The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

[Windmill knight]

It is an interesting conundrum: if you are a decent human being, and are aware of the existence of psychopaths who covet your position and who are not restrained by the dictates of coscience in the levels to which they will stoop to take your position from you, how best to prevent them from doing so? If you simply adhere to the normal mode of open democracies, you are dead in the water. So what to do?

I actually find it funny that some people, while admitting that Chavez is helping millions of poor in Venezuela, criticise him for being too authoritarian. In the final analysis, if he keeps helping the poor and distributing the wealth of the nation to all, who the hell cares if he thinks he is the reincarnation of Bolivar, or Quetzalcoatl for that matter? Is that not better than an apparent democracy (like before Chavez) where there is a veneer of equality and no one acts like a dictator, but 90% of the wealth is in the hands of 20% of the population? The bottom line is, you judge people on their actions not what they think about themselves.

How about Fidel Castro? One could argue that he's retained power for decades because he knows that as soon as he leaves the US will take over. Same thing for his authoritarian tendencies. What's your opinion about Fidel, Joe? Is he a decent man, a pathocrat, or somewhere in between?

It's an honest question; I'd really like to understand these men objectively.

 

[Mike]

I've also heard that he has authoritarian laws towards his own people; like: it is forbidden to criticize him.

The use of private television clips in the documentary points to the opposite. Chavez seems to possess supreme patience and an understanding of what reacting to the provocations with force or suppression would lead to.

 

[Windmill knight]

I've also heard that he has authoritarian laws towards his own people; like: it is forbidden to criticize him.

The use of private television clips in the documentary points to the opposite. Chavez seems to possess supreme patience and an understanding of what reacting to the provocations with force or suppression would lead to.

Yeah, I noted that the documentary contradicted what I heard. So I assumed that if there was such a law, it should have been approved afterwards. I made a search and found this from HRW:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

Venezuela: Curbs on Free Expression Tightened

(Santiago, March 24, 2005) � Amendments to Venezuela�s Criminal Code that entered into force last week may stifle press criticism of government authorities and restrict the public�s ability to monitor government actions, Human Rights Watch said today.
�By broadening laws that punish disrespect for government authorities, the Venezuelan government has flouted international human rights principles that protect free expression,� said Jos� Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. �While countries across Latin America are moving to repeal such laws, Venezuela has enacted further restrictions on the press that will shield officials from public scrutiny.�

The amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities. Venezuela�s measures run counter to a continent-wide trend to repeal such �disrespect� (or �desacato�) laws. In recent years, Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Peru have already repealed such laws, and other countries like Chile and Panama are currently considering legislation that would do so.

The human rights bodies of the United Nations and of the Organization of American States have repeatedly urged states to repeal such provisions.

The president, vice-president, government ministers, state governors and members of the Supreme Court are already protected from disrespect under the law. The new provisions extend this protection to legislators of the National Assembly, members of the National Electoral Council, the attorney general, the public prosecutor, the human rights ombudsman, the treasury inspector, and members of the high military command.

Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison.

Other amendments increase the penalties for defamation and libel. Penalties for defamation have been increased from a maximum of 30 months of imprisonment to a new maximum of four years if the statement is made in a document distributed to the public. Those convicted would also have to pay a fine of up to 2,000 tax units (currently equivalent to more than US$ 27,000). The penalty for libel rises from a maximum jail term of three months to a new maximum of two years.

These changes to the criminal code follow a Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television, which entered force in November and imposes wide-ranging administrative restrictions on radio and television broadcasting.

�These new provisions add to the arsenal of press restrictions already at the government�s disposal,� Vivanco said. �By further criminalizing criticism of government authorities, these laws will restrict the public�s ability to monitor abuse by those in power.�

 

[henry]

This thread is an excellent example of how we are influenced so subtly by so many things. The US has had a blockade on Cuba for almost 45 years. It has done everything in its power to bring the government to its knees. Castro is portrayed as a tyrant. But what other choices were open to him?

He warned Allende of what would happen to him in Chile, and we all know the events of September 11, 1973. Allende is dead; Chile suffered under a military dictatorship for years, while Castro is still alive and Cuba is not part of the US sphere of influence.

Is the poverty in Cuba Castro's fault, or is it the result of the US embargo?

Is Castro's authoritarianism due to his personality or an accurate reading of the threat to the island?

I can't say whether Castro is a psychopath or characteropath, or whether he is someone who is doing his best in a really bad situation. I am open to either one, but I think it is too easy to condemn him given the conditions.

Having seen the documentary on Chavez, as well as other interviews with him, he seems and sounds sincere.

If one man, such as a Chavez or a Castro, can galvanize a nation for good, then I don't see the problem of them staying in power, even for as long as Castro. Yes, US and Western propaganda tells us this is wrong and undemocratic, but look what they offer in its place. The puppets come and go but the real power never changes.

 

[Joe]

How about Fidel Castro? One could argue that he's retained power for decades because he knows that as soon as he leaves the US will take over. Same thing for his authoritarian tendencies. What's your opinion about Fidel, Joe? Is he a decent man, a pathocrat, or somewhere in between?

It's an honest question; I'd really like to understand these men objectively.

Essentially, the answer to this question is the answer to the quintissential problems of human existence.

I'd tend to say he is not a pathocrat, simply because he appears to actually care, to some extent, for the welfare of cuban civilians. Free education and health care go a long way, but still many cubans find it hard to make ends meet every day. Their lives are, I suppose, not much different than those of the millions of deprived blacks in America, except for the free health care. The problem is not a simple one for sure. There is the idea that what an entire population aspire to is not necessisarily in their interest. Is a life where you have expendble income a big house, all the latest "toys" and two cars definitively better than a life where you simply have enough to eat, a modest house, a small car, an opportunity to be educated and health insurance? Are people with the former happier than people who have to make do with the latter? If people with the latter express unhappiness with their lot mainly because the big house and two cars have been held up to them as the epitome of happiness, is it a good idea for them to revolt and demand "regime change" to get it?

There is an argument that the trappings of modern capitalist living are essentially an excessive way of living that cannot be provided to the 6 billion people on the planet, and that by promoting this style of life as the route to happiness, the unhappiness of a sizeable section of humanity is assured.

If Cubans were somehow to do away with Fidel and open themselves up to a 'free market' economy provided by multi-national corporations, would they all soon have big cars and houses and be living 'high on the hog'? Examples from around the world would suggest that this would not be the case.

Basically, as I see it, there is no solution, there is no way to ensure that all 6 billion of us live happy and fruitful lives. One reason for this is the existence of the pathocracy and psychopaths among us. But perhaps the main reason, which is directly related to the existence of the psychopaths, is that most people do not come here (life I mean) to live a 'happy life'. Most of us come to learn lessons, and most of those lessons involve suffering of one sort or another. Which means that we are well suited to the conditions here.

Of course, at the point in time where anyone learns all their lessons, not only might they stop suffering, but they would also no longer fit in this world, and maybe they would just disappear in a puff of smoke! Maybe that is what happened to the alchemists of old...

Joe

 

[Tenten]

How about Fidel Castro? One could argue that he's retained power for decades because he knows that as soon as he leaves the US will take over. Same thing for his authoritarian tendencies. What's your opinion about Fidel, Joe? Is he a decent man, a pathocrat, or somewhere in between?

Let look some fruits from this tree:

"Life expectancy" and "Child mortality".

Go to Gapminder http://tools.google.com/gapminder or to http://tinyurl.com/knqjl

-Select "Child mortality" for the left scale, "Life expectancy" for the lower scale

-On the country list, Select Cuba, a similar island (like Jamaica or Ha

 

[Windmill knight]

Hi, thanks for your replies.

This thread is an excellent example of how we are influenced so subtly by so many things. The US has had a blockade on Cuba for almost 45 years. It has done everything in its power to bring the government to its knees. Castro is portrayed as a tyrant. But what other choices were open to him?

Yes, I am quite aware that there is a lot of propaganda vs these people. When I searched for any signs of authoritarianism or wrong-doings about Chavez, most of the claims were labelling without much substance, like "he's a demagogue" or "he is heading towards dictatorship" or "he's a clown". I was searching because I wanted to know if there was anything solid at the bottom, and to what extent. Apart from some laws that limit free speech and other reforms that would allow him to stay in power for longer, I haven't found anything else solid enough.

What other choices were open to Castro? I don't know. I have no idea of what a genuinely decent government would look like on this planet, or if there's even any possibility for that. That's one of the reasons I'm asking what you think about him.

He warned Allende of what would happen to him in Chile, and we all know the events of September 11, 1973. Allende is dead; Chile suffered under a military dictatorship for years, while Castro is still alive and Cuba is not part of the US sphere of influence.

Yes indeed, Castro has proved wise and smart when dealing with the dirty tricks from the US. He has spared Cuba from a right-wing dictatorship that would have surely come if the US had succeeded.

Is the poverty in Cuba Castro's fault, or is it the result of the US embargo?

I think it's mostly because of the embargo.

Is Castro's authoritarianism due to his personality or an accurate reading of the threat to the island?

Right now my guess is that it's a bit of both. Though my opinion could change.

I can't say whether Castro is a psychopath or characteropath, or whether he is someone who is doing his best in a really bad situation. I am open to either one, but I think it is too easy to condemn him given the conditions.

Having seen the documentary on Chavez, as well as other interviews with him, he seems and sounds sincere.

I got the same impression from Chavez. But I try to be careful with impressions because so many times I've been dissappointed by politicians who seemed to be the 'real thing' at first.

If one man, such as a Chavez or a Castro, can galvanize a nation for good, then I don't see the problem of them staying in power, even for as long as Castro. Yes, US and Western propaganda tells us this is wrong and undemocratic, but look what they offer in its place. The puppets come and go but the real power never changes.

I guess one could argue that the decades of Castro's power have been a 'necessary evil'. Yet, I must confess that I feel there's something intrinsically wrong with one man assuming power for so long. Surely there's hundreds of other Cubans just as able as him to be leaders of their country and defend from US imperialism? I do believe that even decent people run the risk of getting corrupted by power if they hold it for too long. And surely he can allow a little criticism within Cuba? As I mentioned earlier, when I visited Cuba people were reluctant to say anything vs Fidel, for fear of being reported or something. Only a taxi driver felt comfortable enough to speak up, and even then he didn't even mention Fidel by name. He simply said: "the man".

Then again others did seem happy with Fidel.

I'd tend to say he is not a pathocrat, simply because he appears to actually care, to some extent, for the welfare of cuban civilians. Free education and health care go a long way, but still many cubans find it hard to make ends meet every day. Their lives are, I suppose, not much different than those of the millions of deprived blacks in America, except for the free health care.

And literacy programs. Cuba is famous also for the high percentage of people that can read.

There is an argument that the trappings of modern capitalist living are essentially an excessive way of living that cannot be provided to the 6 billion people on the planet, and that by promoting this style of life as the route to happiness, the unhappiness of a sizeable section of humanity is assured.

Yes, I totally agree with that. I don't think that the capitalist ideal should be a goal for decent governments. And as you say, the 'American dream' is simply not achievable for everyone on a global scale. I once read that each New Yorker consumes as much as 40 Kenyans, or something like that. So, obviously, there are not enough resources for all the poor people of the world to consume as much as every New Yorker. If everyone were to consume the same, those in New York would have to lower their standard of living quite a bit.

Thus, the high standards of living of those in the 1st world imply the poverty of 40 times as many people elsewhere.

Basically, as I see it, there is no solution, there is no way to ensure that all 6 billion of us live happy and fruitful lives. One reason for this is the existence of the pathocracy and psychopaths among us. But perhaps the main reason, which is directly related to the existence of the psychopaths, is that most people do not come here (life I mean) to live a 'happy life'. Most of us come to learn lessons, and most of those lessons involve suffering of one sort or another. Which means that we are well suited to the conditions here.

That's how I see it as well. This is an STS world and there is no way to change that. ("The students are not the architects of the school".) And that's one of the reasons I have a tendency to be sceptic even about the FIdels and Hugos of the world.

Let look some fruits from this tree:

"Life expectancy" and "Child mortality".

Thanks for the tool, Tenten. That's very cool.

As has been said before, two things that Cuba can boast about are literacy and health services. However, I want to say what I saw when I was there. What I saw was:

Generalized poverty: People were always begging. Not just for money but also for goods: soaps, towels, t-shirts, etc. If you left a towel on the beach and turned around, the towel would be gone. Most buildings were also in a very bad shape: old and worn. Same for cars or any infrastructure.

Generalized prostitution: Girls had an advantage over men. They could try to seduce you and get money and goods, or simply the privilege of getting into 'tourist places' forbidden for locals. Men could only aspire to become your 'friend'.

A fear to speak vs the government: See above.

Discrimination of the locals as opposed to tourists: I stayed in a hotel and was looking at the pool area from outside. I was looking for my friends, and I was not carrying a badge that we were told we should always wear (a badge identifying us as members of the tour). The guys who guarded the entrance to the pool area ordered me to go away rather rudely. I asked why, and as soon as they heard my Mexican accent they apologized, shook hands and pledged eternal friendship. They were obviously afraid that I would issue some sort of complaint.

To get inside the nice bars or discotheques you needed to be a tourist or be with a tourist that would let you in.

I was a teenager back then and the trip was supposed to be a 'party' trip. Actually, I left Cuba very sad and deppressed. This was no party for me. Others in the tour, by contrast, did enjoy their positions of superiority and behaved like psychopaths, even to the point of humiliating the locals.

I understand that many of these problems are the fault of the US and not Fidel's. Still, as I said, I can't help but feel that there's something not right about a man in power for 40 years or so that doesn't allow freedom of speech, and whose people have to live like described above.

Maybe there's no solution. Just my thoughts.

 

[Laura]

It's an interesting problem, isn't it?

I don't have a problem with one man in power for 40 years if it is the "right" man. Here I would define it as an enlightened, benevolent despot who has really good psychological knowledge including a knowledge of psychopathy.)

But, having defined such a man, surely he would be able to establish a system that rooted out psychopathy and enhanced the potentials of those who are creative and benevolent so that power could be handed over or shared around??

Lobaczewski talks about many of these problems, the problem of people who are capable being put in jobs that are menial, and people who are deviants being given jobs of importance that they cannot do well. The end result of such a system is disaster.

After all we have learned over the past 5 years, I don't think that any government - or any group - can long survive being overtaken and destroyed from within by psychopaths IF the government itself is not aware of them and their specific issues. History shows this to be true, so the big question is: what to do about it?

At the same time, the vast majority of "normal" people are just ordinary folks... not any brighter than they need to be, is one way of putting it, and even when educated they tend to not be particularly interested in how things are being run or who runs them as long as it take anything away from them (including time and the energy to think about it.)

I used to think that, given the opportunity, everybody would want to be highly educated and "upwardly mobile." I learned from experience that this is not true. There are people whose great pride in life is digging the perfect ditch. They don't want to do anything else, and for them, doing their physical labor and taking pride in turning in a good day's work is all they really want! There are people who are perfectly satisfied to work in a factory, doing the same thing day after day for their entire lives. They never get bored with it, and they take pride in their dedication to doing one thing really well.

Yeah, this shocked me, but there it is.

So I thought about it a bit.

I think that the man who collects the garbage should be able to have a decent house and raise a family (if that is his choice) and to be able to do it on the pay of a trash collector. And that includes decent food and a holiday now and then, and opportunities for his children in the event that they do not want to be trash collectors. Because, if you think about it, collecting the trash probably contributes more to the preservation of health of a society than most doctors do.

Well, we could get into all kinds of speculations about the perfect society, but I think it is one in which each individual is truly permitted to pursue happiness for themselves in their own way, and the only real restriction I can see necessary for that to work is to contain psychopaths (even work to reduce the occurrence of psychopathy) and ensure that all members of the society, in keeping with their intellect, are instructed on how to best raise their children and are provided with the means to do so in exchange for their energy - whatever field it may involve.

 

[Vulcan59]

Basically, as I see it, there is no solution, there is no way to ensure that all 6 billion of us live happy and fruitful lives. One reason for this is the existence of the pathocracy and psychopaths among us. But perhaps the main reason, which is directly related to the existence of the psychopaths, is that most people do not come here (life I mean) to live a 'happy life'. Most of us come to learn lessons, and most of those lessons involve suffering of one sort or another. Which means that we are well suited to the conditions here.

I have the same thoughts exactly Joe. And perhaps the choice to learn our lessons are made over several different life times. Each life time, we learn something different and perhaps during one of those life times, we have learned and got it and then we no longer fit, and so we move on. Only to repeat it all over again!!! I find that difficult to understand but that's exactly what the C's seem to suggest.

In the Ra transcripts, there is question that was asked as to their "life span" in 6 density and the reply was 75 million of our years roughly. Boy sure is a long "time" in one density. Could it be that it may be the same in 3rd density but perhaps not as long?

 

[Gwynned]

Rather than speculate on the merits of any individual, either Chavez or Castro, the better course of understanding would be to look at the actual living conditions of the people in the countries they govern. There are measurable means of evaluation - life expectancy, education and literacy levels, etc. And then there are the more subjective measurements. Level of satisfaction, degree of happiness, etc. On those subjective measurements, we can only speculate and debate endlessly. Whether or not Chavez or Castro is a "pathocrat" is largely a matter of speculation and individual interpretation.

No society is perfect and Cuba is no exception. However, we can say with certainty, as someone else in an earlier post suggested, that (1) life expectancy in Cuba stands well above that of comparable island nations such as Haiti, as does the literacy level; (2) there are no homeless in Cuba; and (3) Cuba has withstood the nearly endless attempts by the part of the US government to impart "regime change;" (4) Cuban doctors are sent around the world to help poor people and, in the case of Venezuela, their services are exchanged for practical goods (such as oil) benefiting the population as a whole; (4) there is no advertising in Cuba; (5) access to culture (museums, ball games, cultural events) is not limited to the wealthy because it is government subsidized and available for a token payment; (5) most Cubans, by American standards are poor; and, finally, (6) the mafia no longer operates in Havana.

Maggie

 

[arkmod]

most Cubans, by American standards are poor.

That depends on the criteria chosen. If we take the national debt of the USA and divide it by the population, we may find that an average American owns nothing at all.

 

[Laura]

Another question: how well off are Americans if a serious illness will result in their becoming homeless because they don't have health insurance?

 

[Gwynned]

Laura wrote:

Another question: how well off are Americans if a serious illness will result in their becoming homeless because they don't have health insurance?

Excellent point. This reminded me of something Che Guevara said as he left Cuba for the last time in response to a question about how he felt leaving his family behind in Cuba. "I don't worry in the least because I know the State will provide for them." Who among us in the US would have any confidence that the State would take care of our children should something happen to us.

People tend to consider "freedom" in terms of the ability to speak out. But there are so many other ways freedom can be measured, such as freedom from the fear of financial destitution, and the general sense of freedom that comes when the State exists to promote human emancipation.

 

[John Chang]

Another question: how well off are Americans if a serious illness will result in their becoming homeless because they don't have health insurance?

It's the leading cause of bankruptcy. A hospital bill for patching you up can cost $100k.

Even if you do have health insurance, in most cases, it's a sham. If you look like you're sick enough not to be of any more use, most companies will dump you, yank your health coverage, and leave you flapping in the wind.

If you gotta keep your job because you gotta have health insurance, you might want to think that reason over a bit.

 

[Laura]

People tend to consider "freedom" in terms of the ability to speak out. But there are so many other ways freedom can be measured, such as freedom from the fear of financial destitution, and the general sense of freedom that comes when the State exists to promote human emancipation.

Yes, that seems to be the crux of the matter. In the U.S. the "1st amendment" is waved about in a mad way as though it were the be-all and end-all of freedom. People we ban from our groups and this forum call us "totalitarian" because we are "against free speech." We aren't against Free Speech, we are FOR Truth and sometimes that means banning liars and manipulators. So, it seems that "free speech" is taken as a license to say anything you like about anyone and that deprives others of their rights to be free of manipulation and even defamation.

At the same time that some of these nutzoids are wildly waving their "free speech" banner, they think nothing at all of the far more basic rights of human beings that you have mentioned above: "freedom from the fear of financial destitution, and the general sense of freedom that comes when the State exists to promote human emancipation."

And so we see how "Free Speech" is used as a Paramoralism, and how it has already become "doublespeak," to mean something that the Founding Fathers never intended.