Fidel and politics
Lula is in Cuba looking to a) make some money for Petrobras, as a number of other oil companies are also getting involved; and b) become more influential in Cuba at a time of transition.
On the latter point, Lula said he thought Fidel would once again “take on a political role,” which contradicts much of the conventional wisdom that Fidel was undertaking a slow process of retirement in favor of Raúl.
Fidel is indeed a candidate in the elections set for this Sunday, which keeps his political options wide open. According to the head of the Cuban Parliament:
The idea, he said, is to bring representative democracy closer to direct democracy, what is called the promotion of the real participation of people, popular control over the candidate's performance, parliamentarianism of society.There are 614 candidates, which need 50% to be elected to the National People’s Power Assembly. The Cuban states has asked Cubans to do a “voto unido” by just voting yes for everyone, including him and Raúl.
So what percentage will Fidel and Raúl get?
30 comments:
He usually averages 95%
There is only one thing sadder than Castro running for office and it is Lula corting him.
That Chavez, does it is understandable. He is a fool. But Lula, well that is sad.
There is only one thing sadder than Castro running for office and it is Lula corting him.
Courting? Lula is "courting" Cuba no more than the United States courts "Communist China" (as Lou Dobbs likes to call that large Asian country). This is mostly just business. The Brazilians' principled position is that any country's sovereign affairs are just that: sovereign.
U.S. elites, on the other hand, have no principles when it comes to foreign policy. On the one hand, they'll bash Cuban communism and uphold an embargo against the country, and then, on the other hand, they'll cozy up to one dictatorship or another when it serves their commercial and strategic interests. U.S. "democracy promotion" is a complete scam.
This is not about the US.
and yes Lula is COURTING Castro for business purposes. A left wing old school guy like you should really dislike that.
I personally don't like it.
The question is whether people are making their arguments about Lula's so-called "courting" of Cuba on the basis of principles or on the basis of politics.
If you're criticizing Lula on the basis of principles, then presumably you would also be insensed about the United States' "courting" of China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. If, as I expect, you pay no attention to the United States' courting of dictatorships, then it becomes clear that your "righteous" indignation about Lula's "courting" of Cuba is entirely selective and completely unprincipled.
So what percentage will Fidel and Raúl get?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they'll get below 90%. Just to be different.
Boz, interesting prediction.
Justin, both positions are reprehensible. But
1) The US has nothing to do with this.
2) You justify Lula's action on the basis of the US action. Peculiar standards for a left wing propagandist.
Justin, both positions are reprehensible.
Sure, anonymous. I'd be willing to bet that you've never given one thought to U.S. "courting" of Asian and Middle Eastern dictatorships until I mentioned it now. People like you and Boz pay lip service to liberal principles (so as to avoid criticism of your glaring hypocrisy), but your actions and your selective indignation about the supposed misdeeds of leftist governments speak much louder than the occasional lip service you pay to general principles.
But
1) The US has nothing to do with this.
That's wrong, actually. In the world of geo-politics, states compete for strategic alliances and, thus, what one large state does affects the calculations of others. Given the United States' power and the threats it poses to others (both commercially and militarily), you can't expect developing states to be selective about who they ally themselves with.
Welcome to the real world, where the the realities of commercial and strategic competition cannot be ignored.
2) You justify Lula's action on the basis of the US action. Peculiar standards for a left wing propagandist.
I'm a left realist in the tradition of Edward Hallett Carr. In the real world, developing countries will do what they have to do to counter-balance against imperial power. It makes perfect sense for them to do so.
"On the one hand, they'll bash Cuban communism and uphold an embargo against the country, and then, on the other hand, they'll cozy up to one dictatorship or another when it serves their commercial and strategic interests."
Part of the reason for that is because Castro destroyed most of Cuba's commercial interests.
It's quite amusing how Justin Delacour responds to any negative commentary regarding his beloved Marxists with "oh yeah, well what about X?" X representing, of course someone he despises.
Notice, Paul, that you're incapable of actually debating my points.
Must confess I don’t know Mr. Hallett Carr. What I do know is that Delacour acts like a Manichean-relativist.
A piece of advice for him. Distrust labels. Don’t become a reductionist. Think for yourself.
His ethic position here, for instance, it’s beyond dangerous: If the US does something wrong then any other government has the right to do it.
"Notice, Paul, that you're incapable of actually debating my points."
What points? All you do is change the subject, or mouth platitudes your America hating pals taught you.
His ethic position here, for instance, it’s beyond dangerous
Dangerous? What's "dangerous" about Brazil's investments in Cuba? There ain't a damn thing that's "dangerous" about that.
If you're worried about "danger," you ought to start worrying about the real dangers posed by your own fucking government to the lives of Iraqis, whose death toll may now exceed one million according to the Lancet study. The real danger is that a lot of morons in the United States prefer to divert attention from their own government's horrid deeds by making political hay out of inconsequential nonsense like Brazil's investments in Cuba.
If the US does something wrong then any other government has the right to do it.
Oh, no, that's not how it works. You see, in a system characterized power-balancing, no state besides the current hegemon is going to be able to kill a million people from another state because any other state would pay the consequences.
"Dangerous? What's "dangerous" about Brazil's investments in Cuba? There ain't a damn thing that's "dangerous" about that."
It's certainly dangerous for Brazilian investors, as Castro routinely rips off his creditors.
"If you're worried about "danger," you ought to start worrying about the real dangers posed by your own fucking government to the lives of Iraqis...,"
Heh, Delacour apparently only knows one rhetorical move, as I have pointed out several times.
"..whose death toll may now exceed one million according to the Lancet study. "
And which was a complete fraud of a study, and disregarded by any serious person not driven by hatred of the United States. We know now Soros funded the study, as he routinely funds the most virulent anti-American projects.
Even if the Lancelot stody weren't a sham, it doesn't mean the United States killed all those people. Most of the killing has been done by Iraqis themselves, or terrorists blowing up innocent civilians. Delacour, of course, heaps all the blame on the United States.
"..real danger is that a lot of morons in the United States prefer to divert attention from their own government's horrid deed.."
Speaking of moron diversions, the topic was about Fidel and politics. Delacour can't abide someone criticizing one of his Marxist heroes, so he changes the subject to someone/something he despises.
Okay, crackpot, er, I mean, Paul.
I'll just trust you on this one.
I see now.
Fidel will get 100% of the votes because of the big hegemon.
Lula can do whatever he pleases because the gib hegemon.
Chavez can interfere in Colombia's because of big hegemon.
Delacour is always right because of big hegemon.
Delacour, however, lives inside the big hegemon but he is focused on the victims of big hegemon.
Try debating for once, anonymous. Just try. Try quoting what I say and then responding intelligently. I quote what you say before responding, so I expect you to do likewise.
"Try quoting what I say and then responding intelligently."
He's got your rhetorical formula down pat.
He's got your rhetorical formula down pat.
Okay, Rush. I'll believe you.
"Okay, Rush. I'll believe you."
Devastating retort!
We got a live one here, boys!
Go get 'em, Paul! Knock Soros dead.
And Remember: "Don't let the liberal media telllll you how to think and feel. If you have hate in your heart, let it out."
Do you want me to quote you every time I refer to you?
You are not very modest.
Do you want me to quote you every time I refer to you?
You are not very modest.
It's quite simple, actually. An honest person responds to the other person's real points in an honest manner. A stupid person who has no debating skills tries to caricature the points in a completely dishonest fashion because he or she only knows how to respond to his or her own caricatures. (Don't be too offended, though. Even some professors and public relations hacks, such as Miguel Centellas and Boz, are known to "debate" in this completely absurd fashion.)
Now, let's see what you're made of, anonymous.
And is that because of the big hegemon?
And is that because of the big hegemon?
No, it has nothing to do with U.S. hegemony. (For your information, "hegemon" is standard jargon in the study of international relations; many scholars celebrate U.S. hegemony as a good or necessary thing, while a smaller number are concerned about it to one degree or another. You seem to be under the illusion that "hegemon" is some conspiratorial word that the left made up, but I feel the need to inform you that that's simply not the case).
The reason that you (and Miguel Centellas and Boz) routinely use caricatures in your attempts to "debate" is either that you're lazy or that you're ignorant (or perhaps a bit of both).
Humor offends you. I admire your rigor! You subsist on a strict diet of Marxist logic, jargon and Byzantine rhetoric (one argument, one answer).
I will try them all, for a change.
Marxist logic by using opposites.
Jargon and Byzanthine rhetoric by using Latin.
Humor is a good thing. If you ever use it, perhaps people will read you. After all, castigat ridendo mores.
But let’s test the strength of your arguments:
Ex pede Herculem:
“Cuban elites, on the other hand, have no principles when it comes to foreign policy. On the one hand, they'll bash American imperialism and then, on the other hand, they'll cozy up to one right wing fascist or another when it serves their commercial and strategic interests. Cuban "revolution promotion" is a complete scam.”
As for hegemon, it is just lucus a non lucendo.
Relax. Enjoy life and remember, if humor affects you so much, then turn off your computer, and submerge yourself in your irresistible copy of Marxschen Kapital.
Anonymous,
I don't think you are fully appreciating just how educated is Justin Delacour! Consider the little lesson he gave you on the definition of "hegemon" as just a small taste of his superior intellect.
And Castro got 95% of votes. What a coincidence!
Your unwillingness to comment speaks volumes.
Post a Comment