What went wrong?

File: fidel.jpg (19KB, 281x228px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 281x228px

>>1168664
American Puppet, even today America just kills of our own puppets. We never mastered it.

His military was shit, Castro and Che were both extremely charismatic and popular as well as very effective and motivated guerilla leaders.

Its more of US vs Castro/Che than Batista vs Castro/Che. Good timing after WW2 and Korea the US could not have invested their own military force into this conflict.

>>1168730
Looks like Kramer

Bamp

>>1168730
You don't really know anything do you. Castro was not a commie until after the revolution and the US considered Batista a failure of a lackey which is why they didn't send in troops to help him.

>>1168664
American puppet state being a typical American puppet state.

Fortunately glorious communist revolution rectified this mistake.

>>1171681
Castro was always interested in communist ideas, he was just more pragmatic about his politics than Che for instance.

>>1171687
See >>1171681

It wasn't a communist revolution you uneducated retard. Communist party of Cuba actually thought Castro is a CIA agent ordered to remove incompetent puppet Batista.

>>1171693
He wasn't, he was a nationalist populist and a member of Partido Ortodoxo. His heroes were Jose Marti and Eduardo Chibas, not fucking Lenin and Marx.

>>1171695
It was a communist revolution.

The July 26th movement was explictly communist.

>>1171703
Yes they were
>astro had moved further to the left, influenced by the Marxist writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin. He came to interpret Cuba's problems as an integral part of capitalist society, or the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", rather than the failings of corrupt politicians, and adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution. Visiting Havana's poorest neighborhoods, he became active in the student anti-racist campaign.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Rebellion_and_Marxism:_1947.E2.80.9350

>>1171720
Read Castro's biography from Quirk, it offers an extensive account of the chronology of events. Fidel started claiming to be a Marxist only after Eisenhower went full retard and hit him with the embargo and he was forced to deal with the Soviets. THAT was the pragmatic move.

>>1171709
Then how come the Soviet controlled Communist party didn't participate in the revolution and considered Fidel a CIA puppet?

>>1171709
If America didn't force Fidel's hand he would end up being just a Cuban version of Peron.

>>1171748
As I've said he was pragmatic about it, I never said he was explicitly a communist but that he was interested in communist ideas.

>Then how come the Soviet controlled Communist party didn't participate in the revolution and considered Fidel a CIA puppet?
The Soviets did not participate in every communist revolution ever, especially ones happening right in the USA's backyard.

>>1168664
Shit trained army
Poor rule of law
Corruption
Spanish anarchists landing on there without any control
Latin american "caudillismo"
Being in the very Caribbean, cradle of degeneracy
And so on...

>>1171752
Yes, as I've said multiple times Fidel was pragmatic about his politics and wasn't a do or die communist like Che.

This is not to say however the July 26th movement wasn't communist.

>>1171754
Communists actually supported Batista during his first presidency because he was pro-worker and against the reactionary oligarch class behind Grau. Then after he ousted Soccaras he wanted to win USA's favor so he started acting as anti-communist as possible. Fidel at no point considered his revolution to be a communist one, he was a nationalist who wanted a strong independent Cuba that wouldn't be a bitch to either USA or USSR, in many of his speeches and writings he advocated for a third position, he was more or less a fascist.

>>1171759
It wasn't, it only became communist after the revolution when Fidel was forced to merge with the irrelvant Communist party of Cuba to win Soviet support.

>>1171769
>his revolution
It was not "his" revolution.

It was perpetrated by the entire movement which was by and large communist.

>advocated for a third position, he was more or less a fascist.
Right, so you're a retard.

>>1171775
It was communist before the revolution, just not so thoroughly. Like the Orthodox party is was a catch all for left-wingers, of which communists were prominent.

>>1171777
Castroboo spotted, die fag. But do it after Castro so wait four or five years

>>1171793
I'm not a Castroboo, it's just that anyone who posits that fascism is not capitalist is invariably a dumbass. Nor is it third-positionist to seek independence from imperialist powers, if it was then Tito would be one.

>inb4 Tito was a fascist.

>>1171777
>It was not "his" revolution.

It was, he was its leader.

>pragmatic

But he wasn't a communist initially and his slant towards communism after the revolution was the pragmatic move.

>"I am not a communist and neither is the revolutionary movement." - Fidel, July 1959
>embargo enacted in October 1960
>"I am a Marxist-Leninist, and I will be a Marxist-Leninist until the last days of my life." - Fidel, December 1961

>Right, so you're a retard.
I'm afraid I'm far more educated on this matter than you are.

>>1171813
>It was, he was its leader.
The thing about the July 26th movement was the diversity of opinion in it. Communists were prominently represented, as were non-communists.

Fidel did not win the revolution single-handedly.

>But he wasn't a communist initially and his slant towards communism after the revolution was the pragmatic move.
I have said numerous times that I never said Fidel was originally a communist.

>I'm afraid I'm far more educated on this matter than you are.
If you are seriously trying to say that fascism isn't capitalist, or that being non-aligned to either the USSR or the USA is fascist then I stand by what I said - you are a retard.

>>1171822
Fascists don't consider themselves capitalists. Frankly, the only people who consider fascism to be capitalistic are the communists.

>>1171825
Yes and the DPRK consider themselves democratic, this does not make it true.

> Frankly, the only people who consider fascism to be capitalistic are the communists
There is nothing not-capitalist about it. If fascism isn't capitalist, then neither is social democracy. Because the left wing elements of it extend no further than that of social democracy.

>>1171835
Again, only communists ever say that fascism is capitalism.

>>1171838
They can consider it however they like. But in material terms how is fascism not capitalist?

>>1171844
No free market

>>1171844
>in material terms

From a communist perspective, if the means of production are in private hands, that's capitalism. From say, anarcho-capitalist perspective, you can't call a system capitalist if the government exists and is meddling in the market, so a fascist corporatist economy cannot be capitalistic. It varies depending on your viewpoint.

>>1171847
Hence my comparison to social democracy. Is Denmark not capitalist?

Not to mention lots of capitalist countries practice protectionist policies which curb the free market. You would seem to be conflating capitalism with the Austrian school.

>>1171858
welfare system ¡= socialism

>>1171863
I know Denmark isn't socialist.

But if you say that capitalism needs a free market to be capitalism, then it must not be capitalist.

>>1171709
>The July 26th movement was explictly communist.

"The 26th of July movement is a party of radical ideas, but it is not a communist movement and it differs from communism in a series of essential respects." - Fidel Castro, 1959