He was willing to kill 90 million workers

[Karl Marx's Camel]

During the Cuban missile crisis, apparently Fidel recommended to Kruschev that if Cuba was invaded the nuclear missiles should be fired on the U.S. Robert Strange McNamara who met Fidel some years ago say Fidel revealed that Cuba actually had 161 missiles (much more than the U.S. had estimated) on the island.

And Fidel apparently said that he was willing to launch the missiles against the U.S. knowing that this would result in Cuba would wanish, that every Cuban on the island would die.

So here is a guy who was willing to kill 90 million workers, in addition to those 6 million (?) or so he claimed to represent.

Didn't Che propose similar action in the event of an invasion, btw?

[Hiero]

Well I heard that Fidel actually tried to turn thoose misiles into hospitals.

BTW don't ask me for sources because I am just some hack kid on the interenet who believes any shit.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:22 pm
Well I heard that Fidel actually tried to turn thoose misiles into hospitals.

BTW don't ask me for sources because I am just some hack kid on the interenet who believes any shit.
I'd feel uncomfortable having my knee operation in a scud missle.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Wikipedia
In a personal letter to Khrushchev dated October 27, 1962, Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States if Cuba were invaded, but Khrushchev rejected any first strike response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_castro#..._Missile_Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_castro#Cuban_Missile_Crisis)

Thats all I could find on the subject.

[manic expression]

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. The Cuban workers were unwilling to bow to imperialist oppression yet again, they knew the humiliation of capitalist exploitation during Batista. The Cuban stand against capitalist imperialism should be applauded by leftists; it is ridiculous that some leftists should revile this defiance.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 03:52 pm
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. The Cuban workers were unwilling to bow to imperialist oppression yet again, they knew the humiliation of capitalist exploitation during Batista. The Cuban stand against capitalist imperialism should be applauded by leftists; it is ridiculous that some leftists should revile this defiance.
Cuba was merely one arm of capitalist imperialism at this point - that of the USSR.


The Cuban stand against capitalist imperialism should be applauded by leftists; it is ridiculous that some leftists should revile this defiance.

Well leftists usually take sides in imperialist conflicts and ignore any class content but reviling the idea of a nuclear holocaust is at least start.

[Red Rebel]

Fidel himself said, "The Revolution isn't a bed of roses." What would you have wanted him to say? Let the USA lead an unopposed counter-revolution?


Originally posted by "catch"
Cuba was merely one arm of capitalist imperialism at this point - that of the USSR.

:lol:
1960 USA begins to break positive relations with Cuba
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

In 2 years the 3vil USSR turned Cuba into a slave colony. :lol: Also another question for your logic, what happens when the body dies yet the arm still lives?

[Philosophical Materialist]

It was a way of protecting Cuba from US invasion. The Cuban state was at stake, no matter the imperfections of the Castro model of government it was much better than what came before 1960. For Castro, if knowing that the USSR would see US aggression against Cuba as a nuclear issue, it would give him a certain amount of security. If the USA was certain that the USSR would respond in this way, it is less likely the USA would consider overthrowing the Cuban state.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 06, 2007 12:29 am--> (William Everard @ October 06, 2007 12:29 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 12:22 pm
Well I heard that Fidel actually tried to turn thoose misiles into hospitals.

BTW don't ask me for sources because I am just some hack kid on the interenet who believes any shit.
I'd feel uncomfortable having my knee operation in a scud missle. [/b]
Might work.

I agree with Philosophical Materialist and others in this thread. The politics of nuclear missiles is one of fear, check and balances. It is a unique method of security, you use fear of mass murder to scare your enemies out of hostile attacks. It is a very effective method, it worked in this situation and in the case of the DPRK just recently.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 06, 2007 01:00 am
Also another question for your logic, what happens when the body dies yet the arm still lives?
Good point comrade!!!!!!

Also I always believed that Fidel must have kept a missle somewhere in Cuba "just in case".

I know officially you'd never find out but I always had that feeling that he kept one of them hidden VERY well and still has one today (probably top state secret) "just in case" shit goes down.

I'm not saying that he's got it 100% but I just think that maybe he's still got one........if so....good.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by bootleg42+October 06, 2007 09:00 am--> (bootleg42 @ October 06, 2007 09:00 am)
Red [email protected] 06, 2007 01:00 am
Also another question for your logic, what happens when the body dies yet the arm still lives?
Good point comrade!!!!!!

Also I always believed that Fidel must have kept a missle somewhere in Cuba "just in case".

I know officially you'd never find out but I always had that feeling that he kept one of them hidden VERY well and still has one today (probably top state secret) "just in case" shit goes down.

I'm not saying that he's got it 100% but I just think that maybe he's still got one........if so....good. [/b]
I think you watch too much TV.

[gilhyle]

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Most people decide the opposite when it comes down to it...he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 10:52 am
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. The Cuban workers were unwilling to bow to imperialist oppression yet again, they knew the humiliation of capitalist exploitation during Batista. The Cuban stand against capitalist imperialism should be applauded by leftists; it is ridiculous that some leftists should revile this defiance.
It wasn't a cuban stand against capitalist imperialism, it was a stand by Fidel Castro against US encroachment on his country. The difference is quite vast.

[Wanted Man]

This thread puts an interesting perspective on some comrades here. We've got the artist formerly known as NWOG, who as usual doesn't care to provide a source (I did like Hiero's post). Then there's catch with the loony ICC "every country is imperialist" point of view, bootleg who plays too many video games, and manic expression and gillhyle throwing hollow phrases at each other. Oh, and Skinz, you didn't really "find" anything, you just looked it up on the Wiki. The passage you cited has a footnote which links to a letter from Krushchev to Castro which explains the former's position. Don't be so lazy.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Source: The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara

The documentary can be seen here (http://tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/4754).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 05, 2007 03:52 pm
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. The Cuban workers were unwilling to bow to imperialist oppression yet again, they knew the humiliation of capitalist exploitation during Batista. The Cuban stand against capitalist imperialism should be applauded by leftists; it is ridiculous that some leftists should revile this defiance.
It is worrying that there are some people here who think like this.


Apparently workers are nothing more than green, plastic soldiers.

[Comrade Rage]

Yeah, who wouldn't rather live under oppressive occupation? :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 08:59 pm
Yeah, who wouldn't rather live under oppressive occupation? :rolleyes:
Yeah, he surely knows the desires of the cuban workers--he knows they prefer to be incinerated by nukes than to live under exploitation! :lol:

I am not saying that Castro was willing to kill "90 millions" nor that his strategy was wrong, but affirming that workers prefer to die than to live under capitalism is pretty asinine.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Dick [email protected] 06, 2007 04:44 pm
This thread puts an interesting perspective on some comrades here. We've got the artist formerly known as NWOG, who as usual doesn't care to provide a source (I did like Hiero's post). Then there's catch with the loony ICC "every country is imperialist" point of view, bootleg who plays too many video games, and manic expression and gillhyle throwing hollow phrases at each other. Oh, and Skinz, you didn't really "find" anything, you just looked it up on the Wiki. The passage you cited has a footnote which links to a letter from Krushchev to Castro which explains the former's position. Don't be so lazy.
You left yourself out of that list :D

[UndergroundConnexion]

where do you get the 90 million number from... cuba has a population of 12 million.
and i think this is more bluff from fidel, to show both kruchev and usa he could be loco, a bit like kim jong il does all the time. but im sure fidel didnt want to sacrifice his people

[RNK]

Consider when this was taking place -- the height of US aggression worldwide. In the grand picture, nuclear confrontation with the US was probably the only thing that could've stopped what has occured. Nuclear holocaust is an ugly thing, but what are we going to do? Let the United States rule the world at gunpoint, or take a chance to strike them down?

[dez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:33 pm
Consider when this was taking place -- the height of US aggression worldwide. In the grand picture, nuclear confrontation with the US was probably the only thing that could've stopped what has occured. Nuclear holocaust is an ugly thing, but what are we going to do? Let the United States rule the world at gunpoint, or take a chance to strike them down?
I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Us played an extremely aggressive external policy, and crushed progressive movements all over the world.
If the left had fought harder, even if it meant to be willing to sacrifice 90 million people, things would have been different today.

[KC]

This is a completely fabricated statement. We had a discussion on this a LONG time ago. Interestingly enough, in that version of events it was Che that wanted to launch the nukes and Fidel refusing. :lol:

[catch]

Originally posted by Red Rebel+October 06, 2007 01:00 am--> (Red Rebel @ October 06, 2007 01:00 am) Fidel himself said, "The Revolution isn't a bed of roses." What would you have wanted him to say? Let the USA lead an unopposed counter-revolution?


"catch"
Cuba was merely one arm of capitalist imperialism at this point - that of the USSR.

:lol:
1960 USA begins to break positive relations with Cuba
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

In 2 years the 3vil USSR turned Cuba into a slave colony. :lol: Also another question for your logic, what happens when the body dies yet the arm still lives? [/b]
Did Cuba have formal political ties with the USSR or not?

Who's missiles were they?

[catch]

Originally posted by Dick [email protected] 06, 2007 04:44 pm
Then there's catch with the loony ICC "every country is imperialist" point of view,
I have absolutely nothing to do with the ICC. Please explain how Cuba becoming a Soviet missile base has nothing to do with the imperialism of the USSR.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:33 pm
Consider when this was taking place -- the height of US aggression worldwide. In the grand picture, nuclear confrontation with the US was probably the only thing that could've stopped what has occured. Nuclear holocaust is an ugly thing, but what are we going to do? Let the United States rule the world at gunpoint, or take a chance to strike them down?
So incinerating american workers for the crimes of the bourgeosie is now a communist position!

To your type, workers are nothing more than plastic toy soldiers that can be disposed for an ideology.

[El Presidente]

I did a dissertation on this not long ago so I hope this information is accurate. From what I have read, since Khrushchev came to power Fidel and the Cuban leadership sought to formalise the Soviet defense commitment (as seemingly made clear by the Soviet diplomatic interventio during the Bay of Pigs invasion) in the form of an actual treaty. For years (at least the few leading up to the Missile Crisis) Khrushchev humoured the Cubans about such a treaty as they got more persistent. Fidel and particularly Che were unsure at how much the Soviets were really committed to Cuba's defense.

The idea to put the missiles on Cuba WAS a Soviet one. Khrushchev was said to get the idea while looking out from his dacha overlooking Turkey where through binoculars he could see US Jupiter Missiles stationed there. After meeting with JFK in Vienna in 1961 and being confident at his ability to coerce him he became less afraid of the US leadership. The incident with Gary Powers, the U2 spy plane pilot being captured by the Soviets also increased his confidence at confronting the west. Also not having secured any concessions he sought on Berlin made him more bitter to the West.

So with his axe to grind for various reasons Khrushchev introduced the idea of missiles to the Cubans with the promise of formally announcing the defense treaty after their deployment. Fidel asked what would happen if the US spot the missiles, whether they would react badly. Khrushchev gleefully dismissed his worries saying they had the US "by the balls".

The Cubans were seemingly reassured until the said incident.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:10 pm
Cuba was merely one arm of capitalist imperialism at this point - that of the USSR.
Try to substantiate that claim, catch. Oh, wait...you won't, because you can't, it's delusional on its face.


Well leftists usually take sides in imperialist conflicts and ignore any class content but reviling the idea of a nuclear holocaust is at least start.

I see that you revile the idea of defending a socialist revolution, which shows us where your ultra-leftist puritanism actually stands.

On edit: Marmot

So incinerating american workers for the crimes of the bourgeosie is now a communist position!

To your type, workers are nothing more than plastic toy soldiers that can be disposed for an ideology.

You know that's complete crap, Marmot. Under your logic, it's wrong for revolutionaries to fire on capitalist troops, because after all, they're probably from working class backgrounds! When a socialist country is attacked by an imperialist country, it must defend itself by any means necessary. I suggest you reconsider your unwillingness to support a socialist country in its struggle against imperialism.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:41 pm
I have absolutely nothing to do with the ICC. Please explain how Cuba becoming a Soviet missile base has nothing to do with the imperialism of the USSR.
That wasn't the point, catch; the point was that you're parroting insipid ICC VIEWPOINTS that have no basis in fact, which is patently true.

And no, the burden of proof is on you: you need to show us how the USSR constituted an imperialist force (which you won't be able to do, because it's an insane statement).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 07:49 pm


You know that's complete crap, Marmot. Under your logic, it's wrong for revolutionaries to fire on capitalist troops, because after all, they're probably from working class backgrounds! When a socialist country is attacked by an imperialist country, it must defend itself by any means necessary. I suggest you reconsider your unwillingness to support a socialist country in its struggle against imperialism.
There is a difference between shooting at soldiers, and between shooting at civilians.

I think most people, even in the right, would understand this.

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:33 am
Consider when this was taking place -- the height of US aggression worldwide. In the grand picture, nuclear confrontation with the US was probably the only thing that could've stopped what has occured. Nuclear holocaust is an ugly thing, but what are we going to do? Let the United States rule the world at gunpoint, or take a chance to strike them down?
comrade you speak the truth, if only more people spoke like this :ph34r:

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Marmot+October 08, 2007 09:10 pm--> (Marmot @ October 08, 2007 09:10 pm)
manic [email protected] 08, 2007 07:49 pm


You know that's complete crap, Marmot. Under your logic, it's wrong for revolutionaries to fire on capitalist troops, because after all, they're probably from working class backgrounds! When a socialist country is attacked by an imperialist country, it must defend itself by any means necessary. I suggest you reconsider your unwillingness to support a socialist country in its struggle against imperialism.
There is a difference between shooting at soldiers, and between shooting at civilians.

I think most people, even in the right, would understand this. [/b]
And then there is defending a socialist revolution and its gains with available means. Why do you oppose this?

[catch]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 08, 2007 07:49 pm--> (manic expression @ October 08, 2007 07:49 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 06:10 pm
Cuba was merely one arm of capitalist imperialism at this point - that of the USSR.
Try to substantiate that claim, catch. Oh, wait...you won't, because you can't, it's delusional on its face.


Well leftists usually take sides in imperialist conflicts and ignore any class content but reviling the idea of a nuclear holocaust is at least start.

[/b]
You'll need to deal with the fact that the missiles belonged to the USSR as detailed in the post preceding yours, rather than insult me, or you're just going to make yourself look stupid.



I see that you revile the idea of defending a socialist revolution, which shows us where your ultra-leftist puritanism actually stands.
Long before the missile crisis any communist content in the Cuban revolution was long gone - crushed by Castro and Guevara.



Under your logic, it's wrong for revolutionaries to fire on capitalist troops, because after all, they're probably from working class backgrounds! When a socialist country is attacked by an imperialist country, it must defend itself by any means necessary.
You can't have socialism in one country. And the some of the highest risks have been taken by workers fraternising with troops during revolutionary (and sometimes not) situations to encourage desertion/mutiny etc.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 08, 2007 07:52 pm--> (manic expression @ October 08, 2007 07:52 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 07:41 pm
I have absolutely nothing to do with the ICC. Please explain how Cuba becoming a Soviet missile base has nothing to do with the imperialism of the USSR.
That wasn't the point, catch; the point was that you're parroting insipid ICC VIEWPOINTS that have no basis in fact, which is patently true.

And no, the burden of proof is on you: you need to show us how the USSR constituted an imperialist force (which you won't be able to do, because it's an insane statement). [/b]
You'll need to show how the USSR wasn't imperialist in Korea, Poland '56 or Hungary '56 during that period.

Of course we could add Vietnam, Afghanistan to that list, but I'll stick to the late '40s and '50s - i.e. the period immediately under discussion.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:49 pm
You'll need to deal with the fact that the missiles belonged to the USSR as detailed in the post preceding yours, rather than insult me, or you're just going to make yourself look stupid.
Good one...too bad your logic is completely wrong, again. We all know the USSR had the missiles, that's why they were SHIPPING THEM TO CUBA. Cuba wanted nuclear missiles to defend against imperialist aggression, and so they were happy to allow the USSR to put nuclear missiles in case of an imperialist attack. That the USSR had the missiles and knew how to use them (and set them up, and maintain them; something that isn't easy to do) proves nothing about imperialism. Unfortunately for you, catch, ignorant slander doesn't count as a real argument.


Long before the missile crisis any communist content in the Cuban revolution was long gone - crushed by Castro and Guevara.

And again, I point the lack of a substantive argument. Your slander is unfounded and flies in the face of history. The revolution established the dictatorship of the proletariat, and even today the socialist property relations of Cuba serve as evidence of this fact. The revolution took property from the capitalists and put them in the hands of the workers. Again, your slander will never constitute an effective argument.


You can't have socialism in one country. And the some of the highest risks have been taken by workers fraternising with troops during revolutionary (and sometimes not) situations to encourage desertion/mutiny etc.

Yes, it is possible, although it is under very difficult conditions. And on your point of "mutiny", what are you talking about? Clarify your point. The Cuban workers themselves are collectively armed, and are annually deployed in military excercises (on the anniversary of the imperialist invasion), so don't give me any garbage about Cubans not have access to weapons.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:58 pm
You'll need to show how the USSR wasn't imperialist in Korea, Poland '56 or Hungary '56 during that period.

Of course we could add Vietnam, Afghanistan to that list, but I'll stick to the late '40s and '50s - i.e. the period immediately under discussion.
Since you couldn't comprehend my point, I'll say it again: YOU have to prove how the USSR was imperialist. We can't prove a negative; YOU have to make the initial argument here, or else there is no argument.

Do you understand that this is how arguments are supposed to work?

[catch]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 12:02 am

Good one...too bad your logic is completely wrong, again. We all know the USSR had the missiles, that's why they were SHIPPING THEM TO CUBA. Cuba wanted nuclear missiles to defend against imperialist aggression, and so they were happy to allow the USSR to put nuclear missiles in case of an imperialist attack. That the USSR had the missiles and knew how to use them (and set them up, and maintain them; something that isn't easy to do) proves nothing about imperialism. Unfortunately for you, catch, ignorant slander doesn't count as a real argument.

"Socialism" means very little, actually usually it means state capitalist, but I doubt that's your intention.

If you think the USSR and Cuba were anything but state capitalist by the late '50s, and that Cuba remains 'socialist, there's little point in trying to persuade you otherwise since it's very, very far removed from reality. I'll deal with your other points though.


Yes, it is possible, although it is under very difficult conditions.
No, it's not possible, as has been shown by all attempts at revolution in history. The only way you can think it's possible is if you have a conception of socialism that's got nothing to do with the abolition of capitalist social relations, socialism in name only.



And on your point of "mutiny", what are you talking about? Clarify your point.
In many revolutionary upheavals there have been mutinies by the armed forces, in some cases these have been the result of fraternisation by workers with invading troops. Hungary '56 is a good an example as any. Even in Spain where this happened the least, a small number of Italian troops disarmed and went over to the other side.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 09, 2007 12:05 am--> (manic expression @ October 09, 2007 12:05 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 11:58 pm
You'll need to show how the USSR wasn't imperialist in Korea, Poland '56 or Hungary '56 during that period.

Of course we could add Vietnam, Afghanistan to that list, but I'll stick to the late '40s and '50s - i.e. the period immediately under discussion.
Since you couldn't comprehend my point, I'll say it again: YOU have to prove how the USSR was imperialist. We can't prove a negative; YOU have to make the initial argument here, or else there is no argument.

Do you understand that this is how arguments are supposed to work? [/b]
The USSR invaded Hungary, with tanks, in 1956, to put down a working class insurrection. It also invaded North Korea at the end of the Second World War after carving it up with the Allies at Potsdam. I assumed you were aware of this, perhaps you weren't, if that's the case I'm sorry to have made assumptions.

Both of these are clearly imperialist actions to anyone with the faintest understanding of communist politics.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:14 am
"Socialism" means very little, actually usually it means state capitalist, but I doubt that's your intention.

If you think the USSR and Cuba were anything but state capitalist by the late '50s, and that Cuba remains 'socialist, there's little point in trying to persuade you otherwise since it's very, very far removed from reality. I'll deal with your other points though.
"Socialism" means very little to people too blind to recognize it when they see it. If you actually looked at the property relations of Cuba, you'd see that it is socialist. However, you refuse to look at the facts and insist on your debunked and pathetically unclear theories.

I'm looking at the property relations of Cuba, you keep bringing up the completely unbased and delusional claim of "state capitalism", the last refuge of the ultra-leftist. catch, I'm still waiting for a definition (it's been about a week), and although I haven't gotten one yet, you persist in throwing this absurd term around like it proves anything. You can't even tell any of us what "state capitalism" means, much less show how Cuba or any other society constituted such a system. When you find an argument that holds up to the slightest bit of criticism, let me know.


No, it's not possible, as has been shown by all attempts at revolution in history. The only way you can think it's possible is if you have a conception of socialism that's got nothing to do with the abolition of capitalist social relations, socialism in name only.

And Cuba has capitalist social relations? Tell me, catch, which individuals own the stocks and bonds of Cuba? Who privately employs workers? Who privately owns the means of production?

You won't be able to answer those questions or amount an argument, much less provide a real definition of Cuba that isn't completely insipid. catch, you're a socialist in name only.


In many revolutionary upheavals there have been mutinies by the armed forces, in some cases these have been the result of fraternisation by workers with invading troops. Hungary '56 is a good an example as any. Even in Spain where this happened the least, a small number of Italian troops disarmed and went over to the other side.

And so you're claiming that which invading force fraternised with Cuban workers? Be clear and concrete in your point.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 12:21 am
The USSR invaded Hungary, with tanks, in 1956, to put down a working class insurrection. It also invaded North Korea at the end of the Second World War after carving it up with the Allies at Potsdam. I assumed you were aware of this, perhaps you weren't, if that's the case I'm sorry to have made assumptions.

Both of these are clearly imperialist actions to anyone with the faintest understanding of communist politics.
So you're saying that a country with socialist property relations can be imperialist? That is presently your argument.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 08, 2007 10:36 pm--> (manic expression @ October 08, 2007 10:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:10 pm

manic [email protected] 08, 2007 07:49 pm


You know that's complete crap, Marmot. Under your logic, it's wrong for revolutionaries to fire on capitalist troops, because after all, they're probably from working class backgrounds! When a socialist country is attacked by an imperialist country, it must defend itself by any means necessary. I suggest you reconsider your unwillingness to support a socialist country in its struggle against imperialism.
There is a difference between shooting at soldiers, and between shooting at civilians.

I think most people, even in the right, would understand this.
And then there is defending a socialist revolution and its gains with available means. Why do you oppose this? [/b]
:lol:

Thanks, but I want nothing to do with "socialists" that are willing to promote the mass murder of innocent civilians because of their borderline nationalistic mentality.

I am an internationalist.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:05 am
:lol:

Thanks, but I want nothing to do with "socialists" that are willing to promote the mass murder of innocent civilians because of their borderline nationalistic mentality.

I am an internationalist.
An "internationalist" who belittles the struggle against imperialist aggression? An "internationalist" who wants to open the gates of a socialist society to the bourgeoisie? Right. I'll stick with defending socialism, you can treasure your "internationalism" while you ignore capitalist threats to worker states.

[Red Rebel]

Originally posted by "catch"+--> ("catch")Did Cuba have formal political ties with the USSR or not?

Who's missiles were they? [/b]

Yes and the USSR's. So therefore Cuba was a slave colony for the USSR. Or am I missing something in your logic?


"catch"
Long before the missile crisis any communist content in the Cuban revolution was long gone - crushed by Castro and Guevara.

I have a good book on Cuban history that you should read, in general it deals with Cuban history. It would do you some good to read it. Castro and the rest of the crew on the Granma set out not to create a "Communist State," but rather to restore the 1940 constitution.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 08, 2007 04:36 pm--> (manic expression @ October 08, 2007 04:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:10 pm

manic [email protected] 08, 2007 07:49 pm


You know that's complete crap, Marmot. Under your logic, it's wrong for revolutionaries to fire on capitalist troops, because after all, they're probably from working class backgrounds! When a socialist country is attacked by an imperialist country, it must defend itself by any means necessary. I suggest you reconsider your unwillingness to support a socialist country in its struggle against imperialism.
There is a difference between shooting at soldiers, and between shooting at civilians.

I think most people, even in the right, would understand this.
And then there is defending a socialist revolution and its gains with available means. Why do you oppose this? [/b]
In nuclear war, nothing is defended. There would be no "socialist revolution" to defend, just millions dead and large areas of the planet laid completely to waste.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 01:55 am
In nuclear war, nothing is defended. There would be no "socialist revolution" to defend, just millions dead and large areas of the planet laid completely to waste.
That's how most major wars are, nuclear or not. The question here is between allowing a socialist revolution the necessary means to defend itself from its capitalist enemy or letting it be unnecessarily outmatched by the bourgeoisie.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 09, 2007 01:52 am--> (manic expression @ October 09, 2007 01:52 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 01:05 am
:lol:

Thanks, but I want nothing to do with "socialists" that are willing to promote the mass murder of innocent civilians because of their borderline nationalistic mentality.

I am an internationalist.
An "internationalist" who belittles the struggle against imperialist aggression? An "internationalist" who wants to open the gates of a socialist society to the bourgeoisie? Right. I'll stick with defending socialism, you can treasure your "internationalism" while you ignore capitalist threats to worker states. [/b]
You don't understand, apparently.

Throwing things like "anti-imperialism" into the argument doesn't makes it better. Socialism is nothing if workers are incinerated in a nuclear holocaust for the sake of an "idea". WE are socialists because it will bring us a better life, not because "socialism" itself is a noble idea. We are not religious fanatics willing to sacrifice ourselves for something that abstract--we are the end of socialism, not the means to it.

Many people would choose death over imperialist hegemony, that is for sure, but the mayority won't.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 08, 2007 08:18 pm--> (manic expression @ October 08, 2007 08:18 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 01:55 am
In nuclear war, nothing is defended. There would be no "socialist revolution" to defend, just millions dead and large areas of the planet laid completely to waste.
That's how most major wars are, nuclear or not. The question here is between allowing a socialist revolution the necessary means to defend itself from its capitalist enemy or letting it be unnecessarily outmatched by the bourgeoisie. [/b]
As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that the missiles shouldn't have been brought to Cuba- they certainly should have, given the deliberate US provocation of moving nuclear missiles to Turkey.

The problem is with people championing the actual use of nuclear weapons against the US in the event of... what? As far as I can tell, some individuals are ready to push the button the second a soldier lands on Cuban soil, which is beyond insane. Saying things like "better to die on your feet than live on your knees," or "it would be better for them all to be destroyed than live under US oppression" might make you sound like a real tough and hard revolutionary, but they're completely asinine and disconnected from reality, particularly the reality of most working people. I can assure you they would rather go back to life under Batista then be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust. So who is the nuclear war really for? The state, whose members may be the only ones to survive anyway. That's nothing to be excited about.

Oh, and no, most major wars are not quite to the level of nuclear war. Millions die, land and cities our ruined, but not everyone is poisoned, and the land will be usable again when the conflict ceases, generally. In a nuclear war, its game over for everyone.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:22 am
You don't understand, apparently.

Throwing things like "anti-imperialism" into the argument doesn't makes it better. Socialism is nothing if workers are incinerated in a nuclear holocaust for the sake of an "idea". WE are socialists because it will bring us a better life, not because "socialism" itself is a noble idea. We are not religious fanatics willing to sacrifice ourselves for something that abstract--we are the end of socialism, not the means to it.

Many people would choose death over imperialist hegemony, that is for sure, but the mayority won't.
Anti-imperialism is at the crux of this issue. What is being discussed? Cuba wanting nuclear weapons to force off imperialist invasions. If the American bourgeoisie invaded, how are we to blame Cuba for wanting to defend itself? The American capitalists had many weapons pointed at Havana, and some here want to denounce Cuba for seeking the means to check that aggression? That is, simply put, the refusal to support a socialist state in its struggle against capitalist aggression.

It's not about assured death versus oppression: it's about self-defence versus oppression.

Also, answer me this: so you're willing to support SOME utterly destructive wars, but not one of self-defense by Cuba? Where does your support for violence begin and end?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 02:26 am
As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that the missiles shouldn't have been brought to Cuba- they certainly should have, given the deliberate US provocation of moving nuclear missiles to Turkey.

The problem is with people championing the actual use of nuclear weapons against the US in the event of... what? As far as I can tell, some individuals are ready to push the button the second a soldier lands on Cuban soil, which is beyond insane. Saying things like "better to die on your feet than live on your knees," or "it would be better for them all to be destroyed than live under US oppression" might make you sound like a real tough and hard revolutionary, but they're completely asinine and disconnected from reality, particularly the reality of most working people. I can assure you they would rather go back to life under Batista then be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust. So who is the nuclear war really for? The state, whose members may be the only ones to survive anyway. That's nothing to be excited about.

Oh, and no, most major wars are not quite to the level of nuclear war. Millions die, land and cities our ruined, but not everyone is poisoned, and the land will be usable again when the conflict ceases, generally. In a nuclear war, its game over for everyone.
The use of nuclear weapons was always dependent on the actions of the American bourgeoisie and not the Cuban revolution. They were weapons of self-defence only, no one can remotely claim that the Cubans wanted to use them in an aggressive war. Secondly, nuclear weapons forced the Cold War to stay cold. If the US knew Cuba had nukes, they would have never invaded. That is partially the point of having them: to discourage aggression.

Don't build up that straw-man: I'm championing the request of Cuba to have nuclear weapons with which to check capitalist aggression, nothing more.

My point there was that war is only destructive and terrible; self-defence is a different issue, however, namely THE issue being discussed.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 09, 2007 02:38 am--> (manic expression @ October 09, 2007 02:38 am)
black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 02:26 am
As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing that the missiles shouldn't have been brought to Cuba- they certainly should have, given the deliberate US provocation of moving nuclear missiles to Turkey.

The problem is with people championing the actual use of nuclear weapons against the US in the event of... what? As far as I can tell, some individuals are ready to push the button the second a soldier lands on Cuban soil, which is beyond insane. Saying things like "better to die on your feet than live on your knees," or "it would be better for them all to be destroyed than live under US oppression" might make you sound like a real tough and hard revolutionary, but they're completely asinine and disconnected from reality, particularly the reality of most working people. I can assure you they would rather go back to life under Batista then be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust. So who is the nuclear war really for? The state, whose members may be the only ones to survive anyway. That's nothing to be excited about.

Oh, and no, most major wars are not quite to the level of nuclear war. Millions die, land and cities our ruined, but not everyone is poisoned, and the land will be usable again when the conflict ceases, generally. In a nuclear war, its game over for everyone.
The use of nuclear weapons was always dependent on the actions of the American bourgeoisie and not the Cuban revolution. They were weapons of self-defence only, no one can remotely claim that the Cubans wanted to use them in an aggressive war. Secondly, nuclear weapons forced the Cold War to stay cold. If the US knew Cuba had nukes, they would have never invaded. That is partially the point of having them: to discourage aggression.

Don't build up that straw-man: I'm championing the request of Cuba to have nuclear weapons with which to check capitalist aggression, nothing more.

My point there was that war is only destructive and terrible; self-defence is a different issue, however, namely THE issue being discussed. [/b]
I never argued against the strategy, as black coffee black metal said.

What bothers me is the mentality behind people willing to sacrifice masses of people without their consent for the sake of defending an "idea". You imply that nuclear holocaust is better than cuba becoming capitalist. It is a position so detached from reality that is up there with religious fanatism.

I am for violence if violence really has any use. Total death is not really a use.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:54 am
I never argued against the strategy, as black coffee black metal said.

What bothers me is the mentality behind people willing to sacrifice masses of people without their consent for the sake of defending an "idea". You imply that nuclear holocaust is better than cuba becoming capitalist. It is a position so detached from reality that is up there with religious fanatism.

I am for violence if violence really has any use. Total death is not really a use.
It boils down to self-defence. That's all. Yes, there were risks, and the American imperialists could have initiated a nuclear war (and untold amounts of destruction), but the issue is Cuba's ability to defend itself from those threats, and even ward off further invasions (which did cause tremendous death to Cuba, Havana was firebombed during the Bay of Pigs IIRC).

By the way, the life of Cubans would have gone straight down the gutter had the capitalists taken over again. I've heard stories of pre-revolutionary Cuba that are downright scary; the conditions of the Cuban people were raised in incredible volumes in the years after the revolution. If you want, I can get you statistics showing this (everything from sanitation to literacy to health to housing to you-name-it improved immensely). It wasn't just about an idea, it was also about Cuba saying "NO" to being enslaved yet again...they knew what it was like and they did not want it back.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 09, 2007 12:27 am
And Cuba has capitalist social relations? Tell me, catch, which individuals own the stocks and bonds of Cuba? Who privately employs workers? Who privately owns the means of production?

You won't be able to answer those questions or amount an argument, much less provide a real definition of Cuba that isn't completely insipid. catch, you're a socialist in name only.

Capitalism doesn't depend on the formal ownership of the means of production (much less stocks and bonds). It's fundamentally about the relations of production, alienated labour, the production of surplus value. The persistence of commodity production and wage labour in the USSR and Cuba should be enough to show this was the case. The state is quite capable of acting as collective capitalist when it needs to.

Both Lenin and Trotsky admitted (enthusiastically) that they were setting up State Capitalism in Russia. The Left Communists around Bukharin also said this in 1918, many, many others have said the same thing in the years preceding, so it's not something I've pulled out of my arse. Aufheben's series (http://libcom.org/library/WhatwastheUSSRAufheben1) on the USSR is as good an example as any


And so you're claiming that which invading force fraternised with Cuban workers? Be clear and concrete in your point.
I never claimed such a thing, I simply pointed out that the automatic reaction to 'capitalist forces' has not been 'nuke them' in the history of the workers' movement.

[catch]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 09, 2007 12:30 am--> (manic expression @ October 09, 2007 12:30 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 12:21 am
The USSR invaded Hungary, with tanks, in 1956, to put down a working class insurrection. It also invaded North Korea at the end of the Second World War after carving it up with the Allies at Potsdam. I assumed you were aware of this, perhaps you weren't, if that's the case I'm sorry to have made assumptions.

Both of these are clearly imperialist actions to anyone with the faintest understanding of communist politics.
So you're saying that a country with socialist property relations can be imperialist? That is presently your argument. [/b]
No, my argument is that the USSR was capitalist during this period.

I think it'd help if you outlined what you mean by 'socialist property relations' so we can all be clear. For me, it's the abolition of money, wage labour, the suppression of value, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Since none of these were the case in the USSR or Cuba you presumably mean something else.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by manic expression+October 05, 2007 12:52 pm--> (manic expression @ October 05, 2007 12:52 pm) Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. [/b]
Better to live oppressed than to die.

Cut the romantic idealist bullshit already, there's a reason why it's only useful to sell Che t-shirts.


The Cuban workers were unwilling to bow to imperialist oppression yet again, they knew the humiliation of capitalist exploitation during Batista.

No, their supposed representatives were, unless you have evidence of "the people" having the power to take this kind of decision by themselves...a decision which, by the way, could have ended their lives.


The Cuban stand against capitalist imperialism should be applauded by leftists; it is ridiculous that some leftists should revile this defiance.

Translation: "I will call anyone here a 'leftist' so that it's obvious that they tend to share my quasi-religious ideology, hence I can accuse them of being fake socialist ideals-worshippers (unlike me since I am a true believer of The Cause) and scare them into supporting my views; or else I'll accuse them of heresy".

The fact that (based on your apologetical reply) you'd be willing to accept a massive slaughter for the sake of an idea which was meant to liberate most of the likely victims on it shows why the (pseudo-)revolutionary left hasn't achieved anything. What can be more ridiculous than this?



in_motion
If the left had fought harder, even if it meant to be willing to sacrifice 90 million people, things would have been different today.

Yes, the "black book of communism" would claim "communists" killed 200 million human beings instead of 100 (if not more) :lol:

Oh, and you wouldn't have to bother about "liberating" those workers, the nukes would have annihilated them to make life easier for you, Comrade Fucktard. You'd probably have more time to read inspirational Che quotes...that is, assuming that you (or Che) would exist.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 08, 2007 08:38 pm
The use of nuclear weapons was always dependent on the actions of the American bourgeoisie and not the Cuban revolution. They were weapons of self-defence only, no one can remotely claim that the Cubans wanted to use them in an aggressive war.
That isn't really the position being taken by some members here, who seem excited at the thought of Cuba launching nuclear weapons at the United States.


Secondly, nuclear weapons forced the Cold War to stay cold. If the US knew Cuba had nukes, they would have never invaded. That is partially the point of having them: to discourage aggression.

Duh, no shit. That isn't the thing I'm arguing about.


Don't build up that straw-man: I'm championing the request of Cuba to have nuclear weapons with which to check capitalist aggression, nothing more.

Other members are celebrating the use of nuclear weapons against the US, its no straw man.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 09, 2007 07:01 pm
Better to live oppressed than to die.

Cut the romantic idealist bullshit already, there's a reason why it's only useful to sell Che t-shirts.
So you oppose the self defense of a socialist state against capitalist aggression? Well, at least we know where you stand on the issue.


No, their supposed representatives were, unless you have evidence of "the people" having the power to take this kind of decision by themselves...a decision which, by the way, could have ended their lives.

As if those in the revolutionary government WEREN'T going to die in such an event. :rolleyes: Get a clue: Cuba needed the means to defend itself and discourage further imperialist invasion, and you disparage this with vapid and insipid criticisms.


Translation: "I will call anyone here a 'leftist' so that it's obvious that they tend to share my quasi-religious ideology, hence I can accuse them of being fake socialist ideals-worshippers (unlike me since I am a true believer of The Cause) and scare them into supporting my views; or else I'll accuse them of heresy".

The fact that (based on your apologetical reply) you'd be willing to accept a massive slaughter for the sake of an idea which was meant to liberate most of the likely victims on it shows why the (pseudo-)revolutionary left hasn't achieved anything. What can be more ridiculous than this?

Translation: "I don't have an argument, so I guess I'll vaguely blabber about religion". Let me know when you're ready to make a mature argument.

[Guerrilla22]

This thread is pointless. I've seen the documentry Fog of War and laughed when I heard that. This is Macnamara saying this. The guy lost all credibility he had 40 years ago when he was telling Johnson that they were winning the war. I hardly find anything he says to be credible.

[Invader Zim]

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

You sound like a naive child.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 09, 2007 11:53 pm

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

You sound like a naive child.
I hope this isn't taking you away from your favorite cartoon show.

[Guerrilla22]

I still can't believe we're having an argument over something claimed by the former Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. McNamara is willing to say anything to try absolve himself and the US from their terrorist actions against Cuba and mass murder in Vietnam, which he personally was directing. Once again, we can't hold the statement that Castro wanted to launch nukes against the US to be truth.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:24 pm

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Most people decide the opposite when it comes down to it...he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.
The man who runs away will fight again.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Cuba was trying to defend itself from US imperialism. By making it clear that no options were off the table, the US hesitated from invading, something it had already done, and would definately do in the future again.