Tfw Trump has put such an ugly face on neoliberalism...

He was president.

The seat of the presidency of Cuba was no different under Castro than under Batista.

But Batista was a dictator too.

Head of state. Is Merkel a dictator then? Because she's head of government since 2000. Is it okay to call someone a dictator just because we don't like them?

That's acceptable. I am not a particular enthusiast regarding DPRK choices, but…it's up for their people to riot and change what they don't like. Not any western country.

I'm not the guy you were talking to, but what I take issue with is the claim that socialism is uniquely dictatorial, when most of the countries with socialist dictatorships had dictatorships before they had socialism. It is not so easy to transition from dictatorship to democracy, even with all the good will and desire in the world.

True.
Collectivism is uniquely dictatorial though.

The only societies that went from a dictatorship to a democracy did so because they embraced the rights and responsibilities of the individual over the state.

Yeah, I won't bitch about Castro being a dictator. He was an overall positive figure following Batista. My problems with him are more so coming from a Marxist perspective. I think in this whole argument people also forget that the democracies of the world are dictatorships in their own right, specifically class dictatorships. There is no nation where working class people have a say no matter who is in charge.

All societies are collectivist, it's only a question of how the collective is organized. The "individual" is a myth.

Good point.

Not all of them.
Theres a lost tribe in Brazil that people think has only got 1 member left.

The "perfect society" would not require a "dictator" or a "leader" because the perfect society would be autonomous. It would make its decisions entirely by the will of the people, for better or for worse, the decision is theirs. Children would be trained from a very early age based on their skills and aptitudes and as they continue schooling their choices for profession become narrower and more focused. You start out with lots of choices when you first enter school, very broad things and you basically say "Maybe this sounds cool!" and try it, and the next year you can change your mind and proceed down a different path but each year it becomes narrower and narrower with less variation. As a child reaches maturity and graduates from this schooling they are already a honed and focused tool for doing whatever it is that they must do, whether that be a physical labor or a mental engagement. The society provides each and every person with the same "pay", no one gets more or less regardless of role and if you are not working as hard or are degenerate the entire society will be eager to punish you as you are an anchorweight. There would be a figure head leader, no actual power but he would be the face and identity of the nation in international (and perhaps interplanetary) politics. The society would decide their course of action by voting and the figure head would deliver their message to the ambassador from the given nation.

I developed this societal system via thought experiment a few years ago, as far as I am able to see it is the only means of government that would truly be beneficial for all, but only if the "all" decide to make it so. It could very easily be run into the ground and everyone starves to death if people are lazy fucks so it requires that the society propels itself upward through concerted efforts and labor knowing that for each marginal gain they would ALL reap the fruits of the labor and each lazy piece of shit that wants to sit at home doing nothing would be first encouraged to become a contributing member of society or otherwise might be cast out.

No, because power isn't concentrated in her to same level it was with Castro.
I'm not saying he was the worst dictator ever, but he was a dictator.

They don't think he's appealing because he was a communist, you moron. You have to understand how liberals think. They hear non-white country, healthcare and literacy rates, and bam that's it. That's enough to make him an angel. It's a very simplistic "muh third world empowerment" narrative. Authoritarianism, economics or politics doesn't enter the equation.

You don't seem to get it.
A useful idiot is a useful idiot to me.

But Merkel is the representative of her class and leader of their class dictatorship.

I'm not arguing that she isn't.
That still doesn't make her a dictator in and of herself, is my point.

You may want to take a look at his appointees so far.

SUCKER

Hey, isn't that Rutgers where Trigglypuff did her flabby dance?

That is neither a tribe nor a society then.

Castro did very little wrong.

define neo-liberal.

Well you've got to remember the difference between a good dictator and an autocratic and incompetent president operating with a clear degree of ideological dishonesty.

this is your brain on ideology

lmgtfy.com/?q=Neoliberalism

I'm asking for YOUR definition in your own words. Is this something you are capable of? Your own words I mean, and not just parroting the approved list of lefties.

What is YOUR definition of neoliberalism and does Trump fit it?

Why do you need my personal definition? I'm just going to give you the generally accepted definition which is the politics of privatization, reduced social spending and tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

How does Trump NOT embody this sort of politics?

He said that he's for bilateral trade agreements, like NAFTA. But I bet you 20 bucks TTIP will be passed under Trump.

...

f

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't most of Castro's "wrongs" the killings which happened to make sure the revolution stuck / murdering Batista supporters… Yet Trump supporters were at least partially violent thugs even in a ""peaceful"" democracy?

So if Castro had come to power the way Trump had or vice versa, Trump would have done what Castro did for sure, but maybe Castro supporters would have been able to hold a rally without wanton violence?