Cuba Cracking Down Hard on Dissidents

[headscratcher4]

I write this as someone who has not supported the Bush Administration and how it has handled its international relations. However, I write this as someone who is, contradictorilly, horrified by human rights abuses throughout the world, and one who often wonders why those who so easilly compare Bush to Hitler or some other global tyrant (a fatuous analogy on any rational, logical or honest level) seem so late to condemn civil rights abuses by some of the most appalling dictators currently in operation.

THe excuses are legion...they're protecting their revolution, they're under constant threat from their neighbors, we (Western democracies) don't understand their culture, nationalism, history...and on and on. However, the bottom line is that people who speak out about what is wrong with their socieites are tortured and imprisoned (if lucky), and in many places are murdered.

I write this noting that Castro is now on a new binge of repressing dissent. See this article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=589&ncid=721&e=8&u=/ap/20030403/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_crackdown

Excuses will now be made for that regime. The Embargo makes them parinoid, maybe the dissenters really were working for the Americans, it is an internal matter, Cuba has near universal literacy and free medical care. Indeed, with excuses and rationalizations like that, what need for Cuba to ever change or improve...

THe point here is that these men and women are going to jail for efforts to report freely (as well as exersizing their right to be both right and wrong) about their country, its condition and economic issues. THey are going to jail for trying to petition their government. THey are going to jail because they question the direction that their leader is taking them in.

This is a tradgedy. The US embargo on Cuba is wrong. Period. But so long as thoughtful people glabally excuse this sort of repression (while self-rightously comparing Bush to Hitler) and planning to spend a week at a Cuban beach smoking cigars made by men and women who can not strike, or sipping drinks served by men and women who can not strike...etc. The left will have little credibility.

There is universal outrage on the left (and I often count myself as a person of the left) over Israel, over the US war in Iraq and on and on...but there is no balance. Romantic Castro and his thugs (for after all, if you suppress freedom of thought and speech, are you not a thug?) continue to get a pass...Just like Saddam and the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children he has killed or ordered killed...

Just my incoherent rant for the day...

[Advocate]

The focus of the world is on the USA and Iraq. Is anyone surprised that Castro is cracking down on dissidents? I expect a lot of other leaders will be doing so now that they can do it with little attention.

[corplinx]

I wonder if one of those stray precision guided weapons could take him out one night.

[boooeee]

Wow, a thoughtful, informed post in the PC&E forum. Somebody inform the moderator.

"Reason" and "Logic", uninflamed by vitriol, hate, and partsian rhetoric have no place here. Haven't you been reading the threads?

Speaking as someone who is definitely to the right on several issues, and who would have probably voted for Bush if he weren't so damn lazy, I have very mixed feelings about this war, and am not sure we should be in Iraq right now.

That being said, like you, I am also completely perplexed as to why thugs like Castro get off so easy from people who should really know better. It reminds me of the Western apologists for Stalin back in the thirties during the show trials.

But anyway, I've alerted the moderators to your post, and it should be removed shortly. Only extreme viewpoints and vicious name-calling are allowed here.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

This is a tradgedy. The US embargo on Cuba is wrong. Period. But so long as thoughtful people throught the globe excuse this sort of repression (while self-rightously comparing Bush to Hitler) and planning to spend a week at a Cuban beach smoking cigars made by men and women who can not strike, or sipping drinks served by men and women who can not strike...etc. The left will have little credibility.



VERY well said. That the embargo is wrong is beyond question (as well as giving FC a convenient excuse to avoid any positive changes). Too many on the right fail to see that engagement can work wonders at times and a policy of - only - "demonizing" can be counter-productive in the long run (China anyone??) Too many on the Left, predictably, see FC as a guy who continues to "stick it" to the US. That he does a far better job of sticking it to his own people seems beside the point to them.

Finally, one has to wonder how universal literacy and free medical care became legitimate trade offs for the denial of basic human rights/dignity. The mind bogles.

Barkhorn.

[headscratcher4]

Finally, one has to wonder how universal literacy and free medical care became legitimate trade offs for the denial of basic human rights/dignity. The mind bogles.

On the cynical side, I've long wondered -- and would appreciate the views of a Castro apologist on this -- what is the value of universal literacy if you can't/won't let people read anything they want to, write anything they want to or say anything they want to...

A cheap analogy, its like issuing driver's licences but keeping everyone from owning a car....

Further afterthought...indeed, Hitler built great highways and Il Duce' made the "trains run on time" and both promoted universal employement (at least for the right kind of citizens, the ones they weren't trying to murder) ... those seemingly positive social attibutes would not win them praise from the left...but they will praise exactly the same kind of results (with repression) from Castro...strange.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by boooeee
Wow, a thoughtful, informed post in the PC&E forum.

Thank you. I do my best.

[c0rbin]

THe excuses are legion...they're protecting their revolution, they're under constant threat from their neighbors, we (Western democracies) don't understand their culture, nationalism, history...and on and on. However, the bottom line is that people who speak out about what is wrong with their socieites are tortured and imprisoned (if lucky), and in many places are murdered.

I too wonder why, when there are real abuses in the world, people march and shake their fists at America.

[renata]

Update
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=589&ncid=721&e=8&u=/ap/20030408/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_crackdown

Fidel Castro (news - web sites)'s government sentenced activists, journalists and an economist to up to 27 years in prison Monday for allegedly collaborating with U.S. diplomats to undermine the socialist state.

...

Sanchez's non-governmental Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation said prosecutors originally sought life sentences for a dozen of the dissidents, among 80 facing closed trials that began Thursday.


It was unclear how many dissidents have been sentenced so far, but activists have been unable to confirm any life sentences. The shortest sentence was 15 years.

...

The longest sentence confirmed by Monday was 27 years for independent journalist Omar Rodriguez Saludes. A familiar figure in the dissident community, Rodriguez Saludes often rode his bicycle to news conferences, a camera dangling from a strap around his neck.


Opposition political party leader Hector Palacios, among those originally recommended for a life sentence, received 25 years, said his wife, Gisela Delgado.


Palacios is a leading organizer of the Varela Project, which gathered more than 11,000 signatures supporting a referendum on new laws guaranteeing civil liberties such as freedom of speech and private business ownership. The island's parliament shelved the request.

...

Jose Miguel Vivanco, of Human Rights Watch, urged the United Nations (news - web sites) Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva to condemn Cuba for the sentences.



I am pleased to see Human Rights Watch condemn this horrific behavior- I always liked that organization. I now wonder
1. Will the UN condemn Cuba for this
2. Will the human rights activists throughout the world demonstrate vigorously against this action.

[Supercharts]

The "embargo" is only supported by the US and The Marshall Islands.
Cuba's current state is a direct result of it's political system.

[WildCat]

The Cuba embargo is counter-productive and only exists to appease an influential group of voters (Cuban exiles) in a politically sensitive state w/ many electoral votes (Florida).
That said, Castro is evil. But you won't see ANSWER organizing any demonstrations against him because he's one of their own. Far better to compare Bush to Hitler than to protest the real-life Stalin next door. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Castro appears to have had the intelligence to be one of the more benign dictators around. The more extreme dictators have been kicked out the first chance that people could remove them in other countries. Perhaps he is not hated so much.

The collapse of the rest of the communist world would have been expected to destabilise his own regime.

That said, the crackdown may be a sign that he believes the time has come for 'people power' to bring about the end of his own regime. With any luck, a peaceful changeover will occur. I think it is important for the US to not interfere while people are not being slaughtered. Such interference may just stir things up to be violent. I doubt that any comparisons with Saddam, for example, would be valid.

Such an event would have interesting side effects in Florida politics.

[Tony]

After the tyrant Castro is dead, I vote we make Cuba the 51st state.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony
After the tyrant Castro is dead, I vote we make Cuba the 51st state. Maybe the people there have a vote, not we? :confused:

I vote for Iraq. The tyrant there might be dead already, and they have more oil. Colonizing should be done first and foremost with economy on our minds. If not, we should vote for North Korea. :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Maybe the people there have a vote, not we? :confused:



Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know what I mean. :)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know what I mean. :) The EU just decided (only France against) to make the US their next member. We'll get one vote in the European Parliament, of course. :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The EU just decided (only France against) to make the US their next member. We'll get one vote in the European Parliament, of course. :p

Does that mean I can legally smoke a joint now? :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Does that mean I can legally smoke a joint now? :D

How about, just once, all the conservative pot smokers vote for a candidate who will legalise pot. Get the whole stupid issue out the way. Then you can go back to voting republican again.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


How about, just once, all the conservative pot smokers vote for a candidate who will legalise pot. Get the whole stupid issue out the way. Then you can go back to voting republican again.

1. Im not conservative.

2. Nobody running for office in Texas is looking to legalise indo. If there was someone who was running, I would vote for them.

3. Texas has relativly lax drug laws. Drugs are also cheaper in Houston compared New Orleans or cities up north.

[susheel]

I really don't think there is a problem with wanting to read anything you want to in Cuba. There are quite a few cuban students who visit the local university every year. A friend also did a course at the film institute thereand this is the first I have heard that books aren't allowed in Cuba. In fact they say that the problem is that very few books come to Cuba...publishers don't find it a lucrative market.

100% literacy apart, what are your opinions on health care plan...supposedly (by IMF's grudging admission no less) one of the best in the world.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
Castro appears to have had the intelligence to be one of the more benign dictators around. The more extreme dictators have been kicked out the first chance that people could remove them in other countries. Perhaps he is not hated so much.

Robert Mugabe is far from being a benign dictator, and he is still in place. So to would Saddam, were it not for the current military operations. Dictators don't need to be smart or benign, just able to maintain a critical level of fear among the populace.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by susheel
I really don't think there is a problem with wanting to read anything you want to in Cuba. There are quite a few cuban students who visit the local university every year. A friend also did a course at the film institute thereand this is the first I have heard that books aren't allowed in Cuba. In fact they say that the problem is that very few books come to Cuba...publishers don't find it a lucrative market.

100% literacy apart, what are your opinions on health care plan...supposedly (by IMF's grudging admission no less) one of the best in the world.

There are many cheap books in Cuba, but most of them are focused on Communism, Economics, Jose Marti's poetry and Castro's speeches.

It is difficult to find new books or international best sellers because of the embargo, and the Cuban government cannot print them.

Of course, this gives the government total control of what should or should not be read in the country.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Castro appears to have had the intelligence to be one of the more benign dictators around. The more extreme dictators have been kicked out the first chance that people could remove them in other countries. Perhaps he is not hated so much.


You are right here.

Castro has a strong personality, intelligence and charisma.

There are many people in Cuba who support Castro's regime. Generally, these people are the old men and women who experienced the Revolution in the fifties and the very young children who are indoctrinated into Communism.

[headscratcher4]

It is difficult to find new books or international best sellers because of the embargo, and the Cuban government cannot print them.

Yes, and cuban's themselves can't print any indipendent analysis, econmic statistics, political opinions, art, poetry, make movies, write books not approved by the government, take public positions not approved by the government, produce TV shows not approved by the government...note the theme: "Note Approved By The Government..."

Edited to add: and, I am sure that most cubans have no access to the internet...so they can't join us here to defend Sr. Castro and his wonderful literary and healthcare policies...little less use their literacy to read things that the government might not want them to see....

That is the point...what international best sellers do you think the "government" would like to print?

So long as the government is the arbitor of what is acceptable, runs the printing plants, and punishes dissent with long jail terms, Cuba will continue to be a failed society....albeit with good healthcare and literacy...

The real question is: couldn't cuba have good healthcare without government oppression...the answer from Cuban apologists seems to be "no"...that's sad.

[aerocontrols]

They voted last night on a resolution:

Stating the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the systematic human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime; calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners and supporting free elections for Cuba.

The vote was

414 aye
0 nay
11 present

The 11 'present' votes:

Frank Ballance
John Conyers
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Barbara Lee
Ron Paul
Bobby Rush
Maxine Waters
Albert Wynn

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Yes, and cuban's themselves can't print any indipendent analysis, econmic statistics, political opinions, art, poetry, make movies, write books not approved by the government, take public positions not approved by the government, produce TV shows not approved by the government...note the theme: "Note Approved By The Government..."

It is a Socialist regime, everything has to follow a process. Besides, many artists and writers cannot produce anything because of the embargo.


Edited to add: and, I am sure that most cubans have no access to the internet...so they can't join us here to defend Sr. Castro and his wonderful literary and healthcare policies...little less use their literacy to read things that the government might not want them to see....

No, they cannot access internet legally. But, there is nothing that Cubans do not know about what's going on outside their Island. As I've said before, the fact is that many of them support Castro and his socialist government.


That is the point...what international best sellers do you think the "government" would like to print?

Probably none against Fidel.


So long as the government is the arbitor of what is acceptable, runs the printing plants, and punishes dissent with long jail terms, Cuba will continue to be a failed society....albeit with good healthcare and literacy...

And who is going to make the difference?
Who decides if this can continue or not?
Have you seen La Plaza de la Revolution everytime Castro gives a speech?


The real question is: couldn't cuba have good healthcare without government oppression...the answer from Cuban apologists seems to be "no"...that's sad.

The answer is yes. Opression has nothing to do with efficiency...

[susheel]

TF,

I don't know how much of the 'oppression' is a spill over of measures put in place to prevent the breakdown of a welfare state. Capitalism isn't very conducive to this.

The primary fear in the Cuban administration is that introducing American style democracy into Cuba would reintroduce the heavily American supported feudal/capitalist machinery that the revolution ousted.

The entry of this machinary could mean the destruction of this very efficient system as IMF policies which place profits high on the list gain prominence.

Today Cubans have a health system which gives importance to health, this may give way to a system which gives importance to profits.

[Tony]

Originally posted by susheel
TF,

I don't know how much of the 'oppression' is a spill over of measures put in place to prevent the breakdown of a welfare state. Capitalism isn't very conducive to this.

The primary fear in the Cuban administration is that introducing American style democracy into Cuba would reintroduce the heavily American supported feudal/capitalist machinery that the revolution ousted.

The entry of this machinary could mean the destruction of this very efficient system as IMF policies which place profits high on the list gain prominence.

Today Cubans have a health system which gives importance to health, this may give way to a system which gives importance to profits.

So fascism and totalitarianism are ok as long as we have healthcare?

[susheel]

Definitely not. But then let me throw the question back, American style capitalism is fine even though people die of extreme poverty and are unabble to afford food or adequate health care. Though this may not happen in America it is seen in almost every other country where America has helped 'install democracy".

The thing is that one would have to look at Cuba as a passing phase. It is a nation that has a history and the present situation is a result of that history. It does not stop here. The ideal would be for Cuba to utilise the rather good infrastructure and maybe achieve prosperity through Socialism.

That is if Big Brother will get off it's high horse and withdraw that stupid embargo.

[Tony]

Originally posted by susheel
Definitely not. But then let me throw the question back, American style capitalism is fine even though people die of extreme poverty and are unabble to afford food or adequate health care. Though this may not happen in America it is seen in almost every other country where America has helped 'install democracy".


Death and misery are part of life, do you think America was as prosperous as it is now in 1800? 1900? HELL NO. Similar conditions existed in america, but the evolution of our society got us where we are today.


The thing is that one would have to look at Cuba as a passing phase. It is a nation that has a history and the present situation is a result of that history. It does not stop here. The ideal would be for Cuba to utilise the rather good infrastructure and maybe achieve prosperity through Socialism.

Isnt cuba a socialist state now?

That is if Big Brother will get off it's high horse and withdraw that stupid embargo.

I would like to see the embargo lifted and I dont have exact numbers, but I would bet a large portion of americans would be against that.

[susheel]

But America in its formative years did not have to contend with a strong feudal system based on class lines. Marxian socialism offers a solution to eradicating this. American style Capitalism does not even acknowledge its existence.

The 'vast majority' may only include the rich Miami Cubans, remnants of the deposed estate and factory owners.

[Tony]

Originally posted by susheel
But America in its formative years did not have to contend with a strong feudal system based on class lines.



Before I adress this, what do you mean when you say "strong feudal system based on class lines."



The 'vast majority'

I said large majorty, mabey like 60%. This is just a guess, feel free to prove me wrong, but Id bet it would be a majority.


may only include the rich Miami Cubans, remnants of the deposed estate and factory owners.

And many americans that lived through the Cuban Missle Crisis, a lot of conservatives, and anti-communists.

[headscratcher4]

It is a Socialist regime, everything has to follow a process. Besides, many artists and writers cannot produce anything because of the embargo.

So, to enforce socialist "process", a person should go to jail for 27 years for indipendently reporting economic statistics or for organizing a petition of the government?

I have said that the embargo is wrong. You are not seriously suggesting that without the "embargo" the Castro government and its socialist process would suddenly allow artists to publish what they like, speak their minds freely, report and write on any topic using their own judgement rather than the Party's?

As stated, the embargo is wrong...but to use it for an excuse to minimize the oppression of this one party, one man state is to be willfully blind. Ultimately, of course, the Cubans have to decide for themselves, but to claim that, in a controlled society, they have wilfully choosen oppression -- when there has been no open debate or discussion for 45 years -- seems to me to be using the kind of logic the Catholic church uses when it determines that once a Catholic always a Catholic and that the Pope is infalible.

You are so mad at the US, that you are practically willing to foregive all human rights abuses by any regime, so long as it is one that the U.S. opposes...it is too bad. I know, ultimately, I can't speak for the Cuban people, nor, certainly, can the US government. How sad for the Cuban people that they've got you to speak for them.

[headscratcher4]

P.S. -- is it just Cuba where the "socialist" process is ok? What about North Korea? They support their leader too...or else they wind up dead. I note that the North Korean press ALWAYS highly praises Castro...yes, you will be known by the friend you keep.

[Mike B.]

Well Headscratcher I think we have discussed this before.

It is bizzare the lengths that people will go to engage in apologetics for Castro. Putting people in jail for 27 years for being critical of him is alright because remember George Bush is a chimp!
;)

Anyway,
I wonder if people would support right wing dictators who improve the living standards of their people. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, all had right-wing dictators who improved literacy, life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, etc.

Would the same people that feel the need to defend Castro defend them? or is it only left-wing dictators that are folk-heros?

[Gregor]

Susheel

What a load of dated, socialist bs that has been proven oh so wrong.

Socialism has been tried and has failed.

There are no aspects of the Cuban economy or society that are desireable. And it's not because of an embargo.

Cuba has no individual freedoms, personal property rights, profit motive. Since the USSR stopped paying it $3 billion a year just to exist, it has floundered.

Save your Das Kapital speeches for a 1960s retrospective board.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

So, to enforce socialist "process", a person should go to jail for 27 years for indipendently reporting economic statistics or for organizing a petition of the government?

I was talking about artists and writers that require the government's supervision in order to produce something. They need to follow certain procedure to preserve the Socialist ideology. Besides, in a Socialist country, the means of production belong to the State, unless you change to capitalism you cannot decide entirely by yourself what, when and where to publish.

As far as I know, the reason why people went to jail was because they were doing CONSPIRACY against the Cuban state. Conspiracy is a federal crime that it is punished even in your country or my country.


I have said that the embargo is wrong. You are not seriously suggesting that without the "embargo" the Castro government and its socialist process would suddenly allow artists to publish what they like, speak their minds freely, report and write on any topic using their own judgement rather than the Party's?

Socialism or communism by itself does not require the elimination of freedom of speech. It is Castro who makes everybody stick to a communist ideology.


As stated, the embargo is wrong...but to use it for an excuse to minimize the oppression of this one party, one man state is to be willfully blind. Ultimately, of course, the Cubans have to decide for themselves, but to claim that, in a controlled society, they have wilfully choosen oppression -- when there has been no open debate or discussion for 45 years -- seems to me to be using the kind of logic the Catholic church uses when it determines that once a Catholic always a Catholic and that the Pope is infalible.


There are active dissidents inside Cuba who have been tolerated by the Government. In fact, Castro allowed Oswaldo Paya (the most notorious) to promote a proposal called "Proyecto Varela" to introduce some changes in the Law. He just got the support of 11000 people (in a country of 12 million).



You are so mad at the US, that you are practically willing to foregive all human rights abuses by any regime, so long as it is one that the U.S. opposes...it is too bad. I know, ultimately, I can't speak for the Cuban people, nor, certainly, can the US government. How sad for the Cuban people that they've got you to speak for them.

I don't speak for the Cuban people, I have seen and heard in Cuba that many people support the socialist regime and specifically Castro's role. However, it is true that people are limited in freedom of speech (as a consequence of the embargo and Castro's rules). But, I am totally for the right of Cubans to decide how they should rule their own country. It is now more than 40 decades of Socialism and nothing has changed....I wonder why? :rolleyes:

BTW, I am just against USA's interventionism, it does not mean that I tolerate human right abuses.

[headscratcher4]

I was talking about artists and writers that require the government's supervision in order to produce something. They need to follow certain procedure to preserve the Socialist ideology. Besides, in a Socialist country, the means of production belong to the State, unless you change to capitalism you cannot decide entirely by yourself what, when and where to publish.

Sorry to be so dense -- are you merely describing the Cuban system or are you writing about this "process" with approval?



He just got the support of 11000 people (in a country of 12 million).

And, indeed, that is all he might ever get...however, given that he is spied on, harassed, that people who would associate with him would be cut off from jobs, could be subject to jail time, etc. How would we ever know? He got those signatures without the ability to advertise, to publish, print leaflets, petition government, getting anyone in the Cuban parliament to support him, etc. He did it by sure force of will and in the face of amazing official and un-official harassment, and in the face of the fact that most people who would sign such a petition could be subject to political and social reprisals.

My point is merely that the fact that he only got 11000+ signatures in a society as controlled as Cuba is a miracle...it would be like getting 11000+ signatures in Iraq -- prior to Yesterday, or 11000 signatures in the Soviet Union, China or North Korea. This was an act of bravery...the lack of signatures, you can't honestly argue, represents that the vast majority of Cubans are opposed to the petition, etc. We simply don't know because there IS NO WAY TO INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINE what Cubans think, feel, want or aspire to...it is a one party state, controlled economy without real discussion.

You and I, I suspect, would agree that the US should be hands off regarding Cuba. The embargo is not only wrong, it is embarrassing and detrimental to human rights.

But, at the same time, you can not tell me that the Cuban people have spoken because there has been no discussion or debate in Cuba...there is Castro's way, or the highway. Yes, I suspect there is a great residual of support for Castro...Hell, he might even be elected in a fair contest...but how would we know? He doesn't have to answer questions he doesn't want to. THe Cuban press doesn't point out alternative policies, theories, analysis that Castro doesn't want published. THe "arts" whether conditioned by embargo or not, reflects offical taste, not indipendent artisitic expression...

My point is that you hat US policy so much that you are willing to excuse a closed, stagnet oppressive system in order to stick a finger in the US eye...I don't like US policy either, but I truly believe that the Cubans should have the opportunity to continually debate and re-examine their own future...you seem to believe that they've made the decision and that decision is good for all time...but how would any one know what Cuban's really want, they can't talk about it openly. Period.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Besides, in a Socialist country, the means of production belong to the State, unless you change to capitalism you cannot decide entirely by yourself what, when and where to publish.

...

Socialism or communism by itself does not require the elimination of freedom of speech. It is Castro who makes everybody stick to a communist ideology.

:confused:

What does free speech mean to you, exactly? What you have presented is not what it means to me.

MattJ

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Sorry to be so dense -- are you merely describing the Cuban system or are you writing about this "process" with approval?

Both. But I think you misunderstand what I mean. Let's say that you want to publish something of your own creativity, if the means of productions (material, printer, distribution, labor, etc) belong to the State, then you depend on what the government decides it is proper for the nation.

It happens the same in capitalism, the only difference is that you can choose among different options (publishers) and each one of them will determine its own criterion about what they want to promote whether or not you like it.



My point is that you hat US policy so much that you are willing to excuse a closed, stagnet oppressive system in order to stick a finger in the US eye...

Come on, my distaste for the US foreign policy does not determine my ideology. It goes in the opposite way.



...you seem to believe that they've made the decision and that decision is good for all time...but how would any one know what Cuban's really want, they can't talk about it openly. Period.

They made the decision to keep Fidel as President for 4 long decades!!!

Now, the decision to keep and tolerate a dictatorship for so long is incorrect and they know that they can change the status quo. In fact, it is a right that you can find in the Cuban Constitution. Proyecto Varela is a result of that right. But, the fact is that there is a strong apathy among the average population and cubans in Miami (who could do something) do not have the support of the Cubans in the Island.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


:confused:

What does free speech mean to you, exactly? What you have presented is not what it means to me.

MattJ

You live in a capitalist country, right?

Can you publish your ideas in any magazine or scientific journal just because they exist?

Can you choose any publisher you want?

Does your "freedom" allows you to decide when, who, where and what to publish?

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You live in a capitalist country, right?

Can you publish your ideas in any magazine or scientific journal just because they exist?

Can you choose any publisher you want?

Does your "freedom" allows you to decide when, who, where and what to publish?



Yes, because I am essentially doing it right this minute. More importantly, my government doesn't require that I clear my ideas first -- before finding or creating a venue for them -- and only interferes with those ideas under very strict, rule of law circumstances that generally (though imperfectly) keep the government out of my computer, desk, reading list, etc.

On the other hand, this would be a revolutionary act in Cuba...so long as I was concluding that Castro was wrong -- wrong about anything. Or that treason trials that are closed, last only 24 hours, where the state can do pretty much what it wants with out judicial or legislative review, etc.

Further, if I were to take materials with me to Cuba that were not approved -- they would be confiscated. My argument that I am bringing them in so that the Cuban government doesn't have to waste scarce resources by providing a multitude of opinions on its own, would be laughed at as I was deported.

The problem is, and again, you are very comfortable with the elites that run Cuba, determine what is popular, etc. Yet, you would accuse the US of being a "cowboy" nation run by out of touch elites. Strange logic.

I don't know what would happen in CUba if there were freedom of press, thought, religion in fact. I do know that you don't know either. The popularity of the "revolution" might not be so great if voices critical of it, how it has been lived, and where it is going were not automatically put in jail and punished. This is a one man state -- no matter how you try and dress it up in words of socialist legality -- it is little different than Czarist Russia...me thinks that is not what the Cuban people thought they were getting by overthrowing a massively corrupt dictatorship. The only difference between this and an autocracy or a religious theocracy is that this is premised on a socialist understanding of the rules of history....replacing leadership by devine right with Marxist blather...

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You live in a capitalist country, right?

Can you publish your ideas in any magazine or scientific journal just because they exist?

Can you choose any publisher you want?

Does your "freedom" allows you to decide when, who, where and what to publish?



Do you read your own words?

unless you change to capitalism you cannot decide entirely by yourself what, when and where to publish

What did you mean?

I ask again: What does free speech mean to you?

[headscratcher4]

Q sourse, in all seriousness, answer me some questions:

Is Castro and/or the Cuban government wrong about anything? Have they made perfect decisions over the last 40 years -- decisions that couldn't possibly be questioned on their analysis, execution, reasoning, etc?

I take it that only the US has been wrong in its approach to Cuba? That Castro has mastered the situation and understands it so well that all of his decisions have benefited the Cuban people -- or would have had the US been less of an evil nation?

In all seriousness, can you think of anything that Cuba has done that you'd be willing to criticize?

If no -- than you are a hopeless romantic, for the perfect nation with the perfect leader exists nowhere on earth (not even Cuba); and if "yes" -- isn't if funny that you can answer "yes" to that question and not go to jail, when a Cuban might suffer a very different consequence for arriving and voicing the same conclusion.

[Q-Source]

I can hold a civil and adult discussion with you, so refrain from saying any insults.

Originally posted by aerocontrols

What did you mean?

I ask again: What does free speech mean to you?

Read the answer I already posted to that question:

"Let's say that you want to publish something of your own creativity, if the means of productions (material, printer, distribution, labor, etc) belong to the State, then you depend on what the government decides it is proper for the nation to read.

It happens the same in capitalism, the only difference is that you can choose among different options (publishers) and each one of them will determine its own criterion about what they want to promote whether or not you like it. "

Multiple choices in a capitalist system DO NOT guarantee that you can publish whatever you want everyone read!!!!!

Free speech means not only the freedom to write and read what I want but also the freedom to choose where, when and what I want to write and read.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I can hold a civil and adult discussion with you, so refrain from saying any insults.

I did not mean to insult you, but this:

unless you change to capitalism you cannot decide entirely by yourself what, when and where to publish.

quite clearly is contradicted by this:

You live in a capitalist country, right?

Can you publish your ideas in any magazine or scientific journal just because they exist?

Can you choose any publisher you want?

Does your "freedom" allows you to decide when, who, where and what to publish?

That, in addition to what appears to be a contradiction you wrote earlier:

Besides, in a Socialist country, the means of production belong to the State, unless you change to capitalism you cannot decide entirely by yourself what, when and where to publish.

...

Socialism or communism by itself does not require the elimination of freedom of speech. It is Castro who makes everybody stick to a communist ideology.

Has led me to believe that we have very different ideas about what free speech is.

Originally posted by Q-Source
Read the answer I already posted to that question:

"Let's say that you want to publish something of your own creativity, if the means of productions (material, printer, distribution, labor, etc) belong to the State, then you depend on what the government decides it is proper for the nation to read.

True enough, I suppose. There are many people on this forum who would disagree with you however. I would as well, as I don't believe that Socialism is necessarily a barrier to free speech. It may work out that way often in practice, but there is no reason it must.

Originally posted by Q-Source
It happens the same in capitalism, the only difference is that you can choose among different options (publishers) and each one of them will determine its own criterion about what they want to promote whether or not you like it. "

True, except that I can choose to self-publish.

Originally posted by Q-Source
Multiple choices in a capitalist system DO NOT guarantee that you can publish whatever you want everyone read!!!!!

Indeed not, but freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard.

Originally posted by Q-Source
Free speech means not only the freedom to write and read what I want but also the freedom to choose where, when and what I want to write and read.

No, sorry. Not getting published is not the same as not being able to write. Not being able to get published at Random House is yet again removed from not getting published at all.

It seems apparent that you have a somewhat nonstandard definition of free speech.

MattJ

[headscratcher4]

Free speech means not only the freedom to write and read what I want but also the freedom to choose where, when and what I want to write and read.

Than, clearly, by your own definition there is nothing like free speech in Cuba.

Let me ask a different question: is free speech desirable? IF so, isn't it desirable for Cuba? And, if so, and Castro and his government repress speech, are they oppressing the Cuban people and, inherently, lying to them by controlling what they write, read, see, and when and how they engage in those activities?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Q sourse, in all seriousness, answer me some questions:

You were joking before :eek:
I wasn't


Is Castro and/or the Cuban government wrong about anything? Have they made perfect decisions over the last 40 years -- decisions that couldn't possibly be questioned on their analysis, execution, reasoning, etc?

Of course that he has made a lot of mistakes. He sent many professionals (teachers and physicians) to Centroamerica in the seventies and eighties in order to help them to rebuild their nations after many internal conflicts. ;)

I know what you mean, yes I think that he has made some mistakes.


I take it that only the US has been wrong in its approach to Cuba? That Castro has mastered the situation and understands it so well that all of his decisions have benefited the Cuban people -- or would have had the US been less of an evil nation?

I don't understand this part.


In all seriousness, can you think of anything that Cuba has done that you'd be willing to criticize?

Yes.


If no -- than you are a hopeless romantic, for the perfect nation with the perfect leader exists nowhere on earth (not even Cuba); and if "yes" -- isn't if funny that you can answer "yes" to that question and not go to jail, when a Cuban might suffer a very different consequence for arriving and voicing the same conclusion.

11000 people signed that proposal to change the Law, are you seriously suggesting that 11000 people went to jail for that?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source
It happens the same in capitalism, the only difference is that you can choose among different options (publishers) and each one of them will determine its own criterion about what they want to promote whether or not you like it. "

Multiple choices in a capitalist system DO NOT guarantee that you can publish whatever you want everyone read!!!!!

Free speech means not only the freedom to write and read what I want but also the freedom to choose where, when and what I want to write and read.

At this point in time, in the free countries of the western world, anyone can get their ideas published. You can set up a web page or post them in a new group.

Even before the Internet revolution, there were many ways to get opinions diseminated: Letters to the editer, paid ad space/vanity publishing, even carrying a sign on the street or joining a debating club.

Of course freedom of speech does not mean that other people are obliged to listen to you, or even that people are required to provide a forum. That is not what freedom of speech is. But you are in no way prevented from stating your opinions in the U.S., unlike you would be in Cuba.

[DrBenway]

People talk about the wonderful health care system in Cuba.

I have a friend who visits Cuba once per year or so. She hits me up for sample medications to take with her, to pass on to a couple of Cuban doctors she knows. She also requests other donations, things people can't get in Cuba easily. I probably have a list she sent me a couple of years ago.

My friend loves Cuba and its people. But something about the health care there doesn't sound so great to me, if it's difficult to get many medications.

[Q-Source]

Head... and Aerocontrols,

I promise to come back to address your posts on Monday. I have to go now.


:)

[headscratcher4]

Great...more than happy to wait. ;)

Another question...in your opinion, does the Cuban government lie to its people?

I suspect mine, on occasion, has, does and will again. I have many sources that confirm that...including the government itself, and legislative oversight that has from time to time (but not enough) occured.

But, what about Cuba? Is the government completely honest with its people? Is the official analysis always right? What resources do the cuban people have to correct their government when it makes a mistake or lies to them? How would they know if they are being lied to? Do the Cuban people have a basic right to question their government and whehter or not they are being lied to, and can they no do so, openly, without going to jail and being accused of being American stooges?

See ya' monday...

[Q-Source]

aerocontrols,

Both Communism and Capitalism do not imply per se the elimination or warranty of freedom of speech.

I perceive freedom of speech as a continuum, in one extreme you have an ideal absolute free speech and at the other extreme you have no freedom at all. Both capitalism and socialism move along this line. Now, the final position is influenced by to whom belong the means of production.

In both systems, you as a citizen cannot exert total freedom of speech. The reasons why make people in capitalism believe that they have more freedom than a person living in a socialist country. I don't see a difference at all because you and a Cuban guy can end up at the same position along the line independently of which economic system you belong to.

In a society with only one owner of the means of production (the State) and with an economic embargo you have more restrictions to express yourself. In a society with multiple owners of the means of production, you STILL have restrictions to express your self. Those restrictions ARE different from Socialism, but they still exist and they limit your freedom of speech.

q-s

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Than, clearly, by your own definition there is nothing like free speech in Cuba.

There is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere. I cannot perceive it as an absolute concept. To me it is relative.


Let me ask a different question: is free speech desirable?

Depends on what you define as free speech.
If you mean absolute free speech, then I disagree, it would be an anarchy.

Would you find it desirable that Neonazies, holocaust deniers and hate groups could have the freedom to spout their agendas to everyone (including children) and everywhere (including schools)?


IF so, isn't it desirable for Cuba? And, if so, and Castro and his government repress speech, are they oppressing the Cuban people and, inherently, lying to them by controlling what they write, read, see, and when and how they engage in those activities?

The problem with Communism is that it is a philosophical ideology and in this way, the State (which is conceived as an entity) assumes the position of any other philosophical or political group with very specific interests to diffuse.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Another question...in your opinion, does the Cuban government lie to its people?

Yeah, I notice that you think I am a naive and romantic revolutionary. :rolleyes:

The Cuban government lies to its people, of course. And the Mexican, and the French and the US governments as well...


But, what about Cuba? Is the government completely honest with its people? Is the official analysis always right? What resources do the cuban people have to correct their government when it makes a mistake or lies to them? How would they know if they are being lied to? Do the Cuban people have a basic right to question their government and whehter or not they are being lied to, and can they no do so, openly, without going to jail and being accused of being American stooges?


Just think about Cuba as another country that it is ruled by Politicians and you will get the answers to your questions.

The Cuban people have representation in the Congress.
Furthermore, in every building or neighborhood they are organised as "Comites de Defensa de la Revolucion" (something like Revolution Defense Committees). Those committees are not supervised by the government, they are organised and attended by civilians or neighbors that get together to discuss and propose solutions to their every day problems. They have the possibility to make petitions to higher levels.

So, why is it hard for you to think that in many of those thousands committees along the country people have never raised the issue about Fidel, Socialism and free speech?

Q-S

[headscratcher4]

Q:

I can't hel but think your equivicating and rationalizations are so interesting...

Let me start with a basic premis, that I think we both share...all political systems and politicians can be/are corrupt, and they all lie at one point or another...the question, clearly, is one of degree and you, certainly, seem more sanguine about the lies when it is a repressive, authoritarian one party state doing the lying, than liberal democracies...I have to wonder why?

Is it because the nobility of the state "serving" the people excuses the sins of lying to the people in order to keep control? The over 100 million who died in the last century because "people's governments" knew what is best for them, might disagree...but, of course, they have no voice.

Now, to some of the points you've made:

So, why is it hard for you to think that in many of those thousands committees along the country people have never raised the issue about Fidel, Socialism and free speech?

Yes, the Cuban people have congressional representation. No debate on candidates, no real campaigning, the party decides the person and the issue. The voters go to the polls and find, essentially, one name on the ballot...hmmm...seems informative, fair and trusting of the people...that is one of the problems of parties that are "the vangaurd of the people"...they don't trust the people very much...they essentially think the people are sheep.

That asside, why is it hard for me? Because, I've read and studied history...the history of the Soviet Union, CHina, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Eastern Europe...all run on the above model...are full of purges and counter-purges and manipulated elections and mafia-like governments that have left over a hundred million dead in the last century.

Yes, I am sure that "free" speech, like "free" elections, as well as criticism of Fidel and the party have all been dealt with at the local level by neighborhood committees....in every other "socialist/Communist" socieites, these are engines of repression and fear...of course, Cuba is different. :rolleyes

There is no absolute freedom of speech anywhere. I cannot perceive it as an absolute concept. To me it is relative.

Of course that is true...but, given that it is relative in every society, in a society obstensibly for the people, shouldn't it be greater than in a society run for the benefit of narrow interests? Shouldn't for example, the Cuban government be more transparent than corrupt capitalist governments? Shouldn't they, ideologically and practically, given their popularity, have less to worry about reporters telling alternative economic news, or "slandering" the state and leader? Aren't the Cuban people smart enough to realize for themselves that all anti-Castro forces are flunkies of American imperialism?

No, like every petty dictator -- regardless of political stripe -- Castro wants to control information and all information.

The difference is, of course, that as poor and bad as they can be, there is, in liberal democracies, alternative information sources that can show when the government is lying...

It is simple accountability. It is imperfect, but in Cuba it is practically non-existent. Who is the Government accountable to? Castro. Who is Castro accountable to? You will say "the people"...but given his control over media, and the power to punish, that is a joke...it is a little like saying the Mafia is accountable to the people, it merely provides "protection" and exacts an understandable fee for it...

Would you find it desirable that Neonazies, holocaust deniers and hate groups could have the freedom to spout their agendas to everyone (including children) and everywhere (including schools)?

No, and yet I know that my fear over such liars is that they will be confronted by the truth, or a better version of the truth that is based on verifiable facts...so I'd rather let them rant and rave, and even in front of children, knowing that there will be people -- individuals -- using their free speech rights to ensure that the truth and alternative truths are available.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on your statement...the ideal of freedom of speech, to me, is the most important political concept/aspiration there is. However, having said that, I note that you go for an extreme...Nazis, holocaust deniers, etc.

But what we are talking about in Cuba, at least, are people who not only believe the goverment is lying to the "people", but have the statistics, facts to back that assertion up. Rather than disprove reporters, however, by openly and transparently conducting government business, the reporters are put in jail as counter revolutionaries. How are facts -- the failure of an industry, the reporting of a government mistatement of living standards, etc. -- harmful to the people?

I guess in the end, where we differ, is that I believe the lies will out...you believe that using lies to fight "lies" is ok...it is like the Americans Army in Vietnam..."we have to burn the village to save it"....we have to supress speech in order to protect the freedom of the people.

[Q-Source]

headscratcher4

I agree with most of what you said in your post, except the suggestion that I find desirable such repression.

We can find lies, corruption and lack of free speech in any country whether or not it is socialist or capitalist.

My position is simple. If we have to decide between equality and freedom, I choose equality. A long time ago, someone started a thread about it. I explained my reasons.

Equality or Liberty? (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=15340&highlight=equality)

Q-S

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Q-Source
headscratcher4

I agree with most of what you said in your post, except the suggestion that I find desirable such repression.

We can find lies, corruption and lack of free speech in any country whether or not it is socialist or capitalist.

My position is simple. If we have to decide between equality and freedom, I choose equality. A long time ago, someone started a thread about it. I explained my reasons.

Equality or Liberty? (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=15340&highlight=equality)

Q-S

I'll read through it, but my reaction to this is: are they mutually exclusive?

Further, the "equality" promulgated in most socialist -- and "communist" socieites in particular -- has been extremely deadly...and deadening...to art, to creativity, to learning, to innovation, to science...sure there are some successes, but these are not dynamic societies...Nor, I would argue, are they particularilly interested in equaility.

I note that the privilledges of the leadership class of the people's vangaurd are always "more equal" than what the rest of society has to offer...to quote Orwell -- no capitalist and someone intensely interested in justice and greater equality -- "Some Pigs are More Equal Than Others..." -- from Animal Farm.

I don't have a solution to these contradictions...I would suggest, however, that the lies the government tells in a controlled society , like Cuba, are worse than those being told by politicians in a "free" socieity. WHy?

Because there are indipendent methods of verification. THere is greater accountability through criticism and alternative analysis. Further, the lie of Cuban solicism -- that it exists to serve its people -- is belied by the fact that the government makes most moves in secret and without any realistic popular check. In short, the equality that the masses seem to achieve is the equality of all people who are disadvantaged by the lack of credible information -- and, as a result, the equality of all people oppressed because their society refuses to grant them the priveledge of thinking, deciding, agreeing and discenting for themselves.

Finally, an additional observation about Cuba...the saying goes: you shall be known by the company you keep....note in my signiture how much the North Koreans want to be seen as friends with a great leader, such as Castro. Castro is the Kims,
"lite" and with a particular "latin" flare.