Strangling North Dakota with no mercy
I like it. The parts about the Cuban constitution establishing the legality of participation is fascinating. It sort of allows a thought experiment on what really governs society (hint: it ain't laws): The Cuban constitution establishes the legality of participation in issues of state -- this in reality does not happen -- but this constitution was the result of a revolution, which was an illegal revolution by the way. The United States is in practically the same situation as outlined above.
I think some conclusions that can be drawn are interesting: failure by elites to provide avenues for direct participation in issues of state are sufficient grievance for making a revolution -- and not the historical situatedness of the proletariat or mass state brutality toward the people. On account of this free speech will only be tolerated when it is simply that: speech. Once free speech is in fact a governing principle (think spokes councils making a collective decision and using direct action to implement it)it is intolerable to the state. But when free speech is just a bunch of wakos on the internet (think: Us or the Cubans allowed to hold their discussion indoors instead of in public) it is allowed.
Thanks for the post Graeme -- it got me thinking.
Cuba's future won't be decided by those people. It will be decided by Raul. Will Raul become Cuba's Gorbatchev or Cuba's Putin, that's the real question.
So far, I am optimistic about Raul (which means you should worry). Every pro-market reform in Cuba in the last 20 years occured because of Raul, over Fidel's objections... I think he is waiting for his brother to kick the bucket and then...
Interesting points Adam. I think Cuba is at a crossroads, what they need is to remove the layers of bureaucracy while keeping the current property forms. The only way to do this is to empower the people. They need to participate in all levels of government. They need to be able to directly recall any member of the government at any time. The free speech issue is key, but like you, I'm wary of what the US calls free speech. Whenever some clown from Miami calls for free speech, that essentially means freedom for a capitalist to buy back the government, just as political donations are bizarrely labeled as free speech here. You're right that free speech is only allowed until you have power, and this causes all sorts of problems, but at the same time I support the right of the Cuban government to defend their revolution. If you or I had the means to overthrow the US government, our freedom of speech would no doubt disappear quite quickly. That doesn't mean all held in Cuban prisons are guilty, I simply don't know, and I think the government, particularly during the Stalinized period, has acted horribly, but for all its faults it is progressive in the grand scheme of things. The key, as you mentioned, is PARTICIPATION OF THE PEOPLE. THis is the lifeblood of socialism.
I don't know much about Raul Sonia, but I hope you're wrong. If you're not, I hope the people send him home.
There is some truth in what Sonia said. Raul isn't hostile to the Chinese model. What that'll mean is dismantling the healthcare and education system.
Another factor is Venezuela. If it finishes its revolution, than Cuba is stronger.
After the fall of Stalinism in Eastern Europe, the Cuban masses still had memories of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and didn't allow private property forms to take over.
Commenting by HaloScan
