Cuba restricts internet access

[kylieII]

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15098

Cuba: New law restricting internet access may prevent human rights monitoring
Amnesty International today expressed concern at the impact on freedom of expression and information of Cuba's new law restricting internet access, and warned that the new measures may prevent the exposure of human rights abuses in the country.

"The new measures, which limit and impede unofficial internet use, constitute yet another attempt to cut off Cubans' access to alternative views," said Amnesty International. "Following last year's prosecution of 75 activists for peacefully expressing their views, this gives the authorities another mechanism to repress dissent and punish critics."

The new law, which came into effect on 10 January, limits internet access to those, such as officially recognised businesses and government offices, with special telephone accounts payable in US dollars. This prevents ordinary Cuban people from accessing the service.

"We fear that the new measures are intended to prevent human rights monitoring by restricting the flow of information out of Cuba," the organisation said.

"The Cuban authorities must do away with illegitimate curbs on freedom of expression and information, and must bring their legislation into line with international human rights standards once and for all," Amnesty International concluded.

Background Information

The vast majority of Cuba's media are state-owned and state-controlled. Cubans' access to foreign media is limited. However, Cuban government sources have reportedly indicated that they believe up to 40,000 Cubans have unofficial access to the internet.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its article 19, guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. These rights have been further codified and protected in standards such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the ICCPR (1985) and the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (1996).

Amnesty International is currently campaigning for the immediate and unconditional release of 84 prisoners of conscience in Cuba, incarcerated for the peaceful exercise of fundamental freedoms



---------

I can see no legitimate reason for this. The only possible cause of it is to stop Cubans being corrupted by western media. But the internet is so large to make it very possible to avoid coming into contact with the right-wing media, and theres just as many liberal, marxist, anarchist etc media sites as there is right wing ones. And even if a person was to get to cnn.com or something, that doesnt mean they're all of a sudden going to want to kill Fidel Castro and totally free up enterprise. Having been brought up with Marxism in their culture, and thought of more positively than in western countries, I would think that less than anyone they are likely to buy into what the right-wing says.
Cuba really doesn't help itself in terms of foreign opinion with things such as this. In general its system, economic and social, is quite free and fair, despite what some try to say. But this on the other hand is a move towards a more bolshevik style system.

[Fidelbrand]

Amnesty International is a fucking disinformed, and in my opinion, one of the most fucked up NGOs in this universe.

Every country has their laws to prevent subversion, every country has their political prisoners, why pick on Cuba? see how U.S. jams in Sherman Austin's house and confiscate his computers, ........ ask Amnesty int'l to do something~ alright? see what they can do ....... :D

[kylieII]

It doesn't pick on Cuba, or ignore other countries as you suggest.
In fact compare the US list of reports: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/index
to the Cuban list: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-cub/index
It hardly looks like cuba is being victimised to me.

[Hate Is Art]

amen ortega, amensty intl although they do do alot of good work are a bit biased and support western govt to much.

[kylieII]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 17 2004, 05:19 PM
amen ortega, amensty intl although they do do alot of good work are a bit biased and support western govt to much.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-cub/index
This is the list of reports it has made on Cuba.

Compare that to
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/index USA
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-gbr/index UK
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-isr/index Isreal

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:19 PM
It doesn't pick on Cuba, or ignore other countries as you suggest.
In fact compare the US list of reports: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/index
to the Cuban list: http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-cub/index
It hardly looks like cuba is being victimised to me.
i hope so, Kylie , but U.S. 's having a longer list doesn't mean that actions and condemnations made by Amnesty Int'l is comparably more (to the case of Cuba) . You see .... U.S. 's hegemonic position really renders Amnesty intl's action and condemnations useless.

Every country has their own laws written and laid. Amnesty int'l sucks big time. To me, their actions are also a kind of semi-imperialism.

[kylieII]

i hope so, Kylie , but U.S. 's having a longer list doesn't mean that actions and condemnations made by Amnesty Int'l is comparably more (to the case of Cuba) . You see .... U.S. 's hegemonic position really renders Amnesty intl's action and condemnations useless.

This doesn't affect its credibility on reporting about Cuba - whether its actions are actually effective or not.



Every country has their own laws written and laid. Amnesty int'l sucks big time. To me, their actions are also a kind of semi-imperialism
So it should not comment on other countries due to each one having different laws and values. Well, in that case, in the US it is legal to detain people under the patriot act without giving them access to a lawyer, and holding them indefinitly. Should we therefore not comment on that, because its just their own laws.
Your arguement that we should not criticise other countries, because of their different values, encourages a laissez faire attitude. What if it was a law in one country established through a dictator or corrupt democratic system reducing the representativeness of the population, was to kill an entire race? Of course we should criticize, and intervene, if this was to happen. Not according to your idea of us accepting that different countries have different laws.
As for it being imperialist, how so.
It is simply based on the universal declaration of human rights(http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng), and the idea that everyone should have them. Its the same as how it is accepted that you should not kill anyone for no reason. How this value can be seen as imperialist i'm very interested in hearing from you.

[el_profe]

This was reported all over the media,the minister of information from cuba reported this news in a news conference. However I am not surprised when some commies here support this kind of oppression.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:06 PM
This was reported all over the media,the minister of information from cuba reported this news in a news conference. However I am not surprised when some commies here support this kind of oppression.
Why don't you go ask sherman austin about opresion. He had his internet acess SERVRELY restricted because some idiot on his website posted something you can find on Amazon.com

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Jan 17 2004, 06:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lardlad95 @ Jan 17 2004, 06:19 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 06:06 PM
This was reported all over the media,the minister of information from cuba reported this news in a news conference. However I am not surprised when some commies here support this kind of oppression.
Why don&#39;t you go ask sherman austin about opresion. He had his internet acess SERVRELY restricted because some idiot on his website posted something you can find on Amazon.com [/b]
What the fuck does the USA have to do with this, Cuba oppresses all cubans, look at all the anti-bush websites, they are not getting arrested.
Sherman is 1 person, they did not kill him because of his website, in cuba he would of been killed or in ajil for like 20 years.

[lucid]

The only reason that internet is restricted is so that Cubans don&#39;t tell the rest of the world how great it is to live there. :rolleyes:

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by el_profe+Jan 17 2004, 06:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Jan 17 2004, 06:40 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:19 PM

[email protected] 17 2004, 06:06 PM
This was reported all over the media,the minister of information from cuba reported this news in a news conference. However I am not surprised when some commies here support this kind of oppression.
Why don&#39;t you go ask sherman austin about opresion. He had his internet acess SERVRELY restricted because some idiot on his website posted something you can find on Amazon.com
What the fuck does the USA have to do with this, Cuba oppresses all cubans, look at all the anti-bush websites, they are not getting arrested.
Sherman is 1 person, they did not kill him because of his website, in cuba he would of been killed or in ajil for like 20 years. [/b]
Well then I guess America and Cuba have something in common, either way Sherman goes to jail.

Also what i see as a huge problem for Right Wingers like yourself, is that you believe that if it isn&#39;t the American way it&#39;s the wrong way.

Sure there are cubans who don&#39;t like cuba, just like there are americans who don&#39;t like America, and French people who hate France.

That doesn&#39;t however mean all Cubans hate cuba...That doesn&#39;t mean that everyone in Cuba feels like they are brutally opressed. Americans really need to tone down this we&#39;re number 1 crap.

The majority of cubans don&#39;t give a shit, they just go about living their lives like most other people in the world. The reason the majority of cubans don&#39;t complain isn&#39;t because they are brutally opressed, it&#39;s because they just want to live their lives.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:42 PM
The only reason that internet is restricted is so that Cubans don&#39;t tell the rest of the world how great it is to live there. :rolleyes:
Well God bless the USA where I can get on the internet and tell everyone how much this place blows

[Urban Rubble]

I think this is a shitty move by Castro. I understand that Cuba is a revolutionary state still and that there are countless subversionists (is that a word?) but I think he needs to loosen his tie a bit. You know, have a drink, get crazy. Let people say what they think a bit more often.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:47 PM

i hope so, Kylie , but U.S. &#39;s having a longer list doesn&#39;t mean that actions and condemnations made by Amnesty Int&#39;l is comparably more (to the case of Cuba) . You see .... U.S. &#39;s hegemonic position really renders Amnesty intl&#39;s action and condemnations useless.

This doesn&#39;t affect its credibility on reporting about Cuba - whether its actions are actually effective or not.



Every country has their own laws written and laid. Amnesty int&#39;l sucks big time. To me, their actions are also a kind of semi-imperialism
So it should not comment on other countries due to each one having different laws and values. Well, in that case, in the US it is legal to detain people under the patriot act without giving them access to a lawyer, and holding them indefinitly. Should we therefore not comment on that, because its just their own laws.
Your arguement that we should not criticise other countries, because of their different values, encourages a laissez faire attitude. What if it was a law in one country established through a dictator or corrupt democratic system reducing the representativeness of the population, was to kill an entire race? Of course we should criticize, and intervene, if this was to happen. Not according to your idea of us accepting that different countries have different laws.
As for it being imperialist, how so.
It is simply based on the universal declaration of human rights(http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng), and the idea that everyone should have them. Its the same as how it is accepted that you should not kill anyone for no reason. How this value can be seen as imperialist i&#39;m very interested in hearing from you.
The reason i said that is because you said Cuba isn&#39;t picked on and you implied that U.S. even has a longer list. From my perspective, A.I. only aspires to carry concrete action to those allegedly "oppressed" countries because they are more vulnerable. Cuba is a perfect example, discredited severely by U.S. &#39;s media and government , leading to bias informarion flying in the atmosphere, that&#39;s why I think A.I. picks on it and does not take sufficient action towards U.S. , although she has a "longer list".

Quote: "Its the same as how it is accepted that you should not kill anyone for no reason. How this value can be seen as imperialist i&#39;m very interested in hearing from you."

Reply: Right, So back to Cuba .. does A.I. thinks that Cuba is jailing people for no reason? Well, the president of Cuba is well doomed by descriptions as being oppressive and undermining liberty. What kind of world are we living in right now? What kind of world is A.I. living in right now? ANS: Rampant Capitalism , and as a leftist, I do think that democracy is a toy threw to the public to play with , when their government, even fully representing them, has no say to the lasseiz faire market mechanism (This also answers to your concern about " What if it was a law in one country established through a dictator or corrupt democratic system reducing the representativeness of the population" Democracy under capitalism is frivolous... in my opinion)~ Different ideologies bring about different ways of ruling and protecting one&#39;s political ideological stance.

I read from one of the articles that " "The Cuban government must immediately halt executions, and abolish once and for all the death penalty from the Cuban legal system." . Now that is total bullshit.. ~ Killing someone for no reason as you described, is of course right and i agree with you, but when the laws listed the dangerousness of disobeying and people violate them and lead to execution ..... who &#39;s fault is it? The fault of the law being enacted or what ? If someone/somebody intervenes for mere humanitarian reasons , then it would seem to me rather ridiculous.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 17 2004, 07:14 PM
I think this is a shitty move by Castro. I understand that Cuba is a revolutionary state still and that there are countless subversionists (is that a word?) but I think he needs to loosen his tie a bit. You know, have a drink, get crazy. Let people say what they think a bit more often.
I agree...this wasn&#39;t a good move. however with all the anti-cuban terrorism recently he does need to be cautious

[redstar2000]

I think we should start by realizing that Amnesty International makes no class distinctions in its ratings...they are not Marxists. To them, exploitation is not a reportable violation of "human rights".

With regard to Cuba, it is not "ordinary Cubans" who are being "deprived" of access to the internet...ordinary Cubans don&#39;t have personal computers, as they are far too expensive.

Who are these "estimated 40,000" people who do have them? They are almost all people with relatives in Miami--who purchased computers for them and physically transported them there on the special flights that the U.S. allows between Miami and Havana (via the Bahamas). (Don&#39;t even bother to inquire about getting on one of those flights...ordinary Americans are deprived of the "human right" to visit Cuba.)

The relatives also send them the dollars to pay for internet service.

What are the political views of these people? Guess&#33; :lol:

I do think it would be a good thing if Cuba set up a network of internet cafés where real "ordinary Cubans" could have access to the internet at nominal cost...it would be terrific to have some Cubans on this board.

But for those who have disproportionately benefited from Cuba&#39;s "two-tier" economy...they are simply being reminded that Cuba is not, after all, a rich country.

And as to the so-called "prisoners of conscience" recently imprisoned there--that Amnesty International is bleating about--they were paid agents of U.S. imperialism, pure and simple.

Not "journalists". Not "poets". Not "intellectuals". Just fucking mercenaries.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[cubist]

cuba can do as it feels apt, North korea has had it like that for ages

[Urban Rubble]

Well RedStar, you showed me who was boss. Good post.


cuba can do as it feels apt, North korea has had it like that for ages

Oh yes, let&#39;s all do as North Korea does. I know I sure hate having food to eat, let&#39;s all be like them and starve. Kim Jong Il is a fucking criminal.

[redstar2000]

North Korea has had it like that for ages.

Cephas, please don&#39;t drag the neo-Confucianist despotism in North Korea into this thread.

Thanks.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

every gov&#39;t has its wrongs, whats your point

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 17 2004, 11:18 PM
Well RedStar, you showed me who was boss. Good post.


cuba can do as it feels apt, North korea has had it like that for ages

Oh yes, let&#39;s all do as North Korea does. I know I sure hate having food to eat, let&#39;s all be like them and starve. Kim Jong Il is a fucking criminal.
Yeah..I hate this damn food..punk ass pretzels and rice and shit

[kylieII]

Cuba is a perfect example, discredited severely by U.S. &#39;s media and government , leading to bias informarion flying in the atmosphere, that&#39;s why I think A.I. picks on it and does not take sufficient action towards U.S. , although she has a "longer list".
Can you give examples of Amnesty International &#39;picking&#39; on Cuba? I would have expected that it condemning more the US than Cuba would have shown that it is in fact not biased towards western countries. But apparently this is some kind of trick?


ANS: Rampant Capitalism , and as a leftist, I do think that democracy is a toy threw to the public to play with , when their government, even fully representing them, has no say to the lasseiz faire market mechanism (This also answers to your concern about " What if it was a law in one country established through a dictator or corrupt democratic system reducing the representativeness of the population" Democracy under capitalism is frivolous... in my opinion)~ Different ideologies bring about different ways of ruling and protecting one&#39;s political ideological stance.

Oh ok I see, in your opinion all the criticisms that have been made at Cuba are unjustified, because democracy and freedom can be uneccessary. Well in that case how do you support the action quoted in my first post on here, which is a restriction on freedom. How is it that this is needed to be restricted in particular.


Killing someone for no reason as you described, is of course right and i agree with you, but when the laws listed the dangerousness of disobeying and people violate them and lead to execution ..... who &#39;s fault is it? The fault of the law being enacted or what ? If someone/somebody intervenes for mere humanitarian reasons , then it would seem to me rather ridiculous.

Which is why Amnesty International does not go by the laws of particular countries. whether it is legal in a country to do something or not, such as here where it was legal to use the death penalty, is not important.



With regard to Cuba, it is not "ordinary Cubans" who are being "deprived" of access to the internet...ordinary Cubans don&#39;t have personal computers, as they are far too expensive.

You are trying to say that every Cuban that had access to the internet there was those with relatives in Miami?(out of those who now have it restricted, i mean)
Thats a complete over-generalisation. How about those who have recieved them as gifts, such as from relatives overseas, or from members of the Cuban government, or those whose work involves using computers.



The relatives also send them the dollars to pay for internet service.
What are the political views of these people? Guess&#33;
Because they have relatives there, does not mean that they themselves share the same political views. That they are in Cuba still shows that they do not see it as bad as those who have left. This may not be true of all of them, but no explanation as to why they are still in Cuba can be applied in such a way.

Plus you still have not explained how it is that restricting these peoples access benefits Cuba.


every gov&#39;t has its wrongs, whats your point

It shows that all the faults in Cuba cannot be blamed on western imperialists.

Also I forgot to mention, notice how Cuban government workers are not included in this ban. Nice, very equality based.

[FAB]

castro is right&#33; no free speech for fascists&#33;

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:07 PM

Can you give examples of Amnesty International &#39;picking&#39; on Cuba? I would have expected that it condemning more the US than Cuba would have shown that it is in fact not biased towards western countries. But apparently this is some kind of trick?


Oh ok I see, in your opinion all the criticisms that have been made at Cuba are unjustified, because democracy and freedom can be uneccessary. Well in that case how do you support the action quoted in my first post on here, which is a restriction on freedom. How is it that this is needed to be restricted in particular.

Which is why Amnesty International does not go by the laws of particular countries. whether it is legal in a country to do something or not, such as here where it was legal to use the death penalty, is not important.

You are trying to say that every Cuban that had access to the internet there was those with relatives in Miami?(out of those who now have it restricted, i mean)
Thats a complete over-generalisation. How about those who have recieved them as gifts, such as from relatives overseas, or from members of the Cuban government, or those whose work involves using computers.

It shows that all the faults in Cuba cannot be blamed on western imperialists.
I will reply to those quotes that belong to me...

Condemnations and actions taken are two different things. U.S. &#39;s having a longer list is meaningless cult to me. That is why the concept of "picking" came up in my mind.

Sadly, You did not see my opinion, and it is very strange for you to cut my line of reasonings to this conclusion. I do regard the value of democracy , but liberal democracy under capitalism, as conceived by me, it&#39;s indeed a toy. To adopt the idea made by Redstar2000, I do not think that the problem is great, since the lay public do not have a strong urge nor they use the internet on a conventional base like us. ....... It is hard to draw draw a reconciliation of viewpoints between me and you. I believe that people&#39;s physiological needs are of first priority, but capitalism renders it frivolous at times~ Rights, freedom , liberty ...... yeah .. they are just Great&#33;&#33;&#33; BUT WHEN ONE DOESN&#39;T EVEN HAS THE CAPABILITY TO LIVE, THESE ALLEGED SUPERIORITIES ARE RENDERED FAR OUT OF REACH. That is why i m always pro-left.

Cannot be blamed on western imperialists ~? :lol: Try to understand more on Cuba&#39;s struggles from the imperialistic actions from the hegemonic continent that is only 4 miles off its coast first .. please...

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:23 PM
castro is right&#33; no free speech for fascists&#33;
no free speech for those imperialists/worms that tries to shake the foundation of the success of the revolution too. :angry:

[Valishin]

Ok lets ignore the fact that AI put out a condemnation on the action.

What about the action itself? Am I reading this correct and you guys are supporting censorship, as long as the message being censored is the one counter to yours?


Also what i see as a huge problem for Right Wingers like yourself, is that you believe that if it isn&#39;t the American way it&#39;s the wrong way
Apparently you believe the same thing, except of course toward your choosen political view.



With regard to Cuba, it is not "ordinary Cubans" who are being "deprived" of access to the internet...ordinary Cubans don&#39;t have personal computers, as they are far too expensive...
I really don&#39;t know how to respond to this. Are you saying that the people who can get computers are somehow wrong for doing so?

By the way, I agree that AI isn&#39;t exactly a respectable source as far as opinions. But I am more concerned with the facts of the case.

And I see no reasoning beyond tyranny to have such a law, unless they were having a problem with limited bandwidth. Which I somehow really doubt is the case.

[Hiero]

Why is it that every time someone puts a up a thread criticising a non western country people always come back with well america does this america does that. When people do that they sound like little kids we all know(well most of us on this forum) america sucks and isnt all that its made up to be.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 24 2004, 12:33 PM
Why is it that every time someone puts a up a thread criticising a non western country people always come back with well america does this america does that. When people do that they sound like little kids we all know(well most of us on this forum) america sucks and isnt all that its made up to be.
because they cant refute the fact that it is wrong and/or they cant admitt that what Cuba or the USSr or north korea is doing is bad, because they have a child-like obsession with the leaders of that country.
So they either try to justify it by saying " castro is right&#33; no free speech for fascists&#33;", does this meen all cubans are fascist?.
Its just retarded to try to defend this action that the cuban gov. has made.

[redstar2000]

You are trying to say that every Cuban that had access to the internet there was those with relatives in Miami? (out of those who now have it restricted, i mean)
That&#39;s a complete over-generalisation. How about those who have received them as gifts, such as from relatives overseas, or from members of the Cuban government, or those whose work involves using computers.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. All connection with the internet has not been ended...people in universities, doctors, employees in the Cuban government, etc. still have access. Also, I&#39;m told that there are internet cafés in Havana...but I have no first-hand knowledge of this.

What has ended is internet service to those well-off-enough to pay for private service in hard currency...and who indeed most likely received their computers, modems, etc. from wealthy relatives abroad.


Because they have relatives there, does not mean that they themselves share the same political views. That they are in Cuba still shows that they do not see it as bad as those who have left. This may not be true of all of them, but no explanation as to why they are still in Cuba can be applied in such a way.

I think it&#39;s nearly 100% certain that those with relatives in the U.S. who are well-enough-off to send them computers, gifts of hard currency, etc. are "on the list" to leave Cuba. I think they have visions of "streets paved with gold" in Miami.

I don&#39;t think they give a stale fart about the revolution.


Plus you still have not explained how it is that restricting these peoples access benefits Cuba.

I guess I thought it was obvious...restricting those gusano-wannabes saves resources and bandwidth for those who are using the internet to assist the revolution.

In addition, it probably will help impede the proliferation of counter-revolutionary propaganda, rumor-mongering, etc.


What about the action itself? Am I reading this correct and you guys are supporting censorship, as long as the message being censored is the one counter to yours?

Can&#39;t speak for others--but that&#39;s my view. I&#39;m opposed to "free speech" for reactionaries.


Are you saying that the people who can get computers are somehow wrong for doing so?

You sound like "el profe"...he&#39;s always whining "what&#39;s so wrong about people wanting to make a lot of money?".

What&#39;s wrong is privilege, of course. If Cuba can&#39;t afford internet service for all, why should a small minority of gusano-wannabes have it? Just because their rich relatives in Miami send them lots of hard currency?


It&#39;s just retarded to try to defend this action that the Cuban gov. has made.

On the other hand, I think "it&#39;s just retarded" to be "el profe". <_<

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[el_profe]

YOURE WRONG REDSTAR,


The state telephone monopoly said on Friday it will limit access to the Internet over phone lines paid for in local currency to users authorized by the government as of Jan. 24.


Ordinary Cubans will only be allowed to send e-mail and surf the Internet by paying for phone services in dollars, a prohibitive cost for most.
So if you have dollars you can still use the internet, so if you have people sending you dollars you can still use the internet, so who does this really affect? every cuban that does not have privliges form the gov.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...et_040113163249 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040113/tc_afp/cuba_internet_040113163249)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a_internet_dc_1 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040113/wr_nm/cuba_internet_dc_1)

Talking about Cuba, if all of you are opposed to the "exploitation" from foreign companies in latin america, then WHY DONT YOU OPPOSE the joint-ventures with european companies? they really exploit cubans by paying them very low salaries.

Also why do you want the embargo lifted if you oppose the free trade the USA has with other countries?

[Soul Rebel]

Redstar- love your post, said everything i was thinking.

And yes, there are internet cafes in havana. i saw them while i was there. i didnt use them, but i did see them.

Also, like redstar is correct in that not everyone has been restricted. im still in contact with some people i know in cuba. we talk quite frequently through emails, so obviously not everyone is restricted- i just got an email like a week ago.

[Fidelbrand]

thanks SenoraChe, thats something nice to hear about~ :)

[redstar2000]

YOU&#39;RE WRONG REDSTAR

Careful, el profe, it&#39;s not considered polite to have a public orgasm on a message board.

Evidently, the bourgeois reporters in Havana got the details of the new law wrong...journalistic competence has never been one of their strengths.

Now, it is apparently foreigners who live in Cuba or who stay in one of the big hotels who will still have unrestricted access to the internet...provided they pay for it in hard currency.

Private users, even if they have hard currency, will be blocked...with apparently some exceptions.

I don&#39;t think this is a great difference from what I defended earlier.

So what are you crowing about? That I made comments based on mis-information from the bourgeois media?

Ok, guilty. Next time I&#39;ll try to be more careful.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Edelweiss]

There are still many public places (youth and culture centres, universities, libraries etc.) where you can have Internet access in Cuba without any problem. The main reason for the meassures where the growing black market with access passwords which where sold for USD.

[kylieII]

castro is right&#33; no free speech for fascists&#33;
Yes, thanks for that. You sure convinced me, shouting rhetoric with no backing up of your claim.
I&#39;m skeptical of your assumption that Cuba is full of &#39;fascists&#39;. Or that restricting internet access is the most effective way of stopping these people having free speech. Why not just round them all up and jail them, or shoot them, if they don&#39;t deserve free speech, why even waste resources on keeping them alive.


Condemnations and actions taken are two different things. U.S. &#39;s having a longer list is meaningless cult to me. That is why the concept of "picking" came up in my mind.
Amnesty International I don&#39;t think you will find takes action against any country. What with it being just an organisation. If other countries want to make use of what it reports, by providing it as evidence that a certain country should be discouraged or not supported, then that is completely independant of the organisation itself. So, im still waiting for some proof that, quoting your first post on this,

Amnesty International is a fucking disinformed, and in my opinion, one of the most fucked up NGOs in this universe.


I do regard the value of democracy , but liberal democracy under capitalism, as conceived by me, it&#39;s indeed a toy
Thats quite a generalisation you&#39;re making there. There is more than just capitalist democracy and Communist democracy(which is what I assume you support as an alternative). The various political ideologies that support having a capitalist economic system vary greatly in what freedom or electoral system they feel is best.
In any case, its irrelivant, the point was that you claim to support Democracy, in some form at least, yet you think that it is ok to have resrictions such as this one. So either you think that Cuba is communist, and that this form of democracy needs to have such restrictions imposed on the general population, or I&#39;m not sure, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Claiming democracy is bad, then that its ok under communism, but still you ignore the situation itself in Cuba.

And you still have not explained to me how these restrictions in particular are justified, or will be effective in their goal.


I believe that people&#39;s physiological needs are of first priority, but capitalism renders it frivolous at times~ Rights, freedom , liberty ...... yeah .. they are just Great&#33;&#33;&#33; BUT WHEN ONE DOESN&#39;T EVEN HAS THE CAPABILITY TO LIVE, THESE ALLEGED SUPERIORITIES ARE RENDERED FAR OUT OF REACH. That is why i m always pro-left.
What does this have to do with it? But while i&#39;m at you, psychological health is linked very close to physiological health. You cannot have just one, or focus on having a good quality in just one.
For example, stress and likelyhood of heart disease are positively correlated. (source: Vitaliano, though there have been many more that have found the same thing.)


That is why i m always pro-left
So you admit that your views are set in stone, and not based on actual fact, just dogmatism. Figures.


Why is it that every time someone puts a up a thread criticising a non western country people always come back with well america does this america does that. When people do that they sound like little kids we all know(well most of us on this forum) america sucks and isnt all that its made up to be.
It diverts attention away from what is in question, replacing a possible problem of a supported theory, with a flaw of an opposed theory. Its used by a lot of people, left and right wingers.


All connection with the internet has not been ended...people in universities, doctors, employees in the Cuban government, etc. still have access. Also, I&#39;m told that there are internet cafés in Havana...but I have no first-hand knowledge of this.
What has ended is internet service to those well-off-enough to pay for private service in hard currency...and who indeed most likely received their computers, modems, etc. from wealthy relatives abroad.

;

And yes, there are internet cafes in havana. i saw them while i was there. i didnt use them, but i did see them
;


Now, it is apparently foreigners who live in Cuba or who stay in one of the big hotels who will still have unrestricted access to the internet...provided they pay for it in hard currency.
firstly, SenoraChe when were you there? As while in the past it may have been available, these restrictions are came into force on the 24th of january this year.

As for what exactly is being restricted, all the reports that I have read have said the same thing, that from now on only
-around 500 journalists for the national media
-certain government officials
-tourists who can pay in high rates of dollars for access
-schools
What has been restricted is the possibility for a Cuban to get access via their home telephone line.



I think it&#39;s nearly 100% certain that those with relatives in the U.S. who are well-enough-off to send them computers, gifts of hard currency, etc. are "on the list" to leave Cuba. I think they have visions of "streets paved with gold" in Miami.
How so. Political viewpoint is not inherited, quite the contrary, many use it as a way to rebel against their parents. If they were on their way out of Cuba, it would be rather odd to be recieving home appliances such as the PC, especially considering the arrangments that are needed to send one to Cuba.
I find it very strange how you are effectively supporting punishing someone for something of which they have no control over - their relatives political views. Ironically similar to what you are supposed to oppose, punishing someone for their race, gender or economic position, dont you think.


I don&#39;t think they give a stale fart about the revolution.
What does this matter. As long as a person living in Cuba is not damaging &#39;the revolution&#39;, then why is any action necessary against them at all.


I guess I thought it was obvious...restricting those gusano-wannabes saves resources and bandwidth for those who are using the internet to assist the revolution.
Well if thats the case, then why not do as I have suggested above, and just kill all those in Cuba who will not &#39;assist the revolution&#39;. Or those with parents, or friends, who will not &#39;assist the revolution&#39; apparently.


In addition, it probably will help impede the proliferation of counter-revolutionary propaganda, rumor-mongering, etc.
The propaganda arguement is wearing pretty thin. cuba has been under a Marxist ideology for how long now? 50 or 60 years, I believe. Because of this, its population has had enough time to be socialised into accepting or at least understanding better than those in western countries, what Marxist theory is about. In fact soon no one who was living in Cuba before the revolution will even be alive. So counter-revolutionary propaganda should have little affect, as unlike those in our countries, the distortions it is based on are not accepted in Cuba.


Can&#39;t speak for others--but that&#39;s my view. I&#39;m opposed to "free speech" for reactionaries.
How do you then expect a country, or world, to improve then, if no theories that question the current one are allowed - no criticism will be available. All the strongest theories in science are those which have had criticism, and acted upon it.

edit:neated

[Osman Ghazi]

The propaganda arguement is wearing pretty thin. cuba has been under a Marxist ideology for how long now? 50 or 60 years, I believe. Because of this, its population has had enough time to be socialised into accepting or at least understanding better than those in western countries, what Marxist theory is about. In fact soon no one who was living in Cuba before the revolution will even be alive. So counter-revolutionary propaganda should have little affect, as unlike those in our countries, the distortions it is based on are not accepted in Cuba.

Ya, I know counter-revolutionary propaganda sure didn&#39;t work in the USSR ...
By the way, it has only been 45 years and it was 80 in the Soviet Union.


Why not just round them all up and jail them, or shoot them, if they don&#39;t deserve free speech, why even waste resources on keeping them alive.

I&#39;m glad you agree with us. :lol:

Secondly, i think we have to find out to whom internet access has actually been restricted because it is quite hard to argue something when you don&#39;t know all the facts. Does anyone know the real truth?

[redstar2000]

How do you then expect a country, or world, to improve then, if no theories that question the current one are allowed - no criticism will be available.

Did I say that? I am for free speech from the left. I think there should be free speech in Cuba for those who want to make the revolution more revolutionary.

To expect a country "or the world" to "improve" based on reactionary ideas or theories is absurd.

Do you support "free speech" for creationists or Nazis on the grounds that "they might be right"?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:55 AM

Amnesty International I don&#39;t think you will find takes action against any country. What with it being just an organisation. If other countries want to make use of what it reports, by providing it as evidence that a certain country should be discouraged or not supported, then that is completely independant of the organisation itself.

Thats quite a generalisation you&#39;re making there. There is more than just capitalist democracy and Communist democracy(which is what I assume you support as an alternative). The various political ideologies that support having a capitalist economic system vary greatly in what freedom or electoral system they feel is best.
In any case, its irrelivant, the point was that you claim to support Democracy, in some form at least, yet you think that it is ok to have resrictions such as this one. So either you think that Cuba is communist, and that this form of democracy needs to have such restrictions imposed on the general population, or I&#39;m not sure, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Claiming democracy is bad, then that its ok under communism, but still you ignore the situation itself in Cuba.

And you still have not explained to me how these restrictions in particular are justified, or will be effective in their goal.


What does this have to do with it? But while i&#39;m at you, psychological health is linked very close to physiological health. You cannot have just one, or focus on having a good quality in just one.
For example, stress and likelyhood of heart disease are positively correlated. (source: Vitaliano, though there have been many more that have found the same thing.)


So you admit that your views are set in stone, and not based on actual fact, just dogmatism. Figures.


Independent organizations has no political considerations. If it is an upright org. , might as well crush those criminal deeds of U.S. first , it would both reveal to the world that it is not as ok as it is (as it is a bloody so-called democractic hegemon) and it would solve a lot of evil roots of problems.

Kylie, it is no a generalisation i m making .. read " Ellen Meiskins Wood &#39;s Democracy Against Capitalism".
I m not contradicting myself. It is a legitimate act for the Cuban Gov&#39;t to restrict internet assesss to a certain extent that it successfully avoid counter-revolutionary movements. Democracy under capitalism is a toy, Communism&#39;s democracy serves the need of the people, when they are well-fed and educated equally, of course it can sort for higher forms of democracies.

I quite support Redstar2000 &#39;s view on the justifications and feasbility of the restriction on internet access, have a look at his words.

I never proposed to focus on just one priority (physiological / psychological ..etc) . But in fact , there is a hierachy involed (plese refer to Maslow&#39;s hierachy of needs). Capitalism distorts the hierachical order , democracy without bread but voting rights that cannot in fact fight for some bread is futile.

Woo woo... Big comment you are making there, mind you... my friend, don&#39;t conlude or short-cut my line of reasonings for me. bahahaha~~~ I never will and never will intend to set aside all facts and to be reluctant to learn from all areas.

[kylieII]

That is why i m always pro-left.

Woo woo... Big comment you are making there, mind you... my friend, don&#39;t conlude or short-cut my line of reasonings for me. bahahaha~~~ I never will and never will intend to set aside all facts and to be reluctant to learn from all areas.
These two statements are contradictory. Have you some magic ability to forsee future events? Or have you somehow managed to read all available research up to the present day on society and economics? Of course not, no one can, as such you cannot fully know all the facts and findings in such a broad area as politics and social theory.
So how do you know that you will not find something that will change your opinion on an issue. This means that either you will accept it and change your opinion, or as your first quote states, always be left wing.



Ya, I know counter-revolutionary propaganda sure didn&#39;t work in the USSR ...
By the way, it has only been 45 years and it was 80 in the Soviet Union.
How did this propaganda cause the fall of the soviet union. If you look at soviet economics, you will find that the economies flourished under socialist rule, expanding greately. This does not look like the characteristic of the workers being corrupted by capitalist propaganda to me. From what I have seen from the USSR, the majority of worker disobediance came from when they protested against those in power having greater material benefits than they did. Capitalist propaganda apart from showing that the soviet union had to continue to push itself to fight this other power, doesn&#39;t to me look to have had much effect on the workers.


I&#39;m glad you agree with us.
Sure.


Did I say that? I am for free speech from the left. I think there should be free speech in Cuba for those who want to make the revolution more revolutionary.
To expect a country "or the world" to "improve" based on reactionary ideas or theories is absurd.
Do you support "free speech" for creationists or Nazis on the grounds that "they might be right"?
Firstly, you claimed that free speech should be denied to those who were reactionary. Surely you admit that reactionaries are not restricted to just the right-wing.
Secondly, you assume that centrists and right wingers are made up of fascists and fundamentalists, when I would estimate that the majority of these are in fact neither. While criticism from other parts of the left would be beneficial, it would still be detrimental in my opinion to block out all non-left wing views.
There is no clear cut line which defines left or right, its subjective, so first from a practical perspective it is flawed. And also without any views from the right, or centre, it would lead to a continious move to the left, similar to what is happening today with the US going further and further to the right. This would not be due to the superior position found by going further left, but simply because there was no other views present. As I have said, look at the US, and the idealogical stagnation that has occured due to there being no left wing voice.


Independent organizations has no political considerations. If it is an upright org. , might as well crush those criminal deeds of U.S. first , it would both reveal to the world that it is not as ok as it is (as it is a bloody so-called democractic hegemon) and it would solve a lot of evil roots of problems.
What? All I can see there is rhetoric, not a response to anything I have written at all. Let me repeat what I wrote, maybe that will help you,

Amnesty International I don&#39;t think you will find takes action against any country. What with it being just an organisation. If other countries want to make use of what it reports, by providing it as evidence that a certain country should be discouraged or not supported, then that is completely independant of the organisation itself
And, cut off from my original post I note,

So, im still waiting for some proof that, quoting your first post on this,

Amnesty International is a fucking disinformed, and in my opinion, one of the most fucked up NGOs in this universe.


Kylie, it is no a generalisation i m making .. read " Ellen Meiskins Wood &#39;s Democracy Against Capitalism".
I m not contradicting myself. It is a legitimate act for the Cuban Gov&#39;t to restrict internet assesss to a certain extent that it successfully avoid counter-revolutionary movements. Democracy under capitalism is a toy, Communism&#39;s democracy serves the need of the people, when they are well-fed and educated equally, of course it can sort for higher forms of democracies.

For freedom, you must restrict peoples access to the internet. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, perhaps? Again, you manage to dodge what my post actually says, just repeated rhetoric of democracy in capitalism being a toy(again, this is a big generalisation, social democrat policy is extremely different to right wing christian fundamentalist, yet both are &#39;capitalist&#39;), communist democracy being good, but still at the same time restricting peoples actions.



I quite support Redstar2000 &#39;s view on the justifications and feasbility of the restriction on internet access, have a look at his words.
I already have, and have responded to them in an earlier post.


I never proposed to focus on just one priority (physiological / psychological ..etc) . But in fact , there is a hierachy involed (plese refer to Maslow&#39;s hierachy of needs). Capitalism distorts the hierachical order , democracy without bread but voting rights that cannot in fact fight for some bread is futile.
Hold on hold on. So now you&#39;ve changed your mind, freedom now is a good thing? Also I disagree, you would find a person who is healthy mentally, but not so much physically, will be happier than someone with mental illness, who is physically strong. Due to simply how that happiness is derived and created primarily from the mind, so if the mind is not functioning correctly, such as in mental illness, or if the person is unhappy due to lack of freedom, then they will not be happy.
Let me just remind you of your initial response, you seem to be deviating from it:

believe that people&#39;s physiological needs are of first priority, but capitalism renders it frivolous at times~ Rights, freedom , liberty ...... yeah .. they are just Great&#33;&#33;&#33; BUT WHEN ONE DOESN&#39;T EVEN HAS THE CAPABILITY TO LIVE, THESE ALLEGED SUPERIORITIES ARE RENDERED FAR OUT OF REACH
You are claiming that physical health is more important than mental health. As I have said, they go hand in hand, illness has been found to affect mood, for example. But still if one factor must be chosen in terms of what is more important to a persons well being, it is psychological health.

[redstar2000]

Firstly, you claimed that free speech should be denied to those who were reactionary. Surely you admit that reactionaries are not restricted to just the right-wing.

No, I don&#39;t "admit" that. Reaction and right-wing are synonymous in my view.


Secondly, you assume that centrists and right wingers are made up of fascists and fundamentalists, when I would estimate that the majority of these are in fact neither.

So...your estimate is different from mine, not to mention your definitions. As far as I am concerned, the most "left-wing" defender of capitalism is, in functional terms, a reactionary.


...it would still be detrimental in my opinion to block out all non-left wing views.
There is no clear cut line which defines left or right, it&#39;s subjective, so first from a practical perspective it is flawed.

In my view, the line(s) between left and right are very "clear-cut". Where do you imagine that someone would have difficulty identifying a right-wing position?


And also without any views from the right, or centre, it would lead to a continuous move to the left...

Yes...that&#39;s sort of the idea, you know?


As I have said, look at the US, and the idealogical stagnation that has occurred due to there being no left wing voice.

The ideological stagnation is not due to the "absence" of a "left wing voice"...it&#39;s due to the inherent stagnation of bourgeois ideology itself. It&#39;s a "dead end"...like the system that created it. It ends up in fascist or quasi-fascist "solutions" because that&#39;s all they have left.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:42 PM

How do you then expect a country, or world, to improve then, if no theories that question the current one are allowed - no criticism will be available.

Did I say that? I am for free speech from the left. I think there should be free speech in Cuba for those who want to make the revolution more revolutionary.

To expect a country "or the world" to "improve" based on reactionary ideas or theories is absurd.

Do you support "free speech" for creationists or Nazis on the grounds that "they might be right"?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Hitler, stalin, Saddam, Pinochet, Castro, Mussolini, Mao...etc all would be proud of your way of thinking, lets deny freedom of speech to anyone who does not believe in what we believe. And if they have different idologies than ours, then we kill them or throw them in jail. That your way of thinking.

Youre a moron, so youre against freedom of speech, so your for an oppressive gov., no wonder you love stalin and fidel so much.
The saddest part is your not just a mad 14 year old kid, yet you hate anyone who is not communist(I mean literally hate them), by what ive read from many of your post your obviously just old, angry, bitter, full of rescentment and full of hate... How sad.

I think you do more damage to communism the more you talk about it, I think you need to go express your great ideas to the world(have speaches in public places, have confrences), that way more people will turn away from communist ideas :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyone else thinks the same as redstar on the freedom of speech issue?

[kylieII]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:59 AM
Hitler, stalin, Saddam, Pinochet, Castro, Mussolini, Mao...etc all would be proud of your way of thinking, lets deny freedom of speech to anyone who does not believe in what we believe. And if they have different idologies than ours, then we kill them or throw them in jail. That your way of thinking.

Youre a moron, so youre against freedom of speech, so your for an oppressive gov., no wonder you love stalin and fidel so much.
The saddest part is your not just a mad 14 year old kid, yet you hate anyone who is not communist(I mean literally hate them), by what ive read from many of your post your obviously just old, angry, bitter, full of rescentment and full of hate... How sad.

I think you do more damage to communism the more you talk about it, I think you need to go express your great ideas to the world(have speaches in public places, have confrences), that way more people will turn away from communist ideas :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyone else thinks the same as redstar on the freedom of speech issue?
Silence, reactionary&#33;

I agree with you on the damaging Marxisms reputation point though. I know of a lot of people who like what Marxism has to say, and its criticism of capitalism. But the whole restriction of freedoms part turns them off it.
In fact how I found out about this Cuba thing was from someone saying how its this kind of thing that made them not so sure of Marxism.


And Redstar. Yes, it seems we have different basic assumptions, you see reactionary as right-wing, I disagree, i&#39;ve seen what I would call reactionary views from all political standpoints. Some, such as Nazism, and other racist ideologies, are purely reactionary, but couldnt the same be said of those who unquestionably follow Stalins example of Marxism? Or those, actually its often the same people, who use the line of thinking that &#39;saddam fought capitalist america.. so saddam is good&#39;. That seems pretty reactionary to me, reactionary being where views are not fully developed and thought through.

But in any case, just because a view is reactionary, doesnt mean it has to be banned. The majority of people hold what could be classed as reactionary views in some area or another. If you go down that route, then you arent far from those who think what is needed is a vanguard, or &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39;, it being only them who truly know what is best for people.


Yes...that&#39;s sort of the idea, you know?
Going left just for the sake of going left, that seems a very, hrm, &#39;reactionary&#39; view there, redstar. Is it some kind of competition, see which country can get the furthest left wing? Well, I was thinking that in Marxism, policy was meant to be based on what was best for people, and society as a whole. Just because one is more left wing than the other, does not make this the correct thing to do. As I have already said, dogmatism is not something to aspire to, it results in selective accepting of facts, biased decisions, and irrational thinking.

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:59 PM
Hitler, stalin, Saddam, Pinochet, Castro, Mussolini, Mao...etc all would be proud of your way of thinking, lets deny freedom of speech to anyone who does not believe in what we believe.
The Sedition Act of 1798

SEC. 2. That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than &#036;10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

Most famous person that was used on was Eugene Debs


Anyone else thinks the same as redstar on the freedom of speech issue?

I think you have a very narrow point of view and opinion on what or when freedom of speech is appropriate.


Youre a moron, so youre against freedom of speech, so your for an oppressive gov., no wonder you love stalin and fidel so much.

I think you are a moron for thinking that only other countries and other places have freedom of speech removed and not the US.

See, in the US the powers that be use intimidation tactics to shut down opposition to the power. And uses laws at specific times, to take out leaders of organizations What do you think the 50&#39;s were all about? That was all about shutting down an idealogy that capitalist don&#39;t agree with. That is the US.


And if they have different idologies than ours, then we kill them or throw them in jail. That your way of thinking.

Actually that is what they did with communists and socialists in the United States from the 50s up to the 70s.

And if they don&#39;t do that, then they infiltrate your group and break it up. That has been documented.

COINTELPRO Counter (to our ideals) intelligence program.

And then if the United States doesn&#39;t go that route they will pull out a law from the 1800&#39;s to bring down your ideal.

Eniromentalists charged under an 1872 law that had not even been used since the 1800s. (http://www.philly.com/mld/dailytimes/news/nation/7760207.htm)

"It&#39;s an incredible abuse of power, and this is nothing short of political retribution," said Sierra Club spokesman Eric Antebi. "We think this sets a horrible precedent for political intimidation of public interest groups."


Hitler, stalin, Saddam, Pinochet, Castro, Mussolini, Mao...etc all would be proud of your way of thinking, lets deny freedom of speech to anyone who does not believe in what we believe.

You are one of those people who just enjoy their method of control and didn&#39;t like their method. You just live in a different type of control through different methods of intimidation.

Do you think Stalin killed somebody that opposes his view to shut them up, or intimidate others from doing the same thing?

What do you think these tactics, although softer than killing somebody, has the exact same effect. WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT.

Even if we aren&#39;t suppose to keep 600 people from lawyers hanging out in Guatanamo Bay, we can.

Even though the patriot act is against your constitution we will find an excuse to use and have our powers increased.

You make fun of Redstar for his views and call him sad ect..ect.

Here is the sad part. You are one of those people that thinks capitalism is great because they can go out and own 1/2 acre land if they are lucky, buy a car they want and a new Mr. Coffee when they come out.

But the sad thing is, what you don&#39;t understand is, you being able to do that is just a side effect of those rules being used and created for entrenched wealth. For the real 5% that controls everything, those laws are for them to battle out mergers and buy mining companies. They don&#39;t give a fuck about you being able to buy a new MR. Coffee. It you being able to buy a new Mr. Coffee keeps your mouth shut and you think you are free, so be it. Better control for them.

But if at any time you realize, along with other people that the capitalist system isn&#39;t for you, it is for them and you want to change idealogies and distribution of wealth. Those in power use The Sedaction Act and old 1800&#39;s laws used once or twice in the last 100 years, to keep you shut up.

They reatain power like Stalin did, only they aren&#39;t as obvious about it. That must be what you have a problem with, people obvious with power and constant use of it. You must enjoy your yoke in your 8 hour a day, 40+ hours a week, all to support that 5% and keep its power and wealth in place.

Sure they don&#39;t send you to the gulags, they send you to cubicles to work for the system instead.

[kylieII]

Just because the US does it doesnt mean it is therefore justified for Marxist states to do the same. If that was to be the case, then little improvement in society would ever take place.
I don&#39;t think anyone actually claimed that the US was any better on this issue than Cuba, in fact. Both countries need big changes in that area, I feel.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:16 PM

That is why i m always pro-left.

Woo woo... Big comment you are making there, mind you... my friend, don&#39;t conlude or short-cut my line of reasonings for me. bahahaha~~~ I never will and never will intend to set aside all facts and to be reluctant to learn from all areas.
These two statements are contradictory. Have you some magic ability to forsee future events? Or have you somehow managed to read all available research up to the present day on society and economics? Of course not, no one can, as such you cannot fully know all the facts and findings in such a broad area as politics and social theory.
So how do you know that you will not find something that will change your opinion on an issue. This means that either you will accept it and change your opinion, or as your first quote states, always be left wing.



Independent organizations has no political considerations. If it is an upright org. , might as well crush those criminal deeds of U.S. first , it would both reveal to the world that it is not as ok as it is (as it is a bloody so-called democractic hegemon) and it would solve a lot of evil roots of problems.
What? All I can see there is rhetoric, not a response to anything I have written at all. Let me repeat what I wrote, maybe that will help you,

Amnesty International I don&#39;t think you will find takes action against any country. What with it being just an organisation. If other countries want to make use of what it reports, by providing it as evidence that a certain country should be discouraged or not supported, then that is completely independant of the organisation itself
And, cut off from my original post I note,

So, im still waiting for some proof that, quoting your first post on this,

Amnesty International is a fucking disinformed, and in my opinion, one of the most fucked up NGOs in this universe.


Kylie, it is no a generalisation i m making .. read " Ellen Meiskins Wood &#39;s Democracy Against Capitalism".
I m not contradicting myself. It is a legitimate act for the Cuban Gov&#39;t to restrict internet assesss to a certain extent that it successfully avoid counter-revolutionary movements. Democracy under capitalism is a toy, Communism&#39;s democracy serves the need of the people, when they are well-fed and educated equally, of course it can sort for higher forms of democracies.

For freedom, you must restrict peoples access to the internet. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, perhaps? Again, you manage to dodge what my post actually says, just repeated rhetoric of democracy in capitalism being a toy(again, this is a big generalisation, social democrat policy is extremely different to right wing christian fundamentalist, yet both are &#39;capitalist&#39;), communist democracy being good, but still at the same time restricting peoples actions.



I quite support Redstar2000 &#39;s view on the justifications and feasbility of the restriction on internet access, have a look at his words.
I already have, and have responded to them in an earlier post.


I never proposed to focus on just one priority (physiological / psychological ..etc) . But in fact , there is a hierachy involed (plese refer to Maslow&#39;s hierachy of needs). Capitalism distorts the hierachical order , democracy without bread but voting rights that cannot in fact fight for some bread is futile.
Hold on hold on. So now you&#39;ve changed your mind, freedom now is a good thing? Also I disagree, you would find a person who is healthy mentally, but not so much physically, will be happier than someone with mental illness, who is physically strong. Due to simply how that happiness is derived and created primarily from the mind, so if the mind is not functioning correctly, such as in mental illness, or if the person is unhappy due to lack of freedom, then they will not be happy.
Let me just remind you of your initial response, you seem to be deviating from it:

believe that people&#39;s physiological needs are of first priority, but capitalism renders it frivolous at times~ Rights, freedom , liberty ...... yeah .. they are just Great&#33;&#33;&#33; BUT WHEN ONE DOESN&#39;T EVEN HAS THE CAPABILITY TO LIVE, THESE ALLEGED SUPERIORITIES ARE RENDERED FAR OUT OF REACH
You are claiming that physical health is more important than mental health. As I have said, they go hand in hand, illness has been found to affect mood, for example. But still if one factor must be chosen in terms of what is more important to a persons well being, it is psychological health.
" How do you know that you will have food tomorrow? " Are you sure about that ? Anything can happen tomorrow, but there are some certainties that you know, e.g. that you will definitely have some lunch tomorrow, so i won&#39;t be as dumb and kindergarten-like to make such kind of comment. So what&#39;s wrong is it to say that im pro-left, but accusing me of not knowing future facts, and therefore cannot make a standpoint or a preference? e.g. If X&#39;s says he will never be gay, then you go say that he knows nothing about the future, and he has not tried an ass--fuck , so you will accuse him of being stubbornly stoned on his feet and push im for an ass-fuck than ask him to choose while he is crying ? :lol: :lol:

P.S. I can&#39;t believe I m answering this quote.... kid. :P :D (the one above)

" Independent organizations has no political considerations? "is what i wanted to say , i used a period instead, should be a question mark. Seems that you are not understanding what i m trying to reply to you. Forget it.... i don&#39;t know what you are thinking.... Is English your mother tongue? No offense, but just wannna know?

As for saying it is one of the most fucked-up NGOS , i have explained that in the former posts already , please .... come on ~~~ Do you think i have a whole day repeating myself all the time?

Dodge .... who is having a problem in comprehending English ? You are dodging what i have said, and STILL hasn&#39;t has an opinion for me to discuss with you. You said, " For freedom, you must restrict peoples access to the internet. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, perhaps? " See how narrow and how poisoned the defintion of democracy is defined from you..... Slavery ? hahaha~~~ I explained that already, would you mind just to have a look at what i have written ? or is it the same old langauge problem that you are having. ( No offense, but i do mean it.) You are in fact a slave under capitalism , Kylie... me too , we all are..... do you have a mobile phone? Do u need to go ont net everyday ? do u recieve the full credit of your own ideas or inventions? do u have a governnment that can provide all people with the basic necessities for life *(bread and water?) ? THIS IS THE LAST TIME I M ELUCIDATING MY THOUGHTS . IF YOU STILL DON&#39;T UNDERSTAND , GET A TEACHER. .. PLEASE.. :blink:

Shit ... never said freedom is a bad thing~~ God...... what are you doing? hold on hold on? puuuuu.....
Cutting of line of reasoning again ..... you quoted well, and seemed right, but for the 3rd time (Gosh~~) You said, " But still if one factor must be chosen in terms of what is more important to a persons well being, it is psychological health." So well-being? how can u talk about well- being if you are dead? think about it. How can u have psychological health if you are dead? Think about it......

If u don&#39;t understand what i m saying, fine... time is precious and i have tried my effort to explain all my ideas (quoting writers for u to refer to, etc. ) but u are giving me the same old replies and accuse me of dodging when i m replying to your words wholeheartedly. The argument of the importance of psychological health > physiological health shocked me too.

[kylieII]

You know, its quite hard to follow what you are talking about when you dont directly quote it.


P.S. I can&#39;t believe I m answering this quote.... kid.
And what would it be that you are answering? And considering who here has &#39;fidel&#39; in their name, obviously a form of adolescent hero-worship attachment, your use of the word &#39;kid&#39; is questionable.


THIS IS THE LAST TIME I M ELUCIDATING MY THOUGHTS . IF YOU STILL DON&#39;T UNDERSTAND , GET A TEACHER. .. PLEASE

Is English your mother tongue? No offense, but just wannna know
What makes you think its not? My posts have been in full English, properly punctuated. As opposed to your rather erratic use of the English language.
Whatever, I dont want to derail this into a flame thread.

As for what you actually posted, I will attempt to respond to it later, I dont feel like trying to figure out what is responding to what at the moment.

[kylieII]

but u are giving me the same old replies and accuse me of dodging when i m replying to your words wholeheartedly
Wrong. Having just fully read through your post, I see nothing substantial in it. Are you drunk? Ok I guess I overestimated you, I have explained my arguements, and attempted to get you to answer my questions to which I recieve this:

As for saying it is one of the most fucked-up NGOS , i have explained that in the former posts already , please .... come on ~~~ Do you think i have a whole day repeating myself all the time?
No, you havent. I have recieved nothing but rhetoric and baseless claims on the matter.

So either you are having trouble understanding it, or more likely you are just avoiding the point and churning up the same old marxist lines. Really, people such as yourself do nothing to help Marxism gain support.


quoting writers for u to refer to, etc.
You have told me to go read one book. Which judging from the title is biased and not particularly relevant.


The argument of the importance of psychological health > physiological health shocked me too.
What is so shocking about it? It is based on scientific research. Unlike your claim of the reverse being true.

Ok well maybe any other people here who support Cuba can explain to me what they think of these restrictions in Cuba, if they still support Cuba, etc.

Evidentally Fidelbrand is unable to.

[Osman Ghazi]

It&#39;s funny, the things you hear most often on this forum are: &#39;go read a book&#39;, &#39;you don&#39;t make sense&#39;, &#39;you can&#39;t debate for shit&#39;. People argue about agruing more than anything else.

As for all this nonsense, i think (jesuchristo) that i actually agree with Kylie. Sort of. We are talking about restriction of internet access and Fidelbrand just spouts off the same old things that people say about Cuba. You know, it is better than it was before, it is more independant. That&#39;s all well and good but it isn&#39;t what we are talking about. I think that what Cuba has should be defended but is restristing internet really the way to do it? I know it would be worse if the &#39;gusano-wannabes&#39; (as redstar would say) came back. I just don&#39;t think that that is a big enough threat to worry about. If the people truly believe in the Revolution, then nothing can make them go back to the way it was before.

Also, we still need to clarify whose access is being restricted. Redstar thinks it is the rich, but kylie thinks it is everyone. Who is it really?

Also, technically, anyone who is against the revolution is a reactionary. That is the definition.

PS: El profe, just shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about. You tried to convince me that capitalism doesn&#39;t exist in Latin America. :lol:

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:57 PM

but u are giving me the same old replies and accuse me of dodging when i m replying to your words wholeheartedly
Wrong. Having just fully read through your post, I see nothing substantial in it. Are you drunk? Ok I guess I overestimated you, I have explained my arguements, and attempted to get you to answer my questions to which I recieve this:

As for saying it is one of the most fucked-up NGOS , i have explained that in the former posts already , please .... come on ~~~ Do you think i have a whole day repeating myself all the time?
No, you havent. I have recieved nothing but rhetoric and baseless claims on the matter.

So either you are having trouble understanding it, or more likely you are just avoiding the point and churning up the same old marxist lines. Really, people such as yourself do nothing to help Marxism gain support.


quoting writers for u to refer to, etc.
You have told me to go read one book. Which judging from the title is biased and not particularly relevant.


The argument of the importance of psychological health > physiological health shocked me too.
What is so shocking about it? It is based on scientific research. Unlike your claim of the reverse being true.

Ok well maybe any other people here who support Cuba can explain to me what they think of these restrictions in Cuba, if they still support Cuba, etc.

Evidentally Fidelbrand is unable to.
Sadly, you dodged my posted elaborations and question~

Reason for saying that AI is a uselsss NGO has been explained on page 1 and 2 when you quoted my words. Crawl and see the proof youself.

" Really, people such as yourself do nothing to help Marxism gain support." Don&#39;t insult me like that, it is the fact that you that don&#39;t understand my arguments. Please... don&#39;t put it like a kindergarten fight. If you can&#39;t hack it, just take it like a man or a woman.

Quoting writers is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the arguments i had made, and it is out of good will, if you didn&#39;t even have a peek at it and claim that they are irrelevant, then ..... what else should i say ?

Survivial < Psychological health ? What kind of logic is that ~ Try to support yourself if u want to convince me. Ready to hear you elucidations. Show me the scientific research that says psychological health is made possible to be upholded when one isn&#39;t fed well to think.

Don&#39;t blame me if you are perverted and can&#39;t understand my words, with my heart and rationality, i really don&#39;t know why you are claiming that i have not made decent claims in support of Cuba&#39;s recent action on internet banning.

[kylieII]

Sadly, you dodged my posted elaborations and question~
*rollseyes* Wow I really wasnt expecting you to say that&#33;



Reason for saying that AI is a uselsss NGO has been explained on page 1 and 2 when you quoted my words. Crawl and see the proof youself.

Yes, lets.


Cuba is a perfect example, discredited severely by U.S. &#39;s media and government , leading to bias informarion flying in the atmosphere, that&#39;s why I think A.I. picks on it and does not take sufficient action towards U.S. , although she has a "longer list".
;


Condemnations and actions taken are two different things. U.S. &#39;s having a longer list is meaningless cult to me. That is why the concept of "picking" came up in my mind.

;

Independent organizations has no political considerations. If it is an upright org. , might as well crush those criminal deeds of U.S. first , it would both reveal to the world that it is not as ok as it is (as it is a bloody so-called democractic hegemon) and it would solve a lot of evil roots of problems.

Ok, so where in that may I find your examples of how AI picks on Cuba. I suck too hard at English to be able to find it myself.


" Really, people such as yourself do nothing to help Marxism gain support." Don&#39;t insult me like that, it is the fact that you that don&#39;t understand my arguments. Please... don&#39;t put it like a kindergarten fight. If you can&#39;t hack it, just take it like a man or a woman.
It wasnt an insult, it was a statement. People such as yourself, who spew the same old thing and ignore what is actually being said are as bad as the politicians in power in the west today.
Dont put it like a kindergarten fight? Who tried to discredit me by claiming I am a &#39;kid&#39; and poor at English? Who is it who is shouting dodge&#33; when theres nothing to dodge?
Though yes Fidelbrand, the truth is, I just cant argue against your oh so powerful defence of Cuba, you&#39;ve sure shown me.


Quoting writers is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the arguments i had made, and it is out of good will, if you didn&#39;t even have a peek at it and claim that they are irrelevant, then ..... what else should i say ?

Kylie, it is no a generalisation i m making .. read " Ellen Meiskins Wood &#39;s Democracy Against Capitalism".
That is not quoting a writer. Quoting a writer would be giving their points on the subject, and giving the book or author as the source. Not commanding that I read a random book.


Survivial < Psychological health ? What kind of logic is that ~ Try to support yourself if u want to convince me. Ready to hear you elucidations. Show me the scientific research that says psychological health is made possible to be upholded when one isn&#39;t fed well to think.

Ok, it seems you have somehow missed how I have done so before, so lets go through it again.

Stress and likelyhood of heart disease are positively correlated. (source: Vitaliano)
Stress suppresses the effectiveness of the immune system. (source: Riley 1981)
Students in a study who were found to have less white blood cells in their blood on the first day of exams compared to a month before exams. These being two situations that vary in stress. (Kiecolt 1984)
Adolescents who are stressed are more likely to start drinking and smoking. (Cohen 1991)
On a survey that looked at how many &#39;daily hassles&#39; such as rising prices, crime, losing things, etc, there was a correlation between scoring highly and scoring poorly on a subsequent healthyness test. (DeLongis 1982)
People at elderly care homes, were found to have improved in health when more control was given to them. (Langer 1976)
Those with mental illness age quicker than those mentally healthy. (Lucanin 1997)
33% of those who get schizophrenia are never again able to function normally. (I dont know the source to this, but it is accepted by the entire psychopathology field)
Reasons for suicide are related more to psychological factors than physical
factors. (Durkheim 1970; Baechler 1979)
All these show how the psychological affects the physical. It has been found that illness affects mood, and in some cases can instigate phobias, but this is not as common, or as effective as the effects of psychological factors. The two are of course related, the mind having a phsyical presence and therefore its chemical make up can affect health.


[b]Survivial < Psychological health
Lets go back, yet again, as it seems you are having trouble remembering what you have actually written.

I believe that people&#39;s physiological needs are of first priority, but capitalism renders it frivolous at times~ Rights, freedom , liberty ...... yeah .. they are just Great&#33;&#33;&#33; BUT WHEN ONE DOESN&#39;T EVEN HAS THE CAPABILITY TO LIVE, THESE ALLEGED SUPERIORITIES ARE RENDERED FAR OUT OF REACH. That is why i m always pro-left.
To which I respond,
What does this have to do with it? But while i&#39;m at you, psychological health is linked very close to physiological health. You cannot have just one, or focus on having a good quality in just one.
Dont try and twist it as if I am arguing that psychological health is more important than the body functioning. When taken to the extreme both will kill you, poor psychological of phsyical health. But when moderate deprivation occurs, psychological deprivation has the biggest impact on the other, as I have stated.


Don&#39;t blame me if you are perverted and can&#39;t understand my words, with my heart and rationality, i really don&#39;t know why you are claiming that i have not made decent claims in support of Cuba&#39;s recent action on internet banning
Do they make you wear a special helmet?

[kylieII]

It&#39;s funny, the things you hear most often on this forum are: &#39;go read a book&#39;, &#39;you don&#39;t make sense&#39;, &#39;you can&#39;t debate for shit&#39;. People argue about agruing more than anything else.

Frustrating more like, I cant believe I&#39;ve been wasting my time with someone who it seems has no intention/capability of actually debating properly this.

[redstar2000]

That seems pretty reactionary to me, reactionary being where views are not fully developed and thought through.

That&#39;s a poor definition. Roughly speaking, reactionary means "turn backward"--return to a previous state of existence.

Certainly one can have a "progressive" (moving forward) position that is not "fully developed" or "thought through". No one has "perfect reason"...we do the best we can.

But you yourself had no difficulty recognizing el profe&#39;s views as reactionary...He will obviously be celebrating if and when Cuba "turns backward" into an imperial possession of the United States.

There have been and are "leftists" and "progressives" whose ideas have indeed turned out to be reactionary...but that was exposed by the "leftward" motion of our understanding. Stalin and his supporters sincerely thought they were "progressive"...but the development of revolutionary theory in subsequent decades has shown that was not the case. The Leninist paradigm, sooner or later, leads to the restoration of capitalism...a reactionary destination.


The majority of people hold what could be classed as reactionary views in some area or another.

They sure do&#33; But that is not "fixed in time". People&#39;s views change...and, in the long run, become more progressive and less reactionary. I&#39;m not speaking of a particular individual here; I&#39;m talking about masses of people over decades and centuries.


Going left just for the sake of going left, that seems a very, hrm, &#39;reactionary&#39; view there, redstar.

That&#39;s because you&#39;re using a poor definition (see above).


Is it some kind of competition, see which country can get the furthest left wing?

An odd question. If anything, it is a "competition" to see who can smash the chains of wage-slavery and class society in the most thorough-going fashion.


Well, I was thinking that in Marxism, policy was meant to be based on what was best for people, and society as a whole.

That&#39;s a very fuzzy way to put it.

But "best" in this context would mean the end of wage-labor, production for profit, money, a bureaucratic state apparatus, gender & age roles, etc., etc., etc.

All of which requires "movement towards the left".


Just because one is more left wing than the other, does not make this the correct thing to do. As I have already said, dogmatism is not something to aspire to, it results in selective accepting of facts, biased decisions, and irrational thinking.

"Dogmatic" is also a very fuzzy word that people often use when they can&#39;t find the word they really want.

"2 + 2 = 4" -- a dogmatic statement.

"There is nothing useful to be learned from reactionary ideologies." -- another dogmatic statement.

Perhaps the latter appears more dubious to you than the former--to me both are "plain common sense".

"Fidel should make internet access widely available to ordinary workers and farmers in Cuba while freezing out the wealthy and those with attachments to gusano activities & relations." -- This does not seem dogmatic to me...just a reasonable suggestion. If Cuba cannot manage the former, due to lack of resources, then I have no problem with the latter at all.

Why should the class enemy (real or potential) get any breaks?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[kylieII]

That&#39;s a poor definition. Roughly speaking, reactionary means "turn backward"--return to a previous state of existence.
Ok, the definition I have been using is quite different to that.
Well, even with this, I still disagree with you, that all reactionary views should not be given freedom of speech, or allowed to develop. As the example you yourself give, of Stalin and his supporters thinking he and his theory was in fact progressive, when there is a general consensus from most political viewpoints that it was reactionary. Yet at the time it was not, by a significant amount of people, thought to be this. They saw it as the correct way towards fulfilling Marxist theory and forwarding societies evolution, which shows that identifying reactionary views is not always possible.
Because without the ability to see into the future and examine how theory x will affect society, you cannot know for sure one way or the other if it will progress or devolve society.
And even if it does, i&#39;m not convinced that this means it needs to be censored. It may still be able to contribute, through critically evaluating other theories, in a way that other similar theories may not be able to. In this case it being capitalist, in whatever form you want, they all criticise Cuba, criticism of Marxism. It will provide criticism that other alternative Marxist groups could not, such as criticisms of parts accepted by all Marxist groups.
Or it may be able to contribute at least partly through ideas that have not been looked into before, or ways of thinking. Even if in general it is reactionary should it become the theory behind policy, it could still have parts of it that are of importance to increasing our understanding of society. An example being postmodernism. In general, this can be seen as an apologist theory of capitalism, yet even if this is correct, which from a Marxist viewpoint would make it reactionary, it still has contributed in terms of how we think of certain things. Its brought new research methods, and social devices to our attention, even if they are disputable.
So the same could be said of the right-wing theories that you would like to ban due to them being &#39;reactionary&#39;. Plus, using your definition of reactionary, the term is subjective depending on your own views.


They sure do&#33; But that is not "fixed in time". People&#39;s views change...and, in the long run, become more progressive and less reactionary. I&#39;m not speaking of a particular individual here; I&#39;m talking about masses of people over decades and centuries.

Maybe, though if you talk to people in at least western society, there is a feeling accepted by a lot, that &#39;things used to be better&#39;. This can be seen also in how conservatives are still popular. Thatcher and Major both had campaigns that involved going &#39;back to basics&#39; and &#39;tradition&#39;.
Also, while it may be that in decades/centuries time the mass views become more progressive, it is still at this moment reactionary views that they hold. So if censorship was to occur, the masses would need to be restricted, not just a minority.



An odd question. If anything, it is a "competition" to see who can smash the chains of wage-slavery and class society in the most thorough-going fashion.
I am not clear on how going further left wing in policy would make this occur more effectively though. For example rapid collectivisation under a Marxism based system vs slow collectivisation under a Marxism based system. The first would be seen as the most left wing, yet would it be the best for reducing private property? Its questionable, judging by the reaction of previous attempts.



"Dogmatic" is also a very fuzzy word that people often use when they can&#39;t find the word they really want.

Perhaps a better word would be &#39;blinkered&#39; then. Treating Marxism as something unquestionable, and as completely correct. This results in decisions not being based on rationality, as the factor &#39;which is the most marxist&#39; comes into play. Despite this factor not having a place in decision making, if being perfectly possible to make a proper balanced decision without it, for example considering the facts, criticisms, alternatives, effects, of a policy. Whether it is more left wing or not is an excess factor.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:39 PM

Sadly, you dodged my posted elaborations and question~
*rollseyes* Wow I really wasnt expecting you to say that&#33;



Reason for saying that AI is a uselsss NGO has been explained on page 1 and 2 when you quoted my words. Crawl and see the proof youself.

Yes, lets.


Cuba is a perfect example, discredited severely by U.S. &#39;s media and government , leading to bias informarion flying in the atmosphere, that&#39;s why I think A.I. picks on it and does not take sufficient action towards U.S. , although she has a "longer list".
;


Condemnations and actions taken are two different things. U.S. &#39;s having a longer list is meaningless cult to me. That is why the concept of "picking" came up in my mind.

;

Independent organizations has no political considerations. If it is an upright org. , might as well crush those criminal deeds of U.S. first , it would both reveal to the world that it is not as ok as it is (as it is a bloody so-called democractic hegemon) and it would solve a lot of evil roots of problems.

Ok, so where in that may I find your examples of how AI picks on Cuba. I suck too hard at English to be able to find it myself.


" Really, people such as yourself do nothing to help Marxism gain support." Don&#39;t insult me like that, it is the fact that you that don&#39;t understand my arguments. Please... don&#39;t put it like a kindergarten fight. If you can&#39;t hack it, just take it like a man or a woman.
It wasnt an insult, it was a statement. People such as yourself, who spew the same old thing and ignore what is actually being said are as bad as the politicians in power in the west today.
Dont put it like a kindergarten fight? Who tried to discredit me by claiming I am a &#39;kid&#39; and poor at English? Who is it who is shouting dodge&#33; when theres nothing to dodge?
Though yes Fidelbrand, the truth is, I just cant argue against your oh so powerful defence of Cuba, you&#39;ve sure shown me.


Quoting writers is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the arguments i had made, and it is out of good will, if you didn&#39;t even have a peek at it and claim that they are irrelevant, then ..... what else should i say ?

Kylie, it is no a generalisation i m making .. read " Ellen Meiskins Wood &#39;s Democracy Against Capitalism".
That is not quoting a writer. Quoting a writer would be giving their points on the subject, and giving the book or author as the source. Not commanding that I read a random book.


Survivial < Psychological health ? What kind of logic is that ~ Try to support yourself if u want to convince me. Ready to hear you elucidations. Show me the scientific research that says psychological health is made possible to be upholded when one isn&#39;t fed well to think.

Ok, it seems you have somehow missed how I have done so before, so lets go through it again.

Stress and likelyhood of heart disease are positively correlated. (source: Vitaliano)
Stress suppresses the effectiveness of the immune system. (source: Riley 1981)
Students in a study who were found to have less white blood cells in their blood on the first day of exams compared to a month before exams. These being two situations that vary in stress. (Kiecolt 1984)
Adolescents who are stressed are more likely to start drinking and smoking. (Cohen 1991)
On a survey that looked at how many &#39;daily hassles&#39; such as rising prices, crime, losing things, etc, there was a correlation between scoring highly and scoring poorly on a subsequent healthyness test. (DeLongis 1982)
People at elderly care homes, were found to have improved in health when more control was given to them. (Langer 1976)
Those with mental illness age quicker than those mentally healthy. (Lucanin 1997)
33% of those who get schizophrenia are never again able to function normally. (I dont know the source to this, but it is accepted by the entire psychopathology field)
Reasons for suicide are related more to psychological factors than physical
factors. (Durkheim 1970; Baechler 1979)
All these show how the psychological affects the physical. It has been found that illness affects mood, and in some cases can instigate phobias, but this is not as common, or as effective as the effects of psychological factors. The two are of course related, the mind having a phsyical presence and therefore its chemical make up can affect health.


[b]Survivial < Psychological health
Lets go back, yet again, as it seems you are having trouble remembering what you have actually written.

I believe that people&#39;s physiological needs are of first priority, but capitalism renders it frivolous at times~ Rights, freedom , liberty ...... yeah .. they are just Great&#33;&#33;&#33; BUT WHEN ONE DOESN&#39;T EVEN HAS THE CAPABILITY TO LIVE, THESE ALLEGED SUPERIORITIES ARE RENDERED FAR OUT OF REACH. That is why i m always pro-left.
To which I respond,
What does this have to do with it? But while i&#39;m at you, psychological health is linked very close to physiological health. You cannot have just one, or focus on having a good quality in just one.
Dont try and twist it as if I am arguing that psychological health is more important than the body functioning. When taken to the extreme both will kill you, poor psychological of phsyical health. But when moderate deprivation occurs, psychological deprivation has the biggest impact on the other, as I have stated.


Don&#39;t blame me if you are perverted and can&#39;t understand my words, with my heart and rationality, i really don&#39;t know why you are claiming that i have not made decent claims in support of Cuba&#39;s recent action on internet banning
Do they make you wear a special helmet?
:lol:
;
Explanations of cuba being somewhat "picked" .. well quoted&#33; i have made my point there. Now suddenly u ask me for examples... so NOW i spout the same old shit again :D :D , Listen --&#62; I think U.S. though has a longer list ( you tried to say that on page 1 :P ) but it does not mean that A.I. is taking actions proportionately as to its number of condemnations in a list. I don&#39;t know what further you want me to say on this... in fact , i am always waiting for your decent reply, but all u said was that i said the same old thing, how strange.

Ignore what is being said? For the nth time, i was trying to answer the questions u have for me, but u just don&#39;t seem to comprehend, .....I swear. <_<

U said , " That is not quoting a writer. Quoting a writer would be giving their points on the subject, and giving the book or author as the source. Not commanding that I read a random book. "
My reply about liberal democracy is a toy in page 1 and page 2 is what he said , if you don&#39;t mind. And during page 2, i already started to felt that you have not made decent replies to my elucidations, and thus i was tired of it, and just quoted the writer&#39;s name.

As to who said "dodge" first , crawl back to see who said it first. I never dodged your questions. i was answering them Wholeheartedly, but...... (yawning :o )

Ye.. thanks for the scientific stats . But this was what u said " You are claiming that physical health is more important than mental health. As I have said, they go hand in hand, illness has been found to affect mood, for example. But still if one factor must be chosen in terms of what is more important to a persons well being, it is psychological health." ........... I did not misunderstand u and twist ur argument. SEE&#33; :) So what u said " Dont try and twist it as if I am arguing that psychological health is more important than the body functioning. " ..... really comes from space (didn&#39;t know why u said such a thing) are u ok?

Special helmet ? :lol: Yes, ... isn&#39;t that just hilarious, kylie boy~?~~ lets laugh~~~ thanks for the joke.. bahahaha~~ :lol:

A comrade said to me while i was asking him whether i was doing as what u described and just rambling around :

I think you&#39;re doing ok...one of the things about arguing with reactionaries is that they deliberately "misunderstand" whatever you try to tell them...especially if it&#39;s a point that damages their "argument".
That&#39;s why I don&#39;t do it much...argue with reactionaries, that is.

U misunderstood what i have made, and say that I kept spouting the same old thing. If ur intention was to make me tired of you (even when i was making relevant counter-arguments) , You succeeded (clap clap&#33;). :D Feel happier?

[redstar2000]

Well, even with this, I still disagree with you, that all reactionary views should not be given freedom of speech, or allowed to develop.

Creationism? Racial "science"? Nazism?


As the example you yourself give, of Stalin and his supporters thinking he and his theory was in fact progressive, when there is a general consensus from most political viewpoints that it was reactionary.

That&#39;s a bit misleading. During Stalin&#39;s life, the political consensus in the west--among all the highly respected bourgeois blabbermouths--was not that Stalin was a "reactionary" but that he was indeed a "progressive"...and that that was a "bad thing".

Their criticisms of Stalin were from the right.

Only a tiny and insignificant minority criticized Stalin from the left (and most of those were Trotskyists...whose main objection was that "their guy" wasn&#39;t "in charge"&#33;).

The reason a reactionary criticism of a left position is essentially worthless is that its purpose is to stop and turn back the revolutionary process.

Thus, on those rare occasions when they at least get the facts right...the interpretation of the data is hopelessly biased.

Of course, they say the same things about us.

Thus what people are really faced with is "choosing paradigms". If the revolutionary (Marxist, left, etc.) paradigm seems to make the most sense to you, then you choose that as a framework for your criticisms. If the reactionary (capitalist, religious, fascist, etc.) paradigm makes the most sense to you, then that&#39;s the framework you choose to make your criticisms within.

You would appear to wish to remain "neutral". I&#39;m not sure anyone has ever accomplished that...maybe you&#39;ll be the first. Of course, people claim "neutrality" and "objectivity" all the time...but I&#39;ve never seen those claims withstand critical examination.


Because without the ability to see into the future and examine how theory x will affect society, you cannot know for sure one way or the other if it will progress or devolve society.

You can make, I think, a "reasonable estimate" based on historical experience. A reactionary idea that goes uncontested and is allowed to freely develop will pretty much always result in a reactionary practice...though the details may be difficult to foresee.


An example being postmodernism. In general, this can be seen as an apologist theory of capitalism, yet even if this is correct, which from a Marxist viewpoint would make it reactionary, it still has contributed in terms of how we think of certain things. It&#39;s brought new research methods, and social devices to our attention, even if they are disputable.

I think you would have to be more specific here regarding its "contributions".

As I understand the post-modernist critique, they assert that reality is inherently unknowable...that all efforts to "explain it" are "social constructs" which have no independent validity.

It&#39;s like a secular version of the medieval concept "the unknowable mind of God".

Would I "censor" post-modernism? Probably not...but I wouldn&#39;t waste any further public resources on its "development". Eventually, it would be a footnote in history books about late capitalism.


Plus, using your definition of reactionary, the term is subjective depending on your own views.

Unless I can provide objective evidence that such-and-such a view is indeed reactionary. I&#39;m not suggesting that I or anyone should be able to label a new idea "reactionary" ex cathedra.

But history has clearly demonstrated the reactionary content of certain ideas...and has done so objectively.

Even the people who approve of those ideas often say bluntly that they intend to "turn the clock back". In one of Joseph Goebbels&#39; first speeches after the Nazis came to power, he said "The year 1789 is hereby repealed."


...if you talk to people in at least western society, there is a feeling accepted by a lot, that &#39;things used to be better&#39;.

They did "used to be better". Capitalism has been stagnating over the last three decades and people are feeling the pain of that. At the moment, a great many--perhaps the majority--draw reactionary conclusions.

I think, over time, that will change.


Also, while it may be that in decades/centuries time the mass views become more progressive, it is still at this moment reactionary views that they hold. So if censorship was to occur, the masses would need to be restricted, not just a minority.

Well, it&#39;s a moot point...I have no power to censor anyone. By the time proletarian revolution occurs, the chances are that the great majority of people will have "progressive" views and only a minority of reactionaries will be censored.


I am not clear on how going further left wing in policy would make this occur more effectively though. For example rapid collectivisation under a Marxism based system vs. slow collectivisation under a Marxism based system. The first would be seen as the most left wing, yet would it be the best for reducing private property? Its questionable, judging by the reaction of previous attempts.

Well, that&#39;s one way to look at the issue: more speed = more "left wing".

I don&#39;t think you would be censored for saying something like: "less speed with superficial results and more careful and thorough collectivization is the real &#39;left&#39; policy".

It would be one of those issues heatedly debated "on the left". The reactionary opinions on the subject would be ignored...and, if they became a nuisance, probably suppressed.


Perhaps a better word would be &#39;blinkered&#39; then. Treating Marxism as something unquestionable, and as completely correct. This results in decisions not being based on rationality, as the factor &#39;which is the most marxist&#39; comes into play.

Perhaps you are not especially familiar with discussions on the left. Someone who attempted to defend their position on the basis of "it&#39;s more Marxist" would not "win points" or "achieve status"...at least in the eyes of serious revolutionaries.

Granted that there are "Marxist" cults where someone might get away with that foolishness--especially if they happen to be a "great leader" of a Leninist party--I can&#39;t imagine that kind of "argument" carrying any weight with most people on the left.

It would probably go something like this...

Comrade X proposes a policy Y. She quotes Marx on a similar situation and the policy he advocated.

Comrade Z rises to the floor and asks "Was Marx right about that?"

Marx had a terrific track record and was right about a huge number of things. But he didn&#39;t "win them all". No one ever does.

We won&#39;t either.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 28 2004, 03:23 PM


PS: El profe, just shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about. You tried to convince me that capitalism doesn&#39;t exist in Latin America. :lol:
yes and i did that, I got so many facts to many to write. Read what i said about latin america, ive made numerous post on it, and in another thread surprisingly no one ever answered my post again.

I already told you what latin america has done, they are "social-democrata" thats it. They have always had gov. involvment in gov. they have always had corrupt gov&#39;s.
I no you wont do this but read: The guide to the perfect latin american Idiot. Here read the first 5 pages and the last 7 pages which are full of quotes from important figures and politicians from latin america. You might learn something.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/156833236X...807#reader-page (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/156833236X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-6312281-7480807#reader-page)
Written by three all ex-leftist latin americans. Great book filled with facts. Of course you wont read it, but thats okay keep your uninformed belief that latin america is pro-capitalist.

Here is a part of a reviewof this book:http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.6632/news_detail.asp
Read the full review, its not that long.

The revie cam out before it was available in english:


Manual del perfecto idiota latinoamericano
(Manual for the Perfect Latin American Idiot)
By Carlos Alberto Montaner, Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, and Alvaro Vargas Llosa

A specter is haunting Latin America these days--a book that frontally attacks all of the sociological and economic foolishness that, until recently, kept the region at a developmental dead-end.

The book is a long pamphlet entitled Manual del perfecto idiota latinoamericano (Manual for the Perfect Latin American Idiot). Written by three ex-leftists, it is witty, incisive, fact-packed, and fun. What&#39;s more, although released only in April, it has already sold 100,000 copies in more than a dozen countries, an astounding success for any non-fiction work in Spanish. (The book is not yet available in English.)

The authors know whereof they speak. Carlos Alberto Montaner is a Cuban who played an active role in Castro&#39;s revolution and now lives in exile in Spain. Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza is a Colombian, a former guerrilla and one of the founders of the Cuban press agency Prensa Latina. Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a Peruvian, the son of the novelist and a distinguished journalist in his own right, who as a student at Princeton led the charge against Ronald Reagan when the president visited in 1984. As the authors say in their prologue, the problem isn&#39;t so much being an idiot--lots of Latins have been that at one time or another (including the authors); the problem is persisting, against all evidence, in remaining one. The subject of the Manual is Latin America&#39;s intellectual underdevelopment--its tendency to continue in error, its preference for taking comfort in victimhood rather than examining reality. Since the Second World War, the region&#39;s political leaders have drunk deeply from the fount of "dependency theory," a mishmash of nationalism and Marxism-lite. Ideas, as we know, often have consequences, and in this case they explain how potentially rich countries have become poor.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 28 2004, 08:52 AM

Hitler, stalin, Saddam, Pinochet, Castro, Mussolini, Mao...etc all would be proud of your way of thinking, lets deny freedom of speech to anyone who does not believe in what we believe.

You are one of those people who just enjoy their method of control and didn&#39;t like their method. You just live in a different type of control through different methods of intimidation.

Do you think Stalin killed somebody that opposes his view to shut them up, or intimidate others from doing the same thing?

What do you think these tactics, although softer than killing somebody, has the exact same effect. WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT.

Even if we aren&#39;t suppose to keep 600 people from lawyers hanging out in Guatanamo Bay, we can.

Even though the patriot act is against your constitution we will find an excuse to use and have our powers increased.

You make fun of Redstar for his views and call him sad ect..ect.

Here is the sad part. You are one of those people that thinks capitalism is great because they can go out and own 1/2 acre land if they are lucky, buy a car they want and a new Mr. Coffee when they come out.

But the sad thing is, what you don&#39;t understand is, you being able to do that is just a side effect of those rules being used and created for entrenched wealth. For the real 5% that controls everything, those laws are for them to battle out mergers and buy mining companies. They don&#39;t give a fuck about you being able to buy a new MR. Coffee. It you being able to buy a new Mr. Coffee keeps your mouth shut and you think you are free, so be it. Better control for them.

But if at any time you realize, along with other people that the capitalist system isn&#39;t for you, it is for them and you want to change idealogies and distribution of wealth. Those in power use The Sedaction Act and old 1800&#39;s laws used once or twice in the last 100 years, to keep you shut up.

They reatain power like Stalin did, only they aren&#39;t as obvious about it. That must be what you have a problem with, people obvious with power and constant use of it. You must enjoy your yoke in your 8 hour a day, 40+ hours a week, all to support that 5% and keep its power and wealth in place.

Sure they don&#39;t send you to the gulags, they send you to cubicles to work for the system instead.
First of all you justify the acts of those dictators by showing me the rights that the USa has abused, and how it has abused its own constitution.
The difference is I see the facts and I acknowledge that the USa abuses and has abused rights, but you and redstarr and many others, deny to see the fact that most of your heroes where cruel dictoators.

You also are against freedom of speech if its not from a leftist.

Of course I am against the patriot act, of course I hate most of the control that gov&#39;s have over so many things.
The thing is I want less gov. interference on everything. While you want total gov. control.

Of course the top 1 % people we dont even know, have alot to say in desicions that are made by the gov., but this is possible because gov. has to much power, I want to fight(not with guns) gov. control.

And in communism you still work in that "cubicle" except you work directly for "society"( gov.) which will then give everyone a "fair" share of what you worked for.

Why do you want full gov. control like in USSR , north korea, Cuba ....?

[Osman Ghazi]

USA&#39;s Dominance over latin america (Pages 1 2 3 ...4 )
el_profe 77 610 24th January 2004 - 07:01 PM
Last Post by: Osman Ghazi

I didn&#39;t answer your post? Hmm, i wonder why it says that i had the last post, which in theory at least, would indicate that you didn&#39;t reply to my post. I guess that&#39;s just a typo then.

Secondly, i have told you a hundred times that while there has never been true capitalism in any country, pretty much all of the countries in this world claim to be capitalist. Funny how that works, eh?

Also, since you are so intent on calling the USSR, Cuba and N. Korea communist, why is there any problem with me calling Latin America capitalist? Both are not entirely true.

[Osman Ghazi]

PS: I read your nice little book reveiw. Very quaint. It attacks Latin Americans for hating the people who have repeatedly invaded to set up puppet governments (Americans). Then, in a very adult manner, it calls anyone who disagrees with them an idiot, in fact it says that the entire population of Latin America are idiots. There is absolutely no bias whatsoever, (it merely happens to be written by ex-leftists). I wonder how much it cost to buy them.
If you actually expect me read a book which advocates everything i hate, then you are less intelligent then even i thought. I might as well tell you to go read the communist manifesto. Of course you wouldn&#39;t read it so why would i read your crappy neo-liberal book?
Then, on top of that, it attacks some of the greatest leaders known to mankind on the basis of things that have nothing to do with what they fought for. For example, it attacks Pancho Villa, (my personal favourite revolutionary) because he couldn&#39;t read and because he stole cattle from the rich.

Another tip-off came when you look at the site at which the reveiw is posted: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a group that advocates for neo-liberal policies. It even says that Americans are too socialist. Yup, no bias whatsoever.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 04:13 PM
PS: I read your nice little book reveiw. Very quaint. It attacks Latin Americans for hating the people who have repeatedly invaded to set up puppet governments (Americans). Then, in a very adult manner, it calls anyone who disagrees with them an idiot, in fact it says that the entire population of Latin America are idiots. There is absolutely no bias whatsoever, (it merely happens to be written by ex-leftists). I wonder how much it cost to buy them.
If you actually expect me read a book which advocates everything i hate, then you are less intelligent then even i thought. I might as well tell you to go read the communist manifesto. Of course you wouldn&#39;t read it so why would i read your crappy neo-liberal book?
Then, on top of that, it attacks some of the greatest leaders known to mankind on the basis of things that have nothing to do with what they fought for. For example, it attacks Pancho Villa, (my personal favourite revolutionary) because he couldn&#39;t read and because he stole cattle from the rich.

Another tip-off came when you look at the site at which the reveiw is posted: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a group that advocates for neo-liberal policies. It even says that Americans are too socialist. Yup, no bias whatsoever.
they are all latin americans so they must know what they are talking about, when they talk about the latin american idiot.
I thought you werent a communist, And i will read the communist manifesto, I alreadey have it.
So you want to talk against capitalism, but you dont want to learn about capitalism? :blink: thats smart.
You want to talk bs about latin america when you dont know the facts, and you dont want to learn the facts?

Your one of the dumbest persons on this board, you want to defeat the enemy "capitalism" but you dont want to study your enemy? :blink: . I hope you one day get to command the guerilla movement in canada, they wont last a day with your great strategies.


How can you criticize the book when you have not read it, just read the first 20 pages or so, it has great fact, and the third chapter of the book is written just to disprove many of the "myths" about what has happened in latin america.

Of course the review is biased, thats what it is moron, a review, its someones opinion, I just wanted to point out the fact that the authors where also "idiots", thats what they said.

What you where able to read was only the introduction. So if they attack youre favorite idols, you immidetly shy away from it, instead of reading and disproving the book or pointing out what they said wrong you just wont read it and say its a crappy book.
I suggested the book because its full of facts.

[kylieII]

Fidelbrand Posted: Jan 29 2004, 01:34 AM

Shush.


Creationism? Racial "science"? Nazism?
You&#39;re contradicting yourself. You stated that all right-wing theories were reactionary, so this is what I was referring to when I said not all reactionary theories will not benefit society in some way. Not just the minority extreme theories such as the ones listed.
Although on Creationism, it does at least push scientists to investigate further our origins. Its a good example of how opposing theories can be helpful: Creationists criticise evolutionary theory as not being specific, and give their own account of events. Thus scientists to respond to this criticism, must give a more accurate picture of how life started. And secondly investigate and disprove the creationist explanation, during which, new information about the time periods that they claim are important, is found.


That&#39;s a bit misleading. During Stalin&#39;s life, the political consensus in the west--among all the highly respected bourgeois blabbermouths--was not that Stalin was a "reactionary" but that he was indeed a "progressive"...and that that was a "bad thing".
I was thinking more that now he is seen as &#39;reactionary&#39;. His and in my opinion Lenins guidance pushing society backwards from what had been achieved in the original Russian revolution, with the move from some kind of democracy, to a dictatorship. But anyway, it was just an example. I was just highlighting how with hindsight we can see that some theories that were felt to be progressive, were in fact not. Another example would be the protestant church, which it and its followers claim is progressive, or liberal, when in actual fact, it supports traditions and beliefs from when society was very different to how it is now.


The reason a reactionary criticism of a left position is essentially worthless is that its purpose is to stop and turn back the revolutionary process.
While that may be the intention of those who criticise Marxist theory, to add strength to their own position, that doesnt mean that it wont still refine and strengthen Marxist theory and understanding, if the criticism is addressed.
I disagree that the only worthwhile criticism can be that that comes from within a general theory. While their criticism will be from a biased position, it may still hold at least some worth. Otherwise, what you&#39;re left with is the complete rejection of all research and theory, in all sciences. Because it Means that all research should be ignored, due to the biases having complete control over the research and theory.
I dont think though anyway, that its correct that all research is biased. Everyone will have their own values and thoughts on society, as they themselves are part of it. But with good methodology, which prevents the interpretation of facts in such a way that bias may play a part, this can be kept seperate of any research and resulting theory.


You would appear to wish to remain "neutral". I&#39;m not sure anyone has ever accomplished that...maybe you&#39;ll be the first. Of course, people claim "neutrality" and "objectivity" all the time...but I&#39;ve never seen those claims withstand critical examination.
Yes, no one has achieved complete objectivity when looking into social theory, because of its nature, but it can at least be worked towards, and the effects of bias minimised.


You can make, I think, a "reasonable estimate" based on historical experience. A reactionary idea that goes uncontested and is allowed to freely develop will pretty much always result in a reactionary practice...though the details may be difficult to foresee.
An example of this not always being possible is Iran. The people in that society, or at least those with power, supported moving from a society based on western values, to one of an Islamic base. Now to those this was seen as progressive, it would improve society, hence they felt it was neccessary to do it. Yet really it can be seen that it has only devolved that society.


I think you would have to be more specific here regarding its "contributions".
Ok, firstly is it has contributed to how we do research. In terms of the method of deconstructing a &#39;topic&#39;, to understand it and its underlying assumptions. This was rarely used before postmodernism developed.
Also what topics are studied. Because of how you say, it rejects the idea of a grand theory of society, or social facts, this makes all areas of society of equal importance, which has allowed it to study things that other theorists have considered unimportant such as food. So in this sense it has widened the boundaries of what we look at.
Secondly it has criticised Marxism, in its explanations of inequality. These being it claims generalisations of society, with not everyone being unequal because of capitalism and class. For example the study by Bell Hooks, not a postmodernist themself, but still this is used by postmodernists. It found the reason for a lot of black single parents living in poverty was not because of class, or sexism, but due to poor relationships with their family and partners. This causing them to want more to have a child, in the hope that this will provide a better source of relationship.
I wouldnt say that its saying society is unknowable, or higher than us. It says that &#39;society&#39; is really just a collection of individuals, all with different motives and perspectives, it not being possible to know general trends or impose your theory on others.
Although, the irony of this is that in rejecting grand narrative theories of society such as Marxism, it imposes a theory itself.


But history has clearly demonstrated the reactionary content of certain ideas...and has done so objectively
History does, but this is different from an idea being found reactionary at the time itself, such as in Cuba today.


They did "used to be better". Capitalism has been stagnating over the last three decades and people are feeling the pain of that. At the moment, a great many--perhaps the majority--draw reactionary conclusions
If you look at the standard of living, life expectancy, wealth, and opportunities available today, and compare them to 30 years ago, in whatever part of the world you&#39;re in, they have improved. Your claim that capitalism has stagnated may be true, but it hasnt stopped society continuing to improve, at a faster or slower rate.



Perhaps you are not especially familiar with discussions on the left. Someone who attempted to defend their position on the basis of "it&#39;s more Marxist" would not "win points" or "achieve status"...at least in the eyes of serious revolutionaries.


Marx had a terrific track record and was right about a huge number of things. But he didn&#39;t "win them all". No one ever does.
My experience of Marxism and Marxists is that the majority go to great lengths to make it seem that their position is the most Marxist one. Take for example the quoting of Marx, to prove that he would agree with them, as if like a sacred object, this defies rationality or actual criticism.
Another example is how images are used, such as the hammer and sickle, or Marx himself, to attempt to make them seem closer to Marxism than others. As for Marx not winning them all, well, you would be among the minority of Marxists if you feel that, from what I have found.


Comrade Z rises to the floor and asks "Was Marx right about that?"
This would be the important part. You state comrade, so I assume you are talking about still only those who to some degree are Marxist. But even then, when the criticism is from Marxists, I lack confidense that such questioning of Marx would be acceptable or heard out.

[Fidelbrand]

" shush"~~ :lol: poor boy.. Your "shush" really made me felt sour.. please excuse me if i made u wordless, but.. who &#39;s dodging now? (U like the word "dodging" so much , i m just using it as in accordance to your preference.. don&#39;t get too angry~ ;) )

[kylieII]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 03:06 PM
" shush"~~ :lol: poor boy.. Your "shush" really made me felt sour.. please excuse me if i made u wordless, but.. who &#39;s dodging now? (U like the word "dodging" so much , i m just using it as in accordance to your preference.. don&#39;t get too angry~ ;) )
Whatever, you&#39;ve shown yourself to be either stupid or a moron. If you are not going to properly answer what I write, i&#39;m not going to waste my time replying to you.

[redstar2000]

Although on Creationism, it does at least push scientists to investigate further our origins. Its a good example of how opposing theories can be helpful: Creationists criticise evolutionary theory as not being specific, and give their own account of events. Thus scientists to respond to this criticism, must give a more accurate picture of how life started. And secondly investigate and disprove the creationist explanation, during which, new information about the time periods that they claim are important, is found.

No, it doesn&#39;t work like that at all. No reputable biologist, paleontologist, etc. ever wastes five seconds in considering Creationist "criticism".

In respectable scientific journals, there&#39;s no "freedom of speech" for Creationists.

The "Creationist paradigm" is considered flatly reactionary...a bunch of superstitious nonsense.


I was just highlighting how with hindsight we can see that some theories that were felt to be progressive, were in fact not.

As a general observation, I agree. It takes time for some theories to reveal their reactionary nature.

But we do the best we can. By rejecting paradigms that have been demonstrated to be reactionary, we "improve the odds" of picking "winners" and avoiding "losers".

What you really need to buttress your argument here is a theory that was initially thought to be reactionary but then turned out to be progressive.

I have never heard of such a thing myself...even if it&#39;s happened once or twice, it must be extraordinarily rare.


Otherwise, what you&#39;re left with is the complete rejection of all research and theory, in all sciences.

Not according to Thomas Kuhn. He observed that what really happens in science is that "problems" begin to accumulate within a paradigm. For a long time, they can be safely ignored...they are "at the margin" and some ad hoc explanation can always be concocted. But, if the paradigm is genuinely flawed in important ways, the "problems" grow larger and larger and more difficult to ignore or "explain away".

Finally a small group of "revolutionaries" put together a new paradigm which elegantly explains all the existing problems by suggesting a whole different framework of explanation.

Flawed paradigms contain within themselves the seeds of their own destruction.


But with good methodology, which prevents the interpretation of facts in such a way that bias may play a part, this can be kept separate of any research and resulting theory.

"Good methodology" is the "holy grail" of science...something everyone wants to find. The general rule in scientific dispute is that if someone does a study and you don&#39;t like the results (for any reason), attack the bastards on their methodology.

Many scientific battles have been won on that field.

Realistically, it&#39;s not practical to expect people to be unbiased when they are testing their favorite theory. Even the most rigorous scientist will overlook subtle biases while eliminating obvious ones.

The correction of those biases come from those within the paradigm who have begun to attack it from within...moving in a "revolutionary" direction.


An example of this not always being possible is Iran. The people in that society, or at least those with power, supported moving from a society based on western values, to one of an Islamic base. Now to those this was seen as progressive, it would improve society, hence they felt it was necessary to do it. Yet really it can be seen that it has only devolved that society.

Within the medieval paradigm of Islam, Iran is "progressive" and "Saudi" Arabia is even "more progressive" and the Taliban&#39;s Afghanistan was the "most progressive" of all.

But you and I know that the Islamic paradigm is objectively reactionary completely regardless of the sentiments of those that accept it.

They can never "improve" anything...no matter what they claim.


In terms of the method of deconstructing a &#39;topic&#39;, to understand it and its underlying assumptions. This was rarely used before postmodernism developed.

Well, I think Marxists used it.


Also what topics are studied. Because of how you say, it rejects the idea of a grand theory of society, or social facts, this makes all areas of society of equal importance, which has allowed it to study things that other theorists have considered unimportant such as food. So in this sense it has widened the boundaries of what we look at.

Yes, I agree. But it appears to me that a great deal of research in this direction has been trivial. A study of things like prisons, mental illness, childhood, etc. as social constructs does reveal a good deal.

The last one I ran across was something called The Sociology of Barbi or something like that. I didn&#39;t bother reading it.


It found the reason for a lot of black single parents living in poverty was not because of class, or sexism, but due to poor relationships with their family and partners. This causing them to want more to have a child, in the hope that this will provide a better source of relationship.

I think this is a very poor explanation for black single parents living in poverty.

In fact, this is where "common sense" Marxism offers a superior explanation: young black women do not--as a matter of objective fact--have access to the skills required to escape poverty...whether they have a kid or not. If you work at Wal-Mart for &#036;7.50-&#036;9.00 per hour or at McDonald&#39;s for &#036;6.50 per hour, you are going to be poor no matter what.

Poor people have shitty families and relationships...that doesn&#39;t "cause" them to be poor.

Poverty is a product of lack of money.


History does, but this is different from an idea being found reactionary at the time itself, such as in Cuba today.

Well, the "idea" of the people opposed to Castro--both there and in Miami--is to restore the "old regime"...to make Cuba back into another Honduras or Guatemala.

That&#39;s been shown to be reactionary...as well as a social catastrophe.


If you look at the standard of living, life expectancy, wealth, and opportunities available today, and compare them to 30 years ago, in whatever part of the world you&#39;re in, they have improved.

30 years ago, I was a young fellow of 32. I have seen things with my own eyes...and they have not improved.

In some ways, they have clearly deteriorated.

On the other hand, the skills of those who create popular images of improvement have advanced quite a bit.


My experience of Marxism and Marxists is that the majority go to great lengths to make it seem that their position is the most Marxist one.

You have my condolences. Keep in mind that there are still a great many "Marxist" adherents of the Leninist paradigm. They argue a lot with each other about who is "the most Marxist"...sort of the way Catholics and Protestants argue about "who is the most Christian".

They are not very interesting arguments because they treat Marx as scripture.


But even then, when the criticism is from Marxists, I lack confidence that such questioning of Marx would be acceptable or heard out.

It is here.

And if it&#39;s not in Cuba, then it should be.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by kylieII+Jan 30 2004, 04:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kylieII @ Jan 30 2004, 04:17 PM)
[email protected] 30 2004, 03:06 PM
" shush"~~ :lol: poor boy.. Your "shush" really made me felt sour.. please excuse me if i made u wordless, but.. who &#39;s dodging now? (U like the word "dodging" so much , i m just using it as in accordance to your preference.. don&#39;t get too angry~ ;) )
Whatever, you&#39;ve shown yourself to be either stupid or a moron. If you are not going to properly answer what I write, i&#39;m not going to waste my time replying to you. [/b]
Perverted. Shush~ lets start a kindergarten fight... hahaha.. :D :D
Replied to all your quotes, just that someone is chicken to answer and does not understand and accuse me of saying the same old things... when ..... he doesn&#39;t understand~ :lol:

[Osman Ghazi]

they are all latin americans so they must know what they are talking about, when they talk about the latin american idiot.

Just because they are from Latin America doesn&#39;t mean they have a clue about what they are talking about. I mean take you for example, you are from Latin America and you have no idea what in all the seven hells your talking about.


thought you werent a communist, And i will read the communist manifesto, I alreadey have it.
So you want to talk against capitalism, but you dont want to learn about capitalism? thats smart.
You want to talk bs about latin america when you dont know the facts, and you dont want to learn the facts?

Do not take me for some greasy stupid teenager. I already know about capitalism. I already know about Latin America. Have you ever read Noam Chomsky&#39;s Turning the Tide: U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace? I didn&#39;t think so, because that would shatter your illusions of American grandeur.


What you where able to read was only the introduction. So if they attack youre favorite idols, you immidetly shy away from it, instead of reading and disproving the book or pointing out what they said wrong you just wont read it and say its a crappy book.

How many books have you read that attack your favourite idols? Do not presume to the that you are very much different from me. Also, i thought we already agreed that insults are what 4-year olds use to win their arguments. Adults use arguments. Please, be an adult.

Also, i think that you have actually convinced me to read this book. However, i still have David Lane&#39;s Politics and Society in the USSR and Kropotkin&#39;s Fugitive Writings on my plate first.

PS: I was mostly pissed because they attacked Pancho Villa for being illiterate and stealing cattle. IMO, Pancho Villa was the greatest revolutionary in all history. He led a revolution to liberate Mexico and he didn&#39;t even want to become president, like mostr revolutionary leaders. Sadly, the government he put in power was just as corrupt as the fascists he fought against.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 31 2004, 03:50 PM

they are all latin americans so they must know what they are talking about, when they talk about the latin american idiot.

Just because they are from Latin America doesn&#39;t mean they have a clue about what they are talking about. I mean take you for example, you are from Latin America and you have no idea what in all the seven hells your talking about.


thought you werent a communist, And i will read the communist manifesto, I alreadey have it.
So you want to talk against capitalism, but you dont want to learn about capitalism? thats smart.
You want to talk bs about latin america when you dont know the facts, and you dont want to learn the facts?

Do not take me for some greasy stupid teenager. I already know about capitalism. I already know about Latin America. Have you ever read Noam Chomsky&#39;s Turning the Tide: U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace? I didn&#39;t think so, because that would shatter your illusions of American grandeur.


Dont say I dont know about latin america just becuase you dont like the fact that i say the truth.
And i dont want to act like latin america is crap becuase its a victim of the 1st world countries. They might of have a role in that, but latin america is doing so bad because of latin america, for many different reasons.

I know about US interventions in latin america, you think people in latin america love the USA? no, i doub that youve ever met a latin american, and a real one not a wetbag, the USA intervened in South korea and south korea isnt fcked up? the USA intervened in chile and chile is the best country in latin america?

The fact that the USA has intervened in latin america is not the reason that latin america is poor.
Once again I go back to the fact that everyone wants to be a victim and no one wants to take responsabily for there actions.

In guatemala we just had one of the most corrup goverments in the last 60 years the most corrupt, they won the elections with 70% of the vote? they also won congress with a bunch of corrupt politcians which everyone knew where corrupt politicians, the president fled from mexico for 20 years because he killed 2 people, and with all that they still got power, fairly, through elections.
Now who&#39;s fault is it that they won, the USA, no, its ever moron that voted for them, thats who&#39;s fault it is.

Look at mexcio 70 years with el PRI in control and they still voted for them, and just last year they put el pri in control of congress again, after 70 years of having a corrupt and bad gov. and they still vote for them.
There so many examples like that all through latin america.



What you where able to read was only the introduction. So if they attack youre favorite idols, you immidetly shy away from it, instead of reading and disproving the book or pointing out what they said wrong you just wont read it and say its a crappy book.

How many books have you read that attack your favourite idols? Do not presume to the that you are very much different from me. Also, i thought we already agreed that insults are what 4-year olds use to win their arguments. Adults use arguments. Please, be an adult.

Also, i think that you have actually convinced me to read this book. However, i still have David Lane&#39;s Politics and Society in the USSR and Kropotkin&#39;s Fugitive Writings on my plate first.

PS: I was mostly pissed because they attacked Pancho Villa for being illiterate and stealing cattle. IMO, Pancho Villa was the greatest revolutionary in all history. He led a revolution to liberate Mexico and he didn&#39;t even want to become president, like mostr revolutionary leaders. Sadly, the government he put in power was just as corrupt as the fascists he fought against.
What insults? I do not have any idols. I have read books that go against what i think.
2nd. I know about the USA interventions but i dont blame them for how bad latin america is today.

[ChaosMonkey]

You realize, of course, that the likelihood any of you would have computers, let alone internet access and message boards, whether you supported the Cuban government or not, would be very slim if you lived there, yes? Not to mention that the odds are against you actually supporting the government if you live there.

People don&#39;t leave Cuba because they aren&#39;t allowed to have computers.

[Osman Ghazi]

Now who&#39;s fault is it that they won, the USA, no, its ever moron that voted for them

Your right El Profe, we should just take democracy away from the people of Latin America because obviously they don&#39;t know how to use it. In fact every problem in Latin America was caused by Latin Americans voting. If we just took away their power to vote, Latin America would be a better place.

That is the line of reasoning you are currently on.

If you know so much, then what are all the different reasons for Latin American poverty? You seem to have all the answers, don&#39;t you?


the USA intervened in South korea and south korea isnt fcked up? the USA intervened in chile and chile is the best country in latin america?

Those are probably the only two examples of American intervention that turned out well in the end. You also neglect to mention that the governments they set up killed thousands of people. What about all of Central America? They aren&#39;t doing too well in the wake of American intervention. Costa Rica wasn&#39;t invaded by the U.S. and they are the only country in Central America that isn&#39;t incredably poor.

All you have told me are examples of corrupt politicians. I already know that there are corrupt politicians. They are able to get elected because there is a low level of political conciousness in Latin America. there is a low level of political concioussness because people are more worried about their next meal then about who is in office or what platform a candidate is running on. Then corrupt politicians get elected and all they do is steal. This is what we like to call the cycle of poverty.

Your plan is to give more power to businessmen who would exploit them as much as the corrupt politicians would. Sorry, but that doesn&#39;t make sense to me.

Also, (lo and behold) i have talked to people from Latin America. Actually, one of my best friends was born and spent his childhood in Guatemala.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 10:46 PM
You realize, of course, that the likelihood any of you would have computers, let alone internet access and message boards, whether you supported the Cuban government or not, would be very slim if you lived there, yes? Not to mention that the odds are against you actually supporting the government if you live there.

People don&#39;t leave Cuba because they aren&#39;t allowed to have computers.
I"m sorry, where did you find the statistic that said that everyone in cuba hates the govt.??

[ChaosMonkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 06:28 PM

I"m sorry, where did you find the statistic that said that everyone in cuba hates the govt.??

I wager just about anyone would have trouble finding those statistics in an un-fudged-with state. Ask anyone living in Cuba if they hate the governemt. Go on. Oh, hold on, you can&#39;t, because they don&#39;t have internet access, and they&#39;re afraid of going to jail and WITHOUT ANY DOUBT worse if they speak out against the government.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 31 2004, 11:02 PM
Those are probably the only two examples of American intervention that turned out well in the end.
Actually they are horrible examples. Chile being the best country in Latin America is debatable, but even besides that, the U.S. installed dictator was driven out by Chileans, not the U.S. And South Korea has been trying to become united with North Korea in a Democratic system for years, but U.S. and it&#39;s South Korean puppet dictators have blocked that from happening. South Korea&#39;s Human Rights record has been horrible.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by ChaosMonkey+Jan 31 2004, 11:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ChaosMonkey @ Jan 31 2004, 11:41 PM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 06:28 PM

I"m sorry, where did you find the statistic that said that everyone in cuba hates the govt.??

I wager just about anyone would have trouble finding those statistics in an un-fudged-with state. Ask anyone living in Cuba if they hate the governemt. Go on. Oh, hold on, you can&#39;t, because they don&#39;t have internet access, and they&#39;re afraid of going to jail and WITHOUT ANY DOUBT worse if they speak out against the government. [/b]
Yeah...thats kind of the answer I expected from you.

Come back when you&#39;ve conduct a legitamate survey of the people of tthe island.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 31 2004, 11:02 PM

Now who&#39;s fault is it that they won, the USA, no, its ever moron that voted for them

Your right El Profe, we should just take democracy away from the people of Latin America because obviously they don&#39;t know how to use it. In fact every problem in Latin America was caused by Latin Americans voting. If we just took away their power to vote, Latin America would be a better place.

That is the line of reasoning you are currently on.

If you know so much, then what are all the different reasons for Latin American poverty? You seem to have all the answers, don&#39;t you?


the USA intervened in South korea and south korea isnt fcked up? the USA intervened in chile and chile is the best country in latin america?

Those are probably the only two examples of American intervention that turned out well in the end. You also neglect to mention that the governments they set up killed thousands of people. What about all of Central America? They aren&#39;t doing too well in the wake of American intervention. Costa Rica wasn&#39;t invaded by the U.S. and they are the only country in Central America that isn&#39;t incredably poor.

All you have told me are examples of corrupt politicians. I already know that there are corrupt politicians. They are able to get elected because there is a low level of political conciousness in Latin America. there is a low level of political concioussness because people are more worried about their next meal then about who is in office or what platform a candidate is running on. Then corrupt politicians get elected and all they do is steal. This is what we like to call the cycle of poverty.

Your plan is to give more power to businessmen who would exploit them as much as the corrupt politicians would. Sorry, but that doesn&#39;t make sense to me.

Also, (lo and behold) i have talked to people from Latin America. Actually, one of my best friends was born and spent his childhood in Guatemala.
No i say the country (hopefully, althoug i dont they will) will learn from there mistake.
This does not mean we take away democracy, it was a bad choice the country made they had to live with that desicion for 4 years now lets hope they learned from that.

Reasons for poverty: too many but I will list some, the fact that it was a spanish colony didnt help, the concept of centralization was and still is alive (i.e. everything is crontrolled be the central gov. who gets all the money and does not gtive the states there fair share), the industrial revolution took almost 100 years to come to latin america, corrupt gov&#39;s , dictators in some countries education is a problem, no jobs, in some countries wars. But what it really is i think is something in the culture, the way of thinking, its going to have to change before we change latin america. To tell you the tuth the politicians picked actually do represent the country, every nation (at least in democracy) deserves what it gets, it sad but its the truth.

The answers, lets try to get more investors to come and invest in latin america, lets lower those stpid tariffs and taxes on bussinesses, we need to stop "helping" local innificient industries by protecting them from competition, we need to analyze and realize who we elect into office, we need to realize that we cant keep on trying to live from farming crops that everyone else is farming, education also (although people in argentina are educated and there country is still poor). Too many things, I think it has to start with the people we elect into office, the corruption has to stop. Also people need to fucking get over the victim syndrome and realize we dug this hole ourselves.


Id love to hear your plan?

[ChaosMonkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 07:13 PM
Yeah...thats kind of the answer I expected from you.

Come back when you&#39;ve conduct a legitamate survey of the people of tthe island.
The closest any of us can get to a "legitimate" survey are all the people living here and all those who died trying to escape that "socialist paradise."

You talk to Cubans living here in the US for any amount of time, and ask them about Cuba. They talk about a beautiful country they miss very much and are sad to have left behind. They oppose Castro not for political reason -- and taking this all as political is wrong-headed -- but because of what&#39;s been done to their family and friends. Simple as that. They&#39;re denied the chance to make the lives they want for themselves in their home country, which possibly includes both computers AND not having to eat government-rationed rice full of maggots and rocks.

That&#39;s as close to a survey as either of us can get, and we both know it.

[Lardlad95]

The closest any of us can get to a "legitimate" survey are all the people living here and all those who died trying to escape that "socialist paradise."

Thats like asking a bunch of Socialists what they think of president Bush, the results aren&#39;t going to be very objective.



You talk to Cubans living here in the US for any amount of time, and ask them about Cuba. They talk about a beautiful country they miss very much and are sad to have left behind. They oppose Castro not for political reason -- and taking this all as political is wrong-headed -- but because of what&#39;s been done to their family and friends. Simple as that. They&#39;re denied the chance to make the lives they want for themselves in their home country, which possibly includes both computers AND not having to eat government-rationed rice full of maggots and rocks.

....I&#39;d also be asking a bunch of republicans. They are going to say anything that makes castro look bad, some of it may be warranted, but once again it&#39;s going to be exceptionally biased.



That&#39;s as close to a survey as either of us can get, and we both know it.

No it&#39;s not because I trust Anti-Casro Cubans in america about as much as I do any other group with it&#39;s own agenda.

I wouldn&#39;t trust socialists to give an unbiased assesment of capitalism, I woudn&#39;t trust cappies to give a fair assesment of socialism, I wouldn&#39;t trust the Panthers to give a fair assesment of the Patriots

[Osman Ghazi]

Foreign investment doesn&#39;t really help. Sure they give money to the people in the form of wages. However, they also take wealth away from the country by using the land to make profits for foreign companies instead of native ones. Why have foregin ownership that takes money away from the country when you could have native ones that give it back?

My solution: dictatorship of the proletariot. Look at the USSR for example. A country only semi-industrialized and only semi-capitalist (capitalist gov. but no bourgouisie). DOTP didn&#39;t do them any harm. If you have a gov. that rules in the people&#39;s interests and you give them the power to make a difference, they will. I think coming from LA has really soured you on the gov. They aren&#39;t all corrupt, you know.


corrupt gov&#39;s

They are supported by the business class to whom you want to give all the power.


dictators in some countries

Also supported by businessmen. In some cases, put there by them.


education is a problem

Education is best administered by a state gov. (you don&#39;t want them to have any power)


no jobs

Could easily be rectified by a non-corrupt gov.


But what it really is i think is something in the culture, the way of thinking, its going to have to change before we change latin america. To tell you the tuth the politicians picked actually do represent the country, every nation (at least in democracy) deserves what it gets, it sad but its the truth.


Elaborate more on this, please. No sarcasm, I&#39;m seriously interested in what you mean because i&#39;ve heard of this before.


Too many things, I think it has to start with the people we elect into office, the corruption has to stop. Also people need to fucking get over the victim syndrome and realize we dug this hole ourselves.


How was &#39;the hole&#39; their fault? All the problems you described don&#39;t really seem to be caused by the LA people.

[ChaosMonkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 08:18 PM
....I&#39;d also be asking a bunch of republicans. They are going to say anything that makes castro look bad, some of it may be warranted, but once again it&#39;s going to be exceptionally biased.
I&#39;m sorry. I was mistaken. I guess all the Cubans I know and love left because they are Republicans and not, as I once suspected, hungry.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by ChaosMonkey+Feb 1 2004, 01:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ChaosMonkey @ Feb 1 2004, 01:41 AM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 08:18 PM
....I&#39;d also be asking a bunch of republicans. They are going to say anything that makes castro look bad, some of it may be warranted, but once again it&#39;s going to be exceptionally biased.
I&#39;m sorry. I was mistaken. I guess all the Cubans I know and love left because they are Republicans and not, as I once suspected, hungry. [/b]
You just totally ignored the point of my post didn&#39;t you?

Look not everyone is going to love castro, not everyone is going to love any world leader. Some cubans left, some didnt, I&#39;ve talked to cubans here who like castro and have no beef with Cuba.

THe point is those cubans in Florida have a biased view of Castro, they felt that they were being opressed, okay and if you feel that way you leave so you aren&#39;t opressed. That doesn&#39;t mean all cubans feel that way.

[bunnerabb]

Have you ever been to Cuba? This reminds me of a National Lampoon Radio Hour skit where they parody talk radio. A caller calls up and says "Yeah, I think that most poeple in prison um, deserve to be there and should, uh.. stop complaining" "I see.. have you ever been in prison, sir?" "Uh, no..." "I see.. have you ever been boned up the @&#036;&#036; for being a @#&#036;%#&#036; wiseguy?... Hello? Hello, you&#39;re on the air."

The Cuban economy, like all Communist economies, is a shambles of paper, poverty and things that aren&#39;t avaialbe. Their currency is a joke, the American dollar is the only currency that actually gets you ANYthing.. at all. Of course, it is illegal to own because it is "counter-revolutionary."

The revolution has given Cuba an endless supply of 61 Chevy Bel-Aires, crap, rotting archtitecture, a now useless military strategic location and really good cigars that are made from salt-heavy tobacco that are illegal to make a profit from.

Communism doesn&#39;t work because it ignoes the fact that things cost what they cost , and hijacking a crap Bayliner and buggering off to a small island and saying "The Revolution is here&#33;" then parking your fat fanny in a leather chair while your nation rots doesn&#39;t CREATE anything.

Honest.

You might have read Marx, but I recommend P.J. O&#39;Rourke. Get a copy of Eat The Rich.

That&#39;s why Cuba doesn&#39;t work. That&#39;s why Communism doesn&#39;t work.

"There&#39;s no real revolution, just power changing hands."

Saing you know what&#39;s going on in Cuba from America is like saying you know what&#39;s going on in Aruba from a postcard.

[ChaosMonkey]

People who leave a government they feel is oppressive are, yes, going to be biased. Do you think it was easy for the Cubans in Miami or whever to get out of Cuba? Do you think it&#39;s truly a matter of feeling "that they were being opressed, okay and if you feel that way you leave so you aren&#39;t opressed"? Do you honestly believe it&#39;s that easy? This isn&#39;t a roadtrip to Las Vegas, dude. This is leaving a country that&#39;s ruled by a man that doesn&#39;t want any bad press to get out about said rule. He&#39;s got his own little Iron Curtain.

So your point is that people who are oppressed are biased against an oppressive government. Yeah, I got it. And the REAL point is this has less to do with government and politics and more to do with egomania and starving to death, or doing everything you can to avoid that.

[Lardlad95]

Have you ever been to Cuba? This reminds me of a National Lampoon Radio Hour skit where they parody talk radio. A caller calls up and says "Yeah, I think that most poeple in prison um, deserve to be there and should, uh.. stop complaining" "I see.. have you ever been in prison, sir?" "Uh, no..." "I see.. have you ever been boned up the @&#036;&#036; for being a @#&#036;%#&#036; wiseguy?... Hello? Hello, you&#39;re on the air."

So you are saying that because someone has never been somewhere they have no right to have an opinion on the matter? So I assume you only have an opinin on your house, your city, and probably the 10 other places you&#39;ve traveled in the world?



The Cuban economy, like all Communist economies, is a shambles of paper, poverty and things that aren&#39;t avaialbe. Their currency is a joke, the American dollar is the only currency that actually gets you ANYthing.. at all. Of course, it is illegal to own because it is "counter-revolutionary."

1. Cuba isn&#39;t communist

2. I"m assuming you are getting your information from places that have a bias against castro.



The revolution has given Cuba an endless supply of 61 Chevy Bel-Aires, crap, rotting archtitecture, a now useless military strategic location and really good cigars that are made from salt-heavy tobacco that are illegal to make a profit from.

But you forgot that it&#39;s also given great research in preventative medicine, just ask Charles B. Nemeroff, head of the Psychiatry Department of Emory University in Atlanta.



Communism doesn&#39;t work because it ignoes the fact that things cost what they cost , and hijacking a crap Bayliner and buggering off to a small island and saying "The Revolution is here&#33;" then parking your fat fanny in a leather chair while your nation rots doesn&#39;t CREATE anything.

Well we&#39;ll just see when someone actually creates a REAL communist nation.

Also did you see how Batista had that island before "the revolution" came? Castro gave that nation better education that it ever had, not to mention better health care.



Honest.

You might have read Marx, but I recommend P.J. O&#39;Rourke. Get a copy of Eat The Rich.

I&#39;ll look for it..but to be honest Marx looks better on my book shelf


Saing you know what&#39;s going on in Cuba from America is like saying you know what&#39;s going on in Aruba from a postcard.

Good point, don&#39;t ever say anything about international affairs ever again, because until you live somewhere you have no justification in talking about it

[Lardlad95]

People who leave a government they feel is oppressive are, yes, going to be biased. Do you think it was easy for the Cubans in Miami or whever to get out of Cuba? Do you think it&#39;s truly a matter of feeling "that they were being opressed, okay and if you feel that way you leave so you aren&#39;t opressed"? Do you honestly believe it&#39;s that easy? This isn&#39;t a roadtrip to Las Vegas, dude. This is leaving a country that&#39;s ruled by a man that doesn&#39;t want any bad press to get out about said rule. He&#39;s got his own little Iron Curtain.

When did I ever say it was easy? I said that they felt it was opressive so they left, it was hard for tehm and they risked their lives, but they still left because they wanted to be somewhere they thought was better than cuba. I never said the trip was easy, you are just hearing what ever you want to hear.



So your point is that people who are oppressed are biased against an oppressive government. Yeah, I got it. And the REAL point is this has less to do with government and politics and more to do with egomania and starving to death, or doing everything you can to avoid that.

Somme cubans say it&#39;s opressive, others don&#39;t. There are cubans in Cuba who call fidel a dictator, granted they aren&#39;t as free to criticize as Americans are but that doesn&#39;t mean some don&#39;t.

Also Starvation? Perhaps in the early 90&#39;s after teh soviet union collapsed and the US tightened it&#39;s embargo..however cuba rehauled it&#39;s argicultural system and now there is no more famine

[bunnerabb]

Also did you see how Batista had that island before "the revolution" came? Castro gave that nation better education that it ever had, not to mention better health care.


Good thing, huh? Now they can read and write and use compu... oh.. never mind.


Saying you know what&#39;s going on in Cuba from America is like saying you know what&#39;s going on in Aruba from a postcard

Good point, don&#39;t ever say anything about international affairs ever again, because until you live somewhere you have no justification in talking about it.

Not only is that utter nonsense, but it sort of invalidates your opinion here, dunnit?

Never mind.. the Revolution must progress&#33; That, or the innertube factory needs to re-open.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:43 AM




Good thing, huh? Now they can read and write and use compu... oh.. never mind.

Your right because computers are alot more important than better healthcare than alot of Latin American nations..and who gies a damn about good ecuation and low infant mortality rates.





Not only is that utter nonsense, but it sort of invalidates your opinion here, dunnit?

It doesn&#39;t invalidate shit for me, I wasn&#39;t the one who claimed that you had to live somewhere or visit somewhere to have an opinion on it, you were the one that said that. I was just suggesting that you practice what you preach.

Also I&#39;ve read articles about Americans visiting cuba and some reviews were good, some where bad. So not everyone who goes there hates it

[ChaosMonkey]

Americans visiting Cuba have access to places and services Cubans are forbidden to go and use. Lush hotels, fine restaurants, etc. All fed by our Yankee dollar. And those Yankees dollars go where? To Fidel.

Maybe there&#39;s less starvation going on these days. I&#39;ll give you that, if only to hope it&#39;s true because I hate the idea of people dying, no matter their government or their ideals.

You can politicize this all you want and say people&#39;s political biases play into this, but I still believe you&#39;re mistaken. its&#39; not about undermining the revolution with an internet connection. it&#39;s about making the life you want for yourself and your family, and it&#39;s pretty sad when you can&#39;t do that in your own home.

[Lardlad95]

Americans visiting Cuba have access to places and services Cubans are forbidden to go and use. Lush hotels, fine restaurants, etc. All fed by our Yankee dollar. And those Yankees dollars go where? To Fidel.

...And Ambassadors from Germany to the US don&#39;t Visit the Impoverished Ghettos in Washington DC that are like 10 minutes from Capitol Hill....

The fact that there are poor neighborhoods is a given in any nation, but we are talking about the Cuban people as a whole.



Maybe there&#39;s less starvation going on these days. I&#39;ll give you that, if only to hope it&#39;s true because I hate the idea of people dying, no matter their government or their ideals.

Good to know


You can politicize this all you want and say people&#39;s political biases play into this, but I still believe you&#39;re mistaken. its&#39; not about undermining the revolution with an internet connection. it&#39;s about making the life you want for yourself and your family, and it&#39;s pretty sad when you can&#39;t do that in your own home.

So you are speaking for everyone in cuba now? How do you know they all want the same thing? And who&#39;s to say that Some cubans don&#39;t have the life they want?

[bunnerabb]

"You&#39;re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can&#39;t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."-Malcolm X

Covers shit for me.

Rock on.

[ChaosMonkey]

...And Ambassadors from Germany to the US don&#39;t Visit the Impoverished Ghettos in Washington DC that are like 10 minutes from Capitol Hill....

The fact that there are poor neighborhoods is a given in any nation, but we are talking about the Cuban people as a whole.

I&#39;m not talking about Americans (or Canadians or Englishmen or Swedes or whatever you call people from Denmark or whoever) in Cuba visiting poor Cuban neighborhoods. I&#39;m talking about businesses and services set up to facilitate tourism that the Cubans aren&#39;t allowed to partake in, in their Socialist society where everyone is equal. Can you imagine going to New York City and not being allowed to use any of the hotels there?


So you are speaking for everyone in cuba now? How do you know they all want the same thing? And who&#39;s to say that Some cubans don&#39;t have the life they want?

I speak from what the Cubans I know have told me. How do I know people have a desire to create the life they want wherever they want? Probably comes from being a person. I do that every now and then when I have time to spare. I&#39;m sure some Cubans have lives that they enjoy. But you&#39;d be surprised how many Cubans profess fealty to the government just to save their own neck and the necks of their family members.

[Lardlad95]

I&#39;m not talking about Americans (or Canadians or Englishmen or Swedes or whatever you call people from Denmark or whoever) in Cuba visiting poor Cuban neighborhoods. I&#39;m talking about businesses and services set up to facilitate tourism that the Cubans aren&#39;t allowed to partake in, in their Socialist society where everyone is equal. Can you imagine going to New York City and not being allowed to use any of the hotels there?

Oh ok, I misread you. Though I wonder...why would a cuban living in havan want to stay in a hotel..in Havana? I don&#39;t stay in Hotels in Nashville because I have a house here.

Now I can understand why there are places set up for tourists..mainly because tourism is a big industry. Now if a Cuban living in Cuba wants to stay at a hotel and can afford it, they should be able to. And if Castro is denying them that then sure he is wrong. THough I&#39;m not really sure why they would want to in the first place, and I&#39;m pretty sure that the prices in these places is high to get money out of tourists, not so regular cubans can&#39;t get into them.




I speak from what the Cubans I know have told me. How do I know people have a desire to create the life they want wherever they want? Probably comes from being a person. I do that every now and then when I have time to spare. I&#39;m sure some Cubans have lives that they enjoy. But you&#39;d be surprised how many Cubans profess fealty to the government just to save their own neck and the necks of their family members.

No, what I meant by "how do you all know tehy want teh same thing" was that how do you know that all cubans feel that a good life for their family is the same thing? Some may feel that one thing i good for their family and others don&#39;t.

Also I don&#39;t think I&#39;d be surprised, i&#39;m sure there are people who want to speak against teh government but don&#39;t. But then again I don&#39;t think that the freedom to criticize the govt. is as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Sure it&#39;s not as free as it is in America, but Castro isnt Trujillo, some people speak out against Castro in public and they aren&#39;t killed.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:17 AM
The Cuban economy, like all Communist economies, is a shambles of paper, poverty and things that aren&#39;t avaialbe. Their currency is a joke, the American dollar is the only currency that actually gets you ANYthing.. at all. Of course, it is illegal to own because it is "counter-revolutionary."

The revolution has given Cuba an endless supply of 61 Chevy Bel-Aires, crap, rotting archtitecture, a now useless military strategic location and really good cigars that are made from salt-heavy tobacco that are illegal to make a profit from.

Communism doesn&#39;t work because it ignoes the fact that things cost what they cost , and hijacking a crap Bayliner and buggering off to a small island and saying "The Revolution is here&#33;" then parking your fat fanny in a leather chair while your nation rots doesn&#39;t CREATE anything.

Honest.

You might have read Marx, but I recommend P.J. O&#39;Rourke. Get a copy of Eat The Rich.

That&#39;s why Cuba doesn&#39;t work. That&#39;s why Communism doesn&#39;t work.

"There&#39;s no real revolution, just power changing hands."

Saing you know what&#39;s going on in Cuba from America is like saying you know what&#39;s going on in Aruba from a postcard.
The facts are the exact opposite of what you claim. The very reason the U.S. hated Cuba was because it feared "the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into one&#39;s own hands." This was of course a threat because in Latin America "the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favours the propertied classes, [and] the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." Noam Chomsky has pointed this out so many times, I hate repeating it.

Or take another example, which William Blum pointed out in his great book Killing Hope. Kennedy created a multi-billion dollar project called the Alliance for Progress, which was supposed to increase development in non-Communist Latin America countries. That project released a report in 1970. That report concluded that Cuba had "come closer to some of the Alliance objectives than most Alliance members. In education and public health, no country in Latin America has carried out such ambitious and nationally comprehensive programs. Cuba&#39;s centrally planned economy has done more
to integrate the rural and urban sectors (through a national income distribution policy) than the market economies of the other Latin American countries." That report also concluded that Cuba&#39;s agrarian reform program had been more widesweeping that any other Latin American country.

As of 1999, Cuba had 65,000 doctors, more than any other country in Latin America. It has more medical research facilities than most Third World countries and has created tons of groundbreaking vaccines. All Cubans have access to healthcare. Cuba has also used its medical system to help numerous people in South Africa, Vietnam, Venezuela, Haiti, Angola, Ethiopia, and other places. The life expectancy in Cuba as of 1999 is 76 years, the best in Latin America. It&#39;s infant mortality rate as of 1999 is also the best in Latin America, at 7.5/1000.

It has also worked on a reforesting program, because Batista had ruthlessly cut down numerous trees, which in a place like Cuba is devastating to the enviornment.

All Cubans have access to schools. The system has been greatly improved, where students read much more than just writings by Socialist or Communist leaders, but now there are even Capitalist studies. The literacy rate is about 98%, the best in Latin America, and in fact, one of the best in the world.

Despite popular belief, Castro does not arrest people for just disagreeing with his policies. He does arrest people who "speak out against the Revolution," which I condemn, but citizens are allowed their say in how certain policies should work and what not. All Cubans are allowed to enter the Mass Organizations of the country which gives them a role in decision making for daily life for all Cuban citizens. The citizens can debate and discuss issues in these groups, which has changed laws in some cases.

What is amazing is how Cuba accomplished all of this considering all it had to experience. The country had to be pratically rebuilt from scratch, because much of its businesses and land were previously owned by foreign companies, most Cubans didn&#39;t benefit from the previous economic system, racism was all too common, inequality was at a horrendous level, and corruption was rampart. Cuba managed to greatly route out these problems, while being subjected to extensive economic strangulation and international terrorism. The U.S. was Cuba&#39;s biggest trading partner before the Revolution, and after cut off all trade, and did all it could to keep its allies from trading much with Cuba. Later, the Soviet Union, which had become Cuba&#39;s greatest trading partner by 85%, was destroyed as well. The accomplishments of Cuba are outstanding.

[bunnerabb]

The accomplishments of Cuba are outstanding.

Now.. don&#39;t get me wrong....

I abhor thieving bastards in Brooks Brother&#39;s suits gutting the larder on the backs lf the poor as much as the next conscienable human being.

But you&#39;re overlooking.. two simple facts:

The economy is never wrong and if you ignore that and refuse to participate, you end up eating rationed rice.

Cuba.. for all of it&#39;s grand "accomplishments", is, um.. still a shithole.

You gotta go to bat to get on base. You wanna fight the man? Find out good ways to legally and ethically hoover out his wallet, and then blow the money on doing things a better way. You can&#39;t sell revolution if it doesn&#39;t pay the bills. People are just too pragmatic for that.

[LuZhiming]

The economy is never wrong and if you ignore that and refuse to participate, you end up eating rationed rice.

What does that prove? It certainly doesn&#39;t prove Cuba is any worse than any other nation in that respect.


Cuba.. for all of it&#39;s grand "accomplishments", is, um.. still a shithole.

Maybe by your definition, but it&#39;s kind of hard to get out of the Thirld World when economic strangulation and international terrorism is being committed massively against the country.

[bunnerabb]

The economy is never wrong and if you ignore that and refuse to participate, you end up eating rationed rice.


What does that prove? It certainly doesn&#39;t prove Cuba is any worse than any other nation in that respect.

It proves that letting a addlepated old man with delusions of grandeur get a death grip on your nation and it&#39;s economy is bad idea, whether his name is Bush or Castro.

I was around in the &#39;60s and early &#39;70s... I shouted at the gates of greed and bad reasoning. I also grew up and found it to be rampant amongst the ideals that were purportedly put in place to call a halt to it.

Every ideology looks good on paper. They all overlook entropy, vanity and greed.

So we have Bush and we have Castro. Opposite cheeks of the same horse&#39;s ass. You wanna change the world? Change poeple. Cheering for one failed ideology is as bad as cheering for a viable but ethically bankrupt one, IMHO.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 04:30 AM
It proves that letting a addlepated old man with delusions of grandeur get a death grip on your nation and it&#39;s economy is bad idea, whether his name is Bush or Castro.

I was around in the &#39;60s and early &#39;70s... I shouted at the gates of greed and bad reasoning. I also grew up and found it to be rampant amongst the ideals that were purportedly put in place to call a halt to it.

Every ideology looks good on paper. They all overlook entropy, vanity and greed.

So we have Bush and we have Castro. Opposite cheeks of the same horse&#39;s ass. You wanna change the world? Change poeple. Cheering for one failed ideology is as bad as cheering for a viable but ethically bankrupt one, IMHO.
Well frankly, I am not praising the ideology. I praise actions, not ideologies. Human selfishness decreases and increases due to many different occurances. It is high in the U.S. because of the awful way most people are brought up, and the corruption in high places. This brings crime, which brings hatred and paranoia. The media indoctrinates the people, and makes sure that they don&#39;t become to caring. And thus the U.S. is full of selfish liars. Most countries do not have the sort of selfishness and brutality among them as the U.S. does.

Many people tend to believe that a sort of social revolution will bring people to work together. It seems unlikely, perhaps impossible, but many believe and hope for it. The people do need change, and although there are many problems with what Castro has done, I think he has done a lot of good for Cuba, and other countries for that matter.

[redstar2000]

They&#39;re denied the chance to make the lives they want for themselves in their home country...


It&#39;s about making the life you want for yourself and your family, and it&#39;s pretty sad when you can&#39;t do that in your own home.


How do I know people have a desire to create the life they want wherever they want?

It&#39;s kind of funny how defenders of capitalism use a rather stilted rhetoric when discussing these matters.

I can almost here a gusano saying that he came to America to "better himself" and "pursue happiness".

There&#39;s a curious reluctance to come out with the truth in plain language: I risked my life crossing the dangerous Florida Straights because I want to be rich&#33;

And Cuban socialism will never give me that chance...no matter what.

There&#39;s actually not much chance they&#39;ll ever be rich by American standards...but they will be rich by Cuban standards and that&#39;s all that counts at the moment.

Why the reluctance to admit the obvious? Why all this silly talk of "making a life" or "creating a life"? It sounds like Martha Stewart babble.

From the capitalist standpoint, there&#39;s nothing "wrong" about doing something or anything in order to "get rich". It&#39;s a "virtue", not a "vice".

So I wonder why the gusanos are not honest and up-front about their motives.

You know, "fuck all that revolution shit; I wanted to get mine and the commie bastards wouldn&#39;t let me."

It&#39;s not as if insatiable moneylust is something to be "ashamed" of...in America.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[bunnerabb]

Then there&#39;s stuff, like, you know...

Visiting other countries if you want.
Being able to access the dominant technology of this century, like, say, this message board.
(Savour the irony.)
Choose what you want to eat.
Have currency from other countries without being branded as a traitor.
Participate in the global economy.
Watch TV.
Buy soap that doesn&#39;t smell like people&#39;s feet.
Read anything you want.
Grab a cheeseburger, for Chrissake....

Those ungrateful bastards. Can&#39;t they see that they are working against the glorious people&#39;s revolution that has brought them, uh... Lots of doctors and schools?
Why educate yourself to successfully interface with a world that you are forbidden to interact with in a country that says that success makes you a "worm"?

But never mind... That&#39;s just propaganda.

Then again, so is everything else on this board. That&#39;s what politics are.

[Osman Ghazi]

Bunnerabb, how many times have you been to Cuba?

I mean, you seem to know so much about what goes on there.

Why would you want to have currency from another country anyway?

And honestly, who says "I came to America to participate in the global economy"?

[bunnerabb]

Bunnerabb, how many times have you been to Cuba?
At least as many times as you have.

Why would you want to have currency from another country anyway?
Because it&#39;s worth something.

And honestly, who says "I came to America to participate in the global economy"?
You don&#39;t have to say it. The fact that the American economy is robust and that there are opportunities to seperate your economic life from your spiritual life from your political views - because that country participates in the global economy and uses market opportunities, as opposed to central planning (*snort*) to enrich it&#39;s own, means that market participation works. It works. Even if you don&#39;t ask for it by saying "I would like to live in a country that participates in the global economy, please".
What they say is "I want to be free." Freedom means choice. Choice denotes options. An educated person with options is the driving force of progress, IMHO.

Look... I don&#39;t know, exactly, what caused a group of internet users to take up the cause of communism, let alone communism in Cuba, from their armchairs in Wisconsin, but...

Discussing Cuba as anything but a complete failure seems terribly delusional, to me.

Seriously. Can anybody look at that weathered, aging, badly painted, antiquated, half-starved, overworked, sharply divided clusterfuck of collapsed infrastructure and bad ideas and say: "the revolution goes well"?

Maybe it&#39;s time the revolution had a revolution.

God knows America&#39;s has gone stale, too.

But at least I&#39;m allowed to say so.

And so.. I leave these boards to the rhetorical cheerleading. I doubt we&#39;ll miss each other and the world seems to continue turning, and wont to do so without all of this armchair quarterbacking over failed ideologies.

Thanks you all for your time and responses.

Viva humanity.

[bad-juju]

I abhor thieving bastards in Brooks Brother&#39;s suits gutting the larder on the backs lf the poor as much as the next conscienable human being

:D Castro has the regular suits (not the green uniform) he wears at conventions made by a Dutch taylor. He pays &#036;2000 per suit&#33; This is a fact that he will admit to himself.

Ps. You&#39;re funny&#33;

Bad Juju

[ChaosMonkey]

Being able to make a good life for yourself and your family has nothing to do with capitalism, as such. We both know that.

You can call me a capitalist or a worm all you want, because I am neither. You can call the Cubans I know worms, because I&#39;d like to see you make it out of the room before they handed you your dignity in a paper sack.

Your ideologies mean nothing when people are dying for them while you sit at your computer *****ing to the wind. And don&#39;t tell me I&#39;m doing the same thing, because I already know that. But I&#39;m not supporting a corrupt egomaniac from the comfort of my house.

It&#39;s got nothing to with politics and your knee-jerking at anyone that disagrees with you in the slightest shows you&#39;re just contrary little kid. no matter how old you are.

[bad-juju]

"From the capitalist standpoint, there&#39;s nothing "wrong" about doing something or anything in order to "get rich". It&#39;s a "virtue", not a "vice".

So I wonder why the gusanos are not honest and up-front about their motives."

Why do you assume that everyone that disagrees with your dogma is a Capitalist? I disagree with you, and I just got my W2 with &#036;3,000&#33; Whooo&#33; And please don&#39;t use the word "gusano." You&#39;re offending my best friend and my father when you do that. You don&#39;t know what that word means&#33;

Bad Juju

[el_profe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 1 2004, 01:34 AM
Foreign investment doesn&#39;t really help. Sure they give money to the people in the form of wages. However, they also take wealth away from the country by using the land to make profits for foreign companies instead of native ones. Why have foregin ownership that takes money away from the country when you could have native ones that give it back?

My solution: dictatorship of the proletariot. Look at the USSR for example. A country only semi-industrialized and only semi-capitalist (capitalist gov. but no bourgouisie). DOTP didn&#39;t do them any harm. If you have a gov. that rules in the people&#39;s interests and you give them the power to make a difference, they will. I think coming from LA has really soured you on the gov. They aren&#39;t all corrupt, you know.


corrupt gov&#39;s

They are supported by the business class to whom you want to give all the power.


dictators in some countries

Also supported by businessmen. In some cases, put there by them.


[
How do they take wealth away from the country?> you have to create wealth before you talk it away, they are creating wealth that is not there.

And less taxes and tariffs on imported products would also help local investors invest in there country, but what the high taxes do is just scare away the few local investors to go invest in other countries like el salvador.

Oh yes, the USSR, whee they kill any political opposition, the gov. decides whats produced, your great solution is the USSR, they failed miserably or else we would still see them.

I know all gov. are not corrupt but your missing the point, what you do always have is corrupt judges and the same corrupt people in congress, people keep voting them into to congress.

Those corrupt gov&#39;s are not all supported by the bussiness class, the last gov. in guatemala was definetly nost supported by bussinessmen.
You dont understand, you make it seem like every bussinessman is corrupt, the ones that do support the gov. (when they support it) are like maybe 10 rich families. Thats all they give money to the parties when they are campaining and in return they still get protection.

What you also fail to see, is that many of these corrupt politicians become the corrupt bussinessmen, so its hard.

In guatemala the gov. before this one was the best gov. weve had in 50+ years, but people got mad because guatemala didnt "change" enogh, of course not, its going to take like 10 or 15 for many of those countries to become 2nd worl countries, people dont understand that so they voted for these losers that got power, who&#39;s fault is it that the last gov. got into power? yes its guatemalas fault cause they voted for them.



education is a problem

Education is best administered by a state gov. (you don&#39;t want them to have any power)
Oh yes, in latin america they do a great job with education, they do the same in the USA.
Of course you cant privatize all education right now in guatemala, we need a not corrup gov. to run this.

Also when i say corrupt i dont mean just the president , i mean congress, people all over gov, the ones in charge of social security , of education everything has some sort of corruption, and it takes years to clean out all the corrupt people. (i.e. in guatemala they just stold like 100 million dollars from the social security system, amazing how they could do that knowing how bad social security and medicare is)

YOu keep on saying i want bussinessmen in power? when the hell did i say taht?


QUOTE]no jobs

Could easily be rectified by a non-corrupt gov.[/QUOTE]
:blink: , great explination, no, a non-corrupt gov. will only ensure that they money they get is used well, how the hell will they create jobs? canada has done a great job of that right? dont they have higher unemployment than the USA?


But what it really is i think is something in the culture, the way of thinking, its going to have to change before we change latin america. To tell you the tuth the politicians picked actually do represent the country, every nation (at least in democracy) deserves what it gets, it sad but its the truth.



Elaborate more on this, please. No sarcasm, I&#39;m seriously interested in what you mean because i&#39;ve heard of this before.
Its kind of hard to explain, you have to live there to understand.
For example, people somehow believe that there countries are going to be fixed in 4 or 5 years, so they believe everything that the politicians tell them(i.e. in gueatemal the gov. that won in 2000 had rallies where they actually said when we are in power we will bring you all feritlizer and food for you and your family) :blink: , of course with common sense one can see that this is just not possible , yet people vote for them, and then they get no fertilizer or food and wonder why they did not get that.
Also everyone(or many people) is always trying to cheat to get ahead, This goes from gov. down to street vendors, also becoming a politcian has become a great fast way out of poverty, the intentions of becoming a politician are not to help the country its to make some money.



Too many things, I think it has to start with the people we elect into office, the corruption has to stop. Also people need to fucking get over the victim syndrome and realize we dug this hole ourselves.


How was &#39;the hole&#39; their fault? All the problems you described don&#39;t really seem to be caused by the LA people.
:blink: , how do you think those dictators have got to power? and the corrupt officials, who picks them?
the USA has installed a few gov. but they are not many if you see all the other bad gov.s and dicatators that have gotten to power since the early 1800&#39;s.

[redstar2000]

Castro has the regular suits (not the green uniform) he wears at conventions made by a Dutch tailor. He pays &#036;2000 per suit&#33;

Saw the invoices with your own eyes, did you?

You&#39;re funnier than I am.


Being able to make a good life for yourself and your family has nothing to do with capitalism, as such. We both know that.

Of course not. Other options include becoming a feudal lord and acquiring serfs or picking up a plantation and purchasing slaves. :lol:

And we both know what you mean by "a good life"...rich&#33;


You can call me a capitalist or a worm all you want, because I am neither.

I do not know whether or not you are a gusano. But your words clearly show what you want to be.

I&#39;m simply taking you at your word.


You can call the Cubans I know worms, because I&#39;d like to see you make it out of the room before they handed you your dignity in a paper sack.

I&#39;m sure they&#39;re very macho. If I can have an equal number of Cuban revolutionaries in the room with me, we&#39;ll see whose dignity ends up "in the sack".

One reason there&#39;s never been a second "Bay of Pigs" is that the bastards in Washington know very well that the "Gusano Liberation Army" wouldn&#39;t last 72 hours on the beaches of Cuba.

Real tough guys, all right. :lol:


Your ideologies mean nothing when people are dying for them while you sit at your computer *****ing to the wind.

If I have ideologies that people are willing to "die for" (???), then they must mean considerably more than "nothing".


But I&#39;m not supporting a corrupt egomaniac from the comfort of my house.

Hint: have a look in a mirror.


It&#39;s got nothing to [do?] with politics and your knee-jerking at anyone that disagrees with you in the slightest shows you&#39;re just contrary little kid.

Yeah...me and Bart Simpson. (&#33;) :lol:


Why do you assume that everyone that disagrees with your dogma is a Capitalist?

In this forum, the people that usually disagree with "my dogma" are not necessarily capitalists at this moment...it&#39;s what they want to be.

Perhaps people like you feel slightly "ashamed" of your priorities...so by coming here and "defeating" our ideas, that will "show" that you are really "justified" in your long-term moneylust.

You can call it "freedom" with a straight face. :lol:


And please don&#39;t use the word "gusano." You&#39;re offending my best friend and my father when you do that. You don&#39;t know what that word means&#33;

I know exactly what it means (I was in Cuba for two months) and I mean it to be offensive.

A Cuban who emigrates to the United States--after what the U.S. has done to Cuba for the last 100 years--is a fucking gusano. :angry:

I&#39;d call all of you nothing but common prostitutes except that would be unfair to prostitutes...there&#39;s some things they won&#39;t do for money.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:15 AM

Of course not. Other options include becoming a feudal lord and acquiring serfs or picking up a plantation and purchasing slaves. :lol:


Question....would a pimp fall into teh category of a PLantion Master? Cuz I&#39;ve enver been really sure about this.

Cuz I mean the Girls really are his slaves in the most technical sense of the term...but he doesn&#39;t have an actual plantation.

However the pimp does work them and take their earnings

[redstar2000]

Peculiar pimp stories...

Back in the 1980s, there was a hookers&#39; organizing conference in Washington, D.C. At one point, one of the women got up and said that she was tired of hearing complaints about pimps.

"Look," she said, "pimps are like husbands--there&#39;s good ones and there&#39;s bad ones."

It was only a few years ago that I heard an interview with an ex-pimp on NPR radio. He complained bitterly that the women&#39;s movement had "ruined" the pimp "business". "All these *****es wanna be self-employed now," he lamented.

I suppose that a prostitute with a pimp would be in a kind of slave-like condition. But escape is rather easy--the proceeds from one trick will buy a bus ticket far out of the pimp&#39;s reach.

I&#39;ve read, by the way, that Cuban hookers disdain pimps and view the idea with contempt...but I have no first-hand knowledge of the subject.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 02:40 PM
Peculiar pimp stories...

Back in the 1980s, there was a hookers&#39; organizing conference in Washington, D.C. At one point, one of the women got up and said that she was tired of hearing complaints about pimps.

"Look," she said, "pimps are like husbands--there&#39;s good ones and there&#39;s bad ones."

It was only a few years ago that I heard an interview with an ex-pimp on NPR radio. He complained bitterly that the women&#39;s movement had "ruined" the pimp "business". "All these *****es wanna be self-employed now," he lamented.

I suppose that a prostitute with a pimp would be in a kind of slave-like condition. But escape is rather easy--the proceeds from one trick will buy a bus ticket far out of the pimp&#39;s reach.

I&#39;ve read, by the way, that Cuban hookers disdain pimps and view the idea with contempt...but I have no first-hand knowledge of the subject.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
thanks for clarifying my friend..NPR is always informative