Social_Critic wrote:Gletkin, that logic is flawed. It assumes revolution is linked or hard wired to human rights abuses.
I didn't say anything about "hard-wired to human rights abuses".
What I said was that rebels/revolutionaries frequently promise to be better alternatives than the incumbents they overthrow. Certainly those rebels who appeal for popular support.
Coups by their elitist nature are the one form of rebellion that perhaps doesn't require popular support. Especially if there's no ideological difference (as is often the case with coups). Often it's just one clique overthrowing another of the same politics. Many coups have occurred with the masses just ignoring it if they weren't anywhere near the action and just going on with their lives.
Social_Critic wrote:If this point doesn't come across - and many of you can't or refuse to understand it, then we live on different ethical universes. I don't give a shit about what happened before, and I don't buy excuses. I don't give a damn about what happens in the USA, Singapore or Kiribati. I have a simpler standard, rulers should be held responsible when they do harm if they had options not to do harm.
That's been an issue wrestled with by every revolution regardless of ideology.
Very very often though....more the rule than the exception....the proverbial eggs were broken to make the proverbial omelet. Especially if the rebellion was in the form of a protracted war. More lives were lost to the American War of Independence than ever was to British colonial "tyranny".
That's just an objective observation, however some people may wish it was otherwise.
One can take a hardline and denounce Castro even if he is better than Batista. But the reality is that not everyone takes this line and that since Castro took power as an anti-Batista rebel, it's inevitable that someone will assert the "Batista was worse" argument.
Political divisions are frequently present in every rebellion. I'm certain anti-Castro Cubans are no exception to this. Sometimes it's just the same old story of personal rivalry and ambition cloaked in politics. But I'm sure for many it's genuine ideological disagreement. Opposing Castroite Communism can only unify people so far. Questions of not only what to replace Castroism with but how to it is are things that have exacerbated relations between some anti-Castro Cubans I'm sure.
Social_Critic wrote:Fidel Castro and his top echelon, including a very close relative of mine, are fit for jail and/or a wood chipper.
See? There you go.
Someone else with perhaps more...I don't know Gandhian pacifist leanings or something...might denounce
you for wanting to kill Castro and his clique.
They'd be complaining about how you are living in a "different ethical universe". About how the death penalty has no place in a post-Castro Cuba..or any "decent" society because "rulers should be held responsible when they do harm if they had options not to do harm" and executing people, even convicted murderers, violates that responsibility (in their opinion).
See? What's good enough for others isn't good enough for you. In turn, what's good enough for you isn't good enough for still others.