Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject:

Well, you see the problem is that the West has absolutely nothing good to say about Cuba or Fidel Castro. Yet a little bit of digging reveals that what the American propaganda machine puts out does not square with the facts from neutral sources. This was exactly the same method that America used with the USSR, yet visitors, academics and business people who would spend time there would report that the propaganda was not true and contradicted by their own observations. For instance, Fidel Castro would certainly be aware that his life has been in jeopardy ever second of the day from assassins in the employ of the USA. If he were a dictator why should he establish this sophisticated legal structure of a government to continue on? All of the other dictators, Cuban, Central and South American, have never done that simply because they realize that what happens after they are gone is of no importance to them. Castro has also gone to great lengths to improve the health, education and quality of life of the Cuban people, something no other dictator in that part of the world has ever done. He has also gone to great lengths to educate the Cuban people as their own political, and social responsibilities, a very usual thing for a "dictator" to do.

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject:

Come on agentmancuso, what makes you think opposition parties are dispositive of the right to choose elected government?

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject:

And the evidence for that statement, that he is a dictator, is what exactly? That other people say he is?

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject:

So you think lack of a political opposition party negates any meaningful democratic choices , agentmancuso? You ought to read the United States Constitution some day. You will not find one word anywhere therein about political parties. That is a rather strange oversight in a document widely touted as the sina qua non of bluebrints for democratic government, I must say. Particularly a document that has been amended many time over the past almost 200 years without the need to say anything about them.

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:

Let me try this again. The burden of persuasion is on the person who contends and asking me what I believe is irrelevant. You say Fidel Castro is a dictator; I am asking you to back that up with facts from neutral sources, not parrot American anti-Castro propaganda to me. If you are not able to do that just say so, but spare me this drivel about naughty dictators and what you believe.
Second tell us why exactly there is a need for an opposition for democratic goverment? Because the English have done it that way for several hundred years and your imagination fails at the thought any other way could work as well?

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject:

Castro is a dictator because he does not allow any opposition to his regime to organise and campaign. I see no reason to dismiss that as propaganda: no-one appears to contest it in any way.

Without opposition, government is not democratic, by definition.

My imagination does not fail at the thought of an alternative scenario: my intelligence denies the logical possibility of any alternative scenario.

The demos is never of one mind. It contains variance of opinion. The formal structure which expresses this variance of opinion is called opposition. No opposition = no democracy. No amount of bluster can get you round that.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

RFM · Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject:

I guess I should resent being called "no-one", but ignoring my challenge to back up your claims with fact is probably the best you can do.
I don't know where you come up with these so-called "definitions" of democracy, certainly not from any respectable treatise or text of political science that I can see. However you might reflect that city councils, village boards and many political organizations regularly meet, debate, do business, pass ordinances, all without the slightest need for political parties or opposition. (By the way, you ought to make up your mind as to whether you are talking about parties or opposition, you seem to be trying to stand on both sides of that definitional fence.) Consider also, while you are about that, that almost all of the world's business corporations and organizations are run by democratic means, usually termed boards of directors or management committees. Nobody in the history of business has ever thought it necessary to organize or develop an opposition within their organization as necessary or even meaningful to the function of disposing of the organization's business in a democratic manner.
Finally I observe that you retreat from your first position "without opposition it's not much of a choice", unless you think the Cuban people are utterly without the ability to make up their own minds and opinions. Variance or difference of opinion is choice;simply being opposed to something for the sake of opposition is being a blockhead. The right to elect your government officials, the right to run for office, and the right to administer public office when elected are all the earmarks of democratic government. Simply because you disagree with the underlying philosophy of socialism which the Cuban government bases its form of governement on, does not make it undemocratic.

agentmancuso · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject:

The problem with discourse with an ideologue is that their beliefs are an integral part of their personalities; no rational discussion is possible because anything that threatens their beliefs threatens who they basically think they are. Socialism is not the big bugaboo you think it is, look at Sweden and New Zealand.or Canada to a great extent, for example. If you think any government in the world, your own included, would allow you to form a so-called "opposition" that advocates the overthrow of that government, you are really being naive. Ask the Irish if you need some examples. I observe that you not only are unable to state facts to back up your position, you adopt the American version of Cuban "opposition" in vague terms without saying what exactly a Cuban political opposition would advocate. Since they do elect their leaders and people vote in their elections, tell us pray how your own system of government is so much more democratic than theirs. Or are you just going to keep telling us that somehow you know theirs is not?

The English style of government has served them well one must admit, but you might want to read a little of Macauley's "History of England", volume 3, I think, where he discusses the emergence and development of a loyal opposition party in Parlament in the reign of William and Mary. You may well revise your opinions about the necessity of a political opposition as somehow necessary to a democratic government.

agentmancuso · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:23 am Post subject:

To say "our system is much more democratic" is to argue about degree, not substance. That is quite a departure from saying the Cuban government is a dictatorship.
Maybe you could tell us how you know that "opposition is not allowed to organize freely"? Is this something you have heard somebody else say? What is the nature or name of this "opposition" you know is not allowed to organize freely? Does it have a name or is it something you just "know"?

Avatar · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:51 am Post subject:

Probably the opposition backed by the US government. The "political dissidents" arrested are usually people working for the CIA. Fair do's imo.
_________________
"Quite simply, Labour have been caught red-handed so often that no-one believes a word they say any more."

RFM · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:42 am Post subject:

Thank-you Avatar!

Babygael · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:10 am Post subject:

RFM dinna let mister whiskers git tae yer! A big man so he is!

_________________
Ath-bheothachad

Here is where I come to water my roots.

Niqaryt · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 17

The political opposition that Castro so cheerfully locks up do NOT work for the CIA.

That's just the excuse he uses (and in fact, a suprising number of dictators have used EXACTLY the same excuse) to justify locking people away, rather than allow any opposing voice to his own.

The CIA doesn't really bother trying to destablise governments these days. Mainly because it tends to be horribly counter-productive to American goals (which are mainly to create political stability).

If Castro is so wonderfully, why is there a constant stream of Cubans risking life and limb by sailing on makeshift boats across the sea to the US? You'd think they might want to stay in Cuba......and how come the Cubans that end up in the US all vehemently hate Fidel? If they were purely economic refugees, they wouldn't do that either.

Avatar · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: