Cuban official defends internet controls

[Bacchus39]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/c...

HAVANA - A senior Cuban official has defended the country's Internet restrictions as a response to U.S. aggression and called for controlling "the wild colt of new technologies."

Communications Minister Ramiro Valdes opened an international conference on communication technologies Monday by complaining that Washington is choking Cuba's access to the Internet even as U.S. military and intelligence services use it to undermine the communist government.

Internet technologies "constitute one of the tools for global extermination," he said, referring to U.S. policies, but they "are also necessary to continue to advance down the path of development."

He defended Cuba's "rational and efficient" use of the Internet, which puts computers in schools and government computer clubs while prohibiting home connections for most citizens and blocking many sites with anti-government material.

"The wild colt of new technologies can and must be controlled," he said.

[LiberalVoice]

1. "The wild colt of 'information' must be controlled" nt

[manic expression]

2. This is very reasonable

Put computers in schools first, then work on personal use.

[Bacchus39]

3. we certainly wouldn't want people using the internet to criticize the government

now would we?

[manic expression]

5. Different scenario

Cuba has limited resources that can be put toward internet use. They have put it toward schools instead of people's houses, which is the right choice.

The question of censorship is different. One must take into account the fact that the US is doing everything it can to bring down the Cuban system, which would suggest that such actions are not inappropriate.

[hack89]

7. How could the internet be a threat to Cuba? nt

[manic expression]

8. Would you agree that misinformation is a bad thing?

They're trying to balance access (in schools no less, which is laudable) with the fact that the US government is doing everything it can to bring down the Cuban system, which includes working through misinformation.

[hack89]

15. Would you agree that having the government

being the only one to determine what is and is not misinformation is a bad thing? Are the Cuban people so unlike us here at DU that they are incapable of thinking for themselves? What would your reaction be if Congress mandated "balanced access" to protect the American people?

[Mika]

18. Cubans have access to the internet IF they can afford it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/tech/main5924...

E-net is the largest of a handful of Internet providers in Cuba

-

E-net customers who do not have the dollar phone service can keep accessing the Internet with the ordinary phone service with special cards sold at Etecsa offices, the letter says.

Plus, there is free internet access at most all Cuban libraries.

[slackmaster]

26. Ruh-roh, E-Net's site is running on .Net Framework

One might think that Cubans would be inclined to use open source software rather than Microsoft, but here's what I got trying to get to their Servicios page just now (http://www.enet.cu/sitio/servicios_enet.aspx ):

Server Error in '/' Application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

Stack Trace:



enet.WebControlRight.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) in c:\inetpub\wwwroot\enet\webcontrols\WebControlRight.ascx.cs:32
System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +99
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +47
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +131
System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +131
System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1061




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.42; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.210

This is painful because one of my too-frequent tasks at work is debugging ASP.NET apps.

[Bacchus39]

25. very well said

n/t

[manic expression]

33. The government is extremely responsive to the people

You can bet that if the majority of the population didn't want this, it would end.

The fact that there is some censorship is due to the fact that the Cuban people have thought for themselves, instead of listening to Uncle Sam and hack89.

[hack89]

36. What have I said that is so threatening to the Cuban regime ..

except that the Cuban people deserve the same freedoms that I do?

[manic expression]

38. Cubans are not concerned about hack89

please be sure of that. Cubans are concerned about US misinformation that threatens their sovereignty.

And please define "freedom", for it seems as though you mean freedom from self-determination.

[Mika]

71. You deserve the same rights as the Cuban people.

The right to housing.
The right to universal health care for you and all of your family.
The right to universal education for you and your children.

Cubans have those rights enshrined in their constitution, and the Cuban people, together with their government, have made them possible and a reality by hard work and representative government.

[hack89]

74. So why can't they have the right to a

new leader every four or eight years? Multiple political parties? Unlimited overseas travel? Internet in their homes?

[ohio2007]

108. Speaking of housing, you'd think Ernest Hemingway's house, declared as a nat'l treasure

by the Cuban govt. wouldn't have required funding from overseas to repair its dilapidated state but it did.Fund raising that defied the embargo bc the Cuban govt. wouldn't do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Sea
I don't think the schoolchildren will be taught that part of their recent history.
Truly, if they understood how to subvert capitalism, they would have conquered us all when Fidel was a tool of the Kremlin.
The clock is ticking til the sanction walls come down.

[Bacchus39]

42. so Cuba needs censorship?

as it is best for them. better to receive all info from the Cuban government who will protect them from misinformation.

by the way, what misinformation would Cubans be exposed to if they had unrestricted access to the net?? wouldn't they have a choice as where to browse and look for information?

[manic expression]

46. Cuba wants to block American misinformation

and it is best for them.

Blocking US misinformation is what they are doing. They would rather not deal with it, so they're blocking it. It's the choice that they've made, and there is nothing wrong with it.

[slackmaster]

59. When someone has the job of deciding what is information and what is misinformation

That person's opinion becomes the sole determiner of truth. The people no longer have the option of hearing alternative opinions and deciding for themselves what is right based on a full range of information.

That is censorship.

[manic expression]

62. As I've said

the Cuban government is very responsive to the Cuban people. The people are determining what they want and don't want.

That is people making decisions for themselves.

[slackmaster]

63. I wouldn't want "the people" deciding ANYTHING for me

I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself.

[manic expression]

64. You can not want it all you want

but the people get to determine the direction of their community.

[slackmaster]

67. If a few individuals decide what most of the people get to read, hear, and see

Then their determination is based on incomplete information. Their direction isn't completely based on free will.

I would have a big problem with that.

[manic expression]

70. It's not the few

it's the many who decide if they want to tolerate blatant propaganda or not.

[Bacchus39]

77. Cubans tolerate blatant propoganda from their government

Fidel in their face all the time.

one seeks information on the internet to fit one's choosing. where does the US propoganda come in?? and what harm would it be for Cubans to be better informed?

[manic expression]

100. Support that statement

with evidence. Until then, you have no argument.

[Bacchus39]

142. State run media and programming are more than evidence

enough. Not to mention the Cuban education. (indoctrination)

Censorship of critical views of the government and "counter revolutionary" information whether it be TV, internet, books, and worst of all, speech ensures that their is no counterpoint to Cuba's propaganda.

look at any billboard in Cuba with El Commandante and tell me that isn't propaganda.

at least in a society that tolerates the exchange of diverse ideas, a simple thing actually, people are free to not only choose their positions but advocate them. It actually takes effort to block information (censorship) rather than allow it to pass freely.

[manic expression]

148. And what of CNN radio?

oh, I forgot, that doesn't fit into your view of the world, so you just ignore it.

[Bacchus39]

172. its not from Cuba now is it??

certainly not

[manic expression]

178. People in Cuba can listen to it easily

I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore this fact.

[slackmaster]

97. The whole body of the people does not vote on every book, news article, URL, etc.

For obvious practical and logistical reasons, the day-to-day decisions about what information gets through and what gets censored must fall into the hands of a few people who do that for a living. Otherwise "the many" would all get to review every item that becomes available, and the censorship program would fail.

Here's the piece most people fail to understand: What is and what is not "blatant propaganda" is largely subjective, and to quote a lesson my stepfather was taught by a senior officer when he was working as a Radioman for the US Navy aboard a ship in the Western Pacific during World War II, just because a piece of information arrives in the form of propaganda does not necessarily mean it isn't true.

Speaking of propaganda, please keep up your amusing tap dance trying to explain how filtering of information by a select group of people is in a society's best interests.

BTW - If we really wanted to destroy the Cuban socialist revolution, the smart thing to do would be to end the embargo immediately and start treating Cuba like a good neighbor and trading partner. Without the USA to blame for all its problems, Cuban society as we know it would collapse within a few years.

[Mika]

98. I agree with part of your latter statement. End the embargo.

If the sanctions on companies that do business with Cuba were ended and Cuba had open access to the Caribbean trunk of the internet then more Cubans would have access to it. As it is now, it is the US that limits Cubans access to the internet (via the spectrum of impacts the the sanctions create) more so than any other reason.

Interestingly, almost everything that the US gov and the Miami based exile organizations do empowers the Cuban government (by populist consent) by solidifying the base - the vast majority of Cubans who support their socialist system of government and feel that US imperialist interests intend to and do undermine their system.

Retaining some pseudo rationale of 'Castros = bogeymen' is necessary to keep the gravy train of US government anti Castro funding rolling in Miami and Washington for "think tanks", "Cuba transition" study groups and government offices, Radio & TV Marti and the private entities they employ, etc etc etc.

No Castro = no lucrative anti Castro industry.

[ohio2007]

107. Before that will happen, "you know who" has to assume room temp

before that act of congress is passed.
In the meantime, Cubans will cling to the expensive black market system that operates behind the govt controlled market.

[sufrommich]

113. How do "the many"

decide such things?Vote? I bet not.It's no doubt a collection of arrogant ideologues whose own deluded egos have convinced them that they,and they alone,know"what's best" for "the people".You seem to spend most of your time here defending taking away basic personal rights for the "good" of the majority.What flavor of Democrat are you?

[manic expression]

116. Through many mediums

the most important, in my mind, being the Cuban system of politics, in which candidates are nominated by the people in public meetings.

I'm someone who respects a people's ability to direct their society and community the way they wish, NOT the way Uncle Sam would prefer.

And lastly, what "rights" are you talking about? Please give a basis for "rights" outside of society's definition.

edited spelling error

[sufrommich]

121. All definitions are social definitions.

What else would they be?
They decide these oppressive controls at public meetings?!!I'm sure your typical politically powerless Cuban would feel perfectly comfortable speaking out publicly against the powerful elites.Not.
By the way,we have laws restricting "the peoples" ability to direct their society and community.A very long time ago ,some very smart men thought that stunk too much of mob rule.And they were right.
People with your mindset are frightening.I imagine you would make a fine neighborhood revolutionary committee member,quickly making examples of those who are too free thinking for the likes of "the people".

[manic expression]

122. Not necessarily

Something can be defined through society WHILE being based in reality. Class is something that is tangible, it actually exists. "Rights", on the other hand, have absolutely no basis outside of what a society defines it as.

Another thing is that the whole point of "rights" is that they are supposed to be natural. If they aren't natural, then they aren't really "rights", they're just things that society agrees upon.

They decide upon representatives in these public meetings. These representatives do not use expensive campaigns, they use the people they are representing. And really, "oppressive controls"? More like telling Uncle Sam to stuff his lies where they came from, which is perfectly reasonable.

Wait, so you don't think people should have control over their communities? Are you serious? "Mob rule" is a term used by kings, Tories and elitists, not by people who want true democracy. Those "very smart men" thought that people were stupid and that the rich whites should control society. Others, including myself, think that the people (not the bourgeoisie) should control what belongs to them.

I forgot, equity, equality, community control and other things are "frightening" to people like yourself.

[sufrommich]

124. Oh please.

What great damage is done to "Uncle Sam" by not allowing Cubans to freely surf any site on the internet.The Cuban government is controlling the information that it's people are allowed to have for reasons that have nothing to do with us.It's a dictatorship.You contort your brain into whatever shape you need to to justify it,but it is what it is.
What happens to the "bourgeoisie" type thinkers in your little utopia?I'll bet it's not pretty.

[manic expression]

126. No damage

is being done to Cuba, that much is clear, and that much is good.

It isn't a dictatorship, and anyone who knows the first thing about the Cuban system of government can tell you that.

Well, the bourgeoisie is suppressed in socialism (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"), but they will be given more than enough chances to become part of society. They can leave if they wish, but they cannot take any significant wealth with them.

[slackmaster]

129. What "significant wealth" would that be?

In a country where basic commodities like fuels and staple foods are rationed.

[manic expression]

131. Anything more than personal possessions

things of sentimental value, clothes and other such things are OK.

There would be a set amount, so people couldn't bring a royal baggage train of clothes to the US, for example. Basically, they would be able to survive on it for a reasonable amount of time.

This is semantic, by the way.

[Big Pappa]

83. Would you

feel the same if George wanted to block what he feels is mis info? I guess there is nothing the Cuban government could do to its people that you would not defend as appropriate.

[manic expression]

104. As I've said before

the US government is a government of the bourgeoisie, which means their interests are solely in protecting the rich. The Cuban government is a government of and for the people.

Secondly, the US government does censor a lot of stuff and shuts down inappropriate websites, but I guess when WE do it, it's OK with the self-appointed DU purveyors of justice and freedom.

[Big Pappa]

180. No

its wrong if the US does it or the Cubans.

[smitty]

146. So everything that the Cuban government blocks is American

misinformation and not, perhaps, contrary opinions, open discussion or alternative views?

[Judi Lynn]

152. They get radio and tv stations from Miami, from the other islands,

from all over Latin America.

Americans, since they are barred from travel to Cuba, at least the stupid ones, don't grasp that Cubans are in constant contact with THE REST OF THE WORLD, and are very well informed.

A DU poster who has been to Cuba multiple times has stated that she was surprised to learn, speaking with a woman on an early visit that the woman knew the name of a Miami Herald opinion writer, the poster being from Miami herself.

One of my Kansas Congresspeople has stated publicly that he discovered a cab driver he got a ride with was aware of what legislation on Cuba was pending in Congress at the very moment they were speaking.

Many more enlightening incidents are available to anyone who simply takes the time to start doing research, and looking for more information once he/she suspects maybe he doesn't know the whole story, AFTER ALL.

[smitty]

155. If Cubans are so well informed why does the government

think it necessary to restrict Internet access?

[Judi Lynn]

159. This is something you're going to have to apply yourself to studying.

Take time to read, yourself, to start researching, like other DU'ers. At some point, you're going to have to do a lot of the work yourself if you're going to have a clue about this subject.

People can't just tell you everything you need to know. They don't have the time to make up for years of ignorance. You've got to get involved personally.

[smitty]

165. Basically you have no answer to my question. I think the

ignorance is on your part, not mine.

[Mika]

167. The only "restrictions" are against pirate IPs supplied by the US interests section &..

.. illegal internet accounts created by other persons in Miami.

To use the internet in Cuba one must sign up with one of the registered (as in: legal) Cuba-based IPs using one's own ID. Of course, these accounts are expensive due to the limited bandwidth access that Cuba has to the internet (due to the US's extra territorial sanctions).

The restrictions referred to in the OP article are against pirate/illegal internet accounts. In Cuba the access and use of the phone system for internet connection requires an extra fee above and beyond what simple phone-only users pay for phone service.


The phraseology of the article in the OP is simply and purely anti Cuba BS.

Yes Cuba has to monitor some connections, because there is along history of real acts of terrorism committed against Cuba with aiding and abetting by certain US funded "dissident" groups within Cuba who use pirate/illegal/fraudulent internet accounts.

As the US government is stepping up actions to overthrow the Cuban system of government (as it is) using mercenary "dissidents", then Cuba steps up the restrictions on the pirate i-net accounts set up by the declared enemies of Cuba (the US and certain Miami based terra groups).

[Judi Lynn]

170. You're misreading the information already given you on this board

by someone who actually knows whereof he speaks. Here's that post, again:

Mika (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-14-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #155
167. The only "restrictions" are against pirate IPs supplied by the US interests section &..
Edited on Wed Feb-14-07 07:05 PM by Mika
.. illegal internet accounts created by other persons in Miami.

To use the internet in Cuba one must sign up with one of the registered (as in: legal) Cuba-based IPs using one's own ID. Of course, these accounts are expensive due to the limited bandwidth access that Cuba has to the internet (due to the US's extra territorial sanctions).

The restrictions referred to in the OP article are against pirate/illegal internet accounts. In Cuba the access and use of the phone system for internet connection requires an extra fee above and beyond what simple phone-only users pay for phone service.


The phraseology of the article in the OP is simply and purely anti Cuba BS.

Yes Cuba has to monitor some connections, because there is along history of real acts of terrorism committed against Cuba with aiding and abetting by certain US funded "dissident" groups within Cuba who use pirate/illegal/fraudulent internet accounts.

As the US government is stepping up actions to overthrow the Cuban system of government (as it is) using mercenary "dissidents", then Cuba steps up the restrictions on the pirate i-net accounts set up by the declared enemies of Cuba (the US and certain Miami based terra groups).
(snip/)

Take time to grapple with it.

[jhasp]

93. So is the US sending adware directly to the Cuban population?

Seriously, is the US government forcing pop-up ads and changing the start pages of all of the Cubans to force their "misinformation" campaign on them? If not, how is the US using a misinformation campaign over the internet to subvert the "democratically elected" Cuban government? By the way, what is content of this misinformation? Is it things like "In democratic countries, leaders are chosen from a group of candidates every few years", "A rice cooker is not much of a luxury", "new cars have been built since 1957"?

If you believe that the Cuban government is representative of the people, then why is Raul Castro the new de facto "elected" president without an election?

[Mika]

96. Your US propaganda based post is astounding.

Cuba is a democratic country.

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.

---

Rice pressure cookers are used around the world as a method of conserving available energy, and the environment. The government provided each and every household in Cuba with a pressure cooker in order for the people to conserve both - if they chose to.

Got a problem with that?

---

You seriously can't believe that the only cars in Cuba are old US models.

---

In Cuba's parliamentary system, the Vice President (who must hold an elected seat in the Parliament) is next in line for the office.

[ohio2007]

110. I wonder if Cubans have "acces denied" trying to open your link

adults are allowed to for Fidel as presidente.

Will the tradition continue with Raul?
well, why not ask members on this board who are posting from Cuba to sound off

<crickets>

[killbotfactory]

168. Here's a new car in Cuba

[Mika]

92. On that note.

Cuba computerising its health system
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/30531.html

Havana, Feb 14 (Prensa Latina) Cuba has undertaken computerising and creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images.
Cuba is the second country in the world with such a product, only preceded by France.

Cuba is preparing a Computerised Health Register, Hospital Management System, Primary Health Care, Academic Affairs, Medical Genetic Projects, Neurosciences, and Educational Software.

The aim is to maintain quality health service free for the Cuban people, increase exchange among experts and boost research-development projects.

This was revealed at a trade exhibition 'Informatica 2007' currently on in Havana.

Hmmm. Imagine that. A country that puts the infrastructure to work for the people's needs first before commerce.

[Psephos]

4. I, for one, welcome our Wild Colt of Information overlords

Because they know better than I do what information I should not have access to, of course.

[paulk]

10. it's not reasonable at all

we both know there is no intent to "work on personal use".

Any government that denies it's people free access to information is not worth defending.

[manic expression]

11. Neither of us know that

Cuba is putting what it can into schools, which should be applauded.

And guarding against US misinformation is not without justification, either. One should look at the whole picture.

[spoony]

13. It's amazing

the rationalising people can manage to justify putting hoods over people's heads.

Would you also agree that, in order to protect them, children should be locked in their rooms without media access?

[manic expression]

29. It's amazing that people want to criticize

a government for putting computers in schools.

And it's equally amazing that people ignore the circumstances facing a country.

[Bacchus39]

44. no-one is criticizing Cuba for installing computers in schools

talk about misdirection. Are you saying that Cubans are so impressionable that they require the government to shield them from information???

you stated that Cubans must prioritize their resources, and yet they are concentrating on monitoring what their citizens have access to on the net? Is this a wise use of limited resources?

[manic expression]

47. They're just ignoring it

Making sure people recognize what Cuba is actually doing is important, and it's something few else seem to be interested in.

It's not about being impressionable about information, it's about being unwilling to take Uncle Sam's oncoming flood of misinformation.

They are prioritizing their resources by putting internet in schools. Blocking propaganda doesn't take any significant additional resources.

[Bacchus39]

48. and searching witth Google will obviously lead to "misinformation"

undoubtedly?

are you on Fidel's payroll?

[manic expression]

50. Which country is trying to topple us

exactly?

Good thing other governments NEVER shut down or block websites because of unacceptable content.

[Bacchus39]

52. alternate sources of information besides State run media

is one of the wonders of the internet. You can get much of what you want from the net. Its my choice, that is the key. However, why would Cubans be afraid of propaganda, they lived under it for over 50 years. Do you know what irony is??

[manic expression]

53. There is no lack of that in Cuba

you can listen to CNN with a simple radio in Havana. Do you know what ignorance is?

[Bacchus39]

55. can you watch it??

CNN, not ignorance. I am watching that right now.

there is nothing to fear from too much information unless you are the Cuban government who intentionally attempts to keep their people ignorant.

[manic expression]

60. American basic cable

isn't exactly Cuba's thing. Practically every Cuban with a radio has access to CNN, why are you ignoring that?

I could give you 20 different mediums of information, and you would still try to negate it.

CUBANS DON'T HAVE SMELL-O-VISION? Oh, the oppression!

[ngant17]

81. American basic cable

I wouldn't want CNN if they gave it to me for free!

[paulk]

17. you can certainly make a pretty good guess

Cuba hasn't exactly been a hotbed of freedom the last 30 years.

Is it just US misinformation? The internet is a worldwide phenomenon.

And even if it is - shouldn't the citizens get to choose whether they want to access the "misinformation" or not? Would you trust our government with control over what you can access on the internet?

[manic expression]

34. Only if you know about Cuba's system

It is US misinformation, among other things. Are you trying to say that the US isn't trying to topple Cuba as much as possible? They even created a SPECIAL POST to destabilize Cuba.

What is freedom? Freedom for US subversives? Freedom FROM sovereignty? How, exactly, are you using "freedom"?

The Cuban people have decided what they want to access, that is why they are taking this route. I don't trust the US government because it is a bourgeois government. Cuba's government is a government of and for the people.

[ohio2007]

40. So, YOU deserve and have the right to full internet access but the Cubans

MUST not have the same freedoms you take for granted ?

..The Cuban people have decided what they want to access, that is why they are taking this route.

The "people" have decided they want the "government" to do their thinking ....
yeah
I call that censorship not freedom.

[manic expression]

41. I never talked about what I deserve

I do know that Cubans deserve to not be bombarded with US misinformation.

Since the government is very responsive to the people, the people are, in all likelihood, not opposed to these measures, if not in support of them. This does not mean the government is doing any thinking for anyone else.

First define "freedom", then you might have a starting point. And on edit, while you're at it, try to find a foundation for "freedom" outside of society's definition.

[ohio2007]

49. It's not just US "misinformation" that's being censored

I define freedom as access to any and all information.

In Cuba, all information is to be controlled by the government.
If the government can't trust their own people, then the people can't trust their own government.

Am I right?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[manic expression]

51. Freedom

for subversives? That is unacceptable and intolerable.

You did not give a foundation for that freedom outside of society (if you didn't see my edit, then that's my fault, but please address it).

In Cuba, the people determine the route of their society, and they have determined that they want none of Uncle Sam's lies.

I'm not sure how your link contributes to the discussion.

[hack89]

58. But what else do they want none of?

is everything on the internet a threat?

[manic expression]

61. Obviously not

since they're trying to get as much access to it in schools as possible.

And can you find a foundation for "freedom" outside of society's definition?

[hack89]

73. Are you willing to give up freedoms you presently enjoy ..

if "society" decides to redefine freedom? Freedom of speech? Association? Religion? Choice? I have a hard time thinking of any frivolous freedoms. One freedom I particularity enjoy is the freedom to educate myself in order to protect myself from those in power that would act to limit my freedoms. Knowledge is truly power - why do you think the Bush administration has classified more government information than any administration in history? Because just like the Cuban government, they fear the results of that knowledge in the hands of an informed public.

[manic expression]

76. Freedom

doesn't exist outside of what society defines it as. I've asked for a foundation for "freedom" outside of society's definition many times, and I've gotten nothing.

Anyway, I am willing to allow THE PEOPLE to determine the direction of their communities. That is real freedom, losing the chains of individual greed and self-serving ambitions and working for a better world.

Furthermore, "freedom" in America is only for those who can afford it. You think people who shake up the system have "freedom"? Of course not.

[AngryAmish]

94. The people decided what was right in the Jim Crow south

Colored drinking fountains, inability to get a meal in a restaurant, etc. The majority of the people liked it like that. They voted their government in and reelected them to enforce these very same policies.

So one can see when "the people" can be wrong. There are fundamental human rights. Freedom of the press is one of them. If some folks cannot contact all the news they want their freedom is abridged, even if "the people" (that means the majority) want it that way. Minorities have rights including political minorities.

[manic expression]

101. So AngryAmish

gets to decide what is good and what is bad? AngryAmish has the final say on justice itself? Are you even listening to yourself? Equating Jim Crow laws with a country's opposition to American lies? You are taking this crap to new heights.

There are fundamental human rights? Give a foundation for those rights OUTSIDE of society's definition. There is NO BASIS for "rights" (perhaps you could provide one).

[sufrommich]

114. "There is no basis for rights"

Jesus, you're scary.

[manic expression]

118. I've been waiting

for someone to give me a basis for rights, and no one has been able to. I suspect the reason no one can is because there isn't any.

Try thinking about these concepts instead of taking them as dogma.

[slackmaster]

127. What are you trying to do, start a philosophy debate here?

Obviously people have widely varying views on the "basis" for rights.

[manic expression]

130. If people are going to evoke

these "rights", they better have something concrete to base them on. The simple fact is that no one has such a basis.

I've asked various people, and I haven't gotten a single one of these "widely varying views on the 'basis' for rights". I suspect that is because no basis exists.

[slackmaster]

132. I'm confident you will have a snappy comeback no matter what anyone says

Let's try one: Natural rights.

The defense of life, and a predisposition to seek and to exercise personal liberty are natural traits of the human species.

Or another: God-given.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[manic expression]

134. I try to offer disagreement

Whether or not it is "snappy" is another discussion entirely.

First, you failed to define "personal liberty". Second, why are they "natural traits"? You must provide evidence for such an assertion. In fact, the earliest human societies had no such concepts, which would suggest that they are not natural.

Next, you're basing it on the existence of god? Even if we accept that there is divinity, what do you have to say that s/he gave us those specific "rights", or any at all? Furthermore, if you accept this as fact, then why have these ideas been very recent developments, with societies in the past looking at property and other institutions in TOTALLY different ways?

Doesn't hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

[slackmaster]

136. You sound a lot like I did after taking a year of undergraduate philosophy classes

Thank you for proving my point.

For the record, I am a natural rights advocate and an agnostic. I base my assertion of natural rights on almost 50 years of observing the behavior of humans and other species, including myself. When someone tells me I can't do something, my immediate reactions are to wonder why, and to try to find a way around the restriction.

I find the idea of having someone filter out ideas, even if that person is chosen by a completely democratic process, completely repugnant.

People do incredibly stupid, insane things on consensus all the time.

[manic expression]

137. I've never taken a philosophy course

but thanks for your concern.

If you're going to say that I "proved your point", explain why. Claiming victory when you offer no resistance is quite pathetic.

Perhaps you could enlighten us, instead of citing 50 years of people watching as evidence of anything.

You try to get around restrictions? Good for you. That proves nothing. Stay on topic.

Filtering out blatant and hostile lies is what a society should do.

I found not a single shred of support for your claims in your post. Offer something tangible.

[slackmaster]

138. I told you my philosophy is based on my own personal observation and thought

If that doesn't fit your definition of support, I suppose there isn't any point in trying to continue the conversation.

You're the one arguing for censorship, on the Internet of all places. If you can't see the irony in that, nothing I could say can save you from your blind commitment to the Cuban revolution. Maybe you SHOULD take a philosophy course.

[manic expression]

140. In other words

your philosophy is based on your personal impressions. That doesn't fit ANYONE'S definition of support, so there's no argument for you to continue in the first place.

I'm the one showing that people directing their own communities is not unjustified. You're the one showing us your thoughts and trying to pass them as actual evidence.

[slackmaster]

149. You're more interested in "proving" you are right than in basic human needs

One of which, especially in modern society, is free access to information.

Typical far left authoritarian gobbledy-gook. I outgrew that way of thinking about 30 years ago.

[manic expression]

150. I'm still waiting for a real basis

That was the point here, you showing me a basis. So far, you've failed.

[slackmaster]

154. You have failed as well

To convince anyone other than your fellow authoritarian state apologists that censorship has ANY place in a free society, or that a society that embraces it can be called free.

[manic expression]

158. Not really

because I've supported the claims I've made. You can't even pinpoint the existence of the concept you promote.

[slackmaster]

160. Show of hands please - How many minds has manic expression changed here?

[manic expression]

162. This is a bad excuse

for an argument.

Go ahead and have the last word, they're for people who haven't said enough already (and I doubt you'll say enough with it).

[nick303]

176. What's the basis for saying that people directing their own communities is justified?

You've failed to define that.

Great form of argument I'll have to make sure that I use it whenever I get stuck.

[manic expression]

179. The difference you neglected

is that the promoters of "rights" and "liberty" hold that those things are NATURAL AND INALIENABLE.

Did I ever say people directing their own communities is "inalienable"? No, I didn't, so I don't need to find a similar basis for such a thing.

The desire for people directing their own communities does NOT depend on an independent foundation, unlike rights, it depends on the desire for an end to exploitation and inequity.

[Amused Musings]

135. I think that you are trying to make

the term "society" so broad that it is impossible to define anything outside of it. In essence, the logical conclusion to your argument is that there is no "truth," just competing ideologies. This might be true or it might not- our limited sensory capacities prevent one from coming to a definitive answer. Because you believe in the reactionary ideology of communism, you find the ends justify the means. But in your dizzying rationalization of totalitarianism tactics, you forget that being liberal entails an inherent respect for what we consider the natural rights of individual freedom and protection from tyranny of the majority. If there is no truth, as I think you are saying, surely then no society can be allowed to control the minds of any who make up said society.


The ends never justify the means. Not now, not ever. We compromise our integrity when we do such things. Unfortunately we are still human and we are all bound to fail in this standard- but we must try. Information must be eternally free because it is necessary to have the fullest extent of input possible to make just and reasonable choices. Even if they turn out to be wrong, we cannot be nannied by an all powerful government. This goes for competing thought as well. As a liberal, the cornerstone of my beliefs are those founded in the enlightenment. You balk at the examples given earlier where "society" believed in terrible things and inflicted these horrific ideas, slavery, gender subjugation, etc. on the minority. Yet you only disagree with them because they are in the furtherence of a societal ends which you oppose. If you thought they were needed to preserve dying communist regimes, you would think they are just. Except you would label all dissidents American spies, whether they knew it or not.

I do not think that you actually think censorship is a good thing or any totalitarian tendencies built into a communist country (I could be wrong, but I hold out hope you just do not understand the implications of what you are saying). But I do think that you are too quick to defend the indefensible. I am not trying to justify the embargo, I am very much against it and think that it should be repealed, especially now that the Cold War is over. I am very disapointed in Clinton for not making such concessions. I am a proud liberal who thinks that people can make decisions on their own about what to think and oppose any "daming" of the free flow of information.

[manic expression]

144. Not exactly

because things exist outside of the definition of society. Class is something that is concrete, class actually exists; property, on the other hand, has NO basis outside of what society tells you "property" is. In the same way, "rights" are not seperate from what society says they are, which effectively makes them meaningless. Society made them, so society can unmake them.

You make many other objections, and I'll try to address them.

You say that I think there is no "truth". That is wrong. The truth is that rights do not exist. Ideologies compete, and the winner gets to direct society while the loser gets the shaft, but this does not mean there is no truth in the world.

Next, communism is not "reactionary", and that much is a fact. Calling communism "reactionary" is like calling red blue, it just doesn't make sense. Next, I argue for worker control, the abolishment of private property and other things, so call me what you will, it changes nothing. Moreover, I'm NOT a liberal, and I disagree with liberal values and liberalism. Likewise, I see no reason to believe in natural rights.

The ends may justify the means, as long as there is something to justify the ends (Trotsky). That is right, I oppose bourgeois states and support worker states, because that is what largely defines the very nature of those societies. Not all dissidents in Cuba are American spies, namely Oswaldo Paya.

Rejecting American propaganda is defensible, and further it is justifiable.

[Amused Musings]

157. Class is concrete?

You mean like it is written into our genese? Nope, class, like race, is very much a social construct. It may appear in all societies throughout history but the definitions of who fits into what and how are all very different. By your definition, which I disagree with, class falls into a societal construct. Like I said before, we have natural rights not because some divine invisible Emperor granted us them at creation, but because we live in a world made up of individuals with unique minds, we must not coerce that what is our quintessential identity.

Of course communism, as developed by Marx, is a reactionary ideology. It reacted to watershed event in history called the Industrial Revolution. Marx and the anarchists Kropotkin and Bukunin (sp?) set forward alternative ideologies in response to the prevailing notion of laissez-faire capitalism. History is not some determined event series of progress winning over the forces of conservatism. It is quite messy and the outcome is usually one that is unexpected. Communist historical theory is not science, it is an ideology created in reaction to a revolutionary shift in how western society was organized over an incredibly short time. In the words of Nietzche, one could call it a slave morality (not that there is anything wrong with a slave morality, but the circumstances surrounding the genesis of both are astoundingly familiar -at least to that most cynical of German philosphers).

If you do not believe in liberalism or liberal values, why are you a democrat? I imagine it must be lonely. I would think that liberalism is the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. Also, I find your belief of ends justify the means in the pursuit of "worker" revolution (ironic that every socialist revolution occured in peasant countries without an idustrial base? Kind of disproves Marx's theory of history, doesn't it?) to be disheartening. How many have been enslaved or slaughtered for some unreachable and always beyond the horizon "Greater Good?"

[manic expression]

161. Yes

it is defined by an individual's relationship to the means of production. That relationship actually exists. I never said class is natural or independent of society, I said it is based in something concrete.

We live in a world of individuals. So what? Those individuals are not islands unto themselves. How does that statement justify "rights"?

Do you even know what "reactionary" means? Just because Marxism developed in response industrialization doesn't mean it's "reactionary". Every political philosopher responds to a crisis, that much is a given. For your information, "reactionary" implies that it is right-wing, which it is not.

Communist historical theory looks at history in a scientific way. Different developments shaped the world; societies are defined by their economic situation. These are all taken from the study history.

I'm not a democrat. Why did you assume I was?

How many have been enslaved? Through socialism, the workers have been able to shake off their chains in many instances. How many have been killed? Not sure, but revolutions are not tea parties, they are struggles, and we must recognize this.

[slackmaster]

163. This forum is for Democrats of all stripes

Why did you assume I was?

Most of us probably have given you the benefit of the doubt that you have read the posting rules and are abiding by them.

[manic expression]

164. This forum is also for 'other progressives'

I fall under this catagory. Check the posting rules if you don't believe me.

[slackmaster]

166. I consider your politics to be regressive, not progressive

But that is a matter of personal opinion.

[Amused Musings]

173. I guess I should respond in order

1. I'm guessing you believe that people fall into two categories: worker and exploiter. No wonder the information and technological revolution passed by the Second World.


2. Well we could debate endlessly about truth, nature- all those other things dealing with philosphy 101 and political theory and all those other classes freshman have to take but this is about Cuba so I will try to do it again in simpler terms: Because we are born individuals and have independent minds-even if we also end up indentifying with larger groups and people, it is natural to seek your own best interest. To deny such urges is to dismiss our humanity-which would be stupid considering that it is a characteristic that one is unable to shake off. This means coercion, although quite, quite ample in life, should be resisted or at least minimized because it infringes on our nature. This is not really a comprehensive argument for negative liberties and as a communist you already don't believe in negative liberties so I suppose this whole thing will fall on deaf ears and is not really part of the topic.

3. It would appear that the political spectrum is like a horseshoe: The ends tend to curl into themselves. Reactionary might imply right-wing but so does censorship. Maybe they both describe Cuba's political climate accurately. But hey, ends justify the means, right?

4. If marxism is a scientific theory, then its hypothesis has been proven false and should be discarded. Determinalistic historical analysis is bunk and always overlooks events and trends that do not coincide with the bias of whichever ideology your trying to prove with it

5. Maybe it was the moniker of this website. I apologize for assuming you were a Democrat (an honest and understandable mistake). Although, it is a head scratcher why someone who does not believe in libeal ideas associates with a group (I think- maybe I am over-generalizing again) that does in fact believe in liberalism. Or to use that apocryphal (and probably false) saying of Lenin: we liberals are just "useful idiots."

6. There are other ways to enslave people than with shackles. When a government strips people of all freedom as many, if not all Communist countries have done (I do not include Venezuela in this as they are still relatively free), then the people are enslaved. Furthermore, I refuse to recognize your cavalier attitude towards so many deaths.

[manic expression]

177. OK

Not precisely. There is also the lumpenproletariat and the petty-bourgeoisie. Their relationships are different as well.

We are not individuals alone, we are members of our community. Of course we are individuals, but to ignore our relationships to others is shortsighted. To pursue self-interest at the expense of the community is, by definition, greedy and self-centered. Those are bourgeois values, and they are values which exploit and deprive. Cooperation, not competition, is how humans best operate.

The political spectrum does not curve to the liberal's delight. In other words: the world does not revolve around liberalism. I say this because people have a painfully small view of the world. Communists and anarchists are progressives, we see the world in different ways but that does not make us reactionary. Censorship can take many forms, it is not a measuring stick.

What hypothesis do you speak of? That the workers will rise and overthrow capitalism? Marx never said that it must take place before Feburary 2007, no one set a time table. It takes awhile for entire systems to be overthrown, just look at feudalism and how long that lasted. Just because the revolution hasn't come yet doesn't mean it's not going to come.

Your assumption was completely reasonable and I have no problem with it. I think that presenting another (progressive) viewpoint is helpful and constructive. I hope to get people thinking about things in a different way. That is one of the main reasons why I'm here.

When you say "free", you are using a bourgeois definition. The workers' lives can never truly be improved unless cooperation and collectivity is promoted. Communists make no bones about suppressing the bourgeoisie and other reactionaries during the period of socialism (communism has not yet been implemented, by the way), many of us feel that it is necessary to take action in order to prohibit exploitation and inequality. The people are not enslaved if they agree to block capitalist lies, the people are not enslaved if they decide to collectivize industries, the people are not enslaved if they control their communities, and all of that is exactly what is happening in