Soderbergh mocks cuban exile pricks who call che a murderer :)

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_dhBaPD7wQ&feature=related

these guys got sick of jacking off to the pictures of their grandads in their old bordellos, so they call che a murderer, at the end of the clip, soderbergh totally mocks the shit out of them haha.

actually upon reflection, he dosen't as much mock them, as says that he is lucky he lives in America, but the comments underneath are pro che, so its a moral victory for marcos

[Adi Shankara]

I think what makes the Cuban exiles especially annoying, is almost all of them are former landowners and career soldiers who supported dictatorship when it suited them; but as soon as Castro came in and instituted land reform, they all show up on our shores, crying about the fact they won't have 20 servants to take care of them anymore, are "victims", etc. But the most insulting part: They now pretend like they care about democracy!!!
Where were they protesting the lack of democracy when Batista was ruling? where was the Cuban resistance to Batista during the 1950s? oh yeah, they were there...But they were called "Communists".

[Raúl Duke]

I've been to Miami and in my opinion, the old Cubans (particularly does before Mariel boat-lift...those who left right after the revolution) seem to be naive and quite frankly a bit insane in their perspective.

What's funny is some think they'll get 'their' old shit in Cuba back if current government falters. Even if that were the case, I doubt that will happen at all as easily as they think it would.

[Spanishleft]

Those cubans in exile are really just missing their old days as factory owners!
But the modern left should not easily glamorise Che without any criticism. During his time as mercenary in Congo and Angola, Che fully left the path of pacifism, which should be the all time goal of every communist. I fear that by glorifying that, young communists and free minds world wide will get the wrong image about how revolutionary communism is supposed to be. I myself have been in Africa (not in Congo though) with an NGO for over a year, and seen what terrible wounds the leftover landmines do even to young children...we need to carefully choose our weapons in our struggle with facism and capitalism, much more carefully than in the past

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

you cannot be a revolutionary and be commited to non violence.

How can you say a marxist should be opposed to violence, when marx himself advocated a violent revolution.

It is the antithesis to opression.

Do not come on here, a revolutionary forum, spouting your liberal hippy bullshit, corrupting kids who after hearing you, become contollable reformist sit in parlimentary pricks.

Fuck pacifism.

Death to the system, to the opressors to all who wish to keep us as their wage slaves.

[Spanishleft]

Subcomandante Marcos, I am very sorry, I feel I have been misunderstood. I know the revolution has its needs, and the ultimate goal of reaching communism is worth almost every conduct. But once we reach global communism, pacifism will prevail, as there will be ultimativly no need for violence.

I just tend to identify myself more with the other side of violence, that is, healing. I know that sounds like 'liberal hippy bullshit', but a world full of violence and nothing to restrict it might as well be a fascist one, so I think violence must be considered very carefully each and every time.

But I like your revolutionary attitude :cool:

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

the modern left should not easily glamorise Che without any criticism. During his time as mercenary in Congo and Angola, Che fully left the path of pacifism, which should be the all time goal of every communist.

but how can we get to communism without your pacifism being replaced with class warfare?

we cannot

utopian idealism cannot get us where we need to be.

[Spanishleft]

I see your will to fight against oppression, however you need to understand there is more than one way to global communism! 'My' pacifism is Ghandi's pacifism, Mandela's pacifism, Luxemburg's pacifism, and is far from being uneffective! Capitalisms inherent instability will bring the system down, and then we need to be ready to bring peace, not war. Warfare is ultimatively the tool of capitalists, and thus needs to be abolished as soon as possible. Of course, the revolutionary left will need such tools at a time, but I am far from stating that warfare is something the revolutionary left should happily embrace. You have not seen what I've seen, the utter devastation of a society through war, half of which fought by facists claiming to be communists.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Ghandi did not liberate India with Pacifism, Militant Indian resistance did, coupled with the fact Britain was too weak to keep its empire after ww2.

Again how was Mandella pacifist, he formed the armed wing of the ANC, which fought guerrilla warfare against Apartheid.

every example you have given wasn't pacifism, it was the result of militant workers rising up, commiting violence.

Luxemberg was not a pacifist, she advocated workers revolution, with violent class struggle.

your arguement is bankrupt.

[Spanishleft]

Oh please, do your research! Luxemberg WAS a pacifist, a self stated too! I've read tons of Luxembergs writings, I adore her (I'm half German btw, my mom used to be German, so I can read the originals), and while Luxemberg of course advocated workers revolution, she was a pacifist!

My argument cannot be bankrupt, my argument never took loans from any banks. :rolleyes:

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

she was not a pacifist, also how was mandella a pacifist lmao?

And yeah ghandi was a pacifist, aswell as a racist who advocated a racist caste system, he also slep twith young girlks, and due to his pacifism, led 1000 of workers to their deaths, the militant indians were the ones who brought an end to empire.

[GreenCommunism]

gandhi perhaps was pacifist, but he wasn't non violent. his dream was to lead people hand in hand in front of machine guns. that's pretty violent if you ask me.

also i NEVER understood how mandela was a pacifist, the only excuse is that he was in prison.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

yeah, did i say otherwise?

[Adi Shankara]

Nelson Mandela was an internationalist and non-racist--but as leader of the ANC military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, he certainly was no pacifist; He deplored violence, and thus strived to create as little casualities as possible, and only attacked strategic targets...but that doesn't mean he was afraid to use it, seeing how the Koeberg power plant was blown up, along with a base for the South African Airforce, leaving dead 19 strategic targets.

[Invincible Summer]

Mandela used to be a bad-ass. But liberals and right-wingers just use his friendly old-man image now as a "symbol of peace" when they don't realize (or try to hide the fact) that he founded a group whose name translated to "Spear of the Nation."

Badass.

[Robocommie]

gandhi perhaps was pacifist, but he wasn't non violent. his dream was to lead people hand in hand in front of machine guns. that's pretty violent if you ask me.


I read somewhere that Gandhi was prepared to consider armed resistance if his pacifist tactics didn't work out. The idea was that if the Indians used violence to meet the British violence, it'd be easy for the world to pass off Indians as just as bad as the British or that they were "fanatics" and the like. However, if the world heard about the British firing on protestors who were doing nothing, and being peaceful, and not posing any kind of threat whatsoever, the world would turn against them.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, frankly. But I remember a professor of mine, who had been involved in the Civil Rights movement, he made the point that one of the most influential moments in MLK Jr's struggle was the news cameras filming peaceful black protestors being attacked with dogs and water hoses. Public opinion in the North, even among whites, quickly started turning against the South.

[praxis1966]

There's another small item that I think should be kept in mind concerning Cuban expats living in the US. Not only are they not representative of the bulk of pre-revolutionary Cuba in terms of economic status, they're not representative of Cuba then or now in terms of race either.

What I'm saying is that the overwhelming bulk of the expat population is white. According to the CIA factbook, Cuba today is 51% mixed heritage (black and white), 11% black, 1% Chinese, and 37% white. To make an analogy, they strike me the same way white South Africans would if one of them were to start complaining about the disappearence of apartheid. To put it bluntly, there's an element of racism at work here as well.

[Guerrilla22]

Those cubans in exile are really just missing their old days as factory owners!
But the modern left should not easily glamorise Che without any criticism. During his time as mercenary in Congo and Angola, Che fully left the path of pacifism, which should be the all time goal of every communist. I fear that by glorifying that, young communists and free minds world wide will get the wrong image about how revolutionary communism is supposed to be. I myself have been in Africa (not in Congo though) with an NGO for over a year, and seen what terrible wounds the leftover landmines do even to young children...we need to carefully choose our weapons in our struggle with facism and capitalism, much more carefully than in the past


1. He never was a pacifist in the first place, he was a Marxist-Leninist from the start. 2. How was he a "mercenary"? Who was paying him to fight on their behalf in the Congo? 3. He never was in Angola, get your facts straight if you're going to attempt to criticize someone.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

yeah, and if you have a problem with it, you will have to get through guerrilla to get to me, but by then i may have already fled.

[GreenCommunism]

Nelson Mandela was an internationalist and non-racist--but as leader of the ANC military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, he certainly was no pacifist; He deplored violence, and thus strived to create as little casualities as possible, and only attacked strategic targets...but that doesn't mean he was afraid to use it, seeing how the Koeberg power plant was blown up, along with a base for the South African Airforce, leaving dead 19 strategic targets.
would nelson mandela execute an hostage because south african white government wouldn't negociate? if so then the quebec FLQ is just as violent as nelson mandela was, there was 13 death over 10 years of bombing because of how careful they were at making sure everyone was evacuated before the bomb blew up and perhaps 4-5 of them were members of the flq who were fabricating bombs. the mistake they made was to kill that single man instead of running to cuba like the other group. support for the flq completly falled after this incident. some member of the flq didn't believe that they could actually have done it since they were so unorganized, but it was true. it also shows that if the whole thing wasn't true, the public is easily mislead by such stories.

i think nelson mandela being non-racist is very much what is admired, especially his attempts to reconcile the nation after apartheid, though ultimately it failed and too much power remained in the hand of the white minority.

[Adi Shankara]

would nelson mandela execute an hostage because south african white government wouldn't negociate?

Not that I know of, but the Umkhonto wasn't above such things; he did however, knowingly order attacks on places frequented by boers and other government ruling classes.


if so then the quebec FLQ is just as violent as nelson mandela was, there was 13 death over 10 years of bombing because of how careful they were at making sure everyone was evacuated before the bomb blew up and perhaps 4-5 of them were members of the flq who were fabricating bombs.

While Nelson Mandela wasn't in charge for the most violent years, Umkhonto we Sizwe was pretty violent, with one year ending in almost 200 deaths, mostly the bombings of Calvinist "white only" churches, gas stations, military bases, and laboratories.


i think nelson mandela being non-racist is very much what is admired, especially his attempts to reconcile the nation after apartheid, though ultimately it failed and too much power remained in the hand of the white minority.

That's another thing I like about the man--such integrity, that when he failed to keep many of his election promises, he refused to seek reelection, even though everyone knew he'd easily win it if he ran--but he thought he failed the South African people. ironically, that just made him more of a hero in most people's eyes, as it showed that Madiba was incorruptible.

[JacobVardy]

you cannot be a revolutionary and be commited to non violence.

How can you say a marxist should be opposed to violence, when marx himself advocated a violent revolution.

Not all revolutionaries are Marxists, someone calling themself Subcomandante Marcos should be aware of this. Your argument from authority of your prophet carries no weight here. That said, i liked the rest of your post.

[GreenCommunism]

marx advocated violent and non violent revolution. he believed it could be possible in certain countries where the democratic process isn't overwhelmingly rigged.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

communism cannot be brought by the ballot.

[Adi Shankara]

communism cannot be brought by the ballot.

It can, but first all social stratification must be eliminated, classes must be equalized, and revolution must be held, before the process of a real democracy could begin.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

yes sankara, but violence is the only way to remove classes, so violence is nescesarry, and ballot cannot help us.

democracy in socialism is possible, and nescesarry, but socialist revolutionary politics can not win through the ballot, as the ruling class, and her bodies will never allow it, as allowing it, would be denying them of their ableness to rule us.

[GreenCommunism]

the system right now is that way, but the ruling class has to give us bullshit rights like free speech. this is why karl marx thought it was possible, if they underestimate class consciousness and play our cards right we could win an election and go all the way to a revolution. after all we are perhaps 90-95% of society.

[Robocommie]

the system right now is that way, but the ruling class has to give us bullshit rights like free speech. this is why karl marx thought it was possible, if they underestimate class consciousness and play our cards right we could win an election and go all the way to a revolution. after all we are perhaps 90-95% of society.

Yeah something that occured to me is that if, theoretically a society was democratic enough, then a proletariat that is conscious enough to win a revolution should damn well be able to win an election as well.

[pranabjyoti]

Yeah something that occured to me is that if, theoretically a society was democratic enough, then a proletariat that is conscious enough to win a revolution should damn well be able to win an election as well.
It is ONLY possible when your said "country" is alienated from the whole world. Otherwise, bourgeoisie-imperialists from other part of the world will certainly intervene and very soon proletariat have to face their vicious attack and then have only two options. One, just stuck to the "democratic" way which will certainly end at a total failure or to take the militant "Stalinist" way. In both cases, either (bourgeoisie)democracy or proletariat will loose.