The Left Has Lost Big Time--in Germany

[Bud Struggle]

No Left Turn in Key German State

BERLIN (AP) - A controversial attempt to oust Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives from government in a key state collapsed Monday _ an embarrassing finale to a saga that has roiled the country's main center-left party.

Four lawmakers from the center-left Social Democrats said they would block regional party leader Andrea Ypsilanti's plan to be elected governor of Hesse with support from the new Left Party, a pariah in national politics.

In a January election, Gov. Roland Koch, a deputy national leader of Merkel's party, lost his majority in the state parliament. No one else won one.

Ypsilanti had promised not to work with the Left Party, a combination of leftist ex-Social Democrats and ex-communists. But she decided to risk seeking its support to have the parliament narrowly elect her governor.


http://www.pr-inside.com/no-left-turn-in-key-german-r894905.htm

It seems even Social Democracy may be on the way out.

[BobKKKindle$]

How does this mean the "left" has lost out? The SPD is not part of the left. In 1959 the Godesberg Program declared that the party was not committed to the overthrow of capitalism, and would limit its activity to working within the framework of the bourgeois political system by cooperating with other parties and trying to form a government. In the past decade the party has moved quickly to the right by supporting welfare reforms which have cut back on the provision of basic services and unemployment benefits, and as participants in the ruling coalition under the leadership they have also had a key role in supporting the German presence in Afghanistan. This mirrors similar developments across the Europe, as social-liberal parties have given up their support for the welfare state by accepting the dogma of neo-liberalism and the introduction of market reforms.

You're not very intelligent, are you?

[Mindtoaster]

\

You're not very intelligent, are you?

Wow, unnecessary.

The above comment aside, I wouldn't worry too much about the left losing support in the middle of a financial crisis.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, I guess when I said "Left" I meant the REAL Left in this world, not a have dozen flag waving Communists and Anarchists. The article states clearly that the party is Left Center.

The point is that ALL of the Socialist leaning parties even the ones retreating from Socialism are loosing ground. Far from there being a "Revolution" the Conservatives in Europe are taking over. It seems the masses aren't even that interested in Social reform let alone Socialism.

If you think this isn't loosing--Good for you. :)

[Plagueround]

If anything, you've reaffirmed our assertion that social democracy will eventually be overtaken by the system it helps uphold, and that the working class will have to do more than vote. :cool:

[Wanted Man]

It's regional elections, dude, they go back and forth with the tides. The same can be said of national ones, by the way. It's stupid to take one election and say: "See, the left is dead, conservatism is taking over Europe". What would you know about it, anyway? If you just need to vent your frustration because teh evil communist Barack Hussein Osama is going to win tonight, just go play a video game.

[Zurdito]

who cares about the SPD? the best thing that could happen for the left would be their disappeareance from the face of the earth.

[Bud Struggle]

It's regional elections, dude, they go back and forth with the tides. The same can be said of national ones, by the way. It's stupid to take one election and say: "See, the left is dead, conservatism is taking over Europe". What would you know about it, anyway? If you just need to vent your frustration because teh evil communist Barack Hussein Osama is going to win tonight, just go play a video game.

Hey, I voted for Obama! :)

But the general trend in Europe has been toward the right--that was my point.

[BobKKKindle$]

The point is that ALL of the Socialist leaning parties even the ones retreating from Socialism are loosing ground.How is this in any way true? Throughout Europe workers are beginning to take up the struggle against their employers and the governments which have persisted in forcing people to accept shoddy public services and stagnant wages for the past decade. The full effects of the impending depression have not even been felt yet because the crisis has been confined to the financial sector, but people are already showing that they won't tolerate the misuse of their money on bailing out bankers who are responsible for the crisis, and are beginning to look for radical alternatives. Just last week there were over half a million people on the streets of Rome in Italy, causing half of the country's schools to close for the day, protesting against the racist policies and financial cutbacks of the Berlusconi government. Maybe if you read the news you wouldn't make assertions like "the conservatives are taking over"?

[Bud Struggle]

"All" was a strong word--but the general trends have been away from the Left and towards the right--in the nation elections in France, Germany, Britain I believe has a Conservative government.


Just last week there were over half a million people on the streets of Rome in Italy, causing half of the country's schools to close for the day, protesting against the racist policies and financial cutbacks of the Berlusconi government. But then again Berlusconi is a former Communist (before the Communist Party in Italy was disolved). And I believe right now, Left Center.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The point is that ALL of the Socialist leaning parties even the ones retreating from Socialism are loosing ground. Far from there being a "Revolution" the Conservatives in Europe are taking over. It seems the masses aren't even that interested in Social reform let alone Socialism.
The main reason why the Social Democrats are in trouble in Germany is because they're bleeding away votes to the Left Party, which is considerably more left-wing than they are. So the German parliamentary left is doing just fine, thank you very much. The center-left is losing votes to a more principled left, which is a good thing. See here (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/germany.html) and here (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/germany3.html).

[Pogue]

TomK displays his idiocy oncemore.

[Bud Struggle]

The main reason why the Social Democrats are in trouble in Germany is because they're bleeding away votes to the Left Party, which is considerably more left-wing than they are. So the German parliamentary left is doing just fine, thank you very much. The center-left is losing votes to a more principled left, which is a good thing. See here (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/germany.html) and here (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/germany3.html).

You miss the point of the article--it was an attempt to get rid of Merkel's Conservatives and it failed badly. That was my point in all of this. All well and good about the "more principled Left" but they aren't Communist by any means. Further though, your numbers really show how little actual support Communism has--especially in a country like Germany which at one time the entire Eastern half was a member of the Communist block.

Communism has all but dissapeared.

Actually, does Germany even HAVE a Communist party?

[Edit] I looked it up--the DPK. I imagine it's hiding under the title of "other."

[Robert]

Throughout Europe workers are beginning to take up the struggleBeginning? What you are describing was afoot decades ago in Europe. The left has now had at least 35 years, to be generous, to make some genuine consolidation of what looked like promising beginnings. Where have these consolidations occurred? All those angry kids and workers from the 60's are grown up now. They're mostly liberals, not communists.

(Is the Spanish Zapatero a genuine socialist?)


Just last week there were over half a million people on the streets of Rome in Italy, causing half of the country's schools to close for the day, protesting against the racist policies and financial cutbacks of the Berlusconi government.


But it's Berlusconi's government! How do you imagine he became the PM? In a coup? A putsch? And how much of the national government does Berlusconi's party control now?

Anyway, I've been on a few French streets (I assume French communist rallies have the same animus as those of the Italians) when these demonstrations have occurred. You're right, they tend to be massive, though less massive than they were in the 60's. But my observation was that a substantial percentage of the "protesters" were just apolitical kids enjoying a day off from school.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[RGacky3]

Social democracy, in many places in europe, has been on its way out for the last 10 years or so.

Bolshevism has dissapeared, which I think is a good thing.

[Robert]

Gack, if social democracy is on its way out, is Europe trending more left or more right?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

All well and good about the "more principled Left" but they aren't Communist by any means.
Some of them are. The Left Party was formed through a merger of the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) in the East with the WASG (a bunch of left-wing social democrats upset with the rightward course of the SPD) in the West. The PDS was the direct and legal heir of the SED (Socialist Unity Party) - the ruling party of East Germany.


Communism has all but dissapeared.
Some (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/czechia.html) countries (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/greece.html) beg (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/russia.html) to (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/moldova.html) differ (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/portugal.html).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The 'radical left' in Germany has been surging in recent years, actually.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, I guess when I said "Left" I meant the REAL Left in this world, not a have dozen flag waving Communists and Anarchists. The article states clearly that the party is Left Center.

The point is that ALL of the Socialist leaning parties even the ones retreating from Socialism are loosing ground.

The main reason why the Social Democrats are in trouble in Germany is because they're bleeding away votes to the Left Party, which is considerably more left-wing than they are. So the German parliamentary left is doing just fine, thank you very much. The center-left is losing votes to a more principled left, which is a good thing. See here (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/germany.html) and here (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/germany3.html).

Touche! All the Left Party needs to do now is put Marx and maybe Luxemburg's quote on "socialism or barbarism" into their program and dump the young neo-liberal opportunist "entryists." :)

[Patchd]

Wow, unnecessary.

The above comment aside
See, I thought it was very funny.

[Demogorgon]

I wouldn't exactly call this "losing out big time". This kind of thing happens all the time in European politics. Proportional Representation means parties have to co-operate and needless to say deals collapse sometimes.

This is embarrassing for the Social Democrats, but hardly crippling. Let's not forget it is a failure in parliamentary manouvering, not an election failure.

[RGacky3]

Gack, if social democracy is on its way out, is Europe trending more left or more right?

I would say the governments are moving more right. As far as the people are conserned I have no way of knowing. Ultimately the governments can't go more left, while maintaining Capitalism, so as far as I can tell they've been moving for more deregulation and privitization and dismantaling social-democracy. I don't think its nessesarily because they want to, but because they can't keep it up.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

If anything, you've reaffirmed our assertion that social democracy will eventually be overtaken by the system it helps uphold, and that the working class will have to do more than vote. :cool:

Most of most nation's population would benefit from social-democracy; If they can't be brought to vote how can they be brought to revolt?

Anyway, fuck the Social Democrats. Die Linke is da shit

[Plagueround]

Most of most nation's population would benefit from social-democracy; If they can't be brought to vote how can they be brought to revolt?

Anyway, fuck the Social Democrats. Die Linke is da shit



If anything, you've reaffirmed our assertion that social democracy will eventually be overtaken by the system it helps uphold, and that the working class will have to do more than vote. :cool:'

Certainly they could benefit, but for how long until it's all swept away by someone like Raygun playing on people's fears of "Black welfare queens"? A lot of my early political leanings were geared toward social democracy and reforming the system, and I think it would be great if we could simply and benevolently vote capitalism away or make it play nice, but I also recognize the reasons why it won't work long term if at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Furthermore, "social democracy" a la "Post-WWII Consensus" relies on protectionism, economic imperialism, and raking up the public debt to prop up workers in the developed world.

[Dimentio]

Hey, I voted for Obama! :)

But the general trend in Europe has been toward the right--that was my point.

That is actually a very big problem, not because the European right is pro-capitalist but more because its pro-stupidness.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Certainly they could benefit, but for how long until it's all swept away by someone like Raygun playing on people's fears of "Black welfare queens"? A lot of my early political leanings were geared toward social democracy and reforming the system, and I think it would be great if we could simply and benevolently vote capitalism away or make it play nice, but I also recognize the reasons why it won't work long term if at all.

But my concern is that the majority of people who have guns aren't going to realize that the social democrats were the ones helping them out, or at least were closer to benefiting them economically. The majority of people who want a revolution seem to relate to Reagan more on social issues, and honestly feel like Obama, for instance, is a commie who should be done away with. Their words, not mine.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But the general trend in Europe has been toward the right--that was my point.

Actually, if any else, it has been toward "social-right populism." Economically speaking, Europe has moved away from "free markets." It is on social issues ("the far right") where "the turn to the right" is occurring.

[RGacky3]

Europe has moved away from "free markets." It is on social issues ("the far right") where "the turn to the right" is occurring.

But its also privitizing and cutting social spending, what its doing is protecting its national Capitalists, by protecting them from outside competition, and giving them better profitability (cutting taxes, social spending, privatization, and the such)

[Djehuti]

Well, I guess when I said "Left" I meant the REAL Left in this world, not a have dozen flag waving Communists and Anarchists. The article states clearly that the party is Left Center.

The point is that ALL of the Socialist leaning parties even the ones retreating from Socialism are loosing ground. Far from there being a "Revolution" the Conservatives in Europe are taking over. It seems the masses aren't even that interested in Social reform let alone Socialism.


Some Social Democratic parties have been progressive and still have som progressive elements. The SPD has been anti-socialist ever since the first wirld war. They organized the Freikorps, they defeated the working class and instead favored the reactionaries and in-directly placed Hitler in power. Later they actively worked to sabotage the German Democratic Republic (the SPD in east however did join up with KPD and created SED) etc. The SPD have not made a single right choice in a hundred years or so. They are one of the crappiest social democratic parties ever and they are not even a bit left.

Also, Die Linke is not a minor party. They are a new party who quickly gained a lot of votes. Die Linke is the biggest party in former East Germany with around 30% of the votes there, and 15% of the votes in Germany as a whole.

The left has every potential these days, the masses are interested in socialism and social reform, theres no doubt at all of it. The problem is that the left suck, we have no organisation and no confidence what so ever. And the social demoratic parties are liberals and are thus naturally loosing ground to nationalists, conservatives and fundamentalists, because that's what liberals always do.

We need a strong revolutionary party, with focus on class struggle and radical social reforms. We need it bad.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Radical social reforms such as the card-check unionization that our resident petit-bourgeois despises so badly :D

[RGacky3]

We need a strong revolutionary party, with focus on class struggle and radical social reforms. We need it bad.

What you need is'nt another freaking communist party, you need more groups like the CNT, more radical unions, that actually make a difference and actually move toward socialism through direct action, rather than just arguing with politicians.

[Djehuti]

I use party in the broader sence of the word. And sure, we need radical unions as well. And autonomous groups and whatever. I am a fan of a tactical and strategical multitude.

[JimmyJazz]

Communism has all but dissapeared.


Bolshevism has dissapeared

RGacky3's statement is a bit more accurate.

Yes, the regimes supported through trade with the Soviet bloc, the ones that are left, are almost certainly on the way out for good. North Korea and Cuba won't last another 10 years, would be my guess.

But what do you think happens after that, TomK? Capitalism just continues indefinitely and/or until Jesus returns, without generating another wave of resistance? That's ridiculous, it will never happen.

[Bud Struggle]

RGacky3's statement is a bit more accurate.

Yes, the regimes supported through trade with the Soviet bloc, the ones that are left, are almost certainly on the way out for good. North Korea and Cuba won't last another 10 years, would be my guess.

But what do you think happens after that, TomK? Capitalism just continues indefinitely and/or until Jesus returns, without generating another wave of resistance? That's ridiculous, it will never happen.


Good riddance to North Korea--no people deserve to live like that--Cuba on the other hand was a DAMN good idea. I live in Florida and I have a house in the Keys and the pressure from the Cuban expats is ENORMOUS. Not completely fair. I've been to Cuba a few times and it is a police state--people watch what they say--there's no internet (No Cuban RevLefters are there?) but good healthcare, but really bad breakfast lunch and dinner. Cuba reminds me of the time my wife and I stayed in a pension in Communist Hungary--we went into a grocery store accross the street and couldn't find anything to buy for us to eat. Nothing.

Cuba's to close to the US for it not to be a mega playground for rich America vacationers. That's it's future.

But to answer your question---in the end it all becomes Social Democracy. You need to service all of the people--you need to take care of healthcare, education, the fuckups, all of that--but you also need to take care of the guys that CAN really make it on their own out there. (And that's where Communism fails.) Channel them correctly and you'll do all right...if you don't you'll have Hitlers and Napoleons coming up all over the place.

My problem with Communism is that it isn't sociologically sound.

(In foreign lands--can't spelcheck and have an iffy internet connection.)

[RGacky3]

But to answer your question---in the end it all becomes Social Democracy. You need to service all of the people--you need to take care of healthcare, education, the fuckups, all of that--but you also need to take care of the guys that CAN really make it on their own out there. (And that's where Communism fails.) Channel them correctly and you'll do all right...if you don't you'll have Hitlers and Napoleons coming up all over the place.


Problem is ultimately the same people are in control, and ultimately social democracy will fail because of that, because, eventually they'll want more, and more, and want to get rid of the blocks, thats the nature of the beast, thats one reason social democracy is being taken apart in different places in europe.

Ultimately ANarchism is the only thing that makes sense, because everyone is in a way making it on their own, together, if you get my drift, there is no state to take care of you (as if it ever was for that), but just the people, working together, taking care of each other, people that can do more will do more, people that can't won't.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Cut some slack on TomK. Methinks he has shifted from being a Republican to some sort of "social-democrat" (whether it's Blairite or "post-war consensus," I'm not sure).

[Dean]

But to answer your question---in the end it all becomes Social Democracy. You need to service all of the people--you need to take care of healthcare, education, the fuckups, all of that--but you also need to take care of the guys that CAN really make it on their own out there. (And that's where Communism fails.) Channel them correctly and you'll do all right...if you don't you'll have Hitlers and Napoleons coming up all over the place.

My problem with Communism is that it isn't sociologically sound.

Firstly, those that "make it on their own" are no less beholden to the social mechanics present. Unless the people you are talking about don't use labor, the economic production present, or any state or social functions in their "individualist" production. Of course the labor of your workers, all the transactions that take place, the acquisitions, are totally social phenomena which do not exist either in a void or totally dependant on your productive faculties. Like all people, you require the input of other human beings.

The same is true for those on Welfare, those that form unions, etc. - in fact, the only people that "make it on their own" in any real sense are those who have totally disassociated themselves from society. I truly wonder how much success you think they experience. :laugh:

You might respond that they "make it on their own" by having no "helping hand" in a free market. This is patently false, for a number of reasons.

-Grants, loans, corporate welfare and capital investment are present in nearly all such ventures. Because money translates into a fluid exchange of economic power, the aquisition and use of capital is not any different in regards to "self-made" profit than the fluid exchange of capital when it comes from a human welfare system.

-In the act of such investment, the active cooperation for a perceived communal benefit is always present. This is explicitly true when we consider the bailout initiative. If others didn't have the notion that your purchase of a strip mall might benefit them somehow, they would have no interest in that business either.

-In the end, we have to critically assess what the distinction is. Well, it is actually quite clear. The collectivization and re-distribution of economic power which exists in each transaction of yours inlvoves the input of you and various other people - workers, consumers, investors, sellers, vendors, whatever. You each pool some kind of resource expecting a return - labor, goods, money. The same is wholly true for welfare. Workers, management, politicians and voters all put taxes, labor or capital into a system which guarantees or indicates a return - social stability, secure health and living benefits, a rational distributive system.

The difference is critical, though. It is the difference between investment in people and investment in capital - in other words, should we care more about how efficient a system is or how secure, stable and comprehensive the distribution is? In most cases, the production and efficiency could be better, but is far beyond what is needed for universal benefits.

Lastly, there is the issue of "compulsion." People say, why should people work if they don't expect anything better? Why would they work if they don't fear economic destruction if they don't? This shows a clear lack of understandign for human psychology. Besides that, however, is the insidious notion that we should be at all times limiting, strangling and punishing the population so that they can "work harder," even if their work far exceeds what is needed to provide soundly and comprehensively for them. The problem is obvious, but consider this also: if your "captains of industry" are the most productive and relevant members of society, shouldn't we instead limit and hamper them so that they fear for their subsistence?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But then again Berlusconi is a former Communist (before the Communist Party in Italy was disolved). And I believe right now, Left Center.

And you would be wrong. The man is a fascist plain and simple.

The mainstream left is losing because of decreasing support from labour organizations. They now draw their support basically the same way as right bourgeois parties. How they even expect to win is a mystery to me.

[Bud Struggle]

Firstly, those that "make it on their own" are no less beholden to the social mechanics present. Unless the people you are talking about don't use labor, the economic production present, or any state or social functions in their "individualist" production. Of course the labor of your workers, all the transactions that take place, the acquisitions, are totally social phenomena which do not exist either in a void or totally dependant on your productive faculties. Like all people, you require the input of other human beings....

I know what you are saying out here Dean, but that wasn't where I was going. I was pointing out that there are a group of people (myself included) that won't be happy under Communism. The world ALWAYS had a group of people with some entrepreneurial spirit and if you don't find a way to channel that drive in those people--Communism is going to run into lots of difficulties.

If I can't run a business and do things the way I LIKE THEM, I'm going to find another outlet. Do you really want me messing around with my local Soviets (in the Communismt future) and forming little groups and start power brokering votes and then moving up to maybe a higher Societ and doing the same there--to get what I want (whatever that may be?)

And just think of thousands and thousands of guys like me doing the same--with nothing to check their ambition, until it's too late.

I think that was the mistake of the Societ Union. Millions of little power brokers. And they all became good Chicago Capitalists in a moments notice.



And you would be wrong. The man is a fascist plain and simple.
Could be--Italian politics is WAY to changeable.

[RGacky3]

The world ALWAYS had a group of people with some entrepreneurial spirit and if you don't find a way to channel that drive in those people--Communism is going to run into lots of difficulties.

Entrepreneurial spirit is encouraged and will be, new ideas are encouraged, people doing things differently, helping everyone else out.

Now the problem comes when you want to rule over other people, in other words, you want to be a boss, and I have no problem stopping people from that urge.

You don't need to be a boss to be an entrepreneur, instead of convincing banks you'll be convincing the community.


Could be--Italian politics is WAY to changeable.

Thats not a problem unless you have a centralized state government.

[JimmyJazz]

there's no internet (No Cuban RevLefters are there?)

That's true, and it's pretty much bullshit.

Of course, Americans can be criminally prosecuted for visiting Cuba without a special license, including if they go from another country like Mexico or Canada. So both sides have something to hide, eh?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's not interchangeable in this case. The man has always been a radical right-winger, especially now. He's looking out for his own fortune and investments. This is overwhelmingly clear. If you show me evidence that he's ever been a communist or that during his political career he has promoted leftist policies I will eat my fuckin hat.

[Bud Struggle]

That's true, and it's pretty much bullshit.

Of course, Americans can be criminally prosecuted for visiting Cuba without a special license, including if they go from another country like Mexico or Canada. So both sides have something to hide, eh?

Well, it's more complicated than that--you can go to Cuba all you want--5 hours by boat from Key West--you have to file some papers but you can visit all you want.

You can't spend any money there--that's the problem. And realistically, it's not an issue for Capitalism or America, because nobody cares EXCEPT the Cuban ex-pats. They call the shots and them "fighting Communism" is just a decorative ornamental term for what their real purpose is--and that's something deep and personal and best left alone.

I go there every now and then and it's a bit like Poland before the fall of the Berlin Wall--a veil of Communism and a pretty good underground economy.

[JimmyJazz]

Well, it's more complicated than that--you can go to Cuba all you want--5 hours by boat from Key West--you have to file some papers but you can visit all you want.

You can't spend any money there--that's the problem. And realistically, it's not an issue for Capitalism or America, because nobody cares EXCEPT the Cuban ex-pats. They call the shots and them "fighting Communism" is just a decorative ornamental term for what their real purpose is--and that's something deep and personal and best left alone.

I go there every now and then and it's a bit like Poland before the fall of the Berlin Wall--a veil of Communism and a pretty good underground economy.




U.S. citizens and residents must be licensed by the U.S. Department of Treasury in order to travel to Cuba. On January 5, 1999, an expansion of people-to-people contacts and direct passenger flights to Cuba was announced in order to facilitate travel of licensed persons from the U.S. to Cuba. However, travel to Cuba is restricted and only select categories of travelers are licensable. Tourist travel is not possible under U.S. law. Business-related travel is restricted to persons engaging in or arranging for permitted export sales, such as the sale of medicines or medical equipment, or for food or agricultural goods to non-governmental entities.


Fully Hosted Travelers




Travelers to Cuba who do not spend any money while there do not require a license from OFAC. Some travelers to Cuba claim upon their return to the U.S. not to have spent any money during their stay because they were "fully hosted," i.e., a non-U.S. sponsor such as the Cuban Government paid for all their expenses.

While it is possible to be "fully hosted," OFAC regulations contain a rebuttable presumption that travelers subject to U.S. jurisdiction who traveled to Cuba without a license have engaged in prohibited monetary transactions.
Travelers may rebut this presumption by providing a signed explanatory statement, with supporting documents, showing that they were able to travel in Cuba without spending money.
Appropriate enforcement action may be taken in those cases where the traveler is unable to provide sufficient evidence that all expenses were paid for while in Cuba.
Clearly, it's not as easy to visit Cuba as you make it sound, and the American travel policy was formulated with the intent to stop people from visiting. As the bolded part says: you're presumed to have broken the U.S. law against spending money in Cuba unless you can "prove" otherwise once you get back. So you basically cannot go there unless you are being sponsored by the Cuban government, meaning they want you to visit so badly that they're going to pay every cent of your living expenses while you're there.

Also, it may say in the books that "travelers may rebut this presumption by providing a signed explanatory statement, with supporting documents, showing that they were able to travel in Cuba without spending money"; however, these "supporting documents", even for those who do manage to get hosted by the Cuban government, will be Cuban government documents. How free do you think an American governmental agent feels to disregard/dismiss Cuban government documents if he feels like it? I'm guessing he feels pretty damn free. Especially under the Bush administration, which has made a habit of flouting much bigger international standards than some petty standards regarding permissible travel to Cuba (like, say, standards which prohibit pre-emptive warfare, or indefinite detainment without charges, or the use of torture).

You may never have gotten in any trouble for your Cuba visits, but that doesn't mean you haven't simply been lucky. Especially with that CPUSA card you carry around in your wallet, it looks to me like they could quite easily nail you if they ever felt like doing so. And that liability is all that is really required to keep Americans from visiting Cuba in large numbers--no actual prosecutions required (or, no more than the occasional example).

And of course the fact that you can't spend your own fucking money in whatever country you please is not an issue to be overlooked, in a discussion of how "free" capitalist America is.

Tom, you and I both know that individual freedom in America extends only to those who would not use it to threaten the santity of Property. You are a smart guy and I know that you are aware of the history of anti-communism in this country, and the many violations of individual rights--constitutionally enshrined ones--as a part of that decades-long campaign.

By the way, source (http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2001/fsjulydec/4835.htm).