NationStates Jolt Archive

Cubans head to polling booths

16 January 2008
The first stage in Cuba’s electoral process took place last year in what marked the beginning of this year’s presidential election.

Elections will eventually decide who sits in the National Assembly, which in turn elects the president.

Municipal delegates put their names forward for election last September, and by mid-November 15,236 were elected. The turnout was impressive, with more than 96 per cent of those eligible to vote – Cubans aged 16 and over – exercising their right, which amounted to 8.2 million people.
At the municipal level, voters themselves – not the Communist Party of Cuba, which is excluded from the electoral process - nominate candidates for election, and secret ballots take place at staffed stations before the ballots are counted in public.

And in a blow to anti-Cuban groups who had run a campaign encouraging Cubans to cast blank ballots, election officials revealed that fewer than four per cent of voters in the municipal elections had done so.

The second stage of the electoral process started in December, as candidates from the municipal assemblies put themselves forward to the public for election to provincial assemblies and as deputies to the National Assembly.

After going to press, Cubans will vote for 1,201 provincial delegates and 614 deputies to the National Assembly. The newly elected assembly will then choose the Council of State, which President Fidel Castro has headed since the early 1960s.

He must be re-elected to the assembly if he is to remain president of the Council of State, and head Cuba's Government. Voting for the presidency will be held no later than March 5, 2008.

In December Fidel was nominated as a candidate for a seat in Cuba's National Assembly, a pre-condition if he were to be a candidate for the presidency.

The international media has speculated that he will rule himself out of the running for the nation’s top job after he said he didn’t want to “obstruct the rise of people much younger”. However, even if he were to stand, his election would remain dependent on the National Assembly’s vote.

http://cuba-solidarity.org/

The Cuban revolution began with the struggle for democracy against the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Being a country whose economy and political life were dominated by US interests, the revolution was also a struggle for democracy in the sense of winning the right of the Cuban nation to act as a sovereign power and shape its own future.
Out of the revolution there arose a number of mass popular organisations which to this day wield considerable influence in Cuban society. These organisations enable all Cubans to participate in decision-making and to ensure their voices are heard when consultations take place with a view to forming government policy. The right to participate and to be heard is enshrined in the Constitution and Cubans have the opportunity to participate in decision making both in their neighbourhoods and their work places. There are also numerous groups representing particular professions or social or cultural interests which play an active part in the consultative process so characteristic of political life in Cuba, such as the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP), pensioners’ and ex-combatants’ associations.
Eighty per cent of Cubans over the age of 14 are members of their local Committee for the Defence of the Revolution – a committee composed of members of about 60 households living in a district or area. CDRs are found in every neighbourhood throughout the country. They are responsible for a variety of aspects of the life of the neighbourhood, from civil defence (necessary in a country 90 miles from a world super-power which, since 1959, has not ceased to act in a hostile manner towards it), collecting waste for recycling and social events to voluntary work and discussing proposals of new laws from central government.
All Cuban workers have the right to join a trade union, although membership of a union is voluntary. However ninety eight per cent of the active population belong to one of the 19 trade unions in Cuba. Cuban law permits workers to freely form trade union organisations and does not require such organisations to register with any state agency in order to function or to acquire legality. Unions are self financed from monthly dues, which are paid by members to their local union official, and they receive no subsidies from the state. Elections of union officers at the workplace are open and competitive. Different political views are found within each of the unions.

All workers, whether members of a union or not, have the right to participate in monthly worker assemblies, discussions and in the shaping of their workplace’s collective bargaining agreement. Union members are active in the development and implementation of policy at the work place. They have a role in the development of the business plan and participate in management meetings.
In a broader context, the trades unions and their central organisation, the Cuban Workers’ Central (CTC) are routinely consulted by central government when new laws are being considered. In 1993, during the economic crisis, nearly 3 million workers in every work place, expressed their views in ‘workers’ parliaments.’ Their ideas formed the basis of government policy on taxation, prices and monetary issues. One view expressed was that workers should not have to pay taxes while experiencing severe economic difficulties, although they considered that social security (National Insurance) contributions should continue. This policy was duly adopted by central government.
In 1995 the unions’ expressed their opposition to sections of the Foreign Investment Law. They objected to the direct hiring of Cuban workers by foreign enterprises as they felt that the workers in question could be disadvantaged by practices of foreign management. Instead they advocated the hiring of labour through a state entity – an employment agency – to ensure full employment rights for workers. This became government policy.
During the reorganisation of the sugar industry in 2002, nearly one million workers participated in assemblies to express their views about redundancy arrangements relating to pay (they would continue to receive their usual salary), opportunities for retraining or further study and seeking alternative employment.
One cannot help but compare the formation of government policy in Cuba with the way governments of other third-world countries are compelled to accept policies prescribed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In such cases consultations with public bodies and the unions are virtually non-existent.

Article 44 of the Constitution guarantees equal economic, political, social, cultural and family rights for men and women. Equal opportunities for women have and continue to be promoted by the NGO, the Cuban Women’s Federation (the FMC), which was formed in 1960 and which has 73,710 local branches throughout the country. Eighty five percent of Cuban women over the age of 14 are members of the FMC. The FMC has close links with a number of ministries and it is through this organisation that women have been able to make their voice heard in their struggle for full equal rights and opportunities. In Cuba today, 44.5% of union members, 64% of lawyers, 49% of judges and 47% of Supreme Court judges are women. 27.6% of deputies in the National Assembly are women – the sixth largest percentage in the world. Current objectives include a more intense development of non-sexist education at all levels of society.
In a similar way, Article 42 of the Constitution states that any form of discrimination because of “race, skin colour, sex, national origin, religious belief and any other form of discrimination harmful to human dignity is proscribed and
sentenced by law.” All public bodies and enterprises are required to comply with the requirement to treat all people with equal respect and consideration.
The system for electing representatives to seats in the municipal and provincial assemblies and to the National Assembly (Cuba’s parliament) is based upon universal adult suffrage for all those aged 16 and over. Nobody is excluded from voting, except convicted criminals and people with mental disabilities.
Municipal elections take place every two and a half years and elections to the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly take place every five years.
Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties. Indeed, no political party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any given candidates. Instead the candidates are nominated individually by grass-roots organisations and by individual electors. When a person is nominated, no election campaigning is permitted; instead, his or her biography and other personal attributes are posted in public places. The successful candidate is chosen by secret ballot. The Electoral Law of 1992 stipulates that delegates to the municipal and provincial assemblies and the 601 deputies to the National Assembly are all elected by popular suffrage using a secret ballot. The Head of State and the Council of State are elected from among the deputies.
Once elected, a delegate or deputy has to inform electors about his or her work and, as in other countries, can be contacted by people in the constituency.
Unlike the case in other states, which invariably criticize Cuba for being ‘undemocratic’, voter turn-out in Cuba is high. In April 2005, 97.7% of electors came out to vote for their deputies to the municipal assemblies.

Source: http://cuba-solidarity.org/

I hate to point this out and sound as if I were some right-wing fucktard, since I am definitely not, but since no candidate runs by party, how can we be sure that anyone who isn't a Communist and isn't an unswerving supporter of Castro even ran? If there were no opposition candidates, it was a sham election.

One cannot help but compare the formation of government policy in Cuba with the way governments of other third-world countries are compelled to accept policies prescribed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In such cases consultations with public bodies and the unions are virtually non-existent.

How long till some right wing guy tries to say your comparison is incorrect?

Interesting post. Considering all the effort the US has put in to the country, Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, etc, the system must have some merit to still be there.

Cut and paste... where's the opinion EA?

On another note, while I do not doubt that they have elections, if I were to attempt to be a candidate in support of better relations with US, more free market policies and supportive of say, industry (For the worker's benefit, of course), then would I even be able to run? I mean, I wouldn't expect to win. Might even be vindicated by the population, but would it even be possible?

Because if it isn't possible, then it ain't freedom and it ain't an election.

Cut and paste... where's the opinion EA?

On another note, while I do not doubt that they have elections, if I were to attempt to be a candidate in support of better relations with US, more free market policies and supportive of say, industry (For the worker's benefit, of course), then would I even be able to run? I mean, I wouldn't expect to win. Might even be vindicated by the population, but would it even be possible?

Because if it isn't possible, then it ain't freedom and it ain't an election.

And if I tried to start a pro-communist party in the U.S.A.? The two party democratic system the U.S. has, maintains democrat and republic power, and is not a true democracy. Don't hold Cuba up to a higher standard than you hold your own country.

And if I tried to start a pro-communist party in the U.S.A.? The two party democratic system the U.S. has, maintains democrat and republic power, and is not a true democracy. Don't hold Cuba up to a higher standard than you hold your own country.

First off, I'm not American. By any stretch.

Second, there is actually a socialist party in the US. It never wins, but that's because people don't want it, not because it's banned. I'm pretty sure you could start a communist party in the US without being arrested. This is not the cold war anymore.

The two party system only exists because the people, who do in fact have every right to start up their own parties and have (see independents in congress), don't want to vote for anyone else, because they give up just as soon as their favourite can't get 40% of the vote.

Not closing it because there is now a viable discussion but, Cut and Pasting without adding a few paragraphs explaining your position is not acceptable, Eureka Australis.

But this is a problem of the system. The system is structured by those in power to maintain the status quo. If a party similar but different to the republicans starts up, no-one will vote for them as they know they wont get enough votes to win, but it will take votes away from the republicans. The exact same thing with a party to the left of the democrats.

This means that it is nearly impossible for any other party to start up. THe preferential system in Australia is a much better one than the 1st past the post system the US and England use.

This means that it is nearly impossible for any other party to start up. THe preferential system in Australia is a much better one than the 1st past the post system the US and England use.

I can only agree. I kind of wish we had it here where live (Denmark). Then again, in the last election, a new party started up and managed to get in with 2% of the votes (thus getting four seats). That works too, I suppose. An actual proportional representation.

If there were no opposition candidates, it was a sham election.

Especially considering the fact that candidates are virtually never rejected, and are usually approved by ridiculous margins.

But this is a problem of the system. The system is structured by those in power to maintain the status quo. If a party similar but different to the republicans starts up, no-one will vote for them as they know they wont get enough votes to win, but it will take votes away from the republicans. The exact same thing with a party to the left of the democrats.

This means that it is nearly impossible for any other party to start up. THe preferential system in Australia is a much better one than the 1st past the post system the US and England use.

But it amounts to the same thing - The Coalition and Labour.

Cuba isn't, wasn't and won't be the last dictatorship to try and legitimise its dictatorship through some democratic façade.

Cuba isn't, wasn't and won't be the last dictatorship to try and legitimise its dictatorship through some democratic façade.

Indeed. Iraq was doing the samething and Iran still does it.

Cuba isn't, wasn't and won't be the last dictatorship to try and legitimise its dictatorship through some democratic façade.

Indeed. Iraq was doing the samething and Iran still does it.

This is usually the part where you explain what's so undemocratic about it.

This is usually the part where you explain what's so undemocratic about it.

Um for starters...Iraq had only 1 political party and in Iran, if candidates do not conform to the Ayatollahs ideology, they are disqualified.

Um for starters...Iraq had only 1 political party and in Iran, if candidates do not conform to the Ayatollahs ideology, they are disqualified.

And Cuba?

And Cuba?According to Human Rights Watch Cuba has dozens of people in prison for political reasons and severely restrict peaceful assembly. The U.S. State department has list of human rights violations. They are:

denial of citizens' rights to change their government
beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists, carried out with impunity
transfers of mentally healthy prisoners to psychiatric facilities for political reasons
frequent harassment of political opponents by government-recruited mobs
extremely harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including denial of medical care
arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights advocates and members of independent professional organizations
denial of fair trial, particularly to political prisoners
interference with privacy, including pervasive monitoring of private communications
severe limitations on freedom of speech and press
denial of peaceful assembly and association
restrictions on freedom of movement, including selective denial of exit permits to thousands of citizens
refusal to recognize domestic human rights groups or to permit them to function legally
domestic violence, underage prostitution, and sex tourism
discrimination against persons of African descent
severe restrictions on worker rights, including the right to form independent unions

in sort a list that screams that Cuba is a dictatorship with sham elections.

Sources:http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61723.htm

severe restrictions on worker rights, including the right to form independent unions


what happened to the "Workers Paradise" toted by EA, and other communist revisionists?

Exactly Cuba is more democratic than the US. More of a republic even.

This is usually the part where you explain what's so undemocratic about it.
Couldn't you just take my word for it?

From Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/caribbean/cuba):
Freedom of expression, association and movement continued to be severely restricted. At least 69 prisoners of conscience remained imprisoned for their political opinions. Political dissidents, independent journalists and human rights activists continued to be harassed, intimidated and detained, some without charge or trial. Cubans continued to feel the negative impact of the US embargo.

From Freedom House (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2007&country=7161):
Political Rights and Civil Liberties

Cuba is not an electoral democracy. President Fidel Castro and, more recently, his brother Raul Castro dominate the political system. The country is a one-party state with the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) controlling all governmental entities from the national to the local level. Communist structures were institutionalized by the 1976 constitution installed at the first congress of the PCC. The constitution provides for the National Assembly, which designates the Council of State. That body in turn appoints the Council of Ministers in consultation with its president, who serves as head of state and chief of government. However, Castro is responsible for every appointment and controls every lever of power in Cuba in his various roles as president of the Council of Ministers, chairman of the Council of State, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), and first secretary of the PCC. The most recent PCC congress took place in 1997, and no date has been set for the next meeting.

From the US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm):
Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by Fidel Castro, who is chief of state, head of government, First Secretary of the PCC, and commander in chief of the armed forces. The Castro regime seeks to control most aspects of Cuban life through the Communist Party and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy, and the state security apparatus. In March 2003, Castro announced his intention to remain in power for life. On July 31, 2006 the Castro regime announced a "temporary" transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, who until that time served as head of the Cuban armed forces and second-in-command of the government and the Communist Party. It was the first time in the 47 years of Fidel Castro’s rule that power had been transferred. The transfer took place due to intestinal surgery of an undetermined nature. The Ministry of Interior is the principal organ of state security and control.

According to the Soviet-style Cuban constitution of 1976, the National Assembly of People's Power, and its Council of State when the body is not in session, has supreme authority in the Cuban system. Since the National Assembly meets only twice a year for a few days each time, the 31-member Council of State wields power. The Council of Ministers, through its 9-member executive committee, handles the administration of the economy, which is state-controlled except for a tiny and shriveling open-market sector. Fidel Castro is President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers and his brother Raul serves as First Vice President of both bodies as well as Minister of Defense.

Although the constitution theoretically provides for independent courts, it explicitly subordinates them to the National Assembly and to the Council of State. The People's Supreme Court is the highest judicial body. Due process is routinely denied to Cuban citizens, particularly in cases involving political offenses. The constitution states that all legally recognized civil liberties can be denied to anyone who opposes the "decision of the Cuban people to build socialism." Citizens can be and are jailed for terms of 3 years or more for simply criticizing the communist system or Fidel Castro.

The Communist Party is constitutionally recognized as Cuba's only legal political party. The party monopolizes all government positions, including judicial offices. Though not a formal requirement, party membership is a de facto prerequisite for high-level official positions and professional advancement in most areas, although a tiny number of non-party members have on extremely rare occasions been permitted by the controlling Communist authorities to serve in the National Assembly. The Communist Party or one of its front organizations approves candidates for any elected office. Citizens do not have the right to change their government. In March 2003, the government carried out one of the most brutal crackdowns on peaceful opposition in the history of Cuba when it arrested 75 human rights activists, independent journalists and opposition figures on various charges, including aiding a foreign power and violating national security laws. Authorities subjected the detainees to summary trials and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from 6 to 28 years. Amnesty International identified all 75 as "prisoners of conscience." The European Union (EU) condemned their arrests and in June 2003, it announced its decision to implement the following actions: limit bilateral high-level governmental visits, reduce the profile of member states' participation in cultural events, reduce economic assistance and invite Cuban dissidents to national-day celebrations. See also the Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Cuba.

Although the constitution allows legislative proposals backed by at least 10,000 citizens to be submitted directly to the National Assembly, in 2002 the government rejected a petition known as the Varela Project, supporters of which submitted 11,000 signatures calling for a national referendum on political and economic reforms. Many of the 75 activists arrested in March 2003 participated in the Varela Project. In October 2003, Project Varela organizers submitted a second petition to the National Assembly with an additional 14,000 signatures. Since April 2004, some prisoners of conscience have been released, 10 of whom were in the group of 75; all suffered from moderate to severe medical conditions and many of them continue to be harassed by state security even after their release from prison. At least 16 other activists were either arrested or sentenced to prison since 2004 for opposing the Cuban Government.

From Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/cuba14886.htm):
Cuba remains the one country in Latin America that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. President Fidel Castro, during his 47 years in power, has shown no willingness to consider even minor reforms. Instead, the Cuban government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law.

Actually Cuba is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the state exists solely to protect the interests of the working class, as in the USA the dictatorship of the bourgeois exists solely to protect that capitalist class. Cuba isn't actually a one-party-state, it's more like a no-party-state, the CCP is not an electoral front like we think of parties, but an overall political framework for the socialist republic.

Also Newer Burmecia, nice bourgeois sources, I won't even bother reading such capitalist trash.

Lol, EA your argument style is impressive. All vitriolic trash, no substance. :)

I know how much we all love a steaming hot bowl of copy-pasta, especially when we add some delicious meatballs :)

Actually Cuba is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the state exists solely to protect the interests of the working class, as in the USA the dictatorship of the bourgeois exists solely to protect that capitalist class. Cuba isn't actually a one-party-state, it's more like a no-party-state, the CCP is not an electoral front like we think of parties, but an overall political framework for the socialist republic.

Also Newer Burmecia, nice bourgeois sources, I won't even bother reading such capitalist trash.

Amnesty International bourgeois?

So... anyway, if you call Cuba a dictatorship, why would you even bother trying to defend that its a democracy?

Lol, EA your argument style is impressive. All vitriolic trash, no substance. :)

Well, you'll never see me using bourgeois media sources if that's what you mean. All my analysis is from a Marxist perspective.

Amnesty International bourgeois?

So... anyway, if you call Cuba a dictatorship, why would you even bother trying to defend that its a democracy?
Dictatorship of the proletariat, it's a democracy for the working class communists, not for the bourgeois and other class enemies, that's class struggle 101 friend, you don't give the enemy reactionary elements an avenue to political organize against the classocracy of the working class.

Dictatorship of the proletariat, it's a democracy for the working class communists, not for the bourgeois and other class enemies, that's class struggle 101 friend, you don't give the enemy reactionary elements an avenue to political organize against the classocracy of the working class.

Democracy - rule by the people.

Not, rule by some of the people.

Fail.

Cuba has nice weather, and would be an awesome place to hike.

Stupid U.S. embargo!

(I don't really care about their politics.)

Democracy - rule by the people.

Not, rule by some of the people.

Fail.

Proletarian democracy then. The difference being that the working class are the vast majority of the population, while elsewhere the bourgeois are an extreme minority. The proletariat are the only revolutionary and progressive class.

Well, you'll never see me using bourgeois media sources if that's what you mean. All my analysis is from a Marxist perspective.

The term bourgeois died long ago, could you just say what you actually mean instead of using this filler word. Right now that entire post has no substance because of it.

BTW, you should instead try to provide analysis from a neutral perspective if you really want to prove anything.

Edit: I got timewarped onto the next page!:mad:

Proletarian democracy then.

That's still not a democracy.

While some people like to say that, for example, Athens was one of the first democracies, it wasn't very democratic at all and it's certainly not what I would consider a democracy.

A democracy needs to be equal in terms of governance - Cuba is not, which is ironic, given that one of the ideas of socialism is equality. If there's only a portion of the (voting) population represented, then there's something wrong.

As I said, if Cuba is so great, and I am not doubting that it is (in fact, I don't really feel like discussing it at this time), the 1 or 2% that might want a different form of government pose absolutely no threat.

That's still not a democracy.

While some people like to say that, for example, Athens was one of the first democracies, it wasn't very democratic at all and it's certainly not what I would consider a democracy.

A democracy needs to be equal in terms of governance - Cuba is not, which is ironic, given that one of the ideas of socialism is equality. If there's only a portion of the (voting) population represented, then there's something wrong.

As I said, if Cuba is so great, and I am not doubting that it is (in fact, I don't really feel like discussing it at this time), the 1 or 2% that might want a different form of government pose absolutely no threat.
You think the capitalist classes deserve political representation?... I don't.

You think the capitalist classes deserve political representation?... I don't.

I think equality is more important than outdated ideas that are hundreds of years old. You cannot have a "worker's paradise" if some workers are excluded.

Classes are a figment of the imagination. They exist because you think they do. Once you realize how absolutely ridiculous they are, you can transcend the idea of classes and be above the petty bourgeois and proletariat.

I think equality is more important than outdated ideas that are hundreds of years old. You cannot have a "worker's paradise" if some workers are excluded.

Classes are a figment of the imagination. They exist because you think they do. Once you realize how absolutely ridiculous they are, you can transcend the idea of classes and be above the petty bourgeois and proletariat.
The bourgeois are not 'workers' , they are parasite on the working people that needs to be expunged from society.

Also, compare your stance on 'transcending classes' to classical fascist literature, notice the similarities. The attempts to reconcile the interests of capital and labor have had many spectacular failures because the interests of both classes are so diametrically opposed that class antagonism is inevitable, it must be a dictatorship of of either the bourgeois or proletarians because they can never work together.

The bourgeois are not 'workers' , they are parasite on the working people that needs to be expunged from society.

No, the bourgeois can indeed be workers. Engineers, doctors and many of the highly educated in a lot of the western world would fall under the term bourgeois and yet be workers. That is why the class system is stupid.

Also, compare your stance on 'transcending classes' to classical fascist literature, notice the similarities. The attempts to reconcile the interests of capital and labor have had many spectacular failures because the interests of both classes are so diametrically opposed that class antagonism is inevitable, it must be a dictatorship of of either the bourgeois or proletarians because they can never work together.

They do not exist, so of course they can't work together.

You think the capitalist classes deserve political representation?... I don't.

Cuba denies everyone political representation.

I have nothing to add to this discussion, except to say that my cat's breath smells like cat food.



:D

You mean you don't feed it caviar? :eek: Shock!

I have nothing to add to this discussion, except to say that my cat's breath smells like cat food.



:D

No, the bourgeois can indeed be workers. Engineers, doctors and many of the highly educated in a lot of the western world would fall under the term bourgeois and yet be workers. That is why the class system is stupid.



They do not exist, so of course they can't work together.
Your words mean nothing, to deny the existence of class is to deny the existence of reality.

Dictatorship of the proletariat, it's a democracy for the working class communists, not for the bourgeois and other class enemies, that's class struggle 101 friend, you don't give the enemy reactionary elements an avenue to political organize against the classocracy of the working class.
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but isn't that just oppressing the former "Oppressers"? Commiting the same injustices that once were used aganst them?

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but isn't that just oppressing the former "Oppressers"? Commiting the same injustices that once were used aganst them?

Essentially yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the bourgeois state 'turn on it's head', that's what class struggle is, difference being that the working class are the majority and the only revolutionary progressive class, so they are worth fighting for. And on the other hand the bourgeois are parasites and exploiters, so they deserve to be repressed and killed etc.

Essentially yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the bourgeois state 'turn on it's head', that's what class struggle is, difference being that the working class are the majority and the only revolutionary progressive class, so they are worth fighting for. And on the other hand the bourgeois are parasites and exploiters, so they deserve to be repressed and killed etc.
Isn't it possible then that, with time, the working class would become the "bourgeois"? Which would eventually repeat itself any number of times?

Isn't it possible then that, with time, the working class would become the "bourgeois"? Which would eventually repeat itself any number of times?

Oh... God, look I am not going to explain Marxist theory to a user called 'Conserative Morality' if he isn't bothered to know about it when he engages in a said discussion regarding it.

Oh... God, look I am not going to explain Marxist theory to a user called 'Conserative Morality' if he isn't bothered to know about it when he engages in a said discussion regarding it.
1. Don't judge me by my name, I'm a Libertarian.
2. Please give me a proper response, unless this is a flaw in Marxist ideas.

1. Don't judge me by my name, I'm a Libertarian.
2. Please give me a proper response, unless this is a flaw in Marxist ideas.
Well what do you mean exactly, I don't quite understand, how could the proletariat 'become' the bourgeois, if you mean that certain elements of the proletariat may leavve the working class and join the bourgeois, yes that happens as it happens with all classes, but the proletariat can never 'become' the proletariat because for bourgeois capitalism to work is requires a permament underclass of organized labor to build capital for them and to overproduce the market.

Class is defined as to it's relationship to the mode of production, Marx observed that with the proletarianization of production, the industrial proletariat was the only 'progressive' (as it wants to move with the times) class. Marx observed that the bourgeois and proletarians were the only two modern classes, he also said that the bourgeois also destroyed other classes such as rural peasantry, middle-lower classes by driving them into the industrial cities (thus making them proletarians), but the only two class to access the productive forces of industrialism were the proletarians, and that the bourgeois leeched off this labor, so that the bourgeois is the only thing in the way of a truly 'progressive' and 'revolutionary' society, society can only move forward into the future with the proletarians leading it, anything less is regressive and wants to restore the real or perceived conditions of something in the past.

For this reason Marx said that the interests of these two classes were diametrically opposed, and can only be reconciled either by the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or the continued class struggle until one class or the other prevailed, that labor and capital cannot collaborate.

Well what do you mean exactly, I don't quite understand, how could the proletariat 'become' the bourgeois, if you mean that certain elements of the proletariat may leavve the working class and join the bourgeois, yes that happens as it happens with all classes, but the proletariat can never 'become' the proletariat because for bourgeois capitalism to work is requires a permament underclass of organized labor to build capital for them and to overproduce the market.

Ah, okay. I understand now. I don't AGREE but I understand.
For this reason Marx said that the interests of these two classes were diametrically opposed, and can only be reconciled either by the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or the continued class struggle until one class or the other prevailed, that labor and capital cannot collaborate.
In capitalism, they do collaborate. No one is forcing people to work, but they choose to. In which case both sides make money. Unless of course I am once again misinterpreting you in what you mean by that last paragraph.

Well what do you mean exactly, I don't quite understand, how could the proletariat 'become' the bourgeois, if you mean that certain elements of the proletariat may leavve the working class and join the bourgeois, yes that happens as it happens with all classes, but the proletariat can never 'become' the proletariat because for bourgeois capitalism to work is requires a permament underclass of organized labor to build capital for them and to overproduce the market.

Class is defined as to it's relationship to the mode of production, Marx observed that with the proletarianization of production, the industrial proletariat was the only 'progressive' (as it wants to move with the times) class. Marx observed that the bourgeois and proletarians were the only two modern classes, he also said that the bourgeois also destroyed other classes such as rural peasantry, middle-lower classes by driving them into the industrial cities (thus making them proletarians), but the only two class to access the productive forces of industrialism were the proletarians, and that the bourgeois leeched off this labor, so that the bourgeois is the only thing in the way of a truly 'progressive' and 'revolutionary' society, society can only move forward into the future with the proletarians leading it, anything less is regressive and wants to restore the real or perceived conditions of something in the past.

For this reason Marx said that the interests of these two classes were diametrically opposed, and can only be reconciled either by the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or the continued class struggle until one class or the other prevailed, that labor and capital cannot collaborate.

You're teh awesomeness.

No, wait, YOU'RE teh awesomeness!
Yeah, I know. Feel free to bask in the wonderful light that is me!:p

Ah, okay. I understand now. I don't AGREE but I understand.

In capitalism, they do collaborate. No one is forcing people to work, but they choose to. In which case both sides make money. Unless of course I am once again misinterpreting you in what you mean by that last paragraph.

No, wait, YOU'RE teh awesomeness!

I must say I haven't ever heard such a load of bullcrap for so long. First of all, it's not a "burgeois" dictatorship. For starters, haven't you noticed that the name is roughly "townspeople" which includes your "proletariat"?

As for parasites... mate, you are just lacking a fair bit of brain cells. Let's say there's no one in charge of a factory. It does not work. A person not prepared for that from the workers? Doesn't work this way either. I'm afraid your idea dies out here - it just won't work if you let a mass of people do whatever they want. That's on the economical side. Thus, your brain is a parasite because it only tells your body to do things! Get a lobotomy, it's a class enemy!

Amnesty International bourgeois?

So... anyway, if you call Cuba a dictatorship, why would you even bother trying to defend that its a democracy?

slam dunked!

*hands SeathorniaII a cookie*

For starters, haven't you noticed that the name is roughly "townspeople" which includes your "proletariat"?

Equivocation. EA is using it in the Marxist sense of "the class that owns the means of production" (in the context of capitalism.)

Let's say there's no one in charge of a factory. It does not work.

Engels would most enthusiastically agree. As would Lenin.

Ah, okay. I understand now. I don't AGREE but I understand.

In capitalism, they do collaborate. No one is forcing people to work, but they choose to. In which case both sides make money. Unless of course I am once again misinterpreting you in what you mean by that last paragraph.

The perception of collaboration is given off, yes, but in reality workers don't have a choice but to participate in the system of wage-labor because if they don't they or their families cannot subsist. The choice is non-existent because they are not given the full productive rewards of their labor, instead they take a tiny amount of the productive capacity of the capital they build, while the bourgeois boss or whatever gets the vast amount. The current US tax system for example is inherently classist, it treats wage-labor with contempt but treats capital gains income very well.

Proletarian democracy then. The difference being that the working class are the vast majority of the population, while elsewhere the bourgeois are an extreme minority. The proletariat are the only revolutionary and progressive class.

A dictorship (cuba) is not a democracy (US)

slam dunked!

Only if you're totally ignorant of what the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means.

Essentially yes

You just killed your own argument.

A dictorship (cuba) is not a democracy (US)

I mean dictatorship in the sense of a ruling class, either capitalists or the working class. The US is a bourgeois dictatorship because the political establishment is geared towards protecting the interests of the capitalists, the congress, constitution and all institutions are designed towards the end of protecting the class rule of the American bourgeois. Even the political party Democrat/Republican relationship is simply a right-wing 'consensus' and a mutual acceptance of bourgeois corporate control of America.

Although I have many a criticism for Cuba, they do have a dictatorship of the workers, read the constitution if you like.

read the constitution if you like.

We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

;)

I mean dictatorship in the sense of a ruling class, either capitalists or the working class. The US is a bourgeois dictatorship because the political establishment is geared towards protecting the interests of the capitalists, the congress, constitution and all institutions are designed towards the end of protecting the class rule of the American bourgeois. Even the political party Democrat/Republican relationship is simply a right-wing 'consensus' and a mutual acceptance of bourgeois corporate control of America.

Um....yea! Just continue to believe this if you wish no matter who fucked up it is.

Although I have many a criticism for Cuba, they do have a dictatorship of the workers, read the constitution if you like.

I have read their constitution. I had to bust up laughing considering the dictatorship is actually in violation of their own constitution.

You just killed your own argument.

How exactly did I so this? My argument is simply a Marxist perspective, that a society where the means of mode of production and exchange are controlled by those who operate them (the working class) is a fundamentally more just society, that every man is entitled to the productive results of his labor, rather than being submitted to the system of unfair wage-labor which gives the parasite bourgeois class (who do nothing but exploit) more power than the real builders of society, the workers.

The Cuban constitution.

I know what you meant.

The point is that constitutions lie.

How exactly did I so this? My argument is simply a Marxist perspective,

And that is precisely your problem. You are looking at things from one side. You also characteristicly reject everything that disagrees with you no matter how right most of the people are. Even I acknowledge when people are correct but you just spout vitrol on people who dare disagree with you. You called cuba a democracy but then turned right around and called it a dictatorship and then agreed that it was when you are claiming it to be a "democracy of the proleitariate" One cannot be both a democracy and a dictatorship. I already know that you will ignore this and trash it but no matter what, you really need to work on your debating skills.

The Cuban constitution. But fi you'll read on with the US one, you'll find provisions for protecting the private wealth and property of the few from the many.

You mean like the fourth amendment which deals with illegal search and seizure?

Let's state one thing, I know the results of it here - seen it in my own country. it did NOT work. You know why? Because the controllers become a separate class. And it goes back with one difference - the controllers can't make that to work efficiently. Thus, people who consider it "everyone's property" just steal and slack around. Believe me, without someone who keeps them in check human beings are the laziest and least productive species of Earth. You call them parasites, I gave you an analogy - they are the brain, and, say, the proletariat is the muscles. Switch brain and muscles with tasks and tell me - how the hell is it even meant to work?

Um....yea! Just continue to believe this if you wish no matter who fucked up it is.

Nice response, and it's not exactly my personal opinion, it's just me accepting Marxist analysis of the material conditions which cause class struggle.

If you don't believe the world is controlled by the bourgeois (transnational capitalists) then you are blind to reality.

Let's state one thing, I know the results of it here - seen it in my own country. it did NOT work. You know why? Because the controllers become a separate class. And it goes back with one difference - the controllers can't make that to work efficiently. Thus, people who consider it "everyone's property" just steal and slack around. Believe me, without someone who keeps them in check human beings are the laziest and least productive species of Earth. You call them parasites, I gave you an analogy - they are the brain, and, say, the proletariat is the muscles. Switch brain and muscles with tasks and tell me - how the hell is it even meant to work?

What do you mean the 'controllers become a separate class', the proletarians are a separate class!

;)
The Cuban constitution. But fi you'll read on with the US one, you'll find provisions for protecting the private wealth and property of the few from the many.

Nice response, and it's not exactly my personal opinion, it's just me accepting Marxist analysis of the material conditions which cause class struggle.

If you don't believe the world is controlled by the bourgeois (transnational capitalists) then you are blind to reality.

If you don't believe the world is controlled by a global conspiracy of Jews and Freemasons then you are blind to reality.

I just switched the terms to ones used by nutjobs in my country.

What do you mean the 'controllers become a separate class', the proletarians are a separate class!

They get divided from the original proletarians - they essentially take the position of previous "burgeois" as you call them without the experience and education and lose touch with the rest. The worker is qualified to work and the manager is qualified to manage it. That's the thing. And when a worker becomes the manager and you shoot the manager, things like making cars out of plastic happen.

They get divided from the original proletarians - they essentially take the position of previous "burgeois" as you call them without the experience and education and lose touch with the rest. The worker is qualified to work and the manager is qualified to manage it. That's the thing. And when a worker becomes the manager and you shoot the manager, things like making cars out of plastic happen.

Your confusing a strata with a class, under socialism you have stratas for neccessary and differing positions in the working class, just because they have a 'different' job doesn't mean they are a different class. Under socialism managers don't exist in the bourgeois sense, wage labor doesn't exist, you have coordinators who help the coordinate (obviously) the effects of each factory etc so the workers aren't harming each others cause, and are thus working in solidarity with each other.

People don't understand that with the amount of absolute waste and overproduction in capitalism, with the modern industrial techniques of the workers it takes very little labor to give good living conditions to everyone. Socialism isn't about living off the bare subsistence levels, we are not interested in turning back to clock to primitive conditions, it's about using industrial productive capacity to create a fair and just society, where each workers gets the self-determination of his labor, and not being forced into the system wage-slavery. Capitalists just have to massively overproduce in order to saturate new markets and expand ever the more, this in turn creates a 'race to the bottom' in terms of wages and conditions. The problem with capitalism is that their is too much levels of unnecessary subsistence and waste, everyone can live a great life if the bourgeois are overthrown; this is because we can produce according to need and not profit.

The problem with capitalism is that by overproducing so much; unnecessary wants in the area of light industry (consumer goods), become more important than even the basic necessities of life, so so in overproduction and in 'creating' these wants (that we are told we must have) the market forgets even the basic needs of life.

'It [capitalism] is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.' - Marx

Your confusing a strata with a class, under socialism you have stratas for neccessary and differing positions in the working class, just because they have a 'different' job doesn't mean they are a different class. Under socialism managers don't exist in the bourgeois sense, wage labor doesn't exist, you have coordinators who help the coordinate (obviously) the effects of each factory etc so the workers aren't harming each others cause, and are thus working in solidarity with each other.

But wouldn't that mean that people are less inclined to become skilled workers, and encouraged to be a low-work job because no matter what they do they'll be payed the same?

But wouldn't that mean that people are less inclined to become skilled workers, and encouraged to be a low-work job because no matter what they do they'll be payed the same?

No one is 'paid', simply every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, because productive forces are not directed at profit (overproduction and waste) such 'needs' are easily produced with very little labor because instead of capitalist excess they are producing for only things that are needed.

No one is 'paid', simply every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, because productive forces are not directed at profit (overproduction and waste) such 'needs' are easily produced with very little labor because instead of capitalist excess they are producing for only things that are needed.

Um yea...this did not work during the colonization of America and it still does not work today.

No one is 'paid', simply every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, because productive forces are not directed at profit (overproduction and waste) such 'needs' are easily produced with very little labor because instead of capitalist excess they are producing for only things that are needed.
Yes but producing only "needs" would lead to lack of things that people "want" such as the Computer you're currently using. Also, the lack of "wants" would lead people to go VOLUNTARILY to capitalist countries. It's happened before, a lack of wants lead to emigration. Of course needs are more important but if you could have both(Like here in the US for most people) wouldn't you?

Um yea...this did not work during the colonization of America and it still does not work today.

Capitalism does not focus on needs, it focuses on created unnecessary 'wants' which can be produced in mass quantity in order for the bourgeois to overproduce and saturate global markets and gain more profit. But in order to overproduce at such a productive capacity, the proletarians are basically turned into serfs to produce so much unnecessary and wasteful use of labor. The labor of human beings should not be treated like a commodity with such contempt, it should be used to make all the people have better living conditions, and not concentrate wastefully excesses in the hands of the bourgeois, while proletarians are struggling to feed their families.

Why is is that we live in a world where you can find millions of plastics toys yet not enough food? It's the insanity of overproduction.

Capitalism does not focus on needs, it focuses on created unnecessary 'wants' which can be produced in mass quantity in order for the bourgeois to overproduce and saturate global markets and gain more profit. But in order to overproduce at such a productive capacity, the proletarians are basically turned into serfs to produce so much unnecessary and wasteful use of labor. The labor of human beings should not be treated like a commodity with such contempt, it should be used to make all the people have better living conditions, and not concentrate wastefully excesses in the hands of the bourgeois, while proletarians are struggling to feed their families.

Why is is that we live in a world where you can find millions of plastics toys yet not enough food? It's the insanity of overproduction.
Today 11:00 PM

Ah, but there is the problem! If the "bourgeois" make so many wants to make money, then eventually they will start to create needs, because you can't live without needs, and therefore make more money. It dosen't make sense why that would happen! If they make a want, someone has to buy it, which means someone is willing! If so many people are starving(Which all depends on where you live) then the capitalists would make "needs" so that they could sell needs to make more money than making wants.

Yes but producing only "needs" would lead to lack of things that people "want" such as the Computer you're currently using. Also, the lack of "wants" would lead people to go VOLUNTARILY to capitalist countries. It's happened before, a lack of wants lead to emigration. Of course needs are more important but if you could have both(Like here in the US for most people) wouldn't you?

As I said before, socialism isn't about living at the barest levels of subsistence, it's about the proletarians controlling the means of such production without bourgeois control, so in that situation unnecessary overproduction in the factories (which causes overwork and exploitation of workers). Capitalism wastes the labor of individuals because it puts the effect of that labor into creating nothing but waste, it's undignified.

Ah, but there is the problem! If the "bourgeois" make so many wants to make money, then eventually they will start to create needs, because you can't live without needs, and therefore make more money. It dosen't make sense why that would happen! If they make a want, someone has to buy it, which means someone is willing! If so many people are starving(Which all depends on where you live) then the capitalists would make "needs" so that they could sell needs to make more money than making wants.

On the contrary, that's the innate problem with capitalism, it has the feed the workers, it isn't being fed by them, figuratively. It can produce such basic neccessities of course, but because of the nature of overproduction such things aren't as important, so it forces the basic 'needs' to be just that, the workers only get the most basic of necessities, it forces them to basically be a pauper.

On the contrary, that's the innate problem with capitalism, it has the feed the workers, it isn't being fed by them, figuratively. It can produce such basic neccessities of course, but because of the nature of overproduction such things aren't as important, so it forces the basic 'needs' to be just that, the workers only get the most basic of necessities, it forces them to basically be a pauper.
Yes, but if that was true, there are obviously many more workers then Owners right? Well, SOMEONE has to be buying all of those goods which means that the worker would be VOLUNTARILY reducing himself to that state.

Yes, but if that was true, there are obviously many more workers then Owners right? Well, SOMEONE has to be buying all of those goods which means that the worker would be VOLUNTARILY reducing himself to that state.

Your concept of 'choice' is wrong and I dealt with this earlier, saying a person has a choice to participate in the bourgeois state they were born into, out of a desire to survive, is far from any objective stance on a voluntary choice. There's a difference between a truly free choice and forced coercion to the wage-labor system.

The bourgeois only give the workers a wage because they want to placate them so they buy the good the workers themselves produce, so the workers produce the goods and get paid a tiny amount of what their labor is worth, and then they must use that wage to buy back the products they produced! (figuratively). Saying that he is 'voluntarily reducing himself to the state' simply is an admission that the bourgeois state is doing a good job forcing the workers into virtual slave labor, so in a way he was a choice, but the choice is between submission to wage-labor and abject poverty and starvation.

Capitalism is a fundamentally unfair system because it punishes the workers for the massive productive capacity they have and created.

Your concept of 'choice' is wrong and I dealt with this earlier, saying a person has a choice to participate in the bourgeois state they were born into, out of a desire to survive, is far from any objective stance on a voluntary choice. There's a difference between a truly free choice and forced coercion to the wage-labor system.

The bourgeois only give the workers a wage because they want to placate them so they buy the good the workers themselves produce, so the workers produce the goods and get paid a tiny amount of what their labor is worth, and then they must use that wage to buy back the products they produced! (figuratively). Saying that he is 'voluntarily reducing himself to the state' simply is an admission that the bourgeois state is doing a good job forcing the workers into virtual slave labor, so in a way he was a choice, but the choice is between submission to wage-labor and abject poverty and starvation.

Capitalism is a fundamentally unfair system because it punishes the workers for the massive productive capacity they have and created.

What I'm trying to say is that the company cannot FORCE the worker to buy their products, which, according to you, are all wants, meaning that the worker would spend his money on more needs than wants. Also, my Grandfather is living proof aganst your argument about
the workers only get the most basic of necessities, it forces them to basically be a pauper.
My Grandfather works at Wal-Mart, not as a manager, and he has enough money to- Smoke, have 3 computers, 2 tvs and countless game systems, and games,internet, phone, and cable, yet he is considered poor! He has everything he needs and MORE but he is pretty much at the bottom of the ladder at Wal-mart. He regulary shops at Martins and other stores instead of Wal-mart enriching OTHER companys instead of his own. If that dosen't say something about your argument about the most basic necessities I don't know what does.

What I'm trying to say is that the company cannot FORCE the worker to buy their products, which, according to you, are all wants, meaning that the worker would spend his money on more needs than wants. Also, my Grandfather is living proof aganst your argument about

My Grandfather works at Wal-Mart, not as a manager, and he has enough money to- Smoke, have 3 computers, 2 tvs and countless game systems, and games,internet, phone, and cable, yet he is considered poor! He has everything he needs and MORE but he is pretty much at the bottom of the ladder at Wal-mart. He regulary shops at Martins and other stores instead of Wal-mart enriching OTHER companys instead of his own. If that dosen't say something about your argument about the most basic necessities I don't know what does.

Well the 'New Deal' improved the lives of many Americans also during the Depression, as have welfare provisions elsewhere, but you seem to be judging an individual solely on these created 'wants' that he (figuratively) has both produced and brought back from himself! That doesn't detract from the fundamental unfairness of the capitalism system of production, and the fact that it robs the dignity of the worker by making him overproduce useless and unneccessary products, and does not give him the fruits of his labor.

Well the 'New Deal' improved the lives of many Americans also during the Depression, as have welfare provisions elsewhere, but you seem to be judging an individual solely on these created 'wants' that he (figuratively) has both produced and brought back from himself! That doesn't detract from the fundamental unfairness of the capitalism system of production, and the fact that it robs the dignity of the worker by making him overproduce useless and unneccessary products, and does not give him the fruits of his labor.
This is the way I see it: A man owns land and you do not. He allows YOU to farm HIS land, and you get a small amount of what you grow for it. In MY eyes this is fair, in YOUR eyes it is not, which is what I don't understand. If a man is allowing you to use what is HIS in exchange for him keeping some of it, and you do not like it, Capitalism allows you to get your OWN land/shop/whatever you were doing and farm/work at it yourself, or continue to work on anothers land. Or you can allow another to work at what is yours and allow him to keep part of what he creates using your equipment. Do you see where I'm coming from?

That bit about "Making for needs and giving through abilities" works in one way - people take as much as they can and give as little as they can, avoiding showing any skill or ability. Nobody will check it, anyway. That's why it all fell in Europe. People trying to do as little as possible and take as much as possible are just inefficient and it's already happend and THIS has proven how wrong in its principles the whole idea is - by the way, if you worked on a farm and got all you produce, and that's it... guess what? Others would starve and we'd go back to stone age. Capitalism is all about redistribution of products. An EFFICIENT disribution.

And your concept of classes is simply flawed, the 'stratas' ARE essentially classes and don't say anything else because you'd just be making a fool of yourself. You just fail to see the ways of human psychology. Besides - if you say that Marx had to be right because he was a philosopher - then you'd also advocate the flat earth theory or the geocentric theory, after all it's been advocated by Ptolemy, who was a philosopher! If you say it's been proven wrong, then I'll say socialism and communism have been proven wrong even in Russia which was first to embrace them, as well as all other countries around there. Have you ever thought why? Because the whole philosophy is just flawed and it only generates a two-class society - the people important to the party and the poor. And do not discard it, because it's how people would ALWAYS make it look. Also, if you advocate flat Earth and geocentrism, you can't be taken seriously.

The NATURAL approach of a human being towards any economy is capitalism, face it. Socialism might have worked in little villages, a few hundred thousand years ago, which had no way to communicate and live to today's standards.

This is the way I see it: A man owns land and you do not. He allows YOU to farm HIS land, and you get a small amount of what you grow for it. In MY eyes this is fair, in YOUR eyes it is not, which is what I don't understand. If a man is allowing you to use what is HIS in exchange for him keeping some of it, and you do not like it, Capitalism allows you to get your OWN land/shop/whatever you were doing and farm/work at it yourself, or continue to work on anothers land. Or you can allow another to work at what is yours and allow him to keep part of what he creates using your equipment. Do you see where I'm coming from?

But why does he own that land? Some where, some time, his ancestors tribe kicked another tribes arse and claimed the land for their own. Then the elite of that tribe gave land to their buddies, who passed it down to their buddies, etc. Capitalism is underpinned by a "might is right" philosophy.

Any socialist or communist system thinks that no-one can claim ownership of land, it has to be a communal ownership to be fair.

Also, defending arguments based on the constitutions? :rolleyes: The great think about the American elites, is where other countries have to brutally repress freedom of speech, the US have Fox news.
So many of the USA citizens are convinced communism is so bad (and this taints anything left wing), and their system so good, even when they are in grinding poverty, that there is no need for Government repression.
The US elite have brainwashed their populace better than any Stalin gulag could.

I hate to point this out and sound as if I were some right-wing fucktard, since I am definitely not, but since no candidate runs by party, how can we be sure that anyone who isn't a Communist and isn't an unswerving supporter of Castro even ran? If there were no opposition candidates, it was a sham election.

posted by EA:
Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties. Indeed, no political party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any given candidates.

This answers, I think.

Your words mean nothing, to deny the existence of class is to deny the existence of reality.

Classes existed when Marx came up with them.

Now the lines are blurred and so classes are non-sensical.

You really should get with the times.

slam dunked!

*hands SeathorniaII a cookie*

I should stay away from EA. Everytime I am near him, I get closer in opinion to Corneliu :eek:

Why is is that we live in a world where you can find millions of plastics toys yet not enough food? It's the insanity of overproduction.

Why is it that I am part of this proletariate but am able to put food on my table and clothes on my back while having a car and an apartment while going to Graduate School?

Your concept of 'choice' is wrong and I dealt with this earlier, saying a person has a choice to participate in the bourgeois state they were born into, out of a desire to survive, is far from any objective stance on a voluntary choice. There's a difference between a truly free choice and forced coercion to the wage-labor system.

Even thought "class" mobility happens all the time?

But why does he own that land? Some where, some time, his ancestors tribe kicked another tribes arse and claimed the land for their own. Then the elite of that tribe gave land to their buddies, who passed it down to their buddies, etc. Capitalism is underpinned by a "might is right" philosophy.

I'd like to see some statistics for how much land is inheirted and how much is bought. And are you saying that we should take away what their forefathers worked hard for? For all YOU know they could have been part of a tribe who was driven out of their homeland and settled in this new unihabitated land. So there.

I'd like to see some statistics for how much land is inheirted and how much is bought. And are you saying that we should take away what their forefathers worked hard for? For all YOU know they could have been part of a tribe who was driven out of their homeland and settled in this new unihabitated land. So there.
And who is selling this land? Find me one piece of land that anyone values, that was uninhabited before the current owners took it.

US had the American Indians. South and Central America had the Incas, Aztecs, Mayan, Toltecs, et al. If I have to show examples in Middle East, Asia or Europe, well....:headbang: There's been more bloodshed in those continents than is sane.

This answers, I think.

No, actually it doesn't. They're not allowed to run as members of the Communist Party. Fine. How does that prove that there were opposition candidates? Do you the the government doesn't know if someone isn't a Party member? Do you not think that they could block anyone they wanted to? Unless someone presents proof that Cuba's election MO is different than every other Communist dictatorship (indeed, every dictatorship of any type) in history, I will assume this was an election for show.

No, actually it doesn't. They're not allowed to run as members of the Communist Party. Fine. How does that prove that there were opposition candidates? Do you the the government doesn't know if someone isn't a Party member? Do you not think that they could block anyone they wanted to? Unless someone presents proof that Cuba's election MO is different than every other Communist dictatorship (indeed, every dictatorship of any type) in history, I will assume this was an election for show.

No, I don't think so.

1.The Cuban constitution fixes socialism as the economy system in Cuba. This said, there is no actual need for a candidate to say "I'm anti-communist", because that would be like a candidate to the italian parliament saying "I want to abolish private property" or "I want to reinstate fascism". You can't say/do that because of the Constitution - which is the metalevel of the democracy, hence it isn't subject to the ordinary democratic process.

2.Everyone knows if the local candidate is a CP member, not just the government.

3.If you're not allowed to run as "official CP candidate", you're on par with the others: there is no patronage. Actually, iirc, at least 25% of the cuban PMs aren't CP members.

4.Yes, Cuba isn't a liberal multiparty democracy. This is far different from saying that it isn't a democracy. The fact that Castro has always been elected from the revolution onwards isn't a dictatorship tell-tale. Just to make an example, italian Giulio Andreotti has been elected in the italian Parliament continuously from 1948 (first democratic elections in Italy) to the mid-'90s, when was appointed by the then-President of the Republic as Senator for life. He's been PM (7 times iirc), Foreign Minister, Minister for the Internal affairs - and that without being a national hero like Castro is.

I still prefer multiparty democracies because I think that the ideological debate is better in a multiparty democracy - although I'm not a fan of liberism of course - but CUBA IS NO DICTATORSHIP.
It's a democracy with serious problems of familism in the upper branches of the government, yes - same goes for Italy. Nothing that a mandate limit (let's say no more than two mandates in the same office) wouldn't cure - no need for a foreign-financed coup.

The bourgeois are not 'workers' , they are parasite on the working people that needs to be expunged from society.


You mean one of the only people actually giving the workers jobs and improving the economy to actually provide a good amount of food and other needs for the poor are the parasites? Bullshit as usual.

The attempts to reconcile the interests of capital and labor have had many spectacular failures because the interests of both classes are so diametrically opposed that class antagonism is inevitable, it must be a dictatorship of of either the bourgeois or proletarians because they can never work together.

Absolute nonsense. There is no inherent ideology in different classes. For instance, in the UK right now many of the workers are extremely right wing.

Absolute nonsense. There is no inherent ideology in different classes. For instance, in the UK right now many of the workers are extremely right wing.
And there have been historically ever since Benjamin Disraeli. On the other hand, Tony Benn came from a weathy family and a peerage.

I see that EA has fled the thread. Not surprising considering the amount of facts that was brought against him.

No, I don't think so.

1.The Cuban constitution fixes socialism as the economy system in Cuba. This said, there is no actual need for a candidate to say "I'm anti-communist", because that would be like a candidate to the italian parliament saying "I want to abolish private property" or "I want to reinstate fascism". You can't say/do that because of the Constitution - which is the metalevel of the democracy, hence it isn't subject to the ordinary democratic process.

2.Everyone knows if the local candidate is a CP member, not just the government.

3.If you're not allowed to run as "official CP candidate", you're on par with the others: there is no patronage. Actually, iirc, at least 25% of the cuban PMs aren't CP members.

4.Yes, Cuba isn't a liberal multiparty democracy. This is far different from saying that it isn't a democracy. The fact that Castro has always been elected from the revolution onwards isn't a dictatorship tell-tale. Just to make an example, italian Giulio Andreotti has been elected in the italian Parliament continuously from 1948 (first democratic elections in Italy) to the mid-'90s, when was appointed by the then-President of the Republic as Senator for life. He's been PM (7 times iirc), Foreign Minister, Minister for the Internal affairs - and that without being a national hero like Castro is.

I still prefer multiparty democracies because I think that the ideological debate is better in a multiparty democracy - although I'm not a fan of liberism of course - but CUBA IS NO DICTATORSHIP.
It's a democracy with serious problems of familism in the upper branches of the government, yes - same goes for Italy. Nothing that a mandate limit (let's say no more than two mandates in the same office) wouldn't cure - no need for a foreign-financed coup.

OK, I concede the point.

I see that EA has fled the thread. Not surprising considering the amount of facts that was brought against him.

It's like 7 or 8 in the morning over there. Get over yourself.

Capitalism does not focus on needs, it focuses on created unnecessary 'wants' which can be produced in mass quantity in order for the bourgeois to overproduce and saturate global markets and gain more profit. But in order to overproduce at such a productive capacity, the proletarians are basically turned into serfs to produce so much unnecessary and wasteful use of labor. The labor of human beings should not be treated like a commodity with such contempt, it should be used to make all the people have better living conditions, and not concentrate wastefully excesses in the hands of the bourgeois, while proletarians are struggling to feed their families.



What BS!!!!

I'm actually a factory worker, one of the proud members of the actual working class not the socialists who think one day working in a shop sweeping the floor makes them working class

My job IS the very means of production (I'm a industrial robot programmer...what joys... what terrors.... what lawsuits when they get out of hand and squish an operator :eek: )

If I'm not happy with what my bourgeois factory owner pays me, I up sticks and move to another factory(done that 6 times in 20 yrs so far) and that goes for all the other people I bashed bits of metal with over the years.
Also I have to be good at my job , always prepared to learn new stuff in order that the company can make a profit, for if it does'nt make a profit I'm out of a job (along with the bourgeois owner :cool: )
All of which means there is every incentive for me to improve myself and the means of production thus more widgets and bits (actually more medical equipment for various health service companies )

Under a socialist/marxist/communist system that incentive does not exist therefore you get people inclined to just loaf along and collect their wages at the end of the week while dragging back those of us who are 'get ahead' people, and the whole system becomes bogged down in red tape as various factories compete for limited funds available that are usually distributed on how well they lied to the central planning office the previous year and how big the mural of the 'glorious leader' is

Boris

Oh and the poor proles struggling to feed themselves and their families seem to do that rather well in capitalist society since at least 33% of us seem to be obese now :D