These posts all explain that your argument is nothing more than an attempt to justify US human rights abuses because “what about the ebil socilsists!!1!”.
Mostly silly arguments for the most part, and I can quote you justifying Cuban human rights abuses using exactly the same reasoning:
Me, mentioning some examples of how the opposition is repressed in Cuba wrote:I can think of a few ways in which measures are taken against the opposition:
1. Civil Rights: Censorship of opposing media, no permission for assembly for opponents, no permission for people who aren't members of the Party to compete in elections, longer processing to get permits to move to other parts of the country and to perform tasks like getting married
2. Economic Rights: Firing of people who protest the regime, limitations on what kind of jobs political opponents can do within the civilian economy
3. Social Rights: Limitations to access higher education and other social services
This was your response:
Pants-of-dog wrote:First of all, 2 and 3 are also common in capitalist countries including the USA. Cuba probably provides better access to PSE than many developed countries and its neighbours.
The first one is more problematic because of continued US interventions. It would be difficult to allow a free press when the CIA is known for making deals with newspapers to help overthrow local governments. Like El Mercurio.
The same with multi-party elections. Classic regime change tool for the CIA.
So you tell me, why would I care about your whining regarding US foreign policy again? You are the one who regards multi-party elections as a regime change tool for the CIA.
Your negative stance about the USA seems to be driven by the fact that your side lost and not a genuine concern about human rights, democracy or any of that nonsense.
You may wonder why would the USA be any better, then. I'll tell you: Firstly, the USA did not start that game of toppling multi-party democracies, the Soviets and their local proxies did in Czechoslovakia and as such the precedent that this was going to be how would the Cold War work was set by your camp - saying the US shouldn't carry out analogous actions to stop this kind of thing from happening elsewhere is like those silly arch-pacifists who believe it was immoral for the Allies to fight the Nazis because "war is bad". If you believe communists should rule the world then just say it outright as others do.
And secondly, you get far more freedoms and respect for your rights in the USA than there were in any of the regimes you supported (and seemingly still support). This is despite the fact that other countries with an political and economic system that's similar to that of the US may do even better, which is of course arguable.
And no, no political or economic system is perfect just as no human construct is perfect either - so what? If anything the idea of having "a more perfect union", which implies the recognition that the union and its institutions are not perfect, is a show of humility you don't ever see in totalitarian regimes either.