Nick is correct. You seem very selective in your responses on this thread, ignoring many questions which have been asked of you to "put up or shut up."
>I think that there *was* good reason back at the end of the 1950s to hope
>that Castro would be different and better than the rest of
>really-existing-socialism (though he has turned out not to be). I still
>think that Allende in Chile had a good chance of building a good society, a
>better Chile than we in fact have today. I am unsure about the
>Sandanistas...
Why don't you respond to the charge that Castro has had to deal with a hostile US, which has made life in Cuba *significantly* more difficult that it needs to be? You've been called to task on similar omissions repeatedly. Not only have you failed to respond to these challenges, you've continued to argue in this vein.
Why don't you offer any *evidence* as to why the Sandinistas could not have built a "good society." You may be right, but simply saying it don't make it so.
>Is there any evidence, any reason, anything at all that you can point to
>that suggests that a Greek communist government taking over the country in
>1944 or 1948 would have done anything other than repeat one of the sad
>stories of Hoxha--Tito--Zhivkov--Ceausescu?
Your pleas for evidence grow tiresome when you consistently fail to provide any evidence for your own claims.
Perhaps you could answer a modified version of your own question first - is there any reason to think that the Greek regime which DID come to power after WWII was any better than the regimes run by Tito-Hoxha-Zhivkov-Ceausescu?
Brett