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.
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.
I'm reminded of all those threads on how Zionists have lost the ability to appeal to ordinary people. They get so used to talking to people who mostly agree with them that as soon as they step outside of their group and try out their lines on someone who isn't already invested the response is
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
Sure, you're always going to get some lib disagreeing with you. You're not going to convince some lib reply guy, but you might convince some skeptical person reading along. And lurkers far outnumber posters.
Here's how these conversations play out for that skeptical person:
Leftist: Castro freed slaves.
Lib: Cuba freed its slaves in 1886, you don't know Basic History.
Skeptical person: [Googles "when did Cuba free its slaves," finds 1886, disregards leftist and whatever else they argue.]
Or,
Leftist: Even the guy who invaded Cuba said Bautista was a monster and the Revolution was a popular uprising, here's a link.
Lib: That was before the firing squads.
Leftist: Shooting the enforcers of a monstrous dictator is good, actually.
Skeptical person: [Clicks on link, "huh Kennedy really did say that, I guess Bautista really was that bad" keeps listening.]
I'm suggesting a skeptical person will do some minimal amount of checking on a claim they don't immediately believe. When they see someone say Cuba had slaves in 1959, they'll google it. When they see someone provide a link to a speech and summarize it, they'll skim the link.
You are never going to convince the redditor brigade of anything that runs contrary to their slop. The goal when arguing publicly with a Batista defender is not to have a good faith exchange of ideas, it's to mock and humiliate so that onlookers will associate that person's politics with being a stammering fascist nerd who well akshually's in all directions trying to defend the plainly indefensible. The correct response to such a person pulling out the "technically it was sparkling servitude" card is to bully them into the ether for it.
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:
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.
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.
See what I mean?
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.
I'm reminded of all those threads on how Zionists have lost the ability to appeal to ordinary people. They get so used to talking to people who mostly agree with them that as soon as they step outside of their group and try out their lines on someone who isn't already invested the response is
We don't want to get to that point ourselves.
wat? OP's the one arguing about being technically correct and failing to consider the comms angle
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':
'JFK details the crimes of Batista':
Sure, you're always going to get some lib disagreeing with you. You're not going to convince some lib reply guy, but you might convince some skeptical person reading along. And lurkers far outnumber posters.
Here's how these conversations play out for that skeptical person:
Or,
look if we're going to apply the uncharitable jump to conclusion you're doing in the first you've gotta apply it to the second
Here's how these conversations play out for that skeptical person:
Or,
I'm suggesting a skeptical person will do some minimal amount of checking on a claim they don't immediately believe. When they see someone say Cuba had slaves in 1959, they'll google it. When they see someone provide a link to a speech and summarize it, they'll skim the link.
Hell yeah, I agree with this
that is my useless contribution to this exchange.
Dude, why are you so worried about crafting the perfect speech to successfully persuade libs without arguing with them?
Just relax a bit.
You asked me a question, I answered