Cuba: Crackdown on pirate TV

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What do you think of this?


Ailing Castro's Cuba signals crackdown on pirate TV

By Anthony Boadle Wed Aug 9, 12:47 PM ET

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba's communist government has signaled a crackdown on black-market satellite dishes used by citizens to get news and views from its arch enemy, the United States, nine days after ailing leader
Fidel Castro temporarily relinquished power to his brother.

The Communist Party newspaper Granma warned that the dishes, which many Cubans use to watch Spanish-language TV programs from the exile bastion of Miami, could be used by the U.S. government to broadcast subversive information.

"They are fertile ground for those who want to carry out the Bush administration's plan to destroy the Cuban revolution," said the newspaper, the official voice of the government. Similar articles in Granma usually signal that action can be expected.

The article decried an "avalanche" of capitalist advertising in the commercial programs.

Since Castro provisionally relinquished power to his brother Raul on July 31 after undergoing stomach surgery, Cubans have been anxious for information.

U.S.-funded TV and Radio Marti, run out of Miami, have pumped up their output of anti-Castro programming, but few Cubans are believed to have access to the stations because of successful jamming by the Cuban government.

By contrast, there may be as many as 10,000 illegal TV satellite dishes in Cuba, each one linked to perhaps hundreds of televisions by cables that their owners snake over rooftops and between buildings, charging other users $10 a month.

Many who get black-market U.S. television watched with astonishment as exiles in Miami danced in the streets when they heard on July 31 that Fidel Castro had undergone surgery and handed over power to his brother.

Castro's Cuba is widely viewed in Miami as an authoritarian prison where dissent and economic freedom are brutally quashed. Castro's supporters view him as a champion of social justice and national pride for standing up to the United States for more than four decades.

STILL UNSEEN

Cuban officials say Castro, who will be 80 on Sunday, is recovering and should be back in charge within weeks. But neither he nor his brother have been seen.

Daniel Ortega, former leftist president of Nicaragua, said he had not been able to see his long-time ally since arriving in Havana on Saturday. The reason was not immediately clear.

"He is in a period of recovery and he is getting ready to take government decisions," Ortega told a Nicaraguan radio station on Tuesday night.

Sources close to Ortega's Sandinista party, which Cuba backed in a civil war against U.S.-backed Contra rebels in the 1980s, said he might meet Raul Castro later on Wednesday.

While Cuban coastal communities have been told to scan the skies for a U.S. invasion that Washington has assured Cubans it will not stage, Cuban authorities continued to organize neighborhood rallies in support of the Castro brothers.

The half-million-member Communist Youth Union and other student organizations wished Castro a rapid recovery in a letter published by the newspaper Juventud Rebelde.

French actor Gerard Depardieu added his name to a list of 400 international personalities, including leftist commentator Noam Chomsky and South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who signed a statement against U.S. interference, Granma said.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060809/ts_nm/cuba_dc_56;_ylt=Au8qjM5EAQJX3ui7.LoLLJ1hxXsA)

Personally, I do find this worrying.. Will the govt without Fidel be more strict? Or do you think this is temporary, or..?

This though, made me wonder...
"By contrast, there may be as many as 10,000 illegal TV satellite dishes in Cuba, each one linked to perhaps hundreds of televisions by cables that their owners snake over rooftops and between buildings, charging other users $10 a month."
Isn't the average wage about 10-20 dollars?

It sounds pretty strange that some could afford to pay 10 dollars a month. I guess a few Cuban families with money in their pockets could affford it but... :huh:

[Janus]

Not surprising. Censorship particularly between very hostile nations is quite common.

But I really see no harm in letting people watch the stuff unless they're seriously malleable like a kid or something.

What about Castro's dish? Are non-black market dishes fixed so you can't watch certain channels or are they rare to get alltogether?

[Janus]

I'm guessing this is a response to this

US increases TV transmissions to Cuba (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54054&view=getnewpost)

[Rawthentic]

This isnt good for Cuba. I believe that the Cuban people should be allowed to recieve information from anywhere, but on the other hand, I dont agree that they should be brainwashed with capitalist propaganda. So, while Fidel represses the Cuban people, he's also not allowing Cuba to be overrun with anti-Fidelista propaganda. Its a two-sided issue for me

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fuck the U.S. propaganda; burn the dishes.

[Rawthentic]

And one-sided for you

[Janus]

I dont agree that they should be brainwashed with capitalist propaganda
I doubt that the US is broadcasting actual programs that can truly brainwash the inhabitants. The only people in danger would be the kids who are very malleable. Adults should be able to handle it and think for themselves. After all, some of them know what life is like in a capitalist society whether they experienced it directly or know people who have.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Radio and TV Marti are PURE pro-U.S. propaganda. It's literally NOTHING but lies. All it talks about is how prosperous Cuba will be when "Democracy" (read: imperialism) returns. It talks about how free and great the U.S. is, and how everyone is so "prosperous" there.

It's pure nonsense.

If Cuba beamed communist propaganda into the U.S.; the U.S. airforce would have bombed the transmitter in a matter of minutes.. but it's fine when the U.S. does it; and Cuba is the bad guy!! :lol:

Also, it's funny that they try to use Jose Marti, the Cuban freedom fighter, for their channels. He was clearly against U.S.-imperialism; and criticized the place harshly. He talked about the need for free education and healthcare, and economic and political independence from the U.S. (all of which the revolution brought!).

[working_class_warrior]

Yahoo, BBC, Fox, CNN can not be trusted.

[VukBZ2005]

I do agree for the most part with the tactics of the Cuban government in preventing such information from reaching the minds of the Cuban people. While many around here think that the Cuban government should allow the ordinary Cuban to recieve information from other parts of the world, especially from the United States, I believe that there is a good chance that subversive ideas could seep in and threaten the viability of the revolution in the long run, if such a thing were to happen.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Fuck the U.S. propaganda; burn the dishes.

What would you say if the government burned your satellite dish?

"Oppression, oh the terrible oppression"?


You do have some good points, regarding Jose Marti, and that if Cuba did the same thing. It should be noted.

But maybe you should put yourself in their perspective. Do you really think it is important to control what other people see on television?

[Dominicana_1965]

Like the guy above said,they should watch it to there liking unless the people are gullible and feed it into the propaganda.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

The revolution is at stake.

The only party broadcasting propoganda should be that of the Cuban Government.

[amanondeathrow]

why are you hostile to Cuba? You prick

[working_class_warrior]

My I also add its no ones business what castros medical condition.

[Janus]

Yahoo, BBC, Fox, CNN can not be trusted.
Like Lennie said, the stuff beamed into Cuba is a lot mroe biased than that. But I still think that most Cubans can handle it.

[James]

I do agree for the most part with the tactics of the Cuban government in preventing such information from reaching the minds of the Cuban people. While many around here think that the Cuban government should allow the ordinary Cuban to recieve information from other parts of the world, especially from the United States, I believe that there is a good chance that subversive ideas could seep in and threaten the viability of the revolution in the long run, if such a thing were to happen.

I saw a farmer achieve a similar result with his sheep dogs the other day.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What would you say if the government burned your satellite dish?

"Oppression, oh the terrible oppression"?

I don't live in a socialist country. Neither I, nor anyone in my class has any say in what the government does.

And if you think there is "freedom of speech" to some great extent in the U.S.. Think again.


But maybe you should put yourself in their perspective. Do you really think it is important to control what other people see on television?

Yes. It's important to keep out pro-capitalist propaganda. And don't try to make it seem like the Cuban government is some seperate entity from Cuba's workers and farmers. It's not. They have decided to keep out propaganda like this to defend their revolution.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

They have decided to keep out propaganda like this to defend their revolution.

If the people ruled the nation then perhaps it wouldn't be neccesary to crackdown on satelitte dishes?

If the people ruled the nation, they would laugh at U.S. propaganda, no?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No. They would ban it. As they have done.

Stop asking anti-communist rhetorical questions.

[James]

No it does not make sense.

"The people" are their rullers in cuba, apparantly. If they actually do support the revolution and oppose american lies then why do they need to ban private tv? Surely they already abstain from watching such stuff. Just as one would not watch the god chanel if one is not interested in that sort of thing.

Seems rather evident that in fact it is not "the people" that want the revolution to continue. Just "some people".
Oh no let me guess, the will of this minority is "the general will". aaah seems a bit french revolution-esq to me. IF so, then we shall probably see something along the lines of a terror following the death of fidel. Just to reasure "the people" that the "some people" do know what is best for "the people".

viva la revolution! If individual liberty and autonomy gets in the way it doesn't matter. We are striving toward the "common good"!!

It is as if the "some people" were brought up on rousseau's "social contract". viva la oppression!

[Karl Marx's Camel]

"The people" are their rullers in cuba, apparantly. If they actually do support the revolution and oppose american lies then why do they need to ban private tv? Surely they already abstain from watching such stuff. Just as one would not watch the god chanel if one is not interested in that sort of thing.

Good question.



Stop asking anti-communist rhetorical questions.

Nice try.

Translation? "I do not like these kinds of questions. Refrain from posting such questions again"?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:34 PM
Nice try.

Translation? "I do not like these kinds of questions. Refrain from posting such questions again"?
People hate it when you act like a passively aggressive little prick? NO WAI!!! Gee, how could that be possible? :rolleyes:

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 12 2006, 12:14 PM
I do agree for the most part with the tactics of the Cuban government in preventing such information from reaching the minds of the Cuban people.
That sounds a lot like "The people of Cuba are too stupid to realize that capitalism is bad and the government must not allow pirate television"...

If the revolution had popular support, would there be a need to ban counter-viewpoints? Yeah, CNN is very biased in favor of capitalism, but the Cuban people are probably intelligent enough to realize that.

(Note: Edited for a spelling mistake)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well let's see... there are millions of people in Cuba. 10,000 have satellites. Odds are, most of those 10,000 are among the minority who opposes the revolution. And most of them have connections with the gusano mob in Miami.. maybe their family or friends are there.. that's how they can afford satellite.

So, the overwhelming majority of Cuban people support the revolution, and want to combat counter-revolution and capitalist propaganda.. so, they took the logical step and banned capitalist propaganda.

It's not that hard to understand; but those in the anti-Cuban camp can't see the forest for the trees. You're so blinded with bourgeois liberalism that'll you'll make a continent out of a mole hill.

This is no different than the CDRs, that mobilize everytime counter-revolutionaries like the "women in white" protest in Cuba.. they confront them, and combat them.. just as we communists confront and combat fascists.

[James]

just as we communists confront and combat fascists.


Unless they are members of the Castro family or muslim.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This is no different than the CDRs, that mobilize everytime counter-revolutionaries like the "women in white" protest in Cuba.. they confront them, and combat them.. just as we communists confront and combat fascists.


So you admit protesters/demonstraters are being beaten up?

[KC]

So you admit protesters/demonstraters are being beaten up?

I sure hope so.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

CdL, so you admit protesters/demonstraters are being beaten up??

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 14 2006, 01:58 AM
Well let's see... there are millions of people in Cuba. 10,000 have satellites. Odds are, most of those 10,000 are among the minority who opposes the revolution. And most of them have connections with the gusano mob in Miami.. maybe their family or friends are there.. that's how they can afford satellite.

So, the overwhelming majority of Cuban people support the revolution, and want to combat counter-revolution and capitalist propaganda.. so, they took the logical step and banned capitalist propaganda.

It's not that hard to understand; but those in the anti-Cuban camp can't see the forest for the trees. You're so blinded with bourgeois liberalism that'll you'll make a continent out of a mole hill.

This is no different than the CDRs, that mobilize everytime counter-revolutionaries like the "women in white" protest in Cuba.. they confront them, and combat them.. just as we communists confront and combat fascists.
So you think that when a minority likes some other information, it should be restricted? That's not freedom.

And why should it be banned? When the revolution has popular support, there is no need for bannings.

[RNK]

From my understanding of Cuban law such a decision could not have come without popular support and indeed without having first been introduced through public admission. This is not the Government "cracking down", this is the people attempting to secure their island from the encrouchingly loud penetration of American capitalist propaganda.

[Phugebrins]

Compare and contrast with the prosecution of someone offering to tune satellites to receive a news station apparently related to Hezbollah.

[norwegian commie]

CompañeroDeLibertad, im liking your politics.


So you think that when a minority likes some other information, it should be restricted? That's not freedom.

And why should it be banned? When the revolution has popular support, there is no need for bannings.

Capitalist programs has no place in Cuba . Counter revolutionarys have nothing to do on Cuba, will therfor not be allowed to continue their bombardment of lies. Imagine cuba do the same thing and its reactions. Cuba is not the bad guy, they are the solidaristic, socialists in an continent traumatised by US imperialism. They are needed.




So you admit protesters/demonstraters are being beaten up?

i dont, that is false.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It sounds pretty strange that some could afford to pay 10 dollars a month. I guess a few Cuban families with money in their pockets could affford it but...
But I though no Cubans except Fidel could even afford basic food and shelter? I thought they all had to eat their own children to live? But now it appears they can afford to pay $10 a month for satellite TV. Want to recheck your "figures" NWOG?


If the people ruled the nation then perhaps it wouldn't be neccesary to crackdown on satelitte dishes?
Of course it would you fool. Your little article says there may be up to 10,000 (which probably means a hell of a lot less, if this source came from the US) illegal satellite dishes in Cuba, out of a population of about 11 million. These 10,000 people hardly represent "the people" now, do they?


I doubt that the US is broadcasting actual programs that can truly brainwash the inhabitants.
Because the good ol' US would never do something as devious as that. Now let's all go buy Rollexes.


This isnt good for Cuba. I believe that the Cuban people should be allowed to recieve information from anywhere
Including child pornographers and neo-Nazi parties?


"The people" are their rullers in cuba, apparantly. If they actually do support the revolution and oppose american lies then why do they need to ban private tv?
First of all, it's private. You've actually made a very good point right there that many of us have previously overlooked; that these satellite broadcasting channels are private institutions, the kind to which Communist Cuba is supposed to be opposed.


Seems rather evident that in fact it is not "the people" that want the revolution to continue. Just "some people".
As opposed to the 10,000 that watch this crap.


Oh no let me guess, the will of this minority is "the general will".
You are a moron, you're turning your arguements in on yourself.


viva la revolution! If individual liberty and autonomy gets in the way it doesn't matter. We are striving toward the "common good"!!
Yes, how dare that commie bastard stand in the way of (y)our anarcho-capitalist dream!


That sounds a lot like "The people of Cuba are too stupid to realize that capitalism is bad and the government must not allow pirate television"...
You do realize that the Nazi Minister for Propaganda (I think it was Goebels) drew his brainwashing techniques from US advertisements right? I'm sure the Cuban people aren't stupid, but you must realize that the people who create these adverts and such have probably studied in universities for years finding new ways to manipulate people.


So you think that when a minority likes some other information, it should be restricted? That's not freedom.
That's ridiculous, you're talking like dissent is some kind of ethnic grouping. This minority are pro-capitalism, pro-imperialism and pro-US. So by all means, they are a deviant minority and a threat. The worry is not that the majority of Cuba will all of a sudden turn around and start shouting "OMG TV ROXX!! LETS KILL CASTRO!", it's that this 10,000 minority will be encouraged to create civil unrest in Cuba, thus posing a threat not only to the government in Cuba, but also the society as a whole.


And why should it be banned? When the revolution has popular support, there is no need for bannings.
That's an utterly ridiculous statement. Rape doesn't have popular support either, that doesn't mean we should legalize it.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:31 PM

So you think that when a minority likes some other information, it should be restricted? That's not freedom.
That's ridiculous, you're talking like dissent is some kind of ethnic grouping. This minority are pro-capitalism, pro-imperialism and pro-US. So by all means, they are a deviant minority and a threat. The worry is not that the majority of Cuba will all of a sudden turn around and start shouting "OMG TV ROXX!! LETS KILL CASTRO!", it's that this 10,000 minority will be encouraged to create civil unrest in Cuba, thus posing a threat not only to the government in Cuba, but also the society as a whole.


And why should it be banned? When the revolution has popular support, there is no need for bannings.
That's an utterly ridiculous statement. Rape doesn't have popular support either, that doesn't mean we should legalize it.
Why should there be civil unrest. If a very small minority likes these TV-stations, and the rest of the Cubans love Fidel and the revolution, there won't be unrest. The people would be just like: "Lol, that's capitalist propaganda. Happily we live in a worker's paradise, so we don't want capitalism." So do you actually think there can be a threat to the whole society of only 10.000 people would like something else? Then you must think that the Cuban society is very unstable and very easy to manipulate, or you must think the Cubans can't make an unbiased decision.

Come on, I'm not talking about physical assaults. I'm talking about other opinions. They can just ignore it and think: "We're happy the way Cuba is ruled, we don't need that bullshit propaganda." But instead you think it could destabilise society. If you think that, then you yourself must be full of doubts about the popular support of the revolution.


And just a general question to everybody who thinks this is ok: do you think that when a minority has a different opinion, it is allowed to be oppressed by the majority?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Why should there be civil unrest. If a very small minority likes these TV-stations, and the rest of the Cubans love Fidel and the revolution, there won't be unrest. The people would be just like: "Lol, that's capitalist propaganda. Happily we live in a worker's paradise, so we don't want capitalism." So do you actually think there can be a threat to the whole society of only 10.000 people would like something else? Then you must think that the Cuban society is very unstable and very easy to manipulate, or you must think the Cubans can't make an unbiased decision.
You don't seem to understand just how good these people (those in charge of advertising campaigns) are at manipulating the masses. You don't have to be stupid to be fooled by them, I mean subjective opinions aside it would be ridiculous to state that everyone in the first world is stupid, and yet the vast majority of us are influenced by advertising and propaganda to a certain extent.

However, the main issue here is not whether or not this propaganda turns all 11 million Cubans against the revolution. The worry is thet these TV shows will encourage this 10,000 minority to acts of radical pro-US dissent, such as rioting or terrorism.


Come on, I'm not talking about physical assaults. I'm talking about other opinions. They can just ignore it and think: "We're happy the way Cuba is ruled, we don't need that bullshit propaganda." But instead you think it could destabilise society. If you think that, then you yourself must be full of doubts about the popular support of the revolution.
If everyone could just ignore every ounce of bullshit spewed at us by the Capitalists, we'd all be living in some kind of Communist utopia by now.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. since when did living in a Communist country alter the way your brain functions? The people living in Cuba, as educated and happy as they probably are, are still humans and therefore are still susceptible to concentrated advertisement and propaganda campaigns, just like everyone else.

Also, it is possible for a minority to disrupt society. A 10,000 strong army of dissidents can cause trouble in any country, should they choose to act on their reactionary beliefs.


And just a general question to everybody who thinks this is ok: do you think that when a minority has a different opinion, it is allowed to be oppressed by the majority?
Stop asking irrelevant questions. This isn't about "majority" and "minority" and you know it. I'm sure there are many minorities (of gender, race, sexuality, religion etc.) that aren't discriminated against by the Cuban administration. This particular minority just happen to be enemies of the revolution, reactionary, pro-imperialist agitators. There is no reason they shouldn't be acted against.

[James]

redstar:


First of all, it's private. You've actually made a very good point right there that many of us have previously overlooked; that these satellite broadcasting channels are private institutions, the kind to which Communist Cuba is supposed to be opposed.

Well it's a means of communication really - so when you say you want to ban "private" means, you effectively state that you want to ban anything that isn't "the official" route of communication.

I do appreciate that you are coming from a marxist view of making the means of production public.

My main "beef" however arises when this "means of production" is defined so as to cover "intellectual production". I think there is an interesting conflict in the language. Are you making something public (a rather "positive" action, in effect you are freeing it from minority monoply rule), or are you simply just banning something (quite clearly a negative action; restricting the free flow of information).
In another post you ask,


Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. since when did living in a Communist country alter the way your brain functions?

If you wish to understand the essentially "libertarian" concern with authoritarian control and manipulation of education, information and society, then i suggest that you critically read rousseau's "Social Contract". I strongly recomend reading the wide range of commentary on it too (indeed rousseau's ideas are at times quite seductive, but hidden in his work are some worrying implications).

Indeed i would also like to pick up on a point that you raised in the post that i refered to initially in this post. In reply to a comment that cubans should be allowed access to information, you asked
Including child pornographers and neo-Nazi parties?

Well essentially, i would say, the issue comes down to one of "consenting adults". There are obvious issues with child pornography; indeed it seems probable that you threw that one in there to discredit the opinion that you opposed ("i'm right, they are wrong: they support child pornography"). So no... the obvious consent issues answers your first point (simily with your comment later on that tried to equate my position with legalising rape. nice one by the way). Secondly, neonazis. Well either you believe that the people need to be cattleprodded into line or you don't. You either believe in rationality and have faith in the people or not.

Again i appreciate where you are coming from. Nazi's are most dredful. However, when you then start to censor them, and seek to control what people see, hear, and think - then in fact you accidently become very similar to the thing that you hated. There is a saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". What you advocate is a good example. Essentially you become a nazi - minus the antisemetic element (but in place you bring in your own prejudices).


As opposed to the 10,000 that watch this crap.

Well as i said: it seems that it is a minority that is actually taking the decision to BAN this outlet of information.
All boils down to this: if the "revolution" is popular and rational, then it doesn't need to resort to propaganda and censorship to prosper.
If it does resort to such means out of necessity, then clearly the revolution doesn't have the support of the masses.

you said in reply to my comment "Oh no let me guess, the will of this minority is "the general will"."

You are a moron, you're turning your arguements in on yourself.


It is a shame that you resort to such petty comments firstly. Secondly, no; i did not turn my argument "in on itself".

I was nodding toward the famous rousseau argument that justifies an "enlightened elite" taking control and "steering" the people toward a certain social or moral goal. The justification is essentially that the end justifies the means, as the end is what everyone actually wants.
Thus: the will of this minority is the "real will" of the majority (or as rousseau terms it/dresses it up "the general will")


Yes, how dare that commie bastard stand in the way of (y)our anarcho-capitalist dream!

Well my personal view is libertarian and pluralist.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Okay I was absolutely delirious with tiredness when I wrote this so forgive the shabby spelling and/or grammar, if any is present:


My main "beef" however arises when this "means of production" is defined so as to cover "intellectual production". I think there is an interesting conflict in the language. Are you making something public (a rather "positive" action, in effect you are freeing it from minority monoply rule), or are you simply just banning something (quite clearly a negative action; restricting the free flow of information).
In another post you ask,
I don't think Cuba are doing either in this particular case; at least not insofar as these transmissions are considered to be "intellectual production". The media transmissions in question are anti-Communist propaganda, weapons in a psychological war against Cuban sovereignty. Claiming it is wrong to ban them because they are somebody's "intellectual production" is like saying that, should the psychological war being waged on Cuba by the US turn military, it would be wrong to shoot down US warplanes because they were created in a factory by workers.


If you wish to understand the essentially "libertarian" concern with authoritarian control and manipulation of education, information and society, then i suggest that you critically read rousseau's "Social Contract". I strongly recomend reading the wide range of commentary on it too (indeed rousseau's ideas are at times quite seductive, but hidden in his work are some worrying implications).

Sorry, but no. While I would love to read the work in question, the same as I would love to read any work that would further my knowledge of politics and society, I am actually just too busy right now to be running around buying and reading books because someone on the other side of the internet is too lazy to form his own arguments. Maybe some time in the future I will read this book and then I'm sure we can have a very interesting discussion on it, but for the time being I think I'll stick with Fundamental Applied Maths, Discovering Maths 4, Understanding Chemistry, Real World Physics, Democracy and Dictatorship and oh, the list goes on!

Telling someone to read a book is not a valid point. Furthermore it seems to me that you are trying to link my point to the points made in Social Contract, whatever these may be, and then refuting the claims made in this book, instead of my arguements. This is flawed, because firstly, I haven't read the book, nor do I intend to in the near future, so I can't fully understand the arguements made against me and secondly, my arguements were not based on this work; indeed, I didn't even refer to it once in my post. My arguements were based on a contemporary viewpoint of contemporary government. It seems to me that you are, to coin a mathematical analogy, deriving cos2x and returning -sin2x.


Well essentially, i would say, the issue comes down to one of "consenting adults". There are obvious issues with child pornography; indeed it seems probable that you threw that one in there to discredit the opinion that you opposed ("i'm right, they are wrong: they support child pornography"). So no... the obvious consent issues answers your first point (simily with your comment later on that tried to equate my position with legalising rape. nice one by the way).
By bringing consent into the question you are saying that it is the content of these broadcasts in relation to the society in which they are being viewed that is the issue here. You implicitly stated, by not arguing against the banning of child pornography, that you agree that child pornography has no place in society because it encourages and glorifies acts of unconsenting sex, in a society where unconsenting sex is not tolerated. In this same way, these broadcasts encourage and glorify capitalism and the US, in a society where capitalism and the US are (understandably) not welcome.


Secondly, neonazis. Well either you believe that the people need to be cattleprodded into line or you don't. You either believe in rationality and have faith in the people or not.

Again i appreciate where you are coming from. Nazi's are most dredful. However, when you then start to censor them, and seek to control what people see, hear, and think - then in fact you accidently become very similar to the thing that you hated. There is a saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". What you advocate is a good example. Essentially you become a nazi - minus the antisemetic element (but in place you bring in your own prejudices).
To believe in rationality, Comrade, is to know the dangers of manipulation and brainwashing as practised by its most educated and experienced practicers. To disregard the effect of concentrated advertising and propaganda campaigns in spite of what society has shown, and is continuing to show, is absolutely ludicris.

Also, there is a difference between trying to ban all forms of decent information and entertainment media, and trying to protect your people from a real and established threat.

One last point on the post in question, in comparing the government in question to the Nazi government, you are implying that they are linked to acts of unprovoked war and genocide. I just thought I'd point out this subtle slander. (It's funny as this is exactly what you accused me of trying to do earlier).



Well as i said: it seems that it is a minority that is actually taking the decision to BAN this outlet of information.
All boils down to this: if the "revolution" is popular and rational, then it doesn't need to resort to propaganda and censorship to prosper.
If it does resort to such means out of necessity, then clearly the revolution doesn't have the support of the masses.
I've been through this many times before, and I'm not going to waste much time on it any longer.

Propaganda can subvert popularity. The US are the offenders here in that they actively worked to broadcast their propaganda within an opposing nation's sovereignty. It is ridiculous to say that if a few thousand men and women in a country of 11 million turn around and say they want to live in a US-backed capitalist paradise because they saw it on TV, then the very basis on which the current society in that country exists is irrational, flawed and unpopular.

That's like saying KFC are the healthiest food you can get because they spend the most on advertising.



I was nodding toward the famous rousseau argument that justifies an "enlightened elite" taking control and "steering" the people toward a certain social or moral goal. The justification is essentially that the end justifies the means, as the end is what everyone actually wants.
Thus: the will of this minority is the "real will" of the majority (or as rousseau terms it/dresses it up "the general will")
First of all, the only reference you made to Rousseau in your post is at the very end, as a seperate point from the rest of your post. My responses to your post didn't, nor were they obliged to, contain any reference to this work in the slightest. Furthermore, unless the quoted sentence is an effective summary of Social Contract, which includes all important relevant information and arguments, I am not going to argue for or against Social Contract; indeed, it would be irresponsible of me to do so. My arguments against your points were, as I stated before, based on observations of contemporary government which, as democratic and popular as it may be, and as rational and popular as the ideology on which it is based may be, is still a government and is still going to exert its influence in protecting its citizens from foreign (and, in this case, reactionary) threats to the people's welfare and the government's sovereignty.


Well my personal view is libertarian and pluralist.
Define libertarian as you see it, please.

[The Grey Blur]

RedStar`1916 - 2

Anarcho-capitalists - 0

Sorry to cheerlead just good refutations

[James]

I don't think Cuba are doing either in this particular case; at least not insofar as these transmissions are considered to be "intellectual production". The media transmissions in question are anti-Communist propaganda, weapons in a psychological war against Cuban sovereignty. Claiming it is wrong to ban them because they are somebody's "intellectual production" is like saying that, should the psychological war being waged on Cuba by the US turn military, it would be wrong to shoot down US warplanes because they were created in a factory by workers.

As i said: "it's a means of communication really - so when you say you want to ban "private" means, you effectively state that you want to ban anything that isn't "the official" route of communication.".

You say that it is "anti-communist propaganda": you need to prove it, other wise your point falls down as mere rhetoric that excites people like "Permanent Revolution". Indeed this point also applies to the cuban authorities. If what they are banning is propaganda - then why don't they combat it in debate? You/they accuse the american's of using tricks to fool the people into believing something, but that is essentially what you are doing as well (oh but the end justifies the means doesn't it).

The essential issue is that people should be allowed to form their own opinions. The main difference between private broadcast and state broadcast is that one is diverse, and the other is not. It is plural truth versus a monolithic truth. Of course "you" think that you "know" the actual truth - thus it isn't wrong for you silence other truths.
This way of thinking is what has led to all tyrannies.

Your position is basically one of deciding what is good for other people. You say that private TV is propaganda; well what do you think the action of banning private TV is?
Propaganda is information.
The restriction of some information (and denouncing it as "false truth"), and not others is a system of selection which is essentially propagandist (again you shall say - the end justifies the means).

Also, who is actually in control of deciding what is banned i.e. who is deciding what is "the people's will" in this is popular revolution that seems to have been taken out of the people's hands and place into the hands of the enlighten guardians? No doubt you think cuba is a free democracy...and that "the cuban people" have made this decision. Well in actual fact, the decision has been made by a minority, "in the best interests" of the cuban people.

It's all bullshit.


Telling someone to read a book is not a valid point. Furthermore it seems to me that you are trying to link my point to the points made in Social Contract, whatever these may be, and then refuting the claims made in this book, instead of my arguements. This is flawed, because firstly, I haven't read the book, nor do I intend to in the near future, so I can't fully understand the arguements made against me and secondly, my arguements were not based on this work; indeed, I didn't even refer to it once in my post. My arguements were based on a contemporary viewpoint of contemporary government. It seems to me that you are, to coin a mathematical analogy, deriving cos2x and returning -sin2x.

You are wrong to imply that my argument was trying to simply equate yours with anothers.
You had said (and as i said at the time, in another post: so it wasn't part of "our debate", i was just mentioning it because it was a question that you asked someone):
"Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. since when did living in a Communist country alter the way your brain functions?"
The VAST range of commentary and debate centred around the "social contract" answers this. Sadly you are not the only one who has pressures on their time; i'm currently doing my degree dissertation (i won't list all my books). My visit here being some "light relief". As i said; it is a vast range of information. (although seriously: if you do find some spare time, it is worth dipping into as it will give you a greater insight into a point of view that you don't share - and it is an interesting debate in itself).


By bringing consent into the question you are saying that it is the content of these broadcasts in relation to the society in which they are being viewed that is the issue here. You implicitly stated, by not arguing against the banning of child pornography, that you agree that child pornography has no place in society because it encourages and glorifies acts of unconsenting sex, in a society where unconsenting sex is not tolerated. In this same way, these broadcasts encourage and glorify capitalism and the US, in a society where capitalism and the US are (understandably) not welcome.


Well you introduced the topic of child pornography in response to "This isnt good for Cuba. I believe that the Cuban people should be allowed to recieve information from anywhere".

Personally i do not agree that sexualising children is the same as being able, if you wish, to choose which TV channels you watch. Your argument is basically one of implying that people shouldn't be allowed to choose what they watch, because they might choose to watch child pornography.

People shouldn't be allowed to make decisions, because they might make the wrong decision. Again, this benevolent totalitarian in you is popping out. (oh but the end justifies the means!)

The issue of consent is fundamental.
As i have already gone over, there is the important question of:
Who is making this decision to ban private TV, and how was this decision reached?


Also, there is a difference between trying to ban all forms of decent information and entertainment media, and trying to protect your people from a real and established threat.

Let us go back to the origional issue: It is a crackdown on "TV satellite dishes". This is a means of communication that allows one to access diverse points of view and opinions. It isn't just one monolithic message (unlike "state approved" TV or a "state approved" newspapers).

[It's a bit like you closing down a massive library, on the grounds that you don't want anyone to look at the gardening section]



One last point on the post in question, in comparing the government in question to the Nazi government, you are implying that they are linked to acts of unprovoked war and genocide. I just thought I'd point out this subtle slander. (It's funny as this is exactly what you accused me of trying to do earlier).

haha, slander in itself. What i actually said was -
[i]i appreciate where you are coming from. Nazi's are most dredful. However, when you then start to censor them, and seek to control what people see, hear, and think - then in fact you accidently become very similar to the thing that you hated. There is a saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". What you advocate is a good example. Essentially you become a nazi - minus the antisemetic element (but in place you bring in your own prejudices).[i/]

If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, then don't use the same means as them (oh but the ends justifies the means!)


First of all, the only reference you made to Rousseau in your post is at the very end, as a seperate point from the rest of your post. My responses to your post didn't, nor were they obliged to, contain any reference to this work in the slightest. Furthermore, unless the quoted sentence is an effective summary of Social Contract, which includes all important relevant information and arguments, I am not going to argue for or against Social Contract; indeed, it would be irresponsible of me to do so. My arguments against your points were, as I stated before, based on observations of contemporary government which, as democratic and popular as it may be, and as rational and popular as the ideology on which it is based may be, is still a government and is still going to exert its influence in protecting its citizens from foreign (and, in this case, reactionary) threats to the people's welfare and the government's sovereignty.

hmm i think it is important for me to expand a little on what i said (simply so that you can understand where i'm coming from; if we disagree then fair enough):


Rousseau essentially argued for an "enlightened elite" taking control and "steering" the people toward a specific social or moral goal (the "common good").

The justification that he used is essentially that the end (common good/general will) justifies the means (the rule of the elite), as the end is what everyone actually really wants, although they may not actually realise it at the moment (according to rousseau, people who don't share the vision are simply "mistaken"); hence the need for the enlightened elite. What the enlightened elite deem to be done is therefore in fact "the general will" (even though it may only be the will of a minority).

Quite clearly, people disagree regarding what is the "common good" or "good life": rousseau wanted the population to be "moral" (he had a more specific vision than this, but my time restrictions don't allow me to repeat them here - suffice to say, he had a moral vision) whilst hitler, stalin and Robespierre had different perceptions of the "good life" - although all thought that their concept was THE correct one that should be implemented (it was in this context that Robespierre declared, "Our will is the general will").

Everyone thinks that their concept of the good life is the correct one. It is the nature of an opinion really: you only hold it because you believe it to be true. Problems arise when you want to implement this onto others; such as rousseau etc.

Thus to summarise Rousseau's main argument, the will of the "enlightened elite" is the "real will" of the majority (or as rousseau termed it; "the general will"), as it is directed toward achieving the specific social goal that is thought to exist.

And in answer to "Define libertarian as you see it, please."; i would describe it as being opposed to the above way of thinking.

[chebol]

Too busy to weigh in seriously here atm (will try more later)...

Coupla points:
I know a number of people who live in Cuba who have satellite dishes, and disagree with capitalism violently... In fact, they're PCC members.

CDR members, or whoever, should have every right to countermobilise against reactionary demonstrations. It's called democracy. Noone's suggesting violence (or if they are it's unnecessary).

I would like to remind everyone of the Varela Project, which raised, what was it, 30-ish thousand signatures for multi-party 'democracy' and a move toward a more open economy. They did this legally. No probs.

Response?

8 million cubans on the streets saying: "Thanks but no thanks - we kinda like socialism doncha know.

So, unless you've got 8 million and 1 cubans up your sleeve (or wherever else) shut up and deal with it!

[Messiah]

You know, it goes without saying that the direct American broadcasts are propaganda. However, if the Cuban people or the Cuban "revoltuionary state" as a whole is that susceptibal to such crude propaganda, that they have to actually step and in and say to people "no, you can't watch this" then that doesn't speak too highly of the spread of revolutionary ideals amongst the Cuban people, now does it?

[chebol]

Depends... does your swatting an annoying insect mean you have no environmental conscience?

[CheRev]

Of course Cuba should be allowed to prevent propaganda coming from another country to there own, especially if that country has a trade-embargo against them, sponsors and harbours terrorists that have atacked them, and has an $80m fund (that we know of) to undermine the running of their country. Any other country in the world would do the same in these conditions so why is there such a big deal being made about it when Cuba does it??

[The Grey Blur]

that excites people like "Permanent Revolution"
Yep, I get boners reading refutations of beurgeois arguments

[chebol]

chebol Posted on Sep 20 2006, 08:37 PM

I would like to remind everyone of the Varela Project, which raised, what was it, 30-ish thousand signatures for multi-party 'democracy' and a move toward a more open economy. They did this legally. No probs.


Nope. Well, not straight away, anyway. More like 11,000 (http://www.cubainsideout.org/campaigns/varela/index.shtml).

They managed to pick up a few more in the years after they submitted the petition to the government - you know, in the period where they claimed to be under constant harrassment. How few? Another 20,000. So, yes. That's it. 30,000 people. BIG opposition movement. REAL scary state apparatus, especially those 8 million police, all dressed in civilian clothes..... :P :castro: :cuba:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You say that it is "anti-communist propaganda": you need to prove it, other wise your point falls down as mere rhetoric that excites people like "Permanent Revolution". Indeed this point also applies to the cuban authorities. If what they are banning is propaganda - then why don't they combat it in debate? You/they accuse the american's of using tricks to fool the people into believing something, but that is essentially what you are doing as well (oh but the end justifies the means doesn't it).
Your insistence that I prove something which should be (and up until now has been) a given shows that you are running out of valid points to throw at me.

Nonetheless:

Originally posted by The article in question
U.S.-funded TV and Radio Marti, run out of Miami, have pumped up their output of anti-Castro programming, but few Cubans are believed to have access to the stations because of successful jamming by the Cuban government.

Also, there is a difference between "using tricks to fool the people into believing something" and blocking the transmission of said tricks. The Cuban government aren't, at least not as regards anything we've discussed here, broadcasting any information which could mislead, manipulate or brainwash people, especially not those living under foreign sovereignty. The US on the other hand are, and that's the problem.



The essential issue is that people should be allowed to form their own opinions. The main difference between private broadcast and state broadcast is that one is diverse, and the other is not. It is plural truth versus a monolithic truth. Of course "you" think that you "know" the actual truth - thus it isn't wrong for you silence other truths.
If you believe people should be allowed to form their own opinions, then why do you defend the US giving them the mother of all "helping hands"? You seem to assume that advertising and propaganda have no effect on how someone forms an opinion on the subject of said advertising and propaganda. If this is true, then why do these things exist? Why are they continuously spread by governments and corporations, often at major cost, if they have no practical purpose?


Your position is basically one of deciding what is good for other people. You say that private TV is propaganda; well what do you think the action of banning private TV is?
Propaganda is information.
The restriction of some information (and denouncing it as "false truth"), and not others is a system of selection which is essentially propagandist (again you shall say - the end justifies the means).

First of all, banning private TV is not propaganda. Secondly, the government that "decid[es] what is good for other people", has been chosen and supported by said people throughout the years (see chebol's response).

I am not going to debate whether or not the Cuban people support Socialism, not here. That is not the issue at hand.


Also, who is actually in control of deciding what is banned i.e. who is deciding what is "the people's will" in this is popular revolution that seems to have been taken out of the people's hands and place into the hands of the enlighten guardians? No doubt you think cuba is a free democracy...and that "the cuban people" have made this decision. Well in actual fact, the decision has been made by a minority, "in the best interests" of the cuban people.
The government is in control of deciding what is banned. The reason the government has this power is because they were chosen to have this power by the people, because the people believe this government know what is best for them. By claiming this government do not serve the people, you are claiming that the people cannot choose correctly by themselves, which completely invalidates the basis of your argument.


The VAST range of commentary and debate centred around the "social contract" answers this. Sadly you are not the only one who has pressures on their time; i'm currently doing my degree dissertation (i won't list all my books). My visit here being some "light relief". As i said; it is a vast range of information. (although seriously: if you do find some spare time, it is worth dipping into as it will give you a greater insight into a point of view that you don't share - and it is an interesting debate in itself).
No debate there then.


Personally i do not agree that sexualising children is the same as being able, if you wish, to choose which TV channels you watch. Your argument is basically one of implying that people shouldn't be allowed to choose what they watch, because they might choose to watch child pornography.

No, the act of sexualizing children is not the same. What I am saying is that just as child pornography can be justifiably banned in a society where child rape is not tolerated, capitalist propaganda can be justifiably banned in a society where capitalism is not tolerated.



People shouldn't be allowed to make decisions, because they might make the wrong decision. Again, this benevolent totalitarian in you is popping out. (oh but the end justifies the means!)
That is not what I am saying. I am not for the banning of television, I am for the banning of capitalist attempts to exploit this form of media and use it to manipulate the Cuban people.


Let us go back to the origional issue: It is a crackdown on "TV satellite dishes". This is a means of communication that allows one to access diverse points of view and opinions. It isn't just one monolithic message (unlike "state approved" TV or a "state approved" newspapers).
You are implying the the only way Cubans could view television at all is through these dishes. That is not true. First of all, there is nothing to suggest that these satellite dishes do in fact allow the viewer to "access diverse points of view and opinions". Not all satellite dish owners have the complete Sky+ Family Package. The article in question states that these dishes were being used to view "Spanish-language TV programs from the exile bastion of Miami", namely "U.S.-funded TV and Radio Marti" who have "pumped up their output of anti-Castro programming". Hardly a diverse spectrum of views and opinions.


haha, slander in itself. What i actually said was -
[i]i appreciate where you are coming from. Nazi's are most dredful. However, when you then start to censor them, and seek to control what people see, hear, and think - then in fact you accidently become very similar to the thing that you hated. There is a saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". What you advocate is a good example. Essentially you become a nazi - minus the antisemetic element (but in place you bring in your own prejudices).[i/]
I know what you said.


Rousseau essentially argued for an "enlightened elite" taking control and "steering" the people toward a specific social or moral goal (the "common good").

The justification that he used is essentially that the end (common good/general will) justifies the means (the rule of the elite), as the end is what everyone actually really wants, although they may not actually realise it at the moment (according to rousseau, people who don't share the vision are simply "mistaken"); hence the need for the enlightened elite. What the enlightened elite deem to be done is therefore in fact "the general will" (even though it may only be the will of a minority).

Quite clearly, people disagree regarding what is the "common good" or "good life": rousseau wanted the population to be "moral" (he had a more specific vision than this, but my time restrictions don't allow me to repeat them here - suffice to say, he had a moral vision) whilst hitler, stalin and Robespierre had different perceptions of the "good life" - although all thought that their concept was THE correct one that should be implemented (it was in this context that Robespierre declared, "Our will is the general will").
I don't really feel at liberty to comment on this as I haven't read the book and I don't know the social of historical context of argument (or indeed any smaller arguments included in Social Contract you may have omitted). Besides, there isn't really a whole lot I can say, except that the extent to which the aforementioned arguments and works apply to Cuba in this particular situation is questionable (indeed, if you are going to apply them to Cuba you may as well apply them to all governments).