The [Bush] speech, scheduled to be given at the State Department before invited Cuban dissidents, will introduce the relatives of four Cuban prisoners being held for political crimes. A senior administration official said the president wanted to “put a human face,” on Cuba’s “assault on freedom.”

In effect, the speech will be a call for Cubans to continue to resist, a particularly strong line coming from an American president. He is expected to say to the Cuban military and police, “There is a place for you in a new Cuba.”

The official said Mr. Bush would make the case that for dissidents and others pursuing democracy in Cuba, little has changed at all, and that the country has suffered economically as well as in other ways as a result of the Castro rule.

He will say that while much of the rest of Latin America has moved from dictatorship to democracy, Cuba continues to use repression and terror to control its people. And, the administration official said, Mr. Bush will direct another part of his speech to the Cuban people, telling them they “have the power to shape their destiny and bring about change.”

The administration official said Mr. Bush was expected to tell Cuban viewers that “soon they will have to make a choice between freedom and the force used by a dying regime.”

.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

He is expected to say to the Cuban military and police, “There is a place for you in a new Cuba.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
True, but he is correct on the point of Raul Castro should not take over the dictatorship of Cuba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Raul Castro should announce a date for elections as soon as Fidel dies.

---

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

True, but he is correct on the point of Raul Castro should not take over the dictatorship of Cuba.

---

Yes, the thought of two family members becoming the Head of State of a country is appalling. I mean, what is this Feudal Europe?

quote:

---

Again, without a transition plan in place, what does that accomplish beyond giving some satisfaction to AmeriKKKa?

---

It puts a deadline on coming up with a transition.

It makes the intentions of the government clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Why? What's true in the long term makes no sense in the immediate future. There's no plan in place for a transition to a multi-party democracy, so what else could be done in the short term to provide good and stable government, other than to Allow Raul to take the reins?

---

Not again.

For socialists, allowing a capitalist party to contend for power is no more desirable than allowing a pro-slavery party - and infinitely more dangerous, since there are powerful capitalist forces whereas outright slavers (yes, I know) do not hold global power.

This isn't to say that a number of parties committed to socialism wouldn't be a good idea. But maybe "party" systems aren't the best ones. Maybe there are other forms of democracy.

The idea of "multi-party elections" is peculiar to a particular ideology which views the state as a neutral arbiter between contending interests and, moreover, considers the interests of capitalists legitimate and entitled to (overwhelming) representation.

[edited to fix one spelling mistake. doubtless there are others.]

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
It puts a deadline on coming up with a transition.

It makes the intentions of the government clear.

It allays suspicions.

---

Otherwise, do what's necessary to prepare the groundwork and groundrules, and then schedule elections. Peace and stability come first.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

It destablizes the country unless the announced elections are so far out as to seem unimportant in the meantime. Give it a 20 year window, like the transition of Hong Kong between the British and China, and I might agree.

Otherwise, do what's necessary to prepare the groundwork and groundrules, and then schedule elections. Peace and stability come first.

---

Twenty years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Why? What's true in the long term makes no sense in the immediate future....so what else could be done in the short term to provide good and stable government, other than to Allow Raul to take the reins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

Twenty years.

Wow. Wow.

---

The transition to capitalism will have to be accompanied by "multi-party elections" - they help create the illusion that people are in control of their own country and their own lives. Sometimes you can just impose an economic regime by force and torture but in this particular time and place, more subtle measures can and probably should be employed. It's not Chile in 1973, in other words, though I suppose it might be possible to claim that Cuba has weapons of mass destruction and go from there. But once you have firm economic control of a country, it's perfectly safe to hold "multi-party elections" and the optics are better.

[ETA: I'm inclined to agree that the Raul succession is a bad idea.]

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

I agree but giving power to Raul is a poor choice and lacks imagination. Create a coalition government or bring the United Nations in to help in the transition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Don't you trust the Cuban people to decide for themselves? I don't see them in the streets demanding a return of the American empire so why should the UN impose it?

---

Well, there's a good chance USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Freedom House and the Soros Foundation are plotting some kind of "color revolution" so it's not out of the question.

Your side has enormous wealth and military power. There's a good chance you'll win.

[ETA: I don't necessarily mean you, kropotkin. I'm addressing the other "democratic campaigners" here]

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
After succeeding his own father, he really has some gall criticizing someone for possibly succeeding his brother.

Unfortunately, like a stopped clock, this is George Bush's chance to be correct twice a day (maybe he said ice cream is good earlier). Elections do need to follow the departure of Fidel within a reasonable period of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Don't you trust the Cuban people to decide for themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

yeah, it will be difficult to legitimize the takeover otherwise.

---

Well at least now we can be certain that Jeb will not bcome President because two brothers should have no right to lead a country at different times. A true test of tyranny I am sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

Shouldn't your question be why doesn't Fidel trust the Cuban people to decide?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

Not again.

For socialists, allowing a capitalist party to contend for power is no more desirable than allowing a pro-slavery party - and infinitely more dangerous, since there are powerful capitalist forces whereas outright slavers (yes, I know) do not hold global power.

This isn't to say that a number of parties committed to socialism wouldn't be a good idea. But maybe "party" systems aren't the best ones. Maybe there are other forms of democracy.

The idea of "multi-party elections" is peculiar to a particular ideology which views the state as a neutral arbiter between contending interests and, moreover, considers the interests of capitalists legitimate and entitled to (overwhelming) representation.

[edited to fix one spelling mistake. doubtless there are others.]

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Which is exactly the sort of self-serving and elitist argument that was used to deny political rights to Eastern Europeans for fifty years. It's just so much easier when you don't have to convince people to vote for you from a variety of alternatives.

---

That's right, Doug. The Soviets played pretty dirty. They actually had the nerve to hold up western aggression against Russia part two, and 30 million murdered Russians as an excuse to move the line of defence westward by a layer of countries. There were 50, 000, 000 to 83, 000, 000 dead and missing at the end of WWII. They used all those zeros, and the fact that hundreds of former Nazi intelligence officers like Reinhard Gehlen were working for the OSS/CIA in west Germany, to justify an iron curtain. Those sonsobitches!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Which is exactly the sort of self-serving and elitist argument that was used to deny political rights to Eastern Europeans for fifty years. It's just so much easier when you don't have to convince people to vote for you from a variety of alternatives.

---

It's even easier if you can convince people that they do have alternatives and that their voting means something - and that what democracy means is getting to vote every few years for one of two or three variants of the same thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Why should it be characterized as a "takeover."

---

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
It's even easier if you can convince people that they do have alternatives and that their voting means something - and that what democracy means is getting to vote every few years for one of two or three variants of the same thing.

---

By at least one count, there are 16 parties at the federal level.

If you're even thinking of replying to the effect that all but a few have no chance of winning, ask yourself why.

Rabble really needs to run an article by a Cuban writer on how the Cuban system functions. There are so many misconceptions about their political system.

I wonder if there is a message board somewhere in the world where a bunch of people lament the fact that Canada does not have free elections for the Governor General, or the Senate, or all the Lieutenant Governors, or the head of the RCMP, or judges, or the CRTC, or the PMO, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

By at least one count, there are 16 parties at the federal level.

---

But Ontario was ruled by a conservative party for 50 years and 42 of them consecutive. The federal Liberals were considered autocratic in the 1940's!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
You know, every single effing thread on this board that has the name Cuba in the title always comes around to people demanding elections.

Rabble really needs to run an article by a Cuban writer on how the Cuban system functions. There are so many misconceptions about their political system.

I wonder if there is a message board somewhere in the world where a bunch of people lament the fact that Canada does not have free elections for the Governor General, or the Senate, or all the Lieutenant Governors, or the head of the RCMP, or judges, or the CRTC, or the PMO, etc.

Let's get our own house in order before we set to sea.

---

Does this apply to comments about - say - internal US politics?

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Does this apply to comments about - say - internal US politics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
You know, every single effing thread on this board that has the name Cuba in the title always comes around to people demanding elections.

Rabble really needs to run an article by a Cuban writer on how the Cuban system functions. There are so many misconceptions about their political system.

---

We were better off when the queen bossed us around.

quote:

---

We were better off when the queen bossed us around.

---

I'm pretty sure that Chretien is straight and I don't appreciate your homophobic slur.

ETA:

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

By at least one count, there are 16 parties at the federal level.

If you're even thinking of replying to the effect that all but a few have no chance of winning, ask yourself why.

And if your answer involves an assertion to the effect that the vast masses of people aren't as smart as you, then be prepared for all the scorn I can muster.

---

a) Believe it or not, my general political position does include a consideration of the question of why no party opposed to capitalism has a chance of winning.

Funny how those crying for "democratic elections" never seem to understand that there is no such thing when it comes to Manifest Destiny. Leaders are either a freedom loving (business friendly) democrat, or they are despotic strongmen (synonym for "supported by the peasants").When Chavez wins election after election in Venezuela, that's not good enough for our freedom loving leaders: he's a tyrant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Twenty years.

Wow. Wow.

---

quote:

---

That said, allowing some foreign investment and expertise into the country is probably desirable to many Cubans. Moving towards a somewhat more mixed economy is not necessarily a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

Twenty years.

Wow. Wow.

---

That's right. Hong Kong was ruled by a British-appointed white leader and a few connected individuals and bankers in the Hong Kong jockey club throughout the cold war. It wasn't until the handoff to China that "free and fair" elections were even a concern.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Moving towards a somewhat more mixed economy is not necessarily a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

a) Believe it or not, my general political position does include a consideration of the question of why no party opposed to capitalism has a chance of winning.

b) No, my answer is not that I am smarter than most people. Can you really not imagine any other possible answer to this question? If I were to say anything as ridiculouly and stupidly arrogant as that I was smarter than the mass of people, you would scorn me. But you don't hesitate for a minute to imply that you are vastly smarter than I am.

---

You will have no doubt noticed that my post left open a great big space for an answer that didn't ignore the fact that more than two or three choices are available, and for one that doesn't involve tedious variations on "people are brainwashed" or "it's not a democracy if I don't get my way."

If you do have an answer that satisfies these criteria, I'd love to hear it.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Can people agree with dropping the embargo as a prerequisite to any movement towards democracy in Cuba?

---

quote:

---

Why should democracy in Cuba be conditional on what George W Bush decides?

---

Because the country is under attack, economically speaking. It's not a situation conducive to democratic reform, like having bombs dropped on you (not as bad as that, but similar). Until Cuba is free of these blatant and heavy-handed attempts to manipulate its future, any attempt at giving power to the people is seriously hamstrung.

I also believe that Cuba needs democratic reform and needs it as soon as possible, but the people can't be free if the country isn't. The USA has attacked it militarily, is attacking it economically, and continues to declare it an enemy with no justification at all. Until they back off, democracy in Cuba is just wishful thinking. All it does is make a pretense of democracy that opens a door for US aggression. Look at Haiti. They've had their democracy trampled by the so-called democracy defenders of the West, whereas Cuba still holds out, resisting US efforts to destroy it. It's easy to criticise them just on the basis of being a dictatorship (and I've certainly done it often myself) but they're in a constant mode of defense. Even democratic countries tend to get pretty fascist under such conditions. I bet there weren't a lot of freedoms you could count on in Britain when the Nazis were dropping bombs on it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

You will have no doubt noticed that my post left open a great big space for an answer that didn't ignore the fact that more than two or three choices are available, and for one that doesn't involve tedious variations on "people are brainwashed" or "it's not a democracy if I don't get my way."

If you do have an answer that satisfies these criteria, I'd love to hear it.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

---

I think it would be impossible for me to give an argument you wouldn't find "tedious". But then again, I might find your arguments tedious, too, and I think you'll agree that that has nothing to do with their validity or truth.

Let me put it this way: just look at history. Until things reach a "breaking point", people generally believe in the system they live under, e.g., people who lived under feudalism believed in feudalism until feudalism reached its last gasps, people who lived under the british empire believed in the british empire (I'm not talking about the colonies - or at least, not all of them), people who lived in imperial Japan believed in imperial Japan, etc. So it's not surprising if people in Canada believe in the kind of system they live under in Canada, i.e., somewhat mitigated capitalism. To call this brainwashing is to psychologize complex historical, economic, social, and cultural realities. But I would explain the preference of Canadians for mitigated capitalism in (broadly) the same way that I would explain the preference of twelve century Europeans for feudalism. My holding a different point of view isn't a matter of my being smarter any more than my disagreement with twelve century europeans is a matter of my being smarter.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I'm just not buying that. How would democracy weaken Cuba?

---

, said the wolf to the three little pigs.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I'm a little confused here. What do people consider a "democratic country"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I'm a little confused here. What do people consider a "democratic country"?

I don't know how Cuba is any more or less democratic than Canada. Is there some kind of democrameter that people use to measure different countries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

That's right, Doug. The Soviets played pretty dirty. They actually had the nerve to hold up western aggression against Russia part two, and 30 million murdered Russians as an excuse to move the line of defence westward by a layer of countries. There were 50, 000, 000 to 83, 000, 000 dead and missing at the end of WWII.

---

I'm not sure how that gives Stalin an excuse for anything given that he killed millions of his own with no concern.

quote:

---

And Fidel made a pledge to hold Cuban elections at some point after overthrowing the U.S.-backed mafia regime in Havana. One botched Bay of Pigs, several hundred CIA-mafia attempts to murder Fidel and hundreds of terrorist attacks against Cuban people later, and U.S.-managed elections are off the agenda in Cuba for the time being. That's really too bad, imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
They've got multi-party U.S.-managed elections all over Central America and Haiti,.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Electing people like Daniel Ortega, the once and current president of Nicaragua? I'm pretty sure the US didn't want that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Electing people like Daniel Ortega, the once and current president of Nicaragua? I'm pretty sure the US didn't want that.

---

Yes, and after ten years worth of U.S.-backed Aleman's neoLiberal corruption had set the country back years in terms of progress, who shows up in Managua before the election but cold warrior Oliver North. It wasn't the first time a U.S. ambassador, retired or otherwise, showed his face in Nicaragua to make subtle threats of more dirty war if they didn't vote the right way.

For the first time, just before the UN discusses Cuba’s proposed resolution condemning the blockade, as it does every year, the president of the United States has announced that he is to adopt new measures to accelerate the "transition period" in our country, equivalent to a new conquest of Cuba by force.

On the other hand, the danger of a massive world famine is being aggravated by Mr. Bush’s recent initiative to transform foods into fuel, while at the same time, citing strategic security principles, he is threatening humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons.

These crucially important issues are the ones that interest the representatives of the countries that will be meeting on Tuesday, October 30, to discuss the Cuban resolution condemning the blockade.

In elections where voting is not mandatory, our people have just delivered their verdict, with more than 95 percent of the electorate casting their vote at 37,749 voting stations, in ballot boxes guarded by schoolchildren. That is the example provided by Cuba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
I'm not sure how that gives Stalin an excuse for anything given that he killed millions of his own with no concern

---

Yes Doug, Stalin was a ruthless sonofabitch, just like the bankers and industrialists who propped up a paperhanger because they were afraid of communism. Stalin was as ruthless as themselves.

quote:

---

For 40 years? That's an awful long time to hold a grudge - and this goes for the US too and its inconsistent and illogical policy regarding Cuba.

---

And there was no small matter of dozens of terrorist attacks against Cuba, a very hostile situation in Guantanamo, and a mean spirited cold war trade embargo. That didn't go very far toward fomenting a general sense of democracy in the region, especially not so with over 20 some odd U.S. military incursions into Haiti in sum total just 55 miles away to stop various people's revolutions against intolerable U.S.-backed dictatorships there and in Dominican Republic next door to Haiti.

quote:

---

posted 24 October 2007 07:33 PM Profile for M. Spector Author's Homepage Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Bush, hunger and death

For the first time, just before the UN discusses Cuba’s proposed resolution condemning the blockade, as it does every year, the president of the United States has announced that he is to adopt new measures to accelerate the "transition period" in our country, equivalent to a new conquest of Cuba by force.

On the other hand, the danger of a massive world famine is being aggravated by Mr. Bush’s recent initiative to transform foods into fuel, while at the same time, citing strategic security principles, he is threatening humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons.

These crucially important issues are the ones that interest the representatives of the countries that will be meeting on Tuesday, October 30, to discuss the Cuban resolution condemning the blockade.

In elections where voting is not mandatory, our people have just delivered their verdict, with more than 95 percent of the electorate casting their vote at 37,749 voting stations, in ballot boxes guarded by schoolchildren. That is the example provided by Cuba.

Fidel Castro Ruz
October 22, 2007

---

quote:

---

They've got U.S.-managed multi-party demockracy in Haiti and Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras. And I must say they're all shitholes, Doug. Where's the beef?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proletariat:
Fidel. Refering to less industrially developed countries in Central America and the Caribbean as "shitholes" is just plain wrong and has all kinds of racist and imperialist overtones. I expect this kind of language out of college age fratboys and wealthy tourists.If you have ever been to any of these countries you would know that despite their poverty they have a gread deal of pride and dignity, and I am sure they would not appreciate these degrading comments.

---

Oh, so now you are some sort of measure for what is, or isn't, degrading commentary?! Get a grip.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Proletariat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proletariat:
I don't feel that any of those countries are "shitholes" and I highly doubt most of their citizens do either. I am not sure what Fidel was meaning to imply, but he clearly refered to them as being "shitholes". We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

---

You can't really be serious about institutionalizing these children for rummaging in landfill sites. That's pretty harsh.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

That, of course, is the issue. But the "multi-party elections" group won't discuss it.

---

This is an oldie of a movie and it's simplistic to be sure, but I do like it's broad and social description of what democracy should be about and that there is no clear demarcation between democracy and non-democracy. It bears a good similarity to my own thinking and it's reasonably short so I'm using it. It does seem to me that multiple parties are a logical outcome when people are allowed to communicate and organize freely. So where they don't exist, one needs to question if that freedom exists.

http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proletariat:
mA "shithole" implies just that. Basically an outhouse. It dehumanizes the population and contributes to a false belief that there is nothing of cultural or social value there. It's just not a positive statement. There are more constructive ways to discuss the problems facing these countries.

Fidel. You are missing the point. Of course the horrible conditions described exist in many places but that is not all that exists there. Pointing out these problems and more importantly actually doing something to eliminate them is positive. Calling the entire country a "shithole" does not do anything good. It is dehumanizing.

And yes, many of the poorest people in these countries have national pride and would be pissed off at having their country called a "shithole". I guarantee it.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Proletariat ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proletariat:
They've got U.S.-managed multi-party demockracy in Haiti and Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras. And I must say they're all shitholes, Doug. Where's the beef?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Do you have a picture of that? Not that I don't believe you, but your description is so graphic.

---

Julie Thomson's description of El Salvador's beauty and poverty is very graphic as well.

quote:

---

You can't really be serious about institutionalizing these children for rummaging in landfill sites. That's pretty harsh.

[ 24 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Every child has the right to an education, to food, clothes, decent housing and more!. Canada signed on to the universal declaration for child rights many years ago. This is not debatable as far as I am concerned.

ETA: I think political Liberals and Conservatives who have signed trade deals with and treated the leaders of countries like El Salvador with dignity and respect they don't deserve should have the children's rights declaration shoved up their asses sideways.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
http://www.archive.org/details/Despotis1946

It's also a good reminder that we're not doing so well on democratic practices ourselves in a lot of ways. I don't go so far to say that this means we can't criticize others, though.

---

Doug, I understand your concern for democracy. But I had to stop viewing that U.S.-made film because I just about pissed myself laughing. Since the making of that film one year after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the U.S. has propped up three dozen of the most brutal right-wing dictatorships of the last century.

quote:

---

"We can say that the United States runs the world like the Taliban ran Afghanistan. Cuba is dealt with like a woman caught outside not wearing her burkha. Horrific sanctions are imposed on Iraq in the manner of banning music, dancing, and kite-flying in Kabul. Jean-Bertrand Aristide is banished from Haiti like the religious police whipping a man whose beard is not the right length." (introduction to Freeing the World to Death, American author William Blum)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

It does seem to me that multiple parties are a logical outcome when people are allowed to communicate and organize freely. So where they don't exist, one needs to question if that freedom exists.

---

Assuming that a "party system" is the best way for us to organize ourselves and govern a country. But let's say we assume this far from obvious point. The question then becomes, which kinds of parties? When critics of cuba demand "multi-party" elections, what they really want is for capitalists and believers in capitalism to have a chance at power (and giving capitalism a chance at power is to give it power).

If you say, "well, we don't want capitalism any more than we want slavery," they will respond, "well, we allow socialist parties to participate in elections." The thing is that in a capitalist country, power is wielded by capital (and only indirectly by government). So the exclusion of socialist parties from any real participation or possibility of power is enforced by economic forces and actors. In a socialist society, exclusion is done by those who represent the people (or should), that is, by government and by law.

People who believe in capitalism, though, don't see "enforcement" by economic forces and actors as anti-democratic. What they see as anti-democratic is exclusion by government (or the elected representatives of the people). So the "multi-party elections" contingent here see exclusion of capitalist parties in socialist countries as anti-democratiec (because enacted by government or the representatives of the people). Exclusion (or marginalization and delegitimation) of socialist parties in capitalist countries, however, because it is done by capital rather than by government, is perceived by them as profoundly democratic.

The question, to my mind, is whether being governed by capital is democratic. I don't think it is.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Assuming that a "party system" is the best way for us to organize ourselves......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
RosaL, you seem to imply that there are socialist opposition parties in Cuba. As far as I know the last Cuban election was a one party act.

---

1) Where do you think I implied that? No, I didn't imply that. I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

2) Cuban elections have nothing to do with parties (or a party).

ETA: Sorry, scooter, I don't mean to be rude. It's just that this conversation goes round and round in circles based on some unquestioned assumptions.

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
I wonder how progressive babble is when Cuban supports are not taken to task over many of Cuba's "anti-NDP" policies.

---

I don't think I understand you. Babble is not progressive because it doesn't take Cuba supporters to task over Cuba's negative attitude to social democracy? Is that what you mean? That seems to me to imply that people critical of social democracy aren't progressive. I must be misunderstanding you .....

[ 26 October 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

I visit Cuba often and it isn't as wonderful as the babble member Fidel makes it out to be

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

I visit Cuba often and it isn't as wonderful as the babble member Fidel makes it out to be.

---

I've been to Cuba too. The kids are in school all day, just like here in Canada.

It's not the same deal for kids in El Salvador according to Lauren McElroy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:So it's only as wonderful as it need be to draw you there often, but not nearly so wonderful as you think Fidel claims it to be?

---