liberals feverishly crossing out the word slave and replacing it with the word worker “umm actually they get paid 5 cents an hour so it’s not slavery sweaty 😤”
“Yes, my grandparents owned a clothing factory in Havana. Were there windows? No, but to say it was a sweat shop or that I’m a gusano is absurd and racist.”
Italic emoji 😭
well they could have chosen to go work on the other plantation over there for the same wage, see, so they have free choice in their employment 😍 that means anything bad that happens to them is just their fault personally for not being entrepenurial enough 😌
*paid exclusively in company scrip, unusable outside of the plantation.
Just like in the southern US after the American Civil War, slavery was abolished and everyone lived in harmony with no problems whatsoever
deleted by creator
This is one of my favourite reminders to hit them with
It’s the 21th century and the US still hasn’t abolished slavery
Not just that, but after slavery was “abolished,” the US government allowed the traitors to regain power and enact discriminatory laws that were barely any different than chattel slavery. Which is basically what happened with Cuba
“Slavery was abolished in the US in 1865. There were no slaves in America in 2023.”
I think it would be accurate to compare it to the same year as OP because sharecroppers were still working at the same plantations as their ancestors
Reddit types really think this
We “freed the slaves” in 1863!”
Except that slavery is still legal here, and also the last illegal chattle slave (definitely not the last) was freed during fucking word war 2 or whatever
(Knowing better video about neoslavery if you want to learn more)
Fucking liberals earnestly believe when words are written on a page it makes them true, and that things opposed to the words are IMPOSSIBLE and against the laws of physics is so fucking frustrating
Until it comes to killing some poors or homeless despite what the words say, then it turns out they were only a suggestion
Try, “We’re still fucking doing it” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/lolas-story/524490/
Fucking liberals earnestly believe when words are written on a page it makes them true, and that things opposed to the words are IMPOSSIBLE and against the laws of physics is so fucking frustrating
These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.
In all my years I’ve never heard anyone claim that Castro eliminated slavery (in the classical, non-wage sense anyway), and it never crossed my mind. The implication that Cuban workers weren’t being exploited in an extremely capitalist, basically-slavery, hellhole though is obviously disingenuous.
hurling a quarter at my sugarcane plantation “workers” so they technically earned a salary and are not slaves
I never learned about Cuban revolution and chattel slavery. I learned it as getting the island out from the thumb of mafiosos and exploitative American interests. That was enough for me.
you see, we call the slaves something else now, so its ok to make them work long hours in inhuman conditions for not-nearly-enough pay.
I assume a member of the class of soulless parasitic nazis wrote this www.readsettlers.org
“Castro freed the slaves” is a bad agitprop point for exactly this reason: it’s not true on the face of it. Best case, you get into a semantic argument about what “slavery” means, which derails the conversation. Worst case, whoever reads your agitprop googles “when was slavery abolished in Cuba” and thinks you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I gotta disagree. “Castro freed the slaves” is a great line, precisely because Cuba was awash in these abysmal sugar plantations a century after the Spaniards nominally ended the practice.
Best case, you illuminate how legalist readings of history are hollow. Worst case, you force your debatebro to defend the abhorrent labor practices that created the groundswell of opposition to the Batista regime. Throw in a “Even the CIA couldn’t stomach Batista, by the time he was forced off the island” and “When Castro visited New York City in the 50s, he was hailed as a hero.” Remind people of their history.
At his absolute worst, you could accuse Castro of being an LBJ-style reformer, ending the Jim Crow conditions of Cuba and liberating the island from a tyrannical military dictatorship. At the best, he positioned the island to move from an oversized agricultural backwater into a modern bio-technology world leader. Cuba in the 21st century is outpacing the US in terms of medical R&D, with none of the Silicon Valley inputs. It is an island of miracles.
The bottom line is “does this persuade anyone to agree with me?” In my experience “Castro freed slaves” does not. It’s either dismissed as wrong or derails the conversation.
We should be doing self-crit of our talking points, and our contrarian instinct doesn’t allow that often enough.
In my experience “Castro freed slaves” does not.
I guess it depends on who you’re talking to. Lower info people who only know “Cuba bad because Communism” are - at least in my experience - more receptive to “Well, I think I can understand his appeal. After all, he liberated millions of enslaved Cubans from the sugar plantations”. If you’re talking to a neoliberal debatebro with a mile of jibberish copypasta, or you’ve got folks on Twitter who will just scream at you for saying Castro wasn’t a baby eating monster, I guess maybe not.
We should be doing self-crit of our talking points, and our contrarian instinct doesn’t allow that often enough.
In my experience, doubling down is an effective rhetorical strategy, particularly when you’ve got the weight of history on your side. “Castro freed the slaves” with a pithy “just like Lincoln” tacked on, can very quickly and easily put Twitter Libs on the defensive and reframe the debate from “Planned Economies never work!” to “Um, aktuly, it was only sparkling caste-based indentured servitude”.
Castro freed the slaves” with a pithy “just like Lincoln”
If you want to be even spicier you can say “unlike Lincoln”.
The goal isn’t to be spicy, the goal is to get people to agree with you.
Bringing this up is far more effective than whatever the hell it is you’re suggesting considering it is impossible to argue against the fact that the Cuban revolution did free the slaves and that Abraham Lincoln’s contributions towards abolition were milquetoast at best.
it is impossible to argue against the fact that the Cuban revolution did free the slaves
Try this out on someone who isn’t already a leftist and see the response for yourself. I have.
You need to remember that liberals choose things to believe based not on facts, but on vibes. You have to lean on their vibe based worldview and slowly push them away from it. If liberals changed their minds based on facts, there would be no liberals.
Lower info people who only know “Cuba bad because Communism” are - at least in my experience - more receptive to “Well, I think I can understand his appeal. After all, he liberated millions of enslaved Cubans from the sugar plantations”.
Maybe they agree with you in the moment, but what happens when you aren’t there and they discover/are told about Cuba abolishing slavery in the 1880s? They discount what you said as not entirely reliable, and whatever progress you’ve made is compromised or undone.
We want to lead with our strongest points, the stuff that there isn’t any credible argument against. You don’t lead with stuff that invites an argument, even if you think you can win it.
what happens when you aren’t there and they discover/are told about Cuba abolishing slavery in the 1880s?
Idk, man. What happens when I’m not around and they hear
insist North Koreans pull their own trains by hand?If they’re curious enough to dig deeper, that’s not a problem on its face. I have no doubt they’ll find a ton of right-wing propaganda suggesting that Cuba was a paradise pre-Castro. But I can’t do much about that. All I can do is seed doubt on my own end and point them towards guys like Noah Kulwin and Brendan James if they have their doubts.
We want to lead with our strongest points
The abhorrent labor conditions of Cuban plantations are one of the strongest points illustrating the need for the Castro-led revolution. They explain the zealous adoption of left wing political and economic theory as well as the enduring state of revolutionary ideology in an island that has been under constant propaganda bombardment for over 60 years.
The abhorrent labor conditions of Cuban plantations are one of the strongest points illustrating the need for the Castro-led revolution.
This is an example of a strong point, with no credible counterargument, where a curious person can investigate further and find you to be more correct with everything they read.
Abhorrent labor conditions = slavery is a semantic debate. A skeptical person can easily disagree. See the difference I’m talking about?
Abhorrent labor conditions = slavery is a semantic debate.
I’m happy enough to let my counterpart muck around with the semantics, while I lay out the crimes of the Batista government and the plantation cartels.
A skeptical person can easily disagree.
Skeptics will dig deeper. You’re describing a contrarian, and I’m not invested in convincing them of anything.
I think this is an interesting point of discussion. Someone who is wholly ignorant about communism and just thinks it is a vague “bad thing” is often much, much easier to educate than someone actively steeped in anti-communist arguments and umm acktually style rhetoric.
people are not swayed through argumentation in the first place. If they were, liberalism would be sufficient
Argumentation is one variable that contributes to changing minds, along with material interests, deeply-ingrained priors, etc. How many people here will tell you that
had a big impact on their thinking about AES states?
Tbh I always just buttress it with the Frederick Douglas quote about wage slavery still being slavery. Libs never have a response to Frederick Douglas, it’s great.
The difference is a wage worker’s boss can’t cut off your foot if you leave. There are plenty of points of comparison between maximally exploitative wage work and slavery, but to say there’s really no difference at all is silly.
And now – as I mentioned – the conversation has shifted to the semantics of slavery vs. wage work under terrible conditions. We’re not talking about Cuba at all, or we’re getting into hyperspecifics about the conditions of Batista-era plantations. It makes far more sense to stick to:
- Batista was brutal and repressive even in the eyes of contemporary U.S. politicians
- Castro led a popular revolution
- Revolutionary Cuba is far better than what came before, despite constant U.S. attacks and sanctions
Plantation owners in Cuba mutilated their workers as well. I’ll try to find the excerpt, apparently a favorite punishment of theirs was to put someone in a barrel with spikes on the inside, then roll it down a hill. Or they could just kill you for crossing their land without permission, per Parenti, plus the enforced illiteracy to prevent them from ever getting out of it.
And now – as I mentioned – the conversation has shifted to the semantics of slavery vs. wage work under terrible conditions
I contend that there’s a threshold where these things become indistinguishable, and that Batista’s Cuba crossed it.
Also, that is a situation that only benefits us. If you get into an argument about the semantics of slavery vs. wage work under terrible conditions, congratulations. You have just been handed the opportunity to force your opponent to defend slavery on semantic grounds.
or we’re getting into hyperspecifics about the conditions of Batista-era plantations
See what I mean?
a favorite punishment of theirs was to put someone in a barrel with spikes on the inside, then roll it down a hill. Or they could just kill you for crossing their land without permission, per Parenti, plus the enforced illiteracy to prevent them from ever getting out of it.
those hyperspecifics are effective agitprop
baiting a liberal into saying something like the OP can be effective if the goal is to get to these specifics.
You’re talking about arguing with people, baiting them, etc. But you don’t want to be in an argument in the first place.
You want to talk about things that can’t really be argued; that make someone arguing against them look foolish. Talking about debatable points – even if you think you have a good argument – lets people dismiss you.
Kennedy, who disliked Castro enough to invade Cuba, has a speech where he details the crimes of Batista and acknowledges that Castro led a popular revolution. What the hell is the argument against that? But if you talk about slaves you invite a semantic debate about the definition, and if you cite horror stories from plantations you invite a debate about the sourcing. Why bother with any of that when you can go with something that has no meaningful counterargument?
You’re doing Lenin’s work ITT, this place is so trash at propaganda.
History makers (in any field) don’t get to where they are for having correct theories/ideas/opinions, it’s cause they could communicate them effectively.
But you don’t want to be in an argument in the first place.
wut. the point isn’t to argue, it’s to embarrass. argument is inevitable, some lib interlocutor isn’t going to read your JFK take and think to themselves, ‘hmm yes I’ve been convinced by this perfect point I have no way to refute’. they will reply.
unless you’re talking about some 1:1 discussion but I don’t think agitprop has a place there.
let’s look at how this plays out in both scenarios
‘Castro freed the slaves’:
[from soapbox] gusanos just miss their slaves <- effective
[lib in gallery] well ackshually slavery abolished 18whatever <- nerd shit, maybe persuasive if let go
[from soapbox] [any of the myriad replies in the comments here] <- effective
‘JFK details the crimes of Batista’:
[from soapbox] JFK had this interesting speech about Batista…[wordy leftist meme] <- nerd shit
[lib in gallery] he said that before the firing squads <- effective
[from soapbox] well akshually, <- you’ve already lost
Dude, why are you so worried about crafting the perfect speech to successfully persuade libs without arguing with them?
I was arguing with a Cuban “refugee” on reddit today and asked how many slaves his ancestors owned in Cuba. His answer? “I don’t know.” Totally normal answer to the question.
Slavery was abolished by the british in their African colonies yet numerous forms of slavery persisted. And they also replaced it with other forms of mobilization, like forced labour and compulsive proletarization. So, slavery abolishment means little when in reality it’s not always carried out, especially when a lot of now “modern workers” found themselves being former slaves, with no other option other than subjecting themselves to continued exploitation.
Lol like liberals read history. “Reading history” means repeating what you heard someone else say who you assume reads history. I don’t have to actually waste my time learning if I just repeat the opinions of people who have certain accreditations and pedigrees of learning. Life is so fucking simple
these same people would say there are no slaves in america today, their opinions are compost and they should be too
Plantations and slavery aren’t 1 to 1.
