The argument has been made that in order for Cuba to be a "real" democracy, there have to be elections in which political parties calling for the restoration of capitalism run. Never mind that the well-financed US efforts at brainwashing the public would come to bear in any such "election". This is, says one of the usual suspects, what democracy is and anything less just doesn't cut it. In fact, says the defender of this idea, only Communists and Nazis are against this; so there's some juicy anti-communism thrown into the mixture as well.

Let's have a deeper look at this idea. What if we applied this principle to, say, the capitalist countries?

I guess a capitalist country can only be called a democracy if political parties calling for the restoration of feudalism and serfdom or, in the case of the United States, the restoration of slavery, run for office in order for those countries to be "real" democracies. That's what this "argument" leads us to.

What American who isn't a supporter of the KKK (or worse) would argue thus? Yet this is precisely the argument that is made in relation to Cuba. And, to add insult to injury, those who disagree with this argument are compared to Nazis.

And eerily similar to the example in Spain, U.S. imperialist forces attempted to instigate counter-revoulution with Bay of Pigs. The former mafia regime and Cuban exiles gave the CIA bad information that Cubans would join them in counterrevolution. The fascists haven't tried to instigate counterrevolution by land invasion since Bay of Pigs.

The KKK and flagrant segregationists etc...are free to run for public office in the US. David Duke ran for Governor of Louisiana and got a respectable number of votes - but lost nonetheless. Neo-fascists run (and lose) in elections in various European countries.

quote:

---

YOu have to stop being so scared of letting the people have a say in how they are governed. It;s bad for your karma.

---

How many plumbers are in Canada's parliament? Truck drivers? Unemployed? Nurses? Convenience store clerks? Pregnant single moms? If we live in a "democracy" as you claim, then why is it the best represented segments of society are lawyers and business men?

If we live in a "democracy" then why are citizens held back in cages while the elite have the ears of the rulers?

Why?

Why is it this "democracy" seems to work so well for so few?

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

And, you've asserted, this is a prerequisite for "real" democracy if the yardstick you're using in regard to Cuba should apply equally to a capitalist country like the US.

See what craziness you get yourself into with such arguments? Now fascists running for office is a sign of democracy.

The argument about allowing capitalist restoration parties to "run" just doesn't cut it. The Cubans have chosen socialism and are perfectly entitled to compel their governments to defend it, especially in the face of such a horrific juggernaut barely 90 miles away.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

The Cubans have chosen socialism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Popular Front in Spain was largely made up of social democrats and liberals. The Communist party was quite a small part of it.

---

Acshully, the Liberal Democrats and Centre Party were part of the Centre Union which won maybe 5 percent of parliamentary seats.

The Socialist Worker's Party, Republican left and Communist Party of Spain comprised the Popular Front.

quote:

---

The KKK and flagrant segregationists etc...are free to run for public office in the US. David Duke ran for Governor of Louisiana and got a respectable number of votes - but lost nonetheless. Neo-fascists run (and lose) in elections in various European countries.

---

And they are running for election in Guatemala today as leftists and Marxists in that country continue to be shot dead and threatened by fascists as very unfree and unfair elections take place in that country. So what's your point, or do you even have one ?.

Why can't approximately 70 percent of Haiti's electorate vote for Jean Bertrand Aristide if they want to?. Why don't you believe in democracy for even Haiti, Stockholmer ?.

Why can't the fascists keep their big ugly noses out of other country's democratic affairs ?.

Why won't Ontario and B.C. "Liberals" accept simple majority vote to decide on fair voting in these two provinces even ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Every election in Cuba functions as a kind of referendum. The winning candidates have to have the support of over 50% of the electors.

---

quote:

---

The Socialist Worker's Party, Republican left and Communist Party of Spain comprised the Popular Front.

---

quote:

---

Stephen Gordon: What happens if they don't?

---

If no candidate gets 50% support then a run-off election is held. presumably between the two highest polling candidates, so that the winner has, at least, the 50% support needed.

Why can't British Columbians have fair voting with a clear majority of them having already indicated support for it?. Are Liberals really fascists in disguise ?.

quote:

---

Stockholm: Elections are irrelevant when no candidate is allowed to run unless they support a continuation of the one party rule of the Communist Party and when not voting can lead to an interrogation at the police station. That is not an election. That is a SHAM.

---

Once again,

quote:

---

The role of the Communist Party in the political process is very different from what I had previously thought. The Cuban Communist Party is not an electoral party. It does not nominate or support candidates for office. Nor does it make laws or select the head of state. These roles are played by the national assembly, which is elected by the people, and for which membership in the Communist Party is not required. Most members of the national, provincial, and municipal assemblies are members of the Communist Party, but many are not, and those delegates and deputies who are party members are not selected by the party but by the people in the electoral process. The party is not open to anyone to join. About fifteen percent of adults are party members. Members are selected by the party in a thorough process that includes interviews with co-workers and neighbors. Those selected are considered model citizens. They are selected because they are viewed as strong supporters of the revolution; as hard and productive workers; as people who are well-liked and respected by their co-workers and neighbors; as people who have taken leadership roles in the various mass organizations of women, students, workers, and farmers; as people who take seriously their responsibilities as spouses and parents and family members; and as people who have "moral" lives, such as avoiding excessive use of alcohol or extramarital relations that are considered scandalous. The party is viewed as the vanguard of the revolution. It makes recommendations concerning the future development of the revolution, and it criticizes tendencies it considers counterrevolutionary. It has enormous influence in Cuba, but its authority is moral, not legal. The party does not make laws or elect the president. These tasks are carried out by the National Assembly, which is elected by the people.

Prior traveling to Cuba, I had heard that the Cuban Communist Party is the only political party and that in national elections the voters are simply presented with a slate of candidates, rather than two or more candidates and/or political parties from which to choose. These two observations are correct. But taken by themselves, they given a very misleading impression. They imply that the Cuban Communist Party develops the slate, which in fact it does not do. Since the slate makers are named by those who are elected, the ratification of the slate by the voters is simply the final step in a process that begins with the voters. The reason given for using a slate rather than presenting voters with a choice at this stage was that the development of the slate ensures that all sectors (such as women, workers, farmers, students, representative of important social service agencies in the jurisdiction, etc.) are represented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

What happens if they don't?

---

[smug on]Stephen, what happens when neo-Liberal ideology gets hold of a country like Chile for sixteen years ?. Sometimes nightmares can be useful.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
It doubles per-capita income, and then elects Michelle Bachelet as president.

[/smug eraser off]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
It doubles per-capita income, and then elects Michelle Bachelet as president.

[/smug eraser off]

---

But Chicago School graduate Greg Palast said this about the Librarian economic experiment in Chile:

quote:

---

SUMMARY: So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan call this an "economic miracle."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
The policies are still in place.

---

But according to Palast, the cure was bright red

quote:

---

For nearly a century, copper has meant Chile and Chile copper. University of Montana metals expert Dr. Janet Finn notes, “It’s absurd to describe a nation as a miracle of free enterprise when the engine of the economy remains in government hands.” Copper has provided 30% to 70% of the nation’s export earnings. This is the hard currency which has built today’s Chile, the proceeds from the mines seized from Anaconda and Kennecott in 1973 - Allende’s posthumous gift to his nation

---

I know they planned to create a bastion of private enterprise free from the dead hand of government bureaucracy. It was supposed to be an economy based on free flow of capital, financial services and private banking, privatized social services, pensions and the whole libertarian arsenal of ideas. The dictator himself fired los Chicago boys and went on a government hiring spree creating what was the equivalent of millions of public service sector jobs by North American standards. They sank some of the money in a nationalised salmon farming industry employing more than a 100,000 Chilean workers today.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

BTW: Say what you want about Pinochet, in 1989 he called a referendum where people were given a chance to vote Yes or No to a continuation of his dictatorship. Despite his total domination of the media and 16 years of him trying to brainwash the Chilean people into thinking he was God and despite the Yes side having a vast financial edge, Chileans vote by a 60/40 margin to reject Pinochet and to have free elections. Pinochet kept his word and quit and allowed free elections which were promptly won by a leftwing alliance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Chile has the highest standard of living in Latin America and the poverty rate there has been dropping like a stone. i have been there.

---

Yes, and Codelco is Chile's state-owned mining company and largest producer of copper in the world and exporting copper to the largest consumer of copper in the world, China, probably the most interventionist government in the world. But none of this is very complementary of or a ringing endorsement for failed right-wing Libertarian economics in 1970's-80's Chile under the tutelage of Milton Friedman or his Chicago School of Economics apprentices.

Chile's public health care is helping prevent nearly half a million children under four from dire poverty as their mothers go to work. Sounds like the birth rate has plummeted in Chile because they must work and can't afford daycare. So, when will you be moving to Chile, Stockholmer?.

quote:

---

BTW: Say what you want about Pinochet, in 1989 he called a referendum where people were given a chance to vote Yes or No to a continuation of his dictatorship.

---

The dictator had to do something, because Chileans had become so desperate they no longer feared the fascists bullets and began protesting in the streets.

Are you suggesting that if Fidel Castro had brutalized Cubans like U.S.-backed fascists did in Chile for sixteen years that Cubans would have protested in the streets and forced the hand of the government in a similar manner?.

And after only sixteen years of brutal right-wing dictatorship, they rejected Pinochet, who, himself, rejected right-wing Librarian economics Milton Friedman style for a lack of results.

Are you and Ralph Klein both trying to tell us that sixteen years of brutal right-wing fascism is what's needed in Cuba and Alberta to prevent oil, mineral and other natural wealth from falling into the hands of the people ?. Lured you out of the closet, didn't we.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

In 1917 and later, Wilson's DOJ acted much the same way arresting 165 Wobbly leaders on the grounds they hindered the war effort by using their First Amendment right to speak out against it. They were tried near war's end in 1918, all convicted, and given long prison terms under a Democrat President thought of reverentially today. Bill Haywood was luckier. After conviction, he was released on bail and fled to the Soviet Union where he remained until his death, but the IWW was never again the same.

They were hammered again from 1918 - 21 during the infamous Palmer Raids under Wilson Attorney General Mitchell Palmer. He targeted radical left wing groups like the Wobblies at the time of the first "Red Scare" after the 1917 Russian Revolution. It launched J. Edgar Hoover's career in the DOJ Bureau of Investigation's new General Intelligence Division that later became the FBI in 1935. The IWW is still around, still dedicated to its founding principles, but it's worldwide membership is only around 2000, mostly in the US.

The war on working Americans

---

No doubt you believe the inmates at Abu Gharib and Guatanamo are better off for being victimized by a "democratic" nation. No doubt you believe the 2.5 million Iraqi victims are lucky to be victims of democracy.

You know, I am not a fan of Castro. But at least the revolution changed something. For the better or worse, I will let history judge. But compared to the rest of the oppressed, conquered masses of Latin America, I would say Cubans are probably better off.

But more than that, all your voting, all the energy and time you spend pretending to be participating in a system in which you are nothing more than a prop, you have changed sweet fuck all.

Nothing. Nada. Nil.

We are the same colonial baggage carriers that sends working class suckers to fight imperial wars that we were exactly 100 years ago.

And you will pretend you have a choice when you go and vote, time and time again, without even knowing it, for the Capitalist Party.

You live in a delusion.

quote:

---

By disdaining knowledge unless it’s practical (mainly in the service of business), technological (in the service of business) or biblically based — most Americans have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between the true and the false throughout our history. Such willful ignorance has produced a culture of conformism (lending itself to manipulation) that was observed as early as the mid-19th century by Alexis de Tocqueville: “I know of no country where there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America.”

In 1984, two scholars revalidated Tocqueville’s observations in their book, The American Ethos. They concluded: “Most public debate in America takes place within a relatively restricted segment of the ideological spectrum.”

You can fool some of the people all of the time

---

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Chile has the highest standard of living in Latin America and the poverty rate there has been dropping like a stone. i have been there. The standard of living is comparable to Greece or Portugal and it cannot even be considered third world anymore. On top of that, the President of Chile is a woman from the Socialist Party who has made great strides in legalizing divorce etc...

---

Maybe you should get the real facts before you post the neo-liberal spin.

Here's what happened in the neo-lib paradise of Chile today:

Hundreds arrested at Chile demo

quote:

---

More than 400 people have been arrested after police using tear gas and water cannon clashed with demonstrators in the Chilean capital, Santiago.

The worst clashes occurred as marchers tried to approach the government palace, La Moneda. Among the 100 or so injured was a socialist senator.

The day-long protest was called by Chile's largest trade union federation against free-market economic policies.

They marched in several cities around the country. Outside the capital they were mostly peaceful.

Chile has one of the strongest economies in Latin America but still suffers from high unemployment and increasing poverty.

The popularity of President Bachelet's government has slumped, with Chileans regularly taking to the streets to demonstrate, among other things, against unemployment, the education system and poor public transport.

---

Bachelete is Chile's Bob Rae as she is quarterbacking the neo-lib destruction under the banner of "social democracy".

Time to get a new script Stockholm - and a gas mask. That's not "freedom" you're smelling down in the faux lefty palaces of Santiago!

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

So if our two autocratic old line parties elected by a string of phony majorities have nothing to fear of communism and leftist agendas in general, then why won't two phony majority "Liberal" governments in B.C. and Ontario allow a fair referendum on fair voting ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I'm all for electoral reform, but I think you are dreaming if you think it will necessarily lead to a more progressive outcome.

---

Edited to add: While I find myself mostly disagreeing with Jeff House, at least he has the integrity to substantiate his claims, arguing about trial by jury, e.g., to strengthen his argument. I don't see you doing any of this.

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Get it through your head: no party is allowed to run candidates. That's NO party. Candidates have to earn their spot, based on local support, period. And the Communists have no authority to pass any laws whatsoever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Really? Please provide me with the results of the national election in Cuba where a majority of Cubans voted for socialism. in the absence of any election results - the choice and political preferences of Cubans is a complete a mystery.

---

No party has ever run on a "restore feudalism" or "restore slavery" platform in Canada. So how do you know the preferences of Canadians with respect to capitalism rather than slavery, for example. Or feudalism.

The real point of difference here is that you regard capitalism as a good thing and that some of us regard it as a bad thing, as feudalism or slavery are bad things.

[corrected spelling mistake]

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

no party is allowed to run candidates. That's NO party. Candidates have to earn their spot, based on local support, period.

---

So, in other words, no party names appear on the ballot...but to be allowed to run, you must be pre-approved by the authorities and 100% of the power in Cuba lies with the Communist Party - ergo, you have people who are good communists but whose names don't appear with any party name beside them - very cute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why does it bother you that the Ontario Liberals have 70% of the seats with 46% of the vote when you don't give a damn that the Cuban parliament if made up 100% of Castroite sycophants and nobody is allowed to vote for anyone who favours any change in policy at all???

---

Why does it bother you that Cuban education and health care rate head and shoulders above Haiti's, Guatamela's, and the rest of the U.S. friendly shitholes in this hemisphere ?. Because without an educated, well-informed and healthy public there can be no democracy.

How can illiterate peasants in and around Uncle Sham's backyard choose wisely on election day in order to change their situation with grinding poverty, malnutrition and child slavery?.

What does allowing former U.S. friendly dictators and School of the Americas graduates run free in this hemisphere say for democracy in general ?.

quote:

---

No party has ever run on a "restore feudalism" or "restore slavery" platform in Canada. So how do you know the preferences of Canadians with respect to capitalism rather than slavery, for example. Or feudalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I'm still waiting for an example of anyone being allowed to run for public office in Cuba who takes a dissenting view on anything. They don't even have to oppose socialism. What about someone running on a platform of strong support for socialism, but also calling for freeing of all political prisoners and ending all censorship???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Please provide me with the results of the national election in Cuba where a majority of Cubans voted for socialism. in the absence of any election results - the choice and political preferences of Cubans is a complete a mystery.

---

I don't know very much Spanish, but it seems that only the winners of the elections are given. I can't seem to find the names, or platforms, of the defeated candidates for each district. Maybe someone who knows more (any!) Spanish than I do could locate them for us?

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I think, RosaL, that there is more to it than that. In our system of democracy as an illusion, it is quite conceivable that Canadians could be persuaded by politicians, corporations, and the mass media to vote for a return to slavery or feudalism even placing themselves in the chains.

---

quote:

---

Why does it bother you that Cuban education and health care rate head and shoulders above Haiti's, Guatamela's, and the rest of the U.S. friendly shitholes in this hemisphere ?.

---

It doesn't bother me at all....and I'm sure it doesn't bother the Cubans, so why not let them show their love of the status quo, by letting them have a free fair multiparty election and then if they really think everything is so great, there is no reason why they wouldn't elect Castro in a landslide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Results of the 2003 National Elections (Warning, they're all on one page and may be slow to load).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

What is he so afraid of?

---

What are they afraid of?. What a dumb question.

Do you ever read a newspaper or watch the news ?.

Did you miss the attempted CIA-CNN coup against a democratically-elected socialist in Venezuela in this decade ?.

quote:

---

Stockholm: So, in other words, no party names appear on the ballot...

---

Correct so far.

quote:

---

...but to be allowed to run, you must be pre-approved by the authorities ...

---

Anyone can nominate a candidate. As far as I know they don't even need to go through the kind of nomination hoops that Canadian candidates have to go through (the signing of nomination papers by the requisite number of voters, a cash deposit, etc.). So there's no "pre-approval".

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for an example of anyone being allowed to run for public office in Cuba who takes a dissenting view on anything.

---

This is a red herring. Their one page bio and a nomination is all they need. So there's nothing to stop anyone with dissenting views from having their name put forward.

Frankly, I think you would be surprised by the amount of "dissenting" views that routinely get aired in Cuban politics. Because they are a revolutionary society they have a permanent orientation towards identifying problems with a view to solving them. As you know, that's quite different from a common approach in our own society in which the political debate is far too often characterized by skillful avoidance of important problems.

quote:

---

They don't even have to oppose socialism. What about someone running on a platform of strong support for socialism, but also calling for freeing of all political prisoners and ending all censorship?

---

The example of media freedom frankly makes the Cubans look a lot freer than many other societies. Without private ownership of media, mass organizations all have a voice in the political debate in that country. Contrast that with the unanimity of private media in this country on an fundamental issue like, say, free trade in 1988. Why don't you give a specific example of censorship that you are familliar with?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I am now of the firm opinion that Stockholmer plays dumb on purpose. Because no one I know could be so consistently and deliberately obtuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Actually, I pity you for being part of a teeny weeny minority of about 0.0000001% of Canadians who believe in authoritarian communism. It must be tough to wake up every morning knowing that virtually no one agrees with your harebrained support for dictatorship and knowing that the ideology you believe is in total retreat everywhere in the world. Once Castro dies and democracy comes to Cuba, the only altar you will have left to worship before will be in Pyongyang.

---

I don't believe in "authoritarian communism". And the fact that I defend Cuba against certain criticisms hardly means that I worship it. And I've said nothing about North Korea.

But, yes, it is tough to dissent. However, there are more important things than fitting in and being successful.

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I don't support "US imperialism". I support social democracy, but only when it comes to pass as a result of the public voting for it.

---

quote:

---

I don't support "US imperialism". I support social democracy, but only when it comes to pass as a result of the public voting for it.

---

You don't ask why the most militarily powerful nation on earth is so deathly afraid of a tiny island that it has sought to strangle it for more than 40 years and has used its vast power to attempt to stifle human, commerical, and technological communication with those island residents.

But instead of asking the bully what he is afraid of, you demand to know from the intended victim why he doesn't stand out in the open and subject himself to a beating.

quote:

---

Yes, but what you're talking about is a modification of our current system - not a fundamental change.

---

Of course, it depends upon what you think is "fundamental".

Social democratic governments in Scandinavia, for example, bear little resemblance to what Dickens described in England, or what Engels described in his book "The Condition of the Working Class in England".

Usually, people who claim that social democracy cannot make fundamental change are simply claiming that the only truly "fundamental" change would be when the entire economy becomes state property.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Of course, it depends upon what you think is "fundamental".

Social democratic governments in Scandinavia, for example, bear little resemblance to what Dickens described in England, or what Engels described in his book "The Condition of the Working Class in England".

Usually, people who claim that social democracy cannot make fundamental change are simply claiming that the only truly "fundamental" change would be when the entire economy becomes state property.

Myself, I'd say that there is nothing "fundamental" about what happened in Russia, China, or Eastern Europe. It is just a stage in the development of capitalism advanced under the banners of a non-democratic, self-proclaimed elite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Usually, people who claim that social democracy cannot make fundamental change are simply claiming that the only truly "fundamental" change would be when the entire economy becomes state property.

---

Scandinavia is a mainly white group of countries geogrpahically situated in another hemisphere, in another time zone, and have no strategic military interest and few natural resources with which to prop up the most wasteful, most oil dependent economy in the world. Scandinavia was never an imperialist interest of Monroe doctrine. Private enterprise clear cut Swedish timber until there was nothing left for them exploit. Socialism was inevitable.

We're just not talking about a history of free and fair elections or a trend toward human rights in general in Latin America anymore than the former Soviet satellite countries would have been considered democratic nations.

quote:

---

Myself, I'd say that there is nothing "fundamental" about what happened in Russia, China, or Eastern Europe. It is just a stage in the development of capitalism advanced under the banners of a non-democratic, self-proclaimed elite.

---

The U.S. government through USAID, CIA-infiltrated "NGO's", HIID, and billionaire capitalists were in on the tainting of and influencing democratic reforms in the former USSR. And now that Putin is on a renationalisation binge, and all the while abiding by free market rules and mechanisms in doing so, the corporatocracy is waging a smear campaign and attempting to revive cold war sentiments against Russia for the sake of Keynesian-militarism. Any excuse to soak U.S. taxpayers forfeiting their own social democracy in favour of cradle to the grave socialism for the superrich in America.

quote:

---

Myself, I'd say that there is nothing "fundamental" about what happened in Russia, China, or Eastern Europe. It is just a stage in the development of capitalism advanced under the banners of a non-democratic, self-proclaimed elite.

---

quote:

---

I want democratic control of the economy.

---

I am glad you do not favour state ownership of the economy, as in USSR, China, and Cuba.

Typically, these societies offer decisionmaking authority primarily to members of the Communist Party, and so are far from democratic.

However, in order to carve out a position distinct from the traditional CPs, and also distinct from social democratic positions, you will have to explain how your "democratic control of the economy" would actually work.

After all, traditional social democrats allow for some public ownership, and use regulations to control corporate decisions which threaten the public good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I am glad you do not favour state ownership of the economy, as in USSR, China, and Cuba.

Typically, these societies offer decisionmaking authority primarily to members of the Communist Party, and so are far from democratic

---

So who do we entrust with the valuable fossil fuels, the oceans of timber and massive electrical power generation and distribution resources if not our very own democratically-elected governments, Jeff ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

After all, traditional social democrats allow for some public ownership, and use regulations to control corporate decisions which threaten the public good.

So, social democrats may often favour democratic control of the economy, too. But you say their views don't promise "fundamental" change. So what do you offer that they don't?

---

1) I'd get rid of private ownership altogether. (I'm not talking about your house or your tooth-brush!) That is, I'm not just talking about forcing corporations to behave a bit better. I want us to control our work and what we produce - and to own it.

2) "State ownship" where the government truly represents the people is democratic ownership.

3) There are other forms of public ownership: cooperatives, municipal ownership, etc.

[a few typos corrected]

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

2) "State ownship" where the government truly represents the people is democratic ownership.

---

So, we are back to state ownership.

Now, tell us how we are to know whether a specific regime "truly represents the people" or not?

Recall that EVERY regime, including the USSR, China, Eastern Europe, etc. all claimed they "truly represent the people".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff House:
However, in order to carve out a position distinct from the traditional CPs, and also distinct from social democratic positions, you will have to explain how your "democratic control of the economy" would actually work

---

The experiment in Laissez-faire capitalism lasted 30 years and led to world war as an escape hatch for what was a failed ideology. L-F capitalism didn't fail because an international banking and corporate cabal waged cold war against it for ideological reasons. L-F capitalism didn't do the big swan dive because it wasn't able to benefit from slave labour in Latin America supplying North American trading companies with cheap citrus and coffee beans.

Laissez-faire capitalism collapsed in 1929 all on its own in near-perfect laboratory conditions.

quote:

---

The experiment in Laissez-faire capitalism lasted 30 years and led to world war as an escape hatch for what was a failed ideology.

---

We are not talking here about "laissez-faire" capitalism. We are talking about social democracy.

Laissez capitalism DID collapse, as surely as communism did in 1989.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

So, we are back to state ownership.

Now, tell us how we are to know whether a specific regime "truly represents the people" or not?

Recall that EVERY regime, including the USSR, China, Eastern Europe, etc. all claimed they "truly represent the people".

So, what mechanism is required to establish this true representation? Would it be, say, elections?

---

Even out and out "state ownership" is more democratic than corporate ownership! But that wasn't what I meant. You will recall that I said I didn't favour state ownership as distinct from democratic ownership.

An election does not mean a representative government or democratic control unless a society as a whole is subject to democratic control. That said, yes, some form of electoral process would have to be part of it. But I don't equate "democratic" with "elected" simpliciter.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[expletives deleted. Taking a break ]

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Laissez capitalism DID collapse, as surely as communism did in 1989.

What is left is social democracy.

---

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Come come all of you. Stockholm is a troll

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

We are not talking here about "laissez-faire" capitalism. We are talking about social democracy.[/qote]

Yes we are, I'm afraid. The ghost of laissez-faire is being re-introduced, slowly but surely, by way of the new liberal capitalism since the 1980's. Since Reagan-Mulroney-Thatcher, national debts have skyrocketed in the three most politically conservative, ideologically-driven western nations feigning democracy with FPTP electoral systems and various cosmetic governments. And this is due mainly to deregulation of banking and financial services through to failed experiments in electrical power production and distribution in Ontario, Alberta and 20 some odd U.S. States and Britain.

[quote]Laissez capitalism DID collapse, as surely as communism did in 1989.

---

Well we're glad you think so. The way in which the two ideologically-driven systems collapsed were actually surrounded by quite different circumstances as I alluded to above. The Soviet system collapsed due to a "revolution from above" as described by Canadian Fred Weir and professor David Kotz of UMass. Mikhael Gorbachev said last year that the Soviet Union should have been saved. I agree with Gorbachev's remark.

The tainting of democratic reforms in Russia and former USSR by fascist forces within Russia and undemocratic forces in our own western "democracies" went along way toward demonstrating to former Soviet citizens that our autocrats and billionaire power brokers don't really believe in democracy either.

quote:

---

What is left is social democracy.

---

It's a nice thought but not the rule and more an anomoly in far away Scandinavian countries and Northern Europe. But they are integrated with the western economies, too. What we have is unsustainable, and not according to political ideologues but scientists around the world. Capitalism based on oil derivatives and consumerism is a dead end for humanity. If the other 85 percent of the world, the developing world, adopts "this" and aspires to our standard of living, we'll strip resources bare and choke on the pollution in record time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Socialism or barbarism.

---

I wish I'd said that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

I wish I'd said that!

---

It is a matter of how we structure and populate our institutions. All of our institutions are hierarchial in nature with the social, political, and economic elites holding the decision making powers and being allowed to consolidate their control over those institutions.

Again I ask, how many pregnant single moms are in parliament? None. Not one. Because none of our institutions, not political, not economic, not social, provide representation at the decision making level for the people whose lives, generally, are in the balance.

Not a single NCO sits in parliament and therefore not a single man nor woman expected to sacrifice their lives in a colonial war in Afghanistan was consulted nor had input on the decision to send troops.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The issue is not ownership. It is a false dichotomy. Look at it this way, if you are an Algonquin trying to protect your land from invading miners, do you care if the land is to be raped for uranium by the state of Canada less so than by some corporate entity? I don't think you do.

---

Through thick and thin and dated cold war ideology, Cuba's socialism is a shining example for people's democracy, and a beacon of hope for the rest of Latin America struggling under neo-Liberal "leave it to the market" ideology today.

[ 30 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

And now for your first lesson in elected democracy -- the coup d'etat.

Oh, and number two -- installing a CIA-backed emergency government.

---

A couple of items this morning to draw attention to what the Cubans have to put up with on a regular basis. Firstly, as a result of human trafficking and what the Cubans call the "theft of athletes", they have decided not to send any boxers to the World Boxing Championships to be held in Chicago this fall. This, despite the fact that this event is one of the 3 qualifiers for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. And the Cubans, for those who don't know, produce some of the most outstanding amateur boxers in the world and regularly, despite the small size of their country, give the US boxers a "black eye" on a regular basis. The way the great Cuban boxer Teófilo Stevenson used to put Americans to sleep was legendary.

Cuba will not be going to the Chicago WBC

The other story relates to the 2007 Latin Grammy Awards. Due to the hostile policy of the Bush administration, Cuban musicians nominated for such awards have been unable to travel to the awards ceremony. This is expected to continue in 2007. It seems that the exchange of ideas and of culture is too dangerous for the administration of King Dubya.

Naminations for Latin Grammys

Maybe the fact that so many Cubans defect at the first opportunity says something about how dissatisfied they are with life there.

[ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The average per capita income in Cuba is apparently $14 a MONTH - and probably a lot lower for people who don't get money from their relatives abroad. Maybe that would represent a better standard of living than you have in Canada. I'm not so sure.

---

Yeah, and the communist dictatorship uses its iron grip on the organs of propaganda to cover up the mass famines plaguing the country. Someone - maybe the WHO or the UN - should investigate how they falsify their mortality and life expectancy statistics. And then there's the armed insurgency which has been raging since the Bay of Pigs, but has been totally covered up.

quote:

---

I would like to see a free and fair election in Canada first. Good luck to both of us, eh?

---

It stinks that people like Mr. Mess are willing to pretend, for political reasons, that there is no distinction between a one-party dictatorship and the electoral system in Canada.

His position means, of course, that if there were a coup in Canada, no particular objection could be made, since our democracy is so phony.

The truth is, of course, that fair elections, with an extended franchise, has always been a demand of progressive democratic parties and working-class insitutions across the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Canada's electoral system would be fairer if proportional representation were adopted. Some other changes to the funding law would also make it better. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater, just so someone can claim that Cuba is as democratic as Canada, is beneath contempt.

---

If you look at how many phony majorities we've had in Ottawa and how phony democracy allowed them to bypass the will of the people with FTA and NAFTA and basically lying their heads off while electioneering, how can you begin to tell us Canada is more democratic ?. There is no compromise with democracy, no 50 percent better or mostly better than any country. We either have democracy or we don't, and Canada doesn't.

What we have is the illusion of democracy. And it's the same as the U.S. where a semi-literate buffoon, the grandson of Prescott Bush, and according to Canadian Shadra Drury, a dangerous cabal of Straussian neocons were able to hijack the Whitehouse in 2000 after losing the popular vote.

Stockholmer and I have a mutual agreement by virtue of his silence on the matter of the Caribbean's and Central America's first free and fair elections in Cuba at some point in future. The conditions are that enough U.S. "Liberal Democrats" vote to close down the SOA, the U.S. Army's school for export of terror and torture to Latin America.

What stinks is a lawyer, probably the best politically represented class in all of the western hemisphere, claiming that working class people are well represented in Canada or in so-called Liberal democracies.

If there were a coup, what would the available options be? Some could argue NAFTA and the SPP are a de facto coup for corporate control. I suppose being allowed to be teargassed outside the fence should be satisfactory for the working classes.

quote:

---

The truth is, of course, that fair elections, with an extended franchise, has always been a demand of progressive democratic parties and working-class insitutions across the world.

---

[ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The only thing i look forward to is a free fair election in Cuba that can be one by a social democratic party that is part of the socialist international and that will offer Cuba the best of both worlds - good health care, education and social policies AND freedom of speech and end to censorship etc...

What's not to like?

---

Corporate incursion, freedom to buy someone else's life and use it for your own profit, stultifying and destructive consumerism, etc.

[ 31 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

In addition to the blockade, the current Bush administration has restricted family visits by Cuban-Americans to an unheard of level:

quote:

---

Cubans (Cuban-Americans) wishing to travel to Cuba must obtain State Department authorization and must intend to visit a direct relative. As defined by Bush, this includes grandparents, parents, siblings, children or a spouse. Therefore a U.S. citizen of Cuban origin does not have the right to visit cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces or nephews who have remained in Cuba.

---

The Bush administration also restricts to $100/month what can be sent to family members, though such restrictions are not applied to other Caribbean countries like Jamaica, Haiti, or (the US colony of) Puerto Rico. There is a "distinct stench of colonialism" in some of Obama's remarks but his position is markedly different from, say, Hilary Clinton who has made it clear that she wishes to continue her husband's policy of the blockade/embargo.

quote:

---

Jen Psaki, spokeswoman for Barack Obama, summed it up this way: “Ultimately, this election is a choice between staying with the failed policies of the past […] or turning the page and taking a new approach to global diplomacy.” It is yet to be seen whether reason and common sense will prevail and the cruel and unjust punishment exacted on the Cuban people will disappear forever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If the US embargo against Cuba ended, the Communist regime would collapse overnight - just like what happened in eastern Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If the US embargo against Cuba ended, the Communist regime would collapse overnight - just like what happened in eastern Europe. The only reason Castro is still in power is that the US embargo has backfifred so totally.

---

ya-ya. They said the same thing about bay of pigs. Cubans were supposed to join the worms in counterrevolution. It didn't happen, and the CIA and vindictive bastards have resorted to aiding and abetting anti-Cuban terrorism ever since.

Stockholmer, if the imperialists are not afraid of an outbreak of socialism in Latin America, then why don't they close down the School of the Americas?.

Why did Warshington deem it necessary to interfere with elections in Latin America as Edward S Herman points out to us?.