Cuba Cracking Down Hard on Dissidents

[Q-Source]

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

MattJ

You live in a capitalist country, right?

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

Can you choose any publisher you want?

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

 

[headscratcher4]

You live in a capitalist country, right?

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

Can you choose any publisher you want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aerocontrols]

You live in a capitalist country, right?

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

Can you choose any publisher you want?

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

Do you read your own words?

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

What did you mean?

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

 

[headscratcher4]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Q-Source]

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

What did you mean?

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

Read the answer I already posted to that question:

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

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

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

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

 

[aerocontrols]

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

I did not mean to insult you, but this:

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

quite clearly is contradicted by this:

You live in a capitalist country, right?

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

Can you choose any publisher you want?

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

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

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

...

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

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

Read the answer I already posted to that question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MattJ

 

[headscratcher4]

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

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

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

 

[Q-Source]

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

You were joking before
I wasn't

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

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

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

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

I don't understand this part.

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

Yes.

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

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

 

[Segnosaur]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DrBenway]

People talk about the wonderful health care system in Cuba.

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

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

 

[Q-Source]

Head... and Aerocontrols,

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

 

[headscratcher4]

Great...more than happy to wait.

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

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

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

See ya' monday...

 

[Q-Source]

aerocontrols,

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

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

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

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

q-s

 

[Q-Source]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Q-Source]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q-S

 

[headscratcher4]

Q:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Q-Source]

headscratcher4

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

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

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

Equality or Liberty?

Q-S

 

[headscratcher4]

headscratcher4

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

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

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

Equality or Liberty?

Q-S

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

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

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

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

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

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