• Andrzej3K [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      To be fair to Krusty, I think he was probably right in his assessment that the yanks would rather end all life on Earth than allow missiles on Cuba. They are animals with no regard for human life, and this has always been their trump card

      • ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        14 hours ago

        [Castro - 2nd Letter to Khrushchev During the Cuban Missile Crisis] I dont have anything else to add in terms of the missile crisis

        Peaceful coexistence and competition with capitalist states actively working to strange you is reactionary.

        The line held, from Marx and Engels through to Lenin and Stalin is that the revolutionary dictatorship must “not make excuses for the terror”. It must initiate and push to expand the sphere of revolution and must confront the reactionary states up to and including a “world war” against the reationary hegemon—if they do not, their revolution “is bound to be thwarted” by the hegemonic bourgeoisie.

        Nothing but a world war could have given the BPP, AIM or any other orgs in the global north or its emerging neocolonial states “the conditions for a successful rising against their gigantic oppressors.” Without these conditions, no revolutionary group could be more than a spark in the pan, all of their social reforms amounted to “a pious wish” as the hegemon strangled them one by one.

        Much like in 1848-9 (which the when above quotes are from—Marx’s new years address in 1849 hoped for a world war!), the revolutionary upheavals of the early 60s were put down because in every instance the USSR held to a foreign policy of pacifistic legalism (the UN).

        Stalin’s appeasement before and after ww2 was a tactical move to prepare and to rebuild. Khrushchev elevated that tactical move to the level of principle and tried to compete with the imperial core on how many treats they could provide.

        Lenin, Stalin and the whole party and all the soviet peoples worked for decades to forge a sword; Khrushchev and friends turned it into a ploughshare corn-man-khrush instead of slaying the weakened dragon. They ploughed fields talking with the dragon about peaceful coexistence. The dragon only ate people on his side of the line, recovered his strength, and plotted revenge.

        • Andrzej3K [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          They did Castro dirty dgmw. And it’s not that I disagree with any individual thing you’ve said. But I just don’t think we can discount the possibility/likelihood that holding firm against the US in this instance would have meant the immediate destruction of the USSR and possibly the world. Let us not forget that the USA was in a much better place strategically — that’s why Kruschev made his Cuba play to begin with. Can you look at everything the USA had done up to that point and conclude with absolute certainty that they were bluffing?

          • ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            In the letter I posted, Castro very clearly acknowledges the possibility of thermonuclear war etcetc, he (and I) did not discount it. He simply realised that to give into nuclear blackmail out of fear of a possible end of the world is to give up on communism and accept bourgeois rule—and its rule inevitably leads to the end of the world

            • Andrzej3K [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              Tbqh I think the only sound strategic options were to back down or strike first and just accept nuclear armageddon as a given. And call me selfish but I’m glad he backed down.

              • ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                I agree there were two options; i agree with castro on striking first being the better of the two policies; i agree with mao on nuclear annihilation not being the end of the world

                Would I die (or, realistically, my grandmother)? Possibly. But you know who wouldnt die, who wouldnt suffer 70 years of the western boot on their face? The peoples of the global south on whose insecurity the first and second worlds’ security was founded on

                And call me selfish, but i’d prefer nuclear annihilation of human civilisation to the slow extermination of most of the biosphere we seem.headed towards tbqh

    • oliveoil [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      America has great power in selling a narrative and polluting minds. Hollywood and its bullshit has been a really powerful asset for the Americans.

      • Pikache [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        21 hours ago

        For sure Hollywood has played a huge role.

        1. The desensitisation of war and violence.
        2. Celebrity worship. Politicians are treated like celebrities and when they do evil things, it’s treated like an episode of Entertainment Tonight.
        3. The fiction of the American saviour (e.g. Superheroes and all those damn apocalypse movies where the USA saves the world).