Many jokes made the rounds in Cuba during Pope John Paul II¹s historic visit to that country, but perhaps none more to the point than this one: Fidel Castro and the Pope were walking along Havana¹s famous seaside drive, the Malecon, when a gust of wind blew the Pope¹s mitre off his head and into the water. Fidel immediately leaped over the wall and into the water ‹ where, to everyone¹s amazement, he found himself walking on top of the waves. Taking this in stride, Fidel glided across the water, picked up the mitre, climbed back out, and handed the headpiece back to the Pope. And they continued on their stroll. The next day, prominent headlines on the Cuban daily newspaper Granma proclaimed: ³Fidel Performs Revolutionary Feat; Walks on Water to Retrieve Pope¹s Mitre!² The Vatican¹s L¹Osservatore Romano considered this an equally big event, but its version said: ³Pope Performs Miracle; Enables Fidel to Walk on Water!² The Miami papers, of course, had their own spin. Their headlines blared: ³Proven Beyond Doubt ‹ Fidel Cannot Swim!² The Media Cover Cuba Media coverage of Cuba in the United States, and in many other countries (depending, often, on their political and trade relations with Cuba and relative dependence on or independence of the U.S.) usually contains at least a grain of truth. However, what grows out of that seed, how it¹s interpreted, or twisted, often results in reporting that bears very little resemblance to what goes on in that country. Unfortunately the spin most U.S. and like-minded media put on their Cuba reporting cannot be viewed as lightly as the Pope joke. By omission and commission, intentional and unintentional, out of directives from editors, publishers and producers, or out of unconscious biases on the parts of the journalists themselves, sometimes due merely to ignorance, what gets reported about Cuba abroad is often far from accurate, misleading and, in the worst cases, intentionally false. As a result of Washington¹s constant insistence, one of the ³must² stories for foreign journalists reporting on Cuba is ³human rights.² They are not referring to the basic, elementary rights to food, housing, clothing, health care, education, jobs and culture ‹ the so-called ³social and economic rights² embodied in articles 22 through 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One of the outstanding features of the Cuban Revolution is its efforts to guarantee these rights, in large measure successfully up until the demise of its Eastern European trading partnerships. In fact, even today Cubans are the envy of most of the developing world ‹ and considerable pockets of the industrialized world ‹ for the extent to which they still enjoy the benefit of a government that considers food, education and health care to be essential human rights. Human Rights in Cuba But most of the U.S. media and its imitators in other countries are not thinking about these social and economic rights when discussing ³human rights.² They exclude these, and focus instead upon the individual civil and political liberties (and these as strictly delineated by U.S. definitions). Rights are not absolute in any society. In the United States there are classic Supreme Court decisions and statements by jurists to remind us of this. ³Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose,² and ³Freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell Œfire!¹ in a crowded theatre,² are two of the more famous expressions of such accepted limits. Several times in the last two decades, the Supreme Court ruled that the health rights of a child must supercede the religious beliefs of its parents. In other words, most agree that society has the right to place limitations upon individual rights when these come into conflict with the rights of others or the rights of society as a whole. All governments place such limitations ‹ the difference is primarily which values each considers most important to protect. The U.S. government tends to favour the individual (at least in theory) and private property; it places civil and political liberties like those in the Bill of Rights above all other rights. Cuba tends to favour the collectivity and to consider social and economic values ‹ not even considered ³rights² in the U.S. ‹ to be of the highest priority. There is also a serious debate in the world as to what constitutes a ³political prisoner.² What some label ³prisoners of conscience² others call ³counter-revolutionary prisoners.² The U.S. media often state that many men and women in prison in Cuba are ³dissidents,² that they are simply people who ³oppose the official line.² But those journalists omit an important question: What is the official line? In Cuba, the ³official line² is that food, health care, housing, education, employment and culture are fundamental human rights to be protected at all costs. Cubans often find it puzzling that the foreign press insists on the ³right² of certain individuals to attempt to take these away. Most Cuban citizens, and not just Fidel Castro and members of the ³government,² say that they fought and sacrificed ‹ and tens of thousands died ‹ to achieve a system that would guarantee these rights. In other parts of the world, they point out, millions of people who do not have these rights live on the streets and die of hunger or of preventable and curable diseases. Why should they let a small, individualistic, self-serving minority try to take away the rights for which they struggled so hard to gain? Few of these arguments see their way into the U.S. media, where the Cuban side of the debate is seldom aired. On the contrary, the media perpetuates blatantly false images of these opponents of Cuba¹s revolutionary process by calling them ³librarians, human-rights activists, reporters, trade-union activists² and similar classifications that tend to win the sympathies of liberals, progressives and average citizens of other countries who do not realize that these counter-revolutionary activists are none of the above, and therefore reach the conclusion that the Cuban government is a repressive dictatorship. Yet any journalist visiting Cuba can easily ascertain that ³trade-union activists² not only represent no real union, but often are not even working; that the ³librarians² have no connection with public libraries, but are individual opponents of the Revolution who have started ³lending² or renting out books from their homes (likely at the instigation of the U.S. Interests Section, which supplies them with many of these books). To maintain their facade, these ³private book-lenders² at first claimed to be ³non-political,² that they only wanted to make available a variety of literature Cubans are hungry to read. But when asked why they didn¹t just donate the books to the public libraries that exist in every province and municipality of Cuba, they replied that Cuban libraries wouldn¹t permit these books. Well, if they weren¹t political, why not? Similarly, the so-called ³human-rights activists² never protested the most flagrant abuses of human rights throughout the last century, from Vietnam to Chile, from the death squads in El Salvador to the massacres of priests and Indians in Guatemala, from the dirty war in Argentina that murdered and ³disappearanced² young leftists and stole their children, to the contra war in Nicaragua. Their concerns were very narrow: the return of bourgeois individualist civil liberties to opponents of the Cuban government. No wonder they received so little sympathy or support from the majority of Cuban citizens. The U.S. government, in its imperial arrogance, has never been a strong advocate of sovereignty and self-determination for others. But even many who would advocate such national rights have been blinded by the corporate media¹s complicity in giving us the impression that Fidel is an ³unelected² leader, a dictator, and in this they are often aped by much of the liberal media, as well. No U.S. media ever acknowledge that the Cuban people might consider what Fidel is doing, in favour of whom, and to whose benefit, to be more important than the length of time he has been governing. Thanks to media deceptiveness in reporting, most people are unaware that Fidel Castro is, in fact, re-elected periodically. They accept the conventional wisdom that freedom, democracy and elections do not exist in Cuba. Because this false impression is spread so widely throughout the media, it is worth looking at carefully.
Elections in Cuba While the White House, Congress and a dutiful media call for ³electoral democracy² in Cuba, Cubans shake their heads and ask, ³What do you mean by Œfree elections¹? What kind of Œdemocracy¹ do you want us to have? Like Kuwait¹s, where the people have no say in their government, and where women aren¹t allowed to participate at all? Like the bloody, repressive Pinochet dictatorship the U.S. helped install and maintain in Chile, where a ruthless general can Œstep down¹ to occupy a lifetime seat in the Senate, leaving his military machine in full power to make sure things still go their way? Like in Miami, world seat of electoral fraud?² When I mentioned the idea of a multi-party system to one Cuban old-timer, he responded, ³Before 1959 we had dozens of parties ‹ and no real freedom or democracy. They were all demagogues interested only in lining their own pockets.² U.S. journalists regularly bemoan the lack of ³free elections² and ³democracy² in Cuba, seldom giving the Cubans the opportunity to explain why they feel their elections are freer, their system of government more democratic. Their claim is based in part on the fact that their governmental system is much more participatory, and that it doesn¹t cost anything to be a candidate in their system ‹ a valid argument that at least deserves to be heard and debated. Because of the imminent visit of Pope John Paul II, correspondents from hundreds of newspapers, magazines, radio and T.V. networks and wire services from all over the world were present and reported on the country¹s January 11, 1998 elections in which 98 per cent of Cuba¹s eligible voters cast ballots. No one disputed these electoral figures, and no one charged ballot-box stuffing or the kind of shenanigans ‹ thousands of votes from deceased voters, among them ‹ that have caused such havoc in Miami (forcing a recall of the elected mayor on one occasion, numerous recounts and a highly questionable presidential election). The only complaint voiced by the U.S. regarding these and previous Cuban elections is the form in which candidates are chosen for the highest offices (let¹s look at that more closely in a moment). Coverage of the electoral system usually chooses to ignore the content of the electoral process. The fact is that all local, district and provincial delegates are chosen by standard electoral models used the world over. There must be two or more candidates, whom anyone can nominate at open public meetings. People can even nominate themselves. There is universal suffrage for those 16 and older, with no racial, gender, religious, or political discrimination. There is a secret ballot. And finally, the winner must win by at least 51 per cent of the vote or else a run-off is held. Moreover, unlike certain countries whose ³democracy² the United States praises ‹ like El Salvador, where the absence of a punched voting card could be a death warrant for the poor peasant stopped by one of the regime¹s soldiers on a lonely country road ‹ voting in Cuba is not obligatory, although there is heavy social pressure to do so. Local block committees do a big door-to-door ³get out the vote² campaign, and apparently Cubans feel they have something to vote for, because, unlike in the U.S. ‹ where turnouts have at times been as little as 25 to 30 per cent of the eligible voters ‹ nearly everyone votes. These elected delegates in turn appoint an electoral commission made up of individuals selected by civic, social, trade-union, women¹s, student and political organizations. The job of the electoral commission is to carry out a massive grassroots selection process to come up with a slate of candidates for the higher offices of the National Assembly, which will represent the broadest cross-section of the Cuban population. Cuban electors are then asked to vote to accept or reject ‹ individually or collectively ‹ the slate of candidates presented by their elected delegates and the broad-based commission they appoint. If the system functions correctly, those on the ballot will actually represent all sectors. Can it be said that in every U.S. election, the two (rarely is it more than this) candidates for any given post truly represent the wishes of the electorate? There is another important aspect of Cuban elections: Cubans don¹t have to vote, but they do; each Cuban citizen, going into the voting booth, can vote for all, none, or whichever of those proposed candidates he or she believes would be a good national representative for all of the people ‹ or for a particular constituency. There is no marking on the ballots that could indicate how a particular person voted. Persons can choose not to vote at all, or to enter the voting booth and cast blank ballots. And this, in fact, is what the tiny internal opposition and the massive voice of the Miami Cubans have called for consistently: election boycotts ‹ using the no-risk method of casting blank or defaced ballots. Not every candidate on the slate receives the same number of votes, an indication that Cuban voters are both aware of their voting rights and exercise them to vote only for those they feel will represent them adequately. Any candidate not receiving at least 50 per cent of the votes is not elected; the electoral commission must approve a new candidate, and a new election must be held. The fact that a very high percentage of the candidates received more than 80 to 90 per cent of the votes in all recent elections is, I believe, a reflection of the diligent work the Electoral Commission does in preparing an acceptable slate. In this year¹s elections, the Electoral Commission analyzed over 60,000 proposals, discussing them with over a million voters, individually and through their civic, social, political and trade-union organizations, in order to come up with the final, non-partisan slate that the public was asked to accept or reject. It is not unique to Cuba to have non-partisan elections for certain key governmental posts. In fact, in the U.S. some officials like judges are selected through non-party elections. Why? Because it is believed judges should be selected for their ability and impartiality, and not for their party affiliations. Judges also need to act separately from partisan considerations in the fair and balanced interests of all the people. Well, why shouldn¹t Cubans be allowed to decide that the highest officers of their land ‹ deputies of the National Assembly, and those the deputies subsequently appoint as members of the governing Council of State ‹ also be chosen in this non-partisan (non-politicking) manner? Does it make their system less democratic? No one contends that Cuba¹s electoral system is perfect ‹ least of all the Cubans on the island. They have been adapting and improving it since 1976, when they first set it up. And they are not doing a bad job. It took the U.S. almost a hundred years after the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Convention to allow Black men to vote, and well over a hundred years before women of any colour were given the same right. There¹s ³Free² and Then There¹s ³Free² To those who charge that Cuba¹s elections are not ³free,² many Cubans reply with a grin, ³The U.S. system isn¹t Œfree,¹ either ‹ it¹s very expensive.² It is estimated that to become a senator costs millions of dollars, while $100 million is the price tag to become president. When Americans tell their children that, under the U.S. system, any child can become president, they are perpetuating a myth, one which clearly applies differently to little girls than it does to little boys, not to mention Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, or any other hyphenated-American. Neither does this myth apply to white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant little boys, unless they are born into or accumulate in their lifetimes a great deal of wealth. In Cuba, the candidates for national office are pre-selected by the electoral commission, but money ‹ economic class ‹ has nothing to do with who gets elected, and the poorest citizens not only can aspire to become high officials ‹ they do. The result is that Cuba¹s parliament is much more likely to act in the interests of all sectors, including the poorest sectors, while the U.S. Congress is more likely to vote in the interests of those who fill its coffers. What does the U.S. media have to say about all this? It¹s not part of the discussion. Most media report, inaccurately, that ³there are no free [sic] elections,² or, worse, mendaciously report that there are no elections in Cuba at all. This leaves their readers and viewers without the information necessary to make up their own minds about which is the better system. And it enables hostile administrations in Washington to sell a gullible public on any harsh measures they choose to enact against Cuba, from economic blockade to armed intervention, as the ³pursuit of democracy.² Karen Lee Wald is a California teacher and writer, who has worked to break the information blockade and counter disinformation concerning Cuba for over 30 years. http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/v37/v37_4kw.htm#three
Oh please. Your ignorant propaganda notwithstanding, Cuba is consistently ranked by Freedom House (a non-government source) as one of the least free nations in the world. You say that as though the United States was somehow wrong in this regard...The difference between the right to free speech, free assembly, and a free press...and the "right" to food, education, and housing...is that no one has to do anything to provide you with the former, other than just leave you alone. Your "right" to food means that someone else is FORCED to provide it to you...making it not a right at all. You have the right to purchase, barter for, work for, or do anything in your power to legally obtain food. But you don't have the right to force society to provide you with food. Even if that were the case, they still have the right to voice their opinion. Your opinion is not gospel; not everyone agrees with you. You should respect their right to have a different opinion (even if you don't respect the person or the opinion itself), rather than try to throw them in prison. Maybe that's because if they say anything else, the government will throw them in prison for trying to "take rights away from people," as you put it. Providing food, shelter, and medicine to the poor - even if you believe that that's a good idea - does not necessarily have to mean a government-controlled press, horrible human rights abuses, and a complete government monopoly on the economy. Sweden and Israel provide those things (though not effectively...but that's a separate debate), but they don't throw political dissidents in prison. Yeah, I'm sure Cuba is damn near heaven-on-earth. That's why so many Floridians are willing to risk their life in cardboard-boxes-turned-rafts in the hopes of floating to Cuba. Oh wait, that doesn't happen. It's the other way around. Maybe that's a question for the Cuban government rather than the people who are doing nothing wrong other than providing a demanded service to the Cuban people. Not true. Amnesty International and Freedom House, as well as a slew of other human rights groups, have condemned all of the abuses you mentioned. So was Saddam Hussein. So is Kim Jong-il. So is the junta in charge of Myannmar. That doesn't mean that the elections were free and fair. Why did you give up on debating the merits of communism, instead resorting to this lame propaganda? Did you realize that you were beaten?
Can we stay on topic, please? In what way? And, theoretically, what is wrong with taking food from a very rich man, when a kid just down the street is suffering greatly because of lack of food? Maybe I am playing the devil's advocate, but who define "rights"? Is there such a thing as "unversial, undeniable" rights? People who are hired by foreign nations to create rebellion and instability are not "expressing their opinion". I remember reading the Cuban constitution. It does guarantee freedom of speech. The US wouldn't have put people that were given money by bin Laden and moved to the US in order to create rebellion in prison. They would be executed. There is a difference between giving an opinion, and to destabilize a country. Well, you do need society to be run collectively in order to distribute goods equally. There is no freedom suffering from malnutrtion, living as a wage slave, forced to work for someone who just want to exploit your body. There is a difference between just keeping people living in poverty alive, and to serve the interest of the majority. They don't do it because they are nice, but because they have to. And of course they do. Ever heard about the guy who revealed the secret about Israel and its nuclear weapons? He is in jail. One of ten thousand on average is not much. Can we focus on the democratic system in Cuba? I would normally not answer this because it has nothing to do with the topic, but spreading propaganda leaflets about overthrowing the democratically elected government is not "providing a demanded service to the Cuban people". If the Cuban people is so opressed, why do they keep re-electing the President? Now, can we focus on the election system in Cuba?
Do you really think the people elect Casto? Those 75 political prisoners were put in prison because they started a drive to hold a national and government vote that would've put freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association and freedom to start business into establishment but it was rejected by the national assembly. And as for the boat people, when a bus crashed into the Peru embassy in 1980, 10,000 Cubans fled into it within 48 hours. And when Mariel harbor was opened up, 125,000 Cubans left through there in 4 months, and they still find any way possible to leave. So much for being a great place.
Yes. A Modern Worker's State The Cuban electoral process is a two-step process. The first is the election of delegates to the municipal assemblies. Municipalities are not to be confused with cities or towns. Havana, a city of two million people, for example, is composed of 15 municipalities. Plazas de la Revolution is one of these municipalities. It is subdivided into 104 constituencies. One of these, Constituency Number 12, is the basis for an in-depth case study in August’s book. One can walk around this particular constituency it in about 15 minutes. It has a population of about 1,800. One municipal delegate represents this population.August also chose another constituency, Constituency Number 43, in the rural municipality of Abreus of the province of Cienfuegos as the basis of another case study. One of nine constituencies in Abreus, it is based on the town Horquitas and has a population of about 5,000. It is represented by no less than nine delegates to the municipal assembly. The Nomination and Election of Municipal Delegates For the purposes of nominating candidates for the municipal assemblies, constituencies are divided into nomination areas. Constituency Number 12 in Plaza de la Revolution, for example, was divided into seven nomination areas. There, they correspond roughly to one side of a street in a city block. Most nomination meetings take place on the street or in local meeting halls. Anyone can attend, Cubans and foreigners alike. At the meeting, any registered voter can nominate anyone else residing in the constituency. Those nominating a candidate usually give a brief explanation of the reason for their choice. Anyone present may speak for or against a nominee. At the close of nominations, registered voters in attendance vote by a show of hands. The nominee with the most votes will be a candidate for the local municipal assembly. In any given constituency, there will typically be between two and eight candidates for one or more seats on the municipal assembly. Elections are very low key affairs. Standardized posters with photographs and a brief biography of each candidate are simply posted in public places. The Nomination of Candidates to the Provincial and National Assemblies Candidates for the provincial and national assemblies are nominated not by the Communist Party or any mass organization as in times past, but by the municipal assemblies. Unlike the delegates to municipal assembly, they need not reside in that municipality. To get the best candidates, the municipal assemblies consult with local and national plenums of various mass organizations. The municipal assembly, by secret ballot, may reject these recommendations in whole or in part. For the most part, however, they are accepted. Typically, about half the candidates are already delegates to the municipal assembly.The Provincial and National Electionsand the United VoteUnlike the municipal elections, there is only one candidate nominated for each seat. Each voter will get a chance to vote on a secret ballot for several candidates for both levels of government and is encouraged to vote for ALL of them -- the so-called "united vote." He or she may vote for none, some or all of them. He or she may also secretly turn in a spoiled or blank ballot to register some kind of protest. These too are recorded in the official results. Each candidate is required to get at least 50 percent of the vote to be elected. Since the candidates may not be known to the voters in an area, opportunities to meet them and discuss concerns on any issue are organized by the local electoral commissions. August describes several such meetings. Typically, these occur at the voters’ places of work. As in the municipal elections, posters with a photograph and a brief biography of each candidate are also posted in public places. There is no "electioneering" as we know it. Missing are the lavish campaigns, mud slinging, hate mongering, "promises" and lies.Rendering of Accounts and the Right of RecallDelegates traditionally meet at six-month intervals with their constituents in small neighbourhood meetings to give an account of themselves, hear complains, solve problems and discuss various initiatives. August describes several such meetings which he attended. Topics ranged from the cost of meals on the lunch wagon to the administration of healthcare. As happens from time to time, if constituents are unsatisfied with their delegate they can recall him or her and hold another election.The Election of the Council of State and The PresidentThe National Assembly meets twice a year over its five-year term. Once it is established, it nominates and elects the 31 member Council of State including the President (Fidel Castro). The Council of State represents the National Assembly when it is not in session and is accountable for it actions to the National Assembly.
Just because there are elections doesn't mean they count for anything, I have a poster from our last election that makes the perfect example of elections anywhere Every Citizen Guaranteed a Vote* *Vote not guaranteed to count The fact you actually believe there is democracy in Cuba just tells me you are completly off your rocker.
You post baseless accusations without any evidence what so ever. Why don't you come back when you want to have a constructive debate?
Because the food belongs to the rich man. If you want to make your case before him in the hopes of him being charitable or providing you with a job, more power to you. But robbing him at gunpoint (what communist governments do) is NOT the answer. No, but that doesn't mean that some systems of "rights" don't work better than others. My concept of rights works in the real world; yours does not. If someone is blowing up embassies in Cuba, then yes, there is a problem. If someone is handing out literature on a street corner promoting alternatives to communism, then they aren't doing anything wrong. And everyone knows that constitutions are never violated by the client government, since constitutions can enforce themselves, right? Agreed. So if a fundamentalist Islamic fanatic wants to hijack a plane and fly it into a Cuban building, put him in jail. If someone is just voicing their opinion they aren't destabilizing anything other than perhaps the Castro regime, which is not omniscient. And everywhere that it's been tried, everyone is equally poor, including Cuba. The poorest 10% Americans are still better off than your average Cuban. And the Cuban government - in contrast to that of Sweden and Israel - provides all these services just because "it's nice"? OK dumbass, see if you can tell the following two statements apart. You said yourself that there is a difference between voicing an opinion and active rebellion: Statement A: "I don't think our nation should have nuclear weapons." Statement B: "Our nations has secretly been building nuclear weapons, and here are the blueprints, Mr. Bin Laden." Both statements would get you thrown in jail in Cuba. Only statement B would be a problem anywhere in the free world. So why aren't Floridians risking their lives in cardboard boxes to travel across the Gulf of Mexico to live in Cuba, in roughly equal proportions? If it's not in demand, why should the government care? Because jackass, they don't have any fucking choice. Castro's name is the only one on the ballot. Are you telling me he's the only person in all of Cuba who would like to be president?
The fact that you would rather let a poor kid star to death beacuse of your own ideological belief is pretty cruel, and in my opinion, disgusting. It is hilarious, or rather tragic, that you criticize Cuba for being "evil and undemocratic", while yourself support letting people die in the streets so you and your fat rich people can exploit the people. You compare to different countries, with different history, different struggles, different natural resources, different mentality, and different view of life. To compare these two nations and say because Americans have in general more money than the Cuban population, and then blame it on socialism would be historical simplism. Socialists and marxists believe that it is neccesary*, just and fair to create a society where everyone can be living as equals, where everyone benefits, instead of a few, where people cooperate, instead of competing and fighting. If you want to consider us nice, go ahead. * unlike capitalists who sometimes keep some leftist elements in society in order to avoid rebellion by the proletariat FALSE. You have no proof of this, and neither will you have during your lifetime, because it is simply not true. Either you have been brainwashed, or you are simply lying. People can even nominate themselves. There is universal suffrage for thsoe 16 and older, with no racial, gender, religious, or political discrimination. There is a secret ballot. I think it shows how immature you are by calling me "jackass". Of course not. When did I ever say that? There are plenty of people willing to be president, like in any other country, but Fidel keeps getting re-elected. Why? Because he is popular. Now, let's discuss the Cuban electoral process.
I'm not "letting" him starve by refusing to rob someone else at gunpoint. That starving person - just like the rich person - is free to buy, trade, or work for his food just like anyone else. You're right, the GNP per capita is not an effective way to measure the success of countries with different histories. But economic growth is. In 2004, the US economy outpaced the Cuban economy (3.1% to 2.6%), despite the Cuban economy having much more room to grow than the American economy. (CIA World Factbook) But people DON'T cooperate. Human nature is such that most people want to be more successful than their peers. People have always retained elements of capitalism via the black markets that communist countries create (such as the USSR throwing people in prison for "profiteering"). The Communist Party is the only legal party. Please give me the name of a person who has ran against Fidel Castro for president and not been thrown in jail. I don't care how popular you believe he is, NO ONE can win legitimate elections for 45 years running. (Look at the Britons voting Churchhill out of office after WWII - while you might think he's a capitalist pigdog, there's no question that he was popular during his time in office).
A few alwys will elect him and he is not only bad, he also made a lot of good stuff, no analphabets in the whole country, a good health system, well the US didn't managed it to make one of these points right, and well, democraZy and the US? The election was a fuckin faked one!
Yes you do, because the rich guy has abundance of food, while the little kid is about to die because he is malnurished. Now, here is the difference between leftists (marxists, socialists, anarchists etc.) and rightists (conservatives, liberals, fascists). I am sure you've watched quite a few American movies, and because of that, I will try to explain things easily. A poor little boy suffering from malnutrition and is about to die, begs the rightwing guy (the evil one) for food, and the rightwing says, if he even bothers to answer at all: "Go eat that (rich man's) garbage, and one day you will be like him". The leftist meets the same episode, where the poor boy suffering from malnutrition begs the leftist guy. The leftist, after hearing the boy's talk, go over to the rich fat man, and says: "Give away the fucking wealth you have to that boy or I'll blow your fucking brains out". That's the difference. Now, by not taking wealth from the rich fat man, you are letting the boy die. There's no "but". You could have avoided it, but you refused to do so, and the kid dies. That's the big mistake again. You can't compare two different nations, especially when the difference is that big. I would like to hear your reasoning why Cuba has "much more room to grow than the American economy". First off, you do not take into account the seasons (land fertility, droughts, water output etc.), geography, population, natural resources, economic difficulties, economic interests, economic structure, sanctions (the blockade), the invasions (bay of pigs, for instance), terrorist attacks (US planes bombing Cuban soil, destroying tons of Cuban sugar, attacks on civilians and public places), bombings of the country, sabotage, and many other things. Comparing Cuba with the United States would be like comparing Island with China. No. People don't cooperate in a capitalist economy. People do cooperate in a socialist, and communist economy. A capitalist economy would naturally advocate competing, while a socialist one would advocate cooperating. A capitalist economy is not based on cooperation, nor will it ever be. As I see it, it's all about what the economic system. No. Most of humanity's history have lived under primitive communist systems (where people shared things collectively, and cooperated, without any currency). Capitalism has just existed for a very little while, seeing it from a historical perspective. USSR had a black market when the capitalists took over. Before that, the market was abolished. Yes, that's true. But (from what I remember reading) the communist party does not make any new laws, the national assembly does, which is elected by the people. The communist party makes sure things go smoothly. They don't "run against Fidel". That is American "demockracy". In the US, those with the most money win. In Cuba, the President is elected from the national assembly, which is in turn elected by the people. "The unicameral Cuban parliament is the National Assembly of People's Power or Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular. Its 609 members are elected to serve five-year terms. The candidates, who may or may not be members of the Cuban communist party, are nominated by people and independent political organizations." - Wikipedia The National Assembly meets twice a year over its five-year term. Once it is established, it nominates and elects the 31 member Council of State including the President. The Council of State represents the National Assembly when it is not in session and is accountable for it actions to the National Assembly. I ask you this: Why do capitalists and rightwings keep getting re-elected in the US and in Western Europe? Because they are stupid, perhaps. Because they are happy about the system, yes maybe. I do not however, deny that the liberals and conservatives are the only one popular in the US, and they keep getting re-elected. The Cuban system was established in 1975, or 1976 I think. Before that, I believe, candidates had to sign an oath or something similar to the party. All they have to do now is to promise to remain true to the constitution. He has been re-elected time and again, because, well, I'm sure there are many reasons, but one of them is because he is a good, stable figure who can be trusted. They know they can trust him, and they know that he is a person that will do what it takes to make things good to people overall, not just serving a few persons. He takes into account what people need and cares about his people, that so many other politicians around the world doesn't. They know what happened to the people in the former Soviet Union and in the rest of Eastern Europe. They know what rights and benefits they lost. The Cuban people does not understand why a few people should own the country, while 99 percent of the rest should work for them. For them, that is illogical. For you, it might be logical, but not for them. What is funny is that Americans criticize Cuba for being "brutal" and "opressive". Cuba has about 20 000 doctors world wide in other countries, taking care of poor people. The US has millions of killing machines in other countries, slaughtering poor people. The US sends killing machines and bombs. Cuba on the other hand, sends doctors and and medicine (even though they have little themselves). Who's the greatest? Does who drop bombs, or those who send doctors to help others, even though they have little themselves? I would say a system that helps other people is much more humane, than one who likes to blow people up in pieces. I believe he was a capitalist pigdog, yes. Winston churchilll authorized using poison gas against "primitive tribesman" - Kurds in Iraq and Afghans - when he was British home secretary. However, to say that he didn't have a long career as a politicians, would not be correct. From wikipedia: In the 1906 general election, Churchill won a seat in Manchester. In the Liberal government of Henry Campbell-Bannerman he served as Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. In 1910 Churchill was promoted to Home Secretary In 1911, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, a post he would hold into the First World War. In July 1917 Churchill was appointed Minister of Munitions. In the General Election of 1924, he was elected to represent Epping He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 under Stanley Baldwin and oversaw the United Kingdom's disastrous return to the Gold Standard, which resulted in deflation, unemployment, and the miners' strike that led to the General Strike of 1926. At the outbreak of the Second World War Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty Labour's defeat in the General Election of 1951, Churchill again became Prime Minister. Churchill again became Prime Minister. His third government - after the wartime national government and the short caretaker government of 1945 - would last until his resignation in 1955. That is 49 years as a politician, actually.
In societies with millions of people, he can try the rich guy down the street if the rich guy next door won't help him out. Or he can go apply for a job somewhere. If that's the way you believe society should be run, then I'm not going to be able to convince you just by showing you the faults of communism...because obviously you ENJOY violence and theft for no reason. The rich man is free to spend his money however he pleases; he is under no obligation to help others if he doesn't want to. Nor am I under any obligation to put a gun against his head and force him to. Simply because the per capita income is so much lower in Cuba. As society becomes more globalized, poorer nations on average grow their economies much faster than richer nations. As nations integrate their economies with one another, they become more equal in terms of wealth. Cuba's economy should be outpacing the United States economy by several percent...but it is not, because Castro's policies cripple the economy. That is also a fair comparison. Taiwan's GNP per capita - despite being roughly equal to China's at the time of their separation - is nearly four times as high today. However, China's economy has been outpacing Taiwan's ever since it abandoned communism, because China has more room to grow. No they don't. People in communist countries try to undermine the system every chance they get. Consider the street vendors in Cuba accepting only US Dollars or Euros. Consider China's abandonment of communism, and it's subsequent economic boom. Consider North Korea's new "free trade zone" along the Chinese border. Consider the Soviet Union throwing people in prison for "profiteering." And for most of humanity's history, little or no progress was made. In fact, there is a direct relationship between the strength of capitalism and the various renaissances in human history (Greece, Rome, the Islamic haydays, the European Renaissance, and our current technological renaissance) It was officially abolished, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist. If it didn't, why would the Soviets imprison people for profiteering? The National Assembly rubberstamps whatever Fidel Castro wants. Or are you telling me that every single member of the National Assembly agrees with Castro on every single issue? No it isn't. The National Assembly is handpicked by Castro and approved by delegates (over 75% of whom are Communist Party members). The reason communists don't get elected in modernized countries is because the system has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to not work. You lump liberals and conservatives together to say that they "keep getting reelected," but there's no question that Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush have very different political views. Just because neither of them share YOUR views doesn't mean that they're one and the same, part of an ideology that "keeps getting reelected." No political party in the history of the United States has held the presidency for more than 20 years. Castro SUSPENDED the legitimate constitution of Cuba when he took power. Again, if that is so, then why do the Cuban people try to flee the island any chance they get? Why doesn't Cuba allow free speech so that effective polls can be taken regarding Castro's popularity? If he's so popular, what is he afraid of? The Eastern European countries that adopted a capitalist system (Czech Republic, Poland) have enjoyed high economic growth. The Eastern European countries that continued to wallow in kleptocracy (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) have not. This is completely irrelevant. The point is that he was popular during WWII, during his time in office. Yet he still was voted out of power shortly thereafter. NO ONE can maintain Castro's "popularity" for that long, through any kind of LEGITIMATE election.
you guys are wasting your time. none of the "progressives" here care about this guy's propaganda. do you think that someone who thinks cuba is democratic can be convinced of anything?
My favorite is his line about what Eastern Europeans have "lost" since the fall of the Berlin Wall! Does he think it was built to keep people from fleeing from West Berlin all those years? Next he'll be telling us how much better life is in North Korea than South Korea.
