Obama cult

[Dimentio]

The interesting thing with the Obama cult is that it has gone so low now, that the ideological preferences of a large part of the American population is creating messiah-like hypes. I mean, the guy has no ideological platform, except his own personality (he is charismatic, I could admit that).

As a social phenomena, personality cults are indeed fascinating.

The question is if he is a media phenomen, and if he would dethronise queen Hillary.

[Raúl Duke]

Maybe this whole thing demonstrates what bourgeoisie elections are all about:

It a show...just a Spectacle. You vote for the most charismatic person there.

And when it does "get serious" (which is not really that serious) is to discuss issues like Iraq (They all, at least the democrats, seem to promise withdrawal...but can I really believe they will do what they promise. In the US peace candidates have been elected yet done nothing to stop wars.) or "cultural war" issues (usually tied to stupid religious overtones) like abortions, stem cells, video games, gay marriage, etc.

Now, in these desperate times, the whole election does have some kinda "messiah-like" thing going.

But like you say it's very likely that its all a bunch of hype.


a media phenomen

The whole elections is a media phenomena.


dethronise queen Hillary.

Hmm...not sure....

[Dimentio]

The only positive thing about the Obama spectacle is that it engages a broad spectra and creates a grassroot engagement, but for what...? A smiling guy?

[la-troy]

To me American elections are just like elections in my country. There is no real difference between the candidates, no real differences in polices. We usually have the same parties winning cause the new generation just votes for which party their parents voted for.

One Question, is it still really democracy if there is no difference in the candidates?

[Dimentio]

Institutionally, yes.

But representative democracy is really an oligarchic system.

[Brekisonphilous]

the two parties and candiates policies are only so similar because they reflect the mentality of the population.
Change their mentality and you change the canidates (or completely do away with them).

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:19 am
the two parties and candiates policies are only so similar because they reflect the mentality of the population.
Change their mentality and you change the canidates (or completely do away with them).
The two parties reflect the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Democratic elections are just to decide who manages the economy for the bourgeoisie. They are large-scale job interviews with the winning candidate doing the bidding of his/her real employers, the bourgeoisie.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:19 am
the two parties and candiates policies are only so similar because they reflect the mentality of the population.
Change their mentality and you change the canidates (or completely do away with them).
As The Dissenter pointed out, elections in a capitalist system have nothing to do with what the people want, they have everything to do with what the bourgeoisie want. There are many reasons for this.

First, it takes tons of money to run for office, and I do mean tons. Hillary Clinton raised something like $25 million so far, before the primaries even began (as in before the unofficial process got started). It's just a matter of mathematics: you need money in order to have access to power, and you're not going to get money unless you have the support of those with money.

All of the candidates come from extraordinarily wealthy backgrounds. Sure, some have cute stories about how they grew up poor-ish, but at this point, they're ALL bourgeois to the bone (and then some). They are all part of the establishment themselves, make no mistake about it.

About half of the American electorate doesn't even vote. Is this because no one wants to make a difference? Of course not, this apathy has been fostered by a complete lack of choice in the American electoral system. No one cares because they've seen their efforts come to exactly nothing time and again.

The American system is set up in such a way that a candidate that really can't win, like Ralph Nader, actually helps the candidate to the opposite of the spectrum. In essence, a vote for Nader in 2000 was a vote that didn't go to Gore, and therefore each vote for Nader helped Bush.

This is just going off the top of my head. This wasn't addressed to you specifically, I just wanted to get that angle on this out there.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by la-[email protected] 11, 2007 10:14 pm
To me American elections are just like elections in my country. There is no real difference between the candidates, no real differences in polices. We usually have the same parties winning cause the new generation just votes for which party their parents voted for.

One Question, is it still really democracy if there is no difference in the candidates?
And yet you quote a guy -- in your signature -- who was deposed by his own party for playing too nice with domestic and international bourgeois interests when he actually did attain power. (He betrayed his comrades in the New Jewel Movement and the people of Grenada by taking reactionary steps in order to appease Washington.)

[la-troy]

I quoted him because I like the quote.

Yes Bishop was a bit soft, but I still admire him to an extent. Probably its because I tend to compare him with our so call Marxist leader who was too afraid to align himself with the USSR. Anyways its my view that he did want help from the USSR and Cuba and requested it in his own special way, he received a little help. As for Coard and Bishop's house arrest and death, I think this was because they had different ideologies from the beginning. Coard was a strict Marxist-Leninist while Bishop was just a young ambitious lawer who believed in the Marxist philosophy .


I don't know what your actual argument with me is so I just stated my views on the new jewel thing.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+May 12, 2007 05:35 am--> (The Dissenter @ May 12, 2007 05:35 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 04:19 am
the two parties and candiates policies are only so similar because they reflect the mentality of the population.
Change their mentality and you change the canidates (or completely do away with them).
The two parties reflect the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Democratic elections are just to decide who manages the economy for the bourgeoisie. They are large-scale job interviews with the winning candidate doing the bidding of his/her real employers, the bourgeoisie. [/b]
You miss the bigger picture, it is still dependent on the mentality of the population.

If the people had the mindset that they would rather not allow a government or ruling class to rule their lives or decide things for them, or even govern them in a way other than what they desire, they would stop perpetuating the conditions and acquiescence for such a thing by not allowing the institutions that harness them to exist.

[The Something]

After the past two elections, I think it's rigged. As for the whole "vote the same as the parents." I will have to say it's not true because party power shifts every so many years and back and forth.

Elections in this country are just big jokes and to see who can slam the other canidate worse.


Oh yeah now I come to the point of my post: Mother Fuck John Edwards, you $400.00 hair cut, working for the hedgefund that donates you the most and then saying "it's for research to see how it affects poor people, but the money's a plus" PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT. End poverty, HA. Fuck you hypocrite.

[Edgar]

Bourgeois democracy and elections are only the means through which the ruling class settles its internal disputes. The pre-election campaigns serve as auditions whereby the aspiring candidate does his or her best to reassure the ruling class that its interests won't be threatened. There is something else, though...

The ruling class wants a candidate that will look after its economic interests, yes, but they would also like a candidate who can win the trust and respect of the public, a candidate who can really play the part of a caring, compassionate person who understands the hardships of the common man, ect. This is where Obama comes in. For a large section of the white, liberal middle class, Obama is indeed an attractive figure. When he gets into office these middle class liberal types will pat themselves on the back and celebrate "how far we've come" by putting a black man in the White House. A large section of the black population in America will also fall victim to this example of identity politics, unfortunately.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:06 am
This is where Obama comes in. For a large section of the white, liberal middle class, Obama is indeed an attractive figure. When he gets into office these middle class liberal types will pat themselves on the back and celebrate "how far we've come" by putting a black man in the White House. A large section of the black population in America will also fall victim to this example of identity politics, unfortunately.
The liberal white-middle class like Obama because he can tell black people to stop having illegitimate babies, also they say they are amazed at how smart he is.
The white middle class liberals have a racist mentallity, but they aren't aware of it, if they didn't they wouldn't accentuate on the fact that hes part black.

Its like this whole concept of "diversity", yes people do have different ways of doing things, but to accentuate on it in order to capitalize on it results in racism. One of the ways they accentuate on diversity are charactures in advertizements, and throughout the media there are always discusions on nationality, race, gender, sex-- to the point that those who are engaged in the discussions are known for a few characteristics instead of their own personalities. Oprah for example is a black women who was poor as a child and lived in Mississippi, shes rich now, and has a talk show. Oprah is always talking about poor, black and women-- we know nothing else about her. She is a characture.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 13, 2007 05:09 pm
Oprah for example is a black women who was poor as a child and lived in Mississippi, shes rich now, and has a talk show. Oprah is always talking about poor, black and women-- we know nothing else about her. She is a characture.
Wow. Never thought of it like that.

Y'know, somebody should try to enlighten Oprah. Imagine if tomorrow the subject of Oprah was "Capitalism is Bad!". Half of the population, right then and there, would denounce capitalism, and fight against it. :P

She has somewhat of a personality cult going on. And back on subject, so does Barack Obama. My parents know basically nothing about him. My dad met him once. They know he's nice, and he's not Bush, and that's all that matters. But really, if he supports invading Iran, what's the fucking difference?!

[sexyguy]

QUOTE (la-troy @ May 11, 2007 10:14 pm)
To me American elections are just like elections in my country. There is no real difference between the candidates, no real differences in polices. We usually have the same parties winning cause the new generation just votes for which party their parents voted for.

One Question, is it still really democracy if there is no difference in the candidates?


And yet you quote a guy -- in your signature -- who was deposed by his own party for playing too nice with domestic and international bourgeois interests when he actually did attain power. (He betrayed his comrades in the New Jewel Movement and the people of Grenada by taking reactionary steps in order to appease Washington.)
Well spotted and correct point Cheung Mo

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Brekisonphilous+May 12, 2007 09:46 pm--> (Brekisonphilous @ May 12, 2007 09:46 pm)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 12, 2007 05:35 am

[email protected] 12, 2007 04:19 am
the two parties and candiates policies are only so similar because they reflect the mentality of the population.
Change their mentality and you change the canidates (or completely do away with them).
The two parties reflect the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Democratic elections are just to decide who manages the economy for the bourgeoisie. They are large-scale job interviews with the winning candidate doing the bidding of his/her real employers, the bourgeoisie.
You miss the bigger picture, it is still dependent on the mentality of the population.

If the people had the mindset that they would rather not allow a government or ruling class to rule their lives or decide things for them, or even govern them in a way other than what they desire, they would stop perpetuating the conditions and acquiescence for such a thing by not allowing the institutions that harness them to exist. [/b]
I think you are missing the bigger picture. It isn't dependent on the populations mentality at all. They do what they want and then they tell you what to think. Or if they don't tell you what to think then they make the rules in what circumstances you can think in. Something like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" can make it sound more logical than I can. There is even a movie version up on google video but listening to Chomsky talk in his monotone voice for that long isn't desirable unless you have a pillow and blanket close by.

[Pawn Power]

Here is an article him form 2004, so a bit out of date. Its from the Socialist Worker.

The Democratic Party’s new liberal star (http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/508/508_05_Obama.shtml)

[la-troy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:52 pm

QUOTE (la-troy @ May 11, 2007 10:14 pm)
To me American elections are just like elections in my country. There is no real difference between the candidates, no real differences in polices. We usually have the same parties winning cause the new generation just votes for which party their parents voted for.

One Question, is it still really democracy if there is no difference in the candidates?


And yet you quote a guy -- in your signature -- who was deposed by his own party for playing too nice with domestic and international bourgeois interests when he actually did attain power. (He betrayed his comrades in the New Jewel Movement and the people of Grenada by taking reactionary steps in order to appease Washington.)
Well spotted and correct point Cheung Mo
What good point?
Show me how Bishop was so reactionary?

where do you guys live? in a fanciful world where you can tell the US f off and don't expect everything to be fine and dandy. Coard was a ***** who was only seeking power for himself he effectively killed the revolution. I don't believe in "democratic socialism" but for a bunch of islands south of the US what do you expect? and don't bring up Cuba cause we all know that US helped him until he associated himself with the USSR. the USSR and Cuba gave him very limited help ( a frigging airport is not really that much is it) Bishop isn't perfect but he tried to find a way to bring about socialism. so f off if you don't know any thing about the guy

[sexyguy]

I have been trying to find old material that supports the case that Bishop was in a minority within the New Jewel Party at the time and was under ‘house arrest’ when he broke his conditions and launched a coup de'tar. The material I am looking for are the minutes of party meetings which were posted in the library among other places and were available for the whole population of the island to read. They show the that Bishop was a problem, as I remember it. The only stuff I can find so far is this:

"http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/grenadapamphlet/Chapter1.htm"
The US claimed that there was an ideological split within the leadership of the New Jewel Movement, that there was no real crisis within the party except ...
www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/grenadapamphlet/Chapter1.htm - 25k -

which comes intriguingly close to the understanding I have and is well worth a read. Obviously the State Department stuff you can find needs wading through at some point, but with more than a pinch of salt.

[la-troy]

Umm... you say you got this from the rev left dictionary right?

Firstly the notion that there was no dispute or ideological split in the New Jewel Movement is absurd. Also I have never heard of Bishop being surrounded by CIA agents, but if you have found this source to be accurate I will accept it. However the notion that Bishop , a man that believed passionately in the success of his people through Marxism, was putty in the hands of the US or a puppet for them makes no sense.

Lets examine the history of Revo. Bishop was part of a young professional group who were Marxist. Coard and his followers where from a different group that believed wholeheartedly in Marxist-Leninist taking this as meaning that they believed in keeping the power in the party. Bishop on the other hand always stated that he felt the power should be with the people so he implemented his form of true "democracy". these were two separate groups with only two things in common ; Marxism and a hatred for the dictatorship of Gairy. They came together in order to oust the dictatorship. the form the new jewel movement a joining of the jewel movement and the MAP.

After the ousting of Gairy (who had left the island to give a speech about UFOs :D)they established Peoples revolutionary Government. bishop was chosen as the prime minister of the government and Coard as his deputy. here lies the first flaw in that document, the document stated that Bishop and Coard where about to start sharing power, this is impossibly as they were already sharing power, from information read and simply common sense Bishop was merely the representative head of the group from all reports he was more charismatic than Coard and had a overall better image and had a better relationship with the people than Coard and would have made a better representative of the movement.

In the later part of the revolution Coard feared Bishop was leaning towards democratic socialism. and I agree bishop was relying on charisma too much. Coard
had the backing of the army and a large portion of the committee. Bishop along with some of his supporters were placed under house arrest . He was broken out of house arrest by the people of Grenada. they marched to fort wahtever and Bishop was shot along with some of the demonstrators.

The article blames the deterioration of the revolution on bad administration by Bishop. this is pure historical simplism. even if you discard the fact that Bishop and coard were practically sharing power it still is stupid. This article takes into no consideration that Grenada was isolated from the rest of the Caribbean and with only limited support from other Marxist nation. It does not mention the huge leaps in social benefits for the people of Grenada it does not show the growth in economy shown by Grenada despite the odds.

The article does not even give me any reason to say Bishop was a reactionary bastard and betrayed his people. But your right it does need reading with a grain a salt and a once of common sense to sort out the rubbish in it. lets say that Bishop was being controlled or influenced by the CIA does this not make him gullible and a idiot and maybe a reactionary but he did not stop social gain did he in fact Coard did more to stop social progress and harm the revo. he destroyed the most trusted figure in the island and threw the revolution into disrepute.

So i am still waiting on you and cheng mo to tell me how he was so reactionary i should not quote him or even how my post had anything to do with reactionaries.

[sexyguy]

Ok, Get back to you soon as possible.

[sexyguy]

Umm... you say you got this from the rev left dictionary right?

No I didn’t say anything of the sort. Where am I supposed to have said that?
What I did was to ‘Google Search’ and this is what came up:
"http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/grenadapamphlet/Chapter1.htm"
If you can’t get it, try this:

‘Committee for Human Rights Grenada’ and you should get the same pamphlet that I did.

I suggest we deal with this before going further. Ok?

[la-troy]

sorry my bad I'll try to get it.

[sexyguy]

No sweat mate.

[la-troy]

You should not place so much fate into these articles. he has not attempted to give any link to exerts from the committee minutes and is obviously prejudice.

He tells the story from one point of view it is quite clearly a persuasive essay and makes no attempt to give pure facts or gives any information relating to Bishops reasons. the rumor idea is flawed, why would Bishop organize a campaign to spread rumors when majority of the council was against him and he knew that they were.

I stand my ground Bishop is not reactionary. he is flawed but so is Trotsky Stalin Lenin Castro and countless others including all humans.

[sexyguy]

You should not place so much fate into these articles. he has not attempted to give any link to exerts from the committee minutes and is obviously prejudice.

He tells the story from one point of view it is quite clearly a persuasive essay and makes no attempt to give pure facts or gives any information relating to Bishops reasons. the rumor idea is flawed, why would Bishop organize a campaign to spread rumors when majority of the council was against him and he knew that they were.

I stand my ground Bishop is not reactionary. he is flawed but so is Trotsky Stalin Lenin Castro and countless others including all humans.

I said:

“The only stuff I can find so far is this: ... which comes intriguingly close to the understanding I have...” I didn’t say it was accurate, complete, or authoritative in any way. I said it was “worth a read.” Ok?

Now, there is obviously a communication problem here.
Either:
1) I’m not making myself clear
2) You are misreading my posts, or
3) You are intentionally misrepresenting what I say. Which is it?

We are stuck because we don’t have to hand the original source material and the 'winners' are writing the history. See what you can do with this and get back to me if you want to.

THE GRENADA DOCUMENTS COLLECTION

INTRODUCTION
The Grenada Documents Collection contains copies of some of the documents which were captured on Grenada by the United States Defense Department when the U. S., at the urging of many of the smaller Caribbean nations, joined a rescue mission to end the rule of the Revolutionary Military Council which had taken control of the country when Maurice Bishop, formerly head of the PRG (People's Revolutionary Government), was assassinated along with many of the people at Fort Rupert in October, 1983, as a result of internal factions and power plays in the NJM (New JEWEL Movement) and PRG. The Documents "provide insight into the extensive nature of the nation's bond with Cuba, the Soviet Union...and the growing dissatisfaction of the Grenadian people with its government." [Document Exploitation Interim Report No. 1, 1 Nov 1983]
The copies contained in this collection were given to the Special Collections Division by Gregory Sandford, a State Department diplomat and co-author (with Richard Vigilante) of Grenada: The Untold Story, a fascinating examination of the formation of the New JEWEL Movement, its takeover of power from the Gairy government and the formation of the PRG, its policies, and eventual downfall. Sandford collected this material while researching and writing his book. The collection is arranged in five series : NJM Party Documents Series, NJM Subject Series, International Relations Series, Manuscripts Series, and Gregory Sandford Series.
The NJM Party Documents Series contains copies of material referring to the formation of NJM and the takeover of Gairy's government, as well as minutes of Central Committee, Political Bureau, Economic Bureau, Organizing Committee, and Workers Committee meetings and related correspondence, resolutions, and agreements. This series, the largest in the collection, comprises 93 folders in Boxes 1 and 2 and is arranged chronologically. Copies of letters by Teddy Victor, former head of JEWEL (Joint Endeavour for Welfare, Education, and Liberation), explain how MAP (Movement for Assemblies of the People), with Maurice Bishop and other PRG members at its head, merged with and then took over JEWEL to form the New JEWEL Movement. This series also contains information on NJM's assumption of power, including the "People's Laws", and general party structure. The most fascinating part of this series are the minutes of meetings which "portray an ideological movement divorced from reality and in the process of disintegration." [Grenada: The Weapons and Documents by Nestor D. Sanchez, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Inter-American Affairs] The minutes show the internal state of the party and its struggles to force Marxist-Leninism on a people who clearly were uninterested in it. They refer to internal party disputes, trips made to various countries to request financial assistance or further international relations, and the NJM's plans for and problems with the economy, education, propaganda, and the "mood of the masses."
Some of the most illuminating minutes are those for the last Central Committee meetings in the last days of the PRG's rule in October, 1983. These minutes, notes, and reports give a particularly enlightening account of the deaths at Fort Rupert and takeover of the country by the Revolutionary Military Council.
The second series, NJM Subject Series, comprises 35 folders and contains copies of reports, correspondence, and agreements relating to specific areas such as agriculture, detainees, the economy, and unions. Material in this series often refers to the NJM's specific policies or actions in these areas. This series provides a concise but illuminating look at specific subjects which may be of interest to researchers. The material on health, for example, presents startling contrasts between the official PRG reports of health care and progress in Grenada and copies of TLS by a foreign doctor and Phyllis Coard, a Central Committee member, who descry the situation in the General Hospital, "where services are crumbling, where we have an unnecessary death every week." [Copy of TLS by Dr. Beverly-Mae Fitch Pole, June 28, 1982] The NJM Subject Series is arranged alphabetically.
The International Relations Series comprises 37 folders and contains material referring to the NJM/PRG's relations with foreign groups and countries. It is arranged according to General Policies, Groups/ Organizations (such as Socialist International) and Individual Countries. Groups/Organizations and Individual Countries are arranged alphabetically. Of particular interest in the Groups/Organizations section is the correspondence and related material in the Socialist International, Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Workers Party of Jamaica folders which show the NJM's, and especially Bishop's, attempts to form friendships with revolutionary as well as simply socialist organizations. In the Individual Countries section, material relating to Cuba, the GDR (German Democratic Republic),the United Soviet Socialist Republic, and the United States of America is particularly revealing.
The Manuscripts/Notes Series comprises 10 folders and contains copies of portions of Bishop's Diary for 1979-1980, 1982, and 1983. It also contains his Notes regarding the Central Committee's Marx-Lenin Study Group. Copies of E. J. "Headache" Layne's Notebook for 1982 - 1983 can also be found in this series. Layne was one of the Central Committee members who supported Bernard Coard and opposed Maurice Bishop.
The final series, dubbed "The Gregory Sandford Series," contains some material which Sandford collected when writing Grenada: The Untold Story which was not part of the captured documents. This series comprises 12 folders and 12 audiotapes and contains some particularly fascinating items such as the audiotapes of Sandford's inteviews with many former PRG detainees or oppostion leaders, for example, Herbert Blaize, Teddy Victor, and Wynston Whyte. He also taped interviews with some former PRG members such as George Louison or Michael "Chicken" Roberts. The series also includes photos of Maurice Bishop, Bernard Coard, and the People's Revolutionary Army as well as indexes, reports, notes, and clippings. For those interested in a brief overview of the events in Grenada or our capture of the documents, this series would be the best place to begin. Reports and a list of the chronology of events provide a short summary of events in Grenada. Lists of references give the researcher a large range of books and articles about Grenada. Sandford's notes provide a short subject listing with the dates of meetings when items were discussed as well as a list of names with short identifications. The series also includes some of the Document Exploitation Interim Reports which provide information on and numbers of the documents. [Please Note: Not all the Documents described in these reports are contained in this collection.] The material in this series as well as the material in the rest of the collection represents Gregory Sandford's painstaking attempts to bring the truth of Grenada's tragic situation during the PRG's rule to light.
*******************************
Extent: 5.0 linear feet
Provenance: Gift of Gregory Sandford, July, 1988
Date Span: 1979 - 1984
Processed by: Deborah A. Marrone
Date: August 12, 1988



ABBREVIATIONS
NJM .......................... New JEWEL Movement
PRG........................... People's Revolutionary Government
PRA .......................... People's Revolutionary Army
MAP .......................... Movement for Assemblies of the People
JEWEL ........................ Joint Endeavour for Education, & Liberation
CC ........................... Central Committee
PB ........................... Political Bureau
NWO .......................... National Women's Organization
NYO .......................... National Youth Organization
ALS .......................... Autograph Letter, signed by the author
AL .......................... Autograph Letter, unsigned
D(s) ......................... Document(s)

I found this from ‘Time’
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...52239-1,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952239-1,00.html)


Minutes of other meetings held from Sept. 14 to Sept. 16 showed a party worried about its tenuous hold on Grenadian popular support. "The mood of the masses is characterized at worst by open dissatisfaction and cynicism," said the document, "and at best by serious demoralization." During a meeting on Sept. 28, one participant referred to "the crisis in the party, the atmosphere of confusion." On Oct. 12, the language was heavy with suspicion and paranoia. "There seems to be a mood in the party for blood," one leader is quoted as saying. It was at this session that the Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard and the Central Committee decided to remove Bishop. He was placed under house arrest the next day and executed six days later.
Additional documents were shown to TIME by Soldier of Fortune, a Boulder, Colo., monthly magazine that specializes in military weapons and tactics; it said the papers had been overlooked by U.S. forces. The documents indicate that Grenada also had military agreements with Viet Nam, Nicaragua and at least one Soviet-bloc country. A top-secret paper dated May 18, 1982, records a shipment of ammunition and explosives that arrived from Czechoslovakia via Cuba. One document, signed last November by Nicaragua's Vice Minister of Defense, provides for the establishment of a course in Grenada to teach English-language military terminology to members of the Nicaraguan army.
Despite the steady stream of equipment deliveries, Grenada appeared to lack military readiness. In particular, the government seemed plagued by a shortage of spare parts for army vehicles. Bishop sent a letter to Cuba's Defense Minister General Raul Castro, Fidel's brother, stating that the dearth of Soviet spare parts had rendered 23 out of 27 trucks and eight out of ten jeeps completely immobile. Bishop also complained that the Soviets had shipped to Grenada thousands of combat boots that were too small for the island's troops.
One top-secret Grenadian report, dated April 6, 1983, warned that the CIA was masterminding a counterrevolution out of Trinidad. "The enemy," it says, "is at an advanced stage of preparation, and the main force will be Cuban exiles and mercenaries." The report also singles out one American student on the island for suspicion. "He lives just below the Soviet embassy," it says, "and seems to pay more than casual attention to all activities of the embassy."
Among the more revealing pieces of correspondence obtained by TIME is a letter from Cuban President Fidel Castro to the New Jewel Movement's Central Committee. Dated Oct. 15, two days after Bishop had been placed under house arrest, the letter appears to be an attempt to save Bishop. "Everything that happened was for us a surprise," wrote Castro. "Even explaining the events to our people will not be easy." With haunting prescience, he predicts that Bishop's overthrow will bring disaster to Grenada. Wrote Castro: "In my opinion, the divisions and problems that have emerged will result in considerable damage to the image of the Grenadian revolution, as much within as outside the country." —By Susan Tifft. Reported by
Johanna McGeary/Washington and Christopher Redman/Boulder
With reporting by Johanna McGeary, Christopher Redman

[la-troy]

Ok I guess it is clear I do not understand your stance on the subject. Probably you should take the time out to explain it.

Either way it seems pointless. The information related to the events that occurred during the invasion and before it is hard to find. I have used information about the revolution in its early stages, hints given by Cuba, economical reports, current sentiments in Grenada and also my knowledge of Caribbean affairs to develop my view on Bishop and the jewel movement. The information you have presented does not seem to refute it greatly so my views remain unchanged.

cheung mo's post on the topic (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66391&hl=)

[sexyguy]

Thanks for the quick response and for showing me that link
to Chung Mo’s post and the responses. I now have a better idea about the heat that has been generated.

My memory of events are just that, only memories. As yet, I still can’t contact the person who has some sources that came directly from the events on the ground in Grenada at the time.

My understanding is that there was a deep political struggle going on in the NJM and that it was in fact the Bishop lead ‘faction’ that was pursuing a more dangerous ‘peaceful coexistence’ diplomatic line encouraged by Moscow and Havana and that it was Coard who had a better grasp generally of the dangers in this. I think he was right that Washington did not want another Cuba on their doorstep (no matter how ‘passive’) to inspire descent throughout the Caribbean and South America. Did revisionist ‘peaceful coexistence’ Moscow and Havana clumsily end up sacrificing a Coard led revolutionary Grenada? Sadly, I think they did. And I think Bishop allowed himself to be a pawn in all this, and on the wrong side.

Without proof this is speculation and all the more reason not to say “Either way it seems pointless.” As for the events in detail, please allow me time to gather the sources I know exist. But they are not the way Militant tells it, that’s for sure.

I think the facts are also contained in the State Department records and THE GRENADA DOCUMENTS COLLECTION, but I can’t (don’t know how to) access them. If there are any academics, or any ’insiders’ who can help here, it would be a huge contribution to the development of worker revolutionary understanding if they posted them here.

I think the propaganda from both ‘right’ (State Department etc) and ‘left’ (Militant) is a shower of reactionary shit.

To have any ‘credibility‘, everyone, including Cheung Mo, should get to work on this. It is very important in relation to how burgeoning anti-imperialist revolutions might develop in the 'region', now!