" I am not a fan of Castro but it is interesting to try to understand contrasting figures in history. With this book being a sort of long interview autobiography one can learn something from how he speaks, answers, and leads conversation. One thing that strikes me, is that if you were a dictator only interested in holding on to all the power, it would be very convenient if the only two other modern leaders within your country who you happened to find worth much praising happened to be a dead man and your little brother. Coincidentally, Castro does not praise any other figures within his 'revolution,' at least not beyond a single mention in passing, who are not either the dead Che Guevara or the little brother Raul, no threats to possibly usurp any of the power he claims he is not motivated by. In general, Castro tries to sound extremely reasonable and moderate and thoughtful but it supposedly just so happens that careful thought has brought him to all the correct answers and that supposedly 99% of his people agree with him. He likes to correct the interviewer when he is wrong on a detail (why not just edit that out of the book) or congratulate the interviewer when he is correct on a detail, like a caring teacher, but the interviewer is a grown man so it strikes me as patronizing. There are some other interesting choices of words, like using the phrase "millions unanimously" to talk of how the people supposedly supported one of his initiatives, or trying to explain how someone might not count as a political prisoner if they are counter-revolutionary (you know the US had a revolution too awhile back, to which his ideas would be counter-revolutionary). He also claims that he doesn't arrest people for disagreeing with him, only people who "have broken laws," but that is an extremely superficial argument when you dont go on to defend the nature of those 'laws', after all a law can forbid anything or be be enforced in any way. He doesn't try to defend the one party state much until the end, and when he does the explanation is all too convenient about how everyone happens to exactly agree and its just such a warm friendly cheerful place free of all that unpleasant bickering. He says he is in favor of culture. He argues that his countries survival against US opposition is only possible through and therefore evidence of strong guiding principles, but North Korea could try that same argument, as could polio and consumption (they have only survived the super powers trying to eradicate them through their strong guiding principles of solidarity in resisting new counter-revolutionary vaccines and antibiotics). He does stick up for the death penalty, saying that its hard to rule it out when you dont know what sort of terrorism could be committed, and I like how it irritated the leftist French interviewer when he did that. Overall, it is interesting sometimes to read something you disagree with and get a sense of it, but this was not the most engaging book. To judge Castro, Cuba is not quite North Korea, Syria, etc. Its people are not free but they do not have the lowest possible standard of living and the government does seem to provide them basic services. He makes some points here and there, the US is not perfect, but as an alternative offers a dictatorship with a failed economy and an excuse. Castro does not seem to be living in incredible luxury or elevating himself to any kind of god, but he does seem to want to be an authoritative father figure to a lot of adults. It would seem more moral to let them make their own decisions among choices as contrasting as they desire, and the shear number of refugees would indicate they desire contrasting choices, but among peer countries in central america and the carribean they are not having the worst outcome. Castro would seem to be on a level with Kruschev, not quite the madman that Stalin or Mao was, but still a dictator in denial. "
— Marc, 1/21/2014