Arrested in Cuba for taking photo's. [Archive]

fernando

1st February 2006, 22:14

The Soviet Union was not an Imperialist State. In order to be imperialist your economic system must be capitalism and the Soviet Union was certainly not a capitalist country
Hmm lets use the scientific definition of Imperialism shall we, to quote Konrad Kottak...

Imperialism: A policy of extending the rule of a nation or empire over foreign nations or of taking and holding colonies. (Kottak, Anthropology, The Exploration of Human Diversity, 2004)

If I remember correctly the Soviet Union was in indirect control of Eastern Europe, even sending in their military if the population wasnt obedient to the pro Soviet governments. Just because they followed a "communist" doctrine, doesnt mean they are not imperialistic.

As for anti-communism, the average eastern European was living better during the Soviet Union than now.

True, but they still wanted to be in control of their own lives which is one of the problems which the communist system has. Not that the capitalist system is that much better, but at least they are better at letting people believe they are under control.

Last Czech Republic is not located in Eastern Europe, unless if you consider Austria an Eastern European country as well.
However it was one of the Soviet puppet states, which is what I think James was referring to.

The problem itself is not the ideology, it lies with the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union was for example a fascist state the Czechs would have had a stronger dislike for fascism.

None worse than the US, which shoves protestors like Ms. Sheehan, or requires extravagant amounts of money and lawyers to defend your first amendment rights...
true, but does that justify Cuba to censor out its negative side?

violencia.Proletariat

1st February 2006, 22:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:35 PM

The press of the Czech Republic is widely anti-communist, because the Communist Party of Czech Republic is the second largest political party there.

Well i think it has got more to do with the more general anti-communism feeling in eastern europe as a whole.
It is the consequence of soviet imperialism. People don't like it.
Shouldnt capitalism be there to rescue those nations then? Or are people asking for their state benefits back (from the ussr era), since those places are still shitholes under "free market" capitalism too?

Sentinel

1st February 2006, 22:23

Frustrating to see how capitalist press always chooses to ignore the fact that Cuba practically is a country under siege. Wonder how much they would be for "freedom of speech" and "liberty" if their "freedom-loving" countries were economically blockaded and spied on by a neighboring hostile superpower that constantly tried to kill their leaders and overthrow their form of government with dirty methods.. :rolleyes:

James

1st February 2006, 23:10

The Soviet Union was not an Imperialist State. In order to be imperialist your economic system must be capitalism and the Soviet Union was certainly not a capitalist country.

Well we clearly define imperialism differently.

As for anti-communism, the average eastern European was living better during the Soviet Union than now.

Did i say "eastern europe was worse off before" ?
No i did not.
I said it was to do more with general resentment.
Iraqi's may be better off now in some ways, but it doesn't mean they love the coalition.

+ + +

None worse than ...

Oh well it is ok then!

requires extravagant amounts of money and lawyers to defend your first amendment rights...

My first amendment rights??

Those czechs were there to agitate.

Well you don't know that.
It seems all we do know is that they were taking pictures of slums.

+ + +

Shouldnt capitalism be there to rescue those nations then?

again... did i say that?
No.
Read my post again cupcake.

James

1st February 2006, 23:15

indeed, did either of you three read the article?

"The revolution's watchmen rose up because I was taking pictures of something they do not like," said the top model, referring to the fact that the Communist regime of Fidel Castro denies the existence of slums on the island.

...

They were not allowed to contact the Czech embassy throughout their arrest...

Upon their release, the women were requested to sign a statement saying they would not travel beyond Havana. They remained under police surveillance until their departure from the island.

...

The pictures she thus saved will be included in an exhibition Houdova plans to organise together with People in Need (PINF), a Czech non-governmental humanitarian relief organisation with a track record of supporting Cuba's pro-democracy opposition.

Houdova said the exhibition should portray Cuba not only as a country with beautiful nature, interesting architecture and a captivating atmosphere but also as a state where people are imprisoned for their beliefs.

Houdova said her meetings with dissidents, the wives of political prisoners, as well as with ordinary Cubans during her ten-day stay in Cuba made her recollect her childhood in Communist Czechoslovakia.

...

Houdova went to Cuba to find out whether her Sunflower foundation could assist the local children - orphans, the handicapped or those afflicted with AIDS. She pointed out that it is almost impossible to provide any assistance through official means because the Communist authorities refuse to admit anything in their country does not work.

ReD_ReBeL

2nd February 2006, 00:49

(Redstar)

It doesn't bother me at all...in fact, I don't think it's such a great idea to even allow people from countries like Czechia (that's the new name) into Cuba.

Are you a NAzi sympathizer?
this isn't my thought, but some British people blame Pakistani's for making there communities filthy, shall we not accept pakistani's to emigrate or visit the UK?

(Cubasocialista)

None worse than the US, which shoves protestors like Ms. Sheehan, or requires extravagant amounts of money and lawyers to defend your first amendment rights...

Why does everyone try and back something up by comparing to the US? The question was about Cuba not about the US.

(Cubasocialista)

Those czechs were there to agitate.

ok, where ever you are from, lets say you where making a project for something, and you went around looking for inpoverised slums, and you took some photographs. And you simple got arrested for that, and the reason for your arrest was that you where being 'counter-revolutionary'. Do you think that would be acceptable? Yes, i do support Cuba, but they are a country with many flaws on Human Rights.

chebol

2nd February 2006, 01:49

QUOTE: "The pictures she thus saved will be included in an exhibition Houdova plans to organise together with People in Need (PINF), a Czech non-governmental humanitarian relief organisation with a track record of supporting Cuba's pro-democracy opposition"

CTR (Czech Rep) - Jan 31, 2006

UN does not grant Czech NGO consultative status due to rejection by Cuba

by Czech news agency CTK

Prague, 31 January: The Czech nonprofit NGO People in Need was not
granted UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) consultative status last
week when the ECOSOC Committee on Nongovernment Organizations accepted
Cuba's proposal to reject its application, Pravo writes today.

The committee supported the Cuban proposal by nine votes against four
with four abstentions, the daily writes.

Pravo says that the US delegation allegedly tried to postpone the
debate on the Czech application by procedural objections before the
decisive vote was taken.

According to its web site People in Need, founded in 1992, implements
relief and development projects in crisis regions all over the world and
supports human rights and democracy in countries with totalitarian
regimes.

"It is an important victory for our people," Cuban Ambassador to the UN
Rodrigo Malmierca commented on the Cuban proposal's approval, Pravo
writes.

Malmierca put People in Need, that he said is financed by the Untied
States and whose supervisory board is headed by Czech Deputy Foreign
Minister Tomas Pojar, in connection with "subversive activities" in
Cuba, Pravo writes.

"It has taken illegally to Cuba promotion material and money from the
US State Department and from the USAID," Pravo quotes him as saying.

It says that Malmierca asserted that People in Need is in contact with
people with a terrorist past from among Cuban militant emigrants.

Source: CTK news agency, Prague, in English 0828 gmt 31 Jan 06

Major funders of PIN:
Česká televize, Ford Foundation, Evropská unie, Charles S. Mott Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Fund Praha

Their take on Cuba:
http://www.clovekvtisni.cz/english/humanitarnipomoc/cuba.php

Check out some of the names on this list (although the name of the committee should be more than enough...):

The International Committee for Democracy in Cuba (ICDC)
http://www.clovekvtisni.cz/english/humanit...ternational.php (http://www.clovekvtisni.cz/english/humanitarnipomoc/cuba/international.php)

This "model" and "psychologist" are just the latest in a CIA-Czech campaign against Cuba, and I'm in no mind to believe their accusations without more evidence. In fact, the nature of their very presence in Cuba, and their activities there, make all claims they make suspect.

You may (or not) have noticed a real escalation in US attacks on Cuba in the past 12 months or so, more so since January. This ought to be seen in that light.

And one wonders why PIN DIDN'T get ECOSOC consultative status (as mentioned in the article above). Could it be that the Cuban accusations were right?

FULL METAL JACKET

2nd February 2006, 01:51

She was obviously going to use the pictures for anti-communist propaganda.

CubaSocialista

2nd February 2006, 03:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:08 AM
(Redstar)

It doesn't bother me at all...in fact, I don't think it's such a great idea to even allow people from countries like Czechia (that's the new name) into Cuba.

Are you a NAzi sympathizer?
this isn't my thought, but some British people blame Pakistani's for making there communities filthy, shall we not accept pakistani's to emigrate or visit the UK?

(Cubasocialista)

None worse than the US, which shoves protestors like Ms. Sheehan, or requires extravagant amounts of money and lawyers to defend your first amendment rights...

Why does everyone try and back something up by comparing to the US? The question was about Cuba not about the US.

(Cubasocialista)

Those czechs were there to agitate.

ok, where ever you are from, lets say you where making a project for something, and you went around looking for inpoverised slums, and you took some photographs. And you simple got arrested for that, and the reason for your arrest was that you where being 'counter-revolutionary'. Do you think that would be acceptable? Yes, i do support Cuba, but they are a country with many flaws on Human Rights.
you forget that these czechs had a reputation for rabble rousing, especially in a country that is under constant threat from CIA activity, where security is necessary.

Severian

2nd February 2006, 08:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:34 PM
indeed, did either of you three read the article?

I read it. I noticed it is based entirely on one person's statements. The Cuban government is given no opportunity to respond.

Do you think it should be assumed that everything Ms. Houdova says is true? If so, why?

Here's a claim that's certainly false: "She pointed out that it is almost impossible to provide any assistance through official means because the Communist authorities refuse to admit anything in their country does not work." In fact, it's complete BS. The Cuban authorities certainly admit that there are many shortages, and groups like "Pastors for Peace" have made deliveries of humanitarian aid to Cuba from the U.S.

Of course, opponents of the revolutionary government are not interested in working through official channels...but some of them are honest enough to say so. Not Ms. Houdova.

It's more likely that she was arrested for meeting with "dissidents" than for taking photos; any number of photos, TV footage, etc., of Havana's slums have appeared in international media. But the Cuban government takes a dim view of foreign support for Cuban opposition groups.

And certainly Cubans are not allowed unrestricted travel to the bourgeois democracies to agitate any way they please; in fact Cubans are sometimes refused visas when invited to come speak. Why would you, or anyone, expect less censorship of besieged Cuba than of the bourgeois democracies?

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd February 2006, 14:21

Originally posted by Redstar

It doesn't bother me at all...in fact, I don't think it's such a great idea to even allow people from countries like Czechia (that's the new name) into Cuba.

Are you a NAzi sympathizer?

And certainly Cubans are not allowed unrestricted travel to the bourgeois democracies to agitate any way they please; in fact Cubans are sometimes refused visas when invited to come speak. Why would you, or anyone, expect less censorship of besieged Cuba than of the bourgeois democracies?

Prize-Winning Cuban Scientist denied entry to the U.S. (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fp16i.html)

redstar2000

2nd February 2006, 14:41

If someone wants to give the Cubans a hard time, try this one...

Originally posted by Human Rights News
United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote

(Washington, D.C., January 25, 2006) - In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

“This vote is an aggressive assault by the U.S. government on the right of sexual minorities to be heard,” said Scott Long, director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. “It is astonishing that the Bush administration would align itself with Sudan, China, Iran and Zimbabwe in a coalition of the homophobic.”

In May 2005, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is based in Brussels, and the Danish gay rights group Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske (LBL) applied for consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. Consultative status is the only official means by which non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world can influence and participate in discussions among member states at the United Nations. Nearly 3,000 groups enjoy this status.

In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Votes in favor of consultative status came from Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania. Colombia, India, and Turkey abstained, while Côte d'Ivoire was absent.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12535.htm

Anyone want to ask the Cubans how they ended up on this particular shit list?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Karl Marx's Camel

2nd February 2006, 17:31

So she was basically arrested for taking photos of slums in Cuba? Is that correct?

Redstar... Cuba was aligned with the United States in anti-gay vote? Is that correct? Did I get it right?

Wanted Man

2nd February 2006, 18:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:02 PM
whatever the spin put on the story, the fact remains that it is a form of censorship.
Oh dear, you'd better write to Fidel Castro right away to ask him to apologise for offending your libertarian sensibilities. :rolleyes:

The pictures she thus saved will be included in an exhibition Houdova plans to organise together with People in Need (PINF), a Czech non-governmental humanitarian relief organisation with a track record of supporting Cuba's pro-democracy opposition.
Interesting. Surely, not the same "pro-democracy" opposition that receives tens of thousands of dollars in funding from the USA? Surely, not the opposition that regularly meets the yankee representative to discuss subversive activities to "make the economy scream" and "prove that socialism does not work", to cite two Chilean examples from the 70's? Their opposition is as democratic as Pinochet's.

fernando

2nd February 2006, 19:15

Im curious, is every form of opposition against Castro's regime part of the gusano/US group who want to turn Cuba into a banana republic again? for some reason I doubt the situation is that black/white.

norwegian commie

2nd February 2006, 20:15

The Soviet Union was not an Imperialist State. In order to be imperialist your economic system must be capitalism and the Soviet Union was certainly not a capitalist country.

I am actually somewhat pro-sovjet but this is not true.

Ever read mao? The third world theory?
well here goes... the first world is the imperialist superpowers, USA and Sovjet.
Sovjet bad USA slightly better, mao said that "we must support the capitalsit side, to crush the social-imperialists. Out of its ashes we shall build a new funtioning socialist society.

the second, average industrialised countries

and the third, well you know the rest.

Therefore China was anti-sovjet

As for anti-communism, the average eastern European was living better during the Soviet Union than now.

Absolutely
, the turning from a communist society to a capitalist was a dissaster.
People are not used to the compettetive society.
The factories couldnt compete with the "blue" ones and where bankropt.
Then the working place was sold and a country in poverty is born

violencia.Proletariat

2nd February 2006, 20:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:29 PM

again... did i say that?
No.
Read my post again cupcake.
That was a response in general, not to you specifically. I was speaking off of your statement. <_<

вор в законе

2nd February 2006, 22:10

Hmm lets use the scientific definition of Imperialism shall we, to quote Konrad Kottak...

Imperialism: A policy of extending the rule of a nation or empire over foreign nations or of taking and holding colonies. (Kottak, Anthropology, The Exploration of Human Diversity, 2004)

If I remember correctly the Soviet Union was in indirect control of Eastern Europe, even sending in their military if the population wasnt obedient to the pro Soviet governments. Just because they followed a "communist" doctrine, doesnt mean they are not imperialistic.

That is not an accurate definition. Imperialism is historically implicated in the very origins of capitalism, something that all serious mainstream historians accept.

Soviet Union was not an Imperialist state according to Marxist theory.

Imperialism is when the monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete amongst themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world. Hence the capitalists from developed (rich) countries to extract a superprofit from the working class of undeveloped (poor) countries. The majority of this superprofit is kept by the capitalists themselves, but some of it is shared with the working class of the developed countries (in the form of higher standards of living, cheaper consumer goods, etc.), in order to placate that working class and avoid revolution at home.

Marx (Das Kapital) and Lenin are the one's who first gave an accurate definition of the term ''Imperialism'', although Marx was referring more to colonialism rather than imperialism as capitalism had not reach in its highest form during Marx's time.

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm)

Thus since there was no Capital in Soviet Union, then Soviet Union was not an Imperialist State.

Some Radical Leftists from western countries, during the Cold War, have created a new term called ''social-imperialism''. It is supposed to be the socialist version of ''imperialism'' and it is applied on Soviet Union. However it does not have scientific foundation.

I am not arguing or ignoring the mismanagements of Soviet Union. I merely find the term Imperialism regarding the Soviet Union inaccurate.

Regards

CubaSocialista

2nd February 2006, 22:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:34 PM
Im curious, is every form of opposition against Castro's regime part of the gusano/US group who want to turn Cuba into a banana republic again? for some reason I doubt the situation is that black/white.
That, or they're misguided and want to turn it into a bourgeois democracy, but we show this in the negative sense because the introduction of globalization and consumerism to a state that strives for socialism is disastrous. The Cuban Revolution is not an infallible institution, and many of the opponents mean well, but that does not mean that their proposed "reforms" are good for the cuban revolution.

fernando

2nd February 2006, 22:52

That is not an accurate definition. Imperialism is historically implicated in the very origins of capitalism, something that all serious mainstream historians accept.
So Imperialism did not exist before the 18th century?

Soviet Union was not an Imperialist state according to Marxist theory.
Great since the Soviet Union followed that Marxist theory...

Some Radical Leftists from western countries, during the Cold War, have created a new term called ''social-imperialism''. It is supposed to be the socialist version of ''imperialism'' and it is applied on Soviet Union. However it does not have scientific foundation.

I am not arguing or ignoring the mismanagements of Soviet Union. I merely find the term Imperialism regarding the Soviet Union inaccurate.
How would you call the policy of the Soviet Union in which they tried to keep control in Eastern Europe?

The Cuban Revolution is not an infallible institution, and many of the opponents mean well, but that does not mean that their proposed "reforms" are good for the cuban revolution.
Shouldnt we look what's good for the Cuban people instead of what's good for an abstract concept like "the Revolution"? That same Revolution in the first place was meant for the people right?

redstar2000

2nd February 2006, 23:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 12:50 PM
Redstar... Cuba was aligned with the United States in anti-gay vote? Is that correct? Did I get it right?
Yes. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

redstar2000

2nd February 2006, 23:17

Originally posted by Red Brigade
Imperialism is when the monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete amongst themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world.

There's a long thread on this subject here...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45003

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

chebol

3rd February 2006, 00:24

Similarly with PIN, it is important to find out Cuba's reasons for voting against. I haven't had time or opportunity to check out all the details of these organisations, but a cursory look over what ILGA has to say about Cuba is contradictory, and in parts incorrect, especially in regards to the legal status of homosexuals in cuba.

Some of what they have to say is good about Cuba, and some is misleading, but some is either mistaken, or lies. In Cuba's position, without clarification and corrections from ILGA, voting against such an organisation holding such a position is somewhat understandable. I don't know all the details or reasons, but am just suggesting that there likely were some.

It was NOT an "anti-gay" vote. This needs to be made crystal clear. It was a vote about appointing a couple of organisations to an international advisory position. Their candidacy ought to decided on their merit. While for some countries (eg. Iran) it may have been a vote on principle (ie. 'anti-gay'), it was not for Cuba, which has no institutionalised discrimination against homosexuals, and in fact outlaws such a thing.

More info on these groups would be good.

chebol

3rd February 2006, 03:03

Ignoring the bullshit about State Department criticism for Cuba's treatment of homosexuals, I think we have our kernel of truth here. Once again, the Cuban vote was not an "anti-gay" vote......
Let's not be so quick to jump to criticise next time.

Rights Groups Fault U.S. Vote in U.N. on Gays
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/internat...3bb5b9b&ei=5070 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/international/middleeast/27nations.html?ex=1139029200&en=7f3fad2f93bb5b9b&ei=5070)
By WARREN HOGE
Published: January 27, 2006

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 26 — Human rights organizations and the co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus protested on Thursday a decision by the Bush administration to back a measure introduced by Iran denying two gay rights groups a voice at the United Nations.

In a vote Monday, the United States supported Iran's recommendation to deny consultative status at the United Nations' Economic and Social Council to the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians and the International Lesbian and Gay Association, based in Belgium.

Nearly 3,000 nongovernmental organizations have such status, which enables them to distribute documents to meetings of the council.

Among countries with which the United States sided were Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe, nations the State Department has cited in annual reports for their harsh treatment of homosexuals.

Representative Tom Lantos, a California Democrat who is co-chairman of the caucus, wrote a letter to John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, saying the move was "a major setback" for "a core component of our nation's human rights diplomacy."

Matt Foreman, executive director of the Washington-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said, "It is an absolute outrage that the United States has chosen to align itself with tyrants — all in a sickening effort to smother voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world."

Mark P. Lagon, a deputy assistant secretary of state, said in an interview that the vote did not stem from "being against gay rights groups" but was based on "the controversial history of the International Lesbian and Gay Association — an affiliate of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, was associated with it in the past and openly condoned pedophilia."

Scott Long, a Human Rights Watch director, said that the association had publicly expelled the man/boy group in 1994.

Martin Thümmel, the German delegate at the vote, protested that "those delegations that claim that this organization is supporting pedophilia are using this as a pretext in order to shirk the real issue of sexual orientation."

redstar2000

3rd February 2006, 03:28

Originally posted by New York Times
Mark P. Lagon, a deputy assistant secretary of state, said in an interview that the vote did not stem from "being against gay rights groups" but was based on "the controversial history of the International Lesbian and Gay Association — an affiliate of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, was associated with it in the past and openly condoned pedophilia."

No, that's backward. Hierarchically speaking, NAMBLA might be or once was an "affiliate" of the ILGA...but not the other way around.

Does anyone want to suggest that the Cubans, informed of this, decided to "take a stand" against "pedophilia"?

Or that Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania are now "on record" as being "in favor of pedophilia"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Vinny Rafarino

3rd February 2006, 03:52

Originally posted by Red Brigade+--> (Red Brigade)Marx (Das Kapital) and Lenin are the one's who first gave an accurate definition of the term ''Imperialism'', although Marx was referring more to colonialism rather than imperialism as capitalism had not reach in its highest form during Marx's time.
[/b]

This is completely inaccurate.

Imperialism stems from the latin word "imperium" and has been used in reference to "empire building" by means of territorial acquisition or political and economical control for a few millenia before Lenin was even a wet dream in papa Ilya Nikolayevich's vodka drenched subconscious.

Lenin or even Marx's spin on what they feelimperialism should be defined as really isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Fernando
So Imperialism did not exist before the 18th century?

Rhetorical questions will result in nothing more than rhetoric. ;)

chebol

3rd February 2006, 04:40

Redstar, you're right, it is the other way around. The NAMBLA was an affiliate of the ILGA until 1994, one year after the ILGA got consultative status, at which point the ILGA moved to distance themselves from pedophilia and forced the NAMBLA to leave. ILGA subsequently lost their consultative status, and have tried unsuccessfully to regain it a couple of times.

Previously (2001 I think) the US had indicated it would support the ILGA, but changed it's mind.

Perhaps the prior association with NAMBLA is not the reason for the ILGA's loss of the vote, or perhaps it is. I know very little about the functioning of this group, but one which at one point allowed the advocacy of pedophilia might be seen to be suspect in some eyes. The point is what the general work of the ILGA constitutes, and whether this means it deserves consultative status. I don't know enough to say either way, but to assume that this is a vote based upon specifically homophobic reaction, as opposed to any other reason, is not justified on the facts as given.

I would also be interested to know about the danish group, and it might be worth comparing these two groups to any other LGBTI etc consultative groups to the UN/ ECOSOC. Then you can decide if it was discrimination, or a valid judgement based on the quality of the group's work.

kurt

3rd February 2006, 05:15

The Soviet Union was not an Imperialist State. In order to be imperialist your economic system must be capitalism and the Soviet Union was certainly not a capitalist country.
:lol:
Quite the dialectical wand you have there. Capital was not abolished in the Soviet Union, it was simply developed in the hands of the state rather than private capitalists.

( R )evolution

3rd February 2006, 06:11

Hahaha, she hid her memory stick in her braw strap, did I hear that right????????? And she is from a country thats gov't is anti-communist. Can someone say she was trying to get some anti-communist pics of nuthing???? And then she says she works for a organzation that is funded by the US gov't that has economic embargo's against Cuba economy that creates this kinda of bad housing but yet, even through the economic santuations, they have the lowest infant moratily rate and the highest expantcent rate in latin america.

Severian

3rd February 2006, 08:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:50 AM
So she was basically arrested for taking photos of slums in Cuba? Is that correct?
No. That's what she claims, but we don't know for a fact, especially since she was apparently released without being charged with anything. She also says she was meeting with Cuban opposition groups, which is more commonly something that people get arrested for. See my earlier post.

Similarly, we don't know why the Cuban government voted against giving these gay rights groups consultative status. Possibly it would be a good idea to hear what they have to say before condemning them.

I will say the excuse given by Washington is a poor one, since NAMBLA is no longer affiliated to the ILGA. If Cuba has no better reason, they were wrong, especially since others voting the same way were probably motivated by opposition to gay rights.

***
Somebody asked if all Cuban opposition groups were pro-imperialist. All that I know of are.

There's a certain variety to their names and formal programs, including a Cuban Social Democratic Party and so forth, but all of them are allied with each other and most if not all accept aid from Washington. There is no opposition to the Cuban government that is even ostensibly to its left.

fernando

3rd February 2006, 12:49

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+Feb 3 2006, 04:11 AM--> (Comrade RAF @ Feb 3 2006, 04:11 AM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected]
Marx (Das Kapital) and Lenin are the one's who first gave an accurate definition of the term ''Imperialism'', although Marx was referring more to colonialism rather than imperialism as capitalism had not reach in its highest form during Marx's time.

This is completely inaccurate.

Imperialism stems from the latin word "imperium" and has been used in reference to "empire building" by means of territorial acquisition or political and economical control for a few millenia before Lenin was even a wet dream in papa Ilya Nikolayevich's vodka drenched subconscious.

Lenin or even Marx's spin on what they feelimperialism should be defined as really isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Fernando
So Imperialism did not exist before the 18th century?

Rhetorical questions will result in nothing more than rhetoric. ;) [/b]
Just trying to make a point here :P

Tekun

3rd February 2006, 20:58

Everybody who knows about Cuba realizes that Cuba isn't perfect, and that there several problems on the island
But the positive policies enacted by Fidel and the Cuban gov far outweigh the repercussions of the embargo and the Soviet Union's fall, which wreaked socio-economic havoc and continue to plague Cuba

Now as far this "model" taking pictures
The fact that she's a member of this "pro democracy" humanitaria organization, which is part or supports the opposition in Cuba - gives u an idea of the deceitful manner in which these agents of plutocracy operate
In this instance, she was caught red handed by Cuban officials
If you're a tourist or a visitor, the Cuban officials wont arrest for taking pictures
But if you're a political agitator, associated with internal/external dissidents, and you're gonna use the pics to depict Cuba as this totalitarian dictatorship, yeah they're gonna arrest u for feeding lies to the world

If her organization had the interests of the people in mind, then they wouldn't be in Cuba
Rather, they would be in countries like Haiti, Bolivia, and Brazil (the poorest which are in need of real help)
Their humanitarian help is just a facade to publicize their cause, gain support, and eventually overthrow Cuba's socialist gov

If you are going to help a country, don't politicize your intentions

However, Houdova personally ascertained the pathetic situation in several Cuban hospitals.

What situation, Cuba has the greatest amount of doctors and physicians in Latin America
Obviously a "pathetic" excuse to manipulate people's minds, quite slanderous

I am not an expert on the political situation in Cuba but I think some kind of change is necessary there," she said.
then she declares

Although Houdova admitted she cannot predict how long Fidel Castro will manage to maintain his totalitarian regime on the island, she said she believes Cubans will soon live to experience liberty as have Czechs.

I though u were ignorant regarding politics?

This is how u can tell that she doesn't give a phuk about Cubans, she's just a pawn of the imperialists, advancing their cause
She contradicts herself completely

Its easy to criticize when your high grossing income is based on your looks, stupid ***** <_<

Body Count

3rd February 2006, 21:42

Who cares?

Worst case scenerio....she was a fucking spy.

Best case scenario....she is trying to spread bad propaganda about Cuba.

I don't really like how Cuba has been handled....but I am still not for fucking capitalistic maggots I either.

Censorship? As opposed to free speech and press? Does our right to say what we want, and to print what we want, overring PUTTING FOOD IN PEOPLES MOUTHS!

I'd shut down the fucking internet and every media source out there if it meant ending startvation and famine.....

James

3rd February 2006, 22:01

Some are going a bit over board...
Fidel said slums don't exist.
She was arrested for taking pictures of said non-existant slums.

Aye it is an interesting "dividing issue". Which do you value more, equality, or freedom? (yes yes yes, i know "positive freedom" [berlin] arguably requires equality).
Indeed... as this case shows, cuba has neither. And is rulled by a homophobic wanker.

Body Count

3rd February 2006, 22:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:20 PM
Some are going a bit over board...
Fidel said slums don't exist.
She was arrested for taking pictures of said non-existant slums.

Aye it is an interesting "dividing issue". Which do you value more, equality, or freedom? (yes yes yes, i know "positive freedom" [berlin] arguably requires equality).
Indeed... as this case shows, cuba has neither. And is rulled by a homophobic wanker.
I'm not trying to defend Castro.

I'm defending what needs to be done to build and maintain socialism (Regardless of what Cuba's status is).

It seems to me that this soft attitude towards opponents of communism is coming from people infected by bourgeois liberalism.....

James

3rd February 2006, 22:34

I'm not trying to defend Castro.

I'm defending what needs to be done to build and maintain socialism (Regardless of what Cuba's status is).

Well i suppose we have to realise that "castro" is cuba's socialism. A matter of debate perhaps: it will only become clear following his death.
Either way though, you were defending his regieme.

The point still stands too.
You defend the use of certain means to reach a certain end. Of course the obvious problem with this is whether it is justified. Also, you have to consider whether "your end" is the end that everyone wants. Or if not everyone, at least those who are welding the power.

You might just end up supporting the means that will result in your end!
True, this is an extreme example, but i think the general point is rather clear. Does the end justify the means? What is the end? etc

It seems to me that this soft attitude towards opponents of communism

You see, i would say that this supports my point. You say that they are enemies of communism. Others would say they are enemies of "cuba", others: "socialism". Others would say "X" (you get the point).

How may i ask, do you know she is an enemy of communism? And not just an opponent of Castro (a homophobic liar).

is coming from people infected by bourgeois liberalism.....

hahaha... yes. You had better have me shot!
No it is true, i definatly am a fan of liberty for the individual: especially when challened by totalitarianism.

Body Count

3rd February 2006, 22:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:53 PM

Well i suppose we have to realise that "castro" is cuba's socialism. A matter of debate perhaps: it will only become clear following his death.
Either way though, you were defending his regieme.

I don't really like how Cuba has been handled....but I am still not for fucking capitalistic maggots I either.

I'm not trying to defend Castro.

I'm defending what needs to be done to build and maintain socialism (Regardless of what Cuba's status is).

Once again, I was defending what needs to be done, a practice if you will. Just as most of you were criticizing the practice (And not just Castro and his regime).

The point still stands too.
You defend the use of certain means to reach a certain end. Of course the obvious problem with this is whether it is justified. Also, you have to consider whether "your end" is the end that everyone wants. Or if not everyone, at least those who are welding the power.

I think the "end" is obvious.....communism. That seems to be the common goal for EVERYONE on revleft. (May be some differences here as well...but classless and stateless is the goal).

The only thing in question is the means, and yes, I was making a statement on that.

You might just end up supporting the means that will result in your end!
True, this is an extreme example, but i think the general point is rather clear. Does the end justify the means? What is the end? etc

The end definitely justifies the means to a very charitable extent for me...I can't speak for everyone.

You see, i would say that this supports my point. You say that they are enemies of communism. Others would say they are enemies of "cuba", others: "socialism". Others would say "X" (you get the point).

[How may i ask, do you know she is an enemy of communism? And not just an opponent of Castro (a homophobic liar).

What point exactly are you trying to make? You seem to be delving into philosophical ramblings.

hahaha... yes. You had better have me shot!
No it is true, i definatly am a fan of liberty for the individual: especially when challened by totalitarianism.

Heaven forbid that opponents of socialism....people that would completely annihilate the revolution if given a chance, are imprisoned or killed......I mean, they have a right.............:rolleyes:

I want liberty for the oppressed and exploited....as a group. And I don't care how many individuals need be jailed to do it.

James

3rd February 2006, 23:21

I think the "end" is obvious.....communism. That seems to be the common goal for EVERYONE on revleft. (May be some differences here as well...but classless and stateless is the goal).

The only thing in question is the means, and yes, I was making a statement on that.

Generally speaking, it is obvious to everyone what needs to be done.
the problem emerges when there is a comparison of these opinions.

from revleft intro page/rules thingy:
We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues.

What point exactly are you trying to make? You seem to be delving into philosophical ramblings.

Basically, i was pointing out that everyone has a different view. A different concept of the "Good Life", or the "General Will"/"Common Good" (to quote Rousseau).

Heaven forbid that opponents of socialism....

You see. You yourself now jump from communism to socialism.

Body Count

4th February 2006, 00:05

James, I am not even trying to talk about controlling the lives of others. Sure, some like to skate, some like to Ski, but I'm not even trying to argue this.

Opponents of socialism are people trying to restore capitalism after the revolution. I'm not "jumping"...opponents of communism seems a little hard to imagine, as capitalism would be long gone by the time we are seeing a society without state or capital.

You really believe that people on RL are more unified in the means then the ends?

metalero

4th February 2006, 02:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:53 PM
How may i ask, do you know she is an enemy of communism? And not just an opponent of Castro (a homophobic liar).

Can you please give sources that makes you say this?

I found an essay from some who was in cuba, who explain many things from US-funded anti-revolution ONGs activist passing as "tourist", to gay rights and political system in Cuba. I sincerely hope you read it, before continuing slandering about castro and the Cubans.

"Today, the problems facing lesbian and gay Cubans are largely cultural, not institutional. Gay Cubans aren't beaten and killed as in the US. In his 1996 book Machos, Maricones and Gays: Cuba and Homosexuality, Canadian scholar Ian Lumsden, while very critical of modern Cuban life, documents the ending of institutionalized discrimination against Cuban gays.

In 1999, the Cuban publishing house Editorial Ciencias Sociales released Homosexuality, Homosexualism and Human Ethics (ISBN: 9590603920), by Pedro de la J. Cruz, a professor and researcher at the Cuban Academy of Sciences. The author teaches at the Nico Lopez Advanced School of the Communist Party as well as at a university. His book places gay rights in an international historical and cultural framework and its tone is very sympathetic. A translation for an English-speaking readership would be extremely helpful. Evidence of homophobia arises now and then. Early this year a homophobic article was published by La Tribuna, a Havana newspaper. There seems to be no organized way within which lesbian, gays and their friends in Cuba can take these up. Cuba's opponents, who don't support gay rights, hypocritically try to use such things to turn people against Cuba. There are no explicitly gay or lesbian organizations, but there are informal meeting places, like Coppelia and the Yara theater. I saw men in drag not experiencing police harassment. And there are informal networks through which people socialize and keep in touch. I had no trouble finding folks."

http://www.blythe.org/2months4.html

Severian

4th February 2006, 08:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:20 PM
Fidel said slums don't exist.
Source for this alleged statement by Fidel?

She was arrested for taking pictures of said non-existant slums.

Oh. That answers one of my earlier questions to you - do you think everything she says should be automatically believed? Apparently yes.

But leaves the question: why? Because you like to hear a model talk about her bra? Because anyone who says anything bad about Cuba must be telling the truth? Why?

And if you think this group is not anticommunist I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Commie Rat

4th February 2006, 08:47

Imperialism is when the monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete amongst themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world.

Imperialism: A policy of extending the rule of a nation or empire over foreign nations or of taking and holding colonies. (Kottak, Anthropology, The Exploration of Human Diversity, 2004)

Neo-Imperialism : A politcal theory of exetending the power of ones country over another through politcal and economic means.

I learnt that shit in 9th grade history

James

4th February 2006, 12:45

James, I am not even trying to talk about controlling the lives of others. Sure, some like to skate, some like to Ski, but I'm not even trying to argue this.

What is this in response to?

Opponents of socialism are people trying to restore capitalism after the revolution.

No i would not agree with that. For example, those who opposed Stalin were not all opponents of a socialist economy.
Indeed, i would say that alot of opposition to socialism/communism stems from an opposition to the means that it can sometimes involve, lead to (see Hayek road to serfdom).

I'm not "jumping"...opponents of communism seems a little hard to imagine, as capitalism would be long gone by the time we are seeing a society without state or capital.

You missed the point.
I was pointing out how you say "communism", but that is it. you don't know what you stand for. And even if you do, chances are very few people stand for the exact same thing.
See the revleft quote.
My point was that you yourself had gone from talking about communism to talking about socialism.
yes there is a difference.

You really believe that people on RL are more unified in the means then the ends?

I didn't say that. I said:
"Generally speaking, it is obvious to everyone what needs to be done.
the problem emerges when there is a comparison of these opinions."

A different perception of the Common Good/End.

Thus it is problematic to embrace the use of any means to achieve such ends. As everyone has a different perception of what that end is.

+ + +

Source for this alleged statement by Fidel?

I was responding to a post based on that news article. My reply was based on the content of the article.

But leaves the question: why? Because you like to hear a model talk about her bra?

Yes that is exactly it.

fernando

4th February 2006, 14:04

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 4 2006, 09:06 AM

Imperialism is when the monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete amongst themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world.

Imperialism: A policy of extending the rule of a nation or empire over foreign nations or of taking and holding colonies. (Kottak, Anthropology, The Exploration of Human Diversity, 2004)

Neo-Imperialism : A politcal theory of exetending the power of ones country over another through politcal and economic means.

I learnt that shit in 9th grade history
So you agree with me that the USSR was an imperialist state when it comes to their policy in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan for example.

Is it just me or are "communists" more interested in getting their ideology spread instead of helping everybody, eventhough their ideology was designed to help everybody. Now Im not defending capitalism here since it basicly is built on getting the highest profit no matter what.

ReD_ReBeL

4th February 2006, 15:39

(Severian)

do you think everything she says should be automatically believed? Apparently yes.

Well...Do you think everything that Fidel says or any other cuban official says should be believed? Cause theve been using the same excuse for 50years...counter-revolutionaries or US agents, starting to sound very dodgy now.
Sounds like people who oppose Fidel and his party seem to be called 'counter-revolutionaries'.

Hiero

4th February 2006, 16:23

Well...Do you think everything that Fidel says or any other cuban official says should be believed? Cause theve been using the same excuse for 50years...counter-revolutionaries or US agents, starting to sound very dodgy now.

In 50 years nothing has change. The United States and other imperialists still want to destroy Cuba.

ReD_ReBeL

4th February 2006, 16:28

In 50 years nothing has change. The United States and other imperialists still want to destroy Cuba

Yes i know, but you think there the only one's who want to end Fidel Castro's rule? Personally i don't mind him but i wish he would loosen up some restrictions like give the right to free speach(thats means even critical articles about castro!). If he doesn't want to give complete free speach , it sounds like he is hiding something from the people and scared of them to know the truth.
Yes i know there has to be some restrictions for the REAL counter-revolutionaries but u have to ease up on the people of your country or u just become a tryant.

Body Count

4th February 2006, 19:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:04 PM

What is this in response to?

Basically, i was pointing out that everyone has a different view. A different concept of the "Good Life", or the "General Will"/"Common Good" (to quote Rousseau).

No i would not agree with that. For example, those who opposed Stalin were not all opponents of a socialist economy.
Indeed, i would say that alot of opposition to socialism/communism stems from an opposition to the means that it can sometimes involve, lead to (see Hayek road to serfdom).

I'm not even gonna get into Stalin or the Soviet Union.

The bottom line is that I don't see anything wrong in socialist societies jailing dissenters.

It can be whatever kind of socialism you please.

You do understand that no matter how "perfect" a socialist society is (To you or to anyone), that there will still be those rebelling against it right? What I've been saying the whole time is that those people SHOULD BE jailed or killed. Why even give them the oppurtunity to restore capitalism? Why

You missed the point.
I was pointing out how you say "communism", but that is it. you don't know what you stand for. And even if you do, chances are very few people stand for the exact same thing.
See the revleft quote.

I made it very clear that when I said communism, I was referring to a moneyless/stateless/classless society. That is a very general statement, and I think that most of revleft would agree with that.

Maybe there is some who believe in states or money or classes....I don't really know, but I know it would be a very small, insignificant minority (Diregarding the ones who are openly capitalist who are resticted to opposing idealogies).

My point was that you yourself had gone from talking about communism to talking about socialism.
yes there is a difference.

Of course theres a difference, who said that there wasn't?

I didn't say that. I said:
"Generally speaking, it is obvious to everyone what needs to be done.
the problem emerges when there is a comparison of these opinions."

A different perception of the Common Good/End.

Thus it is problematic to embrace the use of any means to achieve such ends. As everyone has a different perception of what that end is.

Once again...the end should be communism. Yes, I;m sure there can be a number of different "types" of communism...but this is delving highly into a wide array of things....things that I have made no statement on.

Please stop trying to use what I've been saying as some sort of way to flex whatever knowledge you think you have on communism.

James

4th February 2006, 19:29

ok body count, this is starting to repeat itself. I'll try and summaries and conclude my arguments for you.

First though i will do the bog standard tit-for-tat reply.

I'm not even gonna get into Stalin or the Soviet Union.

My point was that those who opposed stalin didn't always oppose him simply because he was a communist. Indeed, many communists opposed/oppose him to this day. The point is that there is little agreement over what is communism exactly, how to achieve it, how to get it working from day to day etc etc. Thus, saying that the state should be allowed any means is dangerous, as well as silly.

It can be whatever kind of socialism you please.

there are many forms of socialism which i personally find disgusting. Worse than capitalism. Some would say pol pot was a socialist. Some would say that saddam was socialist (i think the political compass). Stalin: without a doubt.

Of course theres a difference, who said that there wasn't?

It highlighted how abstract the thing is that you are supporting the use of any means to achieve.

Please stop trying to use what I've been saying as some sort of way to flex whatever knowledge you think you have on communism.

hehe, been there done that. Read my marx, read my rosa, read my lenin blah blah blah. Been your age. Been in the commie club. Indeed i was even a mod for a while. Please don't look down your nose at me.

RNK

5th February 2006, 15:39

Without leading this thread from it's current course, I would have to say that the primary goal for Socialism should be loose unification. It is easy enough for Capitalists to be different; a Capitalist bastion like the States has the time and room to argue about the fine-points of its own capitalization. Socialism, on the other hand, does not. It is not strong enough on this planet to be able to bicker and have differences of opinion. It weakens the movement. To see all the different faces of Socialism, and how different they are, and how opposed to the others some can be, makes me wonder, how can such a split effort ever hope to unite the people under the same basic principal of equality, desegregation and abolition of wealthy and poor?

Personally, I don't care about the fine points of views held by other Socialists. Someone may have a particular view that I see as utterly wrong, but if he is able to lay down his arguements for the "greater good", then so am I.

It goes without saying, however, that faith and fellowship with all Socialists is not without obvious bounderies. I will not side with a Socialist who is also a murderer, or who commits barbaric acts, or hurts the undeserving. To put it bluntly, Stalin might well have killed more people than Hitler. He may have been underlyingly Socialist, or Communist, but the fact remains, he committed some of the same acts that Capitalist oppressors have committed. I agree with whatever Socialistic views he may have held but I do not agree with him, or those acts.

Severian

7th February 2006, 00:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:10 AM

Source for this alleged statement by Fidel?

I was responding to a post based on that news article. My reply was based on the content of the article.
If you're referring to the news article at the beginning of this thread, Fidel was not quoted in it. Only his Czech opponents.

If they said he said there were no slums, that's another thing they're obviously lying about, then, 'cause Fidel does not deny the existence of slums, or "marginal neighborhoods".

From a 2003 speech,
While science incontestably demonstrates the real equality of human beings, discrimination persists. Even in societies such as the Cuban one, which emerged from a radical social revolution in which people were able to attain full and complete legal equality and a revolutionary level of education that cast out the subjective component of discrimination, this continues to exist in another form. I would describe it as objective discrimination, a phenomenon associated with poverty and the historic monopoly of knowledge.

Due to its characteristics, objective discrimination affects black people, those of mixed race and whites; in other words, those who historically made up the poorest and most marginalized sectors of the population. Although slavery was formally abolished in our homeland 117 years ago, men and women subjected to that abominable system continued living for close to 75 years (up until the Revolution triumphed) as apparently free workers in huts and shacks in rural areas and the cities, where large families shared one bedroom, without schools or teachers, in the worst-paid jobs. Many very poor white families who migrated from the rural areas to the cities experienced a similar fate.

The sad thing is to observe how poverty, associated with a lack of knowledge, tends to reproduce itself. Other sectors, mostly from very humble backgrounds, but with better living and working conditions, were able to take advantage of study possibilities created by the Revolution, and now make up the bulk of university graduates, and who likewise tend to reproduce their improved social conditions derived from education.

Put more bluntly and fruit of my own observations and reflections: having radically changed our society to a degree that women, who previously experienced terrible discrimination and for whom only the most humiliating jobs were available, are today a decisive and prestigious segment of society constituting 65% of the country’s technical and scientific force (APPLAUSE), well beyond the rights and guarantees attained by all citizens of any ethnic origin, the Revolution has not achieved the same success in the struggle to eradicate differences in the social and economic status of the country’s black population, even though this sector has an important role in many highly significant areas, including education and health.

On the other hand, in our search for full justice and for a much more humane society, we have observed something that would appear to constitute a social law: the inversely proportional relation between knowledge and culture and crime.

Without going any deeper into this phenomenon, it has been noted that the sectors of the population still living in the marginal neighborhoods of our urban communities, and those with less knowledge and culture are the ones who swell the ranks of the great majority of young prisoners, whatever their ethnic origin. From this it can be deduced that even in a society that is characterized as being the most just and egalitarian in the world, certain sectors are called on to occupy the places most in demand in the best educational institutions, to which entry is through one’s personal file and examinations, where the influence of the knowledge attained by the family nucleus is reflected, and later to take on the most important responsibilities. But children in other sectors with a lower index of knowledge, for the reasons already outlined, generally drift to educational centers that are less in demand and less attractive, constitute the largest percentage of those who abandon their studies at intermediate secondary level, gain a lower number of university places and have a high profile in the ranks of young people imprisoned for common crimes.
link (http://www.afrocubaweb.com/fidelcastro.htm)