Cuba Executes Three Charged in Ferry Hijacking

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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.

I definately agree with you on this issue.

EDIT: Considering the circumstances, I feel Cuba has done mighty well for itself and is making the correct moves.

[DinoDoc]

Since che's here.

Originally posted by Menlas
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).

He likely would have been the first OBL given his apologist attitude toward the use and abuse of State terrorism.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, Zinoviev was an ally of Trotsky in the Left Opposition. He didn't capitualte to Stalin until after Trtosky was defeated.

As for selling out the Communist movement to the US and Mexican governments, that's laughable. The Trotskyists were imprisoned in the US years before the Communist Party was cracked down upon.

[Shi Huangdi]

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

Less of a comparison/contrast then a red herring designed to distract from the subject.

"
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."

All Slowwhand said was:

"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."

What his articles do is report on events going on in Cuba. You can infer what you want from them.

"In some ways, Cuba is. "


I guess whether you can call Cuba a working system depends on whether you believe it can truly be a working system if you have a totaltarian government with cruel repression of dissidents. If freedom is not important to you, i suppose you could say Cuban communism has worked.

"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. "

If they didn't actually kill anyone, he wouldn't.


"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."

Good.

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

Ah, monkspider is unable to deal with cognitive dissonance caused by considering his favorite regime may have done something bad, he goes for an ad hominem


"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."

Ah it's Chegitz, behavioral psychologist, so skilled he can effectively give a good answer for each individual's behavior without having met them.

I suspect you may be underestimating man's desire for freedom. Surely economics has to be a component, but I would think many would also want to be in a democracy. And by the way, Mexicans living in the United States are alot less likely to support the overthrow of the Mexican government then Cubans in the US are likely to support Castro's overthrow.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Ah, monkspider is unable to deal with cognitive dissonance caused by considering his favorite regime may have done something bad, he goes for an ad hominem

It's really not this post so much, as it has been how Sloww has been acting in general lately.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


"BTW, Zinoviev was an ally of Trotsky in the Left Opposition. He didn't capitualte to Stalin until after Trtosky was defeated."

That would be true if we were discussing the period of 1925-1926, however, I was discussing the period of struggle in 1924. Zinoviev and Kamenev sided with Stalin during this affair, unfortunately for Trotsky. He had himself tried to "buy" their support to no avail, so losing the battle.

"As for selling out the Communist movement to the US and Mexican governments, that's laughable. The Trotskyists were imprisoned in the US years before the Communist Party was cracked down upon."

Here's something for you to chomp on then:

An article appeared in The Independent on the 25/11/1993 which gave details of a friend of Leon Trotsky's living in Mexico, Diego Rivera, who provided information to the FBI on anyone that he suspected of being GPU (Soviet intelligence) agents. His allegations were directed against anyone working in such organisations as the Mexican Communist Party (PCM) to Mexican trade unions. This in itself is interesting because, officially Rivera and Trotsky broke personal relations on May 31, 1940. Trotsky wrote in a letter to the chief of the Federal District in Mexico, 'I have nothing in common with the political activities of Diego Rivera. We broke our personal relations fifteen months ago.' (US National State archives; Trotsky Archive.)

But many people were mutual friends of the two, both of them worked in the same organisations such as the American Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky (ACDLT). Charles Curtiss was such a friend who sent Trotsky several reports of his meetings with Rivera: 'During my visit in Mexico, from July 4, 1938 to approximately July 15, 1939, I was in close association with Diego Rivera and Leon Trotsky.... I served as an intermediary between them,' (Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1939-40)

Trotsky of course knew of this, thus helping Rivera in supplying information to the FBI.

To return to the article in The independent, a Professor William Chase of the University of Pittsburgh was quoted at the end stating that he has 'concrete information' to prove that Trotsky was an FBI informant. (the source relevant to this particular revelation is US State archives - RG 84 or from Prof. Chase himself. Any other evidence will be referred to after the quotation).

According to the Professor, the information Trotsky provided to the FBI was a means to obtain a US visa. But as the Professor points out, 'By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa.'

Trotsky's hysterical allegations were directed against anyone who might share sympathies with the USSR under Stalin. In America the ACDLT campaigned for the asylum of Trotsky in the US. At the time of the World Congress Against War and Fascism and the Latin American Labour Congress, Trotsky asked his supporters to 'mail as soon as possible known names of congress delegates who are GPU agents'. Prof. Chase admits himself the ridiculous nature of these allegations which leads one to think of the number of honest proletarian and democratic persons whose names who were supplied to the FBI, 'Trotsky's accusations that liberals and radicals who did not share his views on certain issues were Stalinists or GPU agents further diminished his support in the US.'

But there is more. With this array of high-flown allegations Trotsky accepted an invitation to appear in front of the 'Dies Committee'. This is otherwise known as the US Congress House Un-American Activities Committee. It was linked to overtly fascist figures, conducted anti-democratic witch-hunts and played a leading role in passing many anti-labour laws. Such was the anti-fascist and proletarian stance of Trotsky (fortunately, Trotsky never appeared on this committee because he never got a visa, but as we shall see he passed on information to the US government by other means).

'In June [1940], Robert McGregor of the [US] Consulate met with Trotsky in his home... he met again with Trotsky on 13 July... Trotsky told McGregor in detail of the allegations and evidence he had compiled... He gave to McGregor the names of Mexican publications, political and labour leaders, and government officials allegedly associated with the PCM [Mexico and the USSR were the only countries in the world to materially support the fight against Franco's Fascism in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39]. He charged that one of the Comintern's [the Communist international's] leading agents, Carlos Contreras served on the PCM Directing Committee. He also discussed the alleged efforts of Narciso Bassols, former Mexican Ambassador to France, whom Trotsky claimed was a Soviet agent, to get him deported from Mexico.'

'Upon receipt, the State Department transmitted McGregor's memo to the FBI.

'...The Information, while not new, responded to both bodies' concerns.'

[Sava]

I refuse to use the red "the's"

And I'd like to remove myself from Shi's little stereotypical generalization that all so-called "leftists" hold Cuba up on a pedastal. In fact, I've never, in my history of Apolyton, expressed any opinion of Cuba.

And while people make such silly generalizations, they fail to pay attention to anything I've ever said. I'm not a Communist, nor do I want Communism in the US. If anything, I'm a Democratic Socialist. I want a market-economy in consumer goods, but education, public transportation, health-care, energy, and telecommunication be under public control. Not some authoritarian government. But a Democratically elected body or bodies on the local level. Believe it or not, private corporate ownership can be just as authoritarian as a Stalinist regime.

I have no problems with people profiting and running legitimate businesses like restaurants, selling TV's, consumer electronics, computers, etc. Competition and evolution make the luxuries we enjoy so much better. I have a problem with large, multi-national corporations exploiting people who require medical care, education, heat, or any other basic necessity. But for some reason, wanting every child to have free education, or medical care makes me a raving Commie who wants to enslave the world.

[Shi Huangdi]

"And I'd like to remove myself from Shi's little stereotypical generalization that all so-called "leftists" hold Cuba up on a pedastal. In fact, I've never, in my history of Apolyton, expressed any opinion of Cuba."

If I said all,I typed the wrong thing. But many leftists do hold it on a Pedestal, particularly the vey far left. Agathon even had in his location field "long live Fidel" once

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Sorry to inconvenience you, but comparison/contrast are valid analytical techniques."

Less of a comparison/contrast then a red herring designed to distract from the subject."

So it's a comparison if one cites another "commies = doubleplus ungood" example, but a red herring if one points out political repression of dissidents is a common theme in this hemisphere?

All Slowwhand said was:

"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."

What his articles do is report on events going on in Cuba. You can infer what you want from them.

He just picked two articles at random and then added a two-line troll, but there's no particular meaning.

"In some ways, Cuba is. "

I guess whether you can call Cuba a working system depends on whether you believe it can truly be a working system if you have a totaltarian government with cruel repression of dissidents. If freedom is not important to you, i suppose you could say Cuban communism has worked.

So why don't you tell me your position on whether "a working system" includes Haiti under the Duvaliers, the Dominican Republic under Trujillo, Paraguey under Stroessner, El Salvador ever, Nicaragua under the Somozas, etc?

Freedom has always been secondary, and a matter of semantics and spin, throughout Latinamerica. Or is it only commie repression that's a problem, but non-commie repression is just "necessary, temporary measures to preserve a free society from the threat of communism?"

"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."

Good.

So if foreign countries pay people to subvert (or continute subverting) their governments, that's A-OK? Or is it just OK when anti-commies do this with commie governments, but otherwise, it's deplorable interference in another country's domestic affairs?

Ah it's Chegitz, behavioral psychologist, so skilled he can effectively give a good answer for each individual's behavior without having met them.

I suspect you may be underestimating man's desire for freedom. Surely economics has to be a component, but I would think many would also want to be in a democracy. And by the way, Mexicans living in the United States are alot less likely to support the overthrow of the Mexican government then Cubans in the US are likely to support Castro's overthrow.

This coupled with your post about what "the Iraqi people" want reminds me of pots and kettles.

[jolair]

Originally posted by Propaganda
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.

Why do you say that?

Before Franco won the war the communists (PCE- PSUC)finished, by the force, the spanish revolution started by anarchist and marxists not pro-USSR (POUM).

[WRangler Rhymer]

Dam Castro to HELL for executing the people that hijacked the Cuban airline to escape Cuba! He will be executed soon too. Cuba is not modernized, they crap in out houses made of wood. Only Havanna is deceint it is a tourists site.

[RedFred]

Despite the seriousness of this situation, does anyone else find it amusing that people are hijacking to try to get away from Cuba these days?

Once upon a time that is where all the hijackers wanted to go.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by WRangler Rhymer
Dam Castro to HELL for executing the people that hijacked the Cuban airline to escape Cuba! He will be executed soon too. Cuba is not modernized, they crap in out houses made of wood. Only Havanna is deceint it is a tourists site.

You apparently have not been to Cuba.

Castro may be an SOB (and I personally hope he dies soon) but you have to admit he did something no other country in latin america has: education and health. In fact, looking at your spelling I'm sure the average Cuban can spell better than you.

If Cuba is in the doldrums lately it is because of the embargo placed by no one else but the US. But then again, I would really question the ability of the US to actually respect the political situation of others, especially when they are in "their backyard"

Cuba has not done anything against human rights that China hasn't done either, yet China gets billions in $$ each year. So stop being hypocrites and treat each country with the same standards.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Master Zen
If Cuba is in the doldrums lately it is because of the embargo placed by no one else but the US.

That doesn't really change the facxt that they can and do trade freely with every other major country. I fail to see why/how the US refusal to trade with them would have much of an effect?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Propaganda
Originally posted by chegitz guevara

"BTW, Zinoviev was an ally of Trotsky in the Left Opposition. He didn't capitualte to Stalin until after Trtosky was defeated."

That would be true if we were discussing the period of 1925-1926, however, I was discussing the period of struggle in 1924. Zinoviev and Kamenev sided with Stalin during this affair, unfortunately for Trotsky. He had himself tried to "buy" their support to no avail, so losing the battle.

It's what I was discussing. If you're going to talk about something different, you need to let people know that. Zinoviev and Kamenev weren't really reliable politically. They denounced the revolution before it took place, they waffled back and forth between Stalin and Trotsky, and Zinoviev was responsible for changing Leninism from a dynamic and democratic movement into the cult which brooks no disagreement it has been since the mid-1920s. They were worse than useless, so the fact that they clung to Stalin at first is of very little relevence.

Here's something for you to chomp on then:

Let's see some sources and actual evidence for that aside from the usual assertions of the Stalinist left. But wait, I thought we were agents of the fascists? Or did that change when Stalin signed his alliance with Hitler? When you make up your mind who Trotsky and his followers were working for, will you let us know? All the different masters confuse us.

Oh, let's see what Lenin thought of Stalin. Ever read Lenin's letter to Stalin dated March 5, 1923? Interesting, Lenin's not just mad about what Stalin said to Krupskaya but what what Stalin had done in regards Lenin himself. Hmmmmmm.

Here's another one:

March 6, 1923

Top Secret
Comrades Mdivani, Makharadze, and others
Copy to Comrades Trotsky and Kamenev
Dear Comrades,

I am following your case with all my heart. I am indignant over Ordzhonikidze's rudenss and the connivance of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky. I am preparing for you notes and a speech.

Respectfully yours,

Lenin

italics added

Another which shows Lenin's opinion of Stalin in 1923.

March 5, 1923

Top Secret
Personal
Dear Comrade Trotsky,

It is my earnest request that you should undertake the case of the Georgian case in the party CC. This case is now under "persecution" by Stalin and Dzerzhinsky, and I cannot rely on their impartiality. Quite to the contrary. I would feel at ease if you agreed to undertake its defense. If you should refuse to do so for any reason, return the whole case to me. I shall consider it a sign you do not accept.

With best comradely greatings,
Lenin

Ultimately, of course, Lenin recommended Stalin be removed from his position as party chairman. Rather different from his disagreements with Trotsky, Lenin considered Stalin a danger.