RhysH:
Indeed, nearly every Dictatorship in the world has tried to clamp down on Esperanto, for a surprisingly diverse number of reasons.

Still Fidel seems to be on side

He's not a dictator. He was the leader of a popular (popular mind) revolution.

Vestitor:

RhysH:
Indeed, nearly every Dictatorship in the world has tried to clamp down on Esperanto, for a surprisingly diverse number of reasons.

Still Fidel seems to be on side

He's not a dictator. He was the leader of a popular (popular mind) revolution.

Popularity or the lack of, has nothing to do with whether or not one is a Dictator. You'd be hard pressed to find a Dictator you couldn't argue is/was popular prior to being overthrown. Cuba is a one party state, that is a party Dictatorship, Fidel as the head of the Party was the Dictator personified. Cuba is not democratic and the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba is only accountable to itself.

And of course there's the fact that the Castro and the CPC claim to represent the `Dictatorship of the Proletariat`.

RhysH:

Popularity or the lack of, has nothing to do with whether or not one is a Dictator. You'd be hard pressed to find a Dictator you couldn't argue is/was popular prior to being overthrown.

I think popularity has a lot to do with it actually. The U.S. already tried to overthrow Castro (or rather Cuba's government) and it failed because they couldn't turn enough people against the government; something you need to effect a coup.
You may remember that Castro wasn't overthrown, he stepped down. Just because other leaders elswhere were overthrown, that is not an argument to demonstrate whether or not Castro was a dictator!

RhysH:Cuba is a one party state, that is a party Dictatorship, Fidel as the head of the Party was the Dictator personified. Cuba is not democratic and the leadership of the Communist Party of Cuba is only accountable to itself.

We can say pretty much the same about England under Thatcher, or the U.S. under the Bush dynasty or any country under the current ideological dominance of neo-liberalism and the parties with nothing to distinguish them.
I'm sure you think Hugo Chavez was a 'dictator' rather than a popular leader, pretty much like the opinion of big business in Venezuela.

RhysH:And of course there's the fact that the Castro and the CPC claim to represent the `Dictatorship of the Proletariat`.

Yada yada. Who doesn't claim to represent 'the people'?

Vestitor:I think popularity has a lot to do with it actually.

Well in that case you're either a liar or delusional since that isn't what the D word means.

The U.S. already tried to overthrow Castro (or rather Cuba's government) and it failed because they couldn't turn enough people against the government; something you need to effect a coup.

And? Again popularity has nothing to with whether or not someone is a Dictator. This is not a rebuttal its an attempt to shift the conversation onto what you think is more friendly ground. And sadly for you it isn't at all, Castro's first uprising against Batista was a failure, I guess that means he wasn't a Dictator then either. The revolt in El Salvador also failed, I guess there was no Dictatorship there.

You may remember that Castro wasn't overthrown, he stepped down. Just because other leaders elswhere were overthrown, that is not an argument to demonstrate whether or not Castro was a dictator!

I'm going to be generous here and assume you didn't understand what I said. Nevertheless You know Mussolini was fired by the King of Italy, and Hitler stepped down in favour of Bormmann, and Franco died in office so I guess they weren't Dictators either according to your argument.

We can say pretty much the same about England under Thatcher, or the U.S. under the Bush dynasty or any country under the current ideological dominance of neo-liberalism and the parties with nothing to distinguish them.
I'm sure you think Hugo Chavez was a 'dictator' rather than a popular leader, pretty much like the opinion of big business in Venezuela.

We could but we'd be lying through are teeth, especially since both the Tories and the Bushes had to deal with elections, Bush Snr even lost his re-election) I didn't mention Chavez so I don't see why you are except in a rather poor attempt at strawmanning. For the record no I don't think Chavez was a Dictator, because he ruled a democratic state. If you think Cuba and Venezuela are comparable then you know nothing of either. Though its amusing to me, to see you parrot a Neoconservative talking point.

Yada yada. Who doesn't claim to represent 'the people'?

Well funnily enough not Marxists, since `the people` is a bourgeois term which includes capitalists and does not mean the Proletariat, which is the labouring class. Dictatorship of the Proletariat since you clearly don't understand it, refers to a society dominated by the working class interest. This is the justification Communist Parties use for the establishment of Party Dictatorship.

I notice at no point have you attempted to explain how Castro and the CPC are not Dictatorial. If can't do better than this, then you really shouldn't bother.

RhysH:

Vestitor:I think popularity has a lot to do with it actually.

Well in that case you're either a liar or delusional since that isn't what the D word means.

If I were you I'd moderate your language.

And? Again popularity has nothing to with whether or not someone is a Dictator. This is not a rebuttal its an attempt to shift the conversation onto what you think is more friendly ground. And sadly for you it isn't at all, Castro's first uprising against Batista was a failure, I guess that means he wasn't a Dictator then either. The revolt in El Salvador also failed, I guess there was no Dictatorship there.

Castro's was a popular movement against a real dictator propped up by an outside effort. Your other examples are unrelated. Cuba's later trajectory has many causes.

I'm going to be generous here and assume you didn't understand what I said. Nevertheless You know Mussolini was fired by the King of Italy, and Hitler stepped down in favour of Bormmann, and Franco died in office so I guess they weren't Dictators either according to your argument.

Don't be cocky and condescending. Your examples are ludicrous. If you think Hitler's position was a simple resignation, then you must be joking or taking the piss. I'll tell you again not to do that.

We could but we'd be lying through are teeth, especially since both the Tories and the Bushes had to deal with elections, Bush Snr even lost his re-election) I didn't mention Chavez so I don't see why you are except in a rather poor attempt at strawmanning. For the record no I don't think Chavez was a Dictator, because he ruled a democratic state. If you think Cuba and Venezuela are comparable then you know nothing of either. Though its amusing to me, to see you parrot a Neoconservative talking point.

We wouldn't be lying (though it's up to you what you do there). There's plenty gerrymandering and election corruption in 'democratic' states to qualify as a nice, soft coup. I mentioned Chavez as a clear example of someone the U.S. (among others) referred to regularly as a dictator. Chavez himself declared Cuba a 'democracy', you can take that or leave it. I know quite enough about both places. I've been politically active for 30 years.

Yada yada. Who doesn't claim to represent 'the people'?

Well funnily enough not Marxists, since `the people` is a bourgeois term which includes capitalists and does not mean the Proletariat, which is the labouring class. Dictatorship of the Proletariat since you clearly don't understand it, refers to a society dominated by the working class interest. This is the justification Communist Parties use for the establishment of Party Dictatorship.

I'm quite versed in Marxist theory, and you know perfectly well the point I was making. I hope I meet you at an Esperanto conference.

It is nothing surprise till this date. It is not only to the Esperanto but also to other languages as well.

If I remembered clearly, someone told me that Indonesia banned learning all foreign languages when she gained independence. Though it is not now, the rule, however, is still unchanged on paper. In short, if the government wanted to go back to the old fold. They can do so just in seconds.

Malaysia government is trying hard to close down the Chinese and Tamil primary schools by the reason for unity.

Can speaking mother tongue cause problem ?