Cuba

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Is Cuba run through workers council, or is it entirley state planned, like a dictatorship. I have read many articels etc. and they all have conflicting views on the subject. My thoughts are that Fidel and co. run the state and the economion behalf of the workers (dictatorship of the prol. sort of thing) and have been un able to establish true communism on their own and under an embargo. But how many desisions envolve the workers? In Fidels biog by clive Foss it said origionally there used to be huge meeting in wich people would chant out their views...a strange form of direct democracy? Does this still happen? Do they elect certain people to be in the government etc?

[wes]

Cuba is run through factory and community councils with labor and farmers unions playing a big role.

[Leo]

Is Cuba run through workers council, or is it entirley state planned

It is entirely state planned.

[Whitten]

Big industry is owned by the state, and run democraticly by the people's elected representitives. Smaller means of production, employing few or no people, are run as cooperatives, while some limited private ownership is allowed (subject to state oversight).

Politicly things are run on the level which is appropriate, with local assembelies and workers councils managing most day to day issues, with the support of the "committees for the defence of the revolution" (a grassroots socialist group whose members are involved in uncovering anti-revolutionary activities in their neighbourhood/workplace). Issues of widerspread importance, and issues which have to be decided on a national level, or decided by the councils appointed by the municiple, provincial and national assembelies. Representitives are elected to these assemblies at local assembely meetings which all people who are represented by that assembely can attend. They discuss and debate local issues for implementation, and national issues, and the elected representatives are expected to carry these views to the higher assembelies, not their personal ones. They are subject to a recall vote at any time.

[Vendetta]

I have a question...if Cuba's democratic, why has Castro been presidente for the last couple of decades?

[RNK]

He's elected as such by the Cuban National Assembly.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Some time ago I really took an effort to try to understand what is really happening. At some point I realized that Cuba is neither "democratic", nor this "opressive dictatorship". The regime in Cuba harass its citizens and the people in general do not feel they live in a democratic society (though a lot of them to a certain extent feel lucky/thankful to live in a society with welfare benefits), but on local level people can change a few things here and there.

[Leo]

I don't think that the problem in Cuba is that it is not "democratic". The problem in Cuba, just like every other place on earth, is the existence of social classes and capitalist relations. The working class in Cuba is exploited, just like it is in everywhere else.

[More Fire for the People]

Cuba is a democracy — but a democracy of two un-reconciable clases, the the petty-bourgeosie and the working class. Because of the geographical and economic isolation of Cuba the nation necessarily depends on support from the petty-bourgeosie but so long as the petty-bourgeosie exist in Cuba it acts as a representative of the bourgeoisie class in exile. The Cuban working class has used this dual power to make great strides over the last fifty years but the fact remains that despite living in one of the most progressive and worker-oriented democracies they still live under a state-capitalist regime.

For the Cuban worker there can only be a step forward towards socialist revolution or step backwards to restoration of the direct rule of the exiled bourgeoisie. The Cuban regime has demonstrated its ability to overcome the backward forces but the only way the Cuban working class can go forward is to be a part of an international socialist revolution whereby Cuba is unchained by its isolation and a fresh life can be stirred in the heart of the dormant workers' organisations.

[manic expression]

Cuba is run democratically through open meetings of workers, organizations and other organs. Castro is elected by the group elected by the Popular Assembly, and most of the governing is done by the Popular Assembly anyway. It is very open, democratic and worker-controlled.

Cuba is a fine example of a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the workers run the state through democratic means.

On edit: here's an overview of the Cuban system:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

[TC]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 15, 2007 11:33 am
Is Cuba run through workers council, or is it entirley state planned, like a dictatorship.
You ask this question as if these were two mutually exclusive things, which they're not.

In Cuba, the workers/communal councils, (called people's power assemblies) are the state, and all state power follows from the popular assemblies, so, on a national level, both are true. The state is run through direct participatory democracy, its a series of workers assemblies and delegates from more local assemblies to larger ones.

On a more local level though, workplace assemblies self manage most froms of large collective property like the agricultural collectives.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Question: Are there opposition movements/parties in Cuba which are (sometimes brutally) suppressed?

I think that is a fairly good barometer of a "democracy."

[UndergroundConnexion]

yep they are some beign repressed, but I think that is because they are against the revolution. But I think that opposition within the revolution, meaning by people who do support the revolution is allowed

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

So if there is elections and some direct democracy, then why does america and the media call it a dictatorship

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg+April 15, 2007 06:32 pm--> (Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg @ April 15, 2007 06:32 pm) So if there is elections and some direct democracy, then why does america and the media call it a dictatorship [/b]
America calls it a dictatorship as part of their properganda campaign. Following the revolution large amounts of private property was nationalised, including billions of dollars worth of US foreign assets. The revolution also overthrough a US supported dictator. Its for these reasons, and the series of events that they led to, that the US government holds a grudge against Cuba stronger than usual. Also keep in mind the US governments outright hostility to socialism in all forms, they even call Hugo Chavez a dictator.


Sir Aunty Christ
Question: Are there opposition movements/parties in Cuba which are (sometimes brutally) suppressed?

I think that is a fairly good barometer of a "democracy."

No parties in Cuba contest elections, INCLUDING the communist party. The communist party serves as an important social and theoretical institution which many Cuban officials, and even more regular people, are members of. It is not a requirement to be a party member to vote, become an election candidate, or to hold public office.

Opposition parties are not allowed, as the communist party is intended to serve as the non-sectarian pro-revolution party.

Elected members of the national assembly are free to vote as they wish. Anyone may voice (or even print) disaproval of particular government policy or of particular officials (critismism of how revolutionary or socialist a local representative is is infact encourages by the Committees for the defence of the revolution), including the president. Voicing opposition to the revolution itself in public however can get you in trouble.

In short there are no opposition parties because there is no ruling party to oppose.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 15, 2007 06:32 pm
So if there is elections and some direct democracy, then why does america and the media call it a dictatorship
Do you really have to ask that question man? :P, They call Hugo Chavez a dictator as well and call the US government the becon of democratic light to th world.

I don't think Cuba can seriously be called Democratic, sure there are democratic elements, and sure the people do have say in local issues and somewhat national ones, but the way the system is set up gives a huge amount of say to the Communist party and Fidel and his homies. The lack of absolute freedom of speach is also a big problem, thats probably the most important aspect of a democracy. Let me put it this way, the democratic aspects of Cuba are there because Fidel allows it to be there, and since its based on Fidels grace, it can't really be called a democracy.

[wes]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 15, 2007 06:32 pm
So if there is elections and some direct democracy, then why does america and the media call it a dictatorship
Liberty is measured by them by the amount of freedom the capitalist class has. Sorry my first post didn't say much that was all I had time for. I had to go to a event organized around the 26 workers killed on the job in 2006 in Georgia.

The Cuban state is run by the working class. A fine example of this is a proposal during Cuba's special period which would have put a tax on workers in order to assist the Cuban economy the proposal, was widely discussed in Cuba and then voted down by the popular councils. To answer the question of why Fidel has been president for so long. Fidel is a revolutionary leader, in Cuba where the government is run around workers councils there is no need for the session of leaders so long as they are carrying out there revolutionary duty.

[wes]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 02:53 pm
I don't think that the problem in Cuba is that it is not "democratic". The problem in Cuba, just like every other place on earth, is the existence of social classes and capitalist relations. The working class in Cuba is exploited, just like it is in everywhere else.
Feel free to try and prove this.

[Whitten]

The definition of socialism isn't classlessneess, if such a situation existed we would be speaking of communism. What is important is that the proletariat have democratic dictatorship over the petty-bourgeois.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cuba Truth Project (http://www.cubatruth.info)
The Truth About Cuba (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5a.html)
Let's Talk About Cuban Democracy (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5b.html)

& these other threads on the very same question, which are listed in the sticky in this forum called "Frequent topics of discussion - A guide" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58835)

Is Cuba democratic? Thread 1 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53175&hl=), Thread 2 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53647&hl=), Thread 3 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52791&hl=), Thread 4 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58186&hl=cuba%20democracy&st=0), Thread 5 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58141&st=0&#entry1292201469), Thread 6 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53927&hl=).

[TC]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 15, 2007 06:32 pm
So if there is elections and some direct democracy, then why does america and the media call it a dictatorship
Oh, yah i forgot about that. Well you're right then, Cuba must be a brutal dictatorship because if the American government and bourgeois media say so it must be true, its not like they've ever lied in the past.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Could those who claim Cuba is "democratic" point out an international electoral overseer/comission that approve of the elections in Cuba as democratic?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Can you point out an "international electoral overseer/comission" that is proletarian?

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:46 pm
Could those who claim Cuba is "democratic" point out an international electoral overseer/comission that approve of the elections in Cuba as democratic?
The U.S. Health care Trade Union Committee and U.S. National Lawyers Guild sent a delegation to Cuba to observe and report on the democratic structure, both in the state and workplaces. You can read their report here:

http://www.nlg.org/programs/l_ec/cuba_report_2002.pdf

They document Cuban democracy in great detail and observe organs of direct participatory democracy.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Cuba is fine. it has elections. one party...yea...i only need one party ;)

Cuba runs things in the best way it can i think. it's situation is...hard.

Viva cuba libre :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Cuban Communist Party is not even an electoral party. Check out the link TC gave to the NLG report & http://www.cubatruth.info

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by TragicClown+April 17, 2007 08:55 pm--> (TragicClown @ April 17, 2007 08:55 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 07:46 pm
Could those who claim Cuba is "democratic" point out an international electoral overseer/comission that approve of the elections in Cuba as democratic?
The U.S. Health care Trade Union Committee and U.S. National Lawyers Guild sent a delegation to Cuba to observe and report on the democratic structure, both in the state and workplaces. You can read their report here:

http://www.nlg.org/programs/l_ec/cuba_report_2002.pdf

They document Cuban democracy in great detail and observe organs of direct participatory democracy. [/b]
Haha, and we all know the US National Lawyers Guild is basically made up of communist lawyers. They were also the ones who said that the DPRK is democratic. :)

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:46 pm
Haha, and we all know the US National Lawyers Guild is basically made up of communist lawyers. They were also the ones who said that the DPRK is democratic. :)
OH MY GOD, Communist infiltration conspiracy, that's the last thing us communist want.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, right? You gotta love people around here that prefer bourgeois sources over communist or even generally "leftist" ones.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 12:21 pm
Yeah, right? You gotta love people around here that prefer bourgeois sources over communist or even generally "leftist" ones.
The thing is that he was asking for something else.

Why I think what the National Lawyer's Guild is great, I am sure there are some communists that are so invested in their ideology that they bring a tremendous bias, not in the favor of the working class, but in favor of ideology.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

So since the pro-Castro people here only managed to have brought up an organization that claims North Korea is democratic, one can only assume that the international obsevers that have for instance approved the elections in Venezuela as democratic, do not approve of the elections in Cuba as democratic?



They were also the ones who said that the DPRK is democratic.

I.E. not a credible source.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Again, please find me a proletarian "international electoral overseer/comission." I'm not interested in what bourgeois sources say.. I don't look to them as an authority on democracy. I know you do.

You actually seek out the most harsh critics of the Cuban Revolution, regardless of their class content, politics or origins. You trust groups like "Reporters Without Borders," that have admitted links to the U.S. government and rightist exile groups, over leftist groups like the NLG.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I'm not interested in what bourgeois sources say.. I don't look to them as an authority on democracy. I know you do.

The world is not black and white CDL. If obsevers have approved elections in Venezuela then surely it is of some interest what they say in regards to the electoral system in Cuba, and if they see Cuban elections as democratic.


You trust groups like "Reporters Without Borders,

You put words in people's mouths. That's quite a dirty and dishonest tactic of you.

Maybe you should have read my comment on November 8:

"Reporters Without Borders is a big lie. Never believe anything they say about Cuba."



that have admitted links to the U.S. government and rightist exile groups, over leftist groups like the NLG.

I trust neither.


Now, can you or can you find some electoral obsevers/organizations that approve of elections in Cuba as democratic? And of course organizations that claim the DPRK are democratic ( :rolleyes: ) shall of course not be included as they are not relevant. Yes or no?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Look.. looking to a bourgeois "observer" for information on a workers' state is about as worthless as looking to the bourgeois press for an honest assessment of same.

Venezuela is not a workers' state. It is a bourgeois state, with bourgeois elections.


Maybe you should have read my comment on November 8:

"Reporters Without Borders is a big lie. Never believe anything they say about Cuba."

Okay good; but you have relied on bourgeois sources before. Even you must admit that... and you constantly reject anything pro-Cuba on the grounds that it must be communist propaganda.


Now, can you or can you find some electoral obsevers/organizations that approve of elections in Cuba as democratic?

Probably not.. and I won't waste my time looking.

Again:

1. Bourgeois sources are hostile to the Cuban workers' state.
2. "Electoral observers/organizations" are bourgeois outfits.
3. Communists don't look to bourgeois outfits on questions like this.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Okay. It seems you don't want to talk about observers even if I believe that is a wrong and convenient position, let us look away from observers for a moment then.

Has there ever been elected any one to the National Assembly that is in direct opposition to Fidel Castro? And has such a candidate, if it has ever existed, been tolerated by the regime?

[chimx]

It strikes me as a touch too convenient for communists to write off sources that they disagree with by accusing them of simply being "bourgeois sources". I agree entirely when marmot said, "I am sure there are some communists that are so invested in their ideology that they bring a tremendous bias, not in the favor of the working class, but in favor of ideology."

Honestly, when it comes to certain subjects, I do tend to trust (what you would call) "bourgeois sources" over that of communist sources. Communist sources tend to be ideologically motivated rather than factually motivated. I've notice a tendency to ignore facts when it suits their purpose. Alternatively, "bourgeois sources" don't often have a need for ideological motivations. Capitalism is already the established system, who do they need to convince? It tends to allow for a greater degree of reliable opinion variance since they have been allowed to slough off their ideological motivations.

The Cuba issue is different in that it could be argued that since capitalism is not the status quo, bourgeois ideology can still create a bias. In this case, use your brain and look at the content of the sources rather than the ideological affiliation of the sources. If a source is willing to look at the pros and cons of Cuba, than I certainly would trust it more than a source that is nothing more than a sweeping condemnation *or* elevation of Cuba. I.e.: acknowledges the massive strides Cuba has made in health care, education, literacy, etc., but decries the lackluster democratic model of the Cuban state.

As a rule of thumb, be wary of any one-dimensional sources that seem to act as back-patters for either side.

[RNK]

"The Myth of Cuban Dictatorship" by Charles McKelvey (http://www.quaylargo.com/Transformation/ZenBiblio.html)

Good article written by some Professor from South Carolina.

[chimx]

McKelvey may be a good cheerleader for the Cuban state, but to quote him, "I do not consider myself an expert on Cuba."

People like McKelvey laud Cuba's democratic participation but gloss over the fact that this participation is primarily ratification power. National elections are extremely detached from any sense of direct democracy. The people vote for a Municipal Assembly. It is the MA that then votes for a Provincial Assembly. It is then the PA that then votes for the National Assembly. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here. Cuba is not my forte). The only power the people have in this process is at the beginning as well as ratification power.

Also, is it a coincidence that only 15% of the population is allowed entrance into the Party, but Party affiliation within the NA is the overwhelming majority. While the Party may not act as much of a political authority as it did in the former USSR, it certainly acts as a monolithic moral and cultural authority that holds massive amounts of political sway.

[Vargha Poralli]

Cuba Image and Reality (http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/cuba_image&reality.shtml)

An article that appeared a couple of months ago in ISReview.

CDeL before just dismissing this article as a Cliffite/Sectarian bullshit I would like you to address various issues raised by them in that article. IMO the author analyses the Cuban situation in a very neutral point of view.


People like McKelvey laud Cuba's democratic participation but gloss over the fact that this participation is primarily ratification power. National elections are extremely detached from any sense of direct democracy. The people vote for a Municipal Assembly. It is the MA that then votes for a Provincial Assembly. It is then the PA that then votes for the National Assembly. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here. Cuba is not my forte). The only power the people have in this process is at the beginning as well as ratification power.

The IS review artcile is says somewhat similar thing.

And what is all this sectarian bullshitting about Cuba ? For one Socialism cannot be built in one country. The fall of USSR after some 80+ years of existence proved it. The fall of "Communism" in eastern Europe and PRC just reinforces the fact./ So it is pretty much stupid to expect Cuba to have perfect Socialist model.

So instead of whining about lack of democracy/lack of workers control over the means of production in Cuba why don't we just advance the class struggle in the countries we live in to overthrow the capitalism and save Cubans from this "Oppressive","Undemocratic" and "State-Capitalist" regime ?

And another fact is the Cuban people prefer the current state of affairs within their country. They went along with the great period of difficulty and never revolted against the political faction that rules over them. And no matter how oppressive and tyrannical the regime is those things alone can't hold on the people.

Cuban people have the ultimate right and capacity to do anything within their borders. If they want Change they will have Change.

[Guerrilla22]

Here's a good guide as to how the electoral system in Cuba works.

http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/61CDH/Com...ns%20System.htm (http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/61CDH/Complete%20texts/Cuba%B4s%20Political%20and%20Elections%20System.ht m)

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Page didn't work.

In any case G22, has there ever been elected any one to the National Assembly that is in direct opposition to Fidel Castro? And has such a candidate, if it has ever existed, been tolerated by the regime?

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:14 pm
Page didn't work.

In any case G22, has there ever been elected any one to the National Assembly that is in direct opposition to Fidel Castro? And has such a candidate, if it has ever existed, been tolerated by the regime?
Not that I know of. Has there ever been a case of a politican elected in the uS that was in direct oposition to the uS government?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

As far as I know there was one, yes. I think he belonged to some sort of communist party, but the FBI watched his moves.

Anyways, does it matter? The U.S. is not democratic and we know it. You on the other hand claim Cuba is democratic.

I'm not an expert on elections in the U.S. But in any case, in the bourgeois democracy in the United States you have two shades, liberals and conservatives. Does the so-called "democracy" in Cuba even have more than one shade, that of the fidelistas/leninists?

[Guerrilla22]

My point is, people who do not agree with the government that rules their country usually do not particicpate in that same government. The amount of dissent or lack there of is not a marker of democracy, the system itself is a marker of democracy, in Cuba's case there is direct involvement by the people/working class in decisions regarding their government, is it a perfect, utopian democarcy, of course not, however it is democratic none the less.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The amount of dissent or lack there of is not a marker of democracy

It is a ridiculous notion to think that the people in Cuba are so satisfied with the situation that, if elections were free, not even one single person opposing Castro would be elected to the National Assembly.

It is a vague marker in a society where the people are not extremely satisfied, of how much dissent the government can tolerate. In Cuba's case it seems that, since 1959, not a single person that has actively opposed to Fidel Castro has been in the government.

That is not because of lack of other opinions than Fidel's.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:14 pm
Page didn't work.

In any case G22, has there ever been elected any one to the National Assembly that is in direct opposition to Fidel Castro? And has such a candidate, if it has ever existed, been tolerated by the regime?
NWOG, actually, would you like to explain what you mean by "a candidate who is in direct opposition to Fidel Castro" ?

What does it mean to be in "direct opposition to Fidel Castro"?

If you answer that, we can move on to look at the issue from this point of view.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Exactly that. A person that does not suck up to him.

Like for instance someone that is willing to criticize him furiously and launch verbal attacks against him without second thoughts. Someone that seek his ouster and want someone else to lead the nation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No one like that would likely get elected, because Fidel Castro has mass, widespread support. That cannot be denied.

Besides, people in Cuba don't run on platforms of "how they feel about Fidel" or some other personalistic nonsense. You're elected on the basis of how good a revolutionary you are, how committed you've been, who you are..

And all of this doesn't really matter a whole lot, because democracy isn't about voting in elections. Cuban people participate in every single aspect of the decision making process, from women in the Cuban Federation of Women, to workers in the unions, to everybody in the CDRs, etc. That is real democracy, not voting once every few years for someone to rule over you (folks elected in Cuba are recallable at all times, and indeed are often recalled; they must mete with those they represent and be accountable to them at all times).

Cuba's elections are democratic, but they're not the end all of Cuban democracy.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

No one like that would likely get elected,

Not in half a century. Not one single individual. Never in the Cuban electoral system has such a person been elected. That's quite suprising isn't it? I mean, it is quite the curiousity.

Or in the press, has it ever, since 1959 been an article in Granma or a local newspaper like Periodico 26, been published an article criticizing Fidel? Criticizing him as, for instance, a failure, or, a misguided individual?

A call for him to be impeached?

Anything like that?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I mean you have people like Miguel Barnet, the writer, who does not belong to the PCC or consider himself a communist, elected. There are others (actually many folks elected don't belong to the PCC, and the PCC doesn't endorse candidates); but like I said, no one that openly opposed Fidel would likely get elected. Fidel is immensly popular, period.

There is no mass, or even seriously sizeable opposition to the revolution in Cuba, because it truly is the revolution of the Cuban toilers.


Or in the press, has it ever, since 1959 been an article in Granma or a local newspaper like Periodico 26, been published an article criticizing Fidel? Criticizing him as, for instance, a failure, or, a misguided individual?

A call for him to be impeached?

Granma is the paper of the PCC, and the local papers are run by the writers/workers/editors/etc. that put them out; Fidel is obviously supported by them. Still, they've criticized policies and individuals before, pointed out mistakes that were made (and Fidel himself has of course done this), but no one is going to call for the overthrow of the revolution or the ouster of Fidel.. which again, both enjoy widespread popular support. Remember that most of the bourgeois papers in Cuba went down because no body bought any copies of them after the revolution.. nobody wanted to read the bullshit in them anymore.

The problem with your line of questioning though, NWOG, is that you're looking for bourgeois democracy in Cuba. You're not going to find it.

* * *

"The difficult thing to understand for someone not living through the experience of the revolution is this close dialectical unity between the individual and the mass, in which both are interrelated and, at the same time, in which the mass, as an aggregate of individuals, interacts with its leaders." - Che

[TC]

Originally posted by Hiero+April 19, 2007 12:01 pm--> (Hiero @ April 19, 2007 12:01 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 10:46 pm
Haha, and we all know the US National Lawyers Guild is basically made up of communist lawyers. They were also the ones who said that the DPRK is democratic. :)
OH MY GOD, Communist infiltration conspiracy, that's the last thing us communist want. [/b]
OH NOE

JUST LIKE THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND HOLLYWOOD

QUICK BETTER SURPRESS THE REPORT CAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY TEH REDS!!!



As you're notice, the National Lawyers Guild, which is a law society, not a party, didn't even write that report alone, they were a co-sponsor with the a committee of the decidedly uncommunist but leftleaning United Healthcare Workers East (Service Employees International Union). With 250,000 members they're one of the largest union locals in the world, hardly a fringe group.


But yah you can continue to get your news from Fox if that fits better with your world view.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:09 pm
Okay. It seems you don't want to talk about observers even if I believe that is a wrong and convenient position, let us look away from observers for a moment then.

Has there ever been elected any one to the National Assembly that is in direct opposition to Fidel Castro? And has such a candidate, if it has ever existed, been tolerated by the regime?
Yes, there are a few christian liberal types hostile to socialism who have been elected to various assemblies, just like there are a few socialists in most parliaments in bourgeois states...

...just in the last five years or so the Christian Liberation Movement, a legal anti-Castro pro-American political (not electoral) party in Cuba sponsored anti-socialist legislation in the National Assembly that got into the western bourgeois press because fmr US president Carter decided to do this tiny rightwing fringe group a hand and publicize it. Needless to say it didn't pass.

Not nearly enough people will vote for anti-socialists to have any kindof credible opposition because its not a popular view in a well managed socialist state that has far greater prosperity than their neighbores.


The existence of a mainstream anti-communist opposition is not a requirement for democracy, its a requirement for capitalism.

[Tiparith]

From what we see in the Canadian newspapers I would say Cuba is pretty democratic. And that the reason Fidel has been the head for so long is that it isn't, in day to day life, a very important position. However, for anyone who lived through the cold war I could understand how they would believe Cuba to be a dictatorship. Not only is it engrained in their minds but the concept of communal living and self sufficiency seems to be a negative in the minds of my predeccessors.

I would like to point out though that some parts of Cuba are being used as capitalists playground. A teacher I know went to Cuba and spent a week on a small section of the island where all the cappie hotels were allowed to build resorts and where Cubans aren't allowed to go unless they work there. Keep in mind that after the collapse of the Union it was probably neccassary to build such a cappie paradise so as to let the rest of Cuba be communist while still maintaining a good economy. So I do not fault Fidel for letting that slip.

In light to the discussion, like I said, my belief is that Cuba is democratic in many respects but it won't be able to be truly free until there are other communist bodies with which is can ally itself with. (Chaves and Morales will be Cuba's saving grace)

[Q]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 15, 2007 11:33 am
Is Cuba run through workers council, or is it entirley state planned, like a dictatorship. I have read many articels etc. and they all have conflicting views on the subject. My thoughts are that Fidel and co. run the state and the economion behalf of the workers (dictatorship of the prol. sort of thing) and have been un able to establish true communism on their own and under an embargo. But how many desisions envolve the workers? In Fidels biog by clive Foss it said origionally there used to be huge meeting in wich people would chant out their views...a strange form of direct democracy? Does this still happen? Do they elect certain people to be in the government etc?
Cuba is run by a bureacratic caste, much like the USSR was but less extreme. The reason that Cuba hasn't degenerated back into capitalism yet is twofold: 1. the revolution has only been 50 years ago, lots of people actually still realise the progressive changes it has brought, they would fight for keeping it. 2. Castro and his clique can't go back to capitalism, even if they wanted to because US imperialism wants their head on a silver platter.

That being said, the Cuban revolution is in great danger, mostly because of the same reasons that Russia was. The next generation is not having a great conciousness about the progressive gains of the revolution and the bureaucracy realises that it cannot hold on to the planned economy forever, because the bureaucracy is a dead weight to it. So it has an urge to reverting back to capitalism.

The only way to prevent this is to have a political revolution that kicks the bureaucracy out of power and gives direct and complete control to the working class, thusly democratising the economy and having a democratic planned economy.

If you want to read more about this, I would suggest the book Cuba: Socialism and Democracy (http://www.socialistworld.net/publications/Cuba/) which is a good read on this.

[RedLenin]

I agree that the Cuban state has a lot of bureaucratic deformations. But I will not go so far as to characterize it as a deformed workers state. I don't really think there is a solid, crystalized bureaucratic caste in power. Rather, It seems that power is split between workers and bureaucrats. This is a big contradiction and is the source of the bureaucratic deformations that the Cuban state faces. However, I don't think the typical solution is the way to get rid of these deformations.


The only way to prevent this is to have a political revolution
I am not sure that is necessary or a particularly good idea. First, as I said, I don't see a bureaucratic caste as having total power. There are strong elements of workers democracy in the Cuban state, but there are also strong elements of bureaucracy. Further, a political revolution would most likely open up a loop hole for capitalist restoration. I think the only thing that can fix the bureaucratic deformations and greatly expand workers democracy is the success of socialist revolutions in other countries, particularly Venezuela. The Cuban masses still support Fidel and their revolutionary tradition. We need to fight to take the Cuban revolution further, by eroding the power of the bureaucrats and greatly expanding the power of the rank-and-file workers.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:06 pm
I agree that the Cuban state has a lot of bureaucratic deformations. But I will not go so far as to characterize it as a deformed workers state. I don't really think there is a solid, crystalized bureaucratic caste in power. Rather, It seems that power is split between workers and bureaucrats. This is a big contradiction and is the source of the bureaucratic deformations that the Cuban state faces. However, I don't think the typical solution is the way to get rid of these deformations.


The only way to prevent this is to have a political revolution
I am not sure that is necessary or a particularly good idea. First, as I said, I don't see a bureaucratic caste as having total power. There are strong elements of workers democracy in the Cuban state, but there are also strong elements of bureaucracy. Further, a political revolution would most likely open up a loop hole for capitalist restoration. I think the only thing that can fix the bureaucratic deformations and greatly expand workers democracy is the success of socialist revolutions in other countries, particularly Venezuela. The Cuban masses still support Fidel and their revolutionary tradition. We need to fight to take the Cuban revolution further, by eroding the power of the bureaucrats and greatly expanding the power of the rank-and-file workers.
I mostly agree with this notion, with the exception perhaps that I do think something of a revolution or takeover is needed to kick the bureaucratic elements out of power.

However, I do agree with the importance of spreading the revolution. For the Cuban revolution to succeed and be freed it is vital that it gets out of its isolement. Venezuela is playing a keyrole in this process. If a revolution will succeed there, the Cubans get a lot of new confindense to get rid of the bureaucratic elements in their society.

[TC]

Theres no such thing as a "deformed workers state" or a "bureaucratic caste", those are totally mystical, metaphysical, non-materialist concepts introduced by a guy who was disappointed that no one trusted him enough to keep him as a bureaucrat.


All states, and for that matter, organizations with more members than can fit into a meeting room, have a structure with an administration which carries out organizational tasks. This administration is accountable to the existing power structures based on the organization of relations of production in society. The mere existence of such administration, "bureacuracy" if you want to give it a hostile term, is a basic requirement to national level economic and state organization, there is simply no other way of doing it, and the administration is responsible directly to the cuban ruling class, the workers, and their councils, the assemblies of people's power.

To speak of "deformed workers states" with no way of describing a material basis is utterly unmarxist. It would be like describing the United States as a "deformed bourgeois state" because each individual member of the bourgeoisies doesn't take part in the day to day running of the central government directly, they elect and appoint administrators who are responsible to them to do so instead...it would be impossible to run a central government otherwise which would hardly serve the interests of the ruling class regardless of what it is.

If you accept the historical materialist standpoint on history you'd realize that every ruling class, or at least after slave society, has always appointed administrative employees to run its states


The fact that some workers states other than Cuba have had privileged state officials is only because there has been official corruption, not some kind of caste that 'rules over the workers' or something ridiculously unmaterialist like that. The solution to corruption isn't a general rebellion against the state but law enforcement, supporting left wing political factions and in extreme cases cultural revolution.

This was especially true in states established by the Red Army rather than domestic revolutionaries since there had not been a well consolidated revolutionary workers political apparatus the way there is in Cuba.

Just because the real revolutionary workers, like the Cuban Julio 26th movement, are smart enough not to follow groups of western labour aristocrats who self style themselves 'revolutionaries' cause they sell newspapers and read a couple of lines of Trotsky without understanding him, doesn't mean that theres anything wrong with their workers state and socialist economy exactly the way it is. ;)

[RNK]

Funny enough, Cuba is chalk-full of parties and organizations opposed to the socialist system. In 1992 the Cuban constitution was changed to allow political parties (though they, like the CCP, are not allowed to campaign for candidates).

List of political parties in Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Cuba)

There is plenty of opposition, but barely any support for them. For instance some group obtained 10,000 signatures to abolish socialism, allow private ownership and private business. Of course then the Party got a petition of hundreds of thousands against it...

[TC]

actually the petition against it was done by the CTC, the principle federation of national trade unions, not the Communist Party (which, if you think about it, makes sense since the CTC is significantly larger than the Communist Party).

[Rawthentic]

I've been doing my reading, and my beliefs on Cuba have been shaken. I have never actually considered Cuba socialist, but I definitely think you know what you are talking about Clowny. I see socialism as the transitional period between capitalism and communism, where the working class holds full political power. Does Cuba fit this? I am so motherfucking confused now.

[Rawthentic]

Based on the research I was doing on this issue, I would argue that Cuba has political (and some economic) structures that could be or would be utilized in a workers' republic. The structure of the National Assembly, the selection of the Executive Council, etc., are very similar to how they would be done in a transitional society. Moreover, there are elements of the economic organization and structure that would be used by such a society.

The main problem, as Wallace pointed out, is that the petty bourgeoisie dominates the life of the country -- politically, economically, culturally and socially. Much of this is due to retrograde trends in Cuban culture, held over from capitalism, that convince working people to defer to "experts" and "superiors". In the case of Cuba, the "experts" and "superiors" are the Communist Party leaders and ministry officials.

Personally, I think that Cuba is one of those places where social revolution could be carried out relatively peacefully, and utilizing in part the existing political and economic structures. In that context, our perspective for revolution is, in fact, a call for continuing the struggle and completing what was started in 1959. It is, as Marx put, making the revolution "permanent".

This is a quote from a comrade of mine. What do you all think?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Granma And Granpa
by Michael W. Stowell

February 3, 2003


For more than 43 years, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz has led the Cuban people in their struggle against the oppressive human avidity embodied in what we now call "Empire." Unlike most of his Marxist counterparts, Fidel is unwilling to resign himself to armchair conjecture and postulation. He moves people to action, those who follow and those who oppose, and creates his own path through history. Not only is he a man of eloquent words, he is a dynamic force that generates change at every level of human existence. Not only has he witnessed firsthand more human history than any world leader alive today, he has moved it, pushed it, and changed the course of it.

Love him or loathe him, you cannot ignore him.

Born to a prosperous Cuban landowner on August 13, 1926, Fidel Castro was educated at Belen College, a Jesuit High School in Havana, from 1941 to 1945. Of Christian theology Fidel has said, "Who knows, it may be so," and ever skeptical of organized religion, he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church.

Castro went on to attend the University of Havana Law School from 1946 to 1950 and then married into one of Cuba's wealthiest families. His law degree and social status presented opportunities for profligacy unique to those sharing colonialist rule, whether by politic or economy, but licentiousness did not appeal to him and he soon divorced the bourgeoisie.

As a young lawyer engaged in altruistic endeavors, Fidel tried to initiate reformation through Cuba's political system; he made plans to campaign for a parliamentary seat in 1952 and when General Batista overthrew President Socarras' government and cancelled the elections, Castro petitioned the courts charging the dictator with violating the constitution. With his petition rejected, he turned to "direct action" and organized an attack on the Moncada Military Barracks in Oriente province. It failed, nearly half of the 165 revolutionaries were slain, Fidel and his brother Raúl were captured and imprisoned.

It was in that Cuban prison that Fidel Castro's political ideology formed. He studied Marxism day and night for two years and upon his release in 1955, Fidel went on a fundraising tour of the United States and Mexico and met Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. It was a match that Jean-Jacques Rousseau must have foreseen.

In Mexico City between June 24 and July 3, 1956, 28 Cuban revolutionaries and supporters were arrested. Fidel Castro was not released until July 24, and Che Guevara was released one week later. On November 25, aboard a 60-foot yacht named "Granma," 81 men, under the leadership of Fidel Castro, set sail for Cuba.

On November 30, in Santiago de Cuba, three hundred young men led by Frank País, wearing olive green uniforms and red and black armbands with the July 26 emblem, attacked police headquarters, the Customs House and the harbor headquarters.

On December 2, delayed by the rescue of a man who fell overboard and weather and logistical problems, including poor communications between the expeditionaries and the Cuban underground, the Granma landed in Las Coloradas, Oriente province. On December 5, the rebels were surprised by Batista's troops while resting on the edge of a cane field at Alegría de Pío, not far from the Sierra Maestra. The majority of the revolutionaries were killed or captured, but a few escaped to the Sierra Maestra, including the Castro brothers Fidel and Raúl, Che Guevara, Juan Almeida, Calixto García and a handful of others.

It was from those mountains that the Revolution began.

And as I sit here composing this piece, more than 40 years after the fact, I can recall my first exposure to this man, Fidel Castro, who is as big as life; I was a child sitting with my parents in front of a TV set in backwoods Wisconsin.

My father was a US military man who deplored Castro. The newsreel we were watching that night featured a robust, bearded man sitting in his living room with his young son, a boy about my age. A puppy ran into the room and jumped up onto the couch with Fidel and his son. It was a warm, loving, spirited scene of laughter and family fun. When the reporter conducting the interview asked the boy if it was his pup, Fidel's son replied that no, it was his papa's dog.

"See there," my father exclaimed, "he's so stingy, he won't even let his kid have a dog!" I was a bit frightened of my father's tone, and confused. It all seemed so warm and friendly; I almost envied the young boy and his "papa."

Nearly a year ago, I saw that same footage in a videotape of the documentary movie "Fidel." A good friend acquired the video while she was in Cuba expressing her solidarity with Pastors For Peace and preparing tours she arranges for Global Exchange. Thank you, Rachel.

The movie, "Fidel," is a documentary by an award-winning American producer, Estella Bravo. It is a compelling work worthy of Bravo and you must see it to appreciate its historical value and artistic creativity. I found it balanced and objective, revealing the humanity of Fidel Castro and of the Cuban people. El Commandante even admits to certain mistakes he made along the way, in particular, his 'too-closeness' to the Soviets. So, if you cannot visit Cuba and vacation with Fidel, see Ms. Bravo's magnificent documentary movie.

Remembering it now, a couple of issues come to mind that are quite prominent in the news concerning Cuban/American relations.

US President-select George W. Bush has stated that relations with the Cuban government will not change and the 42 year-old sanctions will remain in place until free elections reign in Cuba. That seems quite vociferous coming from a man who lost the popular vote and scarcely held on to an outdated electoral vote by way of the inanity of Al Gore and through GOP Supreme Court intervention. Nearly as ludicrous was neo-liberal Indonesian death-squad supporter Jimmy Carter when he returned from Havana with "serious concerns" about Cuban elections.

That Cuba does not have free elections is yet another myth conjured by "Yankee ingenuity."

The November 5, 2002 US House of Representatives election and the January 19, 2003 Cuba National Assembly election were both by secret ballot, both were voluntary, and both were open to all adults of the age of majority.

In the United States, there are multiple political parties though only two are able to effectively compete in state and national elections due to the prohibitive costs of funding visible campaigns. The world's largest financial interests fund the two parties that do compete, and the candidates elected represent the interests that put them in office. Local elections are somewhat more equitable, depending upon the amount of financial power and political influence at stake.

The Cuban electorate struggled with a multiparty system for long years in the first half of the last century. Shunning the exploitive opportunities availed by such devices, the Cubans have evolved a non-partisan form of representative government.

The Cuban Communist Party, comprised of about 15% of the adult population, is an advocacy group that promotes social reform and revolutionary goals but is restricted to educational activities and may have no part in the funding of candidates. In fact, there is no campaigning in Cuba. Candidates do not sell themselves or their political ideologies; money is not a dynamic.

Instead, anyone seeking local office must first submit his or her résumé for distribution and posting throughout his or her home district; residential districts do not change and therefore cannot be 'gerrymandered.' Residential election commissions check the accuracy of all résumés and ensure that constituents know candidates personally or by reputation. There are no career politicians in municipal offices, most have 'day-jobs,' and the 2-year term officeholders are obliged to host frequent "accountability sessions" with their constituents; they may be recalled at any time.

Up to 50% of the Cuban National Assembly is comprised of previously elected local officers. The rest are chosen by national candidate commissions that consult with organizations representing trade unions, small farmer's unions, the women's federation, the student federation, teachers, health care professionals and other such associations (the Cuban Communist Party is disqualified from participation), thereby acquiring representation that is a 'mirror of the nation'. All seats in the National Assembly must be contested each election, generally there are many candidates, and election of a candidate requires at least 51% of the vote. The National Assembly elects the members of the Council of State. The Council of State elects its own president, vice-president and secretary. The President of the Council of State is also the President of the Republic.

There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 100 in the U.S. Senate, and 601 seats in The Cuban National Assembly. The population of the United States of America is near 281 million people and the population of the Republic of Cuba is near 11 million people. In the most recent elections about 39% of eligible Americans went to the polls and more than 93% of the Cuban electorate voted.

The George W. Bush regime has also charged Cuba with propagating terrorism and he has stated, "If you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist."

In a recent interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, President Fidel Castro addressed charges against Cuba and spoke at length about terrorism:

"We have been subjected to terrorism for almost 44 years. No other country in the world has been harassed or subjected to the sabotage or terrorist actions that have befallen Cuba for over 40 years. The price of all these actions is well known. Without making an estimate, I can say that we've lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic damages.

"Many have suffered. Thousands handicapped. Much destruction. Much damage. However, I can say that not one single American lost their life as a consequence of Cuban actions against the United States... Never has a single brick in the United States been destroyed as a consequence of Cuban "terrorist" actions.

"Not only is it a lie but also it's cynical to include Cuba on the (State Department) list of terrorist countries because we are the Olympic Champions in having endured more than 40 years of terrorism without ever having engaged in terrorist actions. Nor will we ever. It would have been stupid for us to take revenge against any American. Tens of thousands of Americans know that Cuba is the country where they are respectfully welcomed. We have not sowed any hatred against the American people."

As any American who has visited Cuba can attest, Fidel is right about Cuban hospitality.

Andrea Mitchell: "I wanted to ask you about the war on terror. Does the attack on 9/11 justify the way the United States is pursuing the war on terror? Is there anything Cuba can do or has been able to do in terms of developing information that might be helpful to the United States about the spread of Al-Qaida?"

President Castro: "You have asked me three questions in one. The right to defend itself -- each country has the right to defend itself against terrorism. But, in practice, it seems that only the most powerful country has this right.

"I once read a wire story saying that the U.S. Congress had suggested invading the Netherlands if the International Court of Justice (in the Hague) ruled against an American soldier. And I said, 'Oh, good heavens, even a European industrialized country and a NATO member and U.S. ally isn't safe from a U.S. preemptive attack'.

"All countries have the right to defend themselves, including Cuba. But how can they defend themselves if the powerful countries can overrule every code, every rule. A small country like Cuba has to defend itself within its own territory, and to exercise every possible measure to neutralize (the enemy).

"A Cuban airliner was blown up in mid air, killing more than 70 young people aboard including Cuba's junior fencing team. Everybody knows this story. But Orlando Bosch, the mastermind of that terrorist action, lives very happily in Miami making public statements about that action. Cuba has protected itself by developing sources of information. This was all Cuba could do. Cuba didn't commit the stupidity of responding to those terrorist actions that were launched from U.S. territory."

Later in the interview, Andrea Mitchell: "I was asking about Osama bin Laden?"

President Castro: "You asked whether or not we had intelligence. All these questions are very delicate. But since day one, we declared publicly that our country would do its best to prevent our territory from being used [against] the U.S. people. And I can add that we will also do our best to prevent any harm to the American people from anywhere else. If we were to learn that someone planned to destroy an American city or commit an act of terrorism against the American people, we would do our best to prevent that.

"Terrorism is a complex problem. We have to fight it first from an ethical point of view. What sparked those actions? We carried out an armed struggle [against the Batista dictatorship in 1959] but we never used terrorist methods. We never resorted to methods that cost the lives of innocent people. Look at the newspapers of the time. Read the history of the revolution. We attacked a military fortress. We fought in the mountains. We fought against an army that outnumbered us. We won through a combination of armed struggle and of gaining popular support; Batista helped in that by committing crimes against the population, by torturing people. We used explosives against soldiers and enemy tanks. We used mines against troops during combat. No one can deny this.

"Sometimes we destroyed a bridge used by enemy soldiers but never at the cost of any human life. So, we have authority to speak on this topic. Honestly, we are opposed to any action that jeopardizes the lives of innocent people -- whomever they may be.

"Much has been said whether or not it was right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Ask the Japanese. That bomb was dropped on the eve of Soviet march through Manchuria. From the military point of view, there was no need to bomb those two cities. They could have bombed military bases. It would have been more than enough. There were many other targets. I would call the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki colossal acts of terrorism.

"How many things have been done in history? How many Vietnamese died in air raids? Millions, Andrea. And they used chemicals that still cause damage. There's a generation of Vietnamese affected by Agent Orange that has caused many problems.

"Such events have happened in history. I don't believe there's any other way in this global world but to abide by ethical standards. There must be ethical reasons to struggle against terrorism. And I have said this to everybody including the revolutionary movement: 'We should condemn the use of methods that harm innocent people.' Terrorism breeds hatred and rejection. No revolutionary movement will ever triumph by using terrorism and killing innocent people."

I would love to see Fidel Castro and George W. Bush discussing ethical standards on a televised public debate.

How ethical are the American people who allow American leadership to kill innocent persons in a "war on terrorism" or a "war on drugs" or any "war" whatsoever? A weak and frightened society of remote-control bullies clothed in rapaciousness and apathy...and where is the "American Dream" taking them? In time, they will find themselves on a dead end road met with a poignant reward of poverty and ignorance and disease, terror and hatred and death.

From a beautiful Caribbean island, not so far away, a voice of reason speaks of justice, freedom, and dignity. It resonates through the sea of humanity and echoes in every heart that loves liberty. Will the chaotic world of human avarice hear that voice? Are there ears enough that hear? Perhaps those deafened by the clamor of hatred and war may not, but a day will dawn with a refrain so strong that all who are not deaf will awaken.

On that historic voyage aboard Granma, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz followed a dream. He was scared for the Cuban people, for his compañeros, and for himself, yet he knew in his heart that he could not fail. That is the mark of a revolutionary.

Thank you, Granpa.

http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mws041.html

[RNK]

I agree, Hasta. Cuba has many hallmarks of a worker-run state; the only problem is that there is an elite bourgeoisie holding the reigns. But their domination is not nearly as significant as in the West.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:51 am

Based on the research I was doing on this issue, I would argue that Cuba has political (and some economic) structures that could be or would be utilized in a workers' republic. The structure of the National Assembly, the selection of the Executive Council, etc., are very similar to how they would be done in a transitional society. Moreover, there are elements of the economic organization and structure that would be used by such a society.

The main problem, as Wallace pointed out, is that the petty bourgeoisie dominates the life of the country -- politically, economically, culturally and socially. Much of this is due to retrograde trends in Cuban culture, held over from capitalism, that convince working people to defer to "experts" and "superiors". In the case of Cuba, the "experts" and "superiors" are the Communist Party leaders and ministry officials.

Personally, I think that Cuba is one of those places where social revolution could be carried out relatively peacefully, and utilizing in part the existing political and economic structures. In that context, our perspective for revolution is, in fact, a call for continuing the struggle and completing what was started in 1959. It is, as Marx put, making the revolution "permanent".

This is a quote from a comrade of mine. What do you all think?
AFAIK, Marx and Lenin did imagine there would be technical managers and bureaucrats under the transitional governemnt, the dictatorship of the proletariat. I believe Marx and Engels based their ideas on the Pairs Commune. I dont' know if the idea came from Lenin or before him, but the suggestion for how a DoP would function hinged on the democratic control of the bureacuracy by the workers as a class, and that these accountable leaders would make no more than the average workers pay. I think Cuba has done a good job of achieving something close to this ideal.

I've never heard Cuba claim it was done building socialism - which is what people seem to be comparing it to in their attempts to demonstrate that it isn't socialist. This line is rather utopian. Remember too that Marx spoke of various higher and lower stages of socialism / communism.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This is not an attempt to derail the thread, but I am curious.

Tragic, don't you also claim that Vietnam, China and Laos are socialist too?

[Orange Juche]

In a country where you are too afraid to be seriously critical of the government because your neighbors might actually be spies, is a shit country to me. And no, I didn't get that from bullshit media or whatever you wanna lay on me with that.

An Argentinian friend's brother, who I believe is actually an anti-capitalist, told him (without criticizing, but stating what he was around) about these things. Apparently, they generally are happy considering they have what they need to survive comfortably, but the authoritarian bullshit has to go.

[RNK]

A friend of a friend of my brother's step-mother's babysitter told me...

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:30 pm
A friend of a friend of my brother's step-mother's babysitter told me...
Ok, so you're honestly going to tell me that some oppressive bullshit doesn't on in that country (even if alot is contrived or overblown or whatever in the media)?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So wait a minute.. the fact that the great majority supports the revolution to such an extent that they're constantly on the lookout for threats to it is "oppressive bullshit"?

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 25, 2007 08:42 pm
So wait a minute.. the fact that the great majority supports the revolution to such an extent that they're constantly on the lookout for threats to it is "oppressive bullshit"?
Answer me, one word:

Cuba oppresses people, via shutting them up, arresting them for speaking out against what they feel is wrong, etc:

YES or NO.


Id also like to know how you know that the majority of them support it.

[Rawthentic]

Well, I have been skeptical of such accusations, so I plead that you provide some sources.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cuba oppresses people, via shutting them up, arresting them for speaking out against what they feel is wrong, etc:

YES or NO.

No.


Id also like to know how you know that the majority of them support it.

I've spent an extended period of time there, I've talked with Cubans, I've researched, etc.

Even bourgeois sources have to admit that the revolution has mass support.

It's objective fact.

See the documentary "Fidel: The Untold Story" .. as Miguel Barnet says, "The revolution has the support of the majority. Not just the majority, but the grand majority."

[Rawthentic]

Confusing, again. CdL, you say that you have lived in Cuba and studied their society. Yet so has NWOG. I am inclined to believe both of you, but then why so much difference in opinion?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

NWOG went there on vacation for a week, with his mind already made up before he arrived.


“I think some people come to Cuba to find our unhappiness. They can only see what we don’t have. The things that make life in Cuba different from the States, as if there’s only one way to make happiness.” http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5a.html

Of course you can go to Cuba with the purpose of finding people hostile to Fidel and the revolution (or at least folks around the tourists areas who will say that for their own reasons). That's meaningless.

But seriously, I don't even think NWOG will go as far as saying the revolution isn't widely supported though.

[Rawthentic]

Hmm..I suppose the only way to make my mind up about Cuba will be to live there.

I am at a point where I want to study all I can to really know if Cuba is socialist or not, and the class nature of the Cuban government.

[Rawthentic]

Well, I'll start with the basic shit: does the Cuban proletariat hold unlimited political power? Are the means of production directly in their control? I'd like some proof and argument from both sides of the table.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

NWOG went there on vacation for a week, with his mind already made up before he arrived.

Of course my "mind was already made up before I arrived". I am not new or unfamiliar to Cuba.

If one want to have a pissing contest, one could argue most of the time you ahve been in Cuba has been on a governmental program, and that the government only shows you what they want you to see.


But seriously, I don't even think NWOG will go as far as saying the revolution isn't widely supported though.

Correct.

Are people unsatisfied with the situation? In general, yes, absolutely.

So much that they want the return to old times? No.


Again I would not place much faith in a society that claims to be socialist but where the greatest symbol is a ruler who has stood unopposed as the ruler of the nation for 50 years, where the bureaucracy got the balls of the people in their hands and can squeeze or let go whenever they want and where the same bureaucratic members use their power to gain financial benefits, where the people now largely have a mentality that money is the most important thing and getting new stuff is the highest priority, and where people have plenty of differing views but that these opinions remain largely closed behind the walls of private homes.

Had the people been class conscious, you really think they would let individuals in small but relatively important positions locally (ie "communists" (regime loyal paper movers) :rolleyes:) get away with exploiting the common Cuban, as they so routinely and notoriously do?

Such a society is a deformed/heavily disfigured, unhealthy version of what it tries to pretend to be, clearly.

Fidel was born into one of the wealthiest families in Cuba. Even if he says he has "converted" and put his "past behind him", having such a person as a leader of a (ahem) "workers state" is like having Michael Jackson as head of the Third Reich.

[chebol]

I really don't understand why NWOG has to resort to untruths and gross exaggeration in order to lay criticisms against Cuba. Most of us who support the Cuban revolution are more than willing to admit to and even point out some of the problems that exist.

But it becomes next to impossible to get across a reasoned and balanced image of what is actually the Cuban reality because of the hysterics of the "Fidel is a Dictator! He is, he is, he is!!!!" crowd.

A few lessons for the factually averse (starting with NWOG):

1. Fidel is not from "one of the wealthiest families in Cuba". This is UTTER bullshit, and anyone who even glances over the history of Cuba in the last century would know this. Angel Castro, Fidel's father, was a landowner near Biran, yes. He was, prior to that, a soldier in the Spanish army in Cuba, and, after returning to Spain, moved to Cuba. The seed-money for his land purchase was the army pay-out, and he built up a modest plantation, which, yes, employed people, quite a few. Fidel and his siblings copped every kind of shit at the boarding schools their parents scraped the cash together to send them to because, unlike the rest of their classmates, they were neither particularly rich, nor did they have "the right name'. NOT, I think, "one of the wealthiest families in Cuba".

2. Fidel is not a dictator. He gets elected. He has had an opponent every time. It's the law. And guess what mate? He gets elected because he's popular! I'm sorry if you don't like it. Really, I am. But get used to it. And he can get recalled by his electors at any time! But they don't. [See above for reasons]. There are priests, and other 'civil society' types, in the national assembly (which, btw, doesn't meet very often. If you want a REAL issue to argue about, rather than parroting imperialist bullshit propaganda like a mindless fool, you might want to try that). The Communist Party is a minority in the assembly. The people regularly exercise their power to recall elected officials (almost all of whom do not get paid) for any number of reasons. But, yes, democracy in Cuba could be improved - as could hte economy. I suggest you ask the US to stop trying to crush Cuba first. Maybe then, when the very real half-century-long WAR is over, when they can trade freely, and people can more easily visit Cuba, you can start raising other criticisms...

This brings me to a particular bug-bear, which has raised by others before, but has to be done again, in a particularly pro-active way...

3. If you want to discount every piece of information you receive that doesn't fit your world-view, yet you lap up the slops thrown to you by the bourgeois media, you need to get your head checked before trying to talk this kind of politics again! Don't mean to offend, but NWOG, your approach is basically to close your eyes and ears every time info comes up that contradicts your fantasy of a nasty tin-pot dictatorship and go "nyahnyahnyahnyahnyah". We don't buy it, and you owe it to yourself to try harder.

4. Yes, yes, yes. Bureaucracy exists in Cuba. But it doesn't run the show - the reason for which is that Fidel and Raul in particular, and conscious citizens and members of the Communist Party more generally, have lead a conscious, public, attack on it since 1961, including endangering the revolution by insulting the Soviets and imprisoning their agents. While Cuba is isolated, there remains the danger of bureaucratism and corruption derailing the revolution. That's why you need a class-conscious, politically minded, organised group of individuals to provide an example, and to educate and encourage others to help overcome these limitations.

6. Sure, let's have a pissing competition. My friends and I have stayed in Cuba too, for extended periods of time, and been there repeatedly. And, no, no government programs. And yes, people talk about politics in the street. And some of them criticise Fidel, and the problem that there are. And others criticise the corruption, but love Fidel, and others think most things are just dandy. And, guess what? They argue all of these positions and more out loud, in public, with foreigners, in front of police, in restaurants, in bars, etc!

Hardly what you'd expect from a society of the horrible, violent, kind of society that NOWG would have you believe it is!

Now, I would like NWOG, instead of regurgitating the CIA bilge that he has swallowed, to take some of his own medicine, and kindly prove his assertions.

waiting...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, I went with a work brigade once, but I was free to go where I pleased.. and I did. I talked with tons of people, none of whom were introduced to me by "the government." I've also traveled there on my own, as I stated before, and talked with many people. So you're assertion about my experiences in Cuba are not true NWOG.

[Rawthentic]

Hmm..what about my previous question?

And is it true or false that the Cuban people are not allowed to assemble and protest?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

False.

Your previous question has been answered numerous times before.

[Rawthentic]

Can you give me the links or something? I would like to know.

[Rawthentic]

I need those links, I have a debate with a gusano tomorrow.

[Rawthentic]

Hell yeah, the gusano was too afraid to show up, he knew I would beat him. :D

Anyway, something that Leo said:
Cuba etc. those "revolutions" were never actual workers revolutions; just conflicts between different bourgeois factions.

This seems almost ridiculous. Looking at how Cuba is to today, and after reading "Class Forces in the Cuban Revolution", I thought Leo was smarter.

But what are your thoughts on this?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Comrade, these are links you could find yourself with a little digging:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31514&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...uban+revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53862&hl=class+forces+cuban+revolution)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53175&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53647&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52791&hl=
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...0democracy&st=0 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58186&hl=cuba%20democracy&st=0)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292201469 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58141&st=0&#entry1292201469)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53927&hl=
http://www.ratb.org.uk/frfi/178_haiti.html
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5a.html
http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5b.html
http://www.canadacuba.ca/education/compare.php
http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html
http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_arti...sp?ArticleID=30 (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=30)
http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_arti...sp?ArticleID=50 (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=50)
http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_arti...sp?ArticleID=53 (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=53)
http://www.marxists.de/statecap/cuba/robinb.htm
http://freepeoplesmovement.org/manandsoc.html

The last 3 or 4 links may be the best place to start; but they should all be helpful.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks comrade. the "Class Forces.." one is quite the best and the one that is crystallizing my conviction that Cuba is socialist.

[chimx]

Originally posted by CDL
And all of this doesn't really matter a whole lot, because democracy isn't about voting in elections. Cuban people participate in every single aspect of the decision making process, from women in the Cuban Federation of Women, to workers in the unions, to everybody in the CDRs, etc. That is real democracy, not voting once every few years for someone to rule over you (folks elected in Cuba are recallable at all times, and indeed are often recalled; they must mete with those they represent and be accountable to them at all times).

Cuba's elections are democratic, but they're not the end all of Cuban democracy.

Oh CDL, you are such a Rousseauian.

I was out of town all week and was hoping you would have addressed my points by the time I got back.

As it stands, elections for Cuba's government are an entirely indirect process. Cheering for Cuba's democracy is as assinine as cheering for the eradication of the 17th Amendment in the U.S. The people only participate with in extremely decentralized local elections and only have ratification power after that step. Their political model is an indirect democracy.

I'm very happy that Cubans are able to participate in the elections of other institutions democratically, such as unions and what have you, but you still haven't addressed the lack of democracy within the actual Cuban state.

Of course you are right when you say that the current political model is extremely popular in Cuba. But popularity certainly is no gage of efficiency or ideal political participation. The current model of the United State is popular, as was Nazi Germany's model, but I think you would agree that this isn't reason to be uncritical of either. So why are you championing indirect political participation?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:52 pm
Hmm..what about my previous question?

And is it true or false that the Cuban people are not allowed to assemble and protest?
Here are a few things:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569981.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4275513.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3726470.stm

Look up the "Ladies in White" and Oswaldo Paya. These groups are invariably counterrevolutionary and reactionary and insufferable, but they're still allowed to push their garbage.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:22 am
Oh CDL, you are such a Rousseauian.

I was out of town all week and was hoping you would have addressed my points by the time I got back.

As it stands, elections for Cuba's government are an entirely indirect process. Cheering for Cuba's democracy is as assinine as cheering for the eradication of the 17th Amendment in the U.S. The people only participate with in extremely decentralized local elections and only have ratification power after that step. Their political model is an indirect democracy.

I'm very happy that Cubans are able to participate in the elections of other institutions democratically, such as unions and what have you, but you still haven't addressed the lack of democracy within the actual Cuban state.

Of course you are right when you say that the current political model is extremely popular in Cuba. But popularity certainly is no gage of efficiency or ideal political participation. The current model of the United State is popular, as was Nazi Germany's model, but I think you would agree that this isn't reason to be uncritical of either. So why are you championing indirect political participation?
By Rousseauian, do you mean anyone who doesn't think that everyone has to make every decision? If so, these so-called "Rousseauians" are pretty anti-Rousseau.

Please define "direct democracy". From what I can tell, you think that "indirect democracy" means that there are people who take on more decision making responsibilities than others. This is simply pragmatic and necessary, and even Bakunin (between his anti-semitic rants) basically supported such a system.

To even faintly compare the US and Cuban systems is truly asinine. The economic systems are almost polar opposites, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that economic structures are central to governmental systems. Another example of a big difference is the fact that political parties have no part in the electoral system in Cuba. I could go on and on and on, but the point that you direly miss is that your comparison is wholly unwarranted and invalid.

The "actual Cuban state" is run by the workers, because there is an immeasurable amount of accountability.

O ye of little scientific analysis*:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

*On edit, I couldn't resist that one.

[chimx]

Immeasurable amount of accountability? Cuban officials are not elected by the Cuban population. I don't care what the hell kind of economic structure you are dealing with. A populations removal from political participation is always unpreferable. How can you ideologically justify not having voting for government representation?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They are elected, and recallable (and many have been recalled), so you're talking nonsense.

[chimx]

Bzzt. Only the most local assembly is elected. See my earlier post in this thread. After the small local assembly elections, Cubans are only given ratification power, and later recall power.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:00 am
Bzzt. Only the most local assembly is elected. See my earlier post in this thread. After the small local assembly elections, Cubans are only given ratification power, and later recall power.
From my understanding, the local assemblyperson is elected; the local assembly nominates a candidate for a higher position, and that candidate is subjected to a yes/no vote from the constituency.

So no, Cubans do get to decide who gets into the higher position. If the constituency doesn't like the candidates, the candidates don't get elected; if the assembly fails to nominate an acceptable candidate, the constituency elects a new assembly (either by regular election or recall).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cubans elect everyone on the Municipal level, based on their revolutionary qualities. The unions (which almost every worker belongs to, and which operate on dues) and mass organizations like the Cuban Federation of Women select candidates for the National Assembly. The elected Municipal representatives chose people from those put forward by the unions and mass organizations by secret vote. These decisions are then ratified. About half of those selected for the National Assembly will be people who were elected on the Municipal level.

The Cuban Communist Party plays no role in the elections.

These are the structures the Cuban people have put in place.. and they are always working to improve them. The world is not perfect, and they have to work with the material conditions that exist.

Also, I'll say again.. elections are only a tiny part of democracy.. especially workers' democracy.

Democracy is not abstract or isolated from class. A bigger question than how a class rules should be which class rules.

[Rawthentic]

But I have yet to be seriously convinced that the working class rules in Cuba.

[chimx]

Let me be clear before I reply. I never meant to imply that Cuba is undemocratic. Rather, its indirect form of democracy is a model unworthy of much of the fanfare the left has given it.


Originally posted by manic expression+--> (manic expression)So no, Cubans do get to decide who gets into the higher position. If the constituency doesn't like the candidates, the candidates don't get elected[/b]

You do realize that you are elevating the same ratification model used by Napoleon I? Obviously they have a say, just not a substantial one.


CDL
The Cuban Communist Party plays no role in the elections.

I have never brought up the CP in this thread.


Cubans elect everyone on the Municipal level, based on their revolutionary qualities. The unions and mass organizations like the Cuban Federation of Women select candidates for the National Assembly. The elected Municipal representatives chose people from those put forward by the unions and mass organizations by secret vote. These decisions are then ratified. About half of those selected for the National Assembly will be people who were elected on the Municipal level.

You are actually skipping over the Provincial level if I'm not mistaken. You see, municipalities only constitute a few thousand people. I will agree that in the Municipal Assembly a stronger form of democracy exists--due to the fact that there are more direct ties to the constituency.

After this level of elections, those constituency ties are weakened by moving from a representative democracy, to an indirect democracy where ratification is the sole means of voicing dissent. the Municipal Assembly picks candidates from within itself for Provincial Assemblies. Provincial Assemblies then pick candidates from within itself for a National Assembly.

Again, at every level of this process (other than the Municipal Assembly) the people do not elect their representatives. Rather, a representative is told to the people and they are allowed to agree or disagree; again, similar to how Napoleon asked his people whether or not they approved of him becoming the first consul (for life).


Also, I'll say again.. elections are only a tiny part of democracy.. especially workers' democracy.

Of course, but I don't this that is justification for ignoring the shortcomings within a democracy. I don't think people in Cuba have an adequate amount of political power. Saying that they are doing their best "given the material conditions" is, and always will be, a cop-out.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:46 am
You do realize that you are elevating the same ratification model used by Napoleon I? Obviously they have a say, just not a substantial one.
You do realize that Napoleanic France and Revolutionary Cuba bear a few differences in a few respects?

You can cite these degrees of separation all you like, but the fact is that the workers control the government all the way up. The system starts at the most local of levels, and that intimacy is maintained throughout, IMO. However, the important part is that they could create and implement a number of different electoral systems, and the workers would still control the government because of economic circumstances.

I do understand where you're coming from, thank you for the clarification.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

the important part is that they could create and implement a number of different electoral systems, and the workers would still control the government because of economic circumstances..

And how is that?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:56 am

the important part is that they could create and implement a number of different electoral systems, and the workers would still control the government because of economic circumstances..

And how is that?
Economic circumstances dictate who controls the government. Let's say they tweaked the American electoral system a bit here and there (or overhauled it and made it a Parliamentary system), it wouldn't change who controlled the government. Likewise, Cuba could do the same with the same results. Just my opinion.

[chimx]

The system starts at the most local of levels, and that intimacy is maintained throughout, IMO.

Well I am happy that is your opinion, but could you elaborate how this intimacy exists for those of us that don't share your opinion? :)

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Economic circumstances dictate who controls the government.

So likewise the people of the Soviet Union controlled the government under, say, Stalin?