Cuba Executes Three Charged in Ferry Hijacking

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sava,

I think the basic nature of man & the requirements of communism are such that communism must be totalitarian & oppressive, or it must at some point cease to be communist.

Clearly, the communist view of human nature differs from mine, and thus they would argue that communism doesn't require oppression.

But so far the only examples we've had to go on were either totalitarian monstrosities or overthrown (thinking of Chile here) before we got to see what they would become.

-Arrian

The basic nature of man is amoral, opportunistic, craven and predatory. (Macchiavelli was a sentimental optimist) The differences with practical communism and practical capitalism is just in the mechanisms of exploitation.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think the basic nature of man & the requirements of communism are such that communism must be totalitarian & oppressive, or it must at some point cease to be communist.

That's an interesting question...i have always wondered what would have USSR become if Lenin's successor had been Troski, or someone else than Stalin (who appeared to be a dictator of the worse kind). Maybe it would have worked, even if i doubt it...

[SlowwHand]

There isn't ANY communist country that is a barn-burning success story.

If Chile is the best one can offer, that's sad.

[General Ludd]

Re: Cuba Executes Three Charged in Ferry Hijacking

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Observation:

All you communist-wannabes are free to leave the States at your earliest convenience.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

If freedom of speach and democracy bothers you so much, you can feel free to move to Afghanistan.

[Alvaro]

The USSR would have been a disaster had it been Leon Trotski in control. Stalin was the party secretary, the person who made things happen.

He modernized the country marvelously and with lightning speed it became from the most backwards country east of Greenwich to a super power.

It sure as hell cost alot of lives but Trotski, inspite of being the 'father' of the Red Army, was very agricultulraly minded whilst Stalin was a die-hard industrialist.

Trotski's USSR would have never survived the German onslaught of WW2.

The whole system of government is predictable and similar with regards to the 'old' communists around Lenin and Stalin. Stalin was the right marker as far as militarism went and that is the main reason behind USSR coming out a victor in 1945.

[GePap]

A sad enterprise this: sicne I don;t back the deatj sentence, it does not matter who carries it out. It is also sad that the "trial" went as it did.

I understand why it was done (to scare people into not hijacking any more things) but it was wrong anyway.

[Shi Huangdi]

"And hey, in good ol' capitalist Chile, they didn't even get sham trials, or 28 year sentences."

And Chile relates to the topic, how? Can't you stick to the subject?

"Gee, Castro's a dictator? Who'da thunk it?"

Many left wingers on this forum have put Cuba up on a pedestal, have admire it, and have called it a good model of working communism. Trying to divert attention from the topic at hand by saying "Ya, well country Y is also bad!" is something I would expect from one of this forum's left wingers. But not from you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"And hey, in good ol' capitalist Chile, they didn't even get sham trials, or 28 year sentences."

And Chile relates to the topic, how? Can't you stick to the subject?

Sorry to inconvenience you, but comparison/contrast are valid analytical techniques.

Sloww tries to make a linkage between communism, the (perfectly fine, as far as I can see) execution of hijackers (trying to flee is one thing, endangering other's lives and holding a knife to the throat of a hostage is another), and repression of political dissidents.

Repression of dissidents is more a matter of the individual leader and leadership style, than the economic or political system.

Gorbachev stayed commie, but massively reduced political repression in the former USSR. The PRC has been going ever more capitalist, but has so far maintained it's repressive policies towards dissidents.

"Gee, Castro's a dictator? Who'da thunk it?"

Many left wingers on this forum have put Cuba up on a pedestal, have admire it, and have called it a good model of working communism. Trying to divert attention from the topic at hand by saying "Ya, well country Y is also bad!" is something I would expect from one of this forum's left wingers. But not from you.

In some ways, Cuba is. Despite the rather ridiculous US trade embargo, Cuba has managed to achieve infant mortality, life expentancy and literacy standards that are first world level, and vastly superior to most of Latinamerica and virtually all the Caribbean states. GDP per capita is abysmal, but the commie "market" screws PPP calculations, so it's hard to conclude that Cuba's GDP per capita is either not as bad, or much worse, than PPP adjusted GDP per capita in many other countries in the region.

To say it's the worker's paradise is bull****, but to say it's the worst regime in the hemisphere is equally bull****.

[GePap]

The worst place to live in the area is without a doubt Haiti.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Alvaro
Stalin was the party secretary, the person who made things happen.

He modernized the country marvelously and with lightning speed it became from the most backwards country east of Greenwich to a super power.

He also did it in a very brutal and inefficient way.

It sure as hell cost alot of lives but Trotski, inspite of being the 'father' of the Red Army, was very agricultulraly minded whilst Stalin was a die-hard industrialist.

Actually, Bukharin was the representitive of the peasants. Trotksy's faction was the workerist faction, and workers aren't known for putting forward pro-agriculturalist policies. In order to defeat Trotsky politically, Stalin sided with Bukharin, which means Stalin was backing the agriculturalist policy. Once Trotsky was defeated and exiled, Stalin took Trotsky's industrialization plan, took out the voluntary and worker-controlled aspects and took out the the reasonable time frame.

Trotski's USSR would have never survived the German onslaught of WW2.

It's highly unlikely that Hitler would have even risen to power, since the international Communist movment would have had Trotsky leading it, rather than Stalin. We wouldn't have had the disasters in China, where Stalin as much as orderd the communist part to put it's head on Chiang Kai-Shek's chopping block. We wouldn't have had the Communist Party in Germany ignoring the Nazis, decalring them a flash in a pan, and saying that the real danger was from the social democrats. We wouldn't have had the General Strike in Britain ending in surrender when they had effective control of the country. We wouldn't have had the Communists stabbing the Spanish Revolution in the back. I can't say what would have happened, but the world would be a very different place indeed.

Slowwhand, if someone hijacked the Staaten Island ferry and threated to throw people off, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs for the death penalty. You're being a hypocrite. You're the guy who demanded that the father of those five salin kids should be tried to, because since he didn't share your righteous indignation, that he must have been in on it. Don't play like you have sympathy for criminals.

For the record, I don't think they should have been executed.

I would also point out that the US is giving money to dissidents in Cuba. Someone is, anyway. There's no way they could have access to the resources they do without someone footing the bill.

[monkspider]

whatever happened to Sloww? Once such a respectable member of the community, now the new Fez.

[PLATO]

I doubt anyone would ever highjack the Staten Island Ferry to get to Cuba. Highjacking a ferry in Cuba to get to the US is a very different scenario. People seeking freedom from oppression should be encouraged and supported in any way possible. The Cuban community in South Florida does this by exercising the political and economic rights that living in the US provides them.

Castro should realize that his time is coming to an end and that his regime will likely only slightly survive him. He could rehape his entire legacy by loosening repression and encouraging reform. The fact that he has taken the response that he has only shows the world how morally bankrupt a form of government he chose for the Cuban people

[Sandman]

Seeing as Trotsky would probably have not executed the bulk of the Red Army officers and would have continued their technological development, I would have expected them to have been more than a match for the Wehrmacht.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I doubt anyone would ever highjack the Staten Island Ferry to get to Cuba. Highjacking a ferry in Cuba to get to the US is a very different scenario. People seeking freedom from oppression should be encouraged and supported in any way possible.

These people put the lives of fifty people at seious risk. That ferry was not a sea going vessel, and could easily have capsized or sunk, killing many. Those are rough seas with very swift currents, and there are also sharks. Lots of sharks.

I don't agree with the DP, but I think the Cuban government needed to send a message that you don't put others' lives at risk for your own "freedom."

BTW, the "freedom" that most of these people flee for isn't the freedom to critize the government or peasably assemble. It's the same freedom that has Mexican peasants dying in the Sonoran desert as well as trashing the plash up, i.e., the freedom to work in a better economy than the one in which they live. Don't act like it's some noble cause that drives people to flee Cuba. They just want to make more money, like the vast majority of people who come here.

[Propaganda]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Alvaro
Stalin was the party secretary, the person who made things happen.

He modernized the country marvelously and with lightning speed it became from the most backwards country east of Greenwich to a super power.

He also did it in a very brutal and inefficient way.

It sure as hell cost alot of lives but Trotski, inspite of being the 'father' of the Red Army, was very agricultulraly minded whilst Stalin was a die-hard industrialist.

Actually, Bukharin was the representitive of the peasants. Trotksy's faction was the workerist faction, and workers aren't known for putting forward pro-agriculturalist policies. In order to defeat Trotsky politically, Stalin sided with Bukharin, which means Stalin was backing the agriculturalist policy. Once Trotsky was defeated and exiled, Stalin took Trotsky's industrialization plan, took out the voluntary and worker-controlled aspects and took out the the reasonable time frame.

Give me a break. Trotsky was the one looking for alliances. Trotsky's problem was that he had problems with Zinoviev, who wouldn't give him the support. Bukharin, as well. Stalin, on the other hand, wasn't exactly looking for an alliance; he already had support(BTW, yes, at that time Stalin supported continuing Lenin's policy of NEP, but only in the short-term). The fact that Bukharin and Zinoviev fled to him only reinforced him. As for 1929, Trotsky proposed his own plan for socialist construction and was overwhelmingly defeated. Thusly, he was exiled to Mexico, where he made himself a career by selling out Communists("Stalinists" read: Marxist-Leninist or other) to the US and Mexican gov'ts, all so that the US would grant him a visa. His undoing came as a result of this, as the Mexicans got their revenge on him.

For Trotsky, I guess what you reap is really what you sow.

Trotski's USSR would have never survived the German onslaught of WW2.

It's highly unlikely that Hitler would have even risen to power, since the international Communist movment would have had Trotsky leading it, rather than Stalin. We wouldn't have had the disasters in China, where Stalin as much as orderd the communist part to put it's head on Chiang Kai-Shek's chopping block. We wouldn't have had the Communist Party in Germany ignoring the Nazis, decalring them a flash in a pan, and saying that the real danger was from the social democrats. We wouldn't have had the General Strike in Britain ending in surrender when they had effective control of the country. We wouldn't have had the Communists stabbing the Spanish Revolution in the back. I can't say what would have happened, but the world would be a very different place indeed.

Disasters in China? The Communists won, didn't they? . As for Germany, it is doubtful the Communists would have taken it, considering the disaster of 1919(thanks to the Social Democrats). The Nazis had the support of the people anyway, even as early as the late 20s. As for Britain, what would you have proposed? The Spanish Revolution is a difficult subject to discuss(for me, anyway), but we did aid the Republicans there. Also, IMO, the ones who stabbed the Communists in the back were the anarchists.