Evil capitalists call Castro rich!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't want to be rude Kontiki. The point is that there are some people who become happy by other things besides material objects. Just because he can be rich, doesn't mean that he is. You couldn't make a more absurd assumption.

I'm not making any assumptions, you are. You're the one who's saying that he's not materialistic because he wasn't poor before he led the revolution. I'm just pointing out the rather obvious flaw in that logic. And you're quite right that there are some things that make other people happy other than money, including (but not limited to) power. And if that were his prime motivator, than his economic background would again mean jack sh*t.

For the record, I personally don't think Fidel is worth $550 million or anything even close to that amount. I think he's done some good for the country on top of all the bad things he's done. And I'm also sure he cares deeply about Cuba and the Cuban people. But that doesn't stop him from being a meglomaniacal bastard who thinks that he alone knows what's best for everyone and is more than willing to use whatever means to silence his critics. In other words, a fairly typical communist.

[Az]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Are you denying that Fidel is corrupt? Can you name any absolute rular who was not corrupt?

A) it's "ruler" .
B) Define "absolute".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap
The comparison to the leader of the USSR seem valid, because when the USSR collpaesed, none of the party's top leaderships bailed with huge bank accounts.

Look at Gorbachev (who certainly lived better than the average Soviet Citizen), when the Union feell, did he have billions stached away in some bank account, which he honeslty could have had?

Or the Mao family: are they living it up with a huge, multi-million dollar private bank account? I have never heard that, and certainly most of the big party bosses in the USSR, while confortable, have never been on the top forbes lists, have they? These guys, running a disctatorial styate with a GDP of over a trillion, you would think they could siphon of a few hundred millions, no?

Compare this to deposed kings like the Shah, that leave and flee the country with susbtantial personal savings.

Simply bieng the leader of a dictatorship, which certainly gives you perks, does not equate to you looting the national treasury to stash away on your own.

I don;t think its correct to assume that a dictator must be personally stinking rich.

That said, I would be interested to know were exactly Castro's money would come from, and go to.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm not making any assumptions, you are. You're the one who's saying that he's not materialistic because he wasn't poor before he led the revolution. I'm just pointing out the rather obvious flaw in that logic.

I was combating Imran's and other's assumption with that. It doesn't make any sense to get yourself thrown in prison and possibly killed to become rich when you are already rich. If he's so materialistic then why would he risk what he had, and why would he offer his services to people who couldn't pay him?

Anyway, your resonse to me really didn't have anything to do with my point as far as I could tell.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are plenty of materialistic people that do the same. Every lawyer will offer services to those that can't pay them. I've never heard of a lawyer not being called materialistic though.

[Patroklos]

If he's so materialistic then why would he risk what he had, and why would he offer his services to people who couldn't pay him?

Two reasons.

1) More Money
2) Power

[Kidlicious]

I guess all materialistic people lead revolutions then.

[pchang]

As for Mao, his wife was discredited and their assets siezed during the cultural revolution. Current Chinese leaders are incredibly rich (especially the top generals in the PLA).

[Patroklos]

And if you are a dictator, I don't thing wealth is exactly the same as we understand it. Stalin didn't need a bank account, he just asked and it appeared. Money does not mean much if you have absolute power.

And of course one of the characteristics of meglomaniacs is that they believe they will always be in power, planning ahead by stashing money in bank accounts doesn't make sense if you don't entertain the notion of being toppled. Saddam had to rob his nations bank when he ran away, not his own account.

[Sava]

How come all the anti-Castro zealots aren't outspoken against the authoritarian and MORE brutal regimes of US "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

I guess a dictator is just bad when he doesn't cooperate with US foreign policy.

[pchang]

As far as I know, the Saudis are not upset about being called multi-millionaires.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by pchang
How well does Castro live compared to other people in the world? other Cubans?

He has a nicer apartment than most Cubans, and he certainly seems to be eating well. As far as wealth goes, he doesn't own squat. If he did, his daughter wouldn't have come to the U.S. looking for a job.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He's a brutal dictator.

Dicator, yes, brutal, no. Bush was a more brutal governor of Texas than Castro has been as a dictator.

If Castro was so non materialistic and so looking out for the welfare of the people instead of his own pocket, he'd have reliquinished some power and allowed democratic elections to some extent. The fact that he hasn't indicates that he's raping the country barren and doesn't want anyone to stand in his way.

It could also mean that Castro thinks that only he can save Cuba, and that if he were to relinquish power, it would all fall apart and go back to the mess it was before. That is generally a personality trait of many dictaotrrs. They think they are indispensible.

Castro doesn't show the same personality traits as many meglomaniacal dictators who also identify themselves with their coutries. For example, North Korea exists for Kim. Zaire existed for Mbutu, the Phils for Marcos. With Castro it's reversed. Castro exists for Cuba and only he can guide it. It's still crazy, but it's definately a lot healthier to be a Cuban than to be under the other type of dictator.

I've known several people who've met Castro. Obviosly the man is extremely charasmatic and a consumate politician, but they didn't get any creepy scary vibe off the guy, but instead felt like they were dealing with a genuine human being.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Soviet party bosses lived like Kings.

That's not really true either. At best, the average Soviet leader had an income about five times higher than that of the average Soviet. They didn't have their own homes, but lived in apartments with other ordinary Soviets (in fact, that's how someone was able to get access to be able to shoot Andropov, if certain rumors are to be believed). Yes, they had access to nicer things, but where did the daughter of Stalin live? How well off were the kids of Kruschev? They all had to get jobs like regular people. The children of the wealthy do not live in crap housing and work in factories unless they choose to.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Two reasons.

1) More Money
2) Power

A power and money hungry person wouldn't lead a revolution. He'd suck up to those in power and try to become one of them. It's a far more successful path than revolution.