You're giving way too much legitimacy to the narratives of the people who fled the country. Many of them came from wealthy land-owning families that were dispossessed during the revolution. Anytime you interact with anyone who is a refugee from a country that had a socialist revolution you will hear their stories of having their land taken, their "servants" set free, or their livestock taken to feed soldiers of the revolution. Their complaints are almost universally superficial and of the nature of property relations. You will have a hard time finding Cubans who fled for actual ideological reasons.
However, even when they claim ideological differences, they can't point to any actual policy where they differ. Look at the South Vietnamese or Kuomintang who fled China, they largely will claim they supported democratic freedom but what freedom existed in Kuomintang-ruled Taiwan or in South Vietnam? In actuality, there was almost none, these governments experienced more repression than any of the communist governments around the world would or ever have engendered.
I don’t think so. the people leaving weren’t just wealthy elites or hardcore ideological opponents—they included dissidents, disillusioned citizens, and even those who might’ve agreed with the government’s broader ideals but couldn’t voice any criticism or had issues with specific policies. In Cuba, speaking out wasn’t an option, and even if your problem wasn’t ideological, you still had to stay quiet or face consequences.
And yeah, maybe the Batista regime was worse in plenty of ways, but that doesn’t mean Castro’s government was what it was supposed to be. It wasn’t the utopia he promised, and in many ways, it was still just another horrible system. It’s absolutely possible to go from one bad government to another.
What you said about South Vietnam and the Kuomintang is a great point. After being overthrown, their leaders often claimed to stand for democracy and freedom, positioning themselves against the new regimes. But let’s be real—Kuomintang-led China and South Vietnam weren’t democratic or free either. They were authoritarian in their own ways, and that hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Still, just because the previous government was oppressive doesn’t mean its successor automatically gets a pass and the alternative doesn’t have to be the predecessor.
Oppression can come from anywhere, across any political spectrum, and multiple regimes can be bad in their own ways. Power tends to corrupt no matter where it lands, and we shouldn’t just excuse one system because it happened to replace a worse one.
You're giving way too much legitimacy to the narratives of the people who fled the country. Many of them came from wealthy land-owning families that were dispossessed during the revolution. Anytime you interact with anyone who is a refugee from a country that had a socialist revolution you will hear their stories of having their land taken, their "servants" set free, or their livestock taken to feed soldiers of the revolution. Their complaints are almost universally superficial and of the nature of property relations. You will have a hard time finding Cubans who fled for actual ideological reasons.
However, even when they claim ideological differences, they can't point to any actual policy where they differ. Look at the South Vietnamese or Kuomintang who fled China, they largely will claim they supported democratic freedom but what freedom existed in Kuomintang-ruled Taiwan or in South Vietnam? In actuality, there was almost none, these governments experienced more repression than any of the communist governments around the world would or ever have engendered.
I don’t think so. the people leaving weren’t just wealthy elites or hardcore ideological opponents—they included dissidents, disillusioned citizens, and even those who might’ve agreed with the government’s broader ideals but couldn’t voice any criticism or had issues with specific policies. In Cuba, speaking out wasn’t an option, and even if your problem wasn’t ideological, you still had to stay quiet or face consequences.
And yeah, maybe the Batista regime was worse in plenty of ways, but that doesn’t mean Castro’s government was what it was supposed to be. It wasn’t the utopia he promised, and in many ways, it was still just another horrible system. It’s absolutely possible to go from one bad government to another.
What you said about South Vietnam and the Kuomintang is a great point. After being overthrown, their leaders often claimed to stand for democracy and freedom, positioning themselves against the new regimes. But let’s be real—Kuomintang-led China and South Vietnam weren’t democratic or free either. They were authoritarian in their own ways, and that hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
Still, just because the previous government was oppressive doesn’t mean its successor automatically gets a pass and the alternative doesn’t have to be the predecessor.
Oppression can come from anywhere, across any political spectrum, and multiple regimes can be bad in their own ways. Power tends to corrupt no matter where it lands, and we shouldn’t just excuse one system because it happened to replace a worse one.