Chileans take to street in anger against regime

quote:

---

Thousands of Chileans took to the streets yesterday in a burgeoning middle class revolt against the 17 years of coalition government that has ruled since the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990.

Hundreds of Chileans were arrested as they approached the presidential palace. Squares in and around the palace became a chaotic mix of mounted police, riot troops and teargas. As water cannons blasted protesters, waves of students counterattacked with rocks. Burning barricades almost closed central Santiago.

Article continues
Television images showed senator Alejandro Navarro, of President Michelle Bachelet's Socialist party, bleeding from the back of his head after apparently being clubbed by a police officer. The deputy interior minister, Felipe Harboe, said the incident would be investigated. Mr Navarro, who was treated in hospital, supported the protest.

"This protest will start to change things. There will be one after another," said Arturo Martinez, of United Workers Central, the trade union that organised the protest. The union is tapping into widespread anger at economic inequality in Chilean society. As riot police and ruling party politicians tried to play down the protests, the capital was filled by protesters demanding higher pensions, better public transport, subsidised housing and a halt to rising food and electricity prices.

---

She should seek an alliance with Venezuela instead of trying to remain one of the hemisphere's "good leftists" who kowtow to the IMF and do as they're told.

Reject the limits, Michele. Reject the road to failure.

[ 08 September 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
True, he got the position on a colition gov't because of proportional representation

---

But if Hitler had won by FPTP, NSDAP likely wouldn't have needed support from any other party to pass the enabling act. Fascists have always had disdain for democracy, so it wouldn't matter to them what electoral system is in place before seizing dictatorial powers. German industrialists Gustav Krupp, Voegler, Alfried Krupp, Emil Kirdorf and Fritz Thyssen heavily influenced the 1933 elections with campaign financing. That's not supposed to be democratic by today's standards but was part and parcel of elections around the world for several decades in the last century.

But Pinochet's power grab as a result of CIA-fomented military coup was illegit from the start, which wasn't saying very much for that national security state at the time either.

[ 08 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I don't know what you're talking about with 49 percent of the vote. Bachelet won just under 54 percent of the vote in the last presidential election. And Chilean protesters don't think her government is far enough to the left apparently.

quote:

---

Fidel won power by the ultimate democracy: active participation by the urban underground and campesinos to overthrow the very corrupt U.S.-backed mafia regime in Havana.

---

You have a very creative definition of "ultimate democracy"...people armed with guns shooting everyone in sight and taking power because they have the most ammunition.

Do you have a cache of guns and ammo hidden somewhere, so you and your harebrained acolytes can storm Parliament Hill killing as many people as you can.

[ 09 September 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

In the Weimar Republic, there was a very low threshold to get seats under PR (I think it might have been 3%). The first election the Nazis competed in was in 1928 and they took 10 seats out of 450 or so. Once in Parliament, they were able to pay their MPs and staff and get more and more publicity. Then in the next election, they support soared to over 100 seats.

Maybe their support would have soared regardless if Germany had had an FPTP system, but you could artgue that PR gave them that initial jumpstart.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

You have a very creative definition of "ultimate democracy"...people armed with guns shooting everyone in sight and taking power because they have the most ammunition.

---

The only thing the U.S.-backed stooges, secret police and parasitic fruit and sugar company owners etc and the mafia understood was forceful exit from Cuba. They weren't legit, Stockholmer. Actual Cubans gave them the heave-ho and good riddance lest they'd have remained just another capitalist shithole colony of cheap labour for United Fruit, Bacardi, big sugar etc ad nauseum. Cubans grew weary of breaking their backs under the tropical sun from morning to sundown while their children sold themselves to Cuba's upstanding citizens, mafia and rich tourists. TB infection rates were atrocious under the corrupt Batista regime. That all changed and much more with Fidel.

The U.S. shadown government is learning that the more oppressive their stooges are in Latin America the more likely it is they will have to provide military aid to prop them up. At the same time, 42 alleged Liberal Democrats voted with their cohorts in crime recently to keep the world's foremost school for export of terror and torture open for business. The Yanks want to close down that symbol of fascist oppression once and for all before you or anyone can be taken seriously about free and fair elections in Latin America.

And perhaps we'd see people here take an interest in democracy if and when the autocrats are no longer able to rely on phony majorities and passing the torch from one old line party to another since before the glorious Romanov dynasty came to an end in Russia. Some things just don't last.

Pinochet and several of the most brutal right-wing dictators in this hemisphere were never arraigned on charges of crimes against humanity and punished. Why not ?. Why do kleptocrats like Ralph Klein heap praise on a fascist old bastard like that and still command an ounce of respect among so many stupid people in this country?.

[ 09 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Pinochet wasn't elected by democratic choice in 1970.

Socialist Salvador Allende was elected by free and fair elections, however.

Allende was overthrown by CIA fomented military coup on 9-11-73.

Military coups are not known to be legitimate as far as democracy is concerned, especially not when a democratically elected president is deposed in the process.

The very first chance Chileans were given they rejected the U.S.-backed stooge after sixteen years of brutal right-wing dictatorship.

It's kind of like Canadians reducing the federal Tories to just two seats in the 1993 elections after two terms of Mulroney's sellouts to Warshington. At the same time, that the ReformaTories received less than 24 percent of Canadian eligible vote in 2006 is not generally considered a ringing endorsement for old Irish eyes either.

And if we'd had PR in 1989 elections, the Liberals would have been forced to backup the other wing of the party as per usual and sell us down the river four years sooner, and this whole charade with the plutocracy would be that much further along.

[ 09 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Socialist Salvador Allende was elected by free and fair elections, however.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

What do you care. You have told us ad nauseum that you consider elections to be a sham and oppose ever allowing them.

---

No, you must be dyslectic. Allende's election was legitimate, a beacon for democracy in Latin America ever since.

The CIA fomented coup that removed him from power was not legit. Do you understand the difference ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
You seem to think that an election is only legitimate if the people you support win.

---

Yes, Arbenz, Bishop, Aristide, Ortega and Allende were all democratically elected leaders in Latin America.

At least 36 U.S.-backed dictators did not win free or fair elections. Some were CIA stooges, U.S.-backed drug dealers, arms dealers, fascists, convicted rapists, mass murderers and general all around slimey scum of the earth.

quote:

---

BTW: Allende only won 36% of the vote. The other 64% of the votes went to two rightwing candidates who split the vote.

---

Yes and because Allende did not win 50% of the vote, the election was then decided by Chilean congress, which gave Allende the victory over Allesandri by a 153-to-35 vote with Tomic's Christian Democrat party supporting Allende. This was real democracy at work not phony majority make-believe demockracy that we know in Canada. Elections in countries with PR are much more exciting than here with our two dog race snore fests since before the last Tsar was given the old heave-ho.

So here's an even easier question. What are our "Liberal" democrats in Ontario and B.C. afraid of when they slap an unfair 60 percent threshold on a referendums for fair voting?. Neither Campbell or McGuinty could have a hope in hell of winning 51 percent of the vote themselves, and yet they've made damn good and sure that provincial electoral systems remain in line and compatible with the U.S.-style FPTP favouring the plutocracy.

And yet their federal Librano democrat cousins don't mind a bit if the country breaks up if and when the separatists win just 50 percent plus one vote in a referendum on Quebec sovereignty. Democracy is the right's most hated institution and always was.

[ 09 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And the only reason you're baiting Fidel on elections here is your pointless obsession with inflicting a U.S.-controlled sham vote on Cuba.

You act like the State Department and the C.I.A. are completely irrelevant to Latin American history.

Get a clue.

[ 09 September 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

And the only reason you're baiting Fidel on elections here is your pointless obsession with inflicting a U.S.-controlled sham vote on Cuba.

---

I have no obsession with "inflicting a U.S.-controlled sham vote on Cuba". You are simply fabricating that because you are grasping at straws to come up with a rationale for opposing free elections in Cuba. All I want for Cuba is an election that any party and any political philosophy is free to compete in. If Cuba wants to set strict spending limits and bar any American citizen from setting foot in the country for the duration of the campaign - all the more power to them. An election need not be a "US-controlled sham". In fact, its hard to imagine such a thing when every single Cuban under the age of 65, has lived their entire life on a diet of nothing but government controlled propaganda with strict censorship. If the Communist Party can't win about 90% of the vote in those circumstances, something is wrong with them.

I have never questioned the legitimacy of Salvador Allende's victory in Chile. In fact, i probably would have voted for him if i were a Chilean in 1970, but he did not win as a result of proportional representation. He won in a winner takes all presidential system with no run-off.

It's like this:

When the U.S. agrees to stop intervening in the affairs of other countries in this hemisphere, THEN it will be legitimate to have elections in Cuba.

Before that, the more important objective there is to work for free speech and an independent press. That is what matters most.

Until then, no light-skinned English-speaking person has the moral authority to demand much of anything from Cuba.

Your anger should be directed at Washington D.C., not Havana. It is in Washington that the true source of the problem lies.

You always let my country's foreign policy off the hook. Why?

quote:

---

When the U.S. agrees to stop intervening in the affairs of other countries in this hemisphere, THEN it will be legitimate to have elections in Cuba.

---

Does that mean that Canada should also not be allowed to have free elections?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If Cuba wants to set strict spending limits and bar any American citizen from setting foot in the country for the duration of the campaign - all the more power to them. An election need not be a "US-controlled sham".

---

There are elections happening in Cuba all the time at all three levels of government. And anyone can nominate anyone as a local representative. Elections in Cuba are non-partisan rather than single party. Cuba has democracy that we only wish was possible here in the northern plutocracies where two political parties with the most resources dominate mainstream news media coverage in propagandizing the electorate.

In fact, the Cason affair in Havana wasn't about spreading democracy and working with grassroots civil society groups toward democratization of Cuba. The so called news journalists and dissidents had been collaborating with U.S. interests section diplomats and given free rein to meet in their homes and discuss democracy. But it wasn't nearly their agenda as it was collecting the names of Cuban officials for possible assassinations, and generally what most countries would describe as sedition, which is illegal in most countries and subject to harsh punishment.

quote:

---

My only point is that if people want to claim that Stephen Harper has no mandate to govern Canada because he only won 36% of the votes of those who actually voted. How is this any different from Allende winning 36% of the votes of those who bothered to vote in Chile in 1970??

---

quote:

---

It's a rigged system, and Canadians have less enthusiasm for democracy than Cubans do.

---

The only thing "rigged" is a system where nobody is allowed to run for public office unless they accept the eternal supremacy and the policies of the ruling party.

Here is a link for some serious reporting on Haiti. It's a pleasant contrast to Stockholm's smirking disdain for anything other that neo-liberal atrocities...

Haiti watch.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

The only thing "rigged" is a system where nobody is allowed to run for public office unless they accept the eternal supremacy and the policies of the ruling party.

I can just imagine what passes for "debate" in the kangaroo court Cuban pseudo-parliament. Probably something out of the opening scenes from "Goodbye Lenin" (I humbly request that the glorious Communist Party in all it infallible altruism make more pantyhose available for women who take sizes above size 8)

---

Oh, no. This again.

Summarizing badly and with apologies to Beltov: socialists regard capitalism (in certain relevant respects) more or less as they regard feudalism and slave economies. They regard an obsession with capitalist participation in elections in much the same way as they would regard an obsession with participation by advocates of feudalism or a slave economy. It's not desirable, to say the least. It's hardly a requirement for democracy, to say the least.

And if you say that there is no law against participation by such parties in our polity, my reponse is this: Such things are not enforced by law in regimes like ours. They are enforced by economic power, that is, by capital, which exerts itself even more forcefully against the left. Stockholm believes that the exertion of such power is not incompatible with democracy. It is the use of the power of government (which in theory represents the people) in the electoral realm that he considers incompatible with democracy.

However, past discussions have amply demonstrated the utter pointlessness of saying anything on this topic.

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Does that mean that you oppose having elections in Canada and favour jailing anyone who opposes socialism in Canada?

---

For the three millionth time, I don't want to eliminate elections. I'd like democratic elections. No, I wouldn't jail anyone who opposes socialism but if they conspired with a foreign power to get rid of it or even undermine it, and if there was a real threat, I would indeed jail them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So why should Canadians have a right to vote in an election and Cubans shouldn't? What makes us so superior that we get the privilege of choosing our government, but then you feel that Cubans cannot be trusted to do the same?

---

The cubans do have elections and it's exceedingly difficult for reasons mentioned ad nauseum. And we don't have the privilege of choosing our government. That's (part of) my point. You never respond to other people's arguments so I think this is pointless and will get back to work.

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

We don't have the privilege of choosing our government.

---

Maybe you could alternate your baiting with the "Let's have a sham election in Cuba" meme with the "PR is the work of the devil" meme, and then throw in the occasional "Let's be fair to fascists" meme for some bonus baiting points.

P.S. Rosa: The Cubans have a perfectly good electoral system. It's been outlined to Stockholm more than once. But without capitalist restoration parties it's not really a democracy in his feverish and pathologically anti-communist mind. It's irrelevant to him that there are no political parties allowed to run for office. And the fact that the Communist Party in Cuba has no legal, and only moral, authority is also deemed irrelevant.

Incidently, the few times when Communists in Canada had much of a chance to win seats in Parliament, they were made illegal: at their inception, again in 1930, and shortly after World War 2. The most recent Communist in the Canadian Parliament, Fred Rose, was stripped of his elected seat in the House of Commons and deported to Poland on the basis on unsubstantiated evidence by Igor Gouzenko. You can read about it in the Taschereau Kellock Commission and form your own opinion.

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

And the fact that the Communist Party in Cuba has no legal, and only moral, authority is also deemed irrelevant.

---

right, never.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[QIncidently, the few times when Communists in Canada had much of a chance to win seats in Parliament, they were made illegal: at their inception, again in 1930, and shortly after World War 2. The most recent Communist in the Canadian Parliament, Fred Rose, was stripped of his elected seat in the House of Commons and deported to Poland on the basis on unsubstantiated evidence by Igor Gouzenko. You can read about it in the Taschereau Kellock Commission and form your own opinion.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
Mostly the Fidel/Stockholm tiff I'm complaining about, in every single one of their conversations Stockholm brings up how cuba isn't democratic, Fidel stupidly falls for it, and it drags every conversation to a halt that they get their hands on.

It's annoying.

---

quote:

---

The most recent Communist in the Canadian Parliament, Fred Rose, was stripped of his elected seat in the House of Commons and deported to Poland on the basis on unsubstantiated evidence by Igor Gouzenko.

---

Unsubstantiated except for the official Soviet documents which he brought with him.

He had a jury trial, and the jury convicted him after seeing the evidence. He did not appeal.

He wasnt deported, either. He left Canada and returned to Communist Poland in about 1950.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
Since when did Chile become Cuba?

right, never.

STFU ABOUT CUBA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Unsubstantiated except for the official Soviet documents which he brought with him.

He had a jury trial, and the jury convicted him after seeing the evidence. He did not appeal.

He wasnt deported, either. He left Canada and returned to Communist Poland in about 1950.

He lost his citizenship in 1957, long after he had left.

---

Rose was convicted of passing information to the Soviet Union.

He did not take the stand when he had a chance to deny it.

The Communist Party has not been illegal for many years. Its lack of electoral success over the past fifty years is because people found out what it was: an apologist for dictatorship and murder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Lying is a big problem for the party, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Communist Party of Canada used to cooperate with the Liberals to try to scuttle the CCF's chances in places like Windsor

---

quote:

---

Of course, there's nothing here about Chile. Nothing. As usual.

---

Gee, do you think that could be because:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Haiti had an election last year and they elected a President from Aristide's party and he is now in power. So, what's the problem?

---

The problem is that a democratically-elected socialist leader was removed from power by the CIA and with Ottawa's help in this decade. This is about the 26th time the CIA or U.S. military has either invaded Haiti to put down a people's revolution struggling against an intolerable right-wing dictatorship, or to cancel democratic choice in Haiti. And you don't see anything wrong with this because you only feign an interest in democracy.

There was another CIA instigated military coup attempt. And it was against Chavez, another democratically-elected socialist leader, again, in this same decade.

Do you understand the difference between free and fair elections and what the U.S. shadow government has pulled in Latin America over the years?. The problem is not a people's revolution outlasting decades of U.S. cold war rhetoric and the waging of economic warfare and anti-Cuban terrorism against an island nation.

quote:

---

And it was against Chavez, another democratically-elected socialist leader, again, in this same decade.

---

quote:

---

jeff house: Gee, do you think that could be because:

1. Your comrade brought up Fred Rose and lied about his case.

---

quote:

---

Red-baiting is the act of accusing someone, or some group, of being communist, socialist or,in a broader sense, of being significantly more leftist at their core than they may appear at the outset. The term is used mainly with the intention of discrediting the individual's or organization's political views as dishonest and/or haphazard. The implication in red-baiting is usually that the target represents an ill-intentioned external force which has no proper place in a given political party, coalition, or union.

---

He has a deep commitment to telling the truth about the Communist Party, worldwide.

It is just a sincere concern on his part that Fred Rose would NEVER provide secret information to the Soviet Union!

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: Coyote ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Why do you even bother making reference to Chavez having been "democratically-elected", when you keep telling us that you oppose having democratic elections and that you want people to seize power violently through armed insurrection?

---

Because you're aaaabsolutely speechless to explain why democracy has been a lie throughout Latin America with CIA interference in democracy around the world.

In fact, it's been a mandate of U.S. shadow government to ensure that democracy doesn't happen in Latin America and around the empire. They're still scared witless of red menace and domino effect. And our stoogeocrats in Ottawa have aided and abetted the right-wing war on democracy over the years and with sending troops to the occupation in Afghanistan and aiding the illegal Iraq military occupation. We boycotted the Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan after 1980. And now we're doing the exact same thing we condemned the Soviets for. We don't have democracy, Stockholmer. Cubans aren't wringing their hands over an illegal and immoral war on poor people in Central Asia and Middle East. And it's because Cuba doesn't send troops marching into sovereign countries and declaring local people the enemies of freedom.

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
- I will condemn totalitarian anti-democrats with all my might.

---

Ya, we know. Just so long as they aren't the ones who aided and abetted Hitler through to Saddam and bin Laden, Pinochet and Juan Efrain Rios Montt.

And I think it pathetic your trying to tell us that Allende was illegit, and that the right-wing almost beat him in 1970 elections. The left won in 1970, and the fascists were the ones who refused to abide by democratic choice. Your pro-fascist sympathies are acknowledged and accounted for.

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I have never done anything but condemn all those people. Unlike you, I wholeheartedly condemn any and all dictators, regardless of what their political philosophy is. To me, "benevolent dictator" is a contradiction in terms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Castro, Pinochet, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin etc... all dictators who jail and kill anyone who disagrees with them.

---

The only time you feel it necessary to even mention dictators is when there's a chance to mention your shortlist of anti-fascist dictators who fought against Hitler, Chiang Kai Shek and their fascist allies in the west.

quote:

---

Some things can never be defended

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Okay, Jeff's red-hunt is pathetic, but calling fellow babblers pro-fascist, Fidel? You know how often I disagree with stocky, but that's crossing a line.

---

You're talking about a poster, and an otherwise pretty decent person at the same time, I'm sure, who has thrown out names like Ceusecu and Pol Pot as if we are supposed to identify them with socialism but not for the support they received from western countries through cold war backchannel dealings and covert CIA maneuvering while in power. Stockholmer's tendencies to sympathize with and make excuses for what were extremely brutal and very anti-democratic regimes and U.S.-backed dictatorships is pretty clear as far as I'm concerned. As far as Stockholmer is concerned, Cuba exists in a vacuum, and there is no such thing as U.S. political interference. And Latin Americans should have a right to live in grinding poverty, ill health and illiteracy in any corner of Uncle Sam's backyard as long as weak and corrupt stoogeocrats are propped up by U.S. imperialism. If we believe in democracy and freedom, we should respect Cuba's right to exist outside U.S. influence and hegemony.

[ 10 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Ultimas palabras

quote:

---

I wish you to take advantage of the lesson: foreign capital, imperialism, together with the reaction, created the climate in which the Armed Forces broke their tradition, the tradition taught by General Schneider and reaffirmed by Commander Araya, victims of the same social sector who today are hoping, with foreign assistance, to re-conquer the power to continue defending their profits and their privileges.

---

It was a lesson paid for in blood.

¡Viva Chile! ¡Viva el pueblo! ¡Vivan los trabajadores!

[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en8yqVxuT-U

MANIFESTO

Yo no canto por cantar
ni por tener buena voz,
canto porque la guitarra
tiene sentido y razón.
Tiene corazón de tierra
y alas de palomita.
Es como el agua bendita,
santigua glorias y penas.
Aquí se encajó mi canto
como dijera Violeta;
guitarra trabajadora
con olor a primavera,
Que no es guitarra de ricos,
ni cosa que se parezca,
mi canto es de los andamios
para alcanzar las estrellas.

Que el canto tiene sentido
cuando palpita en las venas
del que morirá cantando
las verdades verdaderas.
No las lisonjas fugaces
ni las famas extranjeras,
sino el canto de una lonja
hasta el fondo de la tierra.
Ahí donde llega todo
y donde todo comienza,
canto que a sido valiente
siempre será canción nueva.

(English lyrics)

I don’t sing for love of singing
or to show off my voice
but for the statements
made by my honest guitar
for its heart is of the earth
and like the dove it goes flying....
endlessly as holy water
blessing the brave and the dying
so my song has found a purpose
as Violeta Parra would say.

Yes, my guitar is a worker
shining and smelling of spring
my guitar is not for killers
greedy for money and power
but for the people who labour
so that the future may flower.
For a song takes on a meaning
when its own heart beat is strong
sung by a man who will die singing
truthfully singing his song.

I don’t care for adulation
or so that strangers may weep.
I sing for a far strip of country
narrow but endlessly deep.

[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

However, (and I speak as someone who has visited his homes in La Chascona and at Isla Negra in a kind of literary hommage) Neruda's actual legacy
is terribly flawed.

Many Chileans today hate the way Neruda is being made a "plaster saint". Celebration of Neruda's vast lust for life, pleasure in sexuality, and his love lyrics, obscures who Neruda was.

Neruda was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Chile. His poetry, therefore, exhibited the usual blindspots and temporary allegiances. He never disavowed Stalin, never uttered a peep for any of Stalin's victims, including those who suffered far more terribly than he ever did.

His was a selective concern for the oppressed.

Today, his most embarassing writing is not his "Ode to Stalin", but rather his "Ode to Batista", the Cuban dictator who preceded Castro, and who was, at the time of writing, approved by the Party.

So Neruda dutifully declared that:

quote:

---

Batista, como hombre del pueblo, ha comprendido mejor que muchos demagogos el papel de los intelectuales, y honra a toda América (…) Los chilenos damos hoy la mano a Fulgencio Batista… Saludamos en él al continuador y restaurador de una democracia hermana"

---

Batista, this "restorer of a sister democracy" was later declared by the Party to have been a "fascist" all along, and so this particular poem disappeared down the memory hole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
So, I vote for honouring Pablo Neruda for who he was, but not pretending he was some larger-than-life demi-god. There is no need to pretend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Haiti had an election last year and they elected a President from Aristide's party and he is now in power. So, what's the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Since when was Aristide "leftist"? My impression was that he just a corrupt, incompetent, delusional crackpot.

---

It takes one to ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Since when was Aristide "leftist"? My impression was that he just a corrupt, incompetent, delusional crackpot.

---

It would help us if you were to point out the American sources for this kind of nonsense. He was elected by an overwhelming majority. Your problem and the Pentagon capitalist's problem is you don't trust Latin Americans in general with democracy.

The CIA and drug mafia want to use Cuba and Haiti as conduits for Colombian cocaine and marijuana into the U.S. like old times. Manuel Noriega knows all about the treacherous bastards.

The Kidnapping of President Jean Bertrand Aristide Violates International Law and US Law

quote:

---

Forcible regime change violates international law

Haiti’s democratically elected President Aristide was removed from Haiti by the United States, by threat of force. Forcible regime change violates the well-established principle that people should be able to choose their own government. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes self-determination as a human right, and specifies that all peoples have the right to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The United Nations Charter also prohibits the use of force “against … [t]he political independence” of another state.

---

It was mockery of democracy by our largest trading partners in crime and with Ottawa's help.

[ 11 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

US-style elections are expensive. That's why the cost of them are usually so noisily advertised; the cost is supposed to somehow reflect their legitimacy.

Take Afghanistan. An article in the Christian Science Monitor estimated the real cost of the Afghan "election" at around $700 million.

$700 million to install Karzai.

Let's just leave aside the question of using this money to do something useful like, say, building the Afghan infrastructure and create jobs. Everyone knows, who is honest, that Karzai is only mostly a puppet, the election was a sham, and the real "President" of Afghanistan is ... B-52. Karzai's support would vanish like water in the Kara Kum desert without the 10's of thousands of NATO troops, bombers, logistical support, etc., etc..

So, who's going to pay for the installation of a US puppet in Cuba? The Cubans? Not likely. The only way you're going to get capitalist restoration "parties" running for office [which is what you are calling "democracy") in Cuba is to, (a) overthrow the constitution, probably with a US invasion and bombing campaign on some pretext or another; (b) pump zillions of dollars into the country to brainwash and threaten the population; and (c) electoral fraud, just to be sure.

So I ask you: who's going to pay for this fraud? It's as plain as the nose on your face. Only the US, and possibly a "coalition of the willing" would perpetrate such a fraud.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Your pro-fascist sympathies are acknowledged and accounted for.

---

What Coyote said. Way out of line.

Given that the Communist Party of Cuba would likely have a massive financial advantage and also owns and controls all of the media in Cuba, any free election ought to massively favour the Communists since they have more money and more power than anyone else in Cuba.

There may well be "capitalist restoration parties" that would run - as they have every right to do. I would hope that there would also be a leftwing alternative to the Communist Party of Cuba that runs on a platform of maintaining the health and education systems in Cuba, but ALSO giving people freedom of speech and allowing people to travel freely and allowing people to open small businesses such as corner stores and snack bars.

[ 12 September 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

The Cubans have made their choice.

---

Face it. You hate socialism. And, as a result of that, you find yourself with some ugly bedfellows.