Re: [OPE] One party state?

Nobody has said that all elected representatives in Cuban assembly are members of communist party. They don’t have to be members to be constrained by the regime. It's enough to have controlled almost every aspect of economic life by the bureaucracy as it happens indeed in a communist dictatorship.   To allege the independence of Cuban representatives you, David Y., have to establish their independence from any economic support coming from the State. Even those performing simple administrative jobs in the bureaucracy are threaten by the prospect of being fired, and in Cuba this is big deal since there is little room to earn one's living at the margin of the State.   Why all this has to be important? I’m sure that an appealing argument for your militant rationality might be to point out the perversions of USA by particular interests. American Congress has been corrupted by particular interests that are allowed to openly fund representatives that defend them. Well, Cuba has simply been captured by a particular interest of different colour.   And please, don’t allege good intentions on behalf of Fidel and Co. It’d be out of line given the repression of political dissidents and the monopoly over state institutions.   Regards,A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: "david@danyaf.plus.com" <david@danyaf.plus.com> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: jueves, 4 de junio, 2009 13:35:41 Asunto: Re: [OPE] One party state? Check the facts and see how many non-members of the communist party were elected. Although why this has to be important I am not sure. The figures are available and given your obvious prejudices I will leave you to find them. David At 18:47 03/06/2009 +0000, you wrote: The first step toward the Cuban assembly is the nomination by grass roots and mass organizations. Those nominated have to be voted in order to become *delegados de base* (grass-roots delegates). And here is the first flaw in the Cuban one-party system, i.e., since the communist party is the only with an organized platform to mobilize voters, the majority elected is composed of communist delegates.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />   Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible to sneak a dissident in. So, can a dissident delegate reach the Cuban assembly? The answer lies in those entitled to select among grass-root delegates, who will become candidates to the assembly that finally will be voted by people.   Those entitled are gathered in *Comisiones de Candidatura* (Candidature Commissions) and here is the second flaw in the Cuban system, i.e., the persons who fill these commissions are members of communists organizations that follow the party line.                                                                                                            It is virtually impossible for a dissident to defeat Candidature Commissions. Can Cuban system be considered democratic? Of course not! That’s why Fidel was elected as president in all elections after his retirement. The non-democratic secret lies in party members and sympathizers selecting the appropriate candidates for the assembly.   So yes! Maybe Jurriaan is right. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />USA and Cuba might have much more in common than David can see.   Regards, A. Agafonow De: "david@danyaf.plus.com" <david@danyaf.plus.com> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: miércoles, 3 de junio, 2009 14:20:39 Asunto: Re: [OPE] One party state? The difference is quite simple for anyone with a modicum of knowledge re Cuba. The two systems  have very little in common other than that voting takes place in both systems. There are two parties, sometimes more, but realistically two, standing for the elections in the US. You have to have millions of dollars to seriously compete in those elections. A very large number of people do not vote, in some recent elections they have been a majority. You could call the US a plutocracy - rule by the very wealthy in the interests of corporate capital. In Cuba the party does not stand in elections. It is not an election concerning parties. People are nominated by  the grass roots and mass organisations, not by parties. Money plays no role in the election.   This applies to everyone including leading Communist Party members,  who have to be initially nominated at grass roots level. More than 90% of people vote. I believe that Cuba has potentially the most democratic system in the world. It is a complex system and cannot be neatly categorised in the way Jurriaan attempts to do this. David Yaffe At 23:39 02/06/2009 +0200, you wrote: Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was quoted by the BBC as saying that Cuba's readmission to the OAS would be conditional on "democratic reforms" in Cuba's one-party state, but the BBC also said that the US might be "outvoted". My musing is: isn't the US itself pretty much a one-party state these days? The Republican Party has more or less collapsed and what remains of its leadership has been to a considerable extent integrated in the government apparatus, Mr Obama being careful to retain a workable degree of unity in the political class. What would be the substantive difference, in real terms, between the governmental systems of Cuba and the US, from the viewpoint of Joe Average? Maybe there are differences, but they may have much more in common than you would think! Jurriaan E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.362) Database version: 5.10260 http://www.pctools.com/uk/spyware-doctor-antivirus/ _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Jun 5 03:06:37 2009