NationStates Jolt Archive

Over 8, 2 Million Cubans Cast their Vote at Cuban General Elections

Havana, Jan 21 (acn) After announcing that over 8, 230, 000 Cuban voters, 96 percent of the total, cast their vote at the General elections held on Sunday throughout the island, the President of the National Electoral Commission, Maria Esther Reus, described the vote as
very successful.

Cuban News Agency

In the preliminary report, which was announced during the prime-time TV show "The Roundtable", Reus explained that all 614 deputies to the National Parliament and all 1,201 delegates to provincial assemblies were elected as a result of the massive vote, said the president of the National Electoral Commission.

Reus, who is also Cuba's Justice Minister explained that out of all 8, 230, 832 ballots cast, 95, 24 percent was valid, 91 percent favored the full slate of candidates, 3,73 percent of the ballots were blank and 1,04 percent was annulled.

The results, which are very close to previous ones held last October 2007, proved the commitment and participation of the people in the electoral process, which was positive, Reus pointed out.

The final result of the elections will be release in the coming days after all the counting process is concluded, which could still increase the final percent of voters she said after highlighting the work carried out by the people who were in charge of different tasks during the vote.

Posted by La Habana Cuba.

614 candidates for 614 National Assembly seats in a one political party state which according to the Cuban government 91 percent of voters choose the United Vote Block Option, that is voted for all 614 winning candidates in district elections all across Cuba, these elections are a sham.

All the elected candidates are pro government, where are the opposition candidates, where are the Canadian, Australian, European style Cuban Democrats, Republicans, Christian democrats, Socialist Democrats, Socialists, Labor, ect, ect, ect?

All government parliment decisions are passed without any opposition.
The National Assembly parliment meets about twice a year or when convened by its President or President of the Council of State, Fidel or Raul.

I will post more precise official election results as I find them.

The elections are a sham? Any evidence for this, proof of electoral rigging etc? If so please post.

The elections are a sham because there is no real choice in candidates which to be approved by the government and there is no free exchange of ideas. The election in Cuba make the 2000 U.S. Presidential election a symbol of perfection.

You're comparing two different systems. The US is a party system. Candidates from different parties, representing the party, are voted in. In Cuba, there is one party, and the candidates represent their own platforms, not the party.

You're comparing two different systems. The US is a party system. Candidates from different parties, representing the party, are voted in. In Cuba, there is one party, and the candidates represent their own platforms, not the party.

Yes, but unlike where I live (Denmark), certain platforms are inherently illegal.

Here in Denmark, you can run for the Nazi party or even as an independent with Nazi ideas. The possibility exists and you are not barred from politics because of that.

However!

The Nazis never get enough votes anyway.

The elections are a sham because there is no real choice in candidates..is this about the US?

It might as well be.

is this about the US?

It might as well be.

It's more about the possibility of choice. In that regards, the US is better. The system there still needs a lot of work though.

However, Cuba's system needs to be overhauled, such as to allow the possibility of choice, otherwise you're not electing very much at all.

So aside from the lack of choice beyond left, far-left and left-left, the elections are probably run according to the letter and not too full of corruption, etc...

It's more about the possibility of choice. In that regards, the US is better. The system there still needs a lot of work though.

However, Cuba's system needs to be overhauled, such as to allow the possibility of choice, otherwise you're not electing very much at all.

So aside from the lack of choice beyond left, far-left and left-left, the elections are probably run according to the letter and not too full of corruption, etc...
Oh please. Show me one president of the US that wasn't either a Democrat or a Republican. Show me a single Prime Minister of Canada that wasn't either Liberal or Conservative. BIG choice, oh yes. Makes all the difference.

For the record, I'm not defending either Canada, the US or Denmark. I am attacking Cuba on the grounds that it could be better.

Bah, what country couldn't.

Oh please. Show me one president of the US that wasn't either a Democrat or a Republican. Show me a single Prime Minister of Canada that wasn't either Liberal or Conservative. BIG choice, oh yes. Makes all the difference.

You know, there was a party that came into existence in the history of the US which also got a president in. I do believe it was the republican party. So the possibility certainly exists. That people don't make use of it is their problem.

As for Prime Minister of Canada. I'm of the opinion that while the prime minister is important, parliament is more so.

For the record, I'm not defending either Canada, the US or Denmark. I am attacking Cuba on the grounds that it could be better.

Oh please. Show me one president of the US that wasn't either a Democrat or a Republican.

millard fillmore?

The poll options are biased.
False dilemma, again.
Which can force you into arguing one side or another, ignoring other options, potentially.
What happened to the "other" option?

Oh please. Show me one president of the US that wasn't either a Democrat or a Republican. Show me a single Prime Minister of Canada that wasn't either Liberal or Conservative. BIG choice, oh yes. Makes all the difference.
Then vote NDP.

millard fillmore?
As well as most presidents before him.

Posted by La Habana Cuba.

614 candidates for 614 National Assembly seats in a one political party state which according to the Cuban government 91 percent of voters choose the United Vote Block Option, that is voted for all 614 winning candidates in district elections all across Cuba, these elections are a sham.
There is no political party. The candidates are all independent.

All the elected candidates are pro government, where are the opposition candidates, where are the Canadian, Australian, European style Cuban Democrats, Republicans, Christian democrats, Socialist Democrats, Socialists, Labor, ect, ect, ect?
What candidate in any country for a government office would be anti-government? That makes no sense. Why do they need parties? They are working fine, if not better by just having people run on their own merits and with independent thought and ideas.

All government parliment decisions are passed without any opposition.
Prove it.
The National Assembly parliment meets about twice a year or when convened by its President or President of the Council of State, Fidel or Raul.
Prove it. And if it works for them, what's the problem?

The elections are a sham because there is no real choice in candidates which to be approved by the government and there is no free exchange of ideas. The election in Cuba make the 2000 U.S. Presidential election a symbol of perfection.

There is choice: you vote for or against the candidate.
They are nominated by the people, not the government.
They state their platform and if you disagree, you vote against them.
No, the 2000 election was an absolute joke of vote rigging, fraud, disenfranchisement, and illegal practice of the Supreme Court stepping in.

They aren't built on a party system. They're built on a system without parties where candidates are free to express their opinion and beliefs and not be swayed by Party mentality. The candidates are actually nominated in a very democratic way, much more so than in the US.

They aren't built on a party system. They're built on a system without parties where candidates are free to express their opinion and beliefs and not be swayed by Party mentality. The candidates are actually nominated in a very democratic way, much more so than in the US.
Any campaigning that is deemed "counter-revolutionary" is illegal, which means that only candidates which align themselves in one way or another with the Communist Party (yes, it exists) can actually get into office. Half the candidates are nominated by municipal assemblies, the other half by specially chosen bodies.

But it doesn't matter how democratic the process is you use to nominate candidates if they're only allowed to have certain views.

It's a one-party state. They always put up fronts so they can pretend to themselves that they aren't (they did it in the GDR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28East_Germany%29) too), but that doesn't change the facts.

Actually Cuba is basically US 'democracy' 'turned on it's head', the US system is designed to protect the class rule of the bourgeois capitalists, while in Cuba the system is designed to protect the class rule of the proletarians. Pretty simply concept to understand, why on earth would a socialist republic allow the bourgeois to form right-wing parties when the objective of the socialist state is class struggle against the bourgeois, it would be rather counter-productive. The same way the minority bourgeois in America have consolidated their classocracy around a right-wing monopoly of power between the Democrats/Republicans, so have the majority Cuban workers established their own monopoly on power and a repression of the capitalist slime.

The bourgeois deserve jail cells, not political parties.

Death to the exploiters!

Actually Cuba is basically US 'democracy' 'turned on it's head', the US system is designed to protect the class rule of the bourgeois capitalists, while in Cuba the system is designed to protect the class rule of the proletarians. Pretty simply concept to understand, why on earth would a socialist republic allow the bourgeois to form right-wing parties when the objective of the socialist state is class struggle against the bourgeois, it would be rather counter-productive. The same way the minority bourgeois in America have consolidated their classocracy around a right-wing monopoly of power between the Democrats/Republicans, so have the majority Cuban workers established their own monopoly on power and a repression of the capitalist slime.

The bourgeois deserve jail cells, not political parties.

Death to the exploiters!

I think you need a psychiatrists. You fled the thread in which you were proven to be talking bullshit to post nonsense in another.

Any campaigning that is deemed "counter-revolutionary" is illegal, which means that only candidates which align themselves in one way or another with the Communist Party (yes, it exists) can actually get into office. Half the candidates are nominated by municipal assemblies, the other half by specially chosen bodies.
That's the same as someone campaigning as an anarchist here. The CP exists, but does not have much to do with the gov't. Either way, the CP is a broad thing that covers all possible views there.

But it doesn't matter how democratic the process is you use to nominate candidates if they're only allowed to have certain views.
They can have whatever views they want. Alternatively, here you can't have any view you want.

It's a one-party state. They always put up fronts so they can pretend to themselves that they aren't (they did it in the GDR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28East_Germany%29) too), but that doesn't change the facts.
No, it's a party-less state. Stop buying into American propaganda.

As well as most presidents before him.

i don't know about most - especially if we grant that jefferson's republicans are the same continuous party as the modern democrats

That's the same as someone campaigning as an anarchist here.
I'm not sure about that. There are a lot more anarchists in the US talking openly than there are capitalists in Cuba. Indeed, I'm not even sure one isn't allowed to run an anarchist platform for an election - it's just that it doesn't make a lot of sense.

The CP exists, but does not have much to do with the gov't. Either way, the CP is a broad thing that covers all possible views there.
It's still the only political party operating legally and openly in Cuba. It's also a lie that it doesn't have much to do with government - it's head is both President and PM of the country. It controls most of the members of the parliament, and as such its decisions on things like economic and political liberalisation in the nineties have been de facto government policy. The reason for this is that the oh so democratic bodies that nominate candidates are formed by the municipalities (headed by members of the state) and special assemblies chosen from organisations which are aligned with the communist party.

And regardless of how diverse views within the party might be, at its meetings decisions are made about the official party line, and that's the end of it. That's why the voices calling for more liberalisation, like in Vietnam, have been shut down.

They can have whatever views they want. Alternatively, here you can't have any view you want.
That's silly. In politics for your view to mean something, you have to be able to actually tell other people about it and be able to make a genuine attempt to convince them of its merits. That's illegal in Cuba for positions that don't match what the government has decided to be correct socialism.

There are some views were similar restrictions exist in the US. If you want we can go through them, but you'll find that not only is the US government considerably more liberal with what is allowed in terms of political free speech but also that it doesn't make any argument about Cuba swing either way.

No, it's a party-less state. Stop buying into American propaganda.
A party-less state with a party. Understood. :rolleyes:

NL you talk as if the US is superior because it allows other political parties, but in reality only two of those parties ever have a chance of controlling national policy, and both of those parties are firmly in the control of bourgeois capitalist interests, and firmly themselves support bourgeois control of America, so in effect the bourgeois dictatorship in America is de facto, while the proletarian dictatorship in Cuba is formal.

NL you talk as if the US is superior because it allows other political parties, but in reality only two of those parties ever have a chance of controlling national policy, and both of those parties are firmly in the control of bourgeois capitalist interests, and firmly themselves support bourgeois control of America, so in effect the bourgeois dictatorship in America is de facto, while the proletarian dictatorship in Cuba is formal.
I think the US system is superior to the Cuban system in terms of democracy, but it's hardly perfect.

The reason no revolutionary Marxist or otherwise radical party has a realistic chance of getting into power in the US is the lack of people who want to vote for them more than anything. We can say is because such parties do in fact exist. On the other hand, we can't say that people don't want capitalist parties in Cuba until they are actually able to choose them and don't.

I think the US system is superior to the Cuban system in terms of democracy, but it's hardly perfect.

The reason no revolutionary Marxist or otherwise radical party has a realistic chance of getting into power in the US is the lack of people who want to vote for them more than anything. We can say is because such parties do in fact exist. On the other hand, we can't say that people don't want capitalist parties in Cuba until they are actually able to choose them and don't.

No bourgeois control is absolute, the corporate media ensure opinion is always rightward and supports bourgeois control. The workers in America have been so brainwashed by the corporate media that they don't know that their own interests are diametrically opposed to the bourgeois. Capitalism puts economic (and thus political) power into the hands of an elite minority, while socialism puts economic (and thus political) power into the hands of the vast working majority.

No worker would consciously choose slavery over freedom, and the Cuban people would never go back to slavery, this is proven by the fact that the current legitimate socialist republic has the vast support of Cubans because they participated in the elections and thus didn't invalidate their voting cards.

Have a read of this article:
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.
http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html

No bourgeois control is absolute, the corporate media ensure opinion is always rightward and supports bourgeois control. The workers in America have been so brainwashed by the corporate media that they don't know that their own interests are diametrically opposed to the bourgeois.
So what's stopping anyone from telling them that? Nothing is, and people do tell them.

It's just that it's silly and so no one pays much attention.

No worker would consciously choose slavery over freedom, and the Cuban people would never go back to slavery, this is proven by the fact that the current legitimate socialist republic has the vast support of Cubans because they participated in the elections and thus didn't invalidate their voting cards.
I'm not saying Cubans hate socialism or that Cubans hate Fidel. I'm saying that the system is lacking in democracy because it doesn't allow choice between opposing viewpoints and visions of government.

Capitalism puts economic (and thus political) power into the hands of an elite minority, while socialism puts economic (and thus political) power into the hands of the vast working majority.
Ignoring for a minute your apparent trolling in another thread, and the possibility the whole Stalinist thing isn’t just more trolling...

Classical Marxism, along with Leninism and Stalinism, argues that power should be (will be) put into the hands of the industrial working class. But the industrial proletariat are a tiny minority in modern Western capitalist states.

Thus, as it stands, your version of socialism certainly doesn’t put political power into the hands of the vast working majority.

And let’s not forget the mythical ‘role of the Party’ and all the authoritarian nonsense that comes along with it.

Classical Marxism, along with Leninism and Stalinism, argues that power should be (will be) put into the hands of the industrial working class. But the industrial proletariat are a tiny minority in modern Western capitalist states.

Well, not exactly.

Classical Marxism argues that power should/will be put in the hands of the working class--the people who own no means of production, but must sell their labor to the capitalists. Classical Marxism describes the industrial proletariat as the group that meets this description.

But the fact that today's working class is no longer "industrial" the way the nineteenth century working class was does not change its essential relationship to the means of production.

So what's stopping anyone from telling them that? Nothing is, and people do tell them.

It's just that it's silly and so no one pays much attention.


I'm not saying Cubans hate socialism or that Cubans hate Fidel. I'm saying that the system is lacking in democracy because it doesn't allow choice between opposing viewpoints and visions of government.
So 'Democracy' in your opinion is the ability for the working majority to vote in a government which supports the bourgeois minority rule of the country? Sorry to disappoint but bourgeois rule can be shrouded in many terms, 'nationalism' or whatever, and workers can be blinded by nationalism etc and act against their innate class interests.

Opposing viewpoints = capitalist viewpoints.

So is the UN and the international media going to show concern over the fairness of the election?

Well they only do that when a candidate they dislike is elected, so probably not.

So is the UN and the international media going to show concern over the fairness of the election?

No, because it's not news and not really disputed that the Cuban elections are rigged.

No, because it's not news and not really disputed that the Cuban elections are rigged.

By rigged I assume you mean they don't allow capitalist scumbags and traitors to come to power.

Sorry to disappoint but bourgeois rule can be shrouded in many terms, 'nationalism' or whatever, and workers can be blinded by nationalism etc and act against their innate class interests.

Ah, so real democracy is trusting in our self-appointed rulers who know our interests better than we do. :rolleyes:

By rigged I assume you mean they don't allow capitalist scumbags and traitors to come to power.

Among other things, yes.

Also, the margins of victory are way too high for free, competitive, democratic elections. And in the next to impossible possibility that such results were legitimate, the turnout would not be anywhere near as high as it is (unless voting is compulsory?)

Ah, so real democracy is trusting in our self-appointed rulers who know our interests better than we do. :rolleyes:

No, the Cuban system is perfectly democratic, what it's about is disenfranchising the bourgeois and other class enemies from political participation until they can be proletarianized completely.

Among other things, yes.


Like a vast spectrum of left-wing/anti-capitalist parties and ideologies?

Of course! The key to genuine democracy is disenfranchising people. What were we thinking?

**tosses entire history of the women's suffrage and Civil Rights movements over shoulder**

They don't need to vote until they can be properly regenderized and reracialized.

Reclassized would probably be more correct. I hate having to explain this stuff though, I guess you guys have never even read the Communist Manifesto.

Ignoring for a minute your apparent trolling in another thread, and the possibility the whole Stalinist thing isn’t just more trolling...

It's a little known fact that EA is actually a high-level executive at GE Capital.

Classical Marxism argues that power should/will be put in the hands of the working class—the people who own no means of production, but must sell their labor to the capitalists. Classical Marxism describes the industrial proletariat as the group that meets this description.

But the fact that today’s working class is no longer “industrial” the way the nineteenth century working class was does not change its essential relationship to the means of production.
It changes some of the essential relationships within society, especially the relationship between capitalism/capitalistic enterprises and the state.

Marx’s critique of capitalism, as brilliant as it is, is very much a critique of 19th century industrial capitalism, with a laissez faire state. I’m not saying that none of Marx’s writings are applicable now, but the change in class structure (e.g. what constitutes someone as ‘proletariat’ or ‘bourgeoisie’) and the far more active role the state now plays in modern capitalism must be accounted for.

Many of today’s Marxists, not least Classical Marxists and those calling themselves Leninists or Trotskyites, fail to apprehend this.

No, the Cuban system is perfectly democratic, what it's about is disenfranchising the bourgeois and other class enemies from political participation until they can be proletarianized completely.

Of course! The key to genuine democracy is disenfranchising people. What were we thinking?

**tosses entire history of the women's suffrage and Civil Rights movements over shoulder**

They don't need to vote until they can be properly regenderized and reracialized.

Reclassized would probably be more correct.


Like I said, women and Blacks will just have to suck it up until they act more like White Protestant Males. "Regenderized," "Reracialized," "Reclassized," whatever.


I hate having to explain this stuff though, I guess you guys have never even read the Communist Manifesto.

Read it. Pretty self-explanatory.

Like I said, women and Blacks will just have to suck it up until they act more like White Protestant Males. "Regenderized," "Reracialized," "Reclassized," whatever.



Read it. Pretty self-explanatory.
Not sure what your point is, but I am simply working off the Marxist observation that the proletariat is the only progressive and revolutionary class, the second most progressive would be the bourgeois because they use the modern productive forces of industry, but they are also reactionary because they hold back society by leeching off proletarian society and creating class antagonisms through exploitation. The bourgeois is the only thing standing in the way of a revolutionary society.

Other classes, such as peasants/rural, middle/lower classes etc, can be revolutionary, but as Marx commented they can only be revolutionary if they want to themselves become proletarians after the revolution, they can't want to restore some real or perceived 'glory day' of their own class in the past etc, that is reactionary.

My view is simply that a society run by the proletariat would be the most progressive society ever, and would not be held back by any regressive tendencies, and would be just and give dignity to human labor.

Not sure what your point is...

"Disenfranchise them till they act like me" is a point of view common among people who wear white sheets over their heads (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Klan-in-gainesville.jpg), just as it is common among those who worship Hoxhaist dieties.

Personally, I wouldn't want to associate with such. That would be the point.

"Disenfranchise them till they act like me" is a point of view common among people who wear white sheets over their heads (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Klan-in-gainesville.jpg), just as it is common among those who worship Hoxhaist dieties.

Personally, I wouldn't want to associate with such. That would be the point.
The 'state' can only ever serve one class, the bourgeois or proletarians, this is because the interests of both classes are mutually exclusive, it's always going to be one class repressing the other (the one on top having the state apparatus) until the proletarians are fully conscious of their power and topple the minority regime of capital.

In the preliminary report, which was announced during the prime-time TV show "The Roundtable", Reus explained that all 614 deputies to the National Parliament and all 1,201 delegates to provincial assemblies were elected as a result of the massive vote, said the president of the National Electoral Commission.


The elections are a sham? Any evidence for this, proof of electoral rigging etc? If so please post.

Uh-huh.

Marxism-Leninism is not 'one ideology', it is the only objective and scientific truth, it's invalidates all other reactionary beliefs as patently false.

How do you know?

I wonder what the 10 fellow voters who have voted on this Public Poll that Cuba's elections are democratic would say if they were average Cuban Citizens.

And their economic, political and social views would not be represented in the Cuban National Assembly.
If they only had one ideology to choose from and only one candidate to vote for.
How they would feel to be told by neighborhood commitees for the defense of the revolution to vote for the government and revolution.
For the neighborhood committees for the defense of the revolution to keep tabs and report on everything they did.
Not to be allowed to post on a site like Nationstates Jolt-Co-Uk Forums and debate, discuss, argue and share thier different economic, political and social viiews with the rest of us as they now enjoy from the nations they are posting from.
The list is long so I give you this short list.

I wonder what the 10 fellow voters who have voted on this Public Poll that Cuba's elections are democratic would say if they were average Cuban Citizens.

And their economic, political and social views would not be represented in the Cuban National Assembly.
If they only had one ideology to choose from and only one candidate to vote for.
How they would feel to be told by neighborhood commitees for the defense of the revolution to vote for the government and revolution.
For the neighborhood committees for the defense of the revolution to keep tabs and report on everything they did.
Not to be allowed to post on a site like Nationstates Jolt-Co-Uk Forums and debate, discuss, argue and share thier different economic, political and social viiews with the rest of us as they now enjoy from the nations they are posting from.
The list is long so I give you this short list.

Your views are liberal and pluralistic. Marxism-Leninism is not 'one ideology', it is the only objective and scientific truth, it's invalidates all other reactionary beliefs as patently false.

How do you know?

Oh (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Vladimirskaya.jpg), you (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Mosque.Qibla.01.jpg) know (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Judaica.jpg), the (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Emperor_Hirohito-1926.jpg) usual (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Thule-gesellschaft_emblem.jpg) reasons (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Karl_Marx_001.jpg).

Your views are liberal and pluralistic. Marxism-Leninism is not 'one ideology', it is the only objective and scientific truth, it's invalidates all other reactionary beliefs as patently false.

500 years ago you'd be the one to recite this bugger the loudest at mass.

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factórem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
passus, et sepúltus est,
et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.

So 'Democracy' in your opinion is the ability for the working majority to vote in a government which supports the bourgeois minority rule of the country?
Among other things, yes.

Among other things, yes.

That's no democracy in my view, just another veil for bourgeois dictatorship.

The 'state' can only ever serve one class, the bourgeois or proletarians, this is because the interests of both classes are mutually exclusive, it's always going to be one class repressing the other (the one on top having the state apparatus)...


So, it will always be one class repressing the other...


...until the proletarians are fully conscious of their power and topple the minority regime of capital.

...until one class represses the other?

So, basically, Marxism-Leninism is one giant rhetorical tautology?

Your views are liberal and pluralistic. Marxism-Leninism is not 'one ideology', it is the only objective and scientific truth, it's invalidates all other reactionary beliefs as patently false.

As a social scientist (a term I absolutely loathe) we've documented that this problem exists within our discipline, and we even have a name for it. It's called physics envy, and it's born out of our desire to have wonderful, provable and concrete theories like our beer buddies in the physics department. But, truth be told, the social sciences, and human behavior in general, do not allow for the rigidity and structure of the physical sciences. This is, in my opinion, the key structural failure of Marxism, it's a creature of the outmoded enlightenment era belief that we can find scientific structure on everything.

We cannot find scientific laws of history. Period. No questions asked. We cannot make scientific predictions about the future of humanity.