Cuba Executes Three Charged in Ferry Hijacking

[Master Zen]

Helms-Burton law ring a bell?

Now tell me, why doesn't the US embargo China too for committing the same crimes?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
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?

The US, being the closest market, would provide cheaper goods, since they don't have to be shipped over great distances. Also, our goods tend to be less expensive in general. They could spend less money on more goods.

[SlowwHand]

You haven't left yet? WTF???
Seems no one want to leave big, bad, bullying USA to go to Cuba.
Go figure.

[Ramo]

Certainly, death isn't warranted for hijacking a ferry (even if the action posed a serious risk to many, many people), but disproporitionately repressive sentencing is hardly the exclusive province of Cuba or communist states in general. Hell, we throw people in prison for life for more absurd reasons like nonviolent drug use.

The US, being the closest market, would provide cheaper goods, since they don't have to be shipped over great distances. Also, our goods tend to be less expensive in general. They could spend less money on more goods.

Also, distribution costs tend to be very important in agricultural markets.

[WRangler Rhymer]

Originally posted by Master Zen


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.

You have never been to Cuba, you moron, and my spelling is fine. There are people all across Cuba that have nothing. Medicine has to been sent there by people they are related to here. The education is nothing, some people in Cuba can bearly write letters to people here in the U.S. they know. Most of the letters never make it here because Castro simply does not want them to. You have never been to Cuba, you do not know the half of what happens there. Cuba is only good to rich people who go there. I have pictures from all of Cuba from people I know there, there are no cars there except old 1920 fords, chevies, and etc. Cubans are good mechanics because they have to keep restoring cars that keep falling apart. You are a imbicile do tell me i have never been to Cuba. As for China hell I dont like them either but they are slowly turning away from Communism, they have a Capitol Economy.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
It's okay for people to express their political views as long as they are consistent with your own.

You say this? 'Tis to laugh!!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by WRangler Rhymer


You have never been to Cuba, you moron, and my spelling is fine. There are people all across Cuba that have nothing. Medicine has to been sent there by people they are related to here. The education is nothing, some people in Cuba can bearly write letters to people here in the U.S. they know. Most of the letters never make it here because Castro simply does not want them to. You have never been to Cuba, you do not know the half of what happens there. Cuba is only good to rich people who go there. I have pictures from all of Cuba from people I know there, there are no cars there except old 1920 fords, chevies, and etc. Cubans are good mechanics because they have to keep restoring cars that keep falling apart. You are a imbicile do tell me i have never been to Cuba. As for China hell I dont like them either but they are slowly turning away from Communism, they have a Capitol Economy.

First of all I HAVE been to Cuba, in fact I was there exactly one year ago and I am the first to recognize that Cubans live in poverty and it is not as wretched as you picture it, at least they are not dying of hunger as in other places.

As for education, all the taxi drivers (which btw many drove Mercedes) I spoke to had a college degrees. As for your spelling, well, just check out the bolds...

In China they are not "slowly turning away from Communism", you apparently don't know much about the world but you are quick to insult others. There are few "special economic zones" like Shanghai and Hong Kong" which are semi-capitalist, but the rest of the Country, and I MEAN THE REST live in a brutal communist state and most people do not have access to the advantages that these few privileged zones have. One can even argue that a similar zone exists in Cuba in the turism sector, in places like Varadero. BTW most special zones in China cater to the wealthy foreigners too...

BTW, 2 insults directed at me in the same post, that's a record...stooping low has reached new heights

[GePap]

I think you mean old 1940's and 50's cars WRangler Rhymer. The revolution happened in 1959, not 1929.

[Shi Huangdi]

" but a red herring if one points out political repression of dissidents is a common theme in this hemisphere? "

We weren't talking about human right in this hemisphere. We were talking about human rights in what some people consider to be the model socialist state.

"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? "

Subversion of foreign governments isn't in itself either right or wrong. It all depends on the nature of the regime being subverted.

"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?"

I don't hold those countries up as gleaming models of capitalism, however lefties sometimes do hold up Cuba as a working system. If we wanted to go to the extreme negative end for communist regimes then you are dealing with real evil mother****ers.

"but non-commie repression is just "necessary, temporary measures to preserve a free society from the threat of communism?" "

IIRC Michael, when the coup against Chavez first occured, you applauded it while I condemned it.

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

Of course, freedom is only for white people; our brown brothers from down south really don't care about it.

[Propaganda]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by chegitz guevara
support to no avail, so losing the battle. [/B][/q]

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.

The fact that they were unreliable does not concern me. They had their own support base, and Trotsky tried to capitalize on it. Stalin did not need either of them, neither did he need Bukharin. Zinoviev and Kamenev found themselves with Stalin because they disagreed with Trotsky on theory, the same could be said for Bukharin, who supported continuing NEP. Both opposition groups had their own internal conflicts, with Zinoviev clashing with Trotsky and Stalin clashing with Bukharin, as well.

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.

So you are saying Chase is a "Stalinist sympathizer?" As for Nazi-Soviet pact, well, if Britain, France, Poland, Bulgaria, the Baltics and Finland had listened to Stalin in '36 and had agreed to his proposition on a common defense strategy, that pact would have never become reality.

BTW, This quote by Trotsky, judges him fairly well:

"The working class...must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded just like soldiers. Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps"

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 what that link says: First Published: In 1956 by N. Khrushchev, upon his famous "Secret Speech" at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The letter does exist, to be sure, but it's authenticity has been scrutinized before, considering that Khruschev had plenty of time to edit in little tidbits, so as to justify his attack on Stalin.


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

What is this? "the case of the Georgian case?" None of this sounds like Lenin. Why would Lenin publish these letters to Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky anyway? He had already argued against this "troika" in 1922 and 21 while able.

During a 1921 “Speech on the Trade Unions” Lenin stated,
“Comrade Trotsky now laughs at my asking who started it all, and is surprised that I should reproach him for refusing to serve on the commission. I did it because this is very important Comrade Trotsky, very important, indeed; your refusal to serve on the trade union commission was *a violation of Central Committee discipline*.”

In a 1922 article entitled “Reply to Remarks Concerning the Functions of the Deputy Chairmen of the Council of People’s Commisars” Lenin said,
“Some of Trotsky’s remarks are likewise vague (for example, the ‘apprehensions’ in paragraph 4) and do not require an answer; other remarks made by him renew old disagreements, that we have repeatedly observed in the Political Bureau....
As regards the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection, *Comrade Trotsky is fundamentally wrong*....
As regards the State Planning Commission, *Comrade Trotsky is not only absolutely wrong but is judging something on which he is amazingly ill-informed*.
...The second paper from Comrade Trotsky...contains, first, an extremely excited but profoundly erroneous ‘criticism’ of the Political Bureau decree on setting up a financial triumvirate....
Secondly, this paper flings the same fundamentally wrong and intrinsically untrue accusations of academic method at the State Planning Commission, accusations which lead up to *the next incredibly uninformed statement by Comrade Trotsky*....”

In a January 1921 article entitled The Party Crisis Lenin states,
“The Central Committee sets up a trade union commission and elects Comrade Trotsky to it. He refuses to work on the commission, magnifying by this step alone his original mistake, which subsequently leads to factionalism....”

Also refer to Lenin's comments on Trotsky in "Once Again on the Trade Unions" published in 1921.

For Zinoviev and Kamenev, I can refer you to a few articles by Lenin on these two characters. I can also refer you to Lenin's so-called "Testament" exposing them, Trotsky's non-Bolshevism and Stalin's rudeness(Lenin considered this a good quality actually before Stalin's arguement with Krupskaya; even in his "Testament," he says it is "quite tolerant amongst us Communists"), which Stalin joked about after publishing it in Pravda in 1927, BTW.

Here's what Stalin had to say:

"Moreover, I consider it a matter of honour that the opposition directs all its hatred against Stalin. 'This has to be like that. I think that it would be strange and insulting if the opposition, which is trying to ruin the Party, would have praised Stalin, who upholds the fundamentals of the Leninist Party.''


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.

Lenin recommended Stalin's removal because of Stalin's row with his wife, which he took personal. It is ridiculous to think that Lenin did not value Stalin, even after this affair. Lenin's sister, BTW, mentions that "Lenin considered Stalin the most valuable member in the Politburo."

Here's what Lenin himself had to say on Stalin in 1922:

"Preobrazhensky has frivolously complained that Stalin is in charge of two Commissariats.... But what can we do to maintain the existing situation in the People's Commissariat for the Affairs of the Nationalities and to get to the bottom of all these Turkestan, Caucasian and other questions? After all, they are political problems! And they are problems that must be solved: they are problems which have been occupying European States for hundreds of years and which have been solved in the democratic republics to only the smallest degree. We are solving these problems, and we must have a man to whom any representative of the Nationalities may come and discuss matters at length. Where are we to find such a man? I think that even Preobrazhensky could not name anybody else but Comrade Stalin.

"The same is true of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate. The work is tremendous. But to handle the work of investigation properly, we shall have a man of authority in charge, otherwise we shall be emerged in Party intrigues" (Lenin, Col. Works, Vol. XXVII, pp. 263-4).

In addition to all that, Stalin took a leading part in directing the work of the Polit-Bureau (see Lenin, XXVII, pp. 298 and 379).

[Propaganda]

Just to add Maria Ulyanova's(Lenin's sister) statement on the relationship of Stalin and Lenin and some more information:

'In view of the systematic slander on Comrade Stalin by the opposition minority in the CC and the unending assertions regarding a virtual termination of all relations by V.I. Lenin with I.V. Stalin, I feel obliged to say a few words about the relations between Lenin and Stalin as I was present alongside of Lenin during the whole period at the end of V.I.’s life.

Vlad. Ilyich Lenin highly valued Stalin, so much so, that at the time of the first stroke and also during the second stroke V.I. entrusted Stalin with the most intimate of assignments while emphasising that it is Stalin alone that he is asking for.

In general, during the whole period of his illness, V.I. did not ask for any of the members of the CC and did not want to meet any of them and would ask only for Stalin to come. Thus all the speculations that V.I.’s relations with Stalin were not as good as with others is totally contrary to the truth’.

On the question of Stalin’s ‘rudeness’ Maria Ulyanova asserted her opinion that the incident between Stalin and Nadezhda Krupskaya was ‘completely personal and had nothing to do with politics’. It had arisen as by the decision of the Central Committee Stalin was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that no political news reached Lenin during the period of his serious illness as per the instructions of the doctors. Nadezhda Krupskaya had breached this decision which led to Stalin criticising her and in turn was hammered by Lenin. Maria Ulyanova considered that ‘had Lenin not been so seriously ill then he would have reacted to the incident differently’.

Ulyanova also sought to delve more deeply into the connection between the last letter of Lenin which demands an apology from Stalin for his behaviour with Nadezhda Krupskaya with the last writings of Lenin and the political line of Stalin in the period after the death of Lenin. Maria Ulyanova sheds new light on the personal and political intimacy between Lenin and Stalin. We learn that Stalin was a more frequent visitor to Lenin in the period of his illness compared to the other party leaders. Lenin turned to Stalin for help when he came to the decision that in the event of his becoming paralysed he wished to end his life by consuming potassium cyanide. Maria Ulyanova’s account of this matter is of great value as it answers the scandalous charge levelled by Trotsky that Stalin had arranged for Lenin to be administered poison. (L. Trotsky, ‘Stalin’, Vol. 2, London, 1969, p. 199). The narration is of further value in countering the assiduously fostered notion prevalent in the west that Trotsky was in some sense closer to Lenin and in fact the ‘heir’ of Lenin and Leninism. From her direct knowledge of the discussions of Lenin and Stalin on the subject of Trotsky, Maria Ulyanova is able to aver that Lenin stood in close political proximity to Stalin despite the difference between the two on the Caucasian question. (On this see the note ‘Bolshevism and the National Question’, ‘Revolutionary Democracy’, Vol. 1, No. 2, September 1995, pp. 66-69). Ulyanova’s account of the dissatisfaction of Lenin with Stalin on the matter of sending monetary assistance to the émigré Menshevik Martov may not convince many of Lenin’s political correctness on the question, rather political sympathy may go to Stalin who exclaimed to Lenin that he should find another party secretary if he wished to send money to this enemy of the workers.

The differences between Lenin and Stalin manifested in Lenin’s last letter to Stalin where he demanded an apology from Stalin originated, as Maria Ulyanova pointed out, from a situation where Stalin was required by the party politbureau to ensure the compliance of the doctors’ instructions that Lenin should not be informed of political developments. Ulyanova indicates that the ‘maximum fear’ was of Nadezhda Krupskaya who was accustomed to holding discussions on political matters with Lenin. Stalin’s attempt to maintain the medical instructions precipitated the quarrel with Krupskaya in which he threatened to take her before the Central Control Commission of the party. This in turn provoked the contretemps between Lenin and Stalin.

Lenin’s letter to Stalin of 5th March 1923 did not touch upon the fact that Nadezhda Krupskaya was circumventing the medical instructions and that Stalin had been charged by the politbureau to ensure their compliance. Lenin demanded that Stalin withdraw his words to Nadezhda Krupskaya, apologise or face a rupture in their relations.

[Propaganda]

Well, since I cannot fall asleep as yet, I'd like to add more to our discussion, che. First, I'd like to direct you to a previous post you made on Stalin's support(or lack thereof, as you seem to think) for the Chinese Revolution or the General Strike in Britain, in particular. Secondly, I'd like to know how you came up with these erroneous assumptions, as they are simply not true, as I shall now point out.

What I will provide you with here is an exchange of letters between Comrade Stalin and Comrade Molotov dealing with the International scene which should(hopefully) wash away any doubts on Stalin and what some may call his "lack of assertiveness" on the International scene.

Stalin and the World Revolutionary Movement

These letters clearly reveal that in upholding the principle that socialism could be built in one country, Stalin in no way 'abandoned the cause of world revolution', as Trotsky alleges;


'"Stalin was not hypocritical in his support for world revolution, since from his point of view no sacrifice of state interests was involved.

Stalin comes out of the letters with his revolutionary credentials in good order...

As first servant of the Soviet state, he was also first servant of the world revolution...

The letters refute the Trotsky-derived interpretation of 'socialism in one country' as an isolationist rejection of revolution elsewhere...

The letters show that Stalin did not see revolutionary interests and state interests in either-or terms".

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.); ibid.: pp.28, 36, 62).


For example, the letters reveal his great personal interest in the class struggle of the British workers:


"Stalin's remarks indicate that he was very involved in the British situation".

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 30).


Thus, when the British miners' strike began on 1 May 1926, Stalin insisted that every possible assistance be rendered to them:


"We must publish the complete text of the resolution of our workers... in support of the British strikers in general and the coal-miners in particular in all the most important languages of the West as quickly as possible. ... This is a fighting matter and should not be allowed to fall by the wayside".

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (26 May 1926), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 104).


"The delegation of British coal miners should be arriving any day... They should be met 'by all the rules of the game' and as much money as possible should be collected for them. I've heard that the Americans have promised 1 million dollars. We have to collect and send possibly 1 million or 2 million roubles (less than the Americans is impossible) or perhaps a whole 3 million, The situation in England is serious, and it obliges us to make serious sacrifices'"

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (2? August 1926). in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 119).


The letters also demonstrate his keen interest in, and support for, the Chinese Revolution:


"Stalin sees the success of the Chinese Communist Party as a matter of both state and revolutionary interest",

(Lars T. Lih: Introduction, Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p.33).


and show that, despite Opposition criticism, Stalin was convinced that the Comintern's policy with regard to China had been correct:


"Never have I been so deeply and firmly convinced of the correctness of our policy . . . in China . . as I am now".

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (11 July 1927), in: Lars T. Lih et al (Eds.): ibid.; p. 143).


and he


"... insisted that the blame for the failure of Comintern strategy lay with the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party", (Lars T. Lih: Introduction to: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): op. cit.; p.32).


which he characterised as 'not a genuine Communist Party':


"... unfortunately we don't have a real or, if you like, an actual Communist Party in China. . . . What is the current Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Nothing but an 'amalgamation' of general phrases gathered here and there, not linked to one another with any line or guiding idea. I don't want to be very demanding toward the Central Committee of the CCP. I know that one can't be too demanding toward it. But here is a simple demand: fulfil the directives of the Comintern. Has it fulfilled these directives? No.

There is not a single Marxist mind in the Central Committee capable of understanding . . . the social underpinning of the events now occurring. ... The CCP sometimes babbles about the hegemony of the proletariat.

But ... the CCP does not have a clue (literally, not a clue) about hegemony.

That's the reason why the Comintern's directives are not fulfilled.


That is why I now believe the question of the Party is the main question of the Chinese revolution".

(Josef V. Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov C9 Jul1 1927), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; pp.140-41).


In 1929, Stalin even favoured military intervention in Manchuria in support of the Chinese Revolution:


"I think that it's time to think about organising an uprising by a revolutionary movement in Manchuria. ... We need to organise two double-regiment brigades, chiefly made up of Chinese, outfit them with everything necessary (artillery, machine-guns, and so on), put Chinese at the head of the brigade, and send them into Manchuria with the following assignment: to stir up a rebellion among the Manchurian troops, ... to occupy Harbin and, after gathering force, to declare Chang Hsueh-liang overthrown, establish a revolutionary government. ...This we can, and I think should, do. No 'international law' contradicts this task".

(Josef V, Stalin: Letter to Vyacheslav Molotov (7 October 1929), in: Lars T. Lih et al. (Eds.): ibid.; p. 182).

[MRT144]

Originally posted by 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

Shi, using agathon as an example of the left is like using fez as an example of the right. nobody wants their side associated with the most extreme example possible.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by MRT144


Shi, using agathon as an example of the left is like using fez as an example of the right. nobody wants their side associated with the most extreme example possible.

Ag was just one example among many...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Ramo
Certainly, death isn't warranted for hijacking a ferry (even if the action posed a serious risk to many, many people), but disproporitionately repressive sentencing is hardly the exclusive province of Cuba or communist states in general. Hell, we throw people in prison for life for more absurd reasons like nonviolent drug use.



Also, distribution costs tend to be very important in agricultural markets.

Hate to differ, but these hijackers threatened the lives of the people onboard the ferry.

Sure, I can see their wanting to get the hell out of Castro's hell-hole, but not that way.


Che? Gone yet?