#1
#2
the Cuban govt got rid of the dual-peso system, and bet big on tourism at absolutely the worst time, so some of this probably is genuine discontent with hyperinflation and shortages

but if history is any indication, the NED will give $240MM to the first group of 6 tradcaths plotting in a basement, who got prank called by a colonel saying he has 6 divisions "just waiting for the signal", they'll get marched on TV looking glumly at the floor, the people will yell YANQUI GO HOME and the US press will waffle about "alleged" "conspirators", and the whole thing will collapse in on itself
#3

shapes posted:

the Cuban govt got rid of the dual-peso system


a recent overview of this situation from Helen Yaffe

#4
gusanos gonna gusano




#5
i wanted to attribute that quote to our own jiroemon1897 but our search function sucks beyond belief
#6

shapes posted:

some of this probably is genuine discontent



#7
the Bay of Pigs II elite hit squad's credentials are "posts online a lot," if only they had Caro to lead them...
#8
cuba so repressive that protests can only occur in florida
#9


Hmm.. food for thought
#10
I think it’s very telling that Fidel has given tons of speeches without a single mention of “BIPOC”
#11
in cuba they put condoms on pizza to imitate the texture of cheese
#12
i put pizza in my condoms to imitate the texture of cheese
#13

tears posted:

in cuba they put condoms on pizza to imitate the texture of cheese


certified hood classic

#14

tears posted:

in cuba they put condoms on pizza to imitate the texture of cheese


Plants posted:

i put pizza in my condoms to imitate the texture of cheese



#15
i use cheese as condoms
#16
what's really radical in sex/cuban politics
#17
#18
I'm seeing a lot of "Cuba" pictures flying by my social media feeds, and every so often someone will point out that, no, that picture isn't from a protest in Cuba — it's from a scene in Argentina, in Egypt, in Spain, (cw: blood) a murder victim in Mexico from half a decade ago, an event from a completely different time and cause in Cuba, pictures from the Dominican Republic passed off as Cuban poverty, etc.

It brings me back to the times last decade that I'd see photos of destroyed cityscapes in Gaza or Libya claimed to be scenes from Syria. Given that Syria has had no shortage of ruined buildings in the last decade, that substitution is especially morbid. But the question of who is willing to resort to such base manipulation is one I grant considerable weight.

A lot of people have different ideas about what the key defining traits of fascism tend to be — some mix of romanticism, patriarchal mythos in industrial society, the loss of some source of imperial revenues or prestige either real or imagined, downwardly mobile petty-bourgeois class status acting alongside nationalist ideology in ultimate support of finance capital, the aestheticization of politics, the turning of colonialism's methods inward, etc. All those things may be true, but I also tend to see one of the less-emphasized defining traits of fascists, whether of the brute- or social- variety, is that they place no value on honest self-representation, let alone representation of the other. The entire ethic, such as it is, is steeped in lies. It's the reason that most fash are cryptofash — a Proud Boy ready to deny the charge up and down, who will then march and commit violence alongside RAM or the Base; a groyper online who's Just Asking Questions.

It's likewise also the reason for stuff like that absolutely adorable fake "antifa manual" that was circulating some years ago.

Remember that one? It comes to mind a lot for me, as sort of an exemplar case. Someone took the time to even add the little crinkles and coffee stains on their cartoonish bit of fiction. It's always cartoonish, mind, because brownshirts and pigs virtually never have the grist to pass an ideological Turing test; if they could reliably articulate a better worldview with any degree of accuracy, they'd be forced to deal with growing cognitive dissonance in continuing to espouse their own empty creeds. Perhaps that's not a bridge too far for some of them, necessarily, but why even burden oneself?

No, instead they'll spend hours, days, weeks cobbling together fake documents representing an almost parodic version of their opponents — a fake guy they got angry at and need other people to get mad at too — because, alas, had they invested that same amount of time trying to render their own ideology humane or coherent, it'd be an even bigger wasted effort.

In the philosophy of science, there's a concept in the Critical Realist school called "explanatory critique." In a nutshell:

Andrew Collier posted:

Social science, like any science, presents ideas claimed to be true of the object studied. ... Unlike the objects of natural sciences, the object it studies ... includes ideas. For society can only exist insofar as human agents act, reproducing and transforming the social structure. And human agents act in accordance with ideas [many of which will be ideas about features of that society].

In Britain in the 1980s, a large number of people believed that unemployment was the result of the fecklessness of the unemployed. Any account of social attitudes, political behaviour, etc. in that period would need to mention that fact. But it would also need to mention the real causes of unemployment in the structure of British financial institutions, the world market, government policy, etc. Hence the explanations that were part of the social-scientific study, and the explanations that were part of the society studied, would contradict. If the social science had got it right, then the people it described who had the opposite explanation must have got it wrong. Hence the social science criticizes (part of) its object. There can be no equivalent of this in the natural sciences. Black holes may be unpleasant things to contemplate, but that is no criticism of them. They exist — or don't — and there's an end of it.



The implications of this are fairly simple. If a fact about an institution is that it must promote false beliefs in order to persist, and ceteris paribus it is better to believe true things than false things, then one would be inclined to a negative evaluation of said institution. And this, in turn, points indirectly to an even more profound result:

Collier posted:

The hardened fact/value dichotomist might respond: "The argument jumps from fact to value when it introduces the assumption that it is best to believe what is true." However, the questions 'what should I believe about x' and 'what is true about x' are not logically independent questions. In fact they are equivalent, in the sense that the answer to one is necessarily the answer to the other. It simply doesn't make sense to say 'that is true, but I shouldn't believe it' or 'I should believe that, though it is not true.'

This may seem to prove too much. For it looks as if it implies that true belief is always better than false belief. ... It is better that a would-be murderer should have false beliefs about his victim's whereabouts.

But the absolute character of the inference from 'it is true' to 'I should believe it' applies only in the first-person case. I cannot separate the question of something's truth from the question whether I should believe it ... since to believe something is to hold it true.



At the point where subject and object are one and the same, there's an ineluctable linkage between ethics and epistemology that creates a point of breakdown in the classic fact/value dichotomy. Ceteris paribus, we cannot but prefer the truth. We determine our concrete practices on the basis of what we believe to be true, what will have effect, and this practice, as Mao famously noted, is likewise reciprocally a source of correct ideas.

We might say that the truth, then, has a sort of primary moral imperative to it. Things that bring us closer to understanding reality allow us to grow, to better create the grounds for human emancipation and — to indulge in a bit of speculative metaphysics — perhaps even move, as a species, toward greater and greater complexity, higher levels of reality. It connects just as well, perhaps, to Aquinas's notions about life being ordered toward the Good. Life strives in a basic way for this perfection, veins of local anentropic processes in a universe of increasing general entropy. Mind emerged from matter, simple life gave rise to complex life, from which grew society. New nomological conditions emerge from base ones: physical to chemical, to biological, to psychological, sociological. Perhaps one day we as a species will survive to see what springs from that, at a sufficient level of development. But in all cases, progress, however defined, will come from a careful attention to the features of our shared reality.

So what can we say about those ideologies that promote a false grasp of the world, whether as a core precept or just a knob for opportunists to grip? What can we say about these people who misrepresent reality in the service of the lords of finance capital, and at the expense of a people who seek self-determination and harmonious coexistence with the world at large? How can we describe accomplices to those forces that in living memory have bred only self-perpetuating cycles of human tragedy, the deaths of millions, the ruin of entire nations?

To me, such people — whether hasbarist or gusano, spook, pig, white supremacist (but I repeat myself), or any other flavor of reactionary ghoul — are comporting themselves, in a truly fundamental way, as the enemies of humankind, if not life itself on this tiny blue speck.

It falls to those of conscience, those of class-consciousness, and those not otherwise in the thrall of capital to fight against this where possible. Counterpropaganda is, as ever, an upstream battle, but it's one unquestionably worth fighting.

(tl;dr: fibbing bad)

Edited by Constantignoble ()

#19

Constantignoble posted:

I'm seeing a lot of "Cuba" pictures flying by my social media feeds, and every so often someone will point out that, no, that picture isn't from a protest in Cuba — it's from a scene in Argentina, in Egypt, in Spain, (cw: blood) a murder victim in Mexico from half a decade ago, an event from a completely different time and cause in Cuba, pictures from the Dominican Republic passed off as Cuban poverty, etc.

It brings me back to the times last decade that I'd see photos of destroyed cityscapes in Gaza or Libya claimed to be scenes from Syria. Given that Syria has had no shortage of ruined buildings in the last decade, that substitution is especially morbid. But the question of who is willing to resort to such base manipulation is one I grant considerable weight.



#20

Constantignoble posted:



When it comes to the question of: how can a sociological analysis be objective, when the object of analysis has already influenced the subject attempting analysis? The answer to me is that we must take seriously the dialectical method of investigation rather than mere empiricism.

Marx writes:

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.



This means that a sociological investigation is complete only when a historical materialist analysis discovers the means by which the question arose in the first place. Answering the question is only the first step and is never a complete analysis.

#21
put that post on the front page