Capitalism is not Democracy. Private property isn't sacred.

[mudplanet]

Every time there is a post on DU about Hugo Chavez there are posters whose main line of argument seems to be that he is a "dictator."

This despite the facts that a) he was popularly and legally elected a number of times, and b) he adheres faithfully to Venezuelan laws. Is it a coincidence that the willfully ignorant also refer to Obama as a dictator?

It seems that their main issue with him is that he favors using Venezuelan law to seize certain real estate for public uses and the public good. They don't seem to have an issue when private property is appropriated for the public good in America, but when it's done in Venezuela, someone is a dictator.

I am not familiar with the constitution of Venezuela (I don't even know if they have one) but I do know what democracy is.

Democracy "is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy)." This is what they have in Venezuela. Not a dictatorship.

Capitalism "is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies"

For good examples of what a dictatorship looks like, research the entirely US funded and protected governments of:
Haiti under Duvaliar and to the present;
of Guatemala from 1954 to the present;
of El Salvador from 1970 to 1991;
of Honduras from 1900 to the present;
of Argentina from the 1970s to the 1990s;
of Iran from 1955 to 1976;
of Nicaragua from the early 1900s to 1990.

Every one of these dictatorships existed solely through the monetary patronage, direct military aid and intervention, and assistance of the brutal secret police forces of the United States. Under these governments not only was a person's private property not safe, they could have their children taken away and given to someone else and they or their family members could be arrested without due process and tortured to death with impunity. They were all dictatorships and they were all supported by the good ole' USA. Except for the example of Argentina, none of these dictatorships would or could exist except for the support of the American government. These dictatorships were created by the American government.

In a 'democracy' people can vote to have whatever type of economic arrangement they like: purely capitalist, purely socialist or, as is usually the case, some mix of the two.

FYI: there isn't anything in the Constitution regarding private property, capitalism, socialism, or communism. If fact, the phrase "private property" appears in the document exactly once, in Amendment 5, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Constitution is about the establishment of a representative democracy, NOT capitalism and private property.

Instead of enshrining private property rights as some holy writ, the Constitution mentions private property only once, and in that mention it implies that private property may be taken by the government as long as just compensation is made.

[fascisthunter]

1. yeee-up!

[StandingInLeftField]

2. Very succinct description.

K&R

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Seems to me that if we had nationalized OUR steel industry about

forty years ago, we might still HAVE a steel industry today.

The capitalists decided it was not cost effective to modernize and upfit our industry, but we should import from China instead. So who has an effective steel industry today? China. Where is unemployment through the roof? In our foundry states.

The drive to preserve capitalism in America is destroying the most successful capitalist society on earth - America.

[DirkGently]

4. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So private property rights are only mentioned "once," but in a way that clearly cuts against large-scale nationalization. I'm not with the oligarchs on this one, but there's more than one type of oligarch.

And Chavez may be popular, but ordering unfavorable television stations off the air is at least dictator-esqe, no?

It was fun hearing him slag down Bush, but Chavez seems like more of a Soviet / Cuban-style communist than a democratic socialist of any kind. And he clearly has authoritarian tendencies.

I don't see his style of governing, or his view of property rights, as the answer to the problems with American robber-baron Capitalism. He seems like another self-styled Savior of the People who's more interested in taking both power and property from the rich ... and keeping it for himself.

[mudplanet]

5. Just so I'm not misunderstanding you: the Chavez govt. forced one

television station off the air with solid legal reasons, leaving the remaining television stations which are overwhelmingly anti-Chavez on the air and free to continue to broadcast their point of view as they have done since before he was first legally elected president, and you feel that's "dictator-esque."

And this is done in the context of:

the legally elected government of Venezuela having had to defeat a recent coup attempt backed by the most powerful country in the world, a country which openly funnels large amounts of capital to opposition parties in Venezuela and continues to pump billions of dollars annually into the military budget of Venezuela's hostile neighbor which already has a military twice the size of Venezuela's armed forces.

The country that backed the coup attempt and continues to funnel cash to the coup's engineers having a long history of assassinating Latin American politicians it doesn't like and funding mass murder and torture in Latin American countries with the express objective of keeping brutal dictatorships in power and preventing democratic reform in Latin America.

Latin American countries in which, while under the rule of dictatorships that the United States put in power and kept in power, the concept of a "free press" was limited to "you can print whatever you want, but if we don't like it you and your family members will be picked up by some thugs in a Jeep Cherokee with tinted windows, taken to secret base and tortured to death under the close supervision of special US military and CIA trainers."

In that context, the context of the facts and history, I'd say he'd be being reasonable to declare martial law and imprison anyone who is reasonably suspected of having conspired to overthrow the legally elected government.

As to enriching himself: I see no evidence of this at all. If you have evidence of this, please share it with us. Because it sounds like the same guasano argument I always hear in which Fidel is criticized for taking power so he could own everything when, in fact, he owns virtually nothing. I think you've confused Chavez with one of the dictators that the United States put in power and kept in power, such as Somomza (who owned a significant proportion of Nicaragua's real estate when he was overthrown), or the Duvaliars (who were, in effect, like Caligula and simply seized anything they wanted and murdered anyone that didn't agree with it), or the successive US supported presidents of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador who simply funneled 50% of every dollar in US aid that came into the country into a personal Miami bank account. Those are the "dictators" that I think you're talking about.

[DirkGently]

8. Didn't he create a pro-government station? Say he wants to lead indefinitely?

Yes, my impression is that a guy who shuts down the press, prances about in military garb, and idolizes Fidel, is contemplating a very authoritarian flavor of socialism.

[mudplanet]

10. To quote ronnie raygun, "There you go again." Chavez didn't "shut

down the press". He revoked the broadcasting license of one television station using very legal means. I agree his motivation may have been to silence the owners, but by no means did he "shut down the press." He has, in fact, demonstrated remarkable restraint in dealing with a press that is owned by his most strident opponents and that have used their property to encourage Venezuelans to overthrow the legally elected government (which is treason and punishable by death in this country).

If a television station or group of stations in the united states repeatedly called for armed insurrection and the violent overthrow of the government, and subsequently the military attempted a coup that research showed was financially and diplomatically supported by a foreign government, there would have been executions. Chavez "let it blow over." I think he showed remarkable restraint.

I understand you may not like "your impression" of Chavez, but before you say something you might want to do a little research:

Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force. http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

For many years, the media has essentially ignored the economic disparities present within the Venezuelan culture, portraying the entire nation as a homogenous, upper-middle class group. While this portrayal appeals to those in the economic levels that advertisers seek to reach, it leads to chronic dissatisfaction among the poorer classes. Just as the economic disparity creates feelings of resentment, regional biases within the media present a skewed picture of the nation. With most media outlets based in Caracas, the focus of the media falls largely on the capital and to a lesser degree on the other large metropolitan areas, especially Maracaibo. Regional radio stations and daily newspapers provide some coverage of the outlying areas, but the picture presented by both print and broadcast media is overwhelmingly one of Caracas. http://www.pressreference.com/Uz-Z/Venezuela.html



During the period when the political system was dominated by Accion Democratica (AD) and COPEI (1958 - 1998), after the closure of Accion Democratica's La Republica in 1969, none of the major newspapers or broadcasters were affiliated with a political party. However because of the importance of the two main parties, most newspapers had regular columnists or editorialists presenting the views of AD and COPEI on the issues of the day.<2> During this period, both parties promised Congressional seats to publishers in exchange for favourable coverage. In 1983, a deal with Jaime Lusinchi's presidential campaign resulted in four representatives of the Bloque DeArmas publishing group being elected to Congress on AD slates. A similar deal had been struck by COPEI in 1968 on behalf of Rafael Caldera, promising Miguel Angel Capriles a Senate seat and the right to designate eleven Congressional candidates.<2>

After the 1998 election of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan press "failed miserably in their duty to provide information that their fellow citizens needed to navigate the storms of Venezuelan politics under Chavez. Instead, media owners and their editors used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez."<3> The programme of Bolivarian Missions was (until 2005) "virtually invisible in the mainstream press" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Venezuela

[DirkGently]

11. I get you like the guy. I take your point U.S.-backed regimes were ugly. We're going to have to

disagree on the notion that Chavez is a benevolent socialist Man of the People, though. It sounds like we don't agree on Fidel's either, and Chavez clearly fancies himself a leader in that mold.

I think he's shown authoritarian tendencies, whatever his motives, and while I can agree that it's not reasonable to equate economic models with a certain level of social control, i.e. capitalism doesn't equal democracy and socialism doesn't equal dictatorship, my admittedly not-fully-informed impression of Chavez is that he's got at least one foot in the "strongman" camp, and I'm not a fan.

[txlibdem]

12. I hate that bastard Fidel Castro

Did you hear what he did to the people of Cuba? He gave them FREE health care for life!

Can you believe the nerve of that guy!

(PS, for the truly ignorant (aka conservative) among us here at DU: :sarcasm: )


"In Cuba, urban gardens have bloomed in vacant lots, alongside parking lots, in the suburbs and even on city rooftops.

They sprang from a military plan for Cuba to be self-sufficient in case of war. They were broadened to the general public in response to a food crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba's biggest benefactor at the time.

They have proven extremely popular, occupying 35,000 hectares (86,000 acres) of land across the Caribbean island. Even before the hurricanes, they produced half of the leaf vegetables eaten in Cuba, which imports about 60 percent of its food."

http://www.cityfarmer.info/2008/12/17/in-the-wake-of-three-hurricanes-cuba-again-turns-to-its-urban-gardens/

[DirkGently]

13. I'm down with the healthcare. Locking up political dissidents in prison, not so much.

On 15 March, State security officials visited Soledad Riva's home and advised her against taking part in the events organized by the Damas de Blanco. The officials warned her that if she took part in a demonstration she could risk being beaten and would not see her children again. Her children live abroad and Soledad has been seeking an exit visa to visit them, which so far has not been granted by Cuban authorities.

Soledad Rivas' husband is a former prisoner of conscience Roberto de Miranda Hernández, a demonstrator who was detained in March 2003 but released in June 2004 on health grounds.

On 16 March, several members of the Damas de Blancowere intimidated by government supporters during a march they had organized to call for the release of their relatives in prison.

Government supporters shouted insults at them and physically assaulted William Cepero Garcia a man supporting the protest. Hugo Damian Prieto and Juan Carlos Vasallo, two men who were supporting the demonstration, were detained.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/cubas-ladies-white-risk-beatings-and-intimidation-2010-03-18

"The tragic death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo is a terrible illustration of the despair facing prisoners of conscience who see no hope of being freed from their unfair and prolonged incarceration," said Gerardo Ducos, Amnesty International's Caribbean researcher. "A full investigation must be carried out to establish whether ill-treatment may have played a part in his death."

Orlando Zapata Tamayo was arrested in March 2003 and in May 2004 he was sentenced to three years in prison for "disrespect", "public disorder" and "resistance".

He was subsequently tried several times on further charges of "disobedience" and "disorder in a penal establishment", the last time in May 2009, and was serving a total sentence of 36 years at the time of his death.

"Faced with a prolonged prison sentence, the fact that Orlando Zapata Tamayo felt he had no other avenue available to him but to starve himself in protest is a terrible indictment of the continuing repression of political dissidents in Cuba," said Gerardo Ducos.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/death-cuban-prisoner-conscience-hunger-strike-must-herald-change-2010-02-24

And there's the whole "not letting people leave of their own accord" thing.

[txlibdem]

14. What you linked to is nothing short of a travesty

That incident should never be repeated.

Since 1989, more than 250 people in 34 states have been exonerated through DNA testing, reports the Innocence Project, which supports inmates' access to DNA testing."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-10-13-supreme-court-dna-inmates_N.htm

But. But. But.

These atrocities happened right here in the beautiful, perfectly Capitalista-controlled United States of America... What the...

Kentucky Dems will air a brutal new ad with violent footage of the stomping of MoveOn's Lauren Valle, but the spot will only air after 10 p.m. in order to avoid scaring kids"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/dems_to_air_ad_of_kentucky_sto.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfkldaFu4lM

[DirkGently]

15. Not making the argument that capitalism = freedom. But Cuba is an authoritarian state, period.

Surely you see the difference in a society in which people are wrongfully imprisoned, in which they have access to a court system to redress that, and an authoritarian state with the first, last, and only word on who may be imprisoned. I respectfully suggest there is no honest argument equating the two.

Sorry, but American problems with civil liberties don't excuse Cuba's openly authoritarian policies. Even if social conditions here were as oppressive as there, which they are not, that would not provide a basis to argue Cuban society is better off.

You cannot leave Cuba without government permission. You can be beaten or jailed for expressing the wrong political position. These are not subjective inequities that exist to one degree or another, they are openly embraced authoritarian policies over which the Cuban people have no input.

We have a flawed democracy in America in urgent need of address. The suggestion that Cuba's overt authoritarianism, and abject poverty, healthcare, "rooftop garden" and all, is somehow better is laughable. Fidel is in fact a bastard dictator, and his brother has not improved things.

If Castro and Cuba represent Chavez' roadmap as he has suggested, regardless of whether he can fairly be characterized as a "dictator" as of now or not, his devotion to democracy IS highly questionable. Shutting down critical press does not help his case.

[txlibdem]

17. You cannot leave USA without government permission.

It's called a Visa and if you are on the wrong list, you will NOT get this Visa.

As to the illegal imprisonments, torture, etc., I recommend that you DO NOT look up George W. Bush/Dick Cheney or the CIA. Due to your fragile mental state, I do not believe you can take the truth. I highly recommend you continue in your fond belief that the USA is the paragon of virtue and freedom and can do no wrong.

Second, just because a country does not imprison its victims does not mean that they aren't "taken care of" in other ways. The McCarthy trials destroyed the lives, careers and finances of hundreds of innocent men, women and children. Once you effectively "silence" and discredit a dissident, is there really any further reason to imprison them?

But, please, do not listen to me. La la la la la la. Do not listen. America is the perfect place to live.

[DirkGently]

18. "Fragile mental state?" Ad hominem much? The rest is a dishonest strawman. Cuba is a dictatorship,

period. I did not make the "U.S. is a paragon" argument you seem to want to have, I assume you think because by doing that, you can avoid backing up your suggestion that Cuba is not a repressive authoritarian state?

We're all well familiar with rising authoritarian abuses in the U.S. But as we learned in kindergarden, two wrongs don't make a right.

At best, if you think you can make a case that the U.S. has become a totalitarian state, then we have two totalitarian states, and you have not excused Cuba, which is inarguably a dictatorship.

Secondly, if you insist on creating a false equivalency and trying to change the issue of Cuba's unquestionably totalitarian system into debate as which state has the uglier abuses, Cuba will lose.

On our darkest, most Bushian day, American citizens are not prisoners in our country in remotely the same way as Cubans are in theirs.

Americans do not die in open boats trying to reach the freedom and safety of Cuba. Tell me, if there really IS an equivalency (and again, this is not the argument you began with) why does Cuba have to physically restrain its people from leaving there, and coming here?

It's one thing to point out correctly that we have a crisis in terms of heavy-handed and intrusive government in the U.S., particularly in the past decade. It's another to dishonestly equate idiocy like the Patriot Act with clapping people in irons for 36 years for "lack of respect" of the government as Fidel does in Cuba.

We got rid of McCarthy. That's the difference. We may have to do it again, and soon, but in this country, until the corporations roll out armed security forces to beat dissidents in their homes and drag people away to prison the way Fidel Castro does, we still have rather a large leg up in terms of social freedom here.

We need a lot of change in this country, and soon. But you're not going to get very far lionizing a despot like Fidel Castro, who, along with lovely national healthcare and "rooftop gardens" is literally starving his people to death when he isn't having them beaten or imprisoned, or forbidding them from leaving his little People's Paradise.

[Judi Lynn]

20. You need desperately to learn far, FAR more about the subject you're attempting to discuss.

You're unaware of the hundreds of people from Mexico, Central and South America attempting to enter the United States annually from the southern border from California to Texas? ANNUALLY?

You're unaware of the hundreds of people lost in the ocean ANNUALLY in Caribbean migration from one island to another, CONSTANTLY?

You're unaware of the large Haitian population which has made its way to live in Cuba, has its own radio station, newspapers, etc. in its Haitian language?

You're unaware that Cubans travel all over the world, and travel constantly through Latin America? However could you have researched so little that you take the cartoon-like information handed out to you from the U.S. corporate media?

You're unaware that the U.S. offers a complete array of perks to induce Cuban people to migrate here, from instant legal status, and freedom from deportation the minute they arrive on U.S. soil without being caught at seare , instant work visa, social security, welfare, US taxpayer-financed HOUSING, and food stamps, medical treatment, financial assistance for education, etc., etc., etc.?

You're unaware that if those same privileges were offered to any OTHER country's citizens we would be stuffed into this country like sardines?

Our own corporate media even started referring to Cuban immigrants as "immigrants" YEARS AGO.

Starving Cubans to death. My God, where the hell did you get that one? Cuban life expectancy and infant mortality stats are every bit as good as the U.S.'s, and in many areas, BETTER, as U.S. mothers as a whole, particularly in big cities get FAR worse care than Cubans, bad for both mothers and children.

You have bought the crap lock, stock, and barrel. Look, there're commies coming! Run for your life.

On edit: Look, there are far more humbling things you could do than to take the time to know something about the subject FIRST before standing on your soapbox to inform intelligent people about a country some of them know FAR more about than you.

[DirkGently]

22. Uh huh. Tell me more of the wonders of ration books and political prisoners.

Again, no rant against commies or claims of American exceptionalism are contained in any of my posts. The fact is that Cuba is a dictatorship, in which political dissidents are imprisoned. National healthcare is generally effective, but wages are extremely low. Basic necessities, including such staples as flour, are rare. Basic intellectual freedoms such as Internet use are strictly regulated by the government. That's not Red Scare propaganda, it's the dictatorship Fidel has built.

Your "you're unaware" factoids are strange and inapposite. None bear on Cuba's totalitarian regime, its policy of imprisoning dissidents or its poor economy.

Here's the U.S. trying to help dissidents, who, once released from Castro's prisons, are persona non grata in their own country. Crazed Commie-hating media bias, do you think?

HAVANA -- Washington is working on a plan to bring the vast majority of exiled Cuban political prisoners from Spain to the United States and has processed the first case, a senior State Department official told The Associated Press yesterday.

Nearly all of about 39 former prisoners who are in Spain, along with more than 100 family members, are likely to accept the offer, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the program publicly.

"The majority of those prisoners and family have expressed an interest in the program," the official said.

State Department spokesman Charles Luoma-Overstreet confirmed the broad outline of the anonymous official's account.

The plan gets around a Catch-22 whereby Cubans who left the island were no longer considered in harm's way and thus not eligible for traditional asylum requests.

About 39 prisoners have been released from Cuban jails after agreeing to leave the island with their families. Another 13 remain behind bars, reportedly because they have so far refused to leave Cuba.

Healthcare good. Wages okay for the third world, sometimes. Political freedom, bad. Just Wiki, but other sources say the same. Cuban ex-pats and their families talk about the deprivation and difficulty simply communicating with people there. The low wages. The unavailability and unaffordability of simple goods like a wedding dress. The government's practice of taking a "cut" of money sent to Cubans by their wealthier American relatives. Some issues are no doubt born of the U.S. trade embargo, which I oppose. Others problems clearly are not.

Typical wages range from factory worker's 400 non-convertible Cuban pesos a month to doctor's 700. That is only around 17-30 U.S.< dollars a month. However, the Human Development Index of Cuba still ranks much higher than the vast majority of Latin American nations.[39> After Cuba lost subsidies in 1991, malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of diseases and general hunger.<40> Despite this, Cuba's poverty level is one of the lowest in the developing world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America, and 48th among all countries.<41> Pensions are among the smallest in the Western hemisphere at $9.50. In 2009, Raul Castro increased minimum pensions by 2 dollars, which he said was to recompense for those who have "dedicated a great part of their lives to working... and who remain firm in defense of socialism".<42>

The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón").<87> The Human Rights Watch alleges that the government "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law".<88>

Cuba was the second biggest prison in the world for journalists in 2008, second only to the People's Republic of China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international NGO.<89>As a result of ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.<90> The right to use the Internet is granted only to selected people and they are monitored.<90><91> Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence.

Cuban dissidents face arrest and imprisonment. In the 1990s, Human Rights Watch reported that Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some 40 maximum-security prisons, 30 minimum-security prisons, and over 200 work camps.<92> According to Human Rights Watch, political prisoners, along with the rest of Cuba's prison population, are confined to jails with substandard and unhealthy conditions.<92>

Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

I didn't come in here throwing haymakers or anti-socialist rhetoric, or waving Cheney's American Exceptionalism flag, and I frankly don't appreciate the condescending tone, the vitriol, or the flat-out dishonest arguments tossed at me here. Facts are facts. Nice healthcare (compared to the U.S.'s atrocious mess) aside, Cuba is a totalitarian state with no freedom of speech, in which political dissents are threatened, beaten, and imprisoned. Castro is so fearful of outside influence that he disallows Internet access. Leaving is a questionable proposition at best, and is conditioned on guarantees of coming back and not criticizing Cuba while you're away.

All are welcomed to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Cuba's totalitarian regime is an international pariah and is admired by no one, and for good reason.

[Judi Lynn]

25. Do go ahead and start RESEARCHING. Read some books. Take time to study

the subject.

You should have realized at some point you need to actually LEARN about the subject, and the answers don't come magically to you through an instant's investment in a trip to google. You need to sit and to study and to read, and start making comparisons, take the time to accumulate real information YOURSELF.

Learn the difference between the plantation culture Cuba has been until relatively lately, the racist society it was, the HIDEOUS caste system it developed as a slavery nation, the politics of the island itself, and of the attitudes and intentions and actions foisted upon it from the U.S.

Most of us DO know about it. We have learned to respect people who have taken the time to find out, or those among us who've been back and forth to Cuba many times, have loved ones there, and a history there, just as we respect those here who have actual life experience, invested throughout Latin America, and a working understanding of human events there.

If you see this as a format for bombast, have at it.

Don't be surprised, however, if you find only a few supporters. Democrats aren't likely to get wildly offended about the need for total progress and COMPLETE, unquestioned, inviolate autonomy for Latin America.

Those countries belong to their CITIZENS, not a bunch of delusional, racist, sociopathic buffoons whose misgotten sense of importance and power comes from living in a country with the largest, most deadly weapons in the world. These countries are to be respected, not exploited, and not invaded. What they do is their business.

The loony element in the States has attempted to claim ownership of Cuba from the 1800's, at least. They just don't think anyone in a smaller, weaker country should be allowed to live freely, as expressed in this lovely missive written by the U.S. Undersecretary of War, John S. Breckenridge, on Christmas Eve, 1897:

On edit, adding the link. (Had to leave, stepped back to add it)
The Breckenridge Memorandum
J.C. Breckenridge, U.S. Undersecretary of War in 1897, sent the following memo to the Commander of the U.S. Army, Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles. The memo explains what is to be U.S. policy towards the Hawaiian islands, Puerto Rico and Cuba.

~snip~
We must impose a harsh blockade so that hunger and its constant companion, disease, undermine the peaceful population and decimate the Cuban army.

More:
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/bmemo.htm

[DirkGently]

31. I'm sure whoever is arguing for American Imperialism will be completely convinced. I'm not.

I do not advocate invasion of Cuba. I do not support the U.S. trade embargo of Cuba. I do not think of Cubans as helpless imbeciles in need of a Starbucks. Go make that argument to some Freeper somewhere who will satisfy your lust to bash a flag-waving Commie-phobe bent on re-installing the casinos in Havana.

I have posited that Cuba is a repressive dictatorship which jails dissidents and disallows political opposition. You have provided no information to the contrary, and no argument justifying such. What I'm getting from that is that you have rationalized Castro's authoritarian regime on the basis that somehow it's a fair tradeoff.

For what, exactly?

Explain to me how banning political opposition and jailing people for dissent is not, in fact, treating the Cuban people like helpless imbeciles, like slaves, like children? Justify a dictatorship which so fears outside influence that it bans its citizens from Internet contact.

I appreciate your passion on the subject. As I said, I didn't come in here swinging hammers, and I don't appreciate the rather patronizing attempt to "school" me on Cuban politics, on every possible issue other than the inexcusable, malicious, unworkable authoritarian nature of the regime. If you have an actual argument either refuting that fact, or justifying authoritarianism, you are entitled to it, and my ears are open.

[txlibdem]

26. You claim not to be spouting anti-commie rhetoric, yet

The only dictator you rail against happens to be in a socialist state. What about Iran? What about Libya? What about Nicaragua? What about Columbia? What about Russia? What about China? What about ...

So given the wealth of dictatorships, countries that extrajudicially torture, imprison, kill, beat, force to wear funny hats, etc., it is so telling that only Cuba receives your vehemence and your spittle on this fine day.

[Judi Lynn]

27. The difference between Cuba and ANY of those countries is inmeasurably vast.

Hard to believe it gets so quiet whenever those names are raised.

No death squads in Cuba, and the torture which was employed by the Batista regime was actually developed by the U.S. C.I.A., as acknowledged by former CIA agent, Phillip Agee.

People don't "disappear" there, or that would have been used in itself as a reason to invade, if you recall the extensive list of reasons to invade developed by the Joint Chiefs and refused by John F. Kennedy, the "Mongoose" dirty tricks they invented to create the illusion of aggression worthy of attack by the U.S.

And to think we have allied with Islam Karimov, and HIS HISTORY of boiling his political prisoners alive. There are even photos of them on the internetS. It's not a pretty sight, I learned, after I posted them once in LBN, and horrified a few DU'ers.

Colombia, the country we give over $500,000,000.00 annually, and the mass graves, the crematoria, the large number of right wing politicians who are already known to be tied to the death squads/paramilitaries/narcotraffickers? That's O.K.? According to our own corporate media's dead silence on those ongoing attrocities, and the savage treatment of ALL dissent there, the labor unions, the jounalists, the clergy who dare to support the poor, the human rights workers, teachers, etc., etc., etc., indigenous people, and African-Colombian people, the people in the Peace Communities. Unmitigated evil, and we, by god, support them, since they're right-winger-dingers in a continent of people who have been driven mad by atrocities from the oligarchs already, and are GOING to create their OWN solidarity WITHOUT consulting Washington first for permission in order to avoid bloodshed.

Latter day hatred toward the Cuban revolution seems out of joint in time, doesn't it? Sure does to the rest of the world, too.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

33. Thank you for posting this. Will be reading it later today. It looks completely worthwhile. n/t

[txlibdem]

34. One of the minor benefits of having Asperger's

... is that we process incoming data a little bit differently. Up till about age 28 or so I had a photographic memory. Now I have CRS at 49. Oh, well. Ya win some, ya lose some.

[Billy Burnett]

51. Using Wiki on Cuba w/footnotes to Cubanet is using their own (fake) facts.

All are welcomed to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Then, using Wiki footnoted Cubanet based "reports" and AI, HRW, RsF using them as a source is using their own set of fake facts. Of course they all agree. They are using the same bought and paid for RW shills that Cubanet employs to create self serving "reports" on Cuba using funding from Freedom House, International Republican Institute, Richard Mellon Scaife, Diaz-Balart family, and Luis Posada.

It is you who uses your own "facts" if you your citations from Wiki, Cubanet, AI, HRW, RsF are what you are basing your "facts" on.

[dipsydoodle]

16. Broadly speaking

the Women in White are a pack of Miami funded charletons and as such are treated as a joke in Cuba.

[DirkGently]

19. Got anything the cuts against the fact Cuba is a represssive dictatorship?

C'mon. There's just no way to twist things to make Cuba a success story for socialism or anything else. Castro may have started fighting the good fight, with all the right intention, but where he's landed is a starving, impoverished country where speaking your mind means being "disappeared."

[Judi Lynn]

21. You are wildly confused. "Disappeared" happened under Batista.

You're all ready to go with your anti-commie blast, and your ammunition is deeply inappropriate.

You should cut your losses and move on with this subject.

Many of us read this article concerning the President of the World Bank's comments on Cuba long ago:

Learn from Cuba, Says World Bank
By Jim Lobe, IPS, 1 May 2001

WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) - World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing "a great job" in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people.

His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics. It also showed that Havana has actually improved its performance in both areas despite the continuation of the US trade embargo against it and the end of Soviet aid and subsidies for the Caribbean island more than ten years ago.

"Cuba has done a great job on education and health," Wolfensohn told reporters at the conclusion of the annual spring meetings of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). "They have done a good job, and it does not embarrass me to admit it."

His remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba's social record, despite recognition that Havana's economic policies are virtually the antithesis of the "Washington Consensus", the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank's policy advice and its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of the last 20 years.

Some senior Bank officers, however, go so far as to suggest that other developing countries should take a very close look at Cuba's performance.

More:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html



James Wolfensohn
"Disappeared!" Oh, THAT'S a hot one. You're the ONLY poster who has EVER tried to toss that bomb here, and there have been some doozies. Congratulations.

[DirkGently]

23. Your "anti-Commie" strawman burns prettily. Check Human Rights Watch, not the World Bank .

Or Amnesty International. Cuba is a human rights pariah with a continuing history of jailing dissidents.

[Judi Lynn]

24. The dissidents who have not been taking money from the United States for political purposes

continue to go about their dissident business freely.

The "dissidents" who were in prison were known, with evidence gathered over many years, with a Cuban informer who had been the personal secretary of Marta Beatriz Roque, had handled her finances, her money coming to her from the US via a Canadian bank, her money sent to her via the American Interests Section from US Cuban "exile terrorist Santiago Alvarez in Miami, who himself was responsible from smuggling Cuban "exile" mass murdering/airline bomber Luis Posada Carriles back into the US from Panama, where he had just been given a pardon by Panamanian President, and _{George W. Bush} ally, Mireya Moscoso, on her last day of office, just before she, too, moved to Miami, after he had been convicted for his part in an attempt to bomb a large filled auditorium of people coming to hear a speech by Cuban President Fidel Castro.

They got the goods on that dirty old creep Marta Beatriz Roque a long time ago, as well as the others who also went to jail then, from other testimony from other informers who had been among them for many years, as well, and had the evidence.

Your are buying the right-wing reactionary swill spewed to the country by people who have been desperate to overthrow the revolution, and return the country to the pudgy little fingers of the racist, murderous idiots who controlled Cuba throughout the first revolution, and the vicious years of ACTUAL repression and death squads who actually DID take real dissenters, torture, dismember them, throw their bodies out in the streets, or hang them from lightpoles, or from trees, etc. to leave the people with the message THEIR dissent would not be allowed.

Also check for reference to the time under Batista when all incoming magazines and papers had articles blacked out before they were allowed on the newstand.

You owe it to yourself to know what you're attempting to discuss, as I said.

Most grown-ups are a little wiser than to swallow every absurd thing they hear, or read. It has ALWAYS been the appropriate thing to learn more about how good the information is, and how trustworthy the source. We (most of us) certainly do that with ordinary information we get in our personal lives, as a matter of common sense.

16.02.10
How Credible Is Human Rights Watch on Cuba?
by Tim Anderson

In late 2009 the New York-based group Human Rights Watch published a report titled New Castro, Same Cuba. Based on the testimony of former prisoners, the report systematically condemns the Cuban government as an "abusive" regime that uses its "repressive machinery . . . draconian laws and sham trials to incarcerate scores more who have dared to exercise their fundamental freedoms." The group says it interviewed 40 political prisoners and claims to have identified extraordinary laws by which Cubans can be imprisoned simply for expressing views critical of their socialist system.

At first glance one might be forgiven for thinking that Cuba must be among the worst of human rights abusers in the Americas. A little reflection, however, might lead one to question such statements coming from the USA, a country with thousands held in an international network of secret prisons, many subject to torture regimes.

So how credible is this scathing report on Cuba? And who does Human Rights Watch represent?

Answering the latter question is a little more difficult than it is for other organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), established by the US government, or even the France-based Reporters without Borders (RSF), funded directly by the US State Department for some of its anti-Cuba campaigns. In the manner of "embedded journalists" who travel with US troops around the world, the NED and RSF can be considered "embedded watchdogs," helping to legitimize or delegitimize regimes, consistent with US policy.

"Privatized, US-based Selection of Issues"

Human Rights Watch, however, is not funded by the US government. Yet it gets most of its funds from a variety of US foundations, in turn funded by many of the biggest US corporations. These wealthy, private foundations often tie their contributions to particular projects. So for example HRW's Middle East reports often rely on and acknowledge grants from pro-Israel foundations. Other groups ask for a focus on women's rights or HIV/AIDS issues. More than 90% of HRW's US$100 million budget in 2009 was "restricted" in this way. In other words, HRW offers a privatized, US-based selection of rights issues catering to the wealthy.

More:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/anderson160210.html

[DirkGently]

29. Uh huh. Everyone's lying except Castro. Human Rights Watch. Amnesty. The AP?

A truly vast conspiracy.

Is the Committee to Protect journalists the lying as well?

Cuba was the second biggest prison in the world for journalists in 2008, second only to the People's Republic of China, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international NGO.<89> As a result of ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.<90> The right to use the Internet is granted only to selected people and they are monitored.<90><91> Connecting to the Internet illegally can lead to a five-year prison sentence.

I'll work on my gullibility, if you'll work on yours.

Do you seriously claim that speech in opposition to Castro's party is even permitted? That newspapers and political parties are free to argue for change? That people on the street give their honest political opinions without fear of reprisals? I hear a lot of qualifiers and rationalizations, but no denial that the Castros are dictators who permit no political dissent.

Consider for a moment that you are free to engage in a free-wheeling conspiracy theory in which the U.S. is somehow responsible for Cuba's universally recognized history of human rights abuses, but that you must base all your information on sources outside of Cuba, because the Cuban people, despite their apparent great wealth and freedoms, are strangely mute on the subject.

I suppose the only way to settle this is to get some Cubans on the forum to tell us how they see things. Where's the nearest Cuban Internet forum? Oh, right. In order to tell us how things are going, Cubans would need to be a) able to afford computers, b) permitted Internet access, and c) permitted to express themselves without fear of repercussions.

But they have none of those things. And never will, so long as the Castros' failed, malicious, doomed dictatorship is in power.

Good healthcare though, seriously. Don't know it's a fair tradeoff for ration books and dissident prisons, but I'll grant you it could come to that.

:)

[txlibdem]

35. Truth hurts Dirk's paranoid fantasy. Keep up the great posts!

That's some nice posting, Judi! Keep spreading the truth. The morons who see only evil coming from "non-capitalist" nations are far too transparent. Castro has had the might of the most powerful nation in the world against his tiny nation for 50 years. He survived a US backed coup (at least one, probably more that I don't know about). Yet his nation is doing better than The Mighty Capitalistas of the USA for its people in health and education. Imagine that! When the greatest superpower has been undermining and blocking you in every possible way, Cuba is still doing better than we are. That deserves a nod of respect.

We should all think of Cuba as an example that Capitalism isn't the only way to live.

[dipsydoodle]

28. I take it your point of view

is from the experience of being there. And when was that ? Or are you just quoting from comics ?

On balance everything that has happened there is for the overall good. Impoverished they might be but they are also mainly contented. Starving they are not.

[DirkGently]

30. My point of view is that Cuba is a dictatorship, which is what it is. You're free to support

authoritarianism, of course. You're not free to pretend that the Castro regime is not a dictatorship that jails political dissidents and prohibits free and open discourse, because that is not the case.

We wouldn't need to discuss "who has been there" of course, if the Castros permitted Cuban citizens to speak openly about the regime and then return to Cuba without fear of punishment, or use the Internet, without government monitors, which rather speaks for itself.

I'm hearing a lot haughty pretensions of great knowledge, and a lot of criticisms of America and Batista, and the press, and Human Rights Watch and a lot of other distraction and noise, coupled with zero evidence that the Castro regime permits open political discourse. Does it, or does it not? Are there political dissidents in Cuban jails? Are Cuban citizens free to log on to this forum and tell us about their opinions without FEAR OF REPRESSION, or not?

The question is very simple. Does or does not the Castro regime engage in these despicable authoritarian practices? If not let's see some evidence of that. Where are the free speaking, free traveling, fearless dissident Cubans? Where is the Castro regime opponent in Cuba who is freely campaigning for office? If you admit Cuba does repress free political expression, but defend that, by all means, defend it.

Let's hear why it's okay to silence political dissent. Let's hear the defense of banning the Internet in the 21st Century. Please explain how this is not the conduct of a dictatorship.

[Billy Burnett]

36. And you're free to wallow in ignorance and propaganda, and pretend it's true.

Take a little time to go thru these very informative threads.
That way you can move forward in the discussion, instead of putting more wear and tear on the well represented but tired old cold-war era retread you're rolling on.

Electoral Process Continues Smoothly Nationwide (Election season kickoff in Cuba)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x31936

Why Cuba is a democracy and the US is not
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x269248

Venezuela-Cuba cable to be laid in early 2011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4585625

NGOs (AI, HRW, RsF, who claim to monitor Cuba), none of them have their own people in Cuba - instead they simply ditto RW Cubanet "reports"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4408396&mesg_id=4411519

Montreal Conf. on Democracy and Elections in Cuba
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x14825

BTW, I've been to Cuba many times too.

Cheers

[DirkGently]

40. Neat. Got a link showing Cuba allows political opposition and doesn't ban the Internet?

[Billy Burnett]

42. See the links I posted? Try clicking on them, and then reading them.

Like Ragu - it's all in there.

[DirkGently]

43. Those appear to be people simply stating everyone but Castro is lying. Not super convincing.

Furthermore, evidence of the Castro regime's authoritarianism is fairly self-evident. Where are the free, fearless dissidents of the regime, moving in and out of Cuba, talking to all of those plotting, hateful Cuban ex-pats in Miami? Where are the blogs? Where is any indication that it is not presently illegal in Cuba to criticize or oppose the current regime?

What you've got is a lot of people talking around the facts, questioning others' motives, and making excuses. No one seriously maintains that the Castro regime permits free and open debate on the subject of the Castros or the communist system.

Nothing you have presented contradicts the simple fact that Cuba allows no opposition. Anyone who can stomach that is an authoritarian.

And that's the point. No matter your opinion on the efficacy of the economic system, the fact is that Cubans do not have the option of complaining about their government. All of the NGOs in the world are no more lying at the behest of wealthy exiles than all of the world's scientists are lying about global warming at the behest of environmental groups. That simply isn't true.

There is no justification for banning Internet contact. There is no justification for an immutable, unremovable, single leader. That is the definition of dictatorship.

It's one thing to say that Cuba has been unfairly maligned, or targeted for attack for reasons of economic ideology. I don't think I would even argue with that. But at the bottom of it all is a dishonest pretense that an immutable authoritarian regime can be justified. It cannot. There is no valid reason in a free society to keep citizens, en masse, without government supervision from simple internet access. No reason that open opposition to the leadership is illegal. No reason dissidents are beaten, threatened, and jailed.

Again, I understand there are people in the world who believe that human rights abuses and quashing freedom of expression is justified. It's a permissible opinion, here in the United States. The contrary opinion is self-evidently not permissible in Cuba.

Therein lies the difference, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

[Billy Burnett]

45. If that's your conclusion based on the info in the threads ...

... well, there's no real point of further discussion with your adamant intransigence. :shrug:


Cheers


edit: I see you've completely changed your post w/an edit AFTER I responded, and you don't even indicate it. A real shitty way to discuss topics in a linear format. :thumbsdown:

Why don't you just "man up" and use reply instead of dishonestly retroactively editing posts after they've been replied to.

[Mika]

46. I guess the poster has never heard of these people.

Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo. Elizardo Sanchez. Oswaldo Paya. Beatrize Roque, etc etc.

Nor these political parties

http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/cu.html
* Partido Comunista de Cuba (PCC) {Communist Party of Cuba}
* Partido Demócrata Cristiano de Cuba (PDC) {Christian Democratic Party of Cuba} - Oswaldo Paya's Catholic party
* Partido Solidaridad Democrática (PSD) {Democratic Solidarity Party}
* Partido Social Revolucionario Democrático Cubano {Cuban Social Revolutionary Democratic Party}
* Coordinadora Social Demócrata de Cuba (CSDC) {Social Democratic Coordination of Cuba}
* Unión Liberal Cubana {Cuban Liberal Union}

Nor the process

http://www.poptel.org.uk/cuba-solidarity/democracy.htm

This system in Cuba is based upon universal adult suffrage for all those aged 16 and over. Nobody is excluded from voting, except convicted criminals or those who have left the country. Voter turnouts have usually been in the region of 95% of those eligible .

There are direct elections to municipal, provincial and national assemblies, the latter represent Cuba's parliament.

Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties. No political party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any given candidates.

Nor this,

http://www.bartleby.com/65/do/Dorticos.html

Dorticós Torrado, Osvaldo
1919–83, president of Cuba (1959–76). A prosperous lawyer, he participated in Fidel Castro’s revolutionary movement and was imprisoned (1958). He escaped and fled to Mexico, returning to Cuba after Castro’s triumph (1959). As minister of laws (1959) he helped to formulate Cuban policies. He was appointed president in 1959. Intelligent and competent, he wielded considerable influence. In 1976 the Cuban government was reorganized, and Castro assumed the title of president; Dorticós was named a member of the council of state.

Poster doesn't seem well informed on the subject at all. Trying the usual 'sling shit to see if anything sticks' routine seen here time and time again.
Seems to be muddled in the road. ( http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=122731 )


:hi:

---

[DirkGently]

47. Uh huh. Because shotgunning links, none of which show Cuba permits opposition, is so well informed.

In fact, you seem to be proving the opposite.

Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello (Born May 16, 1945) is a prominent Cuban political dissident. She is an economist by training, and the founder as well as director of the Cuban Institute of Independent Economists

Ms. Roque has been imprisoned on numerous occasions for her forceful opposition to the Cuban government's policies.

The Homeland Belongs to All
In 1997, she published a paper titled "The Homeland Belongs to All," <1> which discussed Cuba's human rights situation and called for political and economic reforms. She was imprisoned from July 1997-May 2000 after being sentenced with sedition for having written this document.

2003 Government Crackdown
See also: Black Spring (Cuba)
She was rearessted in March 2003 along with 74 other dissidents in what some have called the "Black Spring" crackdown. On April 3, 2003, Ms. Roque was brought to trial and convicted. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison for supposedly engaging in “activities aimed at subverting the internal order of the Cuban State, provoking its destabilization and the loss of its independence,” and receiving “substantial monetary funds from the U.S. Government.” The proceedings have been the subject of much criticism, as numerous NGOs have claimed that they failed to meet the international fair trial standards. After her trial, Amnesty International adopted her as a prisoner of conscience during both of her incarcerations.

On July 22, 2004, Ms. Roque was unexpectedly released from prison due to her declining health; however, she is subject to rearrest, as medical parole is given only for the duration of an illness.

Let me guess, either Wiki is lying too, or Ms. Roque's 20 year sentence for political "subversive" speech was justified?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Beatriz_Roque


Throwing up links with no articulation of the point is a pretty tired tactic of the WRONG. "Here, I have nothing to say, but this Google search, if you read it properly, proves my point."

In the miles of insulting, patronizing rhetoric here, no one has actually attempted to state that political expression contrary to the Castro regime is legal in Cuba, or that people have not or are not presently been imprisoned for the same. Or that the Cuban public is permitted, en masse and without government oversight, to access the Internet.

You can tapdance endlessly around these facts if you want, but it's kind of a pointless way to argue. I know, and you know, that Cuba is an authoritarian regime that jails dissidents. No one here has disputed these facts. There's a lot of "buts" and "ands" and so forth, but at the end of the day, Cuba jails its people for speaking their minds. That's apparently okay with you. It's not with me.

I suggest we just go our separate ways. You are free to support authoritarian dictatorships based on whatever logic you have worked out. I personally find it repellant, and the defense of the same hopelessly dishonest, but there you have it. Here in the deeply flawed, economically challenged, desperately-in-need of greater *democratic* socialist measures U.S., we are allowed to argue our opinons on the Internet without fear of being jailed for subversion.

Perhaps someday Cubans will have the same freedom.

[Billy Burnett]

48. LOL. Did you check the wiki footnotes? Cubanet.

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y97/jul97/homdoc.htm

The same RW funded anti Castro group based in Miami who's "reports" AI, HRW, RsF simply ditto. AKA: a circle jerk of self promoting BS.

Wiki is anything but reliable for Cuba information. It is a user created/edited open source. Often edited by intransigent RWers.

[DirkGently]

49. I'm definitely getting the impression of a circle jerk. 8)

[Mika]

54. But you don't address the fact that they do oppose Cuba's system openly.

Some accusers here say that political opposition isn't allowed in Cuba. They are full of it. The "opposition" that has been convicted and jailed were those acting illegally as foreign agents of (accepting payments from) the declared enemy of the Cuban Republic.

I've lived in Cuba for an entire election cycle, and I can confirm that there is a wide spectrum of ongoing political discourse in Cuba - including detractors of communism/socialism. As long as said parties are not acting as paid mercenaries of declared enemies of Cuba, they're good to go about their activities.

Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo threatened by US for living in Cuba
http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/eloy_gutierrez_menoyo_threatened_by_us_for_living_in_cuba/

A U.S. resident who had spent 22 years in a Cuban prison for opposing communism and returned to the island to work for democracy now faces a U.S. jail threat for violating travel restrictions.

Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo, a Cuban exile who returned in 2003, has been warned by the U.S. Treasury Department that he could be fined $250,000 or sent to prison for 10 years for staying in Cuba in violation of sanctions intended to isolate the government of Fidel Castro.

“They don’t understand: I am not a tourist in Cuba, I am an activist working to establish a legal space for an independent opposition,” Gutierrez Menoyo said on Tuesday in an interview.

“It is illogical. I’m here seeking freedom and the United States comes and tells me I face a 10-year prison sentence,” he complained.

Gutierrez Menoyo fought alongside Castro in the guerrilla movement that toppled U.S-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959. But he fell out with Castro over Cuba’s turn to the left and spent 22 years in jail after a failed insurrection.

After his release in 1986, the former guerrilla commander lived in exile in Miami, where he has a wife and three U.S-born children, and retains permanent U.S. residency.

But in August 2003, Gutierrez Menoyo announced on a visit to Cuba that he was staying in Havana to try to open an office for his political group, called Cambio Cubano, and build a moderate opposition to what he calls Castro’s “socialist dictatorship.”

The Cuban government has not legalized his status, but it tolerates his presence and invited him to a conference on Cuban migration. It renewed his Cuban passport and allowed him to travel twice to the United States.

U.S. authorities did not take lightly to Gutierrez Menoyo’s return to Cuba, and froze the bank account of his Miami-based political group.

In November 2004, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which enforces sanctions on Cuba, warned him in a letter that he could face prosecution for violating restrictions on travel to Cuba.

permission granted to post article

Gutierrez Menoyo is a smart man. He managed to get the US to freeze his bank accounts, so now he won't be charged with acting illegally as a foreign agent. The Cuban government hasn't fucked with him since.

---

[Judi Lynn]

55. It seems this happened only yesterday! Isn't it funny the Bush administration started pitching fits

over it immediately, sending threats to him, demanding he came back to the U.S., or risk prison and/or fines?

It was horrifying, and a real laugh, considering all the crap they spew about Cuba's not allowing any difference of political opinion. Good grief.

http://www.rfi.fr.nyud.net:8090/actues/images/080/eloygutierrezmenoyo.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_5yd3VF63CCc/RmdQYFjYzNI/AAAAAAAABUE/hBadrJgVsno/s400/menoyo.JPG

http://yayabo.net.nyud.net:8090/canales/noticias_ASP/img_not/eloy_patricia.jpg http://www.latinamericanstudies.org.nyud.net:8090/dialogue/menoyo-1-30-04.jpg

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org.nyud.net:8090/menoyo-7-03.jpg http://www.cubademocraciayvida.org.nyud.net:8090/media/vac%C3%ADo/A-ELOY-GU.jpg

Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo
The man was even a member of the terrorist Alpha 66 in the States, if my memory is functioning.

[DirkGently]

50. Didn't see your response, and didn't edit dishonestly. We're both saying the same things as before.

Which, combined with your increasingly hostile attacks and rather trasparent refusal to address the fact that Cuba imprisons dissidents, are a good enough reason to end the conversation.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DirkGently]

39. Authoritarianism is not an economic system. Nice name-calling though. Goodbye.

[Billy Burnett]

44. txlibdem, I don't think this poster is truly interested in Cuba.

Much like teabaggers/birthers, just here to ask the same questions and make the same false accusations over and over no matter how many times they have been addressed.

[mudplanet]

6. As to nationalization: here is the entire amendment. Please explain to us

how it "clearly cuts against large scale nationalization." I'd really like to know. I'm not for large scale nationalization, but as near as I can tell what you say simply isn't true.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Are you seeing something here that I'm not? Because as near as I can tell the Constitution doesn't say anything about nationalization, nor does it imply it. It simply isn't there. It doesn't tell us how we should organize our economic lives.

Just compensation is determined by the courts, if that is what you're referring to.

[DirkGently]

7. Hard to nationalize on a large scale without just compensation.

I'd agree the Constitution doesn't enshrine capitalism or any economic system, but it would be difficult-to-impossible to implement a Chavez-style regime without violating the Constitution in a number of ways. The problem is, it's hard to separate authoritarianism from a sweeping government-enforced economic change.

[mudplanet]

9. As I stated before, I'm not familiar with the Venezuelan Constitution.

Some countries don't even have one. Brits aren't even citizens, they're "subjects."

What is a "Chavez-style regime?" A democratically and legally elected representative government? I think we need more of them.

[Billy Burnett]

38. The largest and most sweeping takeover of big businesses was in the USA.

FDR's World War II mobilization.

The American Economy during World War II
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII

Preparedness Agencies
To oversee this growth, President Roosevelt created a number of preparedness agencies beginning in 1939, including the Office for Emergency Management and its key sub-organization, the National Defense Advisory Commission; the Office of Production Management; and the Supply Priorities Allocation Board. None of these organizations was particularly successful at generating or controlling mobilization because all included two competing parties. On one hand, private-sector executives and managers had joined the federal mobilization bureaucracy but continued to emphasize corporate priorities such as profits and positioning in the marketplace. On the other hand, reform-minded civil servants, who were often holdovers from the New Deal, emphasized the state's prerogatives with respect to mobilization and war making. As a result of this basic division in the mobilization bureaucracy, "the military largely remained free of mobilization agency control" (Koistinen, 502).

War Production Board
In January 1942, as part of another effort to mesh civilian and military needs, President Roosevelt established a new mobilization agency, the War Production Board, and placed it under the direction of Donald Nelson, a former Sears Roebuck executive. Nelson understood immediately that the staggeringly complex problem of administering the war economy could be reduced to one key issue: balancing the needs of civilians — especially the workers whose efforts sustained the economy — against the needs of the military — especially those of servicemen and women but also their military and civilian leaders.

Though neither Nelson nor other high-ranking civilians ever fully resolved this issue, Nelson did realize several key economic goals. First, in late 1942, Nelson successfully resolved the so-called "feasibility dispute," a conflict between civilian administrators and their military counterparts over the extent to which the American economy should be devoted to military needs during 1943 (and, by implication, in subsequent war years). Arguing that "all-out" production for war would harm America's long-term ability to continue to produce for war after 1943, Nelson convinced the military to scale back its Olympian demands. He thereby also established a precedent for planning war production so as to meet most military and some civilian needs. Second (and partially as a result of the feasibility dispute), the WPB in late 1942 created the "Controlled Materials Plan," which effectively allocated steel, aluminum, and copper to industrial users. The CMP obtained throughout the war, and helped curtail conflict among the military services and between them and civilian agencies over the growing but still scarce supplies of those three key metals.

Office of War Mobilization
By late 1942 it was clear that Nelson and the WPB were unable to fully control the growing war economy and especially to wrangle with the Army and Navy over the necessity of continued civilian production. Accordingly, in May 1943 President Roosevelt created the Office of War Mobilization and in July put James Byrne — a trusted advisor, a former U.S. Supreme Court justice, and the so-called "assistant president" — in charge. Though the WPB was not abolished, the OWM soon became the dominant mobilization body in Washington. Unlike Nelson, Byrnes was able to establish an accommodation with the military services over war production by "acting as an arbiter among contending forces in the WPB, settling disputes between the board and the armed services, and dealing with the multiple problems" of the War Manpower Commission, the agency charged with controlling civilian labor markets and with assuring a continuous supply of draftees to the military (Koistinen, 510).

Beneath the highest-level agencies like the WPB and the OWM, a vast array of other federal organizations administered everything from labor (the War Manpower Commission) to merchant shipbuilding (the Maritime Commission) and from prices (the Office of Price Administration) to food (the War Food Administration). Given the scale and scope of these agencies' efforts, they did sometimes fail, and especially so when they carried with them the baggage of the New Deal. By the midpoint of America's involvement in the war, for example, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, and the Rural Electrification Administration — all prominent New Deal organizations which tried and failed to find a purpose in the mobilization bureaucracy — had been actually or virtually abolished

[social_critic]

52. Venezuela is not at war

I don't suppose it hit you yet, that Venezuela is not at war. It's not close to being at war. I can't fight anybody reasonably well because it's surrounded by jungles, mountains, and ocean, and it lacks a power projection capability. Plus the Venezuelan military is full of overweight officers who can't walk around in that jungle or climb those mountains, so that's it. As for getting attacked, the only viable attacker is the USA. And if the US ever decides to attack Venezuela, there's no time to react.

Plus it wouldn't do it any good to nationalize a shopping center, a beer bottler, apartment buildings, some PDVSA contractors, and 700 vegetable farms and cattle ranches to stop a US invasion. In other words, the expropriations taking place in Venezuela don't make sense, are absurd, counter productive, destroy production, ruin honest people, and in the end will ruin the country.

[Judi Lynn]

53. Thanks for the info. Hadn't looked into the subject before now.

Here's some material from Wiki on the subect of US nationalization related acts, with the understanding we ALL know Wiki is NOT the last word on ANYTHING, not by a long shot. Not ever. Not even close. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's worthless.

~snip~
• 1917: All U.S. railroads were nationalized as the Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure. The United States Railroad Administration was returned to private ownership almost immediately after the war.
  
• 1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the facilities of the former Tennessee Electric Power Company.
  
• 1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.
  
• 1976: The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), another government corporation, was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out.
  
• 1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed S&L.
  
• 2001: In response to the September 11 attacks, the then-private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.
  
• 2008: Some economists consider the U.S. government's takeover of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association to have been nationalization.<22><23> The conservatorship model used with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is looser and more temporary than nationalization.<24>
  
• 2009: Some economists consider the U.S. government's actions with regards to Citigroup to have been a partial nationalization.<25> Proposal was made that banks like Citigroup be brought under a conservatorship model similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that some of their "good assets" be dropped into newly created "good bank" subsidiaries (presumably under new management), and the remaining "bad assets" be left to be managed under the supervision of a conservatorship structure.<24> The U.S. government's actions with regard to General Motors in replacing the CEO with a government approved CEO is likewise being considered as nationalization.<26><27> On June 1, 2009, General Motors filed for bankruptcy, with the United States investing up to $50 billion and taking 60% ownership in the company. President Obama stated that the nationalization was temporary, saying, "We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way to help GM succeed"<28>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

[social_critic]

41. Chavez is a democratically elected autocrat

You are right, Chavez isn't a dictator, he's an autocrat. This means he was elected, and after he was elected went on to gather more and more power, to the point that both Congress and the Courts are his to order around. His government is thus able to break the law, and does so with impunity because the courts are not willing to oppose him. He has gone as far as to order the arrest of judges, which have been duly arrested within days after he gave the order (on national TV, so there's no doubt he ordered it).

It is too bad you post your opinions without checking the facts. The truth is the taking of private property is allowed under the Venezuelan constitution and the laws. But such taking of property requires a legal procedure, which is not being followed in ANY of the takings carried out by the government. The takings are arbitrary, ill thought, and are apparently aimed at achieving two goals:

One, to scare the heck out of people who own property and are organized in the opposition (which recently won 52 % of the national vote in elections, which thanks to the heavy gerrymandering and outright violations of the election code were "won" by the Chavez regime, an example of why democracy isn't as democracy does).

Two, to monpolize key industries, so they can then exert pressure on business and individuals to do as they government wish - they would have to because the government would control their inputs or their ability to market their goods.

Thus what we see in Venezuela is the evolution of a fascist regime, which uses "socialist populism" as a masquerade to enthrone an autocrat whose key followers are focused on power and wealth, rather than in the good of the country. This is the reason why we see them marching on the wrong path as Venezuela suffers from a lousy economy, huge inflation, a horrible crime rate, and a deteriorated infrastructure and health services.