protest in cuba

[mannetje]

Is it really forbidden in Cuba to protest? I've never been in Cuba so I can't really judge because I don't know how is to be a cuban anno 2009.:confused:

[Eat the Rich]

Protesting is practicaly banned in Cuba.
The protest as a way of demonstrating disagreement with something, is a way of expression forced upon the population due to the lack of real participatory democracy. In a socialist system, people shouldn't have to protest, but bring their concerns to be debated and democraticaly decided upon in the workers' and peoples' councils.

This though does not apply in Cuba, because there is no real workers democracy. So the need for protesting exists among the population. The population though, cannot express that need, because the bureaucracy compels them not to.

[mannetje]

[QUOTE = Eat the Rich; 1545870] Protesteren praktisch is verboden in Cuba.
Het protest als een manier van demonstreren niet eens is met iets, is een manier van expressie opgedrongen de bevolking als gevolg van het ontbreken van echte participatieve democratie. In een socialistisch systeem moet mensen niet te protesteren, maar brengen hun bezorgdheid te worden besproken en democraticaly besloten de arbeiders 'en raden mensen.

Dit echter niet van toepassing is in Cuba, want er is geen echte werknemers democratie. Dus nodig hebben voor protesteren bestaat onder de bevolking. De bevolking echter niet kan uitdrukken dat nodig hebben, omdat de bureaucratie dwingt hen niet te doen. [/ QUOTE]
do you know the punishment on protesting in cuba?:confused:

[gorillafuck]

Protesting is practicaly banned in Cuba.
The protest as a way of demonstrating disagreement with something, is a way of expression forced upon the population due to the lack of real participatory democracy. In a socialist system, people shouldn't have to protest, but bring their concerns to be debated and democraticaly decided upon in the workers' and peoples' councils.

This though does not apply in Cuba, because there is no real workers democracy. So the need for protesting exists among the population. The population though, cannot express that need, because the bureaucracy compels them not to.
Though we need to be cautious whether the protest is legitimately for more workers control or if it's the kind that has a suspicious amount of CIA personnel in it.

[Eat the Rich]

do you know the punishment on protesting in cuba?Judging by the fact that someone who said on camera that he is hungry got 2 years in jail, I imagine a few years in prison for those who "instigate" it. Plus going on the books as a counter-revolutionary, which means that they will be marked as such for the rest of their lives.


The Cubans might not have the right to protest, but they enjoy significant gains in temrs of living standards compared to other Latin American countries. This is due to their planned economy, albeit bureaucratic. Also don't forget that in other countries of South America, protests usualy don't change a lot and people receive similar treatment. My comrade was in Colombia and participated in a strike, only to find out that his family received death threats from paramilitaries, so they had to flee the country. This is only to understand that we should defend the Cuban revolution despite it being deformed and strive for a workers democracy in Cuba, Latin America and the rest of the world.


Though we need to be cautious whether the protest is legitimately for more workers control or if it's the kind that has a suspicious amount of CIA personnel in it.

I disagree. In order for a protest to be massive and a threat to any system, it needs popular support. In Cuba the vast majority is pro-revolution, so protests would be little threat to the system, although I agree that reactionary protests should be banned. As I said before, Idealy there would be no need to protest, but there is due to the lack of workers democracy. These protests can ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bureaucracy (ie a political revolution), provided that they have clear ideological direction, preferably by a workers party.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

[mannetje]

and the terrible u$a media is bringing all kinds of bad news out of cuba.
I want to go there if i have the money and time.

[mykittyhasaboner]

In a socialist system, people shouldn't have to protest, but bring their concerns to be debated and democraticaly decided upon in the workers' and peoples' councils.

This though does not apply in Cuba, because there is no real workers democracy.
:lol: A lot of claims for someone who hasn't done their research. It's understandable why someone would think this and not even second guess it. You know, since its cool to call socialist states "state capitalist bureaucracy" without even paying attention to the government/economic structure, but unfortunately the truth as told by plenty of different sources will disagree with your assertions. Of course, Cuba might not live up to the standard of "real worker's democracy"; but in any case it's the probably one of the best examples of democracy we have in the world today.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/445/26240
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/democracy_in_cuba.htm
http://www.queensu.ca/philosophy/cuba/philosophical_issues.html




So the need for protesting exists among the population. The population though, cannot express that need, because the bureaucracy compels them not to.
Oh of course! TEH EVIL BUREACRACY is so horrible! They send doctors to third world countries and have aided internationalist liberation struggles for pure selfish gain and profit!

[Eat the Rich]

A lot of claims for someone who hasn't done their research. It's understandable why someone would think this and not even second guess it. You know, since its cool to call socialist states "state capitalist bureaucracy" without even paying attention to the government/economic structure, but unfortunately the truth as told by plenty of different sources will disagree with your assertionsFirst of all it`s you that asserts that I called Cuba state capitalist. It is a workers state, with a nationalized planned economy. What I called Cuba, was a deformed workers state. This deformation exists because of the lack of genuine workers control on the means of production.

The central authority of Cuba, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, exerts non-democratic control. Proof of this is that while in a workers state, democraticaly workers delegates decide upon those who will have central excecutive power, in Cuba it seems to be hereditary, centraly appointed and with a lack of population control. Prime example, Fidel appoints Raul (not the only one of course).

Celia Heart, who was an influential member of the Communist Party (unfortunately died last year), during her visit in Canada, described how while at a local level democratic control exists, the power of the local councils is very limited. The true power lies in the Communist Party bureaucracy, which is not controled by the workers of Cuba. I think she was absolutely right.



Oh of course! TEH EVIL BUREACRACY is so horrible! They send doctors to third world countries and have aided internationalist liberation struggles for pure selfish gain and profit!Again you are making a strawman argument. It is true that the bureaucracy of Cuba sends doctors etc. It is also true that there is no genuine workers democracy. That being said, the situation in Cuba is a lot better than the USSR.

Also remember, your good friend is someone who praises you when you are right and criticizes you when you are wrong. I am a friend of Cuba. Not being a blind supporter of the bureaucracy like yourself, I see two tendencies in the Cuban bureaucracy. The one that wants to keep the planned economy and the pro-China one. Until now it has been a delicate balance. But with the economic crisis looming in, this equilibrium can shift to either of those two ends. The thing is that I can see that and I won`t be caught by surprise in the future. A blind supporter of the bureaucracy like yourself though won`t see it. So when it happens, you will probably lose hope and become demoralized, just like those Stalinists in the early 90s.

Another conclusion I should make, is that only genuine workers control can safeguard the revolution. Remember, I am criticizing Cuba from the standpoint of a friend, while defending Cuba from imperialism and counter-revolution.

For my part I will reccomend Jorge Martin`s excellent (and long) two part article. Part one (http://www.marxist.com/cuba-50-years-later.htm) and Part Two (http://www.marxist.com/cuba-50-years-later-part-two.htm) . It`s worth the read.

[Yehuda Stern]

A lot of claims for someone who hasn't done their research. It's understandable why someone would think this and not even second guess it. You know, since its cool to call socialist states "state capitalist bureaucracy" without even paying attention to the government/economic structure, but unfortunately the truth as told by plenty of different sources will disagree with your assertions.

Actually, the fact that your "socialist states" transformed into capitalists without any significant social counterrevolution, leaving the old rulers in place for the most part, is probably the best evidence to the fact that they really were "state capitalist bureaucracies." Frankly, the only real argument one ever finds for their being socialist is that their economies are nationalized - which, frankly, is ridiculous and was ridiculed by Engels a long time ago. It also means that Israel was a socialist state for some 30 years - and then, again, switched without a counterrevolution.

Also, it's hardly "cool" in today's revolutionary left to recognize these states capitalists character. It's much more "cool" to quote "Comrade Fidel" in a Che Guevara T-shirt while mumbling something about how "we shouldn't expect every revolution to be exactly like Russia."

[mykittyhasaboner]

First of all it`s you that asserts that I called Cuba state capitalist.It is a workers state, with a nationalized planned economy. What I called Cuba, was a deformed workers state.
Your right. My mistake. You seem to be a more "orthodox" trot in calling Cuba a degenerated worker's state. It's better than the "state-capitalism" thesis I guess.

This deformation exists because of the lack of genuine workers control on the means of production. "Genuine" worker's control? Mind clarifying? I'm not sure how any system can live up to this standard.


The central authority of Cuba, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, exerts non-democratic control. Proof of this is that while in a workers state, democraticaly workers delegates decide upon those who will have central excecutive power, in Cuba it seems to be hereditary, centraly appointed and with a lack of population control. Prime example, Fidel appoints Raul (not the only one of course). Raul Castro was elected by the National Assembly.



blind supporter of the bureaucracy like yourself:lol:


Another conclusion I should make, is that only genuine workers control can safeguard the revolution.Really? Was it genuine worker's control of production or experienced and effective military coordination that allowed Cuba to triumph at Playa Giron?

Or by "safeguard the revolution", do you mean to guard it from reactionaries from within Cuba? Well the majority of Cubans support their revolution, and given that they have democratic organs in their political system I think this support is well realized and used. Just look at the whole Special Period; where mass mobilization of workers are saving Cuba from economic catastrophe.


Remember, I am criticizing Cuba from the standpoint of a friend, while defending Cuba from imperialism and counter-revolution.
Cool.

For my part I will reccomend Jorge Martin`s excellent (and long) two part article. Part one (http://www.marxist.com/cuba-50-years-later.htm) and Part Two (http://www.marxist.com/cuba-50-years-later-part-two.htm) . It`s worth the read.Thanks I'll give it a read.


Actually, the fact that your "socialist states" transformed into capitalists without any significant social counterrevolution
This isn't true in every case. But it does say a lot about the problems faced during socialist construction (namely in the Soviet Union's/China's case).

leaving the old rulers in place for the most partThat's not true about Cuba. Most of them exiled or were executed.

Frankly, the only real argument one ever finds for their being socialist is that their economies are nationalized That and democratic worker's organization, as well as the simple fact that the Cuban government focuses on the needs of their/others people more than anything. If the people of Cuba were starving, and didn't have health care and education, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

- which, frankly, is ridiculous and was ridiculed by Engels a long time ago. It also means that Israel was a socialist state for some 30 years - and then, again, switched without a counterrevolution.Frankly, I never made such an argument about nationalization.


Also, it's hardly "cool" in today's revolutionary left to recognize these states capitalists character. It's much more "cool" to quote "Comrade Fidel" in a Che Guevara T-shirt while mumbling something about how "we shouldn't expect every revolution to be exactly like Russia."Hey, your not cool, I'm the cool one. ;)

[Yehuda Stern]

But it does say a lot about the problems faced during socialist construction (namely in the Soviet Union's/China's case).

No it doesn't - according to Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, a ruling class can never be overthrown peacefully. If the ruling class in the USSR or China was proletarian, it would be impossible, if Marxist theory is correct that is, for them to become capitalist through reforms. Trotsky called this theory "reformism in reverse"; small wonder then that those who considered the Stalinist states formed after WWII to be workers' states, including most Trotskyists, have adapted to not only Stalinism but to social-democratic reformism as well.


That's not true about Cuba. Most of them exiled or were executed.

When I said "old rulers" I meant the Stalinist rulers after the so called "counterrevolution" - for example, most of the ruling class in Russia is still composed of those who were part of the ruling class under Stalinism.


That and democratic worker's organization, as well as the simple fact that the Cuban government focuses on the needs of their/others people more than anything. If the people of Cuba were starving, and didn't have health care and education, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Evidence generally shows that these "democratic organizations" are empty of any political character, sort of like the soviets in Russia under Stalin. As for health care and education, those are democratic gains that the Cuban masses won through the revolution and which must be defended, but there's nothing inherently socialist about them.