faq

Mr. Imperialists, we have absolutely no fear of you! (Neon billboard across from the U.S. Interests Section)

Dear friends,

I will like to send you all some commentaries that I made to one of our friends and that I feel could be interesting for you.

¨Your post is very interesting. You make me get into political and philosophical deepness. For us to understand each other I have to explain to you my points of view of different aspects on which maybe we don´t agree with each other.

From what we have been exchanging up to now I feel free to be very clear with you. I ask you also to be very clear. The most important question is not that we agree in every aspect but that we can exchange with respect to each other's opinion.

Sovereignty and self determination

The first question that I want to make clear is what we understand by sovereignty and self determination of every country. All around the world there are believers of different religions. Does anybody have the right to harass anyone else for believing in another religion? Also there are monarchies, parliamentary regimes, presidential ones, of one party (not only Cuba), of many parties. And I ask, which one is more democratic?

My point of view is that not any country has the right to become the judge of others and try to impose its way of living, and much less by force. It is a problem for the people of that country to decide or solve by their own means what they want. Do you agree with me in this first question? What is your opinion?

Democracy and dictatorship

The second question is more complex: what is democracy? and what is a dictatorship? For me the term democracy is very interpretive. The etiology of the word means the government of the people. So we could say that the government that can make more people participate in its decisions will be more democratic. Do you agree? Can we say that the Greeks were democratic, the founders of the first democracy? I think not. I´m sure there is not any fully democratic country. Let's leave this here and go to the second word, dictatorship. This definition is also a little interpretive, but let's say that we can determine a dictatorship when a person or a group governs against the will of others. Do you agree? If you agree I will ask in what country there is not a group that governs against the will of others? The difference is how much of a majority the group that governs maintains. If the group that governs keeps the majority of the people, or in other words if the majority of the people agree with the group that governs, can you determine that it is a dictatorship? My answer is No. What is yours? I ask you to read in the Dervaes site the link Issues and Answers where you can find a very good explanation of our electoral system. After reading it you could tell me how much our system involves the people in the decisions of the government.

Communism

The third question is what is communism? Why do people keep talking about communism if up to now there has not been communism in any country? Philosophically talking there have been socialist countries. Do you know what are the principles of a Socialist Regimen, reading from the classics of Marx, Engels, Lenin or the ones that agree with socialism, not from sources like the Miami Herald? What do you feel against those principles?

Human rights and civil rights

The fourth question I will like to talk about is what are human rights? What are civil rights? For me the civil rights are part of the human rights and some of the principal human rights are the rights to live, be educated, receive health service, have assured work, have a place to live, that when you get to the time of retirement you could have the possibility to continue living, and most of all that every human being has the same rights without difference of sex, race or religion. Also you have the civil rights in which we can consider the freedom of speech, to travel, to elect, and others. These ones for me are in a second place. Why? Because how important could they be for a person that doesn´t have education to understand what are their rights, or health enough to live, or a work to make the money to live and so on. So in my opinion the second ones depend on the first ones. Do you agree?

When we have the answers to those four questions I can begin to answer your post. Excuse me if I answer you principally making questions. Is there any legal right that support the efforts of USA to subvert the status quo in Cuba (or in any other country)? Why does anybody from outside of Cuba have the right to decide what type of government we must have? How can anyone determine that the American electoral system or government system is more democratic than ours? What do you think when you know that almost all the Americans that want to lift the blockade is because they think that by lifting it Castro will be shown to be an ineffective ruler? So the reason is not for justice to the American producers that are losing a potential market, or the tourists that cannot travel to wherever they want, or in a last point for the poor evil Cubans that are having economical problems but they insist in being communist. What God gives the right to anybody to decide what type of religion the other guy must have? Is it very difficult to understand that we are defending our right to decide what to be?

Friend we don´t feel perfect, we have a lot of things to fix up, but we want to do it in our way. We need to be free to make our own mistakes or succeed in our effort to make a more just society.

This conversation is not finished, but I think there are enough questions that I need to know what are your answers to continue our exchange.

Julián

July 14, 2000

Dear friends

The other day I sent some of my opinions of different questions about Cuba. The friend with which I have this exchange prefers to keep his privacy which I respect but I would like to share with all of you my opinions so I will try to keep you informed of my answers.

On the question about the conflict between sovereignty and self determination and the possibility of interfering because of a bad government, I give the following answer. In this case I can agree with you, but the problem is where to set down the limits. There are many examples that show us that big crimes can be committed for humanitarian reasons. I´m sure that there are many good Americans that are sure that USA did a very good job in Kosovo because as responsible human beings they cannot permit that Serbs continue killing Albanians. That for humanitarian reasons Yugoslavia was bombed, hundreds of civilians killed and after the Yugoslavian military went out Albanians began to kill Serbs and now, where are the responsible human beings? There are a lot of this kind of examples but I´m going to give you another type. There are religious customs like the one of the circumcision of the women in some Muslim countries. In my opinion that is barbaric, but must I try to change their belief by force? Another type of example is some Death Squads that were created in different Latin American countries (also we can consider some sort of it with the USA militias) that began killing delinquents and at the end were killing normal people with whom they had some sort of problem. Dear friend in the world there are and must be laws, norms that have to be respected, and up to now nobody has decided to design a world police. International problems must be solved by diplomacy. I´m sure that on this point we could have a two or three hours conversation, and these are the questions that I prefer to talk about face to face.

On the question about the definition of a dictatorship I said this. When we try to compare a definition with a real case we always mixup everything. I can agree with you that when a dictator dictates his will over others it constitutes a dictatorship. But also when a group dictates its will to other groups in majority or minority there is a dictatorship. In the classics of Marxism you could find that in the institution of socialism a proletarian dictatorship could be established, that is when the proletarian class dictates its will to the rest of the classes until Socialism is institutionalized. Anyway all this is very theoretical. For me the most important issue here is to educate your society. If you have a well educated people it will be very difficult to impose on them anything they don´t feel is acceptable.

The question about "what is communism?" where there are a lot of myths about this concept, I include the following. My friend in this space it is very difficult to explain the principles of communism or socialism, but I can tell you that to change a society from capitalism to socialism takes centuries. In the history of humanity there have been three clear changes of societies. From Primitive Communism to Slavery, from Slavery to Feudalism and from Feudalism to Capitalism. Each of these changes took centuries to become well defined and even today you can find remains of Slavery and Feudalism in some countries and even in some areas of the Amazon you find tribes that live in Primitive Communism. So what can we say about aspiring Communist societies that have less than 100 years of experience, and in some countries the efforts were not applied as the classics say to.

Under the questions of "why do the revolutions of the socialist countries fail?" I answer. I cannot say that they fail. As I told you they are an experience that the specialists have to study and decide what are the good efforts to continue applying and the bad ones to let go.

In the question about the differences between human rights and civil rights we agree completely but I said the following. In this case we agree 100%. I only would like to point out the following. The people are the ones that make good or bad a country or a society. So you have to create in them values to make them good. And what values does capitalism inculcate in individuals?

Well my friends this is all. Excuse me this type of message but as you see I am giving some opinions that I feel I have to share with all of you.

Julián

Back to main page

Julian Mail & contact info




		Mr. Imperialists, we have absolutely no fear of you! (Neon billboard across from the U.S. Interests Section)

	Dear friends, I will like to send you all some commentaries that I made to one of our friends and that I feel could be interesting for you. ¨Your post is very interesting. You make me get into political and philosophical deepness. For us to understand each other I have to explain to you my points of view of different aspects on which maybe we don´t agree with each other. From what we have been exchanging up to now I feel free to be very clear with you. I ask you also to be very clear. The most important question is not that we agree in every aspect but that we can exchange with respect to each other's opinion. Sovereignty and self determination The first question that I want to make clear is what we understand by sovereignty and self determination of every country. All around the world there are believers of different religions. Does anybody have the right to harass anyone else for believing in another religion? Also there are monarchies, parliamentary regimes, presidential ones, of one party (not only Cuba), of many parties. And I ask, which one is more democratic? My point of view is that not any country has the right to become the judge of others and try to impose its way of living, and much less by force. It is a problem for the people of that country to decide or solve by their own means what they want. Do you agree with me in this first question? What is your opinion? Democracy and dictatorship The second question is more complex: what is democracy? and what is a dictatorship? For me the term democracy is very interpretive. The etiology of the word means the government of the people. So we could say that the government that can make more people participate in its decisions will be more democratic. Do you agree? Can we say that the Greeks were democratic, the founders of the first democracy? I think not. I´m sure there is not any fully democratic country. Let's leave this here and go to the second word, dictatorship. This definition is also a little interpretive, but let's say that we can determine a dictatorship when a person or a group governs against the will of others. Do you agree? If you agree I will ask in what country there is not a group that governs against the will of others? The difference is how much of a majority the group that governs maintains. If the group that governs keeps the majority of the people, or in other words if the majority of the people agree with the group that governs, can you determine that it is a dictatorship? My answer is No. What is yours? I ask you to read in the Dervaes site the link Issues and Answers where you can find a very good explanation of our electoral system. After reading it you could tell me how much our system involves the people in the decisions of the government. Communism The third question is what is communism? Why do people keep talking about communism if up to now there has not been communism in any country? Philosophically talking there have been socialist countries. Do you know what are the principles of a Socialist Regimen, reading from the classics of Marx, Engels, Lenin or the ones that agree with socialism, not from sources like the Miami Herald? What do you feel against those principles? Human rights and civil rights The fourth question I will like to talk about is what are human rights? What are civil rights? For me the civil rights are part of the human rights and some of the principal human rights are the rights to live, be educated, receive health service, have assured work, have a place to live, that when you get to the time of retirement you could have the possibility to continue living, and most of all that every human being has the same rights without difference of sex, race or religion. Also you have the civil rights in which we can consider the freedom of speech, to travel, to elect, and others. These ones for me are in a second place. Why? Because how important could they be for a person that doesn´t have education to understand what are their rights, or health enough to live, or a work to make the money to live and so on. So in my opinion the second ones depend on the first ones. Do you agree? When we have the answers to those four questions I can begin to answer your post. Excuse me if I answer you principally making questions. Is there any legal right that support the efforts of USA to subvert the status quo in Cuba (or in any other country)? Why does anybody from outside of Cuba have the right to decide what type of government we must have? How can anyone determine that the American electoral system or government system is more democratic than ours? What do you think when you know that almost all the Americans that want to lift the blockade is because they think that by lifting it Castro will be shown to be an ineffective ruler? So the reason is not for justice to the American producers that are losing a potential market, or the tourists that cannot travel to wherever they want, or in a last point for the poor evil Cubans that are having economical problems but they insist in being communist. What God gives the right to anybody to decide what type of religion the other guy must have? Is it very difficult to understand that we are defending our right to decide what to be? Friend we don´t feel perfect, we have a lot of things to fix up, but we want to do it in our way. We need to be free to make our own mistakes or succeed in our effort to make a more just society. This conversation is not finished, but I think there are enough questions that I need to know what are your answers to continue our exchange. Julián

July 14, 2000 Dear friends The other day I sent some of my opinions of different questions about Cuba. The friend with which I have this exchange prefers to keep his privacy which I respect but I would like to share with all of you my opinions so I will try to keep you informed of my answers. On the question about the conflict between sovereignty and self determination and the possibility of interfering because of a bad government, I give the following answer. In this case I can agree with you, but the problem is where to set down the limits. There are many examples that show us that big crimes can be committed for humanitarian reasons. I´m sure that there are many good Americans that are sure that USA did a very good job in Kosovo because as responsible human beings they cannot permit that Serbs continue killing Albanians. That for humanitarian reasons Yugoslavia was bombed, hundreds of civilians killed and after the Yugoslavian military went out Albanians began to kill Serbs and now, where are the responsible human beings? There are a lot of this kind of examples but I´m going to give you another type. There are religious customs like the one of the circumcision of the women in some Muslim countries. In my opinion that is barbaric, but must I try to change their belief by force? Another type of example is some Death Squads that were created in different Latin American countries (also we can consider some sort of it with the USA militias) that began killing delinquents and at the end were killing normal people with whom they had some sort of problem. Dear friend in the world there are and must be laws, norms that have to be respected, and up to now nobody has decided to design a world police. International problems must be solved by diplomacy. I´m sure that on this point we could have a two or three hours conversation, and these are the questions that I prefer to talk about face to face. On the question about the definition of a dictatorship I said this. When we try to compare a definition with a real case we always mixup everything. I can agree with you that when a dictator dictates his will over others it constitutes a dictatorship. But also when a group dictates its will to other groups in majority or minority there is a dictatorship. In the classics of Marxism you could find that in the institution of socialism a proletarian dictatorship could be established, that is when the proletarian class dictates its will to the rest of the classes until Socialism is institutionalized. Anyway all this is very theoretical. For me the most important issue here is to educate your society. If you have a well educated people it will be very difficult to impose on them anything they don´t feel is acceptable. The question about "what is communism?" where there are a lot of myths about this concept, I include the following. My friend in this space it is very difficult to explain the principles of communism or socialism, but I can tell you that to change a society from capitalism to socialism takes centuries. In the history of humanity there have been three clear changes of societies. From Primitive Communism to Slavery, from Slavery to Feudalism and from Feudalism to Capitalism. Each of these changes took centuries to become well defined and even today you can find remains of Slavery and Feudalism in some countries and even in some areas of the Amazon you find tribes that live in Primitive Communism. So what can we say about aspiring Communist societies that have less than 100 years of experience, and in some countries the efforts were not applied as the classics say to. Under the questions of "why do the revolutions of the socialist countries fail?" I answer. I cannot say that they fail. As I told you they are an experience that the specialists have to study and decide what are the good efforts to continue applying and the bad ones to let go. In the question about the differences between human rights and civil rights we agree completely but I said the following. In this case we agree 100%. I only would like to point out the following. The people are the ones that make good or bad a country or a society. So you have to create in them values to make them good. And what values does capitalism inculcate in individuals? Well my friends this is all. Excuse me this type of message but as you see I am giving some opinions that I feel I have to share with all of you. Julián

Back to main page Julian Mail & contact info
			Text (c) 2000 J. Gutierrez Photos (c) 2000 C. O'Hara