> Oh, shit!
You obviously are unwilling to talk about this reasonably, and I am not here to agitate you.
> Saying that Castro is a dictator isn't criticism?
Saying that Castro is a dictator is not an _anarchist_ criticism, as all State leaders are dictators, it is a banality.
> Even the authoritarian leaders of the most
> repressive states turn over more frequently than Castro.
The Dictatorship of Property is not changed just because the face of it is, this is another banality.
>> Thus lashing out as Castro as dictator while making _no other comments_
>> is exactly mimicking the propaganda industry in creating an impression
>> that Castro is somehow //more// dictatorial than your average Statist
>> regime, which is not an anarchist point of view that I can understand.
>
> There you go again, repeating the idiotic, braindead leftist mantra that
> *any* criticism of Castro or Cuba is doing the work of the U.S. state.
That is not what I said. As any reasonable reading of the quoted paragraph makes clear (note: "while making no other comments"). Your response is a shrill non sequitur. I wonder why you are unable to discuss this matter without hysterics.
> I really have to wonder if you are an anarchist.
[...]
> Are you a closet Castro supporter too? It wouldn't surprise me.
When hysteria is not enough, turn to ad hominem.
This is beneath you, Chuck.
> If you know a better way to rub theire faces in this pathetic
> Castro-worship, I'd like to hear it.
>> You personal crusade against the foibles of "American Leftist" seems
>> more like a juvenile tirade against "Posers" that a serious argument as
>> well.
> Ah, personal attack huh? When did I attack you?
That is not a personal attack, it addresses you behaviour, it does not make any essential comment about you. (i.e. "you are not an anarchist!") -- it is honest description of the argument you are making, i.e. to "rub their faces in it" as you say above; this is juvenile posturing.
I have nothing personal against you, far from it, I admire your work.
Have you forgotten that it is Property and the State that is the enemy of freedom not the knowledge nor attitudes of "American Leftist?" I can't see how casting banal insults at Fidel Castro will suddenly make them aware of the _inherent_ oppressiveness of the State instead of promoting the idea that Cuba would be somehow better if they only had a better leader. Which is nonsense in Cuba as it is in the US. Just like Bush, Castro is just a man, who can be killed or deposed by the elite at
will. His power comes not from himself but from the fact that he represents an elite class.
You are wasting your time in this "face rubbing" offered in place of any
understandable and relevant analysis.
>> How do you feel about Hugo Chavez, btw?
> He sucks too. Another poster boy for the failed hopes of the American Left.
It is odd that you seem more interested in denouncing some vague group called "The American Left" instead of making coherent anti-State arguments or reflecting realistically on current world politics, a fair view of which hardly exposes Castro, Chavez etc as relative villains (let alone the "American Left")
Chavez, for one, seems to be transferring some property to non-state mutual ownership (i.e. co-operatives and indigenous communities), which is a good thing, no? Isn't this what both you and I endorse?
So by "sucks" you mean is he not calling for the immediate creation of a utopian society? Or What?
If Chavez sucks, which world leader doesn't? If you answer that all of them do, then isn't this yet another banality?
This will be my last comment in this thread.
-- Dmytri Kleiner <dk at telekommunisten.net> editing text files since 1981
http://www.dialstation.com - International calling from your mobile phone. - Requires no special software to use, just your phone. - First call free, no sign up, just call!