Cuban Democracy in Action

[Xiao Banfa]

Cubans head to polling booths

16 January 2008
The first stage in Cuba’s electoral process took place last year in what marked the beginning of this year’s presidential election.

Elections will eventually decide who sits in the National Assembly, which in turn elects the president.

Municipal delegates put their names forward for election last September, and by mid-November 15,236 were elected. The turnout was impressive, with more than 96 per cent of those eligible to vote – Cubans aged 16 and over – exercising their right, which amounted to 8.2 million people.
At the municipal level, voters themselves – not the Communist Party of Cuba, which is excluded from the electoral process - nominate candidates for election, and secret ballots take place at staffed stations before the ballots are counted in public.

And in a blow to anti-Cuban groups who had run a campaign encouraging Cubans to cast blank ballots, election officials revealed that fewer than four per cent of voters in the municipal elections had done so.

The second stage of the electoral process started in December, as candidates from the municipal assemblies put themselves forward to the public for election to provincial assemblies and as deputies to the National Assembly.

After going to press, Cubans will vote for 1,201 provincial delegates and 614 deputies to the National Assembly. The newly elected assembly will then choose the Council of State, which President Fidel Castro has headed since the early 1960s.

He must be re-elected to the assembly if he is to remain president of the Council of State, and head Cuba's Government. Voting for the presidency will be held no later than March 5, 2008.

In December Fidel was nominated as a candidate for a seat in Cuba's National Assembly, a pre-condition if he were to be a candidate for the presidency.

The international media has speculated that he will rule himself out of the running for the nation’s top job after he said he didn’t want to “obstruct the rise of people much younger”. However, even if he were to stand, his election would remain dependant on the National Assembly’s vote.

From cuba-solidarity.org (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-solidarity.org)

[Xiao Banfa]

Is Cuba Democratic?

The Cuban revolution began with the struggle for democracy against the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Being a country whose economy and political life were dominated by US interests, the revolution was also a struggle for democracy in the sense of winning the right of the Cuban nation to act as a sovereign power and shape its own future.
Out of the revolution there arose a number of mass popular organisations which to this day wield considerable influence in Cuban society. These organisations enable all Cubans to participate in decision-making and to ensure their voices are heard when consultations take place with a view to forming government policy. The right to participate and to be heard is enshrined in the Constitution and Cubans have the opportunity to participate in decision making both in their neighbourhoods and their work places. There are also numerous groups representing particular professions or social or cultural interests which play an active part in the consultative process so characteristic of political life in Cuba, such as the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP), pensioners’ and ex-combatants’ associations.
Eighty per cent of Cubans over the age of 14 are members of their local Committee for the Defence of the Revolution – a committee composed of members of about 60 households living in a district or area. CDRs are found in every neighbourhood throughout the country. They are responsible for a variety of aspects of the life of the neighbourhood, from civil defence (necessary in a country 90 miles from a world super-power which, since 1959, has not ceased to act in a hostile manner towards it), collecting waste for recycling and social events to voluntary work and discussing proposals of new laws from central government.
All Cuban workers have the right to join a trade union, although membership of a union is voluntary. However ninety eight per cent of the active population belong to one of the 19 trade unions in Cuba. Cuban law permits workers to freely form trade union organisations and does not require such organisations to register with any state agency in order to function or to acquire legality. Unions are self financed from monthly dues, which are paid by members to their local union official, and they receive no subsidies from the state. Elections of union officers at the workplace are open and competitive. Different political views are found within each of the unions.

All workers, whether members of a union or not, have the right to participate in monthly worker assemblies, discussions and in the shaping of their workplace’s collective bargaining agreement. Union members are active in the development and implementation of policy at the work place. They have a role in the development of the business plan and participate in management meetings.
In a broader context, the trades unions and their central organisation, the Cuban Workers’ Central (CTC) are routinely consulted by central government when new laws are being considered. In 1993, during the economic crisis, nearly 3 million workers in every work place, expressed their views in ‘workers’ parliaments.’ Their ideas formed the basis of government policy on taxation, prices and monetary issues. One view expressed was that workers should not have to pay taxes while experiencing severe economic difficulties, although they considered that social security (National Insurance) contributions should continue. This policy was duly adopted by central government.
In 1995 the unions’ expressed their opposition to sections of the Foreign Investment Law. They objected to the direct hiring of Cuban workers by foreign enterprises as they felt that the workers in question could be disadvantaged by practices of foreign management. Instead they advocated the hiring of labour through a state entity – an employment agency – to ensure full employment rights for workers. This became government policy.
During the reorganisation of the sugar industry in 2002, nearly one million workers participated in assemblies to express their views about redundancy arrangements relating to pay (they would continue to receive their usual salary), opportunities for retraining or further study and seeking alternative employment.
One cannot help but compare the formation of government policy in Cuba with the way governments of other third-world countries are compelled to accept policies prescribed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In such cases consultations with public bodies and the unions are virtually non-existent.

Article 44 of the Constitution guarantees equal economic, political, social, cultural and family rights for men and women. Equal opportunities for women have and continue to be promoted by the NGO, the Cuban Women’s Federation (the FMC), which was formed in 1960 and which has 73,710 local branches throughout the country. Eighty five percent of Cuban women over the age of 14 are members of the FMC. The FMC has close links with a number of ministries and it is through this organisation that women have been able to make their voice heard in their struggle for full equal rights and opportunities. In Cuba today, 44.5% of union members, 64% of lawyers, 49% of judges and 47% of Supreme Court judges are women. 27.6% of deputies in the National Assembly are women – the sixth largest percentage in the world. Current objectives include a more intense development of non-sexist education at all levels of society.
In a similar way, Article 42 of the Constitution states that any form of discrimination because of “race, skin colour, sex, national origin, religious belief and any other form of discrimination harmful to human dignity is proscribed and
sentenced by law.” All public bodies and enterprises are required to comply with the requirement to treat all people with equal respect and consideration.
The system for electing representatives to seats in the municipal and provincial assemblies and to the National Assembly (Cuba’s parliament) is based upon universal adult suffrage for all those aged 16 and over. Nobody is excluded from voting, except convicted criminals and people with mental disabilities.
Municipal elections take place every two and a half years and elections to the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly take place every five years.
Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties. Indeed, no political party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any given candidates. Instead the candidates are nominated individually by grass-roots organisations and by individual electors. When a person is nominated, no election campaigning is permitted; instead, his or her biography and other personal attributes are posted in public places. The successful candidate is chosen by secret ballot. The Electoral Law of 1992 stipulates that delegates to the municipal and provincial assemblies and the 601 deputies to the National Assembly are all elected by popular suffrage using a secret ballot. The Head of State and the Council of State are elected from among the deputies.
Once elected, a delegate or deputy has to inform electors about his or her work and, as in other countries, can be contacted by people in the constituency.
Unlike the case in other states, which invariably criticize Cuba for being ‘undemocratic’, voter turn-out in Cuba is high. In April 2005, 97.7% of electors came out to vote for their deputies to the municipal assemblies.

From cuba-solidarity.org (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cuba-solidarity.org)

[SouthernBelle82]

Sounds pretty good. I'm amazed they let sixteen year olds vote! That really surprised me.

[Enragé]

i read that you can vote for 614 different candidates - and there are 614 seats in parliament. Is this true? If so, WHAT THE FUCK?

[Enragé]

oh right, it's 609 seats. Western media lied again.
However
i still wouldnt call it democratic o0 not by a long fucking shot

[KC]

i still wouldnt call it democratic o0 not by a long fucking shot

Why not?

[kromando33]

Why not?
Because the bourgeois says so.

[Dros]

Why not?

If there are 609 seets in parliament and 609 candidates, then everybody just got elected. In order for representative democracy to be meaningful, there must be representatives who aren't chosen.

[bobroberts]

Isn't this just a ratification of the candidates that were elected back in October?

[LSD]

If there are 609 seets in parliament and 609 candidates, then everybody just got elected. In order for representative democracy to be meaningful, there must be representatives who aren't chosen.

It's actually worse than that. Not only did every single candidate win his or her election this last time, but in the history of Cuba, no candidate has ever lost an election!

There's a lot of misinformation out there regarding "democracy" in Cuba, from both sides; and it's difficult for those of us without a vested interest to break through the propaganda and get a clear answer on just what the Cuban political system really is.

Part of that difficulty is due to the incredibly intricacy of the Cuban political process. For a country that prides itself on its "revolutionary" spirit, the Cuban constitution is a remarkably opaque document. And things get even murkier when we start talking about electoral laws in practice.

The basic facts, though, are as follows: prior to a national election, local candidacy commissions present a slate of nominees to the local municipal assembly, which then presents a nominee to the National Candidacy Commission, which then publishes a final list of candidates, which the local voters can either approve or reject.

In practice, it's always been the former.

Which, I suppose, leaves us with only two options. Either the Cuban political process is so democratic and so perfectly in tune with the people that every single nominated candidate has been worthy; or there's something undemocratic going on.

Personally, I'm betting it's the latter. Not just 'cause I'm a hopeless cynic, but also because while the Cuban government may be many things, perfect isn't one of them. Even Cuba's staunchest defenders admit that it's made its fair share of mistakes in the past, and yet every singe NCC nominee has been perfect? Every election, every time?

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I believe that the Cuban electoral process probably operates exactly as the government claims it does. I even believe that the elections are conducted fairly and honestly. I just don't think it matters.

'Cause when your slate of nominees must be approved by three layers of entrentched bureaucracy, when only one nominee is permitted per district, and when no campaigning is permitted whatsoever, it doesn't matter that 97% of the people are voting yes; they never really had a decision to make anyway.

The word "democracy", as we all well know, comes from the Greek. And yet what we think of today as "democracy" bears very little in common with the abortive systems of the ancient Greek polis. We use the word, rather, because we want to appeal to that same impulse that gave us the Athenian experiments, the idea that the people themselves should govern.

Virtually every state in the world today calls itself a democracy. There are the rogue exceptions, Saudi Arabia's a monarchy and proud of it, Myanmar makes no bones about its military Junta. But save five or six isolated countries, the entire human population currently lives under governments that delcare themselves to be, in some form, "democratic".

And most of these countries have long complex legal documents that illustrate the width and breadth of their "democracy" and perseverate at great length over the great and noble principles their state embodies.

And yet most of these countries are also tyrannies.

Because, in the end, elections aren't the point. Elections are a selection mechanism, nothing more. In the context of a free and empowered populace, elections can represent majoritarian rule. In other contexts, however, they can represent nothing at all. The test, therefore, lies not in how free the elections are, but in how free the people are.

And in Cuba, the people are unfortunately not that free. The constitution affords all manner of personal rights, but there are still hundreds of politicla prisoners sitting in Cuban jails for the "crime" of challenging the system.

Anyone can theoretically be nominated for office, but one must first be approved by multiple layers of bureaucracy, both state and non-governmental. That kind of entrentched power structure is intrinsically self-perpetuating. Which is why despite 30 years of "recallable" leaders, no Cuban politician has yet to be recalled.

The PCC claims to both "guide" and "take no part" in Cuban elections. This is a dichotomy that cannot withstand the real world. In reality, PCC members fill the ranks of the CTC chapters and CDRs that make up the local candidacy commissions, and so in many ways the real arbitor of national elections is the PCC politburo. Which is why, of course, the PCC politburo members tend to find themselves in such lofty positions in the Cuban Republic.

Ultimately, Cuba is the last of its kind. A Cold War relic desperately trying to transition into something relevent to the twenty-first century. Astonishingly, it's not doing that terrible a job in that effort. Cuba at present is nowhere near democracy, but considering its history that's to be expected. What's more important is that despite an entrenched bureaucracy and the inability of its body politic to fully excise its Stalinist roots, there is enough of a democratic foundation on which to build. The current system may be fatally corrupt, but it's managed to construct a solid base.

In the end, I think the Cuban people will outsmart us all, and Cuba may well turn out to be the one Leninist success story; the transformation of an oppressed colonial posession into a preeminent industrial social-democracy. It's not inevitable, of course, things could still go wrong. The US could invade or domestic pressures could run amok. But my bet is that Cuba wil pretty stably follow the path it's charted for itself, consciously or not.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think the Cuban people will outsmart us all, and Cuba may well turn out to be the one Leninist success story; the transformation of an oppressed colonial posession into a preeminent industrial social-democracy.


Raul Castro has already started to drop hints about liberal economic reforms, so the likeliest thing to happen is it slowly starts to open up its markets. Especially now that the young bureaucracy can look at China and marvel at its achievements. I suspect that in the next ten years we will have communism with "Cuban characteristics" to rival its Chinese counterpart.

[YKTMX]

This is a stupid farce, a pantomine, a joke, political theatrics, authoritarian and blatantly ludicrous.

Anyone who thinks that an election were the number candidates matches the number of seats, and where all the candidates hold views which are dictated by unelected Army leaders, isn't a democrat and isn't a socialist.

This is a disgrace to the memory of early Soviet democracy.

[Ismail]

I think that single-candidate elections can be democratic. Simply have a candidate stand, and have people focus on that candidate and question him or her. If they don't like him or her, they vote them out and a new person is chosen and the process repeats. It allows one to get more info out of a candidate and no "campaigning" which amounts to "My opponent is evil and I'm great." and threadbare arguments.

As for Cuba, we Hoxhaists view it as revisionist and that it was never a Marxist-Leninist state, but rather a puppet state that was never particularly interested in achieving a Communist society. In any case, I would like to say that I was under the impression that elections in Cuba were, in fact, multi-candidate, only that you can't campaign and instead you simply win by having the trust and popularity of the community. The claims that no candidate has ever lost an election though is odd and I'd certainly like a source for this.

Also (and I'm actually opposed to this) I was under the impression that while the Communist party is the only legal party, you can run as an independent and claim to be a part of some group, it just isn't recognized legally as a political party.

[spartan]

As for Cuba, we Hoxhaists view it as revisionist and that it was never a Marxist-Leninist state, but rather a puppet state that was never particularly interested in achieving a Communist society.

How would you describe Cuba, politically and economically, then?

I agree that Cuba wasnt really that intrested in Communism as Castro was, by and large, an opportunist who took his chances with the USSR when the Americans became hostile.

[Ismail]

Politically they have taken fairly revisionist positions. I don't see them call for class struggle, nor make Marxist-Leninist analysis's of situations.

Economically, well, I'm not quite sure. Its health-care system and such are good, but things simply aren't being done in the Leninist way. It seems like a more radical version of 1980's Sweden rather than an actual Socialist state. Apparently the teaching of Marxism in schools is "optional". (read: no one cares about it) Also, the economy is far too focused on small industries like sugar and such for trade rather than heavy industries which encourage self-sufficiency.

[Wanted Man]

I think this is how it works: candidates are selected from the bottom up by local committees, trade unions and other grassroot movements. The Party is not allowed to nominate candidates, and candidates do not have to be Party members. Voters may then decide whether or not to approve the full slate.

Now, I certainly do not consider a "full slate" system very democratic. But let's put things into perspective: which would you prefer?
The Cuban system described above.

Netherlands representative democracy: you vote for a specific party program. You have no influence on candidate nominations unless you join a party and subject yourself to its line and leadership. Some parties also use "full slate" systems for this. Parties campaign with the #1 candidate on the list. You then get to vote. The results translate into the size of the slice of the pie that your party gets. No party can get a majority.

It forms a coalition with like-minded parties, so that it can push through all decisions without having to listen to the opposition. Parties compromise on their principles to form a coalition, and break election promises. The iron hand of the European Union agenda weighs down, ensuring that further neo-liberalization will occur, undermining decades of gains of the workers' movement.

All parties are assumed to have "confidence" in the government by default. They are highly unlikely to revoke it, because this almost inevitably causes a political crisis, or at least the resignation of one or more ministers.

Don't like it? Tough, that's how it works, bub. Try again in 4 years. You can protest, but unless the spineless, reformist trade union leadership calls for a strike, it's unlikely to affect much. On a particularly bad day, the riot police may rough you up a bit (for refusing to obey a "police order" to disperse, which is illegal) and let you mull over your ideas behind the bars for a night.

Politically they have taken fairly revisionist positions. I don't see them call for class struggle, nor make Marxist-Leninist analysis's of situations.
Then you must not have "seen" a lot from "them", comrade. It is beyond me why some Hoxhaists still take this view of Cuba. Hardial Bains himself visited Cuba in the 1990s, and changed his view radically. I would seriously suggest that comrades like yourself at least try to open up to the Cuban solidarity movement and try to learn more from it.


Economically, well, I'm not quite sure. Its health-care system and such are good, but things simply aren't being done in the Leninist way. It seems like a more radical version of 1980's Sweden rather than an actual Socialist state.
What is "the Leninist way" of healthcare and education? :confused: I hardly think that the Sweden comparison is apt, considering the completely different economic relations there. Some capitalist systems have flattened out the sharp edges of capitalism by creating a welfare state. But since the 1990s, this is being dismantled faster than you can say "revisionism". Neo-liberalism and the destruction of the welfare state in Europe is a fact. In Cuba, on the other hand, this process has never been put into place. In fact, if Cuba was able to trade with countries with greater capacity, the healthcare system could easily be state of the art for the entire world (it already is, with the exception of the most wealthy European countries).


Apparently the teaching of Marxism in schools is "optional". (read: no one cares about it)
Is it really? Even if it is, how would you conclude that nobody cares about it? That is your interpretation, comrade. Anyway, I would not be surprised if it is optional. Public school is not an indoctrination farm for little future Marxist ideologists, but a way to create the "new socialist man" by transferring the values of the revolution. And of course, it is entirely free. Books and all. In Europe, it is also possible to "learn Marxism" in university, but you'll have to be quite privileged to get access. It should be clear which is more useful in the end.


Also, the economy is far too focused on small industries like sugar and such for trade rather than heavy industries which encourage self-sufficiency.
Eh? I thought it was exactly that kind of thing that is currently correctly being criticized as a mistake of the past. Considering the blockade, it's not very easy to obtain the resources needed for that sort of thing. Development can only go so far for an island nation with 11 million citizens and little available resources, it's never going to have the sufficient industrial capacity to be completely self-sufficient, definitely not in the world as it stands today.

Here is another flaw in thinking: "socialism in one country" is seen as an absolute, rather than as the necessary step back that it really was for Soviet Russia in a Europe where all other council republics and the like had just been defeated and the workers' movement incapable of empowering itself. If you keep applying "socialism in one country" to the extreme on Cuba, what do you get, comrade? An isolated island nation, full of factories that will be outdated and polluting within 30 years, and no way out except for a "velvet" counter-revolution, replacing the stale or dead leadership with "realistic" persons who will finally open the country up and give it an IMF/World Bank-inspired "shock therapy".

Albania was self-sufficient and industrialized on paper. But when the guards left the thousands of pillboxes that guaranteed "self-sufficiency", something quite different turned out on the other side. Many of Albania's critiques of the USSR and China were correct. But now we must also look at Albania's own experience to see what mistakes to avoid. And what you're stating here is the complete opposite of that, comrade, it is a recipe for the repetition of those very mistakes!

[bobroberts]

It's actually worse than that. Not only did every single candidate win his or her election this last time, but in the history of Cuba, no candidate has ever lost an election!

There were multi-candidate elections last October.

[Enragé]

Why not?

because you have 614 candidates for 609 seats in the National Assembly, how does that give you alot of options to choose from?


Now, I certainly do not consider a "full slate" system very democratic. But let's put things into perspective: which would you prefer?

neither
thats why im in this fight
i dont like choosing between two fucked up positions, so thats why im struggling to make a third, good position.

So
neither nor Cuba nor the Netherlands, but workers' power!

[kromando33]

Anyone who thinks the economic trouble in Cuba was caused by America is wrong, the issue is that Castro failed to build Cuba a diversified self-sufficient economy, instead he just relied on the Soviets for subsidies and cheap crude, with no plan for how the economy would survive it that source one day disappeared.

That's why 'Socialism in one country' is important, and why 'internationalism' failed, the eastern bloc fell like a house of cards because they were all dependent on a central source of economic aid to survive. The 'specialization of the socialist bloc' which happened after the war, ensured that if the Soviet Union collapsed the whole bloc would.

[kromando33]

This is a stupid farce, a pantomine, a joke, political theatrics, authoritarian and blatantly ludicrous.

Anyone who thinks that an election were the number candidates matches the number of seats, and where all the candidates hold views which are dictated by unelected Army leaders, isn't a democrat and isn't a socialist.

This is a disgrace to the memory of early Soviet democracy.
I thought the Trots now liked Cuba or something?... (sorry hard to tell their political stances and ideology changes by the week).

[spartan]

Anyone who thinks the economic trouble in Cuba was caused by America is wrong, the issue is that Castro failed to build Cuba a diversified self-sufficient economy, instead he just relied on the Soviets for subsidies and cheap crude, with no plan for how the economy would survive it that source one day disappeared.

Yeah but everything goes against Cuba, self sufficiency wise, as Cuba has very little natural resources (And the natural resources that they do have an abundance of, such as sugar, isnt fit for home consumption alone, but for international trade) and has a hostile neighbour who places them under a trade embargo.

For the most part i agree with you that Cuba shouldnt have relied on the USSR to the extent that it eventually did, but in the unique circumstances of the time, the most practical thing to do for the short term was to become dependent on the USSR, as they were the only major power willing to offer any help at the time (And then it was only really to gain a strategic foothold against the US).

Whats most funny now is that Cuba is doing exactly the same thing today (By relying on a foreign power, Venezuela, which is a major oil producing nation) as it did in the 60's with the USSR.

[PRC-UTE]

Anyone who thinks the economic trouble in Cuba was caused by America is wrong, the issue is that Castro failed to build Cuba a diversified self-sufficient economy, instead he just relied on the Soviets for subsidies and cheap crude, with no plan for how the economy would survive it that source one day disappeared.

Erm, I hope I don't have to explain the massive gap in logic here, re: Castro's alledged failure.



That's why 'Socialism in one country' is important, and why 'internationalism' failed, the eastern bloc fell like a house of cards because they were all dependent on a central source of economic aid to survive. The 'specialization of the socialist bloc' which happened after the war, ensured that if the Soviet Union collapsed the whole bloc would.

What an odd interpretation.

The difference between the history of the Eastern European states and Cuba is that Cuba's bureaucracy has the deep support of the masses, and the leadership of Eastern Europe were basically alienated from the working class. That helps to explain why the masses basically sat by while those states were destroyed, yet also look back on them quite nostalgically.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't have time for most of the bullshit in this thread, but:

Candidates are nominated in the areas they live by the people they live and work with.

Candidates are subject to recall at any time, and many have been recalled (this is especially true in Havana, where it has happened quite a few times).

Fidel Castro "the army leader" was elected to National Assembly, and subsequently, the position of Presidency.

Finally, capitalism represents a progressive step forward from feudalism. One reason for that was the socialization of labor that occured under it, another was the "globalization" of the economy. Communism can only truly exist on a world scale. Pipe dreams of "self-sufficiency" are as reactionary as they are ridiculous. Cuba made mistakes in regards of acting as if the USSR would last forever, and they are the first to admit that. But criticisms of them for accepting oil and other materials from the USSR at great rates and selling them sugar at rates about the world market price are absurd. They would have been crazy not to accept those deals!


I thought the Trots now liked Cuba or something?... (sorry hard to tell their political stances and ideology changes by the week).

The Barnesites (U.S. SWP and its supporters around the world), the DSP in Australia and some others "like it", though many/most of them no longer consider themselves "Trotskyists."

The Cliffites (of which YKHSOW is one) have little to do with Trotsky, as a key part of their program is a rejection of his call for the defense of workers' states. They consider Cuba (like China, Viet Nam, Laos, DPRK and the USSR, Albania, GDR, etc. in the past) as "state capitalist" and stand alongside other anti-communists by supporting counterrevolution.

[darktidus]

I thought the Trots now liked Cuba or something?... (sorry hard to tell their political stances and ideology changes by the week).

Hoxhaists, on the other hand, have solid views. They believe on Wednesday the same thing they believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.

[Ismail]

Hoxhaists, on the other hand, have solid views. They believe on Wednesday the same thing they believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.Probably because on that Tuesday Castro said something nice about a 112-year old religious man who isn't really a Communist. Ergo we do not find it that worthy of degenerating our opinion of Castro.

I mean unless the world went into nuclear destruction within a day, why would we need to change our views? Hoxha changed his views, he viewed the Chinese at first as friends (albeit he didn't know much due to him being in Albania and them being in China) but overtime he had criticisms of Maoism and then got angry when Deng Xiaoping took the leadership position. He believed it was the flaws of Maoism that caused this.

He also changed positions on USSR (friend to enemy), Yugoslavia (semi-friend to enemy), and so on.

[FireFry]

And this one is from ... "the paper of record" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/americas/21cuba.html?ref=americas)

HAVANA — As Cubans went to the polls on Sunday, the ballot boxes, campaign posters and other trappings of democracy that are hauled out every election day were all in place. But there was something else that had not been present for many years — some degree of suspense.

As in the elections five years ago, and the ones five years before that, there was little doubt about who would win. The 614 candidates for the National Assembly of People’s Power were all running unopposed.

For the first time since most Cubans won the right to cast ballots for Parliament in 1993, however, there was some uncertainty about who would fill top leadership posts, which the new Parliament will play a role in resolving.

“Historically, I can’t say these elections have been very significant,” said Frank Mora, an expert on Cuba at the National War College in Washington. “This time around, though, they’re worth watching.”

No one says that Parliament, a body denounced by critics as little more than a rubber stamp, will alone decide the fate of Fidel Castro. But the elections set in motion a process that will determine within weeks whether Mr. Castro, who has ruled since 1959, will stay on as Cuba’s leader. After falling ill in July 2006, he temporarily handed power to his brother, Raúl.

The president and other top leaders are chosen by the Council of State, a 31-member body that will be appointed on Feb. 24 by the incoming Parliament.

Some say no dramatic change in Fidel Castro’s Cuba can come until he dies, no matter what position he holds. “Fidel’s power doesn’t emanate from his positions,” said Mr. Mora. “It comes from the fact he’s Fidel. As long as he’s alive and lucid, he’ll exercise leverage in the strategic direction of Cuba.”

Still, speculation is rife here that change is afoot — fueled by veiled comments by Mr. Castro, 81, that he has never intended to rule for life and believes in ceding power to a younger generation.

“We have to face different situations and important decisions,” Raúl Castro, 76, said on state television after voting early Sunday. Fidel Castro voted from the undisclosed place where he is recuperating.

On the streets of Havana, no one is sure what will happen next. There is talk that the Constitution may be amended to create a new emeritus role for Mr. Castro. Some speculate that the talk of a younger generation taking over means that neither Castro will remain president.

If a new leader does emerge, that person is likely to be one of the candidates who skates to victory on Sunday, which has Cuba watchers in the United States scanning the candidate list a bit more closely this time.

The new Parliament will include veteran Communist Party loyalists like the Parliament president, Ricardo Alarcón; Vice President Carlos Lage; and Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque. But the state-controlled news media has said the newcomers include more women and more Afro-Cubans than ever before. Sixty percent of the candidates have been born since the Cuban revolution.

If Cuba’s lawmakers have been known for anything in the past, it is their string of unanimous aye votes, no matter the issue before them — national budgets, policy changes, constitutional amendments.

But given the slow-motion transition of power, Cuba watchers wonder if the members of this new Parliament will be more willing than their predecessors to debate a new course for the country.

“These are all pliable regime loyalists, and this is clearly sham democracy,” said Brian Latell, a former C.I.A. analyst who wrote a book about Cuba’s potential direction after Mr. Castro is gone. “But this could still be the stage for changes in the future. Will these new members, after Fidel is gone, begin to speak out more than those in the past?”

And although no candidate has ever lost a an election in Castro’s Cuba, that does not mean voters cannot send subtle messages at the polls. In the last election, more than a million voters submitted blank ballots, nullified their ballot in some way or voted for some but not all of the candidates, said Jorge I. Domínguez, a Harvard professor who follows developments in Cuba.

Voting is not mandatory, but block leaders visit the homes of those who have not yet voted by the afternoon to find out what has kept them away. Ballots can be carried to one’s sickbed.

But not everyone follows the leaders. One voter, puffing on a cigar and sipping a Bucanero beer in his living room — and speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid repercussions — explained how he had marked an X next to only those names he had never heard of before, his way of saying that the veterans have not done enough.

Oswaldo Payá, a dissident who has delivered petitions to Parliament seeking reform, stayed away from the polls. “This is a forced ritual that has nothing to do with the desires of the Cuban people,” he said on the eve of the vote.

To win, a candidate must receive support from at least half the voters in the district. One uncertainty is whether an unusual number of Cubans might use their ballots to protest. Another is whether, this time around, the candidates — running a race that they cannot lose — might nudge Cuba on a different course.

One first-time candidate, Antonio Castañeda Márquez, is expected to be the first Santeria priest to serve in Parliament. His Afro-Cuban religion makes predictions for the year every Jan. 1, but steers clear of politics. “Nobody knows what will happen,” he said. “We’ll find out when it happens.”

Note;
-- Of course, I'd bet the NY Times would give anybody a good rep if they were anti-Castro, even Batista.

[Enragé]

They consider Cuba (like China, Viet Nam, Laos, DPRK and the USSR, Albania, GDR, etc. in the past) as "state capitalist" and stand alongside other anti-communists by supporting counterrevolution.

not counterrevolution, but revolution towards actual socialism. The state capitalist point of view is that those states cannot be changed to an actual workers' state by reform, but need to be overthrown from below.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Revolution towards actual socialism" which means in reality, supporting counterrevolution, as the Cliffites have and continue to do.. While supporting "revolution towards actual socialism" they've lined up with the forces of reaction which successfully overturned every gain made by workers in the USSR, et. al., leading to historic drops in living conditions never seen in human history.

Communists, on the other hand, understand that the bureaucracies arrise because of material conditions, such as isolation, imperialist aggression, etc., and fight to extend the revolution to every country in which capitalism still exists -- the only way that genuine socialism can come to be not only in the bureaucratically controlled workers states, but in every country in the world, thus paving the way for world communism.

[Lenin II]

It is beyond me why some Hoxhaists still take this view of Cuba.

Personally, I don't.


Raul Castro has already started to drop hints about liberal economic reforms, so the likeliest thing to happen is it slowly starts to open up its markets.

I can only hope the hardline communists that still remain in the party will stop him before he destroys everything Fidel has worked so hard to build all these years.


Anyone who thinks the economic trouble in Cuba was caused by America is wrong

Do you really imagine that the embargo has not effected their economy? They are under blockade by the most powerful imperialist nation the world has ever known. Considering the material conditions, I'd say they've done pretty damn good.

[ComradeR]

Raul Castro has already started to drop hints about liberal economic reforms, so the likeliest thing to happen is it slowly starts to open up its markets.
I haven't heard this, does anyone have sources on it? Also it was my understanding that Raul was more of a communist then Fidel.

Anyone who thinks the economic trouble in Cuba was caused by America is wrong, the issue is that Castro failed to build Cuba a diversified self-sufficient economy, instead he just relied on the Soviets for subsidies and cheap crude, with no plan for how the economy would survive it that source one day disappeared.

That's why 'Socialism in one country' is important, and why 'internationalism' failed, the eastern bloc fell like a house of cards because they were all dependent on a central source of economic aid to survive. The 'specialization of the socialist bloc' which happened after the war, ensured that if the Soviet Union collapsed the whole bloc would.
Not every nation can be self-sufficient in the modern age comrade. They lack the resources necessary, especially island nations.

[YKTMX]

CDL revels in the oppression of our class by Army men, that's obvious and has always been his position and in this sense he's consistent, but his lukewarm defence of this charade only goes to show the poverty of his latter-day Stalinism.

What I don't understand is that you're going to support State Capitalist Military regimes (such as Cuba), why don't you just do so on its own merits?

Why is it neccessary to construct absolutely pitiful arguments about the "democratic" nature of Cuban society when every piece of empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that it isn't? I mean, surely honesty is a bare minimum for communists.

It redolent of American "pwogwessives" who think that the latest bunch of tossers running for the White House are offering a genuine "choice" for working people in America.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As usual, YKHSOW has nothing of worth to say, so he throws around some outdated political slurs.

Those who are interested can research all sorts of materials (empirical and anecdotal evidence included) on the question. There are several threads on it linked to in the Frequent topics of discussion - A guide (http://www.revleft.com/vb/politics-f14/frequent-topics-discussion-t53520/index.html) thread, as well as a host of info all over the net. The book "Cuba: Dictatorship or Democracy" by Marta Harnecker, though old, is also something worth looking into.

[chebol]

Actually, Fidel was a "communist" well before Raul, and in fact introduced him to the ideas. Fidel's strategic approach in Cuba in the 40s and 50s, however, was that identifying as a communist when the local "Communists" were busy supporting a dictator was kinda counter-productive.

As to YKHHNFI, well, you know he has no f**king idea, as the cliffite religion doesn't tolerate reason, science, reality, mathematics or marxism to get in the way of a good shibboleth.