"Arguably his government was authoritarian..."
"All this aside, the threat of terror and assassination do not fully explain or fully excuse repression in Cuba. There have been extrajudicial executions ; Imprisonment of political prisoners, systemic harassment of critics."

Over time we have come to recognise Tristan Ewins as a Left nutter, but this apology for Castro takes the cake.

Castro indulged in "...extrajudicial executions ; Imprisonment of political prisoners, systemic harassment of critics..." How much of that is "arguable"? How much of this IS "explained" or "excused"?

If you're being tortured, imprisoned, murdered, does it matter that the perpetrator is "not as bad as Stalin". What an equivocal load of crap from Ewins.

And on what basis does Ewins claim that Castro had "overwhelming popular support", since any dissent would result in torture, imprisonment or extra-judicial execution?

Fidel Castro was a monster. Good riddance. I wish OLO would say good riddance to the likes of Ewins.

Calwest;

For the record, 'arguably' is not to deny harassment, imprisonments and extrajudicial killings. If I wanted to white-wash the issue I would not have mentioned that full-stop.

This is one of the most important passages in the article:

"as Rosa Luxemburg effectively argued in contrast to Lenin and Trotsky: human rights and democracy must always also be rights for those who dare to think and speak differently."

Cuba's 'one party take on democracy' has regularly mobilised great masses of the population. And physical popular mobilisations have regularly demonstrated the depth of support.

But as I argue - that's not good enough when it comes to the question of liberal and human rights. For the same reason I am at odds with Lenin , in that sense I would be at odds with Castro as well. I am a supporter of a liberal, pluralist and social democracy ; which is one reason why I identify with some of the works of Chantal Mouffe for instance. Castro made important social gains - but it does not justify the oppression.

I also identify with the left social democratic traditions which preceded Bolshevism ; and which parted ways with Bolshevism after World War I.

Calling someone a 'nutter' doesn't present any kind of argument. You're just depending on peoples' ideological prejudices there.

Yes I could have put more emphasis on Castro's transgressions.

But consider your own POV for a while first. Are you aware of what transpired in Central and South America in the 70s and 80s? And if so how could you condemn Castro without also condemning the US governments of the period ; and of its allies in the region? I can give you specifics if you want them ; though many are aware what happened in Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador...

That's not to excuse Castro's transgressions. But let's see if you can be consistent, here, and avoid double standards.

I suppose Graham accepts my articles because he is a genuine liberal pluralist. So am I - albeit one with a much different (left social democratic) take on the economy.

Tristan,

No level of equivocation or excuse-making justifies praise for Fidel Castro.

He was an authoritarian monster who killed many of his own people; many Cubans took the perilous route of escaping to the US, genuine refugees. Even if one accepts, for the sake of the discussion, your unprovable assertion that he and his regime were overwhelmingly popular among Cubans, there is no basis for anyone living in a western democracy to think well of him. "Overwhelmingly popular"? So what, if the alternative to support is death?

I'm also surprised that you quote Rosa Luxemburg in support of your arguments on Castro's behalf. Luxemburg, after all, said:

"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of a party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently."

So much for Castro's "overwhelmingly popular" reign.

If Donald Trump acted like Castro, you would be among the first to condemn him. In Castro's case, though, you excuse - at least in part - the imprisonment, the torture, the murders.

A little intellectual consistency would be a good thing for you to aim for.

Frankly, the socialist left has very little to be proud of. "Identifying" with the likes of Castro and Lenin - another serial murderer - is not going to win converts to your cause.

re: Popular support for the Cuban Govt: Here's an article showing over half a million mobilising in Cuba for May Day:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568476/Havana-great-time-600-000-march-Day-Parade-presided-Raul-Castro-Cuba-pledges-revolutionary-anti-imperialist-ideals.html

As for Luxemburg - Yes that's exactly the quote I was paraphrasing. You cannot seem to understand that its possible to support the positive aspects of the Cuban revolution while also opposing the oppression. But its also intellectually and ethically dishonest not to consider the context of Western intervention. For instance: Communist Russia descended into Stalinism partly because that is the nature of the brutalising influence of Terror. We saw this in the French Revolution too ; on the Left we should have known better. Some people still haven't learned their lessons here. But the pressures of intervention led in this direction - and in that sense the blame is shared. The same with Castro.

But if Castro was a 'monster' - so too were Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan and Bush Snr and Jr. Again pls look into Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. (I spare my use of the term 'Monster', however, because Stalin and Hitler truly stand out from the pack as the worst-ever examples ; and Castro had many redeeming aspects by comparison)

see this article by Chomsky: http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-nuclear

and this article re Chile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

and re: Argentina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

So after reading this material (presuming you WILL read it) I am hoping you might appreciate that despite Castro's transgressions, the transgressions of the United States and its allies in the region were worse. Hence the hypocrisy with much of their condemnation of Castro as 'totalitarian'.

And the likes of Pinochet has no redeeming features when it comes to the poverty unleashed by their economic and social policies. (which, unlike Cuba, did not occur in the context of an economic blockade)

I'm also hoping if you oppose torture that you keep in mind what happened at Guantanamo Bay ; and our pathetic response to the treatment of David Hicks.

Calwest you stated "If Donald Trump acted like Castro, you would be among the first to condemn him. In Castro's case, though, you excuse - at least in part - the imprisonment, the torture, the murders."

How about Hillary Clinton-as the US Secretary of State for just a couple of years was and remains responsible for the torture, murder and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, Syria and Libya, the latter a country totally destroyed on false grounds resulting in the worst refugee migration since World War Two.

Really let's get some perspective in the conversation. I agree Castro was no Saint, but in reality he was a small fish in a big pond compared to many others.

Cheers
Geoff

Interesting perspectives. I read it liking the fact that Tristan attempted to bring balance to the article. As to how well that balance was achieved, it's probably a matter of perspective but from my view far better than I'm used to in what is effectively political comment.

We may disagree on the balance but I think we would all do far better if more comment was able to address both the good and bad in things. So much has become polarised to the point where dialogue is almost impossible. At least here Tristan lay a framework where the detail and balance can be discussed rather than just an all good vs all bad pattern that goes nowhere.

R0bert