quote:

---

We are confronting an enemy whose stubbornness and arrogance frequently leads it to make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that it is a fool. It knows that the special trust that the people have in the founding leader of a Revolution can not be transmitted as if it was an inheritance, to those that in the future will be occupying the main leadership positions of the country.

"I repeat what I have said on many occasions: The Commander-in-Chief of the Cuban Revolution is one and only one, and only the Communist Party, the institution that groups the revolutionary vanguard and guarantees Cubans unity during all times, can be the dignified heir of the trust deposited by the people in its leader. We are working for that, and that’s how it will be, the rest is pure speculation.

---

Granma: on the recent Cuban CP Plenary meeting.

I'm not sure how the communist party can guarentee the 'unity' of Cubans - oh, that's right becuase they are the designated 'dignified heir' of the current leader. They're assuming no other takers then - how astonishing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
This is not the CPSU or some other Communist Party that had its status codified into law. The Cuban CP doesn't even run candidates for office. They're not allowed to.

Keep regurgitating that stuff. I'm sure some Conservative birdbrains need feeding.

---

Here's Raul speaking:

"Only the Communist Party — as the institution that brings together the revolutionary vanguard and will always guarantee the unity of Cubans — can be the worthy heir of the trust deposited by the people in their leader," he said in a speech Wednesday marking a military anniversary.

Sure, NO 'parties' run for election in Cuba, but the Cuban Constitution states that "None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to... the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law."

In other words, like the Chinese Communist Party - who is an electable party - they're able to silence anyone who sounds like an alleged 'counter-revolutionary'.

And it was only in 1992 that amendments were made to the Cuban Constitution which finally decriminalized the right to form political parties other than the Communist Party of Cuba, but they aren't actually allowed to engage in public political activities in Cuba. So, I'm not sure what that change actually achieves.
The fact is that Fidel's brother is well aware - as your article clearly points out - that he's the 'heir apparent' to the Cuban throne before any election has been called. And as long as he continues to have the support of the military, who will be against him?

Even Harper - of whom I am no fan - will has to wait until after the election polls close to know whether he gets to stay in office.

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
Hey maidenhead, didn't i see you at the Bay of Pigs? You'd be wise to clean your own house before criticizing anyones elses lol

---

Bay of Pigs - sorry there comrade, not my house. I reside north of the 49th.

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: maidenhead ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by maidenhead:
Even Harper - of whom I am no fan - will has to wait until after the election polls close to know whether he gets to stay in office.

---

They're all the same guy, really - Harper, Chretien, Mulroney. The only difference between the two old line parties is a slight variation in the "A List" of oligarchs and corporations catered to after the election. Liberal autocrats have enjoyed a stranglehold on power in Canada for about 30 years longer than socialists have led Cuba. Political Conservatives have dominated Ontario elections for 50 years with a run of 42 consecutive years of uninterrupted rule. That's not democracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
They're all the same guy, really - Harper, Chretien, Mulroney. The only difference between the two old line parties is a slight variation in the "A List" of oligarchs and corporations catered to after the election. Liberal autocrats have enjoyed a stranglehold on power in Canada for about 30 years longer than socialists have led Cuba. Political Conservatives have dominated Ontario elections for 50 years with a run of 42 consecutive years of uninterrupted rule. That's not democracy.

Viva la revolucion!

---

That's why, I would argue why we need to look at electoral reform (Ontario's having a referendum on the question in autumn 2007), and other types of reforms (including not allowing those in public office to hold seats on private boards during that office, and for a period of time after holding office - at least 5 years).

But, the fact that the perceived 'middle way' party has largely governed Canada and the province of Ontario is no surprise given that most Canadians are in the middle of the political spectrum. Oh, and we gave the NDP a go here in Ontario, and they turned out to be conservatives in socialist clothing.

Power corrupts. Which is why you have to rely on an ever-renewed political system, not the politicians, to keep us on the right path.

By the way, "maidenhead", do you have any positive remarks about "the special trust that the people have in the founding leader of a Revolution"?

No? Is that because you are hostile to all revolutions that improve the lives of the people? Or is it because such "special trust" is not in your political lexicon or experience?

I can understand, given the series of uninterrupted corporate mouthpieces for PM in Canada in living memory, that you might not believe that such things as "special trust" for founding leaders of a revolution is possible. That only means that you've never experienced or studied a revolution. Imagine a Stanley Cup winning hockey player who introduces the best possible social program.

See? It's not that hard to imagine.

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

I would absolutely hate to live in Cuba, in part due to a lack of economic freedom but, more importantly, a lack of political freedom.

Agreed - but, until there is electoral reform people will continue to vote in the 'middle' party. And frankly, the 'middle' parties will likely continue to get a marjority of the votes - 'some people' liking to vote for Nader does not equal a majority, nor likely even '10s of millions' (as sad as that is - I'm a BIG Nader fan).

Posted by Fidel:
"It's said that voter turnouts are higher in Europe and Scandinavia because people realize there is something at stake for them - social justice."

I would argue that the turnout in Europe has less to do with Europeans being more 'social justice' minded, as it has to do with most of them having PR systems where their vote counts. The European parliament is where the louded voice for 'social justice' resides on that continent, and voter turnout for those elections run at LESS than 30% in some countries. Which, as far as I'm concerned, shouldn't be considered a democratic election.

The below global report on voter turnout since 1945 states that the average turnout for Canadian elections since that time is 73.9% - higher than France, Spain, Ireland, Monaco and Switzerland. Greece, Portugal, Finland and the UK were all under 80% voter turnout. There is also compulsory voter registration in much of continental Europe - perhaps another contributing factor.

http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/VT_screenopt_2002.pdf

And there's always mandatory voting....

Post by Fidel:
"[US] Hands off Cuba."

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Sven and maidenhead, do you support the U.S. embargo against Cuba?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
strawman by unionist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Raul Castro would have to get elected to the Council of Ministers same as his brother Fidel to become head of State. "maindenhead" is muddying the waters by conflating the honour towards leaders like Fidel Castro with the method of electing leaders like Fidel Castro - and likely hoping that those who read this thread won't look at the fine print.

By the way, "maidenhead", do you have any positive remarks about "the special trust that the people have in the founding leader of a Revolution"?

No? Is that because you are hostile to all revolutions that improve the lives of the people? Or is it because such "special trust" is not in your political lexicon or experience?

I can understand, given the series of uninterrupted corporate mouthpieces for PM in Canada in living memory, that you might not believe that such things as "special trust" for founding leaders of a revolution is possible. That only means that you've never experienced or studied a revolution. Imagine a Stanley Cup winning hockey player who introduces the best possible social program.

See? It's not that hard to imagine.

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

I guess Raul better honour him - his own political future depends on it. (Stay close to the light Raul, very close).

Post by Beltov:
"By the way, "maidenhead", do you have any positive remarks about "the special trust that the people have in the founding leader of a Revolution"?"

Of course - I know what the American government has tried to do to Cuba for decades, and I understand the role that Castro has played in keeping his country's independence. BUT, I don't have any positive remarks to make about the cult of personality that he has created for himself - something that seems to go with communist leaders of all cultures - or the larger governing structure within which he operates.

Post by Beltov:
"I can understand, given the series of uninterrupted corporate mouthpieces for PM in Canada in living memory, that you might not believe that such things as "special trust" for founding leaders of a revolution is possible. That only means that you've never experienced or studied a revolution."

My studies were in European and Chinese politics, so, yes, I know a little something about revolutions - both 'democratic' and 'communist'. The Chinese also had a 'special trust' for their founding leader which, after the defeats of the Japanese and the Nationalists (marvellous job), cost them millions of lives. It's unfortunate for the Chinese that, unlike the Soviets, their founding leader stuck it out for many long decades. Many French also trusted Robespierre for a time during their revolution, but that turned out to be a pretty bad idea as well.

Trust can be misguided...and misplaced.

And as you probably know, given your apparent interest in the subject - revolutionaries often making shitty leaders once the revolution has been won. Their need to now hold on to power takes precedence over any further 'revolution' - theirs is the last! Unless of course you're Mao, in which case you juggle holding on to all the top positions in the government and military (even when you give up the titles that go with them - who needs the titles when you have that 'special trust'?), denying medical treatment or 're-educating' all those who don't agree with you, AND keeping both your party and your entire country in a constaint state of flux and revolutionary furvour, until you die. Whew, tiring stuff.

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: maidenhead ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Sven and maidenhead, do you support the U.S. embargo against Cuba?

---

I respect everyone's opinions as to whether the social system in Cuba is slavery or paradise, and I find the debate refreshing. Imposing our opinions on other countries and people (which is the habit of the U.S.) is a different story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I respect everyone's opinions as to whether the social system in Cuba is slavery or paradise, and I find the debate refreshing. Imposing our opinions on other countries and people (which is the habit of the U.S.) is a different story.

---

Yeah, I think that the government in the US (whether Dems or Repubs) is captive to the Cuban nationals living here. It’s a case where a small, but vocal, group of people have disproportionate sway over Cuban policy relative to their numbers. With regard to civil liberties, I think the Cuban government is not much worse (or better) than the Chinese government but we are more than willing to have wide open trade ties with China.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
How do you like them straw apples?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I can understand, given the series of uninterrupted corporate mouthpieces for PM in Canada in living memory, that you might not believe that such things as "special trust" for founding leaders of a revolution is possible. That only means that you've never experienced or studied a revolution.
[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

As a person who has lived through a revolution, I can tell you that such "special trust" means little. Stalin and Khomeini were both greatly admired and trusted by the masses; Khomeini's funeral was unmatched by anything in Iranian history, while everybody knew he had screwed up the country.

I don't know about Cuba, but in many other places (North Korea among today's examples) this "special trust" is often the result of silencing any voice that might question the esteemed leader, daily praises of the wise leader by the state-controlled media, as well as fear of the government and security forces.