Cuba Executes Three Charged in Ferry Hijacking

[JohnT]

You mean the time he complained because he was losing his Citibank work contract? Been there, done that.

[SlowwHand]

No, no. This is even better.
Che's ass is grass, and I'm the lawnmower;
unless he meets my demands.

[JohnT]

PM me your evidence. I promise that I won't reveal to ANYBODY!!!!

[chequita guevara]

You're gonna have to PM me also or I won't believe your "evidence."

[SlowwHand]

Announcement/Proclamation:

You have until 0800 hours, 15 April 03, for the thread to be presented as directed.

[Master Zen]

How old are you Slowwhand? 8 years old?

[JohnT]

Naw, his evidence is shocking. SHOCKING!!!!!

[SlowwHand]

Young enough to kick your ass, but old enough to know better.

Nobody rattled your cage. Go back to sleep.

[Sava]

You people still arguing about this crap?

[monkspider]

Say it ain't so comrade Che.

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT


You say this? 'Tis to laugh!!

I don't recall telling the people I disagree with to get out of the country. Are you reading imaginary Apolyton again?

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Dude, you need to learn how to post between quotes. The difference between what I posted and what you posted was about 5000 lines. I try and keep my posts short enough to be read. If I wanna read a book, I'll go read a book.

You, being the initiator of what became this debate, have the audacity to complain and whine about the size of my posts? Did you somehow think that while being in the presence of a majority of right-wingers, that everyone would agree with your assesments? I provided all that information because I knew that otherwise, you would have complained about my lack of "source" information, and would have anyway asked for sources(which you still would have had to read ) backing up my claims. What turned out, however, is you criticizing the size of my post, instead of the information within it(calling my sources "Stalinist" isn't any kind of critique, especially when you don't provide a counter-source[to the claims made]). I think I speak for everyone when I say that in such cases, there could be no point of equilibrium, because you hold a position that of a staunch refusenik, and any information I provide you would be rejected because it clashes with your dominant paradigm.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Propaganda




You, being the initiator of what became this debate, have the audacity to complain and whine about the size of my posts? Did you somehow think that while being in the presence of a majority of right-wingers, that everyone would agree with your assesments? I provided all that information because I knew that otherwise, you would have complained about my lack of "source" information, and would have anyway asked for sources(which you still would have had to read ) backing up my claims. What turned out, however, is you criticizing the size of my post, instead of the information within it(calling my sources "Stalinist" isn't any kind of critique, especially when you don't provide a counter-source[to the claims made]). I think I speak for everyone when I say that in such cases, there could be no point of equilibrium, because you hold a position that of a staunch refusenik, and any information I provide you would be rejected because it clashes with your dominant paradigm.

My, my, that's exactly what I've thought about every right-winger's arguments during the last couple of weeks!

[chequita guevara]

Sloww, I call your bluff.

[SlowwHand]

I ICQ'd you. You don't mean this.

[chequita guevara]

We'll see. It'll be another three hours before I get home.

[chequita guevara]

December 25, 1922

BY THE stability of the Central Committee, of which I spoke before, I mean measures to prevent a split, so far as such measures can be taken. For, of course, the White Guard in Russkaya Mysl (I think it was S. E. Oldenburg) was right when, in the first place, in his play against Soviet Russia he banked on the hope of a split in our party, and when, in the second place, he banked for that split on serious disagreements in our party.

Our party rests upon two classes, and for that reason its instability is possible, and if there cannot exist an agreement between those classes its fall is inevitable. In such an event it would be useless to take any measures or in general to discuss the stability of our Central Committee. In such an event no measures would prove capable of preventing a split. But I trust that is too remote a future, and too improbable an event, to talk about.

I have in mind stability as a guarantee against a split in the near future, and I intended to examine here a series of considerations of a purely personal character.

I think that the fundamental factor in the matter of stability -- from this point of view -- is such members of the Central Committee as Stalin and Trotsky. The relation between them constitutes, in my opinion, a big half of the danger of that split, which might he avoided, and the avoidance of which might be promoted, in my opinion, by raising the number of members of the Central Committee to fifty or one hundred.

Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated an enormous power in his hands; and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. On the other hand, Comrade Trotsky. as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People's Commissariat of Ways and Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities -- personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee -- but also by his too far-reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs.

These two qualities of the two most able leaders of the present Central Committee might, quite innocently, lead to a split; if our party does not take measures to prevent it, a split might arise unexpectedly.

I will not further characterize the other members of the Central Committee as to their personal qualities. I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little to be used against them personally as the non-Bolshevism of Trotsky.

[snip]

January 4, 1923
Postscript: Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable in relations among us Communists, becomes insupportable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore, I propose to the comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it another man who in all respects differs from Stalin only in superiority -- namely, more patient, more loyal, more polite and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but I think that from the point of view of preventing a split and from the point of view of the relation between Stalin and Trotsky which I discussed above, it is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle as may acquire a decisive significance.

[WRangler Rhymer]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Tell me then how China has a capitalist economy... that is all I ask.

I have gotten the proof that China does indeed have a capitalist econmy. It is on CNN or any good sorce for Chinese history. I do not have time now to post links or quotes but will do so latter.

[Master Zen]

just remember, besides the Special Economic Zones of which there are less than 10 and only a minority of the chinese population lives within (and an even less percentage take advantage of the benefits) I doubt you'll find any evidence either on CNN or any other history site...but good luck trying to find it

[Thud]

I'm going to back up Sloww here, as conservatives are always right. Just ask Saddam.

It seems to me that half the threads on the OT forum end up degenrating into left vs. right bickering, usually between the same people, usually using the same arguments. I might petition the Godz to change the name to the "Cold War- Store up on Spam" forum.

The only difference between this one and the average one is that the commies are at least making a coherent argument and not screaming "down with the capitialist pigs!", and that there seems to be a plethora of quotes from soviets about how stupid soviets are... attempting to prove that while communism is a good thing there was absolutely nothing that could have been done by any human being in the entire soviet union to ensure that it worked out the way it was supposed to?!?!?

[SlowwHand]

And your point, Thud?

Just HOW do you expect a person to make a rational argument FOR Communism?
Impossible task.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Just HOW do you expect a person to make a rational argument FOR Communism?
Impossible task.

Oh, and you and your buddies have made real rational points about the Iraq war...right...

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Thud
I'm going to back up Sloww here, as conservatives are always right. Just ask Saddam.

It seems to me that half the threads on the OT forum end up degenrating into left vs. right bickering, usually between the same people, usually using the same arguments. I might petition the Godz to change the name to the "Cold War- Store up on Spam" forum.

The only difference between this one and the average one is that the commies are at least making a coherent argument and not screaming "down with the capitialist pigs!", and that there seems to be a plethora of quotes from soviets about how stupid soviets are... attempting to prove that while communism is a good thing there was absolutely nothing that could have been done by any human being in the entire soviet union to ensure that it worked out the way it was supposed to?!?!?

Leave it to the right-wing to critique something they do not truly understand. Right-wing perception of communism(and socialism, as well), I feel, is ignorant and dangerous in itself, in that some of you would have it to believe that communism establishes itself the moment a revolution succeeds, and that after that moment, everyone lives in wealth and prosperity. This is absolutely ridiculous and not true. The success of a (communist) revolution leads to a transitional stage - called socialism(which actually, has various stages within that stage). Socialism seeks to break down old political, economical and cultural insitutions; it seeks, most importantly, to bring forth new cultural values, and re-educate the masses. It also seeks to fulfill the needs of the population(and later the wants) by providing or subsidizing food, health, education, housing, etc. As we saw in the USSR up to 1941, all these things were fulfilled in that education(even at the highest level) and health care were free, food was available and kept affordable(there were actually annual "holidays" where for a certain alloted number of days, everything was made very affordable, so people would be able to stock up on various goods for a few months; this was especially done after the war) and adequate housing was affordable to all those who worked. Anyway, once this stage is complete, it transitions itself into communism, where society(through rooted cultural institutions) as a whole dictates itself. (We can, BTW see that society, from it's early conception, to a certain extent dictated itself. Even in the US today, you can see this, in that, you are dictated by popular culture.) This is Marxism in a nutshell.

Leninism, whilst utilizing all the above, asserts that a successful transition to communism must be organized and led by a "vanguard"; a "vanguard" which constists of professional revolutionaries, deeply rooted in the cause, of workers' interests. This theory, we can see with the failure of Communist movements in history(see Paris Commune), unfortunately holds true, in that, workers failing to organize themselves centrally(only doing so locally and regionally, at best; see Russian Factory Committees, Soviets..) ripen to fall to counter-revolution.

Nevertheless, Leninism has it's flaws in that Party unity, idealism, reliability potentially could be and were to be exploited. The atmosphere potentially provided a false sense of security, and Khruschev(being a good politician and opportunist) capitalized on it, whilst he uprooted the various organs of the Party, clearing out the CC, Politburo and Ministries, later to stuff "yes men"(people he yanked out of the gulags, hobnobbed with, etc.) in positions he needed to make sure his "reforms" could be advanced. Ironically, however, the same bureaucrats and Party members Khruschev had supported and vice versa turned on him with the failure of his policies, so he was booted.

Looking back on it, with the benefit of hindsight, of course, I feel there should have been reforms. But nonetheless, if I were looking from Molotov's or Kaganovich's eyes, I mostly would have not seen the benefit of reform, as the USSR was on top of the world, and any chance for counter-revolution from their persective probably would not have occured to them.

That's perhaps exactly why I argue with the likes of che and Azazel, because their perception (of the "Stalinist" system) is not entirely correct, and as such, a proper assessment(on what should be fixed) cannot be made.

As it pertains to your question, Thud, there actually were people who struggled against the bureaucratic Party of the Breznhev age. The problem was that the Party became a "glass ceiling" in itself, in that initiative was stifled and those who climbed up the ranks were usually the people who stole the most(and more importantly, were not Jews). The hope came and went with Andropov who vowed to struggle against the bureaucracy; unfortunately, he was too little and too late.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

che, I'll bold what I feel is important and provide commentrary on why I feel so.

December 25, 1922

BY THE stability of the Central Committee, of which I spoke before, I mean measures to prevent a split, so far as such measures can be taken. For, of course, the White Guard in Russkaya Mysl (I think it was S. E. Oldenburg) was right when, in the first place, in his play against Soviet Russia he banked on the hope of a split in our party, and when, in the second place, he banked for that split on serious disagreements in our party.

Our party rests upon two classes, and for that reason its instability is possible, and if there cannot exist an agreement between those classes its fall is inevitable. In such an event it would be useless to take any measures or in general to discuss the stability of our Central Committee. In such an event no measures would prove capable of preventing a split. But I trust that is too remote a future, and too improbable an event, to talk about.

I have in mind stability as a guarantee against a split in the near future, and I intended to examine here a series of considerations of a purely personal character.

I think that the fundamental factor in the matter of stability -- from this point of view -- is such members of the Central Committee as Stalin and Trotsky. The relation between them constitutes, in my opinion, a big half of the danger of that split, which might he avoided, and the avoidance of which might be promoted, in my opinion, by raising the number of members of the Central Committee to fifty or one hundred.

Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated an enormous power in his hands; and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. On the other hand, Comrade Trotsky. as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the People's Commissariat of Ways and Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities -- personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee -- but also by his too far-reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs.

Of course, Lenin respected Trotsky's abilities, even when in disagreement. However, if you read further on, you'll find a nice critique of Trotsky, as well.

These two qualities of the two most able leaders of the present Central Committee might, quite innocently, lead to a split; if our party does not take measures to prevent it, a split might arise unexpectedly.

Here he talks of the quality of the two MOST ABLE leaders, which arises a question; why does Lenin above question Stalin's abilities, if he thinks he's an able leader? Also ironic here is Lenin's mention of preventing a split, while at the same, latter in this same letter, sowing the seeds for one?

I will not further characterize the other members of the Central Committee as to their personal qualities. I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little to be used against them personally as the [b]non-Bolshevism of Trotsky.

The reason I bolded these is I'd like to know why Lenin chose to make light of these facts? I see Lenin pointing this out, out of bitterness and spite of the time, as there was no need to bring this up again, unless that is, Lenin conciously knew of his hypocricy and by using a "concealed ad hominem" of sorts, wanted to make sure no one forgot these "incidents"(making it simpler, in a way, to disprove their credibility just by reading this letter in front of the Party).

[snip]

January 4, 1923
Postscript: Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable in relations among us Communists, becomes insupportable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore, I propose to the comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it another man who in all respects differs from Stalin only in superiority -- namely, more patient, more loyal, more polite and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but I think that from the point of view of preventing a split and from the point of view of the relation between Stalin and Trotsky which I discussed above, it is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle as may acquire a decisive significance.

The hypocricy here is astounding. If Lenin's major problem with Stalin was his "rudeness," why appoint him Secretary-General in the first place? Lenin was heard saying that rudness was a commendable attribute, even here he asserts that it was "supportable in relations amongst Communists." This was obviously done out of spite.

BTW, the CC and Politburo read the letter and found that "rudeness" was not grounds enough to remove Stalin from his post. He was reappointed.

Just to add, che, that the Bolshevik Party was not a monarchy. Lenin did not and should not have the power to appoint anyone he so chose to head the country after his death. Appointments were made through elections and it just so happens that Stalin won such an election, twice.

[WRangler Rhymer]

Originally posted by Master Zen


just remember, besides the Special Economic Zones of which there are less than 10 and only a minority of the chinese population lives within (and an even less percentage take advantage of the benefits) I doubt you'll find any evidence either on CNN or any other history site...but good luck trying to find it

You are wrong, you need to go to school, and learn history buddy. Try learning before you tell people stuff you don't know what you are talking about. Special Economic Zones this is not a game. Deng Xiaoping became leader after Mao died. Deng was kick out the leadership three times. When he was reinstated the last time he was in his mid 70's. Deng had the four gangs of Mao that strong pressing communism on the people of China excueted or imprisoned for life after they were tried and found guilty.
Quote from Deng Xiaoping to reform to capitalism: "For example there have been some comments from people in Hong Kong and Taiwan who are all opposed to our four cardinal principles and who think we should introduce the capitalist system lock, stock and barell,... What in fact is this liberalization? It is am attemp to turn China present policies in the direction of capitalism. Our decision to apply the open policy things from capitalist societies..."
Quote: "Most of them will see blemishes on his record not least the crushing of the democracy movement in 1989"
Here this is what the many others of the Communist party thought of Deng Xiaoping. Deng Xiaoping had a strong supporter of his reforms to a capitalist economy in Hu Yaobang but he left office, and died before Deng made the reforms in 1989.<------- Source: Deng Xiaoping and The Making of Modern China- Richard Evans

Quote: " The person who emerged as China's new leader was Deng Xiaoping. Like Mao and Zhou, Den was a veteran of the Long March and the last of the "old revolutionaries" who had ruled China since 1949.
Although a lifelong Communist, Deng boldy supported new economic policies. Unlike Mao, he was willing to use capitalist ideas to revitalize China's stagnant economy. Proclaiming 'It is glorious to get rich,' Deng launched an ambitious program of economic reforms called the 'Second Revolution.'
The Second Revolution began in the countryside. Deng eliminated Mao's unpopular communes and instead leased the land to individual farmers. They paid rent by delivering a fixed quota of food to the government. They could then grow any crops they wished and sell them for a profit. This system produced more than twice as much food as the communes had in 1960, thus helping to prevent shortages.
The success fo agricultural reform enabled Deng to extend his program to industry. The government permitted small private business to produce goods and services. At the same time, the managers of large state-owned industries were given more freedom to plan production. Deng welcomed foreign technology and investment.
Deng's economic policies produced striking changes in Chinese life. As incomes increased, people began to buy appliances and televisions. Chinese you now wore stylish clothes and listened to Western music. Gleaming hotels filled with foreign tourists symbolized China's new policy of openness." Then all this lead to the Tiannamen Square shock to the world. Deng retired, and alot of the small business in China are much larger, and the reforms still stand today.<---------Source: World History Perspectives on the Past.

If you know so much as you say you would obviously would not have said all that you have said. Deng did the reforms in the farms changing the "commune" type farms to free leased farms where the farmers can grow what type of crops they want, and all they had to do what give a percentage of the crops they grow to the government. You probably still think the Russian and the Chinese are good friend, and guess what they are not. The Chinese went against the Russians, they studied all the wrong stuff they had done and realize that a plan economy does not work, but a more capitalized system works. The Chinese began better friends with the U.S., and help kick the Russians out of Afganistan, opened greater relations with the U.S., and they are working to stabilize and correct the problem in N Korea with the U.S.

Other books you should read, because I am not going to post everthing for you. You need to read stuff and learn it for your self and the message is very clear that you are wrong, and you obviously need to learn before you give out either out of date info or wrong info. Please admitt you are wrong this is getting sad. Go to any news archive and you will find all that I said. LOL .

Other sources: The Rise of China: how economic reform is creating a new superpower. By William H Overholt

China wakes: the struggle for the soul of a rising power. By Kristof, Nicholas D.

China's Second Revolution reform After Mao. By Harry Harding.

[SlowwHand]

Zen. How many reasons do you need?
Not that it matters, since you refuse to acknowledge any and all.

[Master Zen]

Slowwhand, get over it, every reason you and your right-wing buddies have put up, I've been able to refute. On the other hand, I won't begin to list the number of points I've made that people have failed to answer.

BTW. nice self-portrait of you, save it for the next Apolyton Yearbook.

[WRangler Rhymer]

I finished here I am not going to bother posting and wasting my time anymore. I am not right or left, I just tell the truth. Thanks, and to all a good night! SlowwHand check your pm.

[Master Zen]

WRangler Rhymer:

nice try but you need to dwell a little bit deeper and see the reality of things behind the shiny skyscrapers and hotels of Shanghai.

Chinese economic reform has been successful in many aspects, as I have said, however, it has failed to reach the majority of the Chinese population, and even in the places where it is more evident: a few coastal cities like Shanghai and Canton (The Special Zones which you apparently don't know much about).

As it stands, this "capitalism" is 1) not true capitalism as it does not serve the entire nation. Ever hear of the phrase "one country, two systems?" since you seem to know so much about Deng, you would know that it was very famous during his rule. 2) those places where capitalism apparently exists, it is geared towards foreigners, and the attraction of Foreign Direct Investment which is the foundation of Chinese economic success. China is the one nation which receives the most FDI in the world and while many of it goes to nice glitzy hotels and office buildings, most of it ends up in sweatshops where chinese workers work long hours, get paid miserable wages (if at all). That is the majority of what most chinese have to say about reform besides the lucky ones which happen to live in the privileged zones which I mentioned.

It is also no mystery to us economists that Chinese statistics are flawed and mostly overstate by much what the Chinese economy is really growing. Why is this? Because unlike in a capitalist economy, getting data on GNP and other economic statistics lends itself to gross misinterpretation when dealing with communist countries. If China were truly capitalist as you claim, estimating GNP would be no harder than any other nation.

Also, you are wrong in saying that China and Russia are no longer good friends. After the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s, both countries viewed each other with great suspicion. However in recent years there has been a tremendous re-approachment by these two countries, and anyone here who follows current events will testify that China and Russia have a rather strong relationship, unlike that with the US which has its ups and downs whenever the US bombs a chinese embassy or crash-lands spy aircraft in chinese territory, or bugs chinese presidential craft...

The US-Chinese relationship is ultimately one of necessity (economic necessity) not precesely of true friendship as both countries view each other as their greatest long-time threat.

In conclusion I am not saying that China has not taken a series of semi-capitalist reforms, but rather, that it has not been as widespread as you seem to believe. Again, "one country, two systems", you know what that other sistem is WRangler? Yes, communism, brutal and represive as any other, communism, where people get paid shitty wages and work their asses off, where people still die of hunger and fail to realize their full potential. That is the reality of most of the hundreds of millions of chinese who are unlucky to be among the priviledged few.

That the situation is better than 20 years ago, yes, probably much better. That is is "capitalist". Hell no, so give up...

BTW, I only admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. And that is not too often because I don't get into discussions about things I am unfamiliar about


This article may be a little extreme but no more so than yours about shiny new hotels. The truth, of course, is usually found somewhere in the middle.

China's disguised failure


The debate that is gaining steam over the accuracy of China's growth
figures for the past few years is far more than a matter of technical
quibbles among statisticians. Rather, it marks the beginning of a
long-overdue reassessment of the successes and failures of Beijing's
reform era - the widely praised attempt at growth and modernisation that
began not long after Mao Zedong's death in 1976.

Last year Thomas Rawski, the American economist, started the argument
with the startling assertion that - official claims of economic growth
rates of more than 7 per cent notwithstanding - China's economy since
1998 might not have been growing at all.

Then, in March, Zhu Rongji, China's premier, seemed to support him when
he said that without massive state pump-priming, the Chinese economy
would have collapsed in 1998 - the very year Mr Rawski singled out.

Other voices have joined the debate since. This year, for example, the
Central Intelligence Agency stated that China was indeed growing - but
at about half the rate that Chinese officials claimed. And the East-West
Center in Hawaii reported recently that China's statistical methods were
flawed.

Everywhere, it seems, China's economic indicators are being marked down,
causing deep concern and confusion about the prospects for the world's
most populous country. Are we feeling no more than a few bumps on
China's still inevitable ascent to economic greatness? Or are these the
first signals that fundamental flaws may exist in the Chinese approach?

To the visitor, economic vigour seems evident on every street corner.
Scratch the surface, however, and you find unsold goods in the shops and
unemployed people camping on the streets.

One lesson of the collapse of socialism in eastern Europe is that
profitability, not quantity of investment, is the key to sustained
economic growth. Here, arguably, lies China's fundamental problem. There
is no doubt that massive investment is being made - more than $300bn in
foreign direct investment in 20 years, and vastly bigger amounts by the
state. All this shows up as growth because the sums are spent, the
workers are hired and the cement is poured. But what about actual return
in a decade or two? This is much less clear. And what opportunities are
missed by having foreigners and the state in charge, rather than letting
Chinese entrepreneurs do the job? These may be enormous.

Many foreigners think, mistakenly, that China is capitalist. In fact,
China's system is exactly what its leaders call it: socialism with
Chinese characteristics. In practice, that means a large state sector,
party committees even in private enterprises, corporate boards that are
unable to fire managers, no market for corporate control and massive
changes in economic policy (such as consolidation of the motor industry)
dictated without consultation.

Worse still, the system discourages private Chinese entrepreneurship -
the only possible engine for long-term economic growth - while
conferring privilege on foreigners. Indeed, it would be easier to start
a business in China as a US citizen than it would be as an ordinary
Chinese citizen.

Rather than unleash the well known and awesome creativity of private
Chinese business, Beijing has substituted a superficially modern
structure built on foundations that are still socialist. One part is
foreign direct investment - the Taiwan- and Hong Kong-owned
manufacturing around greater Hong Kong, for example, that piles up
China's trade surpluses. Another part is the unprofitable state
industrial sector, kept afloat by loans from state banks, which piles up
irrecoverable debt. The third part is the impoverished countryside, with
its limited links to the modern sector.

The central government's fiscal foundations are similarly questionable.
Although already borrowing to pay its regular deficits, it has
nevertheless signed up for some expensive projects: the Pudong
development in Shanghai, the Olympics, the Three Gorges Dam, weapons
acquisitions and a space programme, to name a few.

Living standards may be rising and production growing, but other things
are rising, too: a mountain of debt, wasted capital and unfunded
liabilities. These were created not under Mao Zedong but under his
reforming successors. Nor does it seem likely that these problems are
going to be tackled soon.

Since 1989, China has been trying hard to avoid the sorts of traumatic
economic and political shocks that brought down communism in the west.
The deep structural changes that have returned those former communist
states to health, however, are as inescapable for China as they were for
Russia. Painful as those reforms were in the west, they will probably
prove even more painful when they finally reach China. And all because
of the errors and wasted opportunities of the misnamed reform era.

[South killer]

I don't agree with cuban excecutions but USA hasn't the right to complain about this as they have death penalty in Texas. For 25 people that are killed in cuba, 150 people are killed in Texas.
Also, cuban government says that usa is aiding criminal groups in kidnapping airplanes, ferrys and other vehicles to desestabilize Castro's regime which i believe is very probable due to Bush's new foreign policy.