below the fair value of its Chilean subsidiary, and US courts rejected its OPIC insurance claims (I will let you search what OPIC was) because of this activity so, unlike other American businesses, they lost everything.

@wat0n wrote:

Would you elaborate a bit here?



What is the problem the US is trying to solve when intervening abroad?

Sure: It's trying to avoid the expansion of Soviet influence, particularly the influence of its military.

Are you serious about posing this question to me? Or are you just being facetious?

Have you read Harari's books on human history?

Or Fanon's book on the Wretched of the Earth?

There are a lot of books where human power relationships are studied. One of my favorites is Noam Chomsky's book on Power.

How do governments deal with power. How do economic systems do power?

I frankly think you either do not really understand power and or how it works really in practice?--Or you just like fucking around and wasting people's time or just lying outright. Because it can't be both.

It is not "lying" to simply restate what is in the historical record.

It is verifiably true that the US has historically been concerned about its national security and military matters above all when intervening abroad.

This doesn't mean economic concerns are irrelevant - they matter, too. But they're secondary to the former.

You basically think the USA is populated by some kind of special species of human beings that are different than the other human beings on Earth that are human beings too? Because as far as I know there is only one species of human beings left and the Neanderthals died off a long time ago.

No, the US acts like superpowers do.

So you are dealing with only one species. The one that abuses power according to the economic and social superstructure they are following as a guide to how to deal with power relationships.

For you the US or North American one is what? The compassionate humane one? But is it humane? Compassionate?

For me? The US is 1) quite free, 2) quite efficient.

I wouldn't say the US is more or less compassionate than other countries. Parts of American culture and history, if anything, aren't compassionate at all.

The US could, for example, do a lot more to expand its healthcare and deal with homelessness but it doesn't because many voters aren't willing to contribute (through taxation) to do so. Yet at the same time, it is true that if the US could do much more about it is precisely because it has a fairly efficient economy (sans healthcare).

And guess what? The same could be said about Latin America, and just like in the US most Latin Americans are not willing to pay more taxes for the sake of building a larger social safety net.

Soy tan latinoamericano como tú, no me engañas sobre cómo funcionan nuestros países.

If you study Kolbert's The Sixth Extinction? Elizabeth K. talks about a human-made Sixth Extinction coming our way fairly quickly. If the present dominant system is not modified or discarded completely it will spell doom for the human race. If you think that all that capitalism without any real brakes is the most wonderful, fucking, compassionate and efficient and sober, and realistic system that never has to change because it works like a charm? Well, I have nothing more to write to you Wat0n.

¿Por qué desperdiciar mi tiempo?

I am interested in the entire species of humans. Not one nation here and another nation there. Gee, these people got shiny new cars and suburban homes, and these live in shacks and or on the street, and ride dented bicycles. I guess that means that the ones in the shiny new cars, are the superior species and the ones on the bikes are the ones who are inferior.

What happens when one is studying an animal species? You think oh, those animals are the same species but they are living in different environments--I guess that means they are two separate species. One inferior and one superior? Or as a scientist you think....they are the same species but are living two different conditions. Why are the conditions different and how does that affect the behavior of the same species.

That is what has to happen Wat0n. If you fall into the trap of desires of wanting to be more American or United Statian because it is the superior shit of all time? You have issues.

When exactly did I say Americans are superior almost biologically to Latin Americans?

This is an even dumber notion when considering how many Latin Americans live in the US.

@late thinks Castro was not a nice guy. If Castro had been a nice guy according to what the US government wanted him to be? Most definitely would not have survived politically at all up until the age of 90. Nice guys rarely survive the pressures of Superpowers Wat0n. Politics is a dirty business. Not for the ones who always are conceding to the ones who threaten your position.

Revolutions are about a traumatic and unusual set of circumstances. If they were common in human history? They would not be really studied intensely. You study revolutions in human history in order to understand a human condition that is no longer tolerated the used to be tolerated. Like the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the American Revolution, etc. because there is a change that is deep and traumatic from the previous status quo.

Yes, Revolutions are traumatic events but the Cuban revolution ended decades ago. The new regime that came from that is a repressive one, that was reliant on Soviet aid, and then on Venezuelan aid, and which nowadays is slowly getting worse.

The history of the Americas was about a free-for-all of European monarchical colonialism. At least the history before the arrival of Columbus eh? All these countries from Europe claimed lands in the Americas as part of their colonial Empire. Why?

Because they could.

It's not like the history before Columbus was all that different in this regard - there were indigenous peoples in Latin America that practiced slavery, ethnic cleansing and what would be labeled as imperialism if done by Europeans.

That interests me. I am not interested in studying the status quo. The status quo has always existed in human history because all societies seek stability at some point. They have to. No one can have a routine in place and decide to change the routine and disrupt it with chaos to do what? Everything has to have a motive for change. No motive no change. No cause. No effect. It is like a law of physics. Lol.

I am not going to waste my time on explanations if you are not interested in learning about it Wat0n.

Then you're dead wrong. It's not like humans change radically as a result of revolutions, or that we live in permanent revolutions.

The Cubans are human beings. They had a revolution. If you had listened to those Khan Academy videos I put in there? John F. Kennedy basically said the US abused Cuba terribly and that all this revolution was about the mistakes the US government made in Cuba. He acknowledged that in the video. JFK. Not Fidel. You are so off base with your questions I am thinking you are not at all respectful at all. That is what I am thinking.

I am getting older every single day. I have a son who needs me, work that I find rewarding, and people I care about here in Mexico. Why write to you jovencito if you only want to fuck around with pendejadas thinking the Americans are superheroes with good intentions when all the evidence is pretty self-explanatory? If you do not even want to acknowledge what is the obvious truth? Why continue eh?

We're not in 1960. The Cuban revolution built a brutal dictatorship that has impoverished Cubans even if it did end segregation (pre-revolutionary Cuba was like a southern state in this regard) and expand literacy - we can actually judge the revolution by its fruits, not its promises.