Joe Castro
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 45
- Location
- Glasgow, UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Much is often said about Cuba's lack of "democracy", that Fidel and now Raul Castro are dictators. Cuba has abandoned "democracy", okay fair enough, I'll accept that for arguments sake. But what do we mean when we say "democracy", Do we mean like the US, at essence a capitalist one party state with 2 rival factions - the Democrats and Republicans. In effect that is what people do mean as that is the type of "democracy" they by and large refer to. Some consideration tells us though, that this is what Cuba has, we have seen in the past year or so that there is debate within the communist party on what road to socialism they should take. There in lies the problem people have with Cuba, communism and socialism. if it was a road to capitalism, like Pinochet's Chile for instance then these people would be somewhat less critical to say the least.
The basis of the one party state comparison that in the US the barriers of disagreement are so thin that it does amount to two factions within one wider belief system which mirrors a party. In effect what they are is the factions of a capitalist party. And where do these disagreements come from ? There is no disagreement on the big issues, like who owns capital, do the people or the elites. Such questions are conveniently never asked by their paymasters in the elite class and media.
How this capitalist party maintains its dominance is by creating an illusion of freedom. We are all free to give our opinions, but we dont own the means to make them widely accessible. If we give opinions outwith the thin barriers of disagreement then we do not get the platform to make them known. In this way the capitalist party as Noam Chomsky so eloquently illustrated, Manufacture Consent.
Now i turn to my main point, one put across by George Galloway MP. It is this. Cuba may not be democratic, but you must consider the circumstances and acknowledge historical precedents.
Cuba is essentially in a state of war. The cold war is still in effect for Cuba. It is faced by the threat of the greatest superpower ever known to man. This superpower threatens Cuba, they threaten to take away from the Cuban people all the things that the revolution has given them. It has done this by invading (the bay of pigs), funding (ALPHA 66) and training terrorism (The School of the Americas), it grants freedom to known terrorists (Bosch and Carriles), it fights a propaganda war from radio stations in Miami and CIA funded "journalism". These are important circumstances for consideration.
Then we can look at the historical precedence. Take WW1 when Britain was at a state of war (not even a defensive war like Cuba's) it passed DORA, the Defence of the Realm Act. The details of this act are easily accessible online for anyone wanting to investigate. Basically what it did was give the power to arrest people without trial on any suspicion of disloyalty to the state. This goes way beyond what the Communist Party can do.
If we want to take another precedent of when Britain was in a defensive war, we can look at WW2. What happened here was all elections were halted and the power of "dictatorship" given to government. In this war Britain was faced with an imperialist superpower knocking on its door. During this state of war there was a small minority within Britain who were loyal to Nazi germany. There were Hitlerite Brown shirts within the country spreading Nazi Propaganda and acting as enemy agents. These people were locked up. So why shouldn't Cuba lock enemy agents? Why should Cuba hold the type of elections we want?
Instead of berating Cuba and the Castro's as dictators, we should applaud them as resistance hero's. They should be held in reverence similarly to how most view Churchill -who did far more horrid things than Fidel or Raul ever have. These include gassing the kurds, perhaps serving as inspiration to Saddam Hussein.
If such a process was okay for Britain, then it is okay for Cuba.
The basis of the one party state comparison that in the US the barriers of disagreement are so thin that it does amount to two factions within one wider belief system which mirrors a party. In effect what they are is the factions of a capitalist party. And where do these disagreements come from ? There is no disagreement on the big issues, like who owns capital, do the people or the elites. Such questions are conveniently never asked by their paymasters in the elite class and media.
How this capitalist party maintains its dominance is by creating an illusion of freedom. We are all free to give our opinions, but we dont own the means to make them widely accessible. If we give opinions outwith the thin barriers of disagreement then we do not get the platform to make them known. In this way the capitalist party as Noam Chomsky so eloquently illustrated, Manufacture Consent.
Now i turn to my main point, one put across by George Galloway MP. It is this. Cuba may not be democratic, but you must consider the circumstances and acknowledge historical precedents.
Cuba is essentially in a state of war. The cold war is still in effect for Cuba. It is faced by the threat of the greatest superpower ever known to man. This superpower threatens Cuba, they threaten to take away from the Cuban people all the things that the revolution has given them. It has done this by invading (the bay of pigs), funding (ALPHA 66) and training terrorism (The School of the Americas), it grants freedom to known terrorists (Bosch and Carriles), it fights a propaganda war from radio stations in Miami and CIA funded "journalism". These are important circumstances for consideration.
Then we can look at the historical precedence. Take WW1 when Britain was at a state of war (not even a defensive war like Cuba's) it passed DORA, the Defence of the Realm Act. The details of this act are easily accessible online for anyone wanting to investigate. Basically what it did was give the power to arrest people without trial on any suspicion of disloyalty to the state. This goes way beyond what the Communist Party can do.
If we want to take another precedent of when Britain was in a defensive war, we can look at WW2. What happened here was all elections were halted and the power of "dictatorship" given to government. In this war Britain was faced with an imperialist superpower knocking on its door. During this state of war there was a small minority within Britain who were loyal to Nazi germany. There were Hitlerite Brown shirts within the country spreading Nazi Propaganda and acting as enemy agents. These people were locked up. So why shouldn't Cuba lock enemy agents? Why should Cuba hold the type of elections we want?
Instead of berating Cuba and the Castro's as dictators, we should applaud them as resistance hero's. They should be held in reverence similarly to how most view Churchill -who did far more horrid things than Fidel or Raul ever have. These include gassing the kurds, perhaps serving as inspiration to Saddam Hussein.
If such a process was okay for Britain, then it is okay for Cuba.
Last edited: