NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is your favorite modern socialist head of state these days?

How modern do you mean?

See poll, modern as in current. I put up the main ones, disregarding 'democratic socialist' or the like governments in Europe or elsewhere.

Probably Castro. His government has done some wrong things in the past, but he has also genuinely contributed to major improvements in the welfare of his people, especially in education and healthcare. Really, Cuba does offer a lot of good things to its people, and if they made only a few reforms in regard to civil and political rights, they would be a genuinely good country all around.

Cuba has a litteracy rate of something like 98%. There is a street (the Shankill RD) near me in Belfast where it is as low as 40.
VIVA LA REVOLUCION! Well, except for the freedom of speech violations...

Where's Lula?

Kim Jung Il!

Because hes so damned funny!

Quite of a few of those are not socialist. One of them isn't even modern. This poll would have been worthy of my attention if it had included the likes of Rafael Correa, Jose Zapatero, Romano Prodi and others. They're just the three I can think of off the top of my head.

Que viva Fidel, que viva Cuba libre!

Quite of a few of those are not socialist. One of them isn't even modern. This poll would have been worthy of my attention if it had included the likes of Rafael Correa, Jose Zapatero, Romano Prodi and others. They're just the three I can think of off the top of my head.

Prodi? If you tell him he's a socialist, he's going to have an heart attack. He's a left-wing christian democrat, no socialist at all, not even a social democrat. His cabinet is centre-left (ranging from centrist christian democrats to communists) but he isn't a representative of the left-wing.

...Rafael Correa, Jose Zapatero, Romano Prodi and others. They're just the three I can think of off the top of my head.

Indeed. Rafael and Jose are exceptional Democratic Socialist leaders. But Prodi I would describe more as a Social Democrat.

Prodi? If you tell him he's a socialist, he's going to have an heart attack. He's a left-wing christian democrat, no socialist at all, not even a social democrat. His cabinet is centre-left (ranging from centrist christian democrats to communists) but he isn't a representative of the left-wing.Considerably more socialist than a few of the others on the poll at any rate, and certainly not Silvio Berlusconi. Perhaps my definition of socialist was more... uh... comparitive.

Lula is getting upset, and when Lula gets upset...people die!

So, Who's your favourite authoritarian socialist leader, then?

Where is Correa, Where is Lula, where is Rodríguez Zapatero?

I'd vote Lula (he's that Brasilian guy, isn't he?). Socialists are not my thing, but he's definitely not just acceptable for me (as the other guys would be at best) - I actually like this guy.

'Course, he's a politician, and I'm a bit wary of them, but whatever.

Who is your favorite modern socialist head of state these days?

Ruffy

Who is your favorite modern socialist head of state these days?

Those are the best socialist leaders you could think of?

Blah. I pick none of the above. They're all terrible. Only a couple are truly socialist anyway, and the only semi-decent ones are Morales and Chavez. What the hell makes Kim Jong-il a friggin' socialist? The guy is as much of a socialist as Bush is an atheist.

What a rogues gallery you have there...

How about a friendly, nice socialist, you know, like Prodi.

All these guys are quasi-fascists who just use the ideology of socialism to justify their actions.

Well...except for Morales seems to be a decent enough fellow, who seems to honestly believe in what he's doing...but the rest...not so much.

Where's Lula?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Do only third world despots hostile to the US count as socialists these days?

Lula would be a first rate choice.

Those are the best socialist leaders you could think of?

Blah. I pick none of the above. They're all terrible. Only a couple are truly socialist anyway, and the only semi-decent ones are Morales and Chavez. What the hell makes Kim Jong-il a friggin' socialist? The guy is as much of a socialist as Bush is an atheist.

Andaras uses "uses the US as a scapegoat for country's problems constantly" as a socialist.

Andaras uses "uses the US as a scapegoat for country's problems constantly" as a socialist.

And makes the rest of us socialists look bad.

None of them are socialists as long as the means of production are still privately owned.

None of them are socialists as long as the means of production are still privately owned.

No true scotsman, eh?

No true scotsman, eh?Yes, in the same way that one would say 'No true Scotsman is something other than a Scotsman.'

The first one of these guys to drop dead will be my favourite. It seems Castro is the most likely candidate.

Yes, in the same way that one would say 'No true Scotsman is something other than a Scotsman.'

False analogy.

The basis of your argument is that one can only be a socialist if x is met. Unfortunately for your argument, x is not the only type of socialist in existence. Type y is also a socialist, just not

x may be a Scotsman from Edinburgh, whilst y may be a Scotsman from Glasgow. Both are scotsman.

The world is painted in shades of gray, not black and white.

Viva Fidel! It used to be Hugo Chavez, but he's slowly working his way to dictatorship, whereas at least Fidel had the decency to never pretend to be a democrat.

Plus Fidel's Cuba is... actually not a bad place overall. The people have a decent standard of living, excellent healthcare especially. It's in civil and political rights where they're suffering, and even that's nothing compared to places like North Korea and China.

False analogy.

The basis of your argument is that one can only be a socialist if x is met. Unfortunately for your argument, x is not the only type of socialist in existence. Type y is also a socialist, just not

x may be a Scotsman from Edinburgh, whilst y may be a Scotsman from Glasgow. Both are scotsman.

The world is painted in shades of gray, not black and white.If you don't support the means of production being outside of private hands, you're not a socialist. It's in the definition of the word.
You can disagree with how this is supposed to be accomplished, but not in that itself.

False analogy.

The basis of your argument is that one can only be a socialist if x is met. Unfortunately for your argument, x is not the only type of socialist in existence. Type y is also a socialist, just not

x may be a Scotsman from Edinburgh, whilst y may be a Scotsman from Glasgow. Both are scotsman.

The world is painted in shades of gray, not black and white.

I must agree with Andy. And I am a certified Scotsman myself!

But I digress. Basically, none of these individuals are particularly good socialist leaders in my opinion. They just happen to be the more well publicised authoritarian leftists that try and put up a laughable "resistance" to US hegemony.

None of them are socialists as long as the means of production are still privately owned.

I like the means of production being state owned but that doesn't mean it cannot be privately owned.

Just like some anarcho-socialists could accept state-socialism as a socialist theory (and vice versa) even if they think their own is best.

I must agree with Andy. And I am a certified Scotsman myself!

I only have 1/2 of myself as certified scottish ancestry.

I like the means of production being state owned but that doesn't mean it cannot be privately owned.Certainly. If it is privately owned, though, it isn't socialism.

Just like some anarcho-socialists could accept state-socialism as a socialist theory (and vice versa) even if they think their own is best.Yes, because both fit the definition of socialism - the means of production are not privately owned in either case.

(This doesn't mean that simply because the state owns the means of production that it is socialism.)

I only have 1/2 of myself as certified scottish ancestry.
You have to get a certificate!?

*is no true Scotsman*

:p

Joseph Stalin.

The best current socialist leader is Kim Jong il. His country is the closest thing to real socialism the world has today.

What the hell makes Kim Jong-il a friggin' socialist? The guy is as much of a socialist as Bush is an atheist.

Bullshit. Kim IS a socialist. Of course, many fascists masquering as leftists say he isn't, but it just shows how blinded by the capitalists they are.

Ugh. None of the above. :p It's like asking whether you'd like your eyes gouged out with a salad fork or a dinner fork.

Ugh. None of the above. :p It's like asking whether you'd like your eyes gouged out with a salad fork or a dinner fork.

Why do you hate freedom and democracy?

I'd have to go with Lil' Kim because even while his whole country starves to death in utter poverty he somehow manages stay extremely well fed in his enormous palace just like every other communist leader ever.

People are only starving there because of the imperialists.

I'd have to go with Lil' Kim because even while his whole country starves to death in utter poverty he somehow manages stay extremely well fed in his enormous palace just like every other communist leader ever.

I'd have to go with Lil' Kim because even while his whole country starves to death in utter poverty he somehow manages stay extremely well fed in his enormous palace just like every other communist leader ever.

That's how I voted too. Hey, at least it's a somewhat transparent government - transparently evil, but whatever. :p

You're funny.

You're fascist.

People are only starving there because of the imperialists.

You're funny.

You're fascist.

No, rather I would argue that you have more in common with said ideology than dear Barringtonia.

You have to get a certificate!?

*is no true Scotsman*

:p

I have de facto (or is it de jure?) certification as a half Scot: my mother's side ofthe family (including herself) was born in the scottish areas of the U.K.

No, rather I would argue that you have more in common with said ideology than dear Barringtonia.

So hating imperialism and inequality makes me a fascist? Har-har! You, sir, are funny! :p

North Korea is the world's most genuinely socialist nation, so calling a defender of it "fascist" is silly indeed.

You're fascist.

Are you actually *in* North Korea right now? :p If so, I won't argue with you - I don't want you to change your mind and risk being "disappeared." ;)

Viva Fidel! It used to be Hugo Chavez, but he's slowly working his way to dictatorship, whereas at least Fidel had the decency to never pretend to be a democrat.

Plus Fidel's Cuba is... actually not a bad place overall. The people have a decent standard of living, excellent healthcare especially. It's in civil and political rights where they're suffering, and even that's nothing compared to places like North Korea and China.

Fidel's Cuba is the second freest country in the world, after North Korea. Viva Fidel! Viva Kim! Viva socialism!

Are you actually *in* North Korea right now? :p If so, I won't argue with you - I don't want you to change your mind and risk being "disappeared." ;)

No, but I haven't been brainwashed by bourgeoise nonsense, either. Kim is only hated because he defends equality, democracy, and workers' rights, and hates imperialism and oppression and wage slavery.

No, rather I would argue that you have more in common with said ideology than dear Barringtonia.

Loving democracy =/= fascism

No, but I haven't been brainwashed by bourgeoise nonsense, either. Kim is only hated because he defends equality, democracy, and workers' rights, and hates imperialism and oppression and wage slavery.

Loving democracy =/= fascism

Kim Jong-Il is that bizarre, seemingly nonsensical creature that I like to call "The First Communist Monarch." Cogitate on that one for a while.

Andaras Prime 2.0? :eek:

In case you didn't notice, I'm a SOCIALIST. He opposes real socialists like Stalin, while supporting phony socialists like Chavez. He's a capitalist, reactionary, wanna-be socialist.

No, but I haven't been brainwashed by bourgeoise nonsense, either. Kim is only hated because he defends equality, democracy, and workers' rights, and hates imperialism and oppression and wage slavery.
Andaras Prime 2.0? :eek:

Kim Jong-Il is that bizarre, seemingly nonsensical creature that I like to call "The First Communist Monarch." Cogitate on that one for a while.

Cogitation is a bourgeois social construct.

North Korea is a country where everyone is equal. What is wrong with that?

Cogitation is a bourgeois social construct.

North Korea is a country where everyone is equal. What is wrong with that?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Thank God you can't call this quote a bourgeouis social construct. It comes from a Socialist :)

Wait...you've gotta be a joke. You've gotta be. Whose puppet are you?

Chavez is not a socialist. If Venezuela were socialist, the government would own everything.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Thank God you can't call this quote a bourgeouis social construct. It comes from a Socialist :)

Orwell was not a socialist. He was against Stalin.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Thank God you can't call this quote a bourgeouis social construct. It comes from a Socialist :)

Wait...you've gotta be a joke. You've gotta be. Whose puppet are you?

Orwell was a capitalist bastard who was opposed to the real socialism of the USSR.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Thank God you can't call this quote a bourgeouis social construct. It comes from a Socialist :)

Wait...you've gotta be a joke. You've gotta be. Whose puppet are you?

You're a puppet. Of bourgeoise capitalism.

Andaras Prime 2.0? :eek:
Maybe he's a sock puppet. Or, equally likely and much sadder is that is a real, independant user and truly believes that taking everything from everyone and then giving everyone an equal quantity of starvation rations while the leaders get fat by suckling the general fund is the best form of government and society.

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have...The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson

And I'm sure you've all heard the Franklin quote a hundred times before so I won't bother repeating it.

But what could founding fathers who founded a nation based on principals of freedom and individuality know about government, political philosophy, or society? No, we should all let the government become the big brother it isn't quite yet and ought not be and provide for our every need.

No, but I haven't been brainwashed by bourgeoise nonsense, either. Kim is only hated because he defends equality, democracy, and workers' rights, and hates imperialism and oppression and wage slavery.

How does he defend equality? Usually socialism is based on the equality of the individual (one person is equal to another). Not the equality between Kim Jong-Il and his father

North Korea only has the democracy of Kim Jong-Il and perhaps a few of the higher ups.

What are you talking about when you are talking about workers rights? Having 'special administration zones' to use the people like an devalued lives than Chinese sweatshops?

He certainly freed the majority of the population from 'wage slavery', just not in the way that is beneficial to the majority of the people.

Andaras Prime 2.0? :eek:

Andaras actually seems more moderate than this person.

It's actually kinda ironic that Cuba has far superior healthcare to the US, you can whine all you like about the evils of the State, in my book liberalism is just an excuse for upper class politicians to disavow themselves of government responsibility to the common people, and to line their own pockets with corruption money.

It's actually kinda ironic that Cuba has far superior healthcare to the US, you can whine all you like about the evils of the State
Yes...that's why when the richest, most famous, most powerful people in the world need to get a prostate exam they go to Cuba and not the Mayo Clinic. Because medicine circa 1950 is much superior to medicine circa 2000. And 1950's and 60's cars are more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient. And hunter-gatherer societies are more reliably able to provide for large groups of people.

Andaras, that's not a chocolate river, that's actually the sewage line you have your face stuck in. And I'm pretty sure that isn't a hersey's bar in your mouth.

Viva Fidel! It used to be Hugo Chavez, but he's slowly working his way to dictatorship, whereas at least Fidel had the decency to never pretend to be a democrat.

Plus Fidel's Cuba is... actually not a bad place overall. The people have a decent standard of living, excellent healthcare especially. It's in civil and political rights where they're suffering, and even that's nothing compared to places like North Korea and China.

Have you been there, pal?

Andaras Prime 2.0? :eek:

No, I am not Andaras Prime 2.0. I am far more socialist than him. I'm probably the only real socialist (i.e., Stalinist) on NSG.

How does he defend equality? Usually socialism is based on the equality of the individual (one person is equal to another). Not the equality between Kim Jong-Il and his father

North Korea only has the democracy of Kim Jong-Il and perhaps a few of the higher ups.

What are you talking about when you are talking about workers rights? Having 'special administration zones' to use the people like an devalued lives than Chinese sweatshops?

He certainly freed the majority of the population from 'wage slavery', just not in the way that is beneficial to the majority of the people.



Andaras actually seems more moderate than this person.

Reactionary lies by the capitalists that have no basis whatsoever in reality. Try again.

i don't see how the last four belong in the same catigory, whatever label you paste either with, as the first three. or that there is any such thing as a socialist leader in today's world. at least none that i know enough about to say for sure that they are.

my view of socialism is to keep government suffieciently occupied with welfare and infrastructure as to keep it out of the mischief of starting wars and bacoming repressive. this is a GOOD thing.

then there's the whole question of the concept of leadership, which isn't.
(a good thing that is, whether it qualifies as whatever form of socialism or not).

if socialism is being used here to mean refusing to kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, i don't quite see how the two groups belong in the same catigory either.

at any rate, a hedged and qualified 'viva' for the first three 'pirates of the carabean', and an unqualified "wtf" for the following four. (not all of who'se names are entirely familiar to me, and just about nothing definative of their perspectives and intentions are)

i mean i think i know who jong is (north korea? right?), but the rest of the last four i'm not sure about at all.

personalities aren't really how i measure what kind of a world i would prefer to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes...that's why when the richest, most famous, most powerful people in the world need to get a prostate exam they go to Cuba and not the Mayo Clinic. Because medicine circa 1950 is much superior to medicine circa 2000. And 1950's and 60's cars are more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient. And hunter-gatherer societies are more reliably able to provide for large groups of people.

Andaras, that's not a chocolate river, that's actually the sewage line you have your face stuck in. And I'm pretty sure that isn't a hersey's bar in your mouth.

That wasn't exactly an either/or kind of question. Most of the absolute best doctors are American, but the average doctor here is of lower quality than the average doctor elsewhere, including Cuba, and the average person has a much easier time seeing those doctors than they do in America. All of which explains why Americans pay more per capita than any other country in the world for health care yet have rates of clinical indicators like infant mortality that barely exceed the best indicators out of the Third World. I'd have to check, but dollars to donuts says Cuba actually has lower rates of infant mortality than we do, and they spend substantially less money to do it.

If you are talking about authoritarian socialists

you might want to include the newly minted

Commodore Josaia "Frank" Voreqe Bainimarama of Fiji.

I know Fiji hardly rates, but then again, neither do some of the other nations mentioned...

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_coup_plot_of_2006"

That wasn't exactly an either/or kind of question. Most of the absolute best doctors are American, but the average doctor here is of lower quality than the average doctor elsewhere, including Cuba, and the average person has a much easier time seeing those doctors than they do in America. All of which explains why Americans pay more per capita than any other country in the world for health care yet have rates of clinical indicators like infant mortality that barely exceed the best indicators out of the Third World. I'd have to check, but dollars to donuts says Cuba actually has lower rates of infant mortality than we do, and they spend substantially less money to do it.

It's got a lot to do with the fact that Americans are notoriously terrible at preventive medicine. For some reason, we are extremely reluctant to take a doctor's advice. In fact, I've heard people make these very comments at or about the doctors office:

"Lose weight? Sure, right after I finish my Big Mac"
"Neeeeedles?!?! Moooommmmmmy!!!! I hate neeeeedles!!!!! Make the mean man take the needles away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"I think I'll go to the tanning salon. I'll just die if I don't get tan before March!!!"

It's actually kinda ironic that Cuba has far superior healthcare to the US, you can whine all you like about the evils of the State, in my book liberalism is just an excuse for upper class politicians to disavow themselves of government responsibility to the common people, and to line their own pockets with corruption money.Cuba has better healthcare, but at what cost? (I'm not talking about monetary cost here.)

Yes...that's why when the richest, most famous, most powerful people in the world need to get a prostate exam they go to Cuba and not the Mayo Clinic. Because medicine circa 1950 is much superior to medicine circa 2000. It is if you actually have access to the medicine circa 1950.

Cuba has better healthcare, but at what cost? (I'm not talking about monetary cost here.)

It is if you actually have access to the medicine circa 1950.

Cuba does not have better healthcare overall, unless you count regular blackouts and poor facilities as good healthcare.

What they do have is a good healthcare business, both in terms of a means of generating income by establishing first-class facilities and research to treat those who go there as well as for PR purposes, in terms of taking the media around the few top-class hospitals they do have, which is funded by channeling 50% of their GDP into them.

North Korea is a country where everyone is equal. What is wrong with that?

Oh yes, the ten million North Koreans who die of starvation every year and Kim Jung-Il, who lets them die by pouring all the national funds and resources into the military, are completely equal. :rolleyes:

Why do you hate freedom and democracy?

I'm sorry comrade, but you are beyond help. :headbang:

The first one of these guys to drop dead will be my favourite. It seems Castro is the most likely candidate.

You win some serious points here.

It's got a lot to do with the fact that Americans are notoriously terrible at preventive medicine. For some reason, we are extremely reluctant to take a doctor's advice. In fact, I've heard people make these very comments at or about the doctors office:

"Lose weight? Sure, right after I finish my Big Mac"
"Neeeeedles?!?! Moooommmmmmy!!!! I hate neeeeedles!!!!! Make the mean man take the needles away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"I think I'll go to the tanning salon. I'll just die if I don't get tan before March!!!"

And you think the French, Swiss, British, Norwegians, Swedes, or Cubans don't make these kind of comments? Yes, preventative medicine is a kind of medicine that needs to be practiced more in this country and would save money, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a strawman when it comes to things like infant mortality that my post mentioned specifically: hating needles doesn't make a whole lot of difference to a baby, whereas getting proper and first-rate care, something a great many women in this country do not get because they cannot afford, does. The reason why all those other nations have so much lower rates of disease from beginning to end of life is not just cultural; it's structural as well.

Oh yes, the ten million North Koreans who die of starvation every year and Kim Jung-Il, who lets them die by pouring all the national funds and resources into the military, are completely equal. :rolleyes:

Reactionary propaganda. Stop quoting bogus CIA statistics, please.

I'm sorry comrade, but you are beyond help. :headbang:

I bet you say that about all socialists.

Reactionary propaganda. Stop quoting bogus CIA statistics, please.


What about UN statistics which show the same amount dieing? Guess they are corrupt by the ebil capitalists huh?

What about UN statistics which show the same amount dieing? Guess they are corrupt by the ebil capitalists huh?

Yes.

I bet you say that about all socialists.

I'm sorry, comrade, but right now you are the greatest enemy of socialists elsewhere. You're outlandish claims of Stalin's, Castro's or Kim's benevolence only serves the reactionary state/capital complexes vilification of any attempt to change the oppressive status quo. To call a military dictatorship "the freest country in the world" solely by merit that everyone has been rendered "equally" subservient to the oppressive state capitalist regime is an act of lunacy. I'm sorry, but Leninists like yourself are beyond help.

I'm sorry, comrade, but right now you are the greatest enemy of socialists elsewhere. You're outlandish claims of Stalin's, Castro's or Kim's benevolence only serves the reactionary state/capital complexes vilification of any attempt to change the oppressive status quo. To call a military dictatorship "the freest country in the world" solely by merit that everyone has been rendered "equally" subservient to the oppressive state capitalist regime is an act of lunacy. I'm sorry, but Leninists like yourself are beyond help.

They're not capitalist. If they were capitalist they'd allow private property.

And I am a STALINIST, not a Leninist. :mad:

They're not capitalist. If they were capitalist they'd allow private property.

And I am a STALINIST, not a Leninist. :mad:

You're falling into the bougeousie's trap, comrade.

There is no substantial ideological difference between Stalinism and Leninism. Stalin was the one who was in power longer, so the faults of Leninism had more time to manifest.

They're not capitalist. If they were capitalist they'd allow private property.

And I am a STALINIST, not a Leninist. :mad:

Lots of nations in different world-historic periods did not allow private property yet were not socialist. Feudal France didn't, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to call Philip II the head of the coming dictatorship of the proletariat, if for no other reason than the proletariat did not exist.

So just to be clear and concise: abolition or lack of private property is a necessary precondition for one to be socialist, but it is not sufficient, and I think it's very fair to say that the other requirements for a socialist state (sufficiently developed means of production and base of industry, common control of the means of production by the populace, lack of political apparatus in the absence of need to distribute scarce goods, etc.) mean that the nations mentioned are not socialist. They're despotic, and no, the two are not in theory or in practice the same.

You're falling into the bougeousie's trap, comrade.

There is no substantial ideological difference between Stalinism and Leninism. Stalin was the one who was in power longer, so the faults of Leninism had more time to manifest.

If I fell into the bourgeoise's trap, would I admire men who FOUGHT the bourgeoise?

Anyway, I'm out. I have no time for this. If I wanted to join a fascist forum, I'd have joined Stormfront. Peace out.

The fact is, you Americans are way too tied up in 'freedom' and 'liberty' and empty phrases, the fact is in the US capital worth and property decide political and economic power, the US say they have democracy but only a small amount actually vote. You say you have freedom but is everything free in your country? Of course not. The franchise of America is restricted by monetary means and monopoly media who control what is published, so it only ever in the interests of the minority upper class who control the media and news to make up for their lack of numbers (minority status). In Cuba life is not decided by the 'accident of birth' like it is in the US, class is the overriding economic decider. You Americans whine constantly your freedom when it is in fact non-existent, your two parties both are platforms of capitalism, there is no choice. Universality is what Cuba has strove for in health care and wealth, not a class antagonistic franchise like you Americans.

I have been to Cuba four times since 1993. Last summer, I was there for ten weeks, and my activities included in-depth interviews of university professors and leaders in the Popular Councils concerning the political process in Cuba. In addition, I talked to many different people that I met informally, sometimes through families with which I was connected and other times with people I met as I traveled about Havana by myself. I do not consider myself an expert on Cuba. I would describe myself as someone who is knowledgeable about Third World national liberation movements and is in the process of learning about the Cuban case. My general impression is that the revolutionary government enjoys a high degree of legitimacy among the people. Occasionally, I came across someone who was alienated from the system. There disaffection was not rooted in the political system but in the economic hardships that have emerged during the "special period." The great majority seemed to support the system and seemed very well informed about the structures of the world economy and the challenges that Cuba faces. Many defended the system with great enthusiasm and strong conviction. I had expected none of this prior to my first trip, recalling my visit to Tanzania in 1982, by which time many had come to view "ujamaa socialism" as a faded dream, at least according to my impressions during my brief visit. But to my surprise, I found much support for the revolutionary project in Cuba. I could not help but contrast this to the United States, where there is widespread cynicism in regard to political and other institutions.

The Cuban political system is based on a foundation of local elections. Each urban neighborhood and rural village and area is organized into a "circumscription," consisting generally of 1000 to 1500 voters. The circumscription meets regularly to discuss neighborhood or village problems. Each three years, the circumscription conducts elections, in which from two to eight candidates compete. The nominees are not nominated by the Communist Party or any other organizations. The nominations are made by anyone in attendance at the meetings, which generally have a participation rate of 85% to 95%. Those nominated are candidates for office without party affiliation. They do not conduct campaigns as such. A one page biography of all the candidates is widely-distributed. The nominees are generally known by the voters, since the circumscription is generally not larger than 1500 voters. If no candidate receives 50% of the votes, a run-off election is held. Those elected serve as delegates to the Popular Councils, which are intermediary structures between the circumscription and the Municipal Assembly. Those elected also serve simultaneously as delegates to the Municipal Assembly. The delegates serve in the Popular Councils and the Municipal Assemblies on a voluntary basis without pay, above and beyond their regular employment.

The Municipal Assemblies elect the chief executives of the Municipality, who have supervision over the various ministries, such as health and education, within the Municipality. The Municipal Assemblies also elect an electoral commission, which develops a slate of candidates for the Provincial Assembly for ratification by the voters in the province. The Provincial Assemblies have responsibilities in the Province which parallel those of the Municipal Assembly in the Municipality, including electing an electoral commission which develops a slate of candidates for the National Assembly for ratification by the voters in the nation. The National Assembly is the legislative branch, and as such it makes the laws. It also elects the President of the Council of State, who appoints a cabinet and makes a government. The President of the Council of State is Fidel Castro, a position to which he has been re-elected since, I believe, 1975, when the Constitution was established.

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.

As I indicated, Cubans tend to enthusiastically defend their system. They point out that the elected members of the assemblies are not professional politicians who must rely on fund-raising to be elected, as occurs in the United States. Moreover, it avoids excessive conflict among political parties, at the expense of the common good. As my good friend Professor Guzman observed, "it is a system which avoids the absurdities and distortions of bourgeois democracy." They seem to believe in it. I think it makes sense. I also think that the political system in the United States is experiencing a legitimation crisis, so I am not inclined to recommend it to Cubans. It seems to me that they have developed a system carefully designed to ensure that wealthy individuals do not have greater voice than working class individuals, and therefore it is a system that is more advanced in protecting the political rights of citizens.

Although I have not had the experience, I suppose it would be possible to encounter a Cuban who feels alienated and who might say, "The Communist Party controls everything." This is true, because a majority of those elected are members of the Communist Party, and the higher up you go, the more likely it is to be so. Nevertheless, the selection of leadership is based on local elections. The Communist Party occupies a position of authority in the political institutions because the people support it. Our hypothetical alienated person is really expressing a frustration over the widespread support of the people for the Communist Party. The mechanism for the removal of members of the Communist Party from positions of authority in the government is in place, should that desire be the popular sentiment.

It is ironic that while many in the West assume that Cuba is less protective of political rights, in fact they are developing a system that is deliberately designed to ensure that the right of the people to vote does not become manipulated in a process controlled by the wealthy, and it therefore is more protective of political rights. Many in the West make the same kind of false assumption in regard to the issue of freedom of the press. Take the case of newspapers. Many in the West think that the state controls the newspapers. In fact, the state prohibits the private ownership of newspapers. The various newspapers are operated by the various organizations: the Communist Party, the federations of workers associations, the federation of farmers associations, the federation of student associations, etc. In the United States, the newspapers are owned by corporations. In Cuba, those with financial resources to do so are not allowed to form a newspaper. This is a restriction on the right of property ownership, a restriction imposed for the common good, in particular to ensure that the people have a voice and that the wealthy do not have a voice disproportionate to their numbers. By prohibiting private ownership of newspapers, the system ensures that the various newspapers will be under the control of the various mass organizations. So it is a system which pushes the principle of freedom of the press to a more advanced level than what occurs in capitalism, ensuring that all exercise this right equally and avoiding a situation where the wealthy exercise freedom of the press but the workers and farmers possess it only as an abstract right.

So the Cuban revolutionary project has many gains, not only in the area of social and economic rights, but also in the area of political and civil rights. Because of these achievements, the system enjoys wide popular support, in spite of the hardships caused by U.S. opposition and by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Drawing upon the institutions that they have developed over the last forty years, they are responding to the present challenges and are surviving in a post-Cold War world. The strength and vitality of these institutions is worthy of our investigation, for Cuba may represent an important case as we seek to understand how peripheral and semi-peripheral states can overcome the legacy of underdevelopment.

For those of us on the Left, Cuba's achievements represent the fullest attainment of our hopes. The Cuban revolutionary project is deserving of our active and engaged support.

Probably Castro. He turned a sleepy Caribbean nation into a player in world politics, and successfully prevented his island from a US invasion, despite its proximity to the US.

Not one of those leaders is a socialist.

My answer: self-organized autonomous non-hierarchical grassroots associations of workers.

That's the only "leader" I'll accept.

The fact is, you Americans are way too tied up in 'freedom' and 'liberty' and empty phrases, the fact is in the US capital worth and property decide political and economic power, the US say they have democracy but only a small amount actually vote. You say you have freedom but is everything free in your country? Of course not. The franchise of America is restricted by monetary means and monopoly media who control what is published, so it only ever in the interests of the minority upper class who control the media and news to make up for their lack of numbers (minority status). In Cuba life is not decided by the 'accident of birth' like it is in the US, class is the overriding economic decider. You Americans whine constantly your freedom when it is in fact non-existent, your two parties both are platforms of capitalism, there is no choice. Universality is what Cuba has strove for in health care and wealth, not a class antagonistic franchise like you Americans.

If Cuba's such a paradise, how come I don't see you moving there? ;)

The fact is, you Americans are way too tied up in 'freedom' and 'liberty' and empty phrases, the fact is in the US capital worth and property decide political and economic power, the US say they have democracy but only a small amount actually vote. You say you have freedom but is everything free in your country? Of course not. The franchise of America is restricted by monetary means and monopoly media who control what is published, so it only ever in the interests of the minority upper class who control the media and news to make up for their lack of numbers (minority status). In Cuba life is not decided by the 'accident of birth' like it is in the US, class is the overriding economic decider. You Americans whine constantly your freedom when it is in fact non-existent, your two parties both are platforms of capitalism, there is no choice. Universality is what Cuba has strove for in health care and wealth, not a class antagonistic franchise like you Americans.

Yet another example of a living contradiction - a champagne socialist.

Not one of those leaders is a socialist.

Except Kim and, to a lesser extent, Castro, you mean.

Except Kim and, to a lesser extent, Castro, you mean.

Kim Jung-Il is not socialist.

His government provides absolutely nothing to its people, because its all for himself really.

I really don't want to sift through all of those pages, or argue with anyone else about which leader is "cooler"


1. Fidel

2. Chavez


everyone else...don't care/don't care for

Kim Jung-Il is not socialist.

His government provides absolutely nothing to its people, because its all for himself really.

Kim Jong-Il is only non-socialist from a capitalist bias.

Except Kim and, to a lesser extent, Castro, you mean.

Dictatorial rule over the economy is not collective ownership of the means of production.

Kim Jong-Il is only non-socialist from a capitalist bias.

No. Kim Jong-Il is non-socialist from any perspective that understands what socialism constitutes.

Dictatorial rule over the economy is not collective ownership of the means of production.

Why not?

Why not?

Because of the meaning of the word "collective."

Kim Jong-Il is only non-socialist from a capitalist bias.

Really?

Explain the numerous sport cars that he owns for himself, his vast collection of western liquor, his many 'pleasure harems' which many young girls become Dear Leader's sex toy, and vast amounts of cash being otherwise thrown to the military and nuclear project instead of towards welfare to his starving people.


Oh wait, these are all "fascist lies", aren't they?

No. Kim Jong-Il is non-socialist from any perspective that understands what socialism constitutes.

Socialism is enlightened leadership aiming for the reduction of inequality. Kim Jong-Il has accomplished this.

Socialism is enlightened leadership aiming for the reduction of inequality. Kim Jong-Il has accomplished this.

By making everyone starve.

Really?

Explain the numerous sport cars that he owns for himself, his vast collection of western liquor, his many 'pleasure harems' which many young girls become Dear Leader's sex toy, and vast amounts of cash being otherwise thrown to the military and nuclear project instead of towards welfare to his starving people.


Oh wait, these are all "fascist lies", aren't they?

According to the Western media, which is hardly friendly to the cause of socialism.

Socialism is enlightened leadership

No, it isn't.

Socialism has nothing to do with "enlightened leadership" by anyone. Socialism is about giving the economic and political power in a society to the masses.

By making everyone starve.

He is teaching them to live on less, thus paving the way to socialism for them. Those greedy bourgeois pigs who can't do it must be eliminated by the material forces guiding history

And I am a STALINIST, not a Leninist. :mad:

If any more proof were necessary that you haven't the slightest clue about what you speak, this would be it.

Real Stalinists never identify as Stalinists... "Stalinist" is derogatory. They much prefer to identify as Leninists, though the phrasing they tend to use is Marxist-Leninist.

He is teaching them to live on less, thus paving the way to socialism for them. Those greedy bourgeois pigs who can't do it must be eliminated by the material forces guiding history

Living on less != starving TO DEATH.

No, it isn't.

Socialism has nothing to do with "enlightened leadership" by anyone. Socialism is about giving the economic and political power in a society to the masses.

...via enlightened leadership. What can you not comprehend?

He is teaching them to live on less, thus paving the way to socialism for them. Those greedy bourgeois pigs who can't do it must be eliminated by the material forces guiding history

Ah, you're faking. Thought so.

Give it up. It's boring.

...via enlightened leadership.

That's an obvious contradiction in terms.

If an "enlightened leadership" rules, the masses do not.

No, it isn't.

Socialism has nothing to do with "enlightened leadership" by anyone. Socialism is about giving the economic and political power in a society to the masses.

Coming from a capo your words are meaningless.

Stalinism is effectively summed up ideologically as such:

* Major centralisation of the state, and lessening of bureaucracy.
* Collectivized agriculture industry in large unionized farms for efficency.
* State ownership of industry, through direct-power of worker-electives.
* Capitol-based planned economy, with a steady 5-year plan to manage the economy which was still recovering from the war.
* Campaigns to help end illiteracy
* Campaigns to eliminate common diseases, through education programmes and the training of doctors.
* Campaigns to bring electricty to all of Albania
* Attempts to create heavy industry
* Socialism in one country
* Active aggravation of the class struggle.
* Equality among nationalities, humanity among fellow-citizens.

If any more proof were necessary that you haven't the slightest clue about what you speak, this would be it.

Real Stalinists never identify as Stalinists... "Stalinist" is derogatory. They much prefer to identify as Leninists, though the phrasing they tend to use is Marxist-Leninist.

The problem is that these self-serving snobs drunk by the avarice of bourgeois culture fail to recognise Stalin's genius - hence I seek to highlight his significance.

Coming from a capo your words are meaningless.

I'm much more of a socialist than you are.

Stalinism is effectively summed up ideologically

Stalinism never conformed to its ideology.

I'm perfectly aware of what its propaganda said it was about.

Coming from a capo your words are meaningless.

Stalinism is effectively summed up ideologically as such:

* Major centralisation of the state, and lessening of bureaucracy.
* Collectivized agriculture industry in large unionized farms for efficency.
* State ownership of industry, through direct-power of worker-electives.
* Capitol-based planned economy, with a steady 5-year plan to manage the economy which was still recovering from the war.
* Campaigns to help end illiteracy
* Campaigns to eliminate common diseases, through education programmes and the training of doctors.
* Campaigns to bring electricty to all of Albania
* Attempts to create heavy industry
* Socialism in one country
* Active aggravation of the class struggle.
* Equality among nationalities, humanity among fellow-citizens.

You are a true revolutionary.

You are a true revolutionary.

lol, puppet meats its master.

If Cuba's such a paradise, how come I don't see you moving there? ;)

If I was ever going to leave my country for a job elsewhere to live or whatnot, I would choose one of the more established social democratic welfare states, like Finland.

Also, did anyone read the article I posted, seriously read it.

I'm perfectly aware of what its propaganda said it was about.

Propaganda?

You are a true revolutionary.

Well that was actually Hoxitism, which is basically orthodox Stalinism in Albania, but pretty much the same thing.

Well that was actually Hoxitism, which is basically orthodox Stalinism in Albania, but pretty much the same thing.

Good to see I'm not the only socialist on NSG. :)

Fidel is like the only real one there...

lol, puppet meats its master.

Go way MTAE.

Fidel and Kim are like the only real ones there...

Fixed.

lol, puppet meats its master.

Mmmm, meat.

Why isn't WYTYG on the list?

You are a true revolutionary.

Orwell is rolling over in his grave with your destruction of the English language.