Cuban versus American Democracy [Archive]

Mindtoaster

21st May 2009, 21:43

A short overview of how socialist democracy works in Cuba, serving the majority of the population, in contrast to how bourgeois democracy works in America, serving the wealthiest 20%

American vs. Cuban Democracy
By Carl Geiser

Some people are dubious about the feasibility of a society based on cooperation instead of competition envisaged in my concept of an "80% Party." They point out that all governments based on cooperation became corrupt, dictatorial, inefficient, and alienated their citizens enough to bring about their downfall.

The reason given for the blockade of Cuba is to "restore democracy," but there are huge differences in U.S. and Cuban democracy.

Many forms of democracy have existed in the past, starting with the Greeks, and many forms still exist today. U.S. democracy has changed greatly from 1789, when slaves, women, landless men and indentured servants could not vote. As circumstances changed, we have amended the Constitution 27 times to meet the new needs.

Since 1789, certain rights have not changed: the rights to own land and companies, to hire and fire people and pay them less than the value they produce, are guaranteed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Administration, the army and the police. But our right to a job, a home, medical care, education beyond high school, and a living wage, are not guaranteed.

Cuba has reversed this. In Cuba you cannot buy land, start up private corporations, or hire others to work for you. You are guaranteed a job or unemployment pay, a home, free medical care, and education beyond high school. Even though Cuba is a Third World country with an annual per capita domestic product of about $1700 compared to our $22,000, it does what we cannot do because it distributes the wealth and income it has more rationally.

We have the right to get rich here, though few do. In Cuba, no one can become rich. The minimum wage is 100 pesos a month, the maximum 800. Cuba has set up economic, political, social and cultural structures which reward the individual for working for the common good by modest economic incentives, but more importantly, by the friendship and admiration of those with whom you work, the dignity of citizenship in a sovereign Cuba, a fair share of whatever Cuba produces, and the right to take part in making government and management decisions. Why have the "socialist societies" in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe been overthrown by their own people? Because their leaders became corrupt, were dictatorial, and practiced nepotism leading to incompetence and mismanagement. They alienated people and denied them control over their government's actions.

Cuba has found a way, not without some difficulty, to have an honest and efficient government guaranteed by the close control people exercise over it. At the base of Cuba's democracy are the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR). They were formed by the Cuban people at President Castro's suggestion after counterrevolutionaries threw four bombs into a huge crowd during a 1960 speech.

Each square block elects its own CDR. I met with such a committee in 1990. All legislative changes which affect all Cubans must be submitted for review by the committees and they have three months to return their comments. One member of the CDR was the secretary who kept records of meetings; another was the treasurer who collected 25 centimos from each family every month for block activities; another person was in charge of security and arranged for two people to walk around the block between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. to help anyone in trouble and to prevent anyone from causing trouble; another young woman was the district CDR representative.

Another woman turned out to be the doctor for the block. The people in the block had built a two-story house for her with material supplied by the government. She had a medical history on everyone in the neighborhood, made house calls, and practiced preventative medicine; her income did not depend on people getting sick because she received a fixed salary paid by the government. A small, Afro-Cuban woman was the CDR chairperson. She coordinated the work of the Committee and had a Cuban flag in front of the house. Why? So the police could find her. They couldn't arrest anyone in the block without the Committee's permission. No Stalin could arise in Cuba.

And this is just the beginning of democracy in Cuba.

Cuba's three-stage electoral system
In 1976, the Committees in Defense of the Revolution were supplemented by setting up election districts -- about 500 voters in each -- to elect a delegate to the district People Power Assembly (PPA). The district PPA then elected a delegate to the provincial PPA, which in turn elected a delegate to the national PPA. In 1991, in order to involve the people more directly in government, the national PPA set up a commission to find the best way to do this. In 1992, a draft of the new electoral procedure was sent to all CDRs for their comments and millions of Cubans discussed the procedure. The result was a new three-stage electoral procedure.

The first stage, as before, was local elections within the 13,685 election districts to choose a district delegate. Anyone 16 or older could vote. No less than two nor more than eight candidates were to be nominated and the winner had to receive over 50 percent of the votes. Several hundred districts had to have a runoff election a week later because no one had received over 50 percent.

The second stage was the formation of district electoral commissions made up of representatives from different organizations (women's groups, labor, students, farmers, churches, sports, etc.) These representatives then arranged meetings in their factories, institutions and organizations to nominate individuals they thought would serve the common good in its provincial and national PPA. More than 1,600,000 people took part in these meetings. The district PPA had the right to nominate up to half of the candidates and the rest were chosen by the electoral commission from the names submitted for the provincial and national PPA.

A ballot was then prepared with no provision for a write-in candidate. Voters had three choices: 1) to deface their ballot or leave it blank; 2) to vote for one or some of the candidates, and; 3) to vote for the entire slate and thereby show the whole-hearted support for the Revolution. The candidates spent no money, nor did they campaign separately; their names and biographies were published and they all appeared at public meetings. There was no party slate.

The third stage of the new electoral procedure was a secret ballot held on February 24, 1993. The voter turnout was more than 99 percent. The poll watchers were high school students. Seven percent, about a half million voters, defaced or left their ballots blank, indicating that they opposed the Revolution. Another seven percent voted for less than the full slate, while 85 percent voted for the entire slate. The new 500-member national PPA has 115 women, 11 lawyers, two clergymen, and 83 percent had not held the office previously. District, provincial and national delegates receive no perks and have to live off the wages their factory or institution pays them.

The Cuban government does no have a separation of powers as we do. The national PPA has all powers -- legislative, administrative and judicial. It sets the general policy and elects an executive council to carry it out. The council sets up commissions for various functions, such as a judicial commission to oversee all of the courts. (In Cuba, you have to study to be a judge just like becoming an engineer.)

An illustration of how the national PPA involves the people in decision-making may be seen by how it tackled three of Cuba's problems. While Cuba was trading with the Soviet Union, a large quantity of consumer goods were imported. When this stopped, wages and pensions were not reduced, resulting in Cubans accumulating 11 billion pesos, with little to buy, and an 11 billion peso national debt. A second problem exists because the U.S. dollar is now an official currency. Some people have access to dollars and some do not. Some, such as taxi drivers and hotel workers, receive dollars from tips; other people receive dollars from relatives in the United States; and others, such as artists and farmers, can sell their goods on the market. And then there is the so-called "black market," another source of dollars. Those who have access to dollars can buy goods in the dollar stores that are unavailable to the majority. It has been estimated that 30 percent of the population has access to dollars while the rest do not. And a third problem is the irritation felt by those who do not have access to dollars and cannot use the tourist facilities.

The national PPA asked all factories and institutions to hold conventions to discuss what to do about these problems and any others that needed to be discussed. The response was that 80,000 conventions sent in their suggestions.

People Power Assembly in action
The first result of analyzing the suggestions was a decree-law for the confiscation of personal funds obtained illegally. That was followed by fees for cultural and sports events and for meals previously free. Another law provided for the taxation of funds received from abroad and from tourists. These measures reduced the 11 billion peso national debt by 10 percent in the first four months.

To provide tourist facilities, the government Cubanacan Tourist Agency set aside half of its rooms to be paid for with pesos. Since not everyone could be accommodated, rooms will be provided for newlyweds and those individuals chosen by their colleagues for having worked the hardest for the common good.

Is this democracy? Certainly it is the opposite of what we have. Do these procedures serve the interests of the majority? They certainly do. They involve Cubans in the decision-making process to an extent not conceived of in the United States. This is what makes it possible for Cuba to survive the very severe hardships caused by the collapse of the former socialist countries and the tightened U.S. blockade.

Does our democracy protect the interests of the majority? It protects the interests of the top 20 percent. Since 1980 the real family income has declined rapidly for the bottom 80 percent. Our democracy, which spent close to a half billion dollars to fill offices in the last election, gives us a government bought by those with money. True, we have majority rule and allow third parties. But the result has been a government which always served to generate and protect a growing disparity in income. Nevertheless, until recently most people expected their children to live a better life than they did. Since 1980 the real income of the 80 percent has been dropping while the real income of the 20 percent has been increasing.

There is a world of difference between majority rule that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rest and majority rule that serves the interests of the majority. Most of the world's 368 billionaires, whose wealth equals that of the poorest 2,800,000,000 , live where majority rule works on their behalf; if their rule is threatened, they replace it with dictatorship. Let us beware. U.S. citizens are free to travel to Cuba, but if you spend money there, the sentence can be a $250,000 fine and 10 years in the slammer, a heavy price to learn what is going on there. Hundreds of U.S. citizens have openly defied the law without being prosecuted. The authorities may realize it might be difficult to get a jury to convict. After all, the United Nations General Assembly has voted to condemn the U.S. blockade.

I am not advocating a blind adoption of Cuban procedures for the U.S. We will have to find our own way. The organizing of the "80% Party" could be a peaceful way of changing to a democratic rule that serves the interests of the majority. The Oklahoma City bombing and formation of armed militias should be a warning to us that we have little time to lose, for some Americans whose living standards are falling are thinking of more violent means to bring about change. We must bring them into the 80% Party.

Cuba's first priority is growing food. Until 1990, Cuba had imported much of its food in exchange for sugar. With the collapse of the socialist countries in Europe and the effects of the U.S. blockade, it can no longer do so. The investment in educating agricultural scientists and setting up agricultural institutes in the 1980s is paying off now. They are replacing chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer and crop rotation, pesticides with biological controls, outdated technology with state-of-the-art technology appropriate to the season, area and crop. They are also introducing biological control of plant diseases and are producing micorrhizae to aid plant root uptake of mineral nutrients, the first country known to do so. Cuba is showing the way we and the rest of the world will have to grow our food without polluting our soil, air and water. We will have to find our own way to rule in the interest of the majority if we are to eliminate from our nation increasing poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, crime, drugs, unemployment, racial and ethnic discrimination. And we don't have much time to do it. Scientists tell us that if we continue on the present course, the cost will be tremendous. The future of our planet is at stake.

[Author Carl Geiser was born on Dec. 10, 1910, in Orrville, Ohio. After the U.S. recognized the Soviet Union, Carl was in the first student group to visit that country, a trip sponsored by the National Student Federation of America in the summer of 1932. Also in 1932, he was elected the student delegate to the Latin American Congress against War and Fascism held in Montevideo, Uruguay, in March 1933. On April 13, 1937, Carl left for Spain because "for the first time...a people had actually taken up arms to prevent fascism from coming to power." He was captured on April 1, 1938, when 30,000 Italian troops hit 1,000 U.S. troops and he spent one year as a prisoner of war. His book, Prisoners of the good Fight, was published by Lawrence Hill in 1985 on the 50th anniversary of the uprising. ]

http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html

Mindtoaster

22nd May 2009, 15:46

Holy mother of bump!

I think all the folks who are convinced that Cuba is a totalitarian, baby eating, death machine need to read this before the thread dies.

jake williams

22nd May 2009, 16:16

Holy mother of bump!

I think all the folks who are convinced that Cuba is a totalitarian, baby eating, death machine need to read this before the thread dies.
Yeah. It's certainly got authoritarian elements, which have certainly impeded some socialist success, but it's nowhere near as monstrous as it's portrayed, even in sections of the Left.

RedSonRising

22nd May 2009, 21:05

Very good explanation, the Cuban system is often difficult do explain because of all of its layers, though this one focuses more on the bottom-level decision making process. I think while the state and party structure itself holds much power and influence with less popular input than desired, these bottom-level outlets for democracy in everyday life are essential to real citizen power.

mykittyhasaboner

22nd May 2009, 21:26

There is a list of links like this (including this one) here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1524).

All the people who are anti-Cuban have their head up their asses. Cuban exiles themselves are completely fucking brainwashed and never provide any evidence besides some rag made in Miami (most likely paid for by the CIA).

KurtFF8

29th November 2009, 18:16

This orignial link is dead right now, someone ought to republish it on a different site (perhaps the Cuba Truth Project?)

Axle

30th November 2009, 16:58

I'm suddenly filled with a strange urge to learn fluent Spanish and move to Havana.

But seriously, this is a great article that I know I'm going to start circulating. Much thanks.

Nolan

1st December 2009, 03:22

I plan to visit Cuba if I'm able. I think it's legal for US citizens... can anyone fill me in on that?

Manifesto

1st December 2009, 03:26

I plan to visit Cuba if I'm able. I think it's legal for US citizens... can anyone fill me in on that?

No its still not legal, there are some exceptions though.

Nolan

1st December 2009, 04:29

No its still not legal, there are some exceptions though.

Oh. I was under the impression that you could travel there but you couldn't spend any money. Which doesn't make sense, I know....

RedSonRising

1st December 2009, 05:41

If you go illegally through another country they won't stamp your passport and will let you through- it's the US's policy, not theirs. Tons do every year. Just hide any evidence you were there well from security and avoid anything that might prompt them to ask questions and examine your things; anything like Cuban currency or cigars on a carry on can have them fine you severely.

A.R.Amistad

1st December 2009, 05:48

Nolan

2nd December 2009, 04:20

Ha, no not the top 20% comrade, more like the top 1% :blushing: its worse than you think...

Maybe the top .000001%!! It works better for you the richer you are.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd December 2009, 05:09

Excellent article.

Perhaps it is not totally objective in that it does not mention the problems with putting such an idealistic political system into practice, however it puts to bed the myth that Cuba is a 'dictatorship.'

Manifesto

2nd December 2009, 20:06

For some reason I cannot thank you and could you provide another link that one does not work.

Mindtoaster

2nd December 2009, 20:31

For some reason I cannot thank you and could you provide another link that one does not work.

I posted this a few months ago after seeing it on another forum, and the original seems to come from a journal "The New Humanist" so it may be hard to find again on the internet, but I'll do some searching around.

Ha, no not the top 20% comrade, more like the top 1% its worse than you think...

Yeah, twenty percent was a bit much. I think it would be more like the top five percent.

Red Rebel

2nd December 2009, 20:41

The article is a couple of years old (I recall posting it on another forum several years ago). But it it still a great read; it is sad to see the link is dead.

Great point of the article though is still (as previously stated) in bourgeois society "democracy" doesn't work for the majority of the people; whereas, in a society where the working class is in control democracy actually works for the people.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

3rd December 2009, 03:21

Great article.

It is interesting how the Capitalists have so successfully propagandised the 'elective dictatorship' (When this phrase is coined by a Lord [Lord Hailsham], you know your 'democracy' is in trouble) as democracy, whilst somehow even the theoretical possibility of participative/grassroots democracy, as is the theory behind the Cuban political system, is outlawed as a dictatorship, amongst other uncalled-for petty politicking nonsense.

robbo203

3rd December 2009, 18:39

Soldier of life

3rd December 2009, 18:51

FFS lets get real here! The state capitalist regime of Cuba is not a democracy at all let alone an example of "socialism". Of course it is quite true that the USA is hardly a democracy either in any genuine sense of the word - "plutocracy" is the word that springs to mind - but it is fair to say that workers in the USA could probably criticise their government in a way that Cuban workers could not as far as the Castro regime is concerned.

Face it - the Cuban regime is a dictatorship. Only one party is officially recognised by the constitution - the so called communist party. There is only one candidate for each constituency and while these are selected by different methods, the final list of candidates has to be approved by the ominously named "Committee for the Defence of the Revolution" which takes into account such factors as loyalty to the regime. This is a self perpetuating dictatorship, in other words.

The free Press has been severely curtailed, strikes by Cuban workers banned and critics of the government including journalists, human rights activists and members of opposition (unrecognised) political parties, have been arrested, convicted and imprisoned sometimes on even the most petty and absurd grounds. Foreign journalists have been summarily expelled for taking an unflattering picture of the ailing Fidel .

Anyone who seriously imagines for one moment that the Cuban dictatorship is a democracy needs their head read frankly. Talk about gullibility!

When a country is in a state of war, certain liberties are often suspended. Cuba, who is constantly fighting the attempts of terrorists to undermine it, the economic embargo and the constant assasination attempts on its leading figures has achieved some amazing things for its population.

Its health care, education etc are fantastic, minimal levels of homelessness,drug abuse and prostitution, and the only latin american country I believe that is acknowledged by the UN to have no malnutrition. Not bad achievements I must say. The problem with the far left is that they would lump cuba in with pure capitalist countries, and not acknowledge cuba's achievements and progressive nature.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd December 2009, 18:56

Pogue

3rd December 2009, 19:12

^ but I don't think robbo or other idealists are interested in evidence as such though.

I think a large issue is that there are no reliable sources on Cuba. You have two choices, the anti-Castro/anti-Socialist media, essentially every western media outlet, or pro-socialist media like the Cuba Truth Project. So on issues of decmoracy and the nature of Communist Party official's lifestlyes (are they rich, etc) we just can't tell.

robbo203

3rd December 2009, 19:29

unlike this thread, the article is deliberately titled American vs Cuban Democracy, which, based on the article, implies that the author probably doesn't think much of "American democracy"

to say that the Cuban regime is a dictatorship, unlike the American one, is, to put it plainly, bourgeois propaganda.

Whatever you might think of the American regime - I dont think it can technically be called a dictatorship but it it is certainly not a genuine democracy in my view - the issue here is whether Cuba constitutes a democracy. Plainly, it does not . By no stretch of the imagination can it be called a democracy. It is a one party state that severely curbs all criticism of the regime. That makes it a dictatorship and only a gullible fool would argue otherwise.

Soldier of Life comes out with the point that "When a country is in a state of war, certain liberties are often suspended. " This is the standard defence wheeled out by capitalist governments the world over to justify the suspension of civil liberties. The American regime employs it to justify its "War against Terror". The appalling Sri Lankan regime used when it was fighting against the Tamil Tigers although the Press remains muzzled and cowed long after that particular little war was finished.

I dont see why we have to accept this standard excuse by capitalist govenments to justify their actions. But at least Soldier of Life concedes by implication that Cuba is not a democracy insofar as civil liberties have been suspended!

Soldier of life

3rd December 2009, 19:42

Whatever you might think of the American regime - I dont think it can technically be called a dictatorship but it it is certainly not a genuine democracy in my view - the issue here is whether Cuba constitutes a democracy. Plainly, it does not . By no stretch of the imagination can it be called a democracy. It is a one party state that severely curbs all criticism of the regime. That makes it a dictatorship and only a gullible fool would argue otherwise.

Soldier of Life comes out with the point that "When a country is in a state of war, certain liberties are often suspended. " This is the standard defence wheeled out by capitalist governments the world over to justify the suspension of civil liberties. The American regime employs it to justify its "War against Terror". The appalling Sri Lankan regime used when it was fighting against the Tamil Tigers although the Press remains muzzled and cowed long after that particular little war was finished.

I dont see why we have to accept this standard excuse by capitalist govenments to justify their actions. But at least Soldier of Life concedes by implication that Cuba is not a democracy insofar as civil liberties have been suspended!

I would not suggest at all that Cuba is perfect, I doubt anyone would on this board. The reality is however that the Cuban revolution has drastically improved the lives of Cuban workers, their lives are beyond compare with similar countries in the region under a capitalist regime.

To not acknowledge the fact that the worlds biggest capitalist super power is a matter of a few miles away from Cuba and is constantly trying to undermine it, whether through direct terrorist funding or through granting immediate asylum to Cuban people or through an economic blockade, is just not living in the real world. These things need to be taken into account, they are real and obviously must have a detrimental effect on the Cuban nation. This is nothing like the capitalist myth of the 'war on terror' which is designed to acheive consent among the average american worker for their imperialist activities and plundering.

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd December 2009, 19:52

Whatever you might think of the American regime - I dont think it can technically be called a dictatorship

Then I don't think you can technically be called a socialist.

All liberal democracies, by the way, are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, technically speaking.

the issue here is whether Cuba constitutes a democracy.

Not exactly
The issue here is not strictly whether or not Cuba is a democracy. We're dealing with a comparative study between Cuban and American institutions. Cuba is more democratic, from a working class perspective, which I can tell is not your perspective, unfortunately.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

3rd December 2009, 20:13

Have to agree with Dr.Rosenpenis, although I can understand why Robbo says 'America is not a dictatorship.' Robbo, if you are in the liberal democratic mode of thought then yes, the USA is not a dictatorship insofar that it has multi-party elections for the President, and many federal and state positions of power.

However, try to think from a working class perspective. So we have a choice between the right wing and the even more right wing. For the working class, in reality there is no gain in having Democrats such as Obama, Clinton, Carter or Kennedy is office, as much as those such as the Bush dynasty, Nixon and even stretching back to Harding and Coolidge, really were extremists. Thus, America operates, from a working class standpoint, a de facto dictatorship, in that no matter who is in power, at any level, things will not get better for the working class under that system.

Also, you will understand from the article about Cuba's political system a bit more clearly; to say that it is a one party dictatorship is simply wrong. At least in theory, all parties (including the Communist Party) are banned from putting candidates up for elections - candidates are independent of parties - and parties are banned from electioneering. I personally have my doubts as to whether this works in practice. As said above, it is really difficult to identify the truth in Cuba. However, I am certain that the idea of it being a repressive dictatorship is simply a malicious, Capitalist falsehood.

robbo203

3rd December 2009, 20:55

Then I don't think you can technically be called a socialist.

All liberal democracies, by the way, are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, technically speaking..

Oh dear, here we go again. Yet another Leninist clown wheeling out the ritual insults to cover up their ignorance. Because I dont buy the state capitalist hogwash emanating from the pro-castro groupies on this list that make me not a socialist, eh? Pull another one.

Yes, all liberal democracies are in one sense bourgeois dictatorships - in the same sense that Marx talked of the democratic republic being the form in which the dictatorship of the proletariat would manifest itself. But we are not talking about dictatorship in this sense - in the sense of the interests of one class dictating over society. We are talking about dictatorship in the technical sense of an electorate having at its disposal the means to peacefully replace one regime with another and to criticise those in power without fear of being theatened or incarcerated. In Cuba you just cannot do this. In the more liberal democratic capitalist state you can (within limits admittedly). That is the simple and uncomfortable fact you need to wrap your little narrow mind around.

And before you start braying that I am rushing to the defence of liberal democracies and holding them up as models of democracy no I am not. I have said many time before that liberal bourgeois representative democracy is very poor example of genuine democracy in action - more so when it takes such an obscenely plutocratic form as it does in the USA. However, all things being equal, I would prefer this feeble weak version of democracy to none at all and this was certainly the view that people like Marx and Engels held. They welcomed any sign of increased democracy and so do I

Not exactly
The issue here is not strictly whether or not Cuba is a democracy. We're dealing with a comparative study between Cuban and American institutions. Cuba is more democratic, from a working class perspective, which I can tell is not your perspective, unfortunately.

FFS how can Cuba be more democratic from a working class perspective when you have a friggin one party state, that harries and persecutes opponents of the regime, that perpetuates the rule of Castro and his cronies by means that are not in the least democratic via such powerful mechanisms as the"Committee for the Defence of the Revolution" which screens all candiates for their obsequious loyalty to the regime.
Frankly you are talking out of your backside.

And Dem Soc while your post is a little more reasoned I think you too have totally missed the point. You say of the USA "However, try to think from a working class perspective. So we have a choice between the right wing and the even more right wing". Yes and who the hell do you think puts the right wing or the even more right wing in power? Thats right. The workers. The problem is not to do with technical mechanism of electoralism that gives them this choice but the attitudes of the workers who do the voting.

However i would sooner have that choice than not have that choice at all as in Cuba. And if you think calling the Cuban state capitalist regime "a repressive dictatorship is simply a malicious, Capitalist falsehood" then you too Im afraid are living in a fools paradise. You are too simply refusing to face the facts that are staring you in the face

Vladimir Innit Lenin

3rd December 2009, 21:10

robbo203

3rd December 2009, 23:18

Robbo you clearly do not understand about grassroots/participative democracy, as operates (albeit questionably) in Cuba.

You would rather a choice, every 4 years, between which 'regime' is going to attack your basic economic, social and political rights, as opposed to an opportunity to choose a candidate, via grassroots debate, for your local, regional and federal political positions? Hmm.

Also, no. You can criticise Capitalism, from within the confines of Capitalism. That is, you can criticise neo-conservatism from the perspective of reformist 'liberalism'. There are numerous examples (McCarthyism, Galloway's ban from entering Canada) that when real Socialism is espoused in liberal democracies, the criticism is in fact not allowed, just the same that if someone starts drumming up support for Capitalism in Cuba, they will also face consequences.

Oh come now, DemSoc, this is ridiculous . Cuban grassroot democracy my arse. Control is exercised top down. Decision making is determined within parameters laid down by the political elite even down to the local level. At the national level you get only one candidate to vote for and if the people at the top dont like him or her for whatever reason (usually for being critical of the leadership) that candidate doesnt get to stand. Moreover, it doesnt always happen that candidates are nominated at the local level anyway, 50% I think are imposed from above. At the end of the day its the people at the top who decide who can be a candiate not the grassroots. They hold the monopoly of power. And, incidentally, if you imagine for one moment that the regime does not attack your basic human rights try getting up on a soapbox in Havana putting the case that Cuba is a state capitalist dictatorship and see how long you can hold out before you are nicked and flung into some flea-ridden prison cell. At least in the liberal bourgeois capitalist democracies they have such things as a speakers corner

Of course , this is no big deal but its is marginally better than not having even the most elementary political rights . Im hardly a fan of liberal democratic capitalist regimes such as the USA claims itself to be. But you rather spoil you own argument by conceding theres not much difference in the way in which the American neoconservative establishment treats its critics and the state capitalist Cuban regime treats its critics. Criticism is not allowed in both cases.

In which case what the hell are you doing trying to defend the Cuban regime?

Dr. Rosenpenis

3rd December 2009, 23:51

What you have chosen to call "elementary political rights" is bourgeois propaganda designed to convince people that they're free. You are most likely correct when you say that Cubans are not free to attack socialism and workers by pursuing reactionary political agendas. Political action that seeks to threaten what Cuban workers have struggled to accomplish is not considered a "basic human right" in Cuba. Meanwhile in the US any political activty that looks to subvert the capitalist power structure is immediately quelled, often with no regards for human rights. The United States is easily the greatest infractor of human rights of our time, and yet here you are, calling yourself a leftist, spewing this revolting propaganda of the imperialist West as a bulwark of righteousness next to their barbarian enemies. You disgust me.

There is no reason for socalist regimes to grant counter revolutionaries the same rights that bourgeois regimes conceded to its dissenters. Bourgeois regimes depend on workers.

Saorsa

3rd December 2009, 23:54

powerful mechanisms as the"Committee for the Defence of the Revolution" which screens all candiates for their obsequious loyalty to the regime

You do not know what you are talking about.

There is no powerful government department called the Committee for the Defence of the Revolution. The CDRs are local political groups based in the neighbourhoods and villages of Cuba. Every city block has one, or in the less populated rural areas they cover larger geographic areas.

They are groups made up of ordinary Cuban citizens who participate with an equal voice in discussions of everything from defending the social and political gains of the revolution to organising dances in the local town hall. They are an example of direct, participatory democracy in practice.

The Committee members are expected to keep an eye out for counter-revolutionary activity, and keep tabs on events in the neighbourhood. But their primary role is the practical implementation of the governments social programmes and awareness campaigns, and the maintenance of the community spirit, social cohesion and popular involvement that form the basis of Cuba's socialist system.

The fact that the CDR screens candidates is, if anything, proof of how democratic Cuba is. These are local community organs of participatory democracy. They are made up of ordinary people. Anyone can join.

Take off your blindfold and, even if you can't handle doing some serious reading, learn to use Wikipedia ffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_for_the_Defense_of_the_Revolution

leninpuncher

3rd December 2009, 23:59

You can't have meaningful democracy is a society that imprisons dissidents. Don't be idiotic.

I should say that America isn't a democracy either, before you all jump to your predictable, twisted conclusions about how denigrating Cuba is equal to supporting the US.

Neither have democracy.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

4th December 2009, 00:21

Oh come now, DemSoc, this is ridiculous . Cuban grassroot democracy my arse. Control is exercised top down. Decision making is determined within parameters laid down by the political elite even down to the local level. At the national level you get only one candidate to vote for and if the people at the top dont like him or her for whatever reason (usually for being critical of the leadership) that candidate doesnt get to stand. Moreover, it doesnt always happen that candidates are nominated at the local level anyway, 50% I think are imposed from above. At the end of the day its the people at the top who decide who can be a candiate not the grassroots. They hold the monopoly of power. And, incidentally, if you imagine for one moment that the regime does not attack your basic human rights try getting up on a soapbox in Havana putting the case that Cuba is a state capitalist dictatorship and see how long you can hold out before you are nicked and flung into some flea-ridden prison cell. At least in the liberal bourgeois capitalist democracies they have such things as a speakers corner

Of course , this is no big deal but its is marginally better than not having even the most elementary political rights . Im hardly a fan of liberal democratic capitalist regimes such as the USA claims itself to be. But you rather spoil you own argument by conceding theres not much difference in the way in which the American neoconservative establishment treats its critics and the state capitalist Cuban regime treats its critics. Criticism is not allowed in both cases.

In which case what the hell are you doing trying to defend the Cuban regime?

Don't tell me about speakers' corner. I live in London, and I know what happens when people demonstrate.

Heard about the G20 protests? Yeah, right to demonstrate my arse.

Can I just ask you, what your sources are for your views on Cuba? Unfortunately, 'oh come on it's obvious' just doesn't cut it in intellectual debate, so could you please tell me exactly where your views about Cuba being a State Capitalist dictatorship come from?

I have no vested interest in defending Cuba. I am, admittedly, a supporter of it, but I do not deny that it has a democratic deficit, mostly at the national level; there is clearly nepotism going on there. I also do not deny that it is impossible to know exactly what is going on in Cuba. But I put this to you. If things were so bad in Cuba, why, in 50 years, hasn't there been any sort of organised uprising by ordinary Cubans? The only people that try to organise some sort of 'democratic opposition' or escape attempts from Cuba, inthe vast majority, are those who are the descendants of the middle classes who benefited from the casino Capitalism of pre-revolution Cuba.

vulemdal

4th December 2009, 05:59

Here's a link to the archived article (via archive.org):

Sorry... can't post links because of forum rules. Go to archive.org and enter the link, then select the latest copy of that link available.

Thanks for the OP, it was informative on how democracy can and does work better than what currently passes for democracy in the US.

Spawn of Stalin

4th December 2009, 16:18

http://web.archive.org/web/20080611044054/http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html

proudcomrade

4th December 2009, 21:32

Oh dear, here we go again. Yet another Leninist clown wheeling out the ritual insults to cover up their ignorance. Because I dont buy the state capitalist hogwash emanating from the pro-castro groupies on this list that make me not a socialist, eh? Pull another one.

They tried similar schtick with me in the last Cuba thread- and I am a staunch Marxist-Leninist. There are those here who feel that anyone not willing to prostrate themselves down before Castro's nasty old decrepit feet at Revleft, ought to be summarily thrown out of dot-communism. If anything, it's always good for a chuckle. Send in the clowns! :lol:

chegitz guevara

5th December 2009, 04:29

The Committees for the Defense of the Revolution are democracy, at the most fundamental level.

So there's only one political party? Big deal. There is more variety of opinion within that one party than there are in most two party democracies. Unlike in the United States, in Cuba, popular opinion actually matters.

robbo203

5th December 2009, 08:24

You do not know what you are talking about.

There is no powerful government department called the Committee for the Defence of the Revolution. The CDRs are local political groups based in the neighbourhoods and villages of Cuba. Every city block has one, or in the less populated rural areas they cover larger geographic areas.

Yes, thats correct. Its was an inadvertent mistake on my part based on carelessness to misname this body. However, there is such a powerful body that vets all candidates on the basis of their loyalty to the regime and it is actually called the National Candidature Commission which draws up the final list of candidates for elections. In other words, no candidates are allowed to stand who do not support the regime. And this is called "democracy"

They are groups made up of ordinary Cuban citizens who participate with an equal voice in discussions of everything from defending the social and political gains of the revolution to organising dances in the local town hall. They are an example of direct, participatory democracy in practice.

The Committee members are expected to keep an eye out for counter-revolutionary activity, and keep tabs on events in the neighbourhood. But their primary role is the practical implementation of the governments social programmes and awareness campaigns, and the maintenance of the community spirit, social cohesion and popular involvement that form the basis of Cuba's socialist system.

The fact that the CDR screens candidates is, if anything, proof of how democratic Cuba is. These are local community organs of participatory democracy. They are made up of ordinary people. Anyone can join.

Big deal. Every dictatorships has its network of neighbourhood spies, who spill the beans on people deemed to hold views at variance with the regime. The Nazi regime had it. Dictatorships cannot function without some degree of cooption and one of the ways in which to get on in a dictatorship is to suck up to the regime, to display your obsequious loyalty to it by ratting on friends neighbours colleagues and even members of your own family.

Without a trace of irony you more or less concede that the CDRs are little more than tools of the Castro state capitalist dictatorship. Interesting

Oh and the real rib-tickler is this one "The fact that the CDR screens candidates is, if anything, proof of how democratic Cuba is". Er..no , it doesnt work like that. Democracy means inter alia that anyone can stand for elections , regardless of their views, and then the electorate choses or if you like "screens out" those it doesnt want. There is only one candidate per constituency anyway so there is no choice in Cuba and the National Candidature Commission makes damn sure that the only one you can vote for is their man or woman

robbo203

5th December 2009, 09:24

Don't tell me about speakers' corner. I live in London, and I know what happens when people demonstrate.

Heard about the G20 protests? Yeah, right to demonstrate my arse..

Like I said Im no great fan of the so called liberal representative democracies of western style capitalism. Its a pretty feeble form of democracy. But very limited though our political rights are in these countries, they are preferable to not having any rights at all would you not agree?

You mention the G20 protests. I dont always follow the news from the UK but I presume this refers to the controversial protest in which police tactics came under fire. Fair point but you have to concede that at least you can still make a protest (however constrained) in the UK, you can still assemble, you can still hold political meetings, you can still publish and distribute literature critical of the government. You cant do these things in Cuba.

People who talk about Cuba being the more democratic than the (very limited) "democracies" of Western Erurope et al, really havent got a clue. They are armchair revolutionaries with a penchant for favouring verbal formulations over substance. Expressions like "participative democracy", "workers state" and "building socialism" press all the right buttons for them and relieve them of the need to think any further. Gullibility in this case would be an understatement.

Look, Cuba has an atrocious record on political rights. Stop trying to defend the indefensible! In 2008 Cuba was ranked at bottom of the Press Freedom Index comiled by Reporters Without Border (RWB). It was also listed as one of the ten most censored countries in the world by the Commitee to Protect Journalists. The Cuban regime engages in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials and extrajudicial executions
(aka. "El Paredón") according to the Human Rights Watch organisation. What more evidence do you require that this is not a democratic society that we are talking about?

Can I just ask you, what your sources are for your views on Cuba? Unfortunately, 'oh come on it's obvious' just doesn't cut it in intellectual debate, so could you please tell me exactly where your views about Cuba being a State Capitalist dictatorship come from?..

Well the "dictatorship" bit is pretty obvious and I dont need to say much on this. The "state capitalist" bit should also be pretty obvious to anyone with a smattering of knowlege of Marxian economics. The core systemic features of capitalism are all there for everyone to see - wage labour, generalised commodity production, the profit motive , capital accumulation and so on. The difference is that it is larely the state that owns and controls the means of the production (and those who control the state constitute the de facto ruling capitalist class of Cuba). Forbes magazine sometime ago came out with an astonishing claim that Castro is one of the richest people in the world with a personal fortune of 900m dollars or something like that and that some of this was siphoned off into banks around the world. I think personally that is a bit far fetched and Castro, I believe, countered this with the challenge for anyone to discover any offshore bank account into which money of his had been siphoned.

But the state capitalist anaylsis of Cuba does not depend on the existence of individual capitalists having de jure legal ownership of private capital (or monies stashed away in off shore bank accounts). The same argument applies to soviet state capitalism. It is a much more sophisticated and powerful argument than that and centres on the relationship between ownership and control as mediated through the institution of the state

I have no vested interest in defending Cuba. I am, admittedly, a supporter of it, but I do not deny that it has a democratic deficit, mostly at the national level; there is clearly nepotism going on there. I also do not deny that it is impossible to know exactly what is going on in Cuba. But I put this to you. If things were so bad in Cuba, why, in 50 years, hasn't there been any sort of organised uprising by ordinary Cubans? The only people that try to organise some sort of 'democratic opposition' or escape attempts from Cuba, inthe vast majority, are those who are the descendants of the middle classes who benefited from the casino Capitalism of pre-revolution Cuba.

Things were pretty damn awful for Russian workers particularly back in the Stalin years but there wasnt much of organised uprising then either, was there? You forget we are talking about a dictatorship. Its not that easy to just foment an organised uprising at will. A number of factors need to slot into place before things start happening. But the absence of any widespread organised resistance at the moment hardly signifies contentment and if this is what you are trying to say then I think you are on very dodgy grounds

robbo203

6th December 2009, 11:27

For all those supporters of Cuban "democracy" out there check this out

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86549/section/2

CienfuegosJnr

6th December 2009, 13:37

The PRD in Mexico City use a similar style of social democracy as in Cuba... Whilst the delegate (who runs the video games arcade) has used her power to call the police on the homies down on the quadra .. Its still better than the vigilante attitude that has prevailed with the residents in the past ...
And no matter what the fresa intelectual might tell you its still social democracy...

Vladimir Innit Lenin

6th December 2009, 14:00

There was no resistance to Soviet rule Robbo? Okay...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Also, tell the family of Ian Tomlinson that people have a right to protest in peace. He was brutally murdered by the police, even though he was merely a passer by. You clearly haven't read about the police's baton tactics and the scores of wounds they inflicted upon people.:rolleyes:

Nobody here is saying that Cuba is a perfect democracy. What we are saying is that it has occurred due to a multiplicity of factors, including both external factors (the US blockade, the collapse of the USSR) and admittedly poor decisions taken by Castro and others. Moreover, whereas in most 'liberal democratic' countries there is no prospect for a truly improved system other than revolution, Cuba already has established a more or less Socialist society, and really could be turned into a much more democratic and prosperous country with mere reforms.

In essence, both Cuba and America have problems. The difference is, America's political and economic systems needs destruction and rebuilding. Cuba is in need of political reform, some measure of economic reform, but not complete overhaul.

gorillafuck

6th December 2009, 16:13

People who claim Cuba has freedom of speech and press, etc. are pretty naive. It's true that it might not be as bad as it's portrayed, but it's still pretty bad.

robbo203

6th December 2009, 17:05

There was no resistance to Soviet rule Robbo? Okay...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.

I didnt say there was no resistance. I said there wasnt much in the way of an "organised uprising". Big difference, chum...

Also, tell the family of Ian Tomlinson that people have a right to protest in peace. He was brutally murdered by the police, even though he was merely a passer by. You clearly haven't read about the police's baton tactics and the scores of wounds they inflicted upon people.:rolleyes:
.

Yes OK but the fact remains you can still protest in the UK within limits. You can't in Cuba. Do you, or do you not , accept this?

Nobody here is saying that Cuba is a perfect democracy. What we are saying is that it has occurred due to a multiplicity of factors, including both external factors (the US blockade, the collapse of the USSR) and admittedly poor decisions taken by Castro and others.
.

Cuba is not a democracy, let alone a perfect democracy. It is a one party dictatorship ruthlessly controlled from above with a human rights record that is absolutely appalling . See the link i posted. Bury your head in the sand and ignore it but the facts are not going to go away at your convenience

Moreover, whereas in most 'liberal democratic' countries there is no prospect for a truly improved system other than revolution, Cuba already has established a more or less Socialist society, and really could be turned into a much more democratic and prosperous country with mere reforms.

Cuba is not socialist. It is state-run capitalism that operates there. QED

In essence, both Cuba and America have problems. The difference is, America's political and economic systems needs destruction and rebuilding. Cuba is in need of political reform, some measure of economic reform, but not complete overhaul.

Yes well I can see why naive liberal reformists like you who don't really understand what socialism is about should think Cuba is in need of a bit of economic and political reform. Bit a more in the way of free enterrpise and economic liberalisation, eh? , is I guess what you have in mind. But genuine socialism? Perish the thought!

RedSonRising

8th December 2009, 12:15

These are some clips of Student Representatives speaking before the Parlamento a few years ago, which made news in much of the spanish-speaking world as the signs of increased speech freedoms on the island. There are no subtitles, but I can provide a literal translation for those who wish. It's a bit old, but I thought it would be constructive to the discussion as I haven't seen anyone else provide this information.

This first video is a clip of the speeches made before officials and the president of the parliment, outlining many of the complaints which Raul Castro and those wishing to progress the condition of the Cuban people have sought to address.

Main complaints are the lack of personal identification with those involved in the electoral process. Many of the candidates are never personally engaged with Students and certain sectors of the population; their information is available in populated city squares, and there is limited judgment that can be made for certain individuals. However it is important to note that the student does acknowledge the participatory organs of the State that exist in Cuba. Other complaints include the freedom to travel, the inequality that has resulted from the peso convertible and how it has affected workers and peasants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1WjegkWCNU&feature=related

The second video is a discussion where students in the former video discuss their personal experiences with Cuba and becoming active in their Universities for increased civil liberties (that's what the "@" shirt represents), and one in particular talks about his experiences with the health system, and emphasizing reforming and bettering and perfecting the socialist system, not destroying it. He also says when exposed to the massive lies and propaganda espoused through the "Guerra Mediatica", Propaganda/Media War, he felt a very real and concrete perspective on how solid such issues are and how they affect Cuban society. There are many links to longer versions of the Students' debates and statements of grievances in the related video links in both of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1WjegkWCNU&feature=related

I think that these students are taking the right role in actively engaging the Government (direct dialogue with the president/speaker of the house of parliment/congress is something I'm sure many student activists would appreciate in the United States and elsewhere), representing the Student body, and constructively criticizing the system through the means which were instituted by the revolution. These students seem to be objective and realistic young patriots whose appreciation for the revolution and simultaneous indignation at the system's injustices I admire. I take their view over either bourgeois or state sources, and I find it subjectively consistent with the more general research information I have studied over the years. I think this insight helps look at Cuba's situation a little more optimistically with a more reputable source from the inside available.

Das war einmal

9th December 2009, 02:03

For all those supporters of Cuban "democracy" out there check this out

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86549/section/2

I see no word mentioning social human rights.

KurtFF8

9th December 2009, 16:55

Well human rights watch is the same organization that doesn't consider systematic violence (i.e. poverty in places like India) to be a consequence of the capitalist system, yet they see any such indicator under governments like Cuba's as systematic.

Andropov

9th December 2009, 19:42

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th December 2009, 23:20

Robbo:

A liberal reformist? Hmm. I won't even bother with that one.

Also, care to provide me some evidence for your claim that Cuba is a one-party dictatorship. I have provided my evidence - the theory behind the Cuban political system, the CDRs, none of which you have refuted or raised your own evidence countering my claim.

As for your link to the Human Rights Watch report on Cuba, you do know that this is the same organisation which was criticised by 118 nations - including even the UK and US, for biased operations against Venezuela. This is also the organisation who had as one of its most senior investigators a collector of Nazi memorabilia. As such, HRW is probably not best placed as a neutral entity to judge Human Rights in a Socialist nation with a non-liberal democratic political system.

For more, refer to RedSonRising's excellent post, which covers a range of issues which are being engaged by the people of Cuba, such as the horrendously confusing currency system.

And no, I do not look to Gorbachev-style economic liberalisation when I say Cuba needs a measure of economic reform. I look more towards a unified currency which does not favour tourists, and other such measures which would increase the standard of living for ordinary Cubans by decreasing reliance on foreign money. I do find it interesting that on the one hand you call Cuba a one-party dictatorship, yet on the other you are arguing against liberalisation. Care to explain your juxtaposing statements?

robbo203

9th December 2009, 23:33

Multi-Party states does not constitute democracy.
Likewise inturning terrorists and reactionarys does not constitute being anti-democratic.
In the material context of Cuba its level of democracy and worker participation is really remarkable.
But for fantacists like Robbo its anti-democratic and I have no doubt in his ivory tower it is anti-democratic.
But the simple fact is that Cuba is under siege, something that im sure even Robbo yourself couldnt deny.
In a state subjected to constant terrorist attacks sponsored by the world super power who is their neighbour and formal colonlial master civil liberites and some delicate sensibilities will be curtailed, this is only rational in its context and it is clear that these measures are perfectly proportional to the context which Cuba finds itself in.
Yes well done Robbo the same liberal democracys you seem more sympathetic to does have the same justification for removing civil liberites but you are judging both actions in isolation without looking at the context behind the decisions.
When America is invaded by American mercenarys, attacked by Cuban terrorists, subjected to a crippling economic embargo etc then there is justification.
But applying blanket purist drivel that is at odds to the material context that Cuba finds itself in is absurd and really lacking in an analytical perspective.

This is an absurd rant. Look, I have never suggested for one moment that so called liberal democracies are truly democratic by any stretch of the imagination. Of course they are not. But what cannot be doubted is that you do have certain minimal rights in these countries which you dont have in places like Cuba. This has been well documented and only someone who wilfully wants to ignore the facts and stick his/her ostrichlike head in the sand would deny this.

The assertion that "In the material context of Cuba its level of democracy and worker participation is really remarkable" is utter tosh. What sort of democracy is that permits no other candidate to stand for elections than the one officially sanctioned by the state, that routinely suppresses all opposition, that denies people the right to protest in public, that harrasses and expels journalists on the most petty of pretexts, that is ranked at bottom of the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Border (RWB) and that engages in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials and extrajudicial executions?

What I find quite astonishing is that I was making the point that Cuba was not democratic yet Rite-Boii is attacking me for saying this on the grounds that Cuba is quite justified for doing what she is doing becuase she is a country under seige. OK what I want to know from Rite Boii is does that mean that he then accepts that Cuba is not a democratic regime . Afterall you can hardly justify the suspension of civil rights in this case AND claim that Cuba is still a democratic regime in which we would expect these civil rights still to be intact

As Ive said before, capitalist states - the Cuban state capitalist regime included - have often resorted to justifiying the curtailment or suspension of elementary civil liberties on the grounds that they face some external threat. The American regime is doing just the same with the excuse that it is involved in a "war on terror". Rite-Boii maintains that this is not to compare like with like. America is not being invaded by armed mercenaries (although its government might beg to differ) but as far as I know neither is Cuba at the present time. But even going along with this for the sake of argumnent how does that justify the suspension of democratic rights? In fact , if one were to take a pragmatic view of the matter, the best way to "defend Cuba" would be to call America's bluff and install those basic elementary rights to be found in the so called liberal democracies however limited these may be. That would certainly make it very much harder for the USA to justify any invasion. And it would make it more likely that Cubans would pull together to defend "their" country

In fact this is the position that people like Marx and Engels would have taken. They saw the extension of democratic rights as vital the workers cause and were even prepared to take sides in supporting one capitalist state against another - an approach with which I personally disagree - to secure such an outcome. Nevertheless their basic argument was sound enough. The working class needs more democracy, not less, and those who stand in the way of this ipso facto stand in the way of the workers cause

Vladimir Innit Lenin

10th December 2009, 01:04

Vladimir Innit Lenin

10th December 2009, 01:19

I might also add that, on the subject of minimal rights, Amnesty International puts the number of people handed the death sentence at 237, between the period 1959-87, supposedly the highest period of repression to date. Compare this to the 'liberal democratic' United States, where a single state, Texas, has executed more people than this alone, standing, as of 2008, at 405, with a further 370 on death row, around 40% of whom will probably be executed.

So, I ask again, which basic freedoms and rights are protected in these liberal democratic nations? Certainly, I have evidenced that the right to life, to healthcare, to be educated and to not live in squalor and material depravity are, as you say 'minimal rights', which are catered for better by Cuba than by the US, the home of liberal democracy.

Andropov

10th December 2009, 12:15

This is an absurd rant. Look, I have never suggested for one moment that so called liberal democracies are truly democratic by any stretch of the imagination. Of course they are not. But what cannot be doubted is that you do have certain minimal rights in these countries which you dont have in places like Cuba. This has been well documented and only someone who wilfully wants to ignore the facts and stick his/her ostrichlike head in the sand would deny this.

The assertion that "In the material context of Cuba its level of democracy and worker participation is really remarkable" is utter tosh. What sort of democracy is that permits no other candidate to stand for elections than the one officially sanctioned by the state, that routinely suppresses all opposition, that denies people the right to protest in public, that harrasses and expels journalists on the most petty of pretexts, that is ranked at bottom of the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Border (RWB) and that engages in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials and extrajudicial executions?

What I find quite astonishing is that I was making the point that Cuba was not democratic yet Rite-Boii is attacking me for saying this on the grounds that Cuba is quite justified for doing what she is doing becuase she is a country under seige. OK what I want to know from Rite Boii is does that mean that he then accepts that Cuba is not a democratic regime . Afterall you can hardly justify the suspension of civil rights in this case AND claim that Cuba is still a democratic regime in which we would expect these civil rights still to be intact

As Ive said before, capitalist states - the Cuban state capitalist regime included - have often resorted to justifiying the curtailment or suspension of elementary civil liberties on the grounds that they face some external threat. The American regime is doing just the same with the excuse that it is involved in a "war on terror". Rite-Boii maintains that this is not to compare like with like. America is not being invaded by armed mercenaries (although its government might beg to differ) but as far as I know neither is Cuba at the present time. But even going along with this for the sake of argumnent how does that justify the suspension of democratic rights? In fact , if one were to take a pragmatic view of the matter, the best way to "defend Cuba" would be to call America's bluff and install those basic elementary rights to be found in the so called liberal democracies however limited these may be. That would certainly make it very much harder for the USA to justify any invasion. And it would make it more likely that Cubans would pull together to defend "their" country

In fact this is the position that people like Marx and Engels would have taken. They saw the extension of democratic rights as vital the workers cause and were even prepared to take sides in supporting one capitalist state against another - an approach with which I personally disagree - to secure such an outcome. Nevertheless their basic argument was sound enough. The working class needs more democracy, not less, and those who stand in the way of this ipso facto stand in the way of the workers cause
Im afraid the only thing absurd here is your purist template that is pulled out of your ivory tower every time a debate on something remotely progressive comes around.
Now this boils down to ones definition of Democracy. Robbo asked do I consider Cuba a Democracy even with the suspension of civil liberties? Of course I do, as was stated before Cuba is still clearly under siege, economically, politically and militarilly.
In this context its only rational to suspend some of Robbos delicate liberalist sensibilities such as freedom of the press etc.
Why do they do this? Because of course foreign capital is attempting to undermine a truely progressive state with regaurds to the working class.
Now Robbo will attempt to beat Cuba over the head for removing civil liberties but yet clap the Western Liberal Democracys for enshrining their civil liberties.
But you see Robbo thats a falacy, something a Marxist really should see but with your liberalist outlook its not surprising you dont.
In America the CIA do rendition flights of their own citizens, in England look no further than the Guildford four and the Maguire 7, in Ireland look at the Special Criminals Court, a diplock court.
Really your fetishising over Western Liberals "rights" being "enshrined and protected" is just absurd when we look past the Liberalist rehtorric and analyse the actual material context.
Now that we have established that Western Democracys Liberalist values are thin veneer of Idealism then we look at Robbos point that if Cuba placed Western Liberal Democracy in Cuba then it would be harder for the USA to justify an invasion?
Are you actually making that point Robbo, you are more intelligent than to pitch that line?
As a Marxist surely you must realise that the USA is only using that reason as a transient justification for Imperialism.
As in if it wasnt invading on the pre-text of restoring Democracy it would be invading on the pre-text of fighting terrorism etc.
Now we must analyse why so? Why would the USA be so keen to invade this state?
Its because of course Robbo that this Workers State provides what all Marxists must strive for, a drastic improvement in the material context of its citizens.
As DemSoc stated Free healthcare, free education, a job a reasonable standard of living etc, a remarkably progressive state.
But your lack of material marxism is actually putting bourgeois sensibilities like "freedom of the press" above this material context.
Irrelevant Liberalist sensiblities in comparison to the improvement of the material context of the workers.
Your purist drivel is irrelevant.

robbo203

10th December 2009, 19:30

Ok Robbo, minimal rights.

Free healthcare? Free Education? A job? A fair standard of living?

Do you see a pattern here? I'm not sure why anybody would rather swap these rights for a most likely wasted, irrelevant, token vote. Please explain this to me.

And talking of external threat, last time I checked, Cuba wasn't trying to assassinate the US President, whereas the Americans have admitted freely that they have tried to assassinate Fidel scores of times over the years. In addition to an economic blockade which denies Cuban citizens access to some basic goods produced abroad, I would say that most people would find such actions at the very least intrusive.

Nobody is saying Cuba is perfectly democratic. The point we are making is that, talk of ordinary Cubans leading awful lives, being spied upon mercilessly and thrown in jail abritrarily is exactly the sort of Capitalist propaganda that we must abhor. There are two sides to this coin. One says dictatorship, the other says an imperfect, yet Socialist state. If you want to give up, that is your choice, but do not think that such choices will somehow lead you, or the people of the world, towards some sort of utopian, Socialist dream.

Look , lets get one thing straight here. This is a thread about Cuban versus American democracy. It is not about the economic welfare or otherwise of Cuban workers.

I haven't disputed that in many respects Cuba scores comparatively well as a third world country in the league of developmental indicators. Its child mortality rate, for example, is the lowest in Latin America. Its literacy rates are high, better even than the USA. And as for free education and free healthcare , yes all true, although as any marxist economist would tell you, there is no such thing as a "free lunch" in capitalism and subsidising some aspects of life under capitalism is invariably accompanied by downward pressure on real wages by way of adjustment. And frankly wages are not much to speak of in Cuba - less than 20 dollars a month. Pensions are also amongst the lowest in the western hemisphere at 9.50 dollars per month although this was increased by 2 dollars recently. The housing stock is atrocious and generally run down. Of the 2.6 million units of housing in Havana, 1 million are in a substandard condition. One third of the population officially live in poverty. That puts Cuba at number 48 in the list of countries in the world in terms of standard of living. Better than some, I grant, but it is hardly the glowing workers paradise you make it out to be.

All this is by the by. Im not here to argue about the economic conditions under which Cuban workers live. My partner is Spanish and has direct contacts with some people in Cuba on a fairly regular basis who would guffaw at your depictions of life in Cuba as utterly naive to say the least. But let that be. Im solely here to argue about the degree of democracy or lack of it in Cuba.

Wriggle as you might there is no disputing the facts. Cuba is not a democratic regime, not even "imperfectly" so. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

You mention the Human Rights Watch report on Cuba and ask if I knew that this was the same organisation "which was criticised by 118 nations - including even the UK and US, for biased operations against Venezuela". Ok the organisation is questionable in some respects but does this necessarily invalidate the facts it brought to light? No it does not. Are the fact that it reported correct or incorrect - that is all that matters. There are plenty of other organisations that come to much the same conclusions. I mentioned another - the Reporters without Borders (RWB) organisation - which in 2008 placed Cuba at the bottom of the Press Freedom Index . I can provide you with the details of other organisations besides these.

I have mentioned various other facts which you have chosen to ignore or gloss over like the draconian laws to silence all opposition to the state capitalist dictatorship of Cuba on the grounds of "dangerousness", like the quashing of labour rights and the banning of all strikes (so much for your "workers paradise" incidentally), like the use of torture, sham trials and extrajudicial murders.

I must finally respond to your point, thus

"Also, care to provide me some evidence for your claim that Cuba is a one-party dictatorship. I have provided my evidence - the theory behind the Cuban political system, the CDRs, none of which you have refuted or raised your own evidence countering my claim."

Really? Well lets roll out a few fact shall we?

Fact ONE. Which is the only party permitted to engage in public political activities in Cuba? Answer? The Communist Party of Cuba. Before 1992, all other political parties were banned but amendments to the constitution in 1992 permitted some other parties to exist but they are not allowed to operate in the public sphere at all. i.e. they are suppressed

Fact TWO. While the communist party as such does not stand for elections in its name - what would be the point as there is only one candidate allowed for each of the 609 constituencies and this candidate is pre screened for his or her loyalty to the state capitalist regime by the powerful National Candidature Commission. This is the basis on which a self perpetuating dictatorship is founded - self petuating because it provides no opportunity whatsoever for anyone critical of the regime to stand for elections and in fact criticism of the regime is deemed a criminal act

Fact THREE Cubas constitution explicitly refers to the Communist Party as "the superior guiding force of society and the state" effectively enshring itself as a one party dictatorship. That speaks for itself. The role of the party is actually enshrined in the constitution itself!

I have already said what I needed to say about the CDRs. Having a network of localised organisations is in no way incompatible with the existence of a political dictatorship. In fact I would say it is an essential ingredient to ensure political hegemony having your local cadres in the neighbourhood monitoring and controlling the situation on the ground. Even in Nazi Germany you had your neighbourhood snitches, your arselickers who wanted to get on and up the ladder of power

I repeat again in attacking the anti-democratic nature of the Cuban capitalist regime I am not at all taking the side of the so called liberal democratic capitalist regimes. Democracy in the West is indeed largely an illusory matter for all sorts of reasons which have been exhaustively discussed. However, the fact remains that there are still some democratic rights however incomplete or hedged about they may be, with you have in a country like the UK which you emphatically do not have in a country like Cuba.

You can write what you what you write on a forum like this but you (or rather I!) would be imprisoned for doing so if I lived in Cuba (Cuba is heavy on internet censorship and incidentally has a very low rate of computer access). You living in London can read papers critical of the government, you can join an opposition political party , you can voice your opposition to the government on the radio and TV programmes, you can join in protests (not all of them are baton charged by police) against this or that government policy. You cant in Cuba. You can go on strike as a worker. You cant in Cuba. And of course you can form a political party or vote for a political party opposed to the government. You cant in Cuba.

And then you talk blithely about how anyone would want to swap the right to a "fair standard of living" in Cuba (its news to me that that the standard oif living is higher in Cuba than it is in the country like the UK!) for a "most likely wasted, irrelevant, token vote" . Of course you might take this sneering approach to the right to vote like the typical armchair leftist revolutionary you seem to be but our class - the working class - fought tooth and nail for the right to vote back in the days of the Chartists. You might dismiss this as inconsequential but it is hardly that as Marx and Engels well recognised. Voting for a capitalist party might well be wasted but you cannot say that of the right to vote. And by that I dont mean the right to vote for just one candidate who is screened before hand by the regime for his or her loyalty to the regime

Before I forget I must also respond to Rite Boii's point in answer to my suggestion that Cuba might more effectively thwart the threat of an invasion by the US by opting for a more democratic constitution.
Rite Boii says this "As a Marxist surely you must realise that the USA is only using that reason as a transient justification for Imperialism."

This is besides the point. Imperialist powers have to concoct some reason if they are going to invade another state. Remember the Gulf War? Remember all the talk about weapons of mass destruction, about alleged links between the Iraqi state and terrorists. The hawkish ideologists had to make a quite a concerted effort to make all this crap stick.

Now transfer this argument to the situation in Cuba. Let us say for the sake of argument that the USA declared that is going to attack Cuba on the grounds that it is political dictatorship intent upon destabilising the region etc etc. Never mind for the moment that this is complete bullshit and that the US has never been reluctant to cosy up to dictatorships in the past , do you think they are more likely or less likely to get way with this argument if Cuba were to embark on a process of democratic reforms, if censorship was lifted and opposition parties were allowed to operate etc. I would suggest to you that it would be much more difficult for the US to justify its expansionary imperialist plans under these circumstances. And "justification" is what it desparately needs.

I would also contend that the population would probably be far more willing to rally around a more democratic Cuba in the face of such a threat. As things stand there is growing opposition to the regime within Cuba itself and the risk is that they might turn to the US as a potential "liberator" which would be very sad indeed. Check out this article(http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article1255.html) which makes the following rather telling point

But there is no getting away from the conclusion that Cuban society is rapidly polarising, and on class lines at that. Beyond party cadre and those in high-ranking state jobs, the government enjoys few strong supporters. The younger a person is - and the darker the colour of his or her skin - the more likely they are to openly admit they would rather be living in Miami.

Das war einmal

11th December 2009, 22:19

Das war einmal

11th December 2009, 22:29

People who claim Cuba has freedom of speech and press, etc. are pretty naive. It's true that it might not be as bad as it's portrayed, but it's still pretty bad.

While its true that there is no free press, Cuban people are never afraid to voice their opinion. If you can speak a little spanish they will openly debate about socialist Cuba. The regime allows foreigners to vacate at people's houses.

Honestly I think the repression is more a matter of an underdeveloped economy. Dissent is mentioned in the state press though and unlike the DPRK, the Cuban state seems more reliable

robbo203

11th December 2009, 23:37

I take it Robbo would rather see a glorious example of democracy like that of Honduras than the current situation on Cuba. It's pretty stupid to consider Cuba capitalist, as capitalism without private owned property of means of production cannot exist. There are elements of capitalism but phrases like 'state capitalism' is just plain rubbish. We dont call libraries or state-owned hospitals forms of capitalism aswell..

Really? Perhaps you might care to explain in that case this somewhat enigmatic observation by Frederich Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. (ibid. 71)

In Cuba there is a wages system, is there not? Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Marxism would understand that wage labour presupposes capital and hence capitalism as Marx said. In Cuba there is generalised commodity production too. Read the opening para of Das Kapital which talks about capitalism being a system characterised by the accumulation of commodities - items that are bought and sold for a market. In Cuba, you have a generalised monetary system , you have profits, you have capital accumulation - all characteristics pertaining to capitalism. Need I go on?

And this business of capitalism only existing where you have "private ownership" of capital by which you presumably mean de jure legal title to capital by individual capitalists - this is sheer ignorant bumkum. Capitalism is based on class ownership of the means of production and the separation of the producers or the exploited class from these means. This can take various forms including state capitalism where a tiny state capitalist class collectively own the means of production through their de facto control of the state. In medieval Europe the Church owned vast tracts of lands and indeed other means of production (the monastries were often centres of small scale industry) No individual clergyman had legal to title to this land as an individual. It was institutional ownership and needless to say the principle of inheritance did not apply either. Yet you wouldnt say these means of production were owned by the congregations would you now?. No, it was the church that owned it which boiled down to the church hierarchy. Its the same with state capitalist regimes like Cuba and Russia.

I see you describe yourself as a "marxist-leninist". Presumably then if you think "state capitalism" as a phrase is "rubbish" you will have a convincing explanation why Lenin was talking such "rubbish" when he said

"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it (Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 27, page 340.)

Or this

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will become invincible in our country""Left Wing" Childishness and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality .

Or this

"But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it. The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it

Don't be naive. The US fabricates reasons to invade countries all of the time, even if they have a parlementary ellected president. They even installed dictatorships in fear of communist power take overs in Vietnam and Chille.

.

The argument still stands. It would be significantly harder - note that I did not say "impossible" - for the US to justify invading another country supposedly in the name of "democracy", when it can be clearly shown that the country in question was not a political dictatorship. If you have a convincing counterargument to this then lets hear it - dont just pontificate

Computer has low connectivity to internet? You dont say... I wonder if that has something to do with the economic hardships they encouter.

.

Or it might also have something to do with this...

"An investigation carried out by Reporters Without Borders revealed that the Cuban government uses several mechanisms to ensure that the Internet is not used in a “counter-revolutionary” fashion. Firstly, the government has more or less banned private Internet connections. To visit websites or check their e-mail, Cubans have to use public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and “Youth computing centers” where it is easier to monitor their activity. Then, the Cuban police has installed software on all computers in Internet cafes and big hotels that triggers an alert message when “subversive” key-words are noticed.
The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for its political opponents and independent journalists, for whom reaching news media abroad is an ordeal. The government also counts on self-censorship. In Cuba, you can get a 20-year prison sentence for writing a few “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites, and a five-year one just for connecting with the Internet in an illegal manner. Few people dare to defy the state censorship and take such a risk."
http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=19335

manic expression

12th December 2009, 02:53

robbo203

12th December 2009, 10:18

Robbo's so desperate that he's now sourcing Reporters Without Borders, an imperialist-funded group dedicated to imperialist propaganda:

http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/02/content_8478041.htm

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1865

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/UnescoRSF.htm

It's not surprising that such an anti-socialist would, after showing us nothing but hot air this entire thread, parrot the rhetoric of a proven imperialist mouthpiece. Keep up the reactionary slander, Robbo, in addition to being mildly entertaining, it tells everyone exactly what they need to know about your brand of imperialist collaborationism.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Now Im an "anti-socialist imperialist collaborator" because I cite a report from RWB. Fuck off, idiot.

What strikes me about the infantile left - of which you are a prime example - is its complete inability to advance any sort of argment beyond sneering ad hominens. If the RWB has a tarnished reutation so be it. Im not concerned with its reputation, frankly. Im concerned solely with the veracity of evidence relating to this thread - in this case that there is heavy internet surveillence by the Cuban authorities. I actually know this to be the case quite independently of what the RWB might say, incidentally, since, as I said my partner who is spanish has contacts in Cuba who have corroborated this. Even "imperialist funded" organisations can sometimes get the facts right as you having had an "imperialist funded" education might possibly appreciate:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just a cursory trawl of the internet reveals many other sites that also point to the fact of internet censorship in Cuba

http://samibengharbia.com/2009/04/03/interview-with-robert-guerra-about-the-freedom-on-the-net-index

http://www.internet-freedom.info/reports/freedom-net-2009/cuba which has the following excerpt which specifically bears out what I was told via my partner by contacts in Cuba

The government divides access to web technology between the national intranet and the global internet; most Cubans only have access to the former, which consists of a national e-mail system, a Cuban encyclopedia, a pool of educational materials and open-access journals, Cuban websites, and foreign websites that are supportive of the Cuban government.8 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/l%20sdfootnote8sym)Cubans can legally access the internet only through government-approved institutions, such as the approximately 600Joven Clubs de La Computacion (Youth Computation Clubs) and points of access run by ETECSA; users are generally required to present identification to use computers at these sites.9 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/l%20sdfootnote9sym)Many neighborhoods in the main cities of Havana and Santiago advertise "internet" access in ETECSA kiosks, but field research has found that the kiosks often lack computers. Instead they have public phones for local and international calls with prepaid phone cards. The government also claims that all schools have computer laboratories; in practice, however, internet access is usually prohibited for students or limited to e-mail and supervised activities on the national intranet

http://www.digiactive.org/2008/03/10/tactic-digital-activism-without-the-internet-in-cuba/

http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/berkman-internet-democratization-and-authoritarian-regimes/

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/cuba-internet.htm

http://www.cpj.org/reports/2009/09/cuban-bloggers-offer-fresh-hope.php (http://www.cpj.org/reports/2009/09/cuban-bloggers-offer-fresh-hope.php)

If you have evidence to the contrary -that there is no internet survelliance in Cuba - then lets look at it. It would make a refreshing change to the pejorative drivel you have come out with thus far which only serves to expose just how weak your argument actually is.

ZeroNowhere

12th December 2009, 10:31

It's pretty stupid to consider Cuba capitalist, as capitalism without private owned property of means of production cannot exist. There are elements of capitalism but phrases like 'state capitalism' is just plain rubbish. We dont call libraries or state-owned hospitals forms of capitalism aswell..
"The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labour-power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individuals) as distinct from private capital, and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings. It is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself."

"Where the state is itself a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a “commodity” and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity."

manic expression

12th December 2009, 11:34

If the RWB has a tarnished reutation so be it. Im not concerned with its reputation, frankly.

I know you're not concerned with such trifles. If you cared about your sources' strength, you wouldn't cite such a terrible source. Once again, you're telling everyone exactly what they need to know about your rants: they're worthless and without basis. Thanks for exposing yourself as a slanderous hack once again.

Im concerned solely with the veracity of evidence relating to this thread - in this case that there is heavy internet surveillence by the Cuban authorities. I actually know this to be the case quite independently of what the RWB might say, incidentally, since, as I said my partner who is spanish has contacts in Cuba who have corroborated this.

OK, let's for a second assume that there's internet surveillance in Cuba. What, precisely, does this mean? Does it automatically mean that Cuba is undemocratic? No, it does not, as you would like us to believe. It's nothing but a wishful leap in logic by someone who has no argument. What your position rests on, really, is a complete obliviousness to the threat of imperialist agents in Cuba. US aggression against Cuba is well documented:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/05/200861503559611255.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/24/cuba.usa

Just a cursory trawl of the internet reveals many other sites that also point to the fact of internet censorship in Cuba

Too bad you couldn't go on a "cursory trawl" to figure out what the Cuban revolutionary government is trying to oppose. See above.

Nevertheless, your links here are worthless as well. Your first source cites Freedom House, which is another imperialist, anti-worker organization. Freedom House, among other crimes against workers, promoted the US invasion of Vietnam, refused to even cite US abuses in Guantanamo Bay, was headed by the neoconservative James Woolsey (a former director of the CIA who is a member of the right-wing PNAC). Your second link uses as sources both RSF and FH, both pro-imperialist groups. It's curious that Robbo's "contacts" join hands with capitalist mouthpieces, and should tell us all about Robbo's true allegiances.

Once again, Robbo's ideological allies on this issue (and doubtlessly others) end up being the worst sort of imperialists. Robbo seems happy, if not eager, to pile up the evidence of his imperialist collaborationism.

Your link to the International Herald Tribune is nothing but an editorial written by a right-wing exile. Your "digiactive" source makes assumption after assumption about Cuban policy with little basis, such as the charge that fewer internet cafes equals less internet access. The reality, however, is that internet access has been increasing thanks to the efforts of the government:

Private "black market" full internet access is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the underground Cuban economy. To offset this rapid growth of “black market accounts” or “account sharing” to uncensored information by a private citizens, the Government of Cuba is placing more computers into public schools, opening and operating “CyberCafes” (in Plaza de Armas and the Capitolio) and enabling widespread youth access to formal and Internet faciliated computer courses and a censored version of the Internet through universities, secondary schools, post offices and one hundred and fifty (150) socialist oriented, government supervised Youth Computer Clubs.

Now, of course a moralizing opportunist as yourself will cry foul at the words "censored version", but as you can see above, the goals of the government is to promote internet access while countering documented imperialist aggression. That means putting internet resources into schools and civic centers, and as the above shows us, that is precisely what Cuba is doing.

Your "irevolution" link gets facts completely wrong from the outset. It says non-state information is marginal in Cuba, but this is absurd, as one can listen to CNN and other American news networks with a simple radio in Havana. Your last link is merely about Cuban bloggers who are being permitted to write. It discusses some restrictions, but on the whole it shows that the bloggers have been able to write what they want. Their biggest complaint, actually, is that not enough people take the time to read their stuff, something you can hear from every blogger, everywhere. Further, when the article talks about actual government crackdowns, it veers off to the general dissident groupings of Cuba, which as we have seen, is guilty of taking money from imperialists in order to destabilize Cuba. Obviously, you didn't make the effort to read your own link, because it's hardly a condemnation of Cuba's policies.

If you have evidence to the contrary -that there is no internet survelliance in Cuba - then lets look at it.

That was never my claim, so go back and read my posts again, and try to understand what I wrote this time. Since you're dedicated to airing imperialist viewpoints and disregarding facts, I'm not holding my breath.

manic expression

12th December 2009, 11:46

robbo203

12th December 2009, 12:26

I know you're not concerned with such trifles. If you cared about your sources' strength, you wouldn't cite such a terrible source. Once again, you're telling everyone exactly what they need to know about your rants: they're worthless and without basis. Thanks for exposing yourself as a slanderous hack once again.
.

Yep. Here he goes again. The flood of ad hominens unabated. I repeat - whatever the reputation of the source what I am concerned with is the empirical veracity of the facts it reports. Thats all. Are the facts true or false. If you cant see this then there is no hope for you

OK, let's for a second assume that there's internet surveillance in Cuba. What, precisely, does this mean? Does it automatically mean that Cuba is undemocratic? No, it does not, as you would like us to believe. It's nothing but a wishful leap in logic by someone who has no argument. What your position rests on, really, is a complete obliviousness to the threat of imperialist agents in Cuba. US aggression against Cuba is well documented: .

Hilarious non sequitur, Im afraid. You dont prove that Cuba is not undemocratic by demonstrating that there is a reason for its lack of democracy. What you really mean to say is that Cuba is undemocratic because according to you there is a good reason for it to be undemocratic - namely US aggression. A point which I contest as well anyway. And, by the way, Cuba is manifestly undemocractic not simply for the reason that it engages in internet censorship. There are many other reasons beside which have amply documented

. It's curious that Robbo's "contacts" join hands with capitalist mouthpieces, and should tell us all about Robbo's true allegiances.

Once again, Robbo's ideological allies on this issue (and doubtlessly others) end up being the worst sort of imperialists. Robbo seems happy, if not eager, to pile up the evidence of his imperialist collaborationism..

Grow up kid. The world is little more complex than your simple-minded approach. The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend. Im no more a friend of US imperialism than you are but unlike you I have not been conned by the transperantly self-serving garbage that emanates from the Cuban state capitalist dictorship. The "contacts" I spoke of just ordinary Cuban workers who are not even particularly political as far as I can make out. They were just telling me partner the way things are there in Cuba and they certainly "joining hands with capitalist mouthpeices". You have an over-fertile imagination

Now, of course a moralizing opportunist as yourself will cry foul at the words "censored version", but as you can see above, the goals of the government is to promote internet access while countering documented imperialist aggression. That means putting internet resources into schools and civic centers, and as the above shows us, that is precisely what Cuba is doing.
..

And a moralising fool like you starts out by attaking me for daring to say that there is internet censorship in Cuba and ends up conceding that such censorship exists and moreover is entirely warranted to counter "documented imperialist aggression". Amusing to say the least.

That was never my claim, so go back and read my posts again, and try to understand what I wrote this time. Since you're dedicated to airing imperialist viewpoints and disregarding facts, I'm not holding my breath.

I see. So attacking Cuba's lack of democracy means one is airing "imperialist viewpoints". You truly are a jackass. And as for disregarding facts, that is a real rib-tickler. The facts in your case are of no particular import, all that matters in your eccentric worldview is whether or not the shit sticks sufficiently on the organisation conveying the said facts to relieve you of the duty of actually having to confront them

robbo203

12th December 2009, 12:58

Oh, and by the way, Engels wasn't talking about complete state ownership of the means of production in capitalism, because no such thing existed during his time (as now). Nowhere does he imply that capitalism can exist without private ownership of the means of production, without firms employing workers and exploiting them through commodity production, without capitalist interests in power..

Er, sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but Im afraid you are completely wrong. Engels is saying quite clearly that as long as workers remain wage workers the capitalist relation is not done away with the clear implication that even under complete state ownership as lomng as the wages system remains intact, capitalism will remain. Indeed he says quite clearly the more the state takes over the the productive forces the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The form in which capitalist ownership of the productive forces - whether by legal de jure ownership of capital by private individuals or whether by the state being the national capitalist - is not relevant in Engels' view to the existence of capitalism which is clearly demonstrable by the existence of generalised wage labour. Indeed his comments opn the joint stock company and the evolution of property forms in capitalism further bolster this interpretation

What Engels was saying, however, was that the modern state of his day (which didn't see a lasting socialist revolution) promoted capitalist interests through its conquest of state power. The "national capitalist", that is to say the capitalist state, was and remains a capitalist that pursues capitalist interests through governmental means...

Wrong again . The Engels quote says quite clearly "The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital". "no matter what its form, means exactly that!

Does this have ANYTHING to do with Cuba? No. Does this imply Cuba is capitalist? No. Does this imply that a society without the aforementioned pillars of capitalist society can be capitalist? No. Is Robbo cynically perverting Engels' words in a desperate bid to buffer his insipid rants? Yes....

I think the only one who is "cynically perverting Engels' words in a desperate bid to buffer his insipid rants" is you. Cuba is clearly state capitalist in marxian terms. Capital is largely concentrated in the hands of the state which Engels unambigously argues is the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital ... no matter what its form

Robbo then skips over the fact that no such institutions exist in Cuba, as well as the fact that he cannot and will not produce anything to show as much, and goes straight to another perversion of Marxism. Lenin was talking of "state capitalism" only in relation to NEP, and his definition of the term has absolutely no relation to your own. Lenin was talking of a limited market under the firm and unwavering control of the working class. Are you, Robbo, using the term in this manner? No, you're not, which makes your argument nothing but dishonesty and slander.....

Ahem.. Now you are getting a little carried away, arent you kid? I didnt actually make any "argument" about Lenin's use of the term state capitalism anyway. I merely quoted Lenin to counter Gnome Wesley's claim that "phrases like 'state capitalism' is just plain rubbish". Which goes to prove my point. You are not interested in facts or in what other people have to say. You are not interested in actually engaging in mature debate just in shovelling the shit so you dont have deal with the arguments that effectively blow away and pulverise your patheticaly dogmatic little worldview . Truly pathetic

manic expression

12th December 2009, 13:41

Yep. Here he goes again. The flood of ad hominens unabated. I repeat - whatever the reputation of the source what I am concerned with is the empirical veracity of the facts it reports. Thats all. Are the facts true or false. If you cant see this then there is no hope for you

The problem is that they aren't empirical, because they have a natural anti-worker slant. I've shown this time and again, the reports you're citing are as worthless as they are reactionary. You keep ignoring this, but pointing out the imperialist nature of your sources and allies, and thus the nature of your own arguments, is just pointing out facts.

Hilarious non sequitur, Im afraid. You dont prove that Cuba is not undemocratic by demonstrating that there is a reason for its lack of democracy.

You haven't pointed to a lack of democracy, you've instead pointed to the status of the internet in Cuba, which is again a leap in logic. Clearly, you're running away from your own positions. Until you present the slightest justification for your basic claims, which you haven't so far, you have nothing.

Grow up kid. The world is little more complex than your simple-minded approach. The enemy of an enemy is not necessarily a friend.

Perhaps, but when all of your ideological allies on this issue happen to be imperialists and reactionaries of the worst sort, then that's quite another thing entirely. In short, it means that you're firmly in the camp of US imperialism whether you're honest enough to admit it or not. In fact, the only apparent difference between your rhetoric and that of the American bourgeoisie is that you're more dishonest than they are.

I see. So attacking Cuba's lack of democracy means one is airing "imperialist viewpoints". You truly are a jackass. And as for disregarding facts, that is a real rib-tickler. The facts in your case are of no particular import, all that matters in your eccentric worldview is whether or not the shit sticks sufficiently on the organisation conveying the said facts to relieve you of the duty of actually having to confront them

Asserting that Cuba is undemocratic through a tangential and incorrect argument, one that is almost exclusively backed by imperialist sources and organizations, in order to slander the Cuban government is, at the very least, airing imperialist viewpoints. That sums it up quite well, actually.

The facts presented on this thread have supported my position. You don't have any facts, you have right-wing editorials, reactionary hit-pieces and slander. The links I've posted prove this to be true. Better luck next time.

manic expression

12th December 2009, 14:03

Er, sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but Im afraid you are completely wrong. Engels is saying quite clearly that as long as workers remain wage workers the capitalist relation is not done away with the clear implication that even under complete state ownership as lomng as the wages system remains intact, capitalism will remain. Indeed he says quite clearly the more the state takes over the the productive forces the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit.

All of that is dependent upon the existence of capitalist relations, which you've conveniently dodged time and again. Is there private ownership of the means of production in Cuba? No. Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? No. Does commodity production form the "cell" of Cuban society (as Marx said of capitalism in Capital)? No. Is profit extracted from the exploitation of the workers? No.

Neither de jure nor de facto, legal nor illegal.

So no, your argument is based on only two things: first, an acute blindness to the reality of Cuban society, and second, an admitted twisting of the words of Engels and Lenin (you'll admit to it below). The duplicitous nature of your position is made plain by your own words.

Wrong again . The Engels quote says quite clearly "The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital". "no matter what its form, means exactly that!

It means exactly that, in the 19th Century, when no socialist revolution had succeeded for more than a few months. When it comes to the Commune, both Marx and Engels enthusiastically supported the dictatorship of the proletariat (in which the agents of the Commune were paid a workmen's wage, as Marx put it). Your attempt to equivocate Engels' words on the capitalist state with every state, everywhere, is nothing but wishful thinking from an anti-Marxist who cannot grasp the subject or purpose of Engels' writings. Keep twisting his words, though, and make sure you put them in bold so you feel better about having no argument.

I think the only one who is "cynically perverting Engels' words in a desperate bid to buffer his insipid rants" is you. Cuba is clearly state capitalist in marxian terms. Capital is largely concentrated in the hands of the state which Engels unambigously argues is the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital ... no matter what its form

You've done nothing to justify such an assertion precisely because the "marxian terms" you offer are anti-Marxist

Ahem.. Now you are getting a little carried away, arent you kid? I didnt actually make any "argument" about Lenin's use of the term state capitalism anyway. I merely quoted Lenin to counter Gnome Wesley's claim that "phrases like 'state capitalism' is just plain rubbish". Which goes to prove my point. You are not interested in facts or in what other people have to say. You are not interested in actually engaging in mature debate just in shovelling the shit so you dont have deal with the arguments that effectively blow away and pulverise your patheticaly dogmatic little worldview . Truly pathetic

I didn't get carried away at all, I explained how your position lacks any substance whatsoever.

Gnome Wesley was referring to YOUR use of the phrase "state capitalism", which has a definition that is essentially the opposite of Lenin's definition of the term. Therefore, you are not only shown to be twisting Lenin's words (as with Engels), but you've now admitted to it yourself. Just as you put wholly irrelevant portions of your posts in bold to distract from the emptiness of your posts, but you've put your own hypocrisy and dishonesty in bold for everyone to see. As I said, you're telling everyone exactly what they need to know about your anti-socialist slander.

robbo203

12th December 2009, 14:58

The problem is that they aren't empirical, because they have a natural anti-worker slant. I've shown this time and again, the reports you're citing are as worthless as they are reactionary. You keep ignoring this, but pointing out the imperialist nature of your sources and allies, and thus the nature of your own arguments, is just pointing out facts..

You havent "shown" anything. This is the point. You are not interested in facts merely in endlessly indulging in ad homenen arguments. The facts according to you can be disregarded as invalid if they come out of the mouths of what you deem to be reactionary organisations with a "natural anti-worker" slant. If such an organisation were to say that there is considerable evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as the force of gravity operating upon objects on the earth's surface, you would dismiss such a claim as displaying "anti-worker" bias becuase it emanates from a suspect source. This an almost childlike black or white view of the world. There are goodies and baddies in the world. Either everything you have to say about the world is correct - if you are goodie - or everything you say is just lies - if you are a baddie. It ia rather sad to hear this from someone who I presume to be an adult. I often quote figures from UN sources on world food production, or GDP or population changes. Must I now jettison all this because presumably according to you the UN is just a lackey of the imperialist powers. Pathetic

You haven't pointed to a lack of democracy, you've instead pointed to the status of the internet in Cuba, which is again a leap in logic. Clearly, you're running away from your own positions. Until you present the slightest justification for your basic claims, which you haven't so far, you have nothing...

More rubbish. Evidently you didnt read my earlier posts but only focussed on the one dealing with internet survelliance. To your failing of ignorance I must now add one of inattentiveness.

Perhaps, but when all of your ideological allies on this issue happen to be imperialists and reactionaries of the worst sort, then that's quite another thing entirely. In short, it means that you're firmly in the camp of US imperialism whether you're honest enough to admit it or not. In fact, the only apparent difference between your rhetoric and that of the American bourgeoisie is that you're more dishonest than they are....

FFS. Well , now at least we can all see all too clearly that you have completely lost the plot. I mean "completely". So all that separates me from the American borgeoisie (why American BTW? I live in Spain) is that I am more dishonest then they are. Well all I can say is that its good to hear that the American bourgeoisie calling for the abolition of the wages system, and for the establisment of genuine commnism. Evidently the American bourgeoise are a lot more revolutionary and communist minded than you will ever be in that case :laugh::laugh:

Asserting that Cuba is undemocratic through a tangential and incorrect argument, one that is almost exclusively backed by imperialist sources and organizations, in order to slander the Cuban government is, at the very least, airing imperialist viewpoints. That sums it up quite well, actually.
....

But you yourself have agreed that there is internet censorship in Cuba (and sought to justify this) which BTW is only one of many grounds upon which the claim that Cuba is a political dictatorship is based. Its quite amusing your diatribes becuase the more you wrigglew and squirm the deeper the whole that you dig for yourself. You keep on tying yourself up in knots like the claim that you make that link I provided about Cuban bloggers. You say "Obviously, you didn't make the effort to read your own link, because it's hardly a condemnation of Cuba's policies" Ha ha ha. Read it again, kid, , and I think even you will see that it does

<EM><STRONG>The Cuban government has not put in place a sophisticated system for Web censorship such as that used by

manic expression

12th December 2009, 15:17

You havent "shown" anything. This is the point.

I've shown that your assertions are based primarily on imperialist sources, and I've shown that this in part defines the nature of your position. I've shown that imperialist aggression against Cuba is not to be taken lightly, and does affect a great deal of Cuban policy. I've shown that you are making large leaps in logic, and that your conclusions are baseless. I've shown how your own words condemn you as both clueless and dishonest.

More rubbish. Evidently you didnt read my earlier posts but only focussed on the one dealing with internet survelliance. To your failing of ignorance I must now add one of inattentiveness.Was I supposed to take that pile of imperialist-fueled hot air seriously? The fact is that you have not given the slightest valid justification for your absurd conclusions.

FFS. Well , now at least we can all see all too clearly that you have completely lost the plot. I mean "completely". So all that separates me from the American borgeoisie (why American BTW? I live in Spain) is that I am more dishonest then they are.Yes, basically. Your ideology on this matter (and others, surely enough) consists entirely of parroting imperialist propaganda, simply with the additional dishonesty of supposed "leftism". Your "leftist" arguments, which have absolutely nothing to do with your criticisms of Cuba (see above), are a good example of this dishonesty. Your words show as much, your choice of sources shows as much.

Your manufactured surprise to this reality does little to help your case.

But you yourself have agreed that there is internet censorship in Cuba (and sought to justify this) which BTW is only one of many grounds upon which the claim that Cuba is a political dictatorship is based.And? The Commune censored quite a bit and carried out actions that make censorship look mild, it's only natural for workers to suppress their enemies in certain instances.

Its quite amusing your diatribes becuase the more you wrigglew and squirm the deeper the whole that you dig for yourself. You keep on tying yourself up in knots like the claim that you make that link I provided about Cuban bloggers. You say "Obviously, you didn't make the effort to read your own link, because it's hardly a condemnation of Cuba's policies" Ha ha ha. Read it again, kid, , and I think even you will see that it doesI actually read it, you failed to understand it. It talked of bloggers who are permitted to write and publish their works through the internet. From this, you conclude that Cuba is undemocratic. Obviously, you can't comprehend the terms of your own positions, probably because they're incomprehensible themselves.

robbo203

12th December 2009, 15:43

All of that is dependent upon the existence of capitalist relations, which you've conveniently dodged time and again. Is there private ownership of the means of production in Cuba? No. Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? No. Does commodity production form the "cell" of Cuban society (as Marx said of capitalism in Capital)? No. Is profit extracted from the exploitation of the workers? No.
.

Lets clear up this silliness once and for all

How pray is the existence of "capitalist relations" demonstrated in Engels's quote. Answer? By the fact, that the workers still remain wage workers. While they remain wage workers, while in other words they work for wages, the capitalist relation is not done away with. You still have capitalism. This is clear as daylight. As a non marxist, you might disagree with Engels but that is still what Engels is saying neverthless.

Now transfer this observation to Cuba. Do Cuban workers work for a wage? Of course they do. Hence there is capitalism. Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? Again of course. Its not (in the main) private individuals capitalists that do this, it is the state acting as Engels put it as the "national capitalist" that does. it Does commodity production form the "cell" of Cuban society? Of course it does. How the hell do you think Cuban workers get the things they need to live upon in Cuba today.? Do they materialise out of thin air.? Do they grow on trees?. No. They come in the form of commodities. Do you know what a commodity is? It is someting that is bought and sold on a market. Markets exist everywhere in Cuba. Did you not realise this? I guess not

It means exactly that, in the 19th Century, when no socialist revolution had succeeded for more than a few months. When it comes to the Commune, both Marx and Engels enthusiastically supported the dictatorship of the proletariat (in which the agents of the Commune were paid a workmen's wage, as Marx put it). Your attempt to equivocate Engels' words on the capitalist state with every state, everywhere, is nothing but wishful thinking from an anti-Marxist who cannot grasp the subject or purpose of Engels' writings. Keep twisting his words, though, and make sure you put them in bold so you feel better about having no argument..

You are the one twisting his words, sunshine. Not me. Engels said quite clearly "The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital". No matter what its form means exatly what it says. Any state in the modern era is ipso facto a capitalist state. It cannot be anything else. The logic of Engels' whole argument supports this interpretation. The state is an instrument of class rule. The existence of a state therefore necessarily points to the existence of a class society. Since capitalism is the last form of class society in existence, the modern state must therefore necessarily be a capitalist state.

Even if workers did take over this state and instal a transitional proletarian dictatorship - I concept which I frankly and freely reject - this would still be a capitalism . Though the workers might make despotic inroads to quote the Manifesto into capitalist property, there would still be capitalists. And where you have capitalists and workers (and you cannot have one without the other) then you have capitalism QED

Gnome Wesley was referring to YOUR use of the phrase "state capitalism", which has a definition that is essentially the opposite of Lenin's definition of the term.

.. Incorrect. GM was talking about the use of the phrase state capitalism per se as any objective reading of his post would reveal. He might not have meant that but that is what his post comes acorss as saying

RED DAVE

12th December 2009, 15:49

"The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labour-power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individuals) as distinct from private capital, and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings. It is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself."

"Where the state is itself a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a “commodity” and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity."http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm

RED DAVE

robbo203

12th December 2009, 16:01

I've shown that your assertions are based primarily on imperialist sources, and I've shown that this in part defines the nature of your position. I've shown that imperialist aggression against Cuba is not to be taken lightly, and does affect a great deal of Cuban policy. I've shown that you are making large leaps in logic, and that your conclusions are baseless. I've shown how your own words condemn you as both clueless and dishonest..

Well obviously you are not going to address my point at all which is simply that the veracity or otherwise of a claim should assessed on its grounds and is in no way dependent on the reputation or otherwise of the organisation putting forward this claim. OK fine. Stick with your quasi-religious approach to political debate. Dont bother yourself with verifying or refuting such facts empirically. Just keep on piling up the ad hominen insults and make sure the shit pile is high enough so you can feel comfortably ensconced behind it secure in your safe little dogmatic worldview . It is about as productive debating with you as it would be a moonie or some other weird religious cult. You have an awful lot in common if only you realised this

I actually read it, you failed to understand it. It talked of bloggers who are permitted to write and publish their works through the internet. From this, you conclude that Cuba is undemocratic. Obviously, you can't comprehend the terms of your own positions, probably because they're incomprehensible themselves.

Nope. Again either you cannot read or you are just plain stupid. I told you quite clearly what led me to conclude that Cuba was undemocratic from this article and it was not as you idiotically claimed becuase bloggers are permitted to blog in Cuba, it was because of the excerpt which I reproduced for you to see which I will reproduce again

The Cuban government has not put in place a sophisticated system for Web censorship such as that used by China, but it has enacted a very repressive regulatory framework. It is one of few countries in the Americas with explicit censorship rules intended, as described in Decree 209 of 1996 (http://www.conectatecuba.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:decreto-2091996-sobre-el-acceso-de-la-republica-de-cuba-a-redes-de-alcance-global&catid=125:resoluciones&Itemid=56), to "defend the country’s interests and security." As with traditional media, which is constitutionally controlled by the Communist Party, online information is restricted by an inter-ministry commission charged with "regulating the information that comes from worldwide information webs" and ensuring the country’s cyber security and defense. Online activities are regulated by Resolution 179 of 2008 (http://www.informatica-juridica.com/anexos/Res%20179%20de%202008%20MIC.pdf) of the Ministry of Communication and Computing. According to Article 19, Internet service providers are obligated to "adopt the necessary measures to impede access to sites with content that is contrary to social interest, ethics, and good customs; as well as the use of applications that affects the integrity and security of the state

manic expression

12th December 2009, 16:12

Lets clear up this silliness once and for all

How pray is the existence of "capitalist relations" demonstrated in Engels's quote. Answer? By the fact, that the workers still remain wage workers. While they remain wage workers, while in other words they work for wages, the capitalist relation is not done away with. You still have capitalism. This is clear as daylight. As a non marxist, you might disagree with Engels but that is still what Engels is saying neverthless.

Workers in the Paris Commune received wages. Did Engels call the Commune capitalist? Did he? I didn't think so.

The point is that wages, in themselves, do not denote capitalism; to assert as much is to abandon Marxism in favor of utopian moralizing. In contrast, the nature of wages within commodity production, within capitalism, denote capitalism. Here we go:

To have a system of wage-labor in any meaningful sense of the term, we musn't look far. Capital is the defining aspect of capitalism. Workers, then, would be chained to capital in capitalism. Capital, of course, would be used to directly exploit labor-power. However, this only occurs in marginal and illegal circumstances in the Cuba, the black market being a notable example. Thus, the wage system in the Cuba cannot be compared to that of capitalism in any serious sense.

We should go deeper than this. This is what Mandel had to say about it:

So long as only partial commodity production survives, money does not and cannot have the same functions as under capitalism or even under petty commodity production; it cannot become large-scale capital, and only in marginal cases (“black market production”) does it become a means of direct exploitation of labor-power.

This brings up the point of commodity production and its relation to labor, which is key to understanding the nature of wages. The point is that while wages exist, their position, their purpose and their consequences are entirely different. As Mandel pointed out, so-called "partial commodity production" had not the potential to exploit workers. Marx saw the commodity as the "cell" of bourgeois society, it drives everything, centers everything upon itself. In the Cuba, the economy is centrally planned by people who own no property; in this case, how are we to believe commodity production is generalized, and therefore the "cell" of society? The commodity production formula put forth by Marx in Capital are nowhere to be found in the Cuban economy.

From Capital:

"First stage: The capitalist appears as a buyer on the commodity- and the labour-market; his money is transformed into commodities, or it goes through the circulation act M — C. Second Stage: Productive consumption of the purchased commodities by the capitalist. He acts as a capitalist producer of commodities; his capital passes through the process of production. The result is a commodity of more value than that of the elements entering into its production.
Third Stage: The capitalist returns to the market as a seller; his commodities are turned into money; or they pass through the circulation act C — M."

This is simply nonexistent in Cuba. Further, as Mandel put it briefly in relation to the Soviet Union:

There is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity.

Due to this, wage labor, as it exists in capitalist society, has no basis with which to exist in Cuba, as Cuba's economy is generally similar in these respects to the USSR.

Now transfer this observation to Cuba. Do Cuban workers work for a wage? Of course they do. Hence there is capitalism. Do capitalists employ workers through capitalist enterprises? Again of course. Its not (in the main) private individuals capitalists that do this, it is the state acting as Engels put it as the "national capitalist" that does. it Does commodity production form the "cell" of Cuban society? Of course it does. How the hell do you think Cuban workers get the things they need to live upon in Cuba today.? Do they materialise out of thin air.? Do they grow on trees?. No. They come in the form of commodities. Do you know what a commodity is? It is someting that is bought and sold on a market. Markets exist everywhere in Cuba. Did you not realise this? I guess not

First, see above. Second, the state employs workers to be sure, but the "national capitalist" cannot exist if there is no empowered capitalist class. In Cuba, there is none, and instead, workers are employed essentially by themselves through the worker state. Third, generalized commodity production does not exist in Cuba, as (paraphrasing Mandel) there is neither a market for large means of production nor for manpower, and labor-power has ceased to be a commodity. The rule of the law of value is at work in Cuba, not a capitalist market. This means that the distribution of goods and services and the like do not revolve around a bourgeois system. Also, see above. Fourth, when Marxists refer to markets, we talk of the buying and selling of labor, not a physical place where you go to buy apples or oranges.

You are the one twisting his words, sunshine. Not me. Engels said quite clearly "The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital". No matter what its form means exatly what it says. Any state in the modern era is ipso facto a capitalist state. It cannot be anything else.

And what of the Commune? It was certainly a state, with an army, a body of representatives that made up a government, a government that created a body of laws (however ad-hoc), mechanisms for the enforcement of those laws and other inherent institutions of a state.

Engels enthusiastically supported the Commune. You oppose it. Therefore, you're an anti-Marxist, an anti-socialist and a bourgeois charlatan masquerading as a leftist. You blindly say that the state is an instrument of class rule, and yet you cannot realize that Engels was tireless in his promotion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, especially when in conflict with the anarchists of his day.

But since you're an anti-socialist, that should just encourage you to further spread your nonsense.

Even if workers did take over this state and instal a transitional proletarian dictatorship - I concept which I frankly and freely reject - this would still be a capitalism . Though the workers might make despotic inroads to quote the Manifesto into capitalist property, there would still be capitalists. And where you have capitalists and workers (and you cannot have one without the other) then you have capitalism QED

Not according to Marx and Engels; capitalism was essentially abolished by the workers of the Commune, they recognized this. To even this plain statement of Marx and Engels, you run and hide for fear of your own hypocrisy. Working-class state power means, almost intrinsically, an abolition of capitalism, and the government of Cuba is undeniable proof of this. Your inability to respond effectively to my questions, your reliance on the twisting of Engels' and Lenin's words, your myopic equation of wages with capitalism (according to your insipid logic, Charlemagne was a bourgeois capitalist) and more are greater proof of this. When put side-by-side with one another, your position is laughably contrary to socialism itself, as it should be.

Incorrect. GM was talking about the use of the phrase state capitalism per se as any objective reading of his post would reveal. He might not have meant that but that is what his post comes acorss as saying

He was talking in relation to your post, period. It "came across" differently to you because you wanted to read it in a way that served your slanderous purposes. In short, you're being dishonest again.

manic expression

12th December 2009, 16:21

Well obviously you are not going to address my point at all which is simply that the veracity or otherwise of a claim should assessed on its grounds and is in no way dependent on the reputation or otherwise of the organisation putting forward this claim. OK fine.

So you have no problem with using anti-worker, pro-imperialist sources to outline an argument that essentially agrees with those sources? I thought as much. What you're saying is that you have no interest in providing reputable sources, you simply want to cite sources that agree with you, regardless of how absurdly disreputable they may be.

In short, your argument is based on a willful disdain for the facts. I'm glad you've come to admit it.

Nope. Again either you cannot read or you are just plain stupid. I told you quite clearly what led me to conclude that Cuba was undemocratic from this article and it was not as you idiotically claimed becuase bloggers are permitted to blog in Cuba, it was because of the excerpt which I reproduced for you to see which I will reproduce again

Once again, putting a quote in bold doesn't prove anything. Since you were unable to answer me the first time:

And? The Commune censored quite a bit and carried out actions that make censorship look mild, it's only natural for workers to suppress their enemies in certain instances.

Keep it up, you're telling everyone what they need to know about your slander.

ZeroNowhere

12th December 2009, 17:19

Workers in the Paris Commune received wages. Did Engels call the Commune capitalist? Did he? I didn't think so.He called it the dictatorship of the proletariat. So yes.

robbo203

12th December 2009, 17:23

So you have no problem with using anti-worker, pro-imperialist sources to outline an argument that essentially agrees with those sources? I thought as much. What you're saying is that you have no interest in providing reputable sources, you simply want to cite sources that agree with you, regardless of how absurdly disreputable they may be.

In short, your argument is based on a willful disdain for the facts. I'm glad you've come to admit it..

My god, youre a glutton for punishment. Your inanity knows no bounds. Now I have, according to you, no interest in "providing reputable sources". I still cannot seem to get it through your thick skull that its not the reputation of the source that primarily interests me - yes of course Im interested in "providing reputabe sources" - it is the veracity of what is claimed that is my primary interest. Even the most disreputable organisation can still provide factual evidential material that accords with reality. Do you not understand this point? Are you being deliberately slow on the uptake or obtuse out of the desire to deliberately prolong this argument? It is you who is one who is disdaining the facts by not actually countering them factually preferring instead to focus solely on the "reputation" of their sources. All sources needed to be questioned yes, including those loyal to the cuban dictatorship, but the facts about censorship, about laws that ban strikes or oppositional activities are facts that stand in their own right independently of whatever source might quote them.

Geddit?

The really sad thing about this stupid government-inspired tactic of slandering all opposition to the Cuban dictatorship (which you like a complete fool mindlessly parrot) as implying support for US imperialism or being in cahoots with US imperialism is that it is pushing many Cubans towards a more accommodating and sympathetic approach towards the latter even towards regarding the latter as as "potental liberator" . There are plenty of opponents of the regime inside and outside Cuba who are not sympathetically disposed towards US imperialism in any way shape or form

If I were to descend to your level of debate I would almost be inclined to call you a lackey to US imperialism (which Im not suggesting you are before you get into another simple minced rant). Afterall thats one way of recruiting support for US imperialism

Keep it up, you're telling everyone what they need to know about your slander.

Hilarious. Youve got youreself so tied up in knots that you dont seem to realise that your coment above is in response to your comment below
Quote:
And? The Commune censored quite a bit and carried out actions that make censorship look mild, it's only natural for workers to suppress their enemies in certain instances.

robbo203

12th December 2009, 17:29

Workers in the Paris Commune received wages. Did Engels call the Commune capitalist? Did he? I didn't think so..

Yes.

From Engels' introduction of the Civil War in France

Either they decreed reforms which the republican bourgeoisie had failed to pass solely out of cowardice, but which provided a necessary basis for the free activity of the working class – such as the realization of the principle that in relation to the state, religion is a purely private matter – or they promulgated decrees which were in the direct interests of the working class and to some extent cut deeply into the old order of society.

Meaning that the old order of society - capitalism - remained still very much intact despite such proletarian measures

manic expression

12th December 2009, 17:41

My god, youre a glutton for punishment. Your inanity knows no bounds. Now I have, according to you, no interest in "providing reputable sources". I still cannot seem to get it through your thick skull that its not the reputation of the source that primarily interests me

Exactly, because that's the only way you can justify to yourself the citation of known pro-imperialist and anti-worker mouthpieces. You have no interest in the reputation of a source, you only care about superficial support for your baseless slander. The very fact that you admit this just underlines your duplicity even further.

- yes of course Im interested in "providing reputabe sources" - it is the veracity of what is claimed that is my primary interest. Even the most disreputable organisation can still provide factual evidential material that accords with reality.

And how do you prove that they accord with reality? By sourcing disreputable sources, that's how. Your circle of slander doesn't end.

What is at the heart of this matter is your belief that you needn't argue with facts. So long as an article agrees with you, it doesn't matter that it's an editorial, or an obvious hit-piece, or a pile of imperialist propaganda. You've cited all of those multiple times, and so it's safe to conclude that you simply don't care about facts.

That you've quit trying to argue your positions entirely just lends more credibility to that conclusion.

The really sad thing about this stupid government-inspired tactic of slandering all opposition to the Cuban dictatorship (which you like a complete fool mindlessly parrot) as implying support for US imperialism or being in cahoots with US imperialism is that it is pushing many Cubans towards a more accommodating and sympathetic approach towards the latter even towards regarding the latter as as "potental liberator" . There are plenty of opponents of the regime inside and outside Cuba who are not sympathetically disposed towards US imperialism in any way shape or form

Any evidence for us on that claim? I can't wait to see which imperialist propaganda outlet you're going to use this time (if you even try to justify your claim, that is).

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. Oswaldo Paya is a good example of a dissident who isn't in cahoots with imperialism, and it's why he's allowed to push his views in Cuba, however un-socialist they may be. In fact, Oswaldo Paya was allowed to collect the Sakharov Prize from the EU, which is named after an anti-communist.

What's more is that Oswaldo Paya criticizes other "dissidents" for accepting funds and support from imperialists. Even he recognizes what you fail to see.

You might like to think so, but US imperialism is wholly opposed by the Cuban working class. Cubans remain loyal to the revolution, and even the CIA admitted this:

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/loyal.htm

Anti-socialist slander like your own only emboldens the will of the Cuban workers. My arguments defend their gains.

I would almost be inclined to call you a lackey to US imperialism (which Im not suggesting you are before you get into another simple minced rant). Afterall thats one way of recruiting support for US imperialism

No, sorry, that doesn't fly at all. The actions of the Cuban revolutionary government have pulled more people into the anti-imperialist cause than almost any other entity today. They also enrage the friends of imperialism, which is why you're getting so predictably flustered at this point, and showing everyone how bankrupt and anti-socialist your arguments are.

Pogue

12th December 2009, 17:41

Well the commune was a revolutionary society, a society in transition. It had that revolutionary spirit. Its up to you to judge whether Cuba is either that or just a new class society.

manic expression

12th December 2009, 17:49

From Engels' introduction of the Civil War in France

Either they decreed reforms which the republican bourgeoisie had failed to pass solely out of cowardice, but which provided a necessary basis for the free activity of the working class – such as the realization of the principle that in relation to the state, religion is a purely private matter – or they promulgated decrees which were in the direct interests of the working class and to some extent cut deeply into the old order of society.

Meaning that the old order of society - capitalism - remained still very much intact despite such proletarian measures

You don't know how to read. To "cut deeply into" means to work against, to strike against or to injure. Of course the "old order" still existed...Paris is only one city in a big world. If I say that the French Revolution "cut deeply into" the institutions and ideas of absolutism and/or feudalism, does it mean that Robespierre was a royalist? :lol:

Your entire worldview, clearly, rests on an extensive substructure of inexplicable misunderstandings.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th December 2009, 17:57

My my my, you have all turned this into a great advert for Socialism. I'm sure there won't be many newbies turned on by this slanging match, which is barely passable for intellectual debate.

What I will say is that yes, many of us support Cuba. However, it is mindless to talk of censorship, of the internet for instance, as a good thing. It is not. It is understandable, to a point, but not excusable, and so should not be so readily defended. Also, the de facto domination of those in 'politics' associated with the Communist Party should also be addressed. Cuba is not a dictatorship, it has a democratic deficit. That is, its constitution, and the political setup of the country with a grassroots democracy, and the CDRs, provide a theoretical framework for a real participative democracy. That this is not always mirrored in practice is as a result of many factors. The prime factor is most probably aggression and intrigue on the part of the US. However, this has then most probably also led to wrong positions being adopted by Castro et al, in particular the internal repression of citizens, via internet censorship, the use of CDRs (to a debateable extent) to keep tabs on coutner revolutionaries (althoguh conversely, you could argue that this is a necessary evil, much as the ruling class in Britain view the activities of ACPO as necessary), and the hegemony (probably, it is difficult to tell) of the Communist Party on political life.

This goes in particular to Robbo: Although (when emotions aren't clouding us) we understand that there are real problems in Cuba, we maintain our support for Castro and the Socialist project in Cuba because we can understand the chain of events that have led to certain amounts of what is termed 'repression.' It is also worth noting that there is not 'repression' on anywhere near the level of the DPRK or China, for example.
There have been a few hundred state executions since the revolution (I can't find the figure for the whole period, but between 1959-87, when repression was supposedly at it's height, the figure was 237), which compares well with many other nations, Capitalist, Socialist or other.

In the end, Robbo, you will find that any Socialist revolution will be met with a huge, incorrigible level of resistance from the Capitalists. As nice as it would be, establishing a multi-Socialist party democracy, allowing all people the right of movement, assembly, protest and the right to distribute counter-revolutionary propaganda, would all likely lead to the undermining of the revolution.

History tells us that Capitalists will embrace the Labour/Social Democratic parties that turn neo liberal, that they will accept, with indignation, a Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist state such as Venezuela in its current form, but will abhor and ultimately declare war on any nation operating under the guise of Socialism. This is unavoidable fact, and we are in the difficult position of having to come up with better solutions than defending 'democracy' or token election days every 4-5 years, in the face of the threat of the revolution being undermined or defeated.